What You Won’t Find in the New National Climate Assessment

Guest essay by Dr. Pat Michaels

Under the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, the federal government has been charged with producing large National Climate Assessments (NCA), and today the most recent iteration has arrived. It is typical of these sorts of documents–much about how the future of mankind is doomed to suffer through increasingly erratic weather and other tribulations. It’s also missing a few tidbits of information that convincingly argue that everything in it with regard to upcoming 21st century climate needs to be taken with a mountain of salt.

The projections in the NCA are all based upon climate models. If there is something big that is systematically wrong with them, then the projections aren’t worth making or believing.

Here’s the first bit of missing information:

The chart shows predicted and observed tropical (20⁰N-20⁰S) temperatures in the middle of the earth’s active weather zone—technically the mid-troposphere, roughly from 5,000ft to 30,000ft elevation. The predicted values are from the 102 climate model realizations from 32 different base model groups. These models are from the most recent science compendium of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and is the most comprehensive set available. Data for the chart were recently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The squares are the average of the three extant datasets for satellite-sensed global temperatures in the same zone, the circles are the average of the four weather balloon records, and the diamonds are the fancy new “reanalysis” data, which uses a physical model to compensate for the fact that not all three-dimensional “soundings” of the atmosphere are from the same stations every day.

The difference between the predicted changes and observed is striking, with only one model, the Russian INCM4, appearing realistic. In its latest iteration, its climate sensitivity (the net warming calculated for a doubling of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration) is 1.4⁰C (2.5⁰F) compared to the average of 3.2⁰C (5.8⁰F) in the family of models used in the National Climate Assessment. In fact, the temperature trajectory the earth is on, along with an expected large-scale shift from coal to gas for electrical generation (already underway in the U.S. and Canada) will keep total human-caused warming to less than 2.0⁰C (3.6⁰F) between 1950 and 2100, which is the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement.1

That’s a far cry from the extremism of the National Assessment.

The second bit of missing information is sufficient to invalidate most of the Assessment’s predictions. It’s a bit more complicated than the first one.

The vertical axis is height (as measured by barometric pressure) and the horizontal axis is temperature change, in degrees C per decade. The solid green line is the observed average of our four sets of vertical sounding data from balloons. You can see that the observed warming rate at the surface (given as the “1000 hPa” on the left axis) is a bit above 0.1⁰C/decade, while the predicted value (1979-2016) is smidge below 0.2⁰C. In other words, in this region, which is extremely important to global climate, almost twice as much warming is being predicted compared to what is measured. This is figure S-2 in the recent Bulleting of the American Meteorological Society report on the climate of 2016.

But the situation gets truly horrific as one goes up in the atmosphere. The models predict that there should have been a huge “hot spot” over the entire tropics, which is a bit less than 40% of the globe’s surface. Halfway up through the atmosphere (by pressure), or at 500 hPa, the predicted warming is also twice what is being observed, and further up, the prediction is for seven times more warming than is being observed.

The importance of this is paramount. The vertical distribution of temperature in the tropics is central to the formation of precipitation. When the difference between the surface and the upper layers is large, surface air is more buoyant, billowing upwards as the cumulonimbus cloud of a heavy thunderstorm. When the difference is less, storm activity is suppressed. As shown on the chart, the difference is supposed to be becoming less and less, which would result in a general tendency for tropical drying. In reality, the opposite is occurring over much of the tropics, which should result in an increase in precipitation, rather than the decrease forecast by the climate models.

Missing the tropical hot spot provokes an additional cascade of errors. A vast amount of the moisture that forms precipitation here originates in the tropics. Getting that wrong trashes the precipitation forecast, with additional downstream consequences, this time for temperature.

When the sun shines over a wet surface, the vast majority of its incoming energy is shunted towards the evaporation of water rather than direct heating of the surface. This is why in the hottest month in Manaus, Brazil, in the middle of the tropical rainforest and only three degrees from the equator, high temperatures average only 91⁰F (not appreciably different than humid Washington, DC’s 88⁰F). To appreciate the effect of water on surface heating of land areas, high temperatures in July in bone-dry Death Valley average 117⁰F.

Getting the surface temperature wrong will have additional consequences for vegetation and agriculture. In general, a wetter U.S. is one of bumper crops and good water supplies out west from winter snows, hardly the picture painted in the National Assessment.

So this one, like its predecessors, suffers from a serious and obvious flaws that are simply ignored. As first documented in our 2004 book Meltdown, the first Assessment used models that were worse than a table of random numbers when applied to 20thcentury coterminous U.S. temperatures, and the chief scientist for the report knew it and went ahead anyway! The last (third) one engendered book-length filed public comments, all with our eye for climate humor, and the second one was so bad that we published an entire palimpsest, or mirror-image document.

Ignoring the massive and critical errors noted above—along with a whole other emerging story on the arbitrary nature of the climate models—is certainly going to lead for some to call for a re-examiation of EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” from carbon dioxide, which is the basis for regulation of greenhouse gases.

1 Michaels, Patrick J. “Finding Common Ground on Climate Change Mitigations and Adaptation.” 2017.

253 thoughts on “What You Won’t Find in the New National Climate Assessment

  1. Looks like this warrants an immediate and urgent Red team Blue team full assessment in full Public view.

    • You already have the detailed account of what’s happened to climate from climate science.

      Let the other team now make its case, if it can

      (I forget who is red and blue in this!)

      • “You already have the detailed account of what’s happened to climate from climate science.”

        Reality says ……. NOT MUCH

        Come on griff , apart from a slight, but highly beneficial, warming since the COLDEST period in 10,000 years..

        How has the climate changed??

      • Ignoring the massive and critical errors noted above—along with a whole other emerging story on the arbitrary nature of the climate models—is certainly going to lead for some to call for a re-examiation of EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” from carbon dioxide, which is the basis for regulation of greenhouse gases.

        It is curious that Trump let this go through. It would seem that one of the key legal questions about the endangerment finding was that legally it had to be based on US research and by using IPCC it failed to comply and was thus invalid.

        It looks like the ground is being layed with this move to provide such US based climate assessment which could, retrospectively be used to justify the endangerment finding.

        Has Trump sold out of climate, like he did with relations with Russia?

      • The only thing that’s happened is that we warmed up some after the LIA, and that’s a good thing. There was nothing unusual about the warmup either, despite the cries from the Alarmists. But wait, they have a “smoking gun” (they think), in that CO2 has gone up as well (also an excellent thing to have happened for both man and nature). Sorry guys. Correlation does not mean causation. On paper, yes, a rise in CO2 should cause some amount of warming. “It’s just physics” goes the Warmist claim. Bzzzzzt! Wrong again. Climate is far more complex than that, and there are far more powerful forces at work. CO2 is but a minor player, especially as levels go up, since its effect diminishes in logarithmic fashion. So-called “climate science” is nothing but smoke and mirrors, and wild claims with no foundation. They have not only not made their case, they have no case to begin with.

      • The problem is the “A team” brought this down on themselves when they tried to claim authority and use that authority to select ONLY ONE SOLUTION. Science is about usefulness and it doesn’t say there is only one solution. However the greens and left socialists such as yourself give me only one solution because it fits your agenda.

        I live in a democracy and we vote on choices. When politicians listen to only the green socialist minority well sometimes we kick the entire system over. The lesson has been given all around the world.

      • Greg November 4, 2017 at 4:58 am

        “Has Trump sold out of climate, like he did with relations with Russia?”

        If by sold out you mean thwarted every move they’ve made…..

    • Hauser Global Law School Program

      Published March 2007

      Update .2010

      ‘Update Global warming: A Comparative Guide to the E.U. and the U.S. and Their Approaches to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol’


      COPs 2- to the 2016 COP
      Global Governors’ Climate Summit, California
      Western Climate Initiative
      Legislative Actions
      And much more

      Some 770 references included.


      Another Update: 2010-2014, published Oct. 2014


    • That is certainly a puzzle.

      That something so clearly supporting the science and contrary to the views of the political appointees in charge of major US agencies should come out without interference is a surprise to me and many others.

      Does it perhaps mean the administration actually accepts climate science and the appointment of the likes of Pruitt is just a sop to Trump supporters and/or the financers of his campaign?

      Or what?

      • I like how you use the term “climate science”. It keeps it in its own category, separate from real science. I would suggest that you also use “climate scientists” the same way, unless you have decided to use the more proper term “scam artists”.

        Either way – welcome to the Light Side.

      • Except of course that it doesn’t support the science, rather it continues the climate science fiction believed in by the authors and people like you.

      • The whole term “the science” is a deception, which tries to present it as a homogeneous binary object rather than a true science which is body of knowledge not a binary entity.

        Whenever someone talks about what “the science” says, they are misrepresenting the nature of scientific knowledge in order to make a political point.

      • Griff….the problem is your climate science is really ‘political science’. As a member of the non-science community, we used to hold scientists in high regard but that has changed. We no longer believe anyone or any institution that relies on government funding and we take the opposite position of our Gov’t itself – the lies/deception are the gift that keeps on giving.

      • “That something so clearly supporting the science”

        You mean unsubstantiated speculation, don’t you? You should mean that since that is what this report is: Pure speculation. Just like all the other claims the Alarmists make.

      • Greg,

        “The whole term “the science” is a deception, which tries to present it as a homogeneous binary object rather than a true science which is body of knowledge not a binary entity.”

        While I agree about the deceptive nature of such talk-talk, I believe that very notion is the fundamental problem, so to speak . . If ‘science’ is “a body of knowledge”, rather than a method which involves actually testing things (including “knowledge”) in reality-land, then “arguments from authority” are valid . .

        That’s the switcheroo I believe our would-be masters (globalist control freaks, basically) are trying to accomplish, in this and other scientific realms. They want science to be seen as a body of knowledge affair, that can be indoctrinated into the good little students heads, without real critical thought (doubting).

        (I have been getting into trouble at times here, because I keep trying to hold that fort, so to speak . . and at least some who “moderate” here want it wiped out, it seems to me.)

      • “climate science”

        “Climate science” as it is currently practiced is an oxymoron as is rapidly becoming increasingly evident to all but a shrinking pool of evangelists and profiteering snouts-in-the-trough “unreliables” scammers and their paid lackeys.

        Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford.

  2. The NCA needs an on-the-record official US government sponsored Red Team rebuttal. Then fallow the Blue Team to respond. My money says they won’t be able to without resorting to Ad Hominem attacks, and Appeal to Authority illogic. Those two techniques have been their goto M.O. for 18 years when confronted with contradictory evidence that supports the null hypothesis, so it won’t change now. They have nothing else with their subjectively-tuned model failures.

    Climate Change is a non-problem by every real measure.

    • Regarding Appeal to Authority illogic, that fallacy is comitted allready in the first sentence on :The web site of the report
      “This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change,”
      However, the report is full of dubious science. Some of these errors are identified at Judith Curry´s site: <a href=https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/20/reviewing-the-climate-science-special-report/<Reviewing the Climate Science Special Report.

    • This report just showed you it is real and a problem right now.

      You have to show where the records and the science is wrong, not just say ‘its a non-problem’.

      • “….You have to show where the records and the science is wrong, not just say ‘its a non-problem’.”
        Dr. Pat Michaels just showed where the science is wrong. Did you not read his post?
        There are huge numbers of peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate where the science is wrong. Are you really that ignorant? Do you really think that sceptics have no scientific arguments?
        Tell us where Pat Michaels is wrong in his analysis. I’m sure people would be happy to debate that.
        Your statement is complete nonsense.

      • Reports like this that are produced by autonomous government workers at great expense, but have no foundation in science or practice, are a a serious problem.

      • “Tell us where Pat Michaels is wrong in his analysis.”
        All he shows are two graphs prepared by John Christy about the tropical troposphere. No data is provided, nor code and few details. My investigation shown below says that the data is not nearly so clear-cut, and the discrepancy between satellite measures, for example, is comparable to the gap between models and RSS. This is a very skimpy case of Michaels.

      • “This report just showed you it is real and a problem right now.”

        This report shows nothing of the kind.

        All it shows is that the writers are a bunch of brain-washed anti-science hacks.

        Probably even worse than you, griff.

      • “Nick Stokes November 4, 2017 at 3:30 am
        “Tell us where Pat Michaels is wrong in his analysis.”
        All he shows are two graphs prepared by John Christy about the tropical troposphere. No data is provided, nor code and few details. My investigation shown below says that the data is not nearly so clear-cut, and the discrepancy between satellite measures, for example, is comparable to the gap between models and RSS. This is a very skimpy case of Michaels.”

        Classic misdirection.

        “My investigation shown below says that the data is not nearly so clear-cut”
        Nick does not provide data. Nor code and dang few details.
        Nick alleges analysis then immediately avoids “proving” his claim by a vague alleged comparison then finishes with a slight at Dr. Michaels.

      • “Nick does not provide data. Nor code and dang few details.”
        The R code is provided for the first case. It downloads the requisite data directly from the web (url given). Happy to provide more details if needed, but the first is just plotting data and the second tabulating trends.

      • So, Nick trash talks this skeptic.. when Nick did that to Tony Heller he got eviscerated on Tony’s blog. Nick never showed up to back up his “science”. He couldn’t, just like today.

      • “This report just showed you it is real and a problem right now.”

        This report didn’t show anything. It just makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims about the Earth’s climate.

        One unsubstantiated claim does not prove the truth of another unsubstantiated claim.

      • Griff,
        There is intentional unjustifiable, un-scientific bias throughout the NCA.
        Just one example.
        On Tropical Cyclones (Section 9.2), they write:
        “This is not meant to imply that no such increases have occurred, but rather that the data are not of a high enough quality to determine this with much confidence.”

        That statement right there shows their bias. In any other actual science field, the first part simply would not have been written. They plant the idea in the readers head that increases may have occurred. But the dishonesty is they may have decreased too. Such as the recent inconvenient 12 year hiatus in major hurricane landfalls on the CONUS.

        If the data are of not of a high enough quality, no statement can be made either way, yet they do anyway. So because the data doesn’t clearly show the effect they hope for, they wink and nudge like it does.

        And in section after section, they write in innuendo and speculation where they have no justification for such.
        The NCA is just another example of the junk science that has taken over government climate (pseudo)scientists to further the climate hustle.

        Joel O’Bryan

      • Nick Stokes November 4, 2017 at 3:30 am
        “Tell us where Pat Michaels is wrong in his analysis.”
        All he shows are two graphs prepared by John Christy about the tropical troposphere. No data is provided, nor code and few details. My investigation shown below says that the data is not nearly so clear-cut, and the discrepancy between satellite measures, for example, is comparable to the gap between models and RSS. This is a very skimpy case of Michaels.

        This sounds like a true and pure scientific presentation to me, identical to those presented by preeminent Climate Scientist Dr Michael Mann (a la “Why should I publish my data and code if all you are going to do is try to find something wrong with it”)
        Isn’t keeping data and code locked away from skeptical eyes the methodology of good climate science?

      • And why should Tony Heller spend time on this blog?
        As noted, he has his own blog to run.
        But, more than that…he is disrespected and given a backhand insult on this blog every day and continuously: On the right hand margin is a list of links to other sites, some of which are very minor and sparsely visited. Others are pro AGW or so-called lukewarmer sites, and others are listed as political, way out there rants, unreliable, etc.
        But no where on the list is Tony’s blog.
        Why is this?
        Tony Heller has worked tirelessly and continuously for years and years, and has made what can only be described as unique and valuable contributions to the skeptical view.
        But he is treated as if he does not exist.
        This is none of my business, in point of fact, but since the question arose I feel compelled to make my feeling and thoughts on the subject known.
        I was not around these sites when an acrimonious argument resulted in him being banned or told to go away, or whatever happened, but that was a long time ago.
        In more recent years, posts and articles have appeared on this site which make extensive use of Tony Heller’s work…and yet…
        Very mysterious, and perhaps troubling.
        I think it would be a very good thing for him to be publically invited back to WUWT, and to have his site linked in the long list at right.
        No one asked me, true.
        But I know I am not the only one who feels this way.
        Anyway, JMO, but a strong one.

      • “But I know I am not the only one who feels this way.”

        Menicholas, you most certainly aren’t.

      • Griff wrote: “You have to show where the records and the science is wrong, not just say ‘its a non-problem’.”

        In the report it says the 1930’s is still the hottest era for the United States. Seeing as how all the rest of the unaltered temperature charts worldwide have basically the same temperature profile as the U.S. chart (the 1930’s being hotter than subsequent years), why do the Alarmists keep calling the last few years “the hottest years evah!”?

  3. Long overdue a red / blue analysis . The designated promoters of this document wouldn’t want to bore people with their 600 pages of analysis when they can melt it down into scary sound bites and skip over the fact that the climate models used to justify their hyper ventilation have been proven to be consistently wrong by as much as 200 % . Curiously always in the same inflamed direction for some reason . With some notable exceptions the scientifically illiterate media lap it to further the overblown scam .
    To demonize President Trump they cautioned that there report would likely never be accepted yet it was .
    And why wouldn’t it be accepted ? it serves as a core document to test the scientific method and the reasonableness of the assumptions for many scientists who are not drinking the cool-aid straight .

    Reduced use of Volvos isn’t going to stop the climate from changing , nor are humans about to tweek the earth’s temperature in a three little bears scenario to just the right temperature . The real deniers are the
    ones who think a trace gas is going to over ride what ever direction natural variables are going to move the earths climate . Where was the scientific conscientious that claimed the cure for the 1970’s global cooling scare was for people to add CO2 ?

    If you can’t even model natural variables effect on temperature accurately within a degree or two
    you are deceiving yourself and others by claiming that throttling a trace gas from human causes
    is going to manage the temperature to some arbitrary number. When the earth goes into a cooling
    again humans are not going to be the earth temperature gate keeper by burning more CO2 .

    Strange how anti nuke the earth has a fever promoters are if they are as worried as they claim .
    Thank goodness for global warming . Enjoy it while it lasts .

    • “Reduced use of Volvos isn’t going to stop the climate from changing”

      shutting down coal power plants would be a good step in the right direction.

      • Shutting down solar plants because the solar energy they use stored vintage natural organic solar energy instead of fresh seems more than a bit stupid. Coal combustion is one of the primary means we have to produce the infrastructure needed to cope with whatever climate extreme Nature delivers. Concrete, steel and other building materials are either made from byproducts of coal burning, or their manufacture depends on the reliable available energy, which coal can do cleanly for less money than any other option.

      • Shutting down coal fired power stations will take society back to the dark ages.

        People like you will be the very first to SUFFER, griff.

        You COULD NOT function without RELIABLE electricity,

        …. and I suspect you know that to be true.

      • Yes, then why is China is still allowed to open one coal burning power plant every week while the US must close all theirs?

      • Griff, you were obviously psychologically scarred by playing near to those coal mines when you were young.
        Where was it again? South Wales is my bet.

      • “Griff November 4, 2017 at 2:38 am”

        So says Griff, a product of a family of coal miners, at the very least his father was (IIRC). If there was no coal mining there would be no Griff trying to shut it down, preventing the poor from benefiting from the very thing that he benefitted from.

  4. ” This is figure S-2 in the recent Bulleting of the American Meteorological Society report on the climate of 2016.”
    Something’s odd here. I went looking for S-2, and couldn’t find it. There are a whole lot of S2 figs in Chap 2, but I couldn’t find that one.

    What I did find was this:


    Now that should compare directly with the top figure here (John Christy’s). That doesn’t have the anomaly base marked, and I actually don’t know what it could be, since everything is above zero in the range. The anomaly base should have mean zero. It could be an earlier period, but then how could the base for satellites be calculated.

    Anyway, what the BAMS Fig 2.6 shows is a rise in all cases (balloon, sat) to about 0.5°C relative to the 1981-2010 base. Now that is a substantial rise; the corresponding rise of the CMIPs seems to be about 0.7. However, the balloons and sats on the Christy diagram show a rise of only about 0.2, since the 1981-2010 mean looks to be about 0.2.

    I think it is time someone posted the actual numerical data of this Christy plot. It is also about time it was published properly, if it is would pass review.

    • well I guess you just didn’t want to find it huh? look under SUPPLEMENT and there it is it is labeled S2.10 but it is there.

    • Here is a quote from the paper – “Global atmospheric burdens of the three dominant greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O) continued their long-term upward trends in 2016.”

      Notice the missing really, really dominant greenhouse gas that was not mentioned?

      • HotScot – I googled greenhouse gas and located a Wikipedia site which did mention water vapor first among the four; however, later in the article, it misleadingly over stresses the contribution of CO2 – observe the desert night/day time temperature differential and consider how little CO2, a well mixed gas, contributes to freezing summer night time temperatures there.

    • Nick: I don’t know if it matters, but the Christy graph says “5 year averages”. Your graph does not indicate if it is also smoothed. By the way I agree that the raw data for such graphs should be made available.

      • Rick,
        Yes, it may matter. And I see that the plots don’t use a regular base at all, but set the trend crossing to zero at 1979. It’s a bit hard to know what to make of that, though, without access to the numbers.

      • Nick, according to spencer they use a five year average to reduce the temp variability so that they can all be similarly offset at the beginning…

      • We choose to plot the data relative to the same point early in the record. We usually do it relative to the average of the first 5 years of data, so that noise in both datasets has a minimum effect on aligning their starting points.

        RWS 4/7/16

      • Run and hide, little Nickie-boy….,

        You KNOW that the satellite data shows NO CO2 warming between El Ninos.

        NO WARMING from 1980 – 1997


        NO WARMING from 2001 – 2015


        SO……… Just those NON-CO2 El Ninos.. Solar forcing and ocean cycles only

        Absolutely NO CO2 WARMING signature in the whole of the satellite temperature data.

        GET OVER IT !!

    • OK, I’ve plotted the RSS and UAH TMT data, using the 5 year running mean smooth, and zeroing so the trend lines pass through zero, as in the Christy plot. The R code is here, and includes links to the URLs, so it can download and read data directly. Here is the plot:


      I’m not sure what the third dataset in his average is; I thought NOAA Star-NESDIS, but that doesn’t give a tropic result. So I have just done two. The first thing to note is how different they are. They deviate from each other about as muchas CMIP deviates from RSS. RSS reaches a max of 0.6; still short of the CMIP mean at 1.0, but much closer to the range.

      • Love to see Nick STILL using El Ninos to show an actual trend

        Especially when he KNOWS that between those EL Ninos…..THERE IS NO WARMING

        Why are you doing this Nick ?

        Why the continual DECEPTION and LIES. ?

        Why are you supporting a rogue agenda that is attempting to ring down western civilisation?

        Or are you so naive that you don’t realise you are doing it?

      • “AndyG55 November 4, 2017 at 3:50 am

        Love to see Nick STILL using El Ninos to show an actual trend

        Especially when he KNOWS that between those EL Ninos…..THERE IS NO WARMING

        Why are you doing this Nick ?

        Why the continual DECEPTION and LIES. ?

        Why are you supporting a rogue agenda that is attempting to ring down western civilisation?

        Or are you so naive that you don’t realise you are doing it?”

        Correct AndyG55!

        No unexpected warming beyond global recovery from the LIA.
        Focusing on El Nino warming peaks does not demonstrate global recovery since LIA as faulty. Global temperature recovery since the 1800s continues, normally.

        Nick has been spending a lot of time here spinning misdirections and fables.

      • You’re playing games. You know that you haven’t made a point. A 0.1 degree difference is quite a lot less than the <0.4 degrees for the difference in the mean sat data and mean of the models. Being pedantic to convince readers to turn a blind eye to the elephant in the data.

      • Andy
        (Not taking Nick’s side but)…
        If El Nino/La Nina events offset their respective influences on global temperatures, why would all jumps be up?
        Where are all the reciprocal La Nina event drops that should be there?

      • Well, for one thing, there is very good reason to think that, were the satellite record to extend back in time another 50 or 100 years, the trends would, overall, look quite different, and a cyclical pattern would be evident.
        Let us not forget that the year the satellite records are shown to begin was at the end of a period of cooling that lasted for at least three decades, and that it is very likely, almost assuredly really, that the 1930s would be the warmest decade on the graph if we had satellites in those days.
        Anyone who ignores this is either ignorant, spinning, or providing deliberate misdirection.

      • @Bryan..

        When you look at the strong series of solar maximums, you can understand why El Ninos dominate since about 1960.

        With the sun now having a bit of a siesta, that will start to change over the next decade or so.

        We are already seeing ocean temperatures starting to drop.

      • The sun most definitely has the lion share of heat input into he climate system. So if the solar slump continues, like you say, we should see the La Nina influence begin to assert itself through temperature drops

      • … and Nick S entirely avoids the 2nd graphic showing how poorly the models perform throughout the atmosphere, just as he will not admit that only 80 percent of the troposphere warming can be assigned to the surface. Any additional surface warming can NOT be due to increased GHGs,

    • I looked at RATPAC radiosondes. I also tried RAOBCORE, but they only have station data in the link provided. I don’t have to hand the weights that Christy used, and the levels are pretty coarse for weighting anyway. So I just worked out the 1979-2016 trends for comparison with the second figure above.

      The tropical data was indeed short of the models, but the radiosonde results were messy. Here is a table of those trends (°C/decade) for all regions provided, Columns are pressure levels in millibars:

      					surf	850		700		500		400		300		250		100	
      NH					0.285	0.338	0.274	0.267	0.274	0.219	0.137	-0.252
      SH					0.1		0.068	0.055	0.145	0.138	0.107	0.043	-0.316
      GLOBE				0.193	0.203	0.164	0.207	0.205	0.164	0.09	-0.285
      TROPICS (30S-30N)	0.166	0.215	0.188	0.193	0.23	0.213	0.18	-0.299
      NH	Extratropics	0.407	0.427	0.31	0.322	0.283	0.178	0.029	-0.221
      SH	Extratropics	0.033	-0.045	-0.03	0.116	0.077	0.048	-0.031	-0.316
      TROPICS	(20S-20N)	0.257	0.116	0.125	0.136	0.196	0.199	0.161	-0.271

      The data plotted are the row at the bottom. The surface level is high relative to models, 0.257°C/decade. But the next level up is very low. If you except the surface, there is a distinct hotspot at 400-300 mB. But some of the other data is strange. NH Extratropics at 0.407 C/decade is very high; SH is very low. And so on.

      • Sorry the format got messy; I’ll try without tabs:

                                      surf           850        700     500      400        300    250        100    
        NH                         0.285       0.338    0.274    0.267    0.274    0.219    0.137    -0.252
        SH                           0.1         0.068    0.055    0.145    0.138    0.107    0.043    -0.316
        GLOBE                    0.193     0.203    0.164    0.207    0.205    0.164    0.09    -0.285
        TROPICS (30S-30N)   0.166   0.215   0.188    0.193    0.23    0.213    0.18    -0.299
        NH Extratropics         0.407     0.427    0.31     0.322    0.283    0.178    0.029    -0.221
        SH Extratropics         0.033    -0.045    -0.03    0.116    0.077    0.048   -0.031   -0.316
        TROPICS(20S-20N)    0.257    0.116    0.125    0.136    0.196    0.199    0.161    -0.271
    • “Nick Stokes November 3, 2017 at 8:40 pm
      … published properly, if it is would pass review.”

      Total BS!
      Nick doubles down on forcing critics and criticisms through the corrupt “peer review” process.

      Yah, we got ya, Nick! CAGW alarmists require the corrupt “Peer review” process to silence skeptics and honest analysis.

      • “Peer review is certainly better than no review at all”

        Poor Nick, your scientific naivety continues to show through.

        Peer review that lets BAD science through, as in MOST so-called “climate science”, ..

        …. yet blocks REAL science because the gatekeepers MUST NOT allow it to be published..

        is FAR WORST…… because it CORRUPTS the scientific system.

      • “Nick Stokes November 4, 2017 at 4:16 am
        Peer review is certainly better than no review at all, as here. It would flush out some of those pesky details”

        More specious claims!

        List all of the skeptical papers that were “advantaged” by a corrupt peer review process?

        Currently there is an incredibly long list of horrifically wrong papers that benefited from corrupt “peer reviews”.

        Do you need a link to Retraction Watch, Nick?

        Courtesy of the corrupt “peer reviews”, charlatans ignore research falsifications while pretending their “peer reviewed” research is still valid.

        Science progressed through centuries where “no review at all” was/is the scientific path.
        Modern insistence on a “peer review” process has not benefited science. Indeed, science and the scientific process are in dangerous retrograde free fall thanks to corrupt “peer review”.

        • A little cash for publishing.
        • A supportive group of “pals”.
        • Desperate for articles publishing industry.
        • Desperate to “be published” researchers; all too often these researchers depend upon “published articles” for salary increases, graduation or just grades.
        • Wrong motive(s) for publishing!

        What could go wrong!?
        Actually, that question should be rephrased as “What could go right”? And the answer is virtually nothing.

      • Nick,

        “Peer review is certainly better than no review at all, as here. It would flush out some of those pesky details.”

        Flush out pesky details? . . You argue against yourself, sir . . Now, to flesh out details would work much better there, I feel, anyway. (No review at all my ass ; )

      • Agree 100%.
        Anyone who pretends or purports that peer review is a legitimate aspect of the scientific method is either ignorant , a liar, or both.

      • “Peer review is certainly better than no review at all, ”
        It was always about an editor making a decision on what to include in a journal for commercial reasons. Printing was expensive and readers didn’t want their time wasted with what was obviously poor. It was never meant to restrict debate let alone be subverted to support a 97% of scientists meme. Those who have done the latter have made no peer review a better option.

      • Reads like the Russians are trying to build a reasonable model. They admit how difficult it is.
        I particularly like their diagram of ‘carbon balance’ and the reference to how puny man’s contribution is.
        But of course ‘we’ in the superior west, ‘know’ how man-made CO2 is a super-molecule with far reaching powers, don’t we Nick and Griff!

      • cloudbase,

        I think that they are just biased towards actual science, rather than politicised alarmism. They don’t have the confrontational politics common among Democracies , so the science hasn’t been polluted by political ideology as it has in most of the rest of the developed world.

        The only reason climate science is so horribly broken is because politics took sides. Only ideologically driven group think can misguide otherwise intelligent people in such a profound manner. The most plausible explanation is that political forces are too vested to admit error for fear that it would show weakness that would be fatal to their other causes. When it comes to controversial politics, this is always true for all sides, while in the climate science debate, this only applies to the wrong side. There can be no clearer reason for why politics must never
        take sides in a scientific debate.

    • The claim is that the models are where all the supporting physics resides although these models have enumerable knobs and dials to fit them to subjectively interpreted historical data. As more adjustments are required to fit the model to expectations, its predictions of the future become less certain. Curve fitting GCM’s to expectations requires so many assumptions and adjustments, any real physics gets lost. The observable consequence of this is the large effect initial conditions have on the modeled results. This is often misinterpreted as the consequences of chaos and complexity but is more symptomatic of an unstable model or uninitialized data.

      Despite this disconnect from the actual physics, the modelers expect the correct macroscopic behavior to emerge by simulating low resolution weather far into the future based on constraints from the recent past while varying the initial conditions and averaging the results. The erroneous assumption they make is that the emergent behavior will not be influenced by the many assumptions and approximations in the model and/or that those influences will average away.

      • How many members of the general non-scientifically trained public are aware of the limitations of the GCMs?
        That they do not model clouds at all?
        That they do not model a spinning sphere which is tilted and illuminated on only one side?
        Or any of the other shortcuts that they necessarily take to allow them to even be run, given the limitations of input data and computing power?
        These models are passed off as if they are programmed with all know physical parameters and formulae, and are an objective source of information.
        Far from what the truth is.

  5. I provided an extensive, detailed critique of the climate assessment draft on Judith Curry’s Climate Etc some weeks ago. There are many problems with the assessment!

  6. … and look at the Russian INCM4 model. Not only do the Russians control the outcome of U.S. elections — they also control the weather!

  7. One of the ways heat is shuttled upward in the atmosphere, where it finally radiates to outer space, is convection. A mid atmosphere hot spot would suppress convection and result in higher surface temperatures.

    Convection is a negative feedback which moderates surface temperature. The alarmists have to get rid of that, the same way Dr. Mann got rid of the MWP. It’s one of those inconvenient truths that has to be dealt with. 🙂

    • commiebob,

      Convection has little influence on what the radiative balance must be or what the sensitivity is. It’s simply a mechanism that redistributes the energy stored within the atmosphere. The only way the kinetic temperature of a gas can affect the radiative balance and the sensitivity is by collision with a water droplet which then radiates photons corresponding to its temperature. However;

      Negative feedback is just as much of an illusion as positive feedback and any kind of feedback mechanism that can be adequately analysed using Bode’s LINEAR amplifier feedback analysis simply doesn’t exist anywhere in the climate system. Bode’s analysis requires ACTIVE gain and this is definitely not a property of any atmosphere. The reason is that a system with active gain generates more output power than input power and the source of this power is an implicit and infinite power supply.

      The modeled output of a climate model is the surface temperature corresponding to the emissions by the surface, the input is power from the Sun and while the surface emits more power than arrives, it’s not power coming from a power supply providing that extra energy, but is energy that was previously emitted by the surface, delayed and recycled back.

      • Feedback dates back before Watt’s steam engine regulator, and long before Bode.

        [Practical experimenters] object to the mathematician’s definition, pointing out that this would force them to say that feedback was present in the ordinary pendulum … between its position and its momentum—a ‘feedback’ that, from the practical point of view, is somewhat mystical. To this the mathematician retorts that if feedback is to be considered present only when there is an actual wire or nerve to represent it, then the theory becomes chaotic and riddled with irrelevancies.

        Insisting that feedback is all about Bode is just wrong.

        Also, insisting that there be an active device with a gain greater than unity is wrong. Anything with the correct transfer function can be said to have feedback. One of my favorite examples is the Ward-Leonard control system. Another is counter EMF. Mathematically and practically, there is no requirement for an active device.

        • commiebob,

          Yes, the old centrifugal governor.

          Bode formalized the math and it was his math that Hansen subverted. This is why Bode is important.

          Moreover; Bode’s math, ASSUMES active gain as a simplifying assumption and says so in the first paragraph of his book. Without active gain, all you have is a passive system. Even in electronics, you can multiply voltage in a transformer, which a naive person might consider as gain, but gain really means POWER GAIN and this is what requires the implicit, infinite source of Joules Bode assumes.

          You can construct a network of resistors which looks like feedback, but the Norton or Thevenin equivalent circuit is only 3 resistors in either a pi or T configuration. The concept of active feedback does not apply.

          For an active control system, gain of some sort is required, otherwise, it won’t control anything. The Ward-Leonard system is just a motor speed controller and is not a Bode feedback system.

          Again, it is the Bode linear feedback model that Hansen subverted and that Schlesinger made worse and that provided the theoretical plausibility for a sensitivity high enough to justify the formation of the IPCC.

      • co2isnotevil November 5, 2017 at 8:01 pm

        … The Ward-Leonard system is just a motor speed controller and is not a Bode feedback system.

        How do you explain the transfer function?

        The foundation of control system theory was laid by Maxwell not Bode. link

        You won’t find any textbooks that refer to a ‘Bode Feedback System’.

        • commiebob,

          Even passive systems can be modeled with a transfer function which only only describes the relationship between an input and an output. Here is a link to Bode’s book.


          BTW, when considering the stability of control systems, there’s a reason we use what are called Bode plots.


          Maxwell died in 1879 and the vacuum tube wasn’t even invented until 1904, thus systems with power gain weren’t even conceived during Maxwell’s lifetime. Maxwell’s work on steam engine governors was for mechanical systems with loss, not for electrical systems with gain. It was the analysis of electrical systems with gain that Hansen/Schlesinger subverted and this is what Bode describes in his book.

      • co2isnotevil November 6, 2017 at 10:35 am

        … Maxwell died in 1879 and the vacuum tube wasn’t even invented until 1904, thus systems with power gain weren’t even conceived during Maxwell’s lifetime. Maxwell’s work on steam engine governors was for mechanical systems with loss, not for electrical systems with gain.

        If there’s no gain how do you explain the fact that the governed system can become unstable? That was the impetus for Maxwell’s work on the subject.

        A mechanical system can certainly exhibit gain just like an electronic system and the math describing the two cases is the same. In both cases you have a power supply whose output is modulated by a control device. In the case of Watt’s governor, the control device is a valve which is controlled by the governor mechanism. The power supply is a boiler. In neither case do you get power for free.

        • commiebob,

          The math is quite a bit different. For example, the basic equation for a Bode feedback amplifier is,

          1/Go = 1/Gc + f

          where Go is the open loop gain, Gc is the closed loop gain and f is the fraction of the output returned to the input as feedback. All values are dimensionless ratios. There are no equivalences to the mechanical system and the equivalences to the climate system are horribly broken.

          This is different from the case of a thermostat, regulator or phase locked loop, where the goal is to establish a specific output state. The latter is more properly control theory, but Bode is much more specific. The title of his book is “Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design” which is not about control theory, but about amplifier design and analysis and is the exact reference used in climate feedback papers.

          The relationship of Bode’s analysis to control theory is that amplifiers are commonly used as components in electronic control system.

      • co2isnotevil November 6, 2017 at 8:00 pm

        … 1/Go = 1/Gc + f

        Shouldn’t it be: 1/Gc = (1/Go) + f

        Where Go is very large then 1/Go becomes very small and, for all practical purposes the equation becomes: 1/Gc = f
        and: Gc = 1/f

        The way you have it, it would be: Gc = -1/f

        That would imply phase inversion. The common way of connecting the op amp is for the signal to go on the non-inverting input and the feedback to go on the inverting input.

        Anyway, it’s a first approximation. In terms of input and output voltages, where Go is very high, we get:
        Vo = Vi/f

        In terms of a mechanical system it’s the same as:
        D1 = D2/r
        D1 is the displacement at one end of a lever.
        D2 is the displacement at the other end of the lever.
        r is the ratio of the lever arms.

        Once we have to worry about the ac and transient characteristics of the amplifier and feedback path the math gets more interesting. We break out the Laplace transforms and it’s game on. 🙂

        … equivalences to the climate system are horribly broken.

        Finally something we can agree on.

        • commiebob,

          The equation is as I said,

          1/Go = 1/Gc + f

          The derivation is that for the input to the system being I and the output O, the input to the gain block is I + f*O whose open loop gain is Go, thus O = (I + f*O)*Go. divide both sides by O and get 1 = (I/O + f)*Go. Recognize that the closed loop gain is O/I, substitute and divide both sides by Go and the result is 1/Go = 1/Gc + f.

          For op amps, Go is considered infinite and 1/Go = 0, thus for op amps, Gc = -1/f. This means that 10% negative feedback results in a closed look gain of 10 and 1% negative feedback results in a closed look gain of 100.

          You had it right that the feedback goes to the inverting input, but didn’t consider that this implies negative feedback and a minus sign for f.

        • commiebob,

          BTW, if you set the open loop gain to 1, the equation becomes,

          1 = 1/Gc + f -> Gc = 1/(1 – f)

          If you look at the Hansen paper, https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html
          he refers to this equation without acknowledging the assumption of unit open loop gain, but he swaps feedback with gain because conceptually, he was considering the GHG effect to be gain. Note the only feedback related reference for this paper is Bode’s book.

          Schlesinger came along and ‘corrected’ the swap of f and g, again without acknowledging the assumption of unit open loop gain. One thing Hansen more or less started to do correctly was to consider gain as the dimensionless ratio of power densities. The other thing Schlesinger broke was to add the conversion from power to temperature as the ‘open loop gain’, introducing non Bode compliant non linearities and then undoes this before multiplying by f to determine the feedback. In effect, the transformation from power to temp is outside the loop and for all intents and purposes is the SB LAW. In my conversations with him where I pointed this out, he continued to incorrectly insist that this was the open loop gain and not the transformation of the SB Law. In the paper, he then makes it incremental to further obfuscate his other errors. The Schlesinger paper is here behind a paywall (I have a copy if you want).


          The only feedback related reference other than Bode in the Schlesinger paper is the Hansen paper.

          I keep saying this and will continue to do so, that this was the error that broke climate science by providing the theoretical plausibility for a sensitivity high enough to justify the formation of the IPCC. Furthermore, this is the error that is preventing climate science from being corrected as the IPCC can never correct it without correcting themselves out of existence.

      • You had it right that the feedback goes to the inverting input, but didn’t consider that this implies negative feedback and a minus sign for f.

        I recycled/donated all my textbooks (close to a cubic yard) when I retired. As I recall they used Β for the feedback factor and it was always positive, similar to these course notes. Do you have a page number for the equation as you give it? In his book, Bode uses G and G with subscripts to indicate conductance.

        Hansen was talking about positive feedback which is what is needed to amplify the climate sensitivity to catastrophic. As such he couldn’t have assumed infinite gain because any positive feedback would cause such a system to be unstable.

        • commiebob,
          Bode calls the open loop gain mu, the feedback fraction beta and the closed loop gain e^theta. Equation 3.5 on page 33 represents the same thing, but you need do to a little rearranging to get it in the form I used. The derivation I showed is the more modern way to express it and a more useful form in the context of modern amplifier design.
          Also, read the first two paragraphs of the book where the implicit supply powering the gain as well as linearity are stated as a preconditions. I presume you’ve been able to download it.

          Hansen assumed unit open loop gain and a power supply that was not the Sun, but didn’t understand that this was what he was assuming. But going back to the equation, you can trade off feedback for open loop gain and end up with the same closed loop gain. Even positive feedback is perfectly fine with small values of open loop gain. The point being that the emphasis on positive feedback causing instability is completely unfounded.

          Without the power supply, you need to conserve energy between the input and output, while with the power supply you do not and this is how they get away with violating COE.

          As long as (1/Go – f) > 0 it will be stable and since Go is 1, positive values of f up to 1.0 are stable. With the infinite supply, f = 1 represents infinite gain. This is still stable, for example, the ideal op amp, and it’s not until the closed gain goes negative that the amplifier becomes unstable. Without the infinite supply, the closed loop gain is 1 independent of the sign or magnitude of the feedback!

          The measured gain is 1.6 representing 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of input from the Sun. With the power supply, this requires unit open gain with 37.5% positive feedback, but is unattainable without the supply, therefore, feedback has no relevance.

          Instead, it’s best modelled as a passive system with a delayed fraction of surface emissions returning back to the surface from GHG’s and/or clouds to be combined with new power from the Sun. There’s no gain of any sort involved. It’s all about the delayed return of past emissions being misinterpreted as gain.

    • The low value of the INCM5’s calculated ECS indicates model feedback assumptions are very low. None of that 2-to-3 times nonsense.

      • Yes, the 2-3 times nonsense was what the IPCC required to justify its formation and it was the incompetent application of Bode to the climate by Hansen and Schlesinger that provided its theoretical plausibility. This was all canonized in the first AR and the IPCC can’t correct this without correcting itself out of existence.

    • “You’re talking a lot
      But you’re not saying anything”
      At least you are not talking a lot, usually.
      A thing to be grateful for.

  8. I can’t make out the coloured lines in the first graph: is INM CM4 the closest model to reality? Anyone know what it projects in 2100?

  9. Lamar Smith questioned the use of the “American Climate Prospectus” (ACP) in the Climate Science Special Report because it was not peer reviewed. Here’s a link to the Science and Space committee page about the letter which it links to:


    He was duly rounded on by Twitter climate scientists. One author of the ACP, Bob Kopp, is claiming on Twitter that it was peer reviewed:

    “Dear @LamarSmith21: ACP and related research have been multiply peer reviewed. 1/n science.house.gov/news/press-rel…”

    He’s done three tweets (so far) about it (tweets linked below with my analysis). Many influential bloggers and journalists are picking up on this and retweeting this misleading claim. But Lamar Smith is correct. The above-linked SST committee page says:

    “Chairman Smith is critical of the report’s heavy reliance on a non-peer reviewed study to reach its conclusion that climate change will cause vast economic damage in the future. Scientific organizations warn against using studies that have not been subject to vigorous review by scientific peers, Chairman Smith notes.”

    Here are the relevant tweets from the Kopp:


    This tweet is followed up with this next one as supposed proof:


    “It was reviewed by a panel of distinguished experts, and would not have been published by @ColumbiaUP had it not been peer reviewed. 2/n”

    “A panel of distinguished experts” doesn’t constitute an independent peer review panel chosen by a scientific journal.

    “Our Expert Review Panel” (in his screenshot of the Acknowledgements) is similarly vague- it’s an open review panel chosen by…who? Certainly not by a scientific journal seeking to attain an unbiased (preferably blind/anonymous) review of the American Climate Prospectus.

    Besides, it’s in the Acknowledgments. And Columbia University Press isn’t a scientific journal employing any peer review process at all.

    Most importantly, “our Expert Review Panel” includes at least one main author from the Climate Science Special Report that cites the ACP. It’s Katharine Hayhoe who is one of the most prominent and most vociferous authors on the Special Report. (I’m going to compare the author list of the Special Report with the “Expert Review Panel” to see if there are any more doubling up in both publications).

    As further proof of the ACP being peer reviewed Kopp wrote this tweet:


    “We also built upon this science to produce Hsiang et al 2017, which was published in @sciencemagazine, a peer reviewed journal.”

    Here’s a comparison of Hsiang et al. 2017 with the American Climate Prospectus which should be virtually identical if the peer review claim holds:

    ACP title: American Climate Prospectus.

    Pages: 206
    Figures/tables: 105
    References: hundreds over a 32 page references section

    Hsiang et al 2017 title: Estimating Economic Damage From Climate Change in the United States.

    pages: 8
    Figures: 5
    References: half of one page

    The American Climate Prospectus was not peer reviewed as Lamar Smith clearly stated.

    • As a coda to the above, Phil Plait, a supposed champion of properly researched and presented science, retweeted this claim (via Dan Vergano of BuzzFeed). Plait’s retweeting garnered a further 38 retweets (Vergano had a similar number). I alerted them both to the inaccuracy in the American Prospectus peer review claim. They didn’t reply and made no change to their tweets promulgating the false claim. So I wrote this tweet to them:


      Neither replied. Phil Plait (who continually champions the peer review process) decided on a different tactic: Instead of issuing a correction to his retweet in the pursuit of ensuring correctly presented scientific information, he blocked me.

    • Most of the names on the ‘Expert Review Panel’ of ‘distinguished experts’ are the usual alarmist suspects!

      More ‘Pal Review’.

  10. “…the predicted warming is also twice what is being observed and further up, the prediction is for seven times more warming”

    “As shown on the chart, the difference is supposed to be becoming less and less”

    Do these two statements not contradict each other? What am I missing here?

  11. What I don’t understand, ( Conspiracy theories aside), why would scientific bodies and political entities across the world go to all this trouble of researching and producing such a report if it was all a hoax, or just plain lies. What is the desired outcome? Why bother? Surely, if it was a hoax, the intended outcomes could never outweigh the massive investments made in mitigating the impact of human induced climate change?

      • So is the belief that in doubting the mainstream theories of climate change science, in the face of overwhelming evidence, something that requires a faith usually found in religious belief? Do committed sceptics not need evidence because their faith is strong?

      • “So is the belief that in doubting the mainstream theories of climate change science, in the face of overwhelming evidence,”

        There is no overwhelming evidence. There is no evidence at all that humans are causing the climate to change.

        There are a lot of claims of human-caused Climate Change from Alarmists. I suppose they are overwhelming in their numbers of bogus claims, but not in their accuracy. And I would say that *none* of them present proof linking humans to how the Earth’s climate behaves.

        I would love to see just one example of this “overwhelming evidence” you claim exists. I’m betting you can’t provide even one example. I’m betting noone can provide even one.

        I’ve made this bet many times. Never have had anyone come back with any evidence. What does that tell you?

        And there won’t be anyone providing any evidence this time, either. Watch and see. And learn.

      • There is “overwhelming evidence” for AGW, but not for CAGW, which is the crux of the matter. If no CAGW, no need for mitigation or alarm.

    • Your “failure to understand” is both classic misdirection along with Appeals to both Authority and Consensus,
      making you appear both stupid and a liar to boot. Good job.

    • What I don’t understand, ( Conspiracy theories aside), why would scientific bodies and political entities across the world go to all this trouble of researching and producing such a report if it was all a hoax, or just plain lies.

      An appeal FOR authority.

      • Money.
        Future salaries.
        Publicity, speeches in front of fondling (er, fawning) audiences, awards, TV shows, Academy awards.
        Nobel Peace prizes.
        Future grants, future publications, easy pal-review.
        Easy promotions.
        Easy funding.
        Easy applications.
        “Feel-good” feelings of accomplishments.
        Friends and family.

        In short, everything the human race has lived for since hunger and famine and cold were discovered.

      • “hoax” and “lies” are strawmen, although our side uses those words out of exasperation. The alarmist conjecture has surface plausibility—it doesn’t scream hoax. What is opperative is collective Folly. Mencken wrote, “The greatest folly is to believe passionately in the palpably untrue. It is the chief occupation of mankind.” Climate alarmism is a save-the-world crusade. Such crusades have also had surface plausibility and have suckered in many respected people in the past. Humanity is susceptible to victimization by these mass movements.

        There is a wide and deep belief in the overall righteousness of the environmental Cause, and a reluctance to nit-pick its excesses, which has muted mainstream criticism of this crusade. (Environmentalist excessive claims are par for the course—see the book, But Is It True? by Aaron Wildawski.) This reluctance to criuticize has given free rein to greenie true believers to populate climatology and overawe journal editors.

        The world’s scientific societies have not collectively sat down and applied their common sense to the analysis of warmist claim, as one might think from the outside. Instead, they have done what the APS and AGU have done, namely call for volunteers to serve on a committee to evaluate the matter. The volunteers have been mostly greenies, who have provided a biased evaluation.

        Politicians have been moved by the desire to be pro-environment, and also by the political power of single-issue green fanaticism. If not for the spoiler role played by Green Party candidate Nader in 2000, Gore would have won the presidency. That made the Democratic party more willing to go along with greenie measures and to appeal to the green voting bloc. In other countries, like Germany and Australia, green parties have exerted influence more directly and effectively. IOW, many politicians give lip service to warmist claims, but are often reluctant to impose costly CO2-reduction measures the would generate a popular backlash among the electorate.

    • @Gareth: WUWT gets occasional commenters like you and Griff who do not understand three important things about science:

      (1) Science is NOT a democracy–meaning issues are NOT decided by consensus. Einstein himself has been quoted as saying that it doesn’t matter how many scientists believe in his theories. All it takes is just one of them to prove him wrong. As long as the skeptics produce evidence that the CAGW is problematic, the issue is NOT decided. That is what is being done here.

      (2) That scientists are infallible authorities in matters of science that cannot and should not be questioned. They presumably don’t get things wrong. The (now dwarf planet) Pluto is one example of what science originally got wrong (it was originally treated as a full-fledged planet). The tectonic movements of the Earth’s plates is another. Although it was suggested that this was happening as far back in the early 20th century, the idea was rejected until the later in the century when it made known that it was happening.

      (3) That science cannot be corrupted by money and politics/political agendas. I don’t know about you Gareth, but I’ve been around the block of life enough times now to know that money and politics corrupt everything they touch, including science. Once you understand that someday, you will have a more accurate picture of all the monkey business that goes on in science and in the rest of life.

      • Re point 2: The best example to cite here is the consensus’s persistent and mendacious “line” in nutrition science. It is a close parallel to what’s happening in climatology.

    • “…why would scientific bodies and political entities across the world go to all this trouble of researching and producing such a report…”
      Only someone not paying attention could wonder about this.

    • “Why?”
      Well, those are global numbers at the surface. The tropical table is at the bottom. But Christy has integrated with a weighting function, not well specified, but is likely to be the weight function used for UAH TMT. It isn’t obvious that that is appropriate, and anyway, the data varies erratically with altitude.

      • It would appear that RATPAC-A surface data is very close to model projections, contrasted with the alleged plots in the graph at the top of this article.

      • It would be more accurate to go with close ranges, I suppose…
        5,000ft would be near 850mb
        30,000ft would be about 300mb
        TROPICS (20S-20N)
        year 850 700 500 400 300
        2001 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.22 0.29
        2002 0.33 0.34 0.44 0.52 0.65
        2003 0.34 0.40 0.47 0.67 0.79
        2004 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.54 0.62
        2005 0.57 0.50 0.68 0.76 0.92
        2006 0.40 0.41 0.53 0.66 0.74
        2007 0.43 0.39 0.41 0.54 0.62
        2008 0.12 0.03 -0.02 0.01 -0.05
        2009 0.41 0.36 0.44 0.53 0.63
        2010 0.62 0.74 0.87 0.98 1.05
        2011 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.26 0.31
        2012 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.39 0.38
        2013 0.40 0.51 0.52 0.60 0.64
        2014 0.37 0.42 0.53 0.66 0.73
        2015 0.43 0.60 0.79 0.93 1.01
        2016 0.76 1.02 1.14 1.50 1.56

        I wonder how they’re weighting the 2016 range (all above +0.6°C) to get a value below +0.6°C in the chart at the top?

      • Nick you never answer the question about whether your use of Central Limit Theorem is appropriate on data you have provided … I warned you on a couple places. I did say you need to do a refresher of when using the theorem isn’t appropriate. The problem with this forum and science discussions on it is there is always a lot of noise, allowing those arguing to be selective about comments.

        You complain about something from Spencer and do exactly the same thing both above and historically.

        So you make a claim above I would like you to deal with.

        1.) So my first quest question is do you know what the mean free path for an IR photon is in the bands that matter at various points through the atmosphere?
        2.) Given the above what does the probability matrix for a cross section of photon emission to space look like?
        3.) What weighted function would you have used from top to bottom of atmosphere?

      • LdB
        “1.) So my first quest question is do you know what the mean free path for an IR photon is in the bands that matter at various points through the atmosphere?
        2.) Given the above what does the probability matrix for a cross section of photon emission to space look like?
        3.) What weighted function would you have used from top to bottom of atmosphere?”

        I can’t see the connection to the Central Limit Theorem here. But I think it’s using a wrong gas kinetics analogy. A photon doesn’t bounce from collision to collision. When absorbed it its energy is transferred to neighboring gas molecules. It isn’t lost, and will support further emission, but not necessarily at the same frequency. Kirchhoff’s law ensures that the distribution of emission frequencies will be similar to the absorbed, but that is statistical, not allowing tracking of individual photons.

        So 1), I’m sure it could be worked out, but it isn’t as useful a statistic as with gases
        2) The main thing looked at is the outgoing spectrum. That reflects the fact that different frequencies are coming from different levels, some even from the surface.
        3) seems unrelated – I presume you mean the weight function that allows you to convert a set of level values to a TMT integral. THat is really just a matter of what you want TMT to mean. If you just had fine grained grid data, as with GCMs or reanalysis, you could use a cutoff. UAH has to use a function on the channels of teir microwaves, and I think they apply that to temperature. It probably has roughly the right form, but it’s really a different thing.

        Put another way, the weight function just determines what you mean by TMT. The issue is whether the UAH use for filtering microwaves is consistent with use as a filter for temperatures at different levels.

      • And over those changing altitudes, Nick, models go from only almost 2X wrong to about 7X wrong, worsening with increasing altitude.

        Radiative forcing happens in the atmosphere, and that is where the models get it most wrong. And you want to fundamentally alter our society, economy and energy systems based solely on those models? Time for some serious reflection everybody.

      • I think you made the point to yourself, you don’t know the connection because you don’t understand the physics. What I am trying to get you to realize is the way IR energy moves thru the atmosphere not some trash classical physics approximation. It is clear you actually don’t understand how the effect works at all.

        The point being made bluntly is you are confusing Earth radiation operation to Earth temperature, they aren’t the same thing. In all your answers you assume that somehow you will somehow be able to equate one to the other directly … that outcome is impossible from a quantum prospective. If it were that way the greenhouse effect wouldn’t work at all.

        It’s a function of various modes of vibration and rotation of the molecule of CO2, H2O with IR that creates the greenhouse effect. If you could apply the normal classical physics to the problem then you don’t have a greenhouse gas. I will say at least realclimates link on the subject is pretty close and they reference Rasmus E. Benestad paper. There is both a convection process (classical physics) and a radiative process (QM) and you need to worry about both. Many on here have objections which aren’t really scientific so I ignore in the same manner that one ignore Anti-QM or Anti-GR crazies.

        If you are trying to claiming science authority on an answer please at least make sure you understand the physics and present it correctly. A couple of your answers are not even remotely close to what even climate science simplifications say.

      • “A couple of your answers are not even remotely close to what even climate science simplifications say.”
        You’re just spinning words here. Please try to be specific, and even a little bit quantitative. You could start by explaining just what is the consequence of the central limit theorem that you are referring to.

      • If I am “spinning words” you are talking them out for a quick lap of the universe.

        You said this “Kirchhoff’s law ensures that the distribution of emission frequencies”. Is Kirkoff’s law correct and part of modern physics?

        Hint1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe.

        Hint 2: So you may want to ponder whether using a classical law on a Quantum process is really a very good idea.

        Like all on this forum you can’t be told anything, you need to work it out for yourself.

        I have asked you a at least 5 times, when is it not appropriate to use the Central Limit Theorem it is sort of important. Lets give you a specific can you use it on a QM process?

      • Oh and for my original question about the mean free path you may want to think about this statement from

        The atmospheric radiation transfer is rather complicated, as the gases absorb light at different wavelength according to detailed features in their line spectra. Part of the infrared light escaping the earth’s atmosphere originates from vertical levels near the surface and parts are emitted from heights near the tropopause

        The key point he correctly identifies

        In this simplified picture, the bulk of the heat loss to space cannot take place at the ground level where T= 288K because this would violate the energy balance (equation)

        As I said none of your answer agrees with anything that even a climate scientist physicist would say.

    • Even with the smoothing by the 5-year average, for 2016 that would be:
      (850mb) 0.446
      (700mb) 0.566
      (500mb) 0.656
      (400mb) 0.816
      (300mb) 0.864

      The plot for radiosondes at the top of the article is clearly below +0.5°C… was it just plotted with the 5,000ft measurement???

      If you were to apportion them by atmospheric percentage, it should be over +0.6°C.

  12. The chart shows predicted and observed tropical (20⁰N-20⁰S) temperatures in the middle of the earth’s active weather zone—technically the mid-troposphere, roughly from 5,000ft to 30,000ft elevation.

    For the love of Gaia. Even Mount Everest is below 30,000 ft elevation. And who’s gonna live, let alone hover in mid-troposphere for 150 years anyway? How on planet GIGO can anyone experience the projected ‘scary’ 2 °C warming? The rest of the effects can be dismissed as pure speculation in the absence of data e.g.

    The new weather station in the death zone (at 26,246 feet where the amount of oxygen is insufficient to sustain human life) recorded first data in May 2008 −17 °C (1 °F) and has been archived since. https://web.archive.org/web/20081205033047/http://www.evk2cnr.org/en/node/1260

    Based on political performance evidence provided especially with CACA Nuclear Winter conjecture, CACA Global Warming conjecture will join it in the oblivion soon. Many thanks to our host, Tony Heller and many others for conserving them for the benefit of future generations.

  13. Has Trump and his team been very clever in not stopping this Report being published? They now have numerous targets they can hit, item by item, to explain to the USA public the complete lack of any credible scientific evidence to substantiate the current massive expenditure of taxpayers’ money on CAGW/Climate Change driven policies!

    • Good point tactically. Lots of easy targets to prove the thing is a Hayhoesque sham. Plus, was written under Obama pusuant to act of Congress, so not possible to supress as NYT fretted.

      • “was written under Obama”….funny, Obama has been gone for 10 months. Are you saying the current administration is so inept that it can’t perform an edit of it in 10 months?

        • Trump cannot even get Congress (the Senate, controlled by the GROPelite establishment (liberal Anti-Trump republicans and every socialist-communist democrat) to even finish approving his first announced, top-level White House administration positions. Top EPA position only a few months back, few others.

        • RB, that is the case. Most of the EPA are holdovers, and will be for a very long time, given civil service rules and Trumps notorious sloth in making lower level appointments and the Democrats slow-walking such appointments he does make.

      • Hillary would not be making the diplomatic mistakes now being made. Hillary would also know how Congress works, having experience as a member of Congress. So, Hillary would be a much more “competent” president than Donald. No opinion on how criminality is related to competency.

        • MSJ, Hillary Clinton’s record in the Senate was notably undistinguished, as if she did not want to do anything she could get called on later.

        • Loss of Libya (directly caused by her intervention into that government), death and sodomy torture of the American ambassador there (and its coverup) while he was working with terrorists on the ex-Libyan weapons movements, death of 4 other American there (while she refused action), allowance thereafter for hundreds of thousands of “refugees” (military-age, illiterate, unemployable males) and their subseuent rapes and murders across Europe as welfare receiptants.
          LOss of Afghanistan, Iraq (again), Syria (with Kerry), Morocco’s payment to her for NOT overthrowing that kingdom, payments from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc in the Middle East, anti-Semitic hatred and actions against Israel, breakdown of Venezuela (with Kerry again), treachery against Cuba, treachery against freedom protesters in Iran to support radical Muslim clerics, payments from Indonesia and India (earlier, under Bill Clinton) for power plants and coal rights, rise of North Korean nukes, Iranian nukes (again with Kerry), support for Russia against the more free Ukraine, loss of US missile defense against Russia cross all of eastern Europe.

          Yeppers. The only countries who lost under Hillary-Obama-Kerry “leadership” were the United States and Israel. She got her hundreds of millions though.

      • Too funny RACookPE1978 “directly caused by her intervention into that government”

        No sense in discussing this topic with you. You don’t understand the difference between advocacy and intervention.

      • Mark S Johnson,
        Tell us please, how many non-fiction books have you written that have spent decades on the best seller list?
        How many worldwide real estate empires have you built from the ground up?
        How many wildly popular television shows have you been the originator and star of?
        How many elections have you won?
        How many corrupt political dynasties have you vanquished?
        How many different career paths have you risen to the absolute top of, the first time you tried?
        How many times have you reinvented yourself into another totally unrelated and successful line of work?
        And what percentage of people in the country know who you are?
        Are you one of the most instantly recognized names and/or faces on the planet, and have been for decades?
        What next…will you insult his skin color, or his hair style, or his family?

      • menicholas, how many legislative victories has he won?
        How many woman’s genitals has he grabbed?
        How low can the polls go before you “get it?”
        How many more lies will he tell?

        PS, his real estate “empire” was started by his daddy.
        PS, Mark Burnett originated the TV show.
        It’s funny to watch him, he is in way over his head.

        • Funny. You see, Trump never did “grab any woman’s Genitals” … He was, 10 years after Hillary had been abusing and threatening the women who her husband raped and assaulted, caught on tape saying he “could ” grab any genitals that he wanted to grab, but he never did credibly assault anyone. Clinton, on the other hand, DID CONTINUALLY rape and assault the women vulnerable to his position of power as governor, president.

      • Trump is battling against a HUGE anti-American swamp.

        It will take a long time to break through the fetid jungle that surrounds it, and start to seriously drain that putrid swamp.

      • Poor little ZERO-PROOF johnson.

        Listens to the fabrications, no matter where they came from.

        GULLIBLE !!

  14. Here’s a computer model to try – Excel might be up to it.

    10 Assume the (extra) CO2 in the air came from farm-land dirt (10% of Earth’s area)
    20 Turn that CO2 figure into a cellulose equivalent
    30 Use the wet/dry weight difference of a bath-towel to get a ‘retained water’ figure per unit weight cellulose
    40 Combine ’20’ and ’30’ to get a water weight
    50 How much energy to evaporate that water
    60 Use ’50’ to calculate a temp rise for dry dirt (Silica sand)
    70 Apply Stefan’s Law to account for extra radiative heat loss
    80 Multiply result ’70’ by 0.1 to account for ’10’ and what do you get?

    Obviously its not that easy, you need some sort of iteration/integration to apply Stefan but…..
    (Will prolly go totally weird but you might learn something along the way)

    • and can’t you tell I learned programming from HP Basic on an HP85 on my desk something like 35 years ago.
      (Actually about 5% of an HP85 – I had to share it with some others)

      Back then I could have started it off producing graphs exactly like those climate graphs (random numbers on a gently rising slope) easily producing 500+ per day on the ’85

      Maybe after that time (500 per day for 35 years) at least one of them could be similar to what the climate has supposedly or actually done?

      You can still get HP85s
      Don’t that ‘say something’

  15. Never mind the models and projections…

    The core of this is observed, recorded and accurate data on what has actually happened…

    which shows yes, it has warmed and yes, this is having an impact.

    No use trying to divert attention to minor quibbles with the projections: deal first with what actaull already happened!

    • “Never mind the models and projections…”

      Precisely, they are all a load of rubbish.

      There has actually been NO warming apart from NON-CO2 related El Nino events in any REAL data set.

      You do realise that if the global governance that you so desire actually ever happens, ..

      then YOU will be the very bottom rung of the ladder, don’t you , griff?

      Socialism does NOT support people like you. !!

    • We are dealing with it, Griff; we are welcoming the warmth, the moisture, the greening that has returned to our planet. And we are giggling at the increasingly panicked warmunists who find that the tissue of lies that they thought would allow them to usurp wealth and power is falling apart.

      • A ridiculously biased and unsubstantiated statement! What is emerging in the UK is ever more evidence being provided to the UK public regarding the massive real total unit power costs imposed on them by the use of renewable energy systems and not simply the direct costs of the renewable energy itself as reported by the renewable energy suppliers. Increasingly, people are recognising that they are being scammed, and particularly because even the most extreme implementation of present UK Energy policies with renewables will make no impact on global CO2 emissions – emissions which will continue to increase at least for the next 15-20 years due, primarily, to massively more and increasing uncontrolled Developing World fossil fuel usage.

        Price comparisons from UK renewable energy suppliers comparing, say, Wind Turbine prices with Gas Turbine prices, are fraudulent. A proper and honest comparison has to compare like with like – in this case base load power with base load power: power which can be supplied as and when needed and not just when available.
        Taking this WT/GT total base load cost comparison, we have:
        1. The cost of GT’s power is the cost of GT’s power with no subsidies required if they are given equal access to the markets based only on costs and availability.
        2. The costs of WT’s power needs to add costs for the following necessary additional works costs to make that system an equal base load system:
        (a) the cost of subsidies for the WT’s to make them commercially viable
        (b) the cost of the additional and enhanced Power Transmission systems needed to connect their remote sites to areas of actual power demand
        (c) the costs of almost 100% equal capacity of GT’s to act as on-demand standby’s to generate the typical 70% or so of shortfall of WT’s rated power output over any year due to no/low winds to meet overall UK power demands at any time and in any weather.
        (d) the subsidies paid to GT suppliers to cover for them operating their systems grossly inefficiently as standby units and not as base load systems, simply to maintain their commercial viability!
        (e) less the saving of 30% or so of GT fuel consumption when used as standby units, although being operated inefficiently this would be less than this figure.
        (f) less the difference in NPV of future costs savings provided by WT’s for future remedying and replacing of works that will supposedly be damaged and disrupted by CO2 generated by GT’s, even if CO2 was a problem! Using Stern’s original findings this would amount only to far less than 1 pence/cent per kWhr.

        Comparison of (1) and (2) above shows quite clearly that the additional costs of using such renewables as WT’s to domestic and industrial/commercial consumers is massively more than costs when using GT’s alone as base load units. What’s more, no matter how much R&D money is thrown at this problems the costs of using WT’s will never be anywhere near cheaper!

      • If you can’t see the flawed logic of what you’ve just stated then you should divert your attention and time to the transmutation of base metals into gold! There was a consensus of scientists who believed in this, including Newton, but 300 years or more ago!

      • Support for “green” energy among the general public is very high as it is a “motherhood and apple pie” proposition; Who could be against such things? However, just wait when the energy bills come in.

      • “In the UK the support for green energy is now overwhelming.”

        No, it is absolutely nothing of the kind.

        Stop making things up.

    • Let me play devils advocate with your Griff, now lets say I actually believe you, my problem is what you do next. You choose the most stupid slowest doomed to fail way of dealing with the problem which is emission control. Prohibition has never worked not once in history and you have an urgent problem and you choose prohibition, I am sorry you proved really don’t want the problem solved.

      You want to solve the problem then nuclear power needs to be on the table and you need to directly look to actively control the CO2 levels, emission is but one slow way to tackle the problem. The problem with climate change is it got hijacked by the greens and left groups to push a social agenda.

      If the problem was really urgent every option would be on the table not just the most stupid one.

      • “Prohibition has never worked not once in history”

        So are yay riposting that Heroin, Crack Cocaine and other dodgy substances should be decriminalised?

        • Gareth, just how bad was the drug problem in the 19th Century, before any general drug laws? Problems seemed to be unrelated to laws as such, with Britain not having any prohibition on opiates until quite late in the century, and not many problems. China had prohibition, and a major problem. The major producers, Turkey and India, did not have major problems despite availability. The US had no national laws until the 20th Century, mostly intended to deal with patent medicines with a major overlay of racism.

      • I am not telling you to decriminalize anything, I am simply telling you the fact prohibition won’t work.

        Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results .. Albert Einstein

        I am not studying sociology and I have no idea how to solve the problem, I am just giving you a historic fact.
        As Tom Halla showed you need to look at the history as just facts before worrying about the politics.

      • As a policy, the so-called war on drugs can only be described as an abject failure, given that since this war was started, drug use is up, drug deaths are up, drug prices are down, and the problem, by any measure, is worse than ever.
        That is not to say that legalizing dangerous substances is the correct alternative.
        We could start by not making criminals out of people who find themselves hooked on some crap they took having no idea of what they were getting themselves involved with.
        Personally, I view addiction as a disease, and I draw a clear distinction between those who are users and addicts, and those who profit from the addiction of others.
        I also see a distinction between someone who is an addict and sells small quantities of drugs to support a drug addiction they can not otherwise afford, and those who sell drugs but never do any drugs themselves.
        Drugs are never going to be uninvented.
        But the current situation, in which huge profits are made that foster violent criminal organizations, and encourage disrespect for the law by having laws on the books that are widely ignored, is never going to fix itself or go away as long as the current policies are maintained.
        That those who are responsible for enforcing these laws are themselves often found to be involved in the drug trade, only worsens the problem, and deepens the disrespect for the law and the distrust some have for law enforcement.
        Pointing out problems is easier than coming up with workable solutions, unfortunately.
        Tying this issue to the topic at hand, I am certain that telling children that they are living on a dying planet is not helping to give them hope for a prosperous future, is not filling them with optimism and hope.
        And kids who are not optimistic about their future, or who are depressed by the conviction that the world is gone to hell, are more likely, perhaps far more likely, to become drug users…and some people who use drugs will necessarily become hopelessly addicted, and have their entire lives ruined.
        Others may choose suicide.
        Stop lying to kids.
        Stop locking up people who have a disease.
        We can start with telling people the truth, and giving them accurate information
        The war on drugs is a failure, and expecting anything different to come of it that what we are already seeing is insane.

    • Griff November 4, 2017 at 2:32 am
      Never mind the “…the models and projections

      There goes the “CAGW” all the way back to Hansen’s testimony.

      The core of this is observed, recorded and accurate data on what has actually happened…

      “Actually happened”!?!?
      After Hansen and Gavin, do we really know what had actually happened? Or even what is actually happening?
      PS Isn’t there a logical fallacy that goes something like “After the fact therefore because of the theory.”?

      which shows yes, it has warmed and yes, this is having an impact.
      Sorry. The logical fallacy is “After the fact therefore because of the fact.”
      The CAUSE, Griff, the cause.
      “Nature” or “Man”?
      Prove it.
      Better yet, come up with a testable hypothesis to show any change you find alarming is not “natural”.
      Put up or shut up.

      No use trying to divert attention to minor quibbles with the projections: deal first with what actaull already happened!

      I doubt those that actually need to work for a living would consider their part of the taxpayer dollars wasted on
      squiggles on a graph that don’t match reality as a diversion or a “minor quibble”.

      • Mods,
        MODS! Wha follows is an attempt at correction. (If I screw up again, forget it.)
        Messed up the “blockquote”s. (again)

        which shows yes, it has warmed and yes, this is having an impact.

        Sorry. The logical fallacy is “After the fact therefore because of the fact.”
        The CAUSE, Griff, the cause.
        “Nature” or “Man”?
        Prove it.
        Better yet, come up with a testable hypothesis to show any change you find alarming is not “natural”.
        Put up or shut up.

        No use trying to divert attention to minor quibbles with the projections: deal first with what actaull already happened!

        I doubt those that actually need to work for a living would consider their part of the taxpayer dollars wasted on
        squiggles on a graph that don’t match reality as a diversion or a “minor quibble”.

  16. 101 out of 102 model runs fail to even remotely accurately predict actual observed warming.

    And that is where it gets really interesting …

    One pesky model run comes close to portraying actual observed temperatures from the 7 different data records … the Russian INCM4 model run.

    Why is this one run important? Because it confirms exactly the conclusions reached by the ‘climate models are broken’ paper recently published in Nature by a group of top global warming scientists including Michael Mann (State, Penn), Ben Santer (Livermore), John Frye (NCAR), Carl Mears & Frank J. Wentz (RSS MSU) and more.


    Recall that that paper found the models are wrong – overestimating predicted temps becasue they feed the model overstated climate sensitivity numbers. The effect can be clearly seen by the significantly overestimated warming predictions in 101 of 102 model runs.

    The Santer etal 2017 paper paper found that the climate sensitivity data in the CIMP5 climate models was overstated by a factor of 2 times or more compared to actual observed temperatures from multiple satellite and radiosonde data records.

    Pat Michael’s comment above dircetly confirms the findings in Santers “Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates” … the models are broken paper.

    We find that the “climate sensitivity (the net warming calculated for a doubling of the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration) is 1.4⁰C (2.5⁰F) [in the Russian INCM4 model – which closely matches actual observed temperature], compared to the average of 3.2⁰C (5.8⁰F) in the [101 other CIMP5] models used in the National Climate Assessment.”

    Pat notes the National Assessment Report, and the 101 of 102 CIMP5 climate model runs, are based on an average climate sensitivity of 3.2 deg C …

    The lone Russian model – the only one that came remotely close to accurately predicting actual observed temperatures … was based on a climate sensitivity of 1.42 deg C per doubling of CO2 …

    Simply math tells us the climate sensitivity provided to the model for the 101 failed model runs was 2.25 times HIGHER than the climate sensitivity in the Russian model.

    When you reduce the stated climate sensitivity by just over half, as with the Russian model – the model predictions suddenly come very close to the actual measured temperatures.

    Confirming EXACTLY what the Nature paper by these top global warming scientists claimed …

    The models are broken and are overstating predicted warming by appx 2.25 times compared to actual measured temps. And when you reduce the climate sensitivity by appx half, then the model predictions miraculously come very close to the actual measured temperatures.

    Imagine that…

  17. The BBC covers this US Government report in its news bulletins, describing the future implications as apocalyptic and dire. It has probably done enormous damage to the less hysterical view of climate change that was beginning to creep in over here.

      • I would imagine that snow cover would indeed increase due to higher levels of moisture in the atmosphere. If a area with winter temps of minus 20c is affected and the temp rises to minus 15c, it is still going to snow, but at higher volumes. What I would look at is where the snow if falling, are the freezing levels on mountains for instance changing?
        The other seemingly paradoxical issue in a study I read today is that snow melts more slowly in the high passes of the Alps at the moment, but disappears more quickly.

      • Gareth I disagree. Snow cover area is defined primarily by “area” not depth. Thus to significantly increase snow area lower elevations must receive snow as well.

  18. As a practical matter, you can stop reading the report after you read ‘the last 115 years have been the warmest in the modern era’. The modern era is typically defined to have begun in 1900, so the last 115 years have been the warmest in the last 117. That’s not what you call alarming. And it is immediately clear that report replaces science with meaningless hyperbole.

  19. I’m not sure I fully understand this essay. Is “what is missing” that that has been historically found in the hysterical reports, or is it more of the same alarm in the new one?

  20. Has anyone found where and how they quantify the anthropogenic contribution to observed warming? It seems to be the same old “we can’t think of anything else, so it must be AGW”. As Curry points out often, we don’t know why the planet warmed at the end of the Pleistocene either. That doesn’t prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the cause.

  21. Geographers with fake data, Excel and a lot of time to harp to NSF to maintain their “lifestyles of the Rich and Famous”.

  22. In the article is: “…..palimpsest, or mirror-image document…..”. I interpreted this to mean that mirror-image writing is equivalent to a palimpsest. Sorry, but a palimpsest is a document that has been scraped or otherwise defaced so that another document can be written in its place.

    The closest that I could come to “mirror-image writing” was “Spiegelschrift”, which is only a translation into German of “mirror-image writing”.

    Apologies if someone else has pointed out this bit of trivia.


  23. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/21/trying-to-perpetuate-alarmist-climate-science/comment-page-1/#comment-2643072

    Here is a draft one-page rebuttal of the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR)::


    1. Since ~1940, fossil fuel combustion has greatly increased and global temperature has declined or stayed ~constant for ~52 years, and increased for only ~25 years.

    2. The year-to-year correlation of atmospheric CO2 with changes in global temperature is very high, but CO2 LAGS TEMPERATURE.

    3. The rate of change dCO2/dt correlates strongly with global temperature, and its integral CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.

    4. Atmospheric CO2 ALSO lags temperature by hundreds or thousands of years in the ice core record.

    5. There is no clear, measurable effect of atmospheric CO2 on temperatures in any time scale. The evidence strongly suggests that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very low.

    6. We know to a reasonable degree of confidence what drives global temperature and it is almost entirely natural and has an INSIGNIFICANT causative relationship from increasing atmospheric CO2:
    – in sub-decadal time frames, the primary driver of global temperature is Pacific Ocean natural cycles, moderated by occasional cooling from major (century-scale) volcanoes;
    – in multi-decadal time frames, the primary cause is solar activity;
    – in the very long term, the primary cause is planetary cycles.

    7. The next trend change in global temperature will probably be moderate naturally-caused global cooling, starting by ~2020-2030, due to reduced solar activity (as we published in 2002).


    8. There has been no increase in more extreme weather events. Alarmist allegations of wilder weather due to increased atmospheric CO2 , global warming, etc. are unsupported by the evidence.


    9. Natural CO2 flux into and out of the atmosphere dwarfs humanmade CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

    10. CO2 satellites show that the high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 are located in tropical and agricultural areas and the far North, and less so in industrialized areas.

    11. The year-to-year correlation of atmospheric CO2 with fossil fuel CO2 emissions is low.

    12. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high; at ~400 ppm it is in fact far too low for optimal plant and crop growth. An optimal concentration of atmospheric CO2 would be ~1000-2000ppm (which is unlikely to result from human activity).

    13. Atmospheric CO2 is, in the longer term, alarmingly low for the continued survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. Past continental glaciations (ice ages) were near-extinction events due to very low atmospheric CO2 and the near-shutdown of terrestrial photosynthesis.


    14. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates.

    15. Excess winter mortality in the human species totals about 2 million Excess Winter Deaths per year, and is high in both warm and cold climates. Excess Winter Mortality Rates are surprisingly high in countries with warmer climates, and are lowest in advanced countries that have cheap energy and modern home insulation and heating/cooling systems.


    16. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.

    17. Based on all the above evidence, alarmist allegations of catastrophic global warming, more extreme weather events, and other very negative consequences of increasing atmospheric CO2 are unsupported by the evidence.

    18. A slightly warmer Earth with higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 would be beneficial for both humanity AND the environment.

    19. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die.

    20. The misguided focus on global warming alarmism has caused society to squander many trillions of dollars of scarce global resources on foolish CO2 abatement programs that have driven up energy costs, reduced electric grid reliability, increased winter mortality, especially harmed the elderly and poor of the world, and diverted our attention and our resources from solving the real and pressing needs of humanity and the environment. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.

    Regards to all, Allan

  24. Timing is everything.
    TheWeather Channel here is Canada has seized upon this “Terrifying news”.
    “Trump is wrong,Global Warming Real” To paraphrase.
    Just as an wave of Arctic Air is pulled south.
    So the poor taxpayer can worry all about Global Warming/Climate Change/Unusual exotic weather…as they freeze.

    Next we will be told how unusual winter is.

    Time for a review again of the error ranges and the illogical certainty of a trend when the noise exceeds that signal.
    I remain somewhat depressed by demonstrations of continuous willful ignorance.
    For example , The conversion from manned weather stations, utilizing mercury in glass thermometers, the Mark 1 eyeball of accuracy and twice daily reading, to platinum resistor automatic stations, with all the “advantages” of near instantaneous response time, second by second reporting .
    Are we able to contrast the results of these two methods?
    What does their divergence tell us?

    And the statistical abuse of averaging to improve the precision, boggles my mind.
    What are our centres of education teaching these days?

  25. Blockbuster Assessment: Humans Likely Responsible For Virtually All Global Warming Since 1950s
    Bob Henson · November 3, 2017, 2:18 PM EDT


    Humans are likely responsible for 93 – 123% of Earth’s net global warming after 1950, says a blockbuster climate report issued on Friday. The Climate Science Special Report is the first product released by the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA); the core assessment itself, focusing on impacts, will be released in 2018. The NCA is an congressionally mandated quadrennial effort by hundreds of U.S. scientists to assess how the climate is changing in the United States. The project is carried out by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Preparation of the report included workshops around the nation, a public-comment period on the draft, and a technical review spanning 13 agencies.

    • TCE –
      Are humans also responsible for all that global cooling 1950s-70s when owning/driving cars became accessible to regular folk according to the NCA?
      I do not even know why people still speak of statistically insignificant anomaly trends, we have El Niño and La Niña, volcanoes, other periodic changes in climate, and the sun cycle, all of which we know much more about today than years back, if we work that all out, does some spurious correlation still exist to blame on human activity to help extend the inter-glacial optima?
      NCA should be abolished, but we have some RINOs in Congress worried about votes from the ignorant masses which have been fed AGW propaganda, much produced by gov itself.

  26. It won’t be too long before they abandon using actual temperature/sea level data and such like, and just use data from models, because that is the only way the crooked climate bodies and scientists will get the data to show what they want it too.

    • Given the various adjustments and karlizations, that is exactly what they are already doing…using models, instead of actual measured data.

  27. The extremism of this report lays it open to a devastating counter-punch from Pruit’s Red Team, issued as a supplementary document. I hope the Red Team will anticipate and deal with Blue Team responses to its critique.

  28. Okay, what I get out of the article with accompanying charts is that the facts defeat the speculations, ergo the speculations meant to instill panic in the general population didn’t work.
    Therefore, the rest of us go on, business as usual, watch the skies for evidence of T-storms, tornadoes and also, pay attention to WEATHER forecasts (Griff, are you listening?) so that if heavy rein w/flooding is in the forecast, we know enough to stay away from areas that get flooded.
    Got it. It’s unfortunate that politics must jump to the forefront in this, because weather forecasts do mean something and the science involved in forecasting (e.g., barometric pressure changes, cold/warm fronts meeting warm/cold air, humidity levels, etc.) is improving.
    It’s equally unfortunate that people whose agenda is more political than anything else have decided that weather forecasts are predictions of climate movements in any direction, when they ARE NOT.

  29. When reading such a report like this, I perform a search. Figure 1.8 came up, informing me that this report is based on specious data. While updated from the original hockey stick figure, it is still faulty.

  30. Can someone explain to me why the first graph in the article has the CIMPS projections for global temperature overlaid on a set of observed temperatures in the tropics? Why isn’t it overlaid on observed data for global temperatures?

      • So the red line is a projection for the tropics at those altitudes? Seems an oddly specific projection to be super concerned about.
        Can anyone point me at a graph showing how global, surface temperature projections look alongside global surface temperature observations. It seems to me that that is maybe more relevant to the climate we will actually experience, right?
        Thanks in advance.

        • Actually, MichaelR, radiative gas theory states the atmosphere drives surface temperatures. Since atmospheric temperature estimates lag surface temperature estimates, CO2 theory is a bust observationally.

  31. Early in the assessment, a statement it made that there is no political bias. REAL science should never have any political bias, it should never even have to say this. If you read between the lines, it is an admission that there is political bias in climate issues.
    To me, the fact they even said this to emotionally blackmail people that this must be believed, no questions asked is suspect in the extreme. It smells of guilt-a 100% lie.ANYONE who tries to say you MUST trust them is a LIAR. The warmists have said Trump MUST believe this report.
    MUST believe flagrant lies? You have to be kidding. Time to wake up, the climate thing is a load of propaganda designed to strangle our wealth and eventually our freedom.It was a lie from day one. The lie will continue to beyond them bitter end-why? Because they know the People will be unhappy when the truth is finally revealed.

Comments are closed.