By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The indefatigable Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama at Huntsville is the first to declare the global temperature anomaly for December 2017. As Fig. 1 shows, in the 39 years 1 month from December 1978 to December 2017, the planet has warmed by half a Celsius degree. But that is equivalent to 1.28 C°/century, or little more than one-third of the 3.3 C°/century predicted with “substantial confidence” by IPCC in 1990 and also by the fifth-generation general-circulation models of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project in 2013.
Fig. 1 The least-squares linear-regression trend on the entire UAH satellite shows monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows warming at a rate equivalent to just 1.28 C°/century from December 1978 to December 2017.
Is the rate of global warming rising inexorably? The answer is No, as Fig. 2 shows:
Fig. 2 The least-squares trend on the UAH dataset shows warming at a rate equivalent to 0.85 C°/century from February 1997 to December 2017.
The warming rate in the 251 months of data that account for just over half the entire UAH dataset is not higher than the rate for the entire 469-month record. It is down by a third, from 1.28 0.85 C°/century. I chose the start date for Fig. 2 because it was also the start date for the longest period of the Great Pause, which – in the RSS satellite dataset – ran for a spectacular 18 years 9 months from February 1997 to October 2015, as Fig. 3 shows:
Fig. 3 The least-squares trend on the RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 9 months February 1997 to October 2015, the longest period of the Pause, though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings occurred during that period.
A little history. In preparation for a debate in the Senate at the end of 2015, Senator Ted Cruz approached the Heartland Institute to request its advice on the single graph that would most clearly encapsulate the climate-skeptical case. Fig. 3 was chosen, and Senator Cruz displayed it on the floor of the Senate, to the visible discomfiture of the Democrats. The late Bob Carter, shortly before his untimely death, wrote to me to say how pleased he was that we had added the line pointing out that one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since 1750 had arisen during the Pause, but without causing any global warming at all.
In my report of the Pause in November 2017 at WattsUpWithThat, I predicted that the RSS dataset would swiftly be tampered with to try to eradicate the Pause. Just weeks later, Dr Carl Mears, the keeper of that dataset, who is prone to describe skeptics as “deniers”, announced that there would indeed be a revision, which, when it arrived, airbrushed the Pause away.
What is interesting is that the airbrushing – i.e., the alteration of data ex post facto to suit the Party Line – has continued. The dataset as it stood a few months back swept away the embarrassing zero trend over the 18 years 9 months of the Pause and replaced it with a trend equivalent to 0.77 C°/century (Fig. 4).
However, that tamperature change was not enough. The RSS dataset as it stands today shows a warming rate equivalent to 0.83 C°/century over exactly the same period (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4 The least-squares trend on the RSS dataset for the 18 years 9 months of the Pause, based on the data as they stood in mid-2017.
Fig. 5 The least-squares trend on the RSS dataset for the 18 years 9 months of the Pause, this time using the data as they stand today.
Contrast Figs. 4-5 with Fig. 6, the current UAH data for the 18 years 9 months of the Pause, which show the world warming at a statistically-insignificant 0.05 C°/century equivalent over the period of the Pause.
At the time of the Pause, the UAH data showed a higher rate of warming than RSS. Since then, the UAH data have been revised with the effect of reducing the formerly-evident small warming rate over the period of the Pause, while RSS has been – and continues to be – revised so as to increase the apparent warming rate over the same period.
On all of these data, it is evident that the rate of global warming is very considerably below what had originally been predicted. In a future article, I shall show just how large is the discrepancy between excitable prediction and unexciting observation, and just how false were the various artful claims in certain reviewed papers that IPCC’s original predictions were about right, and just how wrong those predictions – properly understood – truly were.
Finally, in due course I shall show exactly what error in the models has led to the extravagant over-predictions, and just how small the properly-predicted warming rate will be once that fatal error is corrected.
Fig. 6 The least-squares trend on the current UAH dataset agrees with the original RSS dataset in showing global warming at a rate statistically indistinguishable from zero in the 18 years 9 months February 1997 to October 2015.
The simple answer – why did they grossly overestimate warming? They incorrectly assumed that there was a feedback loop in the climate – that warming would create more warming absent any additional contribution of carbon dioxide. This is called climate sensitivity. Which, on the face of it, is absurd. If there was a feedback loop then the climate is unlikely to have remained relative stable for millions of years. Systems with large feedback loops are always unstable.
Climate sensitivity = 0. This has been obvious for a decade or more. Take out the climate sensitivity parts of the global warming calculations and everything lines up perfectly with observations – we get about 1/3 of the predicted warming.
But is climate sensitivity does not = 0 then there is no crises – this is a minor problem that will take hundreds of years to get serious, if ever. We may not be able to burn enough carbon to ever make it serious.
Why? They had a political axe to grind – and a socialist utopia to build. Sod the collateral damage (Pol Pot’s millions; Stalin’s millions, (insert despot name here) millions).
“Why? They had a political axe to grind – and a socialist utopia to build.”
So Monckton hasn’t.
Really ??
Try that certain 63 year old potholer’s videos to see the extent of his, err grinding “axe”.
Mr Banton is, as usual, not only spiteful but incorrect. Geoman is right: official climatology has grossly overestimated the contribution of temperature feedbacks to global warming. In due course, I hope to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt.
Toneb
Monckton? A socialist utopia to build? Are you completely mad? There could be nothing further from his mind, quite rightly.
“Mr Banton is, as usual, not only spiteful but incorrect. Geoman is right: official climatology has grossly overestimated the contribution of temperature feedbacks to global warming. In due course, I hope to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt.”
Monckton:
As you are often wont to say…
“And your scientific point is?”.
Like maybe why you slander Mears et al at RSS?
Would you care to address the reasons why RSS went to V4.
And why UAH went to V6?
And why it is OK to become the outlier series on the cold side while at the same time ignoring the fact that there”algorithm” is plainly running cold again the real world data?
Whilst RSS make an attempt to correct for it.
No, thought not.
Oh, and have you seen the caver’s vids lately.
They are very illuminating.
Did you finally get around to answering Mr Hadfields bebunks?
To the furtively pseudonymous “Toneb” (real name Anthony Banton) I say, “Don’t whine.” The scientific point of the head posting would be clear to anyone more interested in science than in climate Communism. It is that the timing of the various tamperings with original temperature data by RSS and others suggests that, whatever their pretexts for the alterations, even if their motives were not questionable it remains the case that a considerable fraction of the supposed warming of recent decades arises not from the original data but from ex-post-facto adjustments, and that, even after those often extravagant adjustments, the observed rate of warming falls a very long way short of a rate consistent with the CMIP5 models’ current prediction that a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to 3.3 K global warming.
I am doubtful about global temperature data, even if correct, that it may be adequate tool for examination of the global warming.
If it is assumed that the data is of acceptable accuracy (there is no significant difference between CRUtem4, NOAA & GISS), the hemispherical differences reveal properties which may not be easily discernable by studying just the global numbers.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CT4an.gif
The first 120 years of data show little difference in the anomaly between two hemispheres, both warming at the rate of about 0.5C/century.
The major change took place in the last 40 years.
the South Hemisphere warming rate trebled from 0.56 to 1.67C/century
the North Hemisphere warming rate increased 7.5 times from 0.45 to 3.37C/century.
This huge difference in the rate of apparent warming could be due to variety of reasons from data ‘adjustments’ to some kind of natural cause, but since CO2 is apparently well mixed globally, it can not be the decisive factor.
Now tell me how much it has warmed since 1940, the end of the last warming period and the start of the cooling po eriod that lasted until 1978.
Until scientists completely scrap downwelling radiation theory they will never get a correct answer. It’s like saying I can string copper wire throughout the walls of my house and make it warmer because it easily conducts energy in and then can easily conduct it back into the house atmosphere making it warmer. And of course we know this is crap. The historic records show very clearly that temperatures start dropping after CO2 concentrations hit their peak. Talk about a completely dysfunctional hypothesis. How about nitrogen, oxygen and argon hanging on to heat – you know like insulation does with all of the appropriate chemical properties like exceedingly poor ability to radiate energy away.when the only way for the earth to cool is radiating energy away. Exact opposite of deductive reasoning is being used to promote this scam and I detest the fact that some of you give any credence whatsoever to this absolute BS.
Much better to use Christy/McNider 2017 as the trend. It already removes the influence of ocean cycles and volcanoes. The UAH 5.6 trend was .096 C/decade. Apply that trend to UAH 6.0 and you have a trend of .078 C/decade.
However, this would not remove the effect of Arctic ice loss (AMO induced but not part of the AMO index) or what is called the recovery from the LIA (.025 C/decade). Once these are accounted for the trend becomes ~.033 C/decade.
In my mind that is the warming effect of the added CO2/CH4. This comes out to a climate sensitivity of about 0.5C.
” first to declare the global temperature anomaly for December 2017″
That is the temperature of the lower troposphere. But we do have a reanalysis-based result for surface temperature. It was up by 0.075°C from November. 2017 came in behind 2016, but ahead of 2015 and 2014.
As a Brit, I now know what the phrase, “look, squirrels” means. Thanks, Nick. If you were an angel you’d be dancing on a pinhead.
Rubbish
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Updates to Analysis (2003-2011)
April 12, 2010: It seems that USHCN is being replaced by an updated and renamed version every month.
Yes Nick is great at supporting scientists who look at several hundred studies, pick one that supports their hypothesis despite every single other one not supporting that hypothesis, doing sciency stuff from say a single tiny bay in China and then smearing every temperature record to date and then saying it’s sciency enough for me so all is good.
For those who claim the models in 1990 were lacking because of computing power, I ask you this: Why were the hindcasts so accurate, and forecasts so inaccurate.? They both utilized the same computer power.
What’s clear to any rational, objective person following this matter: the Chicken Little predictions had to be toned down because the outrageous claims were spectacularly wrong for nearly four decades. The other trend was to move the forecasts out to 2050, and then 2100, which effectively means they can’t be falsified.
“For those who claim the models in 1990 were lacking because of computing power, I ask you this: Why were the hindcasts so accurate, and forecasts so inaccurate.? ”
Oh, I don’t know but how about ….
They [knew] the state of NV in the past, as it had happened.
The future PDO/ENSO/AMO regime timing is not known.
And the error bounds of the IPSS AR’s GCM projections are what the obs should be expected to be confined to, as they encompass the individual model realisations of NV.
The mean averages them out.
That’s how.
[Granted, we knew they new the Territory of NV before they knew the State of NV in the past, but that doesn’t change today’s state of NV’s past. .mod]
A great job of cherry-picking, Lord Monckton. Not only did you start in a major El Nino year, but warming in the upper atmosphere during that El Nino was twice the warming at the surface. That didn’t happen during the recent El Nino – which is missing from your graph. Stop giving skeptics a bad name.
Did you actually read what this post is about?
“Stop giving skeptics a bad name.”
I think the penny’s dropping even with them.
Lord Monckton is still correct because removing the El Nino and corresponding La Nina shows cooling after, using the same timeline before the recent strong El Nino occurring later.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend
Actually Frank,
The Hiatus graph starts in 1997 PRIOR to the 1998 El-Nino … not cherry picking, just demonstrating a period of time greater than models predicted was possible for indicating no statistical warming. Given the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at the time and the fact that more than 30% of man’s contribution was during that same period of time.
Bryan A: It doesn’t make much difference whether one starts on 1/1997 or 1/1998. The 1998 El Nino actually was well under way by the summer of 1997, reached its peak in January 1988 and had faded out by the summer of 1998. For this reason, it is properly called the 97/8 El Nino. Other strong El Ninos last about one year from early summer to early summer.
The 97/8 El Nino was followed by an exceptionally strong La Nina, which lasted until 2001. All of 1997 was warmer than these La Nina years, so the cooler months of 1997 aren’t much cooler than the average for 1997-2000. For surface temperature (not UAH), the period with with the smallest warming trend actually starts in early 2001 when the cold La Nina years were over. This isn’t true for the UAH record, because the 1997/8 El Nino was so powerful.
The far from frank Frank uses the climate extremist trolls’ favorite tactic when confronted with the inconvenient truth that global warming is not occurring at anything like the predicted rate. He says the data I used are “cherry-picked”. No, they’re not: as usual in my temperature reports, I went with the first of the major datasets to publish the year-end anomaly, and that was UAH.
Furthermore, it should be obvious even to the dimmest mind that the rate of global warming – on all datasets – is a long way short of what was originally predicted by IPCC, and of what is still predicted by the CMIP5 ensemble of general-circulation models.
An enquiring mind would ask why the growing discrepancy between prediction and reality?
And IPCC AR5 had to arbitrarily reduce short-to-midterm estimates. This without a critique of the models nor a reduction in the similarly calculated out years.
Lord Monckton wrote: “He says the data I used are “cherry-picked””
Exactly. Figure 1 shows shows the full UAH record that is consistent with the idea that rising CO2 (and other factors) cause rising temperature. Figure 3 shows a cherry-picked subset of that record suggesting that that principle doesn’t apply.
First, nothing has changed. The physics controlling heat transfer into, out of, and within our planet has NOT CHANGED. The full record is the one that is most useful one unless you are asserting that physics has changed.
But the dirty tricks don’t stop there: 1) You left 2017 off of the shorter record. 2) You switched from UAH to an obsolete version of RSS (which the authors warned was problematic when you obtained their data). Today RSS says the warming rate for 1/1997-1/2016 is 1.42+/-1.15 K/century (95% confidence intervals from Nick Stocks accounting for autocorrelation). UAH – the record you certainly have the most confidence in – for the same period is 0.68+/-1.20. And if you add 2017, the UAH trend rises to 0.85+/-1.22.
Which brings me to the worst problem: The trend abstracted from two decades is highly uncertain. Over this short period, RSS and UAH are in agreement, even though the UAH trend is not statistically different from zero and RSS is significant. Translating these mathematical numbers into English produces confusion. How can to records be consist with each other, but only one show significant warming? The confidence intervals, which you ignore so you can make POLITICAL points by cherry-picking noise, tell scientists that these trends are too uncertain to be meaningful.
Unless you believe the physical principles governing our climate have changed in the last two decades, the only relevant trends is the full record: 1.28+-0.40 K/century for UAH and 1.90+/-0.40. Both show significant warming, but the likelihood that these trends are inconsistent with each other is roughly 95% (which wasn’t always the case in earlier versions). Abstracting a temperature record for the whole atmosphere from radiances measured from orbiting satellites is a challenging job. Near the surface, that temperature changes about 10 degC between night and day and the measurement time at different locations changes with orbital drift. There are a host of other problems. One group processing this data are passionate lukewarmers; the other are passionate “alarmists”. Until the merits of the choices made by each group have been debated in the scientific literature and hopefully resolved, we amateurs have no SCIENTIFIC reason for believing one vs. the other. Otherwise scientific uncertainty (which encompasses systematic errors as well as random noise) encompasses the full range of both analyses.
Surface temperature trends are less noisy: 1.74+/-0.25 for HadCRUT from 1/79 through 11/17. This record is mutually consistent with both UAH and a lot less noisy. If you MUST to say something about 1997 to present use it: 1.42+/-0.63 K/century. At least the confidence interval is a barely tolerable 44% of the trend over two decade, not roughly 100% as with satellite trends two decades long.
I can cherry-pick as cooling rates of -1.26 (UAH) and -0.50 (HadCRUT) K/century for 11/2001 to 3/2012. So what. Now add confidence intervals of +/-2.20 (UAH) and +/-1.06 (HadCRUT). It’s all noise. Even worse, we EXPECT 5% of data to lie outside the 95% confidence interval and there are about a thousand of periods from which to cherry-pick. The lowest 25 are meaningless.
Lord Monckton continued: “Furthermore, it should be obvious even to the dimmest mind that the rate of global warming – on all datasets – is a long way short of what was originally predicted by IPCC, and of what is still predicted by the CMIP5 ensemble of general-circulation models.”
Great! I agree. Show that data! With confidence intervals! This is a GREAT reason for being skeptical about the IPCC consensus. However, you never properly show this analysis. And the $%^&*(%% you do post destroys the credibility of those who recognize the real problem.
Two decade of cherry-picked obsolete data with negligible trend WITH A CONFIDENCE INTERVAL OF +/-1 K/century does not invalidate the physical basis of the greenhouse effect. And you know it! Stop being a politician about scientific subjects. As Schneider said – but didn’t do – “tell the truth, the whole truth with all of the ifs ands buts and caveats”. Or admit you aren’t writing as a scientist.
As usual, Lord Monckton has ignored a knowledgeable rebuttal. He wants the poorly informed to believe that the Pause proves that no enhanced GHE exists, when he almost certainly personally believes the opposite. Politicians don’t care why you support their preferred position, they just “want your vote”. And they will mislead you to get your vote. And bob and weave when confronted with the contradictions in their position. So I predict that my rebuttal will not receive a serious response.
Since this is a scientific blog, pointing out these problems is not trolling.
[??? .mod]
By the way I think that Nick is very good at math and science. understands the concepts, etc, but I believe his BS detector is warped.
” Just weeks later, Dr Carl Mears, the keeper of that dataset, who is prone to describe skeptics as “deniers”, announced that there would indeed be a revision, which, when it arrived, airbrushed the Pause away.”
Well, for a start, RSS V3.3 is still available and maintained here. But RSS datasets get revised regularly. V4.0 succeeded V3.3. About the same time, UAH brought out their V6.0, succeeding V5.6. The trends for all these sets for the period Feb 97 to Oct 2015 are, in °C/Century:
So the changes in UAH and RSS were about the same, in opposite directions. Nobody is tampering with data. It is a difficult calculation, and they both have trouble with it. The proper inference is, as Mears says, the surface datasets are more reliable. But not so good for a sometimes “Pause”.
Mr Stokes is, as usual, somewhat selective in his data. The inconvenient truth is that IPCC, which had predicted 0.33 K/decade medium-term warming in 1990, had reduced its medium-term warming prediction in 2013 to 0.17 K/decade. The reason: models were running hot and had not predicted the Pause.
The admittedly accident-prone Rajendra Pachauri admitted in February 2013 (if I remember correctly) that there was an unexplained Pause in global temperature. I shall soon hope to show the futility of continuing to claim that there was no Pause / Hiatus / Slowdown. It turns out that there is a reason why the models are all over-predicting future manmade warming. Watch this space.
“It turns out that there is a reason why the models are all over-predicting future manmade warming. ”
The main “reason” you are peddling Monckton is via comparing to a Tropospheric brightness sat temp series – which is not where the predictions were made for. We live on the ground.
It also has grave problems in it being the coldest and an outlier amongst all the available data.
“… the longest period of the Great Pause, which … ran for a spectacular 18 years 9 months”
Just old enough to vote . . then . . Brexit/Trump . . My Lord has an impeccable sense of timing, and a double edged sense of Humor, me thinks ; )
The calculations weren’t that difficult until they had to come up with excuses to modify the records one way or the other and use rotten extrapolations to modify their positions as needed. If you think that Dr. Mears would let a trend of -.003 degrees per century stand while calling others deniers then I think you need to think about what led to RSS 4.0 except the need to explain away such damaging info.
“The calculations weren’t that difficult”
Well, here is Dr Spencer explaining why they had to radically revise V5.6 to get to V6. See if you can explain to him why it is really not difficult.
Maybe you could sort out at least one part for him:
“After 25 years of producing the UAH datasets, the reasons for reprocessing are many. For example, years ago we could use certain AMSU-carrying satellites which minimized the effect of diurnal drift, which we did not explicitly correct for. That is no longer possible, and an explicit correction for diurnal drift is now necessary. The correction for diurnal drift is difficult to do well, and we have been committed to it being empirically�based, partly to provide an alternative to the RSS satellite dataset which uses a climate model for the diurnal drift adjustment.”
Also in 2011 John Christy was pretty convinced RSS was showing spurious cooling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
If “the science is settled” then why is it’s foundation, the actual data collected at the time, so bedeviled by “adjustments”?
To this layman it seems that the only thing “settled” is the desired conclusion … along with their desired solution.
The “science” should adjust to what has been observed, not the other way around.
“If “the science is settled” then why is it’s foundation, the actual data collected at the time, so bedeviled by “adjustments”?”
If you care to investigate you will discover why there are homogenisation’s and adjustments.
But as usual the fact that there are, is a motivation for conspiracy ideation here.
There is no greater adjustment made than to the Trop Sat data.
But that’s OK coz we’ll just “like” the coldest, eh?
Meanwhile feel free to look only at the un-adjusted surface record.
It’s available.
And it makes b***er all difference to the warming trend.
The science is “settled” in that …..
CO2 is a GHG.
Humans have increased it by an additional 40+%
H20 increases as a +ve feedback and accelerates warming.
The Stratosphere cools/is cooling.
It’s warming effect has been know of for ~150 years.
There is correlation.
There is physical theory/observation (inside the lab and in the real atmosphere).
All other possible causes have been examined and none have the 2 above.
IPCC projection say 1.5 to 4.5C warming per x2 CO2 concentration.
There will be greatest warming in the Arctic.
It’s not the Sun nor GCR’s nor EN’s nor undersea/ice volcanoes nor any other “squirrel”.
The OHC is relentlessly increasing …. the 93 odd % that is the heat reservoir of the climate system, irrespective of any putative “pause”.
That is what is settled.
Whether nearer 1.5 or nearer 4.5 is NOT settled.
All NV effects are not settled, but that evens out over the longer term as it’s cyclic, and will increasingly have a negligible effect on the trend as the GHE increases. EG: the “pause” should actually have been a proper cooling considering the lengthy -ve PDO/ ENSO regime during it. Did in the past. Not now.
“H20 increases as a +ve feedback and accelerates warming” has not been shown to the extent as postulated, Toneb, especially as reflected in the IPCC climate models.
Please note that measured atmospheric humidity levels are less than predicted. Additionally, the theoretical “mandatory” tropical tropospheric hot spot is nonexistent.
Do you agree with me, as Dr. Judith Curry did, that IPCC climate models are not sufficient for the purpose of fundamentally altering our society, economy and energy systems?
We need to get a grip and see how the next few years pan out.
I’ll repeat:
“If “the science is settled” then why is it’s foundation, the actual data collected at the time, so bedeviled by “adjustments”?
To this layman it seems that the only thing “settled” is the desired conclusion … along with their desired solution.”
Toneb,
“The science is “settled” in that …..
CO2 is a GHG.
Humans have increased it by an additional 40+% …”
So, that means about half the total warming effect to be expected by a doubling of CO2 levels since preindustrial times, is being experience by us today, right? Can you understand why a reasonable person might be skeptical of claims that we’re halfway to global catastrophe?
It’s the defamation of people who are skeptical (for one or more such seeming rational reasons) that makes it rather hard for me to believe that con-artists aren’t at least handling the PR portion of this climate crusade thingy . . And the lack of widespread denunciation of that PR crap, by the ones handing the science portion, then makes it rather easy for me to suspect those portions are “conspiring”, in some sense.
(Just so ya’ll know ; )
Dig deeper than high school physics. CO2 is a substantially saturated GHG. According to Modtran, there is no difference in the upward flux, i.e. transmission to higher atmospheric layers, between 400 to 800ppm up to an altitude of 300 meters.
At one meter altitude, there is no change in the downward flux, i.e. what would be warming the ocean, between 360 and 414ppm. At 415 downward flux jumps up a whopping .63 W/m2, at which level flux it remains unchanged until 474ppm. At 475 flux jumps .3watts and remains the same until 539ppm…
The gas has no dipole moment, unlike arctic outbreaks. Rotational transitions gather around the vibrations, and nearly half of the rotations DECREASE the energy of the molecule.
Since as you mention, CO2 seems to be cooling the stratosphere (part of the planet in my book), it is easy to understand why CO2 does not lead temperature at any time scale; from the variability around the modern trend of increasing atmospheric CO2, to the Phanerozoic.
The science is “settled” in that … CO2 is a GHG. Yes!!!
–
Humans have increased it by an additional 40+%.
No
not settled at all
40% in what time period and what human markers did you use?
What a ridiculous claim.
You might find a period [waiting] in which CO2 has increased 40% but there is no way of proving that it was all ever due to human activity.
H20 increases as a +ve feedback and accelerates warming.
H2O has a stabilizing effect in that the albedo of clouds also increases reducing the warming effect. The energy needed to keep the H20 going back into the atmosphere after precipitation [it does not want to stay, remember?] could well reduce [negative feedback] the actual amount of warming possible as well.
–
The Stratosphere cools/is cooling.
It’s warming effect has been know of for ~150 years.
–
There is correlation.
There is physical theory/observation (inside the lab and in the real atmosphere).
They do not match, TonyB.
That is why they look for observations, in the real world, matching theory in computers [labs].
They do not match, TonyB.
No hot spot, no CO2 rise linked to a steady temperature rise.
Did you ever hear of the pause?
Just the mention of it throws believers into fits and denial.
–
All other possible causes have been examined .
Rubbish. Have been ignored.
–
IPCC projection say 1.5 to 4.5C warming per x2 CO2 concentration.
Settled science has error margins of 300% .
That is not science, that is Augury.
–
There will be greatest warming in the Arctic.
Hard to argue with you there.
That’s a meteorologically explainable valid point.
Now meteorologically explain the Antarctic not following suit on your theory.
It’s not the Sun nor GCR’s nor EN’s nor undersea/ice volcanoes nor any other “squirrel”.
Not even combinations? Poor squirrels.
–
The OHC is relentlessly increasing.
Said like it is true and provable.
How do you measure a change of 0.001 C a year and have the audacity to say that it is valid provable and means something. Hint, You cannot.
Remember the missing heat?
Whether nearer 1.5 or nearer 4.5 is NOT settled.
See above, so true
All NV effects are not settled, but that evens out over the longer term as it’s cyclic
No, prove NV is cyclic.
If not prove that it moves between fixed bounds.
The mere fact that we have had Ice earth’s and virtually no ice earths show that the bounds are not settled and that natural variation does not always return to an even keel.
“CO2 is a GHG.”
It is not known if the relationship between CO2 concentration and terrestrial warming potential is monotonic.
“Humans have increased it by an additional 40+%”
Humans have increased it by a negligible amount. The rate of change is essentially proportional to temperature anomaly, indicating majority causation is in the reverse direction.
“H20 increases as a +ve feedback and accelerates warming.”
The available evidence for this assertion is highly questionable.
“The Stratosphere cools/is cooling.”
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
“It’s warming effect has been know of for ~150 years.”
It has been hypothesized for ~ 150 years. It is still not confirmed.
“There is correlation.”
The temperature series show a trend plus small variation. It is not difficult to get correlation when it’s basically a coin flip whether both series are going up, or going down. But, the fine detail between CO2 concentration and temperature anomaly only matches as an integral relationship.
“There is physical theory/observation (inside the lab and in the real atmosphere).”
Scalability has not been established.
“All other possible causes have been examined and none have the 2 above.”
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
“IPCC projection say 1.5 to 4.5C warming per x2 CO2 concentration.”
And, have said so for the last 30 years, with little narrowing of the brackets.
“There will be greatest warming in the Arctic.”
Conjecture.
‘It’s not the Sun nor GCR’s nor EN’s nor undersea/ice volcanoes nor any other “squirrel”.’
Conjecture.
‘The OHC is relentlessly increasing …. the 93 odd % that is the heat reservoir of the climate system, irrespective of any putative “pause”.’
Conjecture. Reliable data exist for less than two decades.
“It has been hypothesized for ~ 150 years. It is still not confirmed.”
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
Just the usual usual from certain denizens who can only have the noun most despised as their descriptor.
angech:
“40% in what time period and what human markers did you use?
What a ridiculous claim.
You might find a period [waiting] in which CO2 has increased 40% but there is no way of proving that it was all ever due to human activity.”
And what pray could it have been then?
Given that he (natural) carbon cycle is in quasi balance (over human time scales).
Just what injected that extra 40%?
Also the isotope relation shows that it came from fossil.
How does it work when the ph of the oceans is decreasing?
Such that the major sink is absorbing more than it can to keep balance.
“Not even combinations? Poor squirrels.”
No.
Because the GH forcing is constant and increasing.
NV isn’t (in the sense of constantly adding/ energy – the source is ultimately the Sun) and cannot overcome the above.
“If not prove that it moves between fixed bounds.”
“No, prove NV is cyclic.”
Oh, come on !
It is the movement of deltaT within the climate system.
Of course it moves between fixed bounds else we’d be violating the 2 LoT.
It must equalise out in the longer term.
As the flux dies with the exchange of T.
Are you suggesting that sucessive EN’s (FI) are dragging the GMT up?
NV can only redistribute and equalise …. but often cyclic such that “hysteresis” takes it back to another imbalance.
Imbalance is not a driver.
“How do you measure a change of 0.001 C a year and have the audacity to say that it is valid provable and means something. Hint, You cannot.”
Yes I have the “audacity” …. and the scientific community has also the “audacity” my friend.
Your likewise hand-waving “audacity” does not gainsay that I’d say, and so does common-sense that your “audacity” trumps (pun not intended) mine.
You do it over many years.
Look Angech … it gets a bit ridiculous with this constant dismissal of instrumental data …. except when it “confirms” cooling.
from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B%3AJOCE.0000038331.10108.79
“and adequately fulfilled the accuracy requirement of the Argo project (0.005°C for temperature and 0.01 psu for salinity). ”
And I do know that you and 99% of denizens are never going to agree with the consensus science, but that don’t matter a jot.
Just dont call the consensus science “audacious”.
Your DK is showing mightily my friend.
BTW: you are a much more “agreeable” “skeptic” over at ATTP.
Now why is that?
Toneb said, January 4, 2018 at 2:06 am:
I’m sure I’ve asked you this before: How exactly is this study an empirical confirmation of “the warming effect” of CO2? Where does it show in any shape or form that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes a warming of the surface below?
Toneb said, January 3, 2018 at 3:17 pm:
That’s exactly what it is. It’s specifically the Sun and not CO2. As clearly shown by the data:
Toney
“”It has been hypothesized for ~ 150 years. It is still not confirmed.”
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
Just the usual usual from certain denizens who can only have the noun most despised as their descriptor.”
Forgive me if I’m misinformed on this, but it’s my understanding that this study has been discredited on the grounds that measurements are taken from the depths of a La Nina to the heights of an El Ninio.
Nor am I convinced that a single study over the last 40 years of the claim that CO2 causes global warming is enough to base the entire planets economy on.
+1
“That’s exactly what it is. It’s specifically the Sun and not CO2. As clearly shown by the data:”
The world awaits with bated breath your Nobel prize winning paper my friend.
One that has eluded all the experts out there, but has been miraculously discoverd by a few denizens here.
You could go through the physics of it here … but how about you get it peer-reviewed by Leif Svalsgaard first eh?
Hotscot:
“Forgive me if I’m misinformed on this, but it’s my understanding that this study has been discredited on the grounds that measurements are taken from the depths of a La Nina to the heights of an El Ninio.”
New to me but no surprise as it is a bit of a blow otherwise to “contrarians”.
It was a study done over 10 years at two locations – the N slope of Alaska and the other in Oklahoma so two sets of overlapping data.
And no, the spectral analysis was done with WV as a control.
“Nor am I convinced that a single study over the last 40 years of the claim that CO2 causes global warming is enough to base the entire planets economy on.”
That’s OK, argument from incredulity is not a valid scientific argument.
And also why would moving to renewables (which is happening anyway) regardless of a certain POTUS – damage the economy? I see it as a steady progression as the tech develops. Chief among which is energy storage. Battery/capacitors. It will happen – there are developments in the pipeline.
Even clean coal if it can be done economically.
Toneb
Sorry, you are obviously incredibly informed scientifically on this matter, and I’m just a layman seeking answers.
But I’m surprised that as an informed observer you didn’t understand the failings of the study you cited and I did. I have no scientific qualifications, so how did that happen?
I might add that as far as I’m aware, other that this failed scientific study, the only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 on the planet is that NASA has observed it has greened by 14% in the last 30 years.
Again, forgive me if I’m misinformed, but that would seem by far and away the most meaningful effect, and it is undoubtedly positive, and unpredicted by alarmists. Not that I would accuse you of alarmism.
So as a laymans summary of the last 40 years or so, I have been assured of catastrophic events by the concencus scientific community, and the worst I have encountered is unanticipated global greening.
Can you please give me a time at which catastrophe will occur. And I do mean within a reasonable time scale, as I have been assured it will occur imminently, for the last 40 years, and I’m running out of time.
Much obliged.
Toneb said, January 4, 2018 at 2:23 pm:
So you couldn’t be bothered with actually looking at the plots provided? Or do you simply don’t understand them? Eh?
Do you understand the difference between TSI and ASR, Toneb? One is the “solar heat” to Earth. The other isn’t …
Toneb said, January 4, 2018 at 3:22 pm:
And again I ask: How exactly is this study an empirical confirmation of “the warming effect” of CO2? Where does it show in any shape or form that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes a warming of the surface below?
Toneb
“BTW: you are a much more “agreeable” “skeptic” over at ATTP.
Now why is that?”
I try to follow the house rules as best I can and people there are generally polite when I do.
–
We have radically different belief systems on whether AGW exists. I try to point out where people make what I feel are either wrong or overly motivated claims in defense of the positions they honestly believe in.
From my viewpoint you have done both in the past.
You raise the term DK “Your DK is showing mightily my friend.”
Fair enough as you would have felt offended by commentary pointing out [deliberate?] flaws in your arguments but still not agreeable. I could just as easily use the words noble cause corruption but people suffering that syndrome cannot recognize it as they know they are right.
–
pleasantries over.
Your reply to
“40% in what time period and what human markers did you use? You might find a period [waiting] in which CO2 has increased 40% but there is no way of proving that it was all ever due to human activity.”
–
was
“And what pray could it have been then?
Given that he (natural) carbon cycle is in quasi balance (over human time scales).
Just what injected that extra 40%?
Also the isotope relation shows that it came from fossil.
How does it work when the ph of the oceans is decreasing?
Such that the major sink is absorbing more than it can to keep balance.”
–
So no time period for the 40% increase?
Please specify the starting and ending years at least, I do not mind quibbles about 39.6 and 40.4 but I would like something better than (over human time scales).
Also re human markers?
You mention C isotope proof that the extra came from fossils ?
You forget that fossil fuel can also come from methane clathrates which turn into isotope CO2. Naturally.
Volcanic eruptions and heating of fossil fuels all over the earth mantle result in continuous release of isotopic fossil C as CO2 and methane, not presumed to be much granted, but we don’t know.
–
CO2 production varies immensely year to year depending on temperature and fertilization of the main vegetarian sources in the sea and the lesser ones on land dependent on rainfall. Hence it is possible that in an increasing, natural variation heated world over a 60 year period that natural CO2 production has increased dramatically. This is partially confirmed by satellites showing both greening and CO2 levels I suspect in recent times. You are aware of this but still insist that there is only one level of naturally produced CO2 and all the rest is human?
I grant that the isotopes show some is human related, being generous, but 40%?
Given you are using a fixed natural CO2 production over any period that you chose to claim, and claim the 40% increase can only be human, ignoring totally other cause of isotope C [shown] and natural CO2 increase [shown] your argument must be false and unprovable.
Not your argument of course, just the party line you thought no one could question. Sounds great on the surface until you look into it.
Now, those dates again, please?
“the GH forcing is constant and increasing”
cannot be both and third option does decrease regularly each year at times when the Manu Lau sawtooth goes down.
–
”NV isn’t (in the sense of constantly adding/ energy – the source is ultimately the Sun) and cannot overcome the above.”’
Cop out. You do not know what causes the natural variability, It does overcome the GHG effect at short times, the pause, and long times, iceball earth. The variability is due to what nature does to the sun, clouds, vegetation growth albedo, volcanic aerosols. Even fossil fuel burning is a form of natural variation.
–
“No, prove NV is cyclic.”
Oh, come on ! It is the movement of deltaT within the climate system”.
I like this answer a lot, nothing about proving cycles in there. Unless you add the kicker that there are fixed bounds. Which we know there are not. See above.
–
Of course it moves between fixed bounds else we’d be violating the 2 LoT.
–
Oops. So you consider the bounds fixed?
So humans producing CO2 cannot affect things as the bounds are fixed?
Or conversely humans can affect it in which case other natural things can affect the bounds as well. So the bounds are not fixed.
Two simple examples.
Stromatolites two and a half billion years ago put out O2 into our atmosphere changing the temperature and composition and bounds dramatically.
The albedo of the world can be changed by creatures of the earth and sea quickly and massively, even in human time scales.
Change the albedo, change the boundaries,happens all the time.
–
“Are you suggesting that successive EN’s (FI) are dragging the GMT up”??
Whatever are you angling at?
“cannot be both and third option does decrease regularly each year at times when the Manu Lau sawtooth goes down.”
Pathetically pedantic.
“Cop out. You do not know what causes the natural variability, It does overcome the GHG effect at short times, the pause, and long times, iceball earth. The variability is due to what nature does to the sun, clouds, vegetation growth albedo, volcanic aerosols. Even fossil fuel burning is a form of natural variation.”
It doesn’t matter what causes it other than it would be nice to know (if it s CYCLIC – as is the ~11 y Solar one).
As a kettle comes to the boil there are regions of differing temp being transported about but we don’t need to measure then as they will equalise out at 100C.
The 100C coming from electric element.
The (GMST of ~15C) comes from the Sun and whatever the PDO/ENSO/AMO does is akin to the boiling water evening out at 100C It does not violate the 2 Lot of the element switches off at that point.
No the ocean cycles (which is what I was talking about – as we know PDO/ENSO is THE major one affecting the GMT) don’t overcome the GHG on a global scale other than temporarily, because the effects are cyclic. Clouds, veg growth, albedo (other than seasonal) and volcanic are not NV in the sense I was referring. They are not cyclic.
““No, prove NV is cyclic.”
Oh, come on ! It is the movement of deltaT within the climate system”.
I like this answer a lot, nothing about proving cycles in there.
Unless you add the kicker that there are fixed bounds. Which we know there are not.
What??
Of course there are because (the fixed bound) is reached and the cycle wanes and reverses.
“Of course it moves between fixed bounds else we’d be violating the 2 LoT”.
–
“Oops. So you consider the bounds fixed?”
Yes for PDO/ENSO.
See above.
” two and a half billion years ago”
Again
What??
At last park the goalposts in the same town my friend!
“The albedo of the world can be changed by creatures of the earth and sea quickly and massively, even in human time scales.”
But no sign of it now ….
http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
“Earthshine and FD analyses show contemporaneous and
climatologically significant increases in the Earth’s reflectance from the outset
of our earthshine measurements beginning in late 1998 roughly until mid2000.
After that and to-date, all three show a roughly constant terrestrial
albedo, except for the FD data in the most recent years.”
“Whatever are you angling at?”
There are some that maintain that successive EN’s are driving up GMT’s.
I’m glad you think that is ridiculous.
Oh, and you didn’t answer.
Are there 2 angechs?
Because the one posting at ATTP appears rather more, shall I say – less vehemently dogmatic.
Now why is that?
“And again I ask: How exactly is this study an empirical confirmation of “the warming effect” of CO2? Where does it show in any shape or form that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes a warming of the surface below?”
There empirical results for converting the increased flux into forcing.
Using the B-L law of optical depth assuming a well mixed atmospheric constituent gas.
Sorry (if you intend to) I don’t argue against empirical science being wrong.
gymnosperm January 3, 2018 at 9:51 pm
The gas has no dipole moment, unlike arctic outbreaks. Rotational transitions gather around the vibrations, and nearly half of the rotations DECREASE the energy of the molecule.
CO2 does have a dipole, just not a permanent one, it spends very little of its time in a no-dipole state.
The transition from the ground state involves a change in both rotational and vibrational modes, all of them lead to an increase in energy of the molecule, none of them decrease the energy (the molecules are starting in the ground state, there’s nowhere but up)!
I never mentioned “conspiracy”.
Why did you?
PS An “homogenisation” is not an observation. It is a computer (or paper and pencil) guess at what an actual observation might have been if it had actually observed.
Because you said …
“To this layman it seems that the only thing “settled” is the desired conclusion … along with their desired solution.”
A “desired conclusion” sounds exactly like they “cooked-the-books” to get what they wanted. Which takes a conspiracy to achieve.
Homogenistaion is an attempt to level the playing field to compare apples with apples.
Why would you want (FI) TOBS to be ignored when it introduced a warming bias because of the occasions when the next day was cooler so the previous day’s max was recorded twice.
Shall we go back to that then and reintroduce the artificial warming trend?
Toneyb
“Homogenistaion is an attempt to level the playing field to compare apples with apples.”
To a layman like me, that would appear to be artificial averaging. Even I know that homogenisation allows only a momentary flirtation with the actual average to make it viable. The average temsperature of a boiling kettle is 50 degrees centigrade, yet in the 5 minutes it takes to boil it achieves that boundary once, momentarily.
Boil the same water in a can, and the result is the same. Boil oil in a kettle and the result is different, but the midway point is reached just as momentarily. Homogenise the two to compare apples with apples means the midpoint of each doesn’t change, but to compare apples with oranges, something must be distorted.
So whilst homogenisation is useful, it can’t be relied upon for a true picture. And whilst it seems to me it has a place in science, wholesale homogenisation of universally ill understood climate science is not where it should be applied and cited as reliable.
“So whilst homogenisation is useful, it can’t be relied upon for a true picture.”
Exactly – and it isn’t.
What it’s used for is as a stick for “contrarians” to bang on about “adjustments”, as though they were done with an ulterior motive. Rather than an attempt to construct a true picture of past temperature..
Use the un-adjusted then.
It makes not a jot of difference to the implications of what we see.
Or the science that is brought to bear in trying to unravel it.
I can tell that you have never seen an unadjusted actual temperature graph, otherwise you would not say it would not make a not of difference.
It looks absolutely nothing like any of the current land temperature datasets.
Toneb, I am not sure if you think that if you bombard posters with climate psuedo Science that you can shut them up.
It will not work, there are too many errors in the science.
Let’s take just one really stupid comment H2O in the Atmosphere is a Positive feedback mechanism.
More H2O equals more cloud, which equals more high energy Radiation not getting through to the Oceans.
Balanced by reduced speed of lower energy LWIR leaving the atmosphere.
You did see the graph posted on previous posts by others showing the much stronger correlation between clouds and reduced temperatures than there is between CO2 and increasing temperatures.
Tamperature. I guess when predicting climatic doom that must be a Floydian slip
Nick – In 1982 I developed a full 3D CAD/CAM program called PrintCADD 3D. I did it substantially in 8088/8086 assembler. It had its own language/ macros, virtually every drawing capability from 3d BSplines,and Bezier curves to virtually every type of dimensioning known, It had multiple windows showing multiple views from varying distances and perspectives. It had raytrace and 8 line buffering hidden line algorithms. I did it while working full time (managing a Radio Shack computer centre and teaching classes in Xenix). I later became what was known as an Automated Data Processing Officer and later Computer Systems Officer managing a massive data centre and producing logistic programs non-stop until my retirement last year (Virtual reality and physical warehousing on a scale where we talk millions of locations and half a million different line items and inventories of multiple billions of dollars in 20 acre warehouses up to 10 stories high all hooked up to dimensioning systems, weighing systems, sortation systems, boxing systems, material testing systems, picking and putaway systems and integration to massive financial and personnel systems as well as secret systems- I was also tasked with information systems security and procuring and maintaining military operations authority – accreditation ). During this time (28 years) I learned very well what was science and technology and what “pushing an agenda” was.
There is no doubt that things can need adjustment and rethinks and re-orgs but if you have to make it to version whatever 20 years later then it was not thought out very well or there is a manipulating hand in the works (especially considering our GPS systems should be able to nail down any drift of any type easily). I smell a rat that is never going to allow any thought except the consensus and Mear’s Chineses buckets are
the rats not diurnal drift calculations(pure math calculations with known science).
” I smell a rat that is never going to allow any thought except the consensus and Mear’s Chineses buckets are
the rats not diurnal drift calculations(pure math calculations with known science).”
And the various versions of UAH are not “the rats”….. which is the issue here as it is revered?
Oh, OK.
If you say so.
“if you have to make it to version whatever 20 years later then it was not thought out very well”
It isn’t primarily a coding issue. They have to patch together a constantly changing set of satellite platforms with varying instrumentation.. In the Spencer extract I quoted, he explains how they just couldn’t ignore the need for diurnal adjustment any more. Just one of many changes in the measurement system.
Well I had to change all of my infrastructure several times over my tenure but it still gave me the same results at the end of the day – just faster or in concert with new capabilities or compatibilitys. I guess we’ll just have to disagree on what adjustments are necessary and which aren’t. I’m hoping the Jason satellites will eventually tell the truth but I don’t have much optimism that their results won’t be explained away just as every other inconvenient truth is explained away.
MarkW:
“El Ninos have been happening for centuries, long before man began putting SO2 into the air”
Volcanoes also put SO2 into the air, and this SO2, as it settles out, can cause an El Nino
“rbabcock
January 3, 2018 at 5:40 am
Let’s get real here. Why are you showing temps to the hundredths of a degree C? When you know very well there is absolutely no way to measure the entire globe with that accuracy. Even the satellite 1. Doesn’t measure the entire globe…
It’s all Bullsh*t.”
If you measure on a certain station in whole °C steps, you get twenty or more degrees difference over one year. If you take the average of one year and compare it to then next year, you may get tenths of °C. Average over the complete globe puts it dow to even hundreds of one °C. Averaging and the resulting hundredths of degrees has nothig to de with exact measuring accuracy. It’s simply math.
The “no accurcy argument” is one of the skeptic arguments that don’t hold water. Yes I am a sceptic, but I try to avoid confirmation bias.
Just to get the complete picture:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/last:240/trend
Long term trend 158 years: 0.05°C per decade
Short term trend 20 years: 0.07°C per decade (and has been lower)
So what?
“Tamperature.”
Thanks, lordship, you’ve enriched the language.
“The least-squares linear-regression trend on the entire UAH satellite”
Sadly the least squares comment is irritating and redundant.
Surely we could just say the trend and append an asterisk.
It makes the comment more user friendly and except for the snark pseudo mathematicians who attack Monckton it could be left to the mathematics.
It may be that “angech” is not a mathematician or statistician: but it is usual to state the basis on which the trend-lines on a graph are calculated. In one of the Climategate emails, the unlamented Professor Jones recommended that one should use the least-squares linear-regression trend, and that is what I have done, and that, like it or not, is what I have said I have done. That’s how science works: get used to it.
“It may be that “angech” is not a mathematician or statistician: ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
Education MA in classics, 1974; diploma in journalism studies
Occupation Politician, journalist
“That’s how science works: get used to it.”
What you do Monckton is very far from science.
If your “pieces” were not enough evidence, you arrogant treatment of “(ahem) “peer-reviewer” confirms it.
Dr Carl Mears, the keeper of that dataset, who is prone to describe skeptics as “deniers”, announced that there would indeed be a revision, which, when it arrived, airbrushed the Pause away.
He’s going to have to do some more ‘tampering’ to adjust away the current freezing temperatures and the expected downward spiral in temperature.
Mr gbees
The clue is the “G” in “AGW”….
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat1_t2anom_1-day.png
That massive +3.6C anomaly represents -30C in that area.
That is really hot.
“current freezing temperatures”
As toneb shows, the US is not the world. Where I am, it was 41.7°C today.
Mr ToneB … temperature tampering going on in southern hemisphere also. Besides there is no such thing as a global temperature.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/09/two-decades-temperature-data-australia-not-fit-purpose/
the reason for the adjustments is to be able to do apples.to.apples comparison with oranges, pineapples, rutabagas, coconuts, carrots, arugula, cabbages, sycamore balls, rambutans, anchovies, reddish green bean bran, dirt bean worm rat turkey ham (i can trace the origin to the source but it’s not ‘dinner table’ conversation), aspartame, hawafeena and civet coffee.