Video: What’s wrong with the surface temperature record?

This was a surprise to me. A previous presentation I made on the issues with the surface temperature record got turned into a video.

From the YouTube description: Anthony Watts, founder and editor at wattsupwiththat.com, explains why the oft-reported surface temperature record is inaccurate, misleading, and an insult to proper science.

Some graphics in this presentation are from Tony Heller from realclimatescience.com

Bonus video:

A few years ago I was interviewed for PBS News Hour, which caused a lot of liberal heads to explode.

241 thoughts on “Video: What’s wrong with the surface temperature record?”

1. TonyL says:

Kewl!

Anthony:
Very well done, indeed.

• Greg says:

Yes, very short and too the point. Excellent presentation.

• Ilfptm says:

interesting

2. Steven Mosher says:

You took it down and Never shared the data?

Its been over 6 years!

At the same time you withdrew your paper, Gergis withdrew their paper for a data mistake caught by readers.

They have since published.
you have not.

Over six years ago I requested the data.
Still no data

I request again. Even for a small SAMPLE of the data, not the whole dataset but a small SAMPLE
of every type of station: crn1 to 5.

Over 6 years ago this is what I said

https://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/#comment-345389

My concern has come true

my post

“But Hu.

1. Anthony has put it out for blog review and cited muller as a precedent for this practice. that practice included providing blog reviewers with data.

2. Anthony brought Steve on board at the last minute even though hes been working on this paper for a year. Steve has a practice as a reviewer of asking for data. Since we bloggers are asked to review this, we would like the data.

3. if, they want to release the data with limitations, that is fine to. I will sign a NDA to not retransmit the data, and to not publish any results in a journal.

4. You have to consider the possibiity than Anthony and Steve could now stall for as long as they like, never release the data and many people would consider this published paper to be an accepted fact.

Steve: Mosh, calm down. this is being dealt with.”

6 years
6 years

[the paper was never “taken down”, it’s right here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/ -mod]

• ossqss says:
• sycomputing says:

Cute cats. I immediately compared them to research scientists begging for taxpayer dollars. If that was your intent, very clever!

• Greg says:

Ringing the alarm bell , instant reward. Pavlovian training for climate scientists.

Then of course, there’s also adversion therapy for “denier” scientists who will not conform.

• John Tillman says:

Mosh,

Had BEST a shred of academic honesty and normal decency, it would never even have published its cooked book pack of lies.

• Anthony Banton says:

Now why would they have done that? (BEST)
The study was funded by the Kochs and went against their preferred outcome.
They blew up a lot of follow-up funding didn’t they with their “cooked book pack of lies”.

• Greg says:

The funding was gained on the initial claims that it would be project involving proponents from both sides in an attempt to get a more broadly accepted result.

Unfortunately having involved people like Judith Curry and Anthony Watts in the “BEST” project, Muller eventually pulled the rug on the common ground work and made results public without warming and without prior consent of the other parties.

So , yes, they probably blew that funding avenue but doubtless got lots of other activist sources which made it a more profitable ( though, less honest ) move.

• Anthony Banton says:

“…. in an attempt to get a more broadly accepted result.”

For that to occur – then ergo there would have had to be something other than data to come to that “accepted result”.
Data speaks for itself and doesnet need “proponents from both sides”.
Unless you argue fraud.
It seems you are.
Even though the result would have been known by all parties, regardless of being made “public without warning”.
“they probably blew that funding avenue”
Yep and one hell of one too.
“but doubtless got lots of other activist sources which made it a more profitable ”
SO entrepreneurial these “warmunists”.
Total bizarre logic my friend.

• Latitude says:

I don’t believe the Kochs are on the side you think they are…………

• Craig says:

“Unless you argue fraud.”

You could also argue data quality, flawed methodology, etc.

• Craig says:

“Leftists assume that everyone else is as corrupt as they are.”

No, leftists claim others are corrupt like they are as a means of cover – it’s straight from the Alinsky playbook. They know full well it’s a lie.

• ATheoK says:

“Anthony Banton September 22, 2018 at 2:21 am
The study was funded by the Kochs and went against their preferred outcome.
They blew up a lot of follow-up funding didn’t they”

Both statements are straw man distractions and a smoke/mirrors/’hand waving’ avoidance of John Tillman’s statement.

A) C) Anthony Banton apparently smears BEST by citing Koch Brothers funding. Banton’s implication is funders have influence on the results
* i) Feel free to demonstrate and fully document this “influence”.

* ii) Why not mention all of BEST’s funding sources? Then, Banton can imply that each of those funders influenced results.

* — e.g.; “Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation”: Where Koch Brothers provided funding only in 2010, the Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation donated substantial funds over multiple years.

“Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation is primarily known for providing “Support primarily for symphonies, opera companies, and educational institutions

What was their influence on BEST results? Embedded music?

* — Banton ignores the note on Berkeley Earth Financial Sources:

“* Note: All donations, except for the Energy Foundation grant, were provided as unrestricted educational grants, which means the donor organizations have no say over our activities or what we publish. All of our work and results are presented with full transparency.”

B) Show us exactly where Koch Brothers have listed their “preferences”;
* i) especially as regards to temperatures.

C) Show a list of blown-up “follow-up funding”.
* i) Don’t forget to include explicit rationale provided for refusing to provide “follow-up funding”. Not speculation.

1) Your and Steve’s hand waving distractions utterly fail to address the problems in BEST and BEST’s problems.

* i) Anthony shared Surfacetations data with BEST.

* ii) Making Mosher’s whine about “shared the data” a hand waving bizarre distraction straw man.

* iii) Steve points out that Gergis, had since published their withdrawn paper. Then Steve uses this to whine about Anthony “you have not.” published the “Surface Stations” paper.

* * a) Steve ignores and misconstrues the fact that SurfaceStations paper is available and published online!
* * – i) Of course, Steve maintains that experiencing the biased corrupt peer review gauntlet is essential for research. A claim that ignores repeated revelations demonstrating peer review corruption and how restrictive the “peer review” process is.
Steve’s whine about “published” ignores “peer review process” failures to advance science and improve submitted documents. Instead, “peer review” rewards pals and blocks or punishes non-pals.
e.g.; The libelous career assassination paper this past year “Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy“ by a curious group of authors. Providing an excellent example of collective peer review abuse and failure, including complicit publishers.

* — Anthony, has ignored and bypassed the notoriously biased, and frankly, corrupt “pal review” research papers publication channels.

* — SurfaceStations is published and easily online for all to read, without having to “purchase” access.

* * b) Steve’s ‘Gergis published’ statement ignores all of the problems in Gergis published paper, earning Gergis various appelations, including;

“The re-appearance of Gergis’ Journal of Climate article was accompanied by an untrue account at Conversation of the withdrawal/retraction of the 2012 version. Gergis’ fantasies and misrepresentations drew fulsome praise from the academics and other commenters at Conversation. Gergis named me personally as having stated in 2012 that there were “fundamental issues” with the article, claims which she (falsely) said were “incorrect” and supposedly initiated a “concerted smear campaign aimed at discrediting [their] science”. Their subsequent difficulty in publishing the article, a process that took over four years, seems to me to be as eloquent a confirmation of my original diagnosis as one could expect.”

2) BEST should focus on temperature accuracy without Press Release antics.

Whines about “publish” and “Koch” funding are spurious and specious.

• Reg Nelson says:

Well said.

Two other points:

1. No traditional mainstream journal would publish the BEST paper. They had to pay to have it published on an online, startup internet journal based in India. The parent company of this journal is now under criminal investigation.

2. Richard Muller claimed he was he was skeptic that was converted. However, video later surfaced showing this was a lie.

• MarkW says:

Leftists assume that everyone else is as corrupt as they are.
They know that none of them would fund a study unless the results were guaranteed ahead of time.

• MarkW says:

henry, some questions are so stupid they are self refuting.
First off, there is no such thing as a high quality surface station.

Secondly, there are huge differences between the northern and southern hemisphere.

Thirdly, averaging the latitutudes of the stations that you select is a meaningless exercise. 10 stations is a desert and 10 stations in a tropical forest may average to the same latitude, but they don’t tell you anything worth knowing.

• Tom Halla says:

Latitude is meaningless even for fairly short distances. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay area, where what mattered for temperature in summer was how many ranges of hills were between the place and the coast. SF proper could be 65F, Lafayette (one hill away) 80F, and Stockton 95F, all roughly on the same line of latitude.

• Tom

By looking at the rate of change, i.e. the derivative of the least square equation [e.g regression over the past 40 years} you eliminate a lot of error’ for example due to the particular situation of the station.

• Mark
Your questions are relevant and I do have answers. But first you should think of a reasonable explanation for me for difference in the rates of warming between nh an sh. You claimed that my theory is incorrect.
That is the warming of 0.24 K per decade in the nh and cooling of – 0.14 K per decade in the sh.
That is for Tmin global over the past 4 decades. I chose Tmin as this is relevant to AGW theory.
54 weather stations with good daily data. 27 in each hs.

• MarkW says:

PS: Being a skeptic, assuming the results are correct is the last thing I would ever do.

• Gil says:

Prithee, what is BEST?

• Reg Nelson says:

Berkeley Earth Science Temperature (BEST) project.

Richard Muller, the founder and director, claimed he was skeptic.

“Asked if it’s really accurate to say he was ever a sceptic, Muller replies: “I have considered myself only to be a properly sceptical scientist. Some people have called me a denier – no, that’s completely wrong. If anything, I was agnostic.”

As mentioned in my previous post this was proven not to be true. Muller went on massive PR campaign before the BEST paper was peer reviewed or published.

• John Tillman says:

Anthony Banton,

I thank other commenters for saving me the need to reply.

• Philip Schaeffer says:

Mod said:

“[the paper was never “taken down”, it’s right here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/ -mod]”

Does it include the rest of the data and methodology that would be necessary to replicate the work? I believe that’s what Mosher wants.

• Gary Pearse says:

There is nothing sophisticated in the paper. Not everybody generates their data with mathematical models which somehow have come to he believed necessary to write a paper these days. The data is basically in the photographs of temperature stations on tarred parking lots next to a barbecue and in the tailrace of an airconditioner, or sooted up from jet engine exhaust at a major airport, or broken down grey Stevenson’s with missing slats!

The detractors know this but argue they need the ‘code’. The criticisms from Mosher and Stokes at the time were that the conditions of the stations don’t make any difference to the temperatures, that they ran the numbers and proved the stations could be fallen down, run over by a firetruck or blown away by a 747 and it doesn’t change anything! As a scientist and engineer, I’m appalled at the cavalier treatment of data and justifications of the temperaturesmiths of the Anthro Gоёбеlls Warming brunch.

• Philip Schaeffer says:

So does that mean you could replicate their work with what they have published?

• Gary Pearse says:

You could do it yourself with a camera and the readily available NOAA stations data. NOAA itself must gave agreed with Anthony because they immediately ran around and took down the worst stations. Anthony greatly improved the US network and received no prize for the most monumental piece of work done on climate science (all by self funded volunteers). Each and every official station in the USA was photographed and categorized as to status using NOAAs criteria. That will be more than hakf the worlds thermometers!

• Philip Schaeffer says:

I could do it myself?

Are you saying that the photos that were used in the creation of this paper aren’t being made available along with the paper?

• Reg Nelson says:

“@ Philip Schaeffer September 22, 2018 at 8:31 pm
I could do it myself?

Are you saying that the photos that were used in the creation of this paper aren’t being made available along with the paper?”
—–

They (the photos on station site data) were all crowd-sourced and posted online.

You’re free to to do your own study. I encourage you to do that and report back with your results. Will you?

• Philip Schaeffer says:

Reg Nelson said:

“They (the photos on station site data) were all crowd-sourced and posted online.

You’re free to to do your own study. I encourage you to do that and report back with your results. Will you?”

Can you provide a link? I’ve looked through the files provided here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

and I can’t see them.

Am I missing something? Were they published with the paper or not?

• Juan Slayton says:

Philip Schaeffer: So does that mean you could replicate their work with what they have published?
….
Can you provide a link? I’ve looked through the files provided here…
and I can’t see them.

Philip, I’m not sure, but it seems to me that the data Mr. Mosher wants was contained in the surface stations photo gallery at this address:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=20
As you can verify, this site is temporarily down for maintenance. ‘Temporarily’ at this point has lasted for months, and I don’t know when, if ever, it will be back up. Not sure what maintenance is needed, although I have a lengthy list of corrections that should be made to my own contributions. I have offered to drive up to Chico in person to do that if it would expedite anything.

Gary Pearse: Each and every official station in the USA was photographed and categorized as to status using NOAAs criteria.

Well, not quite. We got most of them, but there are a few left.

• steven mosher says:

steve mc provided the code.
anthony provided the first version
of his ratings, but not the second.

he published his paper on the web, took it down when we found a simple problem.
continues to reference it, without publishing his new ratings.

6 years ago i predicted he would never share this data, even under a nda.

the ratings dont judt pop out by looking at a photo. judgement is used

• Philip Schaeffer says:

This seems to get to the heart of the issue.

Steven Mosher said:

“continues to reference it, without publishing his new ratings.”

So, is this true, or if not, can someone point me at the ratings Mosher is talking about?

• Michael Jankowski says:

Mosh has made this false claim about the paper being “taken down” many times over the past 6 yrs. One of his many drive-by fibs.

• John Endicott says:

one of his drive by fibs that he’s been corrected on several times over the years, yet he still makes the fib. tells you all you need to know about Mosh.

• steven mosher says:

what i want is a sample of the station rating data.

simple.

30 samples of crn 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

• Philip Schaeffer says:

From the discussion linked to by Steven Mosher.

“A. Scott: Watts “surface stations data classification” is the result of applying Leroy (2010) siting standards to the existing readily available station data. Not a thing I can see to stop you from duplicating his work and verifying or disproving his results.

[b]One thing that would stop us from verifying his results is that he has not provided a list of the USHCN that he has classified, the classification that has been assigned, or the methodology used to make the assignation.

The fact that Google has aerial imagery, that Leroy 2010 explains a new classification scheme, and that USHCN provides its station data freely to the public does not somehow make Anthony Watts’ refusal to provide the station ids that he used, or to provide the Leroy 2010 station classifications that he used, and or the methods used to make that classifcation in his paper more palatable. Hide the data; hide the code! 😆[/b]

Steve: I agree that there is little point circulating a paper without replicable data – even though this unfortunately remains a common practice in climate science. It’s not what I would have done. I’ve expressed my view on this to Anthony and am hopeful that this gets sorted out. Making the data set publicly available for statistically oriented analysts seems far more consistent with the crowdsourcing philosophy that Anthony’s successfully employed in getting the surveys done than hoarding the data like Lonnie Thompson or a real_climate_scientist.

It would have been nice if you’d spoken out on any of the occasions in which I’ve been refused data. You are entitled to criticize Anthony on this point, but it does seem opportunistic if you don’t also criticize Lonnie Thompson or David Karoly etc.”

Steve at the end there is Steve McIntyre, who did some work for the paper.

So, has this been provided or not?

• Fred250 says:

“Over 6 years ago this is what I said”

NOBODY cares what you said anymore, SM

You have lost all credibility.

• Philip Schaeffer says:

Fred250 said:

” NOBODY cares what you said anymore, SM

You have lost all credibility.”

Have you actually read the discussion that Mosher provided a link to?

In your own words, what is the complaint about what is missing, and if Mosher is wrong, then could you provide a link to the data in question that would prove he is wrong.

3. Tom Halla says:

Good presentation.

4. reallyskeptical says:

[snip]

• reallyskeptical says:

snip? I guess you don’t like Nick Stokes.

[no, Nick has nothing to do with it. We don’t like your unfounded accusations -mod]

• reallyskeptical says:

guess you don’t like Nick Stokes.

[no, Mr. Stokes has nothing to do with it. It’s about unfounded accusations you made from behind a fake name and email address created only to comment here -mod]

[update: “really skeptical” is just another sockpuppet name from the previously banned “piipenkool” -mod]

• reallyskeptical says:

I thought you didn’t ban people? Such fakes.

[see our policy: https://wattsupwiththat.com/policy/ sockpuppetry, i.e using fake names such as you have done to get around moderation, makes YOU the fake. -mod]

• Alan the Brit says:

You’re an idiot! Even your name directly implies the opposite of what you believe, a classic tactic of a troll/activist!

• Tom Halla says:

Naah. He just selected his handle in the same way as the American Cancer Society.

• beng135 says:

3 snips in a row…. Someone should be banned.

• Craig says:

Don’t ban him – just force him to go back to calling himself pippen kool. That would be much worse.

• Cube says:

It’s Griff! It’s Griff!

• Sheri says:

He’s reincarnated? Wondered what became of him.

5. Sidney Somes says:

I have read much about the uncertainty or magin of error in temperature records, and how margins of error are rarely admitted in climate papers. I especially liked this climate paper that claimed a margin of error in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index of .46%
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.21.8.969

I wonder if Anthony can save me the trouble of looking for his figure if he has one on the margin of error, although I doubt if any number can be truly accurate at least an estimate would be interesting. If it is half a degree it pretty much wipes out all the warming over the last 150 years.

• TonyL says:

.46% ??
OK, I see. 0.46 deg. C.
The author makes some points. First GAST is (at least the early portion) a hot mess. That is *global* average going back to 1880.
Just one point, very sparse coverage across the entire southern hemisphere, particularly in the earlier part of the record. So we expect the error bars to go “floor to ceiling”.

On the other hand:
We may be going too far to say we can not show any warming at all, particularly in the 1880-1940 time frame.

• Ed Reid says:
• The actual margin of error for surface “temperatures”
is impossible to know
goobermint authorities just say +/- 0.1 degrees C.
even though most measurement instruments
are +/- 1.0 degree C.

When a majority of our planet’s surface has
no thermometers, so goobermint bureaucrats
just make up the numbers, how would anyone
calculate a real margin of error?

Wild guess infilled numbers are never verified
and can’t be falsified.

The remaining numbers are also not real data
— they have been “adjusted” at least once,
and possibly dozens of times — after any
“adjustment”, you no longer have real data
— what you have is a personal opinion
of what the data would have been if measured
accurately in the first place.

In summary the surface temperature average
contains no real data — just wild guesses
and adjusted raw data — so how would it be possible
to state a margin of error for that pile of BS?

I give them a +/- 1 degree C. margin of error
since there are no other honest answers.

My climate change blog,
with over 25,000 page views:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

6. Anthony, this type of surprise is fantastic. Let’s hope The Heartland Institute keeps the surprises for you coming.

Cheers,
Bob

7. Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

USCRN reports two “surface” temperatures, 2.0 meters above the ground.
One is a physical T/C, thermistor, RTD.
The other an IR instrument which is total trash.

8. WXcycles says:

10 years old and a bad design, faulty engineering analysis and poor construction is instead blamed on “climate change”. It couldn’t be that they just stuffed it up, all by themselves? Oh no, it was unexpected snow and rain!

SNOW

Whocouldaknowd?

Doomsday Vault needs to plug leak caused by climate change
ABC Steven Schubert

And their credibility swirls further around the S-bend.

Someone buy them a mop and bucket.

• beng135 says:

Hilarious. Did they build it w/the expectation that the vault would never be subjected to any liquid water?

9. S Geiger says:

Obviously Mosher has a legit gripe. Is there any response? Is anyone at all interested in reasoned debate?

• hunter says:

You used two things in one sentence that seldom seem to go together.

• Phillip Bratby says:

“Is anyone at all interested in reasoned debate”? Ask the BBC. The science was settled many years ago – the BBC won’t allow debate.

• Anthony Banton says:

It wont allow a debate on “if” and “why” no.
Because that is settled.
Sorry.
What isn’t is to what degree.
Debates on that are fine.

• hunter says:

Please give examples of the debate between the consensus of apocalyptic climate change and those who believe that that climate change is actually mild with many benefits.

• Anthony Banton says:

“consensus of apocalyptic climate change ”
That is an invention of naysayers.

The IPCC is the consensus and it says 1.5 to 4.5C x2 CO2.
That’s as far as it’s settled.

Not individuals or sensationalising media doing what they do.
The bit where we know that it’s warming and anthro CO2 is doing it is settled.
Not that it’s the Sun, or Cosmic rays or EN.

• M.W.Plia says:

“The bit where we know that it’s warming and anthro CO2 is doing it is settled.”

IMHO this statement is a good example of where alarmists get opinion confused with fact.

The additional man-made CO2 raises the ERL to a colder altitude thus delaying the radiative cooling process ergo surface temperatures must increase to reestablish equilibrium. The science is not in question, that much is “settled”. How much it warms is the debate.

So man’s additional CO2 does increase the optical path of outgoing longwave terrestrial IR. To what extent this light speed radiative “delay” disturbs the equilibrium so as to increase surface temperatures and supposedly change the climate is unknown and not in evidence. There are estimates ranging from next to zero to the IPCC’s range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. increase to the mean per atmospheric doubling of the ice-core measured pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels.

Furthermore, the 0.5 degree C. attribution of the late 20th century warming to Anthro CO2 is nowhere near affirmed. The academic emphasis on CO2 seems to have removed the importance of the scrutiny required for the dismissal of the other arguments……Cloud cover variance, ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) in combination with the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and the AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation), variances in solar activity and irradiance, libration’s impact on the magnetic fields and Earth’s orbital mechanics including the subtle changes of insolation in response to the Precession nutations….to name a few.

What “evidence” there is amounts to extrapolations of short term trends apparent in the instrumental record, numerical models, comparing the mush of proxy data with instrumental temperature data and treating the taxpayer funded academic “consensus” as truth.

The Catastrophic AGW hypothesis is nothing more than supposition, a concept without the empirical evidence required to support the investments to fight the “imagined” impacts.

• Don says:

I might add that this “consensus,” which is supposedly the consensus of evidence, has instead morphed into the consensus of computer models. Computer models are much weaker evidence than are physical experiments.

Does anyone need reminding that the IPCC is primarily a political, not a scientific, organization? It’s right there in the name, and the fact that they cherry-pick science for policy reasons (i.e., to blame warming on mankind) makes it no less political.

• MarkW says:

IPCC said it.
I believe it.
That settles it.

• hunter says:

It is the climate consensus that climate change is the largest problem facing humanity and is an existential crisis.
Stop avoiding a reasonable question.

• Gordon Dressler says:

M.W.Plia, above you posted: “The science is not in question, that much is “settled”. How much it warms is the debate.”

No. Even the basic science of what extent atmospheric CO2 content affects the “average global temperature” (disregarding exactly what that phrase means, as long as it is calculated the same way, more or less) is obviously not established.

One only need consider the following two facts in evidence:
FACT 1: global temperatures had a statistically significant and noticeable DECREASE over the 35-year period of 1940 to 1975. During this time mankind released globally about 22% of the total of all man-made CO2 emissions up to today.
FACT 2: The most accurate measurements of the changes in average global temperatures (Argo diving ocean sensors combined with satellite temperature measurements of ocean and land masses) show there has been very little, if any, statistically significant increase in Earth’s average temperature over the 18 year period, starting in 2000, discounting the 2015-2016 El Niño transient . . . and NONE of the world’s best climate models predicted this “pause” in global warming. But during this time period, human activities released approximately 35% of the total of ALL man-made CO2 emissions up to today.
Over these time periods, measured annually-averaged atmospheric CO2 levels were rising along a continuous and smooth curve. So, clearly, CO2 emissions, whether natural or mankind-originated, are not the dominant factor controlling Earth’s surface temperatures.
QED.

• Bob boder says:

The only consensus is that climate does change over time after that there is little true evidence of how or why

• M.W.Plia says:

Gordon Dressler, the CO2 effect is demonstrated in simple, static, homogeneous systems such as Tyndall’s bottles of glass, but in a complex, heterogeneous, dynamic system like the real world’s climate we have yet to determine its significance. Although there are thousands of academic studies supporting AGW’s existence there is yet one confirming its magnitude.

CO2 is a radiatively active molecule, it is IR resonant at an amplitude around 15 microns. As a result the planet’s atmospheric energy balance at its top is influenced by the additional CO2 of fossil fuel combustion…common knowledge. Now, how much? To what effect? who knows?…Out of thousands of papers regarding AGW’s influence there is yet one confirming its magnitude….again, common knowledge.

We are actually in agreement. GHE significance is likely close to zero (IMHO), which is probably why so little work has been done to elucidate the conditions that give rise to a damage threshold and also why so little empirical information has been generated about its magnitude.

• beng135 says:

Anthony Banton sez:
The bit where we know that it’s warming and anthro CO2 is doing it is settled.

Oh yes, certainly. Just like some ancient cultures “knew” that their sins & the resulting displeasure of the gods were the cause of warming & massive flooding during the end of the last glacial period, and that sacrificing virgins/burning witches/etc would solve it.

• MarkW says:

It really is fascinating how the modern warmers actually believe they can hide all the wacky predictions by members of their team by just denying they ever happened.

• Gordon Dressler says:

M.W.Plia, while it does seem that you and I agree in principle about CO2 not being a significant driver of global warming, I believe you overlooked a keep point of my previous post: we have indeed “run the experiment” and obtained objective scientific data in a complex, heterogeneous, dynamic system like the real world’s climate.

The “experiment” has been conducted on the whole Earth for at least the last 148 years (somewhat arbitrary starting point of 1870) wherein CO2 in the atmosphere has been measured to have increased from about 290 to about 410 ppm (a 41% increase). And we have the measured “global average temperature” response to this change in atmospheric CO2, as I noted in my previous post. Please note that in my post I did not include the period of global temperature decrease from 1180 to 1910 because (a) as Anthony Watts noted in the video, scientifically reliable temperature measurements really weren’t available until after 1890, and (b) as of 1910, mankind had released less than 5% of the total amount of human-originated CO2 emission up to present day.

So, the absence of correlation between rising CO2 levels and “average global temperatures” for the 35-year and 18-year periods, as I noted, demonstrate in the real complex Earth environment that atmospheric CO2 content simply cannot be the dominant driver of “average global temperature”. This is objective data. One does not need to appeal to balances of forcings, to complex supercomputer models, to paleoclimatology proxies and research, or to a variety of theoretical causes or actual historical cycles . . . the data is just there for all to see.

Now, if one wants explanations for the 1940-1975 cooling period and the 2000-2018 pause in the overall warming trend (i.e., what dominated Earth’s temperatures during these periods), that is separate matter.

• Gordon Dressler says:

Ooops . . . typo; meant to say “. . . I did not include the period of global temperature decrease from 1870 to 1910 because . . .” (typo was “1180” instead of “1870”)

Mods: I sure hope the edit function is restored soon . . . I miss it greatly 😉

• Gary Ashe says:

Show us one from the BBC you Leftist sophist.

• Robert from oz says:

And then there’s the proof .

“These results confirm theoretical
predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic
emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels,
mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration,
are affecting the surface energy balance.”

Not sure how they get away with guesses being empirical evidence , maybe there should be a few more should , could , may , to leave us in no doubt .

• Craig says:

Anthony Banton,
Who exactly is it that gets to decide what is an isn’t “settled?” Is there a list of their names? Is there a formal process for settling? What’s the process for unsettling? Or, is settling forever regardless of new information? What does “settled” mean anyway? A precise definition would be helpful. I’m unclear on exactly how much empirical evidence can be ignored under the definition of “settled?”

• Don says:

What is settled?

The theory of CO2 warming holds that CO2 raises the emissions height, therefore CO2 emits at a cooler temperature, and since emission varies to the fourth power of temperature less IR radiation can escape to space and the earth consequently warms. Have I got that right?

OK, where is the proof that IR radiation at TOA has decreased? Because I haven’t seen any graph that shows diminished IR radiation at TOA, and if it’s too small to measure then I say we can all stop worrying about the supposed heat trapping and find some real problems to tackle.

• MarkW says:

Why is far from settled.

• Craig says:

“Why” hasn’t even been asked yet by mainstream climate “science”…

• drednicolson says:

Ours is not to wonder why
Ours is to be taxed then die

• Read the mod note. Then ask if anyone is at all interested in the truth. Mosher certainly is not – are you joining him?

• Don says:

But I think Mosher’s request for data is legitimate, and the fact that the paper is still available (but as I understand, unpublished) is irrelevant to the request for the data upon which the conclusions are based.

Maybe we can get some clarification on all this?

Don132

• Philip Schaeffer says:

• Don says:

If Anthony’s analysis is correct than this is powerful ammunition provided that it has shared data to back it up.

That said, the alarmists have an amazing ability to twist everything around so that it follows the consensus theory, proving that they’re really more concerned with defending a paradigm than they are with facts.

But lest the non-alarmist side is accused of the very same defensive stance, transparency of the data used to prove conclusions is important in getting the real facts out there and in establishing credibility.

Don132

• Philip Schaeffer says:

But yes, the request is completely reasonable, and so far has been met only with excuses from others on behalf of Anthony.

• Scott Bennett says:

What data!
Mosher’s request is just misdirection. The analysis was based upon the affect of station classification. The figures are linked from the paper, and the data is USHCN raw and NOAA adjusted. There is nothing more to provide accept half a brain! 😉

• Gary Pearse says:

They data is in photographs of egregiously inadequate conditions, siting and state of repair that a butcher a baker and candlestickmaker are fully qualified to understand and be appalled at what we neasure temperature with! Measuring the thickness of some of the detractors of the most important climate science project ever done is even more impossible than arriving at a representative temperature trace with 5he tools at hand!

• Don says:

Thank you for explaining. I’m familiar with the photos, etc., but thought there was more to it than that. So then it appears that Mosher is asking for something that makes no sense.

Don132

• bearman says:

They know this but they are just here to troll.

• Philip Schaeffer says:

So, can you give me a link to the pictures in the creation of this paper?

• Philip Schaeffer says:

I’m curious to know exactly what you think Mosher is asking for?

From the discussion he provided a link to:

“A. Scott: Watts “surface stations data classification” is the result of applying Leroy (2010) siting standards to the existing readily available station data. Not a thing I can see to stop you from duplicating his work and verifying or disproving his results.

[b]One thing that would stop us from verifying his results is that he has not provided a list of the USHCN that he has classified, the classification that has been assigned, or the methodology used to make the assignation.

The fact that Google has aerial imagery, that Leroy 2010 explains a new classification scheme, and that USHCN provides its station data freely to the public does not somehow make Anthony Watts’ refusal to provide the station ids that he used, or to provide the Leroy 2010 station classifications that he used, and or the methods used to make that classifcation in his paper more palatable. Hide the data; hide the code! 😆[/b]

Steve: I agree that there is little point circulating a paper without replicable data – even though this unfortunately remains a common practice in climate science. It’s not what I would have done. I’ve expressed my view on this to Anthony and am hopeful that this gets sorted out. Making the data set publicly available for statistically oriented analysts seems far more consistent with the crowdsourcing philosophy that Anthony’s successfully employed in getting the surveys done than hoarding the data like Lonnie Thompson or a real_climate_scientist.

It would have been nice if you’d spoken out on any of the occasions in which I’ve been refused data. You are entitled to criticize Anthony on this point, but it does seem opportunistic if you don’t also criticize Lonnie Thompson or David Karoly etc.”

So, has the information they are talking about been provided or not?

• Philip Schaeffer says:

Sorry, forgot the link to the relevant discussion.

https://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/#comment-345389

Steve commenting at the bottom of that quote is Steve McIntyre who helped with some of the statistical analysis for the paper.

So, Have I completely missed it, or has that data not been provided?

• mike the morlock says:

Hello, S Geiger
No, in this instance, Mosher does not have a legit gripe. Mr Watts produced evidence, which is superior to, ah, “data”.
Data is for when you lack actual evidence.
Think about it for awhile, you may or may not get it. If, you do not in the end understand the supremacy of evidence, you should switch to employment that requires nothing more complicated of you then answering the question ” do you want fries with that”.

michael

10. Walter Sobchak says:

Anthony. I loved it.

11. Really great presentation by a a competent man in the weather business. Thank you.

12. ggm says:

Anthony !! Good to finally see and hear you !

13. Joe Born says:

The problem we laymen have is that we can’t trust the experts and it takes too much time to verify this stuff.

For example, Mr. Watts uses Tony Heller’s results in that video. I’m inclined to believe that Mr. Heller’s raw numbers are good and selected well. But I don’t know that for sure, and I’ve caught him so filtering the data as to arrive at one conclusion when exactly the opposite conclusion would have resulted if he’d used a filter that’s only slightly different.

And the fact that Mr. Watts runs all those silly Christopher Monckton posts but refuses to run rebuttal posts tells you all you need to know about his grasp of the math and logic. (By my count he’s run seven on Lord Monckton’s latest theory, which, even if you accept his numbers and what he says about how climatologists arrive at high ECS projections, boils down to a bad way to extrapolate.)

So the critical thinker is forced to suspend judgment until he’s downloaded all those data and replicated the processing himself.

(Gee Joe, Greg and others (including you) manage to be allowed to debate with Monckton over a hundred times in one thread that reached 1,000 comments. The Viscount went out of his way to answer you and other dissenters well over 100 times too, many times being thankful in his replies, but sometimes he gets aggressive when people get personal with him, which isn’t surprising when temper rises in a heated debate for a while) MOD

• Greg says:

Beyond the usual fawning , Monkton’s claims usually get a fairly rude and critical reception here, which is as it should be. The kind of critical ‘peer review’ so badly lacking in the PR literature.

This sites also reports on a huge amount of published, alarmist, work.

• Joe Born says:

Much of the reason for the fawning responses (e.g., “Game over”) is that Lord Monckton has gulled Mr. Watts’s readers, many of whom don’t have the wherewithal to analyze what Lord Monckton says. Yes, opposing comments do appear. But it would benefit readers much more if Mr. Watts would allow head posts that use diagrams, etc. to lay out where the errors lie.

Electrical engineers, for example, could illustrate how a “test rig” would actually prove just the opposite of Lord Monckton’s premise about perturbations. And I submitted a post that diagrams his theory’s mathematical errors.

But Mr. Watts has refused any posts critical of Lord Monckton’s theories that I’ve proposed since Lord Monckton took to calling me a liar in response to my taking him to task at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/01/some-updates-to-the-monckton-et-al-irreducibly-simple-climate-model/ for avoiding any meaningful explanation of how he obtained the values in his “transience fraction” table. (He incredibly purported to derive from Gerard Roe the proposition that the early response of a system with no feedback would exceed that of one whose feedback is modestly positive.)

So, yes, Mr. Watts does run a lot of posts that show how silly alarmists are. But he could further serve the skeptic cause by also showing that we police our own. At least in Lord Monckton’s case, he seems unwilling to do that effectively.

Let me be clear. I’m not alleging any bad faith on Mr. Watts’s part; I think he honestly believes the stuff that Lord Monckton dishes out. But the fact that he’s unable to recognize how ludicrous Lord Monckton’s theories are makes me wonder how good his judgment is in other areas. I’d love to be able to rely on people like him and Tony Heller to give me the straight skinny on the temperature record. Unfortunately, experiences like these make me reluctant to trust them.

• Philip Schaeffer says:

Joe Born said:

“Much of the reason for the fawning responses (e.g., “Game over”) is that Lord Monckton has gulled Mr. Watts’s readers, many of whom don’t have the wherewithal to analyze what Lord Monckton says. Yes, opposing comments do appear. But it would benefit readers much more if Mr. Watts would allow head posts that use diagrams, etc. to lay out where the errors lie.

Electrical engineers, for example, could illustrate how a “test rig” would actually prove just the opposite of Lord Monckton’s premise about perturbations. And I submitted a post that diagrams his theory’s mathematical errors. ”

That, precisely.

• Craig says:

“Much of the reason for the fawning responses (e.g., “Game over”) is that Lord Monckton has gulled Mr. Watts’s readers, many of whom don’t have the wherewithal to analyze what Lord Monckton says.”

Interesting comment. It has much broader application to the climate change scam in general. I’ll fix it for you.

Much of the reason for the fawning responses (e.g., “the science is settled”) is that climate “scientists” have gulled reporters, many of whom don’t have the wherewithal to analyze what the alarmists say.

• Joe Born says:

Both things can be true.

And they are.

• Gary Pearse says:

Joe Born, I sympathize with your point on the face of it and know you have much to contribute on WUWT topics. You must agree that you have not been barred from presenting your criticisms. Long and numerous responses were faithfully published – enough to get your points across for those knowledgeable in this narrow subject.

Two things: It had become a bitter slanging match. I was a bit disappointed in Monckton’s incivility at the time and you got a few licks in, too. Giving over the pulpit for more of the same didn’t seem a good idea to inflict on the reader I would say. The argument had become purely an electrical engineering one and I think its going pretty far anyway to employ this phenomenon holus bolus in detail as a proxy for what is going on in climate (I’m an engineer BTW). If we were to collide with a bolide a thousand km in diameter, Im sure the feedback wouldnt be limited by the Bode equation. Nor would initiating a nuclear explosion. Bode is a nice analogy, no more.

Finally, you seem to have missed that Anthony didn’t make this video. It was a surprise to him. The inclusion of Tony Heller should have been a clue to this.

I’m sure we will see you back on this imperfect site. There is no where else to go for an intelligent person who wants to spout on climate

• Joe Born says:

“You must agree that you have not been barred from presenting your criticisms.”

Actually, I don’t agree. But you may be missing the big picture, because in my mind that isn’t the more-important question.

Lord Monckton had always been loose with the facts. Until last winter, though, that seemed fairly harmless. But then he inserted himself in a lawsuit that could have hobbled my country’s energy industry. With a Heartland Institute lawyer listed as one of their attorneys, he, Willie Soon, Matt Briggs, David Legates, and others filed one of the worst briefs amicus briefs I’ve ever seen, and I made my living as a lawyer, so I’ve seen some stinkers. Fortunately, it seems the judge largely ignored it.

But what if the judge had taken it seriously and had been of a mind to rule on the substance? He saw the Heartland Institute as well as several prominent skeptics all propounding the crazy theory that Mr. Watts has run seven head posts on now and that has been the subject of at least two YouTube videos. And in one of those videos Lord Monckton has Will Happer saying of Lord Monckton’s work, “I like this paper.”

Will Happer, for Pete’s sake.

All these prominent skeptics seemed to have signed on to that preposterous notion that it’s “grave error” to calculate by way of perturbations rather than entire quantities—as EEs would say, with small-signal rather than large-signal quantities.

Apparently the judge has studied engineering, and any reasonably bright engineer would see in fairly short order that this is nonsense. Yet these prominent skeptics all seem to have signed on to it. This, it could have appeared to the judge, was the caliber of skeptical thought. Think of what a disaster that could have been.

So Lord Monckton has gone from being harmless to being a menace.

Look, Lord Monckton’s vitriol doesn’t much matter to me. Again, I made my living as a lawyer, so that’s pretty much just another day at the office. True, I find it a little frustrating that Mr. Watts won’t run one post of mine in rebuttal to seven of Lord Monckton’s.

But the real issue isn’t whether I get my say or not. The issue is this. Mr. Watts, who runs the top skeptic web site, had a choice to run true and/or false head posts on the subject. He chose to turn down the one true one and ran seven that are objectively false. So he’s further promoting Lord Monckton as the face of climate skepticism and stifling a full airing of the issue.

If you don’t find that disturbing, you haven’t comprehended the stakes.

• sycomputing says:

“But the real issue isn’t whether I get my say or not.”

You started out criticizing Mr. Watts for using “Tony Heller’s results in that video,” which at least is on topic for this article. But then very quickly you moved away from the topic at hand to an obvious ad hominem dig at Mr. Watts for not publishing that which you wish for him to publish:

“And the fact that Mr. Watts runs all those silly Christopher Monckton posts but refuses to run rebuttal posts tells you all you need to know about his grasp of the math and logic.”

What does Mr. Watts’ grasp of mathematics and logic have to do with his factual research on temperature stations? What does Lord Monckton have to do with this article? It doesn’t appear Lord Monckton is at all involved in the original work having to do with this article is he? Yet you proceeded to count all of the “silly Christopher Monckton posts” on his latest theory:

“(By my count he’s run seven on Lord Monckton’s latest theory…)”

We’ve already seen how you’ve lamented the lack of publication of your own.

And it would appear all your angst has to with the fact that all of the rest of us (including Mr. Watts) are just too stupid to understand the Satan that is Lord Monckton.

Except of course, for you:

“Much of the reason for the fawning responses (e.g., “Game over”) is that Lord Monckton has gulled Mr. Watts’s readers, many of whom don’t have the wherewithal to analyze what Lord Monckton says.”

“Let me be clear. I’m not alleging any bad faith on Mr. Watts’s part; I think he honestly believes the stuff that Lord Monckton dishes out. But the fact that he’s unable to recognize how ludicrous Lord Monckton’s theories are makes me wonder how good his judgment is in other areas.”

“Lord Monckton’s going “out of his way to answer” is actually his insulting our intelligence with erudite-sounding nonsense that he just makes up to impress folks who don’t understand the substance.”

“It seems to have escaped your attention that most of us who actually do know the subject…”

If you understood the substance your view of the discussions would be quite a bit different. As it is, this site is helping to propagate what’s objectively false.”

Let me be the first to thank you for bringing the arrogance of your brilliance to the fore in this thread.

Thus, you’ve started in criticizing subject matter that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand. Why? What else should the critical thinker (such as you’ve argued yourself to be) reason with regard to your comments here today, other than exactly the opposite of that which you claim above, i.e., that the real issue is indeed whether you get your say or not?

It would appear you’re certainly making a good go of it right now wouldn’t you agree?

• Joe Born says:

“The argument had become purely an electrical engineering one.”

If that’s what you think, I invite you to take a look at the last slide in the last of the seven posts that Anthony Watts has run for Lord Monckton, at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/, where Lord Monckton says, “Here’s the end of the global warming scam in a single slide.” That slide shows that his error is really just high-school math, not electrical engineering.

I hasten to add that this is only one of three fundamental errors in his theory.

The first error is that the large ECS estimates bruited about are not arrived at in the way that Lord Monckton claims as the “grave error.” Roy Spencer points out Lord Monckton’s own error in this regard, and I’m pretty sure Dr. Spencer is right. But I don’t have the wherewithal to make that case myself.

The second error is that, even if the earth could be characterized by such a thing as equilibrium temperatures, the values Lord Monckton uses for his with- and without-feedback equilibrium temperatures aren’t correct. If Lord Monckton’s accuracy on other things is any guide, I think this is indeed an error, and I believe others have made that case somewhere. But it’s not one I can creditably make myself.

However, the third error is one that requires no particular expertise to detect. It’s just math; all it takes is a certain analytical ability. The reason most people seemed to find it hard to detect is that Lord Monckton so effectively hid what he was doing (even from himself, I believe). But that slide finally boils things down to their essence, and it reveals that what he was doing is bad extrapolation.

The slide sets forth the correction he proposes to what he calls climatology’s “startling error of physics.” $E$ and $R$ in that slide are the with- and without-feedback equilibrium temperatures that he previously referred to as $T_\mathrm{eq}$ and $T_\mathrm{ref}$. That slide’s $A$ is the (large-signal) slope of $E$ as a function of $R$, a slope that he previously referred to as $1/(1-f)$. (Here $f$ is the “feedback factor,” i.e., the product $\mu\beta$ of the open-loop gain $\mu$ and the feedback coefficient $\beta$.)

In the post I proposed, I graphed $E$ as a function of $R$. That is, I plotted the points $(R_1,E_1)$ and $(R_2,E_2)$ that the slide sets forth. What the slide does is tell how Lord Monckton would extrapolate the $E$ value, call it $E_3$, for what we’ll call $R_3\equiv R_1+\Delta R_2$. The resultant $\Delta E_2\equiv E_3-E_1$ is what he concludes ECS is. Specifically, he would use the large-signal slope $E_1/R_1$ or $E_2/R_2$ as the extrapolation slope. The “grave error” he says “climatology” made was instead to use $\Delta E_1/\Delta R_1\equiv (E_2-E_1)/(R_2-R_1)$ as the extrapolation slope. (Of course, he obscured this by not describing it in terms of extrapolation or slopes.)

But what his approach implies is that the slope of $E$ (a.k.a $T_\mathrm{eq}$) as a function of $R$ (a.k.a $T_\mathrm{ref}$) is expected to fall abruptly from the 1.43 value it’s known to have in the first, $[R_1,R_2]$ interval to 0.50 in the contiguous, $[R2,R3]$ interval. In contrast, what he characterizes as the climatology approach would employ the known slope as the contiguous interval’s slope. In other words, the climatology approach is standard linear extrapolation, whereas his theory boils down to bad extrapolation.

It is only at this point that the engineering stuff comes in. Lord Monckton believes that his remarkable conclusion is dictated by what he characterizes at 9:10 into the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcxcZ8LEm2A as “the standard equation that control theory uses,” namely, $T_\mathrm{eq}=T_\mathrm{ref}/(1-f)$. Again, $1/(1-f)$ shows up in the slide as $A$, the average slope. As I pointed out in a nearby comment to Michael Moon, this is a naive reading of control theory. It uses large-signal values where engineers really would use small-signal ones.

It is this error with which he has apparently infected people like Willie Soon, Matt Briggs, and David Legates. It is this error that by treating Lord Monckton as a responsible representative of skeptical thought Anthony Watts has made appear the level at which skeptics tend to think. It is this error that prompted me to propose a post that would reduce the issue from engineering to high-school extrapolation.

And it is Mr. Watts’s apparent failure to comprehend even this high-school math, which I understand, that makes me wonder about his judgment on things like processing temperature data, which I haven’t dealt with.

• Joe

Again, must say that as a chemist your whole argument is immaterial [to me]. Anyone can see that the spectrum of CO2 has also absorptions in the sun’s spectrum, leading to cooling. In fact, there are even absorptions by CO2 in the UV which is how we can currently identify and quantify it on other planets….As M.W.Plia correctly pointed out, the Tyndall and Arrhenius experiments were closed box experiments so it does not prove anything. Looking at what we get deflected by the moon [by the CO2 ] I would say that on balance the net effect is that of cooling rather than warming. Or perhaps it is close to zero, as M.W Plia also suggests.

Nobody has come up with a net effect, showing how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the very slight increase in CO2 as M W Plia also correctly pointed out.

Anyway, you are OT here as on this post we should be speaking about weather stations. Perhaps try and sort things out with the good lord in private?
How much has Tmin fallen at the weather station near you in the last few decades? That might be important to know if you want to form an honest opinion about whether there is or whther there is no man made global warming?

Click on my name to read my final report on why I became skeptical of AGW

• Don says:

Joe Born:
Wow! is all I can say (almost.)
I have no idea if you’re right or if Lord Monckton is right; I can’t understand the math.
But I will say that it doesn’t surprise me at all that you’ve noticed a bit of bandwagon thinking that goes on at WUWT and is very disappointing. This bandwagoon thinking has in some cases replaced real thought and objective consideration. My example would be adiabatic auto-compression, and yes I use what might be the most confusing way to express this idea, deliberately, just to provoke knee-jerk and unthinking reactions. Yet thinking about the effects of atmospheric pressure is a simple and elegant way to think about what’s happening with our atmosphere in terms that are fairly concrete, if we consider that this adiabatic auto-compression is the equivalent of having about 20 grand pianos on top of each of us as we lie down– and yes, I can do that math, at least.

That’s my two cents and maybe that’s all it’s worth; I’m not proud and my only concern is with what’s true and reasonable, not with what I think must be or with some theory I feel I must defend, or some bandwagon I feel I have to climb on board.
Don132

• John Endicott says:

“You must agree that you have not been barred from presenting your criticisms.”

Actually, I don’t agree

seeing all the critical/ad hom posts with your name on them just in this sub-thread shows that you are not barred. That you think otherwise speak volumes about you, not Mr Watts or his policies.

• Gerald Machnee says:

***For example, Mr. Watts uses Tony Heller’s results in that video. I’m inclined to believe that Mr. Heller’s raw numbers are good and selected well. But I don’t know that for sure, and I’ve caught him so filtering the data as to arrive at one conclusion when exactly the opposite conclusion would have resulted if he’d used a filter that’s only slightly different. ***
You caught him?? Sure. Let us see the proof.

• Joe Born says:

Sorry, but I’m afraid my Twitter-searching ability isn’t equal to finding where I tweeted my reply to him about how sensitive the conclusion was to his averaging period; it was probably more than a year ago. (I just now tried the from:, to: filter, but it came up empty, yet I can locate recent occasions when I have indeed replied to his tweets.)

If you know the right magic Twitter commands, I’d be happy to try again.

• Joe Born says:

To the anonymous moderator who responds in boldface:

I appreciate you moderators’ work and all the effort it takes to keep this site going. With all due respect, though, your comment illustrates my point: what you view as Lord Monckton’s going “out of his way to answer” is actually his insulting our intelligence with erudite-sounding nonsense that he just makes up to impress folks who don’t understand the substance. And what you seem to look upon as getting personal with him is merely our pointing out that what he’s saying is indeed nonsense.

There are matters of opinion, like whether the numbers he takes from the literature mean anything or not. And then there are matters of clear fact, like the feedback mathematics. That math is a well-studied and -understood discipline. And several of us commenters actually understand it. I personally had made of study of it already when Lord Monckton was still an adolescent.

It seems to have escaped your attention that most of us who actually do know the subject went into these discussions initially trying to help Lord Monckton with a subject where he clearly is in over his depth. It was Lord Monckton who started the unpleasantness. But instead of taking the opportunity to learn something from people who know what they’re talking about he responded by telling us we’re contemptible or liars.

If you understood the substance your view of the discussions would be quite a bit different. As it is, this site is helping to propagate what’s objectively false.

• Bob boder says:

Joe Born

Your thin skinned personnel grudges have totally worn thin. Please find a new venue for your endless fueds.

• kribaez says:

I looked in detail at Monckton’s argument for the first time as a result of the WUWT article in July:-https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/30/climatologys-startling-error-an-update/

There are a large number of arguments to support the view that climate sensitivity is low. Monckton’s argument is not one of them. The paper itself is founded on a series of grotesque misconceptions. Now, I don’t have any personnel (sic) grudge with anyone, nor have I engaged in any fued (sic). Objectively, the article itself and the largely supportive comments on the article leaves the reputation of WUWT severely damaged. It stands as a monument of stupidity which can be pointed out with glee by every passing warmunist activist – hey look at the monkeys. It really is as bad as that. If Anthony wants to retain credibility on (or in this case restore credibility to) this site, he needs to encourage a rebuttal post in my not-so-humble opinion.

• Joe Born says:

And that damage is so avoidable.

All he needs to do is have someone with the requisite ability vet head posts for a minimal level of mathematical and logical coherence. Sure, a cursory review wouldn’t necessarily have stopped Lord Monckton’s first post. But after the first one Mr. Watts had plenty of notice that Lord Monckton’s theory needed scrutiny.

Many commenters pointed out its obvious flaws. Roy Spencer dedicated a blog post to debunking it. Steve McIntyre’s comment should at least have alerted Mr. Watts to the possibility that he needed to tighten up his game. As if none of that had been clear enough, moreover, I went to the trouble of drawing him pictures.

And this time I didn’t make the mistake I made in my posts about Lord Monckton’s “irreducibly simple climate model”: this time I didn’t mistakenly aim the proposed post at the level of audience I was accustomed to addressing professionally (mostly high-tech companies’ scientists and engineers). This time the proposed post was just high-school math and diagrams.

To me, that’s the frustrating part: the willful ignorance. Unless whoever makes those decisions is worse at math than I care to imagine, they’d have seen the problem right away if they’d actually read what I sent them. From the comments I get, though, my impression is that they ignored it because they’re just too small-minded to imagine my being motivated by the common good rather than a feud or personal grudge.

Sure, I don’t like having my work ignored. But Mr. Watts can spite me if he wants without continuing to treat Lord Monckton as a responsible skeptic spokesman. There must be rebuttal posts other than mine he can run. (Hint, hint.)

It’s all just so avoidable.

• sycomputing says:

Still whining from the schoolyard sandbox, Joe?

“And that damage is so avoidable.”

What damage? It’s been two months now. This is the most read climate change blog in the entire world. Surely by now your “fears” have been found to have come to fruition, no? Do point to some examples of how this blog’s reputation has been damaged, if you would.

“From the comments I get, though, my impression is that they ignored it because they’re just too small-minded to imagine my being motivated by the common good rather than a feud or personal grudge.”

Given you’ve been tried and convicted as a liar, and then also given that according to you, everyone’s too stupid to understand your work, what should you reasonably expect? Come along now Joe you’ve told us how you’re one of our betters when it comes to critical thinking and here you go again making another logical mess of yourself.

Since when is anyone able to trust a liar to also be for the common good, or to be for anything “good” at all?

After all, didn’t you say you made your living as an attorney convicting the ilks of thee?

• Don says:

Joe’s complaints seem reasonable, and let’s note that the fatal flaw that Lord Monckton has allegedly uncovered has had zero impact on general opinion, yet if so obvious and blatant it might have made headlines around the world. It seems there’s some disagreement over whether or not Lord Monckton’s ideas are as clear and distinct as he believes they are.

I find that Joe’s general complaint about this site– that it is at times uncritical– is valid. Sometimes it does exactly what it accuses alarmists of doing: defending theory or opinion rather than thinking critically and objectively.

That said, I appreciate the ideas and the forum. I can do without the name-calling and personal attacks.

Don132

• sycomputing says:

“Joe’s complaints seem reasonable, and let’s note that the fatal flaw that Lord Monckton has allegedly uncovered has had zero impact on general opinion, yet if so obvious and blatant it might have made headlines around the world. It seems there’s some disagreement over whether or not Lord Monckton’s ideas are as clear and distinct as he believes they are.”

I grant the argument for the sake of it.

“I find that Joe’s general complaint about this site– that it is at times uncritical– is valid.”

Given his behavior in this particular thread. Do you also find him to be a liar as well?

If not, why not?

• Don says:

sycomputing
Calling someone a liar is pretty strong. Misguided or mistaken, maybe, but “lying” I think is going too far.

Throwing around accusations like that is pretty careless.

Don132

• Joe Born says:

Don: “Misguided or mistaken, maybe, but ‘lying’ I think is going too far.”

I might add that there’s a mind-bogglingly simple way for someone who’s interested in substance rather than name-calling to prove I’m “misguided” or “mistaken” if indeed I am.

At https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/21/video-whats-wrong-the-the-surface-temperature-record/#comment-2466417 I showed how six numbers Lord Monckton provides in his “end of the global warming scam in a single slide” dictate the implausible result that less than half a percent change in temperature causes the slope of with-feedback temperature as a function of without-feedback temperature to decrease abruptly from 1.43 to 0.50.

One need only show (1) that my arithmetic is wrong or (2) that such a bizarre result is required by, as Lord Monckton puts it at 39:30 into the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebokc6z82cg, “the mathematics of feedback in all dynamical systems, including the climate,” which “comes from electronic circuitry.”

Either one would do.

• Don says:

Your logic certainly is dazzling, I’ll give you that. I admit that I’m defeated. Congratulations.
Don132

• Don says:

Joe,
As I’ve mentioned before, math isn’t my strength so I have no way to know if you’re right or wrong. My comments did not assume you were wrong; if I had to guess, I’d say you’re probably right.

What really bothers me is insulting comments like from sycomputing that lean heavily toward personal attacks.

Don132

• sycomputing says:

“I might add that there’s a mind-bogglingly simple way for someone who’s interested in substance rather than name-calling to prove I’m “misguided” or “mistaken” if indeed I am.”

There you go again. You just can’t help yourself, can you? You’ve made quite the substantive case against yourself as has been shown here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/21/video-whats-wrong-the-the-surface-temperature-record/#comment-2466867

And since I am correct in my assessment of your character, why should anyone care whether you’re right or not? I would argue they shouldn’t! I would argue you should be summarily dismissed, both now and in the future, regardless of the veracity of your claims.

Not for spite, mind you, but rather for the sake of decency.

• sycomputing says:

“Your logic certainly is dazzling, I’ll give you that. I admit that I’m defeated. Congratulations.”

Thanks so much for interjecting yourself into the conversation, Don. Your contribution has been invaluable.

• sycomputing says:

“What really bothers me is insulting comments like from sycomputing that lean heavily toward personal attacks.”

Attacking the man rather than the argument, Don?

And such as that after such as this:

“I find that Joe’s general complaint about this site– that it is at times uncritical– is valid. Sometimes it does exactly what it accuses alarmists of doing: defending theory or opinion rather than thinking critically and objectively.”

Well done, Don. Congratulations to you as well.

• Don says:

As I said, you win.

• sycomputing says:

“It stands as a monument of stupidity which can be pointed out with glee by every passing warmunist activist – hey look at the monkeys.”

Could you point to any such example by a warmunist activist you’ve viewed so far? This site is the most viewed blog on climate change in the world, hence, surely by now (it’s been two months), someone, somewhere has noticed “the monkeys.”

“If Anthony wants to retain credibility on (or in this case restore credibility to) this site, he needs to encourage a rebuttal post in my not-so-humble opinion.”

Why not yourself? You’ve noted the paper is “founded on a series of grotesque misconceptions.” You seem especially concerned about the reputation of Mr. Watts.

Do submit a proper rebuttal will you? If you will not, why won’t you?

• Joe Born,

“Feedback” in electrical engineering involves Amplification, when the signal is small and the output is large. Squeal in an auditorium from the microphone too close to a speaker is the traditional example.

Nothing like this happens in the climate, as the signal is Large, known as Sunlight, and the outputs are small to non-existent, think of the Atmosphere warming the Surface of the Earth, completely impossible.

Many electrical engineers pointed this out on that thread. Monckton was trying to beat so-called “Climate Scientists” at their own game, which is simply a mugg’s game.

It was all non-scientific. Goodness, there goes another 100 Billion Dollars….

• ” in the climate, as the signal is Large, known as Sunlight”
No, Sunlight is not the signal. It is the power supply. Amplifiers do not amplify the power supply (how could they?). They amplify variations in input.

• Is the output from a microphone smaller than the output from a speaker? Feedback happens when the amplified output is received by the signal, anyway according to Professor Scott at the U of Michigan. Amplifiers amplify the signal.

Power supply is used to amplify the signal. That is why the speakers and the microphone both must be plugged in. It is easy to see why the Automatic Control analogy fails with climate.

Also, positive feedback creates a runaway disaster, every time. Amplifiers saturate, things break, Galloping Gerty collapses, the audience runs screaming from the auditorium. There is no such thing as Diminishing Returns with positive feedback.

Don’t you actually know all this? Are you paid to baffle them with BS??? You are not baffling me…

• And permit me to expand on that: IF increased CO2 produced increased temperature which produced increased ocean temperatures increasing water vapor, which increased atmospheric temperature, which increased ocean evaporation which increased water vapor, which produced increased atmospheric temperature, this is a runaway, oceans would boil and we would all be dead. There is no other kind of positive feedback known to science, as you know.

Just how dumb do you think your audience might be????

• Philip Schaeffer says:

Michael Moon said:

“Feedback happens when the amplified output is received by the signal”

Feedback happens when the amplified output is fed back to its own input and added to the input signal. A signal doesn’t receive anything.

• Joe Born says:

Michael Moon:

Not really. Even Christopher Monckton doesn’t make that mistake. He goes by what he calls the scalar equilibrium feedback equation, which he calls the “Bode” equation. The “Bode” equation is simple. It starts out as an additive relationship between an input $V_\mathrm{in}$ and the resultant output $V_\mathrm{out}$:

$V_\mathrm{out}=\mu(V_\mathrm{in}+\beta V_\mathrm{out})$

That is, the response to a stimulus change from zero volts to $V_\mathrm{in}$ starts with a change $\Delta V_\mathrm{out}=\mu V_\mathrm{in}$, but that causes a further change that equals $\mu\beta\cdot\Delta V_\mathrm{out}=\mu\beta\cdot\mu V_\mathrm{in}$, which causes a further change $\mu\beta\cdot\mu\beta\cdot\mu V_\mathrm{in}$, and so on indefinitely. If $\mu\beta$ is less than unity, though, the addends decay exponentially, so the series converges:
$V_\mathrm{out}=(1+\mu\beta+(\mu\beta)^2+(\mu\beta)^3+\ldots)\mu V_\mathrm{in}=\mu V_\mathrm{in}\sum_{i=0}^\infty (\mu\beta)^i=\dfrac{\mu}{1-\mu\beta}V_\mathrm{in}.$

Straightforward algebra then seems to tell us that so long as the feedback quantity $\mu\beta V_\mathrm{out}$ is less than $V_\mathrm{out}$—i.e., so long as the feedback factor $f=\mu\beta$ is less than unity—the system is stable: its output eventually settles at a finite value.

Here’s where the “Bode” equation is dangerous in the hands of someone like Lord Monckton, who doesn’t know the discipline. Positive feedback can indeed be stable. But the criterion that straightforward algebra seems to give us is correct only for a perfectly linear system. A nonlinear can be stable even when the thus computed, “large-signal” feedback factor $f$ as exceeds unity—and a nonlinear can be stable even when the large-signal feedback factor $f$ is less than unity.

It’s the small-signal feedback factor $f$, not its large-signal cousin, that’s the criterion. This is the error that’s at the heart of Lord Monckton’s theory. The mathematically inclined can see that for themselves by studying his single-slide description at the end of his post here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/. His error is what he infers from (erroneously) finding equal values of $A$.

• Michael Jankowski says:

“…Don’t you actually know all this? Are you paid to baffle them with BS???…”

Yes, it’s a challenge to determine when he’s playing dumb and being deceitful vs when he’s just actually ignorant.

• John Endicott says:

No, Nick. The *SUN* is the power supply, sunlight it the signal it sends.

• Actually, the sun is not the only power supply.
Come down 2 km into a gold mine. Feel the sweat on your face and the heat coming from the bottom up. Meet the elephant in the room.

• Philip Schaeffer says:

henryp said:

“Actually, the sun is not the only power supply.
Come down 2 km into a gold mine. Feel the sweat on your face and the heat coming from the bottom up. Meet the elephant in the room.”

OK then, lets see your figures and calculations. Have you got anything beyond “It’s hot down there! Look at all that heat! Therefore it’s the ignored elephant!”

• Don says:

“OK then, lets see your figures and calculations. Have you got anything beyond ‘It’s hot down there! Look at all that heat! Therefore it’s the ignored elephant!'”

OK, I’ll take a stab at this.
Why is the bottom of the Grand Canyon always warmer than the top by a significant amount? If cold air sinks?

Could it be because the air is more densely packed at the bottom due to atmospheric pressure, which at the surface is equivalent to about 23,000 pounds/square meter? This is not trivial.

Why is the air colder the higher one goes? Even if we had no greenhouse gases whatsoever the air would still be colder the higher we go: each cubic meter of atmosphere contains fewer molecules as we go up, and even if these molecules were isothermal the air must necessarily be cooler as it rises.

Atmospheric pressure is immense; just because we don’t feel it since it’s equalized doesn’t mean it isn’t there and exerting enormous pressure, packing molecules in tightly at the surface and even tighter at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. I don’t think pressure is just there to make equations of state come out, yet we seem to treat it as if it’s just derivative.

That’s my two cents, and that may be all it’s worth.
Don132

• Joe Born says:

Don:

Actually, it’s not the atmosphere’s weight per se. It’s the result of adiabatic expansion as air rises during convection. Although I took issue with a logical problem that afflicts the presentation here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/, its result is in essence correct.

Namely, in the absence of the convection that uneven surface heating causes, an atmosphere at equilibrium would be essentially isothermal. This is a well-known result.

• Don says:

“Namely, in the absence of the convection that uneven surface heating causes, an atmosphere at equilibrium would be essentially isothermal. ”

Even if molecules were isothermal, it would be impossible for the each cubic meter of an atmosphere to be isothermal. I’m baffled why this is so hard to see. What determines the temperature of a volume? The average internal energy of the volume. What happens when you have fewer molecules per unit volume, even if the internal energy of each molecule remains the same? The temperature of the volume must go down.

Nevertheless, we’ve been through this at WUWT and have to agree to disagree; I don’t have time for any protracted arguments.

• Don says:

Joe,
You might also define what you mean by “it’s” in the following:
“Actually, it’s not the atmosphere’s weight per se. It’s the result of adiabatic expansion as air rises during convection. ”
Don132

• Joe Born says:

Don: “It” Is the reason for the temperature decreases with altitude.

• John Endicott says:

For example, Mr. Watts uses Tony Heller’s results in that video.

Mr Watts did no such thing as it’s not Mr Watts video. If you had applied even a small amount of reading comprehension rather than going on a “I’m a martyr who is being oppressed” rant, you’d have noted that Mr Watts was *surprised* by the videos existence as someone else had taken his presentation and made it into a video.

14. commieBob says:

The thing that gobsmacks me is that, when it becomes obvious that work is bogus, the alarmists don’t retract. The bogus adjustments highlighted by Anthony’s work are still there. Mann’s original hockey stick paper is still there.

Once it becomes obvious that work is wrong, leaving it up becomes fraud.

15. Jaakko Kateenkorva says:

Thank you.

A system should be sufficiently homogeneous to measure it meaningfully. It’s a basic metrology criteria. Difficult to think of a less homogenous system than global outside air.

16. Dear Anthony,

even for an American, pronouncing asphalt as ‘ash fault’ rather than ‘as fault’ has to be up there with pronouncing nuclear as ‘noo koo leer’ (Which I always took to be a reference to Koo Stark (naked))…

🙂

• Martin Howard Keith Brumby says:

I am an English Chartered Civil Engineer.
I pronounce it ‘ash felt’.
Do you have a problem with that?
If so, you should get a life.
Anthony is also profoundly deaf.
If your inane comment is the best you can do, I suggest you go away and don’t come back.

• Greg says:

+1

• Gary Ashe says:

I’m a Manx lay-a-bout, and i pronounce it ash-felt also Martin.

Dem dare yanks speak their own version innit……well the 70% that can speak English.

• DonS says:

Are you aware that Anthony has severe hearing disfunction?

• mike the morlock says:

Hi, DonS I think Martin and Gary know of Anthony”s “inconvenience”
But he does use hearing aids so the pronunciations of the word may be known to him.
But it is not our fault that the Brits use antiquated pronunciations , dating back to when they still painted themselves and preyed to trees.

A New England Yankee
michael

• “and preyed to trees”
Modern spelling?

• mike the morlock says:

Nick, I checked the spelling. Seemed wrong to me too

• mike the morlock says:

Nick, Oops Prayed.

michael

• I thought it should have been ‘preyed’ on trees…..[to build houses and make paper]
Actually, cutting trees causes cooling (Tandil, Argentina]. Changing a desert into an oasis causes warming [Las Vegas]

• John Tillman says:

Mike,

As a general rule, British English, at least Received Pronunciation, the prestige accent, is a more recent innovation, and American English preserves more ancient, hence “correct” forms.

But in a way, we’re both “wrong”. English upper classes in the 18th century started dropping final “r”. But Americans embraced “flapping”, in which “t” is pronounced almost as a “d”. Thus, a modern RP speaker says “watuh”, while an American says, “wadder”. Shakespeare would have said “water”.

The American, Scots and other British accents which pronounce final “r” are called “rhotic”. Shakespeare didn’t flap, but he was fully rhotic.

• John Tillman says:

I should add that I am talking about standard American English. The US South got infected with anti-rhoticism in the 18th century, when fashionable aristocrats spread their foul final r-dropping to the later colonies.

• John Tillman says:

By which I mean the Carolinas and the penal colony of Georgia, replaced after the Revolution by Australia. The practice of anti-rhoticism spread from the Carolinas to Virginia.

• mike the morlock says:

John, it was a joke.
Also remember” New England Yankee”. Water, with a “T’ not a D. Then of course there is Maine,,,:-)

michael

• jim hogg says:

Sometimes a single insight can change everything. Civilisation leaps forward. Mankind suddenly catches a glimpse of the best within itself. Impossible dreams become achievable and a huge smile breaks out across the face of our common, grateful, culture. Then there are insights that cause us to wonder . . . in disbelief, as if all that seemed good was nothing but an illusion . . .

• Scott Bennett says:

Is that a quote? Perhaps I should be aware of it – either way, it is confidently crafted! 😉

17. global warming what? climate change what? climate has stopped warming for 20 years. already as of 2005 I have predicted it in my original thesis on solar activity and climate. In fact I have developed the only climate model that projects dropping temperatures. A link to my papers https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dimitris_Poulos

18. Roger Knights says:

What year was the video’d presentation made? It’s relevant to where the charts end.

19. Peta of Newark says:

Its all so very simple – the folks doing this work, the scientists and politicians should *never* have been given financial recompense for doing it.

Period.

20. Shawn Marshall says:

Tony Heller’s charts are the best stuff – no esoteric physics arguments involved – just simple data charts ans he often posts news stories from the past showing extreme weather events that debunk the popular journalistic mode of calamity howling after every storm.

21. Anthony very good. Global warming did exist till 2017 but in my opinion it is 100% due to natural variability being in a warm mode. I say natural items have now changed to a cold mode which began in year 2005.

So now we have a good test and thus far global temperatures have not only stopped going up but are actually trending down over the past 2 years.

If the trend down continues my question to you Anthony is what further action should this site take to combat the AGW propaganda? I think our goal should be to render AGW obsolete.

22. Bruce Cobb says:

It needs to be stressed that the temperature record is biased in favor of warming. In some cases the bias is deliberate data tampering, bordering on fraudulent, and in others it may fall more under the heading of confirmation bias. The other thing we’ve seen in the way of tampering is a deliberate cooling of the past, in order to dramatize the partially-faked warming even more. So, it’s a double-whammy.

On another note, it’s good to see RS finally booted out. I wouldn’t put it past him to try to sneak back in with a different name though. Trolls. And oh, the whining and crying when they do get booted is hilarious. Like children who’ve been caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

• Larry says:

Do you mean places like Africa and South America, where no weather stations exist, are colored hot in those monthly press releases from NOAA?

23. Bellman says:

At around 4:20 there is a graph showing a decline in the number of stations reporting 90°F days since the 1930s. Is it possible that this is related to a decline in the number of stations available in the USHCN since the 1930s?

• Richard M says:

Tony states he is using only stations where data is available for the entire period.

• Bellman says:

In that case the graph title is wrong. It says it is showing all us hcn stations. Anthony Watts also says it is all stations on the video.

24. JohnWho says:

Anthony –

Listening to the second video, I’m getting the impression that you believe that human CO2 emissions are having an effect on the warming of the atmosphere and that you also believe it is wise for us to limit those CO2 emissions.

Is that what you meant to imply?

• Simon says:

That would seem to be the case. For all the gnashing of teeth and bashing of brains here…. AW is not that far from the consensus. The real difference seems to be he resists urgent action, but he does advocate action…..

25. Lance of BC says:

The study of chaos creates imbeciles…..with GIS graphs.

26. My prime realization is this: Within the small range of values where a “global temperature” is defined, fractions of degrees or even several degrees mean the same as ZERO. All discussion of data in such a context of such a small range, then, seems like so much making of mountains out of mole hills by even being discussed AT ALL.

I still have difficulty taking the whole discussion too seriously.

• Graemethecat says:

Climate Science is the only branch of scientific enquiry completely devoid of error bars.

• Craig says:

Who needs error bars when there is no error. Have you not heard, the science is settled and the debate is over.

27. HankHenry says:

What’s wrong with the surface temperature record?

The problem with surface AIR temperature record is that it’s not representative of the true surface temperature of the earth. The true surface temperature of the earth needs to take account of the temperature of the ocean abyss if one wants to model climate in its entirety. Since the weight of earth’s air only amounts to the weight of 33 feet of water, and since the ocean abyss is so cold, surface air temperatures are a minor consideration when modeling the true surface. Warming of air is a secondary step in a much more involved process whereby the oceans depths are cooled to an amazing degree. You effectively have temperatures in the depths and world-wide much much colder than what you have at the bottom of the atmosphere. I suspect that the heat flux diagrams that we see badly underestimate the fluxes needed to maintain a cold ocean.

• I was hoping you have done some measurements of your own to convince yourself one way or another.

• Joe Born says:

I’m agnostic about whether it’s really happening. A lot of smart people say it is. But, despite what I said above, I don’t dismiss Tony Heller’s results for the U.S. out of hand, and perhaps you’ve seen something in South Africa not inconsistent with his findings. In any event, I think on balance a little warming would be beneficial, particularly since most of it would occur at night and in the earth’s colder places.

And I think the evidence is overwhelming that, warming aside, increases in carbon-dioxide concentration are beneficial.

I accept that, everything else being equal, increased carbon-dioxide concentration would increase the surface temperature. But I also think there’s not enough evidence to prove it has actually done so in the real world.

Still, I’m no scientist; I don’t really know more about the ultimate question than the guy on the next bar stool.

On the other hand, I remember enough from the compulsory math courses I took a half century ago to know for sure that the Chrisopher Monckton stuff is hokum.

• I was still waiting for an answer from markw to my question about what to think of my results?

Perhaps you have an idea on how to explain the difference in global Tmin between nh and sh?

I would be very interested in hearing your opinion.

• Joe Born says:

Any explanation of your observations I might venture would be mere speculation; I have no expertise in that area.

• Joe
Thx for your honest answer. FWIW I agree with you on LordM being rather impolite in general discussions or perhaps even suffering from some form of mental disease. I am not a math man so unfortunately I could not help you there. For me, as a chemist, it is clear that the net effect of more CO2 is that of cooling, rather than warming, i.e. deflecting more energy off from earth than trapping it.

Yet, given the reality of the sh cooling and the nh warming, especially concerning Tmin, I would venture that a a reasonable explanation must be that of a re-alignment of earth’s inner core with that of the sun’s magnetic field.

come with me 2 km down into a gold mine here and find out the real elephant in the room.,,,

• sycomputing says:

“FWIW I agree with you on LordM being rather impolite in general discussions or perhaps even suffering from some form of mental disease. I am not a math man so unfortunately I could not help you there.”

But you’re certainly able to help with contradicting yourself, are you not HenryP?

“I agree with you on LordM being rather impolite in general discussions…”

“…or perhaps even suffering from some form of mental disease.”

Or perhaps tripe little snipey remarks like the above aren’t impolite?

• Craig says:

“There’s not enough evidence to prove [CO2] has actually [increased the surface temperature] in the real world.”

How much evidence exactly does it take to “prove” that? What are you doing with the evidence that disproves it? If there is any at all, and there is, you are by definition ignoring it, no?

• Reg Nelson says:

The 30’s Dust Bowl years, the Medieval Warming Period and the Roman Warming Period were all as warm or warmer than now.

That’s evidence to disprove the CAGW theory. This was all accepted and “settled” science before this scientific field was infected and corrupted by politics.

Are you ignoring this, Chris?

• Gary Pearse says:

How about ANY unequivocal evidence, Craig. Yes, CO2 temporarily absorbs some LWIR- we know that from the lab. Ditto the much more abundant H2O. But what about other agencies that counteract any warming or cooling such as cloud fornation with increased evaporation and convection.

Did you know that the slightly elliptical orbit of the Earth brings it closer to the sun in January and further away 6 months later. The difference is almost 4%, quite significant, yet it majes not a blip in the temperature record. It is fully compensated for by negative feedbacks.

Now lets do a thought experiment in the lab. We set up an incandescent ball with a controlled temperature. We measure temperature moving outward from the ball and discover the distance squared relation. Now we calculate what will happen to global temperature when the earth recedes and approaches the sun at aphelion and perihelion. We then measure global temperature and … oops there was no change detected! Think about that bit of settked science .

• Craig says:

The point I was inartfully attempting to make is that saying thing like “There’s not enough evidence to prove…” is avoiding the obvious: that you can collect all the evidence you want “proving” the AGW theory without proving anything while one piece of contradictory evidence disproves it.

28. Robert W. Turner says:

Oh well, the bigger they build this house of cards, the bigger the crash.

29. Paramenter says:

Anthony – decent video. Clarity, simplicity, compactness -all required ingredients for a convincing message. My question if I may: what about margins of error? I would imagine that deriving ‘global’ temperature to the thousandths of Celsius, say, in the end of XIX century from scattered samples leaves rather huge room for speculation and indeed ‘data infilling’.

30. Data set #1: The same UHSCN temperature data set used by Muller and his confreres.

Data set #2: The set of UHSCN stations that pass the improved quality standard fully described by Leroy (2010).

Methodology: Repeat the analysis performed by Muller and his confreres, only including the Leroy (2010) compliant stations.

Mosher, etc. are technically adults. They should not need to be led by the hand to replicate (or refute) the conclusions of a paper that specifies, by reference, both the data and the methodology.

• Writing Observer,

What you said is what I was thinking at a pre-verbal level, but had not reached the point of verbalizing it yet. You saved me that step. Thanks.

• John Bills says:

The mean LSAT anomalies are remarkably different because of the data coverage differences, with the magnitude nearly 0.4°C for the global and Northern Hemisphere and 0.6°C for the Southern Hemisphere. This study additionally finds that on the regional scale, northern high latitudes, southern middle‐to‐high latitudes, and the equator show the largest differences nearly 0.8°C. These differences cause notable differences for the trend calculation at regional scales. At the local scale, four data sets show significant variations over South America, Africa, Maritime Continent, central Australia, and Antarctica, which leads to remarkable differences in the local trend analysis. For some areas, different data sets produce conflicting results of whether warming exists. Our analysis shows that the differences across scales are associated with the availability of stations and the use of infilling techniques.

• Mark Luhman says:

My person view on infilled data from the perspective of someone that was responsible for the data processing of a bank, is there is no such thing as infilled data either you have it or you don’t and when it comes to bank account you have the data a 100% of the time, otherwise you are fired. Why is climate data different, if you make extraordinary claims you need to have extraordinary data, with climate science that not the case, their data is pure BS not suitable to make any claims at all. Yet they expect society to change everything based on their BS.

• steven mosher says:

its not infilled.
its stastically estimated from nearby stations.

you can verify the process.

or just use the 20k stations not in uschn

• AKSurveyor says:

Hahaha “statistically estimated”…in other words a guess to infill the value.

• John Bills says:
• John Endicott says:

you claim this:
its not infilled.

but then say that:
its stastically estimated from nearby stations.

which is just another way of saying its infilled. It’s not real data, it’s a (very poor) guess made by inappropriate statistical manipulation of data from stations a long distance away. it’s infilling with made up data where there is no actual data.

• Philip Schaeffer says:

Mark Luhman said:

“there is no such thing as infilled data either you have it or you don’t and when it comes to bank account you have the data a 100% of the time, otherwise you are fired. Why is climate data different,”

Meanwhile back here in the real physical world, there is no such thing as complete data. You’d need to sample the temperature at an infinite number of points to get a result without any what you call “infilling”.

That doesn’t mean we can’t have any useful information about temperature over the globe.

0 sample points gives you no information, infinite sample points are impossible, which leaves the question of how many points you need to know something useful.

Nick Stokes did a test, starting with a plot generated from 5451 stations, and then 544 stations, and finally 65 stations.

Sampling is the only way in the real world. With the accounting paradigm, the only way to know the temperature of a glass of water would be to measure each individual molecule simultaneously. Or you could just stick a thermometer in it. Not perfect, but good enough for most purposes. Industrial chemists manage just fine with limited data points.

• Philip Schaeffer says:
• Philip Schaeffer says:
• Philip Schaeffer says:

Meh, beats me. I thought wordpress would display an image automatically from a URL if it ended in png.

Hints anyone?

• its not infilled.
its stastically estimated from nearby stations.

… like “it’s not raining; it’s precipitating moisture from the air”
or
“it’s not hot; it’s uncomfortable temperature wise”
or
“it’s not shaken; it’s vigorously manipulated”
or
… well, you get the idea.

31. eyesonu says:

Both presentation and PBS interview were excellent. Spoken and communicated from the heart and on point.

32. .
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
.

Is Tamino a moron?

Tamino thinks that he has “proved” that my graph (which I call a global warming contour map), is wrong. And many of Tamino’s followers, believe him.

You can imagine, that I am not very happy about this situation. I have spent over 2 years developing my graph, gradually improving it, and thoroughly testing it. I consider it to be a fairly unique, accurate, and reliable graph. You might think that my claims are just bragging, by a conceited loser. But let me tell you about my expertise…

In this article, I use the same “logic” that Tamino used to “prove” that my graph is wrong, to “prove” that Tamino is a moron.

https://agree-to-disagree.com/is-tamino-a-moron

33. sycomputing

I will say it again: I think a scientific blog like wuwt is like standing in a lecture room at a university. The difference is: we are all pupils and teachers to each other. If we disagree because our own measurements lead us in another direction we can only try and convince the other party by sharing our results and thoughts.
Unfortunately, there are however a few people writing posts on WUWT who always think they ‘know it all’ and who then find it necessary to ridicule the dissenters. It appears from your comments that you are in support of such public ridicule?

This unintended side step re. Joe and me was indeed OT but I am sure that he, me and most others here only have the best of intentions, i.e. promoting the truth. We are all agreed that Anthony Watts has done a tremendous job, not only about questioning the accuracy of the stations but also maintaining the best and the most read website on climate change!!!

Speaking of the stations, I have always said that you cannot really compare the data from now with those of more than 40 or 50 years ago, for more reasons than mentioned in the video.

Namely, before the 1960’s thermometers were not re-calibrated on a yearly or regular basis. Also the type of recording was different, i.e. dependent on labour rather than recording by computers.

It is like comparing apples with pears.

There is clear evidence that the ice melt in the arctic 100 years ago was as bad as it is now……

• sycomputing says:

“Unfortunately, there are however a few people writing posts on WUWT who always think they ‘know it all’ and who then find it necessary to ridicule the dissenters.”

Indeed there are. I notice Joe Born appears to be one of them:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/21/video-whats-wrong-the-the-surface-temperature-record/#comment-2465745

What I didn’t notice, however, was you calling Born out for his ridicule of the rest of us. Why not? Should you not be consistent in your criticism of those who tend to ridicule? Should you not criticize yourself for ridiculing Monckton?

Is ridicule from certain persons acceptable, e.g., yourself re: Monckton’s mental disorder and Born’s suggestion that we here are mere simpleton morons, while ridicule from other persons, e.g., Monckton is not?

So I too will “say it again,” Henry: “Don’t you contradict yourself?” If you don’t, why don’t you?

“It appears from your comments that you are in support of such public ridicule?”

Does it really appear so Henry or are you once again attacking the messenger rather than the message, just as you did with Monckton in this thread? Would it not be the case that for me to “support such ridicule” while at the same time calling you out for it would result in my being guilty of exactly the same logical contradiction of which you are guilty?

Would it not be the case that if I supported ridicule rather than argument, I would be ridiculing you right now?

• sycomputing

Let me make it clear that I have the most respect for all the people writing posts on WUWT and I do not wish them bad or want them to go [away from WUWT]. On the contrary, they are the geniuses that keep this blog interesting. Unfortunately, as can be proven in the case of many geniuses, they often do lack skills in keeping relationships or tolerating other people’s differing viewpoints. Having been the subject of much such ridicule I have come to think of those insults and ad hominem attacks as just that: a bit of a mental disorder by the person meting it out to me.
I am of the opinion, though, that if a discussion starts or ends up in a slanging match with insults and ad hominem attacks, the moderator should simply step in and remove those insulting remarks and ad hominem attacks. quoting ‘snip’

I agree with you that in the quoted comment Joe made an unwarranted AH attack on Anthony which was not even on topic and should have been snipped straight away.

God bless Anthony Watts.

• Joe Born says:

“I agree with you that in the quoted comment Joe made an unwarranted AH attack on Anthony.”

You could look at it that way. Or you could look on it as an honest attempt to bring to Mr. Watts’s attention the fact that there are good reasons for tightening up his game.

He brought up the station data, something many of his readers, including me, know little about. And, let’s face it, in the scheme of things we pretty much have to take his word for what he’s saying, because we aren’t going to take the time to investigate for ourselves. But quite a few of us do know how bad the Lord Monckton stuff he’s pushing is, and Mr. Watts needs to know that his credibility therefore suffers when he continuing to treat Lord Monckton as a responsible skeptic spokesman.

Saying so isn’t an ad hominem attack. If I were making so egregious an error—and, believe me, I have made some big ones—I’d like to know about it. What I didn’t like was when I was making a mistake people knew about but nobody told me.

Most of us have some area of expertise, yet all of us lack the wherewithal to analyze propositions in some other areas we aren’t familiar with. On most of the subjects that come up on this site, that describes me.

However, as to the particular math in Lord Monckton’s theory, as well as that in his previous, “Irreducibly Simple Climate Model” paper, I do know something. And because I do it was apparent to me that in both cases Christopher Monckton was wrong. And not just a little wrong, but fundamentally wrong, egregiously wrong. So wrong that he had no business pontificating about it as he did.

It was also apparent that, as is true of me on many other subjects, a great many readers do not have the wherewithal to analyze what Lord Monckton was saying. I don’t think that makes them morons any more than it makes me a moron not to know about, say, time-of-observation adjustments. Every one of us is ignorant about something.

Now, the reader has two choices here. He can merely dismiss my analysis as an ad hominem attack—and it isn’t—or he can analyze its substance. And doing so would be easy. As I pointed out, Lord Monckton has now boiled his theory down to a single slide, and testing whether what that slide says makes sense requires only a little arithmetic and knowing how to extrapolate. Extrapolation is something most people learned in high school.

And, no, I don’t think people are morons if they can’t extrapolate. Still, I question whether someone whose grasp of math isn’t even that good should really be expressing an opinion on the subject.

• Paramenter says:

‘Still, I question whether someone whose grasp of math isn’t even that good should really be expressing an opinion on the subject.’

Yes, he should. Most of the smart and well educated guys from ‘mainstream’ climate science would evaluate most (if not all) entries on this blog in the same terms as you did with work of His Lordness (‘fundamentally wrong’, ‘egregiously wrong’, ‘incompetent’, ‘ ‘erudite-sounding nonsense’, ‘impress folks who don’t understand the substance’). They could even provide detailed justification for that, justification very convincing in their own eyes. Does it mean that this blog should be put down because of that? Surely not. So don’t be too quick in deciding who should publish here and who shouldn’t. It’s a matter of perspective. For ‘mainstream’, ‘peer-review’ science no-one should ever publish anything here what goes against official AGW story.

• sycomputing says:

“You could look at it that way. Or you could look on it as an honest attempt to bring to Mr. Watts’s attention the fact that there are good reasons for tightening up his game.”

You mean as in the “honest attempt” you made above at attempting to convince all of the readers here that you weren’t after having your say?

“…the real issue isn’t whether I get my say or not.”

But as with Henry, don’t you contradict yourself (yet again) as well, Mr. Born? How could the brilliant man that you’ve publicly declared yourself to be, claim in the same thread that the “real issue” is not his argument at all, but then spend a good deal of time arguing that very argument, and this in the comment section of an article having nothing at all whatsoever to do with his argument?

and then once again here:

“Now, the reader has two choices here. He can merely dismiss my analysis as an ad hominem attack—and it isn’t—or he can analyze its substance. And doing so would be easy. As I pointed out, Lord Monckton has now boiled his theory down to a single slide, and testing whether what that slide says makes sense requires only a little arithmetic and knowing how to extrapolate. Extrapolation is something most people learned in high school.”

But you would say it’s all about honesty and truth and helping Mr. Watts to rightly divide the Word of Born?

Now Mr. Born, surely in your brilliance you must see you’re on the horns of a dilemma. You’ve argued on the one hand that those of us who read this blog are just too stupid to understand the subject matter to which you’ve exposed us here. But then you move forward to argue your case to we the readers despite that fact? Perhaps you’re right after all since I must admit, I just don’t follow your logic?

But back to my silly little argument, I’m sure you’re aware of the law of non-contradiction as applied to logical systems are not you? I.e., when a system (or in your case, an individual) contradicts itself (himself), that system (individual) is to be rejected out of hand as inconsistent and no more attention paid to it until that contradiction is fixed.

So two questions:

1) How will you fix your moral contradiction, Mr. Born? And until you do, who should listen to anything you have to say? You’ve already proved yourself willing to lie for your own cause. How could you expect the rest of us to believe anything you have to say in that case? Maybe it helps that you believe us all morons?

2) How will you fix the contradiction that on the one hand you’ve argued the readers here are just too stupid to understand the subject matter, but then unsolicited, unwarranted, and unwanted, you push that same subject matter onto the readers here anyway?

Haven’t you made for yourself quite a philosophical mess? And this from a man of such greater intellect than the rest of us?

• sycomputing says:

“Having been the subject of much such ridicule I have come to think of those insults and ad hominem attacks as just that: a bit of a mental disorder by the person meting it out to me.”

Now Henry…everyone everywhere who ever deploys ad hominem against anyone at any time is suffering from “a bit of a mental disorder?” Except for you I assume? You’re the .000001% of the human population not subject to that particular disorder? The question is rhetorical, of course.

🙂

I’ll take my leave from you in the knowledge that you must surely agree that both Joe Born and Lord Monckton are two peas in a pod. If one suffers from a mental disorder via his use of ad hominem then surely the other does as well.

“I agree with you that in the quoted comment Joe made an unwarranted AH attack on Anthony Watts…”

Thank you for at least being honest enough to call out Mr. Born for both his fallacious reasoning as well as his OT childish, schoolgirl rant against one of his own kind.

All the best and take care!

• sycomputing
I am not sure if anyone can claim that he or she is 100% sane, but, yes thanks, 99.99999 is fine for me. Anyway, jokes aside, I hope you actually did see a problem that I have also identified. If it were at all possible, it would be great if it could be arranged that the writer of a post is not the moderator of same post. The moderator must be a neutral person and he must step in if there are any AH attacks and name calling. Like I said before, if all commenters realize that they are standing in a lecture room, being polite and friendly is important. Agree to disagree, if need be, but if you get nasty you must be snipped.

34. Doug Ferguson says:

The problem seems to be that the site has no limit to the length or number of the comments that can be posted by an individual on each article.

Perhaps a solution to all this rancor would be, in addition to “snipping” personal attacks, to limit comments to 100 words or so. Longer technical discussions or arguments would then be submitted as articles, or at least as accessible extended comments via a link, thus sparing the rest of us from having to scan through pages of diatribes to get the theme of the responses. Anyone wishing to continue or follow the detailed debate on a particular thread could then do so.

Just a thought.

• Once you start implementing a bunch of restrictions and qualifications, kiss this blog goodbye.

Human choice is the best filter — if you don’t want to read a long post, then just don’t do it. If you have an issue with a seeming attack, then watch how it unfolds, and hope that the person being attacked can defend him/herself. At most, the moderator should limit how long it goes on or guide HOW it goes on.

Frankly, I don’t want someone intercepting insults aimed at me and trying to control the natural flow of human emotionally charged exchanges. I prefer to answer for myself and watch out for myself.

• Doug Ferguson says:

Good Point, perhaps I am reacting to how long this one went on.

• John Endicott says:

Perhaps a “more” button on long posts would help. Show the first 100-200 or so words (ie the first couple of paragrpahs) and any post that is longer than that would have a “more” button that would have to be clicked to see the rest. That way those interested can read the whole thing those who aren’t can easily move on to the next post without having to scroll past many paragraphs of off-topic nonsense (you can usually tell in the first couple of paragraphs what kind of post you are looking at).

Also bring back the collapse subthread button. That way you can easily get past subthread slagging matches that go on for dozens of posts that you aren’t interested in to get to the next on topic sub-thread

• Good suggestions, I think, John E. I’m sure that there are technical obstacles in implementing them.

But it seems, at some point, those suggestions would be doable.

35. Guys
Remember when we stand together we are stronger against the lie of man made global warming.

• sycomputing says:

“Remember when we stand together we are stronger against the lie of man made global warming.”

Henry, a wise and gracious man was once accused of driving out demons by the power of demons, to which He responded, “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, it cannot stand.”

The lesson applies here, or is it wise to try to stand with liars against their own kind, or hypocrisy with hypocrites?

All the best.

36. Philip says

https://image.ibb.co/eoTi49/randomstations.png

the point you make is clear. unfortunately the error is repeated 4 times.
You cannot really compare data from more that 50 years ago with data from today; for example, they did not do re-calibrations of thermometers before 1960 and they had to have somebody physically there reading the thermometer at least 4 times a day. Today we have computers for that who can measure every minute and print an average for every day of the year,
\
I looked here in South Africa for the past 40 years, only to find that there has been no warming here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/h7944heslj7gg7q/summary%20of%20climate%20change%20south%20africa.xlsx?dl=0

so, whatever man made warming there maybe, it is not global, at all…

• Philip

I would be interested in seeing the trend of same graph over the past 40 years only.