Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
The New Pause has lengthened by a further month, from 6 years 8 months to 6 years 9 months. As usual, it is calculated as the longest period, up to the most recent month for which data are available, during which the trend on the UAH global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset is zero.
If anyone has seen a mention of this emerging and now quite long Pause in any mainstream news medium, let me know in comments. Here in the UK, the unspeakable BBC has kept the fact secret from its rapidly-dwindling audiences, preferring instead to broadcast a hysterical piece saying that the frequency of local temperature measurements worldwide exceeding 50 C° has risen in recent decades. Of course, the leftist numbskulls at the BBC took no steps to verify the extent to which the measurements had become more frequent because in hot countries more temperature stations are in operation, and still fewer steps to deWattsify the temperature record by excluding stations inappropriately sited or inadequately shaded. Besides, in a generally warming world one would expect new high-temperature records.
HadCRUT4 has at last updated its surface-temperature record to August 2021, showing no global warming for 7 years 6 months. For almost all the period between IPCC’s 2013 and 2021 Assessment Reports, there has been no global warming at all.
My noble friend Simon Clanmorris has kindly sent me a revealing analysis of the discrepancies between the HadCRUT3, -4 and -5 datasets. It shows that almost 20% of the warming imagined in the HadCRUT5 dataset arises from ex-post-facto adjustments (whether justified or not) to the previously-estimated temperature record.
Why does these long Pauses matter? It is not just that they cause entertaining conniptions among the ungodly (just watch the pompous, pietistic whining by the lavishly-paid trolls who seek to disrupt these threads day after day, convincing none but themselves).
What a long Pause shows – and the New Pause is now a long Pause – is not that there has not been warming in the past, nor that there will be no warming in future, but that for whatever reasons the Earth is at present likely to be in approximate radiative balance with its surroundings, notwithstanding an undiminished and continuing linear uptrend in anthropogenic radiative forcing.
IPCC (2021) imagines that there is an Earth energy imbalance of 0.8 Watts per square meter. But the long Pause indicates that the imbalance (which is extremely difficult to measure directly, and is subject to very wide error margins) is not significantly different from zero.
In short, our activities may be exerting a far smaller influence on the weather than the profiteers of doom would wish us to imagine. Cue trolls.
But why then does CO2 continue to rise if temperature is not?
I know, time lag, oceans etc but it is getting trick, particularly as there has never been atmospheric CO2 as high as this since the Pliocene?
Yeah, when the ocean temp rise pauses for a decade or two I’ll take notice.
Your stupidity is wondrous to behold.
One of the two possible infinite things. And Albert wasn’t sure about the universe.
What? Look at Monckers’ graph above, the pause ended at the start of 2021 when temperatures started lurching higher again.
That assertion may have originated here:
The Oceans Are Heating Up Faster Than Expected
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-oceans-are-heating-up-faster-than-expected/
What I find amazing is that Scientific American made no effort to edit the article as being retracted (thanks to the work of a CAGW denier) or take it down as misinformation. And this is the same for other MSM publishers.
Journal ‘Nature’ retracts ocean-warming study
https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-nature-retracts-ocean-warming.html
However, notice the effort to get a retraction of the Richet paper, posted here a few days ago.
——–
Ocean temperature data shows warming is accelerating faster than we thought
“There’s been four different estimates of ocean-heat content published since the 2013 IPCC report,” he said.
“They all show more warming than previous projections.”
Most significantly though, the adjusted historic temperature records used in these four studies now track in sync with climate models, according to Dr Rintoul.
“In the past when [the models and records] didn’t agree so well, part of that was a problem with the observations, not the models,” he said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-01-11/ocean-warming-accelerating-faster-than-thought-science/10693080
In the branch of science I work in, you would report the previous data as contrary to the models, then justify why it should be neglected and move on with better data collection methods. But going back and adjusting previous data that doesn’t support the model, to support the model, and then having the temerity to present that as proof of the correctness of the model??? …it would never fly.
And the latest this week from the Guardian is that the cooling scare of the 1970s was the unrecognized fingerprint of CAGW. (sigh)
Once again, the phrase “They all show more warming than previous projections.” admits that the models used are not fit for purpose.
If they were, no such statements would ever be made.
It is amazing isn’t it? Yet it is all so casual.
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html
I wonder what started the whole thing? When I see a trend, I say to myself, “I think I can build a model that explains that trend.” It is the data that “tips you off” to an underlying process. So, what data tipped them off? It is almost like they said, “We can build a model to contradict that trend.” (of course you can).
And then spend the next two decades adjusting the data to conform to the model, yet here we are. Followed by: the models are running too hot, more snow will be on the way, and the Arctic won’t be ice free by 2014, etc, etc, etc.
Any modeler, in his right, mind would have created a model based on the extant data. Otherwise, you can model anything, if it does not need to conform to the data.
A simple dictionary definition of ‘science’: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” (Oxford).
The ‘scientific method’: “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses“ (Oxford).
It follows that the process of ‘ex-post-facto adjustments’ to observations to fit models rather than the reverse is not science and those that do it are not scientists.
That is so last century.
The definition should be adjusted to recognise the ascendancy of models over reality.
I hope you understood that as I was speaking with my tongue firmly in my cheek.
If plant food in the air be the control knob on climate, why should oceans have to cool for decades to falsify that hypothesis, already repeatedly shown false?
Mmm, nothing falsifies it like ocean temps spiking.
SSTs aren’t spiking.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64785-9
Global average SST as observed by satellites shows 0.09 degree C per decade warming, 1981 to 2018. That interval includes three Super Los Niños. Average SST has cooled since El Niño of 2019-20, and with another La Niña in the offing, that trend is liable to continue into next year.
Argo float data are similar, but they can’t operate under ice.
“Average SST has cooled since El Niño of 2019-20”
No, its way above the long term trend and shows zero sign changing course.
Japan Meteorological Agency
Atmospheric warming accounts for about 5% of the the total global warming. Monckton’s pause bunkum is the noisiness of that noisy 5%. Meantime the giant elephant in the room grows rapidly warmer. But do tell me more about the cooling.
Coming out of the HORRIBLE Little Ice Age, the Earth Temperatures are still “returning to normal” (according to all previous Interglacial Trends)…which at this stage on the Holocene is 1.5° to 2°C ABOVE the current temperatures.
An honest Scientist would have EXPECTED more warming after 1950 (when Anthropogenic CO2 levels started to rise). There was ALREADY an upward Temperature Trend underway. We don’t know why the LIA happened for certain (though both Solar and Volcanic causes are likely)…and we don’t know why it stopped (though Solar and Volcanic changes are nearly certain). But you can’t Statisticslly and Scientifically assert that an *ongoing trend* in Temperature increases that had unknown causes…suddenly stopped…and the SAME trend resumed but with a NEW CAUSE (Atmospheric CO2). The odds against that are astronomical…and no effort at all has gone into explaining that nearly impossible “swithceroo”.
But…an Un-Scientific Theory with only 2 Falsifiable claims…the Tropical Hot Spot…and…Predicted Global Average Temp Trends…BOTH of which have been proven WRONG…has not been pitched into depths of obscurity BECAUSE the Globalist Elites (who don’t pursuade…only lie about everything) have the illegitimate Power to perpetuate the lies…FOR THEIR OWN POWER.
AND trust me Loydo and Griff…those guys don’t give a crap about you. You are supporting your own future Slave Owners…you will be their slaves like the rest of us. You won’t like it after you finally wake up to the horrible truth.
And here we have a tour-de-force of the “D” word.
“Temperatures are still “returning to normal” (according to all previous Interglacial Trends)…which at this stage on the Holocene is 1.5° to 2°C ABOVE the current temperatures.”
If you mean the usual “the Holocene was warmer X years ago”
Then this was the reason why ……
Much more solar insolation at high latitudes in summer was why.
Also that graph shows that orbital characteristics still do not favour warming in the NH summer.
“But you can’t Statisticslly and Scientifically assert that an *ongoing trend* in Temperature increases that had unknown causes…suddenly stopped…and the SAME trend resumed but with a NEW CAUSE (Atmospheric CO2)”
“There was ALREADY an upward Temperature Trend underway”.
Indeed there was … because of anthro changes particularly and the beginnings of useful CO2 radiative forcing adding to ~ + 0.6 W/m^2 by 1950
Now it’s ~ 3 W/m^2 …. 5x greater
It’s ALL anthrogrogenic (since ~1850) whether CO2 or aerosol (+ve and -ve) – as some aerosols reflect solar SW and some absorb (so that’s >100% due to some anthro induced cooling). Hence why there was the slow-down/dip in GMST as the atmosphere got dirtier when industry ramped up after WW2 and before clean-air acts came in.
“The odds against that are astronomical…and no effort at all has gone into explaining that nearly impossible”
In the opposite sense …. it’s nearly impossible that it’s not anthro – just a staggering coincidence?
“the Tropical Hot Spot” …. been proven WRONG”
Ah, that myth again ….
It’s very difficult to spot the “hot-spot”.
Seems you are admitting some warming?
You do realise that a tropical hot-spot would form REGARDLESS of what caused the warming?
It is the due to the transport of sensible/LH to the upper Trop via tropical convection.
Chiefly from warmer SST’s.
Radiosondes were/are not designed to be research tools – they are to gauge the current state of the atmosphere to feed into NWP models and going back decades they were even more crude.
And there is a paper that shows evidence of the THS ….
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
“Temperature trends in the updated data show three noteworthy features. First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and 1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very close to that in climate model predictions. This contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface. ”
“Predicted Global Average Temp Trends” ….”been proven WRONG”
Nope ….
Then we have ( the with one bound he was free ) assertion
” …perpetuate the lies…FOR THEIR OWN POWER.”
My goodness – if you say so !
Oh, and how are them there paedoes doing now that Trump isn’t after them – or maybe he’s been to buy a pizza there since, err losing the POTUS.
“You won’t like it after you finally wake up to the horrible truth.”
LOL – how ironic.
Indeed.
Indeed.
Climate models versus observations 1.
That chart comes from Dr. Spencer. Unfortunately he made two egregious mistakes here.
1) Of the 68 members 50 were selected from the outlier model CanESM5.
2) The black line is SST (tos field) while the model members are air temperature (tas field).
The actual comparison is as follows.
1880-2020 obs = +0.07 C/decade
1880-2020 model = +0.07 C/decade
1970-2020 obs = +0.19 C/decade
1970-2020 model = +0.22 C/decade
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained
I was amused that the modelled and observed temperatures you give for 1880-2020 are exactly the same. This would be a wonderful example of the ability of the models if they had been constructed in 1880. Unfortunately, the models were built long after this and were deliberately hindcast to match the observed temperatures. Every update of every climate model I have looked at is adjusted to hindcast every change in the observed temperature record. So all climate models look wonderful as they always match the temperature record very closely. Even more telling is that when historic temperature records have been adjusted, I have noticed that climate models have been adjusted to match the adjustments.
Are you always this gullible in believing everything you read?
No. I don’t believe everything I read. That’s why I had already downloaded the CMIP model data from the KNMI Climate Explorer. I did this by selecting the multi-model multi-member ensemble mean for the ‘tas’ field. I then plotted it against the GISTEMP data. Note that although I provided the official GISTEMP data link here I actually downloaded the source code for it, verified there was no malicious code in it “doctoring” the data, and then ran it on my own machine to generate this data. If want instructions on how to that yourself let me know. I’ll be happy to assist.
Anyway, notice how the model prediction is not exactly the same as observations. Despite that it does adequately represent the other trend. If you know of a model that performs better than the CMIP suite please let me know and I’ll add it to this graph. The only requirement is that data must be supplied on monthly intervals from 1880 to 2020.
Now let me ask you the same thing. Did you not research those graphs you posted? Did you not seek independent review? Do you believe everything read without questioning it?
You are even more gullible than I imagined. I have been writing computer models for 48 years and I am aware of every trick in the book to make them look good. I have looked at the source code of some of the climate models and they adjust different parameters to achieve the best possible match to the temperature record. They don’t need to ‘doctor’ the code. They merely adjust the tuning of the parameters. The problem is that different models now have different values for many parameters which depart significantly from real world data and published science. I now regard the entire climate modelling industry as fraudulent.
Let me see if I have this right. I’m gullible because…
1) Dr. Spencer compared the ‘tos’ field to the ‘tas’ field.
2) Dr. Spencer selected 50 of the 68 models from the same outlier CanESM5 model.
3) Dr. Christy created two charts that have never been peer reviewed and that are inconsistent with RATPAC.
4) You have been writing computer models for 48 years.
5) I showed you the real output directly from KNMI and GISTEMP and provided links so that you can replicate my work.
That’s what makes me gullible?
And more to the point are you trying to argue that because some models have tunable parameters that necessarily means that Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy’s graphs are somehow correct?
Your reply shows that you really have trouble understanding things. You are gullible because you have fallen for the propaganda that climate models have some predictive value. You have demonstrated that you don’t understand computer models. A computer model of anything can only have value if there exists understanding of what it is trying to model. There isn’t even agreement on the very existence of the parameters required to model the climate.
Some people who don’t understand the problem have actually claimed that faster computers will make climate models better. They won’t.
Climate modelling has turned into a lucrative business for some unscrupulous individuals and organisations. But snake oil salesmen always seem to find gullible people who believe their drivel, like you.
I have trouble understanding a lot of things not the least of which is climate related research because it is very complex. Global circulation models are no exception. They are very complex as well. I don’t for a minute think I fully understand them. I’m certainly no expert either. GCMs are a fascinating topic though and the details on how they work and how they might become better is definitely worthy of discussion.
But none of that has anything to with whether the graphs you posted are correct. I’m saying they are very misleading at best and fundamentally incorrect at worst. I gave you reasons why. You have the opportunity to rebut those reasons by providing justification for 1) comparing the ‘tas’ field to the ‘tos’ field 2) cherry picking 50 out of the 68 model members from a single outlier model (CanESM5) 3) providing insights into how those graphs were created including explaining why the timeseries labeled as being balloon data are inconsistent with RATPAC which is bona-fide balloon dataset specifically designed for climatic research. Lecturing me on my competence level and how you think models work does not address the specific issues I’m raising here.
I understand your desperation to change the subject from climate models. You have been defending climate models from the start and I have been attacking them. If you have a problem with any of the graphs I have posted, take it up with the creators.
However, this discussion is about climate models.
I’ll talk climate models with you all day long. In fact, I’d rather discuss their inner workings, their successes and failures, overall skill, etc. than discussing misleading (at best) charts from Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy. But the issue in focus at the moment are those graphs.
I did specifically address the issues with Dr. Spencer’s graph as did several people. And although I have not discussed the issue with Dr. Christy others have. And these are the kinds of issues that would easily have been identified in the peer review process.
The question is, which model has been the most accurate over the last 20 – 30 years. PLEASE TELL US YOUR CHOICE AND HOW ACCURATE IT HAS BEEN.
No waffling by saying the average of model outputs give the correct prediction/projections. No one with ANY math training will believe that can happen except thru random good luck like a group of monkeys typing the Illiad.
I don’t have the data readily available for the 20-30 yr period. But for the last 50 years CMIP5 was +0.21 C/decade while CMIP6 was +0.22 C/decade. The observation was +0.19 C/decade.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cmip6-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-explained
That’s hindcasting, not forecasting.
That is correct. When the execution time of the model is after the projected time it said to be a hindcast. When it is before the projected time it said to be a forecast. Model inputs for hindcasts are as they occurred. Model inputs for forecasts are based on predefined scenarios or RCPs. What this means is that if you want to assess the accuracy of a model you do so with the hindcast output only.
My horse racing model will now make a hindcast for the winner of the Arc de Triomphe for 2021. It is Torqautor Tasso. If this turns out to be correct, this means that my horse racing model is wonderfully accurate and will forecast all future winners of the Arc de Triomphe.
That would be impressive since Torqautor Tasso had an implied probability of a win of only 1.2%. One question…would the model have produced the same output had it ran the day before the race as well?
Of course it wouldn’t. Of course, the models you have named would have got nowhere near the right answer if they had been written 50 years ago with the programmers having no knowledge of what was going to subsequently happen. I’m pretty sure that even I could write a program which accurately forecast the past.
Ah…so either your model does not produce the same output given the same input or one of the inputs was based on information regarding the winner? That would be a problem indeed and would render your model useless for the purpose of predicting horse race winners. The difference with global circulation models is that they produce the same output given the same input every time they run. They don’t know if the inputs they are working with are from the past or from the future. The model doesn’t know if it is hindcasting or forecasting. For example, if CMIP6 were ran in 2021 and produced a 30 year forecast it would look exactly the same as if the model were ran in 2051 and produced a 30 year hindcast as long as the model was given the same inputs both times. It is also important to note that climate models are not provided the temperature as an input to the model. It is an output.
So you are claiming that knowing what the past temperature actually was had no effect whatsoever on the programmers who were understandably keen to get the model output as close to the actual past temperature record as possible? Are you joking?
No I’m not. I’m only saying that temperature is not an input for climate models. Please don’t hear what I didn’t say. I didn’t say that scientists create these models in a vacuum without any understanding of the temperature and what it was doing. What they don’t do is feed the model observed temperatures as an input. That would render the model useless in making forecasts of the temperature afterall.
Of course they are an input, indirectly. They “tune” the array of parameters to get the output to “match” the past.
By that definition then the entire source code including numerical core, physics modules, and general model logic is an input. All of that stuff is “tuned” to get the model to match reality as well. The things I was referring to are variables that the model cannot predict like volcanic activity, anthropogenic land use changes, CFC emissions, CH4 emission, CO2 emissions, etc.
Funny how all but one of the things you mention are things that are GHG’s. How about water vapor and clouds, albedo changes due to greening,. Or how about ENSO, AMO, PDO, are those programmed with the proper changes? Things that can reduce temperature? If so, why no pauses or cooling ever? If they are are why no natural variation in projections?
“What they don’t do is feed the model observed temperatures as an input. That would render the model useless in making forecasts of the temperature after all”.
For all practical purposes, that is exactly what they are doing.
Let me make sure I understand your claim…you are claiming that the models in the CMIP suite all accept the global mean temperature as an input and that when they predict the global mean temperature they are doing so from the temperature input and not the laws of physics? Am I understanding your claim correctly?
No.
You haven’t answered the question at all. How close to the actual measured temps have any of the individual model projections over the last 30 years. In case you don’t understand, which model made the most accurate projection 30 years ago? 40 years ago? Heck, even 20 years ago?
I agree with you, Jim. The accuracy of a model can only be measured by comparing its forecasts with what subsequently happened.
That’s not isolating the accuracy of the model though. Remember a model’s output is based on both its algorithms/heuristics and its inputs. For the forecast phase the inputs are scenario based only. One example of an input would be anthropogenic CFCs emissions.
The accuracy of a model can not be gauged by hindcasts, only by forecasts. Hindcasts, with their parameter adjustments allow hindcasts to be manipulated. By judging what forecast a model made 20, 30, 40 years ago to actual temps that have actually occurred provides an assessment of the model, the ability of the managers to access existing data to set current parameters, and the physics of the program. Any failures of any of these make the model unreliable.
Would you fly in an airplane designed by models that that could only predict what happened in the past?
“The accuracy of a model can not be gauged by hindcasts, only by forecasts.”
Patently False. Here is a counter example to prove the point. To asses the skill of the classical model we can take past observations of Mercury’s orbit and compare them to the projections provided by that model. We can then repeat the comparison with the relativistic model. It turns out from evaluations using hindcasting that the relativistic model is superior to the classical model since it accurately simulates the precession. Note something important here. Neither model has any distinction between past and future. They work the same way regardless of whether the modeled scenario based on past events or possible future events.
“Hindcasts, with their parameter adjustments allow hindcasts to be manipulated.”
Why would anyone do that? If you’ve changed the parameters of the model then it’s not the same model anymore.
“By judging what forecast a model made 20, 30, 40 years ago to actual temps that have actually occurred provides an assessment of the model”
That is not isolating the skill of the model though because the output is product of both the model AND the inputs. If you see a deviation between output and observation how would determine whether the deviation was the result of the model or the inputs?
Would you fly in an airplane designed by models that that could only predict what happened in the past?
No. The reason is mainly because this implies that the hypothetical model is making a distinction between past and future. Not only do I question why the model would use different laws of physics for past and future, but I would also question why it couldn’t make computations to begin with. Any model used to developed aircraft should use the same laws of physics and work equally well for any set of inputs regards of whether those inputs are based on past scenarios or future scenarios.
Um, parameter adjustment is part of the model operation.
What do you think is adjusted and when do you think the adjustment happens?
These computer models are full of many empirical parameters, the values of which cannot be calculated. A tweak-run-tweak-run-…. process is used to get “close” to the temperature values they want to emulate.
Yet after all these cycles, the outputs are basically just linear functions of the CO2 concentration, as Pat Frank has demonstrated.
That I absolutely agree with. They tweak parameters/rules/heuristics between runs as a part of the development cycle. What I disagree with is that they change model during its execution or operation. They don’t tweak parameters/rules/heuristics in the middle of a run or use one configuration for hindcasts and another for forecasts.
That is not what Carlo, Monte said.
I’m responding to the insinuation that models use one set of rules/heuristic/parameters/logic/etc for a hindcast and then another for a forecast or that they change during “operation”. If that isn’t the insinuation and everyone agrees that this only happens during the development phase then I’m all good. Again…my point is that given the same inputs the model will produce the same output regardless of whether those inputs are for scenarios that have already occurred (hindcast) or scenarios that could hypothetically occur (forecast). And the only way you can isolate model skill in this case is by hindcast only because we don’t know how humans will behave in the future thus we don’t know all of the inputs to use.
You are giving way two things. One, that the models are programmed primarily to resspond to CO2 as the control knob, i.e., ever increasing. Two, that the models have no ability to take a single set of initial conditions and project what will happen. Why do I say that, the output curves never show any natural variation. No cooling periods, no pauses, just continued temperature growth! Up, Up, and Away!
Ass I asked, go back to projections made 40, 30, 20 years ago and see which one most accurately has projected current temps. hich one showed any natural variation?
Let me add, you say that
“I’m responding to the insinuation that models use one set of rules/heuristic/parameters/logic/etc for a hindcast and then another for a forecast or that they change during “operation”.
if they are using an RCP type scenario then during operation either manual insertion of growth in CO2 is entered or it is programmed in the software. Either way changes are made during operation.
“And the only way you can isolate model skill in this case is by hindcast”. Ridiculous statement. Only confirmed forecasts can do that. Every single climate model has a hindcast which matches the observational record. Any model whose hindcast didn’t match the temperature record would never see the light of day.
Oh…so we can’t test Newton’s law of gravitation by hindcasting the orbital motion of Mercury and comparing it to past observations? We can’t test the standard model by hindcasting the motions of particles and comparing them to past observations in the Large Hadron Collider? We can’t test the wave-particle duality model by hindcasting the interference pattern of electrons and comparing it to double-slit experiment observations? Are you sure it isn’t your statement that only forecast can accomplish this that is the ridiculous statement?
And duh…that’s the point of a hindcast. If it can’t hindcast reality reasonably well then we aren’t going to be confident that it can forecast either. Science is all about discarding models that are inferior at hindcasting and forecasting. So yes, any model that didn’t match the historical temperature record reasonably well is not going to see the light of day. That is the point. That is exactly what we want.
“And duh…that’s the point of a hindcast. If it can’t hindcast reality reasonably well then we aren’t going to be confident that it can forecast either”. A model which forecasts the past proves absolutely nothing and shows zero skill. Why can’t you understand that?
Every single published climate model has a hindcast which matches the past. But they all work in different ways with different parameter settings. So you are arguing that all these different values for these parameters are simultaneously correct. Do you realise how absurd your position is?
Stop comparing climate models with models for other things with well understood processes like orbital mechanics. There is absolutely no comparsion at all.
That’s a good question. That will take some considerable effort to determine. I’ll see if I can work that request into my queue. I just downloaded all of the data, but I’ll have to write a computer program to analyze it. Follow up with me in a couple weeks. Hopefully I’ll have it done by then.
It was easier than I thought. This is for 1880 to 2020. Of the individual members within the CMIP5 ensembles it was GISS-E2-R-CC that performed the best with an RMSE of 0.193C. The ensemble mean itself came in at 0.165C. In terms of the trend it was IPSL-CM5B-LR that performed the best at +0.0887 C/decade. The ensemble mean itself came in at +0.0790 C/decade. Note the BEST trend was +0.0870 C/decade.
Here is the period from 1979-present with CMIP5 plot against 4 traditional, 2 satellite, 1 raob, and 1 reanalysis dataset including a composite of them. One of the biggest issues I see is the handling of El Chichon. Though it did handle Pinatubo pretty well. And of course there is no skill in predicting the effects of the ENSO cycle.
You are dithering. No one asked for hindcasts from a current model. What did the models project in 1990? Did they come close to what happened? How about the models runs in 2000, did they project temperature accurately? Which one was the most accurate at each past point in time?
We’ll have to see how the model projections from 2020 pan out.
I’ll refer you to Hausfather et al. 2020 for that question.
Quote from Tom Halla “So the IPCC is reducing the range of possible ECS, but making the low end about twice what it probably is? Even using GISS as a temperature record (which is inflated), Lewis and Curry had ECS at 1.2 or so”.
The IPCC range of 2.5 to 4.0C comes (allegedly) from climate models. This is pretty damning evidence that climate models are running far too hot compared to the observational record.
Climate models versus observations 2.
Climate models versus observations 3.
That chart comes from Dr. Christy. Unfortunately no one knows how it was constructed. It was never submitted for peer review.
Per RATPAC the warming from 1979-2020 in the mid troposphere tropical region was about 1.0C and when you appropriate align the timeseries (notice the subtle misalignment in the timeseries in the original) you’ll see that the green line should end around 1.2C. Sure, that is a bit below the red line, but nothing like what is shown in the there. There is a similar analysis with the chart you posted just above this as well. In that case the actual observed trend falls right on the black line in 2020.
You are, of course, encouraged to follow up and double check this for yourself.
Can we have the graph for that?
Ta muchly.
Absolutely. This is the RATPAC tropical (30S-30N) region at 300mb.
This faux assertion of the shortfalls in climate models has already been debunked.
https://twitter.com/nstokesvic/status/1387695497696092163
You say that 2+2=5. You know somebody else who says that 2+2=5. Therefore 2+2=5.
It is interesting you acknowledge that because weather stations with Stevenson Screens were not designed to be research tools either! Nor were dip buckets used on ships. Basically, all the data gathered to support the meme of global warming is from instrumentation not fit for the purpose of climate research. Yet, monthly averages containing 3-significant figures to the right of the decimal point are trotted out to convince the public that we are going to Hell in a 5-parts-per-10,000 handbag.
The criteria for the utility of data to be evaluated is not that it comes from sources “designed to be research tools”. Rather, it’s that we know it’s precision and accuracy. Yes, temp measurement is better now than 150 years ago. But for every source you mindlessly diss, we know both of these parameters quite well enough to use them for the referenced evaluations.
You should really ponder the value you add by belonging to this shrinking, but hardy, band of WUWT statistics 101 deniers. I.e., the folks who can’t get their heads around how we can use statistics and modern spatial interpolation to exploit even data with larger error bands to find the trends you hide your eyes from.
And knowing that the data sources aren’t fit for purpose, it is used anyway with the excuse that it is all that we have. Speaking of being “mindless,” that is not unlike someone saying that they know the gas mileage of their car and will use it to drive to Hawaii for their vacation.
The short time you have been commenting here, you have not impressed me with your mastery of statistics. Therefore, I am inclined to lump you with “statistics 101 deniers.”
I was agreeing with Banton and pointing out that it isn’t just radiosonde data that isn’t up to the drive to Hawaii.
“And knowing that the data sources aren’t fit for purpose, it is used anyway with the excuse that it is all that we have.”
Not based in fact. Your claim, your job to back it up. At least that’s how it works above ground.
“The short time you have been commenting here, you have not impressed me with your mastery of statistics. “
Between the 2 of us, I’m the only one that has done any actual statistical evaluations using actual data, here. You have yet to technically dispute any of it, arm waving about irrelevancies like “multiple sources” ad infinitum.
FYI, in my biz, dozens of petroleum rock and fluid properties are routinely used together to build reservoir engineering models. Each of these properties, permeability, capillary pressure, pore size distribution – on and on – are both mostly taken from multiple sources, and have distributed values. Sometimes these distributions are correlated, sometimes not. But we have no compunction about solving and resolving the diffusivity equation for them, for tens of thousands of cells, to output multiple production realizations, to be sent over for stochastic economic analysis. Even though the distributed input data is much, much, more “noisy” than the data we are discussing, but – somehow – reservoir simulation has disrupted and positively transformed upstream oil and gas operations…
Ha Ha Ha! You are not the only one that has used statistics in pursuit of business goals. In my case do you know how many shared use components in an old electromechanical telephone switching office needed to be measured, tracked and forecasted using statistics to meet performance goals like one call per 1000 being delayed or blocked? These were relentlessly scrutinized because of budget constraints and constant reports to the Public Utility Commissions. The PUC’s were always on the lookout for both under and over provisioning. Over provisioning was treated badly because you weren’t allowed to include it in the rate base to earn money on which hurt investors and the stock price.
You said,
You also said,
Then back up your implicit claim that that I have not done “any actual statistical evaluations using actual data.”
You are such a blow hard! Trying to impress us with your experience with non-statistical models.
Your old columns were not valid statistical evaluation by any stretch. Merely instatisticate, fact free, goal post moving, arm waving. Now, you just entertain us with lengthy tales from your youth and childhood.
Just one example. Your fact free assumption that the error bands of monthly global average temperature evaluations significantly change the standard errors of the resulting trends
Answer:
100 years of the very worst temp measurements increase the standard error the temp trend by all of 0.68%. I.e., back to school for you!
But feel free to play with this yourself, or even to aks me for other examples, since – well, you know – “Uh, it’s been awhile since I’ve done this”. Actually, I’ll predict that you will retreat back into your denial of basic stat laws by dissing the monthly standard deviation data provided by those instatisticate Berkeley Earth Dr. Evil AGW conspiracy theorists….
http://berkeleyearth.org/archive/summary-of-findings/
Good news and bad news for you. The good news. I was accidentally using the last 31 years worth of available data, bigoilbob regrets the error. The evaluation of the first 100 years worth of data does indeed change the standard error of the trend of the data by quite a bit, more than doubling it.
Now, the bad news. That doubling changes the standard deviation of that trend from ~0.047 degC/century to ~0.099 degC/century. I.e., from totally insignificant to slightly less totally insignificant. Sorry, not sorry…..
You don’t know what you are doing with statistics. The software tools, like in excel assume you know what you are doing.
Standard Error is a shortened version of the term Standard Error of the sample Mean (SEM). Do you know how it is calculated? Here is the formula:
SEM = σ/√N
σ = the Standard Deviation of the population.
Excel assumes the data you are supplying is the entire population. It then calculates what you could expect for the SEM if you did proper sampling.
The SEM tells you neither the accuracy of a mean nor the precision of a mean. It is the SD of a sample distribution and tells you interval within which the Sample Mean should lie.
Look at these two sites for an explanation.
https://byjus.com/maths/standard-error-of-the-mean/
https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/sampling-and-normal-distribution
Maybe you’ll learn something new!
Reading comp. I’m being kind. What is under discussion is not the standard error of a sample distribution. Rather, it’s the standard error of it’s OLS trend. Here’s the formula for that:
sb1 = sqrt [ S(yi – yi)2 / (n – 2) ] / sqrt [ S(xi – x)2 ]. The “x” is the average date, in this case.
Note the “S(yi – yi)2″ term. Familiar? I’m sure it is (still more sarc), but I’ll help. It’s the sum of the variances between the computed values and the actuals. So, if you have another source of variance – in this case the standard deviations of the individual monthlies – they can be simply included in the equation to gauge their impact.
Folks, I suspect that this is all bird chirping to Mr. Gorman, so bb.
But separately, I’m having a bad AM. The added standard error of of the standard deviations from ~1750 to 1850 did not double from considering them. It add ~41% to them – square roots and all. Bottom line, the change in the standard error of the very worst 100 years of temp data would be ~0.02degC/century from consideration of the individual monthly errors. Since we’re contrasting that to the ~1.5 – 2.0 degC/century of modern warming trend, BFD….
What you are are describing is the Residual Standard Error. It is important in science to be accurate with the language you are using. Standard Error is also a shortcut phrase for Standard Error of the Sample mean.
You get residuals when you fit a model a linear regression of y = mx + b to a set of data. There will always be errors that are not offset since a simple linear regression can not truly meet all the “data + errors” in the set of data.
The real question is why are you using linear regression to describe a set of data that is obviously not linear?
Even the IPCC recognizes that the earth’s climate is entirely non-linear.
No one has ever questioned my assertion that climate is periodic. Why? It is made up of all kinds of periodic phenomena. That makes it very susceptible to starting and ending points.
In addition the whole premise of GHG warming is that CO2 is the CONTROL KNOB for temperature. Non-linear functions when combined can create pauses naturally, but if CO2 is the single variable then pauses should be impossible.
You seem blocked by your confusion between the standard error of the bean and the standard error of the trend. FYI, Excel and Open Office both call it the standard error of the coefficient, and the coefficient in this case is the trend.
“The real question is why are you using linear regression to describe a set of data that is obviously not linear?”
Never said that it was “linear”. I was using it only as an example of the silliness of trying to diss trends, whether mostly linear over the evaluative period, such as modern temp data, or quadratic, such as modern sea level data, by claiming that the fact that the input data was distributed made a whit of difference. I intentionally used the worst data to make my point. The comparable example for 1980-2011 data (cyclically linear, even without accounting for seasonality) shows that the standard error of the trend increased by all of 0.0006 degC/century by considering the error bands of the individual data points. 10^BFD….
.
You have never bothered to research time series analysis have you? If you had, you would know you are not dealing with stationary data. The amplitudes variations of periodic waveforms made up from other complex functions can vary widely. Simple growth in variance can result in a trend. You can see growth, pauses, and decreases. You need to investigate the available statistical methods for making data stationary.
“In addition the whole premise of GHG warming is that CO2 is the CONTROL KNOB for temperature. Non-linear functions when combined can create pauses naturally, but if CO2 is the single variable then pauses should be impossible“
That most certainly is not the whole premise of GHG warming. CO2 is not the control knob, but a control knob. It is not the single variable, but only a variable. There are many variables that are in play and modulate the atmospheric temperature.
Then why are trillions being spent as if CO2 IS THE ONLY IMPORTANT VARIABLE?
Is there any assurance that all this spending will affect the other variables in the proper manner?
I have no idea. That is social/economic/political topic which I have little knowledge of and almost zero interest in.
Perhaps you should have an interest in it because the Net Zero campaigns are going to impact your life significantly as well as everyone else.
What kind of person refers to themselves in the third person?
A cheap shot, even for you. Arm waving in the extreme. You hypocritically ignore your own rules:
“Not based in fact. Your claim, your job to back it up. At least that’s how it works above ground.”
Neither Excel Help or Google provide a match for “Standard Error of Trend.” Perhaps you aren’t just having a bad AM, but a bad day, period. Could you come up with a term that other people commonly use? I’m not sure what the point is that you are trying to make with regard to the sample data set. Perhaps your bad day extends to confusing me with someone else, since you don’t specify what you are responding to.
I think that Jim has adequately responded to your claims.
Straight to you from excel (and Open Office) help. In this case for the function linest
Statistic
Description
se1,se2,…,sen
The standard error values for the coefficients m1,m2,…,
Substitute the word “trend” for “coefficient”, since thislinest function was used to calculate that trend. See what I did? Sorry you failed to see it before, even though I spoon fed it to you….
Total sidebar. I’ve read your posts for years, and strongly recommend that you exploit available resources. This has nada to do with our exchanges over AGW and your manifest instatistacy. I mean this in the nicest possible way…
https://buckeyehills.org/aging-disability
Why don’t you learn something from the folks on here.
From the World Meteorology Organization.
5.5 TIME SERIES ANALYSIS
The principles guiding model-fitting (see 5.3) also guide time series analysis. A model is fitted to the data series; the model might be linear, curvilinear, exponential, periodic or some other mathematical formulation. The best fit (the fit that minimizes the differences between the data series and the model) is generally accomplished by using least-squares techniques (minimizing the sum of squared departures of the data from the curve fit). Residuals from the best fit are examined for patterns and, if any are found, the model is adjusted to incorporate the patterns. Time series in climatology have been analysed with a variety of techniques that decompose a series either into time domain or into frequency domain components. A critical assumption of these models is that of stationarity (when characteristics of the series such as mean and variance do not change over the length of the series). This condition is generally not met by climatological data even if the data are homogeneous (see 5.2). Gabor and wavelet analyses are extensions of the classical techniques of spectral analysis. Allowing subintervals of a time series to be modelled with different scales or resolutions relaxes the condition of stationarity. These analyses are particularly good at representing time series with subintervals that have differing characteristics. Wavelet analysis gives good results when the time
series has spikes or sharp discontinuities. Compared to the classical techniques, it is particularly efficient for signals in which both the amplitude and frequency vary with time. One of the main advantages of these “local” analyses is the ability to present time series of climate processes in the coordinates of frequency and time, studying and visualizing the evolution of various modes of variability over a long period. They are used not only as a tool for identifying non-stationary scales of variations, but also as a data analysis tool to gain an initial understanding of a dataset. There have been many applications of these methods in climatology, such as in studies of the El Nino–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, the North Atlantic Oscillation, atmospheric turbulence, space–time precipitation relationships and ocean wave characteristics. These methods, however, do have some limitations. The most important limitation of wavelet analysis is that an infinite number of wavelet functions are available as a basis for an analysis, and results often differ depending on which wavelet is used. This makes interpretation of results somewhat difficult because different conclusions can be drawn from the same dataset if different mathematical functions are used. It is therefore important to relate the wavelet function to the physical world prior to selecting a specific wavelet. Gabor and wavelet analysis techniques are emerging fields and, although the mathematics has been defined, future refinements in techniques and application methodology may mitigate the limitations. Other common techniques for analysing time series are autoregression and moving average analyses. Autoregression is a linear regression of a value in a time series against one or more prior values in the series (autocorrelation). A moving average process expresses an observed series as a function of a random series. A combination of these two methods is called a mixed autoregressive and moving average (ARMA) model. An ARMA model that allows for nonstationarity is called a mixed autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model. These regression-based models can be made more complex than necessary, resulting in overfitting. Overfitting can lead to the modelling of a series of values with minimal differences between the model and the data values, but since the data values are only a sample representation of a physical process, a slight lack of fit may be desirable in order to represent the true process. Other problems include non-stationarity of the parameters used to define a model, non-random residuals (indicating an inappropriate model), and periodicity inherent in the data but not modelled. Split validation is effective in detecting model overfitting. Split validation refers to the practice of developing a model based on a portion of the available data and then validating the model on the remaining data that were not used in the model development. Once the time series data have been modelled by an acceptable curve, and the fit validated, the mathematical properties of the model curve can be used to make assessments that would not be possible using the original data. These include measuring trends, cyclical behaviour, or autocorrelation and persistence, together with estimates of the confidence of these measures.
I already know how to cut/paste. You do too, but you seem conveniently out of gas in actually discussing the relevance of your latest find.
But here’s the biggest take away:
“It is therefore important to relate the wavelet function to the physical world prior to selecting a specific wavelet.”
This is avoided like the plague here in WUWT. Rather, any patterns that fit your prejudgments are promoted. The latest is this very post, in which an statistically insignificant, quite common “pause” is touted, while statistically/physically significant time periods, with relevant evaluations are ignored.
But you apparently aren’t willig to admit that even the WMO makes the point of time seies analysis being appropriate.
Another irrelevant Homer Simpsonian post. BTW, you need another keyboa()d….
This is an important point that alarmists seem unwilling or unable to grasp!
“(when characteristics of the series such as mean and variance do not change over the length of the series)”
The statistical rules found and used for centuries do a fine job of accounting for changes in mean and variance over the length of any physically/statistically significant parts of “the series”. 2 examples are the BEST temp data and sea level station data. Both come with both expected value and error band input data. Both can be used as is for any trend evaluation, including quadratic sea level rise evaluation to find the post 1980 acceleration evident in ~80% of those sea level stations…
You are a cad! You have crossed the line with insults. Consider yourself persona non grata, and don’t expect any replies from me in the future, which may be what you wanted. However, I won’t waste time with someone like you.
Prove those temperature trends aren’t a product of natural warming.
We’ll wait…..
Are you going to run away from whatever it is you mean by “insolation” again, Baton?
What power does questioning the status quo give us?
We are pretty powerless in the face of “the great global warming enrichment” of the model-masters.
That’s a lot of waffle to try and explain away a hypothesis that has been wrong for 50 years.
SST’ algorithm reporting makes a graph like that possible. Example shows the algorithm in action. Goes up 3.3C in 2 days then down 2.4C in one day. While air temperature cools. This observation shows SST’s chaos.
You do realize your graph stops before 2020, right Loydo? If you’re using that to refute the comment, it’s a fail.
Your graph seems to show that there’s been a steady warming since 1900. I thought the warming was only supposed to start when we really started using fossil fuels at a noticeable amount (ie around about the 1950s). If all the warming for the first half of the 20th century was natural, why did nature decide to turn itself off in the 1950s and hand all the warming over to use humans?
It’s beyond ridiculous Loydo.
And don’t forget to mention that the warming in the first half of the 20th century reached the same level of warmth that we are experiencing today.
The same magnitude of warming from 1910 to 1940 as compared to the period 1979 to the present, and both periods warmed to the same high temperature.
In the case of the United States, it was actually warmer in the Early Twentieth Century than it is today, so North America has been in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s.
If you see a graph that does not show the 1930’s to be on the same horizontal level as the present day, then you are looking at a distorted temperature record. Real, written, historical temperature records show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
“…don’t forget to mention that the warming in the first half of the 20th century reached the same level of warmth that we are experiencing today.”
Nope, falsified here https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/hot-and-cold-curry/
Take your blinkers off and have another look. The slope obviously increases in the mid 70s.
Increases in the 70s? But I thought our evil see-oh-toos were supposed to kick in during the 50s?
My word, you thermageddonists need to get your story straight.
The PDO switch of 1977 was totally natural, without any effect from CO2.
Earth cooled dramatically from the ’40s until 1977. Then another natural warm cycle occurred, as in the late teens to ’40s.
Even if it is warming that does not mean C02 did it, and besides, you used fossil fuels every day of your life, so kindly stow it.
“Even if it is warming that does not mean C02 did it”
That’s right. Mother Nature did all the warming, until proven otherwise, and nobody has proven otherwise. Nobody.
“nobody has proven otherwise. Nobody”
And therein lies the problem:
The activist scientists, the MSM, and the politicians all act as though CAGW is a theory as rock solid as gravity.
The public don’t realise that CAGW is merely a rather shonky hypothesis that has yet to be proven. In fact, the predictions made off the back of the hypothesis have been wrong for the past 50 years. Every time.
It’s a scam on a global scale and people such as Loydo have been silly enough to fall for it.
That’s exactly right.
Didn’t you know? Bellman’s computer is made out of bamboo, and he pedals a bicycle wheel to keep it powered up. It’s a sweaty job, but you’ve got to put in the effort if you want to stop climate change/chaos/breakdown/carnage/obliteration/etc.
0.56 c per century. In two centuries the oceans will be 1.1 C warmer than now. OMG we’re all gonna die. /sarc
Away from the ocean, warming is less evenly distributed with some regions warming faster than others. Unlucky for me, my region seems to be warming faster than average.
Which area is warming the fastest?
Well another bugger me, isn’t everywhere warmer more than the global average, according to you blokes anyway. Oh BoM say no more
BuMet, ie professional liars.
Am I reading this correctly? 61 to 19 is 58 years, right? Pretty much 60 years or 6 decades. And the world average is about 0.6. Hmmm, I calculate that as 0.1 degree per decade or 1 degree per century. Far below what is being forecast.
Beware forecasting the future when you don’t know the real math behind is what happening. Trending the future is fraught with uncertainty.
I’m from Australia…its not hotter anywhere I have lived in my life…so in 3 of 6 states, in fact, if anything it could be a bit cooler and wetter, which is strange because we are supposed to be living in a desert now according to predictions 20 years ago. The BOM has been busy making the past cooler though…so there is that…
Or perhaps the past is cooling ?
https://www.waclimate.net/very-hot-days-marble-bar.html
Wasn’t it also “WAY ABOVE THE LONG TERM TREND” in 1896 and 1943???
I think those years are highpoints in the natural climate cycle.
The decade of the 1880’s and of the 1930’s and of the present day all had similar high temperatures. They should all fit on the same horizontal line on a graph.
The decade of the 1880’s was a highpoint, then cooling took place until the 1910’s, and then warming took place from the 1910’s to the late 1930’s, and then cooling took place from 1940 to 1979, where the cool temperatues were just as cool as during the 1910’s, and climate scientists were starting to think the Earth was going into a new Ice Age in the middle 1970’s, and then things started warming up again until now, the present day, but the highpoint of today never got any higher than the highpoint of the 1880’s or the 1930’s, and now the temperatures are starting to cool, down about 0.5C from the 2016 highpoint, perhaps heading to another lowpoint equivalent to the 1970’s and the 1910’s.
If so, then we would have a cycle where we have three equal highs and three equal lows, so our climate is moving in a channel right now, not too hot and not too cold. Mother Nature is in control. Until proven otherwise.
Agreed, but there has been a slight secular warming trend from the Little Ice Age. The problem is that there has been a cooling trend for the last few millennia.
But even if it gets as warm as the Holocene Optimum, it is still within the range of natural variation. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. So far I see none.
Great description.
It has already changed course, thanks to La Nina. Look at the latest data points.
It climbed from 2015-16 and 2019-20 Los Ninos, but has headed back down since the La Nina, with another on the way. Has nothing to do with CO2.
Well bugger me, less than 0.5 C in 100 yrs coming out of the LIA. Remind me again, how was that measured
Why do you quote one thing and then show a chart that is on a completely different topic. It’s called deflection and it is what liars and dishonest people are found to do.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2020/to/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2020/to/trend
It appears John’s comment is exactly right.
SST’s reporting is controlled by algorithms as past global coverage was so poor prior satellite era. Anomalies for large areas are predominantly guessing.
(Deleted personal attack) SUNMOD
The oceans average a depth of some 5,000 metres and Argo data collection is confined to the top 2,000 metres. The bottom of the oceans is in contact with Earth’s mantle, whose spreading ridges contain an uncounted number of volcanic vents and fissure along a length of some 66,000 km.
The ocean below 2000 meters is cold, except at hydrothermal sites under high pressure.
Your lying is getting as bad as griff.
So you obviously believe infrared from ghgs can penetrate the ocean skin?
And yet another lie.
(He isn’t here was never here in this thread, do not make people be the topic) SUNMOD
(Deleted)
Serious question:
IF the heat is going into the oceans how can it ever be a problem?
Water is a great way of storing heat with minimal impact on temperature. None of the feedbacks that are hypothesised to make climate change a problem can possibly happen if the heat is going into the ocean.
IF you are right, isn’t AGW now solved?
The heat is not only “going into the oceans”.
The point I am making is that if you want to opine about global warming you might want to include the oceans, specifically SST.
It’s the elephant that wags its atmospheric tail.
Air temperatures are noisy. Focussing on short-term fluctuations in atmospheric temperature but ignoring the order of magnitude larger oceanic warming is a waste of time at best and otherwise disingenuous. Monckton is smart enough not to be wasting his time.
So what you are saying is that most of AGW is solved but a little bit isn’t.
It seems we agree that the whole thing is over-hyped and the climate models don’t work.
No that’s what you said, I said nothing about solving anything.
So how much is being eaten by the oceans and how much have they left in the side of their plate, free to float off and heat the atmosphere?
Per Schuckmann 2020 for the period 1971-2018 1% went into the atmosphere, 4% into the cryosphere, 6% into land, and 89% into the hydrosphere. And the planetary energy imbalance is +0.87±0.12 W/m2 right now.
That’s piece paper with the word “estimate” scattered throughout it i.e. they’re guessing.
Air temperatures are not noisy! They are a data population with high variance. That is NOT NOISE. You and others blindly ignore this variance and it is never quoted when you quote a global mean temperature. Why is that? Perhaps the variance will be greater than the change in the mean.
While I am at it, why do you never quote an associated “absolute” temperature for the GAT? It’s not that hard to add an anomaly to a baseline temperature. Are you trying to hide the percent change in felt temperature. Where I live if you tell me the annual average is going to grow from 60 to 63 I’ll simply say Yea!
It’s almost as if the earth’s climate is self-correcting, isn’t it?
But the thermageddonists want us to believe the climate is out of control.
Technically I would say it is out of the range of control, for mankind! The earth has maintained itself between certain boundaries for millions of years. I don’t see any evidence that mankind can change those boundaries.
That’ll be a first
No you won’t, liar.
That is your idea of a joke eh Loydo? Please tell us you are joking! Your credibility is at stake.
What credibiity?
🙂
I can’t wait for Nick Stokes to come on here and tell us it’s so warm in the winter that he doesn’t need that extra blanket 😉
He will always need the “extra blanket” he uses while sucking his thumb.
You white western leftie morons don’t even realized when we(=people of my former faith)rape the crap out of your wifes(stockholm, now rape capital nr 1 in Europe) and girls(“grooming” in Rotherham,Rothington and do many other places),
and you don’t even ask why and how this all was and is going on for years unpunished by law and ignored by themee too MSM.
You have ignored that the predicted sea level rise of several yards never happened and turned out to be 100% wrong just as ” snow and arctic sea ice will be a thing of the past” and all the lies about penguins,polar bears,walruses etc being killed by AGW ,
and you ignored climate gate 1+2 and the fact that the earth got so much greener(the only real significant impact co2 had on our planet)
but you still dare to claim that you will notice if the ocean temperatures stop rising.
Dude-the oceans could freeze tomorrow and you wouldn’t dare to question the official narrative because you are not capeable to think for yourself.
As the American Goebbels Edward Bernays said ” We are governed,our minds are molded,our tastes formed,our IDEAS suggested largely bu men we have never heard of”
“who understand the mental processes and the social patterns of the masses.It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind”
And Chomsky wrote a book about how powerful people and their are artificially” manufacturing consent”,
and you can bet you butt that climate consent is part of that.
It really is hard to believe that all these clowns keep on claiming terrible happenings caused by CAGW and CO2 but none of them are observable! Where are the dead polar bears, the kilometers of dead corals on the Great Barrier Reef, the droughts and floods, the destroyed rain forests? The only destroyed rain forests I know of are the ones destroyed to plant oil palms for biodiesel, nothing to do with climate. Sea levels continue to creep up by milometers around the world, there is no catastrophic rise in sea level nor is there going to be. The poles are still ice-covered.
That’s not ice on the poles. That’s water crystals formed by global warmening evaporating all the water off and if you get Ridd of Peter the coral is all bleached like they say it is. Oil their palm and the penguins are next for extinction. We simply can’t see the forest for the tree rings because we haven’t been brought up proper like Greta.
Snort!
You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
Chomsky also wrote a Climate Change book
https://www.amazon.com.au/Climate-Crisis-Global-Green-Deal/dp/178873985X
“If [climate change ] became a serious proposal in the United States, there would be a huge propaganda onslaught by the business community, the energy corporations and many others, to try to frighten the population into opposing it – claiming that if they have it, all sorts of terrible things will happen, like you won’t be able to heat your home, or whatever the story is.”
You’d better switch him to the EVIL ledger.
Got your Big Oil pants on again, I see.
Looks like the source of all the warm water north of Hawaii has gone away. Just a matter of time before it slowly cools back to “normal”. The ENSO region is a primary source of warmer ocean waters and all ENSO regions are cooling. From the Australian BOM:
Yeah, because manmade CO2 heat is magical and can suddenly decide to disappear into the oceans when it wants to.
CO2 is the Magic Molecule. It can cause heating or cooling, as needed, depending on the explanation needed.
Also floods and droughts.
The only thing alarmists have not attributed to CO2 is “the heartbreak of psoriasis!”
They’re holding back on that until all other scare tactics have been deployed. Have to keep publishing rubbish or perish.
Loydo
After Josh Willis, ocean temperature data are not believable.
Some abstract, Josh Willis-massaged “average” is neither believable nor even relevant.
Discreet and recognisable ocean phenomena are more important – things that we would expect to see if the oceans really were warming as Josh Willis would have us believe.
Things like the ice at the poles melting. In the real world, not computer models. Arctic and Antarctic ice, land and sea, is proving stubbornly persistent – it has failed to change significantly over the same time period as the warming pause discussed here. That fact alone shows the warming pause to be more real than Josh Willis invented abstractions of mean temperatures.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/09/12/widespread-signals-of-southern-hemisphere-ocean-cooling-as-well-as-the-amoc/
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/09/24/ocean-news/
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/05/13/southern-hemisphere-sea-ice-now-extends-80-km-farther-north-than-prior-estimates/
Calling all trolls….
PDO MonthlyIndexSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×475) (climate4you.com)
NOAA SST-NorthAtlantic GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×481) (climate4you.com)
The Holocene Climate Optimum was considerably warmer than today but carbon dioxide levels were much lower. This strongly suggests that carbon dioxide has not been a significant driver of temperatures in the current interglacial.
CO2 follows temp. change. Due to outgassing.
It alwys has. Now there is undoubtedly a human compnent,
But since it has been warming for a couple of hundred years and CO2 lags warming, that’s probably why CO2 is still rising when the temperature isn’t.
Why can’t anyone see that? Apart from us conspiracy theorists/ awful sceptics?
Most sheep now wear blinkers!
Smart horses sport fly screens when needed (it’s called summer, loy-d’oh) and leave the blinky blinders to those more obsequious! Will the sheeple be issued coats after they’ve been sheared?
True, but the most of the current significant atmospheric CO2 increases are anthropogenic. But increasing CO2 has not been shown to translate into significant warming. There are too many other primary temperature drivers in the dynamic climate of Earth.
If mankind’s CO2 emissions were the driver of global warming, judging by historically known fact, they would take around 20,000 years to raise the planet’s temperature by 2C.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/07/carbon-cycle/#comment-3264363
The following is the cutting edge of the science:
The huge decline in fossil fuel consumption during the year-plus Covid-19 lockdown had NO impact on atmospheric CO2 increase – more evidence that Ed Berry’s latest book and paper are correct – see below.
My friend Ed says the increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily natural, not man-made. The smartest people on the planet think he is correct.
More evidence supporting Berry:
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales. (MacRae, 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion.
Kuo et al (1990) and Keeling (1995) made similar observations in the journal Nature, but have been studiously ignored.
IF CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would lead temperature changes but they do NOT – CO2 changes lag temperature changes.
Think about that: Kuo was correct in 1990, and for 31 years climate science has ignored that conclusion and has been going backwards!
Climate Sensitivity (CS) to CO2 is a fiction – so small, if it even exists, it is practically irrelevant.
“The future cannot cause the past.” Here is the proof, from my 2008 paper:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
In the modern data record, the lag of atmospheric CO2 changes after atmospheric temperature changes is ~9 months. This is an absolute disproof of the CAGW hypothesis, which states that increasing CO2 drives temperature. “The future cannot cause the past.”
In my 2019 paper below, I explained why the lag is ~9 months – it is basic calculus, the 90 degree (1/4 cycle) lag of the derivative and its integral, which is the ~3 year ENSO period.
My 2008 paper remains very important. My 2008 conclusion was confirmed and expanded by Humlum et al in 2013, for which I am grateful.
My 2008 paper has been cited by Ed Berry in his 2020-21 book and related paper, which is at the cutting edge of climate science.
“CLIMATE MIRACLE: THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS – NATURE CONTROLS CLIMATE”
amazon.ca/Climate-Miracle-climate-crisis-controls-ebook/dp/B08LCD1YC3/
“PREPRINT #3: A NEW CARBON CYCLE MODEL SHOWS HUMAN EMISSIONS CAUSE 25% AND NATURE 75% OF THE CO2 INCREASE”
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/
All warmists and most skeptics argue about the magnitude of climate sensitivity (CS) to increasing CO2, and whether the resulting CO2-driven global warming will be hot and dangerous or warm and beneficial. Both groups are probably wrong.
There is a high probability that the mainstream climate debate about the magnitude of CS is wrong – a waste of decades of vital time, tens of trillions of dollars of green energy nonsense and millions of lives. Vital energy systems have been compromised, damaged with intermittent, unreliable wind and solar generation – a debacle.
It is important to note that Global Cooling is happening now, even as CO2 concentration increases – another disproof of the global warming fraud.
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of humanity – it IS that simple. The green sabotage of our vital energy systems, whether innocent or deliberate, has cost lives and could cost very many more.
Regards, Allan MacRae in Calgary
Allan,
Thanks for the attempt, but every self-loathing Climastrologist KNOWS that the Evil Molecule Of Doom causes ALL things!
Heating, cooling, floods and drought; it’s what CO2 is all about!
Don’t try to argue ‘cause there is no doubt,
When they ask questions scream and shout!
You will be quoted.
Agreed A-Man – We covered that some time ago:
You put your left wing in
You put you left wing out
You put your left wing in
And you shake it all about
“Heating, cooling, floods and drought;
That’s what CO2 is all about!”
THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE January 10, 2020
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf
INTRODUCTION.
Let’s assume that the CAGW is a scientific hypothesis and can be falsified. This concept is important, because the scary humanmade “Climate Change“ hypothesis can mean anything and everything to climate alarmists – warmer, colder, wetter, drier, windier, calmer and thus cannot be falsified – it is Karl Popper’s “non-falsifiable hypothesis”, or in layman’s terms, it is non-scientific nonsense.
When it is scientifically framed, the Catastrophic Humanmade “Climate Change” hypothesis can also be falsified, as discussed herein.
“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper
…
There are numerous highly credible observations that falsify the CAGW hypothesis and many are listed herein, but as Albert Einstein famously stated “One would be enough”.
Aaaaah! The hokey pokey; my college major!
Allan, that was a very nice review of Ed Berry’s book you gave on Amazon! I’ll have to see where else I can find it; I’m getting tired of funding big corporate fascists!
Ed Berry’s book is very general – the core of the science is in the paper, which can be viewed and downloaded here.
“PREPRINT #3: A NEW CARBON CYCLE MODEL SHOWS HUMAN EMISSIONS CAUSE 25% AND NATURE 75% OF THE CO2 INCREASE”
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/
“HUMAN EMISSIONS CAUSE 25% AND NATURE 75% OF THE CO2 INCREASE”
LOL, FUNNY BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT JOKING.
So what’s the real percentage then?
Inquiring minds would love to know.
Humans are responsible for 100% of the increase from 280 to 415 ppm.
You’ll have empirical proof of that, won’t you?
(I take it you haven’t heard of a thing called a “volcano”)
I agree with your conclusions, Allan, but Man contributes significantly to current atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Please do not deny that Man puts significant CO2 into the atmosphere.
Oof, heresy. Cursed for not following scripture. The truth is less important than the scripture. Ask Elder Allan.
How significant is highly debatable.
Mmm, debatable, indeed, indeed, yes natural, mmm, yup 25%.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Why stop at 800 000 years BP? Go back a few million years. What happened when CO2 levels were above 500 ppm? Hint: nothing whatsoever.
Pliocene 3C warmer and sea-level up to 40 m higher.
http://moraymo.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2009_raymoetal.pdf
You need to go back a bit further to see that levels were much higher I’m the past, but you knew that already, didn’t you?
This is so stupid. You cannot append a current temperature to this graph. If you want to append anything it has to be an average for the last 10,000 years, just like each datapoint in the rest of the graph.
To illustrate, can you give me ten, one century averages along with the associated temperature variances starting at 500,500 years ago?
CO2 is rising at a slow pace. Oct 2020 411ppm, Oct 2021 412.5ppm. 0.00825 watt/m2-0.0033°C (using radiative forcing calculation). Climate models are tuned so all human emissions cumulates 7.5ppm(35GTCO2) each year. So Feb 2033 reaches 1.5°C above period 1850-1900 0.69 wattsm2 – 0.27°C. Rising CO2 has slowed from 3.5ppm per year to now 1.5ppm. Due to flat temperature.
Oh no! You mean temperature drives CO2 emissions? That can’t be because man-made CO2 is what drives it. (/sarc)
The end of the Pliocene heralded the start of the present Ice Age and coincided with the closure of the connection between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Was it a coincidence that hominin remains suddenly became more prevalent around this time? And that hominins appear to have begun moving out of Africa shortly thereafter.
Because the rate of increase in CO2 is correlated with temperature. Temperatures will need to fall for the rate of CO2 increase to go down.
If the temp is stable, the rate of increase of CO2 is also stable.
Temperature is rising! I don’t think there’s any dispute about this. Just because there has been a pause for the last few years, this doesn’t negate the overall upward trend. Nobody expects a completely linear rise – it will be erratic and I would imagine with several more “pauses”, each one at a higher level than the one before…….if of course the theory is realised!!!!
The point is that if pauses occur then CO2 is NOT a direct cause and that natural variation still has a large part to play.
If someone volunteers to pay me I will be a troll. Otehrwise I will just continue to be cheerfully skeptic. When I was young skepticism was considered a societal duty of tejh young. What happened in our age of drab conformity?
Good point, why are the young people of today so willing to believe what they are told instead of questioning everything?
First of all you have to believe that the “young people of today” are “so willing to believe what they are told”. I’ve seen polls where “young people” do not uniformly believe in CAGW. The fact that so many are able to withstand the enormous propaganda that the MSM and the teachers unions deluge them with is really quite amazing. But of course you won’t read about that in the NYT…
The schools have failed and the MSM has taken over responsibility for ‘educating’ everyone.
It’s not a today problem, it’s an always been issue. Kids are going to believe whatever the adults they trust in their lives tell them. If that’s the we are heading into the next ice age then that’s what they believe. If they are told the world is going to burn up because CO2 then that’s what’s going to happen. Heck, when Reagan was shot there was celebration in my school halls because I lived in a liberal area where they kept saying Reagan was going to lead us into WW3. Kids literally were celebrating his potential death (this was before news arrived that he would live) saving the US from war. FYI, I was in 6th grade at the time and this is the event that opened my eyes to how are thoughts are controlled by narrative.
alastair,
I don’t think the pay is worth the required partial lobotomy! And they remove your sense of humor simultaneously; nothing is worth that much misery!
“QUESTION AUTHORITY” was the rallying cry of the baby boomers in the 1960’s when they all thought that implementing Marxism was the answer to their daily woes.
Fast forward 50 years and see the results of what a more centralized government actually achieves.
Now the mantra is ” SILENCE THE DENIERS” as we see daily in the MSM and social media platforms as the “woke” take away debate and implement policy by force.
“Why does these long Pauses matter?” (sic)
It gives Pausists something to talk about. All I can say is thank god the land and atmosphere is doing the opposite of the oceans.
http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/es202/GRL/oheat3.jpg
Ahhh, more lies, how refreshing. Not.
No, no, Zettajoule do actually exist. They’re just like joules but lots of them.
I would suggest laying off the sauce, except that is the only thing that keeps you going, sadly.
Sorry, I mistook you for a pre-schooler.
So, instead of sobering up you just drink more and keep typing. How sadly typical for you.
“Pausists”
I wonder how long it took your undoubted genius to come up with yet another slur for people who disagree with you?
“All I can say is thank god”
You do realise there is no god? That at least explains your fervent beliefs.
The CO2 induced warming selectively goes only into the ocean?
Is this like cooling is actually caused by warming?
Yeah, the atmosphere is boiling! Fortunately the oceans have about 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere, so a boiling atmosphere of 100C is only increasing the oceans by 0.1C!
Or something or other….it’s all bollox.
Loydo, you would fit right in at the University of Oregon, located in Eugene, and the self-declared center of LGBTQIX activity in the US. You would also like this: Oregon has just passed an actual law eliminating any testing in reading, writing, or math to obtain a High School Diploma. This is actually racist as it lowers expectations.
Ron,
Loydo is very excited to find a place where he can complete his GED!
So what?
This year is going to be a lot cooler than last. We’re liable to have La Niña again.
In February, Earth’s cooling trend will turn six.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/
This La Nina looks locked-in.
– Major cold in four months (and sooner).
– Energy systems in the UK and Germany compromised by intermittent green energy schemes.
– The “”Perfect Storm”, brewed by idiot politicians
– What could possibly go wrong, with these energy-imbeciles in charge?
– Extreme cold and energy shortages. This will end badly.
I tried to warn them in 2002 and 2013, but they would not listen.
Regards, Allan
“…and therefore send not to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
— John Donne (1624) From Meditations, XVII
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/12/arctic-blast-has-arrived-in-the-eastern-usnumerous-record-low-temperatures-by-early-wednesday/#comment-2845511
Well, there it is – the perfect Trifecta – my work here is done.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/27/the-real-climate-crisis-is-not-global-warming-it-is-cooling-and-it-may-have-already-started/#comment-2835920
[excerpt]
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
– Allan MacRae et al, 2002
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
– Allan MacRae et al, 2002
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
– Allan MacRae et al, 2002
3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”
– Allan MacRae, 2013
Regards to all, Allan MacRae
_______________________________________________
Interesting global SST chart for Oct 1st. You can easily spot the paths of the West Pacific Typhoon that skimmed the east coast of Japan as well as the purported CAT 4 horrorcane that hit nothing in the Atlantic by the “Blue” cool water paths left in their wake
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1130954
AN OPEN LETTER TO BARONESS VERMA, OCTOBER 31, 2013
BY ALLAN MACRAE, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng.
[excerpt]
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
“Turning and tuning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer…” Yeats
__________________________________
Why can’t politicians see that? 10 times as many people die of cold as heat. Maybe David Icke has a point?
Dying of cold is a signal that more (fossil-fuel/nuclear) energy is needed, not less.
Wrong narrative entirely.
According to Lancet it’s 20 times more people die from the cold than from heat. Furthermore, it was found with both heat caused and cold caused deaths, the majority were not caused by extremes.
The UK Met Office is forecasting snow for end of October beginning of November. Just in time for COP26 junket in Glasgow.
From today:
Thanks!
La Niña is good for fishers, bad for farmers. But ChiCom factory ships are doing to South American waters what they’ve already done to the western Pacific.
That depends on whether the farmers are on the eastern or western side of the Pacific.
True. I was referring to the Americas.
… and the Grand Banks cod fishery.
Wow! Golly gee! We have a 42-year period where there has been a cyclical upswing in global tropospheric temperatures. The best we can come up with is a 1.4 C/century trend. That would seem to put a hard cap of less than 1.4 C on Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) estimates. Its all downhill from here.
Oh, Lord Monckey, why are you always keen on making a fool of yourself? This forum is a slapstick comedy version of climate science, and you’re getting associated with it… There’s a proper forum for the greatness of your wisdom, the Upper House, your natural plane of existence (wink-wink 😉 ).
(Your insults and fallacies must stop as POLICY demands it: Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.
Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted;)
SUNMOD
No arguments ?
(I had to remove 8 comments that was off topic and part of a derailing thread line over a person, we are supposed to be discussing the topic not about a person who comments here) SUNMOD
Only argumentative fallacies.
Where ? Can’t find any, there aren’t ss you should know.
?????
Ad hominem. Means you have no real rebuttal.
Well, science has, and that’s enough for me. FYI those other guys you don’t like always point out the stupidity of the “Monckey pause” using the proper references.
One more argumentative fallacy – Appeal to Authority.
First, you don’t even identify the authority you are appealing to, “science” is not an authority, it is a process. Second, you provide nothing from the authority that actually supports your assertion.
Yep. Scientific Authority. Eg. in medical matters I would ask a doctor. Would that be “appeal to authority”? Scientists are the trained experts in their respective fields. So I naturally ask them, and I wouldn’t believe in a blog. Furthermore, if you want scientific rebuttal, read the guys below (like Bellman, Banton etc.). They give you a good glimpse in this.
(Guys like Bellman and Banton who provide a distinct opposition viewpoint are a benefit to the blog as they generally make a real effort to debate the topic and be reasonably civil in the process, while people like YOU often come across with personal attacks and insults which you just told me in another comment that you are proud of it, means you are showing that you have little to offer for the debate thus will eventually be put into moderation to stop your useless insulting comments from wasting genuine readers time wanting mature discussion) SUNMOD
Remember, I argued “normally” here too. I always received ad homs immediately.
“Guys like Bellman and Banton who provide a distinct opposition viewpoint are a benefit to the blog as they generally make a real effort to debate the topic and be reasonably civil in the process”
I second that motion.
Banton can be quite nasty also, did you miss this from upthread:
Then we have ( the with one bound he was free ) assertion
” …perpetuate the lies…FOR THEIR OWN POWER.”
My goodness – if you say so !
Oh, and how are them there paedoes doing now that Trump isn’t after them – or maybe he’s been to buy a pizza there since, err losing the POTUS.
“You won’t like it after you finally wake up to the horrible truth.”
LOL – how ironic.
Indeed.
Indeed.
“a doctor” is not the same as “science has”. If you ask a doctor then you should quote who he is and what he said. Referring to “the science” provides no way to judge anything.
Consensus is *NOT* science, especially when it comes to a generalized assertion.
Bellman and Barton are not experts on anything, let alone physical science. Their lack of knowledge on how to propagate uncertainty is total proof of that.
As with all of those mental midgets, they never have despite hundreds if not thousands of requests. Of course, the reason is quite simple: Carbon dioxide levels above 280ppm have never been shown, using real scientific methods, to have an effect on any global climate parameter that is indistinguishable from zero. How easy would it be to prove that statement to be incorrect, if it was incorrect?
You have the podium trolls one and all ……..
We need a new fallacy category – Appeal to Trolls.
““science” is not an authority, it is a process”
That should be said much more.
Well, the last “Monckey pause” lasted over 17 years and created an entire industry attempting (unsuccessfully) to explain it away.
Monkton is a blatteroon and a mumpsimus snollygoster but luckily also a dowfart. I’m surprised he does not draw a line from the peak of 2019 to the minimum for 2021 and claim absolute zero by 2030. When will people realise that climate is a noisy signal. Just look at the hadcrut plots he posted. As others have posted it is better to look at sea temperatures as these smooth the noise.
Oh look, a new contestant.
How unusual.