JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Spiegel speculates on why global warming stalled

This is one of the best mainstream articles I have seen trying to make sense of the point: Why are we not warming? It is rare to see work that tries to cover this much detail and nuance. The great global warming debate might finally be beginning?

GWPF has a translation. Axel Bojanowski has managed to capture a concept that even if global warming has just stalled temporarily — the debate about why it has stalled is revealing in its own right. As I said in the Skeptics Handbook, “something out there affects our climate more than CO2 and none of the computer models knows what it is”.

 

Researchers Puzzled About Global Warming Standstill

How dramatically is global warming really? NASA researchers have shown that the temperature rise has taken a break for 15 years. There are plenty of plausible explanations for why global warming has stalled. However, the number of guesses also shows how little the climate is understood.

Bojanowski calls “NASA scientists” on their predictions:

…it has become common knowledge for some time that the climate has recently developed differently than predicted. The warming has stalled for 15 years; the upward trend in the average global temperature has not continued since 1998 (sic). “The standstill has led to the suggestion that global warming has stopped,” NASA admit.

IPCC meeting

Scientists previously thought 14 years without further warming could be brought into line with their forecasts – but not “15 years or more,” as NASA scientists stated four years ago in the journal “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society”. In an email to colleagues a renowned scientist wrote on 7 May 2009, at a time when the warming standstill had already lasted for eleven years: “the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”

Now, 15 years without warming has happened. The warming standstill of the global surface temperature shows that the uncertainties of climate predictions are surprisingly large. The interested public anxiously awaits whether the IPCC’s new Assessment Report, which is due in September, will address the warming pause – the discussions are ongoing in Australia’s Hobart. The researchers are discussing several cogent reasons that might have slowed the upward trend of temperatures.

Bojanowski does an impressive job: was it the oceans absorbing the heat? Was it the stratosphere; the aerosols over Asia, or the currents in the Pacific? Could it be the influence of solar radiation on clouds, or the influence of water vapor.

Researchers Puzzled About Global Warming Standstill

H/t To Brigid. :-)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.1/10 (62 votes cast)
Spiegel speculates on why global warming stalled, 8.1 out of 10 based on 62 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ax7rmgp

247 comments to Spiegel speculates on why global warming stalled

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I think Spiegel is trying to say the following:

    The emperor has no clothes.

    Observation beats models every time.

    In climate science when all else fails, they could always try the truth.

    CO2 is not a dangerous gas – however, scary predictions on CAGW are dangerous to our way of life.


    Report this

    452

  • #
    Pathway

    Could it be natural variation?


    Report this

    223

    • #
      Peter Miller

      As in the emerging new La Niña ant that is certainly not going to help the alarmist cause.

      Global temperatures are likely to fall significantly over the next few months, as a result of the new La Niña.


      Report this

      154

    • #
      cohenite

      In 2008 the AGW industry recognised that natural variability would be an issue and Keenlyside was published.

      Keenlyside basically said the implacable upward temp trend due to AGW would be temporarily interrupted with the hiatus lasting to about 2018.

      Keenlyside was defended by tamino who in his mild Clark Kent alter ego of grant Foster wrote the rebuttal of the McLean et al paper which argued that natural variation could create trend.

      McLean could not get a response to Foster’s criticism and replied elsewhere.

      In the meantime another soon to be infamous paper defending, basically, Keenlyside was published by Easterling.

      Easterling did not consider PDO phase changes and the fact that ENSO asymmetry [ie the El Nino periods are hotter than the La Nina periods are cold] can create trend plus the fact that since 1850 there have been more +ve PDO episodes.

      Kaufmann and Mann got into the act blaming aerosol increase from the burning of fossil fuels for the cooling hiatus. Kaufmann specifically says AGW can cause warming and cooling via its interaction with natural variability; which did not impress Judith Curry.

      Other ‘establishment’ papers like Delsole et al have been more circumspect about the relative contributions from AGW forcings to trend compared with natural variability but still concluded that AGW forcing plays a part.

      This argument is still current with the recent Knutti paper declaring AGW forcing is responsible for trend while Large et al concludes the opposite.


      Report this

      132

    • #
      redc

      No.
      .

      It’s obviously epicycles all the way down.


      Report this

      31

  • #

    Critically important is that there’s no basis for saying that the warming before that, as in the 19th century, was anything other than natural, and if there is any future warming… that’s natural.
    We have been recovering from the Little Ice Age. Most people don’t know that. And most people don’t know how the politically motivated “scientists” have manipulated the 20th century data to accentuate the mild warming. And most people don’t know, unfortunately, that Mann and all, with the Hockey Stick, conspired to remove the Little Ice Age & the Medieval Warm Period. With the hockey stick gone, you see that there is absolutely nothing unusual about current temperatures. In fact, there’s nothing wrong with the climate. Nothing at all.
    And to repeat a point that is central: there is no causal correlation between CO2 & temperature. To sum up: there’s nothing wrong with the climate, and CO2 has nothing to do with it.


    Report this

    271

  • #
    Dr Norman Page

    For a summary of the general state of uncertainty in climate science and an estimate of future cooling see my blogpost
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/01/global-cooling-timing-and-amountnh.html
    Best Regards Norman Page


    Report this

    61

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    “the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”

    It seems strange that they should “get worried” about no upward trend. Surely that would be some reassurance that we are not facing catastrophe. It would be cause for celebration – the false alarm sirens can be turned off.


    Report this

    370

  • #
    Sean

    Meanwhile, Bjorn Lumberg writes about the price of electricity in Germany and how much it has increased in the last decade:

    “Real German electricity prices for households have increased 61% since 2000. One quarter of household costs now stems directly from renewable energy. Also, the increase is *not* because of increasing production costs (which have actually slightly declined since 1978).

    The increase is due to dramatically increasing taxes, most noticeably from the Renewable Energy Act (EEG). In 2013 the EEG will increase 50% to 6.28 euro-cent (5.28 cents plus 19% VAT).

    In June 2011, Chancellor Angela Merkel famously promised to keep EEG prices stable, but this promise has now clearly been broken. The German household will pay 24% of its electricity bill to renewables.”

    I wonder if some German people feel they are trapped in a vice between increased energy costs and decreasing winter temperatures.


    Report this

    190

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      So let me get this straight. NASA is saying there has been no global warming; CO2 levels up dramatically as are electricity prices. Using Gore logic the two are related so if we reduce power bills the CO2 level will fall? But wasn’t raising prices supposed to make us use less power led by impoverished pensioners and sending work overseas to “clean” nations such as China? So that’s why those wind farms are stationary it’s to use less power – simple really. Thanks I now feel so much better Dr. Flannery just a pity I don’t have a job.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      Ross

      Sean
      The Germans don’t have alot to moan about. I live in NZ ( the place that has 75+ renewable electrcity supply –hydro , geothermal and few useless wind mills ) and recently I was searching through my “archives” and found a 2002 electricity account. The rate I was charged then was 9.86 / unit.I’m now charged 21.33/unit.
      ( before GST –then we had 12.5% , now 15%).
      It should be noted that most of the infrastructure for the generation of that renewable energy has been in place for decades.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Ross,

        I think you should adjust those figures to allow for inflation. The real cost of delivering each erg of energy, in terms of wear and tear etc will not have changed. But wages and the cost of inputs will have gone up in the interim.

        Deity, I am starting to sound like an accountant – I need a beer …


        Report this

        61

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          The insulting thing is when the lines company – via the electricity retailer – wants to impose a “capital levy” on existing customers for investment in the distribution network. That capital expenditure that the shareholders should be funding or should be funded out of retained earnings or borrowing. Who else charges their customers for investments in their infrastructure – income generating capacity – before they have installed it.


          Report this

          20

      • #
        FijiDave

        Ross, where are you?

        I am paying $0.31 per KWh after discounts. 34% of the bill is for the lease of the two meters and the electricity levy, here near Motueka.
        The actual gross charges are, including GST:

        Anytime $0.267939 Per KWh
        Economy $0.210324 Per KWh
        Levy $0.018170 Per KWh
        Meter $1.312150 per day per meter

        The meter charges are pure daylight robbery.

        Rereke, I have beer…


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Ross

          Fijidave ,
          I’m in Wellington.My supplier is Energy Online.The figures I gave were before prompt payment discounts.

          RW — Inflation has not been that great over the last 10 years !! My calculator says that is over 100% increase.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            sophocles

            The Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Inflation calculator measures only so-called “wage inflation” since 1998. The RBoNZ calls this “Headline Inflation.”

            The annual increase in Rent (aka Land Value) is in the figures for “Underlying Inflation.” If you can find these figures and combine them with the Headline figures, you will have the true rate of inflation. It’s about (very approximate!) 13% pa averaged over that time until 2008. From 2008 to date there has been over 100% for these last 4 years.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Rick Bradford

        Ross,

        You’re lucky — California doesn’t recognise (most) hydro as ‘renewable’ as the administration pursues its absurd renewable targets which it imposes on the unfortunates unable to flee the state.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Harry

      Electricity in Adelaide is A$0.37 / kW-hr.

      With discounts for paying on time, taking gas+electricity, etc, you can get 16% off, so the rate is actually about $0.318 / unit.

      Highest (or 2nd highest) power prices in the world.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      rukidding

      And the result of this German people using wood for their energy source.Unintended consequences anyone?.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Well, it seems that by their own criteria, the Climate Shamans have finally provided an empirical prediction that can be demonstrated.

    Hypothesis: That a cessation of the rise in global temperature, with a continuing concurrent rise in Carbon Dioxide, over a timeframe in excess of fourteen years, will falsify any presumed cause and effect relationship between the two, and therefore invalidate the theory of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change, nee Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    We now have sufficient evidence to show that this hypothesis has been demonstrated, and consequently AGW has now been disproved.


    Report this

    241

  • #
    Jaymez

    While it may seem that this article attempts to introduce some actual scientific debate into the topic, the suggestion regarding the possibility of heat being some how being held within the ocean depths hidden away from detection is ludicrous if we can’t at least measure sum increased heat content on the surface of the oceans and in the depths below the surface.

    The only way any warmed water will get from the warmed surface to the depths will have to be through conduction because in fact cold water will naturally be denser than warm water so warm water will naturally be closer to the oceans surfaces rather than it’s depths.

    So what do ocean surface temperature data tell us? Is there any warming at the surface? Bob Tisdale provides excellent information about the NINO3.4 Sea Surface temperature anomaly data here: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/annual-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update-for-2012/ Tisdale includes a self-explanatory graph which shows from 1982 to 2012 there has been a slight cooling in sea surface temperatures as measured by satellites. Annual NINO3.4 Sea Surface Temperature 1982 to 2012.

    Satellite Sea Surface Temperatures

    Clearly there is no evidence of ocean warming at the surface.

    [-----As pointed out by Ken Stewart below this graph shows the eastern central Pacific has been cooling- not global oceans. But Bob Tisdale does show there has been no warming that cannot be directly attributed to ENSO episodes in the global oceans, Jaymez has put the correct graph below.-------Mod]


    Report this

    143

    • #

      Sorry Jaymez, wrong graph. This shows the eastern central Pacific has been cooling- not global oceans. But Bob Tisdale does show there has been no warming that cannot be directly attributed to ENSO episodes.
      Ken


      Report this

      31

    • #
      Mark D.

      Jaymez, you do know that all the “hidden heat resides firmly at the bottom of the oceans not the surface.

      Your graph is simply representing ignorance of the state of serious climate science.

      {sarc}

      PS if you don’t believe me, ask Noice One and/or Maxine Pad…..


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Nice One

        Argo only goes to 2000 meters, the coeans a lot deeper than that, but again, thanks for displaying your lack of knowledge.


        Report this

        05

        • #
          wayne, s. Job

          Nice one, Tell me in your own words how water thousands of metres deep as cold as witches nose even taking on some heat to raise it a tad above bloody cold could ever rise to the surface and heat the atmosphere. It is not possible.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Nice One

      As pointed out, you posted the wrong graph, but not only that, you demonstrated your complete lack of understanding when it comes to the history of SST data. Thanks for that! Your second attempt cherry picks the start date – try showing all the data.

      The graph of GLOBAL SST shows it has been increasing (must be all that UHIE right?).

      Funny how obvious incorrect information from you gets 11 thumbs up. I guess it represents the standard of basic SST knowledge on this forum.

      Given you don’t know crap about SST, excuse me for not trusting you over the experts when it comes to the ocean heat content.

      The experts tell us it’s accumulating at depth because the data also shows that.

      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT

      “Skeptics” will tell us this is because of “adjustments”, but oddly they never provide specifics details. Months go by, still I wait in hope they can provide substance to their allegations.


      Report this

      07

  • #
    elva

    It is now 2013. I have been daily watching the sunspot reports. We should be now in a very high sunspot cycle, if not, just over one. The last one was also a very low cycle. That make 2×11 year years of very low or almost nil sunspots of significance. If another cycle proves to be low then the chances of any rise in temperatures for quite some time are small. So the AGW supporters could be in for a huge disappointment and loss of funds.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Rod

    They’ll use a champagne cork analogy to suggest that something random is keeping temperatures down and that when released temperatures will soar.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Backslider

    Other important environmental factors are insufficiently understood, as the IPCC has acknowledged in its report. These include:

    • The influence of solar radiation on the formation of clouds

    • The water cycle: in particular, the influence of water vapour, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere on the temperature.

    Interesting that the IPCC admits that the two biggest influences on climate are insufficiently understood by its scientists. This being the case, WTF are they on about????


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Jaymez

    So what other ocean surface temperature records are there? Atmospheric physicist Dr Roy Spencer produced an excellent graph from the available satellite data since launched in 2002 here:Click here for the graph too big for this page: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE_SST_2002_thru_July_7_2011.gif

    Unfortunately the Japanese satellite taking these measurements became faulty on 4 October 2011 so there is no more recent data from that. You can read about that here. http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2011/10/20111004_amsr-e_e.html

    Again, clearly no warming on the ocean surface in fact a possible cooling.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Jaymez

    But if you don’t want to accept the land based temperature measurements as admitted by the UK Met Office, or the Satellite sea surface temperature records, we still have the 3000 Argo buoys which are measuring the ocean temperatures around the globe between the surface and a depth of 700m. Just in case you think the ocean might be hiding some heat which isn’t apparent on the surface or in the atmosphere. In his excellent graph, climate science writer Jo Nova’s husband the well-credentialed David Evans takes the Argo data and compares the flawed climate model predictions with the reality of stable global ocean temperatures.

    Argo buoys

    You can clearly see that while there were massive increases in ocean heat content predicted by the climate models, the actual change since the ARGO records started in 2003 is ZERO!


    Report this

    171

    • #
      Mattb

      Again – you can’t just draw a red line from the 0.0 spot, as that assumes the 0.0 reading of late 2003 was right on mean. The data clearly shows it moves up and down, so you need to fit the linear best fit and compare the gradient to gradient of the red line from the climate models (assuming it is actually a genuine model prediction). Not saying the linear best fit would not be lower than the red line growth, but that at least would give a more blanaced view.

      [Mattb, if you have a graph to offer please post a link or e-mail to support@. Please be sure it is not prohibited under copyright rules. Moderators can edit posts to include appropriate images.] ED


      Report this

      36

      • #
        Crakar24

        Ok then Matt can you produce data that satisfies your criteria as a rebuttal to Jaymez?


        Report this

        21

        • #
          Mattb

          Nope I don’t. But that does not make it an invalid critique. You’d take the data points that make up the black line. Fit a linear curve to it. Measure the gradient. compare to the gradient of the red. I don;t have the black data points though.

          But look eyeballling the data points and fitting a linear trend that argo data suggests a rise of about 1C over the period graphed. In contrast to the graph’s claim that “You can clearly see that while there were massive increases in ocean heat content predicted by the climate models, the actual change since the ARGO records started in 2003 is ZERO!”

          It is clearly NOT zero. A “rocket scientist” knows it is NOT a zero trend.

          Is there a source for the red line?


          Report this

          29

          • #
            Mattb

            Incidentally – and yes yes roll your eyes – skeptical science has had a look at this and even Dr Evans’ graph: http://www.skepticalscience.com/modeled-and-observed-ohc-is-there-a-discrepancy.html

            And conclude exactly what I said: “By choosing the baseline such that the models and data are equal in 2003, Tisdale and Evans have graphically exaggerated a model-data discrepancy.”

            One does wonder why Dr Evans’ graph does not show data from 1994? Is it because it misses the spike 2001-2003?

            It really is a complete crock of a graph. an embarrasment. It is EXACTLY the kind of graph that SHOULD have a skeptic fired up.

            [If there was data for 3,000 Argo buoys going back to 1994 then Dr Evans would gladly use it! Another case of Skeptical Science not having the data it likes. How long have Skeptical Science been telling readers global warming has not stalled? Even they will eventually have to do what the UK Met and even James Hansen has done and finally admit it has! - Mod]


            Report this

            210

          • #
            Mattb

            Mod – but we have “data” other than argo no?

            Look regardless of pre 2003, and ignoring there is plenty of science discussing pre-2003 ocean heat content, and ignoring that there is not yet enough Argo data – YOU SIMPLY CANNOT USE THE 1ST DATA AS A ZERO AS IN THE GRAPH!!!!!!! it is simply absurd. I honestly cannot believe we have to have this discussion.


            Report this

            19

          • #
            Bulldust

            You know J is for joule, right? Even says so on the vertical axis, but you might need to tilt your head to the left to make it easier to read.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Mattb

            yeah yeah not 1C but 1×10^22 J. Irrelevant comment btw.


            Report this

            05

      • #
        cohenite

        Argo, like the satellites is conclusive because they are the current gold standard; everything before is suspect; I mean this why the BOM continually revises past temps; because they weren’t done on ‘modern’ equipment using modern ‘techniques’.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Jaymez

        MattB – All this graph does is take the start date of data collected from the ARGO buoys and the climate model predictions of ocean heat content from that same point so it is appropriate to start from zero. The ARGO buoy’s are not in a position to assume previous heat content. It is an entirely appropriate statistical methodology when you are simply measuring the growth or decline in something, it doesn’t matter what the actual start point was, only whether there is growth or decline, or indeed no change!


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Mattb

          No Jaymez as (as indicated by the data) the argo measurements go up and down up and down, so it is completely irrational to take the 1st data point as the zero point. It would be like measuring the height of 30 people, and assuming the height of the 1st is the average.


          Report this

          19

          • #
            Jaymez

            That is a really silly analogy, because taking heights of 30 people has nothing to do with a time series. Taking ocean heat content over time does! So you have a start point which you can assume is equilibrium and you are simply measuring any change from that point up or down!

            If you wanted to do a similar thing with the height of people (which is done), but you would need a lot more than 30 people, you would do it by measuring the adult height of people but the time series would be their date of birth. You would also need to separate by gender and race because we know that both those factors result in differences in height.

            Your hypothesis could be say that since the end of WWII in Japan, after western diets were introduced into Japan, the height of the Japanese people has gradually increased. You could model your hypothesis based on your assumptions and produce a linear (or non-linear) trend line from 1945 starting from zero. Zero would be the average height of the specimen being tracked. Which might be Japanese men born in 1925 (so they are 20 years old in 1945 your base year). You then measure Japanese men aged 20 from 1945 onwards and graph their actual results. Only the difference in height from the 1920 average height would be plotted for each birth year.

            This type of statistical analysis is done all the time!


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Mattb

            Yes bad statistical analysis is indeed done all the time!


            Report this

            18

          • #
            Streetcred

            Jay … that is exactly how the warmista do their stats, selecting the first convenient data and going from there. Then if it is not “worse than we thought” they go back and warm or cool historical data to fit the meme.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Yes bad statistical analysis is indeed done all the time!”

            And is rampant, close to 100%, in AGW climate science..

            the only reason CAGW exists at all, is bad statsical analysis !!


            Report this

            50

        • #
          Mattb

          Look if you fit a curve to it you STILL get argo << models, so there really is no excuse for the sloppy graph. It is a Moncktonism, when you've got a goot point you may as well add some absurdity and lose your credibility.


          Report this

          17

          • #
            Jaymez

            MattB – The IPCC and our very own Climate Commission are classic examples that bad statistical analysis is done all the time as is Michael Mann’s discredited Hockey Stick graph, Stephan Lewandowsky’s ludicrous ‘Moon Landing Conspiracy Paper’, the reluctantly withdrawn Gregis, Karoly et al ‘Australia’s Hottest 50 years in last 1,000 years’ paper, the ’97% of all Climate Scientists’ paper and so on. Unfortunately the bulk of the really bad statistical analysis seems to be funded by climate alarmist governments. That is the bits we can find out about. There are so many Climate Scientists and Government Organisations like NIWA, BOM, CRU etc trying to avoid scrutiny of their data and analysis from FOI requests it’s hard to tell how much of the analysis has been fiddled.


            Report this

            100

          • #
            Streetcred

            Did you mean, more like Lewpaper ?


            Report this

            30

      • #
        Richard the Great

        The corect proedure would be to fit a regression model to the data and find the confidence limits of the slope. If this is signifcqntly different from zero then one could say that there has been warming or coooling. That said, the practice of arbitrariliy picking a starting point on what is essentially stochastic data cannot be binned under the category of ‘good science’


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Ian

      I thought Argo buoys measured from 2000m to the surface? Is that not the case?


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Jaymez

        My understanding is they measure to 2000m but that the speed of decent beyond 700m is more variable and so the readings below 700m is in question. It’s better to use the most precise data. But when you have data which is showing no warming in the stratosphere, on the Earth’s surface, and below the oceans, it stretches credibility to have a theory that some how, when no one is measuring, the heat sneaks from the surface to the bottom of the oceans and then defies basic physics by staying there rather than being forced to the surface by the cooler, denser water above it! I mean really, why doesn’t Stephan Lewandowsky do a paper on such crazy conspiracy theories?


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Jaymez

        MattB – We get that you don’t like the results of the 3,000 Argo Buoys and that you desperately want to discredit them, but where are you saying all the global warming has gone then if it isn’t showing up in the Atmosphere, the surface temperatures, or the oceans. Do you suggest it is hiding deeper in the oceans? That some how it gets there undetected, and then defies the laws of physics by remaining below the denser colder layers of ocean?

        Or maybe we should keep looking deeper? What until we hit magma – yes that will be hot!


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Mattb

          No I love the argo buoys. I just think you have to wait until there is enough data from them to make any conclusions.


          Report this

          04

          • #
            wayne, s. Job

            MattB if you measure something for 5 10 or 20 years and the trend remains zero there is a definite possibility that the trend is zero.
            Much as it may contradict your long held beliefs and wishes, a person who is in the belief that the world is heading to warmageddon should be relieved and pleased that it is not. Why do you wish your belief of catastrophy is so true?


            Report this

            10

        • #
          John Brookes

          Its interesting that when a new method of measuring something is introduced, errors are possible. For many years the satellite records were beloved by “skeptics” because they showed temperatures falling. Until it turned out that the analysis of satellite data was not correct, and the satellites showed increasing temperatures like all other records.

          So I think that argo is probably correct, but we need to be sure its being done properly.


          Report this

          07

          • #

            ISTR that Argo-published data were initially incorrect.

            Satellite-sourced data are always open to question; always have been to reasonable people who have an inkling about sensors and the difficulties of using them in the real world.

            It is always more sensible to work on the principle that the data or its interpretation can be wrong; especially if there is no independent verification of the measurement of the phenomenon.

            Otherwise everybody does cold fusion on their kitchen sink.


            Report this

            30

    • #
      Nice One

      Try using all the data, including that below 700 meters.


      Report this

      03

  • #
    Jaymez

    But hey, if the land based temperature records don’t do it for you – though I agree they have been subject to some questionable adjustments – but they still show no warming for the last 15 years; and the satellite records of global surface temperatures on land and on sea don’t satisfy you, and the 3,000 diving Argo buoys measuring ocean temperature to a depth of 700m doesn’t convince you that there has been no global warming as predicted by all the climate models despite exponential growth in man-made CO2 emissions; then perhaps you will accept NOAA Satellite Stratospheric measurements?

    This series of graphs shows irrefutably that since satellite records began in 1979 the temperature trend at lower, mid and upper troposphere levels (15km – 50km) has been a slight cooling globally in contradiction of all climate models. The graphs are here
    Global stratasphoric temperatures

    The World has NOT been Warming – Fact!
    Any sane, unbiased scientist, politician or journalist presented with the data above would have no choice but to admit that there has been no evidence of the confidently predicted global warming for at least 15 years and possibly longer.

    Those who knowingly promulgate scary headlines and half-truths or misleading facts about global warming when they know the facts do not support their claims are the true deniers in this debate. They are the ones who are rejecting the science and it is time the main stream media did their job and called them out on it rather than acted as their accomplices.


    Report this

    241

  • #

    The important metric is not the stalled temperatures. The important metric is that the stalled temperatures have occurred during a period when humanity has emitted one third of all the greenhouse gases in history.


    Report this

    220

    • #
      Dennis

      There’s the answer, pollution is good. Seriously, remember that for 40 years now developed countries have been reducing pollution via environmental pollution acts while the developing countries have not. Look at Beijing, China for an example of serious pollution problems and smog. Years ago Los Angeles California US had seriously bad smog and they got it under control. In my opinion the GW/CC alarmist nonsense is all about politics based on the fact that there are climate changes and variations in temperature. Pollution must be addressed for health reasons at least, but drop the political cr*p.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Where is Maxine to tell us that it is still warming, and that bushfires in an Australian summer prove it?


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Adri

    Unfortunately the Der Spiegel Article is from 1 April 2010 not current as I understand, It a wonder it wansnt picked up at the time?


    Report this

    03

  • #
    KR

    Stalled? Hardly. If you cherry-pick from an extreme El Nino, ending with several La Nina’s, ignore the starting point of the previous trend, and don’t care about statistical significance (ie, determining whether you’re looking at signal or noise), you might pretend temperatures had stalled. But if you make that claim, you are just talking about noise.

    In reality, the underlying greenhouse gas warming trend has not changed.

    Look at the data on WoodForTrees and see – considering the last 15-16 years along with the previous 20 shows that the trends have not changed.


    Report this

    223

    • #
      AndyG55

      Its a manufactured trend, you idiot !

      (But I suspect you know that, otherwise you wouldn’t be using it.)

      And that’s just the changes made since 2008, (scary that they think they can get away with it) there were was a lot of trend adjustment before that as well.

      DO NOT USE GISS.. (if you want to be taken seriously, that is.)


      Report this

      83

      • #
        KR

        You don’t like GISTEMP, you don’t like what it shows you?

        Try looking at HadCRUT4 to see the same thing, or at HadCRUT3. Perhaps you prefer RSS?, Or possibly UAH? They all demonstrate that if you look at the last 15-16 years in context, there has been no “stall”.

        Warming has not slowed.


        Report this

        219

        • #
          AndyG55

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/global-temperature-updates-2012/

          Only goes back to 2000. but since the step change at the 1998 La Nina, THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING !

          and if you use the uncorrupted UAH data, in the period from 1975 to just before the step, there was basically no warming then, either.

          The ONLY warming event in the last 30 odd years was that step change in 1998.


          Report this

          122

        • #
          Ross

          KR

          Even your mate Dr James Hansen says the warming has stalled in recent years.


          Report this

          132

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Ah KR,

          In terms of time involved in the thermodynamic adjustment of the Earth, our wonderful blue planet, you are talking about the blink of an eye and whatever “weather” change occurs here on Earth, man, mankind, humankind, men women, children and so on can have absolutely no measurable effect.

          That is the science.

          Should the entire roll call of humanity suddenly decide that we all want to live close together in one big city here is what you would get.

          Move every township house and city on Earth to the one spot, side by side, and you would comfortably fit that large city within the boundaries of Spain.

          Sure, there would be a substantial Urban Heat Island effect and it may be impossible to survive there but it is such a small area of Earth and that is the context for amateurs to come to grips with.

          Another concept that amateurs have to face is that “Climate Scientists: are not equipped either from an educational or practical point of view to assess the so called human CO2 based “Global Warming”.

          The thermodynamic analysis of the Earths Atmosphere is best given to experts on Thermodynamics, people who are Engineers and who deal with this stuff on a daily practical basis.
          Possibly they could use some input from physicists, oceanographers, astrophysicists and other specialists but Climate Scientists are not equipped for the job.

          So your cry that “Warming has not slowed” is just an instinctive cry, much like a baby in pain from a trapped fart, the baby cries out but can’t explain why it did so.

          You are “crying out” because the IPCCCC, WWF and Gr$$npeace have conditioned you through media bombardment that “the planet is doomed, unless, of course, we act now, right now and send out $10 donation to PO Box HJKN in your nearest capital city; cheques can be made out to Cash.

          Sucker.

          KK :)


          Report this

          172

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            Interesting KK.
            Another perfectly apt example concerns the population density of 100,000 per square kilometer of Manila in the Philippines. Manila demonstrates that people can coexist at that density.
            At that population density, the entire population of planet Earth could fit on the islands of Tasmania and Ireland. The entire remainder of the planet would be available for farming, mining, industry, etc.
            Not that this is a very attractive proposition, nor is it particularly practical.
            It does, however, put the constant Leftist whingeing about the catastrophe of too many people into perspective. The Green policy manual is indeed very much like that of Germany’s National Socialists in the 1930′s.


            Report this

            51

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Rod,

            The Spain thing I picked up somewhere on the net , probably here, and your example of Manila is just crazy.

            One thing that has always bothered me about the so called tallying of world CO2 output, is that it seems to only count electricity, oil and gas usage but doesn’t seem to allow for the significant numbers of people who do not have access to these energy sources.

            They burn all sorts of stuff; wood, peat, dung to heat and cook and the results are much worse for the environment, pound for pound, than modern power sources.

            KK


            Report this

            50

        • #
          KR

          To various: – 1998 to now does not provide enough data to establish statistical significance, to separate between the observed long term trend and zero – meaning that you are looking at noise, not signal. Go back far enough to have sufficient data to separate one hypothesis from the other (GISTEMP: 18 years, HadCRUT3: 20, HadCRUT4: 19, RSS: 24, UAH: 20), and the hypothesis rejected by the data is the zero trend.

          Claims otherwise are based on a misunderstanding of statistics. And are hence unsupportable, no matter how much you might prefer one answer or another.

          There are certainly short-term variations in the global warming data. But if look at how those shift around the long term trend you see that the greenhouse gas signal simply has not changed.


          Report this

          113

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            Okay KR.

            Let’s accept your proposal and reject the “zero trend” hypothesis. What caused the trend? Surely you can’t be going to suggest CO2.

            Do you now see how your beliefs are flawed?


            Report this

            102

          • #
            Geoffrey Cousens

            There is no “greenhouse gas”signal.Your beliefs are misguided and akin to a kind of religious zeal.Nothing more.


            Report this

            132

          • #
            AndyG55

            “There are certainly short-term variations in the global warming data”

            yes! like the GISS HadCrud constructed trend before from 1970-1990′s..
            Realise that GISS and HadCrud ARE NOT DATA, they are RESULTS of a heavily manipulated and tortured set of real data. They are MEANINGLESS !!!

            From 1979 just before the step change in 1998 the uncorrupted UAH has very little trend,

            and ALL SETS, even the GISS and HadCrud show ZERO TREND after the 1998 step..
            (I guess they ran out of adjustments they could make, and it became too obvious against the REAL data)

            Now I know you want to go to before the step change, but that is also a manufactured trend. A step change is not a trend.

            Why not go back to 1939 or the mid 1800′s?… ZERO TREND is why you won’t do that !!

            Why not go back to several thousand years ago, and see the almost continuous DOWNWARD trend with a few very minor wobbles with peaks at the RWP, MWP and the current warm period and troughs,(like we are about to head into), in between.


            Report this

            72

          • #
            Mark D.

            Damn KR cherry picked from 1975? Why not since the last Ice age?

            Maybe the Maunder Minimum?

            Or best of all the Little Ice age?

            I do believe you are a pot and speaking kettleese……


            Report this

            33

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            KR is playing semantic games.

            By definition, “Signal” is what you are seeking to demonstrate, and “noise” is extraneous data, and measurement error (and possibly measurements of “signal” that don’t fit the required pattern you are seeing to demonstrate).

            He is saying that if you go back far enough, the noise will cancel itself out, leaving the signal behind, but gives no rationale as to why that should be so.

            But given the dubious quality of some of the “adjustments” made to early data sets, and the number of data sets that have been “lost”, and the frequent changes made to the homogenization algorithms used, I would guess that going further back would increase the level of “noise”, rather than decrease it.

            Unless of course, the introduced “noise” could be interpreted as “signal”, if you stand on one leg, dressed in a tutu, with the light behind you.


            Report this

            112

          • #
            KR

            To various:

            * Yes, CO2 is a major reason for warming. And aerosols, solar changes, volcanic dusts, land use, etc. But the dominant forcing change over the last 40 years or so has been in anthropogenic greenhouse gases and accompanying low altitude aerosols, (a negative forcing). You need to look at all of the factors.

            * “Manufactured trend” is just conspiracy theorization, and I would recommend finding some tinfoil for your headgear.

            * “No greenhouse signal” is, I’m afraid, contradicted by _all_ of the observational evidence.

            * Trends since 1998 are not meaningful, as the year to year variations over ~15 years mean you can find rather flat or extremely high trends by cherry-picking short term variations. You need a longer term of data to make any supportable conclusion regarding trends – claims from short periods are just cherry-picked nonsense. Look at the trends from 1996 and 1999 – they are much steeper. Which should really point to the fact that trends from 1998 are not meaningful.

            Why 1975? You can certainly look at trends to the present going back from ~20 years to a century or three, and see for all such periods an upwards trend significantly different from zero. Analyzing the data, however, indicates some changes in the early 19th century (remarkably free of volcanic eruptions, with high solar activity), from the 1940′s to the mid 1970′s (when the US Clean Air act, and related legislation around the world, cut fossil fuel aerosol levels), and from 1975 on (when the GHG signal, easily separable from other forcings since the 1960s, become the dominant change). Those represent three rather different sets of forcings, statistically separable, and for simplicities sake it’s reasonable (IMO) to look at the most recent changes (as those are the changes we’re likely to see continue going forward).

            Again – trends since 1998 are cherry-picked from noise. They are just not meaningful.


            Report this

            312

          • #
            KR

            Rereke Whakaaro“He is saying that if you go back far enough, the noise will cancel itself out, leaving the signal behind, but gives no rationale as to why that should be so.”

            I am rather appalled by your statement here. If a signal is small, but continues over a long period of time, and noise is short term variations, then longer periods of data increase your S/N ratio with more observations.

            That’s pretty basic in terms of the statistics. If you don’t understand this rather core behavior of observations, I would suggest more reading before attempting to dismiss others comments.

            If you disagree with the corrections made for known biases, such as time of observation bias studied since 1894, present your opinions and support them. If you don’t, you are just arm-waving.


            Report this

            113

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            KR
            Define “signal”
            Define “noise”

            Explain how a longer period of observation can impact the signal to noise ratio when that ratio is defined as: “The amplitude of a required signal with respect to the amplitude of general background noise at a given point in time


            Report this

            111

          • #
            Crakar24

            KR,

            1, Solar changes have been all but ruled out by your very own authoritive figures due to the very small nature of its influence (0.1W/m2) therefore if it is ruled out as a positive forcing it must also be ruled out as a negative forcing.

            Aerosols, i challenge you to produce empirical data which shows the magnitude and sign of the forcing, Hansen himself admits it is an educated guess and laments the failure at launch of the only sat that could have given us some idea of what it is.

            Land use will produce a small change in regional climates but we are talking about global climates here are we not?

            Volcanic dust must surely play only a small part in all of this, how many eruptions do we have per day?, how much dust is deposited in the ATM? surely this would have a less impact than even the sun.

            Heat now sitting at the bottom of the ocean. Where is the evidence that such heat exists? What is the mechanism that has caused this change? AGW was quite happy to deposit this additional heat in the ATM but now suddenly and quite abruptly AGW has decided to put all that heat at the bottom of the Mariana trench, but how? What changed to trigger this new regime?

            You blissfully ignore all this because you have no answers, instead you are left with a statistical arguement on whether the temps have risen slightly or not at all, regardless of the answer it shows AGW to be falsified.

            Do not attempt to justify your own religious beliefs by trying to force them on others, if you wish to believe in this tripe i suggest you keep this crap to yourself, you claim we are the tin foil hat wearers!!!!!!!!!!!

            Why 1975? You can certainly look at trends to the present going back from ~20 years to a century or three, and see for all such periods an upwards trend significantly different from zero. Analyzing the data, however, indicates some changes in the early 19th century (remarkably free of volcanic eruptions, with high solar activity), from the 1940′s to the mid 1970′s (when the US Clean Air act, and related legislation around the world, cut fossil fuel aerosol levels), and from 1975 on (when the GHG signal, easily separable from other forcings since the 1960s, become the dominant change). Those represent three rather different sets of forcings, statistically separable, and for simplicities sake it’s reasonable (IMO) to look at the most recent changes (as those are the changes we’re likely to see continue going forward).

            This is the mother of all statements.

            Firstly if we look back 500Kya we can see a trend would this be acceptable?

            How about 100Kya?

            50Kya?

            10Kya?

            At any point in the last 500Kya i can show you a 100 year period were the TEMP WENT UP!!!!! at the same rate as now, conversely there are 100 year periods were the TEMP WENT DOWN!!!!! so what in Gods name IS YOUR POINT

            Has the temp risen over a period of 15 years? put away your abacas and use what little common sense and cognitive reasoning you have left and answer the question.

            Now you mention aerosols caused a cooling from the 1940′s to the 1970′s, then THE USA and few other countries cleaned up its air and suddenly the globe warmed as a result but now aerosols are back and its not warming anymore. Whatever credibility you once had has now officially been shot to shit.


            Report this

            130

          • #
            AndyG55

            “* Yes, CO2 is a major reason for warming. ”

            TOTALLY BS !! A FANTASY.. A CHILD”S STORY..

            And you still believe it.. DOH !


            Report this

            40

          • #
            KR

            Rereke Whakaaro – Define “signal” Define “noise”

            Noise is short term variations, after which the climate will regress to the mean forcing. That includes volcanic activity and ENSO, not to mention the 11-year solar cycle, but not longer term changes in insolation.

            Signal consists of consistent long term changes that affect climate, the statistics of the weather, the 30-year climatic averages.

            Given sufficient data, a consistent ongoing trend can be identified even in the presence of noise.

            If you did not know this, you haven’t been looking into climate change long enough. If you did know this, your last two posts are nothing more than obfuscation. IMO – they are the latter. I’m rather disappointed.

            Crakar24 - For the various forcings I would refer you to the IPCC AR4 report and their many many references on the subject.

            Ocean warming has been measured, up more than 20*10^22 Joules since the 1960′s, a rate equal to several Hiroshima bombs per second every day since then. Disagree? Show your data…

            If we’re looking at the effects (whatever they may be) of anthropogenic climate change, the period of anthropogenic influence is the one of interest. 500kY ago? Forest fires can be started by lightning – does that rule out arson, when we find the matches and accelerants?

            Anyone arguing over 15 year periods deserves to be ignored. That’s just not enough time to separate yearly variations from any warming (or cooling) signal, and claims otherwise are unsupported by the math.

            Your post is essentially a Gish Gallop. As such, it’s really pointless. I’m reminded of a family joke – “Is the turkey done?” “I don’t know, throw it at the wall and see if it sticks!”

            AndyG55 - Given the evidence, I simply cannot consider your opinion rational. I will not reply to you again, unless you actually raise points worth discussing.


            Report this

            47

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            SkS.

            Has lot to answer for.

            It has bent and damaged the thinking skills of so many young minds!

            KK


            Report this

            83

          • #
            AndyG55

            “I will not reply to you again”

            Sweet.. :-)

            I’m over talking to low IQ 15 year olds, anyway.

            Again, and again.. I ask for ONE paper that empirically proves that CO2 has any warming effect in an open atmosphere.

            Never eventuates, because it doesn’t exist. It is a fairy tale !! A myth !!

            Vague coincidence of CO2 and temp over a 20 odd year period IS NOT EVIDENCE.. as you keep pointing out.


            Report this

            113

          • #
            Dennis

            The High Church of Climate Change that meets in a green house.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            KR

            AndyG55 - “I ask for ONE paper that empirically proves that CO2 has any warming effect in an open atmosphere.”

            That’s a reasonable question. I would point you to Harries 2001.

            We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.


            Report this

            43

          • #
            Crakar24

            For the various forcings I would refer you to the IPCC AR4 report and their many many references on the subject.

            Read it a couple of times

            Ocean heat content, Got anything that goes back further than 1950? it would be nice to filter out the signal from the noise.

            You say anyone arguing over 15 year periods deserves to be ignored, apparently if you argue over 500Kya to our recent past you deserve to be ignored as well.

            I love your work KR, you claim 15 years is too short but 500 years or so is too long but form 1950 is juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust right. Now you in an attempt to avoid my serious questions about past temp changes begin talking about forest fires ARE YOU SERIOUS of course youre not but you have successfully avoided having to respond to my question about temp rises in the past.

            You are a joke and the longer you persist the more you reek of desperation.


            Report this

            101

          • #
            Mark D.

            KR, in the very first paragraph Harries etal say this:

            ….But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes most importantly the hydrological cycle that are not well understood

            which is not exactly going to provide great confidence in the other conclusions which thankfully are based on empirical model outputs.

            Now the paper is 12 years old, based on data that is even older (16 years) and with hindsight one might ask what Harries etal would say today, and I’ll ask you is this the best you have?


            Report this

            121

          • #
            KR

            MarkD“…one might ask what Harries etal would say today…”

            See Chen 2007, a followup confirming Harries 2001.

            This paper extends the previous work done by this group [Griggs and Harries, 2007; Harries, et al., 2001] to include data from 2006 from the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) on the AURA satellite.

            “…is this the best you have?”

            There was a request for empirical evidence, which was provided. This work has not been refuted, disproven, or even slightly cast into doubt in the meantime – meaning that lacking evidence to the contrary it still holds.

            If you disagree, please provide data, analysis, or other observational evidence – as I have done here. In the absence of evidence for your point of view, I’m just going to disagree with you.

            Warming has not stopped, and claims otherwise based on 1998-now are statistically unsupportable.


            Report this

            18

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            KR says “Anyone arguing over 15 year periods deserves to be ignored. That’s just not enough time to separate yearly variations from any warming (or cooling) signal, and claims otherwise are unsupported by the math.”
            The period 1977 to 1998 is the period to which trillions of dollars of absolute nonsense has been generated.
            KR’s statement, if one can believe anything KR says, suggests that the entire CAGW meme should be ignored. I think I have heard that before on this blog.


            Report this

            61

          • #
            AndyG55

            Seems they have found 2 data sets some many years apart using different measuring equipment and tried to mash them together.

            They made sure cloud cover wasn’t involved (even though it is a major, major part of the atmosphere) then compared a simulated something against something else and came up with a difference that didn’t exist in the first place.

            Enough fudges, you can prove anything !!

            Houdini would be proud !!! :-)


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Noise is short term variations, after which the climate will regress to the mean forcing. That includes volcanic activity and ENSO, not to mention the 11-year solar cycle, but not longer term changes in insolation.

            Signal consists of consistent long term changes that affect climate, the statistics of the weather, the 30-year climatic averages.

            Well, they may well be the definitions according to KR, but they are not the definitions used in Physics, which is very odd, given that Climate Science claims to be a specialised branch of Physics. And you accuse me of obfuscation?

            In Physics, signal, noise, and the signal to noise ratio are concepts attached to the electromagnetic spectrum, particularly in the radio frequency part of that spectrum.

            Signal refers to the amplitude of the electromagnetic energy of a desired transmission, at a specific frequency, at a specific time, as received at a specific location, and measured in uV/M (wavelength).

            Noise refers to the amplitude of all external and unwanted information that interferes with a transmission, at the same specific time, and the same specific location, and also measured in uV/M (wavelength).

            Signal to noise is a simple ratio of measured signal over measured noise, and is a measure of the reliance that can be placed on the information received at the aforementioned time and location.

            From this, you will see that, with the possible exception of frequency which normally treated as a constant, the measurements are instantaneous values, so it makes little sense to average them, or otherwise compare them, over time or space. Similarly, Signal and Noise, in the Physics sense do change, but they do so apparently at random (when electrical appliances turn on, for example), so no useful conclusions can be drawn from looking for trends in either the signal or the noise.

            All this was defined in the late 19th century by Guglielmo Marconi who later received a Nobel Prize for Physics (in 1909, I think).

            There are known and well documented cyclic patterns regarding the strength of signals at frequencies below 30MHz, determined by the natural rise and fall of the Ionosphere over a twenty-four hour period (modified in severity by the eleven year sunspot cycle).

            But by definition, all of the data is discrete in the Physical sense. Measurements cannot be directly interrelated, except by chance.

            Now, I put it to you, that your statistical trends are actually formed from discrete temperature measurements taken at specific times, or over specific time durations, and specific locations.

            But it matters not how many measurements are taken over whatever period of time, discrete measurements cannot be coerced into forming trends, except in the minds of people who are desperate to find trends when there are none.

            You may well like to believe that you can infer trends from these discrete measurements, but without an underlying theory that explains, and can predict, changes in temperature, and which also identifies and allows for all other significant factors that might intrude, you have little or no show of identifying anything even approaching a trend.

            I think you have it base over apex — you first need to identify and observe the trend or trends (if there are many), and then identify all of the causative agents for each trend, then come up with some testable hypotheses for how the whole thing hangs together. In doing so, you will be able to reject the noise by falsifying some hypotheses — that is what they are for.

            But throwing data, and yet more data, at a computerised model isn’t the optimum way of identifying real world mechanisms. You can’t define the mechanism from the code and the data. And I say this from bitter experience, believe me.

            So, you are right, I didn’t know that was the way Climate Change science worked. I guess I made the mistake of assuming that you guys would build on physical principles that have been around and accepted for the last one to two hundred years or so, and not try to start again from scratch.

            So I too am rather disappointed.

            Science used to be quite precise in its use of terms and language, and avoided assigning different meanings to words from related fields. Science is consequently loosing its integrity. And without a reputation for integrity, why should people trust it? And if they don’t trust it, why should people invest in it?


            Report this

            131

          • #
            Mark D.

            KR, the paper says nothing about warming.

            That is what you were asked to present. Further as I already pointed out, the authors explain that

            But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes most importantly the hydrological cycle that are not well understood

            They do NOT address this lack of understanding, nor do they demonstrate that any result of spectra analysis proves that CO2 will cause any effect that the “NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD” hydrological cycle couldn’t or wouldn’t negate.

            You’ve provided nothing that proves CO2 warming.

            Keep trying though.


            Report this

            30

    • #
      rukidding

      Global Temperature Update Through 2012
      15 January 2013
      J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy
      Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980
      base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature
      thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme
      warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a
      combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.

      I wonder what the word FLAT means


      Report this

      60

      • #
        AndyG55

        “slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing”

        that’s such a stupid statement. CO2 concentration ,(which they say is one of the largest forcings), has continued to grow and grow.. so what is the slowdown in forcings?

        They really are in a bind..aren’t they …

        poor things. :-)


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Crakar24

          AndyG55,

          This is what the pipeline is all about, the positive CO2 forcing is still their but other factors are working in a negative way to reduce/counteract the positive forcing of CO2.

          Hansen invokes the mythical negative forcing of aerosols as the latest excuse for a lack of warming although he states clearly that this is just an educated guess. He has know idea what the magnitude of effects aerosols have on the climate nor the sign but yet he manufactures a scenario using aerosols that show AGW is still a reality.

          He also commits the most horrendous of sins and claims the quiet sun is having a negative effect on the temps all 0.1W/m2 of it which is why he has stated for years that the sun plays no part but suddenly now it does at said 0.1W.

          The bad news is that at some point in the distant future probably when his grand children have benefitted from the financial windfall he has recieved all this negative stuff will go away and all we will have left is the pipeline.

          Temps will rise at about 1C a day for 10 years and we will all be burned to a crisp in hell unless we repent.


          Report this

          20

    • #

      KR: “…considering the last 15-16 years along with the previous 20 shows that the trends have not changed.”

      So the answer to the “stalled” warming is to ignore the data by blending it into a longer time-frame? Who’s the denier now?

      Why not limit yourself to average decadal trends since 1930? Oh… wait…


      Report this

      242

      • #
        KR

        Actually, the answer to finding out what the real trend is requires looking at sufficient data to separate the longer term warming trend from your hypothesis of no warming. 1998? The 2-sigma (95% certainty) range includes both the 0.16C/decade longer term trend and zero – all you can honestly state is that there is insufficient data in that period to tell. When you include enough data to separate the two? The “no warming” hypothesis is rejected.

        Decadal trends since 1930? They don’t support your case – in fact the last 10 years of data increase steeper than the last 30. And that’s with decreasing solar activity over the last 30 years, while temperatures continue to rise…

        Seriously, folks – It was colder in my neighborhood two days ago than it is now. Can I conclude that winter in the Northern Hemisphere is ending in January? No - because that’s short term noise, not the longer term trend. The same goes for global temperatures since 1998 – it’s too short a time period given the year-to-year variations to establish a trend, and claims otherwise are just not supportable.


        Report this

        114

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          So “noise” is synonymous with weather and “signal” is synonymous with climate. Now if you plotted this on a graph, what would you call the CO2 concentration? And which measure of CO2 concentration would you use?


          Report this

          70

          • #
            KR

            Grant (NZ)“…what would you call the CO2 concentration?”

            I would use as much data as is available. Which indicates an extremely strong and recent change.

            As to climate, generally defined as a running 30-year average to clear out short term variations, I would just look at the data.


            Report this

            111

          • #
            AndyG55

            ” Recent” roflmao !!!

            I take it you mean the last 15 or so years !!

            May I remind you that the CO2 myth started after only about 5 years of the purely coincidental rise of CO2 and temperatures.

            A VERY INSIGNIFICANT time period.

            And do keep picking the middle of a cool period as your starting point.. you know its all you have !

            The 15 years of no temp rise is NOT a cherry pick. its starts now and works backward..

            The data in ALL temp series shows it to be a FACT, and it is immaterial whether you accept it or not. !!
            .
            .
            .and youtube as a reference.. OMG , seriously !


            Report this

            81

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            KR I was hoping you would suggest that CO2 concentration (global average atmospheric) would be the X-axis and global average temperature would be o the Y-axis. Come to think of it, I have never seen a graph that shows these raw measures (as one would expect if they were correlated). You only see trends (time on the X-axis and lines that are the result of averaging averages).


            Report this

            10

    • #
      cohenite

      Ha, ha; GISS temp; KR made a funny.


      Report this

      31

    • #
      Jaymez

      KR – you may be arguing at cross purposes, you may be cherry picking or you may be what I would call a true denier of the scientific evidence:

      Cross Purposes
      I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the long term trend since the end of the Little Ice Age and the last Glacial Period is not that of warming. And thank goodness for humanity, and biodiversity for that! We are not disputing a long term warming trend. However, the IPCC and other climate alarmists have claimed that the bulk of warming since the start of Industrialisation has been due to man made green house emissions with a very high degree of confidence. They also agreed that the bulk of warming in the last half of the 1900′s was human caused with a very high degree of confidence. They also stated with a very high degree of confidence that the climate is extremely sensitive to atmospheric CO2 emissions and developed Climate models on the assumption that global warming would accelerate even if we capped Co2 emissions at 2000 levels. Their models assumed positive feedback mechanisms.

      What we are saying is that clearly THEY WERE WRONG! You don’t seem to want to accept that yet the UK Met and even James Hansen has accepted that they were wrong and global warming has stalled. Their assumptions regarding the climate’s sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 were wrong. Their claims that the science was settled were wrong. Clearly, as skeptics have been saying all along, they did not have sufficient proof for their theory and something else is happening which they do not fully understand.

      Cherry Picking
      The UK Met Temperature records confirm global warming had stalled over the last 15 years. Other land based temperature records confirm this as do Satellite temperature records, radiosondes and Argo buoys. However if you want to use the reconstructed, adjusted GISS data and add the data back to 1975 to show the long term trend that (as per above) none of us are disagreeing with), then I would call that cherry picking. But maybe you should also consider the cooling period before 1975 which had scientists convinced we were heading into an ice age? Or maybe you should consider the obvious natural cyclical warming and cooling trends which are clear in the longer term data if you are going to look at long term trends in order to ignore the recent 15 year suspension in the confidently predicted global warming?

      True Denier
      Or maybe it wouldn’t really matter what evidence we presented, or even what James Hansen or the UK Met said. You are so far gone that you can’t even admit that the fervently predicted and climate modelled global warming; that global warming we have been told was the cause of the bush fires, the droughts, the floods, the hurricanes, the ice melting, hasn’t actually been happening for at least 15 years. Because if it hasn’t, and you were one of the cheerleaders, it leaves you with an awful lot of egg on your face. So no matter what you’ll just deny whatever evidence is put forward.


      Report this

      111

      • #
        KR

        Jaymez – Given short term variations (ENSO, solar cycle, volcanos, etc.), and non-linear trends in many components of radiative forcings (insolation trends, long lived greenhouse gases [LLGHG], aerosols, land use, black carbon albedo changes, etc.), there should be no expectation of monotonic change with just CO2.

        Claims of a “stall” are therefore a strawman argument, based upon an unreasonable expectation/requirement on some folks part of a variation and noise free signal.

        “But maybe you should also consider the cooling period before 1975…”

        That’s actually very interesting to consider – see Skeie et al 2011, in particular the red dotted line in Figure 1C. That’s an estimate of anthropological forcings/feedbacks over the last 160 years, including LLGHGs, ozone, water vapor, aerosol effects, snow coverage, etc.

        The data indicates that anthropologic forcings (especially with aerosols) were slightly negative 1850-1900, rose until the 1940′s, decreased again until ~1970 (primarily from the large increase in sulfates), and have risen sharply since. (In this respect I’ll note that Skeie et al differ somewhat from the forcing data GISS uses, which does not include as many components).

        The noteworthy point here is the mid-20th century dip in the anthropogenic component. Add in the natural forcing changes (long term insolation, volcanos), and temperature changes track total forcings over the last century and a half quite well. Which is not surprising, as we do have a fairly good grasp on physics…

        The 1998-present trend in HadCRUT4 is 0.043 ±0.140 °C/decade (2σ), which really does include both the longer term 0.16 °C/decade trend and the null hypothesis of no warming. That means insufficient data to establish either hypothesis in the presence of short term variations – it simply isn’t statistically supportable. Trend claims based on 1998-now, starting with a 3σ El Nino, are cherry-picking. Choosing HadCRUT3 data over HadCRUT4 (when HadCRUT4 has more data), or GISTEMP, UAH, and RSS, or ocean heat content – that’s cherry-picking too.

        Cherry-picking -> myth, and demonstrates serious confirmation bias on the part of those making these “stall” claims. And clinging to that myth, the “stall” claim made in the opening post of this thread, _that_ is the denial – the data shows that the world continues to warm.


        Report this

        05

        • #
          Jaymez

          KR – I’m sorry I missed your response, but we have moved on. However just quickly:

          1. NONE of the climate models predicted an effectively flat global average temperature for the last 15 years. Climate scientists urged policy action based on predicted rises in global average temperature, warming of oceans, rises in sea levels and so on. Skeptics said at the time you do not have sufficient evidence to justify your conclusion that the climate is so sensitive to human CO2 emissions. They said we were deniers. They said the science was settled and the debate was over. THEY WERE WRONG! Get over it.

          2. Now you can cast back and look for explanations as to why they were wrong and that is well and good. Climate science is still developing and we are still learning about all the variables which impact on our climate. When we understand it better then come back and say you have a high degree of confidence. When the models have been produced, tested and been proven to be accurate.

          3. I have no problem with agreeing to some natural warming cycles and they seem very clear in the data especially once you adjust for the know short term climate variables. And I have no problem saying that some warming may be caused by anthropogenic forcing so I would expect that to show up a little in the trends along with the natural warming cycle as has been explained in much of the literature. However where the IPCC and most of the real scientific literature parts company is suggesting that the potential warming from anthropogenic warming will be multiplied by unproven positive feedback mechanisms especially when negative feedback mechanisms are not yet fully understood. All you and others are doing is playing hopeful guessing games. That isn’t science. Have a theory, make some predictions, gather some empirical evidence to test those predictions – that is science. The IPCC have failed thus far.

          4. When we are talking about the Earth’s climate then surely you could argue any period shorter than say 10,000 years of climate history would be far too short to draw any relevant conclusions and that would be cherry picking – I mean if you want to get realistic about it. Then if you do that you bring in the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods and the current warming looks totally unspectacular: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png If you want to ignore that, then that is cherry picking.

          5. With all due respect to R. B. Skeie et al’s Anthropogenic radiative forcing time series (esp fig 1C), they are scrambling for a human cause and desperately trying to find one which fits. It really doesn’t. The natural climate cycles are easier to see in this graph http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm Along with a to be expected warming after the LIA, it makes perfect sense and you don’t have to try to squeeze the Ugly Stepmother’s Foot into Cinderella’s glass slipper.


          Report this

          21

          • #
            KR

            Jaymez

            (1) Not true – we are well within the range of variations seen in models, and statistically speaking 15-18 year flat spots are quite likely given the observed trend and noise (see the test at the end, the last figure, against random data with the observed statistical characteristics).

            (2) As above – your claim is not supportable.

            (3) Without feedbacks of ~3C/doubling, we would not have had ice ages, a Reductio ad absurdum proof of feedback existence. The changes in forcing from the Milankovitch cycle are too small to have done the job by themselves. All of the data points to 2-4.5C/doubling, with a most likely 3C, see Knutti and Hegerl 2008 for a good overview of the various data – paleo, instrumental period, response to volcanic eruptions, models, current mean climate state, etc. Feedbacks are real.

            (4) Observations have to be long enough to isolate fairly small trends against the background of short term variations, and 1998-now does not qualify – claims otherwise are a sign of innumeracy. 25-30 years is statistically sufficient given the observed variation.

            (5) Cycles? (Along with a fair bit of conspiracy theories?) Given that the physics of conservation of energy, spectroscopy, and observed forcing changes actually matches temperature changes over the last few hundred years, there is very little room for “cycles”. And quite frankly, without (a) a physical mechanism and (b) observations of that mechanism, “climate cycles” are just as explanatory as “leprechauns”.

            I’m afraid none of your post holds up in the light of the evidence, or the physics. Denial, IMO, consists of holding to counter-factual claims such as yours.

            Adieu.


            Report this

            02

    • #
      John Brookes

      Yay! I was waiting for the cavalry to arrive.


      Report this

      17

  • #
    Adri

    Apologies ther seems to be amix up with what Waats up with that posted today
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697.html etc

    and the CURRENT DER SPIEGEL ARTICLE by a different author. cheers good news anyway


    Report this

    10

  • #
    bernk

    The line ” the no upward trend would have to continue for a total of 15 years for us to get worried ” is the clincher. They should be celebrating that it is not as bad as they predicted. The fact is they would rather have catastrophic warming than admitting they were wrong. This is all about ego.

    What they will do now is move the goalposts.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    Jaymez

    So who is the True Denier?
    Not all scientists who have been on the man-made climate change bandwagon for a long time, and who have staked their careers on it can be either ignorant of the facts, or prepared to tell bare faced lies about what is really happening to temperatures. But what they have learnt to do is quote ‘scary’ facts and let the activists and the main stream media, and of course the uneducated public, draws the wrong conclusions.

    Here are examples of some headlines which are deliberately designed to give the impression of rising temperatures, but which can occur without temperatures having risen at all since 1998.

    ‘Record broken for Victoria’s Hottest November day’ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-29/record-heat-forecast-for-victoria/4398012 You can use any combination of this headline any time anywhere in the world. There is bound to be a record for a day, or day in a month, or a week, for a town, a place, or a country, somewhere in the world. This is particularly so if the ‘record’ referred to is flexible. It may be a new temperature station which has only been going for a couple of decades; or its records may have been artificially ‘adjusted’. You see how easy that game is to play?

    ‘2012 Was One of Earth’s 10 Warmest Years, NOAA and NASA Say’ http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-01-15/2012-was-world-s-10th-warmest-year-on-record-noaa-reports In fact it was confirmed as the 10th warmest on record, not one of the 10th warmest on record. You have seen lots of variations on this theme, ‘Last year was one of the hottest on record’, ‘Three out of the last ten years have been the hottest since records began’ and so it goes, just interchange the years and numbers. But none of those headlines actually mean that the world has been warming over the last 15 years. And since the global instrumental temperature records only commenced in 1880, after the Little Ice Age, isn’t it to be expected that many of the warmer years would tend to be closer to present day high (record) temperatures than closer to the LIA? Of course it is even possible to have global warming pause and every one of the last 10 years could be the warmest on record, it still doesn’t mean temperatures are rising, it means they are stable at that new record.

    Besides, most temperature data series show either 1934 or 1998 as the hottest year on record in the US. So if the world is getting warmer, how come the hottest years on record are behind us, as far back as in the 1930’s? That could hardly be blamed on man-made global warming. Similarly in Australia the 1890’s and 1930’s contain some of our hottest years on record.

    So you see how easy it is for a scientist to make a truthful statistical statement which doesn’t mean the world is warming, yet everyone takes away from the story that the world is dramatically warming. Of course it is done entirely deliberately and it is deception!

    Only a true denier of the scientific facts could continue to claim that there has been global warming, or that the world has been getting warmer since 1998. It flies in the face of all the scientific evidence, yet we continue to hear claims from climate scientists, Politicians, Eco activists and compliant journalists every day that the world is getting warmer, that it is caused by humans, and that every extreme weather event, is evidence of this.
    Often we hear the words added that the world is warming “faster than expected”, something Australia’s Climate Commissioners, particularly Tim Flannery and Will Stefan who are scientists and should know better, are very fond of doing. (e.g. speech here: http://climatecommission.gov.au/basics/tim-flannery-speaks-committee-economic-development-australia/). But in this example it is clear Flannery is playing word games to get his deliberately scary message across. In his speech for the Climate Commission Flannery states: “4. The Earth’s climate is changing faster than expected. 2012 already has been a year of important milestones.” He then trotted a bunch of factoids, none of which provide any evidence that the globe is warming or that any warming or any climate change being pointed to is caused by humans. In fact he commits the common sin of pointing to an unproven, unscientific link between isolated extreme weather events and man-made climate change. This is something even the IPCC is circumspect about doing whether it is linking storms and floods, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/29/ipcc_srex_thermageddon/
    , or droughts, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/12/nasas-james-hansen-is-just-wrong-proof-that-there-is-no-increased-drought-in-the-usa-tied-to-temperature/, with man-made climate change.

    This is the sort of thing we are getting daily from our highly paid chief Climate Commissioner. So I guess it’s no surprise the lower down academics, public servants and journalists can’t tell fact from fiction in the climate science debate. Flanner does no once mention any uncertainty, he does not highlight the fact that global average temperatures have ceased to rise and satellite and Argo Buoy data confirms the seas aren’t warming either. He and people like him have no interest in scientific fact if it doesn’t fit their ideological agenda.

    Those who knowingly promulgate scary headlines and half-truths or misleading facts about global warming when they know the facts do not support their claims are the true deniers in this debate. They are the ones who are rejecting the science and it is time the main stream media did their job and called them out on it rather than acted as their accomplices.


    Report this

    320

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Well put Jaymez!


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      It reminds me of the story of the ship’s Captain who during one voyage recorded periodically in his log “First Mate was sober today”. At the end of the voyage the ship owners fired the First Mate.

      What the Captain had recorded was totally truthful. What he omitted was that the First Mate was sober everyday of the voyage. However this omission lead other to conclude that there were occasions when the First Mate was not sober.


      Report this

      110

    • #
      AndyG55

      Even the “2012 was hottest year in US” statement has been shown to be a fudge and a lie.

      They had purposely added in several stations in warmer areas, then ‘homogeised’ to this warmer data so as to push the so-called “average” up.

      Calculations using the original set of stations showed it was actually about 12th warmest in a quite short record.


      Report this

      130

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    There never has been any unusual, catastrophic global warming. The underlying CAGW assumption that land based surface temperatures are a valid proxy for global temperature has NEVER been tested or verified. When you cut down a forest and replace it with a ploughed field you should expect an increase in surface temperature, and when you then replace that field with concrete and asphalt the surface temperature should increase even more – duh.


    Report this

    120

  • #

    ” Something is happening but you don’t know what it is. do you, Mr. Jones.”


    Report this

    31

  • #
    peterfitzroy

    Climate Stalled?
    Not according to NASA http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-temps.html
    If you take any other date than 1998 the curve is positive. If you want to stick with 1998 then you have to provide some rationale, it seems that this date has been used as the starting point for over ten years now, but there is never any justification to why 1998 should be the starting point.


    Report this

    06

    • #
      • #
        peterfitzroy

        Thanks Ross, I did have a look. 1998 is a certainly standout in most of the datasets, which would make it more of an outlier than a point to start an analysis. I did like the CO2 line, if I understand the premise correctly, the increase in C02 does not appear to be reflected in the temperature data. This would concur with the idea that C02 is not a driver of global temperature.


        Report this

        81

        • #
          AndyG55

          “This would concur with the idea that C02 is not a driver of global temperature’

          Well done !!! :-)


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Bob Fernley-Jones

          Peterfitzroy,
          There have been alarmist protestations about using the so-called El Nino outlier that you commented on as a start-point for recent trend analyses, which I guess is why Ross chose a start-point of end October 1996 which embarrassingly gives a very flat linear trend in that green line. (If he had started it somewhere in 1998 it would have shown a slight cooling trend I think)

          Yet, paradoxically, various alarmists are happy to use that same 1998 “outlier noise” as an end point in some of their wise presentations, such as infamously in the Manna hocky-stick graph which the IPCC boisterously clarioned six-fold in various sections of their 3AR report of 2001, without thought of updating it to the much cooler year 2000.

          I’m derisive that when it suits certain alarmist agendas, ENSO oscillations are argued as noise, but can be used oppositely when required. Surely, ENSO is simply part of the observed temperature record, for instance did you notice that 1999 and 2000 were sharply downward corrections of around 0.8 degrees cooler?
          (Which is about the range of net global change since instrumental records began over a century ago)


          Report this

          50

    • #
      Jaymez

      PeterFitzror @ #24 – Not true, look at 2001 onwards. 1998 was a particularly hot unusual El Nino year so it stands out. The Global Warming enthusiasts enjoyed using the temperature peaks in 1998 as their end date when showing ‘proof’ of dramatic temperature rises which were ‘unprecedented’. It is only natural that sceptics are enjoying using that high point to measure temperatures from. Some unadjusted land based temperature records actually show a cooling from 1998. But apart from whacko’s everyone is happy to now accept there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998.


      Report this

      31

  • #

    We used to have lots of competing economic models. They were always lousy at even forecasting 12 months ahead, but at least they learnt by experience. Models were adjusted to obtain more accurate future predictions. The lack of warming is now blamed on
    - The deep oceans, where there is near zero data. The near surface temperatures with measurements show no warming.
    - The drying of the dry stratosphere, despite the models saying it should be getting moister.
    - Aerosol particles, despite the UNIPCC AR5 draft admitting that in 2007 AR4 they massively overestimated the influence of aerosols.
    - Further that climate models are now saying that tropical storms will get less frequent, when before they were saying they would get more frequent.
    - That natural factors – La Nina – are capable of having a much larger influence than anthropogenic.

    This is all a huge climb down. In summary, the evidence is a much weaker for global warming and the models, when contradicted, are being quietly adjusted. But still we have people dogmatically proclaiming that catastrophe is just around the corner. An honest interpretation is that the models were too extreme on both the temperature rise and the catastrophic impacts of that rise. But to draw the appropriate conclusions would be to completely undermine any justification for carbon taxes and wretched windmills.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    old44

    “something out there affects our climate more than CO2 and none of the computer models knows what it is”

    Whatever it is, I will bet it is caused by Global Warming.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      JohnM

      Note that mention of “computer models” – technically incorrect because they are computer-based climate models, not models of computers.

      Two thoughts
      1 – the IPCC’s claims about climate change and future weather are fundamentally based on these models that we’ve been told are improving all the time.
      2 – it’s not the models that need to “know” but the people who program them, and if those people don’t know then who, if anyone, does?


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You’re dead right.

      I happen to know what causes Global Warming … The Sun.

      Seriously.

      The models assume that the radiative output of the Sun is a constant, and that any and all climatic variations must therefore be terrestrial, and probably influenced by mankind because we humans are the most adaptable major life form. But we are adaptable because we developed adaptability as an evolutionary response to change that was already occurring. Had there been no change, we wouldn’t have the stimulus to evolve.

      “Ear-go, it were the Sun that done it m’lud”.


      Report this

      180

      • #

        zero dimentional models use constant solar output. Are you unaware of models that include solar variability? Or was this a joke that I don’t get?


        Report this

        08

        • #
          Mark D.

          What do ya’ll got?

          Last I heard the official “Deep Climate Science” as performed by the “Famous 97%” ruled out solar influence on global warming.

          Do you need me to provide links to support that? Or, is it possible that you know something about cutting edge climate science and it has something new to add to “well understood”?


          Report this

          50

          • #

            Mark, you can provide the link if you want but I don’t need it as there are many. I didn’t say anything that contradicts what you wrote. All I said was that climate models include solar variability and they don’t keep it constant as Rereke seemed to be saying.

            I know this is not new to you but just for completeness… using these models the finding is that there is a gap between the observed data and the modeled data which is explained as being due to changing CO2. Variation in solar output is already in the model so can’t be added again to explain the residual.

            As you’ve seen before, I don’t accept has this has been shown to be true with robust data or experimentation, or that the difference between model and reality is not due to the models being poor (ie factors other than CO2 are not modeled well).


            Report this

            12

          • #
            Mark D.

            Gee, perhaps you want to be known as the unconfirmed skeptic, maybe even your occupation demands it. On the other hand offering just a bit more detail (as you have above) might at least get you more thumbs up.

            To continue the discussion; do the models include everything the sun has to offer?

            Actually, do the models include all that the universe has to offer?

            I’m pretty sure I know the answer.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            no they don’t and my final parenthetical point includes the possibility that these other things might sure up the models. Apart from the likes of Dougie (*) and Oliver, not many scientists in this debate think there is a major new factor at play.

            * is not a scientist. My sentence could be read to imply that he is.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Mark D.

            Apart from the likes of Dougie (*) and Oliver, not many scientists in this debate think there is a major new factor at play.

            * is not a scientist. My sentence could be read to imply that he is.

            Forgive me for pointing out that this last part is a smooth and sneaky argument from authority?

            I don’t think it wise to throw out any babies(*) when rinsing the bathtub.

            * please define scientist.


            Report this

            30

          • #

            no it isn’t or at least it wasn’t meant to be.

            I am simply using the example of a group of people with demonstrable requisite knowledge (people with relevant professional science qualifications) whether sceptical of AGW or not, do not invoke mysterious new forms of physics or reject sound research and data in their efforts to explain the observed energy inputs and global climate. This statement does not exclude the possibility that others can have requisite knowledge and make pertinent contributions.


            Report this

            22

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I am simply using the example of a group of people with demonstrable requisite knowledge (people with relevant professional science qualifications) … This statement does not exclude the possibility that others can have requisite knowledge and make pertinent contributions.

            That would include Phrenologists then … ?


            Report this

            41

          • #
            Ace

            In 1800 “cutting edge” medical opinion was 100% concensus that bacteria areof no relevance to illness. When Semmelweis proved by controlled experiment on a maternity ward that medics bnotwashing their hands lead to deaths of mothers and children he was regarded as such a “looney” that he was put in a looney-hospital.

            So much for “consensus”.

            Oh yes, cutting edgeopinion once had it the sun went round the Earth.

            Feck, why am I wasting my time responding to a complete moron?

            Oh and BTW, 97% concensus among the less than 1% of those asked means less than 1% ofall scientists.

            So even that “consensus” is a lie.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I have yet to find a joke that any catastrophist gets. They are all so seriously serious. :-)

          But I was making a point that all living things are as they are because of evolution, and that is driven by changes in climate (among other things).

          Now we didn’t cause all of those prehistoric changes in climate, so why are we necessarily responsible for the current climate change (which isn’t, by the way, and that is not our fault either).


          Report this

          90

          • #

            You are one of the most logical and consistent writers here so from this

            Now we didn’t cause all of those prehistoric changes in climate, so why are we necessarily responsible for the current climate change (which isn’t, by the way, and that is not our fault either).

            do I assume that your account has been hacked?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Not at all.

            I was simply trying to make the point that the climate changes constantly, and sometimes dramatically, and previous to modern times, mankind has been a victim of such changes. But on the plus side, that has helped us evolve into what we are.

            But, at the latter end of the 20th Century, we suddenly decided that rather than be a victim of a major ice age, (as the meme was presented the ’70′s) we would take control of the atmosphere, and we would decide what nature should, and should not, do. And, guess what. There wasn’t a new ice age, so we had an initial success to celebrate.

            But then, we became concerned about a hole being discovered in the ozone layer. Perhaps we overdid whatever we did in the ’70′s, and we were all going to fry. But it was worse than we thought, because we didn’t just have to worry about ozone, we also had to worry about the general temperature increasing due to the greenhouse effect. We could fry from two sources.

            So, by the end of the century, our focus had shifted again, and once more we had made a decision, that we would not be a victim of run-away warming, and we would take control of the atmosphere and we would decide what nature should, and should not, do. So, we declared war on carbon dioxide, in an effort to bring the temperature down to a more optimal level. And guess what. We have had no significant warming for the last fifteen years. So we have had another success. Admittedly we haven’t managed to appreciably reduce carbon dioxide levels, but we must have done something right for the warming to stabilise.

            But we still have the ozone layer to worry about, and that should keep us occupied until the next crisis emerges, when once again we, as a species, will galvanise ourselves into action to put nature in its place once more!

            [Comment: I am a great believer in parody to get a message across (especially with the more politically minded, for some unknown reason). The above text is (in the majority) a montage of phrases lifted from the Green literature - without attribution - I don't want to encourage them].


            Report this

            90

        • #
          Jaymez

          The problem with the modelling Gee Aye is the assumptions used to base the computations on. They assume constant solar radiation for instance cannot cause global warming. because they look for correlations between increases in one variable and increases in global temperature. Like they see an increase in atmospheric CO2 and an increasing global temperature trend so they make the link and chuck it into the calcs. But if the look back and see increasing temperature, but no increasing solar radiation, then they assume no link. They only include warming in the climate models when there is an increase in solar radiation, not from constant solar radiation. Yet this defies what happens every day. We lay outside under a constant sun – we burn. You put a pot of water over a constant flame, it eventually comes to the boil, even though the heat doesn’t increase!


          Report this

          30

  • #
    pat

    weather! amazing photos:

    23 Jan: Daily Mail:
    Chicago warehouse turns to ice after firefighter’s water freezes on building as Midwest experiences day 4 of cold snap with temperatures plummeting below -36F
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266922/Chicago-warehouse-turns-ice-firefighters-water-freezes-Midwest-experiences-day-4-cold-snap.html


    Report this

    80

  • #
    pat

    the daily mail “chicago warehouse” article has a video at the bottom, which virtually claims california is in a once-in-a-century” heatwave (paraphrasing, but there’s an attempt to make a CAGW extreme weather point by the MSM reporter). however:

    15 Jan: WorldMag Weather: Angela Lu with AP: California citrus farmers battle record cold
    Californians used to wearing short sleeves and flip flops through the winter months struggled to adapt this week to record cold that threatens to upset more than just their wardrobes.
    Citrus farmers in the “Food Basket of the World” especially are concerned about the plummeting mercury as they fight to protect about $1.5 billion worth of fruit…
    About 75 percent of the citrus crop statewide remained on the trees as Monday night temperatures dropped to 21 degrees in the San Joaquin Valley. The unusual cold has gripped the West Coast for nearly a week…
    In Southern California, strong winds kept crops out of danger, stopping the cold from settling. On Monday morning, temperatures in downtown Los Angeles plummeted to 34 degrees, breaking the previous record of 36 degrees set on Jan. 14, 2007.
    Over the weekend, growers deployed wind machines to keep the warm air closer to the ground and irrigation to raise the temperature in the groves…

    http://www.worldmag.com/2013/01/california_citrus_farmers_battle_record_cold


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    why do i have the feeling the CAGW architects knew the temps were going to go against their predictions if Copenhagen didn’t get the deal done. how they must wish they’d been able to force a deal through then:

    23 Jan: The Local Sweden: Sweden braces for ‘deep freeze’ in February
    Meteorologists are warning that next month in Sweden will be even colder than January, with temperatures set to plummet as the whole of the Nordic region gets hit by atmospheric blocking.
    Experts at Weather Services International have warned Sweden and much of the rest of northern Europe that February will be “much colder than normal”…
    For now, temperatures continue to sit well below zero, with the mercury dropping as low as negative 18 degrees Celcius in Stockholm this week.
    http://www.thelocal.se/45778/20130123/#.UQAjx_ks_jk


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Mark

      Zackly right, pat.

      The fraudsters knew that the PDO had, or was about to go south and the AMO would follow before much longer. They were desperate to get a global agreement.

      There will be some of them who will baldly claim in a few years that the ‘freeze’ happened because of the actions of those countries who complied with their regulations and proved that they were right. OK, they overdid it a little, so in the interests of better climate management, more money must be plundered from those people in those countries still able to pay something… anything?


      Report this

      50

      • #
        AndyG55

        Unfortunately for them, that last excuse won’t wash.

        IF CO2 caused heating (it doesn’t), then it has to be looked at Globally, and Globally CO2 emmissions have continued to climb.

        They have no fall-back position, and you can see the panic ! :-)


        Report this

        70

  • #
    Graham

    Jo, Something stated in the article in the GWPF link provided above seems amiss.

    It states: “Most of the energy that greenhouse gases retain in the atmosphere enters into the oceans…”

    I was always under the impression that hot air cannot warm water because the heat energy is used up by the latent heat of vaporisation as the water evaporates and that it is only the sun’s radiation that heats the oceans.

    This paper seems to confirm this fact:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/why-greenhouse-gases-wont-heat-oceans.html

    However it is now a long time since I studied physics at school so maybe someone might care to comment on this.
    Graham


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      “Most of the energy that greenhouse gases retain in the atmosphere enters into the oceans…”

      It is hard to understand how it is possible for the latent heat of water vapour to form clouds and at the same time heat oceans.

      http://sxxz.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/latent-heat-sweat-storms-and-cooling.html

      How Latent Heat Drives Storms
      So when water evaporates it takes up heat (cooling the local environment). As water vapor it carries that heat around as latent heat. Then when that vapor condenses it releases that latent heat, heating up the local environment, usually the air.

      This is what drives some types of storms, including thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes and typhoons. Such storms are driven by “heat engines” based on water vapor. The key to such systems is rising warm air containing water vapor. As it rises it expands (because the atmospheric pressure is lower the higher you go) and as it expands it cools (the same amount of heat is spread through a larger volume–adiabatic cooling).

      At some point the parcel of moist air has cooled enough that it cannot hold all the water vapor it contains. (The amount of water vapor air can hold is strongly dependent on its temperature.) So some of the water vapor condenses out as water droplets–clouds, rain or snow. As that water vapor condenses to liquid it releases heat (the latent heat of condensation or latent heat of fusion), warming the parcel of air. Because of this warming, the moist parcel of air will be warmer and more buoyant than neighboring air, so it will continue to rise.

      As it rises and expands more condensation will occur, continuing the process. (This gives rise to towering “thunderhead” cloud formations.) Essentially this creates a strong updraft as water condenses out of the rising air. This updraft causes locally lower air pressure below it and sucks in surrounding air to fill the gap, creating surface wind–the storm as we experience it. (There may also be downdrafts associated with falling precipitation.)

      Without the heat released by the condensation of water vapor these systems couldn’t grow to their towering size.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Graham

        Thanks Kevin for that link.

        Yes I understand how surface heat is transported into the upper atmosphere. However, I don’t see any reference to heat going from the atmosphere into the ocean.

        If fact it states, (my highlighting), “A tropical cyclone’s primary energy source is the release of the heat of condensation from water vapor condensing, with solar heating being the initial source for evaporation”.

        I would suggest that the second part of your statement ( “possible for the latent heat of water vapour to form clouds and at the same time heat oceans”) seems to be implausible.

        Graham


        Report this

        20

  • #
    pat

    when will one of our pollies have the courage to call for the construction of new coal-fired power stations?

    French power sector CO2 rises 7.3 pct in 2012
    LONDON, Jan 23 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Power plants in France emitted 7.3 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2012 versus the previous year, preliminary government data showed, after production at coal-fired power stations rose.
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2150329?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    40

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    There is a clear correlation between CO2 levels and electricity prices. As electricity prices have risen so has CO2!
    I therefore recommend that we start a grassroots campaign to reduce electricity prices to zero so that we can save the planet for our children.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    UzUrBrain

    What they really expected to happen was for the CO2 reduction treaty to be signed back in 2010 and a drastic reduction in CO2 begin. Then this leveling off of the temperature would be correlated with the leveling off of CO2 and they would all be hero’s. (Sarc – But it has as much validity as their models.)


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Ian H

    The interested public anxiously awaits whether the IPCC’s new Assessment Report, which is due in September, will address the warming pause

    Montford was booed for mentioning it and ejected from the climate conference. The delegates and their political masters are clearly not “anxiously awaiting”. They don’t want to know.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    chris edwards

    Hey O believe the CO2 signal has not changed, it always has been a red herring!


    Report this

    31

  • #

     

    There’s no need for researchers to be puzzled.

    (1) The reasons carbon dioxide has no effect are here
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/unthreaded-friday/#comment-1228796

    (2) The ~1,000 year cycle is still increasing but at a reducing rate of increase, now at only about 0.5C/decade. About 500 years of cooling will commence after its maximum in about 50 to 200 years.

    (3) The superimposed 60 year cycle which was rising for 30 years is now starting to decline. The combined effect is a very slight decline until about 2028.

    For details of this analysis see the Appendix of my paper published March, 2012.

    Doug Cotton
    Sydney


    Report this

    40

    • #
      AndyG55

      mmmm, Sol looks like being pretty quite for a long period. I suspect the coming drop in temp may be a bit more than “very slight”

      With you and bananabender on the rest though. :-)


      Report this

      10

      • #

        There’s not enough evidence that the ~1,000 year cycle has passed a maximum yet. Th erate of increase is still nearly 0.05 C degree per decade. This increase reduces a slightly faster rate of decline expected after 2014 in the 60 year cycle. But 30 years of warming can be expected from around 2028, but in magnitude would be less than a degree over that period. Whilst the 60 year cycle passed a maximum in 1998, it was still nearly as hot in 2010, though 2011 and 2012 were cooler. The trend since 1998 has been only slight cooling.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    bananabender

    The reason that global warming has stalled is because there is no Greenhouse Effect. Period.

    The atmosphere is heated by gravity and thermal transfer (primarily by evaporation and condensation).

    Had researchers bothered to talk to some chemists (the real authorities on spectroscopy) they would learn that the GE is literally impossible because it totally contradicts the most fundamental rules of atomic theory.

    What really infuriates me is that so called “sceptics” such as Jo Nova, Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton adamantly refuse to consider that the GE is a total myth. In doing so they have unwillingly aided and abbetted corrupt scientists and politicians.


    Report this

    41

    • #
      bananabender

      Edit: last sentence

      In doing so they have UNWITTINGLY aided and abbetted corrupt scientists and politicians.


      Report this

      31

    • #
    • #
      michael hammer

      I have spent the last 30+ years carrying out research for a major international spectroscopy company and I can say that green house gas in our atmosphere does lead to energy retention, the Nimbus data by itself is enough to prove that beyond any possible shadow of doubt. Nor does it conflict with any natural laws. What is at issue is the amount of warming. the GACW theory exaggerates the impact by about a factor of 10!


      Report this

      41

      • #
        Streetcred

        There was a bloke who used to comment at BH of similar experience to yourself who held that the detection of ‘feedback’ was entirely an artefact of the spectrometer design and incorrect use … is this correct ? Others here might recall who that gentleman was, but he was convincing in his argument.


        Report this

        10

      • #

        While the atmosphere does retain some energy (as heat); it’s a very small amount and basically a function of all gases being rather poor emitters. The main mechanisms for heat exchange with the atmosphere are conduction/convection and phase change.

        At the thermo-kinetic level, the gas temperatures measured are a result of the average collision energy of the gas molecule with the measuring device. So when there are more molecules due to higher pressure resulting from gravity, pushing the molecules more closely together; the “temperature” is higher as a result of a higher frequency of collisions with the measuring device. It’s indicating the rate of collisions as much as the kinetic energy of molecular velocities.

        All gases are part of the measured “greenhouse”.

        IIRC from my first studies in (planetary) radiation physics in 1977 (Physics 110); the “greenhouse effect” of ca. +33°C is based on the assumptions of a non-rotating, stationary, massless planet with a uniform solid surface, perfect conductivity and no capacity to store heat, surrounded by a perfectly transparent, uniform, inviscid atmosphere also with no capacity to store heat; all at a constant distance from a constant sun. Those are the main simplifying assumptions used to teach radiation physics.

        And that appears to be where “Earth scientists” cease to understand thermodynamics. Never appreciating that the teaching model is nothing like any planet in the real universe could ever be. In their disappointment and driven by the urge to enhance their ignorance; they seek refuge in computer models; instead of pulling the legs off the assumptions.

        The “greenhouse effect” is the result of a classical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam; argument from ignorance: “We can’t think of any reason why the planet is warmer than it should be as determined by simple radiation physics; so it must be the atmosphere.”

        Mechanical Engineers with some appreciation of heat transfer work on the “near enough” basis that (except in some very special cases) heat transfer in gases is by convection/conduction (or mixing). Intense heat transfer to/from gases is by phase change. When any of those is possible, radiation to/from the gas can be ignored because its magnitude is likely to be unmeasurable as well as insignificant.


        Report this

        100

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Michael.

        The problem with this problem has always been knowing exactly what you are measuring.

        Allowing for cloud banks and regions of hi and low humidity is a nightmare that creates pockets of potential energy waiting for a new home.

        I think the any artifact in measurement that is associated with this situation ( eg “back-radiation”) needs

        very careful interpretation and I don’t believe the CAGW Mob or the IPCC or Climate Scientists have been very

        interested in the problem; all they want is the scare value of potential doom and headlines.

        KK :)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    People First

    The US rivals Saudi Arabia in Fossil Fuel resources with enough Oil, Coal and Natural Gas estimated to last 600 years into the future. However, because of President Obama’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (CAGW) aka [Climate Change] beliefs he has just declared war on the use of these valuable resources decreeing their costs should “skyrocket”. I wonder if he cares that his Climate Change Policies will hurt the poor the most? It seems the only people being enriched by President Obama’s Green Energy policies are the greedy rich. If these resources were freed up for use they would solve our unemployment problems, grow our economy, eliminate our debt and improve the lives of millions of poor people. So are there any viable alternatives to the proven and cheap power source Fossil Fuel provides? For example Green energy: wind turbines, bio fuel and solar? The dirty little secret is Green Energy is unreliable, more costly, does quite a bit of harm to Mother Earth and can provide only fraction of the energy fossil fuel does. President Obama’s belief in Man Made Climate Change is not based on empirical data. It is based on Models. Models that do not take into account the impact of the Sun, Ocean and Clouds on the Climate The real world data shows that the AGW models were wrong. As CO2 has risen the temperatures have not as the models predicted. Given these facts President Obama should reevaluate his belief in Climate Change and start taking advantage of the vast energy resources available to us. The use of these resources would improve the lives of millions of people. especially the poor. Is President Obama’s dream for American one of desolation and hopelessness not growth and prosperity? Do they mirror the dreams of Greenpeace that do not reflect the dreams of the American people for a better more prosperous life?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    michael hammer

    The full article states “It is estimated that an increase in cloud cover by one-hundredth could offset the doubling of the CO2 content in the air”. Note not just the increase over the last 15 years but a full doubling (due by 2070 supposedly). This is a truly remarkable statement.

    Consider, at constant humidity, evaporation of water is known to be exponential with temperature, doubling for every 10C rise = 7% rise per 1C increase in temperature. If evaporation increases 7% so must rainfall (after all what goes up must come down again) and rainfall comes from clouds. Hence a 7% increase in rainfall must lead to a substantial increase in cloud mass (7% at first guess) yet a 1% increase wipes out the warming from doubling CO2.

    Hmmmm seems to me we have just defined a HUGE negative feedback term in our climate. Who would have thought, Earth’s climate is massively stabilised by the action of clouds (sarc). Seems to me we have also identified that anything that changes cloud formation will have a huge impact on climate – maybe there is something to Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory linked to solar magnetic activity after all?

    RIP CAGW?????


    Report this

    80

  • #
    AndyG55

    And another one just for fun.

    Yes it IS man made warming.. and that man just happens to be Hansen !


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Crakar24

    From that gibbering idiot Attenbourgh

    The television presenter said that humans are threatening their own existence and that of other species by using up the world’s resources.

    He said the only way to save the planet from famine and species extinction is to limit human population growth.

    “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,” he told the Radio Times.

    So he is on his way home now to knock himself off? Oh no, no, no, no, no he expects others to be knocked off. Typically hollier than thou green bull shit.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Jaymez

    Perhaps the Climate Alarmists were onto something after all? I mean Correlation vs causation can be convincing! http://gizmodo.com/5977989/internet-explorer-vs-murder-rate-will-be-your-favorite-chart-today


    Report this

    10

  • #
    manalive

    I had to laugh at the quote that others have mentioned:

    “… ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried …”

    Like ‘we have to worry about not having anything to worry about’, or probably more accurately, ‘we have to worry about having nothing to scare the dopes who pay our salaries’.
    Using references to ‘warmest since little ice age’ or ‘warmest since measurements began’ to provide empirical evidence in support of CAGW are irrelevant; human CO2 emissions prior to WWII were relatively insignificant. The IPCC itself uses only post-war data in its guesswork.
    That “… the strongest thrust of 0.5 degrees happened from the mid-1970s to the turn of the millennium …” is plainly B.S.
    There is no reason to assume that Global Warming™ has “stalled”, implying a temporary halt.
    The article, like all IPCC-based commentary, assumes that the halt in the warming trend ’78 -’98 is a phenomenon needing explanation.
    The theory came first in the late 70s early 80s and the only empirical evidence, the ’75 – ’98 trend followed, and has now stopped.
    The whole edifice including the models is based on circular reasoning, quoting Bertrand Russell: “The method of ‘postulating’ what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil”.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Winston

      Ironic isn’t it?
      The only thing a hypochondriac has to worry about is when the doctor tells him he has a clean bill of health. I think the Freudian (or is that Fraudian?) slip in the quote is very telling.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    edmh

    As they predict that warming will be catastrophic why are alarmists so distressed to find that it is not happening after all.

    There is a horrendous paradox here somewhere.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    David

    Those NASA scientists with their: ‘There has to be no warming for 15 years or more..’ statement after eleven years of no warming must be spitting feathers..
    Expect anytime now for that statement to be modified to: ‘What we ACTUALLY meant was that there would have to be no warming for TWENTY years or more…’
    Cue tongues firmly in cheeks this side of the great divide, and comments like: ‘ACTUALLY, you guys haven’t got a bloody clue…’


    Report this

    10

    • #

      Yeah, they’re always after an extension! It’s always “Let’s give it another 15 years – or 20 – or 30 – to be sure.” Yeah, right! They’re just shifting the problem off their own shoulders and onto the next in line, who will then spout more of the same, asking for more time to keep the scam alive. No one is ready to take responsibility, and no wonder – it should mean jail time.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Dagfinn

    The so-called debunking by Skeptical Science is interesting, since even if it were correct, it would not be sufficient cause for alarm.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html

    What they seem to find is a nice linear trend of 0.15-0.16 degrees C per decade. It doesn’t look that convincing, but let’s accept it for the sake of the argument. The “problem” is that’s the trend is barely enough to break the so-called scientifically motivated 2 degree target. But they claim we will get increased warming in the future:

    Given that human greenhouse gas emissions are increasing, and that the natural influences do not show a trend on longer timescales, we must expect increasing global warming in the future.

    If that’s the case, why hasn’t it happened yet? Why is the trend until now linear? By their logic, it shouldn’t be. It should be accelerating, since CO2 emissions have been increasing throughout the period. The same problem applies to positive feedbacks, which they don’t mention.

    Their result is simply “too good”. They’ve seemingly eliminated all uncertainty, and then there’s no leeway for alarmists to build disaster scenarios. They need more to make it scarier, but there’s no room for it since they claim to have explained everything.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Why is the trend until now linear? By their logic, it shouldn’t be. It should be accelerating, since CO2 emissions have been increasing throughout the period.

      No. By their logic the trend should be linear, not accelerating.
      The cumulative greenhouse effect of CO2 is (theoretically) logarithmic with concentration.
      CO2 has been increasing exponentially.
      Since x = ln(e^x), the resulting temperature increase should be linear.

      Unfortunately for the warmists the trend only looks linear on short 25 year time scales.
      We were in the warming phase of a sinusoidal natural cycle which within 15 years will turn around.
      So it’s not linear. :) Due to negative feedbacks in the climate it could not increase linearly for any decent length of time regardless of the cause of the heating.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dagfinn

    A further development of this perspective would be that if Skeptical Science were right, it would revolutionize climate science. If you can figure out exactly how and why global temperature is increasing with just a few simple manipulations on the temperature curve, what are all those complex climate models good for? And why all that uncertainty? If we are to believe Skeptical Science, how can we avoid the implication that mainstream climate science isn’t doing a very good job? And that funding could be cut radically?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    chris edwards

    Dagfin mainstream climate science is a faith not a science, follow the money. Monkton et al seem to be saying there is some greenhouse effect bit it is insignificant compared to natural variation. The earth itself seems to agree, the Viking fields have still not finished emerging from the glacier where they have been interred since the little ice age, you sure as hell cannot yet grow grapes in the roman vineyards in northern England. So far the only undisputed effect of CO2 coming back from record lows is the enhanced growth of carbon based plant forms all other effects depend on suspect science!. No Im not university taught in anything except computer hardware but I can read and have a memory in my head, the reason why the great tyrants burn books is to stop people reading the truth, to-days climate scientists have really disgraced science even to the term “greenhouse gas” hijacked from its original agricultural meaning! Thanks to the carbon tax bullshit we have shipped vast manufacturing undertakings from well regulated western countries to unregulated Chinese and Indian environs and the pollution is a real danger so if you AGW guys really want to help the world then get moving and get eastern made goods subject to a sizeable environmental tax to clean the place up! But you wont as you have all been bought!


    Report this

    30

  • #
    James X Leftie

    Is there a link to the original article?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The fundamental assumption of the greenhouse effect is that back radiation has warmed the surface from 255K to 288K. But this assumption is itself based on a false assumption.

    So why should anyone be “puzzled” that climate is not racking carbon dioxide levels?

    Roy Spencer (in his post about Greenhouse misunderstandings) claims in his point (6) that the atmosphere would have been isothermal at 255K in the absence of any GHG.

    An isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which reads: “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system”

    In isothermal conditions there would be more potential energy (PE) in eash molecule at the top, and, because kinetic energy (KE) is homogeneous, molecules could “fall” downwards and do work in the process. hence it was not an equilibrium state, let alone one of maximum entropy, as is required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics has to be obeyed. So (PE+KE) has to be homogeneous, because otherwise work could be done, and so the system would not be at an equilibrium with greatest entropy, as the Second Law requires. In the process of reaching such equilibrium it is inevitable that molecules at the bottom have more kinetic energy, and there are more of them in any given volume, and so that does give a measure of higher pressure, yes. But the whole column could still cool down, maintaining the same gradient and pressure.

    So pressure does not maintain temperature. The relationship in the ideal gas law only applies in adiabatic conditions, but the atmosphere can radiate heat away. If you “turned off” the Sun, Venus atmosphere and surface would eventually cool down.

    We need to consider how the thermal energy actually gets into the Venus surface, especially at the poles. The facts are ..

    (1) the poles receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation.

    (2) the atmosphere 1Km above the poles is at least 9 degrees cooler, and not absorbing much insolation either. It could have at most 1W/m^2 coming back out of the surface, which (at 0.5 absorptivity) would raise it to a mere 7K.

    (3) Rather than being 7K, the lowest Km of the Venus atmosphere is around 720K, just a few degrees less hot than the surface.

    If all convection (resulting from absorbed incident insolation at various altitudes) only went down the thermal gradient (ie towards space) how would enough energy get into the surface, especially if it were even just 1 degree hotter than the base of the atmosphere?

    My answer is that the sloping playing field (the thermal profile) becomes a level playing field due to gravity, so all energy absorbed in the atmosphere (mostly incident insolation) spreads out in all directions, creating convection both up and down, and also diffusion and convection right around the globe producing equal temperatures at equal altitudes, but higher temperatures at lower altitudes. Then intra-atmospheric radiation reduces the magnitude of the net gradient by about 10% to 15% on Venus, (as best I can work out) but by about a third on Earth. Some of the extra reduction on Earth. though, is probably due to release of latent heat.

    Here’s a thought experiment. Construct a perfectly insulated sealed cylinder filled with pure nitrogen gas. Suppose there are two insulating dividers which you can now slide into place one third and two thirds up the cylinder, thus making three equal zones. Warm the middle zone with a heating element, which you then turn off. Allow equilibrium to establish with the warmer nitrogen in the central zone. Then remove the dividers. Those molecules which move to the top zone will lose some KE as they gain extra PE, whereas those which fall to the lowest zone will gain KE as they lose PE. Hence, when the new equilibrium is established, the highest zone measures a lower temperature than the middle zone, and the lowest zone measures a higher temperature than the middle zone. Hence the highest zone measures a lower temperature than the lowest zone. QED.

    So there is no need for any greenhouse effect to raise the surface temperature, simply because gravity cannot help but do so, because the atmosphere must obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Maverick Johnson

    Ok one thing I keep seeing is “global warming” being rejected. This is fair, as it seems to have slowed, even stopped. But does anyone take the time to look at what they are actually basing this on? The average global temperature? Perhaps the highest temperatures are higher, with lower temperatures being lower rendering the average the same as the year before. Living in Perth, I can say the summers have been hotter and we are having record breaking heatwaves, with the rainfall decreasing steadily every year. Even if the heatwaves have nothing to do with “glabal warming” so to speak, the climate is certainly changing. That is the issue that needs to be acknowledged, because no one can prove or disprove global warming. All we can say is the climate is certainly changing, which is why environmental science is being funded by the government to ensure there are people to adapt farming and crops to the definate changes in temperature and rainfall that are already occuring across the country (Australia).

    [Aw Maveric, so young and naive. The Precautionary Principle- look it up. You want to change the carbon based world because you think summers are hotter? Please.] ED


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Perth’s rainfall – the longest record I can find. Midland.
      http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=009025&p_nccObsCode=139&p_month=13

      In 1890 – 1910 rainfall wasn’t that different.

      See also here

      Nor are the summer Max’s.
      No long term records for Perth on the BOM site, but check Northam 100km East. Dec Maximums. There is no trend. Try the other summer months. The winter temps used to be colder, but the summers were hot and still are.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        I swear, other than the admittedly large factors of agenda-driven propaganda and self-reinforcing groupthink, I think most of what drives people’s belief that the climate is changing quickly is just our short lives.

        People have no idea how many changes our ancestors saw in weather, often huge ones compared to the little we’ve seen. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people in their twenties, even teens, talk about how the weather is so different than when they were children.

        Well yeah, maybe. But that’s like one Sunspot cycle (or any of the other cycles of varying lengths that affect climate).

        It’s nothing.


        Report this

        00