JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

One third of human emissions and no warming, plus the unholy pursuit of a pause busting paper

For most of this year 2016 was expected to break the 1998  record (which was the hottest year in the UAH satellite data set). But a sudden drop in Dec pulled the yearly average down so that statistically they are indistinguishable.

From one big El Nino year to another big El Nino, we’ve put out one third of all human emissions that have ever been put out since hunter gatherers wandered the steppes, but it appears to have made very little difference.

Thanks to Roy Spencer and global satellites: 2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998

The top five years in the 38 year satellite record

RANK YEAR deg.C.
01    2016    +0.50
02    1998    +0.48
03    2010    +0.34
04    2015    +0.26
05    2002    +0.22

Does it mean much? Not a heck of a lot. The pause was already long enough to show the models don’t work, and whether or not 2016 was another record is neither here nor there, except as a PR point.

The quest to kill the pause continues

Another new paper claiming (yet again) that there is really no pause shows how much the Global Worriers fear that message. As Anthony Watts points out, they left off 2016 data:

What’s missing? Error bars showing uncertainty. Plus, the data only goes to December 2015They’ve missed an ENTIRE YEAR’s worth of data, and while doing so claim “the pause” is busted. It would be interesting to see that same graph done with current data through December 2016, where global SST has plummeted.

Here’s what I said about the Karl et al study that is still being claimed as a pause buster. We can see just how far believers have to go to remove the dreaded pausation:

To find global warming in the last 15 years, we need to ignore all that and use sea surface data blended from boats randomly trekking through shipping lanes with buckets and from ocean buoys (and that’s not ARGO buoys). But even that isn’t enough, that original data needs to be adjusted, and where sea ice gets in the way, gap-filled from sparse land data (as you would right?). Then we need to accept a lower-than-usual significance test, and carefully cherry pick the time periods to blend the past rapid warming with past cooling, so we can say we’ve found the holy grail, a quasi significant slight “warming trend” in data adjusted with a wildly uncertain correction estimate. And Professor Matthew England likes this kind of science.

And what a joke the adjustiments were in Karl et al:

Ross McKitrick points out that to get the new NOAA sea surface data they added 0.12 °C to the buoy readings, to make them more like the ship data. That magic number came from Kennedy et al. (2011) where  the uncertainty was reported as (wait for it) 0.12 ± 1.7°C. (Which is like saying there is definitely one apple here, give or take 17 apples. So this is what 95% certainty looks like?).

 

 

 

 

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (117 votes cast)
One third of human emissions and no warming, plus the unholy pursuit of a pause busting paper, 9.1 out of 10 based on 117 ratings

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

179 comments to One third of human emissions and no warming, plus the unholy pursuit of a pause busting paper

  • #
    ExWarmist

    It’s a great post.

    I would love to see a post and a graph that brings together the following elements.

    [1] CMIP 5 model predictions.

    [2] multiple Temp datasets.

    [3] CO2 growth.

    150

    • #
      TedM

      I think it would be a bit like regurgitated spaghetti.

      100

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      CMIP5 was only released in 2013. You couldn’t do a comparison over a period as short as 4 years. When you say “predictions” I hope you meant hindcasts, which are estimates of events occurring after the data the model was trained with but during a time period that has already happened. If that’s what you meant, then I agree.
      It would still be an interesting test to see if models trained on data only up to 31 Dec 1999 would still be able to hindcast the subsequent Pause.
      The cause is always dismissed as the umbrella term “natural variability”, but that’s obviously an important contributor to climate and affects the accuracy of any prediction. You would think improving hindcast accuracy in any way would be politically useful to do… unless they already know that answer wouldn’t support their agenda. The whole thing smells like a dodgy survey result; they stopped the experiment early as soon as the earliest data it generated supported their bias.
      So it’s lucky not every government funded scientist in the world is backing that particular horse…

      Meng Wei, Fang-Li Qiao. “Attribution analysis for the failure of CMIP5 climate models to simulate the recent global warming hiatus”. Science China Earth Science, Oct 2016.

      A comparative analysis between the GMST time series derived from HadCRUT4 records and 33 CMIP5 model outputs reveals that the GMSTs during the historical simulation period of 1850–2005 can be reproduced well by models, especially on the accelerated global warming over the last quarter of 20th century. However, the projected GMSTs and their linear trends during 2006–2014 under the RCP4.5 scenario were significantly higher than observed. This is because the CMIP5 models confused the MDV with secular trend underlying the GMST time series, which results in a fast secular trend and an improper MDV with irregular phases and small amplitudes. This implies that the role of atmospheric CO2 in global warming may be overestimated, while the MDV which is an interior oscillation of the climate system may be underestimated …

      Thankfully the authors appear to be using “global warming” in its unloaded literal sense here. I can’t find a free copy.

      40

    • #
      Climateskeptic

      The whole post just demonstrates basic scientific ignorance. Climate is defined as a minimum of a 30 year period, so take the last 30 year and draw a trend-line through that if you want to have any credibility at all.

      33

      • #
        Mark D.

        Climate defined by whom? Some of us know that Earth’s climate is a fair bit older than 30 years.

        32

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Climate defined by whom?”

          Defined by guys that knew the NH was half way through a 60 year cycle. ;-)

          As such, “climate averages™” are base on the upward leg of the cycle, from around 1980-2000

          Trouble for them, is that the last 30 years there has been ZERO warming apart from El Nino events.

          No CO2 signal in the real satellite temperature data, what-so-ever.

          43

      • #
        AndyG55

        “The whole post just demonstrates basic scientific ignorance”

        Sorry you don’t comprehend.

        With a lot of time and work you can overcome your basic scientific ignorance.

        Drawing a monkey-type, zero-thought, line through chaotic data, leaves you with zero credibility.

        But if that is what you want to do… go for it. ;-)

        33

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Looks like the pause is real, and all the cheating, fudging, and data inclusion, data exclusion, adjusting, and trickery cannot put Humpty Dumpty (global warming) together again.

    452

    • #

      I demand a recount, nay, we need another vote! This cannot be right!

      160

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      But look at the graph !!!!! 2016 was the hottest year eva !!!!!

      Admittedly only by a few tenths of one degree, but I just thought I would try some hyperbole for a change. It didn’t rock my boat, ho hum.

      50

      • #
        gnome

        You’re not in the race there RW. No-one does hyperbole like a girl from the goat’s-cheese circle of Melbourne.
        (No-one will be allowed to forget her hyperbowl either as long as there is an internet.)

        60

      • #
        sophocles

        … the data, obviously wrong …
        :-)

        30

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      It must be the Russians, again. What else could it be?

      110

  • #
    AndyG55

    RSS anomalies are now available.. third decimal place stuff.. so NO WARMING SINCE 1998

    2016… 0.559
    1998… 0.550

    Looking just at December data….

    In RSS December 2016 is NINTH place (1987 was one of the warmer Decembers)

    IN UAH December 2016 is in =5th place (1987 ditto)

    Big drops in USA since November for both RSS (-3.1ºC) and UAH USA48 (-1.85ºC)

    247

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Third decimal place? Are we talking about “anomalies” i.e. the difference from the average temperature, which was measured to 0.1 at best?

      242

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        Why do people assume the greater number of decimal places used, the greater the accuracy? Meteorological liquid-in-glass thermometers are readable to within ~0.1°C, but generally have an acceptable accuracy of +/-0.2°C. “Ah,” we are told, but if you take lots of readings and average them, it gets more accurate!” Sorry, but to my simple mind, 10,000 readings of a thermometer with an accuracy of +/-0.2°C gives an average reading +/- 0.2°C, NOT 0.0002°C.

        I also hold that “error drift” (probably a better term than “data drift” that I have used, earlier, in another thread) of a liquid-in-glass thermometer is minimal, compared with that of electronic thermometers, which seem to be the norm (“as they can be accurate to give readings to 3 decimal places!”) for remote, automatic weather stations and ARGO buoys. How, and how often, are electronic thermometers calibrated – especially those in more isolated and extreme locations?

        31

        • #
          AndyG55

          Yes, yes… but an anomaly of 0.559℃ is WAY hotter than an anomaly of 0.550℃

          Every “climate scientist™” and MSM climate journalist knows that !! ;-)

          44

    • #
      John in Oz

      My prediction for 2017 is that it will be the highest temp EVAH:

      2016 – 0.05
      2017 – 0.0500000004

      283

  • #
    John of Cloverdale WA

    So did the models predict “the pause”, which they now say existed, although they said it never existed before. My head is spinning in the hottest year ever.
    Perth, my home town, in the hottest year ever.

    202

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Thanks Jo, just what I need for discussion at dinner to night with our warmist neighbours!

    260

    • #
      gnome

      Don’t keep us all in suspense- did she send you a light stick or a heavy stick to use on the warmists?
      I favour the light stick myself – one gets so tired wielding a heavy one.

      10

    • #

      In such situations it is good to have something prepared that they will not have a prepared reply for. You could freak them out with a hockey stick. like the one I would like Malcolm Roberts to hold up for the Cameras one day.
      The one you get here of the recent increase in near infra red at 850nM wavelength.
      It is NOT in sync with the 11 year(ish) solar cycle that many warmists do know of.
      http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_ssi/ts.html
      Enter 850 in the wavelength box then click plot to see why asking them to guess what it is would be fun.
      I suggest you wait for him to say it is global temperature before showing one at 350nM to see the Ultraviolet light falling away in a more linear fashion and also not at the 11 year rate.
      If asked what it means point out that.
      1)It is measured in space directly from the sun and is not affected by atmospheric CO2.
      2) That UV is absorbed to directly heat the atmosphere. What makes it down penetrates water on our ocean planet to depth while IR is absorbed at the thin surface of water to cool quickly by evaporation and is reflected by plants that convert other wavelengths to energy, exactly as ignored by global warming theory.
      If words and logic do not work then this, as a poster on the wall labeled “Greenland snow elements from the sun” should do the trick.
      http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/sunearth_lg.gif

      22

  • #
    Frank

    The graph shows a steady averaged line INCREASING from 1979. It’s called an own goal.
    [The link in the post appears to be broken, or taken down. What URL did you use Frank?] Fly

    418

    • #
      Frank

      I saw an early graph on my phone.
      The long term trend from 1979 was upwards.

      417

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Perhaps your phone was running late … :-)

        I have one of those old brick analog phones … last week it told me that Mafeking had been relieved!

        203

        • #
          ROM

          I suspect that Frank whose knowledge of information and history seems to be imbued at best with the very strong, dark green hue of advancing climate change rigorous mortis, might think that the Relief of Mafeking might be due to the insertion of a catheter rather than anything of any `historical import.

          143

          • #

            Definitely forgotten about the volcano cold blips on the graph. Adjust for them, Frank and there’s barely much warming, unfortunately, since the 80s. Warm is good. Cold is what brings famine, disease, sickness, and a lot of fossil fuel burning to keep warm.

            122

    • #
      AndyG55

      Straight line across the El Nino steps. DOH !!

      A monkey would do just as well.

      There was actually no warming before the 19989 El Nino and Now warming between the 1998 El Nino and the 2015 El Nino,

      The very fact that the alarmist HAVE to use those El Nino steps and transients to form a warming trend, shows conclusively that the slight warming is NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2.

      156

    • #
      DavidR

      Frank, Use the data on Dr Spencers website to calculate your own trendline. It shows the trend from 1979 to 2016 at 0.12 per decade and the trend from 1999 to 2016 at 0.12 per decade. No hiatus just on-going warming as expected. The trend is down from 0.14 per decade in Dr Spencers’ previous estimate UAH 5.6 a variation that needs to be fully explained when the UAH 6 provisional data estimate is finalised. Perhaps a little confirmatory bias has crept in to the UAH calculations.

      21

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Frank.

      “The graph shows a steady averaged line INCREASING from 1979. It’s called an own goal.”

      Correct, there is clearly a warming trend across the whole history of the graph.

      There is also a warming trend after 1998, but it probably is not statistically significant. But it does have value in falsifying the idea that there has been no warming, or even cooling.

      212

      • #
        Fred Streeter

        Correct, there is clearly a warming trend across the whole history of the graph.

        Dr Benjamin Sander has adjusted the satellite data of UAH and RSS to remove ‘natural variability’ in his paper:
        Volcanic contribution to decadal changes in tropospheric temperature.
        Sander, et al (Nature Geoscience 7, Feb. 2014)

        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html

        This somewhat reduces the warming trend.

        82

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Fred Streeter.

          “This somewhat reduces the warming trend.”

          No, it doesn’t. It increases the global warming trend. Strictly speaking what the paper was about was removing some of the unknowns (ENSO, volcanos) to see how this affected the observations vs simulations.

          I cannot get a figure for the trends, the study is behind a paywall.

          28

          • #
            Fred Streeter

            Firstly, apologies on the link. [Link repaired] ED
            The Figure (1) is accessible from the Paper’s Abstract page.
            (Or cut & paste the link to your browser.)

            No, it [removing ‘natural variability'] doesn’t. It increases the global warming trend

            No, removing ‘natural variability’ from the TLT raw data slightly reduced the TLT warming trend.
            Adjusting the model to remove ‘natural variability’ also reduced its warming trend.

            to see how this affected the observations vs simulations

            One has to ask – why? The ‘observations’ are themselves simulations.

            In 2014 one could have observed that the TLT warming trend (1979 – 2014) was less than that of the multi-model average.
            One could also have observed a period of slight TLT cooling from 1994 to 2014.

            Then comes 2015/2016 – and away we go once more.

            And until we concentrate our research on apolitical science and get to understand the nature of El Niños, etc., we will play this foolish ‘Climate Change’ game forever.

            50

          • #
            DavidR

            Harry, actually it probably does reduces the apparent warming trend, which is why scientists, unlike our friends here, are very suspicious about short term trends. Both the large volcanic eruptions, which caused temperature declines, and have been removed, occurred in the first 15 years of the data set. These drops would have artificially caused an increase in the actual temperature trend. Similarly the 1998 El Nino caused a jump in temperatures which will cause an artificial decline in the apparent temperature increase until it is no longer in the 30 year data set.

            The rate of increase based on CO2 is consistent but environmental variations like ENSO, volcanos and solar cycles will continue to cause fluctuations as they randomly occur. It remains the long term 30 year trends, not the short term cherry picked trends, that remain the core value for acceptance of AGW.
            As you can see from the graph at woodfortrees, the thirty year trends for both UAH5.6 and UAH6 show significant warming over 30 year periods from both 1979-2009 and 1987 to the present. However while UAH 5.6 shows increasing warming, consistent with all the other datasets, the provisional UAH6 shows less warming in the second period. Only those seeking to ignore the evidence would trust this UAH 6 beta version at this stage.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:1979/to:2009/trend/plot/uah5/from:1987/to:2017/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2009/trend/plot/uah6/from:1987/to:2017/trend

            21

        • #
          tom0mason

          Fred Streeter,

          Yes it certainly does. It puts the trend back into the noise, well below 0.4°C.

          P.S. Your embedded link is incorrect but the stated address is correct. That causes confusion to the nontechnical trolling commenters here.

          [Link repaired] ED

          62

  • #
  • #
    Graeme No.3

    According to Hadcrut 4 the change in anomalies from 1850 to 1875 was about zero. There were excursions to about 0.15 higher. Yet during this time people noticed rapid and large changes in the glaciers. I hope this image shows up.

    51

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      No, it didn’t
      Try https://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/fieldwork2.html

      My point being that if an anomaly of 0.15 (at best) caused large visible changes why has 30 years of 0.5 not caused similar obvious changes?

      Yes, I know the melting started 60 years earlier that AGW says it did, but this example has the ice at the same level so avoiding the problem with mountain glaciers of it being easier to melt them at lower altitudes. Note also that the ice scoured the bottom of the bay near the outlet to the sea, so influx of warmer sea water is ruled out. In any case there is a far out-flowing current reported as cleaning out silt at that place also.

      93

  • #
    Scott

    Jo, I remember when 1998 El Nino year was being sprouted as the hottest year eva until it was raised that it just fell short of the circa 1930′/ 40s peak.

    it was so long ago I don’t remember the sources but it shut a lot of the alarmism down at the time even in the MSM.

    it wasn’t long after that that the use of anomalies came into vogue and massive temperature adjustments became the norm.

    Tony Heller shows this in his presentation for the US. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

    We also know Australia while very warm in this same 20th century period, it was actually warmer in the second half of the 1800′s ie birds falling dead out of trees due to the heat.

    Surely if we can show no distinguishable temperature change since those periods it really blows this scam out of the water.

    402

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      I certainly wasn’t there, but birds, and animals too, could die in large numbers immediately the last waterhole dried up. Which could happen overnight.

      61

    • #
      shannon

      Scott,
      Our family were dairy farmers on the Mid North Coast of NSW.
      My father was born in 1924..he told me in the early 1930′s when he was around 8yrs old ..it was so hot that birds were indeed dropping out of the sky dead, due to the severe hot days at the time.
      Many young calves also died ..and he never forgot it, as he got into huge trouble, for not pouring enough water on the calves to keep them cool.
      ie “trouble”in those days, ment a “belting” with a strap, and sent to bed with no evening meal.

      30

  • #

    A closer look at 1896-98 would give another hotter period.

    130

  • #
    PeterS

    It’s like the discussion going on now about Russia hacking the US elections and the MSM saying it must be true because the CIA says it’s true despite the fact the CIA are professional fibbers and have been caught out doing so many times. The AGW models have been discredited some time ago and it’s getting worse by the year so why are the alarmists still talking about how CO2 is creating massive runaway global warming yet the evidence is to the contrary? What runaway global warming? It’s as though the alarmists are focusing all their evidence on the models yet the models have already been shown to be false. I sincerely hope Trump blows the lid off this AGW scam and people end up in prison for conducting the biggest scam in human history.

    452

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Who on earth hacked the German chancellors e-mails?

      140

    • #
      bobl

      This is another correlation is not causation scam, is Russia hacking America, of course it is, did it release that content to wikileaks, probably not if Assange is to be believed. Both things can be true. Chances are several players hacked the dnc… rumors abound that the data was leaked by a dnc insider disgruntled about Bernie Sanders being cheated, which is also feasible.

      As Assange said, it was Clinton’s, podesta’s and the DNCs Own words, wikileaks didn’t make up stuff. Having the truth revealed is what sunk them, having an informed electorate sunk them. Who leaked the info is just the messenger, they actually didn’t do anything except inform the electorate about the truth.

      180

      • #
        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Murray told the Daily Mail the emails came from DNC insider with legal access to the emails who had knowledge of the corruption within the Clinton Foundation leaked the emails because he was frustrated with the DNC rigging the Democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders.’

          Your News Wire

          20

      • #
        wert

        Russia hacking America

        Don’t underestimate Russia. It’d be nice if Russia just hacked America and didn’t go around the Crimean peninsula and east Ukraine in Panzerwagen.

        11

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        The DNC leak was quite likely Seth Rich, who was shot in the back on his way home from DNC headquarters at 4 AM one morning last August. Being an IT specialist with the DNC, he certainly had the means. Did he have a motive? He was a devout Mormon, so was quite possibly morally virtuous.

        60

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        And then, if Steve Pieczenic is real and who he claims to be, it wasn’t hacks but leaks, from inside the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA as well as military intelligence. In addition, most of the damaging stuff came from the Podesta emails, divulged through sheer incompetence. And the really nasty stuff came from Weiner’s computer, which of course was neither hacked nor leaked, but left lying around for the taking by Billary herself.

        60

  • #
    pat

    4 Jan: Judith Curry: Uncertainties in sea surface temperatures
    Two new papers have focused on the quality, uncertainties and interpretation of global sea surface temperature data…
    I’m not sure how we will ever sort out the issues in the historical record prior to about 1980, and especially during WWII and prior to 1920.
    But the more vexing issue is the discrepancies in the recent record — the last two decades and even the last 5 years.
    Sorting these issues out, with comprehensive assessment of errors and uncertainties in the record, is very important…
    We really need to get the data records for the last two decades sorted out…
    I understand that they have been giving a lot of interviews on this, lets see how this ***gets played in the media…
    https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/04/focus-on-sea-surface-temperatures/

    152

    • #
      ianl8888

      lets see how this ***gets played in the media…

      Seriously ??

      The ARGO buoys have been confounding the “oceans are warming” tale ever since they were deployed. These devices were developed and deployed for the exact purpose of getting a grip on ocean temperatures to some depth and replacing the slipshod ship bucket measurements used to this point.

      But Jason and the Argonauts haven’t played ball with the desired result, much like the satellite measurements of temperature and humidity. So, again just like the satellite sets, the Argo’s must be giving false data – back to the ship buckets.

      And you seriously ask how will the MSM play this ?

      311

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        What strikes me as odd is that the accuracy of ARGO buoys has been said to be as bad as +/-1°C, yet the collective gives “temperature readings” to 2 (or even 3!) decimal places. A common failing is to confuse the number of decimal places used with accuracy.

        As for “slipshod ship bucket measurements”, at least these were measurements taken with accredited liquid-in-glass thermometers (what is the possible “data drift” of these?), often by persons intent on doing their job properly.

        102

        • #
          ianl8888

          what is the possible “data drift” of these?

          Some buckets were collected from engine-cooling water flows (easier to collect), others from the intake side, but you seriously regard this as no-drift data ? As well, no buckets went deeper than a half-metre below the surface so bucket sample location is not representative in any dimension.

          But never mind …

          40

          • #
            Radical Rodent

            Some buckets were collected from engine-cooling water flows (easier to collect)…

            Don’t be daft; collecting “buckets” from engine cooling-water intakes is a lot more difficult than flinging one over the side, and letting it flop about in the water for a while before hauling it back in. If you are implying that the data is collected from the temperature sensor in the intake, then it would be foolish – not only would that thermometer not be as well-calibrated as that supplied by the Met Office, but the intake could be up to 20 metres below the surface; so, not a good SST, then. Also, it is quite literally the surface of the ocean that affects the weather, so getting temperatures from any deeper than about half a metre would be pointless, anyway.

            Perhaps I used the wrong term with “data drift”; I was questioning the possibility of the accuracy of a liquid-in-glass thermometer being seriously affected by the age of the thermometer; I would moot that the only way you can get a significant change in its accuracy would be to break it – at which point, it becomes pretty obvious that you cannot get a meaningful reading from it. However, for electronic thermo-probes, there probably is a far greater chance of getting significant errors developing; how, and how often, are the sensors on the ARGO buoys calibrated?

            10

  • #

    According to AGW theory, at the turn of the century the rate of warming should have increased. But actual warming stopped. The data more strongly falsifies theory with every passing year.

    362

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Thanks, Kevin. A really interesting article that shows that warming since1950 only occurred after the late 70′s until about 2002, then temperatures dropped until 2014 and the El Niño. Shure puts paid to the cry that the El Niño had little effect and it was mainly anthropogenic.

      221

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    The alarmists are getting really desperate if they have to produce this type of cr@p. Mind you, in the UK, propagandists like the BBC and Channel 4 spread the propaganda with great enthusiasm. The BBC are so completely biased that its safe to say that they are institutionally incapable of honesty and the only thing any sceptic should advocate is shutting the BBC down.

    341

  • #
    Mark M

    Years later, and the 97% scientists are still trying to disprove the pause, that doesn’t exist.

    200

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    Where can I purchase one of those thermometers with numbers you can erase and replace with your own choice? Do they sell a dice with it?

    191

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      I’d rather have a bank account you could do that with!

      (BTW, “dice” is plural; you want a die. Mind you, if you could get one, more would be better.)

      40

  • #
    Andrew

    I’m happy to accept Da Science from the satellites. The world warmed 0.01C between El Niño peaks 18 years apart, due to Da CO2. Then when they call me a denier, I can say “didn’t you just hear me? I agreed that global warming is real, manmade and caused by GHG. And it warmed 0.01C between 1998, the 2nd hottest year evah and 2016.” That confuses them more.

    181

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    You forgot the error margin Andrew .

    51

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Science is all about numbers. And for the climate warmists the numbers just do not add up. 18 years of steady temperatures and all that Co2 into the atmosphere does not add up in my book.
    GeoffW

    121

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Numbers, Geoffrey, a particular kind of numbers. Statistics.

      While every student of statistics, even those who studied only one unit, was surely taught that statistics is not an exact science, it seems to me that few comprehend the meaning of this.

      71

  • #
    pat

    “played” just as expected:

    Climate change ‘pause’ does not exist, scientists show, in wounding blow for global warming denialists
    The Independent-21 hours ago

    Climate change: Fresh doubt over global warming ‘pause’
    BBC News-4 Jan. 2017

    The death of the global warming ‘pause’ has been greatly exaggerated
    Spectator.co.uk (blog) – ‎36 minutes ago‎

    NOAA challenged the global warming ‘pause.’ Now new research says the agency was right.
    In-Depth-Washington Post-4 Jan. 2017

    Earth’s Oceans Are Steadily Warming
    The Atlantic – ‎Jan 4, 2017‎
    In other words, NOAA’s global temperature estimates had been too low, and its measurement of climate change was too conservative. With this newly updated data in hand, Karl and his colleagues found there had been no slowdown in global warming…

    Scientists disprove climate change ‘pause’
    Times LIVE – ‎22 hours ago‎

    Prominent climate-denying politician gets schooled by science, again
    Mashable – ‎Jan 4, 2017‎

    Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Gets Another Dunking
    Yahoo News – ‎14 hours ago‎

    UC Berkeley Researcher Debunks Claims Of Global Warming Pause
    CBS Local – ‎10 hours ago‎

    Global Warming Data That Riled Doubters Is Confirmed
    ABC News-4 Jan. 2017

    Another Study Disproves Any Pause In Global Warming
    ABC Action News-4 Jan. 2017

    The global warming hiatus never actually happened
    Popular Science – ‎Jan 4, 2017‎

    Forget About Global Warming Pause — It Doesn’t Exist
    Live Science-4 Jan. 2017

    Where did the myth of a climate change ‘pause’ come from?
    In-Depth-Christian Science Monitor-12 hours ago

    Another Study Disproves Any Pause In Global Warming
    NewsChannel5.com – ‎Jan 4, 2017‎

    A New Piece of Research Shows — Once Again — the Global Warming “Pause” Never Existed
    Blog-Slate Magazine (blog)-18 hours ago

    Already Debunked Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Gets Another Dunking
    InsideClimate News – ‎Jan 4, 2017‎

    No pause in warming of oceans, new studies warn
    Irish Times – ‎Jan 4, 2017‎

    73

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      All synchronised, directed at Trump. Strength in numbers stuff. Let’s hope it is their last stand.

      230

    • #
      mikewaite

      Strange that all these distinguished journalists do not realise the trap they have created for themselves.
      They claim that the pause never existed and the world has been continuing remorselessly to perdition
      during the last 20 years that the pause was supposed to have been in place.
      But did any of us notice that?
      During this time food output has increased , weather (in UK anyway) has been
      acceptably mild . No increase in the global storm frequency indices.
      And yet the climate has continued to change apparently .
      If this is what persistent change is like , then there is nothing to fear .
      What would have been scary is if Trenberth had been correct and the heat of 20 years was accumulating in the oceans ready to leap out
      with unimaginable ferocity at some future date.
      But no, that scenario is dead and we can just saunter along enjoying what is clearly the best of times.

      190

  • #
    James Bradley

    Pat,

    Strange – I can probably list at least 70 plus ‘peer reviewed’ self indulgent ‘climate scientists’ and the papers that not only prove the existence of the ‘pause’, but go to great lengths to justify, excuse and explain how the models were unable to predict the pause commencing – with the ‘heat is hiding in the deep oceans’.

    193

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      the ‘heat is hiding in the deep oceans’

      The word heat has a special meaning in klimert scyerns.

      102

    • #
      Raven

      . . the ‘heat is hiding in the deep oceans’.

      Yep, someone will have to decide where they’re going with this.
      Either the heat is hiding in the oceans or there was no pause.

      I don’t really care where they place the goal posts, but they really must keep them still.
      People want to play footy . . .

      170

      • #
        ROM

        Trenberth’s “heat that is hiding in the deep oceans” is busily getting the hell out of the North Atlantic deep ocean right now and heading off out into Northern hemisphere deep space in preference apparently.
        Leaving the Northern Hemi residents to contemplate a long future ahead where that snow their “children would never see again” to overwhelm them for most winters for a good part of the remainder of this 21 st century.

        A collection of articles from Pierre Gosselin’s NoTricksZone blog on the rapid fall in ocean water temperatures in the North Atlantic and the consequent fall in the European land mass temperatures.

        North Atlantic Cooling Has Plunged Below 1950s (And 1800s) Levels – And Scientists Project More Cooling -

        While it has understandably not received much, if any, media attention, the North Atlantic Ocean has been rapidly cooling since the mid-2000s, or for more than 10 years now. The longer the cooling trend continues — and scientists are projecting more cooling for the coming decades — the more difficult it will be to ignore. The North Atlantic Ocean is, after all, a key trend-setter for hemispheric- and perhaps even global-scale climate changes.
        &
        Examining the Reynolds et al. (2017) graph of North Atlantic sea surface temperatures since the early 1800s, we notice that temperatures (shown to have declined by about -0.45 °C since 2005) are colder now than they were in the 1940s and 1950s, and that even the early 1800s had warmer temperatures than now.
        &
        Duchez et al., 2016 [C]old ocean temperatures were the most extreme in the modern record [since 1948] over much of the mid-high latitude North-East Atlantic. … we consider the exceptionally cold ocean surface anomaly that was already in place prior to the onset of the 2015 heat wave. The SST anomaly field for June 2015 shows temperatures up to 2 °C colder than normal over much of the sub-polar gyre with values that are the coldest observed for this month of the year in the period 1948–2015 indicated by stippling. The cause of this cold anomaly has been the subject of widespread interest in the media, we now show for the first time that it can be attributed to a combination of air–sea heat loss from late 2014 through to spring 2015 and a re-emergent sub-surface ocean heat content [cold] anomaly that developed in preceding years.

        And NTZ again;

        Shock Freeze A Harbinger Of Things To Come? The Many Signs Of More Cooling!

        Intense cold across Europe and North America

        Currently Europe is being gripped by an intense cold wave, one that has sent temperatures in Germany to as low as -27°C this morning.[ 6th Jan 2017 ]

        ——————————

        And it is likely we ain’t seen much yet re cooling on a global scale as the North Atlantic plus the various other major very long term cyclic ocean cooling and warming phases such as the Pacific’s PDO all begin to come together in a possibly rare in-phase ocean cooling regime.

        Sometime ago Jo had post on the huge production of food grains and food stuffs of every type that has become a feature of our era, an era of bountiful harvests where hunger let alone starvation now affects fewer people in total numbers than has ever happened previously in mankind’s history over the last couple of thousands of years.
        And this despite the global population now being some 7 times as large as it was at the turn of the 19th century.

        It has been estimated that ONE HALF of all of mankind that has ever lived was alive at some point during the 20th century.

        \What I deeply fear with the increasing possibility of a major cold phase developing across the Northern Hemisphere [ and Southern Hemisphere at a few decades later date due to the immense amounts of heat energy residing in the vast expanses of the Southern Hemisphere's oceans ] where most of mankind’s food production takes place is the possible onset of a world food shortage as the summer food growing seasons become not so much colder, but become much shorter in their growing seasons to the point where the major food crops can no longer be grown due to lack of time to mature to a point of harvestability before the cold of the approaching winter again sets in across the vast northern regions of North America such as in Canada and across the European and the badly overlooked by European researchers, North Asian land masses.

        Those are the more northerly food grain producing sites where most of the extra food production has come from over the last 30 to 40 years as the global warming phase and adapted varieties from the plant breeders efforts opened up the new more northerly food grain and animal food grain growing areas.
        ………..

        Paleo research also suggests that the equatorial tropic regions have barely altered in temperature during the more warmer and colder periods of our planet’s recent climatic past.

        Consequently with the equatorial tropical regions remaining at a relatively constant average temperature but the northern regions cooling substantially during the onset of a climate cold phase, the flow of heat energy from the warmer equatorial regions via atmospheric and oceanic transport to the colder, near Arctic and Antarctic regions will intensify leading to much more severe weather systems, more and more intense storms and cyclones / hurricanes / typhoons and etc was long as the Global cold period exists which could be for most of a century or much longer if the shift is to a new completely different climate phase as has occurred times without number in the couple of billions of years of the Earth’s more recent paleo history.

        60

        • #
          sophocles

          How long do you reckon it will be before we hear “the world’s going into a new ice age” again?

          20

          • #
            AndyG55

            And most probably the same people will be pushing the COOLING scam.. and it will be because of CO2 or some other factor that leads to the stunting of world-wide progress and development…..

            The “progressive” way…

            … the aim is always to destroy capitalism and world progress to a better society.

            33

  • #
    richard verney

    This Berkely Earth paper is going to look very stupid IF a La Nina develops in 2017.

    IF a La Nina develops it is almost certain that the pause will reappear. This will mean that the warmists will once again have to rely upon the 70 (or so) peer reviewed papers that sought to explain the pause that once existed, then didn’t exist, but once more exists.

    One can see the cartwheels.

    151

    • #
      el gordo

      If a strong La Nina develops, sea level will stop rising because of the huge rains over Oz and temperatures should fall below the pause for a spell and hopefully stay there.

      30

    • #
      CheshireRed

      @ Richard Verney. I’ve been saying exactly the same thing. In any event why shouldn’t a La Nina develop? They pretty much always do and as the El Nino was so large all that’s needed is a normal regression to the mean and that in itself will be enough to bring cooling and a return of the Pause. Dana Nutty’s Zombie article in the Guardian attempts to parody ‘deniers’ but the reason its there is because Dana can see EXACTLY what’s coming down the track. He’s just getting his retaliation in first. The Pause has been causing alarmists untold discomfort and will return with a vengeance to fly past the 20 years mark. They’re going to look very silly indeed.

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    I want to propose a new way of analysing random noise like this, as a series of overlapping hockey sticks. Flipped both ways. Hockey stick analysis. The unit of hockey stickiness could be called the Manne. So you could have a number of Mannes, positive and negative which could completely explain the graph of temperature over time. People who believe in Manne analysis could be said to have Steyn power. The only thing missing of course is the runaway, tipping point, 100 metres under the ocean end of the planet scenario but it was good while it lasted, at lest for Pachauri, Gore and Flannery. The International Panel for Creative Conclusions would agree. People just have to be Manneful enough to admit it.

    91

  • #
    TdeF

    Also in the pantheon of plausible possibilities, I would love to read how man made CO2 is warming the oceans without warming the air itself? While no one can predict or explain La Nina or El Nino events, both involve dramatic changes of ocean surface temperatures.

    What is difficult is to explain these major phenomena with computer models in which CO2 is monotonically rising. The only explanation therefore is that extreme events are caused by constant change in a single variable. Almost sounds plausible enough for a paper reviewed by your friends at the beach, your pier group. We all know changing something slowly causes wild fluctuations.

    In this new Climate Scientology, a mere postulation of half an idea of a wild hypothesis is conclusive proof, but I am getting back to the extra 4mm in parrot wing length in specific areas of Australia and not others and over 40 years. Conclusive proof then. Just ask the parrots.

    102

    • #
      Mark D.

      I would love to read how man made CO2 is warming the oceans without warming the air itself?

      Yes, and how the warm goes right down to depth where it is hiding. I’m sure it’s really complicated maths stuff.

      130

      • #
        TdeF

        The silly pop up explanations we read are reminiscent of John Cleese’s theory of brontosauruses by (Anne Elk). It applies to all these hare brained propositions. I put a lot of it down to the explosion of sciences from the original rational mathematics and proof based philosophy to the observational sciences which really belong in the Arts department. History has gone the same way where progressive historians reject facts and especially dates as having much to do with history. It is all about the vibe and the vibe is that man is destroying the planet, which is my theory because it is mine. Send money.

        20

  • #
    pat

    scepticism accommodated on a Spectator blog:

    6 Jan: UK Spectator Blog: David Whitehouse (GWPF): The death of the global warming ‘pause’ has been greatly exaggerated
    The global warming ‘pause’ never existed, say the headlines. It’s a claim that has been made before, only to be refuted, yet now it’s back again. If there is one topic that sends a small subset of climate scientists’ temperature into the stratosphere, it’s the topic of the global warming ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’…
    Never in my experience of science have I come across a topic like it, and that’s because it means nothing, and everything…

    But around 2007 it began to be noticed by so-called sceptics (usually scientists from other fields) that for a few years, global temperatures had not gone up. Perhaps the climate situation was more complicated than was first thought. They were of course lambasted, called deniers for just saying ‘look at this graph’. But the ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ or whatever it was called didn’t go away, at least until 2015, when the natural temperature spike that is El Nino started – a Pacific-based emergence of hot water that affects the entire globe for a year or two.
    It would be fair to say that most climate scientists think the ‘hiatus’ exists and is a fascinating phenomenon that deserves study. There have been hundreds of research papers about it and over 30 explanations proffered…

    The latest evidence has just cropped up. The headlines say there is fresh doubt over the so-called global warming ‘hiatus’…
    When taken into account, this new effect makes the oceans warmer in recent years and so obliterates the ‘hiatus’.
    Well, not quite. The 2015-16 El Nino has been one of the strongest on record, temporarily elevating global temperatures by a significant margin. This means that their case rests on the El Nino temperature increase and will be destroyed when the El Nino subsides, as it is currently doing. A temporary victory over the ‘pause’…

    The ‘pause’ can be accommodated into global warming – but not for very much longer. The world’s temperature has to increase outside the El Nino effect. If it doesn’t there will be some fascinating new science to work on, and many questions to be asked.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/death-global-warming-pause-greatly-exaggerated/

    otherwise, no doubt allowed (more examples):

    No ‘cooking the books’: New study confirms global warming hiatus didn’t happen
    The Sydney Morning Herald – ‎Jan 4, 2017‎

    New Study Confirms There Was No Global Warming Hiatus
    Smithsonian – ‎1 minute ago‎

    Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Never Happened, New Study Confirms
    International Business Times – ‎Jan 4, 2017‎

    No Global Warming Hiatus After All Redux?
    Reason (blog) – ‎Jan 5, 2017

    4 Jan: NYT: AP: Seth Borenstein: Global Warming Data That Riled Doubters Is Confirmed

    61

  • #
    pat

    5 Jan: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: After Nine Years and 2,810 Posts, a Dot Earth Farewell
    This is the 2,810th and final post in the nine-year inquiry I began here while still a Times news reporter on October 24, 2007.
    In my 33rd year writing on global environmental issues, I am moving back to in-depth journalism, which is where I started in the early 1980s as a magazine editor and writer. Starting today, I’ll be reporting for ***ProPublica, the independent public-interest newsroom honored with everything from three Pulitzer Prizes to a recent shout-out by John Oliver.
    I can’t think of a better way to describe my beat there than by pasting the reply I offered after a friend asked me over the weekend to come up with a New Year’s resolution related to my work climate change:
    “In the midst of extraordinary political upheaval in the United States and other inward-turning countries, I resolve to keep my reporting focused on what policies or practices, from local to global scales, can help or hinder humanity’s journey toward a sustainable relationship with climate and energy.”…
    But my move doesn’t necessarily mark the end of my contributions there (at NYT). ProPublica has collaborated with The Times off and on…
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/after-nine-years-and-2810-posts-a-dot-earth-farewell/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=sustainability&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0

    ***Wikipedia: ProPublica
    ProPublica is a non-profit corporation based in New York City…
    ProPublica was the brainchild of billionaires and major Democratic donors ***Herbert and Marion Sandler, the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, who have committed $10 million a year to the project…
    While the ***Sandler Foundation provided ProPublica with significant financial support, it has also received funding from the Knight Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation and the Atlantic Philanthropies…
    ProPublica has attracted attention for the salaries it pays its employees. In 2008, Paul Steiger, the editor of ProPublica, received a salary of $570,000…

    ***Inside Philanthropy: Ade Adeniji: Another Big Sandler (Foundation) Cause: The Environment
    Recently we took a deep dive into the philanthropy of Herb Sandler and the Sandler Foundation, which is based in San Francisco. This is the funder who has tapped a banking fortune to underwrite the creation of ProPublica, the Center for American Progress, etc…
    In fact, the foundation has quietly given away some $60 million for ocean protection and restoration, climate change, and conservation in Baja…

    from ProPublica website –
    supporters includes:
    Open Society Foundations (George Soros)…
    leadership includes:
    Kat Taylor, wife of Tom Steyer

    Herb Sandler & his daughter Susan feature in hundreds of the WikiLeaks Podesta emails and:

    1 Nov: Politico: Podesta paid $7,000 a month by top donor
    WikiLeaks reveals that Clinton’s campaign chairman had an unusually close relationship with an influential Democratic donor.
    By Kenneth P. Vogel and Danny Vinik
    Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, last year signed a $7,000-a-month contract with the foundation of a major Clinton donor who made a fortune selling a type of mortgage that some critics say contributed to the housing collapse, hacked emails show.
    In February of last year, as Podesta was working to lay the groundwork for Clinton’s soon-to-launch campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, he signed the contract with the ***Sandler Foundation, which was started by Herb Sandler and his late wife Marion Sandler.
    The contract — a copy of which was included in emails illegally obtained from Podesta’s Gmail account and disseminated Monday by WikiLeaks — is still active, according to Herb Sandler, who said that it calls for Podesta to provide advice on grant-making and other foundation functions.
    It’s unusual for the full-time chairman of a general-election presidential campaign to maintain an active side deal with a major donor to that campaign — let alone to raise money from that donor for the campaign.
    But the hacked emails show that Podesta, who does not draw a salary from the Clinton campaign (though he has been paid $58,000 by the campaign for travel and “subsistence”), did both, while also maintaining a close personal relationship with Sandler…
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/john-podesta-donor-foundation-230571

    CAGW is not political and the FakeNewsMSM is not partisan!

    82

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      How do you fight people who can commit such large sums of money to pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes while they get even richer?

      120

  • #
    David Maddison

    O/T

    Another dead windmill, LOL! (No one hurt.)

    A dead or burning windmill is one of the most beautiful sights to remind us of the anti-science movement.

    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/grand-etang-wind-turbine-snaps-1.3921256

    91

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Plus, the data only goes to December 2015. They’ve missed an ENTIRE YEAR’s worth of data, and while doing so claim “the pause” is busted.

    Chutzpah! How else can you describe it?

    100

  • #
    Reasonable Skeptic

    When it comes to error margins, even professionals have no fricken clue what the real error margin is. Back in the 1990′s I worked on producing official information produced by a government agency. It happened to be a land area product. The data came from digital mapping which had a resolution of about the width of a human hair. Official products would claim that the information was accurate to that level, but that was a total cop out of course. What they were giving was the resolution of the data, not of reality.

    This is an example of why nobody knows the actual error margins. People are only guessing what they are.

    51

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Error margins always have their own error margin:

      Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite ‘em,

      Little fleas have smaller fleas,

      And so ad infinitum,

      41

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks for that, Reasonable S,
      There has been earlier comment about such errors, but no attempt at enumerating them. My knowledge in this area is low, and from high school physics in the 1950s, so I’ve had to go back and see if any part of memory is reliable. But it still seems that in calculating a total, its error is the sum of the errors of the individual items. Half the limit of reading was a usual amount for a single temperature measurement.
      Similarly, in taking a difference, the individual errors are again added..
      So it seems to me that the expected error in an “anomaly” is the sum of the errors in the average being used as base, and the current year’s average, and cannot be less than, and I suspect, is greater than the limit of reading.
      Does this compute?
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      30

    • #
      TdeF

      The other fallacy is the significance of a deviation in your reading as opposed to an actual error?

      Say you are reading temperature to 0.001C, what exactly are you measuring? How representative is your reading of what you are trying to measure? Is temperature constant to that degree in even a small area? If not, with what accuracy are you measuring the temperature of an area, especially if that area is say 10,000sq.km as with land based measurements in Australia?

      Then how do you weight different areas and obtain a result which is accurate or even meaningful to 0.01C? How do you average Darwin and Hobart, Perth and Brisbane? What even does it mean? What then is the point of high instrumental accuracy when you are measuring something on the scale of a planet across all latitudes, day and night and seasons and a year? Sure, any system can create a number, but what does it mean if that number changes? Has any climate changed? Is any one place actually warmer? Is more weight given to high or low temperatures, especially in places like Colorado where -40C in winter becomes +40C in summer?

      This chaotic system of air and water which covers the earth and has snow, ice, rain, winds, depth, height, storms, droughts and little perturbantions like volcanoes, how does anyone expect the average to do anything except point to conservation of energy in a closed system. As such any number is remarkably constant but it does not mean that a variation is easily extrapolated to an actual event. Considering that the oceans weigh 340x as much as thin air above, any model which does not track the flow of energy in the oceans and add the total energy in the oceans to the equation is kidding. Internal ocean weather is probably more important and oceans drive every climate, from the Hurricanes of Florida to the Monsoons of India. Conversely, we could have dramatically different climates and the total temperature could stay the same.

      No, this is made up science, starting with an incredible hypothesis and pushed by people with a socialist agenda. What is hard to comprehend is the vast scale of the waste and the passion with which social activists push this amazing and unproven and unlikely hypothesis of man made Global Warming, lately known as Climate Change. You can even prove it is totally wrong, but it is like deprogramming Moonies, such is the hold of thirty years of constant indoctrination by the media. Some people have reached middle age without hearing of a time before Global Warming or even that it might be false. Certainly it is what killed the dinosaurs.

      101

      • #
        TdeF

        More simply, if my thermometer read today 37C or 37.005C and my neighbour’s thermometer in a similar sheltered position read 36.205C, is one of them wrong? If someone asked the temperature, would it be 37 or 36 degrees? The raw accuracy of the thermometer is not the question. Both are representative temperatures but a variation of 1C around a small area would be quite normal. Now try a huge planet, half in winter, half in darkness. We are talking about the hottest year since 1998 by an amount of 0.22C? I can get that across a room. It is not a question of accuracy or error bars. We are observing the creation of a scare only made possible by modern science and modern instruments and now satellites. The effect would not have been measurable in 1900 and even now it is of no significance and doomsday predictor Tim Flannery lives at the water’s edge.

        81

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        Thanks TdeF,
        You’ve enlarged on my concerns better than I could have enunciated them. And I can’t answer any of your questions without using the fxxxx word that Tim Ball has used, so I’ll stay quiet.
        Cheers,
        Dave B
        Cooyal

        21

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    FEAR of nuclear annihilation and almost certain death is at the base of most, if not all, post-WWII pseudo-scientific consensus opinions.

    The same logical error that prevented Hitler’s nuclear physicists from successfully building an atomic bomb during WWII, the sloping baseline that Dr. Carl von Weizsacker used to mis-calculate nuclear binding energy . . .

    was inserted in nuclear physics textbooks after WWII to save frightened world leaders from the possibility of worldwide nuclear annihilation and almost certain death.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/judith-curry-resigns-battle-of-scientific-integrity-versus-career-suicide/#comment-1876605

    22

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    O/T

    “DELINGPOLE: Green Energy is a Charter For Crooks And Liars. The Scam Must End Now”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/06/delingpole-green-energy-charter-crooks-liars-scam-must-end-now/

    41

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Slightly OT but their ABC is reporting massive ice shelf breaking off in Antarctica, the scientist just couldn’t quite get himself to blame global warming but suspected as much , being seaice of course there was a mention of sea level rise .

    40

  • #
    RB.

    Ross McKitrick points out that to get the new NOAA sea surface data they added 0.12 °C to the buoy readings, to make them more like the ship data. That magic number came from Kennedy et al. (2011) where the uncertainty was reported as (wait for it) 0.12 ± 1.7°C. (Which is like saying there is definitely one apple here, give or take 17 apples. So this is what 95% certainty looks like?).

    What gets to me is the defense of it because of the law of large numbers. If you assume that errors are perfectly random (which you can’t do except as a rough estimate of the error) then indeed you can assume a repeat of the experiment will have the difference between the average of the ship data and the buoy data within 0.12 95% of the time. That is if the repeat experiment was exactly the same ships and buoys measuring at the same time but the spread of 1.7 is due to different systematic errors between the few sets of data which will also be time dependent (because different ships are used in different years) so an adjustment to the trend based on that single average is bonkers. Yet, supposedly, experienced scientists (like Nick Stokes) will defend it till the cows come home.

    61

  • #
    pat

    Robert Rosicka -

    did ABC report the following?

    PICS: 7 Jan: Daily Mail: AP: Blizzards, icy weather grip parts of Europe
    BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) — Blizzards swept parts of Europe on Friday, causing at least nine deaths, closing roads and resulting in traffic accidents, travel delays and medical evacuations.
    In Poland, the cold snap was blamed for five deaths in 24 hours. Three people died from hypothermia, while two more died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by malfunctioning heaters, the government Security Center said.
    Officials in neighboring Ukraine reported that four people had died from effects of the cold in the Lviv region near the Polish border.
    In Romania, authorities said 90 people were rescued from stranded cars and that crews were working to save people stuck in some 30 cars on a major highway. More than 40 trains were not running due to snow on the tracks…

    Snowfall and heavy winds closed roads and some train services in central Italy, pounded areas hit by recent earthquakes and forced the cancellation of some ferry crossings to islands off Naples and Sicily. Even Naples itself got a rare dusting of snow…
    The fierce cold coincided with Orthodox Christmas Eve, when Russian churches are usually packed. The Moscow city transport department said it was deploying 130 buses to stand outside churches as warming stations for worshippers, the Interfax news agency said.
    Serbia’s state television reported that 22 people, including children, were injured in a pileup caused by the wintry weather on the outskirts of the southern city of Nis.
    Local official Dragan Dimitrijevic said emergency crews were “helpless against the wind” and snow drifts that piled up to two meters (6.6-feet) high…

    Turkish Airlines canceled 192 domestic and international flights that were scheduled for Saturday after heavy snow, icy conditions and strong winds were forecast for Istanbul.
    Bulgarian authorities said some 650 villages across the country were without electricity due to high winds and heavy snow.
    Emergency officials rescued snowed-in residents in villages in northern Albania, where up to 120 centimeters (47 inches) of snow fell, leading to power outages.
    The temperatures dipped below freezing even along Croatia’s Adriatic coast, where winds up to 160 kph (100 mph) halted some ferry traffic to the islands and over the bridges along the coastline…

    In Poland, where temperatures dropped to minus 25 degrees Celsius (minus 13 F) early Friday in the southern mountainous region, winds whipped up to 90 kph (56 mph), and more than 2,000 households were without heating in the southern Rybnik area.
    In Moscow, the Emergencies Ministry warned the temperature could plummet to minus 35C (minus 31 F) over the weekend and urged people not to stay too long outside.
    COMMENTS NOT ALLOWED
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4094132/Blizzards-icy-weather-grip-parts-Europe.html

    5 Jan: news.com.au: Deutsche Presse Agentur: Severe winter weather batters Europe
    Parts of Europe are facing chaotic travel conditions as temperatures across the region plunged below zero amid heavy snowfalls, blocked roads, dozens of accidents and the worst coastal storms in a decade…
    The dramatic weather conditions resulted in some Baltic Sea ferry services being cancelled with temperatures in parts of Scandinavia plunging to colder than minus 40C…
    http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/severe-winter-weather-batters-europe/news-story/e811f1c20dc2a2b70a18f04468c1200f

    41

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      Don’t be ridiculous, their ABC would never present both sides of a story .

      42

    • #
      DavidR

      It may come as a shock to readers here but cold weather in Europe in winter is not abnormal. When I lived in Germany the snow and ice covered the ground from November to March. The area covered by this report is smaller than Queensland so we are talking about a large but not particularly unusual event. Its one of those peripheral weather reports that the ABC might or might not cover

      32

      • #
        RB.

        It is very unusual. My relatives from Split in Croatia are reporting 3 days without water because the pipes have frozen up in the -8C cold. I’ve walked around in T shirts at this time of year around there because its on the sea and mountains protect it from severe cold, usually, so the infrastructure wasn’t made to cope with such cold.

        21

  • #
    DavidR

    Just for the hell of it plot the entire UAH data set with trendline and the trendline from 1999. The data is available from Dr Spencers website linked above.
    The trend from 1979 to the present is virtually identical to the one from 1999 to the present. All the figures above do is show how anomalous the 1998 figure in the UAH data set is. It is also worth noting that the UAH 5.6 data shows significantly more warming than the UAH 6.0 data. It will be interesting to see how UAH explains this data correction when they release the official version of UAH 6.0. UAH 6.0 has also for some reason increased the influence on 1998 on the data set. The 2016 El Nino peak was 0.2 deg higher than 1998 in both data sets but not as broad; that is why the figures appear similar.

    The claimed pause is simply a data anomaly based on a single extreme year in 1998; even in the UAH dataset. The surface records which are the ones that matter to us show that the 2015/6 El Nino was 0.4 degrees warmer on average, using the monthly data, than the 1997/1998 El Nino.

    31

    • #
      RB.

      When that extreme event was happening, it was used as evidence of global warming. Since, 1999, the trend is 0.12 deg per decade, not 0.3. More importantly, though, is that if we also ignore the recent El Nino, the trend is only 0.04K per decade for 1999-Jan 2015. Starting after that La Nina and its negative (2002-2015). Show us an example where there is a negative trend for more than a decade in any of the projections, after 2000.

      22

      • #
        DavidR

        RB, 1998 was recognised as the hottest year in the 20th century, and probably the hottest year in a millenium. However it was the trend of warming at approximately 0.15 degC per decade that provided evidence of global warming not the individual year. The hockey stick graph shows very rapid warming from about 1900 compared to a long slow decline consistent with the Milankovich cycles for the previous centuries of the last millenium. The trend has continued unabated and remains in between 0.13 and 0.18 in all the data sets including both UAH 5.6 and UAH 6. While the figures are unclear between 2002 and 2014 with some measures showing increases and some decreases, the time frame is too short to be relevant from a climatology perspective. Declines over several years occur in every decade going back to at least 1950, after the peak of the solar cycle. The time period 2002-2014 happened to have a long solar cycle decline, followed by a two year La Nina ending in 2012. La Ninas also have a negative impact on temperatures. This period of decline was a possibilty but not a likely one in the models.

        I am not sure where you got the 0.3 figure from I am assuming you forgot to divide the 0.3 twenty year increase from 1979 to 1998 by 2.

        10

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          People might find this educational. The grey band is the CMIP5 climate model spread.

          There never was any “pause”, the concept is meaningless. The “pause” was made up by spin-doctors. The IPCC AR5 report refers to a “hiatus” which means a break in a series which is exactly what happened after the 1997/98 El Nino.

          https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/817856549385334784

          07

        • #
          RB.

          RB, 1998 was recognised as the hottest year in the 20th century, and probably the hottest year in a millenium.

          It was also “recognised” as well short of what temperatures would have been in MWP. Really depends on who analyses the proxies – scientists or shills.

          However it was the trend of warming at approximately 0.15 degC per decade that provided evidence of global warming not the individual year.

          Its insignificant 0.04K per decade from 1998 to the present. Its 0.04K from 1999 to 2015. Its the same if you keep the two El Nino years or use the period in between, and a factor of 4 less than the early 20thC when it couldn’t have been due to human emissions.

          The hockey stick graph shows very rapid warming from about 1900

          The increase in CO2 levels from 1900 to 1901 is estimated to have been 0.5ppm and that’s where the blade starts to rise. That hockey stick is rubbish.

          The trend has continued unabated and remains in between 0.13 and 0.18

          Only if you cherry pick the start and end points. Funny how I look more amateurish for pointing out how you should view the data when its not just random noise – http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/compress:113

          #Selected data from 1998
          #Averaged and compressed in 113-sample sections
          1998 0.15431
          2007.42 0.158628

          That is 19 years of no warming. No spin. You might have got unlucky with La Ninas but its irrelevant. The pause shows you can’t use the models to make predictions.

          I am not sure where you got the 0.3 figure from I am assuming you forgot to divide the 0.3 twenty year increase from 1979 to 1998 by 2.

          Hansen’s original prediction for Scenario B was 0.3K per decade from 2000 to 2020.

          11

  • #
    pat

    BBC finds a bleak spot!

    7 Jan: BBC: Will snow rescue Swiss Alps after dry start to winter?
    By Imogen Foulkes
    Snow is finally falling across the Alps, after one of the driest Decembers on record.
    In the Swiss Alps, the last time so little snow fell over the Christmas period was in 1864, according to measurements taken by the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research…
    Christoph Marty, a snow climatologist with the institute, understands why hoteliers have been gazing anxiously at the sky. “It definitely affects business,” he says. A post-Christmas survey of ski resorts and lift operators by Swiss newspaper Tagesanzeiger showed that 56% of them expected to make losses in December…
    The last three years have been a “row of Decembers without snow”, says Mr Marty. While it may be too early to confirm a pattern, even the possibility that snow will not fall until after the festive season is a concern.
    So most resorts across the Alps are turning to artificial snow…
    Environmentalists have been watching the increased use of artificial snow with concern.
    Swiss group Pro Natura says the creation of reservoirs, simply to provide water for snow cannons, is damaging to the mountain landscape, while the energy required to power all the cannons over a season would be enough to fuel a small town…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38516688

    BBC could have added some of the following surely!

    6 Jan: WeatherToSki: Today in the Alps…
    Updated: 10am Friday 6 January 2017 – Very wintry, in the north-eastern half of the Alps at least…
    However, it is cold – bitterly cold in the eastern Alps where maximum temperatures will struggle to get above -5°C even in the cities (e.g. Innsbruck). It won’t get above -20°C on the glaciers and, coupled with a strong north-easterly wind, the wind-chill will make it closer to -40°C! …
    Extreme cold aside, snow conditions are fabulous in the north-eastern half of the Alps thanks to all this new snow. Generally speaking we have seen 30-50cm of new snow fall in Austria (away from the far south), parts of Bavaria and the eastern half of the Swiss Alps, including resorts such as Flims, Lech, St Anton, Saalbach, Kaprun, Kitzbühel and Hintertux, to name just a few. Very locally there has been up to 70cm…
    Looking a bit further ahead, there will be some more snow in places over the weekend, chiefly in the east (i.e. Austria) with the focus perhaps more on the north-western Alps by Tuesday…
    PIC: Lots of new snow to low levels in Bavaria. This is Hochries – 6 January 2017
    http://www.weathertoski.co.uk/weather-snow/

    22

  • #
    pat

    the politically-timed PAUSE papers couldn’t have been released at a worse time, CLIMATE-WISE:

    6 Jan: Newsweek: Reuters: U.S. South Hit with Rare Winter Snow Storm, Sleet, Frigid Temps
    As much as 8 inches of snow and 1 inch of sleet was expected to fall on a large swath of the United States from northeast Louisiana to southern Pennsylvania.
    A storm packing heavy snow, sleet and freezing rain hit the U.S. South on Friday, bringing winter weather to a region unaccustomed to it and leading to traffic snarls and widespread school closures…
    The service issued winter storm warnings stretching from New Mexico, across the South and into the East Coast. Police from Oklahoma and Arkansas reported scores of accidents on roads where a few inches of snow had fallen…
    “If you don’t have to travel, don’t travel,” said Matthew Grantham, a National Weather Service meteorologist in Alabama. Conditions will worsen after dusk on Friday, he added.
    With snow on the way, Atlanta residents packed into stores to stock up on essentials…
    States of emergency were declared for 79 counties in Georgia and all of Alabama…
    The hazardous weather has also forced the postponement of inauguration events scheduled this weekend for North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, who also declared a state of emergency. The storm is expected to bring significant snowfall to his state, particularly in the central region…
    http://europe.newsweek.com/south-american-south-us-south-winter-snow-snow-storm-winter-storm-539790

    6 Jan: ABC America: The South Braces for Storm of Snow and Ice
    By ENJOLI FRANCIS and MELISSA GRIFFIN
    With a devastating winter storm seizing half of the U.S. in its snowy grip, bringing snow and ice, states across the South warned residents today to stay off the roads and stock up on food.
    “This is a very serious weather event,” Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said today. “My only concern is, is that I don’t think people have an appreciation for the gravity of it.”
    Across the country, 28 states were under winter weather alerts today. Winter storm warnings stretched from the deep South to Boston. Norfolk and Virginia Beach faced blizzard warnings, with low visibility expected tonight into Saturday.
    At least five southern states, including South and North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Virginia, were already under a state of emergency…
    In Nashville, Tennessee, more than 300 crashes were reported in less than four hours. In Kentucky, icy roads were blamed for a car crash that killed one man…
    Forecasts said temperatures were then expected to plummet in the South and across the East Coast, keeping the snow and ice on the roads until early next week.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/south-braces-storm-snow-ice/story?id=44611042

    32

  • #
  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    not correct !

    Jo, was it not one of Thatcher’s Ministers of energy who said
    “there is money on the table if you can prove coal ( co2 ) is a threat. ?

    this propsal was initiated because the trade Unions especially the coal industry was trying to levearge power over rhem Goverment

    21

  • #
    el gordo

    UK Met 2017 Prediction

    ‘Professor Adam Scaife, head of long-range prediction at the Met Office, said: “This forecast, which uses the new Met Office supercomputer, adds weight to our earlier prediction that 2017 will be very warm globally but is unlikely to exceed 2015 and 2016: the two warmest years on record since 1850.”

    ‘The forecast is based on the key drivers of global climate, but it doesn’t include events such as large volcanic eruptions – which can cause temporary effects.’

    ——–

    Its was the fourth warmest ever and a quiet sun is predictable, massive fail.

    41

  • #
    Egor the One

    If the Facts don’t Fit thy Faith, then the CAGW gang Fudge the Facts til they do Fit thy Faith!

    Thy CAGW true b’lver Mantra = Climate Contortionism !

    41

  • #
    Robber

    Is anyone tracking how SA is faring in terms of electricity supply with current hot weather?
    I can’t find supply data on AEMO site. What I can see is SA latest spot price at 3pm Saturday of $113.80/Mwh with forecast spot price of $486.
    And on energymatters website, current supply shows 1274MW from gas, 73MW from liquid fuel, 513 wind, and 287 solar. Scheduled demand is 2500MW – so does that mean about 350MW is coming from interstate? That’s about 50% of Heywood interconnector capacity, but AEMO prefers not to run it at capacity because then there is no flexibility should wind power suddenly drop. So will be interesting to see what happens as sun goes down and wind speeds drop overnight.

    60

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      That 530MW MUST be coming from Vic. Don’t forget there are 2 interconnectors. A weak cool change is expected shortly in Adelaide and a slightly cooler day tomorrow.

      There were hints that “load shedding” was being practiced yesterday but cannot confirm or state situation today. There has been no interruption in the Adealaide Hills, probably because the Premier and Energy Minister don’t want to be tarred and feathered by infuriated residents.
      The 2 best businesses to be involved with in SA are selling generators and installing same.

      60

    • #
      Robber

      A couple of hours later and spot price in SA is $2357.40/MWh!!
      Gas supplying 1618MW, liquid 122, wind 422, and solar 144, total demand 2546MW.

      40

  • #
    Robber

    Another hour: Gas 1495MW, liquid 107, wind 307, and solar 97. Demand still 2500, so imports about 500MW. Spot price $268.

    30

    • #
      Robber

      And as the sun sets in SA, gas supplying 1375MW, liquid 79, wind 567, solar 60. Total electricity demand 2367, imports about 300MW, spot price $238.

      30

  • #
    TedM

    Nice to see that our resident trolls are absent today. Reality is that Harry twinotter who apparently thinks he’s important because he wears headphones and possibly flies a kite, and David Appell who is best known for his lack of knowledge of anything that is relevant are trolling on Roy Spencer’s site today.

    81

  • #
    TdeF

    In looking at the graph, you wonder how many global warming afficiandos, people who really, really want the world to get hotter are hoping that what goes up never goes down. There is a measure of hysteria in the latest hottest ever announcements, that after thirty years rapid, runaway, turning point, disastrous warming and monster sea level rises must happen this year or they will have to give those Nobel prizes back.

    The battle now is to stop the announcement that the world is cooler. It must be a worrying time for some, that moment when the media, the GPs, the fence sitters realise they have been had, deceived, misled and just plain silly. Then questions will be asked about the billions sent to the UN, Clinton foundation and all the solar, wind and wave vendors who have failed.

    Now can we get a plan to send those silly grid busting windmills to Africa and third world countries, where they are really needed to life a world out of poverty? Not Russia though. They have plenty of power, just no food.

    50

  • #
    pat

    Youtube: 4mins45secs: JUDITH CURRY FULL INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS – 6 Jan 2017
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMn880WDRGQ

    10

    • #
      TdeF

      Interesting. She is keeping an open mind because there is no evidence mankind is causing warming. As you can prove there is no fossil fuel CO2 in the air, that should be an end to it, but she is more a lukewarmer. Still vilified for simply recognizing that there is another side to the argument and that the case for man made global warming has not been made after 30 years. Next year is the 30th anniversary of the formation of the IPCC who have driven this debate. Coincidentally, it has been their only contribution to climate change. Nothing much said about deforestation in Indonesia or Brazil. It is all about building a trillion dollars worth of windmills and solar panels a year. A fraction of that sort of cash would have stopped the devastation, but employed no one in the IPCC.

      61

  • #
    Kim

    These top 5 years – are they deviations from the ‘average’ or are they nudging the line up? I would guess the former therefore nothing to worry about.

    10

  • #
    Kim

    These top 5 years – are they deviations from the ‘average’ or are they nudging the line up? I would guess the former therefore nothing to worry about.

    00

    • #
      TdeF

      The ordinary animal, vegetable or insect would have a devil of a time responding to a 0.25C change in twenty years in an average. As Peggy Lee sang, is that all there is? Ten trillion dollars later? I would guess half of the inventors of man made global warming have retired on their fame and winnings or pensions as the profiteers of doom.

      50

    • #
      Wayne Job

      Once upon a time when I was a young lad around 60 years ago, I was taught in since class that some very diligent scientists had collected all the data from scientific expeditions. They concluded that the worlds average temperature was 14.7C @1013Mb. I subsequently as I grew up was fixing aircraft engines then flying them. Through my entire career those were the standard figures to correct to for aircraft take off performance and engine power ratings. If your jet engine did not give full power corrected to those figures it needed overhaul.

      I see all these anomaly figures but I never see the actual temperature of the world if it is 14.7024 I can not see a problem, if they are talking 18C then the world has a fever, but these tiny anomalies are bull dust.

      80

  • #
  • #
    pat

    5 Jan: Politico: Ryan Heath: Donald Trump’s climate change adviser to headline Brussels event
    Myron Ebell will appear at conservation event in February.
    Myron Ebell, a member of the president-elect’s transition team, will appear at the Blue-Green Summit organized by the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE) on February 1 at the Solvay Library in Brussels.
    The ACRE, headed by prominent Euroskeptic Daniel Hannan, is promoting the event as a chance to explore market-based conservation initiatives. Other speakers include Lord Greg Barker, who served as David Cameron’s climate change minister, Belgian MEP Anneleen Van Bossuyt, and Matt Ridley, author of the book “The Rational Optimist.”…
    http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trumps-climate-change-adviser-to-headline-brussels-event/

    Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE)
    http://www.acreurope.eu/

    40

  • #
    pat

    plenty of American liberal/democrat talking points, from “fake news” to “deplorables”! lol.

    6 Jan: Guardian: Damian Carrington: James Delingpole article calling ocean acidification ‘alarmism’ cleared by press watchdog
    Climate sceptic journalist’s claim that marine life has nothing to fear from rising ocean acidity levels is not misleading but ‘comment’, says Ipso
    A magazine article claiming “marine life has nothing whatsoever to fear from ocean acidification” has been deemed neither misleading nor inaccurate by the UK’s press regulator.
    The feature, written by journalist and climate-change sceptic James Delingpole, appeared in the Spectator under the headline “Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism”…
    Phillip Williamson, whose research programme was derided in the article, complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), arguing the piece contained many inaccuracies. But Ipso rejected the complaint, telling Williamson: “The article was clearly a comment piece.”…

    Williamson said he was frustrated by the ruling: “Ipso’s overall message that ocean acidification is just a matter of opinion, not hard-won, testable knowledge is pernicious, with serious policy consequences.”
    Another researcher, whose study was cited by Delingpole as “heavy-fire support” for scepticism about acidification, criticised the Ipso decision.
    Prof Howard Browman, at the Institute of Marine Research, Norway, said: “During these times of fake news in a post-fact world, it is essential that organisations such as Ipso are able to differentiate between a scholarly exposition that is based upon the best available information [Williamson’s complaint to Ipso] and an opinion piece.”
    Carol Turley, a marine expert at the Plymouth marine laboratory in the UK was also critical, calling Ipso’s decision ***“deplorable”….

    Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, said: “It’s odd that, in a nation which cherishes free speech, so many of those who disagree with articles feel the need to report an author to a regulator rather than write in and argue their own case…READ ALL
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/05/james-delingpole-article-calling-ocean-acidification-alarmism-cleared-by-press-watchdog

    80

    • #
      el gordo

      I admit to being a ‘merchant of doubt’ and IPSO was correct in calling the story an opinion piece.

      Its only my opinion that ocean acidification is a fallacy, but I’m prepared to defend it.

      70

      • #
        TdeF

        Really? The oceans are alkali. Acidifying means heading to more neutral, not acid.

        80

        • #
          el gordo

          According to Rob Painting at Sceptical Science, ‘ocean acidity has increased by almost 30% since the beginning of the industrial civilisation …’

          40

  • #
    Speedy

    All very well. But the ESSENTIAL fact is that those who propose a scientific theory need to be able to DEFEND that theory in the face of observations which do not conform to it, or else the theory needs to be updated, revised or discarded. Clear evidence exists that CO2 is only a mediocre climate driver (for [CO2]>30 ppm). Earth’s atmosphere has comprise up to 100 times higher concentrations of CO2 in the air, and it has made no difference for the simple reason that the relevant fraction of infra-red heat emission is already absorbed by the first 30 ppm of CO2. The rest, simply, DOES NOT MATTER!!!! (DO these guys need pictures!!!)

    As true scientists, we are sceptics. We should not be gullible, we should DEMAND explanations from those who make outrageous claims that fly in the face of our historical experience over the previous 4.5 billion years. None of those explanations have been forthcoming from those who would demand serious and near-catastrophic changes to our civilisation on the basis of their half-baked theory.

    On the other hand, there is clear evidence of scientific corruption in the data management and reporting via the Climategate emails and, more locally, at our own BOM.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    60

  • #
    rk

    The most important thing that is being overlooked in the whole Global Warming debate is that there is no such thing as AVERAGE TEMPERATURE anymore than there is average pressure, rainfall or wind. Otherwise it implies that there is average weather which is nonsense. I can speak from first hand experience of the weather with over 52 years in aviation and having flown as an airline Captain that the temperature is changing every moment at every location and at every altitude and there is no average. I can also state from first hand experience over that time that it is nowhere near as warm now in Australia as it was 30 and 40 years ago – we are not experiencing the severe weather of those days which proves it – in the 1970′s and part of the 1980′s it was not uncommon in summer to encounter lines of Thunderstorms with tops around 70,000′ in S.E. Queensland and parts of NSW, it would be rare to get them over 35,000′ today because the heat is not there for them to develop to those heights and in such long lines as back then. Likewise we are not getting severe cyclones today as in those years as well, and before anyone mentions severe cyclones in Queensland I will say absolutely that Yasi, Ita and Marcia were never above Cat 3 cyclones as shown by high central pressures,low max gusts recorded and lack of Cat 5 damage and sea conditions during those events.

    Those people remarking above the falsification of data by the Bureau of Meteorology are correct, what’s more their aviation forecasts are pathetic and have been for a long time. The Bureau can’t even define a Thunderstorm on their website and no forecaster there today has seen a really severe thunderstorm, apart from the fact they only model the weather inside an office, they would never travel around the country to see the weather firsthand. If the World were experiencing ever increasing temperatures it would show up with higher maximums and minimums which is not happening – check the Capital city maximum and minimum records for Capital cities in the USA and Australia and by far the greater majority will have maximums recorded a long time ago with very few in recent years. It is the pressure patterns that cause our weather and it’s relevant data and there is nothing AVERAGE about it.

    41

  • #
    Bruce

    NBN Newcastle and TCN were crowing, ever so slightly, about some record Global Warming interchanged with Climate Change, which included talking head doctors blaming a rise in illness on , again, Global Warming and Climate Change. I think that they think they are getting the disasters , for which they have desperately hoping.

    50

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Does anyone even want me to debunk this? I am pretty sure I have a number of times in this blog. Even Dr Roy Spencer’s data set is showing a strong warming trend, you can eyeball it no need for a least squares regression.

    28

    • #
      Fred Streeter

      Dr Roy Spencer’s data set is showing a strong warming trend

      True.

      But surely the point is mankind’s contribution to this strong warming trend?

      Is it possible that you are able to ‘eyeball’ out those natural warming/cooling events unrelated to the activities of we shaven monkeys?

      70

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Fred Streeter.

      A fair question. I cannot see what is causing the warming by looking at the chart.

      Most of the scientific evidence indicates greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere is the cause of most (probably all) the warming trend. The IPCC AR5 report has a good warming attribution diagram. Natural causes are actually causing a slight cooling effect which is swamped by the larger greenhouse gas warming effect.

      The issue with Dr Roy Spencer’s data set is it is more sensitive to El Ninos and less sensitive to Arctic surface warming than other data sets. This gives it that humpy look. I don’t think the satellites even measure the poles, Dr Spencer infills the missing data somehow.

      28

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Most of the scientific evidence assumes greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere is the cause of most (probably all) the warming trend.

        71

      • #
        AndyG55

        Relying on El Ninos to prove your point is NOT very sensible, because they are but transient.

        You aren’t suggesting the El Nino was anything to do with CO2 warming, are you ???

        Its the parts between El Ninos you need to look at to find any CO2 signature,

        And guess what……..

        There was no warming from 1980 to the start of the 1998 El Nino.

        https://s19.postimg.org/y6om3sbjn/RSS_Before_El_Nino.jpg

        And there was no warming from the culmination of that El Nino effect and the start of the 2015/16 El Nino.

        https://s19.postimg.org/im6e8dgxf/RSS_pre_2015.png

        So really you are left with nothing

        And did you know that in RSS, the transient has now dropped back down to the same level as the ZERO trend line from 1997 to 2015. (18 year zero trend)

        https://s19.postimg.org/qp3u91to3/RSS_El_Nino_trend.png

        Back to where it was before the El Nino, and more cooling to come.

        So absolutely NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data.

        63

      • #
        AndyG55

        “The IPCC AR5 report has a good warming attribution diagram.”

        No it doesn’t. Their diagram is a load of anti-science, non-validated model-based, propaganda nonsense, built on erroneous assumptions.

        64

      • #
        Fred Streeter

        HT: Most of the scientific evidence indicates greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere is the cause of most (probably all) the warming trend

        Were that true, there would be no debate amongst scientists. Not everyone is politically motivated, you know.

        HT: I don’t think the satellites even measure the poles, Dr Spencer infills the missing data somehow.

        Somehow? The methods are documented. The data may be downloaded.
        I understand [Skeptical Science] that even their program code has been made available.

        The University of York, who were “using satellite data to fill in the gaps in the Met Office data”, have stated:

        The satellite blind spot at the poles is very small and can easily be interpolated over – this is already done in the UAH data.

        We have validated our results against the International Arctic Buoy Program data and 3 weather models for the North Pole, and against the Amundsen Scott South Pole Station record, which lies at the centre of the Antarctic blind spot.

        Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature record. Cowtan and Way
        (Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Feb. 2014)

        21

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Most of the scientific evidence indicates greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere is the cause of most (probably all) the warming trend. “

        Yet you have NEVER been able to produce even one paper showing that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

        THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.. NONE. !!

        You are making irrelevant propaganda statements without one iota of proof to back them up.

        01