Has your intelligence forsaken you Mr Morgan

Gareth Morgan writes a post that’s, frankly, beneath him.

He rants against those he calls “climate deniers”. Though he’s shown in the past he makes efforts to be informed, in this article he recklessly misrepresents the sceptical position. Well, that’s a charitable interpretation; it’s more likely that he is trying to marginalise the sceptics. It’s pathetically easy to show he’s wrong (give me a minute on that).

Mr Morgan stoops to uttering an untruth about the temperature; we know it has not been going up, yet he insists:

  1. “global temperatures are rising at a rate faster than any past ‘natural’ changes”
  2. “this rapid upswing in global temperatures”
  3. “why the planet is warming so quickly”

The short-lived late-20th century warming halted 15-20 years ago. He must have heard about the pause and knows that these statements are false. For heaven’s sake: the IPCC tried unconvincingly to explain the pause in the Fifth Assessment Report. The Hockey Schtick lists 63 excuses given around the world to explain away the pause. A paper last year by Dr Ross McKitrick claims the pause had lasted 19 years at the surface and up to 26 years in the lower troposphere.

Everyone agrees there is a pause. You cannot remain pig-headedly defiant of the evidence.

But don’t take my word for it. Here, in a single handy graph, are five major global temperature records (UAH, RSS, GISS, NCDC and HadCRUT4) from Climate4you:

caption

The five major temperature records to April 2015. Since about 1995 the temperature, though varying, has shown little or no warming trend. The temperature trend shows no sign of “rising at a rate faster than any natural changes” or a “rapid upswing”—in other words, it hasn’t been warming. These are not my graphs, they are produced by international teams of scientists; Mr Morgan should retract his foolish statements. Click to enlarge.

Mr Morgan promises:

In this first blog we will strip back the rhetoric and take a dispassionate look at the facts of climate change.

Then he spends over 40% of his article just moaning about the sceptics, or “deniers” as he prefers. He gives no evidence to support the allegation of global warming, much less does he help us believe that it’s caused by something we’re doing.

His lamenting over sceptical disagreement is weak and forgettable, but it’s worth making a couple of points. He says this:

Firstly to the small, vocal but shrill community of deniers. There are two common objections to the weight of evidence. The first is that either there’s not enough evidence yet. The second is that it’s fair game for any lightweight to blithely dismiss climate models because after all, they’re “just a model, not reality”. That’s it, that’s as deep as the deniers (what’s left of them) can manage to put up these days. Pathetic.

A Horizon poll last year suggested to its respondents: “I am uncertain that climate change is really happening.” (Bear in mind that the expression “climate change” is these days taken to mean that a human influence is causing it.) The results show a majority of New Zealanders are not sure we’re causing climate change. Like this:

First, 47.8% of respondents disagree or strongly disagree—they’re certain they cause climate change.

Then, 27.6% strongly agree that they’re uncertain, and almost as many, 23.8%, can’t decide whether they’re uncertain or not. I think it’s clear that being unable to decide is the definition of uncertainty. That makes a total of 51.4% of us who are not convinced we’re causing climate change.

What were you saying, Gareth, about “a small group of deniers clinging to an evaporating argument”? There’s no argument involved here; there are many questions that you, who are so convinced we’re destroying the planet, simply refuse to answer. Here are five of the most urgent questions:

  1. The temperature is not going up; when do you predict that it will?
  2. The oceans are sometimes observed to be warming; as there is no mechanism for the air to significantly heat the ocean, do you agree that our emissions cannot be causing it?
  3. Vigorous debate is occurring among climate scientists on climate sensitivity (CS), or the amount of warming to be expected from a given level of airborne CO2; the IPCC strongly believes in high CS, while recent papers on the continuing lack of global warming report low CS; do you agree we should delay expensive policy responses until this vital factor is better understood?
  4. The warming response of airborne CO2 is logarithmic, meaning the more that is added, the less warming is caused by each new addition; do you agree this strongly diminishes the warming to be expected from our emissions in the future?
  5. The only predictions of dangerous temperatures come from climate models which reflect our deeply imperfect knowledge of the climate and consistently fail to match the past; do you agree we can safely ignore them until their performance has been shown to be skilful?

This graph illustrates the diminishing effect of further parcels of carbon dioxide emissions. The WUWT post by David Archibald provides a good discussion of the principle:

If the “weight of evidence” for climate disaster really does “stack up with each passing year” why does Mr Morgan resort to such bitter deprecation of sceptics?

When you’re trying to change a person’s mind, evidence works well. There’s nothing to say in the face of evidence, unless you can refute it, for which you need evidence. The only reason to abuse and revile the one who disagrees with you is that you have no evidence. But if you have no evidence, reviling him is still the worst tactic, since it immediately proves you have no evidence.

Wake up, Gareth. Your million dollar inquiry into global warming has purchased a membership in the losing side.

125 Thoughts on “Has your intelligence forsaken you Mr Morgan

  1. Simon Papps on May 27, 2015 at 3:51 pm said:

    You are actually confirming everything that Gareth states in his article about deniers. Did you actually read this sentence?
    For many years sceptics enjoyed pointing out that 1998 was the hottest year on record – claiming there was a ‘hiatus in warming’ – until 2014 racked up record temperatures. The fact is that both record years are irrelevant; it is the long-term trend that matters.

  2. Richard Treadgold on May 27, 2015 at 4:02 pm said:

    Have you told the IPCC there’s no hiatus?

    Point of fact: I didn’t mention 1998, but “about 1995”. The trends of low or absent warming in different datasets do not begin in 1998. Considering 2014’s temperature was a “record” by an infinitesimal amount, it did not indicate statistically significant warming and did not end the hiatus. The long-term trend is very important for determining a trend; but this is simply a hiatus. That means that the temperature fails to rise by however long it fails to rise, nothing more.

  3. Richard Treadgold on May 27, 2015 at 4:11 pm said:

    Simon,

    Did you actually read this sentence:

    Everyone agrees there is a pause. You cannot remain pig-headedly defiant of the evidence.

  4. Andy on May 27, 2015 at 4:18 pm said:

    I used the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    GISSTemp

    1998 – 2014
    0.057 +- 0.123 degC

    2000 – 2014
    0.061 +- 0.144 degC

    2002 – 2014
    -0.004 +-0.174 degC

    are some random date ranges I chose that suggest that 1998 isn’t that important

  5. Simon on May 27, 2015 at 4:21 pm said:

    You are confusing variation with trend. There is insufficient statistical evidence for a hiatus.
    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar/
    The reasons behind natural variation are many and varied but the long-term trend is undeniable.
    The next year or two will be very interesting given the sudden sharp swing to El Nino conditions.

  6. Richard Treadgold on May 27, 2015 at 4:22 pm said:

    Thanks, Andy. There are better treatments elsewhere, too, if Simon might be interested.

  7. Richard Treadgold on May 27, 2015 at 4:25 pm said:

    Simon,

    You are confusing variation with trend.

    I’m not confusing anything with variation. I’m saying (we’re saying) that this variation, this hiatus, has gone on for about 20 years. You’re playing with words; is that all you can say? I ask the obvious question: “Do you agree that your model predictions (of 1989 — I can’t remember exactly) are hereby disproved?”

  8. Andy on May 27, 2015 at 4:28 pm said:

    “I am confusing variation with trend”

    using the SkS Trend Calculator, how so?

  9. Richard C (NZ) on May 27, 2015 at 4:29 pm said:

    Simon P, this quote from Gareth Morgan is rubbish:

    >”For many years sceptics enjoyed pointing out that 1998 was the hottest year on record – claiming there was a ‘hiatus in warming’ – until 2014 racked up record temperatures.”

    I don’t recall sceptics “enjoying” anything of the sort, let alone “pointing it out”.

    The hiatus in warming is determined statistically (see McKitrick 2014 below) by starting at the present and working back in time to ascertain the length of flat trend, the addition of new present data simply extends the hiatus in whatever temperature dataset is being analyzed. The 2014 “record” was a couple of hundreths of a degree in GISTEMP but no such record in HadCRUT4 or the satellite sets UAH or RSS.

    From what I recall, the hiatus does not start at 1998 in any temperature dataset. Some start before, some after. Read for yourself:

    A STATISTICALLY-ROBUST DEFINITION OF THE LENGTH OF THE GLOBAL WARMING PAUSE

    McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
    http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

  10. Richard C (NZ) on May 27, 2015 at 4:51 pm said:

    >”but the long-term trend is undeniable”

    Who’s denying it Simon?

    Here’s Moberg et al (2005) 2000-year Northern Hemisphere Tempoerature Reconstruction

    http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g316/patrick1952/GlobalTemperatureReconstruction-2000Years.gif

    What is your assessment of the “long-term” “undeniable” trend in this dataset Simon?

    And why exactly did the current positive phase (upswing) start around 1700?

    No CO2 uptick late 1600s so no attribution possible there.

  11. Richard Treadgold on May 27, 2015 at 4:51 pm said:

    Andy,

    “I am confusing variation with trend”

    Sorry, this was addressed to Simon, as you may have figured out by now.

  12. Andy on May 27, 2015 at 4:58 pm said:

    Yes I figured RT, thanks

    Anyway, we seen to have missed the later blog post that I linked to on an earlier thread

    GM states

    But under the current approach, methane gets treated like it has a similar impact as carbon dioxide, lingering on in the atmosphere interminably – it doesn’t. The currently accepted methodology for measuring methane in terms of carbon dioxide “equivalents” puts the potency of methane at 25 times that of carbon dioxide, but there has been quite a bit of research done to suggest that grossly overstates the long term damage methane does, given its decay rate. Pressing this point home could be a major win for New Zealand, and take the heat off our farmers whose main way to reduce methane at the moment is to shoot their stock.

    https://garethsworld.com/blog/environment/three-big-ideas-for-new-zealands-climate-change-target/

    Haven’t we been saying this all along?

  13. Richard Treadgold on May 27, 2015 at 4:58 pm said:

    RC,

    Has your research uncovered anything about the strength of current El Nino phase? My impression is that it’s very mild and could fizzle out, but Simon seems optimistic there’ll be strong warming.

  14. Richard Treadgold on May 27, 2015 at 5:01 pm said:

    Andy,

    Anyway, we seen to have missed the later blog post that I linked to on an earlier thread”

    Yes, I saw it come through but was busy. I’m amazed at the turnaround. I’ll try to read the post soon. Must do something about dinner that doesn’t include burning anything.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on May 27, 2015 at 6:01 pm said:

    >”RC, Has your research uncovered anything about the strength of current El Nino phase?”

    No I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows until it plays out.

    >”My impression is that it’s very mild and could fizzle out,”

    That’s one of several possibilities but again we’ll have to wait and see. Weak or strong doesn’t necessarily mean a weak or strong temperature response is guaranteed.

    <"but Simon seems optimistic there'll be strong warming."

    Well he would wouldn't he?. But his mindset is conditioned by the temperature datasets that are at "record" highs. Those datasets are NOT sensitive to ENSO.

    Compare GISTEMP to RSS
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978/plot/rss

    1998 doesn't stand out in GISTEMP.

    RSS is sensitive to ENSO, as are the radiosondes (HadAT2):

    http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadAT.html

  16. Richard C (NZ) on May 27, 2015 at 6:23 pm said:

    Prof Bob Carter in 2006 was the first sceptic I’m aware of to “point out” the trendless temperatures.

    He certainly wasn’t “pointing out that 1998 was the hottest year on record – claiming there was a ‘hiatus in warming”, contrary to Morgan’s misrepresentation of sceptics. The ward “hiatus” evolved along with “pause” (Hansen, Sato, and Ruedy), “standstill”, “stasis”, etc.

    The IPCC seems to have settled on “hiatus” in AR5 – their latest assessment, so sceptics are just using IPCC terminology.

  17. Just over four years ago, early 2011, a decadal global temperature bet was made. That the decade beginning Jan 2011 would be significantly warmer than the decade beginning Jan 2001. Based on the average of RSS and UAH.

    In January 2015 I did an update as to how that bet was turning out. Look at the graph. 2014 is nothing special.

    http://www.kiwithinker.com/2015/01/the-decadal-global-climate-bet-dec-2014-update-4-years-into-the-race/

  18. Richard Treadgold on May 27, 2015 at 9:59 pm said:

    Nice, Robin. Thanks for the update.

  19. Alexander K on May 28, 2015 at 9:17 am said:

    Goodness me, Simon is not easy to have a discussion with, is he?
    It must be kept in mind, when one is discussing the hiatus with those who call we followers of the scientific method and demand evidence of anything before we accept an unproven proposition ‘Deniers’, that warming, even if the most determined search fails to find any statistically-significant warming at all, is the Big Evil that the world must strive to eradicate.
    Cold is the real danger. as anyone who has read history can verify. Cold stops any form of seasonal growth in cereal crops, crops which become stock foods and foods for humans, therefore removing the basis upon which all of modern agriculture is built: one only has to read various accounts of the rise and fall of various cultures around the world to understand that humanity thrives in warmth and does not thrive at all when the world cools.
    To read the accounts of ordinary village life in the UK during the LIA is to understand the misery and death that extreme cold brings. Only lunatics would pursue a lack of warming as their goal.

  20. Andy on May 28, 2015 at 1:09 pm said:

    Skeptical Science have a bit of a discussion about the Pause/Hiatus that doesn’t exist
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/making_sense_of_the_slowdown.html

  21. Andy on May 28, 2015 at 6:01 pm said:

    Dave Frame also jumps in with his views
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/68891920/kiwi-proposal-aims-to-break-barriers-to-action-on-climate-change

    He does make some good points.

    Given the remarks by Gareth Morgan regarding agricultural methane and Prof Frame’s similar views (I wonder if they are somehow connected???), leads me to think our farming friends should use this to their advantage and get agriculture out of the ETS and climate talks for good.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on May 29, 2015 at 10:46 am said:

    ‘The Tide Is Turning, Time For Global Cooling’ [Warning: peer-reviewed literature]

    Doug L. Hoffman’s blog

    Climate scientists have constructed models to predict what Earth’s climate will look like decades, even hundreds of years in the future. Unfortunately, many major components of Earth’s climate system have not been accurately monitored for very long. This makes such predictions suspect if not laughable. A case in point are variations in ocean circulation and temperature. In the Atlantic there is a cycle for sea surface temperatures variation called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The AMO is linked with decadal scale climate fluctuations like European summer precipitation, rainfall in Europe and India, Atlantic hurricanes and variations in global temperatures. A new study in the journal Nature reports that the AMO is again transitioning to a negative phase, meaning the vaunted “pause” in global warming may be with us for decades. In fact, scientists at the University of Southampton predict that cooling in the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures a half a degree Celsius.

    Climate scientists and oceanographers have studied ocean circulation patterns for years and—given the ocean’s massive capacity for absorbing, storing, and releasing heat energy—they have long suspected linkage between sea surface temperatures (SST) and climate variation. Now that linkage is the subject of a new study titled “Ocean impact on decadal Atlantic climate variability revealed by sea-level observations.” [Hotlink to paper] In it, researchers from University of Southampton, led by Gerard D. McCarthy, have tried a new approach using sea level along the east coast of the US to estimate ocean circulation on decadal timescales. Here is the overview from the article’s abstract:

    See abstract and much more>>>>>
    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/tide-turning-time-global-cooling

  23. Andy on May 29, 2015 at 12:20 pm said:

    GM’s video on methane is on YouTube now
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xehi83jWSLk

  24. Andy on May 29, 2015 at 12:36 pm said:

    In the video posted above, the presenter states that the GWP figure of 25 for methane is a number that negotiators came up with, and it could be anything really, e.g 7

    And there was I thinking that this was all about science. How silly

  25. Richard C (NZ) on May 29, 2015 at 12:46 pm said:

    >”….scientists at the University of Southampton predict that cooling in the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures a half a degree Celsius”

    That’s the amount of warming in the IPCC’s 1951 – 2010 anthro attribution period (see AR5 SPM Figure 1).

    Climategate II emails:

    [Tommy Wils] – “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably”

  26. Richard Treadgold on May 29, 2015 at 12:46 pm said:

    Andy,

    GM’s video on methane

    Very amusing.

  27. Richard Treadgold on May 29, 2015 at 12:47 pm said:

    RC,

    They’ll kill us probably

    No, we’ll forgive you. Eventually.

  28. Andy on May 29, 2015 at 1:26 pm said:

    Yes the video is “amusing’ for the sound effects. Less amusing for the fact that they are now saying the same things about methane that we have been banging on about on this blog for quite some time now.

    That is the problem with not listening to other people’s views.

  29. Richard Treadgold on May 29, 2015 at 1:33 pm said:

    “they are now saying the same things about methane that we have been banging on about on this blog”

    Yes, I suppose the question is why have “they” changed their minds? Has the truth influenced them or have they been captured by the fossil fuel climate misdirectionists?

  30. Andy on May 29, 2015 at 1:37 pm said:

    I think “they” are trying to come up with some plausible numbers and policies to put on the table at Paris

    I rather suspect Dave Frame has something to do with this methane issue

  31. Richard Treadgold on May 29, 2015 at 1:39 pm said:

    I seem to remember that Dr Frame conversed briefly on this blog when he arrived back in Wellington (a couple of years ago?) and talked about correcting the GWP of methane.

  32. Andy on May 29, 2015 at 1:43 pm said:

    Yes, I think so. It’s not just the GWP either, it is the fact that ruminant methane gets recycled through the natural carbon cycle.

    Someone on GM’s blog made the comment that methane breaks down into water and CO2, “which are also GHG’s”

    The fact that the methane was a product of the CO2 and water in the first place seemed to elude this person. No matter how many times you repeat these facts, no one seems to get it.

  33. Richard Treadgold on May 29, 2015 at 1:53 pm said:

    “the methane was a product of the CO2 and water in the first place”

    At the risk of throwing myself in front of your speeding truck, I confess I wouldn’t have known that, either. Is that, chemically, the only way to produce methane? Is it done at high temperatures? I’m aware it may be an abiogenic source in the mantle and it’s certainly plentiful on other planets.

  34. Andy on May 29, 2015 at 2:12 pm said:

    I am referring to the subject of ruminant methane. There are clearly other sources of methane

    (1) CO2 and water forms grass via photosynthesis

    (2) Cows then eat the grass.

    (3) Cows belch methane, which is a product of the digestion of the grass.

    (4) The methane enters the atmosphere, where it reacts with the OH radical to form CO2 and water

    (5) Go to Step (1)

    If there are other inputs such as fertilizer, then the parameters change, of course.

  35. Richard Treadgold on May 29, 2015 at 2:19 pm said:

    Now I feel silly. Thanks (not for making me feel silly but for patient explanation). I didn’t know the details of the breakdown in step 4. Of course methane is not always formed at high temperature, as cows’ tummies are nothing like the hotness of lava. I wasn’t thinking. Not about this; I’ve just sent off a quotation to edit another PhD thesis (not in chemistry) and should have left more of a pause before turning to chemistry.

    Now I see your logic and I’m amazed that some people never get it. Oh, wait…

    I’m going out to find lunch.

  36. Andy on May 29, 2015 at 2:23 pm said:

    Enjoy your lunch and may your flatulence be guilt free.

  37. Alexander K on May 29, 2015 at 2:32 pm said:

    Andy,
    You have just reminded me of the very good reason not to get excited about the supposedly excessive farting of animals on grassland farms. There is always so much wrong about their silly ideas that it is hard to keep all these facts with which to shoot down said silly ideas in one’s mind at all times.
    Seriously is what I cannot be about the fears of Warmists as their ignorance ALWAYS turns around to bite them on their nether regions. (I was going to say BUM, but they would accuse me of being rude, crue and uncultured!)
    Richard T.
    Cross-fertilisation of trains of thought can be hilarious, but one must first be equipped with a sense of humour.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on May 29, 2015 at 6:22 pm said:

    Alan Carlin, ex Sierra Club activist and Chapter Chairman, economist and physical scientist with degrees from Caltech and MIT and publications in both economics and climate/energy, 38 year US EPA career, now CO2 sceptic and author of new book “Environmentalism Gone Mad”:

    “The purpose of this book is to explain why I changed from my lifelong support of the environmental movement to extreme skepticism concern their current primary objective of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.”

    “Although I and the many other climate skeptics are now referred to as ‘deniers’ by the climate alarmists, that does not change the science—and there is no valid scientific basis for the alarmists’ catastrophic climate predictions—or justify their fantastically expensive and useless ‘solution.’”

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/leaving-the-church-of-environmentalism.html

    What say you Gareth Morgan?

    Gareth’s World quote from post above:

    >”There are two common objections to the weight of evidence. The first is
    that either there’s not enough evidence yet. …….”

    My reply at GW:

    “Wrong …………..There isn’t ANY evidence yet. Read the IPCC’s AR5 report……”

    No response forthcoming from Gareth Morgan. I would have thought this was easy pickings if the “weight of evidence” could be referenced. Apparently it’s a futile quest.

  39. Mike Jowsey on May 29, 2015 at 6:35 pm said:

    Simon Papp’s comment upthread regarding an impending El Nino (“The next year or two will be very interesting given the sudden sharp swing to El Nino conditions”) is on shaky ground imo. For 18 months NIWA and Metservice have been hyping the possibility – nay, the high-confidence probability – of a strong El Nino any minute soon.

    Philip Duncan, of Weatherwatch, has this to say:

    For the past 18 months global and local climate scientists have been calling for a “High” chance of El Nino forming, many saying it would be as brutal as the one in the 1990s that caused major droughts in New Zealand.

    Despite the alarming prediction last summer passed us by with no El Nino.

    After 18 months in the media the term “El Nino” has almost developed it’s own persona. It sounds like the Jesse James of the weather world.

    My issue isn’t with the climate scientists thinking El Nino is coming – my issue is with the messaaging that comes with it – the high confidence it will happen…and then 18 months go by and it’s brushed off as ‘it’s still coming’. Well, we’ve had concerned farmers contacting us for 18 months – some in absolute fear about what El Nino might do to their farm.

    We strongly feel at WeatherWatch.co.nz that all this talk is doing little good.

    http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/philip-duncan-el-nino-what-it-will-it-even-happen

    The article continues and the comments and answers are very interesting – particularly regards the aggressively commercial nature of NIWA.

  40. Richard C (NZ) on May 29, 2015 at 7:05 pm said:

    >’it’s still coming’ [El Nino]

    Michelle L’Heureux, a scientist at the U.S. Climate Prediction Center, in August 2014:

    “Waiting for El Nino is starting to feel like Waiting for Godot”

    Karen Olsen, TV1 meteorologist and weather presenter, when asked by Simon Dallow, news presenter, about NIWA’s prediction of El Nino conditions was nonplussed:

    “Pretty much what we’re already getting”

  41. Richard C (NZ) on May 29, 2015 at 7:16 pm said:

    JoNova:

    ‘North Atlantic cooling means climate change of a different kind coming?’

    Is this the way the backdown plays out? The endless warming becomes cooling, and man-made change becomes natural cycles one paper at a time? The press releases still talk of “change”! No mention that natural cycles could have been the cause of past warming, and that skeptics have been saying this for years.

    [snip]

    The press release is below for this tricky paper [also linked upthread] that doesn’t follow the IPCC plan. In the world of climate news it’s important that the headlines include the words “climate”, “global” and “change” and not the words “cooling”, “natural cycles” or “skeptics might be right”.

    [snip]

    Reference:

    Gerard D. McCarthy, Ivan D. Haigh, Joël J.-M. Hirschi, Jeremy P. Grist, David A. Smeed. (2015) Ocean impact on decadal Atlantic climate variability revealed by sea-level observations. Nature; 521 (7553): 508 DOI: 10.1038/nature14491 [hotlink]

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/atlantic-cooling-means-global-climate-change-of-a-different-kind-coming/#more-42767

    # # #

    Yes, “tricky” paper for the CO2 obsessed.

  42. Richard C (NZ) on May 30, 2015 at 9:49 am said:

    ‘When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?’

    Guest essay by Patrick J. Michaels, May 29, 2015

    Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.

    The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15.

    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg?w=720

    The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world.

    The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture.

    The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both of these are thought to be pretty solid because they come from calibrated instruments.

    If you look at data through 1995 the forecast appears to be doing quite well. That’s because the computer models appear to have, at least in essence, captured two periods of slight cooling.

    The key word is “appear.” The computer models are tuned to account for big volcanoes that are known to induce temporary cooling in the lower atmosphere. These would be the 1982 eruption of El Chichon in Mexico, and 1992’s spectacular Mt. Pinatubo, the biggest natural explosion on earth since Alaska’s Katmai in 1912.

    Since Pinatubo, the earth has been pretty quiescent, so that warming from increasing carbon dioxide should proceed unimpeded. Obviously, the spread between forecast and observed temperatures grows pretty much every year, and is now a yawning chasm.

    It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps the three most important words in life: we were wrong.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/29/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong/

  43. Richard C (NZ) on May 30, 2015 at 10:55 am said:

    Have to say it’s very refreshing not being censored at Gareth Morgan’s World (as opposed to Gareth Renowden’s World).

  44. Andy on May 30, 2015 at 2:03 pm said:

    Yes it is refreshing to not get censored. One gets used to fascistic rhetoric like “Denialists that have been marginalised” in our modern tolerant “inclusive” world, I suppose.

  45. Richard C (NZ) on May 31, 2015 at 10:25 am said:

    My latest comment at Gareth’s World replying to my own first comment:

    >”There isn’t ANY evidence yet”

    Gareth’s observational “evidence”.

    1) global temperatures are rising

    A natural phenomena. Temperatures have been rising since the 1600s, an uptick around 1700 but no CO2 uptick therefore no CO2 attribution. Same in the 20th century (see IPCC SPM Fig 1), temperatures rising at the same rate early century (1910 – 1940) as late century (1970 – 2000) but no CO2 uptick until 1950s.

    The only temperature rise that the IPCC attributes to GHGs on a decadal basis is the 1980s and 1990s (see AR5 SPM and SPM Fig 1).

    This century, temperatures are NOT rising. Certainly not rising at a rate to validate the CO2-forced models.

    2) sea level is rising

    Again, a natural phenomena (the default rate). AGW demands a boost (acceleration) in SLR but that boost is not evident in global or regional SL metrics either satellite or tide guage.

    Case in point: Wellington Harbour tide guage data.

    Tonkin & Taylor, in their report to the WCC, explicitly state that they did not ascertain the historical rate of rise. They could have gone to NOAA’s Tides and Currents SL map of tide guages and clicked on Wellington, but no, Or they could have downloaded the PSMSL data and plotted it themselves (not hard, see below), but no. Consequently T&T do not plot IPCC prediction vs observations as any responsible and credible analysis would do.

    Dr Jan Wright, MfE Commissioner for the environment, in her 2014 sea level report was simply incompetent (many issues arising). For such an inept report from someone on $300,000 p.a. and MfE resources, she should be sacked.

    Wright did not stipulate the IPCC’s baseline as T&T did (and no prediction vs observation plot of anywhere either). So a reader inferring from her 2014 report and plotting her “20 – 40” cm rise prediction and applying it to Wellington Harbour PSMSL data will arrive at this absurd graph when taking the prediction centred on 30 cms rise:

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/pics/pce-wgtn-sl-1945-2014-wright-projection-1505.png

    Obviously the prediction start point inferred from Wright’s report is incorrect bu even if the 30 cm rise prediction started from 1990 it is clear that the SLR accleration prescribed by AGW and the IPCC is just not happening.

  46. Mike Jowsey on May 31, 2015 at 4:45 pm said:

    Nice one Andy. Sock it to ’em!

  47. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2015 at 7:34 pm said:

    Interesting trends over regions in the new UAH Version 6.0 data:

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/typo3temp/pics/d28b843ac4.jpg

    NE USA up to NW Canada and Alaska (a little above trendless) completely different to SW USA (warming).

    China and Japan only a little above trendless.

    Radical warming Australia, Eastern Europe, NE Canada, Africa, Sth America. Arctic.

    Vast areas of ocean trendless.

    Some cooling across Antarctica.

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/new-analysis-brings-uah-temperatures-closer-to-rss.html

  48. Richard C (NZ) on June 2, 2015 at 11:09 am said:

    >”One gets used to fascistic rhetoric like “Denialists that have been marginalised” in our modern tolerant “inclusive” world…”

    The Liberal Gulag

    by Kevin D. Williamson April 6, 2014

    […]

    Katherine Timpf, a reporter for Campus Reform, faced a human barricade to keep her from asking questions of those attending a feminist leadership conference, whose organizers informed her that the group was “inclusive” and therefore she was “not welcome here”

    […]

    The convocation of clowns on the left screeched with one semi-literate and inchoate voice when my colleague Jonah Goldberg, borrowing the precise words of one of their own, titled a book Liberal Fascism.

    Most of them didn’t read it, but the ones who did apparently took what was intended as criticism and read it as a blueprint for political action.

    Welcome to the Liberal Gulag.

    That term may be perverse, but it is not an exaggeration. Mr. Weinstein specifically called for political activists, ranging from commentators to think-tank researchers, to be locked in cages as punishment for their political beliefs. “Those denialists should face jail,” he wrote. “You still can’t” — banality alert! — “yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. You shouldn’t be able to yell ‘balderdash’ at 10,883 scientific journal articles a year.” “Balderdash” — a felony. At the risk of being repetitious, let’s dwell on that for a minute: The Left is calling on people to be prosecuted for speaking their minds regarding their beliefs on an important public-policy question that is, as a political matter, the subject of hot dispute. That is the stuff of Soviet repression.

    But then Soviet-style repression has long been a dream of the American Left. Consider the abuses of psychiatry that were the great hallmark of the Soviet way, and then consider that there is a cottage industry today among left-wing psychiatrists arguing that conservative political views represent a form of mental disorder. That psychiatric approach to suppressing dissent has spread quickly through the intellectual sewers of the Left, with writers everywhere from Daily Kos to Salon diagnosing instances of “RWA” — right-wing authoritarian — disorder among their political rivals. Robert Altemeyer, the father of this asinine school of so-called thought, denies that there exists such a thing as a left-wing authoritarian.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375138/liberal-gulag-kevin-d-williamson

  49. Kuni on June 2, 2015 at 3:48 pm said:

    Intelligence is how they figured out how to detect the “DNA/fingerprints” of CO2 to know, without any doubt, what source said CO2 came from. Something about “various geochemical characteristics” and something about CO2 from different sources having a “different isotopic composition” that are used to determine what/which source the CO2 being geo-chemical-ed/isotopic-ed came from.

    That is how we know that those trying to claim that “natural sources” are the source for the CO2 responsible for global warming are in fact conspiring to commit mass murder on a global scale with AGW.

    To quote one of the experts: There is a way that scientists can tease apart the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to see how much of the CO2 is from natural sources and how much is from combusted fossil fuel sources.

    Here’s how scientists know. The same elements (i.e. same number of protons in the nucleus) with different mass numbers (arising from the different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus) are called isotopes. Each carbon molecule has six protons in the nucleus, but there are many different isotopes with varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. Carbon isotopes from different sources are “lighter” (high negative value) or heavier (lower negative value).

    But if you are still trying to peddle the “But they are still not complete in demonstrating that gravity is responsible for keeping us all from naturally floating away into space. I have read on the internet that someone has claimed that angels are responsible by holding us down; prove that is not true?” argument with the assertion that “They are not complete in demonstrating the link between CO2 increases and Global Warming.”

    You are also in luck. Just recently scientists have proven, or are “complete in demonstrating” (if that is how you want to phrase it) what everyone in the literate world has, regardless of what they claim out loud, known all along. That increased CO2 in the atmosphere in the quantities we have spewed are in fact responsible for and currently causing global warming.

    Something about your complete in demonstrating being “found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation.” That by “Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.” Also, something about “we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.”

  50. Kuni on June 2, 2015 at 3:57 pm said:

    There is only a pause if one pretends to forget the extra heat that the ocean is storing down to the 700 meter level. Just because the ocean now needs to be tested in 3D, instead of just on the surface, does not change the fact that added global heat is still added global heat.

    Also, the fact that there is even an alleged pause in surface temperatures during what should be a natural cooling cycle is not a good thing. When the next strong el-Nino year comes along we will finally have something to honestly compare 1998, that last strong el-Nino year, to.

    Claiming that a year that should be colder is the same as a strong el-Nino year only proves that the effects of AGW is now stronger than the entire Earth’s natural warming/cooling cycle.

  51. Kuni on June 2, 2015 at 4:10 pm said:

    Damn that Liberal Gulag and its supporters intolerance of those whose sincerely held religious beliefs and ideology involves hijacking passenger jets and crashing them into office towers.

    Science has spoken. When it comes to global warming there is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is no opinion. There are those who want to commit mass murder on a global scale with global warming, and those who do not want to commit mass murder on a global scale.

    Science has discovered how to detect the “DNA/fingerprints” of CO2 to know, without any doubt, what source said CO2 came from. Something about “various geochemical characteristics” and something about CO2 from different sources having a “different isotopic composition” that are used to determine what/which source the CO2 being geo-chemical-ed/isotopic-ed came from.

    That is how we know that those trying to claim that “natural sources” are the source for the CO2 responsible for global warming are in fact conspiring to commit mass murder on a global scale with AGW.

    Science has discovered how to detect the causation between CO2 and global warming. Science has proven what everyone in the literate world has, regardless of what they claim out loud, known all along. That increased CO2 in the atmosphere in the quantities we have spewed are in fact responsible for and currently causing global warming. (Our first hint was the fact that the science of greenhouse gasses was settled in the 1800’s. Our second hint was the fact that they called them “greenhouse gases.”)

    Something about the final nail in the coffin of the latest attempts at obfuscation by those conspiring to commit mass murder on a global scale, being “found in the spectrum of greenhouse radiation.” That by “Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.” Also, something about “we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.”

    The difference between Conservatives and al-Qaeda/ISIS members: al-Qaeda/ISIS members are a better class of hominid because at least they don’t lie about wanting to murder us.

    Claiming that global warming is a hoax is worse than sitting around a Hamburg apartment planning to hijack passenger jets and crash them into office towers.

    Not only do we not tolerate those who conspire to murder us wholesale because of their warped ideology, we also eventually confiscate their assets to pay for the damage they are responsible for.

    [Kuni, you’ve doubled up on this comment because your original was held in the moderation queue until it was approved. Hereafter, your comments will be posted without moderation. Since you’ve changed this copy, I’ll leave it intact because I don’t have time to edit it. But contact me if you have different ideas. Cheers, RT]

  52. Richard Treadgold on June 2, 2015 at 4:11 pm said:

    Yes, ok, Kuni, thanks. I have no difficulty understanding that human CO2 provides a sizeable contribution to the increased atmospheric levels. Perhaps you could clarify that, actually, with references? What I have trouble following, though, is the amount of warming that is caused by our contribution. Well, it’s the IPCC itself, isn’t it? They estimate that human activity contributed some small amount of warming (0.4°C?) during the 20th century, but it’s only a guess, it’s not based on science. In the meantime, for the last 20 years or so our emissions have never been more generous, yet the temperature has failed to rise. Which means that natural variability is overwhelming the CO2 effect. I don’t accept the argument that “increased CO2 in the atmosphere in the quantities we have spewed are in fact responsible for and currently causing global warming,” for the simple reason that there’s been no recent warming.

    You lose me with your comments about natural sources for the increased CO2 conspiring to commit murder. I mean, we all emit carbon dioxide, right? Also, when you mumble on about gravity, angels and “not complete in demonstrating the link between CO2 increases and Global Warming” it’s impossible to know what you mean. You may wish to follow our practice, which is to provide links to our sources.

  53. Richard Treadgold on June 2, 2015 at 4:18 pm said:

    Kuni, I entirely agree that added global heat is added global heat and it must be accounted for, but it is wrong that “extra” heat is being “stored” in the ocean. Please provide a source for this assertion.

    To clarify, you say there is not a temperature pause, then you say there is a pause? I’m confused. Who says which year “should be colder”? See, references help a lot. So does evidence. If AGW is overwhelming the entire earth’s temperature cycles, why isn’t it warming?

  54. Richard Treadgold on June 2, 2015 at 4:29 pm said:

    Kuni, your writing borders on incoherence but your veiled threats are odious. Incoherence can be simply laughed at, but threats will be rejected. Clean up your tone, sir.

  55. Richard C (NZ) on June 2, 2015 at 4:55 pm said:

    >”we know that those trying to claim that “natural sources” are the source for the CO2 responsible for global warming are in fact conspiring to commit mass murder”

    Interesting conspiracy theory Kuni, did you make it up yourself or do you represent a group i.e. who is “we”.

    I would point out that you are directing your tirade against,from my experience in the climate change debate, unidentifiable persons i.e. who are “those” making that claim exactly (quote please)?

    Anyway, I hope you feel better now that you’ve vented some excess spleen.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on June 2, 2015 at 5:25 pm said:

    >That by “Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.” Also, something about “we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.”

    OK, fine Kuni (except for the “considerable warming”). So let’s look at Global Energy Flows (Trenberth et al 2009 Figure 1):

    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200904/trenberth.cfm

    See also Changes in the Flow of Energy through the Earth’s Climate System, Kevin E. Trenberth
    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200904/trenberth.cfm

    Just 3 of the problems with your reasoning.

    1) “surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming”

    The global average “Net absorbed” at the surface is 0.9 W.m-2. Except in the tropics, in excess of 24 W.m-2 of solar energy is absorbed at the surface of the ocean (Fairall et al 1996) and must be transported horizontally towards the poles where it can dissipate i.e. there is a Net released.

    So the sun heats the ocean surface – not CO2. You will also note that net longwave infrared is 83 W.m-2 of surface cooling.

    2) Downwelling longwave infrared radiation (DLR) from the atmosphere in in the order of 6 W.m-2 in the US Standard Atmosphere 1976. But Trenberth et al state 333 W.m-2 “back radiation”. What makes up the residual 327 W.m-2 Kumi?

    3) DLR in the IR-C range of the EM spectrum does not penetrate water anywhere near what solar IR A/B does (effectively 10 microns vs 1m) therefore DLR is not an ocean heating agent. See Hale & Querry (1973):

    http://omlc.org/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif

    In other words, the critical issue is not that DLR is “reaching the ground”, the issue is that LR cools the surface rather than warming it because more OLR is leaving the ground than DLR is reaching it (see Figure 1 above) and that DLR is an ineffective heating agent even for what does reach the ground (see Hale & Querry water spectra above).

  57. Richard C (NZ) on June 2, 2015 at 5:36 pm said:

    Correction:

    “You will also note that net longwave infrared is [63] W.m-2 of surface cooling.”

  58. Richard C (NZ) on June 2, 2015 at 5:46 pm said:

    Kuni does tend to exemplify (or is that epitomize?) the Williamson/Goldberg Liberal Fascism argument upthread, doesn’t he?

    Viz,. “When it comes to global warming there is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is no opinion.”

    And,

    “Not only do we not tolerate those who conspire to murder us wholesale because of their warped ideology, we also eventually confiscate their assets to pay for the damage they are responsible for”

    His rant is quite a quote mine, not often we get all that in one hit.

  59. Richard C (NZ) on June 2, 2015 at 6:06 pm said:

    >”There is only a pause if one pretends to forget the extra heat that the ocean is storing down to the 700 meter level. Just because the ocean now needs to be tested in 3D, instead of just on the surface, does not change the fact that added global heat is still added global heat.”

    OK, there’s a pause then because IPCC has no science (see AR5 Chapter 10) to back up their speculation that “air-sea fluxes” are their “expected” anthro ocean warming mechanism i.e. they’re “pretending”. Besides there’s a solar energy accumulation explanation.

    >”Also, the fact that there is even an alleged pause in surface temperatures during what should be a natural cooling cycle is not a good thing.”

    Heh, we’ve had a natural warming cycle (1970s – 1980s), now we are in the natural cooling cycle (2000s – present). This natural multi-decadal variation (MDV) is what sceptics have been telling AGW proponents that the IPCC have neglected in their anthro attribution to the 1970s – 2000 natural warming phase. This is only the oscillatory component of global temperature though.

    What you’re neglecting Kuni, is that the secular warming trend started way back around 1700, long before any question of anthro cause.

    So the fact that the flatlining temperature this century, at a time of the highest FF emissions in the industrial era, has 2 components, oscillatory (MDV) and secular (see Macias et al 2014) means that the trajectory of the secular trend is paramount.

    Here’s the good news Kuni, there’s a negative inflexion in the secular trend (again, see Macias et al). That disqualifies CO2 as the driver and means that there’s possibly a phase change, warming to cooling, in the offing i.e. “should be a natural cooling cycle” is still to be expected in the secular trend but after say 2020 – not now.

  60. Andy on June 2, 2015 at 6:34 pm said:

    As it happens I have a copy (that I have read) of Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” and I highly recommend it (it is well referenced and not just a “right wing polemic”) with lots of historical observations over the 20th C in the USA mainly

  61. Kuni on June 2, 2015 at 7:29 pm said:

    Okay, I’ll bite.

    1) How is comparing a year that was a very strong el-Nino year, i.e. the peak of the natural warming cycle, to the years that follow it that are la Nina, the colder part of the natural average cycle, years or just average years – global warming ending/taking a hiatus?

    You are trying to compare an oven to a fridge and claiming that it proves that the oven does not ever help warm the kitchen and that the temperature of the oven still cannot be turned up even if it is proven that it could be turned up.

    One can only compare a strong a very strong el-Nino year to the next very strong el-Nino year if one wants to use the first very strong el-Nino year as a benchmark, for said benchmark to have any relevance to global warming.

    2) How does the graph you are using not show an increase in the warming trend when it clearly shows the trend line going up close to around .2 degrees from 1979 to 2014/2015 like the scientists that have science supporting them have stated?

    Why did you pick a trend line that only shows the last 30 years of “net change relative to 30 year mean 1979-2008” instead of one, or more, of the very good, and up to date, graphs that those whose data you claim to be using, also put out?

    3) Why have you not included the data sets that show that the excess heat has been found in the oceans down to the 700 meter level? If you believe there is a hiatus, you should be very confident including all global temperature data sets.

    Pretend that I am not intelligent and stick to the issues I raised.

  62. Kuni on June 2, 2015 at 7:47 pm said:

    Reply to Richard Treadgold’s 4:11pm post:

    I would recommend that you get your hands on a high-resolution FTIR spectrometer and measure the exact wavelengths of the long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

    That way there is no disputing, internally, the data that you get. You will know that you have the proof many of you claim does not exist.

    I wonder if your reaction will be similar to what you have now attempted to do by intentionally pretending that the data, that proves that the misnamed “hiatus in warming” has in fact gone into the ocean warming it down to the 700 meter lever, has magically disappeared.

  63. Andy on June 2, 2015 at 8:05 pm said:

    Interesting conversations. I thought the IPCC and others acknowledged the “pause”. I also thought that we all got the isotopic signature of anthropogenic CO2. Where is the disagreement?

  64. Kuni on June 2, 2015 at 8:16 pm said:

    Reply to Richard Treadgold’s 4:18pm post:

    Where is the missing misnamed “hiatus in warming” heat documented?

    Pu-Leeeeeze I am sure that you have heard the science deniers version of it. It goes along the lines of “NASA: Oceans’ Depths Don’t Explain Why Global Warming Has Stopped”

    Conveniently pretending, as per their MO, to leave out the fact that NASA never said that it was in the deep ocean.

    A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters has found this so-called missing heat: 700 meters below the surface of the ocean.

    It also manifested in 2014, the warmest year on record, also putting the misnamed “hiatus in warming” to bed.

    I would recommend that you get the latest charts/graphs from the sources that the older charts you are using claim to get their data from.

    No year should be colder, or hotter, when discussing global warming, only the direction of the long term trend is relevant.

    One can claim anything if one gets to select the starting and ending points in a discussion. For example if one were to talk to you right after the moment you started doing something and stopped talking to you just before the moment you stopped doing said something; they could make any claim about you they wanted:

    • It could be claimed by disingenuous people that you ignore your family because you were only observed doing something and were not seen with them.
    • It could be claimed by disingenuous people that you are unemployed and must support yourself with crime because of being seen at work, you were only observed doing something that was not job related.

    The list of things that cherry pickers can get away with peddling is long.

  65. Kuni on June 2, 2015 at 8:38 pm said:

    Reply to Richard C (NZ)’s 6:06pm post:

    What the IPCC allegedly has, or does not have to date, is not relevant to the discussion unless of one’s goal is to obfuscate.

    At the end of the day the IPCC is a customer of the data that various countries climate experts contribute to, and whose job it is to re-package the data to meet the sleaziest political requests to debase the data so politicians can avoid being forced to act.

    The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself.

    So WTF does the IPCC have to do with the fact that the alleged and misnamed “hiatus in warming” heat has been found?

    Yes, we are in a cooling cycle. So where is the drop in the trend line from 2000’s-present?

    Like I said: The fact that there is even an alleged pause in surface temperatures during what should be a natural cooling cycle is not a good thing

    Also, if your warming from the 1700 is not global, it is also not relevant; seeing as that the little ice age that ended around that time was regional.

  66. Andy on June 2, 2015 at 8:49 pm said:

    The “alleged” hiatus on warming

    There has been no surface warming of any measurable degree in the time spent on this planet by anyone of school age, yet this is the “biggest crisis facing humanity”

    Have a nice day

  67. Richard Treadgold on June 2, 2015 at 10:26 pm said:

    Kuni, you say:

    I would recommend that you get your hands on a high-resolution FTIR spectrometer and measure the exact wavelengths of the long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

    Why?

    I wonder if your reaction will be similar to what you have now attempted to do by intentionally pretending that the data, that proves that the misnamed “hiatus in warming” has in fact gone into the ocean warming it down to the 700 meter lever, has magically disappeared.

    I’m intentionally pretending data has magically disappeared? Watch it, shorty: personal abuse gets you banned quite quickly. Please quantify the amount of energy that has eluded the Argo floats and “gone into the ocean” and provide a reference. One more chance—adopt some manners or I’ll magically disappear you from this discussion.

    You say:

    Where is the missing misnamed “hiatus in warming” heat documented?

    How can you document missing heat? The temperature has not gone up, so a certain amount of heat was not present, it was missing.

    A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters has found this so-called missing heat

    Tell us which one so we can read it. You say “so-called” missing heat? You may not know it was Kevin Trenberth who said: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” This came to light in the CRU emails. It was natural for others to then refer to “Trenberth’s “missing heat”.

    You know, Kuni, I could even tolerate your long-winded fantastical ramblings were it not for your obnoxious abuse. Make your next response a considered one, because it will otherwise be your last.

  68. Magoo on June 3, 2015 at 1:00 am said:

    Jeez, the lack of any warming for approximately the last 2 decades really does make the environmental activists froth at the mouth. It isn’t the full moon at the moment is it? Delusionus hydrophobias maximus.

  69. Kuni on June 3, 2015 at 5:23 am said:

    Reply to Richard Treadgold’s 12:26 post

    The “why” was addressed in the next paragraph: That way there is no disputing, internally, the data that you get. You will know that you have the proof many of you claim does not exist.

    My comment was not intended as “personal” abuse. It was intended to communicate that the only person who can prove to you, beyond any doubt, the fact that they have found the linkage between the CO2 that we have spewed into the atmosphere and global warming, is you.

    The amount of heat that has “eluded” the Argo floats???

    Don’t you mean the alleged missing misnamed “hiatus/pause” heat discovered by the Argo floats? I am sorry but you lost me with that one.

    Here is a link to the “Surface warming hiatus caused by increased heat uptake across multiple ocean basins” study at the NERC Open Research Archive: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/508810/

    The “Where is the missing misnamed “hiatus in warming” heat documented?” comment was in response to your “Please provide a source for this assertion.” & “If AGW is overwhelming the entire earth’s temperature cycles, why isn’t it warming?” comments.

    The “misnamed” clarifier addresses the “How can you document missing heat?” and related questions/statements along that line.

    As for the fact that there is no pause/hiatus, Scientists have declared 2014 officially the hottest year on record. If NASA and NOAA are not good enough for you, what exactly is? Would a statement from the Japan Meteorological Association do it? How about the Hadley Center in the U.K?

    Those are the four major global temperature keepers. Who is left?

    Regarding the “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” comment. Just because they did not know back then changes nothing.

    Just because someone does not have an immediate answer does not indicate that the answer does not exist or that said answer will never be found.

    One could apply similar rules to those claiming that the hiatus/pause existed by asking them to provide the ocean temperatures down to the 700m level that they must have had before they claimed that there is in fact a hiatus/pause. How exactly did they know there was a pause/hiatus without knowing all the data?

  70. Kuni on June 3, 2015 at 5:33 am said:

    Reply to Andy’s 8:49 post

    There is a big, big difference between “there has been no surface warming” and trying to claim/imply that there is a pause/hiatus in global warming.

    The claim that there is a pause/hiatus in global warming is akin to claiming that someone did not have a heart attack because there has been no change on the surface of their skin.

    But even the claim that there has been no surface warming is also wrong: The latest 12-month period (May 2014–April 2015) ties with the record set last month (April 2014–March 2015) as the warmest 12-month period among all months in the 136-year period of record. . .

    . . . Similar to the pattern seen over the past several months, it was sea surface temperatures driving the global warmth. . .

    Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201504

  71. Kuni on June 3, 2015 at 6:02 am said:

    Reply to Richard C (NZ)’s May 30, 9:49 post.

    Funny thing there about that chart you posted a link to. From a post I recently made at the same site that you linked to:

    So much for the BS that the chart is the average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models.

    A call to Easterbrook inquiring as to where he got the chart resulted in a “I can’t find it anymore. It must have been removed.”

    After some searching, the chart that is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models” is in fact the output of a SINGLE model, the HadCM3 temperature simulation which depicts individual model global temperature change simulations to greenhouse gas changes only, rather than simulations responding to changes in the total global radiative forcing. It represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of aerosols.

    So when will the CATO Institute, and everyone else who got conned into repeating this BS, be saying that they were wrong?

  72. Andy on June 3, 2015 at 7:16 am said:

    So the claim that I didn’t make (namely that global warming has “stopped”) is wrong. Also, the trend over the last 18 years is no longer zero (give or take) because we can take a single year without any numbers, claim that it is “warmest Eva” or similar, and say this with a completely straight face, yet at the same time dismiss people for “cherry picking” things that don’t fit the narrative.

  73. Kuni on June 3, 2015 at 10:08 am said:

    Reply to Andy’s 7:16am post

    Actually the claim that you made vis-à-vis there being no recent surface warming, when you posted that “There has been no surface warming of any measurable degree in the time spent on this planet by anyone of school age” is what was wrong.

    So what part of the following did you miss?

    But even the claim that there has been no surface warming is also wrong: The latest 12-month period (May 2014–April 2015) ties with the record set last month (April 2014–March 2015) as the warmest 12-month period among all months in the 136-year period of record. . .

    . . . Similar to the pattern seen over the past several months, it was sea surface temperatures driving the global warmth. . .

  74. Kuni on June 3, 2015 at 10:18 am said:

    Richard Treadgold

    After reading what I was going to originally open this post with, I realized how you might misconstrue it for a personal attack so I changed it.

    I am not in any way questioning your integrity/intelligence, but the chart at the top of this page is wrong. The person/people you got the chart from have lied to you and have given you bogus data. (If your personally know them, taking the boots to them would be the appropriate response.)

    If you not know them, then I would recommend avoiding anything from them in the future like it were the dose.

    I will assume that you posted it in good faith because you are not the first person to have been given bogus climate charts/graphs by the elites behind the anti-science jihad.

    The CATO Institute, an allegedly reputable think tank, is peddling a graph that they are claiming is “the average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models.” Going all the way back to 1974 http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong while forgetting (more likely thinking that none of the Sheeple that take the CATO Institute seriously would bother to confirm its validity) that in the original graph it clearly states “1979-83, 5-year running mean.”

    Note: I initially thought that they were using the output of the HadCM3 temperature simulation, but I was wrong. They grabbed the chart from a PDF that was put out back in 2006. (I do know that others have edited the chart since the CATO Institute started peddling it because the latest version of the chart making the rounds on the web has the wrong labeling format for the satellite observations)

    This is not the first time I have seen science deniers use a very old graph, change a few things, then spread it all over the web loudly proclaiming that they have exposed another new fraud that proves that science is a myth.

    The funny thing is that for the period that the models were run for, there is very little deviation from the observed data.

    I also look forward to original author’s response regarding his own creative editing vis-à-vis the chart because each newer version of his chart differs a little bit from the previous version.

    But I digress, here is the rest of the post. It was written before I realized just how badly you were lied to, but have decided to leave it in question format so I can easily C&P it later to post at whatever cesspool it originated at if I ever have the misfortune of falling into that pit while following links.

    About that “The five major temperature records to April 2015” chart.

    • Why is the chart data at the top of this page labeled as being the “Net change relative to 30 year mean 1979-2008” when it is supposed to be covering the data up to April 2015?

    • How is it that the UAH MSU data for 1998 on the chart at the top of this page shows that the temperature anomaly peak is at 0.8 degrees when the original chart at the UAH MSU website shows that it not even as high as 0.7 degrees? http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2015/april2015/042015_tlt_update_bar.png
    I cannot compare the RSS MSU data on the top of this page with the original data at the RSS website because the chart does not document which channel it pulled the data from: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

    • How is it that the GISS data on the chart at the top of this page shows that the highest temperature anomaly was around 2002 but the original chart at the GISS website shows that there are at least 3 years that have a higher temperature anomaly since 2002? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif (Graphs source page: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/)

    • How is it that the GISS data on the chart at the top of this page shows that the temperature anomaly for 2014 is below 0.5 degrees when the original chart at the GISS website shows that the temperature anomaly for 2014 is almost 0.7 degrees? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

    • How is it that the GISS data on the chart at the top of this page shows that the temperature anomaly for the other two years after 2002 as being below 0.5 degrees when the original chart at the GISS website shows that the temperature anomaly for those two years is higher than 0.6 degrees? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

    • How is it that the NCDC data on the chart at the top of this page shows that the temperature anomaly for 2014 is below 0.5 degrees when the original chart/data at the NCDC website shows that the temperature anomaly for 2014 is 0.77 degrees? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

    • How is it that the NCDC data on the chart at the top of this page appears to show the 2011-2012 NCDC temperature anomaly as being around 0.4 degrees, when the original chart/data at the NCDC website shows that the temperature anomaly for 2011-2012 is 0.61-0.69 degrees? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

    • How is it that the HADcrut4 data on the chart at the top of this page shows that the temperature anomaly at the start of 2015 as being below 0.5 degrees when the original data at the HADcrut4 website shows that the temperature anomaly for the beginning of 2015 at almost 0.7 degrees? http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

    • How is it that the HADcrut4 data on the chart at the top of this page shows that the temperature anomaly for 2014 as being around 0.4 degrees when the original data HADcrut4 at the UK MET Office’s website shows that the median temperature anomaly for 2014 is 0.564 degrees? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.3.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt (You will need this to know what each column represents: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/series_format.html)

    • How is it that the HADcrut4 data on the chart at the top of this page shows that the temperature anomaly for 2013 as being around 0.3 degrees when the original data HADcrut4 at the UK MET Office’s website shows that the median temperature anomaly for 2013 is 0.492 degrees? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.3.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt (You will need this to know what each column represents: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/series_format.html)

    And yes I checked to make sure that I was doing a Celsius-to-Celsius comparison.

  75. Andy on June 3, 2015 at 10:20 am said:

    I’m sorry I didn’t realise a single outlier could invalidate a trend over 18 years. I missed that bit.
    I also missed the bit where you gave us some actual numbers instead of “warmest since blah”.

    As we know, if you are on a high plateau, it is statistically quite likely that there will be several points along that plateau that are the “highest ever”

    As for oceans driving temperatures, we can accept this. What of course we dispute is that CO2 is heating the oceans 700m below sea level without heating the atmosphere, and that at some stage in the future this heat will re-emerge from the depths and cause surface warming.

  76. Kuni on June 3, 2015 at 10:27 am said:

    You seem to have no problem using the single outliner, the last strong el-Nino year in 1998, to claim that there has been no increase in surface warming since “the time spent on this planet by anyone of school age.”

    2014 isn’t an outliner, it is the continuation of the trend.

    And while we can dispute all kinds of things, the fact remains that global temperatures continue to trend upwards and the ice caps continue to melt.

  77. Andy on June 3, 2015 at 10:30 am said:

    “You seem to have no problem using the single outliner, the last strong el-Nino year in 1998, ”

    I never mentioned 1998

    Kuni seems to be having an argument with himself

  78. Richard Treadgold on June 3, 2015 at 10:45 am said:

    Kuni, what’s an outliner? A cruise ship leaving port?

    “2014 isn’t an outliner, it is the continuation of the trend.”

    I don’t agree a record can be set by an amount less than the error margin, nor does it establish a trend, because it could be rising or falling.

    The extent of a flat or nearly-flat temperature trend in these datasets is found by working backwards from the latest data point, not by starting at 1998 and working forward.

    For the last time, kindly cite a reference for your assertions that the global mean surface temperature “continues to trend upwards” and the ice caps “continue to melt.”

  79. Kuni on June 3, 2015 at 10:49 am said:

    Where did I say that you mentioned 1998?

    I would love to see that sentence.

    [Kuni, you said to Andy: ‘You seem to have no problem using the single outliner, the last strong el-Nino year in 1998, to claim that there has been no increase in surface warming since “the time spent on this planet by anyone of school age.”’ It was not Andy who said the lack of warming began in 1998; it was you. This has gone on long enough. You seem to be deeply disturbed in ways we cannot change. You are now on permanent moderation and only sensible comments will be published. – RT]

  80. Richard Treadgold on June 3, 2015 at 11:01 am said:

    Kuni, your comment at 10:18 am causes indigestion. I may never have time to address all the points it makes—let us hope others try, too. Please research the use of a reference period when charting anomalies:

    Why is the chart data at the top of this page labeled as being the “Net change relative to 30 year mean 1979-2008” when it is supposed to be covering the data up to April 2015?

    Failing to understand that basis of comparison, you appear quite silly.

  81. Kuni on June 3, 2015 at 11:19 am said:

    A cruise ship leaving port: That must explain why the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data sets shows a 0.08°C warming from 2000 through 2011.

  82. Richard Treadgold on June 3, 2015 at 11:22 am said:

    Heh. The equivalent of 0.8°C per century. Way below the margin of error of at least 2°C. Not statistically significant, then—not to mention much less than the models predicted.

  83. Andy on June 3, 2015 at 12:44 pm said:

    I guess if the pause doesn’t exist, then Skeptical Science can remove their page explaining why the pause exists, and we can stop scientific research on the pause, as research into something that doesn’t exist seems pretty futile, as is discussing anything with a representative of the Church of Settled Science

  84. Andy on June 3, 2015 at 12:55 pm said:

    Anyway, back to Dr Morgan’s blog, it seems that the methane message from him isn’t getting home, since many of his commenters on the blog and Facebook page seem to think he is wrong and keep repeating the 25x GWP figure, also omitting the fact that cows don’t increase the GHG stock.

    One commenter even thinks that cows breathing out CO2 is a problem.

    It does seem that a certain part of NZ has been completely indoctrinated with the methane message

  85. Richard Treadgold on June 3, 2015 at 1:06 pm said:

    “I guess if the pause doesn’t exist, then …”
    🙂

  86. Andy on June 3, 2015 at 1:13 pm said:

    Off topic, but these before and after shots of wind farm development in Germany are rather shocking

    http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/

  87. Richard C (NZ) on June 3, 2015 at 2:24 pm said:

    Kuni >”1) How is comparing a year that was a very strong el-Nino year, i.e. the peak of the natural warming cycle, to the years that follow it that are la Nina, the colder part of the natural average cycle, years or just average years – global warming ending/taking a hiatus?”

    Well you’ve got this all wrong. Nobody has stated “a year that was a very strong el-Nino year” was peak of cycle (and read the Macias et al reference). Also the years that floolow are BOTH La Nina AND El Nino.

    The oscillatory cycle (MDV) has an approximate 60+ yr period. The warming phase was late 1970s – early 2000s. The cooling phase is early 2000s – whenever the phase changes. this corresponds to the current hiatus. Simple.

    >”2) How does the graph you are using not show an increase in the warming trend when it clearly shows the trend line going up close to around .2 degrees from 1979 to 2014/2015 like the scientists that have science supporting them have stated?”

    Got this all wrong too Kuni. 0.2 degrees over 2.5 decades is only 0.08 C/decade.

    CO2-forced “science” requires rather more than that. The models have a 0.3 C/decade trend out to 2050. The IPCC scientists threw their models under a bus in AR5 and stated their “expert opinion” was a trend of 0.2 C/decade. Neither of these is happening obviously.

    >”Why did you pick a trend line that only shows the last 30 years of “net change relative to 30 year mean 1979-2008” instead of one, or more, of the very good, and up to date, graphs that those whose data you claim to be using, also put out?”

    There is no trend line picked Kuni. Besides 30 Years is the conventional timeframe for climate, and the satellite series only start 1979. And I think you will have difficulty finding other metrics than UAH, RSS, GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4. The only other is BEST.

    >”3) Why have you not included the data sets that show that the excess heat has been found in the oceans down to the 700 meter level? If you believe there is a hiatus, you should be very confident including all global temperature data sets.”

    The IPCC has no case whatsoever (none that you can cite/quote) that “the excess heat has been found in the oceans down to the 700 meter level”. And no-one (no climate scientist) is claiming this anyway. The speculative literature is in regard to the deep ocean (deeper than 700m).

    The temperature hiatus refers, according to the IPCC, to global atmospheric temperature. A transfer of heat from atmosphere from atmosphere to ocean is highly speculative (the IPCC speculates on “air-sea fluxes” but no science) and there is no known mechanism of transfer (no physics, np observations).

  88. Andy on June 3, 2015 at 2:24 pm said:

    Back on the methane topic, I have a question that may have been answered when Jim McK and co were working on this issue.

    If the herd size is constant (for sake of argument) and therefore the methane level in the atmosphere is constant ( I will assume that this is correct, for sake of argument anyway), then what relevance do the values for GWP for methane have for different time scales?

  89. Richard C (NZ) on June 3, 2015 at 2:38 pm said:

    >”I would recommend that you get your hands on a high-resolution FTIR spectrometer and measure the exact wavelengths of the long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.That way there is no disputing, internally, the data that you get. You will know that you have the proof many of you claim does not exist.”

    You appear to be having difficulty reading and comprehending the response I provided for you Kuni.

    There was no dispute that “long-wave (infrared) radiation [is] reaching the ground” (DLR). Everyone knows this and it is portrayed in the graphic from Trenberth el al (Earth’s Energy Flows) as 333 W.m-2.

    And outgoing longwave radiation is leaving the ground (OLR). More OLR is leaving (396) than is reaching (333). Therefore long-wave (infrared) radiation has a cooling effect on the surface.

    >”…he data, that proves that the misnamed “hiatus in warming” has in fact gone into the ocean warming it down to the 700 meter lever…….”

    What data, what “proof”? There isn’t any of either. You cannot produce it Kuni.

    What you are referring to Kuni is the problem of the “missing heat”. Climate science has not identified such an air to sea transfer that you are claiming. You cannot claim it has. You cannot quote the relevant IPCC Chapter and section because there isn’t one.

  90. Richard C (NZ) on June 3, 2015 at 2:43 pm said:

    >”A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters has found this so-called missing heat: 700 meters below the surface of the ocean.”

    It would be good if you actually referenced this paper Kuni (if at actually exists). I don’t think it exists because if it did it would be huge news splashed all over the media, both climate science reports and MSM.

    From what I can see – nada.

    In other words, I’m calling your bluff Kuni.

    >”It also manifested in 2014, the warmest year on record, also putting the misnamed “hiatus in warming” to bed.”

    Didn’t “manifest” in the satellite data or HadCRUT4 (no “warmest year” records there), by a couple hundreths of a degree).

    The hiatus is still very much in place Kuni,

  91. Richard C (NZ) on June 3, 2015 at 3:04 pm said:

    >”What the IPCC allegedly has, or does not have to date, is not relevant to the discussion unless of one’s goal is to obfuscate.”

    What a load of rubbish Kuni. The IPCC reports are an assessment of your cherished “science” – are you denying it?

    >”So WTF does the IPCC have to do with the fact that the alleged and misnamed “hiatus in warming” heat has been found?”

    You had better inform the IPCC post haste that it has been found Kuni. I’m sure they would be most grateful for your communication of this revelation to them, seeing as they were completely in the dark regarding the “missing heat”.

    >”Yes, we are in a cooling cycle. So where is the drop in the trend line from 2000’s-present?”

    Already detailed this for you upthread Kuni. Reading and comprehending is not your strong suit is it?

    The cooling phase is in the oscillatory component of temperature (MDV), NOT the secular trend (ST). MDV is a quasi 60 year cycle, the ST fluctuates warm-cool-warm-cool over centuries. The ST peak has not been reached yet, wait until the 2020s for that.

    >”Also, if your warming from the 1700 is not global, it is also not relevant; seeing as that the little ice age that ended around that time was regional.”

    Heh, “warming from the 1700 is not global”

    It was as global as the current warming Kuni. I’ve already posted this upthread, take a look:

    Trends over regions in the new UAH Version 6.0 data:

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/typo3temp/pics/d28b843ac4.jpg

    NE USA up to NW Canada and Alaska (a little above trendless) completely different to SW USA (warming).

    China and Japan only a little above trendless (very little warming).

    Radical warming Australia, Eastern Europe, NE Canada, Africa, Sth America. Arctic.

    Vast areas of ocean trendless (no warming).

    Some cooling across Antarctica.

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/new-analysis-brings-uah-temperatures-closer-to-rss.html

    So we can say “”warming from the [1979] is not global”. Neither is it consistent with CO2 forcing by well-mixed gasses.

  92. Richard C (NZ) on June 3, 2015 at 3:13 pm said:

    >”After some searching, the chart that is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models” is in fact the output of a SINGLE model”

    Tosh. It would have been a good idea to contact Pat Michaels at CATO in the first instance for confirmation Kuni. Instead you just lie about it. Truth doesn’t appear to be one of your strong suits either.

    These models vs observations graphs are ubiquitous now Kuni – there’s no escaping them. Just do a search of Google Images with “models vs observations”. you don’t even need “climate”. The projection-reality divergence is the biggest problem facing climate science and the IPCC, their credibility is being shot to pieces with every passing month of new data.

  93. Richard C (NZ) on June 3, 2015 at 3:35 pm said:

    >”How is it that the HADcrut4 data on the chart at the top of this page shows that the temperature anomaly for 2013 as being around 0.3 degrees when the original data HADcrut4 at the UK MET Office’s website shows that the median temperature anomaly for 2013 is 0.492 degrees?”

    Similar for UAH, GISS, NCDC.

    The anomaly data has to be converted to a common baseline in order to plot them all on the same graph Kuni. The different series have different baselines for the anomalies.

    I take it that you’re a newby to all of this?

    If you want up-to-date data go to woodfortrees: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

    Here’s what happens when you plot (as in the post) UAH, RSS, GISS, and HadCRUT4 without converting to a common baseline:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/uah/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979

    Obviously different to the graph in the post with a common baseline.

  94. Alexander K on June 3, 2015 at 3:40 pm said:

    The intemperate communications from ‘Kuni’ are an object lesson of the old saw ‘Never wrestle with a pig – you get covered with all sorts of distasteful stuff and the pig loves it!’
    Kuni has serious problems with keeping all of his arguments straight.

  95. Richard C (NZ) on June 3, 2015 at 3:41 pm said:

    >”Tosh. It would have been a good idea to contact Pat Michaels at CATO in the first instance for confirmation Kuni. Instead you just lie about it. Truth doesn’t appear to be one of your strong suits either.”

    You could could have just carefully read the article:

    “The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15?”

    The graph is by John Christy UAH.

    >”Going all the way back to 1974 ………..the original graph it clearly states “1979-83, 5-year running mean.”

    No Kuni, the article states:

    “The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979”

    Nothing about 1974.

    Again, reading and comprehension is not your strong suit is it?

  96. Richard C (NZ) on June 3, 2015 at 3:49 pm said:

    >”…..the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data sets shows a 0.08°C warming from 2000 through 2011″

    Whoop-de-doo.

    The IPCC’s CO2-forced models exhibit 0.3 C/decade out to 2050, 3.75 times more.

    The IPCC’s “expert opinion” is for 0.2 C/decade out to 2050, 2.5 times more.

    Obviously, if there is actually any CO2 forcing of climate, it has been overwhelmed by natural variation over this century i.e. CO2 is not the primary climate driver.

  97. HemiMcK on June 3, 2015 at 4:02 pm said:

    Andy, I think that you may be on the money about Paris, which would be very exciting.

    “I think “they” are trying to come up with some plausible numbers and policies to put on the table at Paris
    I rather suspect Dave Frame has something to do with this methane issue”

    I supplied the methane calculations that we discussed at length a couple of years ago on this blog to Dr Frame and others but really got no response. Hopefully it eventually got to the right hands.

    Incidentally Gareth the “negotiated” part is not quite how it came about. The basic calculation as per the graph on your video comes out at 7. Then the creatives, all trying to outdo each other, got to work and each applied another multiple for a range of spurious reasons (all documented in IPCC material) which I don’t have the energy to go over again.

    The fact that the number has been set in stone for 15 years will however require a serious negotiation to change. Brazil tried and failed, hopefully this team will do better.

  98. Andy on June 3, 2015 at 4:15 pm said:

    HemiMcK, sorry I didn’t make the connection that you are Jim

  99. Richard C (NZ) on June 3, 2015 at 4:27 pm said:

    >”Obviously, if there is actually any CO2 forcing of climate, it has been overwhelmed by natural variation over this century i.e. CO2 is not the primary climate driver.”

    Another way of putting this is that the anthropogenic “fingerprint” has not been identified outside natural variation.

    So why is Tim Groser (NZ negotiator) going to Paris?

  100. Richard C (NZ) on June 3, 2015 at 4:43 pm said:

    >”After some searching, the chart that is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models” is in fact the output of a SINGLE model, the HadCM3 temperature simulation which depicts individual model global temperature change simulations to greenhouse gas changes only, rather than simulations responding to changes in the total global radiative forcing. It represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of aerosols.”

    Kuni, I think it is reasonable that you provide proof of this (i.e. documentation of this heinous crime)?

    [Comment deleted by moderator. This is a bit rough, RC. To be scrupulously fair, the reasoning is faulty; lack of proof does not demonstrate he’s lying. – RT]

    Either that or this is just one of the many conspiracy theories that seem to abound in your mind.

  101. HemiMck on June 3, 2015 at 5:37 pm said:

    Hi Andy

    “If the herd size is constant (for sake of argument) and therefore the methane level in the atmosphere is constant ( I will assume that this is correct, for sake of argument anyway), then what relevance do the values for GWP for methane have for different time scales?”

    In a global steady state situation the number is 7 over any time frame. The rate of change of methane concentrations on a global scale is very small, certainly not large enough to move away from the steady state assumption.

    I know that doesn’t directly answer your question.

  102. Kuni on June 4, 2015 at 5:38 am said:

    Reply to Richard C (NZ)’s 3:35 post.

    That’s nice, BUT, the baseline has nothing to do with what the actual temperature anomaly is per year.

    If the HADcrut4 data says that the 2013 number is 0.492 degrees then the graph needs to show the HADcrut4 2013 number is 0.492 degrees.

    Anyone can claim anything it they are allowed to make their own numbers up for each year while trying to claim that the made up numbers are the real numbers.

  103. Kuni on June 4, 2015 at 5:41 am said:

    Reply to Richard Treadgold’s 11:52 post:

    Umm, 0.08 x 100, i.e. a century, is 8.0 not 0.8.

  104. Richard Treadgold on June 4, 2015 at 9:32 am said:

    Kuni, you said:

    the average of the … global surface temperature data sets shows a 0.08°C warming from 2000 through 2011.

    So 0.08 × 10, i.e., a century, is 0.8.

  105. Richard Treadgold on June 4, 2015 at 9:39 am said:

    Kuni, you say:

    Anyone can claim anything it [sic] they are allowed to make their own numbers up for each year while trying to claim that the made up numbers are the real numbers.

    That’s enough. It’s not your ignorance, it’s your lack of courtesy. We will not trouble ourselves with your shameless abuse any longer.

  106. Andy on June 4, 2015 at 10:12 am said:

    In a global steady state situation the number is 7 over any time frame.

    HemiMcK, thanks that does answer my question. If the radiative power of methane is 7 times that of CO2 and the situation is steady-state, then that is the value we should use.

    We also need to take into account the recycling of methane. So if agriculture were to be included in any ETS, then deltas in herd size would be the metric to use, along with this GWP figure.

    It would be unfair to charge farmers every year for the stock numbers. It is not the same problem as increasing the CO2 stock via fossil fuel combustion.

  107. Andy on June 4, 2015 at 10:21 am said:

    So 0.08 × 10, i.e., a century, is 0.8.

    One could argue that 0.8 degrees per century is roughly the amount of warming we have experienced over the last century, therefore “the pause” doesn’t exist. QED.

    I also have a proof that 1 = 0 by the way

    Out of interest, I used the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator to find some randomly chosen rates over various periods in the GISS series (error margins not included for brevity)
    (Rates are degrees C per decade)

    2000 – 2011 0.112
    2001 – 2011 0.047
    2001 – 2012 0.016
    2000 – 2012 0.075

    so the numbers are very sensitive to the endpoints, yet all values are less than the error bounds.

  108. Richard Treadgold on June 4, 2015 at 11:17 am said:

    “One could argue that 0.8 degrees per century is roughly …”

    Near enough, Andy, considering the margin of error in simply reading a thermometer is reckoned by several climate scientists around here to be probably 2°C. Modern automatic weather stations are fine, but irrelevant for older data.

    I don’t quite follow the significance of the varying warming rates from the GISS series. Or are you saying that because they’re all less than the margin of error, none are significant, and there’s been no warming? Though surely you hesitate to draw that conclusion from only four data points. Help.

  109. Andy on June 4, 2015 at 12:18 pm said:

    I’m just wondering why Kuni picked the date ranges he did. Was it a random chance that his data was the highest rate out of the 4 random ones I chose?

  110. Richard Treadgold on June 4, 2015 at 1:01 pm said:

    Oh, I see.

    I don’t see much difference between them; one is higher, one is within 0.005. Anyway, he’s gone now.

    I meant to ask (O/T): How do you make 1 = 0?

  111. Andy on June 4, 2015 at 1:11 pm said:

    1 = 0 . I have a “proof” I got from a good book called “Zero” by Charles Seife, on the history of the number zero.

    The “proof” has a fundamental flaw in that there is a hidden divide by zero in it.

  112. Richard Treadgold on June 4, 2015 at 1:19 pm said:

    Ah, a trick, eh? I’m not surprised, all mathematicians are sneaky.

  113. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2015 at 1:43 pm said:

    >”That’s nice, BUT, the baseline has nothing to do with what the actual temperature anomaly is per year”

    Actually it does Kuni. That is what an “anomaly” is in regard to climate – a temperature difference per year from a baseline. NCAR confirms this:

    What is a climate anomaly?

    A climate anomaly is the difference of a future climate compared to the present climate. We have provided four time period anomalies; Near Term (2020-2039), Mid-Term (2040-2059), End of Century (2080-2099), Last Decade (2090-2099) for our anomalies. The present day climate is computed from the 20th Century Experiment (1980-1999). We use a twenty-year average to compute our anomalies in order to filter out noise from the model and better see the climate signal.

    https://gisclimatechange.ucar.edu/question/57

    No baseline, no anomaly. Period.

  114. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2015 at 2:01 pm said:

    Kuni, I suspect you’re confusing “anomaly” with “absolute”.

    Absolute is the actual temperature in degrees Celsius or Kelvin, the baseline for both is zero (0). Except the Celsius baseline of 0 is actually 273.15 K therefore, strictly, Celsius is a temperature anomaly in terms of 273.15 K.

    Only Kelvin is measured as the “absolute” difference from no temperature at all (0 K).

  115. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2015 at 2:26 pm said:

    >”Or are you saying that because they’re all less than the margin of error, none are significant, and there’s been no warming? Though surely you hesitate to draw that conclusion from only four data points. Help.”

    Each of Andy’s 4 data ranges and the statistical linear regression calculation for each range has a different margin of error specific only to each respective range RT.

    The “no statistically significant warming” issue is in terms of a margin of error that contains zero, therefore the trend could be zero (no warming), or any other value within the margin positive or negative i.e. also possibly a little cooling or some warming.

    So to find “statistically significant” warming the length of the data range has to be extended back in time from the present until zero is eliminated from the margin of error i.e. all trend possibilities are positive, a zero no warming trend is not a possibility.

    This was Ross McKitrick’s statistical exercise (the paper that warmies hate with a vengeance):

    A STATISTICALLY-ROBUST DEFINITION OF THE LENGTH OF THE GLOBAL WARMING PAUSE
    I have published a paper proposing a definition of the length of the pause that is robust to autocorrelation and cherry-picking endpoints.

    McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
    http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

  116. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2015 at 2:45 pm said:

    >”If the HADcrut4 data says that the 2013 number is 0.492 degrees then the graph needs to show the HADcrut4 2013 number is 0.492 degrees.”

    No it doesn’t Kuni. You have to understand the meaning of “in terms of”.

    The 0.492 anomaly is “in terms of” HadCRUT’s climatological anomaly baseline (see below).

    The graph in the post is NOT “in terms of” HadCRUT’s climatological anomaly baseline. Each series in the graph is “in terms of” a common climatological baseline in order to compere apples-to-apples, the common baseline not necessarily corresponding to the baseline of the provider (HadCRUT in this case).

    The HadCRUT4 anomaly baseline is 1961 – 1990. See the CRU information on the series:

    Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90?

    Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries measure average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data (see more discussion on this and other points in Jones et al., 2012). Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year (more discussion in Kennedy et al., 2011).

    It is possible to develop an absolute temperature series for any area selected, using the absolute file, and then add this to a regional average in anomalies calculated from the gridded data. If for example a regional average is required, users should calculate a time series in anomalies, then average the absolute file for the same region then add the average derived to each of the values in the time series. Do NOT add the absolute values to every grid box in each monthly field and then calculate large-scale averages.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#faq2

    CRU actually instructs how to create a different anomaly series from their absolute and anomaly data. This is what has been done for the graph in the post.

  117. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2015 at 2:58 pm said:

    [Kuni] >”Umm, 0.08 x 100, i.e. a century, is 8.0 not 0.8.”

    You provided the rate for a decade Kuni i.e. 0.08 “per decade”.

    There’s 10 decades in a century. This is why Richard T multiplied, correctly, 0.08 x 10.

    By multiplying by 100 you’ve got the rise for 10 centuries Kuni (8.0 C), that’s 1000 years (3000, not 2100).

  118. Richard C (NZ) on June 4, 2015 at 4:54 pm said:

    Comments are now closed at Gareth’s World:

    https://garethsworld.com/blog/environment/why-are-we-still-dragging-our-feet-on-climate-change/

    Turns out to be a very useful template for future reference (in my case anyway). I just hope Gareth has a better handle on the issues now (unless he’s completely blinkered of course – that’s a possibility).

    Kuni (Kuni Lemi) has spammed the thread with the same cut-n-paste tripe he’s copied into this thread. The last comment posted was Kuni’s:

    “Science has spoken. When it comes to global warming there is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is no opinion. There are those who want to commit mass murder on a global scale with global warming, and those who do not want to commit mass murder on a global scale.”

    I’m wondering whether Gareth was a bit uncomfortable having Kuni on HIS side and shut up shop.

  119. Andy on June 4, 2015 at 5:17 pm said:

    I had a quick look and Kuni has this to say on GM’s blog

    The difference between Conservatives and al-Qaeda/ISIS members: al-Qaeda/ISIS members are a better class of hominid because at least they don’t lie about wanting to murder us

    So Kuni thinks that “conservatives” are worse than people who commit rape, behead people for their faith, throw gays off tall buildings, stone women to death, burn people alive in cages, etc

    Glad we don’t have to deal with that any more.

  120. Andy on June 4, 2015 at 7:57 pm said:

    Is it just me or are the climate change activists getting more hysterical in the various comment threads?

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation