I’ll see your 97 percent, and raise you 3 percent

May 21st, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The meme that 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is, well, apparently whatever you want them to believe, is getting really annoying. John Kerry is so clueless about this issue it’s downright embarrassing. Does he really think we can do something that will measurably affect global temperatures without killing millions of poor people in the process? Really?

Or maybe that’s the ultimate goal?

As a published climate scientist myself, I would wager that 97% of climate scientists can’t agree on anything.

Except maybe it’s warmer now than 100 years ago (so what? I’ll agree to that).

Or, that humans are at least partly responsible for some of that warming (so what? I’ll agree to that, too).

But I think a more significant statistic — one that doesn’t rely on opinions, but on facts — is that 100% of climate scientists don’t know how much of the warming in the last 50-100 years is natural versus human-caused.

They dance around this issue with weasel words and qualitative language. Because they don’t know. They can say “most” warming is human caused…but how do they know that? They don’t.

You see, we have no idea how much natural climate variations figure into the climate change equation.

For example, this proxy reconstruction of past temperatures suggests climate change is the rule, not the exception:

Ljungqvist-2000-yrs-temp-reconstruction

And this is the stumbling block that will be in everyone’s way until we understand and quantify the causes of natural climate change.

A majority of climate scientists (60%, 80%, or even 97%) might “believe” this or that, but until they figure out just how much of climate change is naturally-induced, we will never know how much is due to humans. All that statistic measures is how inbred the climate research community has become.

And since there is no fingerprint of human- versus natural-caused warming, we might never know the answer to this central question. We might have to just sit back and watch where global temperature go from now on.

And if the climate models are ever going to be proved correct, dramatic warming is going to have to get started pretty darn soon.


158 Responses to “I’ll see your 97 percent, and raise you 3 percent”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Mary Brown says:

    Only 13% of the CO2 emissions in human history occurred before 1945. The warming before 1945, in particular the sharp warming between 1908-1941, was almost certainly natural. If the 1908-1941 period was CO2 induced, then certainly recent warming would have been much stronger. The reality is that the warming from 1978-2005 was very similar in magnitude and duration to the 1908-1941 period.

    Natural? Manmade? As Roy says, it’s impossible to know. But no CO2 model can explain both the 1908-1941 warming with the recent warming period. Very different forcings with very similar results, not to mention the complete lack of warming 1941-1978 despite high CO2 release. There is a lot more going on that we simply can’t explain with current models.

    • GuarionexSandoval says:

      The increase in CO2 following an increase in temperature comes some 600-800 years after the warming. If there has been a big increase in CO2 over the past 100 years then you have to go back some 800-1000 years to find the warming. That would be the Medieval Warm Period. If you want to see any affects current warming has on atmospheric CO2, you’ll have to wait until late in the millennium.

      Furthermore, the current levels of atmospheric CO2 are the lowest since the end of the Permian Period about 300 million years ago. They shot up to about 2000 ppm then slowly decreased until about 170 million years ago when they shot up to over 2700 ppm, after which they’ve been steadily decreasing, with occasional small bumps, to the present low concentration.

      Whatever the reasons for atmospheric CO2 fluctuations, including the huge rapid spikes (not the tiny little bit over the last 150 years) and long decreases, the least significant one is human activity.

    • Chad Wozniak says:

      One need only look at the historical and geological records to see that there is NO correlation between CO2 levels in the air, and temps. On a micro scale, the latest peak of temps in 1996 was much lower than the peak of the last 100 years in the 1930s, and since 2002 there has been cooling of about 0.5 degree. This overall net cooling over an 80-year period occurred despite a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2. On a macro scale, each of the four prior warming periods – the MWP, the Roman Climate Optimum, the Hittite-Minoan Warm Period, and Egypt in the 3rd millennium BC, was warmer than the one following it. Plus, there have been ice ages when there was far more CO2 in the air than today.

      The historical record, in which these climate changes are very solidly documented, is alone enough to disprove the AGW theory, let alone the hard science that shows that (1) CO2 in toto is one of the tiniest factors affecting climate, compared to the Sun, ocean currents and water vapor; and that (2) man’s share of CO2 activity is a tiny portion of the whole, utterly dwarfed by animal respiration, volcanic activity and outgassing from the oceans and soil. Man’s role in climate is an infinitesimal of an infinitesimal, one over infinity squared.

    • Transport By Zeppelin says:

      Mary Brown,

      The thermometer record shows the following
      three warming periods.

      1860-1880 21 years 0.163 C
      1910-1940 31 years 0.15 C
      1975-1998 24 years 0.166 C

      So Mary, prior to the warming period you pointed out (1908 – 1941), there was also a warming period from 1860 – 1880 that was similar in length & temp increase to the two that followed it.

      The proxy reconstruction Dr Spencer provides shows clearly a significant other warming period prior to the 1860 – 1880 warning period.

      So at least three significant warming periods occurred prior to the 1975 – 1998 warming period, strengthening the argument that the most recent warming is, at least, mostly natural!

      • Transport By Zeppelin says:

        Just to clarify the stats from my previous post-

        the figures below represent the Degrees C/decade trend
        of each warming period and the cooling phase between those periods of warming must be considered if calculating the overall change in global temperature.

        1860-1880 21 years 0.163 C
        1910-1940 31 years 0.15 C
        1975-1998 24 years 0.166 C

  2. Mary Brown says:

    BTW, the “97% of scientists” has been very effective PR. Everywhere I read in the comments of typical media stories, the 97% thing is quoted all the time. It is being effectively used to paint the issue as “Knuckledraggers vs scientists”.

    And the other 3% by the way, are being paid off by Exxon or the Koch Brothers.

    All of this is accepted as simple fact and most who believe this have never heard or read a contrary, scientific argument.

    That’s the simple reality the skeptics face. It doesn’t help that the political right is almost completely illiterate on the issue.

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Dr. Spencer is one of the 97% !!!

      Perhaps that’s all the PR that we need…

      • rossbrisbane says:

        According to a conversation and email to Skeptical Science – HE (Roy Spencer) is NOT included in the 97% of mainstream science. Roy shows distinctive signs in being a somewhat plain and ordinary Climate Contrarian.

        He disagrees with the majority of climate scientists who say that climate sensitivity to increased warming is high. CO2 human emissions are damaging the natural cycle of climate and will effect human well being and population growth into the future.

        • Fonzarelli says:

          According to the study that was done to get the 97% figure, Dr Spencer is indeed one of the 97%. The study examined what percentage of scientists thought that human activities were causing some (undetermined) degree of warming…

          • Santa Baby says:

            The important question is more if scientists support/believe the political established UNFCCC of CAGW? I mean when Obama and Kerry talk about this issue it’s about the no alternative political global solutions attached to the UNEP, UNFCCC and IPCC.
            It’s as if they started with the no alternative one only solution first and then found the agent, co2, to promote it?

            Obama, Holdren and Kerry clearly wants to make energy in USA less affordable.
            In the light of this statement:
            “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” — John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001 ”

            I don’t get it why people voted as they did in the 2 last elections?

        • Fonzarelli says:

          As well, Dr Spencer’s position on climate sensitivity is virtually identical to that of ( ipcc contributor) Hans Von Storch. The models don’t predict the hiatus in warming according to Storch. This, he says, is due to an under estimation of variability and an over estimation of climate sensitivity to increased co2. The ipcc also referenced this in ar5…

          P.S.- I really liked your comment below about running out of fossil fuels. (I don’t have time to comment on it now; maybe later…)

    • John DeFayette says:

      The 97% argument is all the alarmists have. That’s why we see it everywhere. It’s easy to remember, it fits on a bumper sticker, even John Kerry can use it.

      I don’t think it will go very far, though. The number is too big to realistically represent any group of human beings. It’s a Bulgarian election result at best, and normal people know it.

      • WR Burton says:

        A recent audit of the “study” that produced the 97% claim showed that 67% of those 12,000 papers had NO opinion on the source of climate change…. Of the 33% that did have an option, 97% were the believers in AGW. So the real number is 32% of scientists are “believers”.

        • Fonzarelli says:

          And Dr. Spencer is one of them…

        • Fonzarelli says:

          Lord Monkton broke it down even further than that in a guest essay at WUWT… Less than one percent of the papers that were reviewed actually subscribe to the ipcc’s version of events.

  3. sergeiMK says:

    RS you say

    As a published climate scientist myself, I would wager that 97% of climate scientists can’t agree on anything.

    Except maybe it’s warmer now than 100 years ago (so what? I’ll agree to that).
    ——————————–
    smk
    OK so there is GW
    ——————————–
    RS
    Or, that humans are at least partly responsible for some of that warming (so what? I’ll agree to that, too).
    ——————————–
    SMK
    OK so there is AGW
    ——————————–
    RS
    But I think a more significant statistic — one that doesn’t rely on opinions, but on facts — is that 100% of climate scientists don’t know how much of the warming in the last 50-100 years is natural versus human-caused.
    ——————————–
    SMK
    OK so it is also true that YOU do not know how significant AGW is – by your reasoning it may be VERY significant
    ——————————–
    RS
    They dance around this issue with weasel words and qualitative language. Because they don’t know. They can say “most” warming is human caused…but how do they know that? They don’t.
    ——————————–
    SMK
    RS it is also true that you cannot say definitely that there is no problem (unless you rely on your religion)
    ——————————–
    RS
    You see, we have no idea how much natural climate variations figure into the climate change equation.
    ——————————–
    SMK
    Indeed! So we know and agree that AGW is happening we do not know how much.

    If we have it correct and AGW is significant then how do we correct the problem before climate bites back. If we have it incorrect and AGW is insignificant then we will have helped some nations to go down the low pollution route, reduceed our own pollution at the cost of a few ŁŁŁs. Money is insignificant compared to our world I think you will agree. Do we need to be able to by cheap phones from China or cheap clothing from India

    Perhaps we need a reality check on consumerism!

    • Lewis Guignard says:

      SMK says “Perhaps we need a reality check on consumerism!” That is easy for you to say. Perhaps you’ll give up your heater in winter and AC in summer. Then, of course, you’ll walk to work or ride your bicycle. But what work would you do? Most work is based on consumerism. Clothes, transportation, housing, entertainment. Food, an essential, but very much based on consumer desires. Most of the service industries are also based on consumer desires.

      So one must assume it is a rhetorical statement – whimsy no less. The fact is there are many people in the world who desire the same living standard people in western civilization have obtained. Are you of a mind to tell them no, they can’t have it, while millions or billions continue to live as we do?

      No? Well the idea of controlling the imaginary AGW has as its result that very thing. In the meantime, as has been pointed out elsewhere, warming and increased co2 levels are good for agriculture, the underlying basis for all of our well being.

      • Jeremy says:

        Remember that Obama while speaking in South Africa last year told them that African’s can’t be allowed to own AC, nice modern homes, or automobiles because it would cause the world to “boil over”. Does one need more proof that Climate change is a lie and just about power and control?

        Big “Green Energy” makes more money now than “Big Oil” does…

        • Chad Wozniak says:

          Jeremy, it is also proof (as Pat Sajak said) that global warming alarmism is RACIST, because it would deny poor people of color the one thing that will most readily lift them out of poverty – fossil fuel energy.

    • Timo Soren says:

      Sergei you nuts? Have you even read a good paper on how mitigation efforts work and what they cost?

      A few pounds. Take some of you brain and do some research and see what is actually a potential strategy and then come back. sIGH….

    • Reading SMK’s post one must despair at the standards to which our educational systems have sunk. I don’t even think he realises that his statements are so patently silly they have the opposite effect of his intent.

      • Jeff Kirbey says:

        William- SMK is a typical Lib and has NO IDEA about business, economics or money…….And probably drives a SUV to boot…LOL!

    • Bert Walker says:

      SMK says:
      “SMK
      RS it is also true that you cannot say definitely that there is no problem (unless you rely on your religion),” Face palm moment.
      SMK, you show so very little insight.
      The statement RS made is one stating a degree of uncertainty, whereas SMK’s “rely on your religion” is a statement of the opposite, appealing to one’s religion is a statement of “Certainty”

      Those who are scientists have no difficulty, in fact are bound to demonstrate their uncertainty.
      But those whose religion is Scientism, (including CAGW) refrain of addressing uncertainty, while making statements appealing to “certain” knowledge, as SMK does, and was the purpose of RS’s blog post.
      SMK in the end, your attempt to denigrate RS only reveals your predilection to project your feeble religious views onto others.

    • Phyte On says:

      Boy, SMK, you just glossed over the cost part. Do you have some analysis behind that cost figure that will reverse AGW? Also, seem to gloss right over the government’s capability and competency to control the climate?

      So who is operating based on Blind Faith? SMK or RS. You decide.

    • Drewski says:

      I completely agree. The degree of uncertainty may be huge but the object of our gamble (a fertile Earth)is and will be the most important object that mankind and countless other species can gamble with.

      Why gamble at all?

      • John DeFayette says:

        It’s called Life. We gamble every time we choose to get out of bed in the morning.

        • Drewski says:

          Are you serious? Gambling with future generations of humanity and civilization as we know it is something we choose to do when we get up everyday?!?

          • John DeFayette says:

            I guess I was not very clear, so let me try again.

            You casually apply the Precautionary Principle to the extreme. The outcome of our risky behavior (I presume you mean modern industrial society going about its daily business of creating wealth through the conversion of highly concentrated chemical energy into useful and pleasing forms–but I might be wrong) is apparently the loss of a fertile world. That’s a mighty big gamble, indeed: if we drive cars then the planet dies!

            To me the mere fact that you consider the outcome even remotely likely demonstrates an irrational belief in the incredible. You demonstrate a lack of the rational faculty for managing risk. The chain of events that would need to all come together for your hypothesis to become reality is beyond science fiction.

            Risk is what we deal with every time we wake up and decide to live, because life without risk is, well, death. If I were to apply your use of the Precautionary Principle to any facet of my own life I would stay in bed forever. After all, much harm is extremely likely to come to me just by taking a shower, drinking a glass of milk or walking down my street.

            But, hey, I’m nuts–just ask my wife. When my first child was born we bought a well-crafted wooden high chair for the dinner table. It came replete with all the necessities of modern childhood: a seat belt and washable, plastic coated cushions on three sides.

            Naturally, the first thing I did was chuck the cushions and lose the seat belt. In my house you need to learn from the beginning that life is hard–literally. If you want to survive you have to learn how to sit up and keep from banging your head!

    • Mark Luhman says:

      SMK How do we fix a problem if we do not know what the problem is? Is the warming CO2, is it land use change, How much is it human caused how much is it natural. How do you slow down climate change if you don’t know the difference between the gas pedal and the brake. That is where we are in climate science we don,t know what forcing is the gas pedal or which forcing is the brake. You look to me like the three drivers that we had in out development this winter two hit house on nailed two mail boxes made of brick. Those driver either to age or alcohol impaired, they did confuse the gas pedal from the brake, I am assuming you are similar impaired.

      • Fonzarelli says:

        Amen, Mark… First we have to confirm that we have a problem before we decide to fix it.

        • Jeff Kirbey says:

          No, we have to know with a great degree of certainty what our efforts to fix will actually do before we condemn the least among us to death or worst a great deal of misery!

          • Fonzarelli says:

            Jeff, you can’t fix what isn’t broken. So we we have to ascertain with sound science if the climate is “broken”. And we aren’t there yet…

          • Fonzarelli says:

            Post Script: Jeff, I just realized that I may have misunderstood your comment. Sorry about that…

    • John DeFayette says:

      Sergei,

      The lunacy of the Precautionary Principle, coupled with the Romantic fantasy of an earthly utopia has allowed you to leap in one logical step from normal and laudable admissions of ignorance (We don’t know) to a broad brush denouncement of modern society. It only took you one paragraph to entirely remove the Enlightenment from human history.

      Good luck selling that to the other 6,999,999,999 of us.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi sergeiMK,

      You claimed:

      “RS it is also true that you cannot say definitely that there is no problem (unless you rely on your religion)”

      Or just rely on the basic laws of physics and empirical observation.

      Thanks, and have a great day!

  4. Nabil Swedan says:

    “And since there is no fingerprint of human- versus natural-caused warming, we might never know the answer to this central question. We might have to just sit back and watch where global temperature go from now on.”

    So we give up, is that what you want?

    • John says:

      Don’t be silly. If we are limited by our theoretical or methodological tools, of course we don’t just “give up”. And that’s not what’s being implied by Dr. Spencer. We have to be aware of our limitations, work within them, and not DELUDE ourselves that we know more than we do.

      • I think what he is saying is if we don’t understand something we should act anyway, because any action including the wrong action, is better than no action.

        • Bert Walker says:

          Good point William.
          Indeed Nabil is suggesting one act irrationally.

          “One must act out of ignorance is implied from the non sequitur question/statement: “So we give up, is that what you want?”

          Acting from a position of ignorance is irrational and will essentially guarantee a (approaching 100%) chance of doing something harmful to oneself or one’s neighbors.

        • Johan says:

          And how does he know that any action is better than no action? From his infallible models no doubt!

        • Santa Baby says:

          It’s like cutting of your head to prevent possible sickness from an insect before it gets time to spread?

    • Phyte On says:

      Welcome to the rigor of science. Keep working on the science. Don’t give up on the science until you get the correct answer that tells us the natural caused versus the human caused. Noone said the task would be easy or it wouldn’t take a long time. Keep plugging away on the science.

  5. Lemon says:

    SMK – not real good at semantics, just straw men. The fatal fallacy in your argument is that there is absolutely no evidence that we could do anything about AGW even if we wanted to.
    There does not seem to be any climate sensitivity to CO2, proven by the huge increases in CO2 released in the last 30 years resulting in flat temps.
    And proxies over millennia show that warm trends precede CO2 increases, not the other way around.
    I believe my lyin’ eyes

  6. sergeiMK says:

    Lemon says: May 21, 2014 at 9:40 AM
    The fatal fallacy in your argument is that there is absolutely no evidence that we could do anything about AGW even if we wanted to.
    ———————-
    SMK
    RS is in agreement that there is AGW. It must therefore be possible to stop AGW. Do we sit back and do nothing? That is a strange concept. If I am cycling towards a brick wall do I put on my brakes to limit the effect?
    ———————-
    L
    There does not seem to be any climate sensitivity to CO2, proven by the huge increases in CO2 released in the last 30 years resulting in flat temps.
    ———————-
    SMK
    There are other CYCLIC effects that are as powerful as AGW – these currently negate AGW but they are cyclic and will swing back eventually. AGW is not cyclic
    ———————-
    L
    And proxies over millennia show that warm trends precede CO2 increases, not the other way around.
    ———————-
    SMK
    What warm trend cause the current CO2 increase. MWP? then you must know and be able to explain what delays the CO2 increase. But of course if you are relying on ice core data then you might say that the delay is more like thousands of years. It cannot be the oceans – thjey act as a low pass filter so tend to average the data not delay it.

    • Johan says:

      “RS is in agreement that there is AGW. It must therefore be possible to stop AGW.”

      Of course, kill everyone alive. That should effectively stop the “A” in AGW.

    • Phyte On says:

      Whoa, we are cycling towards a brick wall, eh? A few questions, if you don’t mind:

      1) How far away is the brick wall?
      2) How fast are we going? When do we hit the brick wall?
      3) What does the brick wall look like? How bad is it? Be specific.
      4) You say we have brakes, we can control the speed and avoid hitting this wall? Can you describe, quantify, and specify the nature of these breaks?

      Please be specific, realistic, time-bound, measurable, and accountable for your predictions.

    • Magoo says:

      Regarding your statement below I have two questions:

      ‘SMK
      There are other CYCLIC effects that are as powerful as AGW – these currently negate AGW but they are cyclic and will swing back eventually. AGW is not cyclic’

      And what exactly are these ‘CYCLIC effects’ you mention?

      If the effects of these cyclic effects negate the warming effects of CO2, how do you know that they weren’t also responsible for the warming measured from approx. 1980-1997?

      I might just add that we know that there is no positive feedback from water vapour that the models dictate should double/triple the minor warming effects of CO2 due to the fact there is no tropospheric hotspot. If this is the case (and the empirical evidence shows it so), how can it warm more than a maximum of 1.2C per doubling of total (not just man’s) atmospheric CO2 without the positive feedback from water vapour? If it can’t warm more than 1.2C max. per doubling of CO2 how is AGW a problem when it’s effects are so minor?

  7. sergeiMK says:

    PS.
    L
    Also where is the dip in CO2 corresponding to the LIA?

  8. Don says:

    In natural vs AGW we see confirmation bias at its worse. Each group & person “sees” what he/she wants to see. Much of that “seeing” is not based on the science, but on some other agenda, e.g. save the planet, decrease consumerism, enable a larger role for government, save the polar bear, protect our addiction to fossil fuels — guilt lies on both sides. This is no longer a scientific debate, for both sides are talking past each other and NOT objectively considering ALL the science.

  9. Lemon says:

    You are a rotten fisker…

    There is no indication that CO2 increases require any action whatsoever – the sensitivity as desired by the Mannic Depressives doesn’t exist to any significant level. If you want to donate your pension to the cause, feel free. Just don’t expect others to.

  10. Nate says:

    Roy,

    Now that he have a more complete story on the Bengtsson affair. I think your article on this should be updated. We now have his own statement on the matter

    “I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.
    “I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work“

    • Research papers get rejected all the time. The hoopla was that the rejection was not based on ‘peer review’ but that accepting the paper might send the wrong political message. Of course, a peer reviewer might be a nitwit and not understand the paper or make some incorrect claim in relation to the contents of a paper (as also happened in this case), but that’s not the main issue. The world is full of nitwits, and some of them are even, unfortunately, academics.

      • Nate says:

        Precisely, nitwits are found in all walks of life.

        That such a nitwit can be found, even in science, is hardly front page news.

        Not journalism’s finest moment.

      • John DeFayette says:

        The nitwit was not the reviewer–he is just a run of the mill activist. The nitwit is the editor who read the reviewer’s statement and thought it held merit. The editor herself shows just how far out in left field she is:

        “Dr. Nicola Gulley, Editorial Director at IOP Publishing, says, …’With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of “balance” on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.'”

        This journal apparently listens so keenly to the shrill cries of the Lewendowsky’s and the Mann’s of the world that it is ridiculous for us to expect a contrarian word to find its way to print. Her words, not mine.

  11. Nate says:

    “Now that he” should have been ‘Now that we’.

  12. AlecM says:

    Apropos the CO2-AGW argument, I spent a bit of time recently assessing Sagan’s ‘Extended GHE’ concept, incorrect physics. Here’s why:

    IPCC ‘science’ is based on the concept of “Forcing’, net energy transfer to the Earth’s surface by solar SW and atmospheric LW radiation. Standard physics assesses both as the difference of ‘Irradiances’ from ‘Stefan-Boltzmann’ equations. The IPCC does it differently.

    The SW emitter is the Sun, 5,500 deg.K. The SW absorber, mainly the surface, is cooler but it still has Irradiance so net SW surface heating rate = (Sigma(F1.T_sun^4 – F2.T_surface^4). Sigma is the S-B constant, F1 and F2 are parameters dependent on clouds etc.,Ts are temperatures. It comes to +160 W/m^2 (mean). This heat transfers to the atmosphere as 97 W/m^2 convection/latent heat, 63 W/m^2 real net IR of which 40 W/m^2 goes to Space.

    In standard physics, net LW surface heating must equal net LW IR = (Sigma(F3.T_atmosphere^4 – F4.T_surface^4), numerically -63 W/m^2 = (333 W/m^2 – 396 W/m^2). Conservation of energy is proved by: 160 W/m^2 (SW heating) -97 W/m^2 (convection) -63 W/m^2 (net surface LW IR) = 0 W/m^2. As net surface IR emission in the main GHG bands is zero, there is no atmospheric heating from this cause.

    However, IPCC ‘science’ assumes 396 W/m^2 surface LW Irradiance, the ‘black body’ level for 16 deg C, is a real IR flux when in reality it’s the potential flux to a sink at absolute zero. Only 63 W/m^2 is real. They make up the difference by assuming 333 W/m^2 LW Irradiance measured by ‘pyrgeometers’ pointing to the atmosphere provides extra surface heat when standard physics shows for a normal temperature gradient it can’t transfer energy to the surface. This failure to understand their main instrument is a serious scientific mistake.

    Adding 97 W/m^2 convection makes 493 W/m^2, 3x real heating rate, never proved experimentally. This is too much so they offset 238.5 W/m^2 by falsely applying Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation to the (semi-transparent) ToA; you can’t do that. The residual c. 60% more heating is, with 3x real GHE, used to purport imaginary ‘positive feedback’. They then use c. 25% extra low level cloud albedo in hindcasting to pretend the sensible heat left after the extra latent heat doesn’t heat the atmosphere above reality.

    IPCC ‘science’ is nothing less than science fraud; manipulation of data to purport much more heating than reality. The GHG-absorbed IR component is exaggerated by a factor of 5.1. This scam deceived all but real heat transfer experts, of whom there are few.

    • David Cosserat says:

      AlexM, you say: IPCC ‘science’ assumes 396 W/m^2 surface LW Irradiance, the ‘black body’ level for 16 deg C, is a real IR flux when in reality it’s the potential flux to a sink at absolute zero. Only 63 W/m^2 is real.

      I agree 100% with your analysis. It is a scandal.

      Please point me to where the IPCC (as opposed to their various fellow travellers) make this mistake explicitly. Then we can all get on the case and hammer the point home more widely.

  13. RW says:

    Nothing new here, Roy. The 97% thing is meaningless.

  14. The graph of temperatures you presented shows clearly the climate has changed as much if not more then today far before the nonsense of CO2/GLOBAL MAN MADE WARMING, reared it’s ugly head.

  15. Nate says:

    About the reconstruction shown. If this is the preferred one, I think there are some interesting things to note:

    1. The little ice age corresponds to the Maunder minimum of nearly zero solar activity of the 1600s. What is striking is that this effect on temperature appears to be rather small ~ 0.2 C. What does this say about the sun’s supposed impact on GW in the 20th century, when the sun’s activity varied much less?

    2. Overall the LIA is about 0.5 C cooler than the periods before or after. This doesnt seem dramatic considering the stories told about extreme winters in Europe. Must’ve been warmer elsewhere.

    3. Same can be said for medieval warm period, associated with climatic shifts recorded in Northern cultures

    4. Perhaps, based on point 2 and 3 we should conclude that NH changes of 0.5 C can have SIGNIFICANT impacts on climates.

  16. Dr. Spencer you should post a chart of climate variation from 20000 years ago to 10000 years ago to show how stable the climate is now relative to that time period. A time period when no man made global so called warming was going on.

  17. Slipstick says:

    The chart chosen suggests that the thesis relies half the dataset (the Earth has two hemispheres) and truncating that subset of data in the year 2000 to avoid demonstrating how comparatively small previous rates of deviation were.

  18. Brian O. says:

    It’s interesting that this article can correctly point out how belief does not equate to truth, and that lack of evidence for the cause of something does not equate to knowledge of its cause.

    Yes, some people don’t see how this also applies to religion and evolution and the creation of life.

  19. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
    Should 97% of scientists agree on something we should know that something is wrong.
    It would be so unnatural as to raise up suspicions that scientists have been bought.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Should 97% of scientists agree on something we should know that something is wrong.
      It would be so unnatural as to raise up suspicions that scientists have been bought.”

      Bought? Or just cared for?
      Fed, care for, and protected.
      What else could an animal want?

  20. Milton Hathaway says:

    In the “clueless John Kerry” link, Kerry makes this statement: “We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative . . .”

    This statement strikes me as the equivalent of claiming jobs can be created by hiring millions of people to grow lettuce in their back yard.

    Why do people persist in making such inane statements about how “jobs are created”? I blame it on the lack of an underlying principle in economics that fills the purpose of a ‘smell test’, one that is understandable by people outside the area of expertise.

    For example, in many of the so-called hard sciences, that ‘smell test’ is the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy. It’s understandable to those without a science background as “you don’t get something for nothing”. Even your average non-sciency type wouldn’t consider purchasing a perpetual motion machine, for example.

    I don’t know what such an all-encompassing rule for economics might be, but I’ve given it some thought. I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the notion that unless you are creating a product or service that someone else wants to buy, in the complete absence of any form of coercion, your job doesn’t count (or only partially counts). Obvious examples would be a farmer on one hand and a lawyer on the other. Coercion isn’t particularly necessary for a farmer sell produce, but without coercion, nobody would have any use for a lawyer.

    • gbaikie says:

      “I don’t know what such an all-encompassing rule for economics might be, but I’ve given it some thought. I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the notion that unless you are creating a product or service that someone else wants to buy, in the complete absence of any form of coercion, your job doesn’t count (or only partially counts). Obvious examples would be a farmer on one hand and a lawyer on the other. Coercion isn’t particularly necessary for a farmer sell produce, but without coercion, nobody would have any use for a lawyer.”

      But what other system would you suggest other than rule by law?
      Ruled by nice people? Ruled by god?
      Gemocracy is lousy system, but there is no better choice.
      Or:
      “Democracy is a poor system of government at best; the only thing that can honestly be said in its favor is that it is about eight times as good as any other method the human race has ever tried.” ~ Robert A. Heinlein

      And we can assume Robert A. Heinlein was quite informed regarding the rather old idea of Marxism.

      “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

      Winston Churchill,
      http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Democracy

      So we make laws that all must follow- king, commander-in- chief, and etc. That is ruled by law.
      Which should be confused with lawyers and judges making law that everyone must follow. It’s the people who make the law, lawyers are suppose to work for the people.
      One could the present system has been corrupted- the sheer volume of law, should enough to prove that it is corrupted,
      but we continue to be ruled by law and hope the people decide upon better laws [less laws, generally in direction of better].

    • NoFreeWind says:

      >jobs will be created
      why is it important for a job to be created? Simple. So that the new job holders can afford to buy more CO2. This is a very crazy world we live in! So we create a job by decreasing CO2 so more people can afford to buy it. Whaaat?

    • NoFreeWind says:

      >jobs will be created
      The job will be to decrease CO2. The job holders will have more spending power which will give them the ability to buy more CO2. Everyone I know loves to buy CO2.

  21. Geoff Brown says:

    Not only did Sec of State Kerry use the flawed 97% but also he had the temerity to call Skeptics “Flat-Earthers.”

    I believe that he is the flat Earther as I (a self confessed non-scientist) have written in an open letter to Secretary of Flat Earth… sorry…State here –

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/open-letter-to-us-secretary-of-flat.html

  22. rossbrisbane says:

    We need a new direction. We need to stop taking care of own backyard consumerism. Extreme free market economics ultimately subject third world countries to adjunct poverty. That is the historical evidence.

    Roy seems to think that any action on climate change will push them to poverty. I see it the other way around. If we the wealthy nations hold onto our consumerism as we know it – we will destroy this earth. Why? Because coal in itself does not constitute a threat when used in reasonable quantities. But if just two nations – India and China remain on the trajectory of increasing coal use – we will literally burn out all the world’s resources in three centuries.

    The resultant consumerism will rape those resources too quickly. By 2050 will also be confronted by pollution on a scale unknown. Then as we require more resources to feed the madness of pent up consumerism we will literally suffer the consequence of a collapsing world economy due to the effect of passing 500ppm of CO2. At this sustained level of CO2 the climate will suffer catastrophic events with at least 1/3 death of sea life, land life, 1/3 collapse of world trade, poisoning of our rivers, lakes, acute water shortages and rain deluges and Cyclonic storm surges that bring relief from drought but bring untold suffering.

    The conservative economy you conservatives support is going kill you all off. It is unsustainable. Do not preach to me about your American Evangelical ‘god’. I’m afraid I do not recognize him. My God is not your ‘god’, You have turned your Creator into the god of American politics. God the Creator will weep over humanity in the coming next century at what his creation has done to His creation.

    I would be shouted down in most of your churches. That shows me how America has fallen from reality when stupid evangelical theology determines its fate like a self fulfilling apocalyptic prophecy.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      rossbrisbane what you say is mostly tripe and BS, that we can expect from the left, it was stated fifty sixty a hundred years ago reform we are running out of resource if we don’t change we all are going to die, Yet today as no time in human history few people as a percentage live in adjunct poverty and again few people as a percentage are starving, yet you continue to spout the BS from the left. The only sustainable economies are will buyer will sell, prices must be fixed by supply and demand. As far as running out of thing we adapt, were were running of oil when whales were getting scarce than it dawned on someone to us petroleum. Who knew to day we would be flying in plastic planes. That Certain takes care of an aluminum shortage. You and the world is going to crash unless we change crowd need to have your soap box removed and crawl back in the hole you crawled out of. Your type has been with us all along unfortunately the last fifty years your types statures has risen but you prediction have failed as miserable as they did in the past, the unfortunately thing is your crowed proceed to kill million needless, while all the time your crowed are patting yourselves on your backs.

      • Geoff Brown says:

        Mark; you say:
        “rossbrisbane what you say is mostly tripe and BS, that we can expect from the left…”

        we have also expected it from rossbrisbane, unfortunately.

    • gbaikie says:

      — rossbrisbane says:
      May 21, 2014 at 9:32 PM

      We need a new direction. We need to stop taking care of own backyard consumerism. Extreme free market economics ultimately subject third world countries to adjunct poverty. That is the historical evidence. —
      No, you have been poorly educated.
      Countries with little consumerism are worst countries on Earth.
      The soviet union has been evil force in this world, that the world is still recovering from.
      The idea that Soviet brought people out poverty- any people including the soviet union or present Russia is merely soviet propaganda.
      Consumerism is what dragging China and India out poverty, China per capita is almost as well off as Europe. China largely did to by opening up trade to western world. America did the same thing long before China. To be against consumerism can only be against free trade. What stands out as examples of nation which oppress their people are those most against consumerism- places like Cuba or N Korea.

      So dictatorship are the countries opposed to consumerism and democracies are not. We are increasing the number of nation which are more democratic, we reducing the amount of global poverty. America is has historically been most consumerist nation in the world, and it is this consumerism which most people in the world “like” about America. They want this aspect of America- and could care less about everything else about America. And they are getting it.

    • benpal says:

      rossbrisbane: “If we the wealthy nations hold onto our consumerism as we know it – we will destroy this earth.”
      Will you destroy your PC and mobile phone now to help save this earth? How much of your wealth are you willing to give up?
      Doesn’t your “consumerism” provide jobs and therefore wealth for people in Far East who would otherwise live in misery?

    • NoFreeWind says:

      rossbrisbane, why don’t you go first. Throw you computer, your cell phone, your automobile, your HDTV, your travel, your cantaloupe, your clothes, your plastic, your almonds, your steak. Go ahead and throw it all in your compost pile, and then come back and use a selfish, evangelical, deniers computer and tell us how that went for you.

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Ross, we have never had free market economics. For as long as any one can remember the US federal reserve has been stepping on the economy by holding the unemployment rate at 4% (at best). If the economic boom of ten years ago is any indicator then true free market economics should serve the world well…

    • Bryan says:

      rossbrisbane,

      “Extreme free market economics ultimately subject third world countries to adjunct poverty. That is the historical evidence.”

      Egads — the evidence is the exact opposite. What you call consumerism is just the freedom to strive for increased material well-being for oneself and one’s family, and the freedom to enjoy the fruits of one’s striving. When in history has a vibrant economy, that provided people the opportunity to lift themselves from of poverty, existed without that freedom?

      “The resultant consumerism will rape those resources too quickly.”

      You want the resources to be used slowly? Fine, but the restrictions necessary to bring that about put a burden on those trying to lift themselves from poverty and simultaneously reduce the freedom of the opportunity creators to enjoy the fruits of their efforts, thus lowering the effort they expend and the level of opportunity they create. In a centrally planned utopia, our wise, benevolent dictators could figure out just how much to restrict the usage of resources for the long term benefit of all, and the talented, striving opportunity creators would NOT have their efforts dampened by the restrictions on their freedom. But that utopia does not exist, and indeed human nature prevents its existence. In our real world robust efforts to drastically reduce the usage of resources (before those resources are even scarce) backfire, leading to greatly increased poverty, and resulting damage to the environment.

      I want to be clear that I am not advocating unfettered pollution in the name of free enterprise. Reasonable anti-pollution and conservation restrictions are ACCEPTED and EMBRACED by people when they become prosperous, since the trade-offs make sense for prosperous people. But accomplishing drastic restrictions by a combination of deception and dictatorial powers (as the Obama administration is attempting to do) and even worse, imposing those restrictions on poor societies via international agreements with corrupt leaders who will siphon off a substantial portion of the climate payoffs slows the economy, creates hardships for the poor, and reduces opportunities for all, while making the environment worse (due to less prosperity).

      A switch to other forms of energy will happen, but leaders do not exist who are wise enough to centrally plan the switch, and even if such leaders did exist, human nature does not permit the effective acceptance of such a regime. The switch will happen best when it has to, gradually over a period of time, and the human tendency of talented people to strive to improve their own well-being will fuel the successful switch, as the need for energy, and the ability to pay for it (augmented by decades of strong economic growth brought about by FREEDOM) will provide the impetus for innovation and invention. I would also note that conservation will gradually increase naturally in response to scarcity.

      IF it is determined that CO2 is harmful, then a scarcity of atmosphere, ocean and biosphere to absorb the CO2 will enter into the equation as well, and some sort of carbon tax (replacing the income tax, perhaps) would make sense, as a way of making us economically face the scarcity of places to put the carbon. But at this time expensive restrictions on CO2 (which has known beneficial effects, and no known harmful effects) are unnecessarily harmful to all, especially the poor.

      “At this sustained level of CO2 the climate will suffer catastrophic events with at least 1/3 death of sea life, …”

      There is no convincing evidence for any of this, (and no consensus, as Dr. Spencer points out).

      “The conservative economy you conservatives support is going kill you all off. It is unsustainable.”

      The “unsustainable” claim is common, but lacking evidence, IMHO. Prosperous people support scientific study and accept conservation efforts, permitting sustainability. When things start getting scarce, prosperous people can adapt. Poor people cannot afford conservation efforts and have vastly fewer options for adaptation.

      “God the Creator will weep over humanity in the coming next century at what his creation has done to His creation.”

      Free, prosperous societies are MUCH better at conservation and stewardship. Poverty stricken societies are more harmful toward creation. Policies that lead to poverty are therefore much worse for God’s creation.

      “I would be shouted down in most of your churches. That shows me how America has fallen from reality when stupid evangelical theology determines its fate like a self fulfilling apocalyptic prophecy.”

      I belong to an evangelical church, and I have no idea what you are talking about. You would not be shouted down in my church, I can guarantee you that. You would be welcome, and your views on the environment would not be anyone’s primary concern. I’m sure some would discuss these issues if you wished, most would find common ground, and some might mostly agree with you.

  23. Adam Connor says:

    Yet another article by Roy Spencer that demonstrates his preference for rhetoric over scientific inquiry.

    • Mark Luhman says:

      Adam, Actually it quite the opposite. The rhetoric is we are going to die tomorrow unless we change. Damn the facts we have our models.

    • I think his argument is that he prefers science over rhetoric, but I’m not surprised you understood the article backwards.

  24. Ted says:

    Has everyone read Ljungqvist’s own statement about his temperature graph that Dr Spencer included with this post? Here it is:

    “Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”

    See http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      That link refers to a temperature “reconstruction”.
      One more time nothing falsifiable as a scientific process should be.
      But worse than that, the article contains also an untrue statement, under the subtitle “What Reconstructions Tell Us” it states:

      “There is a measured energy imbalance caused by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.”

      Absolutely FALSE, no one has measured it indeed.

    • Nate says:

      Good point.

      Roy, if you want to make a sincere comparison between the past temperature variations and the modern record you need to compare them for SAME part of the globe.

      The reconstruction is for the NH excluding the tropics. The modern record for this part of the globe rises much more than the 0.75 C that you are showing, for example the GISS extratropical NH has a hundred year rise of ~ 1.3 C, I suspect the Hadcrut is close to that.

      On your plot the modern record should rise another 0.5 C!

      But of course, that wouldn’t illustrate your point nearly as well.

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Nate,
        it seems that you didn’t read yet Geoff Brown’s post on May 22, 2014 at 1:49 AM.

        • Leaving aside the fact that SKS is an activist propaganda site with a long history of misrepresentation, it would be nice to read Ljungqvist’s discussion in context. Not the selective quote that SKS cites without providing any links (of course) to the source material. One wouldn’t want one to check the context, would we?

          Instrumental temperatures will not exactly match those reported by proxy reconstructions over very short time scales, i.e., over a few decades. Lake bed sediments or ice cores just don’t respond on short time scales in the same way thermometers immediately do. Of course, if you’re trying to explain science to people who aren’t interested in science but only pretend to be…

          Anyway, here is the missing part of the quote –

          “this sharp rise in temperature compared to the magnitude of warmth in previous warm periods should be cautiously interpreted since it is not visible in the proxy reconstruction itself.”

          That’s the wonderful thing about climate activism. You can strongly claim things the author of the paper specifically cautioned one against, simply by leaving out the rest of the quote.

          • Actually I should spell this out as some people will need to have this explained to them –

            If a proxy reconstruction doesn’t show short sharp temperature rises for the present era, there is no reason to be believe it could show periods of short sharp temperature rises for past eras.

      • @Nate

        Until recent times there have been very few proxy records available in the Southern hemisphere when compared to the Northern hemisphere. You also seem to be claiming that over periods of hundreds of years the top half of the planet warms at a different rate to that of the bottom half. That’s a curious claim. What would be the physical underpinnings of such an assertion?

        • Nate says:

          Will,

          As one looks at smaller portions of the globe, temperature variations increase, due to less averaging over regional variations.

          For example-historical references to a Greener Greenland during the MWP, if true, would suggest this part of the world was sig. warmer. If so, then the effect of this region on temperature of N. extra-tropical will be larger than the effect on the whole Earth.

        • Nate says:

          Also, modern record shows that SH has smaller variations AND smaller GW than NH. The reason is the much larger % ocean in SH. In fact NH extratropical has most of worlds land.

          If you only look at Roy’s satellite data, the GW in the N. Ext Tropics for last 30 y is nearly double the increase for the whole globe.

          If his intent was to make an apples to apples comparison, why would he put the global satellite record on the plot when he readily had available the more relevant one, N. extratropical?

          • So if we draw the logical conclusion from your argument, the northern hemisphere may be unevenly exaggerating the effects of global warming. Nonetheless, I appreciate the point you’re making. On the other hand, for lots of reasons already discussed here, a direct comparison of proxy temperature trends to instrumental temperature trends is comparing apples to oranges. You shouldn’t be doing it at all. (Or as the author of the paper points out, only with great caution.) Therefore, you can hardly complain that you should be doing something that shouldn’t be done in the first place, in the interests of a ‘fair’ comparison.

  25. Kasuha says:

    Dr. Spencer, there’s one thing I wanted to ask. Common argument of AGW proponents is that mediewal warming was restricted to northern hemisphere while the current warming period is global. But however I look at it, it seems to me that even in this case most of the warming is happening in northern hemisphere.
    Is there any significant known difference between the two warming periods, or it’s more of an issue with insufficient historic data?

  26. Geoff Brown says:

    Kasauha says
    “mediewal warming was restricted to northern hemisphere” but that has been shown to be false.

    See the Idso’s CO2 Science site: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    and download the interactive map showing peer reviewed paper from around the world.

    • Nate says:

      The link shows work of a political advocacy organization-quite different from peer-reviewed science.

      • Massimo PORZIO says:

        Nate,
        please, before stating that you should accurately and scientifically debunk the cited researches.
        IMHO the true problem in climatology is the use of peer-review for circular argumentation. Science has never been and will never a question of heads counting, but just scientific debunking of bad argumentations through new and robust good argumentations.

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Massimo PORZIO,

          You wrote:

          “Science has never been and will never a question of heads counting, but just scientific debunking of bad argumentations through new and robust good argumentations.”

          Your statement proves correct on a moments reflection. However, if your a politician facts, truth, reality, etc. simply don’t hold a candle to the next election results since seldom will voters hold their representatives accountable for errors if it benefits them financially in the short term. I appears to me that politicians if caught in false-hoods would likely just claim they gave the voters what they wanted, they’re not scientists themselves and finally where’s some innocent guy we can pin our problems on! Just look at the Benghazi terrorist attack on the U.S. compound. The only person in jail apparently erroneosly if not dishonestly alleged to be connected to that event appears to be some irrelevant guy who made a video. Last I heard making political videos never has been a crime due to our first amendment. Not a sound way to run even this ANIMAL FARM called planet earth.

          Thanks Massimo and have a great day!

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi JohnKl
            I agree, my “argumentations” was to read as “scientific proof” of course.
            Honestly, I don’t really like people who spent most of their life talking about everything as it was all political issues.
            All the ones of that kind that I know are very insignificant people.
            This is the reason I prefer listen to what the men say despite they are right or left wingers, and I have more concern about those who say that they are not right or left wingers, because they are doing it just for my pleasure and wellness.

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Massimo PORZIO,

            Thank you for the reply. You wrote:

            “Honestly, I don’t really like people who spent most of their life talking about everything as it was all political issues.
            All the ones of that kind that I know are very insignificant people.”

            You stated your point well. However, while everything is not political just about everything involving AGW is. Allow me to reiterate a few facts.

            1. Much if not most or all (if not in fact all) the empirical data released has been ADJUSTED, including UAH MSU Satellite data presented on this web-site. At one time, Wikipedia listed over 10 adjustments made to this data-set. Please review my previous posts where I discussed it in greater depth including a supposed COOLING BIAS due to ORBITAL DECAY (?)!!! You may wish to investigate Dr. Nils-Axel Morner who claimed that just about all sea surface level data has been adjusted. The university of Colorado ADMITS TO ADJUSTING sea levels HIGHER due to supposed increases in the size of the world’s ocean basin. A friend of my wife’s works with a certain species of red ape in the spice islands. Reports of massive species loss prove quite common for this species. When I asked him years ago if the reports bore much relations to reality he answered that he didn’t believe them (btw, I’m not trying to deny species loss due mono-culture palm oil plantations, deforestation, etc.-simply pointing out the apparently widespread use of CONJURED DATA to influence events). Scary data-sets have frequently been CREATED in order to obtain funding for NGO’s, academic institutions and staff, etc. You see ADJUSTING EMPIRICAL DATA FOR FINANCIAL AND/OR POLITICAL REASONS seems to be ignored as some sort of freak event rather than more likely a WAY OF DOING BUSINESS.

            2. A great deal of time and effort appears to be made creating BOGUS historical climate re-creations and/or future projections absent much if any empirical data. Nevertheless, as you suggested precise graphs depicting temperature levels, glacial sizes, sea levels, etc. get made based completely on guess work for time periods in which not only have MEASUREMENTS NOT BEEN MADE, but COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE since either no humans existed at the theoretical times depicted and/or the tools and/or measurement standards applied didn’t exist. Such ANACRONISM again appears to be the NORM for such reconstructions!!!

            3. Virtually all the ADJUSTMENTS, RE-CONSTRUCTIONS, PROJECTIONS etc. WILL BE ACCOMPANIED BY WHAT GETS LABELED AS ANALYSIS THAT PAINTS THE SAME CLIMACTIC GLOBAL WARMING PICTURE ACCOMPANIED BY EITHER PRIMARILY OR COMPLETELY NEGATIVE RESULTS FOR HUMANITY!

            Of course, much more can be said but my time proves limited. As to whether you like people who see the political dimensions of events (as you yourself have on numerous occasions including the push for diesel fuel in Europe, but don’t worry I don’t find you insignificant) or find them insignificant, you may do well to pay attention to the events rapidly taking place on the global stage.

            BTW, you may find the link below regarding diesel fuel and London air quality interesting.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-27/london-s-dirty-secret-pollutes-like-beijing-airpocalyse.html

            Have a great day!

        • Nate says:

          Massimo,

          Sorry but I happen to agree with Lennart Bengsston, that ‘The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work“. You could see his full statement that I posted earlier.

          The web site ‘CO2 science’ is not about doing objective science at all. Rather its goals are clearly about advancing a political agenda. Their critiques of published science are laden with all sorts of political rants.

          Hardly a good place to find objective science. I would feel the same way about left-leaning sites of this sort as well.

          If the have genuine legitimate critiques of published science-they COULD get them published.

        • Nate says:

          Since you asked I looked more into what they are doing. More specifically-they attempt to review literature on climate reconstruction. In doing so they seem to have categorized papers based on political arguments about its relation to IPCC reports, or assumptions about the political motivations of the authors.

          I’m sorry but that is just not a legitimate way of accessing/reviewing previous work in any field of science.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Hi Nate,
            As said to JohnKl, I prefer to discard any political argument, and look at the scientific aspect.
            In the Idso’s link there are some worldwide researches which seems to highlight a global MWP, not regional.
            I don’t matter who did them and why they did them.
            If they did some mistakes in them those researches should be easily debunked for those mistakes, not discarded just because they are written by people who just declare their political orientation (honestly by my point of view).

            Have a very nice weekend.

            Massimo

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            By the way,
            I don’t believe that proxy-based paleoclimate reconstructions have any meaning other than for establish a rough approximation of what the climate was those ancestral times.
            The thermometers are the right tools for establish the climate trend, so IMHO, only the last three of four decades have meanings, but they must be well calibrated each other.
            For thermometers I include radiometers too, if well calibrated against their transmittance and radiative pattern.

            Anyways, measurements corrected by adjustment factors greater than pretended measured anomaly are meaningless.

            AFAIK even Dr.Spencer don’t rely so much on proxy reconstructions.

            Again have a nice weekend.

            Massimo

  27. Robert JM says:

    We do know that 75% of the warming in the satellite period was driven by a 5% reduction in cloud cover between 1990 and 2003. This is equivalent to a 0.9w/m2 forcing in just 13 years and is responsible for about 0.3 deg C of the 0.4 deg C that was observed in the last 30 years. Look up ISCCP or climate4you.com climate and clouds page.

  28. Wow, marvelous blog layout! How long have you been blogging
    for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is magnificent, let
    alone the content!

  29. Dr. Spencer I will say it again. Why don’t you post a chart showing the temperature changes from 20000 years ago to 10000 years ago/
    This will clearly show how stable the climate has been over the past 100 years in contrast to those years which is why AGW theory is a fraud and a hoax.

  30. One of the main reasons why it may appear that global climate changes are not synchronous(but they are) is due to the fact the geography of the S.H. versus the N.H. is vastly different causing the N.H to REACT in a much greater aggressive manner to changes in items which effect the climate.

    The S.H for starters has a much more stable polar vortex. In addition the % of water versus land in the S.H. is much greater not to mention Antarctica, is made up of land surrounded by water in contrast to the Arctic, which is water surrounded by land..

    In addition Arctic Sea Ice is subject to many more variables then Antarctic Sea Ice from the strength /phase of the polar vortex, to the phase of the AMO/PDO. Along with many ocean currents that weave through many land areas on their travels to and from the Arctic Ocean.

    To sum this up it is the total difference in geography between the N.H. and S.H. which dictates why they react to different degrees to various climate forcing. Still the evidence is overwhelming that they do not act opposite from another for the most part and that all major climate change events are global in nature rather then regional.

    The prevailing theory is that the Younger Dryas was caused by significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic “Conveyor”, which circulates warm tropical waters northward, in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America. Geological evidence for such an event is thus far lacking.[15] The global climate would then have become locked into the new state until freezing removed the fresh water “lid” from the north Atlantic Ocean. An alternative theory suggests instead that the jet stream shifted northward in response to the changing topographic forcing of the melting North American ice sheet, bringing more rain to the North Atlantic which freshened the ocean surface enough to slow the thermohaline circulation.[16] There is also some evidence that a solar flare may have been responsible for the megafaunal extinction, though it cannot explain the apparent variability in the extinction across all continents.[17]

    There is evidence that some previous glacial terminations had post glacial cooling periods similar to the Younger Dryas.[18]

    Impact hypothesis[edit]

    • ren says:

      “The SH for starters has a much more stable polar vortex. In addition the % of water versus land in the SH is much greater not to mention Antarctica, is made up of land surrounded by water in contrast to the Arctic, which is water surrounded by land..”
      Exactly so.
      The progressive cooling of the Southern Ocean will be gradual cooling of the Atlantic.
      http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

    • While one can always invoke ‘special case’ stories/theories/speculations as to why one region of the planet warms much more slowly than others, such attempts cut both ways. It means it’s also possible to explain why other regions may be exaggerating warming relative to the global average.

  31. ren says:

    I will only add that the southern jet stream circulation in the north results in devastating rains in southern Europe.
    http://cdn.nwstatic.co.uk/gfsimages/gfs.20140522/12/00/hgt300.png

  32. TB says:

    The only thing I can be sure of is that 97% of those who believe man is the driving force of climate believe that quoting 97% of those who believe the climate is driven by man is accurate.

  33. KR says:

    Considering the rather copious literature on climate change attribution, with Huber and Knutti 2011 an excellent example – this entire article is nonsensical.

    Fingerprints of AGW are known, most of which have been known since Arrhenius (1890’s), percentage attribution to anthropogenic causes is roughly 100% over the last 50 years (natural forcings having decreased over that time – we would be cooling slightly without AGW), and Dr. Spencers claims to the contrary are wholly unsupportable.

    This blog (IMO) has been shifting its focus from science to rhetoric over time, with more and more posts that are simply contradicted by the data. Sad…

      • KR says:

        WRT to Pielke:

        (1) He conflates radiative transfer models (essentially numerical integration) with GCMs – I’ll just note that the RTMs he’s complaining about were developed by the USAF for infra-red missiles, and have been experimentally confirmed to work quite well. That’s an apples-oranges comparison in an attempt to dismiss H&K, i.e. rhetorical nonsense.

        (2) A focus on “upper heat content”, 0-700m, neglecting the 0-2000m data (most likely driven by increased ENSO and ocean gyre circulation) that shows _steady_ energy increase over the last 50 years. Cherry-pick.

        (3) Aerosols have high uncertainties – but the range of uncertainties doesn’t include values that invalidate the conclusions of this (and many other studies) regarding attribution.

        And H&K is but one of many attribution studies using different methods – the anthropogenic contribution is roughly 100% for the last 50 years.

        • Re: KR –

          (1)

          Here is a tip: I realise you think you are more clever than the climate physicist, but if you want anyone to believe what you write, you would at least need to point to an article from someone equally qualified who shows a different perspective. There is no point claiming you are smarter and telling everyone to believe you. Right now you’re just two letters of the alphabet. So nobody will.

          (2)

          The reason why physicists tend to neglect heat content below 700m is because we have almost no measurements below that level. But if you’re claiming the atmosphere is warming the deep oceans, it would be helpful to explain how it’s managed to do that by not warming the top layers as expected, as well.

          (3)

          Translation: OK the observations don’t agree with what I’m claiming but the observations could be wrong!

          Hey, they could be wrong. Monkeys could fly. Maybe we haven’t found one yet. (Only kidding.) My only point is if you find that sort of argument convincing, you probably don’t need much convincing.

    • There is no such thing as a ‘fingerprint’ *of* AGW. Global warming (or cooling) from any origin, be that ocean heat uptake or release, solar activity, greenhouse gases, etc., will all ‘look’ the same. When someone claims there is a ‘fingerprint’ they mean they are *hypothesizing* that the source of the heat (or lack thereof) was caused by X. Now it could be greenhouse gases, or it could be due to a multitude of other causes, some of which we understand, and some of which we don’t. Many of these we can quantify or at least estimate. Many we cannot – yet.

      Now KR, does this clarify your confusion?

      • KR says:

        Incorrect.

        As an example, if recent warming was due to solar increases the _entire_ atmospheric column would be warming. If due to GHGs, however, the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere cool as energy is trapped closer to the surface. Observations show the latter.

        If the ocean were releasing the energy to warm the atmosphere, the ocean itself would be cooling. The more than 25*10^22 Joules accumulating in the upper 2000m since the 1960s indicates that isn’t the case.

        Claiming that all possible forcings would show the same energy distribution is physically unsupportable. Claiming Mysterious Unknown Forcings (MUFs) is equivalent to blaming leprechauns

        • Let me try to straighten this out…

          Greenhouse gases operate by trapping heat in the atmosphere. This extra heat leads to more evaporation, and water is also a heat trapping gas. The increase in water vapour according to our understanding of the physics, should warm the troposphere (especially at the tropics) and for complex reasons I won’t get into in this short post, cool the stratosphere. But the important thing to remember is that you would get a water vapour feedback from increased heat energy from the sun (i.e., less clouds), as you would from greenhouse gases. Again, there is no ‘finger print’ that is distinctly a greenhouse gas one. Does this clear up your first confusion?

          Regarding the ocean’s role in heating and cooling, this is unknown. We actually have almost zero measurements of the deep oceans from the 1960’s on-wards. And very few in recent times. When someone talks about gain or loss of joules they are referring to a *model* of what they think has happened in the deep ocean. That’s someone’s theory. Does this clear up your second confusion?

          Your third paragraph makes no sense as nobody is claiming that all forcings show the same energy distributions. I don’t understand what you are trying to say and to be honest, I don’t think you understand what you’re trying to say either? A major volcanic eruption would cool the planet slightly, not warm it. And it would also cool the planet in some regions more than others. Not all forcing have the same effects. But that’s not what you claimed. You claimed that greenhouse gases had a ‘fingerprint’. When one uses the word ‘fingerprint’ one means something so unique it cannot be interpreted as being something else. Can you now see why what you have written here is muddled up?

          • KR says:

            You are directly contradicting yourself, stating “Global warming (or cooling) from any origin… will all ‘look’ the same.” versus “nobody is claiming that all forcings show the same energy distributions”. Which is it? Are there or are there not fingerprints, differences in energy distributions from different forcings? You cannot have it both ways.

            WRT ocean heat content, I would recommend Levitus et al 2012, in particular the Appendix on determining error estimates. While we have relatively few deep ocean readings, the fact that ocean temperature standard deviations are low (little change over small distances) means that the uncertainty range is quite small – graphed here, from Levitus Fig. 1. Small enough that we can say with certainty that 0-2000m has significantly warmed in the last 50 years.

            Whether OHC or temperature or aerosol feedback etc, uncertainty does not mean ignorance.

          • @KR

            Let’s try again because it’s not complicated. You claim greenhouse gases have a warming ‘fingerprint’. (Unique pattern.) This is wrong because increased solar activity would look identical to what we would expect from increases in CO2. BUT, this doesn’t mean that all other forcings have unique fingerprints too. Aerosols from a volcanic eruption would have a different forcing. You’re making a simple error of logic here. Are you still confused or do you understand now?

            There is, of course, an actual contradiction when you write: “we have relatively few deep ocean readings” and then write “ocean temperature standard deviations are low” and “[therefore] uncertainty range is quite small.” Let me try to translate this: You concede we have almost no observations. You then claim the deep ocean changes very little. (The standard deviation on deep ocean temps are “low”.) But at the same time there has been a significant change in deep ocean heat content, therefore the standard deviation can’t be “low” can it? It must be high. I think what you might be trying to argue that the overall deviation from the *trend* is low. But even so, this trend is based on a model of the deep ocean. You don’t solve your problem by not having observations, by claiming that there is little variation in the trend of what you’re assuming has happened. Again, that’s just a circular argument. If this wasn’t climate science, i.e., you tried out such an argument in physics or chemistry, I fear you’d probably be laughed at.

          • Actually my apologies, KR. My clumsy writing did introduce a confusion and it was fair of you to point this out. When I wrote:

            “Global warming (or cooling) from any origin… will all ‘look’ the same.”

            Probably should have been better written as:

            “Global warming (or cooling) from any origin related to water vapour feedback… will all ‘look’ the same.”

            Although in my defense, if you did pay attention to what I wrote in context, the sentence should still have been understandable to you.

          • KR says:

            WRT ocean heat content – Low standard deviations over distance means that you don’t need dense sampling for low uncertainties. A small number of measurements will indicate what the bulk of the ocean is doing, much as you can replicate the same atmospheric signal with ~60-70 randomly distributed station records. There is a strong correlation over distance. If you don’t agree, well, you’re going to have to look at the data, do the math, and see if you can demonstrate errors in the Levitus et al uncertainty estimates. Argument by Assertion proves nothing.

            WRT fingerprints – yes, any warming should show roughly the same signal from water vapor feedback, according to the moist adiabatic. But different forcings (as opposed to feedbacks) have different signatures! Tropospheric warming with stratospheric cooling (observed), rising tropopause (observed), more warming at night than day (observed), warming atmosphere _and_ ocean, more fossil carbon in the atmosphere, less oxygen in the atmosphere (again, all observed) – these are fingerprints of increased GHGs and of anthropogenic forcings. Observed fingerprints that are contrary to natural forcings.

          • @KR

            (1)

            The claim that you can sample the deep ocean with a tiny number of samples is nonsense. Where did you get this idea from? Your claim that 60-70 randomly distributed stations will also ‘replicate the atmospheric signal’ is also nonsense. 30% of the HadCRUT3 station data have cooling trends. What if a disproportionate number of random selections choose those? Where are you are getting your information from? If I could look at your sources, perhaps I could work out what is really being claimed and explain it to you…?

            (2)

            Thank you for admitting the point I made was correct. However, now you are trying to change the definition of ‘fingerprint’ to mean something else. What you’ve described would be identical if there was more solar due to less cloud cover or more greenhouse gases. More fossil carbon in the atmosphere just means that more man made CO2 is entering the atmosphere. We already know that. If you assume extra CO2 causes X amount of warming instead of Y amount of warming, then CO2 causes X amount of warming. Your argument is still circular.

          • KR says:

            For the ocean heat content, _read_ the Levitus paper – they document the uncertainties quite clearly.

            For surface temperatures, Nick Stokes has demonstrated that at as few as 60 stations is sufficient, with variations canceling out. The surface temp record is very solid, despite all the hand-wringing – “Uncertainties in the instrumental record do not undermine the robust finding of an observed long term rise in global mean temperature.”.

            Forcing “fingerprints” are the differences between the temperature change patterns of different forcings, and have always been defined/used that way – your attempts to shift the definitions to support your argument notwithstanding.

            Enough. Arguments from personal incredulity don’t change the data, and every one of your objections could be answered with a bit of reading. I would suggest Spencer Wearts Discovery of Global Warming as a good starting point. But I’m not going to indulge by doing your reading for you.

          • KR says:

            My apologies, I appear to have mistyped something in the link – Nick Stokes demonstration of robust instrumental numbers is at http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/05/just-60-stations.html

          • @KR

            Have you got anything in terms of actual published research in the scientific literate? Nick Stokes is a well known ‘concern troll’ who writes a great deal of nonsense on climate topics.

            (I had a recent run-in with this strange fellow, when he misquoted information presented by Dr Roy Spencer. When I pointed out to him that he had truncated the quoted text and the full text was the exact opposite of what he’d implied, he actually dug his heels in and refused to concede a 100% black and white issue.)

            My suggestion would be that you need to stick with the scientific literature. Climate activists reading the writings of other climate activists is terribly incestuous and frankly, not very reliable.

          • KR says:

            Actually, I don’t know of peer reviewed papers exploring the minimum data robustness of the temperature record. Why?

            Because it’s just not an interesting, or difficult, question. Scientists tend to be interested in the most complete data available, not in addressing rhetorical talking points.

            A day or less of banging around with publicly available data, Python or R, and anyone with a modicum of skill can try it themselves. It’s a bit of a pain to deal with 75-80MB of raw data, but a simple area weighted average from any subset you wish to look at is trivial coding. Rather less work than would be meaningful for anything more than a grad school homework assignment…

            There’s a downloadable app available described and linked here, including the ability to select any tiny subset of stations you wish. Enjoy.

          • @KR

            So you don’t know of any research or even any commentary by accredited climate scientists? If you don’t know, then just admit this and don’t present the information as ‘factual’. There is already too much amateur stuff around.

            If you just want to google “station data cooling trends” you’ll see that (apparently) what you’re claiming has already been “debunked”. But you need to treat such information rather cautiously because it’s not published in the literature. People are very keen to embrace what information is out there that already fits into their beliefs and assumptions.

          • KR says:

            “People are very keen to embrace what information is out there that already fits into their beliefs and assumptions.” – Indeed they are.

            I would note that applies to attribution of climate change (fingerprints), deep ocean heat content (observational, not modeled), and the spatial correlation of temperature anomalies in both atmosphere (Hansen and Lebedeff 1987) and ocean (Levitus et al 2012 Appendix) that allow estimation of temperatures with fairly sparse sampling. You have made a number of claims in these regards that, quite frankly, are contradicted by the data and the literature.

            Adieu

          • “You have made a number of claims in these regards that, quite frankly, are contradicted by the data and the literature.”

            All you’ve cited are modelling papers as opposed to actual evidence. That’s why I asked for you to produce observation based, i.e., measured data. There are countless modelling papers out there that all tend to be qualified by statements such as *IF* our assumptions are correct our model shows X result. The catch is, we don’t know if the assumptions are correct. There are very high degrees of speculation involved, and climate science has been notorious in making bad predictions. In fact, the number of correct predictions over the last 50 years are almost non-existent in this field. I think I can only list a handful and even with those one must suspect if they didn’t occur more by coincidence.

            Here is an example of a climate scientist discussing the many problems with Levitus 2013 –

            http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/the-overstatement-of-certainty-in-the-levitus-et-al-2012-paper/

            I think the fundamental problem here if you have a particular belief system in place, you look for what research will support those beliefs. The assumptions are assumed to be true even when not established. Uncertainties and qualifications get ignored. This is not just a problem in climate science. Economics, psychology and most of the research in ecology and even a good chunk of modern medical research, is of terribly poor quality.

          • And a further reminder that your claims about ocean heat content was largely based on your own opinions and a blog post, which wasn’t even on topic. You had to “re-interpret” the claims in the blog to apply them to a different context. Incredibly weak stuff.

    • I should probably add that there is nothing wrong with the Huber and Knutti 2011 paper as long as you understand its assumptions. Unfortunately, there is the part where people such as KR get confused.

      Essentially, the argument in Huber and Knutti is that *if* the climate models are correct, the current warming in the atmosphere has primarily been driven by CO2. Now of course, climate models equations assume that the current warming of the atmosphere is driven primarily by CO2. This is why the physicist R. Pielke Sr., describes their argument as circular. Now the paper could be correct, but it might also be wrong. It’s just not “evidence” in the way KR thinks it is.

      • KR says:

        An argument that requires you to ignore basic physics – spectroscopy. The GCMs are driven by physics, by observations, and are run to see how those physics respond to changes in forcings.

        If you were to change the GCMs to ignore spectroscopy and the lapse rate, I’m certain you could attribute all climate changes to natural causes. Of course, that would be absurd.

        • Unfortunately, you can’t predict the climate just with ‘basic physics.’ That’s why climate models have different ranges of predictions and respond differently to forcings. That is also why the IPCC uses an ensemble of climate model predictions, rather than forecasts from any single model. Since the basic physics and observations are the same, if it was only about those things, all models would make identical predictions. Which they don’t.

          Does that clear up your latest confusion?

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            @KR

            IMHO when the predictions are not using raw measurements, where the (almost arbitrary) corrections change the trends from upward to downward, all results are meaningless.

            See Langmuir pathological science point 1 and 2:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science

            By the way Jacques Benveniste’s water memory pathological science example was published “in the prestigious scientific journal Nature”… Peer reviewed?

          • If the models were “just” basic physics we wouldn’t have predictions in the range of 2C-12C. Obviously a lot more is going on in terms of assumptions here. KR no doubt knows all this, so it seems like he is trying to intentionally mislead.

          • Massimo PORZIO says:

            Will
            “If the models were “just” basic physics we wouldn’t have predictions in the range of 2C-12C. Obviously a lot more is going on in terms of assumptions here.”

            For what it’s worth, I fully agree.

            Have a nice day.

            Massimo

  34. Ken Gregory says:

    And since there is no fingerprint of human- versus natural-caused warming

    On the contrary, an increase in greenhouse gases causes an increase in the greenhouse effect, but all other causes of climate change, including changes in aerosols, cloud cover, solar irradiance, ocean circulation changes, do NOT cause a change in the greenhouse effect during periods when there is no net surface temperature change.

    The greenhouse effect is the difference between the surface temperature and the effective radiating temperature at the top-of-atmosphere as determined from the outgoing longwave radiation, and in nominally about 33 C.

    There has been no significant net temperature change during the period of CERES satellite data, from March 2000. Feedbacks are defined as changes in climate parameters that are caused by temperature changes, so there was no net feedbacks during that period as there was no net temperature change. This gives us the perfect opportunity to calculate the transient climate response to increasing well-mixed greenhouse gases. Non-greenhouse gas forcings offset greenhouse gas forcing to result in no air temperature change during the CERES era.

    The CERES data with HadCRUT3 shows TCR = 0.38 °C [0.0 to 0.92 °C] and using HadCRUT4, TCR = 0.74 °C [0.20 to 1.29 °C]; where the range is the 95% confidence interval with zero minimum. The analysis is given here:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=739

  35. ren says:

    Is 97% to agree that the Antarctic sea ice is breaking records?
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
    Whether agree that the ocean around Antarctica has to be colder?
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

  36. Pavol Zeleny says:

    Contrary to “skeptic” claims that his reconstruction shows the peak of the MWP as hotter than today’s temperatures, Ljungqvist says the following when combining his proxy reconstruction with recent instrumental temperature data:
    “Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period”
    Ljungqvist (2010) 30-90°N decadal averages (black) vs. HadCRUT land-ocean 30-90°N decadal averages (red). Courtesy of Robert Way.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Ljungqvist-2010.gif

    Ljungqvist’s millennial temperature reconstruction was very similar to Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008). It also concludes that current northern hemisphere surface air temperatures are significantly higher than during the peak of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Further, arguing for a hot MWP is also arguing that climate sensitivity is not low – which undermines a critical argument for “skeptics”.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/ljungqvist-broke-the-hockey-stick.htm

  37. Go Whitecaps!! says:

    Here’s some reading for you Pavel.

    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/dec/15dec2010a4.html

    Please note that there is no thermometer data pasted on to the end.

  38. Nick Schroeder says:

    The climate science supporting anthrocentric global warming can be divided into three categories: 1) what they don’t know as they actually admit in IPCC AR5 TS.6, 2) what they got wrong – twenty five years of failed projections and predictions and the magnitude of CO2 feedback, and 3) what they made up with proxies, statistics, and hockey stick distortions.

    IPCC AR5 TS.6 – Key Uncertainties
    Wow, what an eye opener. Allow me to paraphrase.
    “Hey, all you skeptics, guess what? You were/are correct! (Aren’t you usually?) When it comes to major climate systems virtually certain to make a critical difference, to have major influence, (clouds, precipitation, wind, tropospheric warming, stratospheric cooling, ocean temps >700m, carbon/heat >2000m, circulation, abrupt climate changes, sea levels) there is a high probability – that we have not got a clue!!”
    “Oh, and by the way, we find no evidence connecting AGW and drought, cyclones, or similar extreme weather.”
    “We also have pretty much no idea what the Antarctic ice sheet and ocean interface are up to.”
    “Sorry ‘bout that true believers, politicians, and media hypers.”

    IPCC AR5 TS.6
    Paleoclimate reconstructions and Earth System Models indicate
    that there is a ****positive feedback**** between climate and the carbon cycle, but ****confidence remains low**** in the strength of this feedback, particularly for the land. {6.4}

  39. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL00499/pdf

    This study when combined with the phase of the PDO/AMO along with ENSO and volcanic activity correlates extremely well with all the recent past temperature changes.

  40. Ralph Snyder says:

    I do not agree that the chart presented shows that there is nothing about current global warming. Setting aside that the temperature reconstruction is for the Northern Hemisphere only and setting aside the fact the peak at the present is higher than the other peaks, there is one varying interesting aspect that leaps out. That is the rate at which temperatures have changed.

    Depending on where you put the maxima and minima, the cooling off from the Roman Warm Period lasted maybe 300 hundred years and cooled maybe 0.5C. The period leading up to the Medieval Warm Period saw an overall temperature rise of about 0.6C over a period of about 500 years. The cooling into the Little Ice Age was a drop of 0.8C over 600 or 700 years.

    Compare this to the modern warming. It is 0.8C over not quite 200 years.

  41. TheFinalNail says:

    To my astonishment I found the following quote in the conclusion of the paper from which Dr Spencer obtained the graph used in the above article (Ljungqvist, F.C., 2010):

    “Although partly different data and methods have been used in our reconstruction than in Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al.(2008), the result is surprisingly similar.”

    Eh?

    Are we to take it then that Dr Spencer endorses the findings Mann et al. 2005?

    Et tu, Roy?

    • TheFinalNail says:

      Mann et al. 2008 even!

    • Reality check: the argument is over whether current temperatures are “unprecedented” relative to the present, if we look over the last 1000 years. Moberg et al 2005., does not support this claim. Ljungqvist doesn’t support that claim either. And as a matter of fact, Mann 2008 doesn’t it either. Where things get dodgy is when you try to glue the instrumental temperature record to the end of the proxies. Thermometers respond immediately to temperature change. Proxies, i.e., lake bed sediments, not so much. Global temperature reconstructions also average multiple proxies which will tend to smooth the spikes. Alarmists don’t want to discuss these issues (or may not even want to know) since it doesn’t fit into their narrative.

  42. what is mean median mode and range

  43. Richard says:

    Ok so let me start by saying that I am “green” … I always start out this way because if you don’t you lose many people right out of the gate.

    When I say Im green, however, I mean that I believe (I think like nearly every human on the planet) that we should not be poisoning our water with toxins and human waste, should not be putting mercury and heavy metals into landfills, but absolutely be creating cheap and abundant energy to create jobs and wealth (not tax wealth… personal wealth).

    That was my pre-amble… my question is even more fundamental than whether AGW is real or perceived. In my reading of 100s of articles, I have not seen any evidence that is clear that CO2 could even cause global warming, natural or manmade.

    That is to say, if a volcano erupts somewhere in the world, it would put something in the order of a 1,000,000 times the CO2 into the air that man could produce. If that is the case would the earth wildly warm up?

    Where is the evidence that CO2 is responsible for anything except giving all the plant life more “air to breathe”?

  44. I every time spent my half an hour to read this blog’s content every day along
    with a mug of coffee.

Leave a Reply