Answering Ron Bailey’s Question: “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

April 6th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

I just found out that Ron Bailey at Reason.com published an article a few days ago entitled, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?

I’ve spent some time with Ron, and he is a very sharp guy. That’s why I’m a little disappointed that he would publish this mixture of straw man arguments and uncritical thinking. He is the only deep thinker I know of who switched from being a skeptic about the causes of global warming to a believer…an epiphany which occurred in 2005, according to the article. (Hmmm…I wonder if he was fooled by all those major hurricanes that hit the U.S. that year? It’s now almost 10 years later, and we haven’t had one since.)

The first problem I have is with his premise: that skeptics believe humans have no role in climate change. I don’t know of any serious skeptics who hold such a view. Now, maybe he is addressing people who deny any human involvement in global warming. His article is vague, and maybe he can clarify his intent for us.

The second problem I have is with Ron’s list of a variety of evidences of global-average warming, which (again) no skeptic worth their salt disputes. The science dispute is over how much of the warming is manmade versus natural. Like too many others, Ron conflates climate change with human-caused climate change, which are not the same thing.

Regarding his list, he seems to believe they are independent evidences of manmade warming. Wrong. To the extent warming occurs, even if it is entirely natural, warming would occur in the atmosphere and deep ocean; it would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor, as well as precipitation; the warming would be stronger in the upper troposphere than the lower troposphere; and stronger over land than over the ocean.

These things would all occur together anyway, no matter the cause of the warming, Ron. And causation is, indeed, the question which science so far cannot answer.

Since climate models cannot even hindcast what has happened (let alone forecast), they clearly have no handle on multi-decadal temperature changes brought about by natural effects. There does not even need to be any forcing — e.g. the sun, volcanoes, etc. — in order for climate to change because the ocean-atmosphere system is nonlinear and dynamical — in a word, chaotic. It can change all by itself. For example, it this plot we see that global warming (and cooling) has been the rule, not the exception, for the last 2,000 years:

Ljungqvist-2000-yrs-temp-reconstruction

If the above graph is anywhere close to what has actually happened, then most centuries have experienced global warming or cooling. So, what would it take to predict global warming (along with all of the correlated changes, listed above) due to any cause you’d like to invoke?

Basically, all it takes is a flip of a coin.

If you wonder, how could so many scientists be wrong? Well, the medical community had millions of peptic ulcers to study, and it took decades (and two brave Australian researchers) to finally convince them of a bacterial basis for ulcers.

The Earth, in contrast, is a single subject, and we can’t easily or quickly test its response to various treatments. It would be very easy for group think to dominate the scientific community, especially when continued funding depends on a continued climate crisis.

A third problem I have with Ron’s article: he uses “falsifiable predictions” of the future as evidence supporting his case! Really? Well, we’ve already had abundant predictions of what would happen by now from modelers like James Hansen that have turned out to be wrong. There you go, skeptics have real falsified predictions they can point to….not predictions of what might happen 10 years from now.

Why didn’t he mention the recent increase in papers (our APJAS paper included) with evidence that recent warming has been partly natural? Yes, as he says, natural variability can work both ways (warming OR cooling), but the available evidence is that recent warming was partly due to nature. Significantly, that warming occurred during the period when climate modelers developed their models, and since they assumed all warming was manmade, they had to increase the models’ sensitivity. Now, they are between a rock and a hard place, continuing to publish overly-sensitivity models they know are wrong (based upon both surface AND deep ocean warming rates).

Such a travesty would never be allowed in a hard discipline that uses physics, like engineering. An impartial judge with any cajones wouldn’t even allow climate models as evidence in a court of law since they have, so far, largely failed in their predictions.

Does Ron know that the deep-ocean warming since the 1950s is so weak (if it is even real from an observational error perspective) that it represents only a 1 part in 1,000 imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy? Do we really believe that chaotic changes in the circulations of the ocean and atmosphere cannot create such a tiny imbalance? The above graph (along with historical evidence of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period) suggests such small changes are fairly routine.

So, Ron asks what evidence would convince me that recent warm was manmade? Well, how about knowledge of how much natural climate change would have occurred without human influence? Then we would know the remainder was human-induced. Except, there is no way to know the natural component. If there was, climate models would have reasonably replicated the temperature changes since the 1950s rather than looking like a bowl of spaghetti.

And since I already believe manmade climate change (to some non-zero extent) is real, maybe I can ask Ron: What evidence would persuade you that your original question is nothing more than a straw man argument?

I hate to impute motives, but I really have to wonder if he is succumbing to peer pressure, since believing anything that smacks of denial-ism is really frowned upon in the intellectual circles I’m sure Ron is part of.

Yes, I believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably caused some warming, even though there is no way to prove it. Just how much human-caused warming is the question. And, as Ron correctly notes, it says nothing about what if anything should (or even can) be done about it anyway.


198 Responses to “Answering Ron Bailey’s Question: “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?””

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. dave says:

    “What evidence would…”

    It would require an alien of great power; who might “pull up the weed of mankind.” If the seasons continued to revolve much as before, the decent thing would be to leave a note of apology in our graves.

  2. JohnKl says:

    Hi Roy,

    Good post. Back in the 1990’s Ron Bailey wrote a book on the environmental state of the planet which provided some empirical evidence that planetary conditions improved due to CAPITALISM. Which follows the Libertarian line. The problem for Libertarians results from the fact that politically they remain an endangered species. So, they tend to bend or twist themselves to fit in with this or that group so they can woo just enough support to get elected to something ( like an Alaska Governorship ), somewhere but they retain little influence on the debate. Why? Well they tend to be alarmists themselves. For them to harangue the climate community over carbon paranoia when many of them freak out over flouridated water does seem odd. Btw, their remains good reasons to be concerned about flouridated water but one can take steps to minimize and/or avoid it and the issue like others can be over-played.

    Ron wrote:

    “However, in my best judgment the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the greenhouse gases produced by humanity are warming the climate and that it could be a significant issue later in this century. In the foregoing I have aimed to cite data, not model outputs. I have long been a critic of computer climate models.”

    This line seems particularly ALARMIST coming as it does from a LIBERTARIAN! Warming could be a serious issue later in the century? How much later? A year later? Does he mean the latter half of the century? He claims to be a critic of computer models, but shows little appropriate skepticism in his statement. How could warming be a serious issue at all? Who will find it serious and why? Warming if it occurred would benefit many and possibly result in damage to very few since warmer climates tend to support more life!

    Some few posts back you brought up Ayn Rand. In on of her writings some time ago she distanced herself from eLibertarianism almost as much as Conservatism for different reasons. Without a central body of dicta, like OBJECTIVISM cocked-up by Rand to be the universal touch-stone for all things supposedly ordered in her mind (not that she would say that since she apparently believed herself to be unequaled accept maybe by Aristotle), Libertarianism remains bound to the sensory and must always seek every minutia of evidence and leap on the possibility that some new phenomenon or piece of data may mean may have to alter their world-view since they cling much more tightly to empiricism than even logic. Which to me remains why even though little seems alarming about the environment in regards to warming they must cling to Hayek’s warning about being an obscurantist and pursue every claim by some academic somewhere as if the fate of the planet really hung in the balance. Too strange really!

    Have a great day!

    • JohnKl says:

      Correction my statement should have read:

      “In on of her writings (referring to Ayn Rand) some time ago she distanced herself from Libertarianism almost as much as Conservatism for different reasons.”

      • JohnKl says:

        Correction my statement should have read:

        “In one of her writings (referring to Ayn Rand) some time ago she distanced herself from Libertarianism almost as much as Conservatism for different reasons.”

        Oops!

        Have a great day!

  3. ossqss says:

    Just look at the adjustments made to GISS. Those adjustments are absolutely man made for sure 🙂

    Now, where is the observed (not modeled) downside again on warming, regardless of how it happened?

  4. Mike Moore says:

    Roy writes:
    Roy Says:
    “The first problem I have is with his premise: that skeptics believe humans have no role in climate change. I don’t know of any serious skeptics who hold such a view.”

    The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works says:
    “God’s still up there”, the “arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

    This latter view is held by many Republicans in congress. I am glad to hear you don’t think these people are serious. Same goes for many of your biggest fans in the comment section of your own blog.

    • BBould says:

      I’m an independent and always have voted both sides of the fence, but I find your statements,

      “This latter view is held by many Republicans in congress.”

      “Same goes for many of your biggest fans in the comment section of your own blog.”

      repugnant.

      I’m also not religious in any sense of the word.

      Can you prove any of your statements or are you just shooting off at the mouth?

      • Lewis says:

        What would it take? Reasonable proofs and, most importantly, a willingness by those proposing AGW to listen to and encourage those who question their science and/or beliefs.

        Unfortunately, those who advocate AGW policies have gone so far off the other side as to become authoritarian.

        Finally, even if it were proved, the question remains, ‘SO WHAT?’ Why would we not want a warmer climate. Farmlands in Canada and Russia become arable. Why would we want policies whose intent is to give us more snow and ice?

        Answer that last one Mike Moore.

  5. ossqss says:

    Courtesy of the one who was formerly banned on Twitter last week. Not the newest edition, but directly relavent.

    https://twitter.com/tan123/status/584849140011536384

    • FTOP says:

      ossqss,

      Great post and focuses on the key issue — perspective!

      How this world swallowed the hook that a trace gas at .04% of the atmosphere drives anything is a conspiracy wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

      My outdoor area has a built in bar of dark granite. At noon, in the sun, it is untouchable and probably 160 degrees F. When the shade hits, it drops to the ambient temperature around it. It is the sun warming the oceans that drives climate. Anyone who thinks the world would be 33 degrees C cooler without DWLIR is free to plant their face on my outdoor bar at noon.

  6. George Applegate says:

    In that method, a hypothesis is put forward, and it must have two features: 1) it must be testable, and 2) it must be falsifiable. To be testable, it must make a prediction that would not otherwise be expected, and this prediction can be empirically tested through experiment. To be falsifiable, there must be a circumstance, also measurable but not necessarily producible, that will prove the hypothesis false. The hypothesis is often the result of a correlation with a plausible causation.

    Take the hypothesis that umbrellas cause rain. Despite having no plausible mechanism, there is strong correlation. One could construct a test where the residents of a city would participate by bringing umbrellas out on a clear day to see if it produced rain. One could also wait for a falsifiable condition where the residents of the city failed to bring their umbrellas on a clear day yet it unexpectedly rained all the same.

    The hypothesis that CO2 is the primary driver of climate is not strictly testable but is falsifiable. One cannot do experiments on the climate, but the hypothesis, when implemented as a set of computer models, did make many predictions that temperatures would rise this century in a given pattern based on a rise in CO2. This was a weak test in that temperatures could already be expected to rise in this same pattern simply based on past temperature history. Thus if the rise in temperature had matched model predictions, this would not have proven the hypothesis. But there was an opportunity for falsification if the temperatures did not follow the model predictions. This fortuitously occurred, falsifying the hypothesis.

  7. Gary H says:

    If I may? Dr. Spencer says:

    “The science dispute is over how much of the warming is manmade versus natural.”

    True; however there is much more to the debate. The second science debate which follows, is: ‘has that manmade portion of the global warming (since 1950ish) created additional measurable [worsening, or otherwise] climate changes (drought, extreme heat waves, intense rains/floods, tropical cyclonic activity, sea level rise, etc), and to what extent in the future.’

    I’d also note that we’ve gotten to the point that questions presented are nothing less than worthlessly vague and misleading. When someone is asked either, “do you believe in GW, or in CC,” are they asking them if they believe in that, or is the assumption that they are implying AGW, or ACC?

    And, when they say CC, are they asking about AGW, or CACC?

    The intelligent position for the skeptical crowd (from layman to scientists to politicians) would be to respond first to such questions with, “would you please explain what you are asking me about?”

    • Ben says:

      Context… so many in the alarmist camp (as I have noticed, but perhaps my observations are subject to confirmation bias) seem to either unwittingly or sometimes demonstrably, neglect framing a question in a meaningful context, in order to catch off-guard those who do not think too deeply about the subject, which is perhaps the majority of westerners who, frankly, are too preoccupied with more immediately pressing issues.

      Asking somebody if they “believe in climate change” is a little like asking if they “believe in refrigeration.” Refrigeration is interesting, sure, but to what end? For what purpose? It is not a belief system, nor a deity of unprovable existence, it is not an ideology, it is a physical process involving demonstrably real physical mechanisms. One does not “believe in” refrigeration though one may “believe in” (in a sense) using it to preserve food. Likewise, one does not “believe in” climate change or global warming or whatever perverse mind trick name change they are going to conjure up next, though one may believe that it is or is not dangerous within certain defining parameters and limits, and as to whether one believes it is man-made is a whole other question often willfully ignored by alarmists altogether (in my view).

  8. Below I make the case that all of the rise in the global temperature trend last century can be linked to natural variability.

    From 1998-present the rise in global temperatures from the late 1970’s-1998 which was due to natural causes has turned into a temperature pause.

    What were the natural causes from the late 1970’s -1998 ,that caused the global temperature trend to rise?

    High to Very High Solar Activity which lasted to year 2005.

    PDO to Warm Phase during late 1970’s (the great climatic shift)

    Volcanic Activity early 1980’s and 1992 then only to become very quiet post 1992.

    AMO to warm phase 1995.

    Super El Nino in 1998, with periods of more El Nino’s versus La Nina’s from the late 1970’s -1998.

    A highly zonal atmospheric circulation as reflected in NAO/AO data.

    A rise in ocean heat content which correlates to the rise in solar activity. Sunspot numbers exceeding 40 which translates to warming.

    Since 1998 the natural forces promoting warming( from 1978-1998) have all subsided and are presently trending toward promoting a cooler climate going forward. This should persist for the next 30+ years.

  9. https://twitter.com/tan123/status/584849140011536384

    I think this post plus my last two makes a pretty strong case that AGW theory is nothing more then speculation because everything they have called for has not materialized.

  10. geran says:

    “Yes, I believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably caused some warming, even though there is no way to prove it.”

    It’s kind of hard to prove something that is neither happening, nor compliant with the laws of physics.

    So, “believe” is the key word here.

    • FTOP says:

      Agreed.

      It all starts with the 33C myth. It is the Piltdown Man of climate science. The physics just don’t support this untenable position. When that myth falls, the jig is up.

      • So you believe theories of radiation that make your wireless networks work and your mobile phones work, but you then don’t believe the same theories when applied to the behaviour of the atmosphere. Geniuses.

        • Mike Flynn says:

          Will Nitshke,

          I suggest you read John Tyndall’s “Heat as Motion.”

          If you find his experiments in error in any major way, I will salute you!

          Maybe you haven’t actually read Tyndall’s work, judging from your comment.

          If you have, you might like to quote Tyndall’s words in support of your apparently dismissive statements. I doubt that you can, but I’m always prepared to change my beliefs, based on new information.

          Live well and prosper,

          Mike Flynn.

          • I don’t waste time reading some guy’s theory from the 1850’s about a topic that is near certain, when so much about this subject matter is legitimately uncertain.

          • Doug   Cotton says:

            Is there something, Will, which you consider “uncertain” about the Second Law of Thermodynamics? If you are unsure about how maximum entropy production involves the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials, I am happy to explain this area of thermodynamics in which I have carried out extensive post-graduate study and research, writing two papers based on such, plus articles and a book. It is vitally important and relevant to the climate debate, because climatologists have not correctly determined what is the state of maximum entropy in the troposphere of any planet, and thus have not understood the consequent corollaries that relate to climate and completely refute the radiative greenhouse hoax.

        • FTOP says:

          I believe that all electronics “work” or more accurately “perform work” by utilizing a source of power. Remove the power cords and batteries from your wireless modem and mobile phone and make a few calls. If your having trouble connecting, hit it with a cannister of CO2.

          Where is the power source for your atmosphere that performs like my mobile phone’s battery? How do you get work out of a component with no power?

        • Doug   Cotton says:

          What those qualified in physics who have kept up to date with 21st century developments in the understanding of radiation (such as myself) believe about how radiation transfers thermal energy (and when it doesn’t) is summarized (with citations to the relevant physics and computations) in my review-type paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” which is linked from the page entitled “Evidence” on the website http://climate-change-theory.com that is endorsed by our group of persons suitably qualified in physics.

      • geran says:

        That is a great analogy–“255K” to “Piltdown Man”.

        Fakes, frauds, phonies, and pseudoscientists, all exposed!

  11. Rich B says:

    What evidence would persuade me?

    When Climate models can reasonably forecast future temperature increases as currently the gap between forecasted increase and actual temperature is increasing not narrowing.

    When we know what the actual climate sensitivity is plus/minus 15% – we all know it’s not the CO2 but the sensitivity of feedback that could lead to warming

    Is the warming that has taken place so far been beneficial or harmful to mankind?

    If it hasn’t been harmful yet when will cost exceed the benefits? Do we know all the potential benefits?

    If it is harmful how much will it cost to correct it? Will the cure cost more than the disease?

    Lastly… What would take to persuade you that while the climate has warmed in past 100 years that future warming will be small enough that it is not worth spending trillions of dollars and lowering our standard of living?

  12. Kristian says:

    “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?”

    Any evidence! Any actual empirical evidence …

  13. Ron Bailey says:

    Hi Roy: I very much appreciate your civil response to my recent article. Thank you.

    First, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, but I don’t think that I was burning any straw men. You write:

    The first problem I have is with his premise: that skeptics believe humans have no role in climate change. I don’t know of any serious skeptics who hold such a view.

    I certainly did not mean to imply that skeptics like yourself hold such views. I have re-read my article and I don’t see how it could be reasonably interpreted as saying such a thing. For example, the headline question is NOT about warming, but about MAN-MADE warming.

    Second, you are, of course, quite right when you write:

    To the extent warming occurs, even if it is entirely natural, warming would occur in the atmosphere and deep ocean; it would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor, as well as precipitation; the warming would be stronger in the upper troposphere than the lower troposphere; and stronger over land than over the ocean.

    These things would all occur together anyway, no matter the cause of the warming, Ron. And causation is, indeed, the question which science so far cannot answer.

    I state twice in the article that “correlation does not imply causation.” And I also note: It might be that it is just so happens that natural climate variability has boosted global temperatures and the trends discussed above are occurring coincidentally at the same time the concentrations of carbon dioxide are 30 percent above their highest levels in the past 800,000 years.

    Third, the climate sensitivity wild card remains – is it low, medium, or high? I do cite one study which concludes that there is no way to resolve this important question without gathering further data over the next several decades.

    Fourth, with regard to the falsifiable predictions I cite – I intend to hold them to it, e.g., if global average temperature is not rising at a rate +0.25 per decade by 2020 that will strongly tend to discredit the more catastrophic projections of future warming.

    I am curious – if GMT does begin a sustained rapid ascent in the next few years such that the long term trends projected in the models begin to look plausible – how would that bear on your views about man-made contributions to climate change?

    In any case, I very much appreciate the tremendous contribution that you have made and are making to the scientific debate over climate change.

    • David A says:

      “And causation is, indeed, the question which science so far cannot answer.”

      “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
      http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      • Appell, nobody is denying that various articles published in the literature use various circular arguments to claim that warming must be man made. Just as there are various articles published in the literature that put forward the opposite claims. Citing your favourite articles and ignoring the ones you don’t like doesn’t get anyone closer to an answer.

        • David A says:

          That article in Nature is the best evidence yet that changes in CO2 cause changes in radiative forcing, which causes warming. It’s even better than some of the studies done in the past, like

          “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).

          “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).

          “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007)

          “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)

          • Nobody is arguing that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas and that it doesn’t cause warming. Do you even understand what’s being debated?

          • Doug   Cotton says:

            Of course I am arguing (and have proved) that CO2 and water vapor do not warm: they both cool. The empirical evidence is overwhelming that water vapor cools, and that’s enough to prove the radiative forcing paradigm is totally wrong. Now jump to my 10:34pm comment just below.

    • Bailey, you had the opportunity to address Dr Spencer’s main criticism of your article. Which was that the evidence you presented was consistent with natural warming and man made warming. You had the opportunity to address that criticism but failed to do so. (In fairness, you did not mention evidence which was inconsistent and made various attemps to explain it away.)

      You also have a confused sense of the role of falsifiability in the scientific process. String theory flavour 123 will be consistent with all available observations. If it wasn’t consistent, or reasonably consistent, flavour 123 would not even get off the ground as a theory. Physicists then do not assume that flavour 123 is true and correct until falsified by the LHC. If physicists do assume flavour 123 is true and correct, something else odd is going on. Can you see how what you are claiming is actually a little silly?

      • Doug   Cotton says:

        No Will, because physicists can correctly explain that gravity forms a density and temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere, then there is no need to go looking for an alternative explanation which assumes water vapor warms the surface (instead of gravity) especially when we already know that water vapor cools and Foehn winds get warmer when they release such water vapor.

        In that you have no evidence supporting the fictitious fiddled fissics of climatology, there is no point in us discussing your assumption that, what is in reality all natural warming and cooling in natural cycles has anything to do with carbon dioxide. You see, if the IPCC were right about their GH gases raising the surface temperature by 33 degrees, then, because we know that the greenhouse house water vapor (about 1% to 4% of the atmosphere) actually cools, then that leaves a lot of warming (well over 33 degrees) all to be done mostly by the 0.04% that is carbon dioxide, especially if increasing carbon dioxide also increases that cooling water vapor.

        Good luck with your efforts in spreading the hoax, causing people in developing countries to starve, depriving them of real humanitarian aid when the money is diverted to carbon dioxide aid, and helping the UN to achieve their stated aim to overcome capitalism.

    • Bart says:

      I am curious – if GMT fails to indicate any ascent in the next few years such that the long term trends projected in the models become even less likely than they already are – how would that bear on your views about man-made contributions to climate change?

      If 18 years isn’t enough to jog your faith, just how long is long enough?

      • David A says:

        The “18 year” reference is cheating. Only one dataset out of many (RSS, UAH, GISS, HadCRUT4, NOAA, Cowtan & Way, Ocean Heat Content, etc) shows no warming over 18 years — RSS. Naturally that’s the one many contrarians cite (which Dr. Spencer has laughed at), and he’s argued here that RSS has problems (a decaying satellite orbit that must be corrected via a climate model).

        What happens on the surface and in atmosphere depends not just on GHGs, but on natural variability. You can only make a judgement about GHG warming if you somehow try to correct for natural variability, or if you look at a time interval long enough that natural variability averages to a small change or approximates zero.

        As Roger Pielke Sr keeps emphasizing, by far the best place to look for a planetary energy imbalance, like the one created by GHGs, is in the ocean, because it absorbs over 90% of the trapped heat. (NOAA scientist Gregory Johnson said, “Global warming *IS* ocean warming.) The heating there is steadily upward.

        So the approriate question is really for you: how much longer must the ocean go on warming before you accept the rapid change in climate that is AGW?

        • Bart says:

          The warmist contingent fought tooth and nail against Pielke, Sr.’s recommendation until the atmospheric warming turned against them. Now, they desperately clutch that last straw. It is beyond farce.

          And, every major temperature set shows no significant atmospheric warming for the entire 21st century.

          You’re just trying to throw up chaff. Nobody buys your chicanery. I wonder why you bother?

          • Excellent point. I recall the climate geniuses at RC dismissing ocean heat content because atmospheric warming is how global warming is measured… When the atmosphere stopped warming suddenly they had renewed interest in trying to find it in the oceans.

            Appell’s crankism involves attacking any scientific data that doesn’t match his belief system (e.g., sats). No data set is “pure” but the sat data looks by far the cleanest. (Least number of adjustments to the raw data.) On top of that, it measures nearly the entire atmosphere so that we can better understand what is happening, rather than just some thin layer at the surface. If this data conformed to Appell’s beliefs he would be championing it rather than attacking it.

        • geran says:

          David’s “science” amuses us again. If the oceans are warming (about to boil), then it should not be so hard for a “super” El Nino to form, huh?

          How many “super” El Ninos have we seen in the last 10 years?

          But, back to the hilarity of David’s “science”….

          • This was Hansen’s pet theory for a long time. He predicted that a super El Nino was around the corner, back in 2006. We ended up with a double La Nina instead. He tried predicting again but again it didn’t happen. I think he gave up at that point and has since retired. Trenbeth then took up the mantle and predicted last year that there would a super El Nino. This was so weak, it barely registered on the sats.

            Or in other words, all these guys are somehne how 99% certain of what they claim except none of their predictions seem to pan out. (Obviously they can’t be 100% certain because only mad people are 100% certain. If you’re just 99% certain, you’re apparently still sane.)

        • ELC says:

          Allow me to call to your attention that IPCC has already acknowledged that the thermometer-based datasets show no trend from 1998-2012, in AR5 published in 2013: “Regardless, all global combined LSAT and SST data sets exhibit a statistically non-significant warming trend over 1998–2012 (0.042°C ± 0.093°C per decade (HadCRUT4); 0.037°C ± 0.085°C per decade (NCDC MLOST); 0.069°C ± 0.082°C per decade (GISS)).”

          http://ipcc.wikia.com/wiki/152.4.3_Global_Combined_Land_and_Sea_Surface_Temperature

    • fonzarelli says:

      The crux of the problem is that we have been in a three hundred year warming trend ANYWAY. And we have no way of knowing how much agw has contributed to that. Because we are in a long term warming trend, we also cannot say definitively that carbon levels are high because of human activities. We rely on ice cores as though they are holy writ. What theory can possibly stand on as yet unverifiable data such as ice cores? Carbon growth runs lock step with temperature. This is even evidenced in the last three hundred years of high resolution (shallow) ice cores. This opens the possibility that carbon growth over the last three centuries may be natural as well. It is also known that co2 travels directly through ice as well as through capillaries in ice long after the bubbles have closed. The change happens slowly enough so that it isn’t quantifiable. (ahn 2008) Such migration of co2 in ice renders ice cores moot. AND yet the entirety of agw theory rests upon them…

    • Mike M. says:

      Ron Bailey:

      You wrote: “with regard to the falsifiable predictions … if global average temperature is not rising at a rate +0.25 per decade by 2020 …”

      Just what does that mean? What minimum change in temperature over what time period would it take to satisfy that prediction? The error bars on such slopes are considerable. And does it have to be in all data sets, or just some number of them?

      A prediction needs to be specific to be falsifiable.

    • Dr. Strangelove says:

      Ron Bailey

      “It might be that it is just so happens that natural climate variability has boosted global temperatures and the trends discussed above are occurring coincidentally at the same time the concentrations of carbon dioxide are 30 percent above their highest levels in the past 800,000 years.”

      Not just “might be.” It’s obvious. We are in an interglacial period. Warming is the norm. Your theory would have some credence if we were in the middle of glacial period and accelerated warming suddenly occurred coincidentally with man’s CO2 emissions. Only fanatic fools point to the coincidence as proof that man is destroying the world.

      “the climate sensitivity wild card remains – is it low, medium, or high?”

      You are contradicting your own theory because reality debunked it. Highest CO2 level in 800,000 years! We should be out of the Quaternary ice age by now. Polar regions should be ice free. Since the ice sheet in both poles is still a kilometer thick, climate sensitivity must be low. But the high priest of the Church of Global Warming must say climate sensitivity is a wild card and pretend he has magical powers.

      “if global average temperature is not rising at a rate +0.25 per decade by 2020 that will strongly tend to discredit the more catastrophic projections of future warming.”

      The high priest is still asserting his magical powers. 18 years no warming despite highest CO2 level in 800,000 years! No, 5 years from now the apocalypse will come. Fanatic fools have been waiting for the apocalypse for 2,000 years. I bet 5 billion years into the future, the high priest is still preaching the apocalypse will come in 5 years.

    • An Inquirer says:

      Mr. Bailey,
      Thank you for coming on the blog to discuss. Of course, I am tempted to respond to a number of your comments, but I will restrict my post to the question if my views would be changed “if GMT does begin a sustained rapid ascent in the next few years.” Over the years I thought of the provocative question of what it would take to change my mind again? — and I have already changed my mind from pro-CAGW to skeptic.

      The GMT measure is a big obstacle. To use surface-measured GMT as the measure, there must be reform in the calculation of GMT. Requirements would include: (1) stop cooling the past, (2) improve integrity of current temperature determination and (3) if adjustment are made, they must have logical results. The illogical results of the current adjustments are many, but one example: Great Lakes states have had below normal actual temperatures for a couple of years; but adjusted, the temperatures are normal; meanwhile, we have record levels of ice on the Great Lakes.

      So therefore, if you are going to use GMT as the measure, it would need to be satellite-measured as things look now. I care not whether UAH or RSS or a combination is used.

      And if GMT by 2020 shows .25 per decade increase for the 21st century, then I will again become a believer that anthropogenic causes are the main driver behind GW. (There may be some discussion whether the AGW is catastrophic, but we can face that discussion later.)

    • An Inquirer says:

      Mr. Bailey,

      Please check in once and while to continue genuine and respectful discussions. I have never had a current believer in CAGW continue long in the review of available information. Whether the subject is model performance, or trends in hurricanes, or trends in tornadoes, or stratospheric cooling, or the “hotspot,” or scientific integrity, or polar ice, or polar bears, or agricultural production, or temperature measurements . . . I have never found a CAGW proponent wanting to look long at the evidence with an open mind. (In fact, such behavior was the impetus for my questioning which changed me from a believer to a skeptic.) You have asked a question, you have staked the terms, and I — and probably others — have agreed to the conditions that would change our minds. It would be great to check in on the values of our metrics develop in the next five years. Please stay in touch!

    • Doug   Cotton says:

       

      Regarding CO2 effects, may I suggest you all read this comment.

       

      I’m always happy to help, and will reply to any who wish to discuss the thermodynamics and entropy issues involved in the new 21st Century Paradigm in our understanding of planetary temperatures and energy flows.

       

      • Doug   Cotton says:

        PS: As it is easy to miss replies on this blog, please include one of the words “entropy” or “thermodynamic” in your questions about the physics involved in planetary systems (that being my specialized field of post-graduate study) and I shall search those words.

  14. Ron says:

    Forgive me if someone has already made this argument but the problem with both articles is stated in Bailey’s last paragraph. “The existence of man-made warming does not mandate any particular policies.” This statement the real heart of the argument and is completely wrong. The mandating of particular policies, such as wind, solar, ethanol and the like, which do little if anything or more harm than good, are considered good. While advocating increasing the production of hydroelectricity, nuclear power or natural gas, which are the only means which scale to the level of the problem, are enough to get even a true believer in AGW labeled as a denier. If it were not for the mandating of particular policies belief or disbelief in AGW or GW would be literally academic rather than an attempt by some to take over energy production and use on a global scale.

    • Mike M. says:

      Ron makes an important point. The alarmists insist that once you accept that if there is man-made warming, certain policies must follow. I think that is why politicians make statements denying that there is any man-made warming; to do otherwise would be to walk into a trap that has been set for them (“Senator Blowhard admits we are causing catastrophic climate change, but still refuses to do anything about it!”).

      So I agree with Roy that serious skeptics admit there is a human role in climate change. Politicians making statements for public consumption do not count as serious.

  15. David A says:

    Roy Spencer wrote:
    “To the extent warming occurs, even if it is entirely natural, warming would occur in the atmosphere and deep ocean; it would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor, as well as precipitation; the warming would be stronger in the upper troposphere than the lower troposphere; and stronger over land than over the ocean.”

    But natural, non-greenhouse warming *wouldn’t* cause a cooling stratosphere, which is observed to be happening. And that’s expected with AGW’s enhanced greenhouse effect.

    • Appell, yes it would. As has been explained at the RC web site any type of warming will increase atmospheric water vapour. This will produce a hot spot in the mid troposphere and cool the stratosphere. For a guy who spends all his time typing away on global warming web sites and pretending to debate ‘deniers’ how can you not know these basic facts?

    • David A says:

      My comment was about the stratosphere, not water vapor or the hot spot. Try to read harder.

      • Appell, I gave you the correct answer which also describes what happens to the stratosphere and your response is incoherent babble.

      • David A says:

        No, not any type of warming cools the stratosphere. Warming from increased solar irradiance warms the stratosphere. GHGs cool the stratosphere, and increase the height of the tropopause. Both are observed.

        • You are wrong. At least you’re consistent. Warming from any source will increase water vapour content. This will cool the stratosphere as it warms the troposphere.

          • Mike M. says:

            Will Nitschke,

            Do you have a source for your claim that “Warming from any source … will cool the stratosphere”? I thought the stratospheric cooling in the models was mainly from increased WMGHG cooling the stratosphere by helping to radiate the energy (largely UV) absorbed in the stratosphere. I don’t see how tiny changes in upwelling IR could have much of an effect on the stratosphere.

          • What you’re saying is correct. However, climate models typically assume a water vapour feedback that magnifies the warming by a further 2-3X. RC refer to the following article as the ‘best explanation’ relating climate models assumptions:

            http://www.xplora.org/downloads/Knoppix/ESPERE/ESPEREdez05/ESPEREde/www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,55a304092d09/2__Ozone/-_Cooling_nd.html

            See in particular “Cooling due to the greenhouse effect”

          • Mike M. says:

            Will,

            Thanks for the reference, but it is not really helpful since there are no numbers for the various contributions to stratospheric radiation balance.

            Under “Cooling due to the greenhouse effect” it says: “the greenhouse gas can block most of the outgoing infrared radiation already close to the Earth surface. Nearly no radiation from the surface can, therefore, reach the carbon dioxide residing in the upper troposphere or lower stratosphere.”
            That is at best misleading. The fact that IR from the surface is absorbed and re-emitted is irrelevant. At steady state, greenhouse gases have almost no effect on the total upward IR reaching the stratosphere. At present, they reduce the total upward IR by 0.5 W/m^2. I don’t see how that can make a difference of more than 0.1 K.

            So I assert that what happens in the stratosphere tells us nothing about what is happening in the troposphere. I am will to be convinced otherwise.

          • Again, all fair comments. I suspect the actual numbers assumed are going to depend on which climate model you’re looking at. Which is a different question again, from what really happens.

        • An Inquirer says:

          Stratospheric cooling has not been observed since the cessation of major volcanic eruptions in the mid-latitudes. Since around 1995, the stratospheric temperatures have not cooled.

    • Bart says:

      “But natural, non-greenhouse warming *wouldn’t* cause a cooling stratosphere…”

      Greenhouse warming is not the only phenomenon consistent with a cooling stratosphere, which is largely driven by UV absorption by ozone. And, your usual cherry picking like this doesn’t work for you here. The possibilities are:

      A) tropospheric warming / stratospheric cooling
      B) tropospheric cooling/ stratospheric cooling
      C) tropospheric cooling/ stratospheric warming
      D) tropospheric warming / stratospheric warming

      Only (A) is consistent with the AGW orthodoxy. You get no points for 1 out of 2.

      • David A says:

        “Greenhouse warming is not the only phenomenon consistent with a cooling stratosphere, which is largely driven by UV absorption by ozone.”

        Is ozone recently absorbing more UV? Is less UV incident on the surface? GHGs, however, are changing…..

  16. But natural, non-greenhouse warming *wouldn’t* cause a cooling stratosphere, which is observed to be happening. And that’s expected with AGW’s enhanced greenhouse effect.

    MY REPLY -Solar variability is tied into ozone production which is directly tied in with the temperatures of the stratosphere.

    In addition high latitude volcanic eruptions warm the stratosphere.

    • David A says:

      “Solar variability is tied into ozone production which is directly tied in with the temperatures of the stratosphere.”

      Solar variability has been on a slight long-term decline since about 1950.

      “In addition high latitude volcanic eruptions warm the stratosphere.”

      Yes, but only for a very big volcanoes, and the stratospheric warming lasts only a few of years.

  17. There are only things I can think of that strengthens the case for anthropogenic warming as opposed to natural warming.

    * An ‘unnatural’ rate of accelerated warming.

    * Accurate climate model predictions.

    (Since climate models are the basis for the case for man made warming, they must be demonstrated as accurate. This is crucial.)

    That doesn’t make the man made warming case conclusive, but it does lend it credibility. The fact that neither piece of evidence appears to be panning out, doesn’t bode well for this theory.

    I’d also like to ask him: short of 30 years of global cooling, what evidence would persuade you that man-made climate change projections have been grossly exaggerated?

    • David A says:

      The one GISS model I looked at recently has done a pretty good job of calculating total warming seen-to-date, though it’s a little low. Here’s the comparison:

      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-giss-model-vs-giss-observed.html

      • Appell, randomly picking one climate model when you have hundreds to choose from, and then selectively picking one global temperature data set (when you have at least a half dozen to choose from), is a very foolish exercise. So foolish and pointless, that if you were not a crank, you would immediately recognise this.

        Coincidental evidence is not considered very strong evidence in science.

      • (And worse, the authority for your claim is a blog post written by yourself. Dumb.)

        • David A says:

          Anyone can easily download the data and make a plot of it. Probaby even you.

          I didn’t “randomly pick” one model, I picked the GISS model because I’ve been reading a paper about it.

          Face it — that model does a very good job of predicting long-term warming.

          • Given your long history of distortion and misinformation, nobody should waste more than 2 seconds on your nonsense. Lots of climate models are in perfect agreement with the skeptical position, such as the low climate sensitivity climate models. The IPCC does not pick a single model and forecast climate that way anyway.

            But irrespective of the above, you have got to be biggest nitwit on the internet. You are comparing the model to the RCP2.6 scenario, which predicts 0-1.2C of warming by the late-23rd century. That’s exactly what skeptics believe is a most probable scenario.

            By trying to “disprove” the skeptics your evidence is in perfect agreement with their position. You can’t make this stuff up.

          • Bart says:

            He smoothed the data to the point where the 1998 spike drives the entire 21st century – it is grossly disingenuous.

            The data are freely available at the WFT site. None of the major temperature sets, including GISS, show significant warming in the 21st century.

          • David A says:

            “You are comparing the model to the RCP2.6 scenario, which predicts 0-1.2C of warming by the late-23rd century.”

            Wrong. The GISS model I looked at projects, for RCP 2.5, a total warming of 1.67 C for 2100.

            And it doesn’t matter what scenario one chooses to look at total warming so far, since all RCPs uses the same historical GHG data up to 2005. It’s only then that the scenarios start to diverge, and in the first decade (like now) the difference in total warming is small — only 0.01 C for this GISS model RCP 6.0 compared to RCP 2.5.

            -=-=-

            Will, if you can’t stop your impolite name calling, this discussion won’t continue.

          • Appell, wrong again. You’ve got a perfect score in this thread so far. We are not having a “polite conversation”. You are pumping out misinformation as fast as you can and various people are setting the record straight. There is no point being polite to a liar. You are wasting everybody’s time by spreading crap.

            The 1.6-2C you are citing includes the warming that has already occurred. The number cited is unrealised predicted warming. You only get the higher number by pretending that most the warming hasn’t already occurred.

            “The projected warming for 2281–2300, relative to 1986–2005, is 0.0°C to 1.2°C for RCP2.6”

            https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf

            In other words, my information comes directly from the IPCC AR5 report. Your information is pulled out of your arse.

          • David A says:

            Bart wrote:
            “He smoothed the data to the point where the 1998 spike drives the entire 21st century – it is grossly disingenuous.”

            Bull.

            I simply took the yearly averages, calculated the linear trend, and multiplied it by the time intervals, to get total warming.

            With 1998 as it was, total GISTEMP warming = 0.895 C.
            With 1998 as the average of 1997 and 1999, total warming = 0.889 C.

            The difference is 0.006 C.

            You’re wrong. QED

          • David A says:

            “The projected warming for 2281–2300, relative to 1986–2005, is 0.0°C to 1.2°C for RCP2.6″

            You are confused.

            My calculation ends in 2100, and is only for one model, as I’ve made clear all alon.)

            The IPCC’s calculation ends in 2300, and is a multi-model average.

            RCP 2.5 peaks around 2040, and declines thereafter. So it makes no sense to compare total warming in 2100 to total warming in 2300 for that RCP.

          • Nobody is confused Appell, except yourself. For once you actually wrote something correctly, which is exactly what I’ve already pointed out to you.

            Therefore:

            * You carefully selected one very low climate sensitive model, not at all representative of the IPCC modal mean.

            * This model predicts further warming of only 0-1.2C to occur over several HUNDRED years. That’s an average expected warming of only 0.6C. Or about 0.3C per CENTURY. This is a much lower rate of warming than leading skeptics such as Richard Lindzen have estimated.

            * You deviously declare that climate models are “consistent with” warming rates by choosing this model which predicts no future warming.

            * Even though the outlier model shows a trivial amount of actual warming, you have of course concocted this example, because you intend to pretend that this model is “proof” for catastrophic warming when it actually argues the exact opposite once the basic facts are checked.

            That’s why I keep calling you out as a sleazy little weasel. This example you provided serves only one purpose–it’s a lame attempt at trying to confuse and mislead people yet again.

          • Several places where I wrote “model” should have been written “RCP2.6” or “scenario”.

          • Bart says:

            “I simply took the yearly averages, calculated the linear trend, and multiplied it by the time intervals, to get total warming. “

            Bull. Your plot looks nothing like the GISS temperature plot.

          • David says:

            “Bull. Your plot looks nothing like the GISS temperature plot.”

            That’s because my plot isn’t that plot, that’s why. It’s a plot of total warming (=slope*interval).

            It’s clear you didn’t understand my graph at all.

          • David says:

            “* You carefully selected one very low climate sensitive model, not at all representative of the IPCC modal mean.”

            A lie. As I said, I picked the one model I have been reading about.

            “* This model predicts further warming of only 0-1.2C to occur over several HUNDRED years. That’s an average expected warming of only 0.6C. Or about 0.3C per CENTURY.”

            You clearly failed to understand RCP 2.5, and the difference between its warming in 2100 and its warming in 2300. They aren’t the same because the radiative forcing peaks around 2040.

            “This is a much lower rate of warming than leading skeptics such as Richard Lindzen have estimated.”

            Again you fail to understand RCP 2.5, which is a very optimistic scenario, lower than BAU. You could try actually looking at what the scenario is:

            “* You deviously declare that climate models are “consistent with” warming rates by choosing this model which predicts no future warming.”

            Wrong yet again — this model projects 1.67 C of warming by 2100, which is 0.76 C more than GISTEMP finds so far.

            “* Even though the outlier model shows a trivial amount of actual warming, you have of course concocted this example, because you intend to pretend that this model is “proof” for catastrophic warming when it actually argues the exact opposite once the basic facts are checked.”

            I said absolutely nothing about “catastropic” anything. I was showing how the model did for CURRENT WARMING, to today. It underpredicts it.

            “That’s why I keep calling you out as a sleazy little weasel.”

            For someone whose go-to response is juvenile name calling, you get nearly everything wrong, can’t calculate to save you life, and have no science to stand on. Typical.

          • Appell, I cited the IPCC report numbers. I provided the link to the report from the IPCC web site that anyone can check.

            What did you provide? Just your own words. That’s why you’re a little weasel. You’re a liar, you got caught as you usually do. Move on.

          • Bart says:

            “It’s a plot of total warming (=slope*interval).”

            This is mathematical gibberish.

  18. Latest data on stratospheric temperatures show the following DAVID.

    2.) Another is the top of the stratosphere, which has been cooling since the late 1970s. But since the Pacific flipped, it’s warming! That to me says there was an expansion in levels below it (warming). Now, the question becomes: Is this warming driven by the cycles of the ocean – which I believe – that reverses as it cools, leading to stratospheric warming? (We may be starting to see that now and the result would be stronger cold invasions over the continent.) Or is it truly because of the increase in human-caused greenhouse gases? (There’s nothing we can do about nature, though one may argue fossil fuel CO2 is entirely natural, since it comes front plant and animal life.

  19. “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

    “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

    David presents in the above which is nullified by the study I present below.

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/12/agw-falsified-noaa-long-wave-radiation-data-incompatible-with-the-theory-of-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

    • David A says:

      Salvatore, I don’t take my science from blogs, least of all by Jennifer Marohasy.

      I’m sure lots of experts have been reading and thinking about the Feldman et al paper. If there are issues with it, they will do the scientifically typical thing and write a letter to the journal, or prepare a paper for publication. Standards, you know.

    • David says:

      I looked at the post. The author didn’t understand the Feldman paper, which was not about global downward IR but downward IR at two points on the surface. The latter allows for controlling of other factors like clouds.

  20. David A says:

    “…may argue fossil fuel CO2 is entirely natural, since it comes front plant and animal life.”

    Right. Except nature planned on keeping her fossilized carbon in the ground for a much much longer time.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi David A,

      If “she” nature planned to keep her supposedly fossilized carbon in the ground (even though deep petroleum doesn’t lack the carbon 13 isotope and methane 80% of natural gas is volcanic) how did it ever get released? Was she raped? Did some unappreciative creature on the planet surface, who apparently doesn’t belong to nature some rogue, take advantage of her? Truly strange view point David A. Do you have a Gaia complex or what?

      Have a great day!

      • David A says:

        John: Please go study the carbon cycle.

        • JohnKl says:

          David: Learn Geology and Physics. We understand the carbon cycle but Geology doesn’t conform to the “fossil” theory of hydrocarbon formation in the Earth’s crust, no matter how much you adore Charles Lyell.

          Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Correction:

            We understand the carbon cycle but Geology doesn’t conform to the “fossil” (or biogenic) theory of hydrocarbon formation in the Earth’s crust (with the exception of coal seems and some near surface petroleum), no matter how much you adore Charles Lyell.

    • Norman says:

      David A

      “Right. Except nature planned on keeping her fossilized carbon in the ground for a much much longer time”

      This is pure speculation on your part. How do you know nature did not design our species for the exact reason to extract the buried carbon (having no other means to get it back into the atmosphere) and release it into the air to spur growth and life like it had in the “good old” days of past with abundant life and a warm planet without two super cold poles where very little life exists?

      If you have time check out this link.

      file:///C:/Users/Norman%20&%20Lori/Downloads/PrimackEssentials5e_Ch03%20(2).pdf

      • Lewis says:

        Perhaps subduction and volcanoes are the method Gaia chooses to use to recycle the captured C. Then, since we are accepting the idea of Gaia having the ability to make decisions, is the acceptance of God next?

        Guys, really. Is plowing a field, to plant, not the same thing as extracting coal to burn? Animals and plants use what they are given to create the best life for themselves.

        Then come those who have decided that they know best, they anoint themselves prophets and chastise the non-believers. They, the AGW proponents, the ones who condemn fossil fuel burning man as witches or some such, act the same as those believers in the past who sacrificed in order to appease the gods. Those people believed that man had some influence over natural happenings and sacrificed others to assuage their own beliefs. This is what is happening today: the self anointed are sacrificing others to assuage their collective guilt.

        Even though they appear to be wrong in their beliefs, but as all true believers, they forge ahead.

        And herein lies the difference with people of Dr. Spencer’s ilk. He wants to be right. They NEED to be right. It is a subtle but crucial difference in attitude.

        Happy Easter

      • David A says:

        I don’t believe nature “designs” anything. It’s just a physical system.

        Rapid climate change like now puts many species at risk — even more than who are at risk from the disregard man had already demonstrated for other species and even his own species. Pretty lousy “design.”

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi David A,

          You opine:

          “Rapid climate change like now puts many species at risk — even more than who are at risk from the disregard man had already demonstrated for other species and even his own species. Pretty lousy “design.””

          The only climate change event known to have caused mass extinction remains what many call the ICE AGE! Extinction due to HEAT STROKE hasn’t been verified but perhaps paranoia shouldn’t be discounted. Since we still experience ice age conditions (albeit much less severe than in past episodes) it seems rather strange you would clamor against leaving this climate period. Unless of course you like MASS EXTINCTION!

          As to “design” I wouldn’t be so smug David. God’s design keeps you, me and everyone on this website living and blogging no matter how much mankind may screw creation up. However, imo the problem remains that you haven’t shown how a tiny addition of atmospheric plant food has screwed up much of anything. Although I do understand that the upper Troposphere and Stratosphere has become a little chillier.

          Have a great day!

  21. David ,I can refute every single item you give in support of AGW.

    • David A says:

      Salvatore, some people have told me they are suspicious about that graph. Why show an average of 102 models, and not their spread? Why show RCP 4.5? Why show 102 models, and not just the 20 or so main models from the big research groups? Why average UAH and RSS instead of showing them separately? Why show the mid-troposphere and not, say, the lower troposphere?

      And recent work by Po-Chedley et al has claimed that UAH is significantly undermeasuring the MT in the tropics:

      “Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies by S Po-Chedley, T Thorsen and Q Fu,” J Clim (2015)
      http://www.atmos.uw.edu/~qfu/Publications/jtech.pochedley.2015.pdf

  22. This debate and it’s tone is quite a breath of fresh air. My compliments.
    There seems to be a misunderstanding about “falsifiable predictions”. I believe the question is, “If ttemperatures suddenly increase dramatically in the next 5 to 10 years as predicted, would that convince you?” it is similar to Prof. Armstrong’s “Climate Bet” that Al Gore wouldn’t accept. Dr. Spencer will you accept this climate bet going forward?

    • David A says:

      Salvatore, I’m not going to analyze every graph you pull off some blog somewhere. Let’s see you refute my graph first.

    • David A says:

      Did you notice how that blogger cherry picked his starting date (Jan 1998), for no other reason than that it gives him the result he wants.

      • And you would be very aware of this cheat Appell, because you are constantly doing the same thing on this blog in your attempts to “prove” that warming hasn’t stopped for the last decade or two.

        • David A says:

          The data other than RSS is very clear there has been warming over the last two decades. Simply download the data and calculate the trends for yourself.

          • No data set shows non warming for 2 decades. RSS shows no warming for just over 18 years.

            RSS and UAH show almost identical measurements:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:120/plot/rss/last:120

            All the data sets are showing pauses in warming of varying degrees. Previously you claimed that global warming had NOT STOPPED and you managed that trick by carefully selecting different start points. You weren’t mentioning anything about “the last two decades” until just now. That’s why I keep calling you out as a sleazy little weasel. You lie and misrepresent then lie and misrepresent about what you previously lied and misrepresented. Next week you will present some new spin on the old nonsense. Like any exhausting science crank, you never give up.

          • David says:

            “RSS and UAH show almost identical measurements:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:120/plot/rss/last:120

            First of all, WFT uses UAH v5.4, which is not the latest version.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes

            Second, RSS and UAH have very different trends over the magical 18-year period:

            RSS LT: -0.013 +/- 0.042 C/decade
            UAH LT: +0.097 +/- 0.044 C/decade

            “All the data sets are showing pauses in warming of varying degrees.”

            Not over climatological meaningful intervals, they don’t — only the ones cherry picked by people like you. Most importantly, ocean heat content is increasing steadily all this time:

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

          • Appell what’s all this drivel? You claimed repeatedly in other threads that the Earth had not stopped warming. You “proved” this idiocy by carefully cherry picking your start dates for your bogus trend calculations. Now, when someone tried the same trick on you, you immediately spotted the cheat. Yet you do it yourself. Can’t mean you’re a complete moron. You’re smart enough to pick the cheat when it’s played on you. The only reasonable explanation is that you’re a lying little cheat as well.

            On top of all this, you lie about what you lied about. You pretend you were claiming that the Earth had stopped warming for two decades and you were debunking the two decades claim. The “two decades” is something you just made up now. You never mentioned this before.

            So now you’re lying about your previous cheat.

            That’s why I keep calling you a slimy little weasel.

          • The question isn’t, what’s the trend for 18 years? Or 20 years or 3 years or whatever. The question is, what’s the longest trend for non-warming for each data set respectively. The longest is 18 years, the others are shorter.

            That’s why I call you out as a slimy little weasel. You’re asking the wrong question on purpose. You know the correct question to ask, but you ask a different question instead. The only reason you ask the wrong question and answer the wrong question is because you’re trying to mislead people, as usual.

  23. The first problem I have is with his premise: that skeptics believe humans have no role in climate change. I don’t know of any serious skeptics who hold such a view.

    Ron says.

    My reply is now you know one.

  24. Bevan Dockery says:

    I take issue with your statement “that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably caused some warming, even though
    there is no way to prove it.”

    My continuing study of CO2 data from the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases has yet to find any evidence to
    support such a statement. Correlation between CO2 concentration data and both ground station temperature data and your Satellite Lower Tropospheric temperature data (Many thanks!) has provided small correlation coefficients, both positive and negative, with high probability of zero coefficient for both monthly and annual comparisons.

    Cross correlation of the monthly data gives a maximum for the CO2 lagging the temperature by a few months, depending
    on location. This is the well defined seasonal cycle readily apparent on all CO2 data graphs. As temperature rises in Spring time, life forms flourish and soak up CO2 then as temperature falls in Autumn, those life forms die and release CO2 to the atmosphere. The exact opposite of the IPCC claim that rising CO2 concentration causes a rise in temperature.

    Correlation between the average annual temperature and the annual increment in CO2 concentration gives low to high
    correlation coefficients with negligible probability that the coefficient is zero. That is the temperature level
    sets the rate of increase in CO2 probably via biological sources and effervescence of CO2 from the ocean. The low
    correlation coefficients occur in the coldest regions, supporting this contention. Further more, the pause in global warming has corresponded to a pause in the rate at which CO2 has been increasing.

    However I do not doubt that there is man-made warming due to such things as land clearing and the careless pollution
    of the oceans with flotsam and jetsam and a film of plastic pieces as well as the obvious heat island effect from
    cities.

  25. Mike Flynn says:

    Dr Spencer,

    You wrote –

    “Yes, I believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably caused some warming, even though there is no way to prove it. Just how much human-caused warming is the question.”

    There is no way to disprove it either, of course. A clever position to take, as nobody can prove you wrong. I believe in the Celestial Teapot, and that cannot be disproved either!

    John Tyndall observed that reduction of what we call GHG’s in the atmosphere above us, result in increased surface temperatures. His observations are supported by the quite rigorous experiments he carried out on gases of various types.

    So much for the odd theory that one can warm an object by surrounding it with GHG.

    The Earth has cooled since its creation, and will continue to do so, barring unforeseen calamitous circumstances.Tthis I believe.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

    • David A says:

      Dr Spencer wrote:
      “Yes, I believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has probably caused some warming, even though there is no way to prove it.”

      The recent Feldman et al Nature paper found direct evidence that changes in CO2 causes changes in downwelling radiation.

      If that isn’t proof that CO2 causes warming, what possibly could be???

      “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

      • Kristian says:

        And in trying to read the mind of a warmist, I must ask you:

        How and in what way precisely is this study ‘proof that CO2 causes warming‘?

        You know of course, David, that globally, total atmospheric DWLWIR to the surface has been significantly reduced since 2000, and that at the same time, the global surface has significantly increased its upward radiation (UWLWIR), so that the total radiative cooling ability of our global surface (ocean+land) has greatly strengthened over the last 15 years. Not weakened as it should’ve, according to AGW theory. All according to CERES.

        Where’s the ‘enhanced GHE’ in that?
        https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/

        • David A says:

          Kristian, you didn’t understand the Feldman et al paper. It wasn’t about global changes in downward IR — it measured downward IR at two specific places on the surface. That allowed them to also measure other relevant parameters above those two places, and then control for them. Then they could isolate out the influence of changes in CO2 alone, AT THOSE TWO PLACES.

          They found that increases in CO2 alone produces more downward IR.

          So the study said nothing about global net downward IR, which is influenced by clouds, ENSOs, etc.

          • On well understood theoretical grounds, increased CO2 will cause atmospheric warming. The debate is over how large or small the warming will be. It’s *not* over basic physics. Appell always plays the trick of trying to confuse the issue.

          • Kristian says:

            David,

            I understood the paper perfectly well, thank you. I simply put it into its proper context.

            You, on the other hand, have clearly misunderstood something crucial.

            Here are your exact words:

            “The recent Feldman et al Nature paper found direct evidence that changes in CO2 causes changes in downwelling radiation.

            If that isn’t proof that CO2 causes warming, what possibly could be???”

            And I ask: In what way did the Feldman study prove that CO2 causes warming?

            Care to answer …?

          • Radiation is a form of energy. Increased radiation = increased energy. Energy interacting with the atmospheric, will cause extra motion/vibration, that would not otherwise occur if that radiation was not there. This is what we call ‘heat’. That’s one reason why sunlight feels warm.

            Kristian, you learn this in high school physics and chemistry classes. Did you skip those classes?

          • Kristian says:

            Will Nitschke says, April 7, 2015 at 6:38 PM:

            “This is what we call ‘heat’. That’s one reason why sunlight feels warm.

            Kristian, you learn this in high school physics and chemistry classes. Did you skip those classes?”

            Seems to me you’re the one skipping HS classes, Will.

            What we call ‘heat’, is what we receive (absorb) from the Sun, not the atmosphere. The Sun is hotter than us (Earth’s surface), therefore it transfers energy as ‘heat’ to us (purely in the form of radiation), warming us in the process. ‘Heat’ is a unidirectional transfer of energy as a direct result of a temperature difference and moves spontaneously only from hot to cold. You know this. If you didn’t learn it in high school, then I’m sure you’ve picked up on it later in your life …

            If you open up your freezer, you will not feel warm. You will feel cool. That’s because the freezer is colder than you, so does NOT transfer any energy as ‘heat’ to you. You’re the one transferring ‘heat’ to it. You’re losing internal energy by ‘heat’, thereby cooling.

            So, Will, did the Feldman study measure increased ‘heat’ from the cool atmosphere to the warm surface at these two locations? And, more importantly, did it observe how this increased ‘heat’ directly led to the warming of the surface underneath, in the form of a temperature rise (+downward atm ‘heat’ -> +sfc temp)?

            That’s essentially what David here is claiming.

            My urine is (normally) yellow, so if I pee in the ocean, do I make it yellower? And if you say “Yes, yellower than if you didn’t pee in the ocean”, then how do you know? Are you just assuming this? Or have you actually observed it? Are you doing real science? Or are you just guessing at a final effect, based on your preconceived ideas about how things should work?

          • “What we call ‘heat’, is what we receive (absorb) from the Sun, not the atmosphere”

            Yes, that’s why the average temperature of space is 2.75K and the average temperature of the Earth is 288K. It’s got nothing to do with the atmosphere I tell you! It’s the sun that does it, eh wot?!!

            I’m not going to debate all this deep scientific stuff with Dr. Hans Zarkov, the genius.

          • Kristian says:

            It’s got everything to do with the atmosphere, Will. There sure is an atmospheric insulating effect on the surface, making it warmer than if it weren’t there. The effect simply isn’t caused by the atmosphere heating the surface some more by radiating back at it its own emitted heat 🙂 That’s not ‘insulation’, that’s … ‘heating’; like an extra heat source added.

            You apparently didn’t read my last two (three) paragraphs.

            I ask you again: Did the Feldman study measure increased ‘heat’ from the cool atmosphere to the warm surface at these two locations? And, more importantly, did it observe how this increased ‘heat’ directly led to the warming of the surface underneath, in the form of a temperature rise (+downward atm ‘heat’ -> +sfc temp)?

            Or I could phrase it slightly differently: Did Feldman et al. observe a reduction in the radiative heat loss rate of the surface at these two sites? And if they did (?), did they also observe how this reduction in sfc radiative heat loss directly caused the sfc temp to rise …?

            That’s what this is about, Will.

          • So you’re that loony Doug Cotton guy who floods these comment threads with your goofy made up ideas. Just posting under a different name.

          • Doug   Cotton says:

            I suggest that you, Will Nit, read this comment because what I said about Norman applies to yourself.

            You (and silent readers) may also learn from the copy of something I wrote on Wikipedia Talk pages which I copied in the next comment below the linked one.

            Douglas J Cotton, B.Sc.(physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
            (Sydney and Macquarie Universities 1963 to 1972)
            Retired part-time physics and mathematics educator
            and now private researcher in planetary physics.

          • Doug   Cotton says:

            And, no, Kristian is not me I assure you. He’s not even a member of our group of persons suitably qualified in physics. I haven’t a clue who he is.

          • Doug   Cotton says:

            So Will Nit I see you’ve been flooding Roy’s recent threads with your assertions based on the hoax that water vapor and carbon dioxide warm the surface, so I refer you to my comment here on the other thread where your comments are also prolific.

        • Kristian says:

          Will Nitschke says, April 8, 2015 at 4:52 PM:

          “So you’re that loony Doug Cotton guy who floods these comment threads with your goofy made up ideas. Just posting under a different name.”

          Haha, great non-answer, Will. Worthy of a true warmist believer. You’re obviously as faithful as they come.

          Care to provide a (proper) answer to my questions? They’re pretty straightforward, not hard at all. At least they shouldn’t be to such a clever guy like yourself, who learned about the truth of CO2 warming in high school!

          • jerry l krause says:

            Hi Kristian,

            How about a comment about my comment of 4/7/2017 at 9:32 PM?

            Have a good day, Jerry

    • jerry l krause says:

      Hi Mike,

      You were kind to me before, so I would like your comment about this essay.

      Simple Observation of Downward Radiation From Atmosphere With Simple Radiometer Refutes Generally Stated Result of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.
      Jerry L. Krause @2015

      It has been stated that the presence of downward longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) from a clear sky is positive evidence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Since the basis of this essay is about the observation of the downward radiation from the atmosphere, I cannot not disagree with this statement. However, it is common knowledge (hence, no need of any reference) that a consequence of this downward radiation is that the earth-atmosphere system’s average temperature would be about 33oC (59 oF) lower than it is if it were not for the presence of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. It is this result of the greenhouse effect that simple observation refutes.

      V. E. Suomi, D. O. Staley, and P. M. Kuhn (SSK) [1] designed and constructed a simple, economical balloon-borne net radiometer. In this article they reported a sounding made with this net radiometer. I wish I could credit the unknown authors who directed my attention to the fact that the temperature of the upward facing absorbing-emitting (a-e) surface was consistently about 10oC less than that of the atmosphere (observed during the regular weather sounding made an hour later) at the same altitudes. This temperature difference was not noted by SSK in their article.

      Traditionally a radiometer is an instrument for measuring the radiant flux (power) of electromagnetic radiation. The SSK net radiometer was designed to have a low mass and rapid response so it could be lifted by the sounding balloon just as the packet of the atmospheric weather instruments was and to electronically transmit its observations to the surface station just as atmospheric sounding’s observations were. Thus, unlike most radiometers, the SSK net radiometer reported the temperatures of its a-e surfaces to the ground station. However, the purpose of the net radiometer was not to compare temperatures, it was to compare the difference between the upward and downward radiant fluxes. So, using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the temperatures of the two a-e surfaces were converted to radiant fluxes. Hence, the ambient atmosphere’s temperatures, observed an hour later, were not critical to these conversions. This is a possible reason that SSK did not note the 10oC difference between the temperatures of upward facing a-e surface and the ambient atmosphere.

      I constructed a simple, economical radiometer, actually several, according to the design of the SSK net radiometer (one-half of it) using extruded Styrofoam as the lightweight insulating material (not available at the earlier time). And for the temperature sensor, I used a TruTemp registered NSF digital thermometer. Anyone, with practical skills, should be able to construct this radiometer for less than $20 and make observations in their backyard or nearby park, as I have for about two years.

      The following is a recent example of a short set of observations (03/27/2015). I woke up at 6:00 AM PDT and saw that the sky was wonderfully clear (clr). So, I set out my radiometer in the backyard (By). The following are my observations along with those observed at the Salem OR airport (Ks, no more than 3 miles distant).

      Location Time Amb Temp A-E Temp Rel Hum Dewpoint Temp Sky Cond
      By 6:27am 46 37.0 93 44 calc Clr
      By 6:41am 46 37.0 93 44 calc Clr
      Ks 3:55am 47 93 45 Clr
      Ks 4:55am 47 93 45 Clr
      Ks 5:55am 47 93 45 Clr
      Ks 6:55am 46 93 44 Clr
      Ks 7:05am 47 90 44 Sct Cld
      By 7:00am 46 42.7 93 44 calc Fog
      By 7:33am 47 47.0 93 45 calc Fog
      Ks 7:21am 46 96 45 Fog
      Ks 7:55am 48 96 47 Fog

      Now, it seems observations such of these are sometimes brushed aside because it is claimed they are merely anecdotal. (Anecdotal: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers) As a graduate student and a research associate, I have done the quantitative experimental work which forms the basis for four published, peer-reviewed, scientific articles. While my backyard observations are far more elementary and less demanding than my previous laboratory observations, they cannot be brushed aside because I am an unqualified scientific observer. Since the a-e surface temperatures observed are lower than the environment’s temperatures during the clear sky conditions, the only question about the quality of these observations involves the accuracy of the thermometer. Which I have checked by using it to determine the temperature of an ice water bath. Its lowest temperature registered was 31.9oF.

      As I was writing this essay (04/5/20115), it happened that the sky was again wonderfully clear and the ambient air temperature about 10oF lower than the morning of 3/27. I conclude these observations confirm the claimed accuracy of the a-e surface temperature observations.

      Location Time Amb Temp A-E Temp Rel Hum Dewpoint Temp Sky Cond
      Ks or By PDT oF oF % oF
      By 6:48am 33 25.9 87 30 calc Clr
      By 6:48am 33 25.9 87 30 calc Clr
      By 6:59am 33 25.9 87 30 calc Clr
      By 7:06am 33 26.2 87 30 calc Clr
      Ks 5:56am 35.1 92 33.1 SCT
      Ks 6:56am 34.0 89 30.9 Clr
      Ks 7:56am 36.0 89 33.1 Clr

      There is a reason I have calculated the dewpoint temperature from my backyard observations and reported that observed at the airport. For it seems that meteorologists do not recognize the occurrence of scientific laws or their importance. It seems to be an observed fact that the ambient temperature of a natural atmosphere has never been observed to be less than its dewpoint temperature. Which according to the definition of a scientific law that I learned qualifies this lack of observation to be a scientific law.

      I became aware of this law a little more than a year ago. And I was quite excited because I thought it refuted the same ‘Generally Stated Result of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect’ as I am now claiming the observations just reviewed also refute. However, I was unable to convince skeptics of global warming (climate change) that this apparent new scientific law did such. So, I try again with these new (because I doubt if anyone has observed the downward radiation from the atmosphere with the radiometer designed after the SSK net radiometer, as I have) observations. And I wonder how many who have read to this point, have seen the observations that I claim most definitely refute this ‘Generally Stated Result of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect’.

      For a fact is that I made such observations as these over the period of two years and did not see how these observations most definitely refuted this result. Then, for a few day, I considered that a collections of observations made at many different locations and during many different conditions would be needed to seal the deal. But now I see that a single set of observations like the two I have reported, is sufficient to seal the deal. Yes, it is only good science that others make their own observations with the modified SSK net radiometer to confirm for themselves that which I have reported.

      The observed fact that the temperature of the a-e surface is well below the temperature of the radiometer’s environment is positive evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be limiting the cooling of its environment to its lowest temperature of the morning. In the case of both mornings, what is limiting the minimum temperature of these mornings is the dewpoint temperature of the surface atmospheric layer. For easily observed, but not reported, was the dew that formed on the top film of the SSK radiometer and on the cars parked along the street near my backyard. And in the cases when the surface atmosphere is so ‘dry’ that no dew, or frost, forms on any surface, it is the thermal inertia of the earth-atmosphere system which limits the minimum temperature of the morning. Again, good science dictates that a doubter of this make his/her own observations to test the previous (unreported) observations of mine.

      One other observed fact not directly reported (in the narrative I have referred to the dew observed on the top film of the radiometer on both mornings) is that I never observed any frost (or ice) forming on the top film of the radiometer of the latter morning when the dewpoint temperature, calculated from the observed atmospheric temperature and relative humidity, was 30oF. I only draw attention to this to acknowledge that I am well aware that a highly accurate determination of the relative humidity seems not consistently possible, especially during atmospheric soundings.

      [1] V. E. Suomi, D. O. Staley, and P. M. Kuhn “A Direct Measurement of Infra-red Radiation Divergence to 160 mb,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 84, No. 360, Apr. 1958, pp. 134-141.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      • jerry l krause says:

        Hi Mike,

        I am not very familiar with how to do this, so hope you can decipher my tables.

        Have a good day, Jerry

  26. KevinK says:

    Well, I see the Great Unicorn Hunt continues unabated; surely there must be a unicorn out there somewhere…

    Surely there is some possible way that a trace gas with about 8 orders of magnitude less thermal capacity than the wide wide Oceans of the Earth is controlling the climate, it must be so, the experts tell us, and who are we to question the experts…

    It (the greenhouse effect) is STILL just an unproven hypothesis, nothing more, any peer reviewed claims of unicorn sightings must be considered as suspect since as soon as enough experts say “There’re ain’t no stinking unicorns” the whole hunt will be called off….

    Good luck with the hunt, can you all please fund it out of your own pockets from now on, and please refrain from demanding that I modify my lifestyle just in case marauding bands of unicorns might show up around about 2100…

    As soon as you all have a dead unicorn to show us, we promise to take you seriously, heck it worked for that Audubon guy…

    Cheers, KevinK.

    • David says:

      Kevin, by questioning the existence of the greenhouse effect you are entering the realm of the truly wacked. Try to stay at least somewhat on this side of the science.

    • I wonder if KevinK is that crank Doug Cotton hiding his real identity as usual. In the same way that crank David Appell is now posting as Dave, David A, and David.

      • Doug   Cotton says:

        No KevinK is most certainly not me either. I don’t know him or Kristian.

        • I expect they all your sock puppets.

        • Doug   Cotton says:

          You “expect” do you? Not only are you wrong, but if you studied what I have written in my two comprehensive peer-reviewed papers on the Second Law of Thermodynamics you might, if you have any hint of understanding of physics, realize that they don’t even say the same things as I do – not by a long shot. And by the way, quite apart from your physics needing improvement, so too does your English: the word you meant to use is “suspect” I would suggest.

          So I throw down the gauntlet to you Will, my boy. Put up or shut up! Try your best to fault my physics, and allow me the opportunity to demonstrate to the hundreds of silent readers that you have no valid understanding of the subject and, I suspect, no qualifications in such. Be the next to take me on!

  27. David A says:

    The figure in the post is blatantly misleading. Its title refers to “global warming or cooling,” with the operative word being “global.”

    But the graph shows no such thing — it shows temperature for the “extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere.” That isn’t global.

    This may be your most midleading graph, Roy, since your 3rd-order polynomial fits. Remember those?

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      David A
      I didn’t know about you before I read your posts on this blog since some year ago, maybe it was because I’m Italian of course.

      But I decided to don’t reply to your posts because every time you wrote something, you clearly demonstrate exactly what a scientific researcher should never do (and a scientific journalist too).
      Believe me this is not an “ad hominem” attack against you, it’s just a personal opinion from an electronic engineer who still have the illusion that you could stop a little and reflect about what you write.

      Have a great day.

      Massimo

      • David says:

        “Northern hemispheric temperature studies are used extensively by the scientific community including the IPCC. (See Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis.)”

        Yes. But a graph of them shouldn’t be labeled “global”

        “It’s not much of a stretch to expect that if one half of the planet is doing X, the other half is following suite.”

        It’s a complete stretch, and laughably unscientific.

        And that graph doesn’t show “one half” of the planet — it shows 1/4th of the planet. (If you would have bothered to look up the reference in the fine print, it pertains to the NH region 30N-90N.)

        • The IPCC reports are discussing global warming and have routinely used northern hemispheric reconstructions as perfectly reasonable, because only a nitwit would claim that half the planet has one trend and the other half of the planet would have a significantly different trend. Yes the trends would not be identical, as land temperatures change more than sea surface temperatures, and there is more land mass in the north than the south. But that’s OK, they should still be close. Intelligent people take such things into account.

          Honestly, though, this has nothing to do with how a graph has been labelled. It’s all about attacking the ‘evil deniers’ who will destroy the planet with their unbelief. David Appell the super hero will save the world by calling out corruption wherever he discovers it! And if he can’t discover it, he’ll make something up instead and bitch about that.

    • Northern hemispheric temperature studies are used extensively by the scientific community including the IPCC. (See Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis.)

      It’s not much of a stretch to expect that if one half of the planet is doing X, the other half is following suite.

      There is nothing “misleading” about this practice. The reason why the southern hemisphere is not included is because of the scarcity of the availability of southern hemispheric proxies. (Southern hemispheric reconstructions have since appeared, but those I am aware of have been heavily criticized as using bad statistical techniques. So there is still a lack of good analysis even up to today.)

      Of course, as usual, Appell shoots his mouth off without thinking or knowledge of the subject matter.

    • Bill_W says:

      David Appell,

      As I recall, Roy clearly labeled them as “for humorous effect” only
      or something to that extent. Why would the be a problem for you?

  28. obiwankenobi says:

    A better question: What would it take to convince me that the skeptics (like Joe Bastardi) are wrong? A wise man once said … “In looking for a simple answer the question becomes more complex.” Nature, by its nature, is variable, chaotic and unpredictable due to the complexities inherent in the evolved system. I could go on, but, why?

  29. David, the article I sent above and what I present below offers strong evidence that AGW theory according to the data has nothing to stand on.

    The difference between those who believe in AGW and those who oppose it ,is we base our thoughts about why/how the climate may change on the data in contrast to AGW theory which dictates what the data is suppose to be based on the theory and when the data does not conform to their theory (which is about 100% of the time) it is either disregarded, not accurate ,or just plain wrong.

    David you are the perfect example of this.

    The arrogance of AGW theory to put their theory as still being correct in the face of all the opposing data is absolutely amazing.

    AGW THEROY – will has already been proven wrong and will be history before this decade is out.

    What fits the global temperature trend data the best since the Holocene Optimum- Present is what I suggest below.

    My thoughts on what drives the climate conform to what the data shows(present/past), unlike AGW theory which totally ignores the data both present and past.

    AGW theory wants the data to conform to what it suggest, not the other way around.

    https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/md99-2275_jiang2015_1.png

    More data which shows since the Holocene Optimum from around 8000BC , through the present day Modern Warm Period( which ended in 1998) the temperature trend throughout this time in the Holocene, has been in a slow gradual down trend(despite an overall increase in CO2, my first chart ), punctuated with periods of warmth. Each successive warm period being a little less warm then the one proceeding it.

    My reasoning for the data showing this gradual cooling trend during the Holocene ,is Milankovitch Cycles were highly favorable for warming 10000 years ago or 8000 BC, and have since been in a cooling cycle. Superimposed on this gradual cooling cycle has been solar variability which has worked sometimes in concert and sometimes in opposition to the overall gradual cooling trend , Milankovitch Cycles have been promoting.

    http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg

  30. Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
    This article is a good examination of the state of the climate debate in the informed public’s mind.
    I too think better modeling of natural climate change would convince me that the modelers have a good hypothesis.
    Failed models say their hypothesis is wrong.

  31. David now that the maximum of solar cycle 24 is in the process of winding down(finally) and the solar parameters start heading toward my low average values we will see how right or wrong my theory is.

    Below is more data about the solar/ocean temperature connection.

    What the co2 driven global warming advocates don’t discuss is that if the ocean has started eating global warming since the trade winds changed during the negative phase of the ocean’s ~60 year multi-decadal cycles, they also emitted excess energy during their positive phase from 1975-2005. The implication is that the oceans are capable of storing energy on long timescales, and releasing it on long timescales too. And they store a lot of energy. The top two metres alone contain as much energy as the entire atmosphere above.

    We know that the oceans keep the air temperature up over night as the release some of the energy the Sun poured into them during the day. We also know that there is a lag of a couple of months between the longest day of the year and the peak in surface air temperatures near coasts. This is thermal inertia and heat capacity at work. On longer timescales, we have recently confirmed that runs of El Nino events which release a lot of energy from the oceans are initiated on the falling side of the solar cycle, never on the upswing.

    So we can go a stretch further and combine what we know. When solar activity falls, energy comes out of the ocean, not just over the period of the decline of a single 11 year solar cycle, but if the Sun stays low in activity terms, for many years. An integration of the sunspot number shows us that the ocean heat content rose all the way from 1934 to 2003. This is the real cause of ‘global warming’. A lot of excess energy is still retained in the upper ocean. We can expect the effect of a couple of low solar cycles to be softened by a proportion of that excess heat returning to space via the atmosphere warming it on the way.

    In developing my understanding of the Earth’s systems, I developed a couple of very simple models to help me fathom the way the surface temperature stays fairly constant as the solar cycles wax and wane. Back in 2009, by analysing the data, I found that the global average sea surface temperature, the SST, stays fairly constant when the Sun is averaging around 40 sunspots per month. By calculating the running total departing from this figure in a simple integration I found that combined with the ~60 oceanic cycles (also solar influenced), I could reproduce the temperature history of the last 150 years quite accurately. By adding in a nominal forcing for co2 (or an allowance for the infamous ‘adjustments’ to the data), I was able to get a match to monthly data which has a Pearson R^2 value of 0.9.

    The above is part of an article ROG TALKBLOKE wrote from his web-site talkblokes talkshop.

    I think this article presents a strong case for solar/ocean connections.

  32. Kasuha says:

    I have read the original article and I find it fairly balanced. I wish all proponents of CAGW were like him, he clearly is not a believer, rather a person who cares about the topic, is well informed and just his interpretation of the science defines his position. He definitely looks like a person open to constructive discussion.
    The whole “climate battle” distills into “we need to harm ourselves now in order to prevent more harm in the future” vs “we need to get stronger now in order to be sufficiently strong in the future”. Nobody knows all costs and benefits of either approach at this very end so choice of the side depends largely on everybody’s nature and imagination.

    • It’s not “balanced” when you misrepresent the actual debate. It’s also not “balanced” when you don’t understand how falsifiability works in science and misrepresent it. (Not understanding the subject matter is fine, but not if you go about lecturing other people on the topic.)

      Kasuha, where you go wrong is you assume that there are no costs associated with one course of action–the precautionary principle. All decisions have associated costs. That’s why it’s important to make a decision based on the best evidence, and not make a decision based on fear alone.

      • Kasuha says:

        There’s misrepresentation of the debate on both sides. Climate skepticism is pretty much the same kind of belief system as climate alarmism, people on both sides keep building bias towards evidence supporting their position and beating up strawmen about the other side.
        I didn’t make any assumption about costs in my post. Your reply is evidence of your own bias, what you read is not what I wrote. You’re not trying to understand and communicate, you’re waging battle against imaginary opponents.

        Check out this video, I think it is very relevant not just to climate change but to much wider selection of similar topics.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

      • Doug   Cotton says:

        You cannot prove, Will my boy, that the most prolific “greenhouse gas” water vapor causes the surface to be at least 15 degrees hotter for each 1% concentration in the atmosphere, as the IPCC wants people like you (who lack an understanding of entropy maximization and thermodynamics) to be gullible enough to believe and then spread the hoax. This suits the UN agenda (now publicly acknowledged) to defeat capitalism.

        As we know from Föhn winds, reducing the water vapor content causes warming, not increasing the content. “A Föhn or Foehn is a type of dry, warm, down-slope wind that occurs in the lee (downwind side) of a mountain range. Föhn can be initiated when deep low pressures move into Europe drawing moist Mediterranean air over the Alps. It is a rain shadow wind that results from the subsequent adiabatic warming of air that has dropped most of its moisture on windward slopes (see orographic lift). As a consequence of the different adiabatic lapse rates of moist and dry air, the air on the leeward slopes becomes warmer than equivalent elevations on the windward slopes. Föhn winds can raise temperatures by as much as 32 °C (58 °F)[1] in just a matter of minutes. Central Europe enjoys a warmer climate due to the Föhn, as moist winds off the Mediterranean Sea blow over the Alps.” [source]

        So that for a start throws doubt on the IPCC hoax which you enjoy promoting at the expense of starving people in developing countries.

        So are you going to be the next to take me on where all others have failed these last four years or so? You’d better brush up on your physics, because I have a lot to teach you.

    • David A says:

      If you think people aren’t (and haven’t) studied costs and benefits, you need to read a book like “The Climate Casino” by William Nordhaus.

      And the costs may be small:

      “Fixing Climate Change May Add No Costs, Report Says,”
      Justin Gillis, New York Times, Sept 16 2014.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/science/earth/fixing-climate-change-may-add-no-costs-report-says.html

      • Sounds good except Nordhaus is an “environmental economist”, e.g., a crank academic NOT taken seriously by 97% of mainstream economists.

        • Kasuha says:

          As I wrote before, skeptics are no better than alarmists.

          “Whatever he wrote is wrong because he’s a crank funded by (big green|big oil).”

          It’s so simple to do that. It’s so wrong, too.

        • Doug   Cotton says:

          Gee Will, it’s hard to keep up with the number of comments you’ve “flooded” this thread with.

          How about you respond to this comment I just wrote, and my earlier ones.

  33. jimc says:

    Good one. We certainly can’t handle the question “scientifically” yet, especially at my level of ignorance. The climate has gone through ups and downs, as has mankind. But life on earth persists and flourishes. And we generally better our existence, often it seems in spite of ourselves. It’s as though there is a “divine providence”.

  34. Dan Pangburn says:

    If CO2 is a forcing, its effect on average global temperature must be a scale factor times the time-integral of some math function of CO2. . The only way that this consistently works during previous glaciations and interglacial periods (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) and/or during the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years, graphed at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html ) is for the scale factor to be zero.

    This means that CO2 has not had, cannot have and will never have a significant effect on climate.

    • David says:

      The recent ice ages are primarily driven by Milankovitch cycles, not CO2, and then augmented by the carbon cycle. (The glacial-interglacial temperature difference would be about half what it was without the CO2 feedback.)

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        There is no significant CO2 feedback. The proof is in the math (temperature varies as the time-integral of forcings) and reported Vostok temperature and CO2 data. It has to be something else.

    • Doug   Cotton says:

      Regarding the effect of CO2, consider this comment.

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        Gravity forms the pressure gradient. Temperature and pressure are inexorably connected by isentropic expansion. Temperature gradient results from isentropic expansion to vacuum of space combined with radiation flux.

  35. Bevan Dockery says:

    Further evidence of the lack of dependence of temperature on CO2 concentration was contained in Dr John Christy’s statement on the WUWT Web site on 03 December 2014 summarising 36 years of satellite temperature measurement. In it Dr Christy stated “The fastest warming spot is in Baffin Bay, where temperatures have risen 0.82 C per decade since 1978.” and “The fastest cooling area is in East
    Antarctica near Dome C, where temperatures have been dropping at the rate of 0.50 C per decade.”. Ground stations in the vicinity of these two locations have all recorded much the same rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, about 1.7 ppm per annum. If CO2 causes warming of the Earth’s surface then the two anomalous locations should have the same rate of warming. Instead they demonstrate the most extreme difference across the entire globe.

    True the actual CO2 concentrations are different with Alert, the station closest to Baffin Bay, recording 401.87 ppm for December 2013 and Mawson in the Antarctic recording 393.83 ppm for the same date. The difference of 8.04 ppm should mean that Dome C temperature was four or five years behind that experienced at Baffin Bay, not going in entirely the opposite direction.

    Obviously the IPCC have no idea what the relationship is between atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature.

    The above raises the interesting feature in that the two anomalous locations were within 700 km of the average position of the geomagnetic pole during 1980 to 2015. Does the Earth have a geothermal axis as well as a rotational and geomagnetic axis? Possibly the rotation of the core that is proposed to give rise to the magnetic field would also cause magma to move beneath the Earth’s crust. The Earth’s magnetic field reverses every so often so perhaps the geothermal field does likewise. As mankind has never before had this type of data, this possibility may not ever have been contemplated previously?

  36. Doug   Cotton says:

    Roy I would indeed expect you to write “The science dispute is over how much of the warming is manmade versus natural.” You think of all “skeptics” as being Lukes like yourself, still believing the fictitious fiddled fissics pertaining to the assumption that we can ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics and how it leads to gravity forming a density gradient and, simultaneously, a temperature gradient. It does this because any other state would have unbalanced energy potentials and would still have net transfers of matter and energy across internal boundaries. Such transfers are the one and only “symptom” of a state which has not yet reached maximum entropy. What we can then deduce is explained here where we see why carbon dioxide cools, but by less than 0.1 degree. So what exactly is it that you think humans can do to control Earth’s mean temperature?

  37. David A says:

    Roy, about the graph in your post: it’s not global, as it only covers 1/4th of the planet’s surface area (30 N to 90 N).

    But the author of that graph was also on the huge PAGES 2k study done by several dozen scientists:

    “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

    From that paper’s abstract:

    “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”

    • Bill_W says:

      Yes, David Appell. Just as the warming today is primarily in the Northern Hemisphere.

      Same as previous warming periods which show mostly NH warming but also clear
      evidence that there was some warming outside the NH.

  38. The long term cooling trend has not ended that is the problem David, with your associates who believe in AGW theory. The recent Modern Warm Period which has ended David ,was another blip in the otherwise gradual Holocene cooling trend which started about 8000 years ago at the time of the Holocene Optimum ,period of time.

    AGW theory keeps trying to make the data fit their theory rather then their theory conform to the data.

    Yes there were synchronous multi-decadal warm and cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age.

    That is what all objective data shows and has shown for years until this absurd theory came about and some tried to manipulate and change the data to make it fit in with this theory.

    AGW has one directive either change or disregard the data if it does not conform to the theory.

    David, you have been taken in by the hoax. Live and learn.

  39. The long term cooling trend has not ended that is the problem David, with your associates who believe in AGW theory. The recent Modern Warm Period which has ended David ,was another blip in the otherwise gradual Holocene cooling trend which started about 8000 years ago at the time of the Holocene Optimum ,period of time.

    AGW theory keeps trying to make the data fit their theory rather then their theory conform to the data.

    Yes there were synchronous multi-decadal warm and cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age.

    That is what all objective data shows and has shown for years until this absurd theory came about and some tried to manipulate and change the data to make it fit in with this theory.

    AGW has one directive either change or disregard the data if it does not conform to the theory.

    David, you have been taken in by the hoax. Live and learn.

    Reply

  40. Salvatore, until you start evaluating why your past predictions went wrong, I’m not interested in your new predictions.

    From David.

    My reply once again.

    David the maximum of solar cycle 24 was much longer and stronger(although weak in comparison to earlier cycles)then what I was thinking it would be in early 2010. This resulted in all of the solar parameters which I feel are needed to cause an overall global cooling scenario to be much above the LOW AVERAGE SOLAR PARAMETER values I concluded were needed. The first part however is in, which is 10 years of sub-solar activity in general.(2005-2015)

    Given this, according to my thinking/theory when the maximum of solar cycle 24 comes to an end which is occurring NOW, I expect my low average solar parameters will be met or at least approached.

    David, listen carefully when this occurs I then expect the global temperature trend to turn into a jig saw down pattern. This should start to become notable around 6 months after my low average value solar parameters are meant.

    David, listen again, IF my low average solar parameters are attained or even approached and the global temperature trend is still steady or rising then I will admit to being wrong.

    How much clearer could I be? You tell me if this is not clear enough.

    If you want my low average value solar parameters for your records I will send them to you, although I think you have them already.

    Dave, there it is, let us see what happens. This is not personal so have a great day.

  41. Ulric Lyons says:

    “To the extent warming occurs, even if it is entirely natural, warming would occur in the atmosphere and deep ocean; it would cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor, as well as precipitation; the warming would be stronger in the upper troposphere than the lower troposphere; and stronger over land than over the ocean.”

    Why would the warming be stronger over land if there was more precipitation? That seems contradictory.

  42. Ulric , if you are there Vuk has data that runs opposite to yours showing AMO /SOLAR STRENGTH run in phase with one another.

    • Ulric Lyons says:

      No it does not. He has mangled a mean solar cycle length wave with another frequency and completely lost the all important phase reversals, that are apparent in a number of studies, including my own.

  43. Ulric, I did not express it right. What I was trying to say was not that his data was showing your thoughts to be wrong, rather his data the way he did it was making it appear your data was wrong.

    His work is always very confusing as far as I am concerned and not straight forward.

    • Ulric Lyons says:

      Which is another way of saying that I have the wrong idea about the real solar cycle data that I am using.

  44. No I think you are using the correct data. I agree with you in large part.

    The areas of disagreement I have with you are two. The first one being I think a meridional atmospheric circulation will be associated with N.H cooling due to more clouds/snow cover.

    The other area I differ is even if a +AMO is correlated with a -NAO /minimum solar activity ,I think N.H. temperatures will drop overall if the solar minimum is a prolonged event and not just the normal solar minimum associated with the so called normal 11 year sunspot cycle.

    • Ulric Lyons says:

      “The first one being I think a meridional atmospheric circulation will be associated with N.H cooling due to more clouds/snow cover.”

      Longer term of course but with Arctic warming at the same time, and even some regional land warming where dessication is increasing. But in the short term it can go the other way with a strong AMO warming pulse, the same as it does with an El Nino.

      “The other area I differ is even if a +AMO is correlated with a -NAO /minimum solar activity ,I think N.H. temperatures will drop overall if the solar minimum is a prolonged event and not just the normal solar minimum associated with the so called normal 11 year sunspot cycle.”

      They have to, which is what I told you the last time you made the same accusal, so this is now the last time that I will tell you.

  45. I think prolonged solar minimums versus just your average solar minimum give different outcomes.

    • Ulric Lyons says:

      I have the worst of the negative NAO/AO episodes from late this year through to 2024. In accord with the placement of the deeper parts of the Dalton and Gleissberg Minima, 1807-1817 and 1885-1895. Which is approximately between the sunspot maxima of the first two weaker sunspot cycles. Maunder follows the same pattern but for more cycles, dropping fast around 1673 for one max to max cycle until the very warm 1686, then quickly very cold again for two max to max cycles until the 1705.5 maximum. There is the odd very cold season after that like 1709 and 1716 but the worst was over by then. I do have an explanation for why those two later weak cycles in Maunder are so short too, it is self apparent when you look at the planetary periodic geometries involved.
      My planetary solar cycle model plots which cycles are weakened in every minimum, and shows the current solar downturn to be recovering in solar cycle 26.

  46. Ulric,

    April 8, 2015 at 2:58 PM

    Which is another way of saying that I have the wrong idea about the real solar cycle data that I am using.

    MY REPLY – which is not so. We are in basic agreement.

    I think the way you are going about this is quite good.

    Keep up the good work.

  47. Ulric , I think you could very well be correct.

    I think you have really done a great job in coming up with the correlations. I have learned much from what you have had to say.

    Keep going at it, as I will.

    We will know much more before this decade ends.

  48. Ulric Lyons says:

    Thanks Salvatore. Previous to identifying those points, I knew that 2015 to 2024 would turn colder anyway, and it would even without significantly weaker sunspot cycles, because that’s what my heliocentric analogues in 1836 to 1845 shows. The mean temperature on CET for those years was as cold as 1807-1817. The analogue proves to me that the cold period is certain, and can only be exacerbated by weaker solar states. The analogues allow much detail to be mapped out, when the colder winter months will happen, and which summer months will have more negative NAO etc. I have already made it clear to anyone that I have spoken to that I don’t expect another good UK summer like the last two until 2025, and I am very concerned for the UK farming economy after seeing what one wet cool summer in 2012 did for their finances.

  49. Ulric, how deep do you expect this prolonged solar minimum to be? For example do you think it will exceed the Dalton? Thanks.

  50. Doug Cotton says:

    What evidence would persuade me?

    If Foehn winds were shown to cool (as they lose water vapor) rather than warm. Then there might be something to support the IPCC contention that water vapor warms.

    So now please read my comments on the newer thread, starting with this one, and noting the one to Roy with four numbered points.

  51. CraigM350 says:

    Big Energy funded Dana is a climate moron of the X degree. He smears anyone who does not agree
    continually because he is unable to cope with anything or anyone that questions his beliefs. Why are we giving this ambulance chasing climate vulture breathing room is still beyond me…although as a very close to Mann he is tye gift that keeps on giving that ‘contrarians’ could only dream of…

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/05/the-self-induced-implosion-of-dana-nuccitelli/

    That he is lauded by warmists speaks volumes.

    ‘Come the revolution’ – as my old marxist history lecture would say – ‘you’re the first against the wall’

    Of course I mean no actual malice (beyond reams of the metaphorical) but come the time of reckoning expect payback Dana for your lies. Hopefully 2020 will find this moron on the streets begging although I suspect he’ll be claiming the cold is within predictions.

    What a douche. He deserves everything Karma sends his way.

  52. Euan Mearns says:

    Roy, thanks for update. Part of my initial reaction was “oh no, not another revision of the temperature record”. So is it OK for you to do this? Of course it is. Why then is it not OK for GHCN to invent a new homogenisation algorithm?

    I think I have an answer, but interested to see if anyone else comes up with same answer first… if I remember to come tomorrow.

Leave a Reply