Apologies for my lack of blogging activity of late – I’ve had a busy Christmas period on both the work and home fronts. Some friends even managed to hold a pre-Chrsitmas BBQ on 22nd December – no, not a result of global warming in the UK, just a cool, pleasant evening and the heat from the BBQ itself.
Despite science historian Naomi Oreskes’s claim, repeated ad nauseum by greenhouse industry beneficiaries that there are few or no peer reviewed papers that dispute the still undefined ‘consensus’ on anthropogenic global climate change, such papers have not been hard to find during 2007. Some of the more recent papers containing inconvenient results, that I haven’t previously blogged, are briefly described below:
Surface:troposphere warming
According to climate models of enhanced greenhouse warming, the tropical troposphere should warm more than the surface. Recent publications have contradictory results despite using essentially the same data. The latest paper on this subject, by Douglass et al, suggests that model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere.
Interestingly, a poster presented by Penner and Andronova at the recent AGU meeting, entitled ‘Tropical atmosphere radiative budget 1985-2005’ seems to reconcile the differences between surface and troposheric warming, supporting the Douglass et al data, without necessarily disproving enhanced greenhouse warming.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit attended the conference and the following is extracted from his write-up:
“the tropical atmosphere has absorbed less energy and the Earth’s surface has gained energy which is consistent with the temperature increase in the tropics;
the tropical atmosphere has recently become less reflective and more absorbing while the Earth’s surface gained radiative energy; thus, the tropical atmosphere had recently become more transparent to the incoming radiation and there is an overall brightening of the Earth’s system;
none of the IPCC AR4 models simulates the overall brightening of the Earth system. The majority of the models show a loss of radiative energy by the tropical energy in the post-Pinatubo period, suggesting that the models have still not properly captured the feedbacks between temperature change and clouds.”
Of course, there are also unresolved issues regarding a potential warm bias in the surface temperature data.
Climate sensitivity to CO2
A new paper by Chylek et al entitled:
Limits on climate sensitivity derived from recent satellite and surface observations
The climate sensitivity of 0.29 to 0.48 K/Wm-2 translates to warming between 1.1 and 1.8 deg C for doubling of CO2, supporting values close to the lower end of the IPCC range of 2 to 4.5 deg C. – Petr Chylek
Hurricanes
HURRICANES HAVE NOT INCREASED IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC
By William M. Briggs, Statistician
My paper on this subject will finally appear in the Journal of Climate soon. Download it here.
The gist is that the evidence shows that hurricanes have not increased in either number of intensity in the North Atlantic. I’ve only used data through 2006; which is to say, not this year’s. But if I were to, then, since the number and intensity of storms this past year were nothing special, the evidence would be even more conclusive that not much is going on.
Now, I did find that there were some changes in certain characteristics of North Atlantic storms. There is some evidence that the probability that strong (what are called Category 4 or 5) storms evolving from ordinary hurricanes has increased. But, there has also been an increase in storms not reaching hurricane level. Which is to say, that the only clear signal is that there has been an increase in the variability of intensity of tropical cyclones.
Of course, I do not say why this increase has happened. Well, I suggest why it has: changes in instrumentation quality and frequency since the late 1960s (which is when satellites first went up, allowing us to finally observe better). This is in line with what others, like Chris Landsea at the Hurricane Center, have found.
I also have done the same set of models of global hurricanes. I found the same thing. I’m scheduled to give a talk on this at the American Meteorological Society’s annual meeting in January 2008 in New Orleans. That paper is here.
In another paper, Vecchi and Soden find natural climate variations have bigger effect on hurricane activity than global warming:
Vecchi, G.A. and B.J. Soden. 2007. Effect of remote sea surface temperature change on tropical cyclone potential intensity. Nature, 450, 1066-1071.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I’m the guy that wrote some of the hurricane papers mentioned above.
I also have another posting which might be of interest:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2007/12/24/two-differences-in-perception-between-global-cooling-and-global-warming/
Thanks!
Thanks William!
To William Briggs.
A nice little paper as to the accuracy and reliability of climate models.Thanks.
But what really caught my eye was your paper on the site entitled, ” How many false studies in medicine are published each year.”
Now I wonder, how would it be possible for there to be the likelihood of such a high number of duds when they are are all, presumably, put through the peer review process.
William
in the case of aerosols, they were right. Aerosols do cool the climate. The idea that the earth was cooling as a legitimate field of inquiry, as past experience has shown that the earth can be subject to positive feedback swings, where it jumps from one climate state to another. The Milankovich cycles don’t plunge us directly into an ice age, the increased glaciation cools the earth, that leads to growing ice caps, that changes the albedo, that leads to larger ice caps. In a relatively short time, the earth is in an ice age.
As it was, scientific study in climate was going on into the enhanced greenhouse effect as well, which was first discovered about 50 years ago, but did not attract much attention.
The prediction was for more weather events, as it is impossible to directly predict exactly what will happen. This is a logical and obvious point of view to take, since global warming
1) adds water vapour to the atmosphere
2) adds more energy to the atmosphere
3) warms the sea surface.
As you yourself have confirmed, it does not, to date, cause more hurricanes, but it helps existing hurricanes jump to higher levels of intensity, which is a logical result of 1+2+3.
If you remember the ‘Asian Brown Clouds’ post – aerosols might cool or warm depending on altitude, although a number of papers cast doubt on the aerosol cooling hypothesis of the 1940s to 1970s. Other things were happening including a strongly negative ENSO.
There are also doubts about a big positive water vapour feedback including:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/12/27/third-follow-up-to-climate-metric-reality-check-3-evidence-for-a-lack-of-water-vapor-feedback-on-the-regional-scale/
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/12/21/second-follow-up-to-climate-metric-reality-check-3-evidence-for-a-lack-of-water-vapor-feedback-on-the-regional-scale/
During the past 20 years evaporation and precipitation have a global average near zero.
No link has been established between more intense hurricanes and global warming.
Malcom,
I’d love to answer fully, but maybe this blog isn’t the place; way off topic. If you wouldn’t mind posting the same comment at the original posting, I can answer there.
But, briefly, if I present you, a reviewer, with a study (medical or climatological), with a p-value < 0.05, then that part of the review process passes. There’d be no way for you to know, or me to know, if that p-value resulted in a bad decision. That’s the problem with using them.
Briggs
Paul
from your own topic.
“There is some evidence that the probability that strong (what are called Category 4 or 5) storms evolving from ordinary hurricanes has increased.”
As Paul states “a number of papers cast doubt on the aerosol cooling hypothesis of the 1940s to 1970s. Other things were happening including a strongly negative ENSO.”
This is hardly surprising when you actually look at the temperature records split by hemisphere.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
As can be the seen, this cooling period was primarily driven by what went on in the southern hemisphere. Since aerosol effects, other than significant volcanic events, tend to be geographically localized in nature gives strong support to the notion that it was natural factors that drove this cooling period, not man-made aerosols. Unless of course, I missed the sudden industrialization that took place in Tahiti, Madagascar and Paraguay in 1947!
However, alarmists continue to use this ruse since they will always try to minimize natural climatic factors! Can’t let anyone think that climate is not stable and can’t be changed except by mankind!
“Can’t let anyone think that climate is not stable and can’t be changed except by mankind!”
since the IPCC has never claimed that, nor anyone that I have ever heard of, I don’t know why people think they have to deny this all the time.
“since the IPCC has never claimed that, nor anyone that I have ever heard of, I don’t know why people think they have to deny this all the time.”
Come again!?
Then WTF are we worried about reducing CO2? WE are told over and over it’s “US people” causing it!
Mind you I am for reducing pollution of all kinds, it’s just common sense.
In this case, we are causing it. That’s what the science is telling us.
“In this case, we are causing it. That’s what the science is telling us.”
And the empirical proof of this is?
Mark
read the ar4.
Its all in there.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_ar4.html
Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
So SJT, easy enough to point to this IPCC junk. I’ve given you the definition for empirical. What exactly in AR4 provides any empirical proof? You can’t give us anything can you?
“In this case, we are causing it. That’s what the science is telling us.” (SJT).
I have no intention of wading through the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007), but I’m grateful to Wikipedia for this summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
The primary and salient points are that:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Most (greater than 50%) of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (at least 90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
(According to ‘Wiki’, certainly not a critic of AGW, in IPCC statements “most” means greater than 50%, “likely” means at least a 66% likelihood, and “very likely” means at least a 90% likelihood.)
Again, over 50% of observed warming is over 90% due to us – hardly an unequivocal statement.
And don’t forget this statement is put together by policy-makers (not scientists) who are paid by a body, the sole aim of which is to “evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity”.
Mark and Chris
you can criticise, and you haven’t even read it. Amazing. That’s the state of argument here. Peer reviewed science is not even worth reading.
“you can criticise, and you haven’t even read it. Amazing. That’s the state of argument here. Peer reviewed science is not even worth reading” (SJT).
This is the usual tired old debating trick described by German philosopher and aesthetician, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) in his “The Art Of Controversy”:
“This is the argumentum ad verecundiam. It consists in making an appeal to authority rather than reason, and in using such an authority as may suit the degree of knowledge possessed by your opponent.
Authorities which your opponent fails to understand are those of which he generally thinks the most. The unlearned entertain a peculiar respect for a Greek or a Latin flourish.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right
I’m not intimidated by the ‘authority’ of the IPCC.
If Wikipedia is wrong in its summary, or I have misquoted or misinterpreted it, say so.
BTW, I have not seen an answer to my question on the previous thread.
An appeal to authority is not a fallacy if the authority is a valid one.
Besides that, this is science, so all the claims are backed up with scientific research. You should read it. If science is not good enough for you, I don’t know what else ever could be.
Again.
If Wikipedia is wrong in its summary, or I have misquoted or misinterpreted it, say so.
BTW, I have not seen an answer to my question on the previous thread.
SJT,
You’re quite right. It seems probable that the rate at which category 4 & 5 storms evolve from hurricanes has increased since the late 1960s. But you must also remember that the number of storms less then hurricane strength has also increased; hurricanes have remained the same. How can this be?
Storms are classified by their wind speed, and wind speed measurements have become more variable since the late 1960s: their mean has not increased. An increase in the variance—and not in the mean—of wind speed accounts for the increase in probability of classifying storms as less than hurricane or category 4 & 5.
I specifically direct readers to Chris Landsea’s excellent Eos article in which he shows the tremendous hole in hurricane coverage before the satellite age. It is also true that these satellites have improved linearly since introduced. And this improvement matches the observed trend in the variability of wind speed. Therefore, it’s very likely that improvements in measurements account for the increasing variability in wind speed.
I have more about this (and more to come) in my “global warming” category: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/category/climatology/
Briggs
Chrisgo,
You’re just wasting your time. As someone else stated, SJT is mostly like the LBE (Luke Blog Entity) in disguise. Dodge the question and point elsewhere.
Where did Luke go?
Chrisgo
Your comments about the tactics SJT uses are not a waste of time. Your reference to “The art of being right” and your challenge was refreshing. On BLOGS such as these the comments quite often have little to do with discussion of the thread topic. For many such as SJT or LBE it is about defending a position without regard for the issue. This practiced by Politicians, Lawyers and Clerics it is not productive here can we just ignore it or are there those who will not recognise this for what it is?
You have to laugh – someone trying an acronym like LBE when he himself is “Mark”. LOL and maybe even a “ROTFL.”
The Mark Blog Indentity (MBE) – jeeez !
But in answering Woody’s comment – oh well Luke is still around lurking a little but given up on comment.
The level of debate if so abysmally poor and ad hom level increasing. I really just shake my head at the quality of the recent threads.
Same old denialist stuff. The reality is that there no evidence that anyone could ever tender to convince you guys of an appreciable risk. “GIVE ME THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THEY SHOUT”
ROAR !!! Sound of Lions….
There is no way you will ever discuss a future system state discussion – as by definition any calculation will involve a “modelled” answer – AND given we don’t have a replicate planet and a few spare decades or centuries to play with this is all the technology you have (Sorry). Fancy John Mashey giving us a visit (wasted and we are not worthy John, but but thanks anyway).
Clearly there is now way you’ll ever accept any modelling whatsoever – as some “XXX Blog Indentity” says – garbage in – garbage out. It’s all tuned to give the answers you want want – yadda yadda.
Why – because you’re convinced it’s some plot or attempt to destroy western civilisation etc – well you know – I don’t need to tell you why. Woody will write you a book on it. YOU KNOW it’s utter rubbish don’t you from first principles.
Jen and Paul want to improve the level of debate – well it ain’t gonna happen. There is no middle ground – there is no sensible discussion of risk. Jen knew she didn’t believe in AGW before she started. Wasn’t on the IPA checklist.
Mott will return from his waterfall and continue to spray venom around. And the gut urge to drop kick the vicious little varmit is far too high for civilised discussion.
The level of revisiting the same old stuff is through the roof. Or you’re at the level of debating CO2 in a bottle with James – wow – that’s productive !
Stuff like the 400 scientists is such utter rot – why would you even bother discussing it. All this is just part of the American disease of politicised anti-enviro action. Woody probably grooves on this stuff – as if it’s some alternative reality.
So instead of this blog at least having some independent Aussie thought – used to be the ants pants for that – it’s now an outlet for Time Magazine.
Jen’s still banging on about no changes in Australia’s rainfall. Yea sure. If she hasn’t thought about it by now – don’t think it’s gonna happen somehow. I’m sure she’s having a major effect on agronomists or water managers out there making some risk management calculations. Not !
So the debate has become far too emotional and politicised. You can’t have a sensible discussion about AGW or GW or GHGs or CC.
Anyway why bother – governments seek their own advice – and somehow I don’t think Kevin Rudd will be looking here for quality and insight.
And the Australian contrarian movement isn’t having any effect – it’s all just looks kooky and weird. If it were a political party I think you’d be desperate for some renewal and quality comment.
So what slows governments down is the sober reality of doing anything. Push the electorate too hard on any area and you’ll be voted out. People expect the good times to keep on rolling.
Rudd knows this full well.
So what to do – get a life I guess – well Paul at least provides a service in a continual supply of new papers (from one side – each proving to six decimal places there is nothing in it) – and the years tick by adding extra datum points to trends.
Probably need to get another decade under our belts – and see how the wiggles are wiggling. Banging on about little monthly wiggles or whether it was freezing in Montreal yesterday is a waste of time. Anyway Sid will keep you fortified with a selection of international cold cuts.
And the one constant beating like a neutron star is the amount of inconsistent quasi-scientific drivel from Louis – but give Louis his due – he’s not inherently nasty. Probably drinks in the front bar at Hall’s Creek.
So yep could have had some quality discussion – but alas it’s just another partisan denialist campaign outlet – and I’m definitely part of the problem not the solution. So enjoy clubbing each other to death.
And was it Mottsa who said – “Get off my blog”. Usually with clown or turd or spiv attached.
ENJOY !
Assorted P.S.’s
Chrisgo or was it Mark – (THE “Mark” blog indentity – LOL) – you may have noticed the southern hemisphere has always been cooler. A duh.
And my pet hate is the total level of stupidity of discussion about how CO2 greenhouse works. It only recycles longwave radiation as an “add-on” not a primary driver like the Sun. It DOES NOT work by itself.
SO – drop the incoming shortwave from either aerosols, volcanoes or solar output and you will have a lesser CO2 greenhouse effect. A subtle point most have missed.
People might also visit some of the really basic physics – the planet cannot be this warm given the solar constant and distance from the Sun without a substantial greenhouse effect. 150 watts worth.
Not even the slightest doubt you might be able to increase it? Not even a teensy weensy little thought? Of course not – silly idea. Coz if you did you’d have to hang some numbers on it. Nah – don’t bother – stick with the 400 list – much more fun. And gives Eli, Desmog and Deltoid an excuse to drop kick you all over the blogosphere.
Yes Davey – it was the volcanoes after all. You worked it out all by yourself going down to the letterbox without any help from us. Brilliant.
That’s called a rant, so LBE you have solved it all why bother with us why not go and tell J Christy the facts of life according to Luke. The books of revelation should be a good source of inspiration for you. My advice is give up you have lost it.
DMHO. It’s not about being right, it’s about science as an institution, which for some reason Jen is happy to help trash. Science is not always right, but it’s proven to be the most robust tool we have developed to date for pulling us out of ignorance and into an era of education and enlightenment. One of it’s most basic premises is scepticism, or the process of peer review. Scientists don’t get a pat on the back for accepting everything as given, they get recognition for discovering what is new, or discovering what is wrong with what we already know.
Why demand that I come up with answers? I am not a scientist. You demand that I provide you with a medical diagnoses over the web, would you? If you did, I would advise you to go to a doctor.
I can point you to the AR4, which is where the experts have come up with the answers, as we they them, at this point in time.
“I have no intention of wading through the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007)”. Good grief. You demand answers, but you refuse to read them.
Which well illustrates the entire point – the first return comment – a comment of typical stupidity from a new “blog indentity” called “DHMO” – what’s that – Direct Factory Outlet or Dick Head Mouth Open . Incisive stuff DFO – adds to the debate with such elegance and precision.
You’re wasting your time – SJT – these goobers haven’t got the intellectual ability to understand the the 4AR let alone make a critical comment they didn’t read somewhere else. Which is why they duck it.
Science is about Deduction, Induction and Discovery/Test. Try applying Langmuir’s laws to all of this GW mess. Dark days indeed for science. You seem confused about my opinions anyway and attributed the views of many others to me. Because the rules of science can not be applied we have put our faith and belief in computer models. Do you imagine an accurate model could be made of a child or do you think a child is more complex. Do you think the world was perfect climate wise before the use of coal and oil.
Nice round-up from Pielke Jr on where the science stands with respect to hurricanes and global warming:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001307endof2007_hurrican.html
“So I am going to stand pat with our conclusions first presented in 2005 in that shameful (but accurate) article:
[T]here are good reasons to expect that any conclusive connection between global warming and hurricanes or their impacts will not be made in the near term.
That is where things stand on this subject at the close of 2007.”
BTW – ‘Biggsy’ blogs peer reviewed papers that are ‘non-consensus’ because they tend to be ignored by the mainstream media, even though such papers are generally no less valid than the ‘consensus’ papers that support the more newsworthy position of alarmism.
The theory which portrays the Earth as a steaming mudball devoid of life is less credible every day.
The theory that AGW advocates are using carbon emissions as a play for a World Government is increasing proportionally.
Revelations that Al Gore is spouting things that not even the IPCC radicals would espouse…
I’d recommend selling short on carbon credits, but likely you’ll be stuck with trying to collect from bankrupts.
Look “IT” has awakened. Oh my Gawd! What have we done!
The horror. . . The horror. . .
So LBE, SJT I have read the AR4, at least the relevant sections – the SPM Chapter 9 on Climate Change Attribution and Chapter 10 on Global climate Projections. The rest is not particularly relevant especially since the part I did read was IMO utter crap.
But perhaps I missed something . . . So SJT, LBE for the nth time, why don’t you highlight the specifics you believe empirically prove that the slight warming over the last century is primarily man-made in origin and that we face a climate catastrophe is we don’t cut Co2 omissions.
Mark
there’s no point wasting time any longer, then, is there? If science is “utter crap”, that’s the end of the discussion.
I don’t think the “Mark Blog Indentity” (whatever that is) is that intelligent SJT. Gee a whole 2 chapters and the analysis is about scintillating level of discussion you’d expect from denialist boofheads. And what’s that – just the SPM – must have raised a sweat – holey cow – didn’t try any of the main chapters – and you want to be taken seriously. Add that to Schiller’s outstanding contribution. yadda yadda world govt biz biz bix yadda – yes Schillsy I can see the USA, China and Ruskies all being told what to do by the UN. Are you mental?
SJT all you going to get from these halfwits is “tis – tisn’t – tis tisn’t”. A well laid out argument is a tad beyond the IQ level.
I don’t think anyone has ever yet on the Earth produced empirical evidence of the future. Funny that. And you might be waiting a fair while to get it. So why are you still here then – the answer is clear – you know it’s rubbish – there is no evidence. So shoot through mate. Begone. You don’t need to argue – you KNOW THE ANSWERS. You’re a genius – the world’s best scientists in the various domains are united in a major plot and have written a poor document full of lies, bad grammar and by golly – you just don’t like it. It sucks ! It’s evil. The 400 goofballs on Morono’s list know better – ask them.
“the world’s best scientists in the various domains are united in a major plot and have written a poor document full of lies, bad grammar and by golly”
Now if we peruse the list of contributors to AR4 WGII, for example, we find that the claim that it is compiled by the world’s best scientists to be a gross exaggeration, not to mention that not a few non-scientists are involved in its compilation as well. See the following post for a comedic analysis:
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html
LBE IS BACK!
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/bb/The_shining_heres_johnny.jpg
Luke
I sense much anger perhaps you should take your toys and play elsewhere before you have to go to the time out room.
Proteus
“We decided to test Dessler’s claim. So we downloaded IPCC WGII’s latest report on “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”. There were 380 contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?) was too ambitious (it’s Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren’t clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists. This gives the lie to Dessler’s claim that IPCC contributors are analogous to medical doctors. There are economists working on saving that dying child!!! That’s got to be wrong, by Dessler’s own standards.”
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability is not about the science of AGW, but about what to do about it, and it’s impacts on our society. Another blogger makes an idiot of himself by not understanding what he is talking about.
I wouldn’t bother reading the full IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007) because the concluding statement that over 50% of observed warming is over 90% due to us is not science but pure guesstimation – it’s nonsense and that’s after 20 years of intense and expensive research – arrived at by a group of activist careerists who anticipate rosy futures as highly paid ‘Climate Change’ specialists and bureaucrats.
Yes boys enjoy your little tea club. Devastating arguments. You’ve certainly stumped me. I’m sure people are hanging on your every utterance. Mottsa will be back soon to look after you, after stocking up on Mullumbimby taipan venom. But be careful – as Schiller well knows he’ll bite anyone – even good guy “blog identities”. So get in a bit of back slapping and mutual admiration before you’re eclipsed.
Toodley loo for another week or 52.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dummy_spit&redirect=no
Luke
I’m glad you have taken my advice run along now.
*An appeal to authority is not a fallacy if the authority is a valid one.*
hahhahahahaha
A fallacious argument indeed
Thanks Luke, your input is always appreciated..
Now that *we have signed kyoto* your function is now fulfilled..?
“I wouldn’t bother reading the full IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) (2007) because the concluding statement that over 50% of observed warming is over 90% due to us is not science but pure guesstimation – it’s nonsense and that’s after 20 years of intense and expensive research – arrived at by a group of activist careerists who anticipate rosy futures as highly paid ‘Climate Change’ specialists and bureaucrats.”
the summary is just that, a collation of the scientific research. If you choose to ignore the science it is based on, that’s just wilful ignorance. Enjoy the peace of mind it gives you.
“On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have been wrong actually. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority’s statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.”
SJT AGW is a hoax documented in full here.
http://www.anywho.com/
When you get done reading it, if you have the mental ability to comprehend what you have read, you will be back begging pardon for ever having believed in it.
Just joking. (Just like I hope you are when you throw out a link to the AR4)
Seriously, I read that we (as in the whole planet) are going to run out of oil in 30 or 40 years. Some alarmist website claimed that we are adding 2 ppm of co2 per year, so taking them at face value that would mean 60 to 80 ppm more co2 before we run out of gas.
It took mankind about 2 centuries of burning fossil fuels to raise the co2 level by 100 ppm.
So how is it that the AR4 bases its predictions of calamity on a doubling of co2 (which they claim will happen in a hundred) when we will be running out of fuels way before then?
And what am I supposed to think of people who start their premise out with a lie? Should I continue on reading the minutia of their phonebook sized website afterward?
Here’s an example of IPCC crapola:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2532#comments
Note that to see the initial image (Figure 4) in full illustrating the truncated “divergence” problem, you need to right click the image and select view image.
There is the appeal to authority and the appeal to false authority and argument from authority, all being fallacious. (Wikipedia being one such false authority)
“there’s no point wasting time any longer, then, is there? If science is “utter crap”, that’s the end of the discussion.”
Nothing wrong with good science. However we’re talking about IPPC science, if you can call it that.
Yes, James, bloggers on the internet now know more than professional scientists. Their ad hoc pronouncements trump the scientific method, which has been developed over centuries.
Rog,
You can always argue about the science behind the claims of the IPCC. There are hundreds of scientific papers behind those claims, all listed and referenced. If you care to find the errors, please feel free. So far, I have yet to see one actual argument against the science presented by you, it’s all just one line comments so far.
Pierrehumbert has been an author on Realclimate
Perhaps you should read what he has been saying.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157
“The widespread retreat is all the more notable because tropical mountain glaciers are old. They have survived thousands of years of natural climate fluctuations, only to dwindle at a time when other climate indicators — notably surface temperature — are showing the imprint of human influence on climate. Quelccaya is at least 1500 years old, Dasuopo is 9000 years old, and Huascaran has seen 19000 years. A date for the ultimate demise of these glaciers has not been fixed, but the Northern Ice Field on Kilimanjaro may be gone in as little as twenty years, after having survived the past 11,000 years.”
He appears to believe AGW is real from that quote.
He has a difference of opinion on one graph in the IPCC report. The climate reconstructions are not the IPCC case for AGW.
“The climate reconstructions are not the IPCC case for AGW.”
Then why do they bother to fraudulently misrepresent them?
Terence is spot on.
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=ccfdd609-3321-42d5-b9ef-40e20fc8db33
The climate reconstructions are an attempt to give us some idea of where we have come from, in the logical train of the progress to where we are to where we are going. If you look at the error bars, they are quite large.
The climate reconstruction is about 10% of the case.
The actual climate behaviour as measured is most of the case. It demonstrates, in geological terms, are sharp and rapid rise. You can see it on those graphs. While before it rose and fell gradually, it is now rocketing up, and it’s going to keep going up.
Pierrehumbert certainly appears to agree with that part of it. Wunsch is also another believer in AGW who disagrees with some of the projections of the IPCC reports. The consensus of researchers is open to a lot of debate internally, despite the endless claims to the contrary on sites such as this of a massive conspiracy. However, that AGW is real is a fundamental finding that is not under dispute.
“While before it rose and fell gradually, it is now rocketing up, and it’s going to keep going up.”
Rose and fell gradually? You need to check out the CET then – the longest temperature record than man has. The magnitude and rate of temperature change in the late 17th century dwarfs what we’ve seen in the 20th century.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Common/CET.htm
As to your rocketship, what’s it called – the “Challenger”? If you check temperatures over the last 25 years there’s been little or no rocketing particularly when volcanic impacts are properly accounted for.
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/Charts.html?1197437190605
So stop with the nonsense!
The graphs noted above by Errol seem to be computer generated using well known datasets, so the description “hand drawn” is simply wrong.
Unless Errol was referring to other graphs but that is unlikely as his comment is assumed to refer to the one immediately above.
But I had no idea Errol was a basketweaving hairdresser!
“computer generated” – perhaps by a garbage in/garbage out algorithm well known to the denialist fraternity.”
Hang on Errol!
Isn’t the whole AGW based on just that? Computers you know, modeling which cannot be replicated in real, due to, because “We only have this one planet” according to the believers?
Errol!
In other words, if it supports you belief, computers and modeling are good, if it’s contrary, then it’s bad? If I remember correctly the increase of CO2 followed the previous warmening periods!? nes pa?
Yes, Brett. The science explains all that, if you bother to read it. Like the rest of the crowd here, I very much doubt you will. It’s a meme with a life of it’s own. Like the ‘400’, it’s a ‘fact’ that exists beyond logic or reason, but serves it’s purpose of comforting the ignorant.
“comforting the ignorant.”
You have no worries then, and comfortable, I take!
Well Error, it’s funny that when I went about the exercise of generating this graph using Excel, I was careful to use alarmist sources as a counter to twits like you. If you don’t believe your eyes, get off your lazy arse and plot it yourself!
Base data – HADCRUT3 from the high church of climate alarmism, the Hadley Meteorological Centre:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
The Pinatubo adjustment data was read off Figure 2 from this paper by the alarmist Robock.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VEAChapter1_Robocknew.pdf
Aug-91 -0.066666667
Sep-91 -0.133333333
Oct-91 -0.2
Nov-91 -0.25
Dec-91 -0.3
Jan-92 -0.35
Feb-92 -0.366666667
Mar-92 -0.383333333
Apr-92 -0.4
May-92 -0.433333333
Jun-92 -0.466666667
Jul-92 -0.5
Aug-92 -0.5
Sep-92 -0.5
Oct-92 -0.5
Nov-92 -0.5
Dec-92 -0.5
Jan-93 -0.5
Feb-93 -0.483333333
Mar-93 -0.466666667
Apr-93 -0.45
May-93 -0.433333333
Jun-93 -0.416666667
Jul-93 -0.4
Aug-93 -0.4
Sep-93 -0.4
Oct-93 -0.4
Nov-93 -0.366666667
Dec-93 -0.333333333
Jan-94 -0.3
Feb-94 -0.3
Mar-94 -0.3
Apr-94 -0.3
May-94 -0.283333333
Jun-94 -0.266666667
Jul-94 -0.25
Aug-94 -0.233333333
Sep-94 -0.216666667
Oct-94 -0.2
Nov-94 -0.183333333
Dec-94 -0.166666667
Jan-95 -0.15
Feb-95 -0.15
Mar-95 -0.15
Apr-95 -0.15
May-95 -0.133333333
Jun-95 -0.116666667
Jul-95 -0.1
Aug-95 -0.1
Sep-95 -0.1
Oct-95 -0.1
Nov-95 -0.1
Dec-95 -0.1
The max global cooling of 0.5 C is consistent with many sources and is conservative – I’ve seen reference to figures as high as 1.0 C. Even Wikipravda supports the 0.5 C number!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinatubo
For El Chichon, I will admit my source is not Alarmist based but it was the best graphic I could find and the Pinatubo profile was consistent with the source above. See Figure 1.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol3/v3n19/feature.htm
Apr-82 -0.2
May-82 -0.25
Jun-82 -0.28
Jul-82 -0.31
Aug-82 -0.33
Sep-82 -0.34
Oct-82 -0.35
Nov-82 -0.36
Dec-82 -0.37
Jan-83 -0.36
Feb-83 -0.35
Mar-83 -0.34
Apr-83 -0.33
May-83 -0.32
Jun-83 -0.31
Jul-83 -0.3
Aug-83 -0.29
Sep-83 -0.28
Oct-83 -0.27
Nov-83 -0.26
Dec-83 -0.25
Jan-84 -0.24
Feb-84 -0.23
Mar-84 -0.22
Apr-84 -0.21
May-84 -0.2
Jun-84 -0.2
Jul-84 -0.193
Aug-84 -0.186
Sep-84 -0.179
Oct-84 -0.172
Nov-84 -0.165
Dec-84 -0.158
Jan-85 -0.151
Feb-85 -0.144
Mar-85 -0.137
Apr-85 -0.13
May-85 -0.1244
Jun-85 -0.1188
Jul-85 -0.1132
Aug-85 -0.1076
Sep-85 -0.102
Oct-85 -0.0964
Nov-85 -0.0908
Dec-85 -0.0852
Jan-86 -0.08
Feb-86 -0.076
Mar-86 -0.072
Apr-86 -0.068
May-86 -0.064
Jun-86 -0.06
Jul-86 -0.056
Aug-86 -0.052
Sep-86 -0.048
Oct-86 -0.044
Nov-86 -0.04
Dec-86 -0.036
So read em and weep!
SJT
Further back you wrote
“Pierrehumbert has been an author on Realclimate
Perhaps you should read what he has been saying.”
Well I have. His opinion appears to be tropical glaciers are in retreat and that it is not certain why. He thinks those damn humans are at the bottom of it (AGW) and would like more computer modeling to be done.
This leads me to wonder about your faith in computer models as it is paramount to these blogs. As a computer professional with more than 30 year of experience I have no faith that one can actually get sensible answers by putting facts into a computer and deriving answers. If we can this means the holy grail of artificial intelligence has been achieved. I am certain GCM results are not science why do you think they are?
You forgot to say what your point was.
SJT
I was quite definite about my point.
Nowhere in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) does the IPCC make the vital causal connection between the rising surface temperatures it claims are occurring and the rising levels of atmospheric CO₂ (which are not disputed) except by correlation – a shaky basis for dramatic and potentially disastrous world action.
They ignore the obvious fact that global temperatures have reached comparable and greater levels in the past without the help of CO₂.
And that is not surprising as the behemoth’s sole raison d’être is to “evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity”.
No doubt many learned discussions were held and peer reviewed papers published on phlogisticated and dephlogisticated substances in the 1700s, but if they were ‘science’, they were bad science.
Errol
Schopenhauer 38, 31, 8, 30
Chrisgo he has been studying can you find more?
“If you think the relationship between global warming and carbon dioxide is merely based on correlation…….” etc.
Blimey, I was commenting on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report –
there’s no need to be so gratuitously offensive.
Chris
can you see your nose on the end of your own face. It’s called the greenhouse effect. You must have heard of that by now.
I heard of the green house effect but I can’t find it.
You fill a bottle with co2, stick it in the sun and measure the temperature. Nothing. No 2 to 4.5 degree celsius rise. Not even a measly 1.1 degree rise.
Zero temp variation. IPCC is full of crap.
You the strange thing about this? Global warming is an invention of Americans, designed to induce third world countries into volunteering never to join the first world. And its working. The rest of the world thinks they are going to hurt America by “forcing the USA” to buy into this bullshit.
What a bunch of morons.
The scary thing is it was so easy.
There is a reason Asia and the rest are third world after being given an eon’s head start.
It’s because the rest of the world is mega stupid.
James
I bet you have heard of penicillin, can you grow it?
Have you heard of lasers? Can you make your own?
Do you use a computer? Can you make your own hard disk, CPU, LCD screen?
Errol. Go back to tending your sheep. If you can’t except the obvious then why waste your time here?
Luddite.
SJT
In this thread I asked you the following.
I am certain GCM results are not science why do you
think they are?
Seems you don’t have an answer and that is a matter of faith for you. Don’t bother answering here this is the end of the thread for me.
Error: “Just for the record do you support James’ comments too or would that be a difficult question.”
As to the specifics of the science? No (sorry James). I do not dispute the greenhouse effect. I agree with the known physics whereby the incremental effect is logarithmic in nature. Given that the specific wavelengths captured by CO2 are close to saturation, further impact from additions of CO2 will be minimal. So has manmade CO2 warmed the planet? Maybe a bit but nothing to worry about, especially since it is quite possible that this has been largely offset (or more) by cooling due to land use change and aerosols.
However as to James’ broader statement “IPCC is full of crap”, I whole heartedly agree. I mean look at their summary statement on page 10 of the SPM: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is VERY LIKELY due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
That’s a 90% probability according to their definition. Now look at their analysis of net anthropogenic forcings from Figure TS.5. It gives the net forcing as 1.6 W/m2 with a range from 0.6 W/m2 to 2.4 W/m2. Christ, you could drive a Mack truck through that interval. How the hell does that line up with 90% probability? Furthermore the same chart indicates the LOSU (Level of Scientific Understanding) for Cloud albedo effect and Solar irradiance as Low while indicating the understanding for Co2 impacts as High. Well given that their analysis of CO2 impacts is supposedly based on holistic models that include all known factors, how the hell do you get to a High level of understanding when you have no clue what is going on with what may turn out to be key contributing factors?
Oh, and as to your comment “You have decided to join surface data and MSU data sets together. You have made no consideration of feedback effects of radiation loss on greenhouse and simply undertaken an addition. Perhaps if you had read the paper instead of snipping out data sets you may have learnt something.”
Well maybe you should read the paper. It states “to reproduce the OBSERVED cooling (Figure 2).” Not modeled. Not simulated. No feedback estimates required. Empirical. But I guess you wouldn’t understand that concept. And as to joining the two datasets. I could have used MSU but I had the HADCRUT3 numbers readily available. As you can see, the two datasets track each other quite closely.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Common/HadCRUT3vsMSU.htm
Wouldn’t make any notable difference in the result.
No need to do that. They already know the truth! Unfortunately all too many others and the mainstream media will continue to deny it and spout their own dogma until the continued lack of warming and potentially significant cooling will mean they too must accept reality!
Now go back to your cave!
Mark
there’s the difference. The IPCC are upfront, they know they do not know ‘the truth’. They know that they cannot be certain. You, however, know ‘the truth’. Who sounds like they are espousing faith, and who does not?
Doc Dessler commented that Venus is the runaway greenhouse in action.
Sure it’s atmosphere is 97% co2 and its hot.
Then on the other hand Mars also has a 97% co2 atmosphere and it’s bone chilling cold.
Earth atmosphere has a tiny little bit of co2 which will never reach even 1%, no matter how much carbon we use, and it’s just right.
According to Boyles law, pressure is directly related to temperature.
So Mars with 1% of Earth air pressure is cold, and Venus with 90 times Earth air pressure is hot.
Can we show that if Venus air were 97% oxygen that it would be just as hot? Yes we can. Diesel invented an engine based on this truism.
Can we show that if Mars atmosphere were not co2 it would be just as cold? Absolutely just take a temperature reading from the tropopause on Earth which has simular pressure.
I see no need to invent warming properties for co2, especially properties which can’t be replicated in a lab.
SJT: “The IPCC are upfront, they know they do not know ‘the truth’.”
Well I must say I am very glad you finally admitted it! For once a statement from an alarmist that isn’t a lie!
Mark
you just don’t get it, do you?
Science is always uncertain. The IPPC states clearly, they are not certain, but they are getting more and more confident. Anyone who claims they ‘know the truth’ in science is a fraud.
Here we go again!
Summary statement on page 10 of the SPM: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is VERY LIKELY due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
Again, that’s a 90% probability according to their own definition!
Certainly doesn’t LOOK like a clear statement that they are not certain.
I mean it would be great if they did make a clear summary statement about the degree of their uncertainty but they don’t!
So don’t be so obtuse!
Errol, SJT:
Would you actually think about what you read, if you even bother reading anything at all here and are just giving automatic knee-jerk responses!
Again – in the IPCC’s own words, VERY LIKELY / 90% Probability.
Not – Well maybe.
Not – With a significant degree of uncertainty.
Not – With a range where the upper threshold of the uncertainty interval is 4 times the lower threshold.
Stop embarrassing yourselves!
Christ, I thought the LBE was bad!
Errol,
Why don’t you just fuck off!
The IPCC’s core statement is:
“Most (over 50%) of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (over 90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentration”
Think about it.
Does it mean that over 50% of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since mid-20th century is due to human greenhouse gas concentration?
No, it doesn’t mean that.
Does it mean that over 90% of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since mid-20th century is due to human greenhouse gas concentration?
No it doesn’t mean that either.
The statement is absolutely meaningless.
But, to be generous, what I think it means is that, in the view of the IPCC, 51% (0.25℃) of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since mid-20th century is 91% due to human greenhouse gas concentration.
Sounds OK to me.
So all you unfortunate hysterics can relax and have a happy new year (if you can).
Chrisgo
the IPCC does not do research, it collates the results of research and summarises them. There is no hard statistical method of doing this, hence the need to provide a rough indication of what all the research means. If you want to, feel free to read all the research papers that are the source of the IPCC reports, and let us know what your conclusion is.
SJT – your loyalty to the cherry-picked scientific opinion of a few lead authors that write the UN reports knows no bounds. A classic example is Kevin Trenberth’s view of the ‘link’ between hurricanes and global warming which resulted in the resignation of Chris Landsea. No matter what the science says, we need a link to bolster the man-made global warming scare story.
Never mind the flaws in the chosen climate reconstructions, we need to show the current warming is unprecedented. Never mind the divergence problem. Never mind the peer reviewed papers suggesting a warm bias in the near surface temperature record.
Never mind the evidence against a large positive feedback, or the evidence for negative feedback – feed garbage into a computer model and get big scary warming prediction.
Never mind the flaws in GIGO computer models.
Present uncertainty as 90% certainty.
Close down the UN IPCC and let’s have an assessment that is independent of UN political agenda and the preconceptual, tunnel vision pseudo-science of certain lead authors.
As for fundamental radiative properties of CO2 – the point is that these properties have been demonstrated in the laboratory.
Really, which labratory would that be Errol?
Got a link?
It would be so simple if it were true.
385 ppm * T(co2) = climate sensitivity
Instead we get http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v293/n5834/abs/293634a0.html
Early estimates indicate that for doubled CO2, the surface temperature would be raised by 1−10 K, but recent numerical experiments with radiative-convective or general circulation models (RCM, GCM) of the atmosphere seemed to narrow this range to 2−4 K (see refs 2−6). However, Newell and Dopplick7, and Idso8, argue that these results are inconsistent with the observed or computed values of certain terms of the surface energy budget, which seem to indicate a far smaller sensitivity.
That doesn’t sound very simple. For guys who checked the radiative properties of co2 in a lab, they sure sound confused. But that was from 1981. I’m sure that problem has been examined and resolved.
Here’s one from 2006 that claims the climate sensitivity is a whopping 11ºC!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0419_060419_global_warming_2.html
Several studies have found that the temperature change may be higher than 16.2ºF (9ºC).
Then there is another study that estimates climate sensitivity at anywhere from 2.2º to 15.5ºF (1.2º to 8.6ºC).
And then there is a combination of models with the average sensitivity 2.7º to 11.2ºF (1.5º to 6.2ºC).
Now isn’t that strange? They studied the problem for 25 years, spent $50 billion dollars, and they still have to estimate, and their estimates are no better then the old 1981 versions.
Better run on back to RealClimate and get some coaching Errol.
Here’s a quote from Gavin Schmidt on what is claimed to be the first study to confirm scientists’ assumptions about climate sensitivity.
Wait for it. The master climate guy is going to clear everything up.
“Basically no one really believes that those really high sensitivities [measured in the past five years] are possible,” Schmidt said.
Well that’s clear as mud isn’t it?
Errol you are going to have to get that lab out here for us all to see- Gavin is counting on you.
“Basically no one really believes that those really high sensitivities [measured in the past five years] are possible,”
Is that $50 Billion worth of climate wisdom or what? I wonder how big Gavin’s slice was?
I’ll really be needing to see that lab work from you, Errol.
A pdf 260 some odd pages long. Why am I not surprised that a rude trash talking sob like you would resort to the old baffle em with BS strategem.
You didn’t even give a page number. A link to an abstract? An article? A chapter? a name of the principle investigator?
We aren’t talking about some vague debate point like how much ice melted in Chile last summer,
this is the heart and soul of the climate dogma.
CO2 will cause global warming because [ fill in the blank with Errols book ].
For climate changers this is the absolute beyond which none may travel. This is your equivalent to “We hold these truths to be self evident”, and the best you can come up with is a pdf of a book?
No discussion on thermal properties of co2 at an alarmist website for you to link to?
That is weak.
You phony. I was really hoping for some substance from Errol – no scratch that – some substance from ANY of the climate changers.
Just like every other trash talker – no follow through.
All hat no cattle.
Lab rat huh?
And yet you still can’t come up with a lab experiment showing the temperature of a co2 molecule when exposed to radiation.
That makes you a liar Errol. A liar among a whole movement of liars. No wonder global warmers congregate. Using the safety of the herd so nobody singles you.
Oink.
Well you pointed me to the herd and made some moo noises (again).
What it has to do with co2 heat retaining properties, I have no idea. So score one for you, right?
Seems to me, if there were such a lab study you would have whipped it out directly.
About that book sized pdf that you were expecting me to wade through. Would that author be the same Pierrehumbert who posts regularly at RealClimate?
“And yet you still can’t come up with a lab experiment showing the temperature of a co2 molecule when exposed to radiation.”
that is not even so last century, that is so last century before that. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is beyond dispute. Even Paul agrees on that, it’s just Physics 101. If you can’t even get that right, go home, turn on the TV, watch some football.
James
and even Louis, if he is still around
the CO2 acts like a dam. The water gets through, but it builds up for a while. The heat will always get out, but the time it takes is longer and longer as you build that dam higher and higher.
The first few 10ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere have the biggest effect, the effect of adding more is logarithmic. All things being equal, which of course they are not, 280ppmv to 560ppmv is worth about 1C, in theory. The unresolved arguments over higher temperatures depend on the balance between negative and positive feedbacks, and the other factors both internal and external to the complex, chaotic climate system.
Alarmists scroll down here and weep:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/
SJT couldn’t find the lab work either.
Don’t feel bad 3PO it doesn’t exist.
And remind me again why it is a good and prudent idea to increase CO2 in the atmosphere from 280ppmv to 560ppmv – apart from the alleged financial inconvenience of doing otherwise?
SJT, regarding your rather obnoxious comment to me above, I know that WGII is about impacts, adaption, and vulnerability, as anyone who has perused it, or the comment I linked to, would have known or found out.
But your comment stuck the mark in reference to yourself seeing that the impacts of AGW must itself be based on the science (what else are they going to arise from?), see, for instance, Chapters 1 and 2.
Seeing as I was making a general point about the IPCC and not about only one of their reports, WGI, your comment represented a wonderful piece of avoiding the point. Or do you mean to say that the infamous 2500 ‘scientists’ (i.e. professors, research scientists, PhD candidates, etc.) often referred to do not include any of the lead authors, reviewers, etc. listed as contributors, etc. to WGII?
I see, by the way, that Climate Resistance have a new post on WGIII, which is about Mitigation (just for you SJT):
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/wgiii-but-is-it-science.html
BTW, forgive the lateness of this response; I’ve been enjoying the sun and sea around Mallacoota and been away from the computer.
James Annan has a good, honest attempt at 2xCO2 = 2.5C or 3C, but is unable to provide references and highlights some of the uncertainties:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2528#more-2528
So, Luke ducks for cover and reappears as Errol.
Interesting choice of “Walter Mitty” style pseudonyms, as if he quietly aspires to the possession of a chest and chin.
Mark’s reconstruction of the temperature record is entirely based on previously accepted science. But now that the full implications of it are apparent then we can probably expect past champions of it, like Church et al, to discover some new pretext for ignoring it.
But nothing Luke/Errol can say will change the fact that trends are measured from peak to peak, not trough to peak as the IPCC “Climate Lards” have done to date. And the adjusted data makes it very clear that there has been next to zero sensitivity to the 140Gt of atmospheric CO2 increase since 1982.
It is an unambiguous case of “Global Luke-Warming”.