It’s a mad, mad and hotter world: the top 6 climate stories of 2012

As the year comes to a close its time to reflect upon the previous year’s climate related news. I mean who doesn’t love a good end of year “The best of” list?

So what made headlines? What events mattered? And crucially what shaped the public’s understanding of climate change?

In order to address the above questions I’ve selected what I believe are the top six “breakthrough” climate stories of the year. These are the issues that had a strong influence on the public’s understanding of climate change.

I’m confident we’ve witnessed an important shift in the climate debate as (a) evidence of rapid global warming has manifested with a vengeance and (b) the majority of the public now accept the reality of global warming.

But what caused this shift? Ultimately the climate stepped in to adjudicate the debate.

In a year of record temperatures and super-storms, the physics of climate change demonstrated its reality.

And while the debate between sceptics and warmists will grind on for several more years it was the evidence presented in the form of drowned cities, withered crops and searing temperatures that shaped public perception.

1. It’s global warming stupid: Hurricane Sandy and the North American summer. And the drought. And the derecho storm. And killer tornadoes. And wildfires.

Perhaps it was the thousands of temperature records smashed, the devastating drought that gripped large sections of the United States, the rare derecho storm that lead to millions losing power or the hundreds of tornadoes that that ripped through the country that taught millions of Americans the climate was changing. Let’s not forget the wildfires either.

By the end of 2012 the belief the climate was not changing became untenable. An overwhelming majority of the American public now accept the reality of climate change (up to 70% according to Business Week).

And then there was Sandy. Who can forget the images of a devastated New York and East Coast?

Not only did Sandy influence the US Presidential election in painting Mitt Romney and the Republicans as the party in dangerous denial – they had a good chuckle about climate change at their convention – it also tangibly and tragically demonstrated what to expect from a climate spinning out of control.

2. Red alert: Greenland melt accelerates

There are troubling things happening up north, not least of all the record breaking seasonal melt for Greenland in August of this year. And while some claimed this news was insufficiently reported in the mainstream press (of which there is some truth) bloggers, tweeters and social media activists did the job for them.

While the fourth estate slept, denizens of what I’d like to call the fifth estate (social media content creators) stepped in to spread the word.

3. Going, going, gone: Arctic sea-ice reaches lowest minimum

If you want to know what the Arctic’s death spiral looks like merely cast your eyes over the above graph. George Monbiot said it best: “Stupidity, greed, passivity? Just as comparisons evaporate, so do these words. The ice, that solid platform on which, we now discover, so much rested, melts into air. Our pretensions to peace, prosperity and progress are likely to follow…”

And how did humanity react to this worrying trend? Giving fossil fuel companies license to rush in and explore for more oil.

4. Apocalypse averted: the Carbon Tax debate fizzles out

The end product of the merchants of hate (source News)

In the coming decades, future generations will puzzle over how the Australian political system almost imploded over the fight to introduce a price on carbon.

The Murdoch press ran an orchestrated campaign against the tax while right-wing radio shock jocks worked up the angry masses into even greater levels of well.. anger. The Federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, ran a two year fear campaign against the tax claiming “We will be rooned, roooooned!”

Australian political debate reached a new low with nasty catch phrases such as “Juliar” (in reference to Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard) entering the popular lexicon and radio presenter Alan Jones claiming climate science was “witchcraft”.

The forces arrayed against the tax included private think tanks, News Ltd, the Liberal National Party, large segments of the resources sector and eccentric billionaires such as Gina Rinehart.

And yet the government managed to get the legislation through both houses of Parliament. In retrospect it is amazing the minority Gillard government didn’t collapse and still manage to introduce a price on carbon – something that had eluded previous governments for almost 20 years.

So did the world end? Did Australia become an improvised, backwards economic wasteland? Are we Aussies now all living in caves, desperately missing hot showers and street lighting?

Rest assured – the world didn’t end, the sun is still shining and industrial civilisation didn’t collapse as the sceptics warned us.

5. It’s worse than you think: PWC, World Bank reports and news of the permafrost melting

Imagine you’ve just been told by your doctor you have cancer: you’ve got maybe five years. But with treatment you could extend your life well beyond that.

You’d be alarmed and no doubt take positive steps to address the issue: you’d undergo medical treatment, change your diet, exercise and consider changing you life.

Who want’s to die prematurely? Or maybe you’d still be in denial.

Either way, you’re presented with this information and the opportunity to act.

But a month after being told the above, you return to see your doctor only to be told he was wrong. A new round of tests conclusively proves you’ve got a year – maybe two.

“So sorry…” states your doctor “…but the cancer is far more aggressive. Fortunately we’ve caught it early due to some new technology and diagnostic methods. But we need to start treatment right away.”

This is the situation humanity faces.

In the past six months a series of reports and a rash of new scientific evidence has been presented that makes for alarming reading:

It not just the IPCC or those radical socialists otherwise known as “climate scientists” saying the climate is changing more rapidly than anticipated. Some of the most conservative institutions and corporations have joined the chorus for urgent action by signalling their alarm.

Which means either one of two things: the need to act is increasingly urgent or that every scientific, political, media, business and professional association is part of the conspiracy.

6. No sympathy for the devil: Peter Gleick disembowels the Heartland Institute

I believe scientist Peter Gleick did humanity a favor, even if his methods were controversial.

Gleick obtained key strategy and planning documents from The Heartland Institute – the US libertarian think tank – by pretending to be one of its board members. He simply called up reception and asked for documents to be sent to an email account.

Was it worth it?

In retrospect, yes.

The documents revealed how Heartland and other think tanks manufacture doubt.

Once the story went viral and was picked up my mainstream media the reputation of Heartland suffered enormously – it lost millions in funding and was forced to cancel their annual conference for sceptics.

Gleick revealed the dark underbelly of the climate sceptic movement: the anonymous funding and the deliberate campaign to deceive.

Sceptics were furious of course – “How dare he, that criminal!” they fumed. Anthony Watts and others threatened to sue Gleick or bring in the authorities- but as suspected, nothing eventuated. Such actions would have brought a level of accountability bodies such as The Heartland Institute seek to avoid.

And that’s just what Gleick did: bring greater transparency and accountability to the climate debate.

The denial movement has been milking Climategate for years. To this day deniers continue to salaciously drool over the half dozen meaningless emails hacked form the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

But the public twigged to the hypocrisy: the Gleick episode demonstrated the public has no sympathy for the devil.

About these ads
Tagged , , , , ,

108 thoughts on “It’s a mad, mad and hotter world: the top 6 climate stories of 2012

  1. john byatt says:

    Anything else from you on models will be ignored,

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Deny all you want John – your alarmist models are falsified by your own NOAA climate heroes.

      • zoot says:

        All stand for Eric’s song:

        I could wile away the hours
        Conferrin’ with the flowers
        Consultin’ with the rain
        And my head I’d be scratchin’
        While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
        If I only had a brain

        I would not be just a nuffin’
        My head all full of stuffin’
        My heart all full of pain
        I would dance and be merry
        Life would be a ding-a-derry
        If I only had a brain

        Class dismissed.

  2. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    December 4, 2012 at 4:28 am
    Its not good enough to say “we got it wrong, never mind, if we retrofit the facts the predictions come out right”.

    glad that you agree that fitting the fact of climate sensitivity to 3DgeC then the projection came out right,

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I don’t agree that at all – I think your climate heroes are jabbing in arbitrary numbers, and that they’ll have to adjust it again in the near future.

      The reason they have to keep adjusting is their models are wrong.

      • john byatt says:

        No eric, it is more evidence that CS is around 3Degc. they never adjust the temperature eric,

        go to real climate model faq’s

        I mean if you actually know you were talking about , it might hel,,, sorry it would not make any difference, carry on

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Its retrofitted nonsense – just like the continuous adjustments of the middle ages Ptolemaic Astronomers, to keep their theory the sun was the centre of the solar system going.

          Instead of searching for a new explanation, they just kept changing the model parameters, to make it all fit with observations.

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

          Anyone can make a theory look good if you’re allowed to continuously revise the model. Retrofitting a revised model does not validate the model.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Um make that the Earth was the centre of the solar system ;-).

        • Eric Worrall says:

          But not enough warming. Since 1997, there has been no significant warming, despite a substantial increase in CO2 (< 0.1c is a flatline). The 2008 NOAA report I cited several times suggested this is a failure condition of alarmist models – it represents a 95% probability of a deviation between observations and predictions.

      • john byatt says:

        they do not adjust CS either, we can get a good idea comparing observations with models for CS

        2010 was showing 3.3DegC CS, yes it could change but model will not be changed,

        It takes months to run these models

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You’ve just contradicted yourself – you yourself suggested that re-running Hansen’s models with a modified CS resulted in a fit.

          The IPCC still runs a wide range of climate sensitivities. Trenberth was recently making media statements, trying to push for acceptance of higher sensitivities.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/08/trenberth-dials-up-the-warming-predictions/

          Here’s my prediction – the median sensitivity, and probably other parameters, will have to be adjusted again in a few years, to maintain the fit.

          The reason the models fail to stay on target, and need regular updating, and the reason such a wide range of sensitivities are still entertained, is the same reason the Ptolemaic models needed regular adjustment – the models are wrong.

      • john byatt says:

        Please you are making yourself look foolish, different models for different things some models, simple do have a CS imposed, others do not,

        which does the ipcc 20C model use?

      • john byatt says:

        So the expert on why models are wrong does not even understand the basics.

        that is pure dunning kruger eric, you now get your merit badge

  3. john byatt says:

    That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

    Nonsense – the models consistently overestimate this, especially for the last 15 years. We’re still running below Hansen’s Scenario “C” (major cuts in emissions in the 90s). The 95% confidence band you presented is 0.8c wide – its a joke.

    HANSEN’S MODELS ARE NOT THE IPCC mODELS WHICH HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL FOR 100 YEARS BOTH IN HINDCAST AND FORECAST

    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

    Stratospheric cooling could be because of reduced solar activity – there is no sign of an equatorial tropospheric hotspot.
    YOU DID NOT READ THE RECENT PAPER THAT I POSTED ‘AGW RISES ABOVE THE NOISE, THAT PAPER REFERS DIRECTLY TO STRATOSPHERE COOLING
    THE HOTSPOT HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE SHORT TERM, IF IT DOES NOT HAPPEN THEN THE GLOBAL TEMThat the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

    Nonsense – the models consistently overestimate this, especially for the last 15 years. We’re still running below Hansen’s Scenario “C” (major cuts in emissions in the 90s). The 95% confidence band you presented is 0.8c wide – its a joke.

    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

    Stratospheric cooling could be because of reduced solar activity – there is no sign of an equatorial tropospheric hotspot.

    That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

    With NOAA adding up to 0.5c correction to their raw temperatures, and other producers of “raw” data not admitting what corrections they are adding, I don’t trust this assertion.

    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

    Tell that to the Northern Hemisphere right now – Britain is bracing itself for the coldest winter in a hundred years. Snow season in Australia was surprisingly long, with late Summer falls (it snowed just south of Queensland a few months ago FFS). South America, China and Russia have experienced recent bitter winters.

    The famous prediction of “children will not know what snow looks like” is a flat bust.

    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

    All that sea ice around Antarctica is a bit of a contradiction.

    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

    It is not certain the Antarctic is warming at all. And that prediction is easy – any warming, regardless of the source, would be more likely to affect the Arctic first. The Arctic is surrounded by large land masses, and not protected by the circumpolar current.

    The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

    More hindcast cr@p. You can’t calibrate a model using data sets which include the Pinatubo eruption, then claim success when your calibrated model correctly predicts the Pinatubo dip.

    They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

    I doubt it.

    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    The expansion of the Hadley cells.

    The poleward movement of storm tracks.

    Nonsense. NY / Sandy was an outlier. in the 1950s, 6 hurricanes struck the East Coast of America in 3 years.

    The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

    Any warming would potentially cause this.

    The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

    Nonsense – where’s your tropospheric hotspot?

    The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

    More hindcast crap.

    That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

    What increase?

    Seventeen correct predictions?

    Wrong. 17 bodged failures.

    john byatt says:
    November 30, 2012 at 9:58 pm
    Eric Worrall says: WILL BE WORSE AND MODELS WOULD BE UNDERESTIMATING FURURE WARMING
    With NOAA adding up to 0.5c correction to their raw temperatures, and other producers of “raw” data not admitting what corrections they are adding, I don’t trust this assertion.
    THE SCIENCE DOES NOT RELY ON THE TRUST OF A DENIER
    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

    Tell that to the Northern Hemisphere right now – Britain is bracing itself for the coldest winter in a hundred years. Snow season in Australia was surprisingly long, with late Summer falls (it snowed just south of Queensland a few months ago FFS). South America, China and Russia have experienced recent bitter winters.
    UK MET PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE COLDEST WINTER FOR 100 YEARS WAS NOT THEIR FORECAST, THEY DO NOT FORECAST THAT FAR AHEAD
    The famous prediction of “children will not know what snow looks like” is a flat bust.
    THAT DID NOT COME FROM A MODEL PREDICTION FOR THIS DECADE, IT WAS OPINION
    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

    All that sea ice around Antarctica is a bit of a contradiction.
    THREE WEEKS AGO THE GLOBAL SEA ICE REACHED A NEW RECORD LOW
    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

    It is not certain the Antarctic is warming at all. And that prediction is easy – any warming, regardless of the source, would be more likely to affect the Arctic first. The Arctic is surrounded by large land masses, and not protected by the circumpolar current.
    THE ANTARCTIC IS WARMING.
    The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

    More hindcast cr@p. You can’t calibrate a model using data sets which include the Pinatubo eruption, then claim success when your calibrated model correctly predicts the Pinatubo dip.
    STUPID REPLY THE PREDICTION USED ONLY THE KNOWN AEROSOL CONTRIBUTION
    They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

    I doubt it.
    YOUR DOUBT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT
    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    The expansion of the Hadley cells.

    The poleward movement of storm tracks.

    Nonsense. NY / Sandy was an outlier. in the 1950s, 6 hurricanes struck the East Coast of America in 3 years.
    YOUR ANSWER IS IRRELEVANT TO THE PREDICTION MADE AND VERIFIED

    The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

    Any warming would potentially cause this.
    EXACTLY

    The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

    Nonsense – where’s your tropospheric hotspot?
    READ THE LITERATURE AND STOP CONTRADICING YOURSELF IN EACH REPLY
    The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

    More hindcast crap.
    NO THAT WAS A PROJECTION
    That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

    What increase?
    COASTAL

    Seventeen correct predictions?

    Wrong. 17 bodged failures.

    :ONE YOUR PLANET ERIC NOT THIS ONE

    • john byatt says:

      Do not know why it was split in two, too long?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      The 95% IPCC model confidence is a joke – 0.8c wide 95% error band, ranging from flatline to steep rise. You might as well throw a set of dice.

      Interesting how you see Hansen as the new profit, except when I point out his predictions are consistently nonsense.

      Cooling of the stratosphere could be linked to changes in solar activity.

      The following link shows dramatic Thermosphere cooling due to changes in solar activity:-
      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coolingthermosphere.html

      Its difficult to see how such a change could occur without affecting the adjacent stratosphere.

      Equatorial tropospheric hotspot – this is probably one of the worst failings of your models, one of their few firm predictions. Even SkS admits this, though they blame measurement failure.

      The science does not rely on the trust of a denier – maybe, but global policy is no longer driven by the arrogance of alarmists.

      Arctic sea ice – we’ll see. Getting awfully cold up there at the moment.

      Pinatubo, that was a prediction – OK, what happened to the models which failed? There is more than one way to hindcast your way to a good fit for past conditions.

      Sorry I got bored at this point – let me know if you want me to address anything specific.

      Predictions not failing on this planet – I’ve already shown you evidence NOAA suggested in 2008 that 15 years of flat temperatures would indicate with 95% confidence a discrepancy between models and predictions.

      Even Ben Santer has gotten in on the act, he recently wrote a paper suggesting model prediction failures were occurring for “an unknown reason” (link available on request). Its getting embarrassing for you guys.

      • john byatt says:

        the IPCC models allow for Enso, el nino and la nina , by allowing for the natural variations, though not all they are correctly predicting the current rate of warming as confirmed by Rahmstorf
        the models do not get the exact timing of enso correct but allow for it over the forecast period.

        your failure is to understand that hansens model commenced in 1981 and used a cs of 4.2Degc
        if we redo his modelling bu use the now accepted mid range of 3Degc, his model would have been smack on.
        models are used to learn from eric, we learn just as much from being wrong as we do from them getting it correct

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121129143504.htm

        where we are with the hot spot which if it does not exist will make the models underestimate future warming, it is a sort of safety valve

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Its not good enough to say “we got it wrong, never mind, if we retrofit the facts the predictions come out right”.

          You have to actually predict something.

          Otherwise you’re just curve fitting – there is no guarantee the models have predictive skill.

          For example, if the current flatline continues, in a few years you’ll be saying “see, it all fits if you use a CS of 2.5 (or whatever))

          Junk science.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          RealClimate – hilarious. Nothing more than a desperate last ditch attempt by activist scientists to keep the myth alive.

          Lets not forget NOAA’s statement on flatlines:-

          http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

          Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

          Guess what – its been 15 years. So from NOAA’s own words, there is a 95% probability of a discrepancy between alarmist models and observations.

  4. Eric Worrall says:

    Here’s a good story from 2012 – yet more evidence you have won the battle for hearts and minds.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/02/record-high-for-global-carbon-emissions-china-is-the-leader/

    • john byatt says:

      It is not a battle for hearts and mind eric, it is a battle to get the science out there without the confusion peddled by the fake sceptics,

      It has been a battle but we are becoming more aware, we can not prevent 2DegC due to these fossil fuel funded hacks, lets hope that we can prevent the catastrophe

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You’re not going to get anywhere unless the world starts warming again. Every climate conference since Copenhagen (including Copenhagen) has been a total failure.

  5. john byatt says:

    Eric ” Sandy was a freak, an outlier,
    the arctic crash this year was a freak, an outlier
    Australia,s floods were a freak an outlier
    Pakistan floods were a freak, an outlier
    The russian heat wave and drought was a freak, an outlier”

    ad infinitum

    • Eric Worrall says:

      It was – the 1950s as I showed 6 major hurricanes hit the East Coast of America in 2 years.

      When Sandy hit the East Coast it wasn’t even a cat 1 hurricane – it was a tropical storm. No hurricanes have hit the East Coast of America North of Florida between 2001 – 2010.

      So Sandy was a freak – it caused damage to America because of its large storm surge, not because of its high winds.

  6. john byatt says:

    Big story today in regional paper, melting permafrost and the reality that we will not avoid 2DecC as we head for up to 6DegC without action.

    University of the sunshine coast adds the environmental aspect for the Inuit, not what will happen but what is already happening .

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Blah blah … worse than we thought … blah blah.

      But OK, a prediction. Assuming we do nothing (a pretty good assumption, going by the current track record), when will we see some of this 6c warming?

  7. Eric Worrall says:

    Here’s a good story – its from 2008, but it has relevance to today.

    NOAA State of the Climate Report 2008

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

    Near-zero and even negative trends are com- mon for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

    Check it for yourself, the report I cite contains that statement.

    Given that this year marks 15 years with near zero warming, the alarmist models are busted, according to NOAA’s own report from 2008.

  8. john byatt says:

    And then there was Sandy. Who can forget the images of a devastated New York and East Coast?

    I know , I know, Eric?

  9. Eric Worrall says:

    COP-18 update – US states a deal which requires it to substantially reduce emissions is out of the question. Proposes a global agreement for every country to do its own thing. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-29/global-warming/35434702_1_climate-change-atmospheric-space-emissions

  10. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    November 30, 2012 at 2:41 pm
    I understand the difference between heat and temperature. But climate sensitivity is a measure of expected temperature change, given a rise in CO2. A climate sensitivity of 3c / doubling means just that – for a doubling of CO2, global temperature should rise by 3c.
    If we aren’t likely to see that missing 0.3c temperature rise sometime soon, then why are you worrying about anthropomorphic climate change?

    about .6degC of your claimed missing 3DegC is in the ocean, current forcing is 1.7Wm2.
    radiative forcing for double CO2 is about 3.7wm2 , we are not even half way there yet. we effectively already have about 1.4DegC, some of it still in the pipeline from the atmospheric levels of the 1980′s

    you make the same incredible mistake as lindzen.
    your ignorance is not an argument for low sensitivity

    reconcilng observations/models 2010 revealed a CS of 3.3Degc at that time, this will change, which way will it go?

  11. rubber taster says:

    Oh look, even the climate denier’s daily gets this one:

    Definitive study highlights polar ice melt

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/definitive-study-highlights-polar-ice-melt/story-e6frfkui-1226527163226

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Grace is a failure – its not measuring what you think.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/29/amazing-grace/

      • GRACE isn’t a failure, Eric. The GRACE follow-on mission is scheduled to launch in ~2017, precisely because NASA recognizes that GRACE data is invaluable for studying the Earth’s changing gravity field.

        That WUWT article you linked consists of Steven Goddard’s unfounded claims about GRACE scientists. Sadly, when Robert explained exactly how he was wrongin depth, Goddard accused him of using strawman arguments, and twice accused him of dishonesty before inevitably babbling about Al Gore.

        I’m a geophysicist studying GRACE data, and I don’t appreciate Steven Goddard’s baseless accusations, or the endless series of internet ninjas like Eric Worrall who regurgitate them. Please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It’s threatening the future of human civilization.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Goddard’s point that GRACE is showing ice melt in places where the summer temperature averages -30c is a valid one.

          Grace is measuring something – but not necessarily ice movement.

      • rubber taster says:

        Keep lying Eric. WUWT is the real failure.

      • No, Goddard’s claim isn’t valid because GRACE reveals ice sheet thinning, which in Antarctica is primarily due to glacier acceleration, not melting. Glaciers are calving (creating icebergs) at an accelerating rate, which reduces the pressure on the rest of the glacier, speeding up its slide into the ocean. Anyone who clicked the links I provided would’ve already seen Robert’s helpful list of publications which make exactly that point. Skeptical Science even has a series of articles debunking Goddard’s claims. Since then, Rignot et al. 2011 (PDF) used InSAR to map these glacier velocities, once again independently confirming that GRACE-observed mass loss correlates with high glacier velocities.

        I write open-source software which processes GRACE acceleration data to reveal the following present-day mass trend (here’s a Google Earth overlay, and other versions). Notice the crustal deformation from the 2004 Sumatra earthquake. GRACE also detected the 2005 and 2010 Amazon droughts, and the 2011 La Nina floods (so strong, the oceans fell). GRACE also tracks global water storage. My research uses GRACE acceleration data to detect changes in gravity due to ocean tides, and I’ve described some of GRACE’s many contributions in my Slashdot interview.

        So scientists are well aware that GRACE data contain a wealth of information about the climate and the Earth’s crust. Untangling these contributions is what we do for a living, after all. GRACE reveals mass loss in Greenland, West Antarctica, Patagonia, Alaska, the Himalayas, etc. Laser altimetry, radar interferometry and mass balance/flux measurements confirm this mass loss, as Robert noted. The largest remaining uncertainty is probably post-glacial rebound, but it can’t be responsible for accelerating mass loss.

        Goddard really isn’t a credible source of information about science. For instance, a few months after he attacked GRACE scientists, Goddard confused triple points so badly that even Anthony Watts was forced to say “Steven, you really need to stop. … you are [behaving incredibly badly] A few months after that, Goddard accused Marc Airhart of contradicting himself because Goddard confused relative and absolute humidity. I tried to post a short comment correcting this mistake. My comment never showed up, of course.

        About a month before Goddard’s article, Willis Eschenbach attacked GRACE scientists for similarly baseless reasons. Eschenbach’s blood boiled as he confused himself and others about GRACE, but he managed to heroically restrain himself (mostly) from “loudly speculating on the ancestry, personal habits, and sexual malpractices of the author”.

        After suffering through Steven Goddard’s, Willis Eschenbach’s and Rush Limbaugh’s baseless accusations against GRACE scientists, it’s clear that they’re all incapable of changing their minds. The fact that Eric Worrall has twice regurgitated Goddard’s accusation without even bothering to address the points Robert and I have raised suggests that Eric has also lost his battle with Morton’s demon. Nevertheless…

        Eric, please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It’s staining your legacy and threatening the future of our civilization.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Even if you are right, at 152 cubic km / year ice loss, the Antarctic ice sheet will take 30 million cubic km of ice / 100 cubic km / year = 300,000 years to disappear, give or take.

          Even SkS puts the current contribution of Antarctic ice loss to global sea level at around 1mm / year.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

          A reasonable description of the current rate of ice loss is “noise”. Only a radical acceleration of ice loss could turn this rate of SLR into a threat.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Sorry, got 2 different numbers from different sources – 152 & 100km ice loss per year. Either way, noise.

      • john byatt says:

        Thank you Bryan, and thank you for you contribution to the science,

      • Even if you are right, at 152 cubic km / year ice loss, the Antarctic ice sheet will take 30 million cubic km of ice / 100 cubic km / year = 300,000 years to disappear, give or take. [Eric Worrall]

        Outside of WUWT, who cares when the entire ice sheet disappears? What matters is that ice sheet thinning increases sea level, and that current research indicates that this (and thermosteric expansion) will cause sea level to rise 1-2 meters by 2100.

        Sorry, got 2 different numbers from different sources – 152 & 100km ice loss per year.

        It’s hard to tell the cause of that discrepency because you didn’t cite your sources, but Goddard’s calculation seems strangely familiar. Either they’re using different models of post-glacial rebound (Antarctica’s PGR correction is more uncertain than Greenland’s) or they’re talking about different timespans.

        Even SkS puts the current contribution of Antarctic ice loss to global sea level at around 1mm / year.

        That depends on which timespan you consider. For instance, here are two recent papers:

        “Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 mm/year to the rate of global sea-level rise.”

        “… the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, including their peripheral GICs, contributed 1.06 ± 0.19 mm/year to sea level rise” from 2003 to 2010.

        Notice that the second estimate (which refers to a more recent timespan) is almost twice as large as the first. That isn’t an isolated incident. Scientists aren’t concerned about the current rate of ice sheet mass loss, we’re concerned because it’s obviously accelerating.

        A reasonable description of the current rate of ice loss is “noise”.

        No, that’s an incorrect description. Signal is distinguished from noise using statistics. I just calculated the statistical significance of Greenland’s (and West Antarctica’s) ice sheet mass loss since 2003 using the new JPL GRACE mascon solutions. Their trends/rates are both significant at the 95% confidence level, even when using an ARMA(1,1) noise model. Their accelerations are also statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. So both the trends and the accelerations are “signal”. I’m writing a Dumb Scientist post about statistical significance, and will release my R code and data when I’m finished.

        Only a radical acceleration of ice loss could turn this rate of SLR into a threat.

        Ice sheet mass loss is already accelerating faster than the models (including JPL’s Ice Sheet System Model) predicted. Basic physics and paleoclimate evidence both imply that this acceleration will continue. That’s why sea level is rising faster than the IPCC predicted. Scientists have already determined that sea level rise is a threat, because the extra meter (at least) that we expect by 2100 will:

        Flood Bangladesh, Tuvalu, Venice, New Orleans, threaten New York and other major cities, etc.
        Add to storm surges, roughly increasing a hurricane’s surge by one category. This means a storm surge that would’ve happened once in a century will happen roughly every 5-10 years.
        Increase the salinity of coastal farmland (which poisons crops) much farther inland than the actual movement of the shoreline.

        Eric, please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It’s staining your legacy and threatening the future of our civilization.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Outside of WUWT, who cares when the entire ice sheet disappears? What matters is that ice sheet thinning increases sea level, and that current research indicates that this (and thermosteric expansion) will cause sea level to rise 1-2 meters by 2100.

          Models which predict 1-2 meters by 2100 contain broken assumptions about water vapour amplification of CO2 warming – a phenomenon which is yet to be observed on the scale predicted by models.

          That isn’t an isolated incident. Scientists aren’t concerned about the current rate of ice sheet mass loss, we’re concerned because it’s obviously accelerating.

          SLR is still only of the order of 1mm / year. A SLR to greater than this will require more warming. From your link:-

          The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.

          In other words, arbitrary retrofitted assumptions which prove nothing. Let me know when you guys manage to predict something before it happens.

          Your increased storm surge frequency / greater storm frequency is also an artefact of models, which shows no sign of actually occurring.

          Please stop spamming humanity with your unfounded hype. Frightened people make bad decisions, and we’re good enough at making bad decisions without the help of the likes of you.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Just dug up this interesting US government / JPL document (h/t WUWT) suggesting substantial terrestrial reference frame errors from GRACE, citing GRACE as an inaccurate proof of concept, not suited to accurate measurement, and recommending the GRASP project to refine terrestrial altimetry measurement.

          http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2011-06/bar-sever.pdf

      • john byatt says:

        Eric asks to let him know when the models predict something before it happens.

        Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let’s review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

        That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
        That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
        That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
        That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

        Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
        That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
        The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
        They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

        They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
        The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
        The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
        The expansion of the Hadley cells.

        The poleward movement of storm tracks.
        The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
        The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
        The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
        That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

        Seventeen correct predictions?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

          Nonsense – the models consistently overestimate this, especially for the last 15 years. We’re still running below Hansen’s Scenario “C” (major cuts in emissions in the 90s). The 95% confidence band you presented is 0.8c wide – its a joke.

          That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

          Stratospheric cooling could be because of reduced solar activity – there is no sign of an equatorial tropospheric hotspot.

          That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

          With NOAA adding up to 0.5c correction to their raw temperatures, and other producers of “raw” data not admitting what corrections they are adding, I don’t trust this assertion.

          That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

          Tell that to the Northern Hemisphere right now – Britain is bracing itself for the coldest winter in a hundred years. Snow season in Australia was surprisingly long, with late Summer falls (it snowed just south of Queensland a few months ago FFS). South America, China and Russia have experienced recent bitter winters.

          The famous prediction of “children will not know what snow looks like” is a flat bust.

          Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

          All that sea ice around Antarctica is a bit of a contradiction.

          That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

          It is not certain the Antarctic is warming at all. And that prediction is easy – any warming, regardless of the source, would be more likely to affect the Arctic first. The Arctic is surrounded by large land masses, and not protected by the circumpolar current.

          The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

          More hindcast cr@p. You can’t calibrate a model using data sets which include the Pinatubo eruption, then claim success when your calibrated model correctly predicts the Pinatubo dip.

          They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

          I doubt it.

          They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
          The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
          The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
          The expansion of the Hadley cells.

          The poleward movement of storm tracks.

          Nonsense. NY / Sandy was an outlier. in the 1950s, 6 hurricanes struck the East Coast of America in 3 years.

          The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

          Any warming would potentially cause this.

          The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

          Nonsense – where’s your tropospheric hotspot?

          The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

          More hindcast crap.

          That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

          What increase?

          Seventeen correct predictions?

          Wrong. 17 bodged failures.

      • That’s an excellent list compiled by Barton Paul Levenson, who includes references for both the predictions and confirmations. However, he’s being too kind when he says that a bug was found in the UAH satellite data. There were actually at least four separate bugs, all found by other scientists. Here’s a brief timeline:

        Spencer and Christy 1990 claimed their UAH satellite temperature record was “more precise” than surface measurements, and revealed “no obvious trend” from 1979-1988. Dr. Spencer’s later statements suggest he was being very modest.

        Gary and Keihm 1991 showed that natural variability in only 10 years of UAH data was so large that the UAH temperature trend was statistically indistinguishable from that predicted by climate models.

        Hurrell and Trenberth 1997 found that UAH merged different satellite records incorrectly, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

        Wentz and Schabel 1998 found that UAH didn’t account for orbital decay of the satellites, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

        Fu et al. 2004 found that stratospheric cooling had contaminated the UAH analysis, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

        Mears and Wentz 2005 found that UAH didn’t account for drifts in the time of measurement each day, which resulted in a spurious cooling trend.

        After these bugs were fixed, the UAH data revealed a warming trend that’s consistent with climate models and with surface measurements.

        I’ll debunk Eric’s other claims when I get a chance, but I’m at the Fall AGU conference trying to simultaneously prepare my talk, attend other scientists’ talks, and debunk Jane Q. Public’s similar claims. So it might be a while before I respond, especially because these conversations are obviously complete wastes of my time. In the meantime, Eric might want to look carefully at the dates on Barton Paul Levenson’s prediction and confirmation references, and then reconsider his accusation that scientists aren’t making predictions. I’m not holding my breath, though…

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Thanks Bryan, and the links are fantastic.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Say Hi to former AGU scientific ethics chairman Peter Gleick while you are there.

          Just out of curiouslity Bryan, when do you predict the current flat period in global temperature will end, and the missing 0.3c+ warming show up in the temperature series?

  12. rubber taster says:

    Mike, this one inst quite top six but is bloody important:

    A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183

    “We combined an ensemble of satellite altimetry, interferometry, and gravimetry data sets using common geographical regions, time intervals, and models of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment to estimate the mass balance of Earth’s polar ice sheets. We find that there is good agreement between different satellite methods—especially in Greenland and West Antarctica—and that combining satellite data sets leads to greater certainty. Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Indeed – I’ve been watching this as well. Concerning to say the least.

      Just to clarify, the “top 6″ are those stories or events that a broader audience would have been exposed to you.

      That the above is not more widely known is a crying shame.

  13. Eric Worrall says:

    This resource will be useful to future scholars when they ask themselves “WTF were they smoking when they believed all that c**p?”.

    There are some well preserved references to the ice age scare in the 70s, but its always helpful to future historians if people who are familiar with the material make an effort to collate it.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Yes, there Eric we know this. But it’s a myth.

      A survey of scientific papers between 1965 and 1979 demonstrated:

      - 10% predicted cooling
      - 28% no stance
      - 62% predicted warming

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG

      See the research here:

      THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
      Thomas C. Peterson*
      NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina et.al

      Survey of the litertature: “The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.”

      http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I suspect when the dust settles the warming “consensus” will also turn out to have been a myth.

        The 30,000 strong Oregon Petition includes some of the giants of 20th Century Physics, such as Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson – so at least some of the signatories are scientists of real stature, not lightweights or fakes.

        We have a letter from the Climategate archive indicating that the solar terrestrial physics community believes solar variation can account for climate change seen to date – something which IPCC scientists failed to mention when making public statements about the scientific consensus.

        And the infamous AGU survey had to whittle their 3000 respondents down to around 77 “climate scientists” before they got their 98% consensus.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

        As the author Terry Pratchett once said “The truth isn’t easily pinned to a page. In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap and much more difficult to find.”

      • john byatt says:

        In the Navy eric, we held onto the soap pretty hard.

        .

      • zoot says:

        Still waiting for Eric to back up his claims with something (anything) scientific.

      • zoot says:

        Still waiting for some actual science.

      • zoot says:

        Your cherry pick is in blue. The warming is in red.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend
        Two things oh gormless one:
        Anything less than 30 years is weather, not climate.
        Yes the catastrophic consequences won’t be seen for a few years yet, nobody claimed they would be.

      • john byatt says:

        flamin hell eric, i just got a new keyboard because of you, that comment was a real coffee all over screen job. what is your IQ ?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          For the last 150 years or so, warming has come in brief spurts, separated by long flat periods.

          The alarmists assumed that the current warming spurt, which lasted from 1980ish to around the mid 90s, would just keep going – they thought it was different to the previous warmings, because this one was driven by CO2.

          Instead, we seem to have entered a new flat period.

      • zoot says:

        Your linear trend is only valid if global warming continues …

        Got any science to explain why it won’t?

      • zoot says:

        Eric, you say, “Your linear trend is only valid if global warming continues” and I say, “Your flat trend is only valid if global warming has ceased”.

        What scientific evidence proves you right and me wrong?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The lack of warming for the last 15 years, despite a 10% increase in CO2.

          CO2 obviously does not drive climate change.

          Just out of curiousity, at what point do you throw in the towel? 20% rise in CO2 with no warming? 30%? I’m going to enjoy this.

      • zoot says:

        Is English your second language? Please get a dictionary and look up “evidence”. You have already given your definition of science on another thread.
        I repeat, where’s the scientific evidence? (Hint: continually repeating lack of warming for the last 15 years will not make it so, and it is definitely not evidence.)

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You might need some help to overcome your denial zoot – read this very carefully:- “there has been no significant warming for the last 15 years”.

          Look at the pretty picture – see, no significant warming.
          http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend

          Alarmist models might suggest this is temporary (though I notice no falsifiable predictions of when warming will restart), but the lack of warming for the last 15 years is a fact.

          What is in dispute is whether it is significant.

          Climate hero Ben Santer is on record stating that 17 years is the minimum period of significance for a climate trend.

          So the next few years are going to be interesting

      • zoot says:

        In fact I’ll give you another hint. My evidence that warming has not stopped includes, but is not limited to, the record low of Arctic ice, the retreat of numerous glaciers and the movement of plant species towards the poles as the climate warms.
        What is your evidence that the warming ceased 15 years ago, and for bonus points, what mechanism do you claim caused the sudden stop?

      • zoot says:

        Eric, the last three decades have each been hotter than the one before. They are the three hottest decades on record. No models were involved in this statement.
        I repeat, what is the scientific evidence that warming ceased in 1997 and what mechanism explains the sudden stop?
        Put up or shut up.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I put up a statement from the MET office – an admission of no significant warming for 15 years.

          I put up a graph showing no significant warming for 15 years.

          What will it take to help you overcome your denial?

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Eric, because the MET said no such thing:

          http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

          Read this carefully Eric, really read it:

          An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’

          It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.

          To address some of the points in the article published today:

          Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

          And:

          The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

          As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

          Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

          Eric – I went to the original source, not woodforthetrees.

          Have a look at the graph Eric, from the MET:

          It is intellectually dishonest to not source and cite the actual sources.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Mike, if you search through my previous comments on this subject, you will note that I have cited your link at least once.

          http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

          I would like to draw your attention to the following quote from your link:-

          The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

          It is important here to separate theory from observation, to understand my point.

          The observation is that there has been very little change in temperature since 1997.

          The theory the MET office is proposing to explain this is that this lack of warming is due to a variety of factors, such as El Nino, and a double dip La Nina, which are masking the underlying warming trend.

          If the MET office is right, then global warming should roar back to life as the factors which are currently suppressing the underlying warming trend subside.

          But I notice noone seems to be making any falsifiable predictions as to when this is likely to occur. And if it doesn’t occur soon (as in the next decade), then the alarmist position is going to be looking pretty shaky.

      • zoot says:

        You put up a statement from the MET office which did not support your argument.

        The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

        You put up a graph showing only a slight upward trend in temperature provided you take 1997 as the start point. Invalid because of the issues raised in the above quote.

        You have nothing, nada, zilch, zero. You have as much credibility as a Hills Hoist.

      • zoot says:

        Eric says

        But I notice noone seems to be making any falsifiable predictions as to when this is likely to occur.

        Whereas Eric has given us (on innumerable occasions) his falsifiable thesis explaining why global warming came to a sudden halt in 1997. Oh wait …

      • zoot says:

        Go on zoot, prove me wrong – tell me when the warming will start again.

        It never stopped.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Alarmist *theory* suggests it never stopped.

          But those annoying thermometers suggest it stopped around 1997.

          The question – when will those thermometers start registering a significantly higher temperature?

          According to alarmist theory, there should be at least 0.3c of global warming backed up, waiting to be expressed – CO2 has risen by 10% since 97, so with a climate sensitivity of 3c / doubling, that equates to 0.3c of missing warming.

          Let me know when it appears.

      • zoot says:

        Eric, get back to me when you understand the difference between heat and temperature. When you understand the meaning of evidence. When you have allowed some science to taint your faith based belief system.
        Until then I’ll be having a much more edifying exchange with our Hills Hoist.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I understand the difference between heat and temperature. But climate sensitivity is a measure of expected temperature change, given a rise in CO2. A climate sensitivity of 3c / doubling means just that – for a doubling of CO2, global temperature should rise by 3c.

          If we aren’t likely to see that missing 0.3c temperature rise sometime soon, then why are you worrying about anthropomorphic climate change?

      • chapprg1 says:

        Considering the 1000:1 unbalance in AGW funding against the skeptical papers , I believe that a 7 % showing is outstanding. Not to mention that the AGW proponents have been doing everything behind the scenes to prevent any skeptic”s papers seeing the light of day by rejecting papers submitted and getting editors of Journals fired for even allowing a paper to be published.

        http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

        I would say that the corner has been turned on the ‘sloppy science’ done by a handful of AGW environmental enthusiasts(to be exorbitantly kind) not to mention on the corner being turned on any measurable global warming in this decade.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

        Not to mention the totally frightening economies of carbon reduction:
        The people following these carbon reduction mandates must be totally brain dead not to look at the consequences of their own proposals. (less than 0.001deg. C in the century of doubling CO2)
        Reference to check the calculations:   http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-can

    • john byatt says:

      we will see your 30,000 and raise you 16 million

      • zoot says:

        According to Eric 2 out of 30,000 is overwhelming proof, whilst 77 out of 3,000 is … meh!
        Eric doesn’t do logic.

      • zoot says:

        Yes Eric, they may be titans of nuclear physics, but when it comes to climatology their opinions are just as valid as yours.
        And consensus (you brought it up) is different from a show of hands.

      • rubber taster says:

        Poor old crazy Eric, continues his lies, falls deeper and deeper into denial, desperate…sad really.

        See this paper (actual science as opposed to Eric’s WUWT fetish):

        Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011
        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035

        plus as a bonus from the author…

        “The idea of a recent plateau in global temperature is ill-founded, see our new ERL paper, Fig. 1, where global temperature is shown as 12-months running mean. There is nothing there beyond the regular short-term variability primarily due to ENSO, and of course we should smooth enough to get rid of this short-term variability when testing for the kind of long-term linkage between global temperature and sea level that we expect. likewise your claim about the recently decelerating altimeter trend – yes if you end your analysis with the stunning recent downward spike due to La Niña. (Some people just love this short-term variability because it obscures rather than clarifies the climate evolution – it makes you not see the wood for the trees. As a climate scientist I am interested in the underlying climate evolution.) ”

        Please apologise Eric – your lies have been called out.
        (or are the alien gamma ray messages still talking in your head?)

    • Nick says:

      Ah,Eric, I haven’t missed you at all.

      It’s quite depressing to find you and your broken record act still here after a few weeks off. And the same rebuttals of your ‘points’,which you resolutely refuse to acknowledge.

      One can only conclude,however sadly, that you are quite stupid. Merry Xmas, duckie.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 773 other followers

%d bloggers like this: