The View From 1776

United Scoundrels Of The World

In the name of “science,” worshippers at the altar of man-made global warming excitedly misrepresent the facts.

The Most Dishonest Year on Record


If we take into account this margin of error, the most we can say is that 2014 was, so far as we know, just as warm as 2005 and 2010. There is no significant difference between these years. And that gives the lie to claims of runaway global warming. As the redoubtable Judith Curry recently pointed out:

“The real issue that is of concern to me is the growing divergence between the observed global temperature anomalies and what was predicted by climate models. Even if 2014 is somehow unambiguously the warmest year on record, this won’t do much to alleviate the growing discrepancy between climate model predictions and the observations.”

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/20 at 10:26 AM
  1. The world-wide temperature trend is upwards. The oceans are rising. The glaciers and the icecaps are melting. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 315 PPM in 1958 to 399 PPM in December of 2014 (Mauna Loa Observatory) as published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    I suppose you can deny that warming is not occurring, that runaway inflation is secretly destroying the economy, that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs, that the earth is 6000 years old, that evolution is a hoax, that photosynthesis is not what makes plants grow and that the earth is flat. But at some point your credibility begins to suffer.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/21  at  02:00 PM
  2. J Jay,

    Wrong again. - NASA not only admits global average surface temperature has not risen in recent years (see ), but also that ocean temperature has shown no significant rise for the last decade. Yes, yes I know others at NASA say the opposite, but only by subtly manipulating the message (please read their disclaimers and other fine print). This is something AGW fanatics absolutely depended on as the only viable alternative to surface temperatures failing in conformance with IPCC’s aggregated model (itself a deliberate misrepresentation as for those and their datasets to arrive at a foregone conclusion is meaningless). Once again, you are channeling models, diddled data, and out-of-date MSM propaganda.

    Monkton, Soon, Legates and Briggs (see ; and ) have created a simplified warming model demonstrating that IPCC’s models and model-based results are subjective, depend on unsupported feedback assumptions, suffer from data corruption, are overly complex, and err inherently toward increase temperature. You would do well to read their findings.

    You are not only wrong on several counts, but you began by misrepresenting our positions. We have never argued global temperatures and sea level cannot rise or haven’t risen. We have always argued:
    a) models exaggerate CO2’s GH potential
    b) models overstate feedbacks from other warming factors
    c) public presentations of models and theory misrepresent CO2 as the dominant GHG (water’s GHG potential far outweighs those of all other GHG gases combined)
    d) dangers of warming are grossly exaggerated; there are as many benefits as difficulties to be expected of a slightly warmer planet
    e) rising CO2 levels are more a result of warming than they are a cause of it (atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years; and there is only weak correlation between higher CO2 and greater mean global temperatures in the geological proxy data)
    f) forcing values used in IPCC’s choice of models are biased toward warming extremes
    g) model results correlate poorly with historical data
    h) both historical and recent data do not exhibit the extreme weather patterns alarmists, like yourself, insist will be the result of inaction
    i) policies and proposals thus far advocated for controlling atmospheric warming and climate change (e.g., carbon-limits, carbon-trading, sequestration, bans, fuel taxes, &c) are ineffectual and economically unsound
    j) there are better climate theories for explaining the observed warming we’ve experienced than the one you favor
    k) the current projections of warming, even the extreme ones. are not especially daunting when viewed against long time scales; and the current rapid rise is unsurprising given we are still emerging from the Little Ice Age (see ). Similarly, CO2 levels are well below historic highs

    Yes, glaciers are melting in some regions, but global ice is also growing in other regions, and, overall, it has grown more than shrank. Yes, global temperatures have risen in the past half century and, it is my belief, the overall trend is still upward, and will continue mildly upward before beginning to fall again. However, where you argue the observed warming is a mostly man-made effect and that we must commit vast resources, wealth and superhuman efforts to its prevention, we argue it is mostly natural and unstoppable. AGW theory asserts there should have been no pause in the rise (because it is we and not nature that is driving climate changes). As a result, warming theorists are in a trap of their own making, and are now desperately trying explain away the 17 year ‘pause’. They have also been caught falsifying the data to make the case for AGW; which is why your (not our) credibility is now in the toilet. Had the theory been valid, there would have been no such pause. Natural-forcings, on the other hand, adequately and easily account for such pauses, and in fact, anticipate there must be some. As AGW theory makes no allowance for this lengthy pause (and cannot without undermining its basic premise – which is that we more than nature influence climate), it is deeply flawed.

    We skeptics are not contesting CO2 has risen from 315 to almost 400 ppm (see ). Nor is this a convenient or recent conversion from what we always said (which you’d know if you bothered to listen). What we have contested is that it is not the huge deal AGW fear-mongers and hustlers like Al Gore made of it.

    How to answer your ‘credibility’ taunt? You are conflating different things in order to make points. I am not concerned with proving my credibility as I have always made carefully constructed cases for my arguments, and form those arguments based on actual-science (as opposed to agenda-science), healthy skepticism, common sense, and honest inquiry. This stands in stark contrast to your approach, which has ever been to first form an opinion; and, only then, gather props to defend it only as necessary. My views, as such, are based on the whole science rather than only those parts as support a particular view; and I am not averse to occasionally admitting error (something you have yet to admit on any topic). Readers can judge for themselves, therefore, which of us argues from reason, and which from ideology.

    Now, I have said I believe the overall trend is slight warming, but given the data corruption so far exposed (see ), how are we to know? Revelations of manipulation by the IPCC, CRU, &c make any data now presented to us suspect. I believe it is still rising (for now) only because long term trends are more trustworthy than corrupt humans can manageably hide for very long.

    I leave you with this to ponder (see ), which gives some idea not all socialists feel it their duty to defend this warming nonsense the way you do.

    Further reading: - textbook GHG – CO2 not especially high right now

    Though not especially germane to JJ’s points, I found the following interesting. Why is water excluded from the models and standard lists as a GHG? This link (see ) gives it away that it is not well represented in the models because it is not something humans can influence (i.e., the way we supposedly influence atmospheric CO2). This is nonsense as a) the models must include the contribution of GH dominant water vapor to be meaningful, b) CO2 released today takes decades to centuries dispersing into the atmosphere, and most of it is first absorbed into the ocean and biosphere, c) we can’t control CO2 concentrations all that much, and d) concentration of water in the atmosphere varies much more than does CO2 as a predictor of climate (even allowing for man’s ‘unprecedented’ CO2 contributions of the last century – disputed). In truth, the models do account for water vapor, but use flimsy excuses like this one to downplay its importance. It is also misleading as a statement, because while man may have little influence over atmospheric water concentration, nature does, and varies it greatly. CLIMAP’s final remark (explaining its bias against model inclusion) infers water plays a minor role in ‘climate change’, despite it plays a dominant role in climate. This inference, which I have found at any number of websites defending the theory, simply isn’t true.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/24  at  09:42 PM
  3. Bob,

    I appreciate the lively debate. But in your last paragraph, you have put your finger the crucial difference between water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere is persistent whereas water vapor (which most people refer to as "clouds") tends to vary and dissipate rapidly each time it rains and the sun come out.

    While it is true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the Earth's temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water.

    This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

    The problem is with gasses that are non-condensing at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, such as CO2, CH4, N2O and O3. These gasses accumulate and are causing the warming.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/25  at  11:47 PM
  4. J. Jay,

    Yes, I am perfectly aware how clouds are formed, so we can dispense with the grammar school lecture. Otherwise, it is refreshing seeing you actually doing some homework for a change. Bravo!

    That said, let’s take a closer look at your argument to see where it stands or falls. You claim water accounts for “60% of the warming effect”. What you don’t tell us is how much of the remaining 40% is attributed to CO2 in the models. Nor do you show that the 60% for water has been proven or simply reflects an ‘educated guess’ by modelers with a bias toward minimizing water’s role in favor of CO2. If the latter (which it is), even a fraction of one percent added to that number will account for all other warming by the so-called ‘non-condensing’ GHGs (in fact, all GHGs do condense at very low temperatures (e.g., dry ice = CO2 at -109.3F). Yes, water-vapor has a much shorter residence time in the atmosphere. That is true, but that also means swings in atmospheric water-vapor are far more likely to account for sudden changes in observed warming. As this NOAA chart shows (see ESRL AtmospericRelativeHumidity GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948 With37monthRunningAverage.gif) atmospheric water-vapor concentration varies considerably and average concentration has fallen significantly during the time period when the models insist it ought to have risen as a ‘positive feedback’ consequence of the CO2 increase. IPCC’s (and your source’s) whole argument hinges on water vapor increasing as a feedback of the non-condensing gases warming the atmosphere near the surface, and a contrary finding like this one contradicts that assumption. When we add to that that globally averaged temperatures have not risen in over 18 years, it appears there is a serious disconnect between theory and the models on one side and reality on the other.

    Since you brought up clouds, let’s look into their role in warming. The models allow clouds play a significant role in trapping heat, but also claim they have smaller role in deflecting solar energy back to space. A recently published paper in the Journal of Climate found that cloud cover has decreased during the period of supposed warming by 1.56% confirming an earlier hypothesis (see ) that less cloud cover would result in more warming which better accounts for observed warming than do GHG favoring models.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/31  at  08:46 AM
  5. Is this where you got your information ( )? Looks suspiciously like you cut-&-pasted your answer without actually digesting it or digging deeper. Failure to credit sources (only to have it later discovered) makes it look like you are stealing other people’s ideas. Plagiarism of this kind may make it appear you are climate savvy when, in fact, you are not.

    In my last post, I challenged you to tell us how much of the warming effect is attributable to CO2. While not a definitive answer, I did find this (see ) estimate by a skeptic. Warmists, for their part, appear reluctant to address this important question of just how much of the predicted warming is attributable to CO2. I did find some that give numbers in tons and watts-per-meter-squared (see ), but without some kind of total as makes sense of their claims it is hard to know what they think the real CO2 contribution is.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/31  at  09:34 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.