Global Cooling Expected For 2018 …Warming Projection May Be One Of The Great Scientific Blunders Of Modern Times

Global warming scientists continue struggling to find an explanation for the nearly 2 decades long global warming pause that has taken hold of the planet since the late 1990s.

The most recent temperature spike was due to the natural El Nino event at the equatorial Pacific, and that has disappeared over the last months. Alarmists claim that the global temperature is still 0.5°C above normal, yet it’s been so for the past 20 years!

Cooling signs abound

The search to explain the unexpected lack of warming is about to get a little tougher as 2018 is poised to see a further cooling across the globe. Signs of this cool-off are showing up in Greenland, the Arctic, Antarctica, Greenland and all across the northern hemisphere. A huge swath of North America has started 2018 with record cold.

La Nina to persist until spring

Another major reason cooler global surface temperatures are expected in 2018 is the now strengthening La Nina event taking place as equatorial Pacific surface temperatures have plummeted by 1-2°C since June of this year. This means that global cooling lies ahead for the planet in the months ahead. The latest forecast sees La Nina conditions extending into next spring:

There is a lag of about 6 months between the ocean surface temperature and satellite global lower troposphere temperatures. That means the la Nina low forecast for January, 2018, will start showing up in the temperatures by late spring (NH).

Cooling Pacific and Indian Ocean far more signficant

Alarmists also like hollering about the current unusual warmth at the poles. But veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi tweets here that the “warmth” at the poles is not what we need to be looking at, writing that “far more significant” is the cooler area from the Indian ocean through Africa, the Atlantic, South America and the Pacific.

Cooling where it’s warm and humid a bigger deal in future global temp considerations.”

In a nutshell, a cool square kilometer over the equatorial Pacific far outweighs a warm square kilometer over the North Pole. All that red coloring scientists like to use to make the poles look hot is mostly hype.

Solar activity near 200-year low

In the current solar cycle 24 sunspot activity is now at the lowest level in almost 200 years. In the early 1800s the Earth found itself in the grips of the Dalton Minimum, a cold period with similarly low solar activity:

The accumulated sunspot anomaly from the mean of the previous 23 cycles – 107 months into the cycle.

A number of distinguished scientists and dozens of scientific publications warn that the planet may in fact be entering a period of global cooling. There were 7 such papers in 2017 alone.

One of the great scientific blunders of modern times

The upcoming solar cycle 25 also is expected to be a weak one, which bodes ill for the planet for the next 10 to 15 years. The current solar cycle 24 is the third weakest since the systematic observation of solar cycle activity began in 1755. Only solar cycles no. 5 and 6 (1798 – 1823 during the Dalton Minimum) were weaker.

As the above chart shows, weak solar cycles are linked to cool periods and come in bunches, alternating with the warm solar cycle bunches. It’s little wonder that the last 100 years have seen a warming, as cycles 17-23 were all above normal. If the pattern holds, cycle 26, and possibly even cycle 27, will also be below normal, which points to a cooling 21st century.

Ironically policymakers, in typical inept fashion, may be erroneously preparing societies for the completely wrong scenario and thus be unwittingly committing one of the great scientific blunders of modern times.

 

118 responses to “Global Cooling Expected For 2018 …Warming Projection May Be One Of The Great Scientific Blunders Of Modern Times”

  1. Steve Borodin

    You know what this will mean:

    “The planet miraculously saved from global warming by an ice age. You see, we were right all along. This gives us one last chance to reduce CO2 to a former trace gas and save us from the inevitable Furnace Earth.”

    1. SebastianH

      So you think if those “coldists” are right and temperatures will decrease by a degree Celsius or more we are saved from the effects of the CO2 forcing? What happens when the Sun’s output increases again? Double the impact?

      But it is nice that skeptics are finally betting on something definitive. Or is it still just Pierre wanting to see his 2008 forecast become true? Well, good luck.

      What will you guys do, if it doesn’t cool, but continues to warm instead? What explanation will you then come up with to still claim that “it’s the Sun”? Because if the data about the Sun and its influence on temperature is correct and CO2 really does nothing, why have we not see cooling decades ago? You know, when the weak cycle began?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        why have we not see cooling decades ago? You know, when the weak cycle began?

        The Modern Grand Maximum just ended recently, not “decades ago”.

        Yndestad and Solheim, 2017
        https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Harald_Yndestad/publication/307894966_The_Influence_of_Solar_System_Oscillation_on_the_Variability_of_the_Total_Solar_Irradiance/links/57d2bd7508ae6399a38d9449.pdf
        Deterministic models based on the stationary periods confirm the results through a close relation to known long solar minima since 1000 A.D. and suggest a modern maximum period from 1940 to 2015.

        The model computes a new Dalton-type sunspot minimum from approximately 2025 to 2050 and a new Dalton-type period TSI minimum from approximately 2040 to 2065.

        Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods. … Studies that employ cosmogenic isotope data and sunspot data indicate that we are currently leaving a grand activity maximum, which began in approximately 1940 and is now declining (Usoskin et al., 2003; Solanki et al., 2004; Abreu et al., 2008).

        1. SebastianH

          The Modern Grand Maximum just ended recently, not “decades ago”.

          And do you believe the TSI stayed high up until that recent point in time and then suddenly decreased rapidly after that recent point in time? Or would you rather agree that the TSI and sunspot count decreased for decades since both reached their respective maxima “decades ago”? Even with consideration of an existing lag, why didn’t it cool?

          And would you guys stop claiming that it didn’t warm for 20 years? I don’t know how you manage to convince yourself of that delution …

          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKLepOlX0AA2Pm_.jpg:large

          1. Kenneth Richard
          2. Kurt in Switzerland

            Sebastien,

            Ref. what has transpired regarding the Earth’s mean surface temperatures over the past few decades, try using a neutral source:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/mean:60

            Even though HadCRUT4 is Arctic-warming biased (compared with its predecessor, HadCRUT3), the following is clear:
            1) Between 2002 and 2013 there was no appreciable warming (to the 5-year moving trend)
            2) The El Niño driven warming which occurred between 2014 and 2016 (of approx. 0.1 deg. C) may well be reversed completely due to the current La Niña. [The upcoming months and years will tell].

            Regarding what was foreseen [by the Climate Experts at the time], consult the IPCC TAR from 2001 (F.3 Projections of Future Changes in Temperature): “… anthropogenic warming is likely to lie in the range 0.1 to 0.2°C/decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario.” (pp. 67-70).

            If the present La Niña does result in continued cooling through the end of the present decade, the much-feared warming (of approx. 0.15 ℃ +/- 0.5℃ / decade) will be demonstrated to have been on the low side of projections); you might also be interested in knowing that the First and Second Assessment Reports called for a “business as usual” temperature anomaly increase of approx. 0.3℃ / decade (+ 0.2 ℃ / decade, – 0.1℃ / decade).

      2. AndyG55

        “But it is nice that skeptics are finally betting on something definitive. “

        You mean as oppose to “predictions” 50-100 years out?

        Every short-term “prediction/projection” of the AGW Agenda has proven woefully wrong.

        And do you really think that the quiet solar cycles are going to affect things immediately, on a planet where 70% of the surface is water.! You even more ignorant that I thought you were.

        1. SebastianH

          Every short-term “prediction/projection” of the AGW Agenda has proven woefully wrong.

          Are you sure you don’t mean the “predictions” of climate skeptics like Vahrenholt that are mentioned so often in this blog?

          https://scilogs.spektrum.de/klimalounge/files/Daten-versus-Vahrenholt.png

          And do you really think that the quiet solar cycles are going to affect things immediately, on a planet where 70% of the surface is water.!

          Since you skeptics like to point out how (detrended) temperature follows TSI/sunspot counts inter-solar-cycle, yes I do.
          See: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:36/detrend:0.7/plot/sidc-ssn/scale:0.001/offset:-1

          I hope you can see past your trolling and do understand what detrending does to a dataset 😉

          1. sunsettommy

            Sebastian, you are lying here since I have repeatedly shown you what the IPCC says about PER DECADE warming predictions/Projections, then showed you that it is warming at about HALF the rate.

          2. AndyG55

            Poor seb.. squirming away at the end of the hook..

            You really have to get over pretending that you are not the troll here.

            Trying deceitfully to try to pass off you WHOLE PURPOSE here onto others..

            Very slimy. !!

            I repeat.. Every short-term “prediction/projection” of the AGW Agenda has proven woefully wrong.”

            Their models are WOEFULLY wrong, nowhere near reality.

            The first graph looks like it was drawn by a 5 year old.. your helpers I assume.

            And your second graph actually proves my point, but you are too think to realise it.. Oh dear.

            Crawl back under your bridge, and stop yapping for attention, little trollette.

      3. AndyG55

        “we are saved from the effects of the CO2 forcing”

        And again with the FANTASY.

        There is no proven warming effect from increased CO2

        You know that, everybody knows that.

        But you STILL keep up the pretence, because PRETENDING is all you have left.

        1. clipe

          Richard S Courtney popped-up over at Jo’s place with a couple of comments.

          http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/why-this-extreme-cold-is-just-weather-but-all-heat-waves-are-climate-change/#comment-1970355

          Ends

          But, to date, no evidence for a discernible human influence on global climate has been found; n.b. no evidence, none, zilch, nada.

          Richard

          1. AndyG55

            As I’ve said to seb many time

            PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.

            Or its just a FANTASY. !!

            And he keeps proving that…..

            THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

          2. clipe

            Weather is not climate because climate is the average of weather over any time period. Choose your time periods to compare and you choose your amount of climate change to observe.

          3. clipe

            Richard S Courtney

        2. SebastianH

          Ok, let’s play your game then. What will you blame the warming on when it continues to warm (or even just stays as warm as it is) in the next decades instead of the “predicted” cooling due to solar activity?

          Would you then consider that some other forcing could be at play? Or is that against your gut feeling of how stuff has to work in skeptic wonderland?

          1. AndyG55

            Still the empty attention-seeking yapping.

            Still zero evidence, just a quick squirm away from the issue.

            Gees you are USELESS, even as a low-level troll.

          2. Peter

            There is nothing unprecedented about the current warming cycle. Exactly the same warming occurred during the medieval warm period and others before it.

            A warm Earth is the exception, not the norm, enjoy it until cooling in every again overtakes the planet

      4. Joe Banks

        Uh the stronger solar cycles in the mid to late 20th century are the cause of global warming

        1. AndyG55

          Yep, Of course they were.

          The system buffer of our huge ocean energy storage is just starting to cool off due to the sleepy sun for several years.

        2. Jan P Perlwitz

          “Strong” solar cycles don’t cause warming. Forcing, i.e., the energy input into the system must increase to cause global warming.

          1. Kurt in Switzerland

            Jan Perlwitz:

            Yet “stronger” solar cycles may well be the source of increased forcing, e.g., if cloud formation rate were to be thereby influenced. The problem is that we don’t actually have a very good quantitative understanding of the net “Climate Forcing” on planet earth. The estimated increase in climate forcing due to the increase in human GHG emissions consists largely of conjecture.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “Strong” solar cycles don’t cause warming. Forcing, i.e., the energy input into the system must increase to cause global warming.

            The input into the energy system from a decadal-scale decrease in cloud cover results in a much larger radiative forcing (W m-2/decade) than does the alleged impact of increasing CO2.

            For example, the modeled impact of increasing CO2 concentrations by 22 ppm was 0.2 W m-2 per decade for 2000-2010.

            In contrast, the increase in radiative forcing from even the small reduction in cloud cover from the the 1980s to early 2000s (per satellite observations) was about 2 W m-2 per decade according to dozens of scientific papers.

            Not only that, but there was a hiatus in the greenhouse effect’s impact on temperatures during 1992-2014 according to a recent paper…

            http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/19/new-paper-documents-imperceptible-co2-influence-on-the-greenhouse-effect-since-1992/#sthash.QJh40cxJ.dpbs

          3. AndyG55

            “Forcing, i.e., the energy input into the system must increase to cause global warming.”

            And CO2 is NOT an energy input into the system.

            Thank you SO MUCH for totally destroying the whole anti-CO2 charade in one simple sentence 🙂

            Solar energy IS an input into the system,
            It did increase markedly during the latter half of last century.

            And please, don’t pretend that you think TSI is the only solar variable, that would be HIGHLY embarrassing for you, Jan.

      5. Rod Evans

        Sebastian,
        How many years of no increase in global warming will it take before you and other climate alarmists accept, the climate realists are right and climate change is not driven by man releasing Co2 back into the atmosphere from whence it came?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          SebastianH will claim you’re wrong, as the global oceans have warmed by 0.1 C in the last 50 years. That’s enough verification for people like him. If it warms, humans caused it. If it doesn’t warm…well, it has warmed. One-tenth of one degree is a warming. So humans caused it.

          http://www.sciencenewsline.com/news/2018010404130083.html
          “Our precision is about 0.2 ºC (0.4 ºF) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 ºC,” he said, adding that advanced equipment can provide more precise measurements, allowing scientists to use this technique to track the current warming trend in the world’s oceans.

    2. Patrick healy

      Interesting you should say that Steve.
      Here in the UK we had someone called Neil Oliver given space in the Sunday Times to state that “I’m dreaming of a lustrous mini ice age to give us a global warming time out”
      I am not joking, this scientific illiterate actually got paid to write that nonsense in a so called serious national newspaper.

      1. tom0mason

        Patrick healy,

        Glad to see you are so confident that such cool scenarios will not occur soon.
        Have you tried applying such skepticism to the prognostications of the much publicized climate models? If not why not?

  2. CO2isLife

    I wouldn’t call the error a “blunder,” I would call it a deliberate fraud.
    “Scientists” that ignore and don’t rely on the scientific method aren’t scientists, they are frauds, and their comments and conclusions prove it.

    Prosecute Slimate Clientists for False Statements and Defrauding the Public
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/prosecute-slimate-clientists-for-false-statements-and-defrauding-the-public/

    No Joke. During Record Cold Spell, The Guardian Warns of Global Warming
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/no-joke-during-record-cold-spell-the-guardian-warns-of-global-warming/

  3. John F. Hultquist

    This needs changed to reflect it is now 2018.
    “… Pacific surface temperatures have plummeted by 1-2°C since June of this year.

    . . . last year, 2017

  4. John F. Hultquist

    There is this:
    “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence”

    Often this is said to be quote of Carl Sagan, but Martin Rees used it earlier and he does not claim it to be original with him.
    I first heard it in a discussion about 1990, regarding archaeological findings. Over thousands of years, things get buried in sediments and thus are hard to find. So, we don’t know about what hasn’t been found.

    Let’s rephrase: evidence of warming is not evidence that human produced carbon dioxide caused the warming

    This phrase expresses my view of temperature change or climate change.
    Various explanations have been proposed, for cooling and warming.
    I am not convinced of the correctness of any of them.
    [Note: not concerned with the very long time frame; Milankovitch cycles]

    At this time, I have not seen evidence that the slow warming some find (See Dr. Roy Spenser’s site) is going to be important, and especially not catastrophic. Rather, I do think CO2 above 400 ppm (or even 600) is good. Studies show 150 ppm would be bad. That number — 350 — is a meaningless choice. Same with the 2 degrees, or the 1.5 degrees. There is no reasoning to justify the choices.

    1. AndyG55

      I now refer to the slight warming of the last 40 or so years as the “BNRW”

      Beneficial Natural Regional Warming

      Not only has it made some places more liveable, slightly warmer.

      But it has also raised the PROVEN beneficial atmospheric CO2 level for plant life.

    2. Newminster

      John, the 2° figure was plucked out of the air by Schnellnhuber to placate the politicians desperate for something their brain cells could cope with. He admits himself it was meaningless.

      If you notice the base figure for comparison is beautifully vague. No-one has ever supposedly pinned down which year or even decade we are not to be more than 2° warmer than!

      The Blessed James Hansen is on record as saying that an “earth temperature” is meaningless anyway, so where does that leave us?

  5. AndyG55

    This jet stream anomaly is fun.

    Last year northern Russia got the COLD end of the straw, and people died (but all you heard about from the Arctic bed-wetters was the slight drop in Arctic sea ice extent due to the flip side of the jet stream effect)

    This year, the NE USA is getting the short straw and freezing its butt off. Hopefully not too many deaths from cold. The MSM, however, cannot ignore it this year, but we can still expect to hear about the slight reduction in sea ice formation, without linking the two events together.

    1. AndyG55

      ps. at the moment, Northern Russia is getting the WARM part of the jet stream effect.. (its only -20ºC instead of -35ºC)

      But that means the warm part has moved away from the Arctic. Expect sea ice extent to start climbing.

      1. tom0mason

        AndyG55,
        I’ve been watching some weather models for the last few days (at http://www.wetterzentrale.de) and in the next week to 10 days North Africa might get a bit of snow! During that time Europe is in for more storms and bouts of Arctic air blasting south.

        1. AndyG55

          I really hope that an almighty cold blast lands right over wherever our resident troll lives and dumps LOTS of global warming. 🙂

          Although he probably has pretty good fossil fuel heating in granny’s basement, and granny can shovel the driveway so he can move his Mercedes.

        2. SebastianH

          I personally like this representation of the global weather: https://www.ventusky.com

          And you are correct, the forecasts say it will be below 0°C in parts of NW Africa. Oh and you can easily go back to January of last year and see that it isn’t too different from last year’s January …

          https://www.ventusky.com/?p=37.4;4.7;4&l=temperature&t=20170117/12

          @AndyG55:

          I really hope that an almighty cold blast lands right over wherever our resident troll lives and dumps LOTS of global warming.

          Good to see the level of your understanding displayed in almost all comments you make. And nice work on pointing out the use of fossil fuel. Do you feel dirty when you charge your cell phone with electricity from wind/solar? Or are you on some no-renewable-energy plan or something? I imagine something like that exists in your bubble world where no transitional states between carbon free and fossil fuel worshipping exist, right?

          1. AndyG55

            Still nothing relevant to say, seb.

            Poor little attention-seeking trollette.

            Seems you DO exist basically on fossil fuels (certainly not much solar last month was there) 😉

            Very little wind/solar energy where I am.. all just nice solid RELIABLE coal. Wind, hydro, solar less than 1% of all NSW. 🙂

            Thanks for all the CO2 seb from your fossil fuel usage, seb… the world’s plant life luvs you.

        3. AndyG55

          “in the next week to 10 days North Africa might get a bit of snow! “

          Hey, Well done tom0… 🙂

          Snow in Africa.

          peaches and ice cream.

          https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/sahara-snow4-2018.jpg

          1. tom0mason

            Also of note AndyG55 is that Spain and Portugal is currently in the freezer. This also according to the weather models is likely to continue off and on till the last weeks of January.

            https://weather.com/news/news/2018-01-07-spain-snow-motorists-stranded-autopista-ap-6-motorway

        4. tom0mason

          This projection has been shown to be correct, it has indeed snowed in North Africa, and most weather models indicate that it will happen again before the month ends.

          1. RAH

            For us in the Eastern US and Midwest it looks like a slight warmup now then back into the deepfreeze for a week then come the middle of January we get a real warmup that will last pretty much through the middle of the month. Then February old man winter comes charging back with a vengeance. March projected to be cooler than average also.

          2. RAH

            Sorry the January warm up will last till the end of the month not the middle.

  6. Jan P Perlwitz

    The article already starts with nonsense in the first paragraph. Ocean, surface data, and tropospheric data all show a global warming trend over the last 20 years. Surface warming is about 0.15-0.19 deg. C/decade and statistically significant with three standard deviations or more. The RSSv4 satellite data show warming of 0.14 deg. C/decade with almost 90% statistical significance. Only UAH v6 is a little bit a cold outlier with about 0.07 deg. C/decade, but shows also warming. Scientist are not in a struggle to find an explanation for a non-existent “nearly 2 decades global warming pause”. This alleged struggle is just a figment of a vivid imagination.

    Global cooling in 2018 relative to a year or two years before is as possible as it is non-consequential for the statistically significant multi-decadal global warming trend, caused by increasing non-condensing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As is a three-week cold spell in winter on 2% of Earth’s surface, while the globe on average and most of the world is warmer than the climatological average.

    Also, I predict that the predictions about global cooling trends, allegedly reversing global warming any moment now due to decreasing solar activity or due to whatever, which are regularly made by some on the fringe, and by laypeople in Internet blogs, who reject the science that explains anthropogenic global warming, will as pathetically fail again as they have failed before.

    1. AndyG55

      “The RSSv4 satellite data show warming of 0.14 deg. C/decade “

      Ahh…. the Karl Mears submission to the agenda.

      And its nice to see you using the two El Ninos (nothing to do with carbon anything) as the only warming in the satellite record.

      You do know that, don’t you?

      UAH and RSSv3.3 show NO WARMING at any period away from those El Ninos.

      https://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino.png

      https://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png

      El Ninos are NOTHING TO DO WITH CO2 or any human-based forcing, so that means that there is absolutely NO sign of any CO2 warming in the whole 39 years of the satellite record. NON, NADA !!!

      As for the so-called “science” of CO2 warming……

      Please produce one single paper that proves empirically that CO2 warms our convectively controlled atmosphere.

      Let’s see if you can actually back up the very basis of your “belief” in the myth of CO2 warming.

      1. SebastianH

        Again, let’s play that game of yours. So all warming came from El Nino steps and despite many El Nina events temperature has gone up stepwise. How do you explain that the temperature stayed as high after those El Nino events? Don’t you think this requires additional forcing? Just like you can’t heat up your house with firing the oven just once and it will stay at that temperature indefinetly.

        You owe us an explanation for this wild fantasy of yours.

        I found those two periods you are refering to in the UAH6 dataset. You can even construct a downward trend in those periods: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1987/to:1997/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/trend

        P.S.: Can you back up your belief that CO2 does nothing? And why the change of opinion, didn’t you claim that CO2 actually cools in the last year?

        1. AndyG55

          Wow, why do you continue to show you have ZERO UNDERSTANDING of climate systems.

          We are all still waiting, waiting… waiting .. for some sort of proof of the FANTASY that CO2 causes warming

          Just keep “believing” little child, then maybe the tooth-fairy or the Easter-bunny can help you out.

          Please produce one single paper that proves empirically that CO2 warms our convectively controlled atmosphere.

          Let’s see if you can actually back up the very basis of your “belief” in the myth of CO2 warming.

          Your squirming around trying to avoid the issue, while desperately seeking attention, is quite HILLARIOUS. 🙂

          1. SebastianH

            Your squirming around trying to avoid the issue, while desperately seeking attention, is quite HILLARIOUS.

            Don’t project your issues to others, my troll friend.

          2. AndyG55

            STILL avoid the question.

            squirm, squirm….. little worm.

            You are so pathetically sad.

      2. Jan P Perlwitz

        “Ahh…. the Karl Mears submission to the agenda.”

        Is this statement supposed to mean something? What exactly?

        “And its nice to see you using the two El Ninos (nothing to do with carbon anything) as the only warming in the satellite record.

        You do know that, don’t you?”

        I know exactly what?

        What I did is pointing out that the ocean, surface, and troposphere all show warming for the last 20 years, which is even statistically significant in the surface data sets with three standard deviations or more, contrary to the claim about the alleged “global warming pause”.

        Yes, these 20 years include also two very strong El Ninos. One at the beginning, one near the end of the time period. Two strong positive anomalies with similar magnitude in a time series, with one located at the beginning and the other one at the end, do not cause a statistically significant warming trend in the time series. Their effects are opposite to each other. The one at the beginning has a decreasing effect on the trend estimate, the one at the end an increasing one.

        And here is a graphical representation of the global ocean heat content record:

        https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index1.html

        No “global warming pause” in there, either. The oceans have relentlessly warmed over the last 20 years. From a point of the planet’s energy balance, this is much more relevant for global warming than surface or tropospheric warming, since the heat capacity of the oceans is so enormous, and the oceans warm the atmosphere. The atmosphere is an energetic appendix of the oceans.

        “UAH and RSSv3.3 show NO WARMING at any period away from those El Ninos.”

        What is the rational behind using the dataset RSS v3.3, but not the updated version, RSS v4.0? What do you use for UAH? Also the previous one, UAH 5.6?

        “https://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino.png

        https://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png

        The trick that is applied here is to cherry pick the time intervals in a way that the longer-term trend is disappeared. I can do that with any time series that is composed of fluctuations and a trend, even if the trend is statistically significant for the whole data set, by splitting the time series in intervals short enough, so that the trend can’t be detected in the partial intervals anymore. Non-detection of the trend doesn’t imply that the trend wasn’t there, though. Claiming that it wasn’t is the statistical version of the argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy, where absence of evidence is taken as evidence for absence. Such an argument is unscientific, and if the unscientific approach is chosen deliberately, it is outright deception.

        The trend estimates for the whole time period from 1979 to present is 0.189 plus/minus 0.062 (2 sigma) deg. C/decade for RSS v4.0 TLT and 0.128 plus/minus 0.060 (2 sigma) for UAH v6.0. The 2-sigma intervals represent the uncertainty only due to unforced short-term variability in the Earth system. They do not represent the additional structural uncertainty in the satellite derived data due to assumptions in the underlying model that transforms the measured radiation data to temperature values. Again, compared to RSS and the surface temperature data, UAH v6.0 is the cold outlier. Regardless, both satellite data sets show global warming in the troposphere, which is statistically significant with six and four standard deviations, respectively (caveat: structural uncertainty).

        There are some instances when splitting a whole time series in partial trends is scientifically appropriate. One would be, if one can establish statistically that there was a change point in the time series where the split is done. Another one if one calculates a distribution of all partial trends.

        “Please produce one single paper that proves empirically that CO2 warms our convectively controlled atmosphere.”

        You are requesting something that is principally not possible to comply with. “Proof” implies absolute certainty. Science doesn’t prove anything in this sense, ever. There is no absolute certainty in science. Science provides empirical evidence that is consistent with (or contradicts) hypotheses/theoretical explanations/predictions. Which is then interpreted as confirmation (or falsification) of the theoretical explanations/predictions. Also, empirical observations by themselves cannot show any causation of anything. They are always interpreted within the context of an existing hypothesis/theory.

        Here is a study, based on statistical analysis of empirical data, that concludes a rejection of the hypothesis that the observed global warming was just a giant century long natural fluctuation.

        Lovejoy, S. 2014: Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming, Clim Dyn, 42, 2339–2351, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2128-2

        But it also doesn’t make sense to expect that there must be one study that ultimately answers the question about the cause of global warming. It is the multitude of evidence provided by a whole body of scientific research, including attribution studies, which makes the anthropogenic cause (the increase in non-condensing greenhouse gases by human activity as the most important driver) the most powerful scientific explanation for the global warming observed since the end of 19th century.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          And here is a graphical representation of the global ocean heat content record:

          https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index1.html

          Interesting that it starts in the 1950s. According to Levitus et al. (2012), the global oceans only warmed up by 0.09 C between 1955 and 2010.

          Here’s the ocean heat content for the Pacific Ocean during the last 8,000 years:

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Heat-Content-Rosenthal-13.jpg

          Notice how inconsequential, and how common, the last 60 years of change has been relative to the Holocene, when there were centennial-scale warming and cooling periods of much greater magnitude and rapidity than in recent decades. These warming and cooling episodes occurred without any consequential change in atmospheric CO2.

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/World-Ocean-Heat-Content-0-20-m-and-0-400-m-Gouretski-2012.jpg

          Furthermore, in the near-surface (0-20 m) layer, global ocean temperatures rose by 1.1 degrees C between 1900 and 1945 according to Gouretski et al., 2012. They’ve only risen by 0.3 C overall since then (through 2010). What was the forcing that caused the 1900-1945 warming event in the near-surface layer, Jan? What caused the cooling between 1945 and 1975, as human CO2 emissions began their explosive ascent? Why did it cool for 30 years just as CO2 emissions were doubling and tripling and quadrupling? Do you know?

          1. AndyG55

            “Interesting that it starts in the 195”

            I would LUV to know how they “measured” OHC in 1950.

            Or is it based on yet another CO2 suppository model. 😉

          2. SebastianH

            I would LUV to know how they “measured” OHC in 1950.

            Would you also love to know how they came up with the OHC of the Pacific for the last 8000 years?

          3. Kenneth Richard

            Would you also love to know how they came up with the OHC of the Pacific for the last 8000 years?

            Well, one proxy that we have to verify that the oceans were much warmer a few thousand years ago is that we have land markings clearly indicating how high sea levels were during the Mid-Holocene. Consistently they show that global sea levels were 1-4 meters higher than they are now while CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm – 270 ppm range. What caused the sea levels to be so much higher, and to rise so much faster (2 to 6 meters per century!) while CO2 levels were low and stagnant? Name the mechanism(s), and how much forcing (W m-2) was required for these sea level high stands and explosive rates of rise.

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/21/10000-to-5000-years-ago-global-sea-levels-were-3-meters-higher-temperatures-4-6-c-warmer/
            According to the accepted (IPCC) formula for calculating the contribution of ocean warming (thermal expansion) to sea level rise upon reaching equilibrium, every additional degrees Celsius of surface warmth yields about 0.4 meter (0.2 to 0.6) to global sea levels.

            Moore et al., 2013 “The equilibrium sea level change from thermal expansion alone has been estimated to be ~0.2–0.6 m/°C” (Meehl et al., 2007b).

            IPCC AR5: “The amount of ocean thermal expansion increases with global warming (0.2 to 0.6 m/°C–1)”

            Considering that much of the globe had sea levels that reached or exceeded 2 to 4 meters above present during the Early to Mid Holocene (~10,000 to ~5,000 years ago), a conversion of 0.4 m/°C (from thermal expansion alone) would indicate that surface temperatures were at minimum 5°C warmer than now during the first half of the Holocene.

          4. AndyG55

            seb, as always AVOIDS.

            Poor seb, needs someone else to answer for him.

        2. AndyG55

          “What is the rational behind using the dataset RSS v3.3, but not the updated version, RSS v4.0? “

          Yes, RSSV4.0 is a corruption of the real data, adding in corrupted surface data as well using climate modelling to FABRICATE the end result..

          You can clearly see the INTENT of these mal-adjustments in this graph.

          https://s19.postimg.org/tcd8fmb37/RSS__v4-v3.3.png

        3. AndyG55

          “The trick that is applied here is to cherry pick the time intervals “

          So you are unable to determine where the El Ninos were.

          Can’t help your ignorance, sorry. !

        4. AndyG55

          Let’s try the question again

          The avoidance is getting FARCICAL.. get for a laugh watching the manic squirming and misdirection. 🙂

          Please produce one single paper that proves empirically that CO2 warms our convectively controlled atmosphere.

          Let’s see if you can actually back up the very basis of your “belief” in the myth of CO2 warming.

    2. AndyG55

      “will as pathetically fail again as they have failed before.”

      You mean like EVERY projection and EVERY model of the AGW clowns?

      Heck, even with all their adjustments to the surface temperature non-data, the peak of the El Nino barely touched the model mean.

      And the satellite temperatures make the models look truly idiotic.

      https://s19.postimg.org/dn495r4w3/biggerfail2.png

      When the temperature drop to around that red dot, some time in the next several months…..

      it will all us realists can do to stop ROFLOAsO ! 🙂

      1. SebastianH

        You mean like EVERY projection and EVERY model of the AGW clowns?

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKLepOlX0AA2Pm_.jpg:large

        When the temperature drop to around that red dot, some time in the next several months…..

        And do you do if that doesn’t happen and/or we have another temperature step change upwards? Will you continue to claim that a one-off event is causing a continuous temperature change? Or will you stand up to your claim of being a realist and finally accept what is happening? 😉

        1. AndyG55

          “Can you back up your belief that CO2 does nothing?”

          You have PROVEN it MANY times, with your TOTAL INABILITY to produce one bit of empirical evidence that CO2 causes any warming whatsoever..

          I’m amazed that after your continued ABJECT FAILURE, you still actually “believe” the fallacy.

          But your baseless “mindless “belief” is the only thing supporting you dying religion, isn’t it..

          No wonder you are so SAD and DESPERATE. 🙂

          PS… Glad to see you FINALLY starting to understand that those El Ninos are the ONLY warming, and that there is ZERO CO2 or human forcing to them.

          Maybe , just maybe we have a crack in you brain-washed ooze.

          1. Jan P Perlwitz

            “PS… Glad to see you FINALLY starting to understand that those El Ninos are the ONLY warming, and that there is ZERO CO2 or human forcing to them.”

            I wonder why the oceans haven’t boiled over and evaporated yet from all the El Ninos during the Holocene, if El Ninos allegedly cause secular global warming.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            I wonder why the oceans haven’t boiled over and evaporated yet from all the El Ninos during the Holocene, if El Ninos allegedly cause secular global warming.

            Do you really wonder about this, or is this just a snark attempt? ENSO involves both warming and cooling events.

            In recent decades, we’ve had more frequent/intensive El Nino warming events than La Nina cooling events. When there are more of the warming events than cooling events, an overall trend emerges. ENSO activity is modulated by solar activity. Also, we’ve had a reduction in cloud cover since the 1980s. With lower albedo, this has allowed more solar radiation to be absorbed by the oceans, which then heats the atmosphere.

            Belohpetsky et al., 2017
            https://cest.gnest.org/sites/default/files/presentation_file_list/cest2017_00726_oral_paper.pdf
            It is well known that most short term global temperature variability is due to the well-defined ENSO natural oscillation (see: Wang and Fiedler, 2006). During strong El Niño events global average temperature rises by a few tenths Kelvin and reverts back subsequently. … The residual dynamics left after adjusting global surface temperature anomalies (1950-2014) for short-term variability from El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic eruptions have a staircase pattern. Linear trends for three quasi-stable periods 1950-1987, 1988-1997 and 1998-2014 are near zero with nearly all warming occurring during two step-like shifts in the years 1987/1988 and 1997/1998.  A notable consequence of the staircase dynamics of recent warming is that observed temperature anomalies (HadCRUT4.5) from 1950 till 2014 could be almost reproduced as the linear sum of only two factors(!) : ENSO variability and the staircase function.

            Jones and Ricketts, 2017
            http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/177/2017/esd-8-177-2017.pdf
            [S]ince the mid-20th century, most observed warming has taken place in four events: in 1979/80 and 1997/98 at the global scale, 1988/89 in the Northern Hemisphere and 1968–70 in the Southern Hemisphere. Temperature is more step-like than trend-like on a regional basis. Satellite temperature is more step-like than surface temperature. … [S]tep-like changes are also present in tide gauge observations, rainfall, ocean heat content and related variables. [A]cross a selection of tests, a simple stepladder model better represents the internal structures of warming than a simple trend, providing strong evidence that the climate system is exhibiting complex system behaviour on decadal timescales. This model indicates that in situ warming of the atmosphere does not occur; instead, a store-and-release mechanism from the ocean to the atmosphere is proposed. It is physically plausible and theoretically sound. The presence of step-like – rather than gradual – warming is important information for characterising and managing future climate risk. [Climate models predicated on CO2 forcing indicate a gradual, not step-like warming.]

            Huo and Xiao, 2017
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682617303024
            This paper uses the sunspot number (SSN) index and the El Niño modoki index (EMI) to examine the possible modulation of El Niño Modoki events by variations in solar activity. A significant positive correlation was found between SSN and EMI with a lag of two years, and both SSN and EMI have an obvious period of about 11–12 years. … Two possible mechanisms are proposed, one is the direct mechanism that the solar radiation warms up the tropical pacific with a geographical difference, due to the cloud distribution. The warming response in the central Pacific is amplified by the coupled positive feedback between the ocean and atmosphere with 1–2 years lag. Another possible way can be described as follows: the solar heating effect propagating from the upper atmosphere modulates the strength and variation of atmospheric anomaly at high and mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere winter, which results in an anomalous subtropical cyclone over the northeastern Pacific in the winter seasons following the solar peak years. The anomalous cyclone reduces the cloud cover over the northeastern Pacific and enhances the local input of solar radiation. As a result, a positive sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly occurs over the northeastern Pacific and extends towards the central tropical Pacific along the path of anomalous southwesterly winds, which may trigger an El Niño Modoki event in the following years.

            Wang et al., 2017
            https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46091
            The driving forces of climate change were investigated and the results showed two independent degrees of freedom —a 3.36-year cycle and a 22.6-year cycle, which seem to be connected to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation cycle and the Hale sunspot cycle, respectively. … Solar variability has been shown to be a major driver of climate in central Europe during the past two millennia using Δ14C records. Furthermore, this result is essentially in good agreement with the findings of Scafetta e.g. refs 17, 18, 19, who found that the climate system was mostly characterized by a specific set of oscillations and these oscillations (61, 115, 130 and 983 years) appeared to be synchronous with major astronomical oscillations (solar system, solar activity and long solar/lunar tidal cycles).

          3. AndyG55

            Same reason the oceans didn’t boil away when CO2 levels were 4000ppm +

            Had you considered that the solar action out of the LIA, (coldest period in 10,000 years, might be the cause of the slight but HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming we have had?

            Or have you just not considered anything.

            You also are welcome to produce a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming of the convective atmosphere..

            The radiative GHE has NEVER been measured anywhere. If so, please tell us where.

            Or are you also, just prone to brain-washed religious “belief”

            Pierre.. You must be hurting them, they are assigning more of their worthless, nil-educated AGW trolls to you site, well done 🙂

          4. AndyG55

            ” wonder why the oceans haven’t boiled over and evaporated yet “

            Really ??

            As noted, totally IRRATIONAL is all you have.

      2. Jan P Perlwitz

        “You mean like EVERY projection and EVERY model of the AGW clowns?”

        Assertion from fantasy.

        “And the satellite temperatures make the models look truly idiotic.

        https://s19.postimg.org/dn495r4w3/biggerfail2.png

        Is that figure from a scientific publication? Or what is the source? Also, the figure doesn’t provide any information what satellite data set is used. And why would one use temperature data representing the free troposphere to evaluate surface temperatures simulated by the models? That is not a prudent comparison.

        1. AndyG55

          Poor Jan, doesn’t even know what a GCM is. (Coupled ocean/atmosphere general circulation models)

          So models should be compared to atmospheric temperatures, like the red line in the graph below, NOT to maladjusted surface temperature fabrications.

          https://s19.postimg.org/vju0f7neb/biggerfail.png

        2. Jan P Perlwitz

          “Poor Jan, doesn’t even know what a GCM is. (Coupled ocean/atmosphere general circulation models)”

          I don’t? What statement by me did you conclude that from, exactly? But you may be right. What do I know? I only have a PhD in climate.

          And what are your qualifications and credentials with respect to Earth system models/climate models/GCMs again, based on which you believe to know more about those than I do? That should be fun.

          “So models should be compared to atmospheric temperatures, like the red line in the graph below, NOT to maladjusted surface temperature fabrications.”

          If you want to evaluate the temperatures of the free troposphere simulated by models, the comparison is properly done using the observed temperatures of the free troposphere from the same layers as simulated. If you want to evaluate the surface temperatures simulated by the models, the comparison is properly done by using the surface temperature analyses derived from measurements. But comparing simulated surface temperature data to temperature data of the free troposphere is insofar flawed that it sets different components of the Earth system simply as equal.

          You haven’t answered following questions:

          1. What scientific publication is the figure from? Or what is the source?
          2. What satellite data have been used for the figure?
          3. Why would one use temperature data representing the free troposphere to evaluate surface temperatures simulated by the models? (Well, you kind of answered this one. By indicating that you don’t understand why such an approach is problematic).

          1. AndyG55

            Trying the old “I’m the greatest” self-important egotism, hey Jan.

            Very funny.

            “Still waiting for empirical proof of CO2 warming of our convectively controlled atmosphere”

            You are pretty darn EMPTY for a self-aggrandising “climate activist”.

            Good to know you think the surface is warming faster than the atmosphere.. There goes your atmospheric hot-spot/greenhouse effect. OOPS. ! 🙂

          2. Jan P Perlwitz

            Are you hiding something about the figure? Or why aren’t you answering my questions? Instead you are trying to deflect by talking about something different.

            1. What scientific publication is the figure from? Or what is the source?
            2. What satellite data have been used for the figure?
            3. Why would one use temperature data representing the free troposphere to evaluate surface temperatures simulated by the models? (Well, you kind of answered this one. By indicating that you don’t understand why such an approach is problematic).

            As for my alleged “self-important egotims”. I rather would say you put your foot in your mouth with your attempt to belittle me with respect to my knowledge about GCMs.

    3. Bitter&twisted

      I reject politicised “science”, whose hallmarks are “consensus” and unfalsifiabilty.

      1. Jan P Perlwitz

        Is this meta claim your attempt in a strawman argument in reply to my comment?

    4. RAH

      “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
      – Albert Einstein

      1. SebastianH

        Aren’t you guys the ones trying to judge truth and knowledge here?

        And since we are throwing quotable sentences around:
        “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle

        Have you managed to do that yet and understood what GHGs do (or are supposed to do if you can’t accept it) and how it works?

        1. RAH

          I have no idea if we’re going into a cooling trend or not and have said so many times here. It is people like you that know without a doubt that we are not! And as for being able to entertain a thought without excepting it? You have made it clear that is well beyond your capacity.

        2. Kenneth Richard

          Have you managed to … understood what GHGs do (or are supposed to do if you can’t accept it) and how it works?

          Speaking of how GHGs are supposed to work, SebastianH, what is the mechanism that caused the abrupt warming in the near surface layer from 1900 to 1945 (+1.1 degrees C)?

          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/World-Ocean-Heat-Content-0-20-m-and-0-400-m-Gouretski-2012.jpg

          Why has the warming been so much less pronounced since 1945 (even cooling between 1945 and 1975) if it’s the increase in human CO2 emissions that dominates the oceans’ heat energy changes, and since human emissions were only 1 Gt/yr during all of 1900 to 1945, but they’ve skyrocketed since then to 9 or 10 Gt/yr? How do you explain this glaring inconsistency?

          Again, identify the mechanism(s) that caused the abrupt and rapid 1900 to 1945 ocean warming. You’ve dodged this question every time I’ve asked in the past. Will you do so again?

        3. tom0mason

          No seb, just an observer of your mighty hubris.

      2. Jan P Perlwitz

        You know an Einstein quote. Good for you! And how is that related to my comment?

        1. RAH

          Guess you need to settle down and take a look at how the blog posts are formatted oh touchy one. THIS is a reply to you.

    5. Kurt in Switzerland

      Jan Perlwitz,

      In your first paragraph above, you assert that Gosselin’s article “… already starts with nonsense in the first paragraph.” Then you go on to make some assertions [apparently in the belief that this somehow supports your statement and refutes something which Gosselin wrote]. To wit:

      1) Ocean, surface data, and tropospheric data all show a global warming trend over the last 20 years.

      Yes, barely. Yet almost all of the warming measured since the start of the new Century was the result of the recent El Niño (2014-2016, roughly). The apparent “pause” in AGW [static global mean surface temperature anomalies from 2000 through 2014] was readily acknowledged by climate scientists worldwide from the latter part of the last decade through the middle of the present one.

      2) Surface warming is about 0.15-0.19 deg. C/decade and statistically significant with three standard deviations or more. You are on the high side.

      Don’t forget that about two years ago, GISS adjusted the surface record using dubious and heavily criticized ocean readings and that HadCRUT4 was similarly adjusted to give more weight to Arctic Temperature Reanalysis (data in-filling as opposed to actual readings), … perhaps because HadCRUT3 was being too uncooperative?

      3) The RSSv4 satellite data show warming of 0.14 deg. C/decade with almost 90% statistical significance.

      Remember not to confuse a statistically significant temperature trend with “warming”; this might bite you in the event of the lack of a statistically significant temperature trend, or [perish the thought} of a statistically significant negative temperature trend.

      4) Only UAH v6 is a little bit a cold outlier with about 0.07 deg. C/decade, but shows also warming. Scientist are not in a struggle to find an explanation for a non-existent “nearly 2 decades global warming pause”. This alleged struggle is just a figment of a vivid imagination.

      You are aware that the IPCC and most mainstream climate scientists are STILL promoting the expectation of a 3-5℃ temperature increase over the course of the current century under Business as Usual, aren’t you? And you are aware that somehow achieving 3℃ would require a considerable acceleration above the non-problematic decadal temperature increase over the past century, aren’t you? I do hope you are aware that the global mean surface temperature at the end of the so-called Little Ice Age was probably at its lowest over the past 10K y and that the GMST anomaly decreased slightly from the early 1940s through the early 1970s…

      You apparently are convinced that the GMST anomaly increase from the 1970s through the present was mainly caused by human GHG emissions. Fair enough. But what explains the lack of an increase (slight decline) between 1940 and 1970? If that slight decline is natural, wouldn’t something similar have the potential to reoccur over the coming three decades?

      You use the word “fringe” rather loosely. Perhaps you could attempt to address the multi-decadal lack of atmospheric warming and the disconnect between IPCC projections for 2090 and the observed multi-decadal rate to date. Perhaps thereafter you might be more careful with your labels.

    6. Reasonable Skeptic

      “Only UAH v6 is a little bit a cold outlier with about 0.07 deg. C”

      We are all aware of that. It is amazing how much the new homogenization processes have changed the outputs over time. Far beyond the error margins in fact.

      The earlier climate scientists must have been incompetent boobs and the math was far beyond their capabilities, for that is the implications of the massive changes.

  7. Global Warming Projection is the Great Scientific Blunder Of Modern Times | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  8. Jan P Perlwitz

    I just want to say I’m a little bit slow with answering the various replies to my comments. Not that I’m not having fun, but I also have to do other things, especially work related ones. I must give those priority.

    1. AndyG55

      “I just want to say I’m a little bit slow”

      No arguments there. !!

      1. Jan P Perlwitz

        Do you want to elaborate on your insecurities that make you falsify quotes as a mean to disparage your opponent?

        1. AndyG55

          Do you have anything to add to rational discussion.?

          1. Jan P Perlwitz

            If you seriously believe that your reply to my explanation why it will take some time to reply to all the comments was “rational discussion” you are hopelessly delusional.

          2. AndyG55

            So your answer is, “NO.”

            As expected, you have nothing to offer.

          3. Jan P Perlwitz

            You mean “nothing” like this?

            “If you want to evaluate the temperatures of the free troposphere simulated by models, the comparison is properly done using the observed temperatures of the free troposphere from the same layers as simulated. If you want to evaluate the surface temperatures simulated by the models, the comparison is properly done by using the surface temperature analyses derived from measurements. But comparing simulated surface temperature data to temperature data of the free troposphere is insofar flawed that it sets different components of the Earth system simply as equal.

            You haven’t answered following questions:

            1. What scientific publication is the figure from? Or what is the source?
            2. What satellite data have been used for the figure?
            3. Why would one use temperature data representing the free troposphere to evaluate surface temperatures simulated by the models? (Well, you kind of answered this one. By indicating that you don’t understand why such an approach is problematic).”

          4. Kenneth Richard

            Jan, do you agree that “the atmosphere can’t warm until the oceans do“?

            Assuming you do, as that is fundamental given the heat capacity of the oceans relative to the atmosphere (less than 1% of the Earth system’s heat energy is contained in the atmosphere), can you provide a real-world proof that shows how much a body of water is warmed up by increasing the CO2 concentration above it by, say, 10 ppm, or 0.00001? What do the real-world experiments say? Please provide a paper that has these figures, or the opposite (how much a body of water cools with a decrease in CO2 concentration). Again, real-world scientific experiments, not models and assumptions. Do you have any?

            Also, as someone who has a Ph.D. in climate, can you answer the below questions that were asked of you earlier but never answered?

            Jan P Perlwitz: And here is a graphical representation of the global ocean heat content record:

            https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index1.html

            Interesting that it starts in the 1950s. According to Levitus et al. (2012), the global oceans only warmed up by 0.09 C between 1955 and 2010.

            Here’s the ocean heat content for the Pacific Ocean during the last 8,000 years:

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Pacific-Ocean-Heat-Content-Rosenthal-13.jpg

            Notice how inconsequential, and how common, the last 60 years of change has been relative to the Holocene, when there were centennial-scale warming and cooling periods of much greater magnitude and rapidity than in recent decades. These warming and cooling episodes occurred without any consequential change in atmospheric CO2.

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/World-Ocean-Heat-Content-0-20-m-and-0-400-m-Gouretski-2012.jpg

            Furthermore, in the near-surface (0-20 m) layer, global ocean temperatures rose by 1.1 degrees C between 1900 and 1945 according to Gouretski et al., 2012. They’ve only risen by 0.3 C overall since then (through 2010). What was the forcing that caused the 1900-1945 warming event in the near-surface layer, Jan? What caused the cooling between 1945 and 1975, as human CO2 emissions began their explosive ascent? Why did it cool for 30 years just as CO2 emissions were doubling and tripling and quadrupling? Do you know?

          5. AndyG55

            ““Still waiting for empirical proof of CO2 warming of our convectively controlled atmosphere””

            Your avoidance is very comical 🙂

        2. AndyG55

          Just for everyone’s info,

          Jan is actually a member of GISS, the AGW activist temperature adjustment bureau.

          He is obviously on holidays, because he wouldn’t be using taxpayer money for ACTIVIST blogging, would he ! 😉

          God help us when activist clowns like him claim to be climate scientists.

          Still waiting for empirical proof of CO2 warming of our convectively controlled atmosphere, little activist troll.

          1. AndyG55

            How’s your mate Gavin, going..

            has he grown up enough to debate with Roy yet?

            roflmao..

            Gees didn’t he make a goose of himself then.:-)

          2. Jan P Perlwitz

            Here one can observe the “rational arguments” of a fake skeptic a la anonymous AndyG55: Falsification of quotes, ad hominem arguments, personal attacks, smearing of scientists, conspiracy fantasies.

            But I’m glad to hear that you pay taxes, AndyG55.

            BTW: Just for clarification before falsehoods are being spread. I’m not employed with NASA.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            You are welcome here, Jan Perlwitz. Please try to stay above the ad hominem and personal attacks yourself and stick to debating the science rather than getting embroiled in sniping with other commentators. Stay above the fray, in other words. Thank you.

            http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/10/nasa-scientist-jan-perlwitz-publicly-threatens-skeptics-i-shoot-you-dead/

          4. AndyG55

            https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jperlwitz.html

            Not you, hey. 🙂

            “Still waiting for empirical proof of CO2 warming of our convectively controlled atmosphere,”

            You are FAILING. EMPTY.

            And your avoidance is quite comical. 🙂

          5. Jan P Perlwitz

            That’s me, alright. It doesn’t mean I’m employed with NASA. That should be even clear from the entry on the webpage to which you linked, at least for someone who can read (although that entry needs to be updated).

            And it’s also typical for the “rational arguments” of fake skeptics that they start to talk about my person. You aren’t the first who employs this tactic.

            As for the “proof”. I have replied to your absurd request for “proof” by single study. I have stated my view on what science does and what it doesn’t, with rational arguments. I also gave you a scientific literature reference, in which the alternative hypothesis to AGW, a giant fluctuation due to natural variability, was statistically tested and rejected with very high probability, based on empirical data. All what came from you in reply was ad hominem.

            It’s really not my problem, if you don’t understand how scientific research works. That’s why I work in science, while you don’t, and you merely palaver about things you don’t understand in obscure Internet blogs.

            Keep paying your taxes. I like that very much.

          6. Kenneth Richard

            And it’s also typical for the “rational arguments” of fake skeptics that they start to talk about my person.

            This is a tactic employed by both sides, with those on your side producing scientist-smearing lists and such. As mentioned, please do not resort to this tactic yourself.

            AndyG55 is an Australian (NSW) (not a U.S. taxpayer) who obviously employs personal attacks (unfortunately), but who also reports he has a background in physics/engineering (as I recall). Implying that he is both uneducated (“you don’t understand how scientific research works”) and illiterate (“at least for someone who can read”) is not a good way to avoid having him toss ad hominems right back at you. We would prefer that neither of you engage in insults.

            As for the “proof”. I have replied to your absurd request for “proof” by single study.

            Unfortunately, that single study did not in any way provide any confirmation of CO2 warming. For, as stated elsewhere, to warm the atmosphere, CO2 must warm the oceans first, as the heat flux is from ocean to atmosphere.

            Therefore, you are asked to provide real-world scientific evidence, with physical, cause-effect measurements, that parts-per-million (+/-0.000001) variations in the air’s CO2 concentration heat or cool water bodies when increased or decreased…and if so, how much. The study you cited did no such thing.

            statistically tested and rejected with very high probability, based on empirical data

            No, sorry. It did not do that. Statistical probability in climate science has been exposed to be rather consistently unscientific. For example…

            http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/

          7. AndyG55

            ps.. Its great to see you ADMITTING that CO2 warming is a totally UNVALIDATED conjecture, with zero empirical science to back it up.

            Maybe you ARE capable of the truth. !!

          8. AndyG55

            ” I also gave you a scientific literature reference,”

            Only reference I see starts with the text

            “its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes” blah blah.

            Firstly , they have NO IDEA of all the possible “natural” forcings.

            Lovejoy(2014) gets totally DESTROYED at WUWT

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/27/a-geological-perspective-on-lovejoys-99-solution/

            If you think they do, then LIST THEM and evaluate them in descending order.

            As it happens, ALL warming can be accounted for by solar activity and ocean cycles.

            https://s19.postimg.org/5085qupyr/AMO_PDO.png

            So much so, that the ONLY warming in the whole satellite data comes from El Nino events.

            Apart from those El Nino events, there is NO WARMING..

            Now unless you fantasies that EL Ninos are CO2 or human caused, then that means there is no human or CO2 signature in the whole satellite data set.

            Even in the heavily manipulated Hadcrut data the warming since 1975 is no faster than from 1855-1880 or from 1910-1945

            https://s19.postimg.org/xyijlgd5v/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg

            In fact, the real warming since 1980 has been about 0.12C/decade, which is LESS than either previous warming period.

          9. AndyG55

            “and by laypeople in Internet blogs, who reject the science that explains anthropogenic global warming,”

            Jan, You are yet to present that so-called science that proves CO2 causes warming

            And why start with the insults and self-aggrandising in your very first post?

            I have seen you on other forums, and you have never acted like a scientist of any sort, just a single minded, and very rude AGW troll.

            Stop complaining when you get what you bring, Jan.

            People are sick of BULLIES like you and your cronies.

          10. Jan P Perlwitz

            You must be projecting, considering that you are still trying to make my person the topic here. Like a typical bully.

            I stated my position in the original post (OP) why the article had been very wrong already in the first paragraph, with its assertion of a “global warming pause” over the last 20 years. I argued using the empirical data, which contradict the assertions from the first paragraph, since they all show warming over the last 20 years, the surface data even with strong statistical significance. I also stated that a cooler 2018 than 2016 or 2017, or a cold blob over North America in winter are non-consequential for the multi-decadal global warming trend. Then I made the prediction that the longer-term global cooling predictions, made by various parties, will as pathetically fail as similar ones have failed before. (The only somewhat realistic scenario that I see as a possibility for statistically significant global cooling in the years ahead would be due to a massive injection of aerosols that scatter solar radiation into the atmosphere, and then those aerosols persist there for a somewhat longer time. Like for instance due to nuclear war (hopefully not). But that is within our understanding of the workings of the climate system, and doesn’t contradict the understanding of global warming from increasing greenhouse gases).

            My OP didn’t contain any insults. Or what were the alleged insults? Cite them. Calling someone a layperson? Saying that laypeople made predictions in Internet blogs? These are not insults. These are statements of facts. Do you feel insulted by statements of facts?

  9. Reasonable Skeptic

    The NOAA graph is pulled from a one model called the Shotgun I think. Based on my inside knowledge it is on version 0.9451.f and is due to be updated tomorrow.

  10. Jan P Perlwitz

    “We would prefer that neither of you engage in insults.”

    Totally fine with me, if I don’t get personally attacked and smeared. I’m not initiating attacks on a personal level.

    “Therefore, you are asked to provide real-world scientific evidence, with physical, cause-effect measurements, that parts-per-million (+/-0.000001) variations in the air’s CO2 concentration heat or cool water bodies when increased or decreased…and if so, how much.”

    Scientific knowledge cannot be gained from pure observation. You cannot measure or observe causation. Cause-effect statements are statements from theory. All you can measure is the behavior of observable variables. This behavior is then interpreted as something that corroborates or contradicts the behavior predicted by the models that are applied within the theory, representing the causation statements of the theory. Thus, I can’t comply with your request.

    As for Briggs. All what the linked article provides is opinion in a blog. Blog opinion doesn’t refute scientific studies and their methodologies in my world. Also, asserting that the statistical methodology in one specific study was flawed, because someone criticized the statistical arguments in some other study, or based on an assertion on a meta-level about an alleged “consistently unscientific” application of “statistical probability in climate science”, that’s just logically fallacious.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      I’m not initiating attacks on a personal level.

      Neither initiate or respond in kind. It doesn’t matter who started it. This includes relaying your impressions of others as illiterate or uneducated.

      Scientific knowledge cannot be gained from pure observation.

      Sure it can. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to write that scientific knowledge is not gained only by pure observation. Fair?

      You cannot measure or observe causation.

      Well, technically speaking, no. But we can detect clear if-then patterns that inform us of the likelihood (on a continuum) of changes in observed states. If 1 of 100 lab rats die within 3 minutes after consuming 2 grams of poison, and then 95 of 100 lab rats die within 3 minutes after consuming 4 grams of poison, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a high probability that the poison was (a) the likely cause of death, and (b) that the tolerance or survival rate has a threshold that can be measured in grams.

      Cause-effect statements are statements from theory. All you can measure is the behavior of observable variables.

      Correct. Or, more precisely, they are hypotheses. (Theories have even higher standards…meaning that to even reach theoretical status, the hypothesis would need repeatable observational support.) It would appear that you are here agreeing, then, that fluctuations in human CO2 emissions are only hypothesized or assumed to cause the global oceans to warm (when increased) and to cool (when reduced). It cannot be more than an hypothesis, as we have not observed changes in water body temperatures that have been measured to even correspond to changes in airborne CO2 concentrations. Is this a fair assessment of your views?

      If it is, I’ve noticed on your blog that you call people who don’t agree with you about humans causing the oceans to warm “deniers”. Please specify what truth or verified observational evidence that is being denied by these “deniers”…since you agree that AGW is still merely an hypothesis. How does one deny an hypothesis?
      What, specifically, are the “deniers” denying, Jan?

      Blog opinion doesn’t refute scientific studies and their methodologies in my world.

      So you believe that the fundamental statistical errors in the Mann paper as identified by Professor Briggs, a Ph.D. statistician and mathematician, are not errors after all? Mann’s analysis is right? Are you one of those who believe that the peer-review process precludes gross statistical and logical errors from being published? I ask because scientific publications that have been subjected to peer review are no less likely to “catch” logical and statistical errors like these than non-peer-reviewed publications. Instead of judging (i.e., dismissing) the merits of Dr. Briggs’ analysis on where his critique was published, why not assess the merits of the logical and statistical errors identified in the analysis itself?

      https://wakeup-world.com/2017/08/17/the-failure-of-peer-review-especially-in-medicine/
      Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper’s shortcomings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless. … The hoax paper was accepted by a whopping 157 of the journals and rejected by only 98. Of the 106 journals that did conduct peer review, 70% accepted the paper…”

      1. Jan P Perlwitz

        “Sure it can. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to write that scientific knowledge is not gained only by pure observation. Fair?”

        No, I meant what I said. Systematic observations, measurements, experiments are always done by scientists within the framework of theory, and every observation, measurement, experiment is interpreted within a theoretical framework. Even if someone stumbles over an observation by accident, such an observation doesn’t tell you anything about causation without theory. The idea that there was some pure observation providing knowledge is a positivist illusion.

        Your example with the rats is far from a pure observation. The causation statement that makes connection between the poison and the dying of the rats requires theory. You even rely on a statistical model in your example, which also involves assumptions.

        “Is this a fair assessment of your views?”

        No, it’s not. AGW is as little a hypothesis or theory by itself as the calculation of an asteroid trajectory is a hypothesis or theory. AGW, the statement on the effect of increasing anthropogenic non-condensing greenhouse gases on global climate, is a predicted consequence resulting from the theoretical understanding of the workings of the climate system, which one can perhaps call theory of climate. Latter is itself based on multiple theories, such as radiative transfer theory, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, theory of nonlinear systems. Like a predicted asteroid trajectory is the model predicted consequence from theory of general relativity. The theory of climate has been well established and supported by empirical evidence. Such empirical evidence comes from systematic observations of physical variables, which are being designed within the framework of the theory of climate, and these observations are then being interpreted as corroborating or contradicting causation statements of the theory, depending on whether the physical variables behave in a way as predicted by the theory or not. In former case it’s interpreted as evidence supporting the theory. That is never proof of causation. There is no proof of causation from observations in science. In any science. That is, there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science.

        1. Kenneth Richard

          The idea that there was some pure observation providing knowledge is a positivist illusion.

          So, to be consistent, can we assume that you condemn those who compare those who question the cause-effect of CO2 emissions and surface temperatures to those who tried to undermine the causal link between smoking an lung cancer? Because your side uses that analogy with regularity. Or do you not believe that smoking causes cancer, and thus the tobacco companies should not have faced consequences for disseminating misleading information?

          And why do you call people who you don’t agree with “deniers”, Jan? Doesn’t denial imply that there is a truth or fact that has been proven or established? Are the “deniers” (as you call them) denying the theoretical assumption that increasing CO2 in volume concentrations of parts per million are what has predominantly caused the oceans to warm up by 0.09 C since 1955? How does one deny a theoretical assumption?

          AGW is as little a hypothesis or theory by itself as the calculation of an asteroid trajectory is a hypothesis or theory.

          The thing is, though, Jan, we can calculate the trajectory of an asteroid with a great deal of precision using cause/effect theoretical constructs. In contrast, the climate models predicated on CO2 emissions forcing have been quite erroneous and imprecise since their inception (see below for a partial list). They have failed spectacularly. And the error bars and uncertainty ranges are 10 to 100 times greater than the alleged forcing attributed to anthropogenic emissions.

          Uncertainties, Errors In Radiative Forcing Estimates 10 – 100 Times Larger Than Entire Radiative Effect Of Increasing CO2

          1. The IPCC acknowledged that 111 of 114 climate models failed to simulate temperatures in AR5. The IPCC originally (1990) claimed temperatures would warm by 0.2 to 0.5 C per decade, with a central estimate of 0.3 C per decade. It’s warmed by less than half that rate.
          2. Nearly all climate models had Antarctic sea ice declining. It has been growing since 1979, defying the modeling.
          3. They used to call the conceptualization of the poles warming faster than the rest of the Earth (due to the greenhouse effect) “polar amplification”. Since Antarctica and the Southern Ocean haven’t warmed since the 1970s, now they call it “Arctic amplification”.
          4. The models said that hurricane frequencies and intensities would increase with warming. Hurricanes have become less frequent and there have been no intensification trends — as admitted by the IPCC.
          5. The IPCC acknowledged in AR5 that despite models that say otherwise, there have been no trends in increased storm intensities, droughts, or floods.
          6. Despite decades of attempting to locate it, no tropospheric “hot spot” has been observed.
          7. The models predicted that the atmosphere would warm faster than the surface. The surface has warmed faster than the atmosphere (mostly because it’s easier to tamper with surface data, and UHI effects).
          8. During the first 8 years of using ARGO, the ocean was cooling. Since this didn’t fit the models, they “corrected” ocean cooling. In other words, since the observations didn’t fit the models, they changed the observations. Same way with sea level rise. In the early 2000s, it was noticed that sea level rise was not accelerating when considering tide gauge data (and it had decelerated relative to the first half of the 20th century). So they devised a new way to “measure” sea level rise (altimetry), and suddenly 1.5 mm/yr was transformed into 3.4 mm/yr. Again, when the observations don’t fit the models, they change the observations.
          9. The models can’t explain why the Arctic was just as warm during the 1920s to 1940s as it is today. Or why the Arctic cooled for 50 years afterwards.
          10. The models can’t explain why NH temperatures plunged by -0.5 or -0.6 C during 1940-1970. Since they couldn’t, the cooling was made to disappear…and changed into a pause.
          11. The models (as per Thomas et al., 2004) say global warming will cause more than a million animals to go extinct by 2050. Since 2000, only one animal has gone extinct.

          http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17826898
          “It is possible to count the number of species known to be extinct. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) does just that. It has listed 801 animal and plant species (mostly animal) known to have gone extinct since 1500. … According to IUCN data, only one animal has been definitely identified as having gone extinct since 2000. It was a mollusc.”

          12. The IPCC claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would “disappear” by 2035. A recent study indicated they are predominantly stable with very little melting.
          13. Large regions of the Earth, including much of the Southern Hemisphere, and several regions in the Northern Hemisphere, have not warmed in decades. This shouldn’t happen with well-mixed greenhouse gases.
          14. With Mann’s hockey stick shown to be fraudulent, and 100s of reconstructions showing modern temperatures are only slightly warmer than the coldest centuries of the Holocene (the Little Ice Age) and still cooler than most of the Holocene, climate models cannot explain how or why an anthropogenic signal can be distinguished from natural variability.

        2. Kenneth Richard

          The theory of climate has been well established and supported by empirical evidence.

          What “theory of climate” is supported by empirical evidence, Jan? That human CO2 emissions heat up the oceans’ temperatures by some unspecified magnitude? What empirical observations do you have of this cause-effect phenomenon, Jan? Identify the physical measurements from a controlled experiment. How much cooling does reducing the CO2 concentration above a body of water by -10 ppm cause? Cite the “empirical evidence”. You have it, right?

          Such empirical evidence comes from systematic observations of physical variables, which are being designed within the framework of the theory of climate, and these observations are then being interpreted as corroborating or contradicting causation statements of the theory, depending on whether the physical variables behave in a way as predicted by the theory or not.

          What you have just described is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, a logical fallacy…and apparently you didn’t even realize it.

          Your logical fallacy:

          According to models, the oceans should warm as a consequence of increasing human CO2 emissions. The oceans have warmed, as predicted, according to observations. Therefore, human CO2 emissions caused the oceans to warm.

          Do you realize that you have abandoned your previous skeptical stance by claiming that “theory of climate” (whatever that is, since you haven’t defined it) is well established and supported by empirical evidence…especially since the models have been so dismally wrong?

        3. AndyG55

          “The theory of climate has been well established and supported by empirical evidence.”

          And yet, when asked, you CANNOT produce evidence for even the most basic fallacy of the AGW religion, ie CO2 warming of our convectively controlled atmosphere.

          Mindless regurgitation of the “meme” does not cut it as real science!

  11. Green Sand

    Jan, please square the circle for this wizend old engineer, one of the ones with scars on his back from having tried to implement many failed ‘scientific certainties’

    “The theory of climate has been well established and supported by empirical evidence.”

    “That is, there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science.”

    Which is it? Pls no semantics around words because in my life hazard design world they quite rightly are not allowed to exist. Either we prove it works or we have no truck with it.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      “The theory of climate has been well established and supported by empirical evidence.”

      “That is, there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science.”

      Which is it?

      And what is the “theory of climate” that is “well established and supported by empirical evidence”? Specify exactly what you are talking about instead of retreating to obfuscation.

  12. tom0mason

    Just out of interest reported here at https://www.iceagenow.info/bangladesh-cold-wave/ bangladesh is getting no help from the much falsly advertized Global Warming.
    As it says —

    Shivering cold has swept over northern districts of Bangladesh hampering normalcy in life and causing immense sufferings to the common people.

    4 Jan 2018 – The regions of Dinajpur, Sayedpur, Pabna, Naogaon and Chuadanga are the mostly affected. The flow may continue and further spread over Dhaka, Mymensingh, Khulna, Rangpur and Rajshahi divisions, said Met office sources.

    On January 3, the Met office said that the cold wave may intensify further after next five days whereas the night temperature may fall by 1-3° C.

    Three cold waves have been forecast for the month of January.

    http://www.banglanews24.com/english/national/article/66031/northern-districts-shiver-with-cold

    The lowest temperature today was 6.5 degree Celsius at Chuadanga.

    So as the world cools, sea-levels don’t rise, deserts aren’t expanding, glacial ice recovers, the Arctic and Antarctic both are well encrusted in ice that has not melted, and North America has another extended cold snap.
    It would seem that 200 million Americans, and some in Bangladeshi’s, just found out — THERE IS NO AGW, CO2 MEDIATED, GLOBAL WARMING.

    P.S. Europe, your cold interlude is booked and ready for delivery!

  13. Rod Evans

    Some great comments on this site. The climate realists are winning the battle against the climate alarmists who are desperate to find anything, to support their false belief in Co2 induced warming/climate change.
    As Mark Twain said; “it is easier to con people than to convince them they have been conned”.
    Al Gore and Micheal E Man have a lot to answer for.

  14. RAH

    So desperate are the scammers that the NSIDC is pulling an “adjustment” scheme for Arctic sea ice there by changing the history. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/05/bad-science-nsidc-disappears-arctic-sea-ice-extent-going-back-years/

    When the data does not support the scam then it must be “adjusted”.

    BTW the calamities caused by climate change seem to never cease this winter in the US. Now it’s raining iguanas in South Florida!

    https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/stunned-iguanas-drop-from-trees-in-south-florida-after-cold-spell/70003754

  15. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: January 8, 2018 - Master Resource

    […] Warming Projection May Be One Of The Great Scientific Blunders Of Modern Times […]

  16. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – January 8th 2018 | PA Pundits - International

    […] Warming Projection May Be One Of The Great Scientific Blunders Of Modern Times […]

  17. Anonymoose

    I’ve been saying this for years, and was threatened with legal action for “dangerous libel” 2 years ago by several “climate science groups”. My prediction is that the whole global warming thing was a way for the left wing elites to prepare for a coming ice age, while everyone else got rid of their parkas in exchange for flip flops. Tricking people into being woefully under prepared for an ice age is a good way to kill off a large portion of earths population.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close