# The Only Global Warming Chart You Need from Now On

When I make charts and graphs, I generally make it a practice to scale the vertical axis of a chart from zero (0) to the upper bound of the range. Compressing a chart’s vertical axis can be grossly misleading. For example, the usual chart the climatistas display of ambient atmospheric carbon dioxide levels looks like this:

Oooh—that looks scary! Look how fast CO2 is rising! We’re galloping toward the all-important doubling of CO2, after which the world will come to an end.

Here’s the chart I typically use when displaying the same data, but with the vertical axis starting at zero, and indications of the bounds of pre-industrial CO2 and where the level of a doubling will be:

Now that doesn’t look as scary, does it? No wonder the climatistas compress the vertical axis to make it look scarier.

Likewise, the typical chart of the global average temperature is usually displayed this way:

Whoa! We’re all gonna fry!

But what if you display the same data with the axis starting not just from zero, but from the lower bound of the actual experienced temperature range of the earth? I had never thought of this until an acquaintance sent it along today:

A little hard to get worked up about this, isn’t it? In fact you can barely spot the warming. No wonder you need a college education to believe in the alarmist version of climate change. No wonder the data (click here for original NASA data if you want to replicate it yourself) is never displayed this way in any of the official climate reports.

If this chart were published on the front page of newspapers the climate change crusaders would be out of business instantly.

Source

• ### Al Shelton

|

Of course It does not matter how much CO2 has increased.
CO2 is plant food. The levels are too low.
Also, explain this to me if you are a Warmist: doubling of CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm is an increase of 400ppm. That is, 1 part in 2500. Tell me how 1 molecule of CO2 can “trap” enough heat to raise the other 2499 molecules 2C degrees causing Thermageddon.

• ### JayPee

|

Don’t worry Al, they’ll never be able to explain any of their projected idiocy because they can’t demonstrate that there is a greenhouse effect as presumed by their infallible mentors.

• ### JB

|

Some time ago when continents roamed the world Antarctica found itself isolated by a circumpolar current which according to history books caused the buld up of snow and ice to cover Antarctica. In an old book I have the atmospheric CO2 level was 750ppm at that time. If CO2 causes warming and melting ice caps then how did Antarctica freeze over with such a high atmospheric CO2 concentration?

• ### Martin Smith

|

The actual science is cited in the article.
Evans 2006 is not a liar: https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Harries 2001 is not a liar: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Puckrin 2004 is not a liar: http://www.cccma.ec.gc.ca/papers/jli/pdf/puckrin2004.pdf
Myrhe 1998 is not a liar: http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf

Hansen 2004 is not a liar: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1431.abstract
Meehl 2004 is not a liar: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1431.abstract
Huber and Knutti 2011 are not liars: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1431.abstract

I post science. You post quotes from a blog by Joanne Nova. This doesn’t bother you at all?

• ### amirlach

|

I posted 1350 papers your simply ignored. Your “actual science” has yet to produce a single skillful prediction and is in fact based upon failed model results, not the empirical observations that have invalidated them.

• ### Martin Smith

|

Amir, the papers were not ignored. All the science was taken into account.

• ### amirlach

|

Papers regarding your not hot spot.
Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond and K. Gallo, 2006: Methodology and results of calculating central California surface temperature trends: Evidence of human-induced climate change? J. Climate, 19, 548-563.

Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris and R.T. McNider, 2009: Surface temperature variations in East Africa and possible causes. J. Clim. 22, DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI2726.1.

Christy, J.R., B. Herman, R. Pielke, Sr., P. Klotzbach, R.T. McNider, J.J. Hnilo, R.W. Spencer, T. Chase and D. Douglass, 2010: What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979? Remote Sens. 2, 2138-2169. Doi:10.3390/rs2092148.

Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer and W.B Norris, 2011: The role of remote sensing in monitoring global bulk tropospheric temperatures. Int. J. Remote Sens. 32, 671-685, DOI:10.1080/01431161.2010.517803.

Christy, J.R. and R.W. Spencer, 2013: Comments on “A bias in the midtropospheric channel warm target factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit.” J. Atmos. Oceanic Techno., 30, 1006-1013. Doi:10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00107.1.

Christy, J.R., 2013: Monthly temperature observations for Uganda. J. Applied Meteor. Clim. (in press).

McKitrick, R.R. and P.J. Michaels, 2007: Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data. J. Geophys. Res., 112:D24S09. DOI:10.1029/2007JD008465.

McKitrick, R.R., S. McIntyre and C. Herman, (2010): Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data sets. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 11(4), 270-277. doi: 10.1002/asl.290.

McKitrick, R.R. and N. Nierenberg, 2010: Socioeconomic patterns in climate data. J. Econ. Soc. Meas. 35:149-175. DOI:10.3233/JEM-2010-0336.

McKitrick, R.R., S. McIntyre and C. Herman, (2011): Corrigendium. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12(4), 386-388. doi: 10.1002asl.360.

McNider, R.T., G.J. Steeneveld, A.A.M. Holtslag, R.A. Pielke Sr., S. Mackaro, A. Pour-Biazar, J. Walters, U. Nair, and J.R. Christy, 2012: Response and sensitivity of the nocturnal boundary layer over land to added longwave radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 117, D14106, doi:10.1029/2012JD017578.

Po-Chedley, S. and Q. Fu, 2012: A bias in the midtropospheric channel warm target factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit. J. Atmos. Oceanic. Technol., 29, 646-652.

• ### Martin Smith

|

Amir, all of the papers you listed were published long before we developed the capability to detect the “hotspot.” All of your papers are from a period when it was acknowledged that the apparent absence of the “hotspot” was an unexplained problem with AGW. But science proceeds. We developed the techniques to resolve the problem. Please don’t criticize the source. It merely reports the conclusion of the peer-reviewed paper, to which the link is provided. And it isn’t the only recent paper. You have to be willing to update your sciuence, Amir. You appear unwilling to do that: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Warming-of-the-Tropical-Troposphere-Hotspot.html

• ### Sir Francis

|

Martin Smith, anyone who quotes anything from skeptic science has no credibility whatsoever so stop trying. That is an AGW blog run by a failed cartoonist with absolutely no training in climate science. The articles he quotes are so full of science errors and unprovable assumptions they are not worth reading. I sat one night and spent 6 hours reading the propaganda on that website and could find serious flaws in everything I read. So if you want to learn some meteorology, find a credible source. skeptical science isn’t one and it has been discredited numerous times.

• ### amirlach

|

Sorry, but SkS is in no way a credible source. It is run by a known identity thief and liar!

• ### amirlach

|

[quote]Amir, all of the papers you listed were published long before we developed the capability to detect the “hotspot.” All of your papers are from a period when it was acknowledged that the apparent absence of the “hotspot” was an unexplained problem with AGW. [/quote] Except that my papers were written after yours! Idiot!

• ### Ric Werme

|

I think you should show graphs of air pressure relative to 0 mbar. and report elevations in meters from the center of the Earth.

|

Assuming the obvious, that global warming will cause direct melting of polar ice caps, let’s look at the RATE of sea level increase since the mid-1800s. Google this search: Battery NOAA Sea Level. The NOAA chart will show a strict linear trend of sea level increase, quite obviously not the least bit influenced by the world population increase from 1 billion to 7 billion since the beginning of that data measurement. (This is likely a trend that began with the last melting of glaciers 12,000 years ago.) Given that burning of hydrocarbons MUST have increased at least an order of magnitude in that time, the data completely mitigate against any conclusion that there has been influence of man on sea level rise and thus global warming.

• ### JayPee

|

Frank, if global warming is happening, it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide or any other gas the alarmists don’t like. See my response to Al, below.

• ### JayPee

|

How nice

Maybe it would mean something if there were scientific proof of a greenhouse effect as well as the missing proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The fundamental presumption being erroneous, therefor the labouriously concocted conclusions become erroneous.

Garbage In = Garbage Out.

• ### Martin Smith

|

[quote name=”JayPee”]Maybe it would mean something if there were scientific proof of a greenhouse effect as well as the missing proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.[/quote]

I posted the proof, Jay. Here is the complete current state of the scientific proof: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Claiming there is no proof is nonsensical in the face of actual proof.

• ### JayPee

|

You repeat yourself.
Maybe you love to see your name on the web, whatever.
My response is below
.
Unlike you, I see no need for repetition.

• ### Martin Smith

|

Thanks, Jay. I will keep repeating this because this is the current state of climate science. You claimed there was no proof the greenhouse effect exists and none that it is causing global warming. Here is the proof that the greenhouse effect does exist and that it is causing global warming: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
I will repeat it as long as science says it’s true.

|

• ### Martin Smith

|

[quote name=”JayPee”]I think it would be beneficially illustrative to show the zeroes . The non-magnitude of the alarmist hysteria would be glaringly evident.[/quote] Jay, CO2 at 0 ppm makes no sense. It means life on earth has ended. For millions of years (longer than the evolution of humans) the normal range of CO2 has been 200 ppm to 300 ppm. Now it has risen out of that range, and we are the cause. Likewise, 0 degrees F makes no sense on the y-axis of a global average temperature graph. Was the global average temperature of earth ever 0 F? Ever anywhere near 0 F?

• ### JayPee

|

Martin

Are you saying it makes no sense to display the enormity of the alarmist exaggeration of a trace gas ?
Their misleading attempt to make a mountain out of a dimple ?

And all in the face of the fact that there is
NO
scientific proof whatsoever that there is even
ONE
greenhouse gas as defined by them !

• ### Martin Smith

|

No, I’m saying your claim that it is an exaggeration is false. As I explained, 0 ppm is meaningless. The actual 0 is the average CO2 level for the last 15,000,000 years. The amount of increase is accurately shown. The increase IS alarming when you know that all the increase is caused by the human race and that prior to the increase, the CO2 level was stable in a narrow range for many millions of years. If you want to claim those facts should always be included in the text with the graph, well, I agree, but I think they usually are. The rest of your post is gibber.

• ### JayPee

|

So what if it is meaningless as you say.
Why are you trying to hide a truthful graphing that exposes the meaninglessness of the alarmist conjecture ?
Seems to me you don’t like seeing the truth and the banality of the alarmist hysteria exposed.

WHY ?

Are you one of them ?

• ### Martin Smith

|

I explained why extending the y-axis to 0 is not more truthful. You haven’t refuted my explanation, and you haven’t even tried to argue why extending the y-axis to 0 is more truthful. So, until you can back up your claim or refute mine, attempt to divert the discussion from the point is ignored.

• ### JayPee

|

The fact that you can not stand hearing or seeing the truth is not my fault.
The fact that you prefer obfuscation to truth and reality is not only not my fault but demonstrates your dishonesty and intent to mislead.

My claim stands for what it is.
Your denial of obvious fact identifies precisely what you are.

• ### Martin Smith

|

Your claim doesn’t make any difference. CO2 is now above 400 ppm. the last time the CO2 level was this high, human beings hadn’t evolved yet, and the average sea level was 100 feet higher than it is now. The ice sheets and glaciers are melting, so we are heading for trouble. Still, whichever version of the graph is used, people are seeing what is happening. The world is changing to renewable energies. Let’s hope we can get it done soon.

• ### JayPee

|

SO WHAT

Your expostulation is worthless without scientific proof of a greenhouse effect.
You can’t prove it and neither anyone else.
There is no proof.
There is no greenhouse effect.

Yet you will obviously so presume while spouting off claimed historical data that is meaningless in the face of

NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

• ### Martin Smith

|

I posted the proof, Jay. Here is the complete current state of the scientific proof: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Claiming there is no proof is nonsensical in the face of actual proof.

• ### JayPee

|

Here’s your moment of truth, kid.
If it doesn’t conform to the rigors of the scientific method,
it ain’t scientific proof. PERIOD.

Have you even heard of the scientific method ?
Even if you have, you don’t understand it.

You cite the IPCC garbage can of make believe correlation.
That same pile of crap can also easily be correlated to the DJIA and GNP ( no matter which country ) and possibly with a higher R2 and chi square !

You have cited nothing of any worth.
I’m astonished you’re that demented as to even mention it.

Dream on, kid. Keep blathering.
I’ll be laughing.

• ### Martin Smith

|

Thanks, Jay. I will keep repeating this because this is the current state of climate science. You claimed there was no proof the greenhouse effect exists and none that it is causing global warming. Here is the proof that the greenhouse effect does exist and that it is causing global warming: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
I will repeat it as long as science says it’s true.

• ### amirlach

|

[quote]I will repeat it as long as science says it’s true.[/quote] What science? Invalidated Models are not proof of anything.

The IPCC has never skillfully predicted climate. Yet those who can, clearly show Co2 has little to no effect on climate.
[quote]Still confirming forecast of Apr 2011 at 73% accuracy. IPCC forecast at 10%. What drives Global Warming? (Update 2)[/quote]
http://climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2013/10/7_Still_confirming_forecast_of_Apr_2011_at_73_accuracy._IPCC_forecast_at_10._What_drives_Global_Warming_(Update_2).html

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/scafetta-2013-simple-solar-astronomical-model-beats-ipcc-climate-models/
[quote]Government climate scientists keep saying that they need larger supercomputers to improve their accuracy.

I just tested their claim by processing the entire 135 year long US HCN daily temperature record on my \$180 laptop with 2GB memory, in nine minutes and ten seconds – while I was simultaneously tweeting, blogging and generating spreadsheet graphs.

And my temperature graph is far more accurate than any of the fraudulent graphs they make on their billion dollar computers. The US is much cooler now than it was 80 years ago. Somehow our “top scientists” missed this.
[/quote]
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/a-bigger-supercomputer/

• ### amirlach

|

Hey Martin Smith! You do notice that a \$180 dollar lap top just WTFPAWNED the IPCC’s 73 Billion Dollar(each) super computers? 😀

• ### Martin Smith

|

I don’t know what WTFPAWNED means, but Steven Goddard has been refuted every time he has posted anything about AGW. The US is not cooler than it was 80 years ago. You have posted several cherry-picked items. I don’t know what point you are trying to make. Perhaps if you state it. Faster computers are required for more accurate climate modelling because there are more calculations to be done as we add more knowledge to the models. Goddard’s graph isn’t more accurate than anything. He has used data that he has cherry-picked to make a point, although you don’t say what that point is. What is it?

• ### Martin Smith

|

No, Amir, he doesn’t. His blogs have been discredited every time, because they are wrong.

• ### amirlach

|

So your claiming that Karl and Wuebbles are wrong? Understandable perhaps, seeing as he is refusing to release his data and methods to Congress in a Climate Gate-ish kinda way. 😀
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/28/ncdcnceis-karl-and-peterson-refuse-congressional-subpoena-on-flawed-pausebuster-paper/

One still missing hot spot called and raise you TWO hiatuses. 😀 The data fiddlers just can’t help themselves.

[quote]Guest essay by Arno Arrak

Abstract

Karl et al. present data they claim denies the existence of the warming pasuse or hiatus that has existed for 18 years. It is characterized by the observation that while atmospheric carbon dioxide keeps ioncreasing there is no parallel increase of warming as demanded by the greenhouse theory of global warming. An examination of their data reveals that only two observed data points even show warming. This is not sufficient to even justify writing a paper about. This and other papers by like-minded pseudo-scientists are aimed at tearing down the existence of the current hiatus, but they have no idea that there was a similar hiatus in the eighties and nineties. The reason this is not known is that the guardians of global temperature made it disappear by over-writing it with a bogus warming called “late twentieth century warming.” It is much harder to deny the existence of two hiatuses than it is to deny one. The existence of this second hiatus argues against the claim made by Karl that hiatuses do not exist.
[/quote]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/29/karl-et-al-do-not-know-that-we-have-two-hiatuses-not-one/

Your goto identiy thief’s misinformation site has been discredited every time, because they are in the pay of big climate.

[quote]
Unreliable*
Skeptical Science – John Cook

* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting. [/quote]

• ### amirlach

|

[quote] Here is the proof that the greenhouse effect does exist and that it is causing global warming[/quote] The observations prove it is not. This is “the science”. Why do you warmists keep ignoring it?
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-. feedback-sensitivity/

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/climate-scientists-living-the-big-lie-for-over-a-century/

• ### amirlach

|

Oh! And Martin. [quote]Ross McKitrick is a highly regarded professor and statistician. [/quote] You know like when you falsely claimed our side has no understanding of statistics? Remember when M&M invalidated Mann’s hokey shtick? 😀 Yep it’s the same guy…

• ### Martin Smith

|

Sorry, Amir, I meant no disrespect of McKitrick. He is one of the 3% of scientists who publish climate science papers who believes AGW will not be a problem. When I wrote “your side,” I meant your side here — you and Jay.

• ### amirlach

|

“Proof” AR5? You do understand that ALL of the 73 “predictions” of your “current state of scientific proof” have failed? Right?
[quote]
This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.
[/quote]
[img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

Scientific “proof” must adhere to the Scientific Method. And the Scientific Method states.

“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

• ### Martin Smith

|

You are being dishonest. Look at your graph just above. Spencer compares the projects of global climate models that model surface temperature with his satellite data, which is data from the mid troposphere. The mid troposphere is way up there in the sky, amirlach. You can’t compare surface temperature data with mid troposphere data. Did you know Spence3r was doing that? I can’t believe you would post what you did if you knew Spencer was trying to obfuscate.

• ### JayPee

|

You mention honesty, when you deliberately LIE about science ?
You’re kidding nobody but yourself.
Andrezejewski.

• ### Martin Smith

|

Thanks, Jay. I will keep repeating this because this is the current state of climate science. You claimed there was no proof the greenhouse effect exists and none that it is causing global warming. Here is the proof that the greenhouse effect does exist and that it is causing global warming: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
I will repeat it as long as science says it’s true.

• ### JayPee

|

Andrzejewski

• ### Martin Smith

|

Thanks, Jay. I will keep repeating this because this is the current state of climate science. You claimed there was no proof the greenhouse effect exists and none that it is causing global warming. Here is the proof that the greenhouse effect does exist and that it is causing global warming: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
I will repeat it as long as science says it’s true.

• ### amirlach

|

😀 Your current “State of cLIEmate UNscience” is a joke! The IPCC has yet to make even a single skillful prediction with it’s Co2 based Models. There is a simple reason for this. The “current state of climate science” has admitted they have little to no understanding of known climate forcings.
[quote]The IPCC bases much of its claims on issues that suffer from fundamental uncertainties.
The problems with temperature data have already been discussed but the IPCC report is replete with words
like “understanding”, “estimate”, “reconstruction”, “simulation” and “model”. All of these terms refer to
elements of unknown accuracy and validity, and the numerous uncertainties are further compounded when
one estimate is subtracted from another or when the output of models is compared to other uncertain data.
Models and simulations are critical to the IPCC’s case for man-made warming but in its Third Assessment
Report (TAR) the IPCC admitted that the level of scientific understanding (LSU) of 7 of 11 climate factors
was “very low” and that for another the LSU was “low” (see figure). A similar table was absent from the
Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports – would it be an admission that science had advanced very little? – but a table of
various radiative forcings did appear and again many factors were poorly understood.
It beggars belief that the IPCC can put such faith in understandings, estimates, reconstructions, simulations
and models when it has already acknowledged that scientists lack detailed knowledge of many factors. It is
folly to assume that understandings, estimates and reconstructions will be accurate and is totally illogical to
suppose that accurate simulations and models can be developed.
By the same token, if so much knowledge is uncertain then how can the IPCC possibly claim that the
mismatch between the known circulation patterns and the distribution of warming mean that humans have
influenced climate? [/quote]
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC_evidence.pdf

When compared to experiment, or reality it AR5 fails testing by scientific method. The Key to Science.

• ### Martin Smith

|

The GCMs are skillful, Amir. That is shown over and over.

• ### amirlach

|

Complete and utter nonsense! Your inability to provide even a single example proves your a liar.
[quote]
This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.
[/quote]

Here the IPCC’s invalidated models are compared to reality. Remember, the scientific method states. “When your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong. Period!”
[img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

• ### Martin Smith

|

Amir, we have been over this. Spencer uses his satellite dataset and ONLY his satellite dataset. First, satellites don’t measure temperature. Temperature is inferred from the microwave radiation data the satellites record. Temperature data inferred from satellite data is the MOST adjusted data of ALL the datasets. Second, Spencer’s satellite data disagree with the other satellite dataset. The reason is they don’t use the same algorithms to infer temperature and to adjust for biases. Third, satellites don’t measure surface temperature, because they can only be used where there is no cloud cover. Satellites measure tropospheric temperature, which is not comparable to surface temperature. Spence has duped you.

• ### amirlach

|

Spencer might only use his own data? Yet it agrees quite nicely with other data sets like RSS.
As well as the 35 Million or so weather balloon readings.
[img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/model-trend/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1.png[/img]
[quote]Don’t underestimate the importance of the blue-green circles and squares that mark the “observations”. These are millions of radiosondes, and two independent satellite records. They agree. There is no wiggle room, no overlap.[/quote]

So we have literally millions of empirical observations that support Spencer and you have failed models and fiddled data…

Spencer has used other data sets. Like when he compared the 73 invalidated IPCC Model Predictions against reality. DOHH!!!… Mistaking Cause and Effect? Oh noes!
[quote] In my opinion, the day of reckoning has arrived. The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years, despite the fact that some of us have shown that simply confusing cause and effect when examining cloud and temperature variations can totally mislead you on cloud feedbacks (e.g. Spencer & Braswell, 2010). The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time. [/quote]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/

Then this happened… [quote]As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.[/quote]https://videopress.com/v/fYPBkAya

And not just Spencer’s data shows the 19 year pause. In addition to UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the Co2 warming theory.
while Spencer might use his own data, he is not the only one.
Here we see an UN-cLIEmate “scientist” run from a debate… Run from the guy who’s data he uses? 😮

• ### amirlach

|

[quote] Here is the proof that the greenhouse effect does exist and that it is causing global warming: [/quote] Really? [quote]Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, (the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible) and gets absorbed or reflected by objects it strikes. Any object with a surface temperature above absolute zero, – 460 ° F ( -273 °C) will emit infrared radiation. The temperature of the object as well as its physical properties will dictate the radiant efficiency and wavelengths emitted. Infrared radiation can be compared to radio waves, visible light, ultraviolet, microwaves, and x-rays. They are all electromagnetic waves that travel through space at the speed of light. The difference between them is the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave. Infrared radiation is measured in microns (mm) and starts at .70 mm and extends to 1000 mm. Although the useful range of wavelengths for infrared heating applications occurs between .70 mm to 10 mm. For more information see our Technical Manual page about the Infrared Part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.[/quote]
https://www.infraredheaters.com/basic.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/11/the-sun-explains-95-of-climate-change.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html

• ### amirlach

|

Your the one being dishonest, not me. [quote] Spencer compares the projects of global climate models that model surface temperature with his satellite data, which is data from the mid troposphere. [/quote] Uhh… No he does not. You are being dishonest. Look at the graph just below. The IPCC;s failed model WERE modeling the entire atmosphere.
[img]http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif[/img]
[quoteIt’s hot-spot hidey games and PR tricks

In the new extra-tricky AR5 version, the IPCC “quote the critics” and ignore them at the same time. That way they can say they include the McIntyre’s, McKitrick’s, Douglass’, and Christy’s: the words are on the page, but that doesn’t mean the information is used in the conclusions. The models have failed and they bury that undeniable result under the clutter. (You’ll need to read the fine print). There is no acknowledgement that this issue of the “hot spot” drives more amplification of predicted warming in their models than any other point (though that is obvious and implicit in Fig 9.44, and you can see that below). Which policymaker exactly is going to notice that?
][/quote]
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/ipcc-plays-hot-spot-hidey-games-in-ar5-denies-28-million-weather-balloons-work-properly/

AR5 is completely invalidated by observations sorry.
[quote]“The lack of a tropical upper tropospheric hotspot in the observations is the main reason for the disconnect in the above plots, and as I have been pointing out this is probably rooted in differences in water vapor feedback. The models exhibit strongly positive water vapor feedback, which ends up causing a strong upper tropospheric warming response (the “hot spot”), while the observation’s lack of a hot spot would be consistent with little water vapor feedback.” — Roy Spencer [/quote]

• ### Martin Smith

|

I don’t know what else to tell you, amir, except that your posts display a fundamental misunderstanding of climate science and of statistics. Your sources are not credible, and your claims are false. This remains the current state of climate science: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1... although much has been added since it was published. Most of the world is now moving toward conversion from fossil fuels to renewable energy technologies, and this process will continue. That is the direction we are heading. We are heading that way now because of the science and despite yours and your sources’s efforts to raise the level of doubt. You tried the same thing with tobacco and you loswt. You tried the same thing with HIV and you lost. Now you are losing this war as well, and rightly so. The field is yours.

• ### JayPee

|

Andrezejewski
You’re fooling no one with your displays of fundamental stupidity and deliberate lies.
I fully expect that you will stupidly as usual insist on having the last word no matter how ignorant.

• ### amirlach

|

[quote]I don’t know what else to tell you, amir, except that your posts display a fundamental misunderstanding of climate science and of statistics. Your sources are not credible, and your claims are false. [/quote] Pure Projection! Your “credible source” is sCeptical UNscience? 😀 A misinformation site run by the oft refuted (by REAL statisticians no less 😀 ) Mikey Mann and a super creepy, failed wanna be Nazi cartoonist, identity thief? [quote]If it wasn’t enough that John Cook dresses himself up as a Nazi in his SkS uniform on his forum, now we have him caught in what looks to be identity theft of a well known scientist.[/quote]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-science-takes-creepy-to-a-whole-new-level/
Yeah your “sources” are ever so credible.
Please provide even a single Peer Reviewed Paper that refute natural variability as cause for observed climate. Please provide even a single IPCC model that has made a skillful prediction.

Your lie about Spencer has been exposed. Your big come back is that my sources are not credible?

The fact that every single IPCC Model has failed when compared to experiment? So now your post modern science has invalidated Feynman? 😀 Watch this again and read this quote then tell me why your 73 failed IPCC Models are in any way credible.

[quote]“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” [/quote]
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
[quote] We are heading that way now because of the science and despite yours and your sources’s efforts to raise the level of doubt. [/quote] No we are heading that way because of a political movement, one started by socialists. As for doubts… The current “state of climate science” has had to more than half it’s estimates of sensitivity to Co2 based upon the empirical observations that have invalidated the CAGW hypothesis. 😥 And they are still way to high.
[quote]Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.

Judging from his reaction at the end of the hearing, it really got to him.
[/quote] http://us-issues.com/2015/07/26/the-climate-wars-go-to-congress/
See the 3+ minute video here. It’s well worth the view!
https://videopress.com/v/fYPBkAya

As for us “losing”. 😀
The Co2 alarmists lost the publics imagination years ago, might be all the failed predictions of dhoom and gloom? Or all the instances of fraud in the carbon trading and green energy schemes?
8.5 million polled by the UN? And what issue came in dead last? 😀
http://data.myworld2015.org/

Really Martin, if all you have is another trollish link to the IPCC’s failed science you should just wander off.

• ### Martin Smith

|

>Your “credible source” is sCeptical UNscience?

No, Amir, my source is the science of climate change. The summary of the current state of that science is here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The world has begun the conversion from fossil fuels to renewable energy technologies. We are no longer arguing about whether to do this conversion. We’re doing it. We are arguing about how fast to do it. The fastest way will be to implement revenue-neutral carbon taxes throughout the world. The work of doing that has begun as well. The justification for this conversion and for this tax is the science in here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
That source collets all the scientific papers. Those are my sources.

• ### Martin Smith

|

All of them have produced projections that include the current state in the 5%-95% band.

• ### JayPee

|

Congrats Amirlach, you’ve just forced Andrezjewski into a corner where he reveals what an extreme leftist idiotlogue he is.

Could not have done it better myself.

• ### Martin Smith

|

Jay, my political views are not relevant here. Attacking me gets you nowhere. Every point Amir alleged has been refuted. Not by me, here, but that doesn’t matter. There is no point in playing whack-a-mole with him or with you. This is the current state of climate science: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The world has begun the conversion from fossil fuels to renewable energy technologies. We are no longer arguing about whether to do this conversion. We’re doing it. We are arguing about how fast to do it. The fastest way will be to implement revenue-neutral carbon taxes throughout the world. The work of doing that has begun as well. The justification for this conversion and for this tax is the science in here: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
That source collets all the scientific papers. Those are my sources.

• ### JayPee

|

You squirm, you slither.
No one has to back you into a corner.
You do it yourself.
You reveal yourself with every word.
We’ll keep laughing.

• ### Martin Smith

|

Nice haiku, Jay. You’ve got talent.

• ### amirlach

|

AR5 has refuted every point? Please cite the page number of even one instance. [quote]That source collets all the scientific papers. Those are my sources.[/quote] Your “source” missed a few(1350+) Scientific Papers. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
You also seem to be in denial of the recent Papers by IPCC Lead Author’s mentioned by Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels here.
https://videopress.com/v/fYPBkAya

Not that I expect you would even look at anything that contradicts your doctrine.

The current state of cLIEmate UNscience… 😀
[img]http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/scepticshandbookart/web/the_real_consensus_at_the_ipcc_redv2%20med_550.jpg[/img]

Where is even one IPCC Model that has skillfully made a prediction? Put up or shut up.

http://www.thenewscommenter.com/news/tesla-supercharger-station-powered-by-diesel-generators-video/323175

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/06/why-natural-gas-beats-wind-power/

• ### Gator

|

I’m stealing that cartoon amirlach! Finally the Con\$en\$u\$ i\$ con\$picuou\$ly illu\$trated.

• ### amirlach

|

It’s from Joannova’s site.

And RE: Martins claim of “proof” of Co2 warming…
[quote]Knut Ångström discovered over 100 years ago that changing the amount of CO2 in the air has very little impact on how much longwave radiation is transmitted. This is the same thing which climate models show. The graph below was generated with data from one of the standard radiative transfer models used in climate and weather models.[/quote] Ha! 100 year old science that still invalidates the grant sucking losers at the IPCC 😀
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/angstrom-was-correct/

• ### Martin Smith

|

Why do you believe Joanne Nova and not the scientists whose work was used to produce IPCC AR5? Do you understand, for example, that heat seeking missiles are based on the physics of the greenhouse effect? In particular, the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect. If CO2 didn’t block infrared radiation, heat seeking missiles wouldn’t work. I ask because you are posting claims that contradict these facts.

• ### amirlach

|

Heat seeking missiles prove AR5? 😀 Where is that model that has skillfully predicted recent or any climate?

|

• ### amirlach

|

Yep! Complete and utter nonsense!
[img]https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated.png[/img]

• ### amirlach

|

[quote]Why do you believe Joanne Nova and not the scientists whose work was used to produce IPCC AR5? [/quote] Simple! One has never made any skillful predictions. The other simply pointed this fact out.

|

• ### Martin Smith

|

Amir, I read everything I can that gets published on the subject. Yes, the science used in the WG-1 report does refute every point you raised, with the exception of the “tropospheric hotspot” Spencer still goes on about. But that “hotspot” has been detected in the data, and papers were published recently explaining how it was found and why it was hard to see. No, I won’t list page numbers. The pertinent papers are referred to in the report, not included directly. The telling point here is that you appear not to know about the research that refutes every point you listed.

But what do you hope to accomplish with this? Do you hope to stop the change from fossil fuels to renewable energy? Do you expect AGW to reverse while we add more CO2 to the system? BWhat will be the cause of global cooling?

• ### prestigio

|

ahab andrzjewski
maybe he was
on the pequod

he smells science
where there
is no science

• ### Martin Smith

|

That’s hard to defend, prestigio. The IPCC AR5 WG-1 report is the summary of all the actual science on the subject that was available at the time. You can see the references yourself in the report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

• ### prestigio

|

contrarily
it is difficult
for you
to understand

• ### Martin Smith

|

Possibly, but since I am a scientist, your claim is less likely than the possibility that you just don’t know what you are talking about.

• ### JayPee

|

YOU”RE A SCIENTIST !!?!?!!!?!

Political demonology ?
Rhetorical shell game theory ?
Ouija for the retarded ?

Keep talking Andrzejewski,
We’ll keep laughing.

• ### Martin Smith

|

Computer science. Thanks for asking, Jay. And thanks for all these opportunities to post links to the actual science every time you attack me personally.

The IPCC AR5 WG-1 report is the summary of all the actual science on the subject that was available at the time. You can see the references yourself in the report: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

• ### JayPee

|

Exposing lies IS NOT a personal attack.

Exposing a phony who calls himself a scientist and has no understanding of or use for the scientific method IS NOT a personal attack.

It’s telling the truth and telling the truth IS NOT a personal attack.

Go back to school Andrzejewski, there’ s plenty you never understood.

Demanding that science a

• ### Martin Smith

|

You didn’t expose any lies by me, nor did you expose any lies in any of the links I posted. I didn’t post any lies, and the papers and report I posted stand on their own.

The IPCC AR5 WG-1 report is the summary of all the actual science on the subject that was available at the time. You can see the references yourself in the report: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

• ### amirlach

|

So where is your example of a skillful AR5 prediction?

• ### Martin Smith

|

Amir, we are not talking about predictions. We are talking about projections. The global climate models project temperature ranges. The current global average temperature is in the 5%-95% range for the global climate models using the actual observed data.

• ### amirlach

|

So you admit they cannot make any skillful predictions as the scientific method requires. Gotcha.

As for your 5%-95% range? LOL… Complete and utter nonsense. Once again, put up or shut up.

• ### amirlach

|

[quote]I don’t know what WTFPAWNED means. Computer science. Thanks for asking, Jay. [/quote]
Ironic considering it is a term coined by Computer nerds. 😀

• ### amirlach

|

[quote] But that “hotspot” has been detected in the data, and papers were published recently explaining how it was found and why it was hard to see. [/quote]
Uhh… Yeah right! The argument boils down to the data is not accurate to disprove our models so we must be correct? 😀 [quote] After presenting the information, Mears arrives at the conclusion that the observational data are not yet accurate enough to prove or disprove the magnitude of the model-generated hot-spot as real (i.e. not accurate enough to falsify the dominant model response regarding the enhanced greenhouse effect). [/quote] Whatever!

• ### amirlach

|

Stop posting links to a known misinformation site run by a known identity thief and liar!

• ### amirlach

|

No! The Hot Spot has not been detected! All they can claim is the data is not accurate enough to discount it. The empirical observations disagree with the models.

[quote] One of the strengths of the free atmosphere data is that two independent measurement systems operate simultaneously in the same locations. So the fact that, on average, in the tropics, balloons do not disagree with satellites but both disagree with models points to a real mismatch between models and observations[/quote] Ross McKitrick

[quote]
But what do you hope to accomplish with this? Do you hope to stop the change from fossil fuels to renewable energy? Do you expect AGW to reverse while we add more CO2 to the system? What will be the cause of global cooling? [/quote]

“Do you hope to stop the change from fossil fuels to renewable energy?” What change?

The only ones who care anymore are the Grant sucking climate “scientists” and politicians. http://data.myworld2015.org/

The change? Will stop itself, already has. Coal use is set to increase immensely. India, China and other emerging industrial powers are all investing in it. Co2 will only keep increasing.
[img]http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/images/ChinaCO2OutputwithCoalBases800px.jpg[/img]

What AGW? It has not warmed for almost 20 years while Co2 has increased.
[img]https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/image_thumb107_thumb.png?w=600&h=352[/img]
So once again two data sets agree with each other and disagree with the models and the “adjusted” temperature records.

The recent papers by some IPCC Lead Authors just halved Co2 sensitivity. Though they are still way too high. https://videopress.com/v/fYPBkAya

Arctic Ice Extent is rebounding.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

And NOAA’s best temperature record they never use shows cooling over the last decade.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2005&endyear=2015&month=12

What will be the cause of Global Cooling? The same thing that caused the warming. The SUN.

Despite the IPCC’s Incorrect “adjustments” to the Solar records.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2010/06/ipcc-consensus-on-solar-influence-was.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2010/06/judithgate-update.html

• ### Martin Smith

|

Amir, I have posted the link to the science showing the “hotspot” was there all along, so we don’t need to beat that dead horse. And now you are beating more dead horses. You have tried once again to use tropospheric temperature to represent surface temperature. You can’t do that. And you have cherry-picked your starting year. You can’t do that. And you have tried to use correlation as causation with sunspots. You can’t do that, especially when the correlation doesn’t actually work, as it does not in recent decades. In fact total solar irradiance has dropped slightly during the period of most rapif global warming. You have ignored that fact. You can’t do that. The rest of your claims suffer the from the same errors.

• ### amirlach

|

The best your alarmists could do was say that the data is not good enough to rule out a Hot Spot. Funny how every time this hot spot is shown to not exist, alarmist try to claim it is not very important, then they keep coming back with fiddled data and trying to prove they have “found” it again.

RE: Cherry Picking. This is all alarmists do! Cherry pick start dates, Use correlation as causation.

[quote]And you have tried to use correlation as causation with sunspots. You can’t do that, especially when the correlation doesn’t actually work, as it does not in recent decades.[/quote] Wrong! We went over this. The IPCC “laundered” the Solar data then claimed only Co2 could explain observations. Remember Judith Gate and the letters of protest from astrophysicist Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): And from Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN – Group Sunspot Number indicator) – who agrees with Willson. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2010/06/judithgate-update.html

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/NS_grl-supplement.pdf

The fact is the sun fully explains recent climate when the incorrect “adjustments” are removed..

Why is it every bit of “proof” alarmists come up with is either a failed computer model or fiddled data?

• ### Martin Smith

|

“When I make charts and graphs, I generally make it a practice to scale the vertical axis of a chart from zero (0) to the upper bound of the range.”
But in the two examples you have chosen, 0 is not meaningful, so there is no reason to include it. In the first case, there can’t be 0 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We would all die. Even CO2 levels significantly below the pre-industrial level would make life difficult for everything.

Nor is 0 Fahrenheit meaningful for human existence. Water freezes as 32 F, so if the global average temperature were significantly below that, again, we wouldn’t have evolved. So it makes no sense to include 0 and the lower range on the Y-axis of the two graphs you have chosen because that part of the Y-axis for both graphs makes no sense. It is astonishing that you didn’t see that.

• ### JayPee

|

I think it would be beneficially illustrative to show the zeroes . The non-magnitude of the alarmist hysteria would be glaringly evident.

• ### Martin Smith

|

As long as you understand that 0-250 ppm of CO2 is meaningless for the human race because the CO2 level has been “stable” in the range 200-300 ppm since before the human race evolved and it has only risen above 300 ppm since after the beginning of the industrial revolution. i.e. we know the human race has caused the entire increase from 300 to the current level of 400, because we have accounted for all the possible natural causes.

And as long as you understand that 0F as a global average temperature has never happened on earth, as far as I know, and therefore including the range from, say, 0F to 32F again doesn’t make sense for earth. Either way, a note should be included with each graph to explain what is being depicted and why it is depicted that way.

• ### amirlach

|

More on the “current state of cLIEmate UNscience”!
[quote]

Wow, just wow. I told Dr. Tom Peterson in an email this summer that their highly questionable paper that adjusted SST’s of the past to erase the “pause” was going to become “their waterloo”, and Peterson’s response was to give the email to wackadoodle climate blogger Miriam O’Brien (aka Sou Bundanga) so she could tout it with the usual invective spin that she loves to do. How “professional” of Peterson, who made the issue political payback with that action.

Another reminder of Peterson’s “professionalism” is this political cartoon he made portraying climate scientists holding different published opinions as “nutters”, while working on the taxpayer’s dime, courtesy of the Climategate emails in 2009: [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/cru_climategate_email_marooned.jpg[/img] Now, it looks like Karl and Peterson think they are above the law and forget who they actually work for. They’ve really stepped in it now.
[/quote]

LOL…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/28/ncdcnceis-karl-and-peterson-refuse-congressional-subpoena-on-flawed-pausebuster-paper/

• ### GR82DRV

|

Arguing the fine points of AGW is ultimately a fool’s errand. It’s like arguing, “Who’s better? – Batman or Spiderman?”, rather than asking, “Are superheros real?”

Leftists are more than happy to entertain these debates [i]forever[/i] because it means they never have to address the bigger issues and reasons for the epic redistribution and crony capitalism scam itself.

They have thousands of “researchers” on their now corrupt climate industry payroll, being paid billions of dollars to constantly change the goalpost so that it is impossible to win the war of scientific minutia.

Until the fundamental fraud of the climate change industry is exposed there will never be an honest scientific debate.

• ### GR82DRV

|

I’ll amend one part of my last statement: [i]Most[/i] leftists are more than happy to entertain these debates forever…
[i]Some[/i] want to end that debate by any means necessary (if necessary, using threats of prosecution) so as to impose their Utopian vision immediately.

• ### Martin Smith

|

GR, pretty much all “leftists” are with you on your quest to eliminate crony capitalism, but our acceptance of the current understanding of climatte science, as expounded in the IPCC AR5, has nothing to do with crony capitalism. Nor is there any “climate industry payroll,” so creating a conspiracy theory where there obviously is no conspiracy won’t work either. Here is the report of the current state of climate science. It shows that AGW is real, that AGW is caused by burning fossil fuels, and that AGW will be bad for the human race: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
If you have an alternate theory that explains all the data as well as AGW, post it. So far, none of you has even attempted that.