Survey of 1800 scientists: The ‘97% consensus’ is now 43% – ‘Less than half of climate scientists agree with UN IPCC ‘95%’ certainty’


By: - Climate DepotJuly 30, 2015 1:31 PM with 91 comments

Via: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/

I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen et al shows even that is not true.[1] The “97% consensus” is now 43%.

Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call “climate scientists” who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCC’s main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty

More than 1800 international scientists studying various aspects of climate change (including climate physics, climate impacts, and mitigation) responded to the questionnaire. Some 6550 people were invited to participate in this survey, which took place in March and April 2012. Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles. Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”. (But hey, the IPCC quotes a lot of gray literature itself, as Donna LaFramboise found.)

Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up the number to 47%. Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see why those responses should be excluded. An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty.

The IPCC AR5 Statement:

“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”

— Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s AR5 Working Group I.

Climate scientists, survey, consensus, 97%, certainty,

Climate Scientists, consensus, survey, 97%, 43%, certainty

The researchers acknowledge that skeptics may be slightly over-represented, “it is likely that viewpoints that run counter to the prevailing consensus are somewhat (i.e. by a few percentage points) magnified in our results.” I say, given that skeptics get sacked, rarely get grants to research, and find it harder to get published, they are underrepresented in every way in the “certified” pool of publishing climate scientists. Skeptical scientists, I daresay, would be much less likely to use the keyword phrase “global warming” in the papers they do publish. I imagine it’s easier to get papers published that don’t specifically poke the mainstream buttons.


  • Denis Ables

    The 17% who responded to 1a as greater than 100% ??? should be excluded from counts in 1b. (and perhaps also from the gene pool)

    • powers2be

      These are the government appointed scientists that were awarded degrees based upon some hyphenated-status which means they are, I’ll use an IPCC modifier here, LIKELY to have eighth grade reading proficiency and 4th grade math skills. By extension that would explain the more that 100% of something and trust them because they are 110% certain of their answer.

      • Theridly83

        Posted: Tuesday, August 4, 2015
        STEP BY STEP to Success.Just Follow Simple instructions.Just simple jobs offered by GOOGLE.STAY at home and get paid daily.I am making 20K$ monthly. I Joined this 4 months ago and Now I am making 97$ hourly .
        ———————————————————————————————–
        Visiting here

        I Started●▸●▸●▸●▸●▸▸▸▸ Bit.Dℴ/RevealTheSuccess108

        —————————————————————————————
        GO TO THE ABOVE LINK >>>For BRIFF DETAILS Hit ANY LINK INSIDE WEBPAGE

        █████████████████████████████████

    • ShirleyRManley

      GET A BEST TOP256-CAREER ::: @1md7.

      bc..

      http://www.Home-Job-ConceptsBest4/top3/yes...

      ⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛

    • IsaacLHawk

      GET A BEST TOP251-CAREER ::: @1mdu2.

      bc..

      http://www.Home-Job-ConceptsBest9/top8/yes...

      ⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛
      LOGON TO THE SITE –>>CLICK TAB FOR MORE DETAIL AND HELp

    • LaurenRFrantz

      GET A BEST TOP253-CAREER ::: @1md4.

      bc..

      http://www.Home-Job-ConceptsBest7/top6/yes...

      ⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛⚛☤☤☤☤☤⚛

      LOGON TO THE SITE –>>CLICK TAB FOR MORE DETAIL AND HELp

    • Laura

      If you want to make money,you have to work gor it.I’ll prove to you that it’s possible to get good income VERY fast.If you are insecure with your daily income and want to make money fast,do your health and your future a favor by checking out The Step by step simple way

      go to tech tab for work detail

      ((Go To➧➧➧➧➧➧ http://bit.do/3Up2DateStepsP2

      ……..

      After making 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 98 Dollars an hour,It’s time to take some action and you can join it too.It is simple,dedicated and easy way to get rich.Three weeks from now you will wish you have started today – I promise!

    • starchild

      That “more than 100%” response isn’t quite as stupid as it appears at first blush. What I presume it indicates is a belief that the amount of human-caused warming was even greater than the total amount of warming recorded, but that some of it ended up being offset by other countervailing factors.

      That being said, I suspect many of those folks probably gave the response they did not out of any real knowledge, but just because they are so invested in the dogma that says humans are responsible for climate change, that they do not even want to acknowledge the reality that climate change continues to happen naturally, aside from whatever effect human activity may be having.

      Of course humans cause *some* global warming — the body temperature of 8 billion warm bodies alone would have some tiny marginal impact, even if we did nothing beyond simply existing. But for alarmists to pretend that they know humans are responsible for more than half of all recent warming seems unsupported by the evidence.

      • Denis Ables

        What you’re saying is that those particular folks are way more alarmist than the IPCC and its usual cohort which MERELY claim that the principle cause of global warming is due to human activity. That is still WAY beyond the pale.

        • Edward Silha

          Are you claiming there is a worldwide conspiracy that involves nearly all the national academies, nearly every scientific organization (e.g., AAAS, AMS), major international corporations, the defense department and many more?

          Really?

          • Denis Ables

            Let’s review the situation:

            Alarmists confiscated the term “climate change”, which originally referred to natural events, such as ice ages. Now it means catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (CAGW), and skeptics are referred to as “climate change” deniers.

            The claims of a “97% consensus” have been thoroughly debunked. Among other problems these unprofessional “surveys” count many skeptics as part of their supposed consensus. These surveyors made no distinction between the IPCC and its alarmist cohort, who claim human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming, and other respondents (invariably skeptics) who acknowledge, at best, that increasing co2 MIGHT have SOME impact on global warming. Had the alarmist
            surveys been designed by professionals the result would have likely shown that
            skeptics were the majority, but it matters not since scientific truths are not
            dependent on vote counts.

            When a match is lit, it may have some impact (not likely measurable) on global warming. The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is well known, but also turns out to have little impact because urban areas represent only a small portion of the earth surface and even the immediate rural areas surrounding an UHI show little or no
            temperature impact from the UHI. Nonetheless, few sensible persons would declare flatly that human activity is having NO impact on global warming. It is the claim that co2 increase causes global warming and human activity, which appears to be responsible for most co2 increase, is therefore the principle cause of our
            current warming.

            During most of our planet’s history the co2 level has been several times higher than now, and even over geologic periods there is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on global warming. In fact, over geologic periods there is a strong correlation showing the opposite – that temperature variation occurs FIRST and only 800 to 2800 years LATER do similar variations show up in the co2 level. Furthermore, a comparison of our current interglacial with the immediate four prior interglacial periods (a span of about 340,000 years) shows that our current maximum temperature is about two degrees cooler than in any of the four earlier interglacials. But our current co2 level is 40% higher than in
            these earlier interglacials, so it is obvious that co2 has little impact on global temperature. Since both co2 level and UHI have been ruled out insofar as having even a measurable (let alone significant) impact on global temperature, what
            is the basis for the IPCC claim? None of the alarmist computer models can account for how the “missing heat” might disappear into the ocean, unnoticed by ARGO buoys, subsequently hide in the deep ocean, to somehow later re-surface and escape back into the atmosphere.

            It is also known that the capability of co2 to influence warming diminishes as its level increases, and that a greenhouse is hardly an adequate model for our open atmosphere. There is no convection from within a real greenhouse, but in the open
            atmosphere satellites detect heat escaping to space. Neither does a greenhouse
            experience such things as ocean feedback. Finally, computer models cannot
            possibly deal with ongoing chaotic events which are an integral and significant
            part of the climate system.

            Alarmist computer models have all consistently projected higher temperature increases than have subsequently occurred, and this has continued even after several rounds of revisions to those models. Computer model results are clearly
            not evidence of anything other than the author(s) understanding of our climate.
            All the models ASSUME that water vapor is the real culprit, creating 2 to 3
            times the temperature increase supposedly brought on directly by co2 increase.
            But nobody understands whether water vapor feedback is even positive, let alone
            2 to 3 times that of the co2 impact (which itself is also in question.) Cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, appears to have a cooling rather than a warming effect. In response to the hiatus for almost the past two decades in temperature increase the alarmists have, so far, come up with dozens of different reasons as to where the missing heat is hiding. Nonetheless the insistent claims of “settled science” continue.

            The co2 level is increasing and much of that increase is apparently due to human activity (fossil fuel use, in particular). The current co2 level is 400ppmv, so clearly a trace gas, which can also be stated as 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere, by volume. (4/100 of one percent of a mile is about 2 feet). The annual rate of increase in co2 is about 2 ppmv. Projections for co2 level for the year 2100 are about 600ppmv, still a trace gas. A crowded gym with poor ventilation may reach 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews survive for months in a 5,000+ ppmv environment. Plants, grow faster, healthier, produce more oxygen, and need less water in higher co2 environments. In fact, the earth is greening even as this controversy continues.

            The proponents (alarmists) of CAGW base their hypothesis on a very brief period (30 years) of climate history. This is because even the most rabid CAGW scientists understand that increasing co2 level would have had no measurable impact on global temperature until about 1950. Co2 began rising in the mid 1800s, but our current warming (such as it is) began, by definition, at the bottom of the
            Little Ice Age, in the mid 1600s. That of course implies 300 years of natural
            warming. There was a mild cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s, followed by THE warming, from the 1970s to about 1998, and, basically, no additional warming since then.

            There are 5 global temperature datasets, 3 terrestrial and 2 satellite. However, according to Phil Jones (2003) the three terrestrial datasets all make use of most (90 to 95%) of the same raw data. There are three sets of terrestrial results because three separate groups are involved and each applies different revisions to this raw data. The UAH satellite results show no additional warming for the past 18 years and 5 months. The RSS satellite shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 7 months, and counting. (However, the upcoming el Nino, a natural warming event, may bring with it some additional temporary warming!) This duration of no additional warming is not cherry picked since the calculation depends on the data and is the answer to a relevant question, namely – for how long has there been no additional warming? If the same RSS analysis is applied but instead uses the mean of all 5 datasets, there has been no additional warming
            for the past 13+ years. (However, since all three terrestrial datasets are basically derived from the same raw data, the implied 3/5 weighting in this calculation for terrestrial data seems too high.)

            The three terrestrial datasets also have various other issues. Even current raw data must be revised because many stations are located within or near UHIs so that effect must be estimated and removed. Land based stations are subject to changing environmental conditions. The distance between some land stations may be as much as 1200km, and there are very few stations in remote (jungles, mountains, deserts, plains, grasslands, etc.) areas.

            Some alarmists continue to blame severe weather on “climate change” and insist that sea level rise is “evidence” of CAGW. Sea level has been rising for the past 15,000 years, ever since the last ice age BEGAN melting, and sea level is now up 400+ feet. In more recent times the rate of sea level increase has been flat, or dropping, and sea level rise has been a miniscule 1 to 2 mm per YEAR, (1 mm = 4/100 of one inch). One look at a graph showing sea level over the past 12-15 thousand year period should be sufficient to convince anyone. Statistical analysis has demonstrated that, for the past several decades, severe weather events of all types have remained within natural climate variation. Weather events (hurricanes,
            typhoons, tornados, floods, rain, droughts) have been no more severe nor more
            frequent during this period.

            At least one well known member of the IPCC cabal, Phil Jones, stated that if the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was global and as warm as now, then “that’s another ballgame”. The Climate Gate email conversations showed great concern about the MWP. (In fact, they went so far as to state that they had to get rid of the MWP!) The IPCC and its cohort insist that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon. This firm position may have more than a little to do with the threat of an embarrassing question — “If the MWP was as warm (probably warmer) than now, why do you think humans are now the cause of our current warming?” In order to justify the CAGW hypothesis any credible scientist would have surely found it necessary to temporarily put their hypothesis aside and undertaken a global investigation to ensure that there was actually no global warming trend during the MWP. They instead cling precariously to their claim that the MWP was merely regional and not as warm. This not only denies the numerous existing studies, along with various anecdotal evidence, which contradicts their positon. They also instead demand that skeptics provide evidence that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. But, if even one region remote from Europe
            shows that warming trend, their shaky claim begins to collapse. As it turns out the warming trend shows up in many such regions.

            The CAGW hypothesis not only lacks any empirical evidence, it is further exacerbated by layering on more speculation, namely the claims that water vapor is the actual culprit. What is so amazing is there were numerous peer-reviewed studies available showing the MWP to be global and as warm as now long before alarmist cries reverted from cries of a cooling crisis to a warming crisis. (Holdren, science adviser to Obama, has operated as an alarmist in both cases.) Alarmist denials continue even now, as studies contradicting CAGW continue to show up almost weekly. The website co2science.org has links to all the MWP peer reviewed studies which also employ numerous different temperature proxies. In addition, there are also some 6,000 boreholes from around the globe which show that the MWP trend was global.

            There were several earlier warmings during this interglacial before the MWP, all warmer than the MWP. Even the IPCC only claims that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, and with less likelihood, (but no justification provided) for the past 1200 years. Lord Monckton points out that while the IPCC has finally admitted in its latest report that the current rate of warming is lower than published in their earlier claims they have not bothered to revise their out-years high temperature estimate.

            An ancient forest in Alaska (Mendenhall Glacier), recently retreated sufficiently to expose some splintered trunks preserved in their original upright positions. Receding Swiss glaciers have revealed 4000 year old forests showing that area to have been glacier free at that time. Antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have also recently shown up in Scandinavia and the Alps at latitudes where grapes cannot be raised today. Attempts to blow such information off as “anecdotal evidence” is ridiculous.

            Both NASA and NOAA base their “analysis” strictly on terrestrial data, evidently ignoring satellite data! In late 2014 these two “science” organizations claimed that 2014 was the “hottest” year, but both soon backed down after skeptics pointed out that if their same analysis had been applied to satellite data, then 2014 was either 3rd or 6th hottest. (Either situation would imply at least a short term cooling underway.) Also, neither agency felt the need to include in their initial press releases that the difference amongst recent warm year global temperatures was miniscule, (a few hundredths of one degree) so well within the uncertainty error, and therefore their contrived comparison was meaningless. The major news media, as usual, jumped on their original news (2014 “hottest”) release, but overlooked the NOAA/NASA subsequent retreat. These agencies are still at it, now claiming
            that June 2015 was the “hottest” month. There has also been no accompanying acknowledgement that sea ice extent in the Arctic recently increased about 30% and sea ice extent around the Antarctic continues to break records.

            Quite recently the two agencies (now evidently desperate) decided to revise the sea surface temperatures in an apparent effort to deal with the temperature “hiatus”. But, as CFACT points out “…NOAA adjusted sea-surface temperature (SST) data from buoys upward by .12 degrees C, to make them ‘homogeneous’ with lengthier records from past engine intake systems in ships. However, engine intake data are ‘clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the ships, and that data were never intended for scientific use – whereas the global buoy network was designed for environmental monitoring”. These agencies recently declared that their three datasets were “independent”, clearly a dubious claim when not accompanied by clarifying information. As pointed out earlier, all three datasets are basically using the same raw data.

            It’s now time to look at the government “solution” for what is very likely a non-problem. Obama wants to reduce electrical power emissions by 32% by 2030. The following is quoted directly from Joanne Nova’ website which merely confirms what the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, recently admitted:

            This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100.

            Whether these alarmists have good intentions and no actual knowledge (therefore little more than “useful idiots”) or are stupid, or willing to lie because they believe in some higher principle (one-world government, or abhor the fossil fuel industry) hardly matters. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

          • Edward Silha

            Denis Ables wrote <<>>

            Even Tol (who “debunked” the Cook paper – not) agrees there is an overwhelming consensus and everyone is aware of it.

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/richard-tols-fourth-draft/#comment-822

            <<>>

            So even though Tol criticizes the Cook paper, he agrees that the 97% is close to correct.

            There have been more than 7 studies that support a conclusion that the consensus among scientists is over 80%. Skeptics might be able to prove there is no consensus by running their own survey. However, they will not because they know that the result will be the same as the previous studies.

            Denis Ables wrote <<>>

            If all the CO2 were to be removed from the atmosphere, the average global temperature would be 0 degrees Fahrenheit rather than 60 degrees. The tiny amount of CO2 has a large effect on the climate. Attempting to convince readers that the CO2 concentration is small enough to ignore is just an attempt to mislead the reader.

            Denis Ables wrote <<>>

            http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

            Your claim seems to be false.

            Your post is just personal opinion. Even though climate change skeptic scientists are a very small percentage overall, you should be able to find some research they have published to support your claims. Yet you have failed to do so. Totally unconvincing.

          • Denis Ables

            consensus claims are total nonsense. The rebuttals can be found at WUWT, among other places. This is just one of many distractions because you folks have no empirical evidence that co2 has EVER had any impact on global temperature. Take the time to read the total rebuttal and get back to me with arguments.

          • Denis Ables

            RSS satellite shows no additional temperature for 18 years and 9 months now. The duration is still building, in spite of an el nino underway. UAH indicates the same 18+ years, but a few months leThat trend analysis is NOT “personal opinion”. That analysis is SOP, The data is available. Neither is that cherry-picked data. It is determined by the data itself and answers the question… for how long has there been no additional warming.

            You have not provided any credible response to the fact that there is NO empirical evidence that co2, even over geologic periods when its level was much higher that it has any impact on glolbal temperatjure.

            You can find thorough rebuttals easily that the consensus are bogus, but your denial is merely a distraction, to avoid the basis contention — no empirical evidence.

            The reports about the remains of trees, still in their original positions now being exposed by retreating glciers, in both Alaska and Europe, dated 1,000 and 4,000 years old, is also easily available. I’ll not spoon feed you. That shows there were much warmer durations than now in our current interfglacial and when co2 level was at 280ppmv

            It is trued that skeptics “disagree on how much co2 increase will impact temperature, that is RADICALLY different than the UN IPCC and its cohorts that the PRINCIPLE cause of current warming (such as it is) is due to human activity. Keep in mind that co2 ability to impact temperature diminishes as its level increases, and that satellites detect heat escaping to space. (A real greenhouse does not permit that, nor does it permit convection beyond its containinment. Neither does a greenhouse experience planetary level feedbacks.

            Your response easily identifies you as one of the true believers, a worshipper, producing a mass of obfuscation and distraction (and DENIAL.) Instead of attempting to find the truth, you deny that the MWP was as warm, likely warmer than now and then deny the evidence easily available – 6,000 boreholes showing the MWP trend was global, and peer reviewed studies showing that it was warmer than now in numerous regions around the globe remote from Europe. The truth about the Medieval Warming Period is your hell.

            Ironically, it is YOU who have ibeen providing “personal opinion” (straight from the SkepticalScience website (appropriately named)

      • Edward Silha

        Starchild wrote <<>>

        Solar insolation peaked around 1960 and has been decreasing since 1975 and would normally cause temperatures to decrease. However, the amount of energy stored by the planet (90% being stored in the seas) continues to increase as indicated by the measured increases in global surface temperatures and ocean temperatures (surface and below). So the contention that GHG’s are responsible for more than 100% is not based on dogma but observations and physics.

        Your claim that scientists and those that agree with the IPCC conclusions do not acknowledge natural factors do not affect climate change is false (see the graph at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

        Starchild wrote <>

        So you are claiming that the following are alarmists?
        http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
        http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf
        http://video.mit.edu/watch/what-we-know-about-climate-change-prof-kerry-emanuel-mit-club-of-northern-california-27750/
        http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-20110105
        http://katharinehayhoe.com/?page_id=5
        http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
        http://www.us-cap.org
        http://www.c2es.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc#BELC-principles
        http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
        Academies of Science from 80 different countries all endorse the consensus.
        https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    • dougt

      if you think that the earth should be naturally cooling, then it is possible for more than 100% of the warming to be attributed to human activity…depending on how one interprets the question. Or there could be other “factors” that would lead to a cooling contribution that are more than 100% offset by human GHG, again, it is interpretation of the question.

      • Denis Ables

        Apparently the longer term trend, 65 million years, the earth is cooling, but we all live in much shorter periods. There was a cooling from the 40s to the 70s. It was as warm as now (for at least a year or two in the 30s. Our current warming (such as it is) began not in the mid 1800s, but – by definition – at the bottom of the LIA which was in the mid 1600s. (That’s a couple of hundred years BEFORE co2 began rising and apart from UHI, which is a local impact by human activity, co2 is the only other possible way for humans to have had any impact on the global temperature.)

        We have two weather satellites, which both show no additional warming for the past 18+ years. The arguments about which year is “hottest” are contrived meaningless comparisons because the difference in the annual global temperature amongst recent years is a few hundredrths of a degree, well within the uncertainty error.

        In the meantime I suggest you focus on the lack of any empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER (including over geological periods, and covering periods when co2 was several times higher than now) had any impact on global temperature.

        Please don’t show ignorance by suggesting that I show you the evidence that there is no evidence. There is plenty of data which conflicts with the claim that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming. (the totally unjustifiable IPCC position on this issue.)

        • dougt

          It’s my understanding that over geological time scales, CO2 levels and temperature are highly correlated, although that might not prove cause and effect.

          • Denis Ables

            That was the first interpretation, way back when samples of co2 variation over time were compared against samples of temperature variation. There was an obvious correlation. When both samples were taken from the same core it became OBVIOUS that temperature variation was first and very similar co2 variations took place LATER – (from 800 to 2800 years later). This was evidently known a hyear or more before Al Gore published his book but he did not acknowledge it.There’s no doubt about that for the past several years.

            As you noted, correlation does not imply causation, but in this case there is an explanation. It’s the carbon cycle at work. Oceans absorb co2 when cooling and outgas when warming. Perhaps more important, this correlation (which tracks both up and down trends very well) eliminates the possibility of the opposite correlation!

        • Edward Silha

          Denis Ables wrote: In the meantime I suggest you focus on the lack of any empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER (including over geological periods, and covering periods when co2 was several times higher than now) had any impact on global temperature.
          The Vostok ice cores (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg) provide a 420,000 year record of temperature and CO2 concentrations. It is important to note that correlations do not prove causation. However, correlations that agree with basic physics are evidence that our understanding of physics is generally correct. The ice cores show that CO2 concentrations lagged the end of a glacial period by 600 to 1000 years. It is generally accepted that the last four glacial cycles have been initiated by the variations in the orbit of the earth (primarily the Milankovitch cycles).
          However, the orbital variation alone do not explain the range of temperatures across a glacial period There a feedback effects of a change in temperature that are independent of human activity. An increase in temperature increases the amount of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere (a positive feedback). As the planet warms, CO2 is emitted from the oceans and melting permafrost.
          The existence of the greenhouse effect has been researched for almost 200 years. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is known as is that of other greenhouse gasses. Increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is also a positive feedback on temperature because is slows the radiation of energy back to space.
          Even “skeptical climate scientists” such as Judith Curry agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increased concentrations will cause a rise in global temperatures. http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/
          Such skeptics only disagree as to the Effective Climate Sensitivity (ECS – the number of degrees of temperature change caused by a doubling of CO2 concentrations).

          • Denis Ables

            Check out Dr. David Evans’ latest comments which include some needed revisions to the basic climate model….

            sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

          • Edward Silha

            You are willing to believe an individual that is not a climate scientist and has not published on climate change in a peer reviewed journal but you ignore that nearly every climate scientists, including skeptics such as Judith Curry, accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
            Why?

            Have you considered the following references which include two actual publishing climate scientists?
            http://video.mit.edu/watch/what-we-know-about-climate-change-prof-kerry-emanuel-mit-club-of-northern-california-27750/
            Emanuel Kerry sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan.
            http://katharinehayhoe.com/?page_id=5
            Katherine Hayhoe is an Evangelical Christian.
            http://riskybusiness.org
            Henry Paulson – Secretary of the Treasury under President George W. Bush
            Gregory Page – executive chairman of Cargill.
            George Shultz – Republican who served under Nixon and Regan
            Olympia Snowe – Republican senator from Maine
            Al Sommer – member the National Academy of Sciences and its Institute of Medicine
            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/23/epa-william-ruckelshaus-republicans-climate-change?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Version+A&utm_term=139043&subid=13427972&CMP=ema_565a
            http://polling.clearpath.org/docs/clearpath_survey_report.pdf

            William Ruckelshaus: the first head of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 (appointed by Richard Nixon, reappointed by Ronald Reagan)
            Republicans’ arguments are all partisan driven, they aren’t based on any legitimate analysis of science.

          • Denis Ables

            More distraction. The resumes of folks who may believe as you do is irrelevant. You can’t get by the basic problem. When there’s no empirical evidence, the hypothesis is hardly better than speculation. When it’s been conclusively shown that there have been many warmer durations during this interglacial, before co2 began increasing, it further weakens your hypothesis. When you distract or obfuscate, rather than providing an acknowledgement it is an implicit admission that you have no answer for that claim.

          • Edward Silha

            Unless you are a climate scientist with publications in peer reviewed journals, second guessing climate scientists (nearly everyone of them) seems absurd. What makes you believe your opinion is more valid that those of the following organizations and individuals?
            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
            http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf
            http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/05/nation/la-na-scientist-climate-20110105
            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php – search opr.ca.gov listoforganizations
            IPCC conclusions are that climate change is very likely to be a significant risk to the economy and wellbeing of US citizens and citizens of other countries. Consider crossing a busy street. The risk of serious injury or death is less than 1% when crossing with the traffic light and a 5% risk (1 in 20) of crossing against the light. If you have your children in tow, would you cross against the light?
            This page contains links and lists to over 200
            ] /international science organizations that accept the IPCC conclusions. I know of no international science organization that takes a contradictory position.

            The following two links contain lists of large international corporations that accept the IPCC conclusions and warn of the risks of inactioin.
            http://www.us-cap.org
            http://www.c2es.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc#BELC-principles
            http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
            Academies of Science from 80 different countries all endorse the consensus.
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
            http://www.clearpath.org/en/why-clean-energy/scientific-perspectives/the-organizational-consensus.html
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
            http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/
            Our survey showed that 87% of the AAAS members surveyed believe that climate change is caused by humans;
            http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/chapter-3-attitudes-and-beliefs-on-science-and-technology-topics/
            AAAS scientists on climate change
            77% a very serious problem
            17% a serious problem
            6% – not serious or not a problem

            Do you believe you are more knowledgeable than the individuals in these organizations?
            Looking forward to your answer.

          • Pham Newan

            Look at you desperately trying to counter a study designed specifically to properly inform a government on policy. Chill and deal with the facts.

          • Edward Silha

            The point of my post listing Kerry, Hayhoe, et. al. is to note that rational rational Republicans accept the IPCC conclusions. There are only a minuscule portion of publishing scientists that disagree with the IPCC conclusions and most of them accept the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that will cause the global temperature to increase. Their only disagreement is that the magnitude of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity but they all agree that is is greater than 1 degree kelvin.

            There is not a single international science organization that disputes the IPCC conclusions.
            In 1999, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists “stood alone” among scientific organizations in rejecting the IPCC findings, calling them “wildly distorted and politicized”, a position that aligned the association with the fossil fuel industry. By 2007, many of their members had resigned in protest against the position so the AAPG revised its position such that it did not explicitly support the IPCC findings but it no longer rejected them. Moreover, it withdrew its criticism of other scientific organizations that supported the IPCC finding, stating that it respected the opinions of the organizations it had been criticizing.

            There is not a single university that does not teach that CO2 is greenhouse gas.

            If you do not understand physics, you cannot possible form an independent opinion on climate change. Your only option is to accept the position of the experts I have listed in other posts.

          • LoyalCatholic

            Explain how the Laurentian Ice Sheets melted 20,000 years ago, genius.

          • Denis Ables

            “The Vostok ice cores provide a 420,000 year record of temperature…” More distraction. So what? During the past 420,000 years the co2 level has been 280ppm. No change until about 1850. But even rabid “scientist” believers in CAGW recognize that it would have taken until about 1950 for co2 level to have had any impact on global temperature. However, there was a cooling from the 40s to the mid 70s, so the alarmist hypothesis depends entirely on less than 30 years of increasing temperature, from the mid 70s to 1998. That hardly qualifies, even remotely as a valid claim of “correlation”. (I understand that you DENY that our two weather satellites show conclusively no additional warming since about 1998.) We’ll let the readers pass judgement on this distraction:

            https://stream.org/no-global-warming-18-years-9-months-new-record-just-time-un-summit-paris/

          • Edward Silha

            Denis Ables wrote: During the past 420,000 years the co2 level has been 280ppm

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
            It is clear that you did not look at the Vostok graphs, that you are not knowledgeable of the physics that explains why the climate is changing, and that you must resort to conspiracy theories that involve the collusion of nearly every climate scientist, nearly every scientific organization (e.g., AMS, AGU, APS), and the national academies of nearly every developed country in the world.

            Based on the Vostok ice cores, CO2 concentrations were 280 ppm during the inter-glacials but dropped to 180 ppm during the peaks of the glacial periods. I doubt that you are aware that if the concentrations of CO2 were reduced to 0 ppm, the average temperature of the planet would be 0 degrees Fahrenheit?

          • Denis Ables

            The usual DISTRACTION. What part do you not understand about the fact that there is no empirical evidence that co2 has EVER, even over geologic periods, had any impact on our planet’s temperature? You refuse to even acknowledge that. Isn’t that the same as a (heaven forbid) DENIAL ?

            If there is no empirical evidence, even with co2 level at 2,000 + ppmv it seems pretty clear that everything else is but a distraction.

            I’m sure you also DENY that the MWP was global – another debate which is a distraction.

            You’ve also wandered away from your earlier weak attempt to rebut the fact that the two weather satellites show no additional warming for the past 18+ years. That would also seem to be a denial. Mentioning Monckton to an alarmist seems to be the equivalent of waving a cross at a vampire.

            Dr. Craig Idso (co2science.org) claims that the four prior interglacials were all 2 degrees warmer than our current interglacial, and co2 level in our current interglacial is 40% higher. That shows a LOT of no climate sensitivity to co2 level, does it not? (Do you also DENY that?)

            In any event, I don’t think the current group of “deniers” would accept you as a card carrying member.

          • Denis Ables

            NOAA and NASA have opted to IGNORE (? deny) our two weather satellites. The reader can use their imagination to decide why this is the case.

            There are 5 global temperature datasets, 3 terrestrial and 2 satellite. However, according to Phil Jones (2003) the three terrestrial datasets all utilize 90 to 95% of the same raw data. There are three sets of terrestrial temperature datasets only because three separate organizations are involved and each makes its own revisions to the raw data. With regard to satellites, as of September 2015, UAH shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 5 months and RSS shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 8 months. (However, as Monckton points out, this could change because the upcoming el Nino, a natural warming event, may bring on some additional temporary warming.) Neither is this 18+ year duration cherry picked. Determination of that date span depends solely on the data itself and answers a relevant question, namely – for how long has there been no additional warming? If the same analysis for the two satellites is instead applied to the mean of all 5 datasets, there has been no additional warming for the past 13+ years. (However, since the three terrestrial datasets are basically derived from the same raw data, the 3/5 weighting for terrestrial data in that “mean” appears to be overly generous. Acknowledgement of that would further increase the 13 years average to 15.5 years.)

            The three terrestrial datasets have other problems. Even the
            current raw data must be continually revised because many stations are located within or near UHIs and that effect, which frequently changes over time, must be re-ESTIMATED and eliminated. Why the historic terrestrial data also needs
            revision and invariably those historic “corrections” produce more current warming is not so obvious. (Statistical analysis of such an outcome indicates the “corrections” cannot be due to random errors.) Also, the distance between some land stations may be as much as 1200km, and there is even more spread between
            stations in remote areas (jungles, mountains, deserts, plains, grasslands, etc.) Finally, many land based temperature stations do not satisfy even the basic requirements laid down by the government. Why in the world have NOAA and NASA
            not included a separate analysis, for comparison purposes, which uses only the rawdata from rural locations? This subset would have required few, if any ongoing revisions. Both NASA and NOAA strictly base their claims on the terrestrial data. Why? And neither agency provides any caveats in their public
            declarations. Why would any science organization do such shoddy investigating?

            More on the“accuracy” of the terrestrial data can be found at the sites below:

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/problematic-adjustments-and-divergences-now-includes-june-data/

            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/massive-temperature-adjustments-at-luling-texas/

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/more-mind-blowing-fraud-from-the-obama-administration/

            http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.XR13WqVT.dpbs

          • Edward Silha

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
            http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
            If you know anything about identifying averages and trends in noisy data, you will have to admit your claim that there has been no warming in the past 18 years is false. The trend lines in these graphs is positive.
            Furthermore, the satellite temperature sets are very likely to have a larger error component:

            http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
            A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). So I don’t think the problem can be explained fully by measurement errors
            Does this slow-down in the warming mean that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is no longer valid? The short answer is ‘no’. The denialists like to assume that the cause for the model/observation discrepancy is some kind of problem with the fundamental model physics, and they pooh-pooh any other sort of explanation. This leads them to conclude, very likely erroneously, that the long-term sensitivity of the climate is much less than is currently thought.

          • Denis Ables

            You obviously haven’t studied Monckton’s analysis. The trend line is NOT positive. The longest period for which it remains that way is the current 18 years, 9 months (RSS). For any longer period it is not, and if the el nino does what it’s supposed to do (naturally) even that may for at least a brief period cut the current trend back. Nonetheless, it shows that with co2 level at its highest, there has been no additional warming for quite a long period.

            Surface data set temperatures are not very accurate, and that’s without bothering to mention the fraudulent revisions which have transpired. Now that’s the strongest confirmation bias I’ve ever heard about, without some group ending up in the slammer!

            You haven’t read David Evans’ latest discoveries. The basic physics does indeed have a problem and the necessary revision in the modeling shows that co2 impact cannot be very significant.I have no doubt that you dutifully become a denial on that one too.

          • Edward Silha

            Denis Ables wrote: Surface data set temperatures are not very accurate, and that’s without bothering to mention the fraudulent revisions which have transpired.
            Did you not read my previous post copying material from the http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures? The person responsible for analyzing the satellite data wrote “which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets “. Seems like the scientists analyzing the satellite data would consider you claim to be false.

            Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change. He has published opinion pieces in right-wing free-market publications. He has stated that “I am not a climate modeler” .
            In the link you provided, Evans states – Extra absorbed sunlight changes the total heat radiated by the Earth, but extra carbon dioxide does not*—because total outflow is just equal to the inflow (once steady state resumes). Increasing carbon dioxide merely redistributes how much heat is variously emitted to space from water vapor, carbon dioxide, the surface, cloud tops, etc.
            He qualifies his statement to apply to “steady state”. Given that CO2 concentrations continue to increase, the planetary system has not reached steady state. The increased CO2 content increases the scattering of longwave radiation from the surface, some of which is reflected back to the surface. At the surface, the additional energy reflected by the increased CO2 simply adds to the energy received from the sun. His claim is misleading.
            If some but not all climate models contained serious structural errors, there would be a large disparity in the results and there is not. Discovering a basic error in the models would make a reputation for the scientist that found it. Given how long the models have been in use, the number of models that exist, and the fact that they have been examined microscopically by many different scientists (including those skeptical of AGW) the probability that they all contain serious structural errors is vanishing small.

          • Denis Ables

            Whether Evans’ discovery is valid is, as he states, to be determined. He is using the internet as a useful tool before he generates the publication document. Feedback will not be bashful and plenty of it will be constructive.

            I have some physics background, and a lot of mathematics, but haven’t used much of it over the past 50 years. However, I’m also familiar with scientific method, and since i have no ax to grind, it probably becomes obvious to me long before those who have developed a firm confirmation bias. The climate modelers are not about to consider how ludicrous their positon is. There are major flaws somewhere in that hypothesis. There is way too much conflicting evidence (and, as I’ve stated before NO empirical evidence) showing that co2 level has EVER had any impact on global wqrming. There are undoubtedly flaws somewhere. Evans may, or may not have found a critical flaw. Those who claim to understand the physics and refuse to review his claim because they think the science is “settled” are all suspects. They invested too much in the process to accept outsiders’ views. Not at all unusual, and these folks, otherwise decent scientists, are not looked upon favorable in the subsequent history recordings.

            Publications in “right-wing free-market publications”. So what?

            I see the same problem in cosmology. Even Einstein believed that gravity was the operative force in the universe. But some physicists / astrophysicists, particularly those who dabble in plasma and also in astronomy, quickly recognized that the universe is driven by electricity. Obviously, in this context, the “red shift” becomes suspect when interpreted the same way across the universe. EM is orders of magnitude greater than gravity and, what’s more offers both attractive and repulsive forces.

            The oldtimers refuse to believe this, are supposedly such “experts” that they can describe what happened a few nanoseconds after the big bang. Where has that taken us? We have invented dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, expanding space, multiple dimensions. None of this has led anywhere. It’s way past time to re-examine the basic theory, and there’s plenty of bright physicists beginning to do that.

            Clearly the actions of many of those those physicists who think the science is settled reflect poorly on them. They DENY the MWP, piddle with the raw data, hide their processes,etc, hardly the work of unbiased scientists. Unfortuantely, there is now an attractive force for such folks; (the western governments who love this hobgoblin) Many of those with integrity had a helluva time getting anything published, and that continues, at least somewhat even to this day. The IPCC and its cohort basically controlled the (supposedly) elite publications by pressure on the editors. Peer review means almost nothing, and in climate science has degenerated into peer-review by your “bro” at the next desk. That behavior, coupled with politicians who will do most anything to protect their agenda,has become a disaster.

          • old guy

            Excellant! If you substitute GREEDY-POGENIC effects for ANTHRO-POGENIC effects, you just may have the real driver.

          • Denis Ables

            The alarmists also invariably deny that the Medieval Warming Period was as warm, likely warmer, than now. They claim, with NO justification, that the MWP was merely a regional phenomenon. Let the readers decide.

            At least one well known member of the IPCC cabal, Phil Jones, stated that if the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was global and as warm as now, then “that’s another ballgame”. The Climate Gate email conversations showed concern about the MWP. (In fact, at least one email made clear that they had to get rid of the MWP !) The IPCC and its cohort also continue to insist that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon, and not as warm as now. This completely unjustifiable claim is apparently an attempt to avoid having to deal with an embarrassing question — “If the MWP, a natural event 1,000 years ago, was as warm (probably warmer) than now, why do you think humans are the cause of our current warming?” Certainly any credible scientist who was also a proponent of CAGW should have, at the outset, insisted that a global investigation be undertaken to confirm whether the MWP was global. But this alarmist group chose instead to ignore the evidence and cling to their belief. They instead demand that the skeptics provide evidence that the MWP was global and as warm or warmer than now. Think about that. If even one region remote from Europe shows the same warming trend, their claim that the MWP was merely regional begins to crumble. As it turns out, higher temperatures during the MWP, as well as the MWP trend show up in numerous remote locations. It’s unlikely that these “scientists” were unaware of this problem.

            Ironically, there were numerous peer-reviewed studies available showing the MWP to be global and as warm, likely warmer, long before the alarmist position even became public. In fact, that was known even before their cries reverted from claims of oncoming ice age to global warming. (Holdren, science adviser to Obama, was an alarmist about cooling before becoming an alarmist for warming.) The alarmist denials continue even now, in spite of new confirming studies continuing to show up regularly, as often as weekly. The website co2science.org has links to all the MWP peer reviewed studies. These numerous confirming peer-reviewed studies have employed various temperature proxies, including some newer methods not available during earlier studies and these also agree with the earlier studies. And then there are the results from 6,000 boreholes around the globe which independently (and readily) confirm that the MWP trend was indeed global.

            The Alaskan Mendenhall Glacier, recently retreated sufficiently to expose some splintered tree trunks (dated 1000+ years old) preserved in their original upright positions. Receding Swiss glaciers have revealed 4,000 year-old trees which indicate
            that forests were present earlier at that latitude. (It is also apparent that the glaciers were then considerably further north from their current position. Forests don’t grow anywhere near the glacier line.) Antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have also been exposed in Scandinavia and the Alps at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown even today. Burial sites have been found beneath the permafrost. Attempts to brush off that aggregation of information as “anecdotal evidence” is ludicrous. Claiming that the dating of these recently exposed splintered tree trunks may be inaccurate is irrelevant, actually ludicrous, because that in no way eliminates the fact that there were warmer durations before now, when co2 level was at its lowest (280ppmv) during the past million+ years. This evidence is being exposed at latitudes where trees can no longer grow.

            What’s more, there were several earlier warm durations during this interglacial before the MWP, all warmer than the MWP. (Actually, each such period was warmer than the adjacent later period.) Even the IPCC only claims that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, and with less likelihood, (but no justification provided) for the past 1200 years. Lord Monckton points out that while the IPCC has finally admitted in its latest report that the current RATE of warming is now lower than published earlier, their committee (which reviews every word of their public report multiple times) has still somehow managed to avoid correcting their egregious out-years high temperature estimate. If you actually believe this “error” was inadvertent see me about a bridge I want to sell.

          • Denis Ables

            Dr Craig Idso claims that during the four interglacials before our current one (a period of about 340,000 years) the temperature in each was 2 degrees higher than now. Yet, the co2 level is now up 40%, and we’re likely a long way into our current interglacial (average duration of interglacials over the past 1.3 million years is 10,000 years.) Not much sensitivity to co2 level there either.

            At the same time our two weather satellites (treated as “unmentionables” by both NOAA and NASA) show no warming for the past 18+ years, and co2 level is at its highest in quite a long time.

            The alarmists continue to offer only distraction and obfuscation (exemplified by your response above). No evidence. No admission that the MWP was both global and warmer than now, etc., etc.

          • Edward Silha

            Denis Ables wrote: Yet, the co2 level is now up 40%, and we’re likely a long way into our current interglacial.) Not much sensitivity to co2 level there either.

            Judith Curry (an AGW skeptic) has argued for a TCR of 1 degree C or less. The IPCC estimates TCR is between 1 degree C and 3.5 degrees C.
            https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6-2-3.html
            http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/
            More important is the range of the expected ECS. J. Curry believes it is between 1 and 3 degrees C. The IPCC equivalent estimate is 1.5 and 6 degrees C. If the ECS is near 1, the world can adapt to a doubling of CO2 concentration. If it is 3 degrees C, adaptation will be very difficult without limiting emissions of CO2. If it is 6 degrees, the planet will experience catastrophic changes unless we limit CO2 emissions. There are no estimates from any scientists (including the skeptics) that are less than 1 degree C, implying that 1 degree C is a lower limit.

            Denis Ables wrote: No admission that the MWP was both global and warmer than now, etc., etc.

            You have provided no evidence (peer reviewed research) that the MWP was a global event, only opinions of those that do not accept the IPCC conclusions. Opinions of a single person or a small group are useless when deciding on what is accepted science.

            Denis Ables wrote: Alarmists also continue to ignore the relatively recent evidence being exposed by receding glaciers in Alaska and in the Swiss alps, of upright splintered trees still in their original location, with dates of 1,000 and 4,000 years old respectively.

            It is no secret that over time glaciers have alternated between advancing and retreating. Even today, some glaciers that originate at high elevations continue to advance, being driven by the snow fall at the high elevations. Your comment proves nothing.

            Denis Ables wrote: Then there are the numerous peer-reviewed studies which confirm the MWP was warmer

            I searched co2science.org but found no references to the MWP or peer reviewed studies.

            https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html
            The evidence currently available indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of widespread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).

          • Denis Ables

            Let’s start out with your silliest claim. It is incumbent on those with this warming hypothesis to ensure that the MWP was not global and not as warm as now. Unlike any credible group of scientists, that would be the FIRST thing they’d do, if they were conerned that that issue raised questions about their theory. Instead, the alarmists claim the MWP is “regional” and wasn’t that warm. As stated earlier, 6,000 boreholes show the trend was global, and 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies (links to all via co2science.org. This is without getting into all numerous other supporting facts, such as the Mendhall glacier in Alaska and glaciers in the Swiss alps which are receding and uncovering trees in their original positons.

            The warmists not only have provided any evidence to support their cult-like claims about the MWP. They refuse to acknowledge it even when faced with the tons of evidence already in existence. Keep in mind, that if even one region remote from Europe shows the MWP trend, their entire hypothesis becomes very shakey. While not every borehole or ice core, sediment etc., reading is successful, there are NUMEROUS regions remote from Europe which do show the trend and the higher temperature. Done deal.

            You actually claim that recent uncovering of trees by receding glaciers is NOT evidience?!
            Those tree remnants have been dated. The EVIDENCE is that trees do not NOW grow at that lattitude (so it was WARMER back then, much WARMER, in fact, because trees don’t grow anywhere near the glacier line. What part don’t you understand?

            I now understand why you can’t find anything at co2science.org. I’ll just have to let the readers decide for themselves on that one. It’s not possible to even spoon feed a baby who isn’t hungry.

            So, you also reject the various peer-reviewed studies which established that each warming duration during this interglacial was (going back in time) warmer than the adjacent more current one. Even the IPCC admits that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, then adds, (with a lower unspecified probability) that the record may go back to cover the MWP. They don’t even mention the ones BEFORE the MWP, and they have no evidence, none, to support the 1200 year span.

            Phil Jones (who you quote) stated that if the MWP was as warm as now, that’s another ballgame. It is indeed another ballgame, and part of the reason the warmists DENY the existence of a global MWP, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

            And, they deny that there is NO evidence, NONE, showing that co2 level has EVER had any IMPACT on temperature, even over geologic periods when co2 level was SEVERAL TIMES higher.

            (This is mostly for the benefit of other readers with open minds.) It’s now firmly established that you are one of those folks who is going to go down as a believer with all flags flying. Unable to question the numerous dubious nonsense by the IPCC and its cohort, and at the same time demanding evidence, which that group is obligated, but cannot provide.

          • Edward Silha

            Denis Ables wrote: It is incumbent on those with this warming hypothesis to ensure that the MWP was not global and not as warm as now.

            You are claiming that it was warmer during the global MWP that it is today. Those that make claims must provide evidence to support those claims. The IPCC conclusion based on the published research is that there is insufficient evidence to make such a claim. None of the temperature reconstructions (at least 13) support such a claim.

            Nearly every science organization in the world accepts the IPCC conclusions.
            – e.g., AAAS, AMS, API, AGU
            – The national academies of 34 countries have accepted the IPCC report
            – No other national academy has disputed the findings.
            – The executives of over 50 international corporations have accepted the IPCC report
            http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/
            Our survey showed that 87% of the AAAS members surveyed believe that climate change is caused by humans;
            http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/chapter-3-attitudes-and-beliefs-on-science-and-technology-topics/
            AAAS scientists on climate change
            77% a very serious problem
            17% a serious problem
            6% – not serious or not a problem
            Even a majority of the American public accepts the IPCC conclusions.

            Either you are wrong or the must be a worldwide conspiracy hiding the truth.
            Which do you think it is?

      • Denis Ables

        righto. And if you believe that most “scientists” who answered that way had that interpretation, I’ve got a bridge for sale ……

        (Any scientist who responded and doesn’t know that there is NO empirical evidence that co2 level has EVER, even over geologic periods when co2 level was several times higher than now, is no more qualified as a respondent than the-man-on-the-street.) These bogus surveys are becoming tiresome. Votes don’t count on scientific truths.

        • Edward Silha

          Your post seems to be incomplete as you mention CO2 levels but not what you object to.
          However, you are absolutely that opinions are worthless in relation to validating scientific theory. Experiments and measurements of the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been replicated and refined for nearly 200 years. Look in the Britannica or any other encyclopedia, in any high school or college text book, The American Institute of Physics (https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm), Georgia State University (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html) or any university.

    • Pham Newan

      “The 17% who responded to 1a as greater than 100% ??? should be excluded
      from counts in 1b. (and perhaps also from the gene pool)”
      What it means is that those scientists believed it should have been cooling, but wasn’t because of AGW. I think they are anomalous as well.

      • Edward Silha

        Based on the decreased solar insolation (peaked about 1960 and is lower now) the global temperatures would have decreased. It is totally rational to assert that the effect of CO2 increase is greater (more than 100 percent) of the temperature increase over the past 75 years.

    • Russ Walker

      You’ve read what the question is asking incorrectly. Think of it this way. If you have £1000 and earn 3% interest pa, what percentage of your initial money will you have after a year?

      It’s entirely possible to have greater than 100%. It means, in this case, more than you started with.

  • JOHNBOY11

    yet the one continues to shut down coal power plants…can’t wait to pay 5x as much for power

  • Edward Silha

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf
    <<>>

    The above excerpt is from a letter signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences (11 of whom are Nobel Laureates).

    Does what they write apply to any of the participants on this forum?

    http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
    https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes
    Human activities—especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution—have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 40%, with more than half the increase occurring since 1970. Since 1900, the global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F). This has been accompanied by warming of the ocean, a rise in sea level, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and many other associated climate effects. Much of this warming has occurred in the last four decades. Detailed analyses have shown that the warming during this period is mainly a result of the increased concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

    Nearly all the Academies of other developed nations have taken similar positions and none has denied the IPCC conclusions.

    Is anyone on this forum claiming to be more knowledgeable than these most knowledgeable scientists? Is anyone that arrogant?

    • starchild

      It has not been proven that increased CO2 concentrations are responsible for the warming, and the quote you’ve cited does not claim otherwise. There have been higher CO2 concentrations at other times in earth’s history that did not correspond with higher temperatures than at present and obviously did not produce a dreaded “tipping point” of no return in which the warming trend produced further warming in an endless feedback loop.

      • Edward Silha

        The following science organizations agree that

        1. Climate change is occurring
        2. It is caused mostly by human activity (primarily CO2 emissions
        3. The change represents a serious threat to the environment, the economy, and numerous species.

        National Academy of Sciences of the US
        Geological Society of America
        InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
        US National Research Council
        Geological Society of America
        World Meteorological Organization
        American Association of State Climatologists
        American Astronomical Society
        American Chemical Society
        American College of Preventive Medicine
        American Fisheries Society
        American Geophysical Union
        American Institute of Biological Sciences
        American Institute of Physics
        American Meteorological Society
        American Physical Society
        American Public Health Association
        American Quaternary Association
        American Society for Microbiology
        American Society of Agronomy
        American Society of Civil Engineers
        American Society of Plant Biologists
        American Statistical Association
        Federation of American Scientists
        This list represents a few of the nearly 200 science organizations that accept the IPCC conclusion that the earth is warming and human activities that emit greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

        http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
        http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

        Do you have an equivalent list of reputable science organizations that reject the IPCC findings?
        Hint: As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

        Do you believe you are more knowledgeable about climate science than the members of these organizations?

        Would you claim that not one of these organizations is credible sources of climate science and if so, explain why?

        To have a rational discussion, we need to agree on a set of credible sources. If you do not agree that the above listed sources are credible, please explain why.

        • starchild

          Edward, the first link you provided says it lists scientific organizations “That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action”. That’s a pretty vague statement which is not the same as the three-point assertion you set forth above. Of course the first point of your three is also sort of meaningless — climate change has always been occurring, throughout Earth’s history. The second link contains a document signed by representatives of 13 organizations, not “nearly 200”. It also states, misleadingly if not outright falsely, that “climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated”, ignoring the plateauing of global temperatures observed since around 1998.

          Appeals to authority — especially poorly documented appeals to authority — are not a good substitute for analysis and debate of the actual facts in question. Further, the survey results discussed in this blog posts suggest that even if your claim of “nearly 200” organizations accepting the points that you say they do can be substantiated, the official stances of these groups are not necessarily shared by most individual scientists. That would not be too surprising, since the same is true of the IPCC reports themselves, the conclusions of which have been repeatedly disavowed by a number of scientists who were listed as contributors.

      • Edward Silha
        • starchild
          • Edward Silha

            My point in posting the link to the Emanuel video was two fold. First, it identifies one conservative scientist (there are others) that accepts the conclusions of the IPCC. Secondly, it contains a very understandable explanation of the science and toward the end a discussion of how the campaign of denial is funded and propagated. See the links I posted below for more references to conservatives that accept the IPCC conclusions.l

            Emanuel is a climate scientist that has published research on climate change in peer reviewed journals. Rancourt specializes in spectroscopy and materials sciences. He has not published any peer reviewed papers on the climate.

            Citing a single scientist as an authority is not convincing. This article attempts to question the consensus by cherry picking the original report and using questionable logic to draw specious conclusions. See my post below for a list of links of organizations and corporations that accept the IPCC conclusions;.

    • starchild

      The use of the term “climate change deniers” also sounds more propagandistic than scientific. Especially since skeptics of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory do not deny that the earth’s climate has been changing for billions of years. If anything, the “denier” label is a better fit for those who talk as if natural climate change does not exist.

      • Edward Silha

        Scientists are skeptics by nature. They do not accept claims unless the claims are supported by facts that cannot be better explained by an alternate claim. Those who deny that the current changes in climate are being driven by human generated GHG emissions (a claim accepted by National Academies of Science worldwide, all but one international science organization such as AAAS, AMS, ACS, AGU, and a large and growing number of international corporations) are deniers, not skeptics, because they ignore the evidence to hold onto their ideological belief.

        • starchild

          Edward, you appear to be assuming that the scientists who are skeptical about AGW theory are motivated by ideology, but those who go along with AGW theory are not. But the idea that “humans are the main problem” is an ideological stance as much as any other.

          • Edward Silha

            The people who deny that GHG emissions caused by humans are the primary cause of climate change offer no rational alternative to the continuing increase in Global heat content (as deduced from the increase in surface temperatures and ocean temperatures). They often offer nonsensical alternatives such as it is caused by the sun even though solar insolation has been decreasing since 1975, or cosmic rays but are unable to cite any published research to support the claim. Those who deny AGW can provide no rational explanation for the increase in the heat content of the planet.

            See my post below for a list of science organizations that accept the IPCC conclusions (and often comment that the conclusions are too conservative). Can you cite a single respected international science organization (like AAAS, AMS, AGU, APS AMS, IEEE, or other organization that published peer reviewed research)?

    • old guy

      I, for one am. I ran 3 geophysical orbiting satellites (OGO, POLAR OGO and EARTH OGO) for 11 years and showed no Anthropogenic caused change. What we dod find was a thinning of the Earth’s mantle causing increased surface temperatures and consequential increase in glacier movement. We disproved the, then popular “Nuclear Winter”, which the NAS also endorsed. The rise in magma has been recently verified by direct measurements in Antarctica. This is a potentially a REAL problem that could lead to increased volcanic and seismic (earthquake) activity.
      If you want Anthropogenic affects to disappear, take two steps:
      1. Stop funding directed research to prove the effect, and
      2. Eliminate the power grabbers in the UN.

      I will discuss my EXACT findings with anyone savvy and civil. There are many here who fill the bill.

      • Edward Silha

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/4_EnergyInputsToClimateSysem.jpg
        http://skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html
        The total heat flow for the planet is 47 TW +/- 2TW, which is equivalent to 0.09Wm-2 (90mWm-2).

        The heat flow from Anthropogenic Forcing is about 1.6 W/m2.

        http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/global-warming-comes-from-within/
        If you could somehow capture all of the energy coming up from the earth’s core into the foundation of an average sized home, you might have energy to power one 15W light bulb! Not alot of of juice when you compare it to the sun, which provides on average some 342W/m2 of energy to the earth’s surface.

        Old guy wrote <<>>

        Can you cite any published research that makes such a broad claim?

        Old guy wrote <<>>

        The OGO program began in 1964 and ended in 1974. Are you claiming that the project observed a significant thinning of the crust in such a short time span?

        Even if the crust thinned to half its depth across the entire world, the energy flow from the mantle would still be less than 0.2 W/m2 (less than an eighth that caused by GHG’s.

        • old guy

          Good find, but ridiculous chart. Look up the DOE studies of thermal wells. I’m too old and tired. Second read Doe reports on Solar conversion using silicon, crystalline cells and Gallium arsenate cells

          • Edward Silha

            Why do you claim the chart is ridiculous? Do you have any evidence (references) that contradict the article or is you claim based on personal opinion.
            If you look at the article and follow the links, you will find that it is based on published research.

      • Pham Newan

        Cool. When where those experiments run?

  • old guy

    OPINION is NOT data. Climate change is real, and has been for billions of years. ANTHROPOGENIC (man-made) effect, is baloney.
    The looneys use the data-based first statement to justify their idiotic blame (not to mention making a few bucks by brokering Carbon exchange)

    • Edward Silha

      You are correct that opinion is not data (including my opinion and your opinion – both worthless). However, we rely on the opinions of experts everyday (e.g., lawyers, dentists, doctors, plumbers) because no one has the knowledge and skill to evaluate hypothesis or solutions in every field.

      The opinion of scientists (almost all having a background in the physical sciences) with regard to climate change is more influential than that of a clerk or plumber.
      The opinion of a climate scientist is more influential than that of a scientist in another field. The opinion of a team of scientists researching and publishing in the field of earth sciences is more influential than that of a single climate scientist.

      Have you published on climate change in a peer reviewed journal?
      Have you published anything in a peer reviewed journal?
      Are you as knowledgeable as the members of the National Research Council or the members of the Academy of Sciences (many of whom are Nobel Laureates in science)?

      Why should I consider your opinion when it is contradicted by scientists that have published research and are recognized as the preeminent scientists in the world?
      Why should I consider your opinion when it is contradicted by nearly every international scientific organization and not one such organization has taken a position supporting your claim.

      • old guy

        To answer your questions:
        1. I have published papers on Various subjects, such as Ocean Waves and their occurence. Published by Navy with co-authors from Cal Tech, Scripps and Wood’s Hole.
        2. My professional career spanned 56 years. My last position was as the Navy’s Director of Science and Technology Development for 5 years..Within my purview were ALL geological, Oceanographic, and meteorological work. Too busy to write much more than scientific justification for my people’s budgets.
        3. I was offerred (and declined) the T.D. posts at the EPA And FEMA (at different times)
        4. I have no monetary or other reason, other than my great love for this country (WW2 Vet), to develop by hard won study and review, my well thought out positions. I find that discussing/arguing salient points are excellent mind flexers for my old
        (88+ years) brain.
        5. I received 2 Distinguished Civilian and 3 Superior Civilian Service awards. I received 4 nominations for Congressional awards. Didn’t get one. (POLITICS, HA, HA!)
        6. I was a member of the Navy Studies Board, The National Academy of Engineering and the President’s Technical Council.
        7. I don’t regard so called “Peer Revue” or publications, necessarily, as a final criteria for validations. I could bury your state under later discredited publications. My staff and I used to sort them by the hundreds and you would be astounded at the number that were trash.
        8. i have had 3 Nobel Laureates at NRL work for me. The 2 sill alive and I are still close friends.
        9. Remember Galileo.
        10. KEEP QUESTIONING. You appear to have a sharp intellect.

        • Edward Silha

          The geocentric model was based on philosophical concepts and religious beliefs.
          The heliocentric model was based on more precise observations (made possible by the telescope) which were then analyzed using mathematics and mechanics.

          Some climate change skeptics allow their world view to affect their research. Roy Spencer is an advocate of Intelligent Design even though it is a religious concept not supportable using the scientific method. He also disputes AGW because “Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting.” I.e., his belief about climate change is compelled by his religious belief. Spencer does not occupy the position of Galileo in this analogy but that of the religious hierarchy and philosophers. Others are influenced by their abhorrence of government regulation or fear of “world government”. These also occupy the position of the religious and philosophers of the time of Galileo, but not Galileo himself.

          How do you explain that nearly every international scientific organization, the executives of international corporations, and about 80% of scientists worldwide accept the conclusions of the IPCC? I can think of only two possibilities:

          1. A worldwide conspiracy of all these organizations and their members.
          2. The members and leaders of these organizations are naïve or stupid.

          • Nat Kobitz

            I thought that I had cited the two principal reasons, gut there are others.
            !. the SHEEP syndrome. “See how smart I am, all these other guys agree with me. (See NAZI Germany. Lots of opinions and quasi-data)
            2. The availability of grant money ONLY to prove GLOBAL WA…er…Climate change.
            PROOF? I was asked by the DREXEL U. ( My MSEM school, 1962) incubator program to help a grad student to get a grant from EPA to research his thesis, “Methods to Determine the Validity of Climate Change Models.” He had been REJECTED three times.
            I had him change the title to “Validation of Climate Change Models.” and follow through within his proposal. NO other change in methodology or approach. He received $75,000 within a few weeks.
            This is my last post on the subject. I am tired of it. Sorry. Keep up your inquires. You do well. Best.

          • Scott Peterson

            As a rocket scientist for over 35 years, whose expertise is in large scale mathematical models of complex dynamic systems, you are simply missing an even more fundamental point. There are clear questions about the validity of the data being provided to the models, and there has never been a model yet that has passed the mathematical rigor of both verification and validation to be considered useful in long term prediction. If you truly believe the scientists involved have embraced dissent, and have demonstrated an unbiased evaluation of the basic measurement data, then we hardly have anything to discuss. When the errors in the measurement can be an order of magnitude greater than the differential you are trying to measure, the signal to noise ratio is so small as to call into question any conclusion. When NOAA and NASA throw out unbiased satellite data, then modify ground based data based upon factors that cannot be independently verified, we all should question the fundamental data. The models being used cannot make accurate predictions (both spatially and temporally) 5-10 years out on primary factors like temperature, but you want to use them to provide “guaranteed” outcomes 100 years out. Until those people making the predictions can demonstrate that the fundamental data being used as inputs to the model are accurate to a much higher degree of fidelity (typically signal to noise ratio has to be above 20, which means the accuracy of the temperature measurements needs to get to around +/- .02C), the models are fundamentally flawed. The fact that NOAA and NASA fail to allow scrutiny of their data adjustment mechanisms should also give one to pause.

          • Edward Silha

            My expertise and knowledge are not nearly strong enough to argue with the vast majority of climate scientists (oven ninety percent according to the conservative Richard Tol).

          • Edward Silha

            Addendum: Watch the video by Emanuel Kerry (a conservative that ..is also a climate scientist). If you want to learn something about climate science, watch the entire video. If you want his conclusions, skip to the 41 minute mark. The come back and tell me why you think your opinion is superior to his. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7so8GRCWA1k
            Emanuel Kerry sees himself as a conservative. He believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He backs a strong military. He almost always votes Republican and admires Ronald Reagan.
            http://katharinehayhoe.com/?page_id=5
            Katherine Hayhoe is an Evangelical Christian and a conservative. You might learn something by visiting her web pages or searching for her on the web.

          • Scott Peterson

            Most “climate scientists” are not mathematicians, nor do they have my experience in large scale dynamic simulations. There are some fundamentals that every mathematical model must go through before they are considered validated, that is, acceptable to use in predicting future events. NONE of the climate models has met even the most rudimentary of those requirements, and the worst part is that they cannot even agree on proper measurement data to go into the models. The data manipulation that has occurred is simply unscientific, in that they can provide neither the mechanisms (in any detailed form) nor the proof of accuracy to allow measured data to be adjusted. Ultimately the conclusions that people reach may be shown to be valid, but the models to date have failed at every prediction, so to use them to predict “catastrophe” 100 years hence is lunacy. Finally, any true model of global “climate” is going to be highly non-linear, which means that small changes in initial conditions lead to large swings in final conditions. Without a demonstration that the models have the initial state right, any conclusion well off into the future are just numbers without any validation.

          • Edward Silha

            I seriously doubt that you bothered to educate yourself by researching the conclusions of the climate scientists who hold very conservative views of government (must be small) and culture (Evangelical Christians) such as Emanuel Kerry, Katherine Hayhoe, and Richard Muller. All conservatives who have concluded (even changed their position) that climate change is real, caused by human activity, and presents a significant risk to all species, including us.

            Members of the Best Team (which validated the hockey stick graph by Mann)
            Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics
            Robert Rohde, Ph.D. in physics
            Don Groom, physicist
            Zeke Hausfather, scientist
            Robert Jacobsen, Professor of Physics, expert in analyses of large data sets.
            Saul Perlmutter, Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Professor of Physics at UCB.
            Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Candidate in Physics
            Charlotte Wickham, statistical scientist
            Jonathan Wurtele, professor of physics
            David Brillinger, statistical scientist. Professor of Statistics at UCB. A contributor to the theory of time series analysis.

            Do you know of PHD’s in physics that lack an extensive knowledge of statistics?
            Did you notice that the Best Team included a statistical scientist?
            Do you believe that the peer review process would not engage statistical experts either directly or in collaboration with assigned reviewers (some have discovered errors that were corrected before or after publication, but none have been shown to be significant)?
            Do you believe that the members of the national academies of 80 countries would overlook significant statistical errors in order to assert that the IPCC conclusions are valid?
            Do you claim to have more expertise and knowledge than all the above mentioned people and others in the nearly two hundred science organizations that accept the IPCC conclusions?

            Do you have the expertise to understand how a GCM is designed and used? How would you analyze the report you are demanding when such reports are the result of interdisciplinary teams of scientists in a variety of fields (e.g., climatology, geoscience, oceanography and mathematics)?

            My personal opinion is worthless in many areas of science (e.g., oncology, dentistry, mechanical design, and even climatology). In those area, I accept the conclusions of experts. What do you believe your opinion is worth with regard to climatology? More than all the scientists listed above?

            Your post appears to be an attempt to spread doubt without providing any examples of significant statistical errors a large number of studies.

          • Scott Peterson

            You must be living in 2004. Mann has been thoroughly discredited in numerous papers, and the hockey stick “joke” was even distanced from by the IPCC. Mann even went so far as to attack the testimony of Judith Curry in a libelous editorial in the NY Times, and when called out on proving a single part of her testimony wrong, could not do so.

            You cannot answer a fundamental question that was posed to you, and that involves the requirements for verification and validation of mathematical models, and the propriety of “modifying” measured data for use as simulation inputs. The fundamental data being used in all the models is seriously in question, having been modified over time without any demonstration that the modifications match reality. You, like so many others that have perpetrated this fraud, have done things that no credible developer of mathematical models would ever do.

            But go on believing what you choose. This is not a question of statistics, this is a question of fundamental data evaluation, and the development of deterministic models using proper mathematical methods. When the potential error in the accuracy of your fundamental data is an order of magnitude greater than the differential you are trying to measure, you fail basic simulation requirements. When you have no justification for making adjustments to historical temperature data other than it meets your presupposed conclusion, you fail even simple reason. Modification of past historical data assumes you have a means of demonstrating conclusively that your modification is accurate. That does not exist, without the development of a time machine. Any modification is therefore suspect from the start. When those modifications change over time, in order to bolster your theory, they become even more suspect.

            Your own expertise and knowledge is not strong enough to argue with anyone, yet you cling onto anything that supports your predetermined view. I hope the Kool-Aid tastes good

          • Edward Silha

            Scott Peterson wrote – Mann has been thoroughly discredited in numerous papers, and the hockey stick “joke” was even distanced from by the IPCC.

            Your claim is patently false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
            The research by Mann has been repeated by at least ten teams with the practically the same result. Even the Best Team managed by Richard Muller (previously a skeptic of global warming) found the same result and caused Muller to accept the fact that the climate was warming and it was caused by human activity.

            Scott Peterson wrote – requirements for verification and validation of mathematical models, and the propriety of “modifying” measured data for use as simulation inputs. The fundamental data being used in all the models is seriously in question … perpetrated this fraud,

            As I noted previously, neither my personal opinion nor yours is worth two cents when compared to the conclusions of multi-disciplinary teams that publish in peer reviewed journals and the members of nearly all international science organizations including the national academies of over 80 countries, the AAAS, AMS, AGU, API, and many others.

            You cite comments by Judith Curry so I assume you believe she has good credentials. Her average estimates of ECS and TCR tend to be lower than those of most other climatologists and the IPCC estimates, but her estimates of the 5%-95% probability are nearly the same. She does not dispute that CO2 increases the greenhouse effect, only that the amount is smaller than most other climatologists.
            http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/24/lewis-and-curry-climate-sensitivity-uncertainty/
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/climate-response-estimates-from-lewis-curry/

            Why did you avoid answering any of the questions I posed? For your convenience, I will repost them here. If you cannot answer them, I will consider any further comments you post to be either false claims or unsupportable personal opinions with no supporting references from credible sources.

            Do you know of PHD’s in physics that lack an extensive knowledge of statistics?
            Did you notice that the Best Team included a statistical scientist?
            Do you believe that the peer review process would not engage statistical experts either directly or in collaboration with assigned reviewers (some have discovered errors that were corrected before or after publication, but none have been shown to be significant)?
            Do you believe that the members of the national academies of 80 countries would overlook significant statistical errors in order to assert that the IPCC conclusions are valid?
            Do you claim to have more expertise and knowledge than all the above mentioned people and others in the nearly two hundred science organizations that accept the IPCC conclusions?

          • Scott Peterson

            You really are one of the cultist “true believers”. All you have to do is look at the data, and read a few of the actual papers, to see the FRAUD that is Michael Mann and the hockey stick. In 1993, the IPCC report showed what it shows again in 2013. There is a distinct warming period (known as the Medieval Warming Period from around 1000 – 1300 and also a Little Ice Age from 1400 – 1800. The MWP showed temperatures warmer than they are in the 21st century. However, the 1997 IPCC report started with the year 1500, thereby eliminating the significantly warmer period from the data shown. If you look at Mann’s data, and the hockey stick, there is neither a MWP nor a LIA, just a relatively flat declining temperature period prior to 1900, and then a major increase (hence the hockey stick). The IPCC reports up through 2007 showed the hockey stick, but serious allegations were made in both the methodology and the data. McKitrick and McIntyre showed that the Mann methodology was utter nonsense, in part by showing that they could put random numbers into the algorithm that Mann had claimed represented his methodology, and out would still pop the “hockey stick graph”. In 2012, people tried to “resurrect” the hockey stick, with one paper showing that the data were still valid. McKitrick again debunked that paper by showing that the original temperature data were modified by shifting the times associated with given temperatures. Again, a mathematical and scientific fraud was perpetuated by people trying to claim unique abnormal warming. By 2013, the IPCC report once again showed a series of temperature vs. time graphs, and the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age reappeared. The “hockey stick” was nowhere to be found.

            If you truly have ANY intellectual integrity, I urge you to read Mark Steyn’s book “A disgrace to the profession”, which looks at the science and the politics around the hockey stick graph and Michael Mann. He will lead you through a multitude of scientists, including actual Nobel Prize winners like Ivar Giaever, who will show you the FRAUD perpetrated on the world by Michael Mann. Even scientists who believe in AGW call Mann a charlatan. Worse than that, all one has to do is look at where Mann actually got ALL his data to support his GLOBAL model (bristlecones in California, and ONE TREE in Canada), and question the validity of making estimates of global temperatures based upon that small set of proxies.

            My guess is you have no interest in reading such a book, because anything that is contrary to your world view must automatically be rejected. You are hardly a scientist, nor do you have any understanding of deterministic mathematical modeling, and the requirements for such models to be valid.

            You have asked about whether scientific organizations can be part of a “conspiracy” to perpetrate a fraud. The answer is an unadulterated YES. The most blatant case came in 1960, when Rachel Carson’s book “A Silent Spring”, detailed the dangers of DDT to both the environment (through an assault on raptor eggs and young) and to humans. Scientists across the world came out clamoring about the danger of DDT, and how it must be banned. Never mind that DDT was the most effective pesticide and stopping the malaria mosquito, the danger to humans and the environment were far more important. Over the next 10 years, the scientific community rallied behind the environmentalists, so much so that it led to bans in the US and much of the rest of the world. Malaria deaths, which had dropped to the thousands with the use of DDT, climbed back into the millions. However, by 1972, when the ban was being instituted, scientists with integrity showed that the data used to back the ban was a FRAUD. DDT was not dangerous, either to raptors or to humans. The research, and resulting legal actions, did not sway the political community however. Today, research shows that DDT poses NO DANGER to human beings, and in some cases, actually can mitigate fractionally the risk of breast cancer. However, the ban is still in place, and a million people a year die needlessly because of fraudulent “science” that migrated into the political arena. Environmentalists are some of the greatest mass murderers of the last 1000 years, and junk science is their weapon. One can also look at the fraud perpetrated on Dow Corning regarding silicone breast implants, and see junk science bankrupt a major corporation. Today, that alarmism and fraud are being used to try to provide justification to control behavior in ways that certain political groups want. It is time true science take over and give us a real answer about cause and possible effect. Until that happens, where the politics are removed from the equation, the kind of nonsense we have seen from the AGW crowd will continue.

            To show just how fascist this group has gotten, there are now calls by certain scientific organizations to prosecute people who don’t kowtow to the AGW message. The fundamental freedoms of speech, and the fundamental right of scientific dissent, are being threatened against anyone that does not believe the orthodoxy. This is fascism at its worst, and an attack on anything a true scientist holds dear.

          • Edward Silha

            Scott Peterson wrote – You really are one of the cultist “true believers”.

            People that lack evidence and logic to prove a point often revert to ad hominem attacks.

            Scott Peterson wrote – All you have to do is look at the data, and read a few of the actual papers, to see the FRAUD that is Michael Mann and the hockey stick.

            Just another false and slanderous claim. The temperature reconstructions for the past 1000 to 2000 years have been repeated more than ten times and all generally agree.
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
            As of now, all of the ‘Hockey Team’ reconstructions (shown left) agree that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

            Scott Peterson wrote – You have asked about whether scientific organizations can be part of a “conspiracy” to perpetrate a fraud. The answer is an unadulterated YES.

            Wow! A worldwide conspiracy involving nearly every scientific organization in the world, including the national academies of the developed world, all but a tiny handful of earth scientists (e.g., climatologists, geophysicists, oceanologist), and so forth?

            As I expected, you have not answered any of my questions. Why? Do you fear that your answers will seem foolish, arrogant, or ignorant of the research processes in climate science?
            Do you know of PHD’s in physics that lack an extensive knowledge of statistics?
            Did you notice that the Best Team included a statistical scientist?
            Do you believe that the peer review process would not engage statistical experts either directly or in collaboration with assigned reviewers (some have discovered errors that were corrected before or after publication, but none have been shown to be significant)?
            Do you believe that the members of the national academies of 80 countries would overlook significant statistical errors in order to assert that the IPCC conclusions are valid?
            Do you claim to have more expertise and knowledge than all the above mentioned people and others in the nearly two hundred science organizations that accept the IPCC conclusions?

          • Scott Peterson

            Wow, your source is Wikipedia? I give up. You are truly someone who lacks any intellectual integrity. I pointed you to the IPCC reports themselves, supposedly the bible for people like you, but you ignored that. You ignore anything that does not fit into your world view, and when the theory doesn’t jive with the facts, you throw out the facts. The IPCC report from 1993 has the MWP and the LIA as part of the temperature reconstruction. Magically it disappears in 1995, as they start just before the LIA leaving out the significantly warmer period in the 500 years previous. The “hockey stick” shows no warm period, and nor LIA, and shows a relatively flat temperature curve just prior to the 20th century. However, by 2013, EVEN THE IPCC REPORT shows the MWP and the LIA, and does not even give credence to the Mann temperature model. But heck, you know better. I should also have guessed that any compendium of scientists that to a person call your messiah a charlatan would be immediately dismissed.

            I will say it again, NOT A SINGLE GLOBAL temperature simulation has ever been validated using mathematically proper means. Yet you still want to use these models to predict 100 years into the future, when they can’t even predict 5 years into the future.

            Now to some of your questions

            Even people with mathematics degrees do not have to take any statistics, so it is easily possible for physics Ph.D’s to have zero to little statistical education. This is not a statistical issue, although many of the modeling mistakes that have been made were statistical in nature. This is a question of coming up with proper deterministic equations that model the complex dynamic system that is climate. It is highly non-linear, and therefore subject to massive errors if you don’t get initial conditions correct.

            I point you again to Mark Steyn’s book to see what is said about the “peer review process”. That is one major part of this fraud, in that particularly the Mann model was subject to hardly any scrutiny. Today however, most scientists reject that model, even ones who believe in AGW.

            This became political once people like Al Gore got involved. Scientists are just like everyone else. They can latch onto a theory, and then look only for data that meets their theory. In the Mann case, why is it that Tree ring data from one specific tree in canada received 365 times the weighting in his model than other trees that did not show the same correlation to his perceived end product.

            Finally, I claim to have more experience in the validation process of mathematical models. Not one of them would meet the criteria our models have to go through, for far less complex systems. I am also honest enough to say that ultimately, the people claiming AGW might turn out to be right, but there is not enough proper mathematics that has been done yet to say we can accurately predict global climate 50 to 100 years out.

            You seem to be willing to not even consider data that does not fit your world view. McIntyre and McKitrick debunked the hockey stick in their analysis, showing that any data put into his algorithm would come up with the temperature shape Mann finished with. McKitrick also showed the fraudulent data manipulation that was part of the later attempt to resurrect the hockey stick graph. EVEN THE IPCC has now dropped the hockey stick temperature model and has resurrected the data showing the MWP and LIA, data in complete opposition to the Mann curve. I gave you a source to go evaluate the evidence that shows Mann is a fraud. Again, I use the word EVIDENCE. You can choose to read it or ignore it. If you choose ignorance, I can’t help you.

          • Edward Silha

            Scott Peterson wrote: Wow, your source is Wikipedia? I give up. You are truly someone who lacks any intellectual integrity. … EVEN THE IPCC has now dropped the hockey stick temperature model and has resurrected the data showing the MWP and LIA, data in complete opposition to the Mann curve.

            You don’t like Wikipedia, then how about the Open Source Systems which shows 13 independent reconstructions that are not significantly different than that created by Mann when you consider the confidence limits Mann put on his original graph which can be found at http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

            http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/loehle-temperature-reconstruction
            or
            http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/files/2012/07/HockeyStickOverview_html_6623cbd61.png

            http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2012/07/22/slandering-someone-because-of-their-scientific-findings-can-be-very-costly/
            Dr. Mann’s famous graph stands as good science.

            Do you really believe that all 13 reconstructions contain serious errors? If you do, do you have any references that support your opinion?

            On page 78 of the WG1AR5 full report does include a 1000 year reconstruction that is consistent with Mann 2003 when confidence limits are considered. Although the reconstruction does indicate that there may have been a MWP, the probability of a significant temperature anomaly is small (shown by the lightest grey probability shading).

            Scott Peterson wrote: McIntyre McKitrick debunked the hockey stick in their analysis, showing that any data put into his algorithm would come up with the temperature shape. McKitrick also showed the fraudulent data manipulation that was part of the later attempt to resurrect the hockey stick graph. I gave you a source to go evaluate the evidence that shows Mann is a fraud.

            http://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/14#111
            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-michael-mann-steve-mcintyre
            A panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann’s findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.
            Was it flawed research? Yes. Was it hyped by the IPCC? Yes. Has it been disproved? Despite all the efforts, no. So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication.

            Conclusion: Your claim that the hockey stick graph has been debunked is bunk (i.e., a false claim).

            Mr. Peterson, you should be more careful in your accusations of fraud. M. Mann has filed a defamation of character suit based on such comments.

          • Scott Peterson

            I almost laughed when I saw the graph you posted, because all the “reconstructions” were done by the same cast of characters who were part of the original “Hockey Team”. Mann et. al., Jones et. al., Mann et. al., Briffa et. al, are all part of the same team that developed the hockey stick that completely eliminates the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. If you look at the data as put forth by true paleoclimatologists, the MWP shows warming that ranges up to +2.0 deg. C from the mean over the last 1500 years, and the little ice age at -2.0 deg. C. The hockey stick was completely anomalous from all the published data at the time, in that it suggested almost no variability in the temperature record up until the beginning of the 20th century. The chart you published is utter nonsense, and is consistent with Mann et. al.’s failure to accurately represent anything, let alone perform either proper proxy evaluation or data reconstruction.

            As far as your comments about Mike Mann and his lawsuits, I thank you for his concern, but he is a public figure, and like letters to the editor, or calls to a talk show, libel and defamation do not exist. But let’s talk about Mike Mann and his lawsuits for just a bit. In one of his legal attacks on anyone who criticizes him, Mike Mann brought up the novel legal theory that he was subject to “defamation of a Nobel Prize Winner”. He actually claimed in legal documents that he had won a Nobel Prize. It wasn’t until he was called out on that absurd claim, and told to cease and desist by the Nobel committee, that Mike Mann dropped that part of his suit.

            However, I will use the published words of others to document what science thinks of Mike Mann and his hockey stick.

            Professor Philippe De Larminat, Former head of research at CNRS, the French National Center for Scientific Research; “The hockey stick curve, which ignores large climatic events, seems to have come straight from another world”.

            In his book, Heaven and Earth, Professor Ian Plimar said; “In the next IPCC report (2013), The Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age mysteriously reappeared. This suggests that the IPCC knew that the “hockey stick” was invalid. This is a withering condemnation of the IPCC. The “hockey stick” was used as the backdrop for announcements about human-induced climate change, it is still used by Al Gore, and it is still used in talks, on websites, and in publications by those claiming that the world is getting warmer due to human activities. Were any of those people who view this graphic told that the data before 1421 AD was based on just one lonely alpine pine tree”

            Professor Don J Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Fellow of the Geological Society of America, Founding member of the American Quaternary Association, from his book Evidence-Based Climate Science; “The Mann et al “hockey stick” temperature curve was so at odds with thousands of published papers … one can only wonder how a single tree-ring study could purport to prevail over such a huge amount of data. At best, if the tree ring study did not accord with so much other data, it should simply mean that the tree rings were not sensitive to climate change, not that all the other data were wrong. The “hockey stick” concept of global climate change is now widely considered to be totally invalid and an embarrassment to the IPCC.”

            Professor Peter Stilbs, Professor of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry and member of the American Chemical Society; “By the final panel discussion stage of the conference (2006), there appeared to be wide agreement that:

            1) It is likely that there has been a climate trend towards global warming underway since 1850
            2) There are many uncertainties in climate modeling
            3) Natural variations in climate are considerable and well documented
            4) THERE IS NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THE 20TH CENTURY WAS THE WARMEST IN THE LAST THOUSAND YEARS. Previous claims based upon the “Mann hockey-stick curve” are by now totally discredited”

            Professor Stilbs also wrote to his colleague Pehr Bjornbom, emeritus professor of chemical engineering, after Dr. Bjornbom inventoried the “hide the decline”; “Thank you, Pehr, for this thorough compilation of an organized scam. The climate scientists who do not renounce it lacks all credibility. Unfortunately, it seems to apply to most of them”

            Professor Istvan MARKo, Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Catholic University of Louvain, Chairman of the European Chemical Society, Professor Alain Preat, Professor of Geology at the Free University of Brussels, Henri Masson, Professor at Maastricht University and former Vice President of the Royal Belgian Society of Engineers and Industrialists, and Samuele Furfari, Professor of Energy Geopolitics and longtime senior advisor on energy to the European Commission: Invited to give a half-dozen lectures at the Royal Academy of Belgium in 2013 had amongst their conclusions;

            2) During Roman times and the Middle Ages, temperatures were observed well in excess of those currently experienced. From the 16th till the 19th century a cold period referred to as the “Little Ice Age” predominated. All these changes took place without mankind being held responsible…

            3) The so-called “abnormally rapid” increase in global temperatures between 1980 and 2000 is not unusual at all. There have in fact been several such periods in the past, during which temperatures rose in a similar manner and at comparable rates, even though fossil fuels were not yet in use

            5) The famous “Hockey-stick” curve, known as the Mann curve and presented six times by the IPCC in its penultimate report, is the result among other things of a mistake in statistical calculations and an incorrect choice of temperature indicators, i.e. proxies. This lack of scientific rigor has totally discredited the curve and it was withdrawn, without any explanation, from the subsequent IPCC reports”

            Professor Masson also was quoted as saying, “We remember the famous curve in the shape of a hockey stick… However, NO SERIOUS SCIENTIST STILL GIVES IT THE LEAST CREDIT”

            Dr Walter Starck, Marine biologist who pioneered scuba diving for marine research. Dr. Starck also developed the optical dome port for wide-angle underwater photography, and the electrolung. In 2014, Dr. Starck commented on the state of climate wars in the Australian magazine Quadrant;

            “The debate …. is also unique in that

  • Julie Dow

    What a strange way to interpret the results of the original survey (well worth following the link). While it’s true that not as many scientist agree with the IPCC 95% certainty, even the chart included here says that 77.6% of the climate scientists agree that GHG’s have contributed to global warming to some extent. And in the full survey, Question 12 results show that a full 66.9% of the scientists are “very concerned” about climate change as a long term global problem. If you add in the “somewhat concerned” it goes up to a whopping 91.4%! If that’s not a consensus of climate scientists that GHG’s are driving climate change and it’s something we need to worry about, I don’t know what a consensus would look like. It may not be the 97% number that’s been touted before, but this is still a vast majority of climate scientists telling us to watch out. To me the spin this article put on pretty straight forward results makes me skeptical of how else they’re spinning numbers and results in other areas.

  • TonyEdwards2

    Survey 1, Question a: The survey indicates that 72.4 % of all 1868 scientists surveyed agree that manmade gases contribute to global warming to some degree. This goes up to 77.6 if you include the 0-25 % respondents.

    Survey 2, Question b: If you read the survey it indicates that 99.3 of 1222 scientists believe that man made greenhouse gases are
    causing global warming with a degree of certainty of over 50 %. Thus, the heading of this survey “What consensus?
    Less than half of climate scientists agree with the IPCC “95%” certainty” is misleading as that it only talks about the top
    5 pct margin of all scientists, and was meant to mislead that there is no “consensus” when there really is. But they defined
    consensus as being greater than 95 pct certainty! Note: consensus is defined by Webster’s as a collective or majority opinion; aka greater than 50% makes a majority.

  • progressivecurrent

    That’s not at all what the survey said. In fact, the survey showed that less than 1% of scientists either believed that GHG didn’t contribute to climate change or that it actually helped the environment. But don’t take my word for it, here’s the study’s author’s summary of the study:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Survey-confirms-scientific-consensus-human-caused-global-warming.html

    In other words, not only are you a moron, but you are a stupid moron.

  • old guy

    Man’s questionable contribution to global warming ( which is not corroborated by unfilled measurement( Reminds me of two ants racing down the Mississippi river on a huge log. The one in the front yells,”I’m scared.” The one in the back replies, “DON’T WORRY, I’M STEERING.”

  • Joe Cool

    Does anyone ever wonder why the scientific consensus on climate change is only represented by democrats in any level of government and most of the mainstream media? Neither of those groups have any scientific background but you know what they say, if you repeat a lie enough people will start to see it as truth. Republicans also use this tactic but not when it comes to the “overwhelming consensus” on climate change. I came to realize that I’ve never heard or seen convincing evidence, I’ve only heard democratic politicians say that the evidence is overwhelming. When you think about it, we are very rarely if ever presented evidence to back politicians claims. But you all keep voting for your team, I’ll take the third party.