Dr. Michael E. Mann the author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars spoke on his research of global warming at NASA Langley’s Reid Conference Center May 7, 2013.
More than half of the country says the argument over global warming is still ongoing and, science itself, is a systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. To hold true to its very nature, those who study scientific theories much always challenge what one day may be referred to as settled science.
In many ways, freedom of speech protected in the First Amendment has allowed scientific research to thrive in the U.S., as the stifling of new and radical ideas are intolerable to our very principles. Yet, Pennsylvania State University professor Dr. Michael Mann, a supporter of global warming, is well-known for suing groups that challenge his controversial scientific methods aimed to prove manmade global warming.
In 2013, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argued that it is “extremely likely” that humans are the primary cause of global warming. The wording was stronger than the “very likely” assessment from the IPCC’s last climate change report released in 2007. However, it wasn’t swallowed without challenge.
In their response, Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger of the Cato Institute, said the IPCC’s contradictory statements show an “embarrassing lack of internal inconsistency,” and failed to consider “the discrepancy between the observed effectiveness of greenhouse gases in warming the earth and this effectiveness calculated by the climate models that the IPCC uses to project future climate change.”
Michaels and Knappenberger argued that the IPCC declined to account for deviations between climate impacts predicted by IPCC models and actual temperature increases. IPCC models have also come under fire for their failure to explain an ongoing pause in the rise of global temperatures, which in reality, have remained flat for approximately 15 years, while the global warming argument has been evolving for well over 40 years.
Dr. Mann’s decision to sue the Competitive Enterprise Institue, National Review, Mark Steyn and others that oppose his methodologies, makes him more a petulant child than a scientist. Mann seemingly forgets positive role the First Amendment and freedom of speech has had on science.
The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press with 26 other groups filed an amici curiae with the D.C. Court of Appeals. An amici curiae is a brief submitted to a court to raise additional points of view to sway a court’s decision.
“While Mann essentially claims that he can silence critics because he is ‘right,’ the judicial system should not be the arbiter of either scientific truth or correct public policy,” the brief states, adding that “a participant in the ‘rough-and-tumble’ of public debate should not be able to use a lawsuit like this to silence his critics, regardless of whether one agrees with Mann or defendants.”
The suit was originally filed when the Competitive Enterprise Institutes (CEI) Rand Simberg referenced Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” and that Mann “molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”
CEI eventually did retract the statements, but not National Review’s Mark Steyn, who elaborated and called Mann’s research fraudulent.
Mann responded by suing CEI, National Review and each of the authors of the pieces.
Even though Mann has sued in the past unimpeded, the unlikely coalition is putting their foot down on this one. The Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, Individual Rights Foundation and the Goldwater Institute all rushed to the defense of those sued by Mann, with each filing their own brief in support of CEI and National Review.
“Public figures must not be allowed to use the courts to muzzle their critics,” Cato’s Ilya Shapiro wrote earlier this week.
Shapiro, and the Cato Institute in general, argue that under the First Amendment, there must be room for “the marketplace of ideas to operate.” Shapiro warned that the court would, essentially, be judging whether the defendants’ opinions are false by sizing them up with much-disputed EPA findings.
“The point in this appeal is that courts should not be coming up with new terms like ‘scientific fraud’ to squeeze debate over issues impacting government policy into ordinary tort law,” Shapiro said. “Dr. Mann is not like a corner butcher falsely accused of putting his thumb on the scale or mixing horsemeat into the ground beef. He is a vocal leader in a school of scientific thought that has had major impact on government policies.”
Unbelievably, a D.C. court in July dismissed a the defendants’ arguments holding the statements made against Mann were protected under the First Amendment. The court went one step further in their ruling, claiming that there was enough evidence of “actual malice” for the suit to go forward.
CEI’s attorney Sam Kazman pointed out that “all Americans engaged in public debate and discourse on contentious political issues will be affected by the outcome of our case.”
In July, the Virginia Supreme Court ordered that the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute pay Mann and the University of Virginia – where Mann had previously worked — $250 in damages.
The Energy and Environmental Legal Institute had wanted to get Mann’s records as part of a campaign to disprove his research on climate change. The court ruled that Mann’s unpublished research, which included emails about global warming, were exempt from the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
The most damning journalistic sin committed by the media during the era of Russia collusion…
The first ecological study finds mask mandates were not effective at slowing the spread of…
On "What Are the Odds?" Monday, Robert Barnes and Rich Baris note how big tech…
On "What Are the Odds?" Monday, Robert Barnes and Rich Baris discuss why America First…
Personal income fell $1,516.6 billion (7.1%) in February, roughly the consensus forecast, while consumer spending…
Research finds those previously infected by or vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 are not at risk of…
This website uses cookies.
View Comments
Two natural drivers have been identified that explain measured average
global temperatures since before 1900 with R^2 greater than 0.9 (95%
correlation) and credible values back to 1610. Global Warming ended before
2001. The current trend is down.
Search AGW unveiled for the method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610)
and predictions (to 2037).
Utter junk.
This is just more of the same wearisome made up rubbish that is churned out on a daily basis by the Denial Industry and which you have been spamming into every comments section on every climate change thread on the net.
How many cents per post are you getting paid for this vacuous rubbish?
Whatever it is it's too much.
People who spam Denial Industry memes and myths for whatever few cents the carbon corporations front organisations toss to them are among the most vile individuals on the planet.
You should remember that your lies will remain on the net indefinately - I hope your grandchildren will be proud of your efforts to **** up their future.
Shame on you.
Apparently you didn't do the search.
I wonder how much wider the separation between the rising CO2
level and not-rising temperature will need to get for some people to realize
that maybe they missed something.
What separation?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.17/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.34/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.67/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/offset:0.25/plot/gistemp/mean:149/mean:151/from:1900/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/offset:0.5
I don't see a separation.
Do you see things that aren't there often?
GW ended before 2001. Measured average global temperature trend since 2001 has been flat (average of the 5 reporting agencies) and is 0.3 K less than average 'consensus' predictions. That 0.3 K that didn’t happen is 40% of the total rise in the 20th century. Meanwhile, since 2001, the CO2 level has increased by 30% of the total increase 1800-2001
I've posted the graph. It's right there. It shows warming continuing all the way through 2001 and up to 2006, the last year we can feasibly draw a graph of global climate trend. It's right there in the link.
You have to explain how the graph keeps on rising when you say it ended, before anyone who has eyes to see and read can even remotely take you seriously. The 'average of the 5 reporting agencies' cited by the Cornwall Alliance uses thoroughly invalid methods, well-understood to be wrong in any application of graph reading, not just climate graph reading. Dogmatically repeating Cornwall Alliance doctrine in the face of clear evidence that it's wrong doesn't make you right, it just makes you sheep.
Look, I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes as they do. I'm not telling you to believe what I say. I'm showing you facts that debunk the CO2-worshipers in their tracks, and asking you to use the freedom to think for yourself.
Do you really want a world where your children, and your children's children, are beholding to the edicts of a small group of self-appointed guardians of what they can think or know?
There have been 7 full years of data since that chart. The agencies that provided the data for that chart, GISS, Hadley, RSS, UAH have continued to report through July, 2014 (June for Hadley. They are always last. I also include NOAA ). Goggle endofgw to see the plot through 2013 and the links to the data. I did the plot. I have never heard of the 'Cornwall Alliance'.
I think for myself. As described in my post 3 days ago, I also discovered the two drivers and developed the equation that, using only these two drivers, explain average global temperatures since before 1900 with 95% correlation and credible estimate back to 1610.
No! And I vote and communicate accordingly.
There have been zero years of data since the graph; the graph uses every bit of data available since 1892 for GISS and Mauna Loa. The reason you don't see it is that the graph uses eight year running averages, compressing the present date back, but not losing any of it. HadCRU uses the same source data as GISS, more or less. RSS is a private calculation based on three satellites, the earliest one from 1979 and known to be leaking and inaccurate; UAH uses the same satellites, run by two members of the Cornwall Alliance, and funded by the US taxpayer.
It is very odd that by coincidence you've named, in the same order, the five sources the Cornwall Alliance uses, exactly the same way, and with exactly the same wrong answer, but have never heard of them. If I was a grade three teacher, and this was a math test, and I knew the Cornwall Alliance was sitting directly in front of you, I know what I'd have to say to your parents.
There is no pause, unless you use invalid methods to make one appear where it is not. There is a kink in the course of monthly temperatures, but this is evidence of the forcing due to CO2.
You cannot explain the entire climate with only two drivers, as it is known to be a 'Complex' system, so each state of the climate depends on the prior state plus all drivers that can alter initial conditions; although on climate time scales CO2 is by far the largest such driver, even CO2 isn't all there is to climate.
Is it possible that someone has been influencing your ideas?
There are some good free online courses, for example at Coursera, where you can seriously discuss your ideas with college professors and tens of thousands of serious international students. Perhaps you may find someone to discuss your equation with there.
A running average is usually the same number of points in front as behind. How is that done with 8 points? Assuming they did 4 in front, that would make the plot end 3 years sooner than necessary. I average the 12 months to get a yearly plot but that's it. Running averages might obscure important phenomena.
Sounds like the Cornwall Alliance copied my stuff.
Take the blinders off. I didn't say climate, I said average global temperature. The equation explains it with R^2 greater than 0.9. Do the search (4 days ago post).
If nothing else, just look at the graphs.
The equation allows prediction of temperatures using data up to any date. The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2013 calculated using data to 1990 and actual sunspot numbers through 2013 is within 0.012 K of the trend calculated using data through 2013.
The graph is right there for you to inspect. You can run WoodforTrees graphs of data from most of the major global datasets (NOAA missing, but essentially similar to GISS), for a number of graphical functions.
I selected start dates two months apart, then chose every 12 samples, to get a run of January, a run of March, of May, of July, of September, and November, the limits of WoodforTrees' capacity to process.
These curves were smoothed using 8-year running means. There are three options when doing this: forward, midpoint (which you assume), and endpoint. All produce identical curves, merely shifted compared to the timeline, so long as comparisons are all like-to-like. The CO2 level from Mauna Loa was normalised, so in effect is a fair comparison.
And yes, it's true that any filter will obscure information; it's a judgment call to decide what information to highlight with graphical methods. Mine suppress unimportant short-term variation attributable to volcanoes or ENSO, for example, while emphasizing that the relationship of the seasons has been twisted by CO2's influence.
You can see this by running the same series at 32 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/every:12/mean:32/plot/gistemp/from:1880.17/every:12/mean:32/plot/gistemp/from:1880.34/every:12/mean:32/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/mean:32/plot/gistemp/from:1880.67/every:12/mean:32/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/mean:32/plot/gistemp/from:1880.08/every:12/mean:32/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/offset:0.4/to:1985/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/offset:0.7/to:1985
It looks like the graph ends in the mid 1980's, but it includes all the temperature data until present. In WoodforTrees, the "To" condition cuts off newer data; there are no "To" conditions on the GISS lines.
The Earth has far more land north than south of the equator. This imbalance normally makes the northern portion of the globe overrepresented in the seasonal comparisons: northern winters run colder than northern summers, even while the southern seasons are inverted, because there's so much less land, and water tends to moderate seasons. But we don't see that relationship holding: it's broken, because the external forcing is so strong. In Chaos Theory, only an external forcing does this, this way, in such closely bound relations.
Your equation is simply a variant on endless other candidate fitted curves. It works now, if you squint just right, on the data that you used to generate it. But does it work if you cut out half of the data? For example, does it work on the Southern Hemisphere, or Northern, or Tropics, or Polar Zones, if you try it there? If not, why not, for a global equation?
Does it work if Cowtan and Way's trick of using RSS and UAH to add back the missing polar and remote site data to GISS or HadCRU, amounting to the most rapidly warming seventh of the globe, is applied to the data?
No, it does not. And in a decade, it will also no longer work, though the same method you used to fit it will no doubt work, with different constants. Ten years later, that too will fail. We know this, because this approach has been tried, the holy grail of meteorology, and was proven wrong by Lorentz decades ago.
The reason that the phrase “Global Warming Deniers” is used is that the “Deniers” ignore demonstrable evidence, and fabricate stories and “facts” that are not true.
For example, the claim
“ongoing pause in the rise of global temperatures, which in reality, have remained flat for approximately 15 years,”
is NOT true.
Despite the fantasies of Global Warming Deniers, the earth continues to warm at the rate of 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second – running 24/7 - including the years from 1998 to present.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
Earth’s Rate Of Global Warming Is 400,000 Hiroshima Bombs A Day
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/22/3089711/global-warming-hiroshima-bombs/#
Four Hiroshima bombs a second: How we imagine climate change
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-hiroshima-climate.html
This measured/observed warming rate is via the Argo buoy system. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html
2005 was warmer than any previous year. Then 2010 broke the 2005 record. Data at:
NOAA/National Climate Data Center
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
2012 was the warmest year on record for the United States.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-announces-warmest-year-record-contiguous-us
Sea level continues to rise due to thermal expansion and glacial melting. The rate of sea level rise has quadrupled since the 1870 to 1924 period.
Columbia University
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/
Glaciers continue to melt, and the rate of melting has accelerated since 1998.
World Glacier Monitoring Service
http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum12.html
Ocean heating has accelerated sharply since 1998. (Note: Over 90% of Global Warming ends up heating the oceans.)
Graph at:
http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdOceanHeat.jpg
Full peer reviewed paper at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full
Up to date info at:
NOAA/National Oceanographic Data Center
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ (click on “2”)
Finally, May and June 2014 were the warmest May and June in recorded history. The 12 month period ending in June 2014 was warmer than any previous calendar year.
NOAA/National Climate Data Center
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
Conclusion
The actual observations show that global warming didn’t stop in 1998. What is happening is that a few Global Warming Deniers fabricated a story, and the other members of the Global Warming Denier cult continue to demonstrate their willful ignorance by repeating the same false story.
More at:
http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdGlobalWarmingStoppedIn1998.html
The promoters of the catastrophic anthropogenic warming (CAGW) are engaging in scare tactics because they do not have the science to back them up and there has been no increase in atmospheric global temperatures in 17 years and 10 months (the pause) despite the fact that has been a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 during this period. The IPCC and NASA have admitted that the pause exists and the CAGW proponents have 29 different excuses for the fact that their vaunted (and spectacularly wrong) computers failed to predict the pause. My favorite excuse is "the deep oceans ate the global warming but we can't find it!"
There is no evidence directly linking human generated CO2 to global warming. There is only circumstantial evidence and an unproven hypothesis. Correlation does not prove causation and changes in CO2 concentrations lag changes in temperatures. The most likely significant cause of climate change is likely high energy cosmic rays which are affected by solar cycles. Low solar intensity means more cosmic rays which contributes to the production of more low level clouds and cools the earth.
With the recent lack of solar activity, we should expect to see a much cooler global climate in the next 30 years. Russia's Polkovo Observatory is saying that there is the possibility of a mini-ice age for 200-250 years.
This is actually bad news as a much cooler climate will make it more difficult to feed the world's population and the world has wasted trillions of dollars tilting at the imaginary windmills created by the CAGW. The world is spending about billion dollars a day on alternative energy preparing for global warming when 20% of the world's population is without electricity and will need access to cheap energy if they are to survive a sustained and substantial cooling period.
The 'catastrophic' word is purely a creation of the Denial Industry and their ongoing smear campaign. Though a 6C rise by 2100 - which a sizable minority of scientists say is now possible - would indeed be a catastrophe for our economy, agriculture and standard of living.
And no-one is a 'proponant' of anything. Scientists just publish the results of their studies and what the data reveals. It's not their fault if you don't like reality.
And perleeeese! Enough of this absurd "no warming since 1998" BS. This is a total myth and has been completely discredited and debunked over and over and over again. It's so boooring to have to endlessly debunk junk and myths like this rubbish.
More energy is entering the Earths system than is leaving it.
Simple daily measurements from satellites show this. We can even measure it accurately these days.
If there is more energy entering the system than leaving it then it is warming.
No if or buts - it's warming. Basic laws of physics - ain't they a bitch for the Denial Industry.
Whether this latent heat manifests itself in the 1000 Gt of ice that is melting every year or the huge increase in ocean heat content or in the rising surface temperature is not the issue,
There is simply no possible way for the Earth NOT to be warming. ( Unless the laws of physics suddenly ceased to apply in July 1998 as you suggest! LOL.)
Do you really think it is likely that some magical occurance in July 1998 led to the laws of physics that govern our whole universe suddenly being overturned?!
Are you insane?
And taking the top point of the biggest temperature spike in recorded history at the peak of the biggest Super El Nino event known to man and using it as the start point for some arbitrary time period........
Oh perleeese.
Do you think we are all stupid?
It is such an obvious and transparent attempt to deceive that it simply beggars belief that you seriously expect anyone with even the most basic understandig of science and statistics to fall for it. Its just an insult to any averagely intelligent person and you should be ashamed of yourself for parrotting such nonsense in public.
If anything the warming has accelerated with most of the heat showing up in the oceans. SST's are currently at their highest level on record. The last three months have been, globaly, the hottest three months on records dating back 165 years or more and you are crazy eough to come in here and try to tell us that "the warming magicaly ceased in July 1998".
It's just pathetic.
Now that man-made climate change is simply an obvious everyday reality all over the world the last-of-the-deniers and their long wearisome lists of utterly discredited junk and myths are sounding shrill, desperate and, frankly, insane.
We don't have time for this rubbish any longer.
LOL
You: "The 'catastrophic' word is purely a creation of the Denial Industry and their ongoing smear campaign. Though a 6C rise by 2100 - which a sizable minority of scientists say is now possible - would indeed be a catastrophe for our economy, agriculture and standard of living".
You: :And no-one is a 'proponant' of anything. Scientists just publish the results of their studies and what the data reveals. It's not their fault if you don't like reality."
Did you read the article? Have you followed Michael (Hokey Stick) Man and his Climategate career? Where have you been? LOL. Mann is typical of the CAGW proponents.
"... contrary to the non-stop bombardment of headlines and broadcasts about catastrophic warming, the evidence shows that there has been no global warming for the past 17 to 18 years. ....Moreover, even many of the leading individuals and institutions that have been promoting climate-change alarmism admit that, in defiance of their predictions, there has been more than a decade-and-a-half “pause” in the previous warming trend. In addition, the global-warming propagandists have been exposed again and again for engaging in unethical behavior and outright fraud, as well as wild exaggeration. As a result, public susceptibility to global-warming hysteria has subsided and political support for draconian climate-related policies has declined dramatically. ....
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18889-desperate-dash-of-global-warming
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/07/global-warming-pause-puts-crisis-in-perspective/
BTW, I hear Michael (Hokey Stick)) Mann is still looking for his missing Nobel Peace (not science) Prize and that he and James (GISS) Hansen have been seen wandering near the equator with thermometers in hand looking for the missing CO2 hotspot! :)
You really ought to check your sources, when they make such farfetched claims.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.17/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.34/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.67/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/offset:0.25/plot/gistemp/mean:149/mean:151/from:1900/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/offset:0.5
There is clearly no pause when you drill down to what the monthly global temperature trends are doing every decade: they're inverting their usual relationship to other months because the external forcing from burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the air is so disruptive.
What looks like a pause is a spin. We're flipping the normal climate over like a flapjack with coal and oil.
You can go to blogs of ill-repute all you like, but it doesn't make what you catch there anything but a diseased view of the world.
Try to make some sense next time. Even the IPCC and NASA have acknowledged the pause and they are strong supporters of the CAGW cult.
... "the global temperature data show, contrary to all of the frantic predictions of the past two decades, that there has been no increase in global surface temperatures over at least the past 17 to 18 years! Lord Christopher Monckton, science advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, points out that the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit records show no warming for 19 or 20 years, and the Remote Sensing System (RSS) satellite dataset shows no warming for 24 years."
"... many of the most prominent individual and institutional promoters of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) alarmism have acknowledged that there has been no measurable global warming for the past 17 or 18 years. This includes the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the Met Office (the U.K.’s national weather service); the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC); NASA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and Professor Phil Jones, the former director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, who was among the scientists exposed by the CRU’s infamous e-mail scandal known as 'Climategate.'"
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18889-desperate-dash-of-global-warming
Even that right wing rag the Washington Post is on board with the pause:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/20/global-warming-of-the-earths-surface-has-decelerated-viewpoint/
Read the new talking points memo from the CAGW cult. Global warming is now causing global cooling. Keep up to date!
What, do I sound like I'm slavishly devoted to the IPCC, or anyone, when they're wrong?
Though to be a bit fair to the IPCC, you're wildly distorting the few wrong things they've said, and your argument relies on people who are far more wrong almost always.
The fiction of a "17.8 year pause" comes from the Cornwall Alliance, a group that used the bible as a basis for deciding nine years ago that they would forever after refuse all scientific evidence of AGW, and use "any and all means" to dispute it. Any and all means. They've taken part in inflation of their own credentials, spoofing others, hacking, blackmail, cherry-picking, defamation, organized coercion, formed tax-exempt lobbying groups under the guise of educational or public interest think tanks, hijacked legitimate processes, marketed, made political donations and relentlessly schemed for a decade to do anything but accept the evidence of science. They get their pause by taking the average of the longest spans they can find in each of the major temperature trend records where the starting point is unusually high and the endpoint is unusually low. This is a no-no in graphs.
Looking at periods shorter than three decades cannot show us a climate; comparing two periods less than thirty years apart cannot give us a valid relationship of climates. We can, if careful, get some sub-climate information about climate components, just as a DNA analysis can look at genes and chromosomes and amino acids, by looking at parts of what makes up a climate. But the one thing we cannot say is whether or not the global climate has stopped warming unless we use at least two seventeen year independent samples, and that only at a 95% confidence level. Far better to go to 32 years, for 99.5% confidence.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:384/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12
You want an explanation for 'the pause'?
Sure, some of it is heat going into the deep ocean; some of it (about 1/6th, likely, is the string of a dozen and a half volcanoes near the equator with stratosphere-penetrating eruptions in the past seventeen years -- an unusual run of activity); some is attributable to the economic collapse of 2008 reducing human industrial activity (about 1/10th, likely); some might be natural variability of large regional ocean cycles; the result of polar ice melts taking up heat in permanent structural change of the global energy budget; however, a major influence is that the forcing has been so strong as to invert the relationship of the seasons, causing a kink in the trend line that is visible when you disentangle the monthly decadal trends:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.17/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.34/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.5/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.67/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1880.83/every:12/mean:8/from:1900/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/offset:0.25/plot/gistemp/mean:149/mean:151/from:1900/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/mean:12/offset:0.5
What about some facts?
"The missing heat":
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525
..which broadly agrees with Bill Butler's original statements, except insofar as the Nature news feature was wrong or has since been refuted by newer research.
For example, where Tollefson claims none of the models predicted the hiatus, he's plain wrong: about a third of the GCMs used in the IPCC ensemble had similar pauses or dips at some points in their 80 year runs; four of them happened to randomly place La Nina events about where they actually happened in the time series and those four were remarkably accurate matches for global temperature trend.
Sure, the GCM's are not perfect predictors of weather, or even of climate; nor were they ever designed to be. The developers knew that predicting the influences of ENSO, volcanoes, human industrial activity (like the crash of 2008 that mothballed much of manufacturing and fossil fuel use in most of the world for half a decade), and such minor factors as the sun and the lesser ocean circulations would never be possible with the resolution, limitations and inputs available, and said so at the outset.
Modelers since 1990 have made many strides in interpretation, and computers are now over fifty times more powerful as then. We can expect incremental improvements, and that's great.. but it doesn't challenge what the models were designed for: confirming the GHE is the only effect capable of explaining the global temperature trend. They've done that, irrefutably, but they are not the only evidence to confirm this fact. The recent glacier paper showing the fingerprint of human activity in global glacier loss is a separate and distinct confirmation, among the four dozen other essential climate variables that also broadly agree.
Obtuse and ignorant people never know when they have been beat.
You really should just stop.
LOL "Debunked"! Bwahahahahahahaaa!
There are now fully SEVENTY FOUR 'hockey sticks' - count them.
ALL of them have been produced by seperate teams using a whole range of proxies and ALL of them further verify and corroborate the original. Not that this is what the case is about - it's about personal attacks and libelous filth.
I can't wait to see this come to court. Manns case is rock solid and the lies of the Denial Industry are being further exposed with every passing week.
Now that man-made climate change is simply an obvious everyday reality all over the world the last-of-the-deniers are sounding shrill, desperate and, frankly, insane.
This has got nothing to do with 'free speech' you cowards. It's to do with a viscious campaign of slander and libel. It's about time the scientists called you out on your ridiculous junk and libelous nonsense and this is just the start of many court cases along similar lines.
About time.
"Free speech" does not extend to shouting "There is no fire"! in a crowded theatre that is filling with smoke and it doesn't allow for publishing outrageous lies in the press.
Can't wait.
LOL
From the real world, the number of non-hockey-sticks outnumber the fraudelent hockey sticks.
http://www.google.no/search?q=none-hockey-stick+site:hockeyschtick.blogspot.com
And Mann will never be seen i court. He will of course never take the risk of beeing undressed in a courtroom. His method is to sue and then delay the process for years, to starve out the counterpart. Big Green's pockets are deeper than most people can imagine.
How is blogspot even remotely related to the real world?
By the way, Mann's already won in court, this year, on another case. Mann hasn't been the one filing vexatious delaying motion after delaying motion in the Steyn case; Steyn has.
What you say is simply not true.
Try another one.
A link to peer reviewed papers, presented on a blog with direct links to the real papers is not valid?
------
About Steyn; Read this paper: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6516.pdf
Steyn is actually begging the court to speed up the process:
..."Above all, this Court should decide these appeals -- and any other appeals of decisions to deny motions made under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act -- as quickly as possible on a priority basis. As the facts of the present action show, failure to do so will do further damage to a central purpose of that statute, which has already been significantly undermined before the trial court."...
..."The delays stem from Mann’s need to amend his original complaint because of its false claim that he is a Nobel Laureate and that Steyn and the other defendants had committed the crime of “defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient.” Mann’s fraudulent misrepresentation of his credentials and academic standing later earned him a rebuke from Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute in Oslo.6 One can well understand why the exposure of Mann’s fraudulent claim should cause him embarrassment but it should surely not justify resetting the procedural clock back to the beginning on this case, which is what in effect happened."...
..."Mann requested from the trial court a stay of proceedings in Steyn’s discovery against Mann on the grounds that it would be unduly onerous to have to proceed with two different discovery phases, one for Steyn, one for the other defendants. This is an absurd complaint. Steyn responded to Mann’s request for discovery on February 12, 2014, and did not find them unduly time-consuming"...
Actions speak louder than words.
Every party to every complaint before courts has the option of settling out of court; it is invariably faster and overall less costly.
That Steyn has done nothing that in the least could be seen as attempt to settle tells us all we need know of Steyn's desire for haste.
Mark Steyn's hand-in-the-cookie-jar claims are not credible.
Mann have Big Green and their "Climate attack found" to pay his lawyers. Steyn have to use his own money and can't afford a long process. Mann knows that and want to win by starving out Steyn.
A nice and fair person this Mann.
This is a very odd thing to say, when Mark Steyn has been rolling in cash from his public appeals.
Isn't this whole article about the overwhelming crush of supporters Mark Steyn has?
I don't think you can cry poor on Steyn's behalf, especially when the only people who get rich from defamation suits are lawyers, and that's the choice of the people who refuse to settle like grown ups without putting the taxpayer to the expense of paying for a judge and courthouse.
You should cry poor on the taxpayers' behalf, as it's the taxpayers who Steyn is taking to the cleaners to enjoy the privilege of saying anything he wants without owning up to the consequences.
To speak out in a public debate is everones privilege in the free part of the world. You may like it or not. Mann has created a fake hockey stick by using fraudelent methods. It's documented by several independent scientists. You may like it or not. Steyn is calling a spade for a spade. It's that simple.
To speak or write is a precious liberty, the more free the better. To use that liberty as a weapon to do real harm is a crime against the person or property of another. You say Mann created a fake hockey stick, but I'm pretty good at math and I've been over and over it and see no fakery in it at all. I've been through the 'independent scientists' versions, and they either talk about something else as if Mann did that instead, and attack it like a straw man, or are plainly wrong.
It's not about what I like or don't like. I like math. I'm good at math. Steyn is not good at math. I hate bad math, and that's what Steyn has done.
By the way:
"In December 2007 the permanent secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Geir Lundestad, clarified these questions in an email to one of our authors, copied to Dr Pachauri. Chairman of the IPCC. He wrote that the committee would issue no medal or diploma to individual contributors to IPCC reports and it was up to the IPCC to decide what it would do to recognize the various contributors.
On this basis, the IPCC Chair, the Secretary of the IPCC and IPCC Co-chairs decided in 2007 to present personalized certificates 'for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC' to experts that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC Reports, namely coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007." IPCC Secretariat, October 2010
"I take note .. that the IPCC issued the diploma in question. " -
Geir Lundestad, same month, retracting his rebuke of Dr. Mann
Nice try. In 2012 about 700 000 000 Europeans won the Nobel Peace Price too, according to your logic.
Try another one....
Really?
Just how many diplomas did the IPCC send out?
I'm not saying Michael Mann personally won the Nobel Prize; I'm saying the rebuke you claim was retracted.
The organization that won the Nobel recognized Mann, among a select few others, for his role in that win.
You can slice up language all you want to try to make people you don't like look bad, but in normal English, when a football team wins the Superbowl, the team doesn't wear the Superbowl Rings, its players do, and they are winners. And even if the team has 700 000 000 fans (as if half of them weren't anti-EU footdraggers) who shout 'WE WON!'.. they don't get a ring.
To my mind, Alfred Nobel wasn't the kind of communist the Nobel Committee is made up of now; he didn't set up his prizes to hand out to societies for communal activities, but to recognize and encourage individuals fro individual excellence.
I'd say your hero, Lundestad, represents what's wrong with the Nobel Prize these days, and he and his Politburo ought have directly awarded the Prize to Mann -- who by the way, accomplished more by the time he graduated than the likes of Richard Lindzen or Judith Curry have done in their entire careers, and they in turn make Mark Steyn look like a drooling three-year-old with potty mouth -- and a small handful of others, instead of to a loosely-defined association of working groups.
The Nobel Intitute never send out diplomas. Neither to Mann, nor to enyone else. Mann claims to be a Nobel Prize winner. He is not, he is a lier.
Geir Lundestad and the socialist Nobel Committee agree with you.
I get that you're a nice person trying to find out the truth of things.. but is agreeing with everything socialists say the right way to get to the truth?
Even the thickest journalist must clue in at some point that accusing someone who is nothing like a pedophile of being like a pedophile, repeating the accusation, compounding the accusation, aggravating the accusation, and thumbing your nose at the lawyers and judges on all sides is not what a normal person would call free speech.
Defending malicious defamation on a claim of free speech demeans the precept. Shame on those who rush to defend the indefensible language and conduct of Steyn et al, they diminish journalism and weaken the protections of journalists by bringing into low renown legitimate writing.
Mann has never been accused for beeing a pedophile. He have been accused by Steyn for beeing the man behind the fraudulent "hockey stick".
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn
Perhaps you should READ HARDER?
Steyn has maliciously and while in possession of proof of the wrongness of Steyn's claims written a great deal about Dr. Mann, including as you observe baseless accusations of fraud, but also of molestation (of data), of being like a pedophile (with the reader left to draw their own conclusions from that insinuation of Simberg and Steyn), and on and on.. and on.. and on.. Steyn seems to embody the phrase, "brevity is the soul of wit", in glaring counterexample.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/03/18/mann-motion-to-dismiss-steyns-counter-suit/ covered the state of things fairly well in the Spring, since then Dr. Mann has won at every juncture, and Steyn et al have been dragging out the process with every trick in the book, well-funded by donors who are easy marks for invective and rabble-rousing.
What about some facts?
http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6258.pdf
Mann is doing all he can to delay the process.
When seeking the facts about litigation between two parties, who but a partisan would go only to one of the principles for the story?
You can see the papers filed in court in the public record. You can read the original posts. You can read the judges' rulings. All of the impartial official sources have found for Mann repeatedly.
If Steyn fools you once, shame on him; if he fools you hundreds or thousands of times, shame on you.
My link above is to a paper filed in court. What exactly is your point? You are trolling.
Your link is to one single paper filed by one party in court. That same party as indefensibly wrote “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point.”
How is recommending someone looks at the whole case through impartial sources rather than through the interpretation of the one defamatory and ulterior party whom has been most wrong in all of this 'trolling'?
Is this the definition of 'trolling' people use when caught?
"Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable." Judge Frederick H. Weisberg Case No. 2012 CA 8263 B
Are you accusing Judge Weisberg of trolling, too?
You can read all the relevant documents here: http://cei.org/michaelmann
I have readen them. Have you?
You read the views of guys who go around calling innocent people pedophiles -- while showing that they know it's wrong, and then doing it anyway -- and have the gumption to call their smear "all the relevant documents"?
Have you been to http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/index.php or taken any law courses in matters of defamation?
Did you know that the guy they're defaming has the following honors and awards?
2014 Named Highly Cited Researcher, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)
2014 Friend of the Planet Award, National Center for Science Education
2014 Article [Mann, M.E. et al, Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations,Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-762, 1999] selected by American Geophysical Union for inclusion in GRL 40th anniversary collection.
2014 Profiled in Contemporary Authors (Gale Publishing)
2013 National Conservation Achievement Award, National Wildlife Federation
2013 Bloomberg News list of 50 Most Influential People
2013 Honorable mention, Green Book Awards, for “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars”
2013 Appointed Distinguished Professor, Pennsylvania State University
2013 Elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society
2012 Hans Oeschger Medal, European Geosciences Union
2012 Elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union
2008 Profiled in American Environmental Leaders From Colonial Times to the Present
2008 Website “RealClimate.org” (co-founded by M. Mann) chosen as one of top 15 “green” websites by Time Magazine (April 2008)
2007 Contributed (with other IPCC report authors) to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
2006 American Geophysical Union Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing (for ‘Geophysical Research Letters’)
2005 Website “RealClimate.org” (co-founded by M. Mann) chosen as one of top 25 “Science and Technology” websites by Scientific American
2005 John Russell Mather Paper award for 2005 by the Association of American Geographers [for article: Frauenfeld, O., Davis, R.E., and Mann, M.E., A Distinctly Interdecadal Signal of Pacific Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction, Journal of Climate 18, 1709-1718, 2005]
2002 Named by Scientific American as one of 50 leading visionaries in science and technology
2002 Outstanding Scientific Paper award for 2002 by NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) [for article: Delworth, T.L., Mann, M.E., Observed and Simulated Multidecadal Variability in the Northern Hemisphere, Climate Dynamics, 16, 661-676, 2000]
2002 Article [Mann et al, "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries", Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998] selected for 'fast moving fronts' by Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)
2002 Selected as one of 10 'Mead Honored Faculty', University of Virginia
1998 Council of Graduate Schools' Distinguished Dissertation Award, nominated
1997 Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences, Yale University
1996 Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship (DOE)
1989 Josiah Willard Gibbs Prize for outstanding research and scholarship in Physics, Yale University
That's just the one single guy they're mobbing. Do they have any awards in science among the lot of them?
Do they hold any honors at all?
And let's look at some of the people who have come to Mann's defense: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/the-empiricist-strikes-back/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 -- though I don't agree with Krugman's politics, I can acknowledge that besides the two dozen texts fundamental to understanding modern economics, the nearly a hundred distinguished journal articles and report he's authored, Krugman rated:
Eccles Prize for Excellence in Economic Writing, 1991
John Bates Clark Medal, 1991
Adam Smith Award, 1995
Nikkei Prize (with M. Fujita and A. Venables), 2001
Alonso Prize (Regional Science Association), 2002
Columnist of the year, Editor and Publisher magazine, 2002
I'd go on, but perhaps it's best to review the National Review's credentials in this matter:
Steyn has a Breindel from Fox, a Mightier Pen, a Sappho and no education since leaving high school as a teenager to become a DJ.
We get that all Steyn has is invective, willful ignorance, and the cheering of a meanspirited audience of gulls; that doesn't amount to a defense of Steyn's abuses.
If you want to build a Free Speech case, be a mensch: build it on the Snowden case.
..."or purposefully distorting the scientific truth"...
The judge must be a jerk. There is no such thing as "scientific truth".
Actually, there is. Isaac Newton (you might want to Google his name) wrote the definition of scientific truth and how to arrive at it in his Principia three centuries ago.
"1. admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
2. to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
3. qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
4. propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena."
http://web.visionlearning.com/custom/ProcessofScience/custom/Newtons_four_rules_table.shtml
Scientific truth is the collection holding "..propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true.."
See how that works?
lol! You know we can see Steyn's name in the domain you linked to... right?
Of course. It's his document, written by his lawyers, begging the court to overrule Mann's attempts to delay the process. What's your point?
My point is that you're a transparently dishonest clown who was never interested in being taken seriously.
If you wanted people to take you seriously, why would you be hiding like a coward behind a private profile?
You know anyone can verify this just by hovering over your avatar... right?
What is this site, anyway!? Have I entered the Orly Taitz twilight zone of the professionally mentally ill? Seriously, what is your point? ...and I mean the point of your existence, not just whatever idiocy you're attempting to push on this particular thread...
This rag isn't connected to this Objectivist clown, is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thomas_Quick
So stupid! Lol!
There is nothing unusual about the climate. It is well within natural variability. Many scientists are warning of a cooling period.
What?
The CO2 level is unusual, and unlike anything in the last 800,000 years, by some 43% above the normal maximum, and over 70% above the average.
The warming of the last half century has been the highest spike we have on either the instrumental or the paleo record since before the Eocene (the last time CO2 levels were this high, when camels roamed the Arctic), and the accompanying shifts in species location would have shown up globally on the paleo had there been such a spike before now.
Extrema are noted in all cyclone basins for season start and end, mean path length, intensity and duration. Landfalls for every basin except along the US Southeast coast are not merely up, but doubling in frequency, as often as every 15 years in the case of the Mediterranean.
Jet stream changes are noted and linked with high confidence to blocking patterns that intensify weather cells by slowing and trapping them over areas, which can account for about a third of all global flooding, droughts and superstorm formation.
Superstorms are forming annually now, instead of once a century.
The Insurance industry is showing climate change on its books. Health care is seeing climate-related trends in treatment.
Polar vortices are shifting, causing intense winters farther south than usual in the Northern Hemisphere, and increasing sea ice variability in the Southern Hemisphere, even as the warm air masses that dislocate polar chill further from the poles also account for ice loss in the Arctic sea and Antarctic continent.
There are over 4,000 peer-reviewed published papers confirming the link of these effects to human burning of fossil fuels, and fewer than four hundred papers challenging the link, all refuted within days or weeks of publication, and in some cases so scandalously bad the editorial boards have quit or been fired.
Do you care to revise your claim?
Are you like some sort of compendium of made up crap? Your post is a composite of lies and episodic observation.
I'm an even-handed skeptic who cares enough about his family's future to check when people make claims, and then check that, and then check that, all the way down to first principles and first evidence.
If you care so little for your family that you'll take the word of some stranger on a blog over first principles and all direct observations, then you can be glib enough to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lies, because you won't have to look far to find someone who will peddle anything you want to believe, if you don't look too close, if you give up your liberty to their views.
Which makes me need to ask, what would someone like that be doing on this blog?
It's instructive to compare your one sentence post using off color words, accusation of lies, no data and no scientific reasoning; vs Bart's with everything your post lacks, minus the language and personal attack.
You do know that language speaks volumes about competence and integrity, don't you?
You're right.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630
And since 2002 the world have been cooling.
Refuted: http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_ylo=2014&q=Twentieth+Century+Reanalysis+Project&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1
Here is why Mark Steyn will win, and Michael Mann will lose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehC5aYj2xNc
Steyn & co. may well lose in court, and likely will.
The National Review may fold under the burden of a large settlement, though that's improbable.
Mann might get his lawyers' fees out of the contest, but it's likely the defendents are largely tactically judgment proof.
But whatever the outcome in court, Steyn sees no downside. He's not in it to win in court. He's in it to spin in the court of public opinion.
The media -- the legitimate medium of journalism in America -- will only suffer for Steyn's outrages in its name; but Steyn never was a journalist. Steyn's an agitator, a pamphleteer, a spinmeister.
To Steyn, all the facts and reasoning of science is just a bit of drag keeping him from getting where he's going. So Steyn will spin and spin and spin over and over again, to get his way, to spin his version of events. He can't help it; he's going somewhere, and he wants to get there faster, and he wants everyone in the world to go there with him, regardless of what they want.
So no matter what, Steyn will, in his mind, win, so long as he keeps spinning.
And if you're onboard with Steyn, it appears you'll spin just like him.