Data Point – (The Lack Of) Global Warming

by Mike

Lord Christopher Monckton

Climate change conferences come and go, with repeated attempts by the World Statists to set up International governance to manage a non-existent problem. As Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley reports from the latest Hot Air fest in Doha, Man-made Global Warming has been almost exclusively confined to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC) conferences, and there’s been precious little of it “in the wild”. Read his report.

For a bonus, below the fold, Monckton debunks Algore’s claim that “dirty fuels are causing dirty weather”.

Leave a Comment

  • Luke

    Monckton doesn’t have a degree even remotely related to climatology, yet somehow his opinion is more important than the thousands of climatologists and other scientists who do actually believe in AGW?! Monckton has no peer-reviewed work to support his claims, and backs up his tenuous opinion with shoddy data.

    Why don’t you report facts instead of opinion, because truth is truth, whether you like it or not.

    • C. dog e. doG

      So says Gospel Luke, according to CAGW Scripture. Now Luke, did you actually read Monckton’s opinion piece? C’mon, be honest. If so, or if you just read it ‘cuz I asked you if you did, exactly which data was wrong? Then, could you steer us in the left direction to point out the rite data? Then, could you finally calculate the increased Tº of Mommy’s inflated fever based solely on added naked ape gas (I’ll even let you throw in the apes’ fenced in bovine gas too ‘cuz I’m feelin’ generous given the late hour). I’m not asking you to perform all the simultaneous equations to account for the feedback epicycles, just the gas, ma’am.
      – C. dog pulls out his needle to pop hot air balloons floating up, up to the atmospheres, where idears are not so clear

      • Luke

        I just read it now, and as far as I can see, he covers up his poorly founded argument with rhetoric and humor designed to steer the reader away from the science and into his lap.

        Well, Mr. C. dog, one must recognize that surface temp. alone is a poor indicator of AGW, because most of the Earth’s relevant heat content is stored in the ocean, so thus a relatively small exchange between atmosphere and ocean can result in a large swing in surface temperature. We saw this in 1998, where there was a strong El Nino effect which amplified the temp. readings – by then chopping off the left hand side of the graph, up to the year 97/98, one can produce a near-flat graph, and then proclaim “no warming” to the feeble minded populace of America! Sadly, changes in climate take place over decades and centuries, and not a few years, like the data Mr. Monckton presents. So regardless of whether there has been any noticeable surface temperature warming or not, the Earth has continued to accrue heat since then, for example see the peer-revied paper Nuccitelli et al. (2012), Figure 1, for a demonstration of the accrued heat content.

        The conclusions he has come to is only based off a single dataset, the UK Met Office data, which is hardly representative of the world’s surface temperatures, let alone the ocean’s.

        What we do know is that 2010 is tied for 2005 for hottest year on record, in face, if you’re older than 27, you’ve never seen a month of below average temperatures.

        “naked ape gas”

        I feel as if you’re trying to send me a message here… perhaps something along the lines of “puny humans could never change climate! Haha!”. But, as humble as we be, let us remember that it only took a bunch of plants for the Oxygen catastrophe to take place!

        EDIT: Would the Grok be willing to post this to the front page?!

        • SamAdams

          NASA is another govt paid agency that promotes AGW, paid science normally dances the dance that pays them[thats prosituttion] , But NASA stated this year that they were surprised the moons surface has increased 3 degrees. Last month they were surprised that Mars temps were higher than they expected. Uhhh, wonder what could cause this?? uhhmmm, what energy source in our solar system could be doing this? Those pecky humans and their dirty habits maybe?? ummm

          • C. dog e. doG

            That’s sum mighty big footprint you got there partna’. And you know what they say about the size of the shoe and …
            – C. dog buys oversized booties to impress the chicks

        • C. dog e. doG

          Hmmm, that surely is sum vexing, Gospel Luke. Is CAGW about the surface temperature of Mommy – you know, where naked apes live – or are we now to be diverted into thinking the sky is falling in from the mantle of Liberal insanity? Sure would be some ironical if NASA now starts inserting a thermometer to get a better reading of Mommy Earth’s inflated feva’. And silly ole’ me, I thought we were only focused on the biosphere.
          – C. dog chasing tales to tap into his liberal side

    • Dan Pangburn

      Since the issue of average global temperature change is actually a problem in radiation heat transfer, not being a Climate Scientist may be an advantage. The assertion that atmospheric carbon dioxide is a primary cause of global warming is demonstrably wrong. Peer review by the usual ‘name’ journals is exposed as de facto censoring. Remember Climategate? The many agencies that have agreed with the idea that carbon dioxide was the primary cause of global warming have been misled.

      It may be of interest to some that I developed an equation
      that has been made public on the web that, using only one independent variable,
      has calculated average global temperatures since they have been accurately
      measured world wide with an accuracy of 88%. Including the influence of
      atmospheric carbon dioxide (a second independent variable) increases the
      accuracy to 88.5%. No one else has been anywhere near that accurate.

  • Dan Pangburn

    Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts
    believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with
    observation, it’s wrong.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some
    politicians and many others stubbornly continue to proclaim that increased
    atmospheric carbon dioxide was the primary cause of global warming.

    Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

    The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since
    2001 by 23.2 ppmv (an amount equal to 25.9% of the increase that took place
    from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; October, 2012, 394.32

    The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat.

    That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 23.2 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

    It might not be realized by some, but average global
    temperature actually has little to do with meteorology so the wrong experts
    have been trying to figure it out. The so-called Global Climate Models (aka
    General Circulation Models) are actually weather models and they do a pretty
    good job of predicting weather for a few days. Their predicting ability declines
    into computational noise within days. It is profoundly naive to perceive that a
    weather model can be turned into a climate model by running it longer.

    • Luke

      Hello troll, I realize that your last four posts are exactly the same as each other, but I still feel the need to respond and totally reduce your poorly chosen argument to shreds.

      Firstly, quoting one great scientist (a physicist, no matter) does not instantly render your argument truthful and valid, the thing is, AOGCM models DO agree with observation.

      Climate is a function of change over decades and centuries, not since 2001, and as I have explained to Mr. dog below, the global average temperature trend is a poor indicator of a changing climate.

      Yes, it’s observation – but it’s a bad observation; it’s like me saying: I’ve eaten 100 Big Mac burgers every day for a week, but my weight has not increased over one 24 hour period that I ate those burgers, ergo, fatty food does not contribute to obesity! Yes, that’s an observation, but it simply isn’t reflective of a long term trend.

      Oh, and by the way, AOGCM models are fantastic at predicting long term climate change. You’re once again trying to equate climate and weather, which is not a case, yes, these models have limitations in regards to weather prediction, but they are perfect for predicting climate change. In fact, the IPCC’s model actually did a perfect job of reconstructing the climate record from 1800-2000, but, it fell to pieces when radiative forcing from CO2 was not included. ONLY with CO2 included did the model do an accurate job. These models AGREE with the observations we’ve seen.

      I’m not sure where you’ve got your information from, but it’s blatantly wrong and misleading. Since you’re a hit and run commenter, I won’t be expecting a reply from you. Goodbye!

      • Sam Adams

        Luke,maybe your right. Someone told me about HAARP a navy experimental program. That would be a human generated cause of climate change. Google it, HAARP

      • Dan Pangburn

        Average GLOBAL temperature anomalies are reported on the web
        by NOAA, GISS, Hadley, RSS, and UAH, all of which are government agencies. The first three all draw from the same data base of surface measurement data. The last two draw from the data base of satellite measurements. Each agency processes the data slightly differently from the others. Each believes that their way is most accurate. To avoid bias, I average all five. The averages in Celsius degrees are listed here.

        2001 0.3473
        2002 0.4278
        2003 0.4245
        2004 0.3641
        2005 0.4663
        2006 0.3930
        2007 0.4030
        2008 0.2598
        2009 0.4022
        2010 0.5261
        2011 0.3277

        A straight line (trend line) fit to these data has no slope. That means that, for over a decade, average global temperature has not changed. If the average thru October, 2012 (0.3691 °C) is included, the slope is down.

        • C. dog e. doG

          Thanks for the ammo, Dan. Looks like you will soon need to go underground to mine your data to satisfy the latest deflection by CAGW crowd: all the extra heat is going into the oceans and crusty stuff. Imagine, all this kerfuffle over a half-degree blip.
          – C. dog

Previous post:

Next post: