Monday, August 18, 2014

The Temperature Continues to Rise Through July

The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) released its Global State of the Climate report for July 2014 today (it released the U.S. report earlier). The state of the climate for July was not good.

  • The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2014 was the fourth highest on record for July, at 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F).
  • The global land surface temperature was 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.3°C (57.8°F), marking the 10th warmest July on record.
  • For the ocean, the July global sea surface temperature was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), tying with 2009 as the warmest July on record.
  • The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–July period (year-to-date) was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), tying with 2002 as the third warmest such period on record.

Let's review the tally for the year so far:

June 2014 was the hottest June since we started keeping modern records in 1880;

May was the hottest May ever recorded;

April tied 2010 as the hottest April ever recorded;

March was the fourth hottest March ever recorded;

We got a break in February. It was only the 21st hottest February ever recorded;

But, that break followed the hottest January since 2007 and the fourth hottest January on record.

So, let's see what the score is so far for 2014: one 21st hottest month, three 4th hottest months, and three hottest months ever.

What was that the deniers keep saying about how the temperature rise has stopped?




Friday, August 15, 2014

$30,000 Challenge Submission - Man or Nature?




Keating's Global Warming Skeptic Challenge: Do humans or nature dominate climate?
Submission by David L. Hagen
Keating's Challenge as Stated: $30,000 Global Warming Skeptic Challenge III, Christopher Keating
Challenge: “I will award $30,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring; . . .If someone can provide a proof that I can't refute, using scientific evidence, then I will write them a check. The scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming and no one can prove otherwise.”
"challenge deadline of midnight (CDT) July 31, 2014”

http://dialoguesonglobalwarmin...
Challenge Context – Keating's Press Release:
Climate Change Deniers Using Same Methods as Tobacco Industry, Says
Physicist
PR Web.com
Dr. Christopher Keating, author of Undeniable: Dialogues on Global Warming, . . .Keating has been involved, at some level, with climate change for 30 years. He has been a professor of physics for over 20 years and has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. . . .
Keating says the results of climate change science are so overwhelming that the only way you can deny global warming is to deny science. “Greenhouse gases are on the rise and the effects are evident: The earth is getting warmer, weather everywhere is changing, the oceans are warming at an alarming rate and ice caps are melting. Every where you look you see evidence of global warming. This isn’t something that is only going to occur in the future, it is happening right now.” . . .
“There is simply no science to support the claims of the deniers, but massive amounts of science proving man made global warming is real. All that anyone needs to do is a little homework. Everything is available to the public,” said Keating.
Terms & Definitions: Where the challenge terms are not explicitly defined internally, recourse is taken to the methodology used by the US Patent office to interpret terms as would be understood by one of “Ordinary Skill in the Art”. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure Section 2141. In context, Keating's challenge is interpreted as understandable by a scientist with a post graduate degree, ordinary skill in the scientific method, statistical analysis, and the scientific literature relating to anthropogenic global climate change.
Testable: Since Keating appeals as a scientist with a PhD in Physics to the scientific method, his offer is interpreted as necessarily being logically and quantitatively testable under the scientific method. (Consequently, Keating is understood to not be asking to prove a nullity, nor an untestably small value, nor a rhetorical redefinition. See Appendix.)
“Man-made global climate change”: In the context, Keating states that there is:
“massive amounts of science proving man made global warming is real. All that anyone needs to do is a little homework. Everything is available to the public”.
The greatest global effort on summarizing and publicly reviewing scientific information on climate has been conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the 2013 Summary for Policy Makers IPCC WG1AR5 the IPCC stated:
D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9} page 17 It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthroprogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3} page 17

The IPCC further defined:
“extremely likely: 95–100%” page 4
IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, US.
Keating's use of “Man-made global climate change” is thus interpreted as referring to this strong statement of the 2013 IPCC hypothesis, that: Since 1951, more than 50% of global warming is due to anthroprogenic
causes

Objective model validation: As Keating is a physicist, I interpret his appeal to “Scientific Method” to be that taught by Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman
If the model prediction disagrees with the experiment (observations o nature), it is wrong.
The scientific method tests a hypothesis (model) against a null hypothesis (base case) against objective observations to a statistical probability. Nobel Laureate Feynman describes the “scientific integrity” of “utter honesty” necessary to uphold this positive burden of proof in his 1974 Caltech commencement address “Cargo Cult Science”. http://calteches.library.calte...
By the scientific method, those proposing a model bear the burden of proof.
i.e., the IPCC and Keating bear the primary burden of proof. Those testing such models first need to show that the claim is unsupported by the evidence as claimed and thus “unproven”. They may further show alternative models which better fit the evidence. See: Einstein Razor “Everything should be as simple as it can be but not simpler!”
Degree of Probability:
Keating standard:
“Keating says the results of climate change science are so overwhelming that the only way you can deny global warming is to deny science.” Keating's "overwhelming" confidence suggests he wishes to use the highest standard of proof in physics. i.e. that used to prove the Higgs Boson. See: CERN now 99.999999999% sure it has found the Higgs boson
CERN has announced that its observation of the Higgs boson (or a particle that is Higgs-like) is now approaching 7 sigma certainty.
5 sigma —99.9999% certainty, or more correctly a 0.00001% chance that you have made a faulty observation — is the threshold for an observation to be labeled a scientific discovery. CERN crossed the 5 sigma threshold this summer. At 7 sigma, both the CMS and ATLAS teams are reporting that
there’s only a 0.0000000001% chance that they haven’t found a Higgs-like particle.

We assume testing Keating's "overwhelming" as > 3 sigma or > 99.7%.
IPCC standard:
with a probability of at least 95%.
This is the common test in science and physics – 95% confidence
(two Sigma) of rejecting the null hypothesis, or 5% (p=0.05) that do
not reject the null hypothesis.
By the scientific method, Keating's challenge to show “that man-made global climate change is not occurring” is thus interpreted as first showing that the IPCC's model is unsupported to the probability as inferred by Keating, e.g., to greater than three sigma.
“There is less than 99.7% probability that more than 50% of of global climate change is due to anthroprogenic causes.”
Then we test for the probability as claimed by the IPCC. i.e. that:
“There is less than 95% probability that more than 50% of global climate change is due to anthroprogenic causes.”
A third test of Keating's challenge is to show that the IPCC's hypothesis it is not even likely. Stated positively this test is to show that the converse null hypothesis:
It is likely (>50%) that since 1950, 50% or more of global climate change is due to natural causes.
Tropical Tropospheric Temperature Test:
See: Ross R. McKitrick and Timothy J. Vogelsang, HAC robust trend comparisons among climate series with possible level shifts. Environmetrics, 14 Jul. 2014 online. DOI: 10.1002/env.2294
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
McKitrick discusses this at: New Paper by McKitrick and Vogelsang comparing models and observations in the tropical troposphere at ClimateAudit.org
McKitrick posted the data and code.
http://www.weebly.com/uploads/...
McKitrick observes:
All climate models (GCMs) predict that in response to rising CO2 levels, warming will occur rapidly and with amplified strength in the troposphere over the tropics. See AR4 Figure 9.1 and accompanying discussion; also see AR4 text accompanying Figure 10.7.

10.3.2 Patterns of Change in the 21st Century and Figure 10.7 Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
McKitrick summarizes that:
“In simplified models, in response to uniform warming with constant relative humidity, about 55% of the total warming amplification occurs in the tropical troposphere, compared to 10% in the surface layer and 35% in the troposphere outside the tropics. And within the tropics, about two-thirds of the extra warming is in the upper layer and one-third in the lower layer. (Soden & Heldp. 464).
Balloon Record Data: McKitrick uses the longest modern data record for this most thermally sensitive region – the weather balloon record since
1958.
All climate models but one characterize the 1958-2012 interval as having a significant upward trend in temperatures. Allowing for a late-1970s step change has basically no effect in model-generated series. Half the climate models yield a small positive step and half a small negative step, but all except two still report a large, positive and significant trend around it. Indeed in half the cases the trend becomes even larger once we
allow for the step change. In the GCM ensemble mean there is no step-change in the late 1970s, just a large, uninterrupted and significant upward trend. . . .

Results:
All climate models but one characterize the 1958-2012 interval as having
a significant upward trend in temperatures. . . .
Climate models project much more warming over the 1958-2012 interval than was observed in either the LT or MT layer, and the inconsistency is statistically significant whether or not we allow for a step-change, but when we allow for a shift term the models are rejected at smaller significance levels. . . .
As the Thorne et al. review noted, a lack of tropospheric warming “would
have fundamental and far-reaching implications for understanding of the climate system.” . . .
Table 7 summarizes the main test scores on which our conclusions are drawn .
The first column indicates the data series being tested. The second column lists the null hypothesis. The third column gives the VF score, but note that this statistic follows a non-standard distribution and critical values must either be simulated or bootstrapped (as discussed in the paper). The last column gives the p-value. . . .
The first 6 rows shows the 3 LT trends (with the trend coefficient in
C/decade in brackets) followed by the 3 MT trends. The test of a zero trend strongly rejects in each case (in this case the 5% critical value is 41.53 and 1% is 83.96). The next two rows report tests of average model trend = average observed trend. These too reject, even ignoring the shift term.

The second block repeats these results with a level shift at 1977:12. Here you can see the dramatic effect of controlling for the Pacific Climate Shift. The VF scores for the zero-trend test collapse and the p-values soar; in other words the trends disappear and become practically and statistically insignificant. The model/obs trend equivalence tests strongly reject again. . . .
Bottom Line
Over the 55-years from 1958 to 2012, climate models not only significantly over-predict observed warming in the tropical troposphere, but they represent it in a fundamentally different way than is observed. Models represent the interval as a smooth upward trend with no step change. The observations, however, assign all the warming to a single step-change in the late 1970s coinciding with a known event (the Pacific Climate Shift), and identify no significant trend before or after. In my opinion the simplest and most likely interpretation of these results is that climate models, on average, fail to replicate whatever process yielded the step-change in the late 1970s and they significantly overstate the overall atmospheric response to rising CO2 levels.
Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing. Consequently, a global climate model assuming majority anthropogenic global warming will have greater sensitivity over the period 1958-2012 than the IPCC's period 1950 to 2013. McKitrick and Vogelsang's later 54 year analysis thus tests over a period that should have greater warming than the IPCC's 63 year period from 1950.
McKitrick and Vogelsang (2014) thus show that the Keating's “overwhelming” confidence is rejected. They further show that IPCC's 95% confidence in all the global climate models showing majority global warming is also rejected. McKitrick and Vogelsang further show that the models fundamentally misrepresent the tropospheric temperatures. Consequently, even the 50% anthropogenic warming is not likely.
Further Evidence
STATEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
Roy W. Spencer, PhD 18 July 2013
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
Data: Spencer and Christy show the average of the internationally recognized four balloon global data sets and two satellite global data sets from 1979 to 2012 for mid tropospheric temperatures. They further compare predictions from 1979 for 73 global climate models for the same 1979 temperature intercept.
For a 95% accurate model, one would expect the models to be normally distributed about the data. However, ALL 73 global climate model predictions from 1979 to 2012 exceed the actual mesotropic temperatures through 2012. This indicates a major Type B bias error. The models are NOT within +/- 2 sigma of this data. Not even half the models are within +/- 2 sigma of the experimental variations.
Thus the IPCC's 95% confidence is not supported (null not rejected).
Surface Temperature Evidence
Lucia Liljegren shows similar analyses for surface temperatures from 2000 to 2014 etc. e.g. see How would AR4 have looked this month?
http://rankexploits.com/musing...
How are AR5 models doing? (End of 2013)
Liljegren further analyzes 23 year trends since 1990Cowtan & Way Trends compared to AR5 model trends. Liljegren shows that the AR5 models are NOT tracking the surface temperatures within 95% confidence of the surface temperature trends over the periods examined.
Summary
These data do NOT support Keating's "overwhelming" confidence.
These data do NOT support the IPCC's 95% confidence. The Keating/IPCC claim of >95% confidence in majority anthropogenic global warming is thus NOT PROVEN.
Consequently, “There is less than 95% probability that more than 50% of global climate change is due to anthroprogenic causes.”
With the Keating/IPCC hypothesis NOT PROVEN, these data indicate that under the scientific method, the converse null hypothesis still stands:
It is likely (>50%) that since 1950, 50% or more of global climate change is due to natural causes - not majority anthropogenic warming.
Or in Keating's popular terms "(majority) man-made global climate change is not occurring".
Appendix
Not a nullity:
One cannot prove a nullity - that something does not exist -without universal knowledge over all space over all time. Since human's lack omniscience, Keating's test must logically be interpreted to be objectively testable and not an impossible attempt to prove a nullity.
Not unquantifiably small: The scientific method can only test a quantified hypothesis against a null hypothesis based on objective data. No small testable bound is prescribed against which to test for “man-made global climate change” by the scientific method.
Under What the Challenge Is About, on July 7, 2014, Keeting stated:
But, the real fallacy here is that I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. I am merely asking them to back up their statements.

Thus, I interpret the test to not refer to the colloquial interpretation of some
unquantified small man-made impact.
Not UNFCCC “climate change”: The UNFCCC defined:
"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate
variability observed over comparable time periods.”

This UNFCCC definition excludes all natural variations from “climate change”. This redefinition does not appear to be a scientific definition and
thus is not what the challenge refers to.










Supporting References on Microwave Scanning Radiometer temperature measurements Selected from Roy Spencer's posted climate articles
Spencer, R.W., W.D. Braswell, J.R. Christy, and J. Hnilo, 2007: Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. J. Geophys. Res., 9 August.
Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, R.W. Spencer, and J.J. Hnilo, 2007: Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D06102, 16 pp.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, W.D. Braswell, and W.B. Norris, 2006: Estimation of tropospheric temperature trends from MSU channels 2 and 4. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech, 23, 417-423.
Ohring, G., B. Wielicki, R. Spencer, B. Emery, and R. Datla, 2005: Satellite instrument calibration for measuring global climate change. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 1303-1313.
Lobl, E.E., and R.W. Spencer, 2004: The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) and its products. Italian Journal of Remote Sensing, 30/31, 9-18.
Kawanishi, T., T. Sezai, Y. Ito, K. Imaoka, T. Takeshima, Y. Ishido, A. Shibata, M. Miura, H. Inahata, and R.W. Spencer, 2003: The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observing System (AMSR-E), NASDA’s contribution to the EOS for Global Energy and Water Cycle Studies. IEEE Trans. Geosys. Rem. Sens., 41, 184-194.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell and D.E. Parker, 2003: Error Estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU-AMSU Bulk Atmospheric Temperatures. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology: 20, pp. 613-629.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W. D. Braswell, 2000: MSU tropospheric temperatures: Dataset construction and radiosonde comparisons. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 17, 1153-1170.
Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and E.S. Lobl, 1998: Analysis of the merging procedure for the MSU daily temperature time series. J. Climate, 11, 2016-2041.
Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 1997: How dry is the tropical free troposphere? Implications for global warming theory. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 1097-1106.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, and N.C. Grody, 1996: Analysis of “Examination of Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements”. Climatic Change, 33, 477-489.
Spencer, R.W., 1994: Global temperature monitoring from space. Adv. Space Res., 14, (1)69-(1)75.
Spencer, R.W., 1993: Monitoring of global tropospheric and stratospheric temperature trends. Atlas of Satellite Observations Related to Global Change, Cambridge University Press.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1993: Precision lower stratospheric temperature monitoring with the MSU: Technique, validation, and results 1979-91. J. Climate, 6, 1301-1326.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992a: Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature anomalies, Part I: MSU channel 2. J. Climate, 5, 847-857.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1992b: Precision and radiosonde validation of satellite gridpoint temperature anomalies, Part II: A tropospheric retrieval and trends during 1979-90. J. Climate, 5, 858-866.
Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, and N.C. Grody, 1990: Global atmospheric temperature monitoring with satellite microwave measurements: Method and results, 1979-84. J. Climate, 3, 1111-1128.
Spencer, R.W., and J.R. Christy, 1990: Precise monitoring of global temperature trends from satellites. Science, 247, 1558-1562.
Google Scholar: Roy W. Spencer Satellite Temperature
John R. Christy satellite temperature
NASA Aqua Project Science Team Member Profile: Roy Spencer extracts:
Since 1992 Dr. Spencer has been the U.S. Team Leader for the Multichannel Imaging Microwave Radiometer (MIMR) team and the follow-on AMSR-E team. In 1994 he became the AMSR-E Science Team leader.

He received the NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal in
1991, the MSFC Center Director’s Commendation in 1989, and the
American Meteorological Society’s Special Award in 1996.
John R. Christy Selected Publications on Temperature
* John R. Christy 1,*, Benjamin Herman 2, Roger Pielke, Sr. 3, Philip Klotzbach 4, Richard T. McNider 1, Justin J. Hnilo 1, Roy W. Spencer 1, Thomas Chase 3 and David Douglass 5, 2010. What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing ISSN 2072-429. (pdf)
* Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, 2009: Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth. Energy & Environment, 20, 178-189 (Invited paper, reviewed by Editor.) (pdf)
* JOHN R. CHRISTY AND WILLIAM B. NORRIS, 2008: Discontinuity Issues with Radiosonde and Satellite Temperatures in the Australian Region 1979–2006. (Manuscript received 13 February 2008, in final form 26 August 2008) (pdf)
* JOHN R. CHRISTY, WILLIAM B. NORRIS, AND RICHARD T. MCNIDER, 2008. Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes. (Manuscript received 16 July 2008, in final form 1 December 2008) (pdf)
JOHN R. CHRISTY and MASAMI SAKAMOTO, 2008. The Influences of TOVS Radiance Assimilation on Temperature and Moisture Tendencies in JRA-25 and ERA-40. Manuscript received 26 June 2008, in final form 18 December 2008). (pdf)
* Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson and S.F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International J. Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651. (pdf)
* Christy, J.R. and W.B. Norris, 2006: Satellite and VIZ-Radiosonde intercomparisons for diagnosis on non-climatic influences. J. Atmos. Oc. Tech., 23, 1181 – 1194.
* Spencer, R.W., J.R. Christy, W.D. Braswell and W.B. Norris, 2006: Estimation of tropospheric temperature trends from MSU channels 2 and 4. J. Atmos. Oc. Tech., 23, 417-423.
* Christy, J.R., 2006: The ever-changing climate system. Cumberland Law Review, 36 No. 3, 493-504,
* Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond and K. Gallo, 2006: Methodology and results of calculating central California surface temperature trends: Evidence of human-induced climate change? J. Climate, 19, 548-563.
* Christy, J.R. and R.W.Spencer, 2005: Correcting temperature data sets. Science, 310, 972.
* Christy, J.R. and W.B. Norris, 2004: What may we conclude about tropospheric temperature trends? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, No. 6, L0621.
* Christy, J.R. and R.W. Spencer, 2003: Reliability of satellite data sets. Science, 301, 1046-1047.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, W.B. Norris, W.D. Braswell and D.E. Parker, 2003: Error estimates of Version 5.0 of MSU/AMSU bulk atmospheric temperatures. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. 20, 613-629.
* Christy, J.R., D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel and W.B. Norris, 2001: Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 183-186.
* Hurrell, J., S.J. Brown, K.E. Trenberth and J.R. Christy, 2000: Comparison of tropospheric temperatures from radiosondes and satellites: 1979-1998. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 81, 2165-2177.
* Gaffen, D.J., B.D. Santer, J.S. Boyle, J.R. Christy, N.E. Graham, R.J. Ross, 2000: Multidecadal changes in the vertical structure of the tropical troposphere. Science, 287, 1242-1245.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 2000: MSU Tropospheric temperatures: Data set construction and radiosonde comparisons. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech. 17,1153-1170.
* Stendel, M., J.R. Christy and L. Bengtsson, 2000: Assessing levels of uncertainty in recent temperature time series. Climate Dynamics, 16(8), 587-601.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and E. Lobl, 1998 Analysis of the merging procedure for the MSU daily temperature time series. J. Climate, 11, 2016-2041.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer, and D. Braswell, 1997 How accurate are satellite 'thermometers'?, Nature, 389, 342-3.
* Christy, J.R. , 1995 Temperature above the surface layer. Climatic Change , 30, 455-474.
* Christy, J.R., R.W. Spencer and R.T. McNider, 1995 Reducing noise in the MSU daily lower tropospheric global temperature data set. J Climate , 8, 888-896.
* Christy, J.R. and J. Goodridge, 1995 Precision global temperatures from satellites and urban warming effects of non-satellite data. Atmos. Env. 29, 1957-1961.
* Christy, J.R. and R. T. McNider, 1994 Satellite greenhouse signal. Nature, 367, 325.
* Christy, J.R. and S.J. Drouilhet, 1994 Variability in daily, zonal mean lower-stratospheric temperatures. J. Climate, 7, 106-120.
KE Trenberth, JR Christy, JW Hurrell - Monitoring global monthly mean surface temperatures, Journal of climate, 1992 – journals.ametsoc.org

















Context and further comments on “Human based global warming is not happening”
In 1991, I wrote a 330 page report report on how to reduce greenhouse gases using solar thermal technologies, relying on the 1990 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. I began:
“We are now carrying on activities and making decisions which will have have lasting, often irreversible effects on the well being of ourselves, our environment and of our descendants. . . .
Present CO2 emissions must be reduced by over 60% to stabilise greenhouse gases at present concentrations.
International recommendations are for industrialised countries to reduce CO2 and methane emissions by over 80% of 1987 levels by 2050 to allow for some expansion in developing countries (Enquete-Kommission 1990). . . .
Necessary: Large scale introductions of solar thermal technologies are required to stabilise the greenhouse effect. Stabilization cannot be met just by improving fossil fuel technologies and demand management.”

Hagen, D.L. & Kaneff, S. "Application of Solar Thermal Technologies in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Opportunities and Benefits for Australian industry" for Anutech Pty Ltd to Dept. Arts, Sports, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Canberra, Australia, June 1991 330 pp
Yet today I read:
A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).

See Figure 2
“Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to June 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at 1.4 K/century equivalent. Mean of the three terrestrial surface-temperature anomalies (GISS, HadCRUT4, and NCDC).”

Furthermore,
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for 214 months. This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. . . .
The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 214 months from October 1996 to July 2014. That is more than half the 427-month satellite record. . . .
Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century. . . .

Figure 1.
RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to July 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 10 months.

Source: Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months Christopher Monckton, Watts Up With That August 2, 2014.
Dr. Christopher Keating stated
I have heard global warming skeptics make all sorts of statements about how the science doesn't support claims of man-made climate change. I have found all of those statements to be empty and without any kind of supporting evidence. I have, in turn, stated that it is not possible for the skeptics to prove their claims.”

Any conversion of forests to fields, roads or cities obviously has an impact on the local microclimate and by inference on the global climate. The issue is the magnitude of the impact of humans on climate.
Under What the Challenge Is About, on July 7, 2014, Keeting stated:
I am merely asking them to back up their statements.

I assume Keating’s “overwhelming confidence” in “man-made climate change” first to mean greater than 99.7% probability that more than 50% of global warming is due to anthropogenic causes since 1950. I then assume the popular use of “man-made global warming” to mean the IPCC's use that more than 50% of global warming is due to anthropogenic causes since 1950 to a 95% probability.
Under the scientific method, those proposing these models bear burden of proof while skeptics need only show that the models are unfounded based on available evidence.
The IPCC’s 1990 mean prediction of 2.8 K/century based on majority anthropogenic global warming is clearly outside the 95% confidence limits of the actual global lower-troposphere temperature trend since 1990 based on the satellite microwave temperature measurements. One expects model predictions to be normally distributed about the data and vice versa. The extremely warm skew of the IPCC models shows severe Type B uncertainty. Even the IPCC has been forced to recognize this. It very markedly reduced is predictions in AR5. Using expert judgement it set the lower temperature trend bounds below the 5-95% extremes of the AR5 models. e.g, see:
IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in AR5 Final Draft
and The IPCC discards its models
The IPCC itself now states that its AR5 global climate models do NOT meet the 5-95% AR5 model range.
Note "(iv) SPM.2 (Note (c)) . . .the “assessed range for near-term (2016-2035) temperature change is lower than the 5-95% model range”"
Thus, based on the scientific method, as a necessarily “skeptic” scientist and research engineer, I find that "majority anthropogenic global warming" since 1990 is not supported to a 95% probability. Thus (majority) “man-made climate change” by the IPCC's definition is “Unproven”. I find my confidence and reliance on the IPCC 1990 as shown in my 1991 report was scientifically unfounded. I hereby withdraw that reliance.
In the popular terms Keating uses, “majority man-made climate change” (aka majority anthropogenic global warming) “has not been happening since 1990" based on these global temperature records. With more atmospheric carbon dioxide, the period since 1990 should show higher trends by IPCC models than since 1950. Thus I hold “majority man-made climate change” has probably not happened since 1950 based on the scientific method. I.e., the IPCC models are “wrong” (per Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman).
I still expect solar thermal technologies can be deployed to provide energy cheaper than fossil fuels without subsidies. Abundant low cost energy will be essential to provide commercially driven replacement fuels as we transition from our endowment of “geologically stored solar energy” to energy systems that can be sustained for a thousand years.
Our urgent priority now needs to be providing replacement fuels and transitioning to hybrid electric/flex fuel vehicles.



Response:

The premise of this challenge is that they want to change the challenge to something they can prove. Poor job. The challenge was to prove man made global warming isn't real. It is directed at people who make that statement and then say they can prove it. Fine! I provided a venue for them to do that. What Mr. Hagen did was to change the challenge to proving the majority of climate change is not man made.  Sorry, that is not the challenge and you don't get to change my challenge. Besides, you were wrong anyway.

Mr. Hagen spent an awful lot of time on lawyer talk instead of discussing the scientific issues. And, as is usually the case with lawyers, he spends his time on semantics rather than substance. I don't know if Mr. Hagen is a lawyer, and I'm not saying he is one. I'm just saying he is certainly acting like one. As in the following quote:
By the scientific method, those proposing a model bear the burden of proof. i.e., the IPCC and Keating bear the primary burden of proof.
No, I do not bear the burden of proof and you would know this if you had bothered spending as much time on the issues as you did on semantics. I have been abundantly clear, and have stated many, many times, that the challenge is to people claiming they can prove man made global warming is not real. The challenge is an invitation for these people to do what they claimed they can do. It is actually irrelevant to the challenge what my personal position on AGW is. I could support it or deny it and the challenge would be unaffected.  If you do not say, or believe, you can prove AGW is not real, then this challenge is not to you. So, no, there is no burden on me.

This submission is not only bad, but they actually went out of their way to prove that man made global warming is REAL! So, their submission consists of proving AGW is not real by proving it is real. Beautiful.

Please note, again, the challenge was not to prove that man made emissions are responsible for the MAJORITY of warming. The challenge was for anyone claiming they could prove man made global warming is not real to step forward and do it. You cannot rewrite my challenge to suit your needs. My challenge stands they way it was given - prove that man made global warming is not real. What you did was to prove that global warming is real and that humans are responsible for at least some of it. In other words, AGW is real.

Then, he filled his submission with statements like this:
McKitrick summarizes that:
“In simplified models, in response to uniform warming with constant relative humidity, about 55% of the total warming amplification occurs in the tropical troposphere, compared to 10% in the surface layer and 35% in the troposphere outside the tropics. And within the tropics, about two-thirds of the extra warming is in the upper layer and one-third in the lower layer. (Soden & Heldp. 464).
Ross McKitrick is an economist, not a climate scientists or even any other kind of scientists. Tim Vogelsang is another economist. So, two economist, with no science background, get together and decide they are smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. And, this statement demonstrates just how bad McKitrick is.

"In simplified models..." What, he is going to criticize some of the most complicated models we have ever developed by referring to simplified ones? Why didn't he go to the big ones? The code for many of these, and certainly the review of them, is available to the public. Could it be that he doesn't understand what is going on because he isn't a scientists, just plays one in denier blogs? Or, is it because the more advanced ones don't give the results he wants?

"...with constant relative humidity..." Who is saying relative humidity will stay the same?

" ...about 55% of the total warming amplification occurs in the tropical troposphere.." If this is the case, why is it we have seen the greatest amount of change in the Arctic areas and the least amount of change in the equatorial regions?

The Arctic has warmed considerably more than average



Now, if the challenge was to debate the amount that humans are responsible, then that would be something else. I dispute your claim that we are responsible for less than half of the warming and the science is overwhelmingly in favor of the conclusion that the current warming trend is mostly due to man made emissions. You relied heavily on the work of McKittrick, Christy and Roy Spencer. All of these individuals have such bad records that I can only conclude they have deliberately falsified their research with the intent to undermine climate science. I have commented extensively on Spencer and have also discussed McKittrick and Christy. In short, if you are using them as your reference - you are wrong. Take a look at this post to see just how bad Spencer can get.

This is a very honest statement, if you ever want to be taken seriously by anyone outside of the contrarian blog community, don't cite the work of these individuals. That is just a friendly tip.

Most of what you have produced has already been debunked in previous submissions. In short, nothing new here.  One in particular is so bad, and is produced so often, that I have concluded it is a deliberate lie anytime anyone produces it. The reason is because it has been so thoroughly debunked that there is no way any denier can't know it is a false statement. But, just for the fun of it, let's do it again. The lie in question is the graph Mr. Hagen showed with the claim that there has been no warming for 17 years. Really, Mr. Hagan? You show, with that one graphic, that your entire submission is false. Let me show, again, just why I say that.

Of course, this graphic comes from Watts Up With That?, a denier blog in the same category as Spencer, Christy and McKittrick. In other words, someone with serious credibility problems. But, let's look at the graphic:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/clip_image002.png
Source: WUWT?


What we have here is a classic example of what is called cherry-picking, choosing the data that confirms your preconceived conclusion. They are using the period of time starting with the large peak (1998) and going to the end (2011) to get their average. Why? Why not start with 1997, just one year earlier? Or, why not start with 1999, just one year later? Let's look at the numbers and you'll see why.

During the 1997 - 2011 period the temperature went from an anomaly of -.1 degrees C (they conveniently omitted that, but you can find it on other graphs) and went to +.36 degrees C in 2011. That is a change of over .45 degrees C over a period of 14 years, more than .03 degrees C per year. That is not even close to the "no global warming" they loudly proclaim. What's up with that?

During the 1999 - 2011 period the temperature went from -.12 to +.35, a change of .47 degrees C and an annual average change of almost .04 degrees. Again, what's up with that?

Why did they pick their starting point and not 1997 or 1999? Because they wanted to lie to you. That is why. They know exactly what they are doing and I cannot possibly believe it is done accidentally.

So, would it be more accurate to pick 1997 or 1999 as the starting point? No! That would also be cherry-picking. What you have to do is take an average baseline and compare what is going on - cherry-picking your data does not give an accurate depiction of the reality. But, the reality is the last thing deniers want you to ever know about. It does not fit their agenda. Here is an excellent article on how they cook the books on this subject of no warming. Here is another one.

But, there is a much bigger lie here. And, yes, it is a lie. Look at the graph again and the statement on it, "No global warming...." Where I come from the word 'global' means the globe. What they are showing is merely the average global surface temperature. But, 93% of all warming goes into the oceans. THEY OMITTED 93% OF GLOBAL WARMING! And, they know it! What's up with that?

Take a look at the global heat content and then tell me there has been no global warming in 17 years:
Global Ocean Heat Content 1955-present 0-700 m
Source: NOAA

Funny how the picture changes when you include ALL of the data, and not just the data you want people to see.

The overriding question in this is - What are they trying to hide by omitting all of this data?

Maybe, what they are trying to hide is the fact that the data, and the science, does not support their claims. Just like the scientists bought by the tobacco industry kept saying smoking was harmless, these guys bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry will keep saying there is no global warming or that it is harmless for as long as there are people gullible enough to believe it.

Mr. Hagan seemed to have been critical of my claim that the only way you can deny man made global warming is by rejecting science. For someone that was so critical, I found it very nice of him to prove my point. He has truly rejected science in this submission.

I'm sorry Mr. Hagan, you did not prove man made global warming is not real.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Paper on 10,000 Year Warming Trend

One of the most common claims I hear people use to 'prove' AGW isn't real is that the climate changed in the past. Contrarians will cite climate cycles and prior changes and say, 'it is all just a natural cycle'. But, this is all a big false argument.

The reason it is a false argument is because when they make this statement they do nothing to demonstrate that what is going on today is a natural cycle. The argument is, there were natural cycles in the past, therefore, this is a natural cycle. Let's take a closer look at this argument (I have discussed all of this in detail in a prior post, but it is worth covering again).

The argument contrarians make on this topic goes this way:

There were warming cycles in the past;
This is a warming cycle today;
The warming cycles in the past were naturally occurring cycles;
Therefore, today's warming cycle is naturally occurring.

Let's try it again and you can see how it is a false argument:

Pneumonia kills people;
Gunshot wounds kill people;
Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease;
Therefore, gunshot wounds are a naturally occurring disease.

In both cases, the second does not follow from the first. The fact that there were warming cycles in the past does not, in any way, show that there is any connection between what is going on today and what went on in the past.

Well, there is a new paper with media coverage that I am sure will just stoke this fire all over. This paper discusses the general warming trend that has occurred over the last 10,000 years and some different results between different researchers. But, anyone bothering to actually read it will see that it doesn't dispute AGW. Read the paper and look at the graphs in the article. The differences between results are relatively minor and do not do anything to contradict man made global warming. They even state in the article,
Yet, the bio- and geo-thermometers used last year in a study in the journal Science suggest a period of global cooling beginning about 7,000 years ago.

It claimed that this continued until humans began to leave a mark - the so-called 'hockey stick' on the current climate model graph - which reflects a profound global warming trend.
And, 
The study does not, the authors emphasise, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.
I hope this precludes false claims about how this shows AGW isn't real, but I also know it is a false hope. The science is there, accept it or reject it, but the science will still be there.

More Human Suffering Due to Climate Change

One of the big lies contrarians have adopted in recent times is that global warming is actually good for us. They told us for years that it wasn't real (Amazingly, they are now claiming they never made that claim!), but now the evidence is so overwhelming it is obvious to even a casual observer that they are lying about it. So, they are starting to abandon that claim, say they never made any such statement, and instead tell everyone that we need to be glad of global warming. It's going to be good for us! More farm land! Less winter! Better everything!

Of course, all of the science contradicts them, just as before. That is the problem when you reject science in favor of your preconceived conclusion. Take a look at the situation in California. This is just a sample of what is to come. We won't all suffer these exact same issues, but we will suffer something. Life is not going to get better with global warming, no matter how many times the contrarians tell us it will.

Now that the challenge is almost done I will be able to spend more time on other issues, such as mitigation and claims that AGW is good for us. It should be interesting. Do you think the contrarians will be willing to wade in with some comments? Or, do you think they'll sit on the sidelines because they know the science doesn't support them? One thing the challenge affirmed is that the contrarians just don't care about the science, so they won't hold off because science gets in the way.

It should be interesting.

Monday, August 11, 2014

$30,000 Challenge Submission - Simplest Climate Model




$30,000 Challenge Submission – Simplest Climate Model
Formatted response with graphs can be found at
http://engrview.blogspot.com/p...


Marvin Szeto

$30,000 Challenge Submission – Simplest Climate Model
Formatted response with graphs can be found at
http://engrview.blogspot.com/p...
Scientific Method
1. Gather measurable data.
a. Global Temperatures from GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
b. Download global temperature data from Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – one of the official global temperature records and data source for
c. GISS temperature data is expressed as anomaly from 1951-1980 global mean. “Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14.0 oC”
d. Using 0.01 oC as the smallest measurement, the annual uncertainty is ± 0.005 oC /year or ± 0.05 oC/decade.
2. Analyze data.
a. Warming occurred from 1917 to 1944
b. Cooling occurred from 1945 to 1963
c. Warming occurred from 1964 to 1998
d. Cooling occurred from 1999 to 2013
3 Develop theory to explain data.
a. Natural warming occurred during warming periods
b. Outside force caused cooling from 1945 to 1963
- IPCC said this was caused by aerosols.
“From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialisation following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and
increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s.” http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
figure-1.html
- Cooling by outside forces is not included in this model.
c. Natural warming started in 1964 and continues to present
d. Compare pre-1950 and post-1950 using same x = 0
e. Percentage of global temperature change pre-1950 to overall 1917-1998 period (using GISS data)
- (T(1944) - T(1917) *100)/(T(1998) - T(1917) ) = (0.13 - (-0.44) *100)/(0.61-(-0.44) ) = 54%
- The pre-1950 period contributed more to overall temperature rise than post-1950 period.
f. Much of the temperature change occurred within first 17 % of each period signifying a non-uniform temperature change.
- pre-1950 (4 of 28 years)
- (T(1921) - T(1917) *100)/(T(1944) - T(1917) ) = (-0.20 - (-0.44) *100)/(0.13-(-0.44) ) = 42%
- post-1950 (5 of 35 years)
- (T(1969) - T(1964)*100)/(T(1998)- T(1964) ) = (0.06 - (-0.20) *100)/(0.61-(-0.20) ) = 32%
4. Create model to simulate data.
a. Equation for pre-1950 temperature change [1917-1944]
y = 0.016x – 0.35 where x is measured from 1917
b. Equation for pre-1950 temperature change [1964-2013]
y = 0.016x – 0.12 where x is measured from 1964
c. Volcanoes eject aerosol particles into the atmosphere which cause short term cooling. Predicting volcanic activity and intensity is not part of this model.
d. El Nino cycles cause short term increased warming. Predicting El Nino cycles and intensity is not part of this model.
5. Compare model to actual data.
a. Pre-1950 temperatures were normalized to 1964 by adding difference in 1964 and 1917 temperatures (-0.44 – (-0.20) = 0.24).
b. First 13 years of both cycles are almost identical (1917-1930 vs 1964-1977).
c. After the first 13 years, differences can be explained by volcanoes (cooling) and El Nino (warming).
1929 - Volcano Komagatake
1933 - Volcanoes Kharimkotan, Suoh, and Kuchinoerabujima in 1933 and Volcan De Fuego, Cerro Azul in 1932.
197 3 - Strong El Nino
1976 - Volcano Mount Augustine in 1976 and Tolbachik in 1975
1983 - Strong El Nino
1985 - Volcano Nevado del Ruiz
1992 - V olcanoes Mount Pinatubo and Mount Hudson in 1991
1998 - Strong El Nino
- Year 12 (1929 & 1976) both had volcanoes
d. Simple Climate Model compared to actual temperatures through 2013
2002 - Moderate El Nino
2004 Weak El Nino
2008 Volcanoes Mount Okmok, Chaiten, and Kasatochi
2011 Volcanoes Eyjafjallajökull and Mount Merapi, in 2010 and Grímsvötn, Puyehue-Cordón Caulle, and Nabro in 2011
e. The Simplest Climate Model shows there is no pause in global warming after 1998. The 1998 El Nino was a temporary warming that many people believe was caused by increased CO2. Using 1998 as a starting point shows a negative temperature trend caused by an abnormal data point.
g. El Nino data from http://ggweather.com/enso/oni....



Response:

I am not sure how to respond to this simply because I am not sure what the submission is.  In light of what I think i understand here, I can only offer the response I gave to the submission "Falsified AGW".

To be clear, I think you are saying you can come up with a simple model, therefore, that somehow proves man made global warming is not real. In addition to the response I gave above, take a look at what I said about models.

If I have misinterpreted your submission let me know and I will respond again.

Until then, I can only say that you did not prove man made global warming is not real.

$30,000 Challenge Submission - CO2 Levels Climbing But Not Temperature




  • AM

  • Today at 10:03 PM
Thank you for the response.  I would like to submit the article http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=2 .  A main argument is that, since we have recently been emitting record levels of carbon dioxide, yet the earth has been cooling over the last seventeen years, man made global warming is disproved.  I would also like to submit the article http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2014/02/24/the-period-of-no-global-warming-will-soon-be-longer-than-the-period-of-actual-global-warming/ as it shows how the earth's temperature has not warmed over the past 17 years.
Thank you,



On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Christopher Keating wrote:

Yes, I can provide scientific evidence that refutes all of the claims in those articles. And, yes, credential do matter. I hope you will not give equal credence to some one off the street as you would give experts in the field. As for proving everything point-by-point, I am not going to do that in an email. If you will check my blog, you will see that I have addressed the just about all of those issues. As for the Earth cooling, look at this website (written and maintained by people that really do know what they are talking about):



Here is another one, maintained by climate scientists:



There are just a couple of very many excellent sites that will show you why the claims in those articles are false. That should be enough for you to get started on your own.

If you wish to submit these articles to my challenge, you are welcome to do so. The deadline is tonight.

Chris Keating


image
Start here
We've often been asked to provide a one stop link for resources that people can use to get up to speed on the issue of climate change, and so here is a first cu...
Preview by Yahoo


image
Global Warming : Feature Articles
Global warming is happening now, and scientists are confident that greenhouse gases are responsible. To understand what this means for humanity, it is n...
Preview by Yahoo


From: AM
To: Christopher Keating
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:39 PM

Subject: Re: Climate Change Skeptic Challenge

Thank you very much for the response.  However, when you refute the first two references, can you provide actual scientific evidence?  Reading your response, it looks as if you're simply disagreeing with the writer of the articles, and the Heartland Institute.  However, just because some person does not have credentials does not mean their argument is wrong.  So can you respond with whether the science in the first two articles disproves global warming?  Your disagreement with the writers' credentials and the Institute they work for does not prove anything about the scientific evidence in their articles.  I think their articles actually provide evidence that man-caused global warming is not real.  The Forbes article  ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/) shows that our earth is actually cooling.  The second article ( http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html ) describes how " the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict."  In other words, less heat is being trapped in our atmosphere than the global warming models predict; so this evidence disproves a central tenet of the man-caused global warming theory.
Additionally, this article about MIT scientists' findings provides evidence against man-caused global warming: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html .  The earth has been naturally cooling and warming over hundreds of thousands of years.  If mankind's carbon dioxide emissions were causing global warming, wouldn't we have had a much greater global heating in the past hundred years?  Why would the earth have been naturally cooling and heating for hundreds of thousands of years before humans even existed? Can't these fluctuations in the global temperature be natural?
I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to respond to the articles I sent.  However, instead of simply saying you don't think writers are credible, or that the Institutions they work for disagree with global warming, will you please just discuss the science in their articles, and whether the evidence proves or provides evidence that man-made global warming is false?

Thanks, again, for the discussion!



On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Christopher Keating wrote:

Obviously, I am fully on the side that say global warming is real. Please note that I didn’t say ‘believe’ because you don’t ‘believe’ in science. Do you say you ‘believe’ in gravity? Science is something you accept and understand, or you don’t and the scientific evidence that man made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) is real simply overwhelming. The only way you can deny AGW is to deny science.
Having said that, let’s take a look at these references you provided.
The first one comes from Forbes, which is a mixed bag. They will have articles written by some of the best climate scientists out there, just to follow-up with some of the biggest yahoos. This is an example of the latter.
This is what Wikipedia says about Peter Ferrara:
Peter Joseph Ferrara (born 1955)[1][2] is an American lawyer, policy analyst, and columnist who is the current general counsel for the American Civil Rights Union and analyst for The Heartland Institute. A libertarian scholar, he is most well known for supporting privatization of the Social Security program.
There are a couple of things to note here. First, he has absolutely no credentials in climate science at all. None! Would you take you medical advice from a lawyer? Why would you trust a lawyer to give you advice on climate science? It takes climate scientists decades to become experts in that field and this lawyer, with no experience, feels he can refute the entire world population of those scientists? Problem number one.
Then, note that he works for the Heartland Institute. This is a very vile organization that takes money from the fossil fuel industry with the stated mission of undermining climate science. They are also involved in the campaign that claims second-hand smoke is not harmful. Look them up and check out their track record. It is not pretty. Anyone associated or affiliated with Heartland in any way is not a credible source.
Take a look at this article written by a climate scientist on the same subject, coincidentally also from Forbes:
Moving on to the second article. Roy Spencer is another of the Heartland bunch. He has been caught falsifying his research in the past and is a public advocate of creationism and intelligent design.
I have many complaints about Spencer, but one will illustrate the entire issue. He and another scientist, John Christy, published a paper in the early 1990s that used satellite data to show there was no measurable warming of the atmosphere. This became the paper-to-be-cited by contrarians for years as evidence that there is not global warming. But, then it was determined that there were four separate fatal flaws in their data analysis. Now, Spencer and Christy and not only genuine scientists, but are recognized experts in the field of climate data analysis. So, two acknowledged experts made four fatal flaws, all four flaws were discovered by others and all four worked to confirm the conclusion Spencer and Christy wanted to reach. The law of averages says that at least one of them should have worked against their desired conclusion. Did they falsify their work? I am firmly convinced they did so and many other people are, as well. Further, I firmly believe this would be enough to convince a jury, if it was ever put to one. Spencer and Christy finally withdrew the paper.
That is not the end of the story about Spencer. He has a long record of purposely working to undermine climate science and has a long record of being debunked.
On to the third reference.
I don’t know who the person making this blog is, so I can’t speak to his credentials. (Why is that?)
I looked through the blog pretty quickly and what I can tell you is what I saw in there is either an outright lie, or a false argument.  Things such as the Newsweek cover story. This is such a debunked claim that they have to be lying any time the pull it out because they know it isn’t true. So, what? A news reporter got something wrong 40 years ago! That isn’t what scientists were saying at the time. And, what if they were? Are you going to stop going to see a doctor because Newsweek might have gotten a cover story on medicine wrong?
That is the typical logic they exhibit.
You will need to go through the claims on the blog yourself, but if you are willing to do the homework, you can easily find that they are working very hard to deceive you.
I hope this helped.


Christopher Keating


From: AM
To: Christopher Keating
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: Climate Change Skeptic Challenge

Hello,

The following three websites provide evidence that man made global warming is not real or disprove man made global warming.  I would appreciate hearing your response about these articles and whether, as a scientist, you find the evidence credible that global warming may be false.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
http://www.globalwarminglie.org/
Thank you,




Response:

Starting at the top of this submission (which is actually the latest part of the submission), let's look at the first article linked in this submission, What Catastrophe?, by Richard Lindzen

The first criticism of this article is about the author. Lindzen is a genuine climate scientist and was a one-time chaired professor at MIT. Unfortunately, he is also associated with the Heartland Institute, the denier organization that is funded by the fossil fuel industry to undermine climate science, and is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry. His research has been continually refuted and he has been caught lying  about his funding. For years, when asked about receiving funding from the fossil fuel industry, he stated over and over how he only received funding for his research from the government. Well, it finally came out that he was receiving $2500 a day in consulting fees. As the old saying goes, the lie of omission is still a lie. Eventually, he left MIT (and there are all sorts of stories about that swirling around) and went to the Cato Institute, which is a conservative group funded in large part by - guess who? - the fossil fuel industry!

But, it should be noted that Lindzen does not dispute global warming. So, even using this guy doesn't do anything for your case. What he argues is there are negative feedback mechanisms that will cancel out the effects of global warming. Funny how he only does research on negative feedbacks and every time he finds one, his research gets debunked. But, read this statement from the article referenced above:
The Earth’s climate is immensely complex, but the basic principle behind the “greenhouse effect” is easy to understand. The burning of oil, gas, and especially coal pumps carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere, where they allow the sun’s heat to penetrate to the Earth’s surface but impede its escape, thus causing the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface to warm. Essentially everybody, Lindzen included, agrees. 
I strongly dispute that statement that 'everyone agrees,' but it makes the point that he is not disputing man made global warming.

And, again,
All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role.
So, this article does not do anything as part of a proof that man made global warming is not real. If you want to argue about mitigation then you could use this article. I wouldn't suggest it, but you could. In any event, this challenge isn't about mitigation.

The next article is written by someone that has no credentials in climate science at all. I reviewed his credentials in my email included in the submission above. Virtually everything he writes, in this article and all others of his that I have read, is a false argument, a lie or just plain deceitful. I'll give you an example from this article. Take a look at his graph:

peter

Why did he chose that trend line? This trend line is from an average that uses 1998 as the starting point and today as the end point. Why? Because is gives a trend line of no change, which is what he wants to show. This is what is known as cherry-picking and involves picking data that justifies your preconceived conclusion. How so? Let's do this exercise: Let's take our starting points to be 1997 or 1999, instead of 1998. And, let's end in 2010. Hey! It is only one year earlier or later for the start point, and only two years earlier for the end points. What difference could that possibly make? Let's see:

For 1997 - 2011 the temperature difference is 1.1 degrees C, for a trend of .08 degrees C per year.

For 1999 - 2011 the temperature difference is 1.7 degrees C, for a trend of .14 degrees C per year.

Quite a difference and yet, we only made a small change in our starting and ending points.

But, that is only part of why this is a false argument and designed to deceive. This graph shows only the global average surface temperature and when we say 'global warming' we mean the globe, not just one, isolated part of it. Where is the ocean heating in this graph? Ocean heating accounts for 93% of global warming. Why isn't that included in this discussion? Maybe, it's because it doesn't fit their preconceived conclusion. Take a look at this graph of the global heat content and tell me there hasn't been any warming over the last 17 years:

Global Ocean Heat Content 1955-present 0-700 m
Source: NOAA

Here is an article, also in Forbes, that debunks this entire claim of no heating.

Then, you mention the easiest one to debunk, an article (by the same no-credentials Forbes lackey that wrote your previous article) about the claims made by the Heartland Institute. This is a group of people that, among other things, are leading the campaign to convince people that second-hand smoke is harmless. They receive enormous amounts of funding every year from the fossil fuel industry with the directive to undermine climate science. Do a little research on them. I have commented on them repeatedly with lots and lots of references showing just why I call them the vilest group of people in the climate debate. If they claim it, you can safely assume it is a lie.

The next article you mention discusses claims by Roy Spencer.  This is one of the most notorious of the deniers out there. Like Lindzen, he has authentic credentials. This explains why he is one of the people that you can find on just about any denier program. There is only a few denier scientists out there. Roy Spencer has been caught repeatedly simply falsifying his research. Some of it was so glaring that he actually had to retract his papers. I have said it before but its worth repeating - If you use Roy Spencer as a source of information you are going to be wrong.

Here is one review of the paper referenced above, written by active climate scientists, with the conclusion:
The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).
This paper has been caught up in so much controversy that it is a perfect example of the work and procedures of Mr. Spencer. The paper was slipped past reviewers and the editor of the paper that made the decision on the paper is an admitted climate denier that has stated in interviews he will use his position to further his political agenda, blissfully justifying it with the statement, "Isn't that what editors are suppose to do?" As a result of this paper being published, the editor-in-chief resigned his position, as well as six other associate editors. It is a thoroughly debunked piece of work.

By the way, Roy Spencer is one of the people that is closely associated with Heartland. Surely, that should surprise no one. He is also a creationist and signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. This demonstrates he will reject any science that does not conform to his predetermined beliefs.

The next part of your submission is about claims that this is just a natural cycle. This is one of the worst false arguments out there and one that people fall for most easily. I wrote a post about this topic that you can read here. But, in summary: Yes, the climate changes. We know this because climate scientists have done the hard work to figure this out. And, yes, the climate is continuing to go through naturally occurring changes today. But, that naturally occurring cycle of today is for a cooling trend, not a warming one. Funny how the contrarians keep leaving that little detail out. If left to itself, the climate would be cooling right now, not warming. 

Of the three links provided at the bottom of the submission, I already commented on two of them. The third link is to a website that is little more than a compilation of previous claims, and a pretty poor one at that. I have already debunked everything I saw at that cite.

In conclusion, you gave me a bunch of links to people that have been shown to be paid to undermine climate science. There is no scientific evidence in any of the links you provided to support any claim that man made global warming is not real. And, that shows just what kind of people are out there working to convince the public it isn't real. They will make any claim and say anything they think will help them win the fight. Unfortunately, the evidence shows their strategy is a good one and they are winning the fight.

But, be that as it may, you did not prove man made global warming is not real.