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
http://dialoguesonglobalwarmin...
Challenge Context – Keating's Press Release:
Climate Change Deniers Using Same Methods as Tobacco Industry, Says
Physicist PR Web.com
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:
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
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:
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:
1958.
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:
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:
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.
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. . . .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.
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.
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...
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.
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:
* 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
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.John R. Christy Selected Publications on Temperature
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 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:
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:
See Figure 2
Furthermore,
Figure 1.
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
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 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.
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:
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:
"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? Here is a plot of temperature change worldwide.
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:
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:
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.
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).
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: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, 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).
"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? Here is a plot of temperature change worldwide.
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:
|
| 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:
 |
| 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment