Tiny CO2

Those forecasting the progress of the current El Nino expect it to peak soon .

It's effects will linger for some months yet. Bet on a high global average for 2016 ( third global record in a row), then a non-record year for 2017.

Entropic man, warmest on record means nothing if it falls well short of the models. This super El Nino was the chance to catch up. What NASA and NOAA report is somewhat suspect by now but even they will have to stop 'improving' the data or be caught doing it. Climate scientists will begin to talk like luke warmers as if there was never any other position.

Well it has definitely warmed up sufficient for people to get excited about the North West Passage, just like they did in the 1840s. Yachts and cruise liners were going to be travelling with ease through the NWP by now, except they aren't.

Oil exploration from floating drilling rigs was going to be happening by now. But it isn't, and oil companies now seem to have given up on the idea.

It is almost as though the climate warms and cools in a cyclical manner, and we are 'cresting out' at the moment, maybe there is something in this 'pause' which is worth further thought by global warmists, as all attempts to explain it with CO2 Consensus theories have failed to achieve a consensus amongst Global Warmists.

Ratty, I interpreted your statement:

The earliest that it will be grudgingly admitted that there is a decline in temperatures will be 2025, so we have to show some patience.

Who has argued that the temperatures have not risen?

Martin,

it was a key factor in getting the CAGW panic under way

Was Mann's lead authorship so remarkable or was he the only person who agreed to do it? No don't answer that. I don't take much notice of skeptics when they talk about Mann. They seem to lose their normal critical faculties entirely. It is fun to watch though.

Do not feed the troll. Especially when in dumber-than-shit mode.

hunter, it is interesting how Raff makes assumption about how people think, just because they do not agree with his Consensus view on climate science.

Even more strange, when combined with attempts to disassociate from Mann, before a court has started hearing evidence. The Consensus seems to be that Mann is not worth defending, either in court, or in scientific papers.

Where is the new evidence that consensus supporters are now relying on, that did not originate with sceptics such as McIntyre, Montford et al? Or did they know it was rubbish from the start, and choose not to say anything?

GC,
Raff, like Entropic Man, has a hard assignment. They both want to disparage criticisms and critics of catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (cAGW) theory. Some of the criticisms of of cAGW are good, and some are bad.

But they are many.

Happy 2016. It looks like the world as we know it is going to continue, and I feel fine.

Yes, you are right. I didn't see the context. Clearly nobody thinks it is cooling now. They'd have to be bonkers to do so, so I'm glad nobody does. Not even Dung or Ratty. Nobody! But if it were to start cooling in the next few years it would take many years to be sure that the change was permanent. So 2025 seems reasonable.

Stewgreen (and clipe elsewhere) think that to agree that CO2 is not the only influence on climate is somehow an indicator of denialism. But everyone who knows anything knows that CO2 is one factor among many. Perhaps stewgreen has been misled by sites such as this....

Martin, yes I was being silly. But seriously, there were two reports before the TAR so climate change was clearly taken seriously scientifically before then. The graph may have been iconic (or maybe not, I don't know) but my guess (and there's no statistical analysis to this one) is that this is because powerful people who stand to lose from action against CC took one look at the graph and said "Holy shit, this could kill us. We've got to stop it!" and the attacks started.

Tiny CO2

"Entropic man, warmest on record means nothing if it falls well short of the models."

Which models? There are 298 runs in the ensemble, with the same physical model but different rates of CO2 increase and different projected levels of vulcanism, albedo, pollution, insolation and ENSO. Only one of the 298 would be expected to match observation. By definition, most of the ensemble runs will be wrong. You will only know which in hindsight.

This is the most recent comparison of the CMIP5 models and the temperature data.

The graph is updated to the end of August 2015. As of the end of November 2015 HadCRUT4 is near the upper end of their projected range, well within the ensemble range.

The graph is captioned "Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25 with HadCRUT4.4 (black) global temperature time-series. The CMIP5 model projections are shown relative to 1986-2005 (light grey). The red hatching is the IPCC AR5 assessed likely range for global temperatures in the 2016-2035 period. The blue lines represent other observational datasets (Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA NCDC, ERA-Interim, "

So we all agree the climate warms and cools, and always has and always will.

Yet this time, we all have to believe it is due to CO2, and anyone who disagrees is 'bonkers', even though the CO2 theory does not explain the pause/hiatus.

Raff are you 97% certain that Radical Rodent is a male rat, and not a female high-kicking hamster with a mohican haircut?

Golf, where did anyone dispute that "the climate warms and cools, and always has and always will"? Give us a link. When you say "even though the CO2 theory does not explain the pause/hiatus" what do you understand by "CO2 theory"?

Raff, it is your presumptions and assumptions about anybody that disagrees with you and why they disagree with you, that is of more interest, and amusement.

Challenging people to a duel by internet link, will only prove that you have more internet links, with your ready access to other sites. I have never posted an internet link, evah.

The Hockey Stick Graph 'proved' that the climate had not warmed and cooled in the past, with it's eradication of the LIA, MWP etc. Total bunkum, as I am sure you agree.

The CO2 Theory holds that the only cause of the current warming is CO2. If you do not agree with that concept, then you are showing more Sensitivity about CO2, than the Climate.

Can you provide a link to demonstrate any of your assumptions and presumptions about Radical Rodent, or me?

Can you provide a Link to any evidence or proof that convinces you that Global Warming is due to CO2?

I DID accept the Hockey Stick, once, based on the assumption that the UN and their experts would not be wrong, and would not deliberately deceive.

Golf Charlie

The climate warms and cools ultimately because energy flow changes. Long term cooling happens because more energy leaves to spacecthan comes in. Long term warming happens when more energy comes in than leaves.

For the last century more energy has come in than has left, hence the warming. Of the half dozen factors which affect this energy balance, the only one which has changed in a way consistent with the observed warming is CO2 concentration. The others show small changes which, separately or together, .

Golf Charlie

The climate warms and cools ultimately because energy flow changes. Long term cooling happens because more energy leaves to spacecthan comes in. Long term warming happens when more energy comes in than leaves.

For the last century more energy has come in than has left, hence the warming. Of the half dozen factors which affect this energy balance, the only one which has changed in a way consistent with the observed warming is CO2 concentration. The others show small changes which, separately or together, are insufficient to generate the observed warming.

Despite talk of pauses or other straw men the Earth's climate system continues to accumulate 3*10^22Joules/year, as projected from CO2 theory.

I would take your view more seriously if you could make the energy numbers add up without the effect of changing CO2.

We've been over this ground before. You may believe that "anything except CO2" has caused global warming, but outside this echo chamber you will continue to be put in with believers in leprechauns and UFOs until you can make a sensible scientific case.

a) There are powerful people who stand to lose from action against CC. That seems undeniable.
b) There was certainly action by at least one oil company to discredit climate science, for example the stuff about the differences between what Exxon knew from its research and what it actually did.

I don't know whether they "initiated action" specifically "to discredit the hockey graph" and neither do you. But given (a) and (b) how do you conclude that it's a total fantasy?

The poor and powerless lose, action against CC or no. They stand to lose from CC too. They doubtless lose when their homes are flooded.

I don't really care about McIntyre or his crusade against hockey sticks, it is old history. I don't know his motivation and neither do you. Neither do I know whether he is correct in what he says and I've seen conflicting reports. I don't have the skills to redo the analysis myself. I do know from talking to people here that language is not the same in the "skeptic" world, that "lies" are usually not and that conspiracy theories lie at the heart of much "skeptic" opinion and discussion. It is a strange world you inhabit, but I'll take your word that you believe the HS remains important 20 years later. But I don't.

Al Gore on his lift looks like a picture of CO2 levels, not (as I thought you were discussing) temperatures. That graph *really is* a hockey stick. To refute that I guess you have to call on your disappeared friend Salby.

Raff & Entropic Man, if the maths and physics is so obvious and simple, why the need to fabricate a Hockey Stick? If it is all down to CO2 Theory, what caused the LIA and MWP , that Mann was so keen to eradicate from history. If you want to dismiss the Hockey Stick as being old hat, where is the new hat?

Where is the Climate Science consensus on the cause of the pause? The solution only seems to be to produce new papers denying the pause, after loads of climate scientists had failed to explain it.

Radical Rodent, how high a ceiling can you paint with that Mohican? If Michaelangelo had thought of it, he could have boshed out the Sistine Chapel in less than a year.

Radical Rodent

If you study economics it all comes down to the flow of money. If you study climate it ultimately comes down to energy.

The main heat sink for the climate system is the ocean. There are two independent ways of calculating the change in ocean heat content.

One is to measure the rate of change in temperature using ARGO and calculate the energy required using the specific heat capacity.

The other is to measure the rate of change in volume using the change in sea level and then calculate the energy required from the thermal expansion coefficient.

A third crosscheck is to compare this with the projected change in energy uptake derived from greenhouse effect theory.

A fourth check is to compare this with the energy imbalance measured by the satellites.

All four converge on that same value. The climate system is gaining 3*10^22 Joules/year.

This is independent of surface temperature measurements. Short term variations in the annual surfacebtemperature due to weather, noise, etc tend to cancel out when you have 1.2 billion cubic kilometres of seawater involved.

This is one of the reasons why I do not take the pause seriously. A genuine pause in global warming would also show a pause in ocean heat content growth.

Unknown factors? If energy data from different sources gave widely different figures there would be scope for unknown factors. Since there is good agreement between the different sources, I see no scope for significant unknowns.

If you want me to accept your unknowns, show me the gaps in the energy budget that they are required to fill. Your hypothesis, the onus is on you to demonstrate their existance.