Mr Clarke: should you wonder why so many of the sceptics have doubts about the “adjustments” to historical records, follow the work of Jennifer Marohasy (this link does not go direct to her, but introduces her, and provides links to more of her work). Also, ask why almost ALL historical records are “homogenised” downwards (one of the most egregious being all of those of Ecuador (that is... erm... 3), which converted a significant downward trend into a… guess what?), while more recent measurements are “homogenised” upwards.

That's zombie bullshit. Homogenisation actually decreases the trend.

http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html

(By the way: the satellite data shows that there has been no significant rise for over 20 years. Which would you consider the better measurements – a hodge-podge collection of instruments, with varying levels of competency in maintenance and reading, which cover a small proportion of the Earth’s surface, or a few, similar instruments with a single authority maintaining and obtaining readings, that effectively cover all the Earth’s surface?)

That's more bullshit. The trend after 1996 in the satellite data is pretty much a continuation of the trend before.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:1996/trend/offset:0.12/plot/uah6/from:1996/trend

The URL got mangled, accept my apologies and try this

And if you think the satellite data is not 'adjusted' you need to educate yourself, not only is it adjusted, it is adjusted using, shock, horror a model

The two most reliable streams of data, ARGO and the satellite microwave series, are a lot flatter than you think. Live with it. They are a clue you are neglecting.
================

The Argo data series is not yet long enough to draw any global trend conclusions, however the long term OHC trend from all observations looks like this,

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

The 20 and 30 year trend in the troposphere (where last time I checked nobody lives) looks like this

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:1986/trend/plot/uah6/from:1996/trend

It takes someone with very special eyesight to see these trends as flat, never mind negative.

Phil, you should really stop defending Michael Mann. Nobody has repeated the straight shaft on his stick and that is the egregious lie. We've explained that to you over and over and over, and your sticking to him is evidence of extremely bad faith.

Given your intelligence and perspicacity, when you insist that Mann's early study has been replicated every time you see a blade at the end of a reconstruction, you have missed the point of the criticism, and it is deliberate. Bah.

Michael 'Piltdown' Mann is a poster boy for the egregiousness of the scam of alarmism. He is and will remain infamous, because his flaws, personal and scientific, are obvious.

Do yourself a favor and lose him. Or are you as trapped as he is?
=================

You have dodged contemplating how many more are now being fed by the CO2 fertilization. Where's your famed google-fu?

You made the claim, it is up to you to substantiate it. But you won't, crop yields have risen due to better plant breeding, mechanisation, irrigation, cultivation methods, fertlisers and agrichemicals. What little evidence there is points to the small increase in yield from 'greening' being offset by the negative effects of warming.

I am closing the correspondence on MBH98/99. It really is time to move on.

Yeah, ARGO is short, but it is measuring a much more reliable gauge of heating or cooling than the atmospheric stuff. It doesn't support the GCRs, which is why Kevin got all worked up about 'missing heat'.

I'm not going to be bothered trying to figure out how you've deceived yourself about the temperature series; there are millions of ways to do so. Years ago I discovered that the best thing I can do with disputants of such poor faith is to advise them to continue watching the series.

The temperature is not rising as was expected. You are foolish to argue against that; it is the experience of the masses.
============================

More bad faith. You've a nice list of the causes of increased yield, but you neglect CO2 fertilization, which is surely part of it. When the Earth has greened 20-30 percent from AnthroCO2, there is certainly a response in crop yield, perhaps now feeding a billion extra people.

Your citing your sad alarmist study about yield after you've been invited to consider it further is yet more evidence of bad faith.

You can't move on from Michael Mann. He's the poster boy for the corruption and bad science that have gotten us into this terribly wasteful mess. His infamy may well outlive that of all the others. He's been influential, the poor sod.
======================

RR, he just pounds the table for the alarmist cause. It's a house of cards and is collapsing. They didn't understand nature.
===================

Multiple lines:
Ocean Acidification
Sea level rise
Polar Bears
Tibetan Glaciers
Increased biomass
Arctic Sea Ice
Storm frequency
Storm intensity
Droughts
Floods
And more

Bad faith would be making an extraordinary and wrong claim as fact, then demanding others substantiate it. The fact is now a 'probably'. Hmmm. My name for you now is billonbellies,

The temperature is not rising as was expected

Ah the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Repeating a lie does not make it true. These statements are all true (and checkable):

• IPCC 1990 gave temperature projections under 4 forcing scenarios A-D, they labelled Scenario A Business as Usual, assuming, well a bunch of stuff some of which did not come about. In fact the forcings tracked somewhere around B and C, and the temperature rise was completely inline with the projections of 0.1-0.2C / decade. Not something you would learn from Chris Monckton.

• Hansen's 1988 projections, made with an early iteration of the GISS model projected a global anomaly of +1C for 2015 under the midrange Scenario B, the comparable surface anomaly was in fact 0.98C for 2015 and +1.2C averaged over the last 12 months. This is concerning because that model exhibited a climate sensitivity of 4C, so according to current estimates of 3C ish should run hot.

• The temperature projections from the IPCC TAR are here As you can see the projected rise 1990-2010 was between 0.27 and 0.40C with a rise of 0.35 under arguably the most realistic scenario A2. Actual linear rise in HADCRUT was 0.18C/decade.

• The recent record warmth has moved the observed global temperature above the mean of the CMIP5 modelled temperature.

The world is warming as expected.

Mr Clarke: you obviously have not followed my link introducing Jennifer Marohasy. Why do you keep demanding evidence if you are not prepared to view it?

Well, I need to sleep, and as you say that was just a link to a profile page, it would be rather time-consuming to drill down and discover what she's on about, and since previously you've cited charlatans Easterbrook and Salby my expectations were not high.

But this is perhaps rather more concise:

http://www.readfearn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/temperature-trends.jpg

You can't move on from Michael Mann. He's the poster boy for the corruption and bad science that have gotten us into this terribly wasteful mess

See? You're the obsessive, not me. Get over it.

PC,
The failure of the temps to behave as predicted by the consensus is not argument ad populum. Hiding the failure, like hiding the many other failures of the climate consensus predictions, is the issue.
Hiding from that only reflects on those doing the hiding.
'night, 'night, sleep tight.

Hunter

The temperature is not rising as was expected. You are foolish to argue against that; it is the experience of the masses.

And my verifiable statements have the virtue of being correct, 'failure of the temps to behave as predicted by the consensus' does not.

Hunter

The fallacy was contained in billionbellies' The temperature is not rising as was expected. You are foolish to argue against that; it is the experience of the masses.

And my verifiable statements have the virtue of being correct, 'failure of the temps to behave as predicted by the consensus' does not.

RR

Murray Salby was investigated by the NSF and found to have engaged in 'deceptive conduct', he was banned for 5 years later commuted to 3. Among the charlatanry was setting up two separate companies and 'double-dipping' by fabricating timesheets etc.

Our investigation revealed that the subject (Dr Salby), consistently and over a period of many years, violated or disregarded various federal and NSF award administration requirements, violated university policies related to conflicts and outside compensation, and repeatedly misled both NSF and the university as to material facts about his outside companies and other matters relating to NSF awards.

When we asked him (Dr Salby) to supply supporting documentation for the salary payments, the subject provided timesheets reflecting highly implausible work hours—for example, the subject claimed effort averaging nearly 14 hours a day for 98 continuous days between May and August 2002 (including weekends and holidays), and in other instances claimed to have devoted as much as 21 hours per day to the project.

The investigation report found that “the total estimate of improperly collected indirect costs is $117,565.” The report added that payments to Dr Salby from a second company had been based on “fabricated time and effort reports”. The report also found that “the charges based on the reports may also be an unallowable cost in the total amount of $303,281”

This is enough to justify the title Charlatan. He was later sacked by his University for failure to meet academic and teaching responsibilities and abuse of university resources. He appealed but the Judge basically laughed him out of court.

This speaks to the man's ethics. Would you like an exposition of the flaws in his science?

Easterbrook (who has also been disowned by his faculty) exhibits slipperiness in his repeated claims and presentations of a graph of the GISP2 ice core claiming it shows temperatures much higher than today for the last 10,000 years. Trouble is (briefly) , the core ends in 85 years BP, a fact Easterbrook first got wrong and then tried to ignore. Heck - here's what his erstwhile colleagues had to say, apologies for the length.

On March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic. We also decry the injection of such poor quality science into the public discourse regarding important policy decisions for our state's future; the chair of the committee was presented with numerous options and opportunities to invite current experts to present the best-available science on this subject, and chose instead to, apparently, appeal to a narrow partisan element with his choice of speaker.

We concur with the vast consensus of the science community that recent global warming is very real, human greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause, and their environmental and economic impacts on our society will likely be severe if we don't make significant efforts to address the problem. Claims to the contrary fly in the face of an overwhelming body of rigorous scientific literature.

We intend no disrespect to Easterbrook personally. We appreciate his previous service to our department and to Western. His present appointment as emeritus professor was made in light of his long-standing history at WWU. But people of the state of Washington need to understand that Easterbrook's ideas on anthropogenic global warming have not passed through rigorous peer review in the scientific literature. Additionally, Easterbrook's claims in this forum and elsewhere require the existence of a broad, decades-long conspiracy amongst literally thousands of scientists to falsify climate data and to prevent publication of opposing research. This opinion demonstrates a profound rejection of the scientific process and the fundamental value of rigorous peer review, and is also simply wrong.

Science thrives on controversies; it rewards innovative, unexpected findings, but only when they are backed by rigorous, painstaking evidence and reasoning. Without such standards, science would be ineffective as a tool to improve our society. It is worth acknowledging that nearly every technological advance in modern society is a direct result of that same scientific method (think the Internet, airplanes, antibiotics, and even your smartphone).

Easterbrook's views, as exemplified by his Senate presentation, are a stark contrast to that standard; they are filled with misrepresentations, misuse of data and repeated mixing of local vs. global records. Nearly every graphic in the hours-long presentation to the Senate was flawed, as was Easterbrook's discussion of them. For example, more than 100 years of research in physics, chemistry, atmospheric science and oceanography has, via experiments, numerous physical observations and theoretic calculations, clearly demonstrate - and have communicated via the scientific literature - that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas; its presence and variations in Earth's atmosphere have significant and measureable impacts on the surface temperature of our planet. Alternatively, you can take Easterbrook's word - not supported by any published science - that the concentration and effects of carbon dioxide are so small as to not matter a bit.

In a specific example, Easterbrook referred to a graph of temperatures from an ice core of the Greenland ice sheet to claim that global temperatures were warmer than present over most of the last 10,000 years. First, this record is of temperature from a single spot on Earth, central Greenland (thus it is not a "global record"). Second, and perhaps more importantly, Easterbrook's definition of "present temperature" in the graph is based on the most recent data point in that record, which is actually 1855, more than 150 years ago when the world was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and well before any hint of human-caused climate change.

As the active faculty of the Western Washington University Geology Department that he lists as his affiliation, we conclude that Easterbrook's presentation clearly does not represent the best-available science on this subject, and urge the Senate, our state government, and the citizens of Washington State to rely on rigorous peer-reviewed science rather than conspiracy-based ideas to steer their decisions on matters concerning our environment and economic future.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Western Washington University WWU Geology Department faculty members who authored this column are Douglas H. Clark, who holds a doctorate in geology; Bernard A. Housen, who is the department chair and holds a doctorate in geophysics; Susan Debari, who holds a doctorate in geology; Colin B. Amos, who holds a doctorate in geology; Scott R. Linneman, who holds a doctorate in geology; Robert J. Mitchell, who holds doctorates in engineering and geology; David M. Hirsch, who holds a doctorate in geology; Jaqueline Caplan-Auerbach, who holds a doctorate in geophysics; Pete Stelling, who holds a doctorate in geology; Elizabeth R. Schermer, who holds a doctorate in geology; Christopher Suczek, who holds a doctorate in geology; and Scott Babcock, who holds a doctorate in geology.

Source

Heh, gone cranky. 'Not as expected' is a fundamental source of skepticism. Do you think we'd be hammering you if the predictions of doom were coming true? Narrative got overegged, now eat it.

Seven billion bellies cry out 'What's Up'?
===============

All that mass of information pointed to you and still you're unpersuasive. I'd get cranky, too.
================

Heh, in the land of the free and the First Amendment one party wants to criminalize dissent about climate. Were there no other evidence, that fact alone would make me skeptical.
=============

Easterbrook was one of the first to point out the oceanic oscillations in the temperature record. Salby? Well, I discuss with F. Engelbeen and he's more persuasive than are you.

My point is that our aliquot of ACO2 is a boon. We cannot get much past two doublings, and with the apparent low sensitivity, there will only be net benefit in our future from our release of previously sequestered carbon. The greening? Hmm, one wonders why the contribution of rising CO2 to yield is so difficult to find. Perhaps the Chinese know, but won't share, for fear we'll lose our guilt over our release of CO2.
===================