Phil Clarke, the onus is on you, Mann and Climate Science to prove some truth and provide evidence for the claims and dubious prophecies.

Otherwise, it is all Fake News. It has been suggested to you before that "you" might want to reconsider what is worth saving, but if you cannot relinquish Mann and his Hockey Stick, why should Trump bother?

They don’t know how much contribution human water vapour (H2O) makes because they don’t have critical information. They don’t know how much H2O humans produce, how much H2O there is in the atmosphere, or the amount H2O varies naturally.

- Dr Tim Ball.

You will be aware that a judge recently dismissed a case for libel against Ball, on the basis that nobody takes what he says seriously enough for it to be actionable. The Judge pointed out that

"… a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views …"

This kind of nonsense is why. We have good measurements of humidity, and while there may be localised areas where it has increased, overall, relative humidity remains roughly constant, just as the models predicted. Basically, any excess precipitates out in a matter of days, as opposed to added CO2, a fraction of which has an effect on the climate for centuries. (Of a given emitted pulse of CO2, 20% is still perturbing the atmosphere after 1,000 years, see for example, Lenton and Britton 2006 or Archer and Brovkin 2006).

So CO2 concentrations have risen over a few decades by c40% above the range they have occupied for several hundred thousand years, and the atmosphere has warmed. A warming atmosphere, however, can hold more water vapour (the Clausius Clapeyron relation). Contrary to Ball's blog assertions this effect has been observed and found to be in line with model projections.

Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λq = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.

Dessler et al 2008, GRL.

The same study had this conclusion

 The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.

Feel lucky?

A curious inversion of the norm, which is that the onus is on a person making accusations of malpractice to substantiate them. So far the only evidence is for a lack of understanding, - you said Mann projected an uptick, when asked where and when you cited a historical proxy reconstruction, which makes precisely zero sense.

The evidence for Mann's conclusions is in his work - all the data is open source.

"There is no other demonstration of “greenhouse effect” that I can think of. Of course, should you know of one, please let us all know."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/

Phil Clarke:

Basically, any excess precipitates out in a matter of days, as opposed to added CO2, a fraction of which has an effect on the climate for centuries.

That is just the removal, but in the same set of days we again get massive amounts of new water vapor added, every day. Again, what matters is the concentration.
And water vapor is not normally at saturation levels in most land area's of the world.

We can see a good correlation between temperature and water vapor (ca 0.5), much better than with CO2 (close to 0).

For this see
Soares, 2010, Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes [in IJG 2010-11, pp. 102-112] https://file.scirp.org/pdf/IJG20100300002_69193660.pdf
Especially figures 21 and 22 on page 111.
And

The correlation between warming and atmosphere specific humidity has by far the best correlation observed.

Humidity has a very close relationship with temperature in a month scale for both alternatives, as consequence of temperature (H after T) and as a possible cause (T after H) of warming, with over 0.5 correlation. As seen before, CO2 has no significant correlation with temperature in month scale.

EM overdoes the averaging. Again. In real life the ground experiences not just the watts due to extra CO2 (if it exists) but all the watts the sun can churn out, on the order of 1KW/m2. That is what produces any water vapour. The additional hypothetical one watt of CO2 is irrelevant locally, and local is what counts. Smooshing this sort of thing into an average is not good practice.

JJ - But Figure 22 is just the C-C relation, and 22 attempts an apples-oranges-grapefruit comparison of global humidity with tropical temperature and CO2 at a single location.

At least I think that's what it is. I am really not sure about the peer review at that journal, the paper would benefit from editing with someone who has English as a first language.

The old belief on Chamberlain hypothesis that CO2 could have been the main factor for energy conservation and a driving factor for glacial and interglacial times on Earth history was demonstrated to be a mistake, in agreement with himself later conclusion.

Say what? ( Ithink he means Thomas Chamber<u>lin</u> the geologist, who Soares wrongly credits with devising the CO2 global warming hypothesis.)

As it is, the study makes some wrong and unsupported assertions, and the conclusions are unsupported by the evidence presented.

Mar 6, 2018 at 11:12 AM | Phil Clarke

I take it you still believe that Gergis proved Mann's Hockey Stick.

What does Gergis prove about Mann and his methodology?

The evidence for Mann's conclusions is in his work - all the data is open source.

Mar 6, 2018 at 11:12 AM | Phil Clarke

The "norm" in Science is that evidence must be made available. It wasn't.

Some proper science.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/06/study-interactions-between-smoke-and-clouds-have-unexpected-cooling-effect/

Phil Clarke: the writer is Portuguese and his English is not so good, but so what. Of course it makes one wonder how well the editors looked. But it does not by itself mean that what he reports or claims is wrong.

As it is, the study makes some wrong and unsupported assertions, and the conclusions are unsupported by the evidence presented.

Perhaps you could give some examples?

Anyways to me most of this is not new.
We currently are still flat-lining and CO2 is still rising fast (great idea to make India and China exempt and then send all our production over there ...).
Some other charts that tell the same story w.r.t. no correlation between T and CO2:
http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological.jpg
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/gisp220temperaturesince1070020bp20with20co220from20epica20domec1.gif?w=720
https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/dbstealeyco2vst.png?w=640&h=556

The only correlation that I know of is a 800 year lag, whereby CO2 follows temperatures by 800 years...
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
:)

Oh yeah and a low correlation between adjusted GISS GAT and CO2.
But when we look at unadjusted GISS GAT we see no correlation, and the adjustments show close to perfect correlation...i.e the GISS adjustments seem to be using a CO2 driving model internally in order to calculate the adjustments (or mostly from filling in blank spots I would guess).

Ahum, make that not (just) GISS, that bias is in the USHCN adjustments ....
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/screenhunter_3233-oct-01-22-59.gif?w=720

The "norm" in Science is that evidence must be made available. It wasn't.

All the proxy data needed to reproduce the Hockey Stick studies is freely available. Significantly none of Mann's critics have taken that data and produced a reconstruction that contradicts the conclusion of anomalous modern warmth.

Ahum, make that not (just) GISS, that bias is in the USHCN adjustments ....

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/

The inclusion of a nonsensical sentence in a paper does raise questions about the diligence of the reviewers.

Factual errors such as the number and location of CO2 monitoring stations - the actual number is 400% higher, though he uses a small subset, and unscientific language are rife

Global estimates from meteorological stations may be the scariest and most intriguing series recording the global warming as exposed by many reports and papers published during the last two decades [1].

(Reference 1 is the entire 2007 report from IPCC working group 1!)

But the main problem with the paper is it declares the CO2 warming hypothesis falsified because he finds no correlation between CO2 and temperature on a monthly timescale. This is absurd, it takes 10 years for the warming from emitted CO2 to peak; at this timescale the correlation is pretty good.

The inclusion of a nonsensical sentence in a paper does raise questions about the diligence of the reviewers.

Factual errors such as the number and location of CO2 monitoring stations - the actual number is 400% higher, though he uses a small subset, and unscientific language are rife

Global estimates from meteorological stations may be the scariest and most intriguing series recording the global warming as exposed by many reports and papers published during the last two decades [1].

(Reference 1 is the entire 2007 report from IPCC working group 1!)

But the main problem with the paper is it declares the CO2 warming hypothesis falsified because he finds no correlation between CO2 and temperature on a monthly timescale. This is absurd, it takes 10 years for the warming from emitted CO2 to peak; at this timescale the correlation is pretty good.

I take it you still believe that Gergis proved Mann's Hockey Stick.

I've never made that claim. It would be nonsense for many reasons - proof is rare in science, but mainly because the Hockey Stick studies were of the Northern Hemisphere while Gergis's work covers Australasia.

Both show recent warmth to be anomalous, as do a long list of other studies.

But the main problem with the paper is it declares the CO2 warming hypothesis falsified because he finds no correlation between CO2 and temperature on a monthly timescale. This is absurd, it takes 10 years for the warming from emitted CO2 to peak; at this timescale the correlation is pretty good.

How can that be? There is no correlation over the last 20+ years!
And look at the other links I provided: no relation detectable at multiple time scales. Why do you ignore that?

Sure they can find a spurious relationship from say 1900 or 1950 to 2000, with a bit of tweaking, but that is by chance and the result of the growth in population (and hence increase in H20 evaporation levels), not so much CO2.

And look at the other links I provided: no relation detectable at multiple time scales. Why do you ignore that?

Because to the reality-based community, the correlation is in your face obvious.

Problems with the first chart are examined here

The next (the GISP2 data) is from a single site in Greenland, the scientist who curates the data described using the data this way as 'stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.'

The last is US-only and grossly abuses the y-axis.

All are from non peer reviewed sources (to put it mildly - anyone who is familiar with the Smokey scandal at WUWT would think twice about a URL with dbstealey in the title ;-)).

If you had read my link from Nature you would find

. A fundamental problem here, however, is that correlation between different variables does not necessarily imply causation. As stated by Barnard: “That correlation is not causation is perhaps the first thing that must be said.” Therefore the actual high correlation between rising CO2 levels and increasing surface temperatures alone is insufficient to prove that the increased radiative forcing resulting from the increasing GHG atmospheric concentrations is indeed causing the warming of the earth. Another problem contributing to the remaining uncertainty is the unclear feedback mechanism between global temperature variability and GHG dynamics that could contribute to amplify the global warming rate. […]

From <https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691>

Mar 6, 2018 various | Phil Clarke

Still no evidence to justify Taxpayer money being wasted on Climate Science. The world can breathe easier, exhaling CO2.

Why is it Mann keeps delaying the Legal Action that he instigated

If you had read my link from Nature you would find ..........

Mar 6, 2018 at 10:05 PM | Phil Clarke

................. more unreliable Climate Science.

Have you tried reading "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford?

I have not. Apparently it is full of errors.

E.G.

Montford's entertaining conspiracy yarn reaches two apparently devastating conclusions about the work of climate scientists, partly based on his analysis of the hacked email messages.
First he claims that "senior climatologists have sought to undermine the peer review process and bully journals into suppressing dissenting views".

Montford tries to justify this assertion in his first chapter by highlighting the "difficulty in getting into print any result that went against the idea of catastrophic global warming".

He claims that a paper by Shaopeng Huang and co-authors on proxy temperature reconstructions from borehole measurements "never appeared in print" after being rejected by the journal Nature in 1997 because it showed that the medieval warm period had higher temperatures than today.
However Montford strangely neglects to tell the reader that the rejected paper was revised and published in the same year by the journal Geophysical Research Letters, and that the authors published other papers in Nature in subsequent years.

Furthermore, Montford neglects to mention a later acknowledgement by Huang and his co-authors that their 1997 work had excluded readings from the upper 100 metres of boreholes, and so provided "virtually no information about the 20th century". They noted in a paper in 2008 that when all of the borehole data are considered, the global average temperature today is shown to be higher than during the medieval warm period. However, Montford simply omits awkward truths like this.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-sceptics-mislead-public

Apparently

Weaselword.

The hockey stick graph remains an illusion