https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/27/judge-in-exxonknew-case-accepts-amicus-brief-exposing-climatologys-grave-error/

Judge in #ExxonKnew case accepts amicus brief exposing climatology’s grave error

March 27, 2018

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

"Judge Alsup, in the California global warming trial, has accepted the amicus curiae brief from my eight distinguished colleagues and me. The brief now becomes an official part of the court documents. The judge may yet ask all parties to respond to it.

The initial reaction of the two California cities that brought the case against five oil companies, demanding that they should fork out billions to fend off sea-level rise, was to use the traditional totalitarian tactic of attacking our personal reputations. So much easier, that, than producing a scientific argument. The judge was unmoved."

"You may remember an old classroom experiment."

Yes but I can't remember the classroom experiment that showed CO2 heating faster at 400ppm than 280ppm.

Mar 27, 2018 at 5:01 PM | rhoda

You obviously weren't holding the thermometer correctly, with the bulb in the palm of your hand.

Entropic Man, are you sure there is nothing on this thread that you would like to reconsider? Surely there are some good bits worth saving before it is too late?

Climate Scientists can't explain why real observations don't match their theories. Will Climate Science blame Trump, for mistakes made 20+ years ago.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/27/new-report-reveals-a-23-year-long-pause-in-stratospheric-temperature/

"London 27 March 2018: A new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) counters media hype over recent warm global temperatures, showing that almost all of the sudden increase in temperatures in the last couple of years was caused by a record strong natural El Nino phenomenon rather than global warming."

"At the end of 2017 the average global surface temperature was dropping back toward levels before the record 2015-16 El Niño episode. This return to pre-El Niño levels underscores that the recent peak in global temperature was caused mainly by this oceanographic phenomenon in the Pacific."

"Since 2003 the average global temperature estimate based on surface weather stations has steadily diverged in the warm direction from satellite-based estimates without a convincing explanation."

"Data from tide-gauges all over the world suggest an average global sea-level rise of 1-1.5 mm/year, while the satellite-derived estimates suggest a rise of more than twice the rate of about 3.2 mm/year. The noticeable difference between the two data sets still has no broadly accepted explanation."

LOL How many grave and fundamental errors in climate has His Lordship uncovered now?

Radical rodent

The green line in each year's graph is the long term average. The red line is each years data.

Perhaps I give you too much credit. You clearly missed my point, so I will spell it out.

You linked to a post saying that the highest latitudes show no warming in Summer. This is correct. The post also claims that this shows that global warming is not happening.This is incorrect.

In fact it is a straw man. The lack of Summer warming is due to the effect of latent heat of fusion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion

The author either did not know this or chose to ignore it.

Golf Charlie

Part of the cities' case is that the oil companies financed organisations such as the Heartland Foundation
to carry out misinformation campaigns.

Those two amicus briefs may have been a mistake.

An example of climate misinformation by Heartland Foundation beneficiaries is now in the court record, complete with documentation showing how they were financed.

I think this is called "shooting yourself in the foot".

Part of the cities' case is that the oil companies financed organisations such as the Heartland Foundation 
to carry out misinformation campaigns.

Those two amicus briefs may have been a mistake.

An example of climate misinformation by Heartland Foundation beneficiaries is now in the court record, complete with documentation showing how they were financed.

I think this is called "shooting yourself in the foot".

Mar 27, 2018 at 9:19 PM | Entropic man

Mann's Hockey Stick represents Climate Misinformation, but 97% of Climate Scientists deny that too. Climate Science had its opportunities to avoid shooting itself in both feet, so chose a machine gun so it could not miss.

Can Climate Science survive without Taxpayer funding, and how much has this case cost Californians so far?

Monckton provides some figures to question assumptions made by Climate Science about ECS. Observations suggest that Monckton is right and Climate Science wrong.

Radical rodent

Could you expand on your first two points.

Distinguish between research funding to help understand the climate and propoganda funding to obfuscate the results.

Radical rodent

Polar amplification is a set of feedbacks which are accumulating energy in the Arctic faster than anywhere else on the planet. This shows as an increase in Winter temperatures and a long term reduction in the amount of ice.

Radical rodent

More reading on the Arctic.

https://auclimate.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/wait-a-second-youre-telling-me-that-global-warming-may-be-making-our-winters-colder-please-explain/

This shows as an increase in Winter temperatures and a long term reduction in the amount of ice.

Mar 28, 2018 at 12:05 AM | Entropic man

No it doesn't.

Mar 27, 2018 at 10:58 PM | Entropic man

Can you explain your obfuscation over Climate Science's lack of results in proving anything, when observations keep proving errors in the theories?

Climate Science needs to justify and prove itself, with reduced Taxpayer funding. Perhaps it should be asking all the propaganda billionaires to chip in?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/27/nasa-finds-something-else-climate-models-are-missing-forcing-from-secondary-organic-aerosols/

NASA finds something else climate models are missing…. forcing from ‘Secondary Organic Aerosols’

Anthony Watts / 3 hours ago March 27, 2018

A new paper published by NASA by Tsigaridis and Kanakidou suggests that climate models have missed the forcing effects of organic aerosols, such as VOC’s from trees, oceans, and other sources that combine chemically in the atmosphere to create new compounds. Known as Secondary organic aerosols (SOA), they say “SOA forcing could exceed that of sulfate and black carbon”.

Climate Science remains consistently inconsistent with errors, as detailed here:

http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/29/another-bust-pages-2k-global-reconstruction-fails-to-confirm-the-hockey-stick/#sthash.4Zw6aBPW.dpbs

"Curiously, the corrupt and error-ridden data contributing to Arctic 2k dataset seemed to go in one direction and one direction only: they cooled the past and warmed the present."

"The odds of a large series of unforced mistakes consistently occurring with one sign (cooling) for one period (the 1st millennium) and the opposite sign (warming) for another period (the 20th century) are extremely low.  And yet it happened."

I made up:

I think I've never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.

about a decade ago, mostly as a consequence of continuing insights into the range and power of clouds, AKA albedo, to impact climate, on all scales.

Speaking of laboratory experiments, our esteemed junior high science teacher helped us build a cloud chamber. Thank you, Bruce Quantic.
========================

Mar 29, 2018 at 7:35 PM | kim

I don't think Climate Scientists or experts in Unreliable technology have programmed clouds into their climate, business or economic models. They are fluffy, and full of fluffiness.

Alarmism Takes A Big Hit…Flood Of New Scientific Findings Show Nothing Unusual Happening Climatically
By P Gosselin on 25. March 2018

Two days ago Kenneth presented an impressive flurry of scientific, peer-reviewed charts published over the past 15 months (46 alone in 2018). Much to the surprise of alarmist scientists, global warming is weak at best.

Lack of warming a global phenomenon
According to Kenneth, these new papers show that “nothing climatically unusual is happening”. For example a publication by Polovodova Asteman et al shows that continental Europe’s temperatures are lower today than they were on other occasions over the past 2000 years:

Today’s warming doesn’t stand out
The authors write that the contemporary warming of the 20th century “does not stand out in the 2500-year perspective” and is “of the same magnitude as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climate Anomaly.”

A number of strident global warming scientists prefer to dismiss the significance of Europe’s temperature record, claiming that it is local in nature and does not tell us what is really happening globally. However, other papers fully contradict this. For example, a paper by Wündsch et al., 2018 shows us that the warming today in South Africa also is nothing unusual.

It’s global, stupid
Temperature reconstructions show the same is true in Southeast Australia, according to McGowan et al., 2018, Northern Alaska (Hanna et al., 2018), the Tibetan Plateau (Li et al., 2018), South Korea (Song et al., 2018), Antarctica (Mikis, 2018), to cite just a few among dozens of others.
...

This is a funny post by Kenneth in reply to Phil at NoTricksZone:
http://notrickszone.com/2018/03/29/another-bust-pages-2k-global-reconstruction-fails-to-confirm-the-hockey-stick/#comment-1256686

Phil, see if you can find something unusual about today’s temperatures relative to the past temperatures reported in these papers and graphs.
———————————————————
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150522174522.htm
“The Holocene Climate Optimum was a period of global climate warming that occurred between six to nine thousand years ago. At that time, the global average temperatures were somewhere between four to six degrees Celsius higher than they are today.”
–
Svalbard, Arctic, 4-6°C Warmer Than Present, Mangerud and Svendsen, 2017
“August temperatures on Svalbard were 6°C warmer at around 10.2–9.2 cal. ka BP … 4°C warmer than present between 8.2 and 6 cal. ka BP”
–
Patagonia, Southern South America, 3-4°C Warmer Than Present, Bertrand et al., 2017
–
Northwest China, 5-6°C Warmer Than Present, Zheng et al., 2017
–
East China, 3-4°C warmer than present, Li et al., 2017
–
Northern Japan, 3-4°C warmer than present, Kawahat et al., 2017
–
Fan Lake, Antarctica, 8°C warmer than present, Foster et al., 2016
–
Arctic Ocean, 3-4 °C warmer than present, Bonnet et al., 2010
–
North Iceland, 5 °C warmer than present, Andersen et al., 2004
–
Northwest Greenland, 2.5-4 °C warmer than present, Lasher et al., 2017
–
Antarctic Peninsula, 4-5°C warmer than present (1,000 years ago), Browne et al., 2017
–
NW Pacific, 4 °C warmer than present, Yamamoto et al., 2016
–
North Atlantic, 6°C warmer than present, Mark, 2016
–
Mediterranean Sea, 4°C warmer than present, Jalali et al., 2016
–
Alberta, Canada, 8°C warmer than present, Demezhko et al., 2017
–
British Columbia (Canada), 3-4°C warmer than present, Rosenberg et al., 2004
–
East Greenland, 3-6 °C warmer than present, Lusas et al., 2017
“Air temperatures in Milne Land, west of our study area, based on preliminary estimates from chironomids, may have been 3–6°C warmer than at present (Axford et al. 2013)”
–
Russia, 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than present, MacDonald et al., 2000
“Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. … During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.”
–
Antarctic Peninsula, 3.5 °C warmer than present, Mulvaney et al., 2012
“A marine sediment record from offshore of the western Antarctic Peninsula also shows an early Holocene optimum where surface ocean temperatures were determined to be ~3.5 °C warmer than present, while the George VI ice shelf on the southwestern Antarctic Peninsula was absent during this early Holocene warm interval before reforming in the mid Holocene.”
—————————————————-
No unusual modern warming in the Northern Hemisphere
...

etc etc etc

@ Radical Rodent

LOL must have missed that. Was a bit busy :)

JayJay: this has already been addressed in the previous page of this thread – do keep up!

While the headline is promising, it is let down by its links, some of which I addressed in my Mar 26, 2018 at 11:43 AM comment – others also gave a severe critique of the article

Hmm yes, but I fail to follow.

Many of these studies have the obligatory weasel words in their abstract (or conclusion), yet what is of interest is the actual data that they report.
Like the one where this image comes from: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Holocene-Cooling-European-Continent-Polovodova-Asteman-2018.jpg

I do not mind that they talk about AGW as if it is a given. I'm interested in what data they report and on what basis.
And when we then see report after report showing essentially the same across many regions, than I really don't mind that in the text they are still praying the gospel.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood what you said?

LOL, yeah. Reading more of that now :)

Mar 30, 2018 at 11:42 AM | JayJay

Over recent years at this blog, (and elsewhere) Alarmists have failed to explain simple facts from history, geography, archaeology etc that were used by Hubert Lamb to plot Climate History, before Mann destroyed it with his Hockey Stick.

They still can't. So they waste more money trying to prove Mann was right, rather than advancing the understanding of the climate, and why it changes now, as it always has done.

The Bonfire of Peer Reviewed Climate Science papers could generate a cloud bigger than Mount St Helens. Science will recover, but Climate Science is doooomed. Harvey et al 2017 will prove to be very useful as a reference guide, for those seeking reliable information, and I expect the new management at the US EPA has a copy.