And of course the same arguments apply to economic modelling and so-called forecasting. Perhaps Aitkin might begin with his own profession and the duplicity of the army of highly paid talking heads pronouncing daily on where the world is going, when all the evidence is that they have no information to offer.

Asho - of course the same arguments can be applied to economic modelling, as Aitkin would be the very first to admit.. the problem is that the climate people are extremely unwilling to apply the same standards to climate models as occurs with economic models..

If the climate models are not working why not admit it, as economists have to admit it when their own models go wrong (actually they don't, but there are plenty of others who are willing to point out the problems)? This has been the problem all along.. the climate models must be right, sop the global warming industry tells us, and it doesn't matter what the results say..

This man has provided a graph that no matter how you look at it even if you stand on your head to look at it, is trending relentlessly upwards .
This can only mean one thing in the long run and that run is now not all that long.
Climate disaster.
Enter stage right all the trolls and shills who are devoted to anti AGW, with their shrill cries of plots, conspiracies and confused gabble about "the science".
Good luck.

Yes Don the modeling/guesstimates is never ever better than a ball park figure at best, as indicated by the graphs.
The forecast may not be as serious as some numbers might suggest, or far worse than the median average of the modelling?
Perhaps we should wait until an unstoppable firestorm, the product of climate change, sweeps through and devastates a huge part of one of our major cities? Or even worse. the formerly frozen tundra starts to melt, removing absolutely all doubt!
By then every boy and his dog would understand that this is not an academic exercise, or a duel between competing models or graphs, conducted from ivory towers?
I believe, only recalcitrant politicians; and or, endlessly squabbling academics, stand in the way of the wholesale conversion to households producing their own independent power, using gas powered ceramic fuel cells that provide energy on demand and endless free hot water.
We've poured billions into the local car industry; and are apparently willing to cough up millions more.
In fact, with just what is on the table, (half a billion) we could, if we were but wisely lead, start up a pilot (proof of concept) plant to produce gas powered electric cars, using our own homegrown innovation, the gas powered ceramic fuel cell. The exhaust product being mostly water vapor!
The advantage of this combination removes the need to carry around half a ton of very expensive batteries on board.
The 72% energy coefficient is more than three times better/cheaper than coal fired power, which we would almost certainly use to recharge electric vehicles overnight.
And it would only take a few minutes to refill a gas powered electric vehicle.
The 72% energy coefficient, would massively increase current range between refills! And the family wagon could be plugged into the house overnight, to supplement solar cells?
If the mooted changes would do anything other than quite massively boost own own endlessly sustainable economic performance, some of the resistance to essential change, might actually be understandable or forgivable!
Rhrosty.

Is it possible to establish one basic "fact": that the polar caps are melting?

Robert LePage,

<< Enter stage right all the trolls and shills who are devoted to anti AGW, with their shrill cries of plots, conspiracies and confused gabble about "the science". >>

Before you get too overenthusiastic about abuse and name calling of those who might disagree with you. I doubt there are many skeptics who would disagree with climate change. The issue for most of us is the link with CO2 and the extent to which human CO2 emissions play a role.

The NIPCC Summary for Policy Makers has been released in response to the IPCC’s AR5.

“NIPCC’s conclusion, drawn from its extensive review
of the scientific evidence, is that any human global
climate signal is so small as to be embedded within the
background variability of the natural climate system and
is not dangerous. At the same time, global temperature
change is occurring, as it always naturally does. A phase
of temperature stasis or cooling has succeeded the mild
twentieth century warming. It is certain that similar
natural climate changes will continue to occur.”

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/reports.html

You appear to have three choices. You can demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability, good luck as the IPCC’s AR5 can’t.

You can continue to demonstrate you have abandoned rational argument by resorting to abuse and vilification, or having reached rock bottom you can start digging by shooting the messenger and abuse the peer reviewed scientists at the NIPCC.

Nice to have choices though?

Don Aitkin,

Excellent post. It's great to get some objective analysis from time to time.

The temperature projection models are one thing. But the analyses of costs and benefits of warming are an entirely different matter. So far, many people assume warming is bad. But is it really? There seems to be a growing realisation that warming is more good than bad up to around 2.2 C above present temperatures (i.e. up to about 3C above pre industrial temperatures):

http://www.lomborg.com/sites/default/files/Congress_testimony_April_2013_3.pdf

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/

It is clear that the judgement of the people is correct - as it usually is - there is no justification for wasting enormous sums of money and damaging human wellbeing now, for the sake of an unfounded and poorly supported belief in catastrophic climate change. The evidence for catastrophic or dangerous climate change is weak to non existent.

Hi Leslie,

You ask << Is it possible to establish one basic "fact": that the polar caps are melting? >>

This may help you.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Spindoc...typical obfuscation from your "denial world";

The NIPCC you quote is funded by the coal & gas industry sponsored Heartland Institute and according to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. Also according to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its ultimate purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report.

In short, the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as can easily be found via online search).

Second, unlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts. The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012). The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.

Compare to the IPCC where none of the reports are paid for nor does the IPCC receive funding for a predetermined result, merely funded by governments world wide to collect, summarize and present the work of qualified scientists.

So your quoted "evidence" is a fiction of course. I guess you have to post somewhere as I note the global newspaper industry (Murderocracy excluded) are refusing to accept denial drivel from your team anymore.

And all of the "denier" posts here are flawed by citing or inferring errors in modelling.

The existence of AGW is not predicated on modelling but global observational data and analysis. The modelling that the author and his cohorts are fond of belittle is used to predict the likely or possible future effects of the dramatic changes being exhibited. Clearly one can not say foe example, that the melting Greenland ice cover is going to raise sea levels by x meters without trying to model how much ice will be converted to water; just because it is being modeled does not mean the ice is not melting.

"I doubt there are many sceptics who would disagree with climate change."

I seem to be reading from a lot who accuse anyone who says he knows it is AGW, that it is anything from a plot by all the worlds scientists ( who ever managed that should be signed up to run the government he is such a good organiser)
and a conspiracy to steal from the "people" though quite how this works I cannot see.
So the number of sceptics who believe in climate change is pretty thin on the ground.

Leslie and Peter King
Is it possible to establish that the polar caps are melting? Yes and no.. for most people melting means change in the arctic sea ice which has recently been at historical lows during the Northern summer, but its not the actual cap.. there is no particular evidence that this trend is continuing as one of the links to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center shows. Is the cap itself melting? You'll see some evidence about this around - but I think you'll find the most pessimistic assessment (assuming any melting is occurring)still has the northern cap around for some time to come..

Every now and then you'll hear reports of chunks of the Southern ice cap falling off but it seems to regrow. Any overall shrinkage would be hard to prove.. I don't think there is any convincing evidence..

Peter be nice to Spindoc he is a two pack a day guy cause smoking good for you. He knows it's true cuase the good people at the smoking comapany said so.

Cobber,

Perhaps he has been watching Mad Men and didn't realize the cast are all smoking because the program is set in the 1950's before "the science of smoking causes cancer" was settled :)

Didn't the Heartland Institute work hard on that one too? In the end commonsense prevailed but it might be too late for the climate if the disinformation is allowed to continue.

Peter King, Robert and Cobber,

Isn’t it interesting that you were offered three choices, one was to refute the skeptical science and to quote from the IPCC where the NIPCC are wrong, or you could attack the messengers.

< < You appear to have three choices. You can demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability, good luck as the IPCC’s AR5 can’t.

You can continue to demonstrate you have abandoned rational argument by resorting to abuse and vilification, or having reached rock bottom you can start digging by shooting the messenger and abuse the peer reviewed scientists at the NIPCC.>>

I guess we can all conclude that you cannot, even from the IPCC AR5, refute the skeptical case and instead go for “shooting the messengers”.

Congratulations, no banana but you do resemble fish in a barrel. Unless of course you can muster an argument rather than sixth form abuse?

So now you have concluded venting your collective spleens, perhaps you might offer us some of the IPCC’s science to make your case? Or are we to conclude that as suspected, you don’t have one. Sticks and stones children but I suspect your ammo box is empty and that’s all you have left.

Dear Michael King,

I was wondering what your abuse and vilification was covering up, now we all know, you’re hiding the fact that you never went to school.

<< that the melting Greenland ice cover is going to raise sea levels by x meters without trying to model how much ice will be converted to water >>

My 12 y.o. granddaughter can enlighten you. Greenland is a land mass and has no sea ice on it, it’s land ice. Sea ice, as Archimedes and my granddaughter will confirm is less dense than salt water and does not displace it when it melts.

Try topping up a glass with ice and water, put it with Teddy tonight by your bed. If, as the ice melts overnight, the floor is wet in the morning, my granddaughter and Archimedes are wrong and you will be right.

On the other hand you might have to consider that it is Michael King who is looking really, really silly at the moment

Spindoc,

There is nowhere in my post where I suggest Greenland is covered by sea ice. Greenland is covered with snow and ice and it is melting. Your granddaughter might also explain to you what happens if fresh water ice is melted in one container and added to my glass of water then indeed "my teddy will get very wet"; no displacement required just increased volume of water

OLO does not give much space so pointing out the numerous (deliberate) errors in NIPCC's report is limited and you can easily find out the data if you really wanted to but I will "play the game", so try this for starters...

The 2011 NIPCC report only devoted one sub-section (and one page) to the subject of climate sensitivity, and only referenced four scientific studies on the subject (one of which is the debunked Lindzen and Choi [2009]; a second was specific to high-latitude, not global sensitivity; a third was published in a journal of dubious quality over a decade ago; and the fourth does not support low sensitivity). The IPCC report on the other hand devotes several sections to the subject (i.e. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-6-4-2.html and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-5-2.html) and references dozens of peer-reviewed studies investigating the question of climate sensitivity.

It's a clear difference between comprehensive, unbiased peer review and pejorative, selective reviews.

Leslie: "Is it possible to establish one basic "fact": that the polar caps are melting?"

No, for the simple reason that 'they're' not. In fact there is only one polar ice cap, at the North Pole, the Arctic ice cap; the South Pole is covered by a large land mass which in turn is both covered by ice several kilometres thick, and fringed by sea ice which expands and contracts with the seasons, as does the Arctic ice cap, which is just floating ice. Accurate measurements of these date only from the beginning of the satellite age.

At the moment the Arctic ice cap coverage is well below its long-term average, though significantly higher than previous years, and the Antarctic sea ice is well above its long-term average and heading for a record extent. See

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

and

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

for details (note that the scales on the charts are different).

So... northern hemisphere warming, maybe; global warming, no way.

Here are some explanations of why some individuals with no relevant qualifications whatsoever actually believe that they're better informed than professional climatologists.

http://theconversation.com/search?q=psychology+of+climate+change+deniers

Oh, mac!

Lewandowsky?!!

Really?!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=lewandowsky

Thank you Spindoc and Jon J for appreciating the significance of my simple question, "are the ice caps melting". The only way an interested ,reasonably well informed citizen can make their way against the cacophony of abuse and special pleading is to have in mind a clear distinction between climate change that has been occuring over billions of years , and the current contribution of green house gasses.

Leslie,

I fail to see how the extent of the polar ice caps provides any support for the argument that AGW would be catastrophic, or even that AGW would do more harm than good. After all, there has been no ice at either pole for 75% of the time since multi-cell life began to thrive (some 500 million years ago). And it would take millenia to melt the ice caps. And life thrived when warmer and struggled when colder. And the planet is in a long term cooling phase so anything we do to offset that and reduce the risk of sudden cooling has got to be good, right?

See IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 6.1: http://accessipcc.com/AR4-WG1-6.html#6-3-1

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century

Marcia Glaze Wyatt and Judith A. Curry

Abstract: A hypothesized low-frequency climate signal propagating across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of synchronized climate indices was identified in previous analyses of instrumental and proxy data. The tempo of signal propagation is rationalized in terms of the multidecadal component of Atlantic Ocean variability – the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Through multivariate statistical analysis of an expanded database, we further investigate this hypothesized signal to elucidate propagation dynamics. The Eurasian Arctic Shelf-Sea Region, where sea ice is uniquely exposed to open ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, emerges as a strong contender for generating and sustaining propagation of the hemispheric signal. Ocean-ice-atmosphere coupling spawns a sequence of positive and negative feedbacks that convey persistence and quasi-oscillatory features to the signal. Further stabilizing the system are anomalies of co-varying Pacific-centered atmospheric circulations. Indirectly related to dynamics in the Eurasian Arctic, these anomalies appear to negatively feed back onto the Atlantic‘s freshwater balance. Earth’s rotational rate and other proxies encode traces of this signal as it makes its way across the Northern Hemisphere."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1

Peter King,

Glad we got the issue of sea ice sorted, Archimedes will be delighted. Those who have been spruiking it as a cause for rising sea levels must have long wondered how on earth ships float.

Your next gem is a cracker,

<< Greenland is covered with snow and ice and it is melting >>. Really?

Next you will be telling us that the sun warms the oceans which causes water vapor to go up into the sky to form clouds that go around the world dumping rain and snow all over the place which then freezes, melts or finds its way into rivers to go back into the ocean where it came from in the first place?

Nonsense of course, everyone knows that at the top of every river there is a giant fresh water tap!

To your second effort in response to my question, “can you demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability?”

You have failed to provided any answer. (we all knew you couldn’t)

You can use the IPCC’s AR5 report if you wish, you can phone a friend (as many as you like actually) or you can even enlist assistance from your friends on OLO. All you have to do is POINT to empirical evidence, real data, real measurements. No models, forecasts or predictions thanks.

Your links don’t provide any answer, just a string of excuses for the UNIPCC not having any answers, have you actually READ the links you offered?

Don’t answer questions you’re not asked.

Look Peter, I did try to help you, I did say there was no answer in the AR5. Nor in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). You know that now ‘cos you already looked.

Actually the IPCC’s SPM is no even drafted by scientists, it is done by a panel of who? Yes, you guessed it, Policy Makers. Funny that?

The NIPCC’s SPM on the other hand is written and peer reviewed by scientists, no politics.

Again, “can you demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability?”

Spindoc,

i am surprised, you actually spelt climate variability correctly...you must be using a good spell checker.

For those on this forum spellbound by your wit and superior technical knowledge, please explain the theory of natural variability...is it predicated on Arrhenius’ simple energy balance calculation or perhaps it is covered by Manabe’s one-dimensional radiative-convective models in the 1960s?

Actually fess up, you believe the climate wakes up one morning and thinks, "today I am going to change"; voila variability.

As I am sure you know but continue on the disingenuous path, climate changes due to external forcings. There is endless empirical evidence that CO2 affects the climate; hell your lot usually argue that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere 60 million years ago! kind of irrelevant because mammals weren't around to try and flourish in that environment.

However to return to my primary interest and concern in this forum is that your quoted NIPCC is biased, subject to a massive conflict of interest and virtually every argument in their document has been refuted. rather like Alan Jones "paid for comments" really.

However, feel free to make bizarre comments such as "Actually the IPCC’s SPM is no even drafted by scientists, it is done by a panel of who? Yes, you guessed it, Policy Makers. Funny that?"

Who would have thought that a body charged by the international community would assemble an overview document such that the likes of Tony Abbott might have some chance of comprehension would be assembled by non scientists?

I can see why you would prefer the works of the NIPCC.

Leslie currently there is one million square kilometers more sea ice in Antarctica, than the average for the last 30 years. The ice there, which along with Greenland, constitutes most of the ice on earth is growing at about 4% a year, & has done for many years.

Yep one million square kilometers is quite a bit more ice. Funny we only ever see reports in the media, when a little bit, the size of Manhattan Island breaks off

This growth is over double the loss of ice that was occurring in the Arctic. I say was, as Arctic ice is growing again, inline with the record cold winters Europe has been experiencing. Not much, but growing. If this keeps up, it won't be sea level rise we'll be worrying about, but finding enough dredges to keep our harbors deep enough for shipping.

So what I want to know is why Roy Spencer in the graph posted used the 1979-1983 average temperature for the figure Don posted and gloated about, when it is usual to use a 30 year baseline, typically 1961-1990.

Could this be because the UAH satellite measurements for that period over-estimate the temperature of the lower atmosphere compared to all other measures of global temperature?

Could this also be becuase if you start the model runs in the CIMP5 ensemble with this over-estimated temperature, they will all run hot?

Could it be that Roy has sold us a pup and because Don understands little about climate he has bought the pup?

Hi Peter King,

I guess we always knew you would not or could not answer the question. Ah well, we tried three times.

Interesting that your phone a friend option didn’t work either. Like so many of the faith, when push comes to shove you can’t get beyond what someone else told you, do you ever try to work things out for yourself?

We see it so often on OLO, you go hard with links, never read them yourselves and in the end, when we push hard enough for your answer we discover that that’s all you have, links to someone else’s opinion.

Why is it so difficult for you to say “I don’t know” instead of bulltish.

"....You can demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability, good luck as the IPCC’s AR5 can’t."

The question is one of trajectory, not where we now sit. Projection to 2100 based on globally implementing carbon mitigation measures is 2 degrees, taking us to the peak of natural variation. Without mitigation, we're looking at 4 degrees and over, new territory for mankind.

By all means, argue over the projection, but the trajectory since industrialization is clear.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/

Regarding ice-caps: From http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html
"The numbers for the southernmost ocean, however, pale in comparison with the rates at which the Arctic has been losing sea ice – the extent of the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean in September 2012 was 1.32 million square miles below the average September extent from 1979 to 2000. The lost ice area is equivalent to roughly two Alaskas."

If we do nothing, when the ice sitting on land (Antarctica, Greenland) melts, coupled with ocean-water expanded by higher temperature, we can expect significant a sea-level rise.

Dear Luciferase,

<< Can you demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability, good luck as the IPCC’s AR5 can’t." >>

<< All you have to do is POINT to empirical evidence, real data, real measurements. No models, forecasts or predictions thanks.>>

You missed or ignored the second bit which is probably why you again responded with the IPCC’s “projections”.

I don’t know why those of the CAGW faith constantly rely on other peoples opinion upon which to base their faith. Why have we lost a generation of inquisitive minds? Have we lost the processes by which we evaluate and assimilate information? Have we lost the ability to read and comprehend? Or are we just too lazy to think it through and settle for the emotional stimulation of being part of the great cause?

Let me explain my take on this issue and the processes by which I might reach a conclusion. If you or any of the CAGW faith on this thread can contradict me, go for it. If you cannot then come back with a “question” and not someone else’s “opinion”, develop your own. That way we know your brain is working again.

Firstly, the NIPCC, other skeptical scientific and public perspectives are evaluating “what is now” and not “what might be”. The trajectory of actual temperatures is plotted from whenever you wish to start until today. The starting point or period of sampling will definitely color that trajectory but not change it.

Secondly, the IPCC bases its reports on “what if’s”. Their “projections” start where the empirical data ends. Thus we have a very wide spectrum of “possible” forecasts and projections base on computer models.

So why and how can such a wide range potential computer modeled scenarios happen? A very good question and glad you asked.

People called “Quants” create algorithms. They leave parts for variables to be inserted and it’s then run on the computer. So who puts in the variables? Well those who wish to see a range of possible outcomes of course.

Cont’d

Cont’d

And that is precisely what is produced by the IPCC and their contributing scientists, a range of predictions based on “their” input variables.

If you want to change the range of outcomes, you just have to change the variables. Hey voila! Add to this the uncertainties that exist in our knowledge of the climate and you get what?

There is absolutely no science whatsoever in this process, it’s a SWAG. (Strategic Wild Arsed Guess).

So on the one hand you have skeptics who use real measurements to show what is known about “then” until “now”, empirical data. On the other hand you have those who accept the “now” data but since it no longer supports their purpose, they generate a range of future outcomes based on their own preferred variables, their “guesses” are not science.

Unfortunately the climate did not play ball and fell short of the scenarios “guessed at” by the IPCC scientists.

The NIPCC report concludes that from the current, real, recorded and agreed temperature data;

“that any human global climate signal is so small as to be embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous”.

Likewise the IPCC cannot provide any contrary temperature records so ignores this and goes back to more “projections”. This is why I asked the question because it is clear from both the IPCC and the NIPCC that no such empirical data exists. You have all looked for it and likewise cannot find it.

It is the IPCC’s projections, forecasts and predictions that are scary and NOT the empirical data. The scary predictions are purely based on “someone’s” personal choice of variables for the modeling, it is not real.

Scientific fraud? No. Political fraud? Yes.

So in summary Luciferase, you and your friends are accepting the mantra because you didn’t understand the processes, you did not enquire, you were driven by “scare” induced emotion, you “wanted to believe” and now, rather then enquire, you are saying to your self, please god let me be right.

Sorry Luciferase, you and your friends have been had.

"....rather then enquire, you are saying to your self, please god let me be right."

No, I am saying "Please God, let me be not right"

Just a question re "...The NIPCC report concludes that from the current, real, recorded and agreed temperature data.."

Is that the data collected and contained in papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the same as the IPCC draws from?

If the NIPCC works from non-peer reviewed "papers" its forecasts/projections/conclusions are not worth putting up against an organization's that are.

The rest of your diatribe is par for the course, irrational, and unworthy of response.

Luciferase,

>” The question is one of trajectory, not where we now sit.”

Trajectory is irrelevant. You can pick any trajectory you want by picking the period, duration and end points. This explains the flaw in your argument about trajectory: https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/howtheipccinventedanewcalculus

Another reason your trajectory argument is flawed is because the planet is in a long term cooling trend. It has been cooling for 50 million years, 1 million years, 8,000 years, etc. The temperature increase over the past 150 years, since the Little Ice Age, is consistent with other warm periods that occur at about 900 year intervals (Minoan, Roman, Middle Ages warm periods).

This new PNAS paper shows does not support the hypothesis that CO2 is the ‘control knob’: (e.g. see Fig 4) http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167/F4.expansion.html

The chart Don Aitkin selected to use is similar to many others which all convey the same message: the climate models have been and still are over estimating future warming (e.g.: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/spinning-the-climate-model-observations-comparison-part-iii/ and parts i and ii).

The estimates of ECS and TCR are coming down; IPCC is reluctantly starting to admit this.

RealClimate is an advocacy site projecting a doomsayers’ message. It’s not a credible source to refer to. Similarly with SkepticalScience.

>” If we do nothing, when the ice sitting on land (Antarctica, Greenland) melts, coupled with ocean-water expanded by higher temperature, we can expect significant a sea-level rise.”

That is simply arm waving, scaremongering and doomsaying if you do not state the timer scale. The consequences of IPCC’s projected sea level rise to 2100 is insignificant compared with cumulative global GDP over that time.

> Is that the data collected and contained in papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the same as the IPCC draws from?>

The IPCC also draws from grey literature; e.g. WWF, Greenpeace, etc. AR4 contained over 8000 non peer reviewed citations and over 6000 non peer reviewed references http://accessipcc.com/.

The IPCC is a political organisation, with an agenda. All it says should be considered in that light.

Hi Luciferase,

Well at least you generated a question, pity you spoiled it by getting stuck into abuse again.

Question << Is that the data collected and contained in papers published in peer-reviewed journals, the same as the IPCC draws from? >>

Yes, it is exactly the same data records used by both the scientists contributing to the IPCC and the NIPCC. If you read both reports and their references you can verify that for yourself. Both are peer reviewed, that’s what scientists do.

You said << If the NIPCC works from non-peer reviewed "papers" its forecasts/projections/conclusions are not worth putting up against an organization's that are. >>

No. That’s an “assumption close”. The NIPCC scientists use “peer review”. You’re mixing up “papers” with “data records”. Data is not “peer reviewed”, it is the accepted source for analysis and the temperature data is used by both groups of scientists.

I also stated that the NIPCC uses only the empirical data records “to date”, the real data records, they do NOT do forecasts or projections, that’s the difference with the IPCC. Why don’t you learn to read for pities sake.

You say << The rest of your diatribe is par for the course, irrational, and unworthy of response >>. OK, Where?

You still don’t get it, you still have not either read or comprehended my post. You have not read the IPCC AR5 or the NIPCC report and you have no answers to the question.

I conclude that I was right when I said “you don’t understand the processes, you don’t enquire, you are driven by “scare” induced emotion and you “want to believe”.

There will come a time when your pain of “believing” is greater than the pain of “walking away”. When the Cock crows thrice you will deny CAGW. When the AR5 came out I heard the second “Cock-a-doodle-dooooo”.

Not long now until you have to tell your friends, “Ah well, I never believed all that guff anyway”.

You need to stop “defending” your belief and start “interrogating” it.

Any more questions I might help you with?

Correction: 'Medieval Warm Period' not Middle Ages warm period

Peter Lang wrote:

"The chart Don Aitkin selected to use is similar to many others which all convey the same message: the climate models have been and still are over estimating future warming (e.g.: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/spinning-the-climate-model-observations-comparison-part-iii/ and parts i and ii)."

You do realise Peter that the chart Don showed was a fudge by Roy Spencer? This can be easily identified by looking at the axes and the starting points of the model simulations and going back to look at the data.

Peter Lang further wrote:

"RealClimate is an advocacy site projecting a doomsayers’ message. It’s not a credible source to refer to. Similarly with SkepticalScience."

But Judith Curry is? How very convenient for you Peter.

But then given your ability to detect fudged graphs, perhaps it will be wise to not rely too heavily on your assessment of which sites are credible and which are not.

Agronomist,

Silly snark comments. Waste of space. You have shown you are not to be taken seriously.

All except the greenie extremists realise that RealClimate and SkepticalScience are simply advocacy sites. They were set up by public relations consultants and spin merchants, don't you know this? if not, do your research.

Judith Curry is a highly regarded climate scientist. But one of her main objectives is to try to get integrity and honesty back into climate science. You'd do well to expand your horizons beyond just the doomsayer sites you obviously inhabit and accept without question.

It is widely recognised that the climate models have been over estimating climate sensitivity and, therefore, temperature projections per emissions scenario. There are numerous charts been produced recently similar to the one Don selected. (And the dishonesty in the supposed correction and spin in the Real Climate version has also been exposed). Again, it seems you are unaware.

Perhaps, instead of the silly snarks, you'd be better spent getting up to date - but to do that you'll have to read beyond the doomsayer advocacy sites.

Peter Lang,

I did do my own research. When I looked at Roy Spencer’s graph I noticed a few things were awry, so I looked them up. The second thing I noticed that the UAH lower troposphere and HadCRUT4 diverged from each other radically after 1983 in this plot when in reality they track each other pretty well.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:2102/offset:-0.26/plot/uah/from:1983/to:2012

So obviously there was something fishy going on in Roy’s plot. The first thing I noticed was that the y axis was based on a 5 year period from 1979-1983, when every other temperature comparison uses a much longer base period. That got me thinking, why was this particular period used?

When I plotted the comparison, it was obvious. Over the 1979-1983 period, UAH trends to track higher than HadCRUT4 often by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1983/offset:-0.26/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1983/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1983/offset:-0.35

Oh dear, what a fudged. What using this period does as a baseline does is make the apparent temperature increase over the period lower than it should be for UAH.

The third thing I noticed was that the model plots all started at 0 in 1983. If you look at the ensemble in the AR5 report they don’t do this. The only way this could have occurred would be for someone to run the models with a starting period of 1983. Using the UAH 1979-1983 as the starting data for the models would make them all over-estimate future temperature by about 0.1 degree. So not only has Roy fudged the data for the UAH temperature to be lower than it really is, he has fudged the models to be higher than they should be. No wonder hardly any of the models fit the data.

This fraud was easily determined with a modicum of knowledge of climate science and an ability to read graphs. The fact that you and Don were unable to detect this, merely illustrates how poorly you understand the science. Given the poor state of your knowledge, any recommendations from you about what websites to read are simply useless.

Agronomist,

First, you haven't bothered reading the links I gave you, so I am not interested in wasting my time discussing your interpretation of a chart.

Second, I don't see any point in me looking seriously at your work. If Roy Spencer has errors, why don't you write to him and point them out to him? I suspect you'd find it is you that misunderstand or is making the errors. After all, he is highly competent and you are not. That's not to say he could not have made a mistake, but it is much more likely that you have. If he has made a mistake, and others find it and point it out, it will be debated and if it is shown to be an error he will correct it. That's how scientists, with integrity, which he undoubtedly has, work.

Thirdly, there are many charts showing the same message - i.e. that the models' temperature projections are too high. The discussion has been going on for months.

Since we have no respect for each other, we may as well leave it at that.

"OK, Where?"

Here spindoc, where you carry on with the royal "we" as if everyone apart from you is incapable of analytical thought. Perhaps I pegged you wrong as I was posted on my way out today, and it's the nice spindoc I'm dealing with.

I come back to the credibility and of assumptions of the NIPCC and its forecasts/projections/predictions, even if it is predicting there is nothing at all to be concerned about going forward.

Firstly, I am so sorry, but I can't take the NIPCC itself seriously http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

or its lead authors:
Bob Carter http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bob_Carter
Fred Singer http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fred_Singer
Craig Idso http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Craig_Idso

or Judith Curry http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry

Insofar as any of them want to put up their arguments against "the consensus" they can do so on reputable peer reviewed journals and argue it out based on the empirical evidence, as can you spindoc, and as can Peter Lang. Once you're published, and that will require you to be original and demonstration of having considered all, not just what you cherry-pick, post us a link so we can follow the ensuing discussion.

If you're not up to publishing why not, just for the intellectual joust, put up at RealClimate or SkepticalScience etc., where you know you'll find informed argument, or, just read the already prepared responses to your tired second-hand lines that are waiting there?

I will finish by saying I do not believe you have any vested interest in maintaining your viewpoint, whilst I assure you nor do I. Also common between us is that I hope I'm wrong, and so do you.

A piece from the devil (Michael Mann), mentioning the NIPCC: http://www.livescience.com/39957-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-the-evidence.html

Agro, what a little bully you are; leave Peter alone; unlike the alarmists Spencer learns and has republished his graph after dealing with the problems you so alertly have noticed:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

You will notice little man that in this updated graph both the useless models and both the satellites, not just UAH, now intersect at 1979 when the satellites began.

It makes no difference; the models are still shot wherever you begin; the 15+ years pause in temperature has blown them out of the water.

Spencer had done the graph beginning in 1979 in an earlier post as well:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

Now Agro do tell us how wonderful the models are; I really enjoy listening to and reading those who have an ideological mindset.

Dear Luciferase (and Friends),

<< Can you demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability." >>

<< just POINT to any IPCC empirical evidence, real data, real measurements. No models, forecasts or predictions thanks.>>

Luciferase, it’s OK to say “I don’t know”, it’s OK to say “I can’t answer the question”, it’s OK to say “the NIPCC is correct, there is no published IPCC data that contradicts their statement”, it’s even OK to say “I have not read either report”. At least you will gain respect for being honest.

We will appreciate your honesty by immediately granting you absolution with no further comment. Maybe then you will regain the respect of the “nice Spindoc” rather then the one who hunt’s down your bulltish.

All the CAGW supporters on this thread (and where are they when YOU need their help?) have had the chance to check both reports and not one can find the answer either, because it isn’t there. If you had found it you would be all over us like a rash, shouting it from the roof tops. (Hello?)

It serves no purpose to divert the discussion with abusive links about those who do not agree with you.

If it helps, you can take out ALL the scientists from both sides of the debate. No more abuse, OK?

Let’s just say, that Spindoc and Donald Duck assert that “there is no empirical evidence that any climate or global warming data records exist that are outside natural variability”.

Now you can answer the question without the need to abuse any scientists, you can just abuse Spindoc and Donald Duck.

Don’t answer questions that were NOT asked and focus on the question that was. If you or your fellow CAGW advocates cannot answer, just say so. How hard is that?

Donald Duck is presently attending the UNFCCC’s Christina Figuares “exit interview” and the “heretics inquisition” into why NASA released data showing record Antarctic sea ice. But he awaits your answer with baited breath.

Remember, its’ just you, me and Donald Duck, no scientists and no abusive links.

Let's back up a bit.

Firstly, you said on Monday "The NIPCC Summary for Policy Makers has been released in response to the IPCC’s AR5."

No, the NIPCC published first, not in response to the IPCC report, a calculated move. From http://heartland.org/press-releases/2013/09/27/nipcc-heartland-institute-react-un-ipcc-climate-report-summary :

"The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on September 27, 2013 released the “Summary for Policymakers” of its fifth and latest assessment of Earth’s climate. The IPCC report comes more than a week after the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released the more-than-1,000-page Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (PDF) and its accompanying Summary for Policymakers (PDF)."

The point is, the NIPCC publication could not actually respond to the incompleted IPCC AR5 but simply carries on as if it weren't there, in its own parallel universe.

The NIPCC differs with the IPCC on where we are let alone where we're going. Regarding "<< Can you demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability." >> and << just POINT to any IPCC empirical evidence, real data, real measurements. No models, forecasts or predictions thanks.>>

The IPCC's empirical evidence comes from the data and scientific papers published in credible peer-reviewed publications. Michael Mann's hockey stick is a starting point. There, I pointed, not to start a dialogue with you that I intend to maintain, but to get you going on the path towards enlightenment because your well-worn myths have already been countered by others at the sites I've given as examples.

So, just write down your case for rebuttal of the hockey stick, or anything else you like and check out whether it's an old myth or you've created a new myth. If it's the former, check the pre-prepared rebuttals and if the latter send it into Nature or another credible journal for peer-review

,or, send it to WUWT where it will be enshrined as fact.

The case for the rebuttal of the Hockeystick has been made: by the IPCC:

http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals-of-all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/

Seriously Anthony, that graph you linked to was in fact an entirely different graph for the tropical troposphere. Perhaps you should read the legend next time.

Your comments also don’t address any of the points I made above. The fact that the graph started at 1983 rather than 1979 was not a criticism I made. The criticisms I made were to do with the choice of baseline, which I will remain critical of whenever Roy Spencer uses 1979-1983 as a baseline for the reasons I outlined above.

I think that counts as a fail, Anthony.

I am not in fact arguing that the current global temperature is towards the bottom of the confidence intervals for the models. I am arguing that Roy Spencer’s graphs are fudged.

This, Figure 1.4 from the IPCC compares the current models with current temperatures and previous projections. You can see that current temperatures fall well within the band of confidence intervals from AR4 and TAR and SAR projections.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-final-models-vs-observations.png?w=1024&h=659

Thanks for playing Agro; your effort does not use the satellites [what does it use for the observations?] and still has a base period of 1961-1990.

As base periods go that is fairly even capturing as it does the last of the cool period which ended in 1976 and the part of the warm period which began in 1976.

Unfortunately the warm period started with a step in 1976-1978 due to the climate shift which is uncontroversial. This step meant ALL of the subsequent temperature increase up to the decline which began in 1998 occurred in 2 years. This means temperatures before the step are artificially cooled and this increases the trend; a basic statistical trick.

You will note that both Spencer's adjusted graphs do not use any base period at all but merely have a 5 year running mean along the whole of the data. That avoids such trend adjusting attributes as occur with a base period to produce anomalies.

And so what if Spencer's 2 graphs compare the modelling with lower troposphere observations; troposphere warming is crucial for AGW; it isn't happening.

And as for the ground temperature it isn't happening either and will soon reach the Santer magic 17 year mark:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/23/getting-very-close-to-meeting-santers-17-year-warming-test/

I mean seriously, don't some of the graphs used in Monckton's article give you pause; and please don't use Monckton as a counter-argument or I will use Gore.

Anthony, your arguments are simply all over the place. Rather than correct the wrong arguments you make, you are simply making more wrong ones.

Complaining about the use of 1961-1990 as a baseline is about as sensible as complaining that dates operate on the Gregorian Calendar. It is the baseline that is used in climate science and allows the various measurements and models to be compared. A longer baseline period is preferred, because it is less likely to be influenced by random errors.

Secondly, you have again managed to completely miss the crucial point about Spencer’s graphs. That is he used the 1979-1983 period of the UAH data as a base line. The problem with this is that the model used to generate the lower troposphere temperatures from the satellite data leads to an over-estimate of temperatures for this period, by up to 0.2 degrees. Using this as a base line slants all the post 1983 temperatures lower than they should be.

Next you try to conflate what is happening with mid troposphere temperatures with surface temperatures. The trouble with this is that the models that are used to generate the mid-troposphere temperatures from the satellite measurements do a relatively poor job because they contaminate the signal with stratospheric temperatures, which is cooling.

Anthony, if you understood even a modicum of climate science and how the satellite measurements were made, you wouldn’t make these mistakes.

I don’t take any notice of Monckton, he is almost as ignorant of climate science as you are and is known for being expansive with the truth.

Rubbish Agro; I have linked to Spencer's revised graph above where he removes the base period; here it is again:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

UAH does not use a base period; it establishes anomalies based on the average of ALL its data. This removes the real bias inherent in a base period which you gloss over.

Your comments about the Troposphere are therefore spurious. The absence of a THS remains a fundamental and fatal flaw in AGW theory.

As for ground based temperature; they have not risen for near climatically significant periods. Werner Brozek has proven this by using temperature data and applying the criteria used by NOAA and Jones at UEA CRU. Even using the standards and methods of AGW science itself disproves it; see point 1 here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

But that simple fact, that AGW theory has been disproved, won't stop you will it Agro?

Which humanities subject is your PhD in again? English poetry? Communications? Journalism?

Anthony, perhaps you should read that graph again. You know the bit where it states: “Tropical Mid-Troposphere Tropical 20S-20N” again. Then you can tell me how that is a revised graph of a comparison of global surface temperatures with models.

I think this fully illustrates the depth of your understanding. You somehow think that tropical mid-troposphere temperatures are interchangeable with global surface temperatures.

You have for about the fifth time misunderstood my complaint about Spencer’s graph. I did not make any statement about the base period used to generate UAH anomalies. My complaint was that Spencer used the UAH period of 1979-1983, when UAH over-estimates global temperatures, as the base for their comparison between models and data. I am uncertain whether your continual confusion over this is simply ignorance or if it is deliberate.

Oh Anthony, that silly blog post of yours. Gosh it gave me the giggles. Starting the trend lines at 2004.75 or 2001.33 or 2000.9. Why? How long did you spend having to cherry pick start points to get all the trend lines to look flat? You really don't understand this science stuff do you.

Agro; my silly little blog post is based, as is Werner's findings of statistically significant pauses in temperature on land, on the criteria offered by NOAA, CRU and Santer. Did you bother to even read Werner's methodology which is the methodology of these official sources to establish trends. There is no cherry-pick; the lengths of a pause in the data of each temperature indice is based on those 'official' criteria applied to the data to establish the length of the pause!

This is hopeless, you are so immersed in the paradigm your intellect, considerable no doubt, might as well be putty.

If a theory, sorry alleged theory, like AGW is contradicted by its own methods and criteria and that contradiction is still not accepted by its acolytes then what?

If you had also bothered to understand my post I did distinguish between Troposphere temperature and surface temperature which is why I used Spencer's graph of the Troposphere and Werner's analysis of the surface.

If you wasted less time being a smartarse you might be able to meaningfully contribute.

Oh Anthony, some mothers do ‘ave ‘em, don’t they?

Just because a retired teacher embarrasses themselves on-line, doesn’t mean you have to follow suit. The problem with your graph is that you have worked back from today to find the last time in the data sets when the slope of the line is close to 0 and because one of them is more than 15 years concluded it has not warmed in 15 years. This is simply cherry picking. It is a conclusion looking for data.

The proper way to do this is to deal with the hypothesis. If that hypothesis is that there has been no warming for the last 15 years, then you test the last 15 years, not 8 years, not 12 years, not 13 years, not 16 years, but 15 years.

Like this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998.75/to:2013.75/trend/plot/uah/from:1998.75/to:2013.75/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998.75/to:2013.75/trend/plot/rss/from:1998.75/to:2013.75/trend

Three out of 4 data sets show a clear warming over the period. Even better, I have gone to the original data for these three (I don’t have the RSS data set, but I am guessing that would not be significantly different to 0 over the period) and done the regression and all three have a significant increase in temperature (p = 0.0027 for Giss; p = 0.048 for HadCRUT4; p = 0.044 for UAH).

Regardless of what you have done with Brozek’s graph, it doesn’t in any way address the criticism of Roy Spencer’s graph.

Agro, Spencer's graph, used in this article, applies to both land and Troposphere temperatures; I have supplied Spencer's graph corrected for your complaint for the Troposphere where there is no short base period to calculate anomalies but where the whole data is used to produce anomalies.

Let me ask you directly: do you have a complaint about that method?

As for Werner Brozek's land and satellite temperature analysis. Apart from your snide aspersion on teachers your comment about his method misses the point.

What is wrong in back-searching the data on a monthly basis to find a negative slope and then seeing if that persists for the remainder of the consequent data?

You also speak of a "a significant increase in temperature (p = 0.0027 for Giss; p = 0.048 for HadCRUT4; p = 0.044 for UAH)."

This is why I don't take you seriously. As well as looking at periods of negative slope, that is declining temperature, Brozek also looks at periods of increase in temperature with statistically insignificant periods of increase. What does that mean? It means the increase is not statistically different from zero when error bars, or the margin of error, are used. Error bars reflect the possibility of error in the data and method. Brozek has used the data and error bars from Skeptical Science.

How much fairer could he be?

So when we look at your conclusion of a significant increase in temperature, what you mean is that the temperature increase is statistically real but when the error bars are considered it is not statistically significant. That is why your P values are LESS than 0.05, the usual threshold value for determining statistical value.

What would be appropriate would be to return to Brozek's starting point of negative slope and see whether the result is maintained given Brozek did his analysis in April of this year, 6 months ago.

Oh dear Anthony, you are such a chump.

Spencer’s graph given by Don Aitkin was for the surface and the lower troposphere (you know that bit of the atmosphere closest to the Earth). It says so on the graph. It also says on the graph that it is for global temperatures. The graph you linked to as a ‘correction’ was for the mid-troposphere (a bit of the atmosphere not that close to the Earth) and for the tropics. It says so on the graph.

It also can’t be a correction for the graph posted by Aitkin, because it was published on June 6 http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/ when the graph it was apparently correcting was published on October 14 http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/ some 4 months later – unless Spencer among his other gifts is able to time travel.

I have suggested before that you should keep away from commenting on statistics due to your thorough ignorance of the area. You will only end up looking like a fool, as this example shows:

“So when we look at your conclusion of a significant increase in temperature, what you mean is that the temperature increase is statistically real but when the error bars are considered it is not statistically significant. That is why your P values are LESS than 0.05, the usual threshold value for determining statistical value.”

I really don’t know what to say.

Perhaps you should read up a little http://www.wikihow.com/Assess-Statistical-Significanc

Agro, I didn't say the Spencer graph I used had been corrected by Spencer; I said it was corrected in respect of your complaint about a base period.

I also talk about the THS in respect of that 'corrected' Troposphere graph. IE. that is, the Tropical mid Troposphere.

The lack of Troposphere warming anywhere, at any level, contrary to the model predictions is a done deal.

As for surface temperatures and your disproof of Brozek's analysis. You still ignore what Brozek did. What he did was start at the furthest negative slope in each temperature indice.

Now, you're obviously a smart guy Agro, your arrogance clearly shows that, despite your troll tendencies; answer this, what does starting at a negative point, actually the month after the furthest negative slope, mean for the following anomalies?

If you're as smart as you condescend to be you'll know that is a more accurate way of presenting anomaly trends then based on a selected year or time span and applying OLS? Why? You should know, it has to do with favourite complaint against Spencer, base period selection.

Oh Anthony, will you ever learn to read? My complaint about Spencer’s graph was that he used a base period that was likely to minimise temperature increase for the UAH data set for the lower troposphere. You correct this complaint by showing a graph for the tropical mid-troposphere that uses exactly the same base period? It is not only for a different bit of the atmosphere, it is for the tropics only and it uses the same base period. So as a correction it is completely useless.

You next mistake the problem of stratosphere bleeding into the mid-troposphere models of UAH data. This tends to make the modelled satellite data too cool, so of course they will fall below the mean of climate models. I thought everyone in climate science knew about this problem.

As for Brozek’s analysis, I have already explained why it was cherry picked. If you want to test a hypothesis of no warming for 15 years, you test over a 15 year period, not 9 years, not 12 years, not 13 years and not 16 years. That is why Brozek’s analysis is embarrassingly wrong.

The graph for this article begins in 1983; the graph I showed begins in 1979; both use 5 year running means; a running mean is NOT a base period. Why would Spencer use a 5 year running mean? Does a 5 year running mean advantage or disadvantage, that is produce bias, for or against AGW?

A running mean after 1976-78, when the step up in temperature occurred would not be biased in any respect because the heating produced by the Climate Shift is already in the system.

In any event the graph in this article begins its running mean in 1983 not 1979.

As for cooling from the lower Stratosphere "bleeding' into the Troposphere that is nonsense as Fu has showed:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

As for the Mears and Wentz of RSS and Christy and Spencer of UAH debate see here:

http://marshall.org/climate-change/some-convergence-of-global-warming-estimates/

And here:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2012/01/01/21-temperature-trends-msu-vs-an-atmospheric-model/

And here:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/05/04/assault-from-above/

At the end of the day there is no THS and the surface temperature contradicts the models; see Stockwell:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/13/stockwell-asks-is-the-atmosphere-still-warming/

And Tisdale:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/29/ipcc-adjusts-model-predicted-near-term-warming-downwards/

Oh dear Anthony, you are still struggling with this. I know math is hard, but this is deceptively easy. Have a look at the Y-axis on those graphs (that is the one going up and down). The units are in temperature anomaly from baseline – yes I know Spencer has left them off one of the graphs, but that is what they are. In both graphs the baseline is the average of 1979 to 1983.

In the graph that starts in 1979 all Spencer has done is change from a 5-year end moving average (1979-1983 period is averaged at 1983), to a 5-year beginning moving average (1979-1983 period is averaged at 1979). He should use a centred moving average, but that is another discussion.

That article you link to by yourself and Jo Nova does not address the issue of stratospheric cooling and its effects on satellite data at all. It is not even mentioned.

However, the link you give to the NOAA does:

“These trend are smaller than the T2LT trends, in both the model and the observations, despite the fact that T2 weights the lower troposphere less strongly that T2LT. The model trends actually increase with height through the troposphere. The problem, long appreciated, is that T2 has significant weight in the stratosphere, where there is a cooling trend in both model and observations…”