.

## Gotta give WUWT deniers credit...

Sou | 11:08 AM

### They all agree on one thing...it's a conspiracy!!!

WUWT deniers can't agree about what is happening to the climate (it's the sun, it's natural, it's not warming, it's cooling, we're heading for an ice age, it's thunderstorms, there is no greenhouse effect, it's cosmic rays, it's warming, it's not warming, it's ENSO, it's an ice age) - but when it comes to conspiracies they all agree that climate science is a hoax! A conspiracy! A scam! A SECRET scam!

Ooh, look - another conspiracy.  On that famous science-spying blog wattsupwiththat, justthefactswuwt has found that secret countries from every secret continent all around the globe have secretly conspired with the secret UK Met Office and secretly made the world warmer! Well, some places warmer(and only some cooler.)  That proves it! (Not sure what it proves but whatever it is, it PROVES it!)

Just like before, the latest secret changes to HadCRUT and CRUTem are secretly published (huh?) on the secret UK Met Office website here and here, and all these secret places are part of the secret hoax...

Norway
Australia
Brazil
Antarctica
St Helena
Bolivia
South East Asia
Germany
Poland
Uganda
USA

Did I mention how secretive they are? I mean, justthefactswuwt found that in some places the temperature chart was adjusted UP (mind you) and not for every year and not for every place, but in some years and some places by a whole 5 one hundredths of a degree.   That's right, not one hundredth, not two hundredths but a whole FIVE one hundredths of a degree!!! That's bordering on criminal, that is.  Look here and you'll see what I mean:

As one commenting auditor from WUWT cannily observed:
Peter Wardle says:
May 12, 2013 at 6:04 pm  Isn’t this a clear case of fraud? If so how can they get away with it? Perhaps I might rethink my next tax return.

### Net Result of the Secret Changes on the Met Office Hadley Centre website

Here is the net result of all those dastardly secret changes on the HadCRUT global surface temperature dataset.  Good grief it's gone up by nearly TEN THOUSAND one millionths of a degree in parts (as Reginald Perrin might say) :

 Only available to bona fide Climate Cultists who have the Secret URL

Look how HUGE10,000 one millionths of a degree is compared to no change. (Note: it's really MUCH bigger than it looks here.  I had to shrink it so it would fit on the blog.)

A bonus for latecomers: More words of wisdom from those who swear they aren't gullible.  Brad, if I deduce correctly from his reference to "Republicans", believes the UK Met's Hadley Centre and the UEA Climatic Research Unit are funded by the USA.  He bemoans the secrecy surrounding this data, which is only available to those who have the secret URLs of the websites here and here, and says:
May 12, 2013 at 7:04 pm  When will the funders, our elected officials, wake up to this? If only the Republicans take this up it could make things worse as it will look like more anti-science stuff. How do we get the truth out?
Cute, eh! Republicans only make it worse with 'more anti-science stuff'.  I guess the message is spreading...

### Wanna be a SPY?

To secretly spy on previous updates to CRUTem and HadCRUT see this secret discussion on RealClimate.org, which refers to a secret paper published by Jones et al.

Ha, you can't pull the wool over deniers' eyes - they are sharp and onto every secret move!

1. Its much worse than justthefactswuwt wrote, I have found out that some temp charts may have been adjusted up by as much as 50 thousandths of a degree.

1. OMG that's insane! FIFTY!! And not just of one hundredths but of a whole one THOUSANDTHS! That's (1, 2, 3 ,4, 5...) TEN TIMES!

I'll have to change the chart :D

2. Oh no, they have adjusted the African temperatures from 1890 to 1940 up by 0.02 to 0.08 degrees. That must mean something very bad, and it must be even worse because I cannot figure out what it is! But it probably involves gorillas (nasty hairy brutes).

And for Europe, the last decade has been adjusted downwards . Just to "give the appearance of impartiality".

3. Find out at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/ what caused the warming that ended over a decade ago. A link is included to a site that presents a simple science-based equation that calculates temperatures since before 1900 with an R2 of 0.9 using only one widely available variable.

1. Don't bother, folks. Dan is just a dragon slayer of the 'it's cosmic rays' variety. He can't face the fact that humans are causing global warming and wrongly thinks he's found a way out of it.

Sorry to be so blunt, Dan. You need to rethink your 'theory'. I suggest realclimate.org as well as scienceofdoom.com since you like equations. If you want some good solid reading on the subject the IPCC has compilations of the science.

2. Theories are for realclimate and the IPCC to keep the funding coming. If you actually care, you will look at my research which is calculation using accepted measurements.

3. Dan, now you're admitting to being a "climate science is a hoax" conspiracy theorist.

Really and truly, who do you think paid Svensmark's salary?

1. how CO2 absorbs IR radiation everywhere and throughout time except since 1900 when you seem to think it suddenly lost all its physical properties (or maybe you think it works everywhere except in the sky),which seems to be your theses.

2. How do you explain how no scientist for the last 200 years has had your brainwave?

3. How do you explain how the US airforce got heat seeking missiles to work?

That should keep you thinking for a while, then maybe you'll think up some questions of your own.

Like I say, go and do some more reading on the subject of climate. There is a lot more to climate science than half a page of equations and hand-waving about clouds, cosmic rays and Pacific Decadel Oscillations.

4. "Theories are for realclimate and the IPCC to keep the funding coming."
You following the money, Dan?
Last year Shell, an ailing company posting a profit of only a record 8 G$over QE1 this year, got a tax cut over 2011 worth 200 M$ (nothing gets so much tax payer's subsidies as fossil fuels).

That tax cut for that single company would've payed for the entire IPCC since 1988 and what's left over would've payed for the entire IPCC since 1973.

5. If you cannot grasp what is presented at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html then you will continue to be puzzled as to why the average global temperature trend is down. If you had understood this paper you may have realized that what Svensmark discovered was not used.

“1. How CO2 . . .” CO2 absorbs IR over a very narrow band of the total IR from the planet just like it always has. But its influence was pretty well saturated before 1900. All that happens now, as the CO2 level increases, is that the IR that it absorbs is absorbed a bit closer to the emitting surface. I discovered that added CO2 had no significant influence on climate in a paper made public more than 5 years ago at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html

“2. How do you explain how no scientist . . .” It took powerful desktop computers, EXCEL graphics and the internet. After that, apparently it took a mechanical engineer with 9 units of graduate level thermodynamics/heat transfer, curiosity about nearly everything and many years of research on climate.
“3. How do you explain how the . . .” I know how heat seeking missiles work. That article is at best misleading. Are you unaware of the very narrow band of IR absorption (and thermalization or re-emission ) of atmospheric CO2? Clue: The detectors attend to the shorter-wavelength IR that is not absorbed by CO2 … or water vapor.

Here are some questions:
1. Why have the predictions of climate scientists using their global climate models, that have undergone training for years, failed to show the flat trend of average global temperatures since 2001 whereas my equation does?
2. Why do the IPCC reports fail to mention thermalization?
3. Why doesn’t anybody talk about the Fresnel equations that show that specular reflection from low-incident-angle EMR (e.g. towards the poles) reflects more than typical ice or snow?
4. Why have the climate scientists failed to consider the sunspot time-integral when it gives the excellent correlation with average global temperature that has escaped them?

There is only one equation. It calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide with 90% accuracy. I know of nothing else that does anywhere near that well.

Something for you to think about:
Humanity has wasted over 100 billion (with a B) dollars in failed attempts using super computers to demonstrate that added atmospheric CO2 is a primary cause of global warming and in misguided activities to try to do something about it. An unfunded engineer, using only a desk top computer, applying a little science and some engineering, discovered a simple equation that unveils the mystery of global warming and describes what actually drives average global temperature.

I am against all subsidies, including the 25% for wind turbines and \$.50 per gallon for ethanol.

6. ROTFL - Dan, so it's not clouds anymore, now it's oceans and sunspots. What happened to the cosmic rays?

BTW - you're equation is almost as elegantly simple as E=mc squared. It only requires the removal of all but one of calibration co-efficients and calling it a constant, and removing another umpteem parts. I like this bit the best:

A, B, C, and D are calibration coefficients which have been determined to maximize the coefficient of determination, R2 (which makes the least biased fit of the trajectory that is calculated using the physics-based equation to measurements). Some have mistakenly interpreted these coefficients to indicate mathematical curve fitting, which is something that is entirely different. Instead, the coefficients allow the rational estimation of the amount that each of the two or three major contributors has made to the total temperature change.

(Tamino wouldn't call it "mathematical curve fitting" - he'd call it "mathturbation"!)

And this bit, where you do a bit more fiddling:
If atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is included in the calculation, it might account for about 7.5% of reported average global temperature (AGT) change. If CO2 has that much influence, then the calculated ocean surface temperature effect decreases to about 40.1% and sunspot influence decreases to about 52.4%, but accuracy increases an insignificant amount to 89.91%.

What happens to your 'equation' if you attribute a whole lot more to CO2 (like its real, actual, measured absorption bands) and then argue that when earth gets a bit warmer other things start happening, you know, like more water evaporates coz it's, you know, hotter. And water vapour rises which adds more to the warmth because water vapour is, you know, a greenhouse gas too. And ice melts and reduces albedo. And so on...

You're not just saying that CO2 stopped working 'before 1900' but you're saying water vapour doesn't 'work' at all and never did! You're saying ice has no albedo.

Love to see you fit your equation to the Shakun-Marcott-GISStemp wheelchair, and then to the Vostok 'curve'.

First you come up with cosmic rays and clouds, then you trot out "it's the sun, stupid" and "it's oceans". What's your next theory? Pink elephants doing a rain dance in the stratosphere?

7. Oh and Dan, if you go look at a surface temperature chart, you'll see you're wrong when you say "the average global temperature trend is down". In fact the World Meteorological Organisation reports "the years 2001–2012 were all among the top 13 warmest years on record".

You might be suffering the same vision problem as NZ Willy has, or maybe it's as bad as Paul Homewoods.

4. They are some funny graphs. Good work Sou.

5. Funny how when it comes to some science deniers, it all boils down to ideology.

Watts has said he rejects science because of 'taxes'. Our visitor Dan rejects science because as he says, he is: "..against all subsidies...".

I wonder for how many decades and how hard Dan's lobbied to try to remove the tax breaks and subsidies forked out to oil and coal? Hasn't worked if he did. (And it's very telling that he didn't include oil and coal when he mentioned wind and ethanol.)

6. I'm tempted to work up an article on Dan's mathturbations. I reckon Dan made yet another teeny weeny false assumption buried in his workings /s

Earths' temperature is actually controlled by theColumbia River Gorge Compact and only by pure coincidence is that the same number as the average of sunspot numbers between '1850 and 1940'. Another example of confirmation bias :D

7. Great article - well spotted.

8. The problem with this world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, and the stupid people are full of confidence.
Buddha

Dan is amazingly confident in his mathturbation.

9. I really wouldn't bother with trying to correct poor old Dan. Others have tried and he refuses to answer specific questions. In effect, he just makes up his own laws of physics, correlates a couple of variables and hey presto, problem solved.

See http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/open-letter-to-dan-pangburn-et-al-re.html

10. I have this memory of academic book shops... There would always be people who 'demonstrated' a quadrature of the circle or 'proved' that relativity theory were a big hoax. They would place sloppy copies of type written manuscripts amid the real books. Always included a whine about them not being taken seriously but their time would come and their 'insights' would one day shatter the world et cetera.
Usually reasoning based on division by zero or equating 1 with somenthing not 1.

11. First you accuse me of things that I did not do and then you berate me for having done them. It is a typical tactic of those with little understanding of what they are talking about.

You have revealed that you are either incapable or unwilling to understand the science or even the simple math. If you understood any of it, you would realize that everything that you can think of that was not explicitly included in the equation must find room in the unexplained 10.1%.

Ian A included a link to another site that is also hopelessly lacking in knowledge.

The lack of technological expertise at this site explains why no one attempted to answer the questions that I posed.

If anyone actually wants to find out what caused the warming and why it stopped and why the current average global temperature trend is down, the information is at the link in my previous post above.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

1. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Good to see Dan can get one thing right. Now all he has to do is figure out how to apply it correctly.

2. Always remember that back around 2009, poor old mechanical-engineer-not-climate-scientist Dan stated that the Arctic SIE was going to grow in a big way in the years to come.

Fast forward to 2013...how is that prediction going champ?

12. "None are so blind as those who refuse to see".

Dan made the irony meter exlpode

13. Dan's a dick

14. Mirrors, Dan: be careful with them.

15. The problem is not Dan. There will always be people with fringe ideas, that is fine and once in a while they turn out to be right.

The problem are the masses that take the Dans more seriously as scientists. Fortunately these masses are dwindling; if I may plug my latest post.

1. Yes, Victor. Your article was interesting.

If the USA ever gets serious about a carbon price the denier blogs will probably pick up again. They'll be filled with comments like "CO2 is plant food and I don't like taxes and Tim Flannery said it would never rain again (of course he said nothing of the sort) therefore climate science is a hoax". At least that's what happened here in Australia.

Most of the people that were vocal before the legislation was passed have since disappeared, leaving only those for whom science denial is a hobby.

Depends on the weather to some extent as well.

2. I guess that is a rule for any topic. If "your party" is in power or things are moving in the right direction for "your topic", you start focussing on other things.

Politically it is important to implement a carbon tax in a revenue neutral way and reduce other taxes (best on labour) simultaneously. That way it is clear that it is not about raising more revenue, but about reducing CO2 emissions and increasing employment.

16. CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by 24.67 ppmv (an amount equal to 27.56% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; March, 2013, 395.8 ppmv).

The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat. (Some agencies say flat since 1997 see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml )

That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 24.67 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

1. So in addition to your other topic knowledge deficiencies, you do not understand the difference between atmospheric temperature and the climate system as a whole. Whenever I encounter someone peddling contrarian views making very basic errors like this, I know it is time to switch off.

More than 90% of the energy that has accumulated in the climate system since the mid-C20th is in the oceans (Levitus et al. 2012).

A slight increase in the rate of energy diffusion into the ocean is sufficient to account for the temporary slow-down in the rate of atmospheric warming (Balmaseda et al. 2013; Meehl et al. 2011).

2. Dan, I can see you put a lot of your time and effort into justifying your position. I get it that for some reason you are unwilling to accept science, I really do. There are others like you. You don't need to try to justify it.

You must know that you give the game away when you quote David Rose as a source of information. Especially on a board where people are well aware David Rose makes a habit of distorting the facts. Most people know that in the case you quote, David was so wrong that the Met Office issued a statements correcting his disinformation. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

I get the distinct impression that you are more interested in showing "it's not CO2" than in understanding climate. But more than that, you like playing with numbers.

You haven't explored the science much if at all. You've just found a couple of bits and pieces of trivia to build your formulae around. Take a PDO, toss in a cloud and a cosmic ray and umpteen co-efficients and ignore everything else saying - Oh, I've left 10% for the other bits. They can sort it out for themselves.

If I were you I'd take some time out. Read up on the carbon cycle. It's not difficult to grasp and might open up new horizons for you.

This little booklet is a good place to see if it gets you interested in earth system science as a whole.

The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change - Bureau of Meteorology booklet

3. C'mon China, SIE prediction made in 2009. Next ice age remember. How's that all going?

17. The lack of science knowledge and math ability at this site is appalling. However the skill at berating is bountiful.

The atmospheric CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature doesn’t. I wonder how wide this separation will need to get for some people to realize that they haven’t understood the science very well.

So you think that the equation that has calculated the average global temperature since before 1900 with 90% accuracy is wrong. Then when do you expect the average global temperature trend to start going up again?

1. Dan the level of scientific knowledge and maths ability was fine until you came along :)

Have you read BBD's post and the papers he kindly pointed you to? Have you read the BoM booklet?

Yes, your curve fitting is just that - curve fitting. You've ignored most major climate forcings and feedbacks altogether (water vapour and most CO2 and other GHGs; albedo; volcanic activity etc). You don't seem to think incoming solar radiation has any impact, you only refer to outgoing radiation - which for some reason you measure by sunspots (a bit weird in itself).

You haven't explained why it's never got this hot since the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

You attribute 58.2% of the change to outgoing radiation, which for some reason you seem to measure by a proxy for incoming radiation (sunspots). Of this, you've said 7.5% is from increased CO2. The rest seems to be clouds, though it's hard to know what you think here - you've got two different papers going at the same time and they don't interlink too well.

You've given no evidence that clouds have changed this past few decades or what would cause them to do so. Cosmic rays don't explain a change - and it's yet to be shown they actually influence cloud formation. But even if they do, there's no reason to think the amount of cosmic radiation has changed over the Holocene or had any major influence over the past few decades. Certainly not one that would cause temperatures to rise.

So, apart from your 7.5% CO2, there is nothing that's changed enough to explain any change in outgoing radiation compared to the rest of the Holocene.

You reckon 41.8% of change is from ocean cycles. You haven't explained what if anything has made the ocean cycles this past 100 years any different from those of the rest of the Holocene. So there goes that hypothesis.

So that leaves the 7.5% of the change that you attribute to CO2. Which makes no sense at all. What about the other 92.5%?

2. "The atmospheric CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature doesn’t." (Dan)

Energy content of the climate system, this is oceans + cryosphere + atmosphere, is going up exactly on par with the rise of CO2.
So if global air temperature rise stagnates you KNOW either the seas are warming up more OR land and sea ice are melting more OR both.

3. Just so, as pointed out to DP just above.

DP *totally ignored* the comment and references. DP is another time-waster with a big mouth and a limited understanding of the topic.

4. No problem with 'limited understanding'. Problem is with the apparent unwillingness to learn and the arrogance with which total ignorance is presented. That is the world upside down and it needs to be smacked back in upright position. Where ignorance + interest spurs learning motivation and some respect for professionals on the subject.

18. Isn't anyone willing to answer? "when do you expect the average global temperature trend to start going up again?"

1. In the next few years.

2. Still waiting or your explanation of the Arctic SIE, given your 2009 comments about how much it was going to grow in subsequent years. Pony up Champ.

19. I have not been able to find where I said in 2009 that Arctic SIE would increase. A link would help.

Arctic SIE is now near the top of the range since 2007. See for yourself at http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic or http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent_prev.htm

1. Wow, I thought you were at least going to try Dan. Even for a denier this is feeble.

The trend for SIE in May (note cherry picking period when ice near maximum extent) STILL shows a trend of -2.3% loss per decade.

What scientists look at more seriously is the September extent data. Hey guess what? When you look at this the trend shows a loss of -13% per decade.

Sea ice volumes shows larger losses.

Funny thing sunspots...they make idiots look like, well, idiots...

2. Maybe what Dan is saying is that sea ice extent this year is approaching that of last year for this date. He's reminding us that last year was a record low in summer.

Doesn't mean it will be another record this year. However, with ice volume decreasing year on year, even if the ice happens to be spread out at first it's easily melted come summer.

3. Dan