It looks as if Anthony Watts is getting his marching orders from the CATO Institute this week. First there was Paul Driessen wanting to "bring back smog". Now we've got the disinformer duo, Patrick J. Michaels and his sidekick, Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger - affectionately known as Pat 'n Chip (archived here). What this pair is trying to tell us is that what the IPCC report said about a "hiatus" is reflected in science papers about the so-called "hiatus" in global surface temperatures. They are in essence claiming the IPCC was correct. (Actually, to sell their story to the deniers, Pat'n Chip made up stuff about what the IPCC report actually said, pretending it said something different so they could argue the point. It's called building a strawman.)
What pause? There is no pause in global warming!
Remember, a "slow down" (or even the poorly named "hiatus") in global surface temperature does not in any way signify a pause in global warming. The earth continues to warm up. This year even the global surface temperatures are setting new records.
|Data source: NASA GISS - including average year to date to October 2014.|
And here's UAH lower troposphere temperatures (above the surface), showing the hottest October on record - equal with October 2012:
|Data source: UAH|
Where is the data? Where is the code?
Pat'n Chip say they did a review of scientific papers containing the words "pause" or "hiatus" or "slowdown" and "global" and "temperature". They didn't say how many papers had any or all of those words. They claim that they used the same methodology as Cook13.
There is no way of checking what they really did because, unlike Cook13, they've hidden all the data. If they had any to start with.
They've not provided the results of their search. They've not provided a list of abstracts. They've not provided anything at all.
Not the same "methodology", no corroboration
In any case, they didn't use the same methodology, they applied a variation. They claimed that they read the abstracts of the results of their search, which is what Cook13 did. But then they said they read the papers themselves, if further investigation was required - which Cook13 did not. Nor did they say they went to the authors of those papers to check for consistency with their finding. Which Cook13 did.
Very few papers in the sample
Pat'n Chip only found 100 articles (not 12,000 or so) that fitted their criteria. Of that 100 they discarded 65 as not being relevant to recent global warming trends. That left them with 35 papers. Thirty five. That's all. Out of the
Only 0.29% of science papers show a slow down in surface warming!
Let's apply denialist reasoning to Pat'n Chip's "work". For the sake of argument only, we'll assume they reported their method and findings accurately.
Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton claimed that most climate science papers do not show that humans cause global warming. They based this on the illogical and wrong argument that if a paper doesn't attribute a cause to global warming, it means it's not a human cause.
If we assume that had Pat'n Chip really used the Cook13 methodology, they'd have got around 12,000 papers. Of those 12,000 they'd have got only 35 that indicated there has been a slowdown in warming in "recent years". Remember - that's not the same as a cooling. It's not a decline in temperature. It's just that the global surface temperatures in the past few years have remained high, but they've not risen quite as fast as they have in some other faster-warming periods.
Anyway, using denier logic, that means that only 0.29% of climate science papers suggest the rise in average annual global surface temperature hasn't been as fast in the past few years, as at some earlier times. A far cry from the claim of 100%!
I'm joking - to make a point
Yes - stray denier, I am joking. But joking to make a point. Not a single denier at WUWT has decided to apply the denier argument to Pat'n Chips "research"! Shall we wait for the Christopher Monckton/Anthony Watts rebuttal?
Pat'n Chip's Straw Man
Pat'n Chip built a straw man, where they wrote:
In other words, we didn’t find a single paper on the topic that argued the rate of global warming has not slowed (or even stopped) in recent years. This is in direct opposition to the IPCC’s contention that global warming is accelerating...
Except that the IPCC put in an entire section in one of the chapters of the WG1 report addressing the observed lower rate of rise in global warming since the super El Nino of 1998. While a lot of people didn't agree with them putting in this section, because it could confuse and mislead the casual reader, the report did include it. So Pat'n Chip are aiming to deceive - which isn't hard at WUWT. That's where people who want to be deceived go for their misinformation.
What has happened to surface warming - and why?
In other words, much of what Pat'n Chip are reporting is no more or less than what scientists themselves have been telling everyone. That global surface temperatures haven't risen as fast in the past few years (Pat'n Chip didn't put a time limit on their categorisation. They only used the words "recent years".). And then they are presenting it as if it contradicts what the scientists themselves have been saying.
Needless to say Pat'n Chip don't provide the reasons for the slow down in global surface temperatures. They don't mention the fact that the oceans are continuing to accumulate heat. Or the fact that the sun hasn't been shining as strongly of late. Or the fact that this year is likely to be almost as hot if not hotter than any recorded to date. Or the fact that 2005 and 2010 are currently the hottest years on record.
So it's a nothing article. An empty piece saying nothing that hasn't been said already.
This is a tactic that disinformers often use. Pretend that the science says something different to what it says, and then claim that you've found what the science itself really says. Which is what it said all along.
Do you follow? No? Well that's the whole intention of disinformers. It's to muddle your thinking. It only really works with science deniers so it's not a very useful tactic for influencing public opinion. It's a straddle position used by professional disinformers, to let deniers think you are really "on their side" even when you are forced to agree with the science.
In case you're wondering - although global surface temperatures haven't risen as fast in "recent years", global warming hasn't stopped. The surface temperatures are still going up. The oceans are getting hotter. The ice is melting faster than ever. And we're still heading towards four degrees or more of warming over the next 85 years. Here's a chart of sea surface temperatures. Does it look to you they are "pausing"?
|Data source: Met Office Hadley Centre|
From the WUWT comments
One thing did stand out from the comments. Not a single person so far has called for the data. Not a one. Nobody.
Does that surprise you? Not at all. Deniers and disinformers only have two things in common - they are consistently inconsistent, and they have double standards. Apart from those two shared characteristics, deniers and disinformers disagree amongst each other on almost everything else to do with climate science. They couldn't jointly argue their way out of a paper bag.
There was one person who thinks Pat'n Chip are joking. John Eyon wrote on November 18, 2014 at 2:31 pm
am i the only one who thinks that the research part of this article is tongue in cheek
CodeTech is still hanging out for the ice age that doesn't cometh and says:
November 18, 2014 at 1:28 pm
It’s not a pause, it’s a peak.
Steve R is delighted to be told what the scientists are saying. Except it's not of course. Pat'n Chip decided to use "disinformer licence". I wonder will he be as delighted over the next two decades?
November 18, 2014 at 1:28 pm
“So while 97% of scientists may agree that global warming is caused by humans, virtually 100% agree that global warming has stopped or slowed considerably during the 21st century.”
What a great soundbite! Short and to the point.
Terry makes up stuff so he can fit it into his personal mental model. Like most dim deniers, he's not able to cope with reality.
November 18, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Gina conveniently ignores the fact that a pause essentially nullifies ALL of the computer climate models. They were ALL wrong. But I guess it’s business as usual for the eco-warriors at the EPA and the IPCC and the WH.
It's possible that Stevan Reddish would like to see a bit more rigour applied, because he asks:
November 18, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Pardon my ignorance, are similar efforts being made to publish this study as were made on behalf of Cook’s study?
The fake sceptic from Scotland sets Stevan straight, and points out that there's no need for rigour when you've got uncritical pseudo-scientists on your side at WUWT. Mike Haseler wrote:
November 18, 2014 at 5:57 pm
It has already been published in what has rapidly become the most if no the only authoritative journal on climate: WattsUpWithThat. This journal has by far the most stringent review process of any journal – a hoard of sceptics.
Nick Stokes saw fit to enter the fray, though he gets the usual flak from the usual suspects for his crime of injecting a dose of reality. Reality is a big no-no at WUWT.
November 18, 2014 at 2:12 pm
“In other words, we didn’t find a single paper on the topic that argued the rate of global warming has not slowed (or even stopped) in recent years. This is in direct opposition to the IPCC’s contention that global warming is accelerating, a”
No, you can add the IPCC to the 100% (if that’s possible). The AR5 SPM says:
“The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998 to 2012 as compared to the period 1951 to 2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from natural internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence).”
The unanimity is not surprising (though I bet they didn’t all say that it has nearly stopped). There has been a slowdown. You won’t, though, find 100% of temperature indices that tell you that global warming has stopped. RSS is on its own there.
Ray Donahue asks what looks like an irrelevant redundant question for some reason known only to himself. The answer, Ray, is that the WG1 assessment is the best assessment of the current state of the science. Not every scientist will agree with every single part of it. However almost all scientists will agree that it fairly represents the current state of knowledge about climate science - including a good description of the knowns, unknowns, certainties and uncertainties.
November 18, 2014 at 3:06 pm
So, the Summary for Policy Makers faithfully echoes WG1 Scientific Assessment?
Really? The WG1 assessment is in tune with all scientists?
Werner Brozek, who does number-crunching on temperature data for WUWT, is doing his best to mentally prepare the WUWT deniers for a bit more warming.
November 18, 2014 at 3:58 pm
I would not be so sure about the “and counting”. Dr. McKitrick went to April when they still had Hadcrut4.2. In August, they switched to Hadcrut4.3 which was warmer. In addition, the last few months have been very warm as well, not only on Hadcrut4.3, but GISS as well.
Nick Stokes puts up this chart from WoodforTrees, which shows that contrary to Pat'n Chip's claim, the trend of the past 19 years, since 1995, is certainly not zero. As if you needed more proof that global warming as a whole hasn't stopped or even "paused".
November 18, 2014 at 5:21 pm
Here is the WFT plot with a proper trend line. And the 19 year trend isn’t zero:
Craig wonders how the WUWT-ers can sleep at night and writes:
November 18, 2014 at 2:29 pm
How does a man go to sleep at night knowing he is living his life on a lie AND the whole world knows it? A fable for the ‘Ripleys believe it or not’ show perhaps?
Craig, it's called wilful delusion. No, that's not the scientific name for it. There have been many studies done on the phenomenon though, like this one.
Sir Harry Flashman is a recent comer to WUWT I think. I don't know how long he'll last there. He is undermining the purpose of WUWT, which is a club for disinformers and deniers of climate science.
November 18, 2014 at 6:04 pm
“warmist scientists” = all the scientists. “Cause of the pause” is a denier phrase, since there’s no pause. What real-life science grownups are talking about is why the rate of increase has slowed. And what’s going to happen when it accelerates again.
Still, it’s a hallmark of actual science that when data don’t match the models, you acknowledge it and attempt to figure out why, which is precisely what’s going on now. The thing is, the people who study climate professionally are in pretty much universal agreement that a slowdown doesn’t reverse the laws of physics that are causing warming, and that the piper is still going to have to be paid.
Cook, John, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A. Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce. "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." Environmental Research Letters 8, no. 2 (2013): 024024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024