Climate change? Yeah, nah

This headline says mere scepticism means denying that climate changes—not that you have legitimate, unanswered questions over the models, the mechanisms or the means. Morons.

Still, New Zealand has one of the highest rates of climate change scepticism in the developed world. A wonderful finding.

One outspoken Kiwi climate change sceptic, Herald on Sunday columnist and former Act Party leader Rodney Hide, said the results showed that New Zealand was “saner than most of the world”. “[The result] suggests to me that New Zealanders are more resistant to propaganda than I would have otherwise believed.”

Source: Climate change? Yeah, nah – Climate Change – NZ Herald News

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change was real, scepticism may even be on the rise, the authors of the University of Tasmania study said.

They must learn the proper meaning of sceptical. The authors are also morons.

30 Thoughts on “Climate change? Yeah, nah

  1. Andy on July 3, 2015 at 10:30 am said:

    They must also learn the meaning of the term “climate change”

    Of course “climate change is real”. Everyone accepts that is true.

    Most people also accept that humans play a role, however trivial that might be, in changing the climate (perhaps land use change might play a bigger role than CO2?)

    When these semi-literates can frame a question in a proper scientific manner then perhaps they can come back and patronise us with their drivel.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 11:58 am said:

    Amazing the authors felt the urge to demonstrate to all the world their complete lack of understanding of what they were studying.

  3. Simon on July 3, 2015 at 12:15 pm said:

    Name calling is often a symptom of cognitive bias.

  4. Andy on July 3, 2015 at 12:26 pm said:

    Name calling is often a symptom of cognitive bias.

    Denier, rent-boy, troll, denialist, sub-human.

    Just some of the names given to me over the years.

  5. Andy on July 3, 2015 at 12:32 pm said:

    Speaking of name-calling, Mark Stein really is doubling down on his engagement with Michael Mann, having recently described him as the “Rachel Dolezal of Nobel Prize winners” , written a book entitled “A total disgrace to the profession”, and made a comparison between the altered figures of his hockey stick to those of “Caitlyn Jenner”

    Firing on a four cylinders, that fellow.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 12:54 pm said:

    >”Name calling is often a symptom of cognitive bias.”

    Names like “Deniers”, “Cranks”, and “Fat Earthers”?

    Is that what you mean Simon?

    Obviously yours is not an applicable criticism in this case though because the authors have been the authors of their own demise – by their own pen. They invite an appropriate response by their own moronic writing, viz.:

    “Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change was real, scepticism may even be on the rise”

    First, as it has already been pointed out, no-one disputes that climate change is real and that there is scientific evidence of it. That is how we know.

    Second, given first above, the second element is a non-sequitur therefore it is moronic to state MMCC scepticism in those terms.

    If however, the statement had been couched specifically in terms of man-made climate change then the first element, “overwhelming evidence”, becomes problematic (the IPCC is having trouble identifying any evidence, let alone “overwhelming”). but THEN the second element becomes justified in those terms.

    BTW , AGW/MMCC is disproved in terms of the IPCC’s radiative forcing criteria of TOA energy balance. CO2 “forcing” is now 1.5+ W.m-2 but the TOA imbalance is only a trendless 0.6.

    This alone indicates complete cognitive breakdown by adherents to AGW/MMCC theory.

  7. William III on July 3, 2015 at 2:20 pm said:

    The Herald story is same-old same-old. You’d think they have no deniers (aka, skeptics) to interview, they only ever talk about them as though they were another species. About a year ago I got into a discussion with a workmate about global warming, he was quite bemused that I was a denier. We looked up some sea ice coverage maps to illustrate our chat, and he was amazed to see that sea ice coverage was so close to historic averages. He had expected that Arctic ice coverage would be only half of historic — that’s the swill that the sheeple are spoon-fed by our media. So, good outcome, he was quite impressed by his first-hand inspection of the facts and said he would not be so gullible in future. But he was just one person.

  8. Simon on July 3, 2015 at 3:07 pm said:

    I think we all realise that the term “Climate change scepticism” in this instance is scepticism that man-made climate change (MMCC) is occurring. It seems from the comments above that both Andy and Richard C agree that it is, but disagree with accepted science over the magnitude.

    BTW Richard, it is the surface energy imbalance that is about 0.60 ± 0.17 W/m². The difference between CO2 forcing and the energy balance is primarily due to heat absorption by oceans.

  9. Andy on July 3, 2015 at 3:20 pm said:

    but disagree with accepted science over the magnitude.

    I’m not sure I disagree with the accepted science of the magnitude given that the IPCC range of ECS is now between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees,

    Of course I am interested in RC’s views on radiative forcing of CO2 as well.

    However, when the range of outcomes is so wide, it is pretty easy to accept the findings.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 4:05 pm said:

    >”I think we all realise that the term “Climate change scepticism” in this instance is scepticism that man-made climate change (MMCC) is occurring. It seems from the comments above that both Andy and Richard C agree that it is,”

    Wrong. And the author’s assumption is wrong in this instance (please pay attention Simon).

    1) We (sceptics) agree that climate change (CC) is occurring but this is simply normal English use of the term.

    2) We (sceptics) do NOT necessarily agree that man-made climate change (MMCC) is occurring as per the IPCC’s radiative forcing (RF) concept and definitions (I certainly don’t but some do – see 2a and 3) which include their bespoke definition of “climate change”. Then there’s MMCC attribution outside the RF paradigm (e.g. LULLC) that is disagreed upon but this is a miner issue.

    2a) Those MMCC sceptics that agree that MMCC is occurring disagree on how much of the CC is attributable to MM and dispute the IPCC magnitude of MM attribution i.e. that it is large and dangerous.

    3) MMCC sceptics that agree MMCC is occurring fall into roughly 3 camps – see 3a, 3b and 3c.

    3a) First camp in 3 are those that accept the unphysical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics by climate science that DLR has heating effect on surface material. This camp is referred to as “Luke Warmers”. Dr Roy Spencer is the best example.

    3b) Second camp in 3 are those that accept the climate sensitivity paradigm (CS), which implies acceptance of RF methodology but not necessarily (i.e. first and second camps are not necessarily mutually inclusive), but point out that CS is progressively getting less with each paper, which begs the question: what happens when CS goes negative?

    3c) Third camp in 3 are those that do not accept either 3a or 3b but think man has some effect on climate albeit negligible.

    That’s my view, no doubt there’s even disagreement among sceptics on this.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 5:47 pm said:

    >”BTW Richard, it is the surface energy imbalance that is about 0.60 ± 0.17 W/m².”

    Yes it is Simon, correct, but irrelevant to the IPCC’s TOA criteria. See Radiative Forcing in AR4/5 FAQs.

    The TOA imbalance is ALSO about 0.60 W/m², the only difference being uncertainty (± 0.17 vs ± 0.4). See Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1:

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    Climate forcing, if effective, is effective, or not, at TOA according to the IPCC definition. Period. CO2 at 1.5+ W.m-2 is obviously NOT effective.

    The IPCC in Chapter 2 cite Stephens et al and Loeb et al (2012) and basically state there’s no imbalance trend or of any significance (“highly unlikely” I think they say). There SHOULD be about 0.2 W.m-2/decade if CO2 “forcing” is related to the spectroscopically observed CO2 amount in the troposphere (Berkeley labs) – it’s not and there isn’t. And there SHOULD be according to the theoretical dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) which is a little more than 0.2/decade – again, there isn’t. The IPCC say nothing about the 1.5+/0.6 disparity between CO2 “forcing” at TOA and the TOA imbalance. In other words, the posited CO2 “forcing” is undetectable at TOA, insignificant and ineffective, but the IPCC don’t address this major problem.

    >”The difference between CO2 forcing and the energy balance is primarily due to heat absorption by oceans.”

    Rubbish (but see below), you are not calculating in terms of IPCC criteria at TOA which is a RADIATIVE BUDGET. What happens at the surface is irrelevant to the TOA radiation observations of SW in vs LW out. CO2 “forcing”, if effective, SHOULD be an instantaneous speed of light 1.5+ W.m-2 radiative effect at TOA according to the IPCC (it isn’t)

    But yes the imbalance is primarily due to [solar radiation] absorption by the oceans. CO2 has no effect between SW in at TOA and SW in at Sfc. If you are going to follow the entire sun-ocean-space energy flow as per your calculation then you have to ADD energy absorbed at Sfc (0.6) to CO2 “forcing” (1.5+) giving 2.1+ W.m-2 because the ocean ACTUALLY reduces (thermally lags) the instantaneous flow of energy and CO2 THEORETICALLY reduces (radiatively) the instantaneous flow of energy in the sun-ocean-space system. So now you’ve got an even worse disparity but this is a specious approach because you’re assuming CO2 is effective at TOA when it clearly is not.

    Obviously the solar effect on LW out is lagged considerably (decades) hence the imbalance. A correct statement is therefore:

    “The difference between SW in and LW out at TOA is due to solar forcing via the oceanic heat sink in the sun => ocean => space system” i.e. SW in is instantaneous speed of light at TOA but the solar effect on LW out is via the ocean over decades (oceanic thermal lag).

    The imbalance is relatively constant because SW in has been relatively constant at probably the highest levels in 11,000 years (Usoskin). Of course there will be an imbalance from this but watch it unwind and go the other way over the coming decades. But don’t start looking until solar recession levels become significant (minimal right now) and you factor in oceanic thermal lag.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 5:58 pm said:

    Simon.

    >”See Radiative Forcing in AR4/5 FAQs”

    FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?

    What is radiative forcing? The influence of a factor that can cause climate change, such as a greenhouse gas, is often evaluated in terms of its radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature. The term forcing is used to indicate that Earth’s radiative balance is being pushed away from its normal state.

    Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2). When radiative forcing from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system. Important challenges for climate scientists are to identify all the factors that affect climate and the mechanisms by which they exert a forcing, to quantify the radiative forcing of each factor and to evaluate the total radiative forcing from the group of factors.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html

    # # #

    Note:

    >”Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’.

    And,

    >”The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere”

    The radiative forcing AND radiative balance criteria is TOA radiation budget.

  13. Andy on July 3, 2015 at 6:54 pm said:

    I concur with Richard C’s taxonomy of sceptics.

    I would also like to add that it isn’t necessary to pidgeonhole one’s self into any particular world view
    It seems perfectly logical to me to be sceptical about the forcing paradigm, and and the same time use the IPCC paradigm to draw dependent conclusions about.

    Just because I may use terms like “ECS” doesn’t have to mean I uncritically accept that this is a correct world
    view.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 7:06 pm said:

    >”3a) First camp in 3 are those that accept the unphysical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics by climate science that DLR has heating effect on surface material.”

    This after the material has already been heated to a higher energy level than the energy level of the cold body supplying the DLR/IR-C (the air). And that the heating effect of DLR/IR-C on surface material is the same as DSR/IR-A/B on a 1 W.m-2 basis (it isn’t)

    >”This camp is referred to as “Luke Warmers”. Dr Roy Spencer is the best example.”

    Roy Spencer, as smart as he is, just cannot grasp the fallacy. He has just posted the results of an experiment on this:

    ‘Can Infrared Radiation Warm a Water Body? Part II’
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

    He thinks he’s proving warming when all he is doing is proving what everyone already knows – radiative cooling is altered minutely by changes in DLR/IR-C (duh). The net effect is still radiative cooling (OLR), just less of it. He even shows the cooling on his graph. This is NOT warming.

    See:

    Radiative cooling
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling

    Nocturnal ice making
    “In India before the invention of artificial refrigeration technology, ice making by nocturnal cooling was common. The apparatus consisted of a shallow ceramic tray with a thin layer of water, placed outdoors with a clear exposure to the night sky. The bottom and sides were insulated with a thick layer of hay. On a clear night the water would lose heat by radiation upwards. Provided the air was calm and not too far above freezing, heat gain from the surrounding air by convection would be low enough to allow the water to freeze by dawn.[1]”

    # # #

    If the sky is not clear there is still heat loss from the water but all you get in the morning is cold water – not ice. As soon as the suns rays (IR-A/B, Visible, UV-A/B) start to strike there’s warming again because solar IR-A/B is the main water heating agent – not IR-C.

    Again, net IR-C is heat LOSS (cooling), not heat GAIN (warming). In the case of the ocean the sun (the heating agent) heats the water in the tropics so that there’s an energy accumulation a little over 24 W.m-2. Changes to surface solar radiation (SSR) and more importantly, wind, make the difference in SW heating. There’s no LW heating so LW changes are immaterial, that effects LW cooling.

    Changes in DLR make negligible difference to net OLR – DLR (Rnl) and net total heat loss (unless you’re making ice), the sum of which is still OLR in the order of 50 – 60 W.m-2 cooling. This in the tropics is not enough to immediately dissipate the accumulated solar energy back vertically so the heat accumulation moves horizontally towards the poles where the vertical gradient allows dissipation.

    Basically, the group in 3a (along with climate science) would not distinguish between the heating effects on a 1 W.m-2 basis of UV-A, UV-B, UV-C, IR-A, IR-B, IR-C on skin.

    Which is daft.

  15. Andy on July 3, 2015 at 7:38 pm said:

    Back on the Pope/Klein hookup (sorry I lost the original thread to post to)
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259339/pope-franciss-sinister-science-advisors-christopher-s-carson

    If there is any doubt about the Pope’s total adherence to an anti-capitalist, anti-growth, and eco-hysterical agenda, you only need to look at his closest science advisors. The most recent “advisor” to the Vatican this week is Canadian journalist Naomi Klein.

    A self-described “secular Jewish feminist,” Klein is delighted to advise the Holy Father. “Given the attacks that are coming from the Republican Party around this and also the fossil fuel interests in the United States, it was a particularly courageous decision to invite me here,” she said.

    The Pope’s latest encyclical, Laudato Si, claimed that the Earth was becoming a huge “pile of filth,” inveighed against air conditioning (except, presumably, the AC in the hotel where the Pope lives), called for a global transfer of wealth from the rich nations to the poor, called for the creation of a planetary, “public Authority with universal jurisdiction,” and demanded a “cultural revolution” to fix the “perverse” global economic system that has, incidentally, lifted millions out of poverty

  16. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 8:07 pm said:

    >”It seems perfectly logical to me to be sceptical about the forcing paradigm, and and the same time use the IPCC paradigm to draw dependent conclusions about”

    Yes good, and very important point Andy. Forgot that.

    I’ve been compiling screeds of pixels on this blog, yet more on this thread, doing exactly that. I probably agree with the broad RF framework to a degree (have to think carefully about that though) but disagree on the assumptions.

    For starters, three of the main RF assumptions off-the-cuff:
    a) that CO2 is an effective TOA forcing;
    b) that Law Dome – Mauna Loa spliced CO2 curve is valid; and,
    c) that the 1750 baseline is the start of realistic consideration.

    a) Dealt with already (it isn’t effective). The hypothesis inferred from theory is falsified.
    b) Dealt with last thread in detail (it isn’t valid). Pre 1958 atmospheric and proxy studies confirm that.
    c) Assumes CO2 was stable prior to 1750 from ice core data (it isn’t in the atmosphere, already dealt with last thread and in b), and that there was no MWP or RWP or LIA because CO2 is assumed to control temperature so there can’t have been warm periods if CO2 was stable i.e. RF neglects the period prior to 1750 and fails when it is considered therefore 1750 is not realistic

    More and that above is just rough but obviously a can of worms once you get into the details.

    And the falsified hypothesis in c) kills it all anyway.

  17. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 8:21 pm said:

    >”The Pope’s latest encyclical, Laudato Si”

    In which the scientific theory of MMCC is incorrectly stated and scientifically erroneous (actually laughable).

    An indictment on the Vatican’s advisers, the Vatican has not learned by the addition of Klein. They just move further from the (un)scientific towards the political.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on July 3, 2015 at 9:51 pm said:

    Correction >”And the falsified hypothesis in [a)] kills it all anyway.”

  19. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2015 at 10:21 am said:

    >”The Pope’s latest encyclical, Laudato Si” In which the scientific theory of MMCC is incorrectly stated and scientifically erroneous (actually laughable).

    My favourite passage from Paragraph 23:

    “Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases [“(carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others)”] do not allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space.”

    # Omits to mention that “others” includes the most prevalent GHG by far, H2O at about 95% of GHGs. This is the only GHG that could possibly be described as “concentrated”, and even that’s a stretch when as a constituency of air (less than 5%).:

    Atmospheric Composition
    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

    # Uses the incorrect term “reflected” (SW) instead of say “re-emitted” (LW). Reflection is in SW as can be seen in any of the earth’s energy budget’s e.g. Trenberth et al (now updated by Stephens 2012):

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png

    GHGs have no effect whatsoever on reflected SW whether reflected by the earth or anything else.

    # Says (my correction) “do not allow….[OLR]…..to be dispersed in space”, which description is a scientific travesty. 40 W.m-2 goes straight out through the “Atmospheric window”. Another 200 W.m-2 goes out via the atmosphere. 240 W.m-2 “allowed” out to space.

    Amazing that with all the Vatican’s “scientific” advise, that they could get so much wrong in just a couple of sentences.

    Paragraph 23 and further dissection can be read in full here (also posted previous thread):

    ‘Pope Francis’ Encyclical on Global Warming Fails’ – by James H. Rust, June 23, 2015
    http://blog.heartland.org/2015/06/pope-francis-encyclical-on-global-warming-fails/

    “Paragraph 23 demonstrates Pope Francis did not have expert advice in writing about climate change.”

    Bergoglio’s chemistry diploma doesn’t appear to have been of much value either.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2015 at 11:23 am said:

    Even worse than the “science” in Laudato Si is the theology. Out of context twaddle from the (supposed and RC assumed) leader of the Christian church. Viz.:

    VII. THE GAZE OF JESUS
    96. Jesus took up the biblical faith in God the Creator, emphasizing a fundamental truth: God is
    Father (cf. Mt 11:25). In talking with his disciples, Jesus would invite them to recognize the
    paternal relationship God has with all his creatures. With moving tenderness he would remind
    them that each one of them is important in God’s eyes: “Are not five sparrows sold for two
    pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God” (Lk 12:6). “Look at the birds of the air: they
    neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them” (Mt 6:26).

    97. The Lord was able to invite others to be attentive to the beauty that there is in the world
    because he himself was in constant touch with nature, lending it an attention full of fondness and
    wonder. As he made his way throughout the land, he often stopped to contemplate the beauty.

    Theological travesty heaped on scientific travesty. The full in-context chapters are here:

    Luke 12
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lk+12&version=KJV

    Matthew 6
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mt+6&version=KJV

    >”In talking with his disciples, Jesus would invite them to recognize the paternal relationship God has with all his creatures”

    Well yes, so far so good, sort of. But Jesus is actually instructing his disciples, believers specifically, in the fundamental faith, elsewhere described as “the way”.

    >”The Lord was able to invite others to be attentive to the beauty that there is in the world because he himself was in constant touch with nature”

    Here’s the theological twaddle. The in-context instruction is nothing of this. There’s no “invitation” to go nature rambling or bird watching.

    The Pope is a fraud.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2015 at 12:36 pm said:

    ‘Pope’s climate Encyclical unwise’

    William A. Gray June 29, 2015

    “The failure of the climate models are related to their inability to explicitly resolve the globe’s many individual deep cumulonimbus (Cb) cloud elements. Due to faulty assumptions these cloud models produce unrealistic upper tropospheric temperature and moisture rises as carbon dioxide amounts increase. These increases in moisture block too much radiation loss to space and cause unrealistic warming. By contrast, observations show that increases in global deep Cb clouds from carbon dioxide gas increases brings about an opposite (drying) response. Observed upper tropospheric drying from Cb clouds acts to enhance radiation flux to space and bring about temperature decreases.”

    “We should all try not to be swayed by this politically generated and driven fictitious climate threat.”

    Dr. William Gray is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.

    http://www.coloradoan.com/story/opinion/2015/06/29/climate-change/29489879/

    # # #

    Amazing William Gray still has tenure. Possibly because Colorado State University is at Fort Collins (think Tony Heller a.k.a. Steven Goddard) but the warmist enclave UCAR NCAR is in Boulder (think Trenberth, Mehle, Fasullo et al).

    Never the twain shall meet I suspect.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2015 at 12:57 pm said:

    Vatican Retreats: Encyclical Ghostwriter: Pope Francis ‘Did Not Intend to Canonize’ Scientific Theories – ‘The Church has no competence on the technical and scientific level’

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/30/encyclical-ghostwriter-pope-francis-did-not-intend-to-canonize-scientific-theories/

    And no competence on a theological level either evidently.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2015 at 1:37 pm said:

    ‘The madness of Lord Deben’ – Bishop Hill

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/6/30/the-madness-of-lord-deben.html

    Jun 30, 2015 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

    There’s a transcript of it here:
    https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/2015/20150630_r4

    John Humphrys: And your critics will say: everything you’ve just said, pretty much, is based on computer modelling, and computer modelling is often wrong.

    Lord Deben: No critic is taken seriously any longer. The science is not based on computer modelling – it’s based upon a whole range of intricate, very careful measuring of the situation, over 30 years, and we know that what we say is absolutely true. The only people who oppose it are people who have a very vested interest from the fossil fuel industry, who are spending billions of pounds, trying to get people like you to say that, in order to confuse people. The science is now stronger than the connection between smoking and health, so if you want to take the risk, you can smoke as much as you like but that would be your health – if you take the risk with the climate, it’s everyone else’s health.

    John Humphrys: And of course you may be absolutely right about all of that – the problem is when you use the sort of language that you’ve just used, people will say “He makes it sound more like a religion than a science. You’re not allowed not to believe”.

    Lord Deben: Well, I’m not saying that you’re not allowed not to believe – what you’re not allowed to do is to believe that there’s no risk. You don’t need to believe in climate change – what you have to say is: as every learned society in the world warns you of the risk, you’d be a very bad father of a family that said “I know best”. If even the Pope comes out and says “This is a serious risk”, you wouldn’t be a very sensible person to say “I know better than everyone else”. Even if you were right, you would have to take into account this very serious risk. It’s not a religion, it’s a fact of saying: this is what the science says, these are what the facts are, you can ignore them but if you do so, you take a very large risk, one which most people wouldn’t want to take.

    # # #

    >”It’s not a religion, it’s a fact of saying: this is what the science says, these are what the facts are”

    Lord Deben wouldn’t know a relevant fact if it whacked him on the head. He might start at the IPCC’s definition of radiative forcing – that’s a knockout.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2015 at 2:01 pm said:

    [Lord Deben] – “what you’re not allowed to do is to believe that there’s no risk”

    Actually I agree with this. Responsible risk analysis assigns risk probability to all possibilities, all adding to 1 (or 100%). Right now there’s a scenario of almost undetectable change (the default) so this gets the highest weighting. Then there’s the risk of warming resuming due to GHG emissions, or cooling due to solar recession. So a medium-term climate risk analysis might be:

    10% warming risk (to dangerous levels)
    80% no change
    10% cooling risk (to dangerous levels)

    The risk assessment must be updated from time to time as the situation changes.

    But another near-term risk assessment might be:

    10% disruptive heat risk
    10% benign conditions
    80% disruptive cold risk

    This is obviously an entirely different risk set. National infrastructural bodies spend more resources on cold events than on heat events and until recently were caught unprepared for cold. Cold events are certainly more disruptive. Same for the agricultural/horticultural sector and food production. Let alone human and animal deaths.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2015 at 4:27 pm said:

    Climate change equations according to the IPCC’s definitions and criteria using Stephens et al (2012):

    Spatial
    https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
    Numeric
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    Net SW in (240.2) – SW sfc accum (0.6) = LW out (239.6) [239.7 Stephens et al]

    Net SW down sfc (165) – Net LW up sfc (164.4) = Surface imbalance (0.6 SW sfc accum)

    SW sfc accum (0.6) = TOA imbalance (0.6)

    No need to invoke CO2 “forcing” (1.5+). The surface accumulation (0.6) and top of atmosphere imbalance (0.6) is solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink.

    The truth hiding in plain sight.

  26. Alexander K on July 4, 2015 at 4:38 pm said:

    The panic in the UK about the current so-called heatwave, or what older Poms once called ‘a nice day’, is quite amusing. We visited Europe and the UK for a month last year – average daytime temps in Vienna were around 38C while we were there, and none of the locals saw anything unusual in that, just a typical thundery Vienna Summer.
    A couple of years prior to that we holidayed in the Czech Republic – daytime temps were knocking up toward 40C.
    The Czechs don’t generally have aircon, so it was a bit sticky at night, but the locals (once again) felt the temps were quite normal.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2015 at 6:29 pm said:

    >‘a nice day’

    Heh. Photo of a couple making the most of it in the article below.

    >”But another near-term risk assessment might be:
    10% disruptive heat risk
    10% benign conditions
    80% disruptive cold risk”

    It’s not as if the heat risk is not recognized already and planned for. There’s more to it than meets the eye:

    ‘Call your grandmother’

    The Netherlands Central Bureau of Statistics has predicted that on average 200 more people will die in that country each week during a heat wave, a 10 per cent rise in deaths.

    Deaths among the isolated elderly are a particular problem, and accounted for a big share of the estimated 70,000 additional people who died in France and other European nations during a 2003 heat wave.

    At that time, “people were really caught unawares by the combination of rising risk and changing structure of society”, van Aalst said.

    Traditionally, extended families have looked after the elderly in places like France, he said. But social changes now mean many more older people live alone in cities, with no one to ensure they do basic things like drink enough water in the heat.

    Cities facing heat waves are having to adjust the way they deal with the threat, including through simple measures such as sending out social media messages urging people to “give a call to your grandmother”, van Aalst said.

    In the Netherlands, television weather presenters now remind viewers when the country’s “heat wave plan” – put together after a 2006 heat wave there – has been activated, and give them tips on how to stay cool, he said.

    Across Europe, “there’s been a massive investment in such plans”, he said, alongside a range of efforts to deal with more frequent heat waves, such as adding green spaces in cities.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientists-convinced-european-heat-waves-made-more-likely-by-climate-change-20150704-gi529o.html

  28. Richard C (NZ) on July 5, 2015 at 3:52 pm said:

    IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

    They don’t even address the earth’s energy budget numerically as they do in Chapter 2. Consequently, there’s no statement of TOA imbalance disparity with anthropogenic forcing factors.

    Their solar estimates are ridiculous (Box 10.2) but that is a secondary issue. The primary critical issue is climate forcing at TOA but they neglect to address it in the entire chapter.

    The total net human activities forcing is 1.5+ W.m-2 (as is CO2):

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/faq-2-1-figure-2-l.png

    No anthropogenic detection, no anthropogenic attribution.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on July 7, 2015 at 7:22 pm said:

    Managed to get 7 “thumbs up” so far at JoNova for this (1 down):

    Richard C (NZ) July 6, 2015 at 9:41 am #17

    IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC FAQ – “What is radiative forcing”).

    0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).

    1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing” (IPCC Table of Forcings).

    Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than double the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing.

    0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc

    Sfc imbalance is ocean heat accumulation. Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.

    No need to invoke CO2 “forcing”.

    Game over.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/using-ipcc-numbers-we-can-expect-only-half-a-degree-of-warming-this-century-time-to-panic/#comment-1724403

    Response at #22:

    bud nalton July 7, 2015 at 7:55 am #22
    “Richard @July 6-you are exactly right.Roy Clark comes to a similar conclusion in his book:The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect.CO2 has no discernible effect whatsoever.”

    That’s a different Roy Clark to the Dr Roy Clark who wrote ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’. The book above is:

    ‘The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect and the Climate Averaging Paradox’ Kindle Edition
    by Roy Clark (Author)

    This book will completely change the way we think about the greenhouse effect. There is no carbon dioxide induced global warming. The energy transfer processes that determine the Earth’s climate are dynamic, not static. There is no climate equilibrium on any time scale. Once this is understood, the whole pseudoscientific façade of forcings and feedbacks and climate sensitivity factors collapses. A doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration has no effect on the Earth’s climate. The large scale equilibrium climate models have been fraudulently hard wired to produce global warming. The dynamic greenhouse effect also leads to a climate averaging paradox. Climate must be calculated as it is measured, as a long term average of short term variations. There is no shortcut equilibrium calculation that can be substituted for the real long term average. Over a trillion dollars has been wasted on research to save the planet from a non-existent problem.

    http://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Greenhouse-Climate-Averaging-Paradox-ebook/dp/B005WLEN8W

    And at The Hockey Schtick:

    ‘New paper finds increased CO2 or methane will have ‘essentially no effect’ upon global temperature or climate’

    A new paper by USC Professor Emeritus of Geology, Dr. George Chilingar (with three co-authors), finds that increasing levels of the greenhouse gases CO2 & methane will have “essentially no effect” upon global temperatures or climate.

    The authors utilize a one-dimensional adiabatic model of climate to demonstrate that the entire tropospheric temperature profile of the atmosphere on both Earth and Venus may be mathematically derived solely on the basis of atmospheric pressure/mass and solar activity, confirmed by observations on both planets, despite vast differences in atmospheric composition and mass/pressure on Earth and Venus. The paper corroborates the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot greenhouse theory and thereby excludes the alternative 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory.

    Excerpts:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/07/new-paper-finds-increased-co2-or.html

  30. Richard C (NZ) on July 7, 2015 at 8:23 pm said:

    Ruairi hogs the thumbs up at JN e.g. this in the thread above is on 15:

    Ruairi July 6, 2015 at 12:46 am #16

    An increase of several degrees,
    Is threatened by U.N. decrees,
    Which is far far too many,
    Or we may not get any,
    If this century ends in a freeze.

    A hard act to follow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation