Gareth Morgan settles for anti-science

Doesn’t realise global warming theory still undefined

Andy wrote a comment that reveals a darker side to a man who has become a household name in New Zealand.

A few years ago Gareth Morgan went through a very public examination of the case for and against man-made global warming. The result was Poles Apart: Beyond the Shouting, Who’s Right About Climate Change?, written with co-author John McCrystal and published in 2009.

The book attempts a balanced presentation of modern climate science and appears to succeed. At least, both sides have been upset with it, which is a fair indication of even-handedness. But it comes down on the side of the warmists.

Morgan has come to believe that the science of climate change is settled, it needs no further investigation or debate and that only climate “deniers” still question whether we’re responsible for wrecking the environment. But for all his apparent respect for science, when his conclusions are challenged he rejects the scientific method and resorts to self-important preaching. On his Facebook page recently he posted the following comment.

We’re not debating the science here – that’s done and dusted. The issue is about whether Paris will endorse enough mitigation to prevent 2 degrees or more. … Any comments on the science will be deleted from here on – there are plenty of dark little corners for deniers to have their discussions in.

No scientist would claim the science is settled, even on so-called established matters, but it’s especially foolish concerning a theory as vague as dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW). Despite its enormous significance, despite its popularity, despite the trillions being demanded to restore so-called climate “justice”, not a single paper has been published that sets out a theory of DAGW.

No paper, no science

Among the purported legions of warmist climate scientists and the undeniable legions of climate activists not a single one has been bothered to write a paper clearly setting out the “greatest challenge of our species”. Which means we don’t even have a clear definition of man-made global warming, much less has it been “proven” (how would you know that you had proved something still undefined?). This is worse than merely lazy, it sends a strong signal that the scientists at the centre of the DAGW scare don’t think they can prove their case.

Thousands of us know they can’t prove it, but if we’re wrong, why don’t they prove it? Let them write a paper—we demand they write a paper. It’s very simple: describe and define the DAGW theory, then write down how it works. Easy.

It’s strange that it hasn’t been done, because it’s totally implausible that activists have motivated thousands of politicians and millions of people to “fight” for “climate justice” on the basis of a fictional “settled science” that doesn’t exist.

The threat of DAGW depends on the suggestion that strong feedback from increasing atmospheric water vapour will greatly magnify natural warming. So far this hasn’t been observed. Observations of water vapour over recent decades show little change during warming and cooling, so on this ground alone there’s good reason to conclude that the theory of DAGW is fatally flawed.

Anyway, all references to climate science will be deleted on Gareth Morgan’s facebook page. As Andy said: and we sceptics get called “anti-science” … sheesh.

60 Thoughts on “Gareth Morgan settles for anti-science

  1. I noticed that quite a few comments have been deleted on GMs page, leaving what appears to be a group of commenters arguing with invisible foes.

  2. The latest from GM on Facebook

    This post is about discussing New Zealand plan for reducing emissions. If you don’t believe in climate change, put your head back in the sand and enjoy it while it lasts because sea level rise is coming.

    Is he an idiot? Certainly seems that way.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on October 27, 2015 at 11:12 pm said:

    >”Gareth Morgan settles for anti-science”

    Well, he is an economist.

    [Morgan] >”there are plenty of dark little corners for deniers to have their discussions in”. “[The science] is done and dusted.”

    Heh, the largest climate science blogs (by far) are luke-warm and rightwards. Morgan would be out of his depth in no time if he ventured into the fray outside his cosy little “done and dusted” enclave. Mind you, I think this applies to the media “go to” guys Dave Frame and James Renwick too (Frame’s appearances at HT notwithstanding). Renwick nodded sagely saying on TV3 news that the anthro forcing was now more than 2 W.m-2. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that this is merely theoretical and 3 – 4 times actual. He will probably never be taken to task on this given he doesn’t debate in public forums. And the media interviewers wouldn’t have a clue, they think he’s an “expert” whose every word is to be taken at face value and disseminated verbatim – no questions asked.

    I’d like to know what specifically is “done” and what is “dusted”? Not the impression I get reading AR5 Chapter 9 Evaluation of Climate Models. Still very much a work in progress. I think Morgan might be referring to the highly subjective (and political i.e. unscientific) attribution statement.

    Except Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution leaves a lot to be desired. Like, for example, non application of theoretical anthro forcing to the results of Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere. And I note that although the IPCC concede in Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean that they cannot actually identify the anthro “air-sea” fluxes speculated in Chapter 8 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, Chapter 10 ignores this issue completely.

    Needless to say, these little WGI inconsistencies are filtered out of the SPM (summary for policy wonks and dummies) – the “done and dusted” narrative. I wonder if Morgan has even read that. First problem is Figure 1 (a), only 2 decades of any significant warming over the IPCC’s 6 decade attribution period:

    IPCC AR5 SPM Figure 1 (a)
    https://muchadoaboutclimate.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/blog_ipcc_1.png

  4. Richard C (NZ) on October 28, 2015 at 12:02 am said:

    >”Doesn’t realise global warming theory still undefined”

    The broad theory, although probably not quite definitive, is reasonably well known I think. Dr Roy Spencer lays it out here:

    GW 101 – Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell

    Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

    Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%.

    Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

    More>>>>>>>
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

    # # #

    Problem is: that is not in the form of a falsifiable formal hypothesis as per the scientific method (with should also state a null hypothesis BTW). Given the theory above that energy is “trapped” (violation of the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics with respect to heat sinks – space in this case, but ‘nuther story) and the IPCC’s TOA radiative forcing criteria (TOA imbalance “controls” surface temperature and a valid forcing agent “moves” the balance), the man-made climate change hypothesis I infer is this:

    The theory of man-made climate change posits that the TOA energy imbalance moves synchronous with and commensurate with anthropogenic radiative forcing

    This hypothesis is falsified by observations

    The tricky part of the theory (from which to infer a formal hypothesis) as stated by Spencer is this – “the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored”. This implies that as surface temperature increases, the TOA imbalance necessarily decreases (eventually). Problematic. The TOA imbalance is only in the order of 0.6 W.m-2 and trendless. But the theoretical anthro forcing is now much more than that i.e. the imbalance is not responding to a theoretical forcing, neither is it responding to increasing surface temperature (yet). If/when the imbalance does respond to rising temperatures, there’s only a 0.6 W.m-2 gap to close anyway – not 2.3+.

    Next problem is the surface imbalance. The TOA imbalance is radiative (instantaneous speed-of-light), The surface imbalance is solar input lagged decades via the ocean (this has nothing to do with Spencer’s theoretical temperature response note). However, surface imbalance (0.6) = TOA imbalance (0.6) i.e. the TOA imbalance has already occurred at the surface (and theoretical forcing does not fit between Sfc and TOA).

    [Got to leave this now, doing 11 hour days at the moment – need sleep]

  5. Alexander K on October 28, 2015 at 11:48 am said:

    I have to be brief on this as GM is not worth wasting time, grey matter or electrons on.
    He may have made a lot of money, but that does not translate into him having any understanding of how the scientific method functions.
    He is a loud and hubristic twit, even if a very weal;thy one.

  6. Richard Treadgold on October 28, 2015 at 11:56 am said:

    Well, that certainly is brief! He annoyed me because he’s supposed to be famous and therefore ought to be living according to slightly higher standards than the rest of us, but he clearly is not. However after this summary I will ignore him. Thanks!

  7. I haven’t read his book “Poles Apart”.

    I thought it was maybe a tale of expatriate plumbers in England, but apparently it is about climate change, and how there are two groups of people with completely different and irreconcilable points of view. This may be the cartoon version that gets portrayed in the media

    This is an example of the “false dichotomy” or “false dilemma” fallacy

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

    So the book fails before even opening a page.

  8. If there was any doubt at all that anthropogenic climate change was not occurring, it would be in the interest of oil, gas, and coal producing countries to argue this. No country will do so, because the evidence is so conclusive.

  9. Richard Treadgold on October 28, 2015 at 2:48 pm said:

    “No country will do so, because the evidence is so conclusive.”

    Ok, fair enough. What’s the evidence?

  10. Oil companies have a fairly strong interest in carbon trading, CDM and the like.

    Everyone’s a winner, except the public.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on October 28, 2015 at 7:55 pm said:

    Simon

    >”the evidence [for man-made climate change] is so conclusive.”

    1) What evidence in respect to what IPCC criteria specifically (quote please)?

    2) What evidence in respect to what falsifiable hypothesis specifically (word-for-word please)?

    If you don’t have 1) and 2), you have no conclusion – just anecdotal, or non-real world speculation i.e. guessing. Much like the IPCC.

    Or will you just continue to make the same unsubstantiated statement ad infinitum? Gets tiresome when you never produce Simon. And does nothing for your credibility either.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on October 28, 2015 at 8:09 pm said:

    [Spencer] >”Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature”

    This has to be the #1 assumption fallacy I think. The notion that the earth normally maintains a Goldilocks climate is baloney.

  13. Unsurprisingly, but the activists at Hop Topic are now in full lying mode

    Macro October 28, 2015 at 8:25 pm
    I seem to recall the same circular argument from andy before – he is a one track record – or perhaps a one pea brain – it can only hold one “fact” at a time – and this one “fact” – (1.9mm SLR Lyttleton Harbour) is all it can take.
    andy – strange as it may seem – observations of physical data can change over time. And right now – as Rob has shown you – the observations of SLR for the Canterbury coast show that SLR is now up to around 4 mm per year. Furthermore, we should not be surprised by that result. The other inconvenient fact, that you do not wish to address, is that the Earth is continuing to heat at an unprecedented rate, and that implies accelerating SLR whether you like it or not.

    There is no evidence to support these assertions

    These guys are full on liars, rent seekers, parasites and frauds

    Herr Thomas of Hot Topic, Macro, Rob Taylor, Rob Painting and others.

    You are liars, frauds, cheats and low lifes.

    You scam will catch up with you, very soon.

    Have a nice day

  14. Richard C (NZ) on October 28, 2015 at 8:45 pm said:

    ‘Why Tyndall’s experiment did not “prove” the theory of anthropogenic global warming’

    THS, Tuesday, October 27, 2015

    Many warmists cite Tyndall’s 1861 experiment as “proof” of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, but in fact the experiment demonstrated only that CO2 and H2O are IR-active molecules capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation, nothing more.

    Of course, CO2 does indeed absorb and emit very low-energy ~15 micron infrared radiation, equivalent to a “partial blackbody” at a temperature of 193K (-80C) by Wien’s Law. However, radiation from a true or “partial” blackbody cannot warm the much warmer atmosphere (with an “average” temperature of 255K (-18C), equivalent to the equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun), nor the even warmer Earth surface at 288K (15C).

    Yet the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory falsely assumes that “backradiation” from the 193K CO2 “partial blackbody” can warm the Earth surface temperature from the 255K equilibrium temperature with the Sun by 33K up to 288K. This would require a continuous and dominating heat transfer from cold to hot, thus requiring an impossible decrease of entropy, and therefore a gross violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which requires entropy to increase from any transfer of heat).

    In contrast, the alternative 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse theory of Poisson, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Carnot, Clausius, Feynman, US Standard Atmosphere, International Standard Atmosphere, the HS greenhouse equation, et al instead fully explains the 33C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, as well as on all 7 additional planets for which we have adequate data.

    More>>>>>>
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/10/why-tyndalls-experiment-did-not-prove.html

  15. Richard Treadgold on October 28, 2015 at 9:01 pm said:

    Andy, my friend, please calm yourself. The energy you hurl against these witless opponents can be spent to better purpose. You’re right, they have no evidence, and it’s distressing to hear their lies and insinuations, but truth will prevail. It may be silent and secret but endures forever. Know that only truth exists, for lies require inventing. Truth alone fulfils everything. Have a great day.

  16. Yes, sorry I get carried away at times,

    Agreed I can better direct my energies at more constructive pursuits

    Please accept my apologies for my intemperate behavior

  17. Richard Treadgold on October 29, 2015 at 6:50 am said:

    Well, certainly, and thank you, though not my intention, I assure you. That superb mind of yours is in better nick to fight when it’s still, not agitated. Goes for all of us, of course—and I know this from experience. 🙂

  18. Alexander K on October 29, 2015 at 8:34 am said:

    One of my ‘Gym buddies’, survivor of a massive stroke that zapped one hemisphere of his brain but who is now fit and strong despite his medical history, has an amusing collection of tee shirts for gymwear: my favorite is the one that bears the legend “Of course I talk to myself – I need good advice!” For some reason, this shirt brings to mind the the echo-chamber that is Hot Gossip.

  19. As usual, everyone misses my point. If there was any doubt about AGW at all, them it would be in the interest of countries that have a lot to lose to argue that there is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions. The fact that no country is willing to do this demonstrates that the science is ‘done and dusted’.
    Hansen’s predictions in 1988 are holding up quite well given the uncertainty in future emissions:
    http://moyhu.blogspot.co.nz/2015/10/hansens-1988-predictions-revisited.html
    The onus is on ‘sceptics’ to devise an alternative hypothesis for the increase in temperature and then explain why CO2/CH4 and the additional water vapour are not acting as greenhouse gases in accordance with theory.

  20. Just to clarify, we “skeptics” need to explain the “more than 50% of warming” since 1950 that is “likely” due to anthropogenic forcing (that doesn’t match theoretical forcing) or the pre 1950 warming that no one can explain, or the lack of warming since 1998 (the pause that doesn’t exist)

    Just need to clarify because the “sceptics” don’t have the $100 billion of money to investigate “done and dusted” science that is already complete and no one needs to study anymore because is is finished, done and dusted.

    If the scientists on tenured academic salaries who all agree that the science is settled, done and dusted, who presumably are spending their days sharpening their pencils and have lots of free time to explain and clarify the above, we might progress.

    Or not.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on October 29, 2015 at 9:17 pm said:

    Simon

    >”The fact that no country is willing to do this demonstrates that the science is ‘done and dusted’.”

    No it doesn’t. All that fact demonstrates is that every country is taking the IPCC’s assessment reports at face value and none wish to be seen to be out of line. New Zealand cannot be seen as anything other than “clean and green” i.e. NZ’s emissions stance is greenwash. This is especially so with New Zealand because exports to Europe (mostly) would be in jeopardy otherwise. And also why the greater number of Tim Groser’s 19 strong contingent to Lima was from the Ministry of Trade and Industry – NOT Environment.

    It’s political pragmatics Simon, nothing whatsoever to do with science. To think it is is naive. Why do you think negotiations are so protracted? If the science was “done and dusred” and the issue was in fact non-political, there would have been unanimous agreement long ago. Instead, when push comes to shove, it’s all bluster for show. China made a deal with USA to simply carry on with their economic path until growth peaks at which point emissions will also peak. In other words, business as usual. Obama got USA the dumbest side of the bargain but now USA are baulking at the Green Climate Fund because the US economy is in dire straits – Detroit and Puerto Rico bankrupt, others to follow along with States e.g. Obama’s home State Illinois, and other cities and corporations (Bakken oil companies leading the way at the moment). Similar in Europe e.g. Greece and Glencore corp in Switzerland (multi-billion but “worthless”).

    >”The onus is on ‘sceptics’ to devise an alternative hypothesis for the increase in temperature”

    Rubbish. There is no onus on sceptics for anything except for the right to present reasonable questioning of propositions and assessments and not to be silenced by the anti-science crowd.

    AGW theory (which is nowhere near fact as say the concept of gravity) has been proposed by the proponents of it. The onus is on them, as per the scientific method, to present a falsifiable formal hypothesis but none has ever been written therefore the theory cannot be tested. However, a hypothesis can be inferred from the IPCC’s criteria (see upthread) which is falsified by observations. The IPCC neglects (why?) to address this critical issue in Chapter 10 Detection and attribution. The policy wonks in each respective country don’t know about this because they only take the SPM attribution, a political position, at face value.

    And note well Simon, temperature is NOT the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (see FAQ’s – “What is radiative forcing?”).

    Temperature is very much secondary i.e. the primary criteria, TOA energy balance as they state, “controls” surface temperature according to the IPCC. The IPCC cite (see below) the TOA energy imbalance as only 0.6 W.m-2. But net theoretical anthro forcing is now 2.3+ W.m-2, 4 times the imbalance. Of that net, theoretical CO2 forcing is now 1.9+ W.m-2, 3 times the observed TOA energy balance. Both are INCREASING but the imbalance is TRENDLESS (the IPCC explicitly concede the latter in terms of significance).

    Now Simon. If the IPCC neglects this issue in WGI. And therefore also neglects this issue in the SPM. How is any policy wonk in any country ever to know there is a glaring falsity in the “done and dusted” science?

    As to an alternative hypothesis. Again, the critical primary criteria for climate change and a valid agent of climate change has nothing to do with temperature. It is all about the earth’s energy balance both TOA and Surface. The IPCC cite 2 papers in respect to this in Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere, Loeb et al (2012) and Stephens et al (2012). The TOA imbalance has considerable certainty but the Surface imbalance is highly uncertain.

    Here’s the thing Simon. Irrespective of the Surface uncertainty, the TOA energy imbalance (0.6 W.m-2) is EXACTLY the same as the Surface imbalance (0.6 W.m-2) and both are TRENDLESS. In other words, the TOA forcing has already occurred at the Surface. The TOA imbalance is radiative instantaneous speed-of-light. The Surface imbalance is not. This is due to the oceanic heat sink which introduces a lag of decades (look up “relaxation time constant” in respect to the ocean for example, along with the body of literature on planetary thermal lag).

    So the Surface energy imbalance is simply this: solar input to the ocean (land is negligible) – oceanic lag – energy output from the ocean (all forms, not just radiative). The 0.6 W.m-2 estimate is the global average i.e. Tropics imbalance is in the order of +24 W.m-2, Southern Ocean imbalance in the order of -11 W.m-2. This proves that neither net anthro or CO2 forcing has any effect on the surface energy imbalance. It is due only to solar input and the oceanic heat sink characteristics.

    The Surface energy imbalance, and therefore planetary energy accumulation in the ocean (atmosphere is merely a transfer medium), is easily explained by solar change and oceanic thermal lag. It is ONLY 0.6 W,m-2 est.

    >”and then explain why CO2/CH4 and the additional water vapour are not acting as greenhouse gases in accordance with theory”

    That explanation has already been posted upthread. Go back and read it and follow the links i.e. do your own research from the information already provided. If you are not going to pay attention then it is not for me to repeat everything and hold your hand in the process of discovery.

    But here’s clue just for you Simon (hotlinked at source upthread):

    …..the alternative 33C gravito-thermal greenhouse theory of Poisson, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Carnot, Clausius, Feynman, US Standard Atmosphere, International Standard Atmosphere, the HS greenhouse equation, et al instead fully explains the 33C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, as well as on all 7 additional planets for which we have adequate data.

    See? What you insist upon has already been “done and posted” upthread Simon. I suggest you pay some attention before issuing redundant demands.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on October 29, 2015 at 11:34 pm said:

    ‘Climate science still out there’ – ANDREW BOLT Herald Sun

    IS MALCOLM Turnbull a secret global warming sceptic? Check who has won his $250,000 Prime Minister’s Prize for Science.

    Graham Farquhar won our richest science prize for work that suggests global warming might actually not be that bad after all. In fact, it could be good in one important way.

    Farquhar is a Distinguished Professor at the Australian National University who won for modelling photosynthesis — how plants turn sun, air and water into energy. That took him into global warming science and he found good news. For instance, the man-made carbon dioxide we’re told is heating the world to hell and must be cut is actually plant food that’s helped crops grow.

    Says Farquhar: “If we could get rid of all the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emitted since the industrial revolution, then agricultural productivity would drop by 15 per cent.”

    Farquhar also found that the mathematical models that scientists use to predict much higher temperatures got some big things wrong. Most models predict that as the world warmed, the winds would get stronger and air drier, causing more evaporation. But Farquhar found evaporation rates over the past 50 years have actually tended to decrease, because wind speeds had fallen.

    “None of the climate models show such a decrease in wind speed,” he says. “It’s a paradox, which shows we haven’t thought about climate change and its impact enough yet.”

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/climate-science-still-out-there/news-story/3eb0aad012b30f2510a541a8f73ba0c0

  23. “is actually plant food that’s helped crops grow”

    We live in a sad world if this is presented as news.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2015 at 7:07 pm said:

    Apparently Exxon “overstates the uncertainty” in this graph (models vs obs):

    http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/content_top_breakpoints_theme_solve_mobile_1x/public/climatechart2.png?itok=KALxGBBS

    ‘How Exxon Overstates the Uncertainty in Climate Science’

    Exxon mistakes climate policy choices for scientific uncertainty.
    By John H. Cushman Jr., InsideClimate News Oct 29, 2015

    http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/29102015/exxon-overstates-uncertainty-climate-science

    Some desperate spin in the article but at no point are the observations mentioned (sshhh, don’t mention the observations). The offending Exxon statement quoted in respect to a similar graph is this:

    “This should refute the claim, central to activists’ conspiracy theories, that anyone had reached a firm conclusion about catastrophic impacts of climate change back in the 1970s and ‘80s. “As you can see, the scientific community that contributes to the IPCC report is, even today, still projecting a broad range of potential outcomes.”

    I would have thought that Exxon was just stating the obvious. And an understatement at that given the models-obs discrepancy is overlooked, even by Exxon.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on October 30, 2015 at 7:40 pm said:

    Simon

    >”If there was any doubt about AGW at all, them it would be in the interest of countries that have a lot to lose to argue that there is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions. The fact that no country is willing to do this demonstrates that the science is ‘done and dusted’.”

    OK, Putin is not a country but here’s his argument based on govt advice and an instance that refutes your “fact”:

    Russia’s Putin Says Global Warming Is ‘A Fraud’ = Michael Bastasch 10/29/2015

    Russian President Vladimir Putin believes global warming is a “fraud” — a plot to keep Russia from using its vast oil and natural gas reserves.

    Putin believes “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries, including Russia,” Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and Putin critic, told The New York Times.

    “That is why this subject is not topical for the majority of the Russian mass media and society in general,” Belkovsky said.

    Putin has been casting doubt on man-made global warming since the early 2000s, according to the Times. In 2003, Putin told an international climate conference warming would allow Russians to “spend less on fur coats,” adding that “agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that.”

    Putin’s comments likely came after his staff “did very, very extensive work trying to understand all sides of the climate debate,” according to Andrey Illarionov, Putin’s former senior economic adviser, who’s now a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

    “We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited,” Illarionov said. “It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded.”

    More>>>>>
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/29/russias-putin-says-global-warming-is-a-fraud/

    # # #

    Looks like the science is ‘done and dusted’ in Russia Simon. But rather different conclusions obviously.

  26. Simon still hasn’t responded to my questions.

    97 scientists agree on something.

    Apparently AGW is real, urgent and the biggest crisis facing humanity.

    Obviously we need to spend more money fighting AGW than anything else,
    Including feeding undernourished kids, poor housing etc,

    We all agree because 97 scientists agree.

    But what do these 97 scientists actually agree on?

    We need to “take action” everybody agrees (including the 97 scientists)

    Thousands, possibly more, will be taking to the streets next month, “urging our leaders”
    to “take action” on climate change

    What “action” do we demand?

    Should we ask the 97 scientists?

    For god sakes please think of the children.

  27. Is climate sensitivity 1.5 or 4.5 degrees? Why has this range increased between AR4 and AR5?
    Why has the central estimate of 3 degrees been dropped?

    I thought the science was “done and dusted”?

  28. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2015 at 8:19 pm said:

    ‘The Sun is brightening- but not in China’

    University of Gothenburg 30.10.2015

    Analysis of weather station data shows that aerosol-driven solar dimming has led to a decrease of surface solar radiation in China

    In the world as a whole, surface solar radiation has increased since 1990, although in China, it has decreased.

    http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/solar-dimming-has-cut-surface-radiation-in-china.html

    ‘Impacts of wind stilling on solar radiation variability in China’
    Lin et al (2015)

    To clarify the role of aerosol effects on SSR variations, three sub-regions with different pollution densities have been defined according to the distribution of AOD values (see Fig. 1). The sub-regions include the heavily polluted central-eastern region of China (CE), the moderately polluted southern region of China (SC), and slightly polluted other regions of China (OT).

    The decadal SSR variations in the three sub-regions were calculated with quality-controlled SSR data20 (see Supplementary Figure S1a). During the “dimming” period (1970–1989), the most substantial decrease in SSR occurred in CE and SC (−4.4 ± 0.5 and −4.3 ± 0.6 W m−2 decade−1, respectively), and the dimming magnitude in OT was relatively small (−1.9 ± 0.1 W m−2 decade−1). The solar brightening since 1990 was only observed in SC (1.6 ± 0.5 W m−2 decade−1). However, the SSR in CE continued dimming after 1990, although the dimming rate was rather weak (−0.4 ± 0.4 W m−2 decade−1) compared with that of the “dimming” period. Throughout China, subsequent to the dimming period was a leveling-off period of SSR beginning in 1990, although earlier studies21,22,23 reported that a brightening period began instead.

    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15135

    References
    1. Wild, M. Enlightening Global Dimming and Brightening. B. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 27–37, 10.1175/Bams-D-11-00074.1 (2012).
    http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/WildBAMS_2012.pdf

    FIG. 2. Changes in surface solar radiation observed in regions with
    good station coverage during three periods. (left column) The 1950s–
    1980s show predominant declines (“dimming”), (middle column)
    the 1980s–2000 indicate partial recoveries (“brightening”) at many
    locations, except India, and (right column) recent developments after
    2000 show mixed tendencies. Numbers denote typical literature
    estimates for the specified region and period in W m–2 per decade.
    Based on various sources as referenced in Wild (2009).

    SSR change after 2000 (W.m-2/decade)
    8 USA
    3 Europe
    -4 China/Mongolia
    0 Japan
    -10 India

    # # #

    For perspective.

    Theoretical CO2 forcing at TOA, change after 2000 (W.m-2/decade)
    0.2 Global (derived from obs)
    0.3 Global (estimate by forcing expression)

    Actual TOA energy balance change after 2000 (W.m-2/decade)
    0 Global

    Climate scientists, reasonably intelligent we assume, are convinced the theoretical CO2 forcing at TOA has made the significant difference to surface climate in the decades since 1950, and the most recent decades in particular.

    You decide.

  29. At this point, having my alarm set early, I hope the “energy imbalance” is in favour of the All Blacks.

    Normal service will resume soon.

    GOOD LUCK!

  30. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2015 at 6:44 pm said:

    ‘Karl et al. do not know that we have two hiatuses, not one’

    October 29, 2015 by Arno Arrak

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/29/karl-et-al-do-not-know-that-we-have-two-hiatuses-not-one/

    # # #

    Figure 1 (2 hiatuses) is replicated in the BEST New Zealand temperature series.

    Figure 1
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/clip_image00210.jpg

    There was actually minor cooling from 1970 to 1997.in BEST NZ. An abrupt +0.4 C jump occurred at 1998.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2015 at 6:54 pm said:

    ‘Dissent in the climate ranks over Karl’s “pause buster” temperature data tweaking’

    Anthony Watts / October 27, 2015

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/27/dissent-in-the-climate-ranks-over-karls-pause-buster-temperature-data-tweaking/

    ‘Meehl bashes Karl’

    Andrew Mountford Oct 27, 2015

    The US CLIVAR project publishes a newsletter/cum journal, a recent issue of which was dedicated to the hiatus in global warming. Featuring papers from a variety of well-known climatologists, I was interested to see the headline article, from Gerald Meehl, which seems to take a fairly hefty pot-shot at the data tweaking approach adopted by many climatologists.

    There have been recent claims that the early-2000s hiatus…was an artifact of problematic sea surface temperature (SST) data (Karl et al. 2015), lack of Arctic data (Cowtan and Way 2014), or both. Such claims indicate that when corrections are made to SST data, by taking into account various measurement methods that introduce biases in the data, then “there was no ‘hiatus’ in temperature rise…[and] a presumed pause in the rise of Earth’s average global surface temperature might never have happened” (Wendel 2015). Often there are issues with observed data that need adjusting – in this case such claims of “no hiatus” are artifacts of questionable interpretation of decadal timescale variability and externally forced response – not problems with the data. Thus, the hiatus is symptomatic of the much broader and very compelling problem of decadal timescale variability of the climate system.

    Whether Meehl is any more correct than Karl is anyone’s guess though.

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/10/27/meehl-bashes-karl.html

  32. Alexander K on November 4, 2015 at 8:40 am said:

    Simon, most of us understood your point very well. Please understand that most of us ignored it, as it’s a part of your usual evidence-free nonsense.

  33. What does the “done and dusted” scientist do with his or her day?

    Other than furiously tweet about #deniers, take people to court, get interviewed by the Guardian and BBC etc.

    Must be kind of dull, really

  34. Richard C (NZ) on November 4, 2015 at 7:57 pm said:

    ‘Forget Paris. Asia Building 500 New Coal Power Plants (This Year Alone)’

    Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, 03 November 2015.
    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/forget-paris-asia-building-500-new-coal-power-plants-this-year-alone.html
    http://www.thegwpf.com/asia-building-500-new-coal-power-plants-this-year-alone/

    Full story
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/03/us-asia-energy-power-idUKKCN0SS0IF20151103

    “Coal is still the cheapest and the fuel that most Asian countries will use,” said Loreta G. Ayson, undersecretary at the Philippine Department of Energy.

    Forty percent of the 400 gigawatts in generation capacity to be added in Southeast Asia by 2040 will be coal-fired, the IEA says. That will raise coal’s share of the Southeast Asian power market to 50 percent from 32 percent, while natural gas declines to 26 percent from 44 percent.

    And growth in coal is not only seen in developing economies. Coal’s share of the energy mix in Japan, top importer of LNG, will rise to 30 percent by 2030, up from 22 percent in 2010, according to the nation’s Institute of Energy Economics, while natural gas will hold at 18 percent.

    # # #

    We’re doomed. SE Asia didn’t get the “done and dusted” memo.

  35. Gareth Morgan is really excelling himself now

    who writes

    Clearly most of the 1.02 degrees of global warming since pre industrial times has occurred since 1980 – in fact 0.56 degrees of it.

    https://garethsworld.com/blog/environment/why-avoiding-2-degrees-is-a-sick-joke/

    I’m going to give GM a bit of credit that he is actually quite thick and not really a bad guy at all, even though he now blocks all people that question his “reasoning” on his Facebook page and blog.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on December 8, 2015 at 9:48 pm said:

    0.56 degrees since 1980? NOAA? I don’t think so, certainly not “clear” and RSS disagrees too.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1997/trend

    0.13 rise 1980 to 1997
    0.3 rise 1997 to the entire 1997 to 2015 era
    0.43 total approx

    No rise 1997 to 2015. Fall more like. And the difference between 1980 and 2015 as per Morgan’s graph is only 0.25 according to RSS:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1981/trend/plot/rss-land/from:2014/to:2015/trend

    Global warming apparently occurred as one abrupt +0.3 climate shift immediately after 1997 after a bit of a warm up. Then it went away according to RSS, which used to be the politically “correct” dataset before it was dumped. Now of course, the NOAA dataset is politically “correct”. But Peter Hannam at Sydney Morning Herald prefers Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA):

    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png

    Looks like about 0.65 since 1980. Time for Morgan to dump NOAA and run with JMA, far more politically “correct”.

  37. Perhaps Gareth was looking at GISTemp:
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:2015/trend/pl
    ot/best/from:1980/to:2015/trend
    Why create an artificial discontinuity at 1997? Maybe I should post a link to that Skeptical Science chart again.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on December 8, 2015 at 10:35 pm said:

    >”Peter Hannam at Sydney Morning Herald prefers Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)”

    Depending on the message. He does present other datasets e.g. GISS, UKMO, and NOAA (but NEVER RSS). But for a really scary graph JMA October temperatures fits the bill:

    ‘Heat records smashed again as big El Nino rides on global warming’
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/heat-records-smashed-again-as-big-el-nino-rides-on-global-warming-20151116-gl0j1j

    Note how the October JMA series differs from the Annual JMA series in previous comment. Here they are side-by-side:

    JMA Annual (to 2014)
    http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png

    JMA October (to 2015)
    http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/gl0j59/octh1.PNG

    October’s REALLY scary huh?

    Just not sure how “global warming” explains October 2015. It’s the timing of the El Nino that makes the difference to 1998 and 2010 in October.

  39. Richard C (NZ) on December 8, 2015 at 11:15 pm said:

    >”Perhaps Gareth was looking at GISTemp”

    No, as I stated above, his graph clearly states “NOAA” when you take the effort to actually check. GISTEMP simply adopts the NOAA/Karl et al “adjustments”.

    >”Why create an artificial discontinuity at 1997?”

    What “artificial discontinuity”? It is perfectly clear that an abrupt shift occurred immediately after 1997 either globally or regionally. EXACTLY the same situation exists in the BEST NZ monthly data where there is a +0.4 C shift immediately after 1997.

    Remember BEST Simon? You used to be a fan, what happened?

    The trends either side of 1997 are flat for BEST NZ, even slight cooling:

    Moving Annual Average Trend BEST NZ
    -0.024 C/decade (2.6 decades 1972 – 1997)
    -0.196 C/decade (1.77 decades 1997 – August 2013)

    Obviously there is a genuine discontinuity (a climate shift) immediately after 1997 because the overall linear trend is positive (not that a linear trend is representative – obviously it isn’t in either RSS or BEST NZ)

    Or is BEST junk now Simon along with RSS? Only the NEW politically “correct” datasets now, the OLD “correct” ones having been discarded? You had better inform NIWA if it is because BEST NZ monthly conforms with NIWA’s proprietary VCS i.e. people pay to view VCS which exhibits the same trends and 1997 shift as BEST NZ from the 1972 VCS start date.

    Remember NIWA Simon? You used to be a fan, what happened?

  40. Richard C (NZ) on December 8, 2015 at 11:41 pm said:

    Simon’s woodfortrees plot is GISTEMP vs HadCRUT3 but doesn’t demonstrate the discontinuity at 1997. I’ve added the trends either side of 1997 to both datasets:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend

    Speaks volumes.

  41. Richard C (NZ) on December 8, 2015 at 11:51 pm said:

    [Morgan] – “Clearly most of the 1.02 degrees of global warming since pre industrial times has occurred since 1980 – in fact 0.56 degrees of it.”

    Except, as demonstrated by the IPCC’s CO2-forced climate models vs observations, this warming falls way short of theoretical CO2-forced warming.

    And theoretical CO2 forcing is having no effect on the earth’s energy balance at TOA – the IPCC’s primary climate change metric in their radiative forcing paradigm.

  42. Interestingly, BEST (land only) suggests a 0.8C warming since 1980:
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1980/to:2015/trend
    There is absolutely no evidence of a change point in 1997:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/
    This was merely a device used by fake sceptics to hide the warming between the discontinuity of the before and after trends.
    1997/98 was, of course, the last significant El Nino before this year. All the fake sceptics will have to reset their pause-o-meter to 2015 next year.
    Your claim that the models have been over-predicting is false too:
    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2891/49/original.jpg
    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2894/1722/original.gif

  43. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2015 at 12:38 pm said:

    >”Interestingly, BEST (land only) suggests a 0.8C warming since 1980:”

    Not CO2-forced though (see below) but land-only cherry picking aside, lets add the data series and trends either side of 1997 and compare to GISTEMP:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/best/from:1980/plot/best/from:1997/trend/plot/best/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1997/trend

    The break (shift) at 1997 and disparity with GISTEMP should be obvious. And don’t forget that 2015 is an El Nino peak which will probably be followed by a La Nina (and see below). Also don’t forget that Foster and Rahmstorf removed ENSO activity i.e. they would have to remove the 2015 peak completely (and see below).

    Remember Grant Foster (Tamino) Simon? You used to be on his cheer team, still on it?

    >”There is absolutely no evidence of a change point in 1997″

    And there are none so blind as WILL NOT see. RC neglect satellites and everything else that doesn’t fit their meme including regional and you still haven’t addressed BEST NZ Simon:

    Moving Annual Average Trend BEST NZ
    -0.024 C/decade (2.6 decades 1972 – 1997)
    +0.4 C shift
    -0.196 C/decade (1.77 decades 1997 – August 2013)

    That’s 26 years of FLAT or slight cooling prior to 1997 and NIWA’s VCS agrees. RSS agrees. 3 Radiosonde series agree. RC naturally doesn’t want to address anything inconvenient and I understand their discomfort.

    >”This was merely a device used by fake sceptics to hide the warming between the discontinuity of the before and after trends.”

    This is just gibberish Simon, but you’ve managed to support my contention even so. Thank you. “the warming between the discontinuity of the before and after trends” is an ABRUPT CLIMATE SHIFT – you appear to agree. How did I “hide” this? I’ve highlighted it not hidden it. It is my point exactly and now you’re agreeing with me.

    You’re tying yourself in knots Simon – hilarious.

    >”1997/98 was, of course, the last significant El Nino before this year.”

    Wrong and wrong. 2010 was a moderate El Nino but it shows up in the major datasets with a strong temperature response. 1997 began with no El Nino. It wasn’t until half way through the year that the El Nino produced any temperature rise:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1996/to:1999

    This is why 1997 is the critical start year because it includes both non-El Nino and El Nino data. Ok, ending at 1996 instead of 1997 for data prior to the El Nino might be better but that would just make the shift even more pronounced.

    >”All the fake sceptics will have to reset their pause-o-meter to 2015 next year.”

    Wrong again. Everyone, including real sceptics like myself, Lukes and Warmers, will have to set their pause-o-meter to well into 2016. Once the El Nino has passed temperatures will come back down to ENSO-neutral and the pause will have resumed (and see below). Then there is the strong possibility of a following La Nina:

    ‘December 2015 ENSO Update – Shouldn’t Be Long Now Until the El Niño Starts to Decay’
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/december-2015-enso-update-shouldnt-be-long-now-until-the-el-nino-starts-to-decay/

    >”Your claim that the models have been over-predicting is false too:”

    Then you provide graphs that support my contention. Very helpful. Thank you Simon.

    Let’s look at this one:

    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2891/49/original.jpg

    The models are MDV-neutral and ENSO-neutral. Therefore any apples-to-apples comparison should smooth out ENSO and the nominal MDV-neutral dates identified. Those are 1985 and 2015 in that graph. Smoothed observations vs models looks like this:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png

    Now the disparity is stark.

    The model mean SHOULD pass through ENSO-smoothed and MDV-neutral 2015 – it doesn’t. It is way higher. The lower bound of the “Model Spread” coincides with the neutral observations i.e. CO2 “forcing” is superfluous and the IPCC admits the the models are wrong in AR5 Chapter 9. They even point out one of the possibilities being an incorrect response to CO2 forcing. That’s perfectly obvious to any rational person.

    That graph will only get worse once the 2015/16 El nino has passed and temperatures are back down to ENSO-neutral.

    Complete embarrassment and humiliation for pause-blind Warmers will ensue if a La Nina follows, say 2017. That would take the observations below the lower bound of the Model Spread.

    The death knell of AGW is between now and 2020 even without a La Nina. I’ve been saying this for a while now and nothing has changed. The actual physical drivers, solar change (lagged in temperature) and oceanic oscillation, are predominant. CO2 is superfluous. That’s obvious now.

  44. Unfortunately, no climate scientist in the world agrees with you. Even Judith Curry attributes 50% of the warming to human causes, and her reasoning was wrong even then:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/

  45. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2015 at 1:08 pm said:

    Curiously Simon, your other model-obs graph which is a laughable gif animation that “adjusts” everything and eliminates the “catastrophe”, puts the models on pause trajectory with the observations:

    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2894/1722/original.gif

    “+solar” is only the start of course. The significant solar change is on a millennial timeframe, that adjustment is only the minimal recent change since 2005. And MDV is still missing i.e. the residual still has superfluous CO2 forcing.

    But it is progress. Next step is +MDV and +even more solar as time goes on i.e. pause ends, cooling begins, and -CO2. At which point we will have models that actually mimic earth’s climate.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2015 at 1:11 pm said:

    >”no [warm-biased] climate scientist in the world agrees with you”

    Of course they don’t. That proves nothing.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2015 at 1:26 pm said:

    >”Unfortunately, no climate scientist in the world agrees with you”

    Fortunately, the IPCC’s climate change criteria (earth’s energy balance measured at TOA) and observations of it as cited by IPCC AR5 Chapter 2 (Loeb el 2012, Stephens et al 2012) does agree with me.

    Theory: 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 forcing, increasing (net anthro more).
    Actual: 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance, trendless.

    No warmy climate scientist agrees with me (yet) because the theory failure was not reported in AR5 Chapter 10 Detection & Attribution. I’m guessing that there is more than a little disquiet among some at the thought that one day this will become known outside blogs like this (Monckton is another aware of it).

    BTW, re now-Lukewarmerr JC. I posted the case at Judith Curry’s blog but she made no comment and probably didn’t see it:

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/28/week-in-review-science-edition-19/#comment-728167

    But just a matter of time now. The truth will out eventually.

  48. The IPCC attribute “at least 50% of the warming since 1950” to humans

    The pause that doesn’t exist is tacitly acknowledged in IPCC

    Are IPCC “fake sceptics” or “deniers”?

    Should policy makes ignore the IPCC?

    Should policy makers get their science from blogs?

  49. Andy, You have fallen for the same fallacy as Judith Curry did. At least 50% of the warming is the 99% lower confidence interval. The mean is actually 110% of the observed warming, which implies that we would be in a cooling phase if it had not been for AGW. Read this article if you genuinely want to know more:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/

  50. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2015 at 3:47 pm said:

    >”The IPCC attribute “at least 50% of the warming since 1950″ to humans”

    And referring to the AR5 SPM Figure 1, that was only 2 out of 6 decades:

    https://muchadoaboutclimate.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/blog_ipcc_1.png

    But the warming since 1950 is commensurate with the warming prior to 1940 for which there is no anthro attribution. This is one of Judith Curry’s points of contention. It is impossible to make a post 1950 anthro attribution on this basis if CO2 is, supposedly, the primary climate driver.

  51. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2015 at 4:25 pm said:

    >”You have fallen for the same fallacy as Judith Curry did. At least 50% of the warming is the 99% lower confidence interval. The mean is actually 110% of the observed warming……..”

    No “fallacy” Simon. The situation is rather different. Judith Curry responded to this and some of Gavin Schmidt’s RC post here:

    ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’

    by Judith Curry, Posted on January 19, 2015 | 532 Comments

    Seeking once again to clarify the problems in communicating the IPCC climate change attribution statements.

    Context

    The immediate motivation for this post is a tweet from Gavin Schmidt that he is #stillwaiting for a response to his critique of my 50-50 essay [link]. Well this post is a response to only one point that he raises (some of the rest of his points seem pretty incoherent to me), but it is an issue that has been used by Schmidt to discredit my arguments about attribution.

    […long post….]

    Bottom line: the climate attribution problem needs to be reframed. Attempting to discredit my arguments over semantics reflects tilting at windmills, with the root cause being very unclear statements made by the IPCC in their main conclusion statement on attribution.

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/19/most-versus-more-than-half-versus-50/

    “If the IPCC does really mean ‘more than half’, but limited not to exceed 100%, then it is appropriate to view anthropogenically forced climate change and natural climate change as two parts of a divisible whole. Therefore there is absolutely nothing wrong or illogical about my statement:

    Pick one:

    a) Warming since 1950 is predominantly (more than 50%) caused by humans.

    b) Warming since 1950 is predominantly caused by natural processes.”

    # # #

    As time goes on, b) is winning out irrespective of the Schmidt-Curry argument.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2015 at 4:54 pm said:

    >”the Schmidt-Curry argument”

    Silly thing is, as I understand, the bell curve (PDFunction) they are arguing over is of “multiple attribution studies” according to Schmidt’s post.

    This is science?

    Haggling over the mean is senseless if there are erroneous studies. And becomes moot as the error number increases.

    Besides, it is now nearly 2016 i.e. we are 1.6 decades into the 21st century (the highest emissions era) therefore attribution, or otherwise, should be focused on now, not on a couple of decades last century. And the only warming now is due to an El Nino. Once that’s gone – no warming this century – no further attribution possible. Game over.

  53. The only fallacy I have fallen for is reading the IPCC report

    If they can’t explain it to the public then it’s not my problem

  54. They key point behind GM’s logical fallacy is to take the post 1950s warming, subtract it from the total 20th C warming and assume that the rate has accelerated.

    He is missing the point that the rate pre-1950 was about the same as post 1950, separated by a couple of decades of cooling

  55. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2015 at 7:46 pm said:

    >”He [Morgan] is missing the point that the rate pre-1950 was about the same as post 1950, separated by a couple of decades of cooling”

    Yes, silly man. This is pointed out over and over in blogs that Morgan would never frequent so he remains ignorant. Obviously can’t think it out for himself or doesn’t want to. And the IPCC don’t want too much known about attribution for that period either. From Judith Curry’s Climate Etc:

    ‘Overconfidence in IPCC’s detection and attribution. Part IV’
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/14/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iv/

    5.1 IPCC’s detection and attribution argument

    “The substantial warming during the period 1910-1940 has been attributed by nearly all the modeling groups to some combination of increasing solar irradiance and a lack of major volcanic activity.”

    But nothing about MDV.

    5.3 Bootstrapped plausibility

    “The IPCC’s argument has effectively eliminated multi-decadal natural internal variability as a causative factor for 20th century climate change. Whereas each model demonstrates some sort of multidecadal variability (which may or may not be of a reasonable amplitude or associated with the appropriate mechanisms), the ensemble averaging process filters out the simulated natural internal variability since there is no temporal synchronization in the simulated chaotic internal oscillations among the different ensemble members.”

    1925 – 1955 positive phase MDV must be ADDED to the models in order to mimic peak positive phase MDV 1940 observations (which they do once done).

    But the models are already warmer than observations at peak positive phase MDV 2000 i.e. adding MDV (as it should be as per 1940) would just make the situation worse than it already is.

    Post MDV-neutral 1955 when CO2 forcing supposedly kicks in until MDV-neitral 2015, observations from which MDV is SUBTRACTED should conform to the model mean as it does at 1940. This is obviously impossible at 2000 when the models are already warmer than peak positive MDV observations.

    Time will sort this out. Only about 4 critical years now that 2015 has elapsed. The warmies are making the most of the El Nino warming but it is their last chance to squeak (whether they realize that or not). MDV goes into negative phase from 2015 – 2045 and peak secular trend arrives soon after 2020, after which that will be in negative phase too i.e. where once positive phase MDV and positive phase secular trend were in sync, the new regime will be negative phase MDV and negative phase secular trend in sync. That cannot mean warming as before.

    This El Nino is warmism’s last gasp.

  56. Richard C (NZ) on December 9, 2015 at 7:52 pm said:

    Dang, missing endquote tag (…..ensemble members.”) and no edit available in the Opera version that I’m using at the moment. Sun streaming in the window doesn’t help either.

  57. Richard C (NZ) on December 10, 2015 at 7:37 am said:

    STATEMENT TO THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE AND COMPETITIVENESS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

    Data or Dogma?

    Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Climate Change

    December 8th 2015 My name is Mark Steyn…………

    http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c6a57a91-8bbd-45f3-9eaa-51cc8f64e9dc/5DDB5BDF028B536F0A1A4E116D144E9D.mr.-mark-steyn-testimony.pdf

    From:

    Witness Panel 1
    Dr. John Christy
    Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center
    University of Alabama in Huntsville
    Dr. John Christy Testimony.pdf (2.6 MBs)
    Dr. Judith Curry
    Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
    Georgia Institute of Technology
    Dr. Judith Curry Testimony.pdf (1.5 MBs)
    Dr. William Happer
    Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics
    Princeton University
    Mr. Mark Steyn
    International Bestselling Author
    Mr. Mark Steyn Testimony.pdf (187.2 KBs)
    Dr. David Titley (Rear Admiral, USN (ret.))
    Professor of Practice, Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University
    Director, Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk
    Dr. David Titley Testimony.pdf (736.5 KBs)

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/08/mark-steyn-rebukes-democrats-in-climate-hearing-youre-enforcing-a-state-ideology/

  58. Richard C (NZ) on December 10, 2015 at 10:26 am said:

    BREAKING: Greenpeace co-founder reports Greenpeace to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes

    By Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. December 8, 2015

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/

    ‘Quote of the Week: Dr. Will Happer’s blowback to Greenpeace during ambush at Senate hearing today’

    “You son of a bitch, I haven’t taken a dime.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/quote-of-the-week-dr-will-happers-blowback-to-greenpeace-during-ambush-at-senate-hearing-today/

    And the article Greenpeace wanted from their “undercover investigation”:

    ‘Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science’

    Suzanne Goldenburg

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

  59. Morgan is starting his own Political Party.

     

    I think it might be the “Done and Dusted Party”. No one is allowed to comment on the Great Man’s views

    http://www.top.org.nz/

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation