Renwick weak in climate quarrel

Dr James Renwick criticises Dr Chris de Freitas for keeping a cool head and saying there’s no need to worry about normal climate change. James says:

I am puzzled that de Freitas can review the evidence, the melting ice sheets, rising seas, warming oceans and atmosphere, and see nothing to worry about.

He claims four points of evidence. Let’s have a look at them.

Melting ice sheets

The AR5 will tell you that combined annual losses from surface melting and glacier calving on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contribute about 1 mm per year to sea level rise (p 320). But it won’t tell you this is trivial, and it won’t tell you that the ice sheets will last many thousands of years before vanishing. I wrote a post on this three months ago. On recent figures, Antarctica has about 225,000 years to go, and Greenland will last another 9,400 years. Is James claiming that this rate of ice loss should cause concern?

Rising seas

There’s no evidence of acceleration in the long-term rate of sea level rise of about 1.8 mm/yr and, as chance would have it, news comes this week of four widely-spread studies published in the last few months that find no human influence in sea level rise. Pierre L. Gosselin summarises three of the papers:

Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is “no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming,” or that the “sea level rise pattern does not correspond to [an] externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal,” and that sea level “trends are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.”

The fourth paper concludes with a vexatiously enigmatic remark, that “this result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th [century] sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age” (emphasis mine). Did they detect an anthropogenic signature or not?

So I’ve sent Dr Dangendorf, lead author, an email:

I’m keen to obtain a copy of this recent paper. Your abstract concludes: “This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age.” So I’m particularly interested to know whether you could say that you found an anthropogenic “signature” in the sea level rise data or that you did not. If you have time, I would be most grateful for your comments.

We’ll see what he says.
Only two papers have ever claimed to have found an anthropogenic signal in sea level (one of them based largely on the other)—and it was in the Indian Ocean. The signal later disappeared with more data. of course, they hardly count in advising the whole world to avoid modern industrialisation, as James does.
Warming oceans

Some are warming, some are cooling. Look at the data and you’ll find that different latitudinal bands are cooling and warming, different depth bands are cooling and warming. Different oceans are accumulating and dissipating heat. The picture is far from certain and far from alarming. Ocean heat content is no reason to worry about climate change.

Warming atmosphere

The atmosphere has not warmed significantly for about 20 years. This graph of the UAH satellite record for the lower troposphere shows the temperature has not risen significantly since about 1997. It gives us no reason to worry.

What scientific evidence does de Freitas have that shows negative (cooling) feedbacks prevail?

First, 4.5 billion years of earth’s existence, during which enormous length of time positive feedbacks have never occurred predominated. Second, I don’t know, since I haven’t spoken with him over this. Third, since it’s your assertion that positive feedbacks are about to occur, it’s your responsibility to provide evidence for it. What is it?

Positive feedbacks are clearly under way.

There is no evidence that positive feedbacks are under way. Can you provide any?

De Freitas states that there is no evidence to distinguish between “natural” and “human-caused” warming. There is an 86-page chapter on this topic in the last IPCC report, citing over 600 scientific papers on the subject. The conclusion was: “It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature from 1951 to 2010.” How can this be characterised as “no evidence”?

First, “extremely likely” only means that it’s possible, which doesn’t make it evidence. Second, the only indication, even in AR5, that human activity causes atmospheric warming is the output from unvalidated climate models, which doesn’t make it evidence. Please provide evidence of human-caused warming.

 

33 Thoughts on “Renwick weak in climate quarrel

  1. Simon on August 2, 2016 at 9:57 pm said:

    If the long-term rate of sea level rise is around 1.8 mm/yr and the current rate is over 3 mm/yr then there probably has been acceleration 🙂 There is no reason why sea level rise or ice melt should be linear, evidence suggests it is not.

    If you do a test on the full range of UAH data you will find a statistically significant rise.
    The rise is greater on the Earth’s surface, where we all live.

    Greenhouse warming from increased water vapour is an observable positive feedback.

    Extremely likely means > 95% probability in general statistics and AR5, not ‘it’s possible’.
    Climate models are constantly being validated and refined.

  2. Sea level rise hasn’t accelerated to 3mm/year.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 8:47 am said:

    Simon

    >”If the long-term rate of sea level rise is around 1.8 mm/yr and the current rate is over 3 mm/yr then there probably has been acceleration”

    Where, exactly, is this mythical “acceleration” taking place Simon? Definitely not in the satellite data for the Pacific ocean. Read the literature cited Simon. One is a thesis built on previous peer-reviewed literature, viz.:

    ***********************************************************************************************
    2. Palanisamy, 2016

    Document type : Theses

    Present day sea level: global and regional variations
    Hindumathi K. Palanisamy (2016)

    Abstract : […]
    In the second part of the thesis, by making use of past sea level reconstruction, we study the patterns of the regional sea level variability and estimate climate related (global mean plus regional component) sea level change over 1950-2009 at three vulnerable regions: Indian Ocean, South China and Caribbean Sea. For the sites where vertical crustal motion monitoring is available, we compute the total relative sea level (i.e. total sea level rise plus the local vertical crustal motion) since 1950. On comparing the results from these three regions with already existing results in tropical Pacific [Palanisamy et al (2015) – see below), we find that tropical Pacific displays the highest magnitude of sea level variations.

    In the last part of the thesis, we therefore focus on the tropical Pacific and analyze the respective roles of ocean dynamic processes, internal climate modes and external anthropogenic forcing on tropical Pacific sea level spatial trend patterns since 1993. Building up on the relationship between thermocline and sea level in the tropical region, we show that most of the observed sea level spatial trend pattern in the tropical Pacific can be explained by the wind driven vertical thermocline movement. By performing detection and attribution study on sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we further show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal. In addition, we also suggest that satellite altimetry measurement may not still be accurate enough to detect the anthropogenic signal in the 20-year tropical Pacific sea level trends.

    https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01317607/document

    Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?
    H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac, A Cazenave and T Delcroix (2015)

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024/meta

    Also reproduced in Thesis above.

    # # #

    Palanisamy, Meyssignac, Cazenave and Delcroix (2015) could not find an anthropogenic signal in the 20-year tropical Pacific satellite sea level trends

    It is impossible to “detect the anthropogenic signal in the 20-year tropical Pacific sea level trends” when much of those trends are negative i.e. sea level fall. See Figure 1:

    Palanisamy, Meyssignac, Cazenave and Delcroix (2015)
    Figure 1. (a) Observed altimetry based sea level spatial trend pattern and (b) IPO contributed sea level spatial trend pattern (uniform global mean has been removed) in the Pacific Ocean over 1993–2013. Stippling indicates regions of non-significant trend (p-value > 0.05).
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/8/084024/downloadHRFigure/figure/erl518509f1

    ALL of the blue area is sea level FALL Simon. There is no rise “acceleration”.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 8:56 am said:

    Simon

    >”If you do a test on the full range of UAH data you will find a statistically significant rise.
    The rise is greater on the Earth’s surface, where we all live.”

    So what? It’s not CO2-forced. The IPCC’s CO2-forced climate models prove it isn’t. They’re way too warm.

    But we have to eliminate ENSO noise from GMST before determining any change in absolute temperature i.e. has there been any ENSO-neutral warming in absolute temperature?

    No, going by NCEP CFSR 2mT at surface:

    NCEP CFSR Global 2-metre Temperature Anomaly – by Dr Ryan Maue

    1979 – 1987 http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_1979.png

    1988 – 2004 http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_1988.png

    2005 – 2016 http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png

    El Niño and La Niña Years and Intensities: http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

    In the respective graphs 1981 1990 and 2013 are ENSO-neutral. All 3 years are on the zero anomaly baseline.

    282.000 K 1981 ENSO-neutral
    282.000 K 1990 ENSO-neutral
    282.000 K 1994.5 Climatology baseline average (estimated in lieu of actual) for CFSR
    282.000 K 2013 ENSO-Neutral
    284.383 K 2016.6 July 29 month to date (MTD), nearing end of El Nino
    282.000 K ????? ENSO-neutral

    No ENSO-neutral change in temperature 1981 1990 and 2013.

  5. Simon on August 3, 2016 at 9:09 am said:

    You shouldn’t believe everything you read in Wikipedia but its article on sea level rise is quite accurate and unbiased: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

    I also find it ironic that Chris de Freitas and Rodney Hide get the opportunity to write op-eds for the NZ Herald, whereas the pre-eminent expert in this country has to resort to writing a letter to the editor. Rodney probably even got paid for his, which indicates the current standard of journalism for the Herald.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 9:28 am said:

    Simon

    >”Greenhouse warming from increased water vapour….”

    Well yes, water vapour is the predominant “greenhouse gas” by far. Only 2 – 3% of total downwelling longwave radiation (DLR) is the CO2 component (Wang and Liang 2009). There’s been less than 1 W.m-2 theroretical CO2 forcing in the satellite era but more than 3 W.m-2 attributable to precipitable water. The IPCC AR5 report states total effective radiative forcing since 1750 (ERF) is only 2.33 W.m-2 but where’s precipitable water (about 3.3 W.m-2 just in satellite era) in the IPCC’s table of forcings?

    BUt here’s the BIG problem with all that: The observed energy imbalance at TOA (where forcing theory applies) is only 0.6 W.m-2 and static according to IPCC AR5 Chapter 2 Observations: Atmosphere citations.

    In other words, there has been NO warming of any kind attributable to “Greenhouse” gasses. Theoretical GHG forcing is totally ineffective. Murphy et al (2009) and Nordell & Gervet (2009) together demonstrate this.

    Easy to see from the earth’s surface energy budget that the only heating agent at the surface is the sun:

    Earth’s Energy Budget
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

  7. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 9:34 am said:

    Simon

    >”Climate models are constantly being validated and refined.”

    If only they were.

    Not only are they unvalidated but they have not been refined to anywhere near the level needed to replicate current climate in the 21st century – let alone at 2100.

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 9 Evaluation of Climate Models concedes this Simon.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 9:37 am said:

    Simon

    >”You shouldn’t believe everything you read in Wikipedia but its article on sea level rise is quite accurate and unbiased:”

    Heh. We cite scientific literature, you cite Wikipedia Simon?

  9. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 9:48 am said:

    [Renwick] >”De Freitas states that there is no evidence to distinguish between “natural” and “human-caused” warming. There is an 86-page chapter on this topic in the last IPCC report, citing over 600 scientific papers on the subject. The conclusion was: “It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature from 1951 to 2010.” How can this be characterised as “no evidence”?”

    Well, for starters, the IPCC make attribution-by-speculation in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution.

    They attributre ocean warming to human cause but they only “expect” “air-sea fluxes” to be the human cause. They went looking for said “air-sea fluxes” in Chapter 3 Observations: Ocean but couldn’r find them. Fools errand in view of the surface energy budget they cite in Chapter 2:

    Earth’s Energy Budget IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    The IPCC have to literature to support their speculation – not one of “over 600 scientific papers”.

    But most crucial (critical), the IPCC ignore their own climate change criteria:

    IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria – Incompetence or Coverup?
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf

    And no, it’s not temperature, or sea levels, or polar bears, or penguins.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 9:54 am said:

    Simon, don’t be fooled by the “global average” illusion.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 10:08 am said:

    Let’s not forget that James Renwick and Tim Naish make this scientifically fraudulent and unsupportable claim:

    3. 93 per cent of the heat from human kind’s global warming ……… has gone into the sea.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/81885264/ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-climate-change

    This is attribution-by-speculation. The same attribution-by-speculation the IPCC makes in AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Atribution and they don’t support their attribution by any citation to any literature either (see upthread).

    It is merely an assumption. It is certainly not a fact. And it is physically bogus.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 10:46 am said:

    ‘Meet the Bullying Lefty Cockwomble Physics Prof Who Hates Actual Climate Science’

    by James Delingpole 2 Aug 2016

    One of the worst consequences of the global warming scam is the corrupting effect it has had on science – to the point where even senior professors and heads of department no longer appear to understand what science actually is.

    Take this week’s climate prat of the week, Professor Jonathan Butterworth of the Physics and Astronomy Department at University College London. Butterworth has just been caught red-handed trying to prevent one of his colleagues holding a conference for climate sceptics because, in his opinion, their views are “rather fringe.”

    Here is the snooty email he sent to his colleague Dr Athem Alsabti, former Professor of Physics at Baghdad University, now working at UCL’s Observatory:

    […]

    The conference – which is still going ahead, though not now in the university itself but at a nearby venue, Conway Hall – will feature a number of scientists every bit as distinguished in their field as Butterworth presumably is in his.

    […]

    Butterworth may think he knows better on climate than these experts, though how is not immediately clear given that it’s not his field. And while he’s perfectly entitled to his random, unsupported, prejudiced, haughty, third-hand, groupthink-induced opinions, what’s baffling is his decision to invoke in his own support the principle of the “scientific method”. (Or “methods” as he mysteriously chooses to pluralise it in his email to Alsbati.)

    It must be really annoying for a physics professor to be told by an English literature graduate that he doesn’t understand the scientific method. But since what he’s doing here is the rough equivalent of an English literature undergraduate not knowing who wrote Hamlet, I fear I may have to take the risk of bruising his inflated ego.

    So, Professor Butterworth. *deep sigh* The scientific method. This is how, traditionally at least, scientists like yourself have sought to expand the frontiers of human knowledge (scientia) by seeking to establish what is true. In order to do this, they conduct experiments which, little by little, eliminate what is false. That is how we know what we know. As you might infer, it’s an ongoing process. Right now we don’t know everything there is to know. If we did, there would be no need for scientists, would there?

    Now: given that we accept that we don’t know everything there is to know, it logically follows that some of the stuff scientists believe right now – even scientists as eminent and all-knowing as Professor Jonathan Butterworth of the Physics and Astronomy department of University College London – may be false.

    Past examples of this include phlogiston (the substance once thought to cause combustion) and the notion (popular with Medieval scientists) that we are governed by humours.

    A current example may well be the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.

    How are we going to find out whether or not catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is real or just a false hypothesis? Same way as all meaningful science is conducted: by continual experimentation and open enquiry.

    […]

    Are we really sure this left-wing agitator, preeningly self-righteous bloviator and magisterial cockwomble is in any moral position to decide what is and isn’t a suitable subject matter for a scientific conference in his own field – let alone in one he so patently doesn’t understand.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/02/meet-the-bullying-lefty-cockwomble-physics-prof-who-hates-actual-climate-science/

    # # #

    >”How are we going to find out whether or not catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is real or just a false hypothesis?”

    Applying the theory to the critical criteria (earth’s energy balance TOA) seems a appropriate.

    The IPCC neglect to do this (see upthread – IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria – Incompetence or Coverup?)

  13. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 11:25 am said:

    ‘Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System’

    According to scientists, the large star could be described as a tremendous ball of energy.

    NEWS August 8, 2011 Vol 47 Issue 32 Science

    PASADENA, CA—Groundbreaking new findings announced Monday suggest the record-setting heat wave plaguing much of the United States may be due to radiation emitted from an enormous star located in the center of the solar system.

    Scientists believe the star, which they have named G2V65, may in fact be the same bright yellow orb seen arcing over the sky day after day, and given its extreme heat and proximity to Earth, it is likely not only to have caused the heat wave, but to be responsible for every warm day in human history.

    “Our measurements indicate the massive amount of energy this thing gives off is able to travel 93 million miles and reach our planet in as little as eight and a half minutes,” said Professor Mitch Kivens, an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. “While we can’t see them, we’re fairly certain these infrared rays strike Earth’s surface, become trapped by the atmosphere, and just heat everything up like a great big oven.”

    “We originally thought that if this star was producing temperatures of 100-plus in the South and Midwest, it must be at least 100 degrees itself,” Kivens added. “But it turns out it’s far, far hotter than that, with a surface temperature of nearly 10,900 degrees Fahrenheit.”

    Kivens and his CalTech colleagues said this intense radiation, which results from constant nuclear reactions converting hydrogen to helium in the star’s core, could also account for why the orb in the sky is extremely bright and difficult to stare at directly.

    While scientists initially assumed the heat and luminescence of the star must make it the largest in the universe—a theory lent credence by the star appearing much bigger than other objects in the sky—they said the data actually appear to refute such a notion.

    “Apparently it’s gigantic simply because it’s closer to us than any other star,” Kivens said. “Which would also account for why we feel this particular star’s heat during the day but are not warmed by the tiny blinking stars we see at night.”

    “It’s interesting stuff,” he added.

    According to Kivens, the discovery has prompted researchers to explore the possibility that a variety of phenomena accompanying the heat wave could also be linked to the star, including taller grass, hot car seats, red skin burns, and sweating “even when one has just been standing there and hasn’t been running around or anything.”

    An additional study is reportedly being conducted to determine if the unexplained shrinking of puddles until they disappear may be caused by star-hotness soaking up all the loose water. Moreover, scientists reportedly believe the heat emitted from the glowing orb could potentially be the reason why it is uncomfortable to walk on asphalt barefoot.

    When asked if anything could be done to prevent or counteract the star’s heat production, Kivens expressed skepticism.

    “No, for the foreseeable future, I think we’re locked into orbit with this thing,” he said. “Although the star seems to disappear every night, 24-hour reports from around the world seem to indicate the star never leaves Earth entirely.”

    Residents of heat- and drought-stricken regions welcomed the findings, thankful to finally have an explanation for the high temperatures, if no relief from them.

    “That makes sense, because it’s usually hotter when that [star] is up in the air,” said Stillwater, OK resident Asher Arps, 31, speaking to reporters as temperature rose to 110 degrees over the weekend. “I knew it lit things up, of course, but I didn’t realize it could make things hot.”

    “The big star heats the earth, and the moon cools it—I get it,” he added.

    As to potential applications of the new discovery, experts acknowledge the possibilities could be limitless.

    “This is a watershed moment,” renewable energy specialist Dr. Martin Flint said. “Who knows where this could lead? Perhaps we could develop a method of harnessing these big star rays and transforming them into some sort of ecologically friendly power source.”

    “Wait, what am I saying?” he said, laughing. “I’m getting ahead of myself. We still don’t understand how it’s possible for that thing to be up in the sky in January when it’s freezing outside.”

    http://www.theonion.com/article/scientists-trace-heat-wave-to-massive-star-at-cent-21088

  14. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 11:43 am said:

    >”In other words, there has been NO warming of any kind attributable to “Greenhouse” gasses. Theoretical GHG forcing is totally ineffective. Murphy et al (2009) and Nordell & Gervet (2009) together demonstrate this.”

    That’s all covrered here

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/07/pontificating-piffle-on-climate/#comment-1502732:

    And here:

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/07/pontificating-piffle-on-climate/#comment-1503105

  15. Christchurch sea level assumptions are 0.4m by 2065 and 1.0m by 2115

    Here are the parameters to achieve that

    http://bit.ly/2azNfGZ

    The initial SLR has to be three times the current rate, plus an acceleration unseen anywhere

    Interestingly, if you change the 40cm to 30cm, the initial sea level rise is about correct, but the acceleration gets doubled to 0.16 mm yr-2

    which would yield a short time to see a significant SLR acceleration

  16. Simon, you say the following:

    ‘Greenhouse warming from increased water vapour is an observable positive feedback.’

    This is true, but what happens to the warmth that is trapped when the water vapour condenses from gas to liquid & falls as rain?

    Do the IPCC reports show increased precipitation (i.e. rain) in their reports? Answer, yes.

    Does water vapour have different feedback effects depending on what height it is situated at, and why is this – is it due to the cooling (i.e. reflective) effect of low level clouds? Or increased precipitation?

    Just because water vapour is capable of producing a positive feedback, doesn’t mean that it is. And before you start quoting the studies over the last few years claiming to have miraculously found the tropospheric hotspot, please explain the following – how is a hotspot that is supposed to be a result of a warming surface occur, when the surface that is supposed to drive it hasn’t warmed (i.e. the ‘hiatus’).

  17. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 1:05 pm said:

    Simon

    >”Climate models are constantly being validated and refined.”

    By what definition of terms? Oreskes’ “evaluation”?

    ‘Climate model verification and validation’ – December 1, 2010 | by Judith Curry
    https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/01/climate-model-verification-and-validation/

    The only actual in-situ validation that is done is for the radiative transfer modules (RTM) – not climate models. For example, an early exercise from 2000:

    ‘Impact of an improved longwave radiation model, RRTM, on the energy budget and thermodynamic properties of the NCAR Community Climate Model, CCM3’
    Iacono, Mlawer, Clough, and Morcrette (2000)
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253410505_Impact_of_an_improved_longwave_radiation_model_RRTM_on_the_energy_budget_and_thermodynamic_properties_of_the_NCAR_Community_Climate_Model_CCM3

    But there is no in-situ validation of climate models AFTER improved RTM modules are implemented. All the IPCC does is an INTERcomparison of models (CMIP).

    They just compare models to each other – that’s pointless. And it is not validation. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (usgcrp) came up with a pitiful exercise that instead of validating the models, produced “anti-information”:

    Climate Data vs. Climate Models

    Why do climate change assessments overlook the differences between the climate models they use and the empirical data?

    In the 2000 assessment, known officially as the “U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change,” the usgcrp examined nine different general circulation climate models (GCMs) to assess climate change impacts on the
    nation. They chose two GCMs to use for their projections of climate change. One, from the Canadian Climate Center, forecasted the largest temperature changes of all models considered, and the other, from the
    Hadley Center in the United Kingdom, forecasted the largest precipitation changes.

    The salient feature of those models is that they achieved something very difficult in science: they generated “anti-information”—projections that were of less utility than no forecasts whatsoever. This can be demonstrated by comparing the output of the Canadian Climate Center’s model with actual temperatures.

    The top half of Figure 1 displays the observed 10-year smoothed averaged maximum temperature departures from the climatological mean over the lower 48 states from data through 1998. The bottom half displays the difference between the model projections over the same time period and those same
    temperature observations. Statisticians refer to such differences as “residuals.” The figure includes the value of the variance—a measure of the variability of the data about its average value—for both the observed data and the climate model residuals. In this case, the residuals have over twice the variance of the raw data.

    To analogize the relationship between the Canadian model and the empirical data, imagine the model output was in the form of 100 answers to a four-option multiple choice test. If the model simply randomly generated answers, within statistical limits it would provide the correct answer to about 25 percent of the questions. But, analogously speaking, the Canadian model would do worse than random: it would only answer about 12
    out of 100 correctly. That’s “anti-information”: using the model provides less information than guessing randomly.

    http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2013/9/regv36n3-6n.pdf

    Nothing has changed since 2000:

    Epic Failure of the Canadian Climate Model – October 24, 2013
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/epic-failure-of-the-canadian-climate-model/

    It doesn’t matter how well validated the RTM modules are (and they are), the climate models that use them still churn out junk (GIGO).

  18. If you use my second case of 30cm SLR by 2o65 and 100cm by 2115 the SLR in 100 years would be 18mm per year
    That’s nearly 2cm a year.

    Do people really this is possible?

  19. Alexander K on August 3, 2016 at 1:40 pm said:

    Simon, if you travel overseas and take your unusually high level of gullibility with you, you will, no doubt, be approached by various individuals who will attempt to sell you various landmark bridges:
    before laying down your hard-earned cash, check the deals on offer.
    Then apply proper research skills to the proposition you so ardently support. To put it bluntly, you are believing people who routinely con the general public with sciency-sounding spin.

  20. I find Herr Thomas’s remarks quite amusing apropos of my calcs also posted to HT

    Andy, what is it with you that you always seem to assume that nobody checks your claims and statements here? I teach mathematics so I knew your claims are tosh without even looking.

    If you don’t look then it is pretty hard to refute my claims without knowing what they are.

    *Sigh*

  21. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 4:18 pm said:

    Andy.

    Thomas is clueless, he is (inadvertently) agreeing with you. What he is saying, effectively, is that the hypothetical, unproven, unobserved, “acceleration” that CCC have adopted, and you have presented as a 2nd order polynomial (nice BTW), are “tosh”. He’s effectively saying the CCC projected rate is “tosh” without even looking at the maths because he thinks you’re making stuff up Andy.

    You are not of course. These are the CCC parameters modeled mathematically in your presentation:

    Copyable plaintext:

    x^2/250+(3 x)/5≈0.004 x^2+0.6 x
    (data is perfectly fit by a 2nd degree polynomial)

    Wolfram Language plaintext input:

    N[Normal[LinearModelFit[{{0, 0}, {50, 40}, {100, 100}}, x^Range[0, 2], x]]]

    Wolfram Language plaintext output:

    0.6 x + 0.004 x^2

    http://bit.ly/2azNfGZ

    This is one mathematical model of the CCC scenario. What is there to “check” even when you do look? Of course the CCC policy is based on “tosh”. It is glaringly obvious. We have to be careful that the 0,0 point is 1990 as per IPCC stipulation. The model is already wrong by observations to 2016 (26 on the x axis) i.e. 26 years of wrong model so far, “tosh” as Thomas puts it. I agree.

    These are not “your” claims Andy, as Thomas seems to think (without looking). They’re CCC’s from the IPCC’s worst case RCP8.5 which the RCP providers stipulate is “not to be used for policy purposes” or suchlike.

    Thomas seems to agree the CCC/RCP8.5 scenario is “tosh”, Do we need to argue with this?

  22. I found Nigel (at HT) a little more accommodating. He claimed that (by eyeballing) that a 30cm by 2065 is more reasonable, and in fact he is spot on because the polynomial fits because (as I state upthread) the initial SLR is correct at around 2mm/year

    The problem with this scenario is that you have to double the acceleration from the 40cm scenario to get the 1.0m SLR by 2115, which provides implausible rates of acceleration (around 2cm per year I think)

    I have a meeting with Council and ECan members on Friday, so I’ll try to present this info in a digestible format

  23. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 5:01 pm said:

    >”The model [of the CCC scenario] is already wrong by observations to 2016 (26 on the x axis) i.e. 26 years of wrong model so far”

    According to the model there SHOULD have been close to 20cms (200mm) of SLR 1990 – 2016 (26 years).

    Wellington has the highest rate in NZ but non-accelerating:
    2.54 mm/yr x 26 = 66mm

    Out in the East Pacific satellite data (see Palanisamy et al (2015) Figure 1. (a) upthread and below) is exhibiting -2 to -4 mm/yr FALL:
    -3 mm/yr x 26 = (-ve) 78mm

    Palanisamy, Meyssignac, Cazenave and Delcroix (2015) Figure 1. (a)
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/8/084024/downloadHRFigure/figure/erl518509f1

    This is why, as James Renwick wonders, we “see nothing to worry about”.

    Renwick’s “worry” is normal natural rise AND fall e.g. Wellington, East Pacific, but he doesn’t “see” the fall because he doesn’t look. Then on top of that his “worry” is about something that is not happening as predicted.

    James Renwick is a “worrywort”, defined as:

    Worrywart: One who worries excessively and needlessly.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worrywart

    He can cure his affliction simply by looking (“seeing”) the sea level data (as above) and comparing to normal vs prediction (as above).

  24. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 5:20 pm said:

    Andy >”I found Nigel (at HT) a little more accommodating. He claimed that (by eyeballing) that a 30cm by 2065 is more reasonable, and in fact he is spot on because the polynomial fits because (as I state upthread) the initial SLR is correct at around 2mm/year”

    Yes, Nigel is the most sensible I find.

    But just to be clear. You mean here that using an initial rate at 1990 of 2 mm/yr, the polynomial model gives 300mm 1990 – 2065 (75 years) but only if you double the acceleration from the 40cm scenario?

    You’ve presented this before but I want to keep up with this.

    Problem with that is, the Wellington historical linear rate (see my previous comment) which is the highest rate in NZ but non-accelerating, only gives 19cm (190mm) 1990 – 2065.

    So OK, in terms of IPCC prediction scenarios more sensible but in terms of observations, still not sensible.

  25. I’m assuming a start date of now since we have no acceleration
    I’m just trying to fit a curve that can reproduce the assumed SLR by 50 and 100 year time horizons
    If you assume 40cm by 50 years, then the proposition is falsified by the initial conditions

    If you assume 30cm at 50 years, the scenario is mathematically plausible but physically implausible, because we have no acceleration to date in local records that would have to suddenly jump to a high rate not seen anywhere, and yield a sea level rate that is more than the ones during meltwater pulses during Holocene Transgression

  26. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 7:26 pm said:

    Andy >”I’m assuming a start date of now since we have no acceleration”

    OK I see where you are going (but see below).

    >”If you assume 30cm at 50 years, the scenario is mathematically plausible but physically implausible,”

    Below it has morphed into “30 centimetres in 30 years” in the media.

    The goal posts move when the start date moves. The IPCC’s start date is 1990. T&T acknowledge this in their WCC report. Dr Jan Wright got close in this Nov 2014 MfE document:

    Changing climate and rising seas: Understanding the science

    4.4 How much will the sea rise in the future?

    The IPCC projects that, from around the end of the 20th century, sea level will rise 20 to 40 centimetres by the middle of the century, and 30 to 100 centimetres by 2100. These projections encompass four scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions.

    http://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/1258/changing-climate-and-rising-seas-web.pdf

    Close but no Dr Wright, not “around the end of the 20th century”. The date is 1990, specifically. We are now 26 years in to the 60 year prediction scenario and NOT happening.

    But then the media pick it up, get it wrong, and Nancy Bertler embellishes the story somewhat. So we get this from Newshub:

    ’30cm sea level rise ‘inevitable’, Commissioner warns’

    By 3 News online staff Thursday 27 Nov 2014

    A sea level rise of 30cm by 2050 in New Zealand is “inevitable” and the country needs to prepare for it, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/environmentsci/30cm-sea-level-rise-inevitable-commissioner-warns-2014112711#axzz4GFqZePHV

    That’s a 30cm by 2050 scenario, start date 1990, 60 year span.

    But then this,

    ‘Sea level rise ‘incredibly certain’ – scientist’

    Newshub Friday 28 Nov 2014

    The Environment Commissioner’s report on climate change and rising sea levels warns sea levels will rise 30 centimetres in 30 years.

    [No it did NOT say that. And we are already 26 years in from 1990 but NOT happening. Is the suggestion that because the rise has not occurred in the first half of the 60 year timeframe, that it MUST occur in the second half? That is looney reasoning if so]

    […]
    Victoria University associate professor and GNS Science senior scientist Nancy Bertler says if the rise comes to pass, it will be capable of causing “tremendous damage”.

    [Big “if” though Nancy. And NOT happening to date]

    She says the UN has estimated with a 50cm rise, “coastal inundation, floodings and storm events will increase by a factor of 1000”.

    [Read – they’re speculating wildly]

    The evidence, says Prof Bertler, is “incredibly certain” and could be an underestimation, depending on what the polar ice caps do.

    [Speculation and estimation is NOT evidence Nancy. Guessing can never be certain, let alone”incredibly certain”]

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/sea-level-rise-incredibly-certain—scientist-2014112810#axzz4GFqZePHV

    So in answer to your question upthread Andy, “Do people really think this is possible?”

    Yes, apparently. And in a very much shorter timeframe than the IPCC’s.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2016 at 7:42 pm said:

    Should be:

    “Dr Jan Wright got close in this Nov 2014 [PCE] document”

    Close, but not good enough on $300k p.a.

  28. I had a slight lightbulb moment a while back when working through some of my sons NCEA level 1 maths questions.

    One of the questions had a graph that showed exponentially increasing features and then flipped into a different regime.

    The question at the end of the section asked “give two reasons why this might be implausible ”

    It occurred to me that we teach 16 year olds to think like this (thankfully still true in NZ – I believe we still have a great school system to be proud of) yet somehow this basic reasoning skill passes us by when we enter employment.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on August 4, 2016 at 9:42 am said:

    ‘A Brief Journey into the Dark Art of Rapid Extreme Weather Attribution’
    Posted on 02 Aug 16 by Jaime Jessop
    https://cliscep.com/2016/08/02/a-brief-journey-into-the-dark-art-of-rapid-extreme-weather-attribution/

    dennisambler says: 03 Aug 16 at 4:38 pm

    Peter Stott’s job is thus: “Peter leads the Climate Monitoring and Attribution team. He is an expert in the attribution of climate change to anthropogenic and natural causes.”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/peter-stott

    If attribution is your job, that’s just what you are going to do, otherwise no job. Probably tops the list in the “scientists say” category.

    He is also Associate Editor of the Journal of Climate, which includes several of the usual suspects, including Gavin Schmidt. https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/journals/journal-of-climate/editors-and-staff-contacts/

    I wonder how many contrary papers make it through?

    # # #

    Peter Stott was, along with Nathan Bindoff, lead author of AR5 WG1 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution.

    In that Chapter, not so much attribution to “natural causes”.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on August 4, 2016 at 9:49 am said:

    James Renwick was a contributing author to Chapter 14 – Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change.

    This is the forgotten chapter because, well, it just sounds too much like “natural” stuff.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on August 4, 2016 at 10:26 am said:

    German Daily ‘Die Welt’: “People Rebelling Against Wind Power” …Viewed As “A Destructive Force”

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/08/02/german-daily-die-welt-people-rebelling-against-wind-power-viewed-as-a-destructive-force/#sthash.ncCJbAaU.Cr2Q9prQ.dpbs

    Enter Clexit next.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on August 4, 2016 at 10:40 am said:

    ‘Jupiter’s Giant Red Spot is red hot & explained by the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect ‘

    THS, July 29, 2016

    A new paper published in Nature finds Jupiter’s Great Red Spot is red hot at about 2,420°F or 1,330°C (i.e. almost hot enough to melt steel at 1425°C) and that this observation,

    “could solve the mystery of the unusually high temperatures observed throughout Jupiter’s upper atmosphere, which can’t be explained by solar heating alone. [nor by a radiative greenhouse effect]”

    […]

    In other words, the very hot atmospheric temperatures on Jupiter cannot be due to an Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect. The atmosphere of Jupiter is mostly comprised of the non-greenhouse gases hydrogen and helium, but does contain small amounts of the IR-active ‘greenhouse’ gas water vapor. However, the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal greenhouse effect perfectly explains the observed atmospheric temperature profile of Jupiter, making Jupiter the ninth planet in our solar system to follow the simple Poisson relationship of atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure to temperature. The Poisson relationship was demonstrated in another recent paper:

    […]

    and once again demonstrates that the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) theory is a myth, that atmospheric temperatures are controlled by mass/gravity/pressure and are independent of greenhouse gas concentrations on any of these 9 planets with atmospheres, including Earth. Adding additional CO2 plant food to the atmosphere will undoubtedly green the Earth, but Earth’s climate sensitivity to CO2 is effectively zero.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2016/07/jupiters-giant-red-spot-is-red-hot.html

    # # #

    Something for James Renwick and the IPCC to ignore.

  33. Maggy Wassilieff on December 6, 2016 at 11:04 am said:

    Another 3 recent publications indicating global sea-level rise is in the order of 1 mm/y

    http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.ts0ij25U.dpbs

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation