NIWA scientists agree de Freitas climate paper streets ahead?

It’s six years since NIWA published their Report on the Review of NIWA’s ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series (pdf, 8.5 MB), the latest version of the national temperature record. It’s six years, too, since NIWA promised the people of New Zealand (in Parliament) they would publish the methodology in that report in a peer-reviewed journal. But they haven’t done so—maybe they aren’t too pleased with it.

Last year, three scientists associated with the NZ Climate Science Coalition published a peer-reviewed paper concluding the New Zealand temperature rise over the last hundred years was only 0.28°C, much lower than the last NIWA effort, which claimed it was 0.91°C. Though I notice just now when checking the NIWA website they’re claiming 0.92°C.

Kenneth Richard has just posted an article on the de Freitas et al. paper at NoTricksZone – h/t Maggy Wassilieff.  He describes the paper thus:

According to scientists de Freitas, Dedekind, and Brill (2015), removing “contaminated data” from New Zealand’s  nation-wide temperature record — and using updated measurement techniques rather than error-ridden outdated ones — reduces the long-term (1909 to 2009) New Zealand warming trend from today’s +0.91°C to +0.28°C, a 325% change.

NIWA still have made no reply to the de Freitas et al. paper. I’m sure they would have if they had disagreed with it; they obviously recognise its value.

If NIWA haven’t published their own methodology they can scarcely claim their method superior, as they did during the application for judicial review in 2012. It also means they cannot reasonably argue with the amount of long-term warming in New Zealand — 0.28°C. Regardless of the global warming hypothesis, science shows there’s been no significant warming in New Zealand.

Mr Richard concludes by putting the de Freitas et al. paper in a stunning global context:

A few days ago, a compilation of over 50 temperature graphs from peer-reviewed scientific papers  revealed that large regions of the Earth have not been warming in recent decades, and that modern temperatures are still some of the coldest of the last 10,000 years.  Apparently the nation of New Zealand can now be added to this list as a region where no significant changes in temperature have taken place within the last 150 years.
Where has all the warming gone?

504 Thoughts on “NIWA scientists agree de Freitas climate paper streets ahead?

  1. Richard Treadgold on October 8, 2016 at 10:53 am said:

    You make some good points, RC, thanks. But as you know I was complaining about the presentation of data, not the details of the share split. Your comment now is in proper sentences and a pleasure to read. Figures sans formatting are not. Small point (on this blog): this has little to do with the de Freitas paper. Do you want a posting on Tilt?

  2. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2016 at 10:55 am said:

    >”6 Oct price $7.580″

    Friday close for the week: TPW $7.500 ▼-$0.100 / -1.32%

    Price History (30 days) [was up around $7.90]
    https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZSX/securities/TPW

  3. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2016 at 11:09 am said:

    >”Do you want a posting on Tilt?”

    Not necessarily but the SA wind debacle is (very) topical at likes of WUWT and JoNova and Germany wind is big in European news (see below).Wind in SA has been ordered to reduce generation since the SA blackout. Tilt is into SA wind in a big way although as I understand they sold out of Snowtoen before it all went bellyup. Tilt sees their growth (not to mention ability to pay down massive debt) mostly from wind in Australia.

    Europe:

    More Headaches Than Power: Germany’s Wind Energy Fails To Deliver! “Energiewende Finished?”
    http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/18/more-headaches-than-power-germanys-wind-energy-fails-to-deliver-energiewende-finished/

    At 20% Below Expectations, Bavarian Wind Park Disappoints Its Small Investors
    http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/24/at-20-below-expectations-bavarian-wind-park-disappoints-small-investors/

    Alarm… Major German Grid Operator Announces Whopping 80% Higher Grid Fees! “Power To Be More Expensive”
    http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/23/alarm-major-german-grid-operator-announces-whopping-80-higher-grid-fees-power-to-be-more-expensive/

    Just a matter of watching the NZX later this week in respect to Tilt. But the wider question is: where to now for wind in Australia and Germany?

  4. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2016 at 1:14 pm said:

    >”NIWA effort, which claimed it was 0.91°C. Though I notice just now when checking the NIWA website they’re claiming 0.92°C.”

    Out of date.

    1909 – 2015: 0.95°C/Century.
    1970 – 2015: 0.074°C/Decade (0.74/Century).
    1970 – 1997: (-ve)0.096°C/Decade
    Abrupt +0.25°C shift from 1997
    1997 – 2015 (-ve)0.021°C/Decade

  5. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2016 at 1:47 pm said:

    NIWA 7SS (same as NZCSC 7SS from 1970 near enough, and NIWA VCS begins 1972)

    1970 – 2015: 0.074°C/decade.
    1970 – 1997: (-ve)0.096°C/decade
    Abrupt +0.25°C shift from 1997
    1997 – 2015: (-ve)0.021°C/decade

    RSS incl. September 2016 data. TLT Trends (K/decade) from January 1978:

    (-ve)0.008 South Polar
    0.072 Southern Mid Latitudes
    0.088 Southern Hemisphere
    0.022 Tropics
    0.181 Northern Hemisphere
    0.191 Norhthern Mid Latitudes
    0.342 North Polar

    From 2013
    0.0 Southern Mid Latitudes

    # # #

    From 1970/78
    7SS 0.074 K/decade New Zealand
    RSS 0.072 K/decade Southern Mid Latitudes

    This century
    7SS 1997 – 2015: (-ve)0.021°C/decade New Zealand
    RSS 2013 – 2016: 0.0 °C/decade Southern Mid Latitudes

    In other words, what happened prior to 1970 is irrelevant now and so is NIWA’s 1909 – 2015 0.95°C/Century 7SS trend. And what happens in the 21st century is all important, given the only happening of note is NIWA’s negative 7SS trend.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2016 at 3:00 pm said:

    This century
    7SS 1997 – 2015: (-ve)0.021°C/decade New Zealand
    RSS 1997 – 2015: +0.024 °C/decade Southern Mid Latitudes

    2010 El Nino was a non-event in 7SS, 2013 was far higher than other years around that time.

    2010 was not highest in RSS Sthn Mid Lat at that time either, early 2011 was a little highrer than 2013. But 2010/11 was the dominant event compared to 2012/13.

    Hence the opposite trends, 7SS vs RSS.

    CO2-forced climate models are up around 0.33°C/decade Global this century.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2016 at 3:09 pm said:

    >”CO2-forced climate models are up around 0.33°C/decade Global this century.”

    Only RSS latitude zone on the globe that conforms to that is 0.342°C/decade North Polar.

    (-ve)0.008°C/decade South Polar.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2016 at 4:59 pm said:

    >”CO2-forced climate models are up around 0.33°C/decade Global this century.”
    >”Only RSS latitude zone on the globe that conforms to that is 0.342°C/decade North Polar.”

    But North Polar is only a tiny part of the globe:

    MSU & AMSU Time Series Trend Browse Tool.
    http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

    Huge North Polar spike this year (over 3x more than NH El Nino:)

    2015 12 0.6701
    2016 1 3.2905
    2016 2 2.1154
    2016 3 1.4238
    2016 4 2.2288
    2016 5 1.5855
    2016 6 1.3528
    2016 7 0.7931
    2016 8 1.2570
    2016 9 1.7813
    http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Northern%20Polar_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt

    But the North Polar trend since 2013 is still flat:

    RSS Northern Polar
    http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Northern%20Polar_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.short.png

    There’s nothing anywhere latitudinally that the CO2 freaks can point to this century.

  9. Dennis N Horne on October 8, 2016 at 6:30 pm said:

    “CO2 theory is a BUST at TOA and TLT”

    Better tell ExxonMobil
    http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/technology/carbon-capture-and-sequestration
    With a working interest in approximately one-third of the world’s total carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) capacity, ExxonMobil is a leader in one of the most important next-generation low-greenhouse gas emissions technologies.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2016 at 7:07 pm said:

    >”ExxonMobil is a leader in one of the most important next-generation low-greenhouse gas emissions technologies.”

    So what? Corporate Greenwash. Irrlevent to failed CO2 theory at TOA and TLT anywhere (except perhaps a tiny part of the globe – North Polar, even then CO2 theory requires a greater Arctic trend than a 0.33C/decade global trend).

    Besides…….

    ‘Billionaire-Backed Liberal Groups Pressure IRS To Join Exxon Inquisition’
    “Two billionaire-backed anti-fossil fuel groups pressured the Internal Revenue Service Thursday to punish Exxon Mobil for supposedly running an illegal scheme with a conservative think tank to push an anti-global warming agenda.”
    http://climatechangedispatch.com/billionaire-backed-liberal-groups-pressure-irs-to-join-exxon-inquisition/

    You can’t have it both ways Dennis. This after all the failed AG fishing expeditions against Exxon i.e. they are getting desperate.

    But understandable you would want the focus off 21st Century temperature trend analysis Dennis. Southern Hemisphere in particular. Nothing to point to there for Warmies..

  11. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2016 at 7:10 pm said:

    Should be:

    “even then CO2 theory requires a greater Arctic trend than a 0.33C/decade global trend [in the CO2-forced models]).

    Nothing like that in reality as upthread.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on October 8, 2016 at 7:32 pm said:

    Enviros are suing Exxon over Mystic River pollution

    ‘Lawsuit: ExxonMobil polluted river’
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11719752

    But are Enviros suing the EPA over Animas River, tributory to San Juan River, pollution? Noooo…….of course not. That’s been left to the New Mexico Environment Department:

    ‘New Mexico Will Sue EPA For Polluting A River With Mine Waste’
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/14/new-mexico-will-sue-epa-for-polluting-a-river-with-mine-waste/

    “From the very beginning, the EPA failed to hold itself accountable in the same way that it would a private business,” Ryan Flynn, the New Mexico Environment Department’s cabinet secretary, said in a statement Thursday. “The EPA caused an unprecedented disaster that may affect our state for years to come; they must take responsibility.”

  13. Dennis N Horne on October 9, 2016 at 7:31 am said:

    Spot the difference.

    The tobacco dealers kept people confused: burning tobacco did increase suffering and dying.

    The carbon dealers keep people confused: burning carbon will increase suffering and dying.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 8:01 am said:

    ‘Evidence that multidecadal Arctic sea ice has turned the corner’
    October 7, 2016 by Javier*
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/07/evidence-that-multidecadal-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/

    *Javier is a first name only. He has also published on Dr. Judith Curry’s site. Both she and I [Anthony Watts] know his full identity. While normally we require guest authors use their full name, Javier’s employment situation is such that he’s likely be penalized in some way for posting at Curry’s and especially here. He has satisfied my need and Dr. Curry’s need for this exception, and is a well published scientist in a non climate related field that requires similar statistical analysis skills.

  15. Dennis N Horne on October 9, 2016 at 8:05 am said:

    Richard C (NZ): ‘Evidence that multidecadal Arctic sea ice has turned the corner’

    From ice to [obscenity deleted – RT].

  16. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 8:08 am said:

    >”The carbon dealers….”

    Search for your nearest dealer… Enter a placename or zip code
    http://www.carbonexpressarrows.com/dealer_locator

  17. Burning carbon will increase suffering and dying….

    Yes Dennis you are. Every time you jump in your car or a plane you are personally killing millions

    How does it feel being a self confessed murderer?

  18. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 8:22 am said:

    >”The carbon dealers….”

    NZ’s Leading Spot and Forward Carbon Broker
    https://www.omf.co.nz/our-services/carbon

    Aviation has just bypassed carbon trading:

    ‘UN Brokers New Global Green Tax on Air Travel’
    The United Nations has brokered a new international agreement which forces airlines to pay for “green” projects. By 2035, the UN expects the deal will siphon $24 billion / annum from the pockets of air travellers.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/08/un-brokers-new-global-green-tax-on-air-travel/

    Might be a lifeline for the likes of Tilt Renewables. But by 2035 the Northern Hemisphere will probably be in the grips of a New Little Ice Age. Global sentiment on “green projects” will have reversed, not to mention all the impending and ongoing national and corporate debt failures.

    I think we are nearing the end of a golden age, albeit debt-driven in a benevolent climate regime.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 8:40 am said:

    All that has kept the warming meme alive this century has been natural phenonena. e.g. El Ninos (actually a cooling process) and a huge transient Arctic spike this year.

    There is no anthro warming to point to anywhere on the planet this century.

    They might get an averaged “warmest year ever” out of 2016 and the media will trumpet it but the El Nino and Arctic spike has GONE and there was never anything to point to in the Southern Hemisphere anyway i.e. it is an empty claim now and never man-made as Schmidt Rahmstorf Sherwood Foster Mann and the UK Met Office claim.

    Just a matter of time before the media realises they have been fed a diet of BS from ideology-driven climate activists and climate scientists who have abandoned ethics for ideology.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 8:46 am said:

    >”Every time you jump in your car or a plane you are personally killing millions”

    That’s OK because you pay a carbon tax on petrol (in NZ at least). Now it will be OK in planes too because airlines will be saving the earth with “green projects” a.k.a. Greenwash.

  21. When the lights went out in SA because the useless birdchoppers had to be shut down, I presume that might have caused some death or suffering.

    You will never hear about it of course, because those that support the wind “industry” are so fundamentally dishonest.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 9:13 am said:

    >”Aviation has just bypassed carbon trading:”

    If they want. Probly just business as usual in many cases, there’s already Greenwash programmes going on:

    Air New Zealand – Carbon Offset Programme

    What does Air New Zealand do with the money paid to offset carbon emissions?

    All the money, net of tax, contributed by customers to offset their CO2 emissions funds the purchase of carbon credits that reduce, or avoid, greenhouse gases.

    Air New Zealand takes no administrative or other fee.

    What carbon credits is Air New Zealand currently purchasing?

    Air New Zealand pre-purchases carbon credits to ensure that they are available for this online carbon offset programme.

    The carbon credits we are currently purchasing are Emission Reduction Units from TrustPower’s Tararua windfarm. The New Zealand Government awarded these Kyoto carbon credits as part of its Projects to Reduce Emissions programme.

    http://www.airnewzealand.com/environment-information

    # # #

    Offset payments are taxed by govt. And now Tilt Renwables’ Tararua windfarm.

    Round and round the Greenwash goes.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 9:33 am said:

    >”Global sentiment on “green projects” will have reversed”

    Well on the way now:

    ‘The Price of Green Energy’
    Is Germany Killing the Environment to Save It?

    The German government is carrying out a rapid expansion of renewable energies like wind, solar and biogas, yet the process is taking a toll on nature conservation. The issue is causing a rift in the environmental movement, pitting “green energy” supporters against ecologists.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-renewable-energy-policy-takes-toll-on-nature-conservation-a-888094.html

    ‘Backlash against big wind: Booing Sierra Clubbers in Pennsylvania’

    Of course, the backlash in Penn Forest Township and dozens of other towns, counties, and villages against the encroachment of wind energy doesn’t fit the popular-media narrative. Wind energy, we are constantly told, is “green” or “clean.” That same narrative, which is endlessly pushed by the Green/Left claims that we’ll have to install forests of wind turbines all across the countryside (and we’ll have to put thousands of them offshore, too) if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.

    Those may be the claims, but the opposition in Penn Forest Township provides a vivid example of how the land-grabbing subsidy-fueled energy sprawl of the wind industry is being met by a burgeoning backlash that can be seen from Maine to California and New York to Loch Ness. Over the past 18 months, according to published media stories, more than 100 governmental entities in about two dozen US states have moved to reject or restrict the development of wind-energy projects. (To see a spreadsheet with a listing of the entities, click here.)

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/14/backlash-against-big-wind-booing-sierra-clubbers-in-pennsylvania.html

  24. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 10:36 am said:

    ‘Betrayers of Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science’

    October 8, 2016, by J A Cook

    This book is a “must read” for those concerned about the history of corruption in science – the authors provide ultra sharp analysis of fraud and deceit within the scientific community. ‘Betrayers of Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science‘ details certain cases and how the fraud came to be, and how people got away with it or the fact the evidence was ignored.

    Authors Broad and Wade are seeking to reveal the dark heart of science. Science by its nature is rational, but people aren’t – they are biased and seeking only personal and professional gain and standing. And it is this clash that we will see more clearly and the book progresses. The clash between the rational (facts) and the irrational (human nature).

    Continues at length >>>>>>>
    http://principia-scientific.org/betrayers-truth-fraud-deceit-halls-science/

  25. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 11:12 am said:

    ‘New Report Sheds Light on Tesla’s Dirty Batteries’

    October 5, 2016, by Chris White

    The high demand for the lithium ion batteries that power electric vehicles like those produced by Tesla Motors could potentially do more harm than good to the environment, according to a report Sunday from The Washington Post.

    The electric vehicle automaker uses Panasonic batteries, which, according to the report [hotlink – see below], uses graphite derived from mines in China. The mines are raining graphite particles down on the residents of several villages in northeastern in the country.

    Tesla told reporters its batteries do not include graphite from the Chinese company BTR, yet declined to identify its graphite source. Nearly 75 percent of the world’s graphite comes from the northeastern section of the China. The company’s refusal to explain where its graphite is produced could raise questions about the environmental soundness of its vehicles.

    Panasonic, one of the largest manufacturers of Tesla’s lithium ion batteries, is forking over $1.6 billion to the cost of Tesla’s “gigafactory,” a massive factory meant to build the company’s lithium ion batteries. Tesla believes the Nevada-based plant will produce about 500,000 electric-car batteries annually.

    Panasonic seemed unimpressed by the report, telling reporters the company investigated the issue and “found that the operators received an administrative directive from the local authorities in 2014 and have since that time implemented the necessary environmental countermeasures.”

    Still, the report laid out in excruciating detail some of the effects graphite mining has on Chinese communities.

    One couple living in Jixi, a city near the Russian border, told reporters that graphite dust covers their corn crop so much that simply walking outside leaves their faces blackened, according to the report. The dust also leaches into the couple’s house, infusing itself into the food and water.

    Inhaling the particulate matter causes respiratory troubles, according to health experts. Tesla vehicles, and electric cars in general, are sold to consumers as environmentally friendly alternatives to fossil fuel burning vehicles – the report, which was published Oct. 2, indicates the productive tools used to make their batteries is destructive.

    Tech analysts have warned investors in the past that Tesla’s brand name could be damaged by its use of lithium batteries.

    “It’s a PR and brand disaster waiting to happen,” Matt Stack, the co-founder of tech investment group Devonshire Research Group, told The Daily Caller News Foundation about automakers that rely on lithium ion production. “Companies that rely solely on the green image, including Tesla, will see their profit margins suffer, and brand value decline.

    More >>>>
    http://principia-scientific.org/new-report-sheds-light-teslas-dirty-batteries/

    ‘Dust from graphite mines and plants pollute China’s air and water’

    Story by Peter Whoriskey Photos by Michael Robinson Chavez Videos by Jorge Ribas
    October 2, 2016

    At night, the pollution around the village has an otherworldly, almost fairy-tale quality.

    “The air sparkles,” said Zhang Tuling, a farmer in a village in far northeastern China. “When any bit of light hits the particles, they shine.”

    By daylight, the particles are visible as a lustrous gray dust that settles on everything. It stunts the crops it blankets, begrimes laundry hung outside to dry and leaves grit on food. The village’s well water has become undrinkable, too.

    Beside the family home is a plot that once grew saplings, but the trees died once the factory began operating, said Zhang’s husband, Yu Yuan.

    “This is what we live with,” Zhang said, slowly waving an arm at the stumps.

    More >>>>>>>
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/graphite-mining-pollution-in-china/?wpisrc=al_alert-exclusive

    # # #

    Tesla: squeaky clean “green” in USA, but an environmental and health nightmare in Northern China.

    Not just Tesla either; Apple, Samsung, LG, General Motors and Toyota too.

    Similarly for wind turbines elsewhere in China.

    [Fascinating, but Richard, why do you post it here when it’s so far off topic? – RT]

  26. Dennis N Horne on October 9, 2016 at 12:55 pm said:

    What says the American Physical Society
    https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_3.cfm
    (Adopted by Council on November 14, 2015)
    On Climate Change:
    Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

    APS controversy over ‘incontrovertible’
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-battle-over-the-meaning-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight/
    The roots of the conflict can be traced to 2007, when the APS released a statement on climate change stating, “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”

    In January 2014, Koonin organized a symposium in Brooklyn, N.Y., to which he invited six climate experts. Three are well-respected by most scientists. The other three—John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama; Judith Curry, a climatologist at the University of Georgia; and Richard Lindzen, an emeritus physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—are well-respected by climate skeptics and are often challenged by the climate science establishment.

    These scientists were invited because the APS committee wanted to rebut a claim that skeptics often make—that mainstream scientists are willfully silencing dissenting voices, Rosner said.

    The skeptical scientists got a fair airing at the APS’s symposium, where the attendees could separate the wheat from the chaff, Rosner said. The attendees were trained physicists, and at the end, they understood that the skeptical scientists’ “critique of science itself was extremely weak,” he said.

    Rosner’s takeaway from the meeting was that Curry, Christy and Lindzen were questioning the presentation of the science, he said.
    +++
    Incontrovertible. It’s a word, what does it mean? Is nothing incontrovertible? In science it’s semantics. Just as “innocent until proved guilty” is a procedure not a reality.

    So what have the denalists achieved? A change of words.

    From something like: The evidence is “incontrovertible” to, the evidence is “irresistible and overwhelming”.

  27. More stuffed shirts prattling on.

    Endless drivel. If we could power the world on drivel, we could take the collective outputs of politicians, “science academies”, the media and Hollywood luvvies, put it in a pipeline and solve world poverty and peace in one fell swoop

  28. Richard Treadgold on October 9, 2016 at 3:56 pm said:

    Dennis,

    Spot the difference.

    Tobacco dealers sell tobacco.

    We don’t sell ‘carbon’.

  29. Some ‘scientists’ and businesses sell catastrophic anthropogenic climate change though (e.g. wind farms, solar, etc). In fact their whole careers seem to revolve around, and depend upon, promoting it.

  30. Richard Treadgold on October 9, 2016 at 4:16 pm said:

    Yes, precisely. People like Dennis don’t see how much in thrall they are to such activist scientists.

  31. Dennis N Horne on October 9, 2016 at 4:58 pm said:

    “don’t see how much in thrall they are to such activist scientists”

    The Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Society for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society …

    The cleverest people on Earth.

    Say man-made global warming and climate change is due to our CO2 and going to cause problems.

    Some people don’t believe them.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm said:

    Dennis, you’ve been shown upthread that “man-made global warming” simply does not exist. You have nothing to point to this century. Neither do “the cleverest people on earth”, as you put iit. If they are the cleverest then mankind is in a lot of trouble intellectually.

    And in the previous Renwick thread, Maggy has just produced this gem:

    ‘Assessing recent trends in high-latitude Southern Hemisphere surface climate’

    Julie M. Jones, Sarah T. Gille, Hugues Goosse, Nerilie J. Abram, Pablo O. Canziani, Dan J. Charman, Kyle R. Clem, Xavier Crosta, Casimir de Lavergne, Ian Eisenman, Matthew H. England, Ryan L. Fogt, Leela M. Frankcombe, Gareth J. Marshall, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Adele K. Morrison, Anaïs J. Orsi, Marilyn N. Raphael, James A. Renwick, David P. Schneider, Graham R. Simpkins, Eric J. Steig, Barbara Stenni, Didier Swingedouw & Tessa R. Vance (2016)

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html

    Abstract
    Understanding the causes of recent climatic trends and variability in the high-latitude Southern Hemisphere is hampered by a short instrumental record. Here, we analyse recent atmosphere, surface ocean and sea-ice observations in this region and assess their trends in the context of palaeoclimate records and climate model simulations. Over the 36-year satellite era, significant linear trends in annual mean sea-ice extent, surface temperature and sea-level pressure are superimposed on large interannual to decadal variability. Most observed trends, however, are not unusual when compared with Antarctic palaeoclimate records of the past two centuries. With the exception of the positive trend in the Southern Annular Mode, climate model simulations that include anthropogenic forcing are not compatible with the observed trends. This suggests that natural variability overwhelms the forced response in the observations, but the models may not fully represent this natural variability or may overestimate the magnitude of the forced response.

    # # #

    James Renwick co-author.

    Man-made climate change is just not happening Dennis.

  33. Shame the empirical evidence disagrees Dennis:

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg
    Source: (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report)

    ‘E pur si muove’ – Galileo Galilei (1564–1642)

  34. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 5:22 pm said:

    >APS released a statement on climate change stating, “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”

    In 2007 they made the statement. Nothing controversial about that then, just the attribution of it and the fact, since admitted by the IPCC, that natural variation had been neglected. Now they are looking at natural variation and their miss-attributed anthro signal has disappeared. Just look at Jones et al (2016) above.

    Nearly 9 years later and there’s been no change since then. You are living in the past Dennis.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 5:37 pm said:

    RSS incl. September 2016 data. TLT Trend from January 1978:

    (-ve)0.008 K/decade South Polar

    “The cleverest people on Earth” think this is “man-made global warming and climate change is due to our CO2 and going to cause problems” according to Dennis..

  36. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 5:48 pm said:

    SAID HANRAHAN

    “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    In accents most forlorn,
    Outside the church, ere Mass began,
    One frosty Sunday morn.

    The congregation stood about,
    Coat-collars to the ears,
    And talked of stock, and crops, and drought,
    As it had done for years.

    “It’s lookin’ crook,” said Daniel Croke;
    “Bedad, it’s cruke, me lad,
    For never since the banks went broke
    Has seasons been so bad.”

    “It’s dry, all right,” said young O’Neil,
    With which astute remark
    He squatted down upon his heel
    And chewed a piece of bark.

    And so around the chorus ran
    “It’s keepin’ dry, no doubt.”
    “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    “Before the year is out.

    “The crops are done; ye’ll have your work
    To save one bag of grain;
    From here way out to Back-o’-Bourke
    They’re singin’ out for rain.

    “They’re singin’ out for rain,” he said,
    “And all the tanks are dry.”
    The congregation scratched its head,
    And gazed around the sky.

    “There won’t be grass, in any case,
    Enough to feed an ass;
    There’s not a blade on Casey’s place
    As I came down to Mass.”

    “If rain don’t come this month,” said Dan,
    And cleared his throat to speak–
    “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    “If rain don’t come this week.”

    A heavy silence seemed to steal
    On all at this remark;
    And each man squatted on his heel,
    And chewed a piece of bark.

    “We want a inch of rain, we do,”
    O’Neil observed at last;
    But Croke “maintained” we wanted two
    To put the danger past.

    “If we don’t get three inches, man,
    Or four to break this drought,
    We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    “Before the year is out.”

    In God’s good time down came the rain;
    And all the afternoon
    On iron roof and window-pane
    It drummed a homely tune.

    And through the night it pattered still,
    And lightsome, gladsome elves
    On dripping spout and window-sill
    Kept talking to themselves.

    It pelted, pelted all day long,
    A-singing at its work,
    Till every heart took up the song
    Way out to Back-o’Bourke.

    And every creek a banker ran,
    And dams filled overtop;
    “We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    “If this rain doesn’t stop.”

    And stop it did, in God’s good time;
    And spring came in to fold
    A mantle o’er the hills sublime
    Of green and pink and gold.

    And days went by on dancing feet,
    With harvest-hopes immense,
    And laughing eyes beheld the wheat
    Nid-nodding o’er the fence.

    And, oh, the smiles on every face,
    As happy lad and lass
    Through grass knee-deep on Casey’s place
    Went riding down to Mass.

    While round the church in clothes genteel
    Discoursed the men of mark,
    And each man squatted on his heel,
    And chewed his piece of bark.

    “There’ll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
    There will, without a doubt;
    We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
    “Before the year is out.”

    John O’Brien 1921

  37. Richard Treadgold on October 9, 2016 at 5:49 pm said:

    @Dennis,

    The Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Society for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society …

    First, listen to Richard C, Andy and Magoo.

    For myself, I say those and other honourable societies and universities, long venerated, have recently regrettably been taken over by climate activists. All of them, starting with the Royal Society, have substantial portions of their membership which refuse to take leave of their senses. You can rely on many of their members to tell you the truth, but you cannot rely on the societies’ and universities’ spokesmen to do other than misinform you in accordance with the orthodox view.

    It’s possible to test for yourself the truth of this: simply read what they say. You’ll find a statement or declaration on climate change on their web sites. All of them reference the IPCC as their authority. It’s a long-winded process, but it’s entirely possible to follow up each piece of evidence in the various Assessment Reports and find a) no evidence; b) doubtful evidence; c) disputed evidence; or d) evidence so mild everyone agrees with it. But it does require an open mind to follow it through.

  38. Funnily enough it was Chris de Freitas who directed me to the IPCC reports. I emailed him once to give him support when certain lowlifes were trying to get him fired from Auckland Uni, and he thanked me and told me most of what I needed to know was in the Working Group I section of the IPCC report – he told me not to bother with the rest of the IPCC report, albeit in a subtler manner. I’ve never had any problem debating alarmists ever since as they can’t dispute the sources I use, they usually just resort to abuse instead as a last resort.

  39. Richard C (NZ) on October 9, 2016 at 7:27 pm said:

    Andy got banned from Gareth Morgan’s Facebook page for quoting IPCC WG1.

    Sure we don’t have to step outside WG1 to support our non-cataclysmic case but WG1 based arguments get talk-to-the-hand from the catastrophists.

  40. ALL arguments get talk-to-the-hand from the catastrophists, they’re a lost cause.

  41. Dennis N Horne on October 9, 2016 at 7:57 pm said:

    Of course sources can be disputed, for all sorts of reasons:

    Global surface is obviously warming :

    http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

    You wanted evidence — there it is.

    Didn’t students complain about de Freitas teaching them crap?

  42. I had a bit of an epiphany today reading the last pages of “SJWs always lie”, when the author refers to Aristotle and his concepts of Dialectic and Rhetoric

    Dialectic is a process based on logic, rationality and dispassionate observation of facts

    Rhetoric is a persuasion tool that appeals more to emotion and irrationality

    A useful exercise is to examine our own arguments and ask whether they are dialectic or rhetoric.

    Vox Day, the author of “SJWs always lie”, claims that using rhetoric to counter rhetoric is known as “trolling”

    He also claims that the two thought processes are like different languages, which explains so much to me

  43. Dennis N Horne on October 9, 2016 at 9:23 pm said:

    Assessing recent trends in high-latitude Southern Hemisphere surface climate
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html
    Discussion
    Climate change and variability over the high latitudes of the SH are
    characterized by strong regional and seasonal contrasts for all the
    variables investigated here. This is valid at interannual to decadal
    timescales, as illustrated in instrumental observations, as well as
    on longer timescales, as indicated in proxy-based reconstructions.

    The most unequivocal large-scale change over recent decades is
    the increase of the SAM index19 and the freshening and subsurface
    warming of the ocean23,24,41. Regionally, a large warming has been
    observed over the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctic regions
    across the past 50  years. SIE has decreased in the Amundsen–
    Bellingshausen Seas while it has increased in the Ross Sea sector
    since 1979.

    The large multi-decadal variations seen in high-resolution
    proxy-based reconstructions of temperature and SIE also have clear
    regional contrasts. Some estimates suggest common signals over
    the whole Southern Ocean, such as the decrease of the ice extent
    between the 1950s and the late 1970s deduced from whaling records
    (for example refs 86–88), but this remains to be confirmed by the
    analysis of additional observations. The longer records independently
    support the conclusion that most of the recent changes for
    any single variable largely result from natural variability and are not
    unprecedented over the past two centuries. This is consistent with
    results from state-of-the-art climate models showing that, except for
    the SAM index, most recent changes remain in the range of largescale
    simulated internal variability. When analysing specifically the
    1979–2014 period, including forced changes and internal variability,
    models struggle to track the observed trends in SST, SAT and
    sea-ice cover. This suggests either that a singular event associated
    with internal variability has been able to overwhelm the forced
    response in observations, or that CMIP5 models overestimate the
    forced response (potentially partly because of key processes missing
    in the models), or a combination of both.
    Recent observations and process understanding of the atmosphere,
    sea ice, ocean and ice sheets suggest strong coupling, which
    means that investigations need to encompass and understand the
    dynamics of the whole climate system. Statistics independently
    applied to a few large-scale metrics may not allow a robust comparison
    between observed and simulated trends. Regional and
    seasonal complexity89 as well as physical relationships between different
    climate variables must be taken into account to evaluate the
    overall consistency of observed and modelled time-evolving climate
    states, and to identify caveats. We advocate process-oriented studies
    in which the primary mechanisms behind modelled behaviour are
    identified and their plausibility evaluated against available observations
    and theory.

  44. Dennis, can you give us the executive summary of the main points above?

  45. Maggy Wassilieff on October 10, 2016 at 11:15 am said:

    A few points about the Jones et al paper “Assessing recent trends in high-latitude Southern Hemisphere surface climate”

    1. It seems to have been in an online blackhole for a while (accepted 29 June, published online 28Sep 2016).
    Such a pity for the authors missed
    John Turner et al 2016: “The absence of 21st Century warming on Antarctic peninsula consistent with natural variability” Nature 535: 411-415.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v535/n7612/full/nature18645.html

    (Antarctic Peninsula cooling since 1998, with a cooling rate of 0.5deg C/decade)

    2. Jones et al report a shift toward a +ve SAM.
    But this is not a recent trend…. check out their reference to Abram N.J. et al 2014: Evolution of the Southern Annular Mode during the last Millenium. Nat.Clim. Change 4: 564-569
    (The SAM undergoes large centennial variability…. been a shift toward the +ve phase since the 15th Century)

  46. Dennis N Horne on October 10, 2016 at 1:27 pm said:

    (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v535/n7612/full/nature18645.html)

    http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/naturalsciences/climatechange/newssummary/news_21-7-2016-14-32-50

    Natural variation caused temporary cooling at Antarctic Peninsula, shows study
    by Simon Levey. Adapted from a press release by British Antarctic Survey. 21 July 2016

    New research suggests rapid warming at the Antarctic Peninsula has ‘paused’ but this does not mean global warming has halted, says an Imperial expert.

    The northern sector of the Antarctic Peninsula, which sticks out from the main continent, was one of the regions of the world where warming was greatest during the early 1950s to the late 1990s. Now it has levelled off whilst other areas of the world continue warming, according to a study published by British Antarctic Survey (BAS) this week in the journal Nature.

    “Scientists have long understood that global warming reflects an average change in climate across the planet. This means it won’t lead to temperatures rising at the same rate continuously, everywhere and at once – and some areas will cool,” explained Professor Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, at Imperial College London.

    Professor Siegert is a leading Antarctic glaciologist who has led many research campaigns to investigate changes to the Antarctic ice sheets. He gave his expert view on it at a press conference on Tuesday.

    Global temperature changes over the second half of the 21st Century
    Stabilisation of a hole in the ozone layer, along with natural climate variability in wind patterns, were significant in bringing about the pause, according to the BAS scientists who led the study. Together these influences are temporarily masking the warming effect caused by record levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Although the peninsula has entered a temporary cooling phase, temperatures remain higher than those measured during the middle of the twentieth century and Antarctic glaciers are still melting. The study’s authors predict that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise at the current rate, temperatures will increase across the Antarctic Peninsula by several degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

    Lead author, Professor John Turner of British Antarctic Survey said: “The Antarctic Peninsula climate system shows large natural variations, which can overwhelm the signals of human-induced global warming.

    “Our study highlights the complexity and difficulty of attributing effect to cause. The ozone hole, sea ice and westerly winds have been significant in influencing regional climate change in recent years. Even in a generally warming world, over the next couple of decades, temperatures in this region may go up or down, but our models predict that in the longer term greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in temperatures by the end of the 21st Century.”

    A wide range of climate data was analysed for this study, including atmospheric circulation fields, sea-ice records, ocean surface temperatures and meteorological observations from six Antarctic Peninsula research stations with near-continuous records extending back to the 1950s.

    Professor Siegert said, “This study uncovers an important interplay between the ozone layer and the wind in of the world’s most challenging and extreme environments.”

    “It begs a question as to the climate variability in other regions of Antarctica – where there is far more ice with the potential to melt and cause sea-level rise – as well as in the Arctic and other locations.”

    In the last month, the levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere above Antarctica rose past the 400 parts per million milestone, contrasting with the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million recorded in Antarctic ice cores. Climate model simulations predict that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase at currently projected rates their warming effect will dominate over natural variability (and the cooling effect associated with recovering ozone levels) and there will be a warming of several degrees across the region by the end of this century.

    “While it is true, as some have pointed out, that Antarctic melting is predominantly affected by the warming ocean, we cannot exclude the effect of atmospheric conditions,” Professor Siegert added.

    The area covered by this analysis amounts to one per cent of the Antarctic continent – about the size of England. Floating ice shelves border much of the continent, and act as a buttress that prevents ice from flowing from the land into the sea. When warmer air temperatures cause the surface of the ice shelves to melt, this can lead to them rapidly disintegrating.

    “This is particularly worrying, as the Antarctic land ice could be lost much faster without the support from the ice shelves, making them more vulnerable to the effects of climate change,” Professor Siegert explained.

    Scientists are now pursuing further research to understand how the variability in climate affects global temperature conditions.

    “We will be in a better position to predict how Antarctica may change in the coming century,” said Professor Siegert.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 1:37 pm said:

    >”Global surface is obviously warming : http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/ You wanted evidence — there it is.”

    Still living in the past Dennis. Scroll down to the hotlink ‘More recent data’ and you get this data page:

    Estimated Global Land-Surface TAVG based on the Complete Berkeley Dataset 08-Sep-2016
    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Full_TAVG_complete.txt

    1999 2 1.477
    2002 2 1.496
    2003 12 1.500
    2007 4 1.469
    2008 3 1.579
    2015 10 1.536
    2016 8 1.511

    What you have referenced is evidence of NO surface warming this century. Same as was near enough 17 and half years ago at the end of the 20th Century.

    If theoretical CO2 forcing was actually effective, the August anomaly SHOULD be up around 2.00 by now. Obviously not in both cases.

  48. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 1:43 pm said:

    >Professor John Turner of British Antarctic Survey said: “The Antarctic Peninsula climate system shows large natural variations, which can overwhelm the signals of human-induced global warming.”

    Yes, this was the joke doing the rounds a couple of months ago.

    Translation: We’re very sorry, but we can’r find any human induced global warming signals. Natural variation overwhelms everthing. It’s a travesty.

  49. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 2:07 pm said:

    Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013

    “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”

    That’s by just over 1 year and 9 month’s time at 20 June 2018. Also something fundamentally wrong with GHG RF forcing theory given that is what the GCMs implement.

  50. Dennis, could you give the executive summary of the last comment please?

    These huge cut and pastes just get ignored.

    Cheers

  51. Richard Treadgold on October 10, 2016 at 2:28 pm said:

    @Andy,

    Dennis, could you give the executive summary of the last comment please?

    Yes, the paper seems to be saying that man-made warming cannot overwhelm natural variation, but I find it strange that Dennis should so argue.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 4:09 pm said:

    ‘Backflip: Antarctic peninsula, posterchild of Polar disaster, has been cooling not warming’

    July 23rd, 2016, JoNova

    The “fastest warming place” on Planet Earth wasn’t warming. A new Antarctic study [Turner et al (2016)] wipes out 20 years of panic about the West Antarctic Peninsula.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/07/backflip-antarctic-peninsula-posterchild-of-polar-disaster-has-been-cooling-not-warming/

    Don’t mention the volcanoes

    The edge of the Pacific plate, and a volcanic chain runs under those red dots on the map below. Note where the heating is in the paired other map of Antarctica. Hmm? Is magma hot enough to melt ice…

    Indeed, one researcher recently described the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctic is sitting on a “stovetop burner”.

    So glaciers could still be melting down this neck of the woods, but there might be natural causes for that too. Likewise oceans may be warming around here as well, but then I don’t suppose anyone at the BBC or ABC will mention the hot magma underfoot.

    Antarctic Volacanoes – Antarctic Warming
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/volcano/antarctic-volcano-twaites.gif

    All those past stories that told us manmade emissions were destroying Antarctica — forget them. We don’t know what the cause is:

    Lead author, Professor John Turner of British Antarctic Survey says: ‘The Antarctic Peninsula is one of the most challenging places on Earth on which to identify the causes of decade-to-decade temperature changes.’

    Now they tell us.

    # # #

    What we were reading back in July.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 6:37 pm said:

    BOM September failure — but who can predict the climate a whole month ahead? – JoNova

    The World’s Best Practice climate models predicted Australia would be hotter than normal in September, instead the maximum temperature anomaly was 1 to 5 degrees below average across most of Australia. That long range prediction was made all the way back on August 21. Four weeks later it was obvious it was wrong.

    Prediction of a hot September versus actual outcome. (Click to enlarge).

    Thanks to Warwick Hughes who saw this failure coming ‘BoM max temperature Outlook for September heading for fails’ http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4704

    and The Marcus Review who points out the mismatch and goes on to log how much the BOM predictions for October have transformed from hotter than average to cold cold cold. The BOM bravely predicted Tasmania would have an 80% chance of having hotter than average maximums. Temperatures ended up being spot on average. What’s 80% certainty worth? About the same as 95%.

    Thanks to Chris Gillham who pointed out the big cold blob of ocean surrounding Australia on the south and west that gave Perth its coldest ever September nights.
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/ocean/sst/noaa-nesdis-ocean-sst-temp-sept-2016-m.gif
    Wasn’t that cold blob present on August 21 when those models were run? On August 25th, the BOM predicted Perth’s chances of being cooler than average at 50:50. Toss a coin, or use a climate model? The prevailing winds for Tassie come straight off the cold sea.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/bom-september-failure-but-who-can-predict-the-climate-a-whole-month-ahead/

    # # #

    BOM seems to want UKMO’s preeminent failure status.

  54. Dennis N Horne on October 10, 2016 at 6:46 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Look at the graphs instead of plucking out a few figures like feathers. Birdbrain.

    http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

  55. Dennis N Horne on October 10, 2016 at 7:02 pm said:

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Natural variation is very large and any signal difficult to see. It warmed markedly for years now it’s cooling a bit, on the surface. Warming water is more deleterious.

    If you see evidence here for no global warming you don’t understand climate science and misread the paper. Same can be said about the Jones et al (+Renwick) paper.

    The Antarctic is losing ice.

  56. “Natural variation is very large and any signal difficult to see”

    Yes I think most of us agree on that one.

    It does rather contradict the alarmist narrative though, wouldn’t you say?

  57. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 7:44 pm said:

    >”Look at the graphs instead of plucking out a few figures like feathers. Birdbrain.”

    Who is really the birdbrain here Dennis?

    The graph you link to is of annually averaged anomalies and well out of date. BEST is the black line. The highest annual anomaly on the black line is just above 1C back around 2005. Zoom in to 400% and take a long hard look:

    High Resolution
    http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-comparison.pdf

    By your reference, global temperature was considerably LESS at the end of the series than 2005 and 2001/2 at the beginning of this century.

    But you are living in the past Dennis. That is an out of date graph. There’s a lot of data in since then including for a strong 2016 El Nino which hikes up the annual average anomaly well above 1C: I’ve already linked to the data sheet for this:

    2016 2 1.484 Max Annual Average Anomaly over El Nino period
    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Full_TAVG_complete.txt

    February 2016 is where the maximum annually averaged anomaly (1.484) occurs in BEST, not way back in 2005 (6 1.056) in the graph you link to. You cannot claim, as ideologically driven climate scientists Schmidt Rahmstorf Sherwood Foster Mann and UKMO do, that the 2016 El Nino spike is AGW – it has GONE now. The latest BEST monthly anomaly AFTER the El Nino is 1.511 as I showed previously. It was 2.177 in February at peak El Nino.

    1.511 is actually a typical monthly anomaly since February 1999.

    Monthly Anomalies
    1999 2 1.477
    2002 2 1.496
    2003 12 1.500 << Moderate El Nino
    2007 4 1.469 << Weak El Nino
    2008 3 1.579
    2015 10 1.536
    2016 8 1.511

    There's been no warming this century of any significance. Again, what you have referenced is evidence of NO surface warming this century. Same as was near enough 17 and half years ago at the end of the 20th Century.

    If theoretical CO2 forcing was actually effective, the August anomaly SHOULD be up around 2.00 by now. Obviously not in both cases.

    A tip Dennis. Before throwing around "feathers" and "birdbrain" comments directed at others – check your own perch.

  58. Richard Treadgold on October 10, 2016 at 7:50 pm said:

    @Dennis,

    The Antarctic is losing ice.

    That’s not necessarily evidence of warming.

    Answer my questions.

  59. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 8:07 pm said:

    >”If you see evidence here for no global warming you don’t understand climate science”

    Oh I understand it VERY well Dennis, GHG-based RF theory DEMANDS a human-induced global warming signal. Climate scientists are besotted with their theory so they just “know” their signal is there SOMEWHERE, hidden away, “masked”, undetectable, overwhelmed by natural variation, but it’s there – trust them, they’re climate scientists.

    It will take a few years yet to shake them from their theory but look upthread and you see a glimmer of objectivity, here again:

    Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013

    “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”

    So in just over 1 year and 9 months time at 20 June 2018 von Storch implies climate science will have to face some unpalatable reality in respect to their climate models. That has been laid out by the IPCC in 2013 of course e.g. neglect of natural variation for starters.

    Equally unpalatable obviously will be the necessity to seriously question GHG-based RF forcing theory given that is what the GCMs implement, also alluded to by the IPCC in 2013.

  60. Dennis N Horne on October 10, 2016 at 8:53 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Go to Specsavers. Look at the graphs. Warming trend. Up 1C.

  61. Dennis N Horne on October 10, 2016 at 9:11 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Only a lunatic denies the greenhouse effect due to greenhouse gases.

    Earth is warming. It’s measured, not modelled. Is it CO2 or the hand of god?

    Hmmm.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 9:16 pm said:

    >”Warming trend. Up 1C.”

    That is NOT a “trend” Dennis. IC is the 2005 annual ANOMALY in your out of date BEST graph.

    Anomaly and trend are entirely different concepts. I know Warmies struggle with this distinction so your utter confusion doesn’t surprise me.

    The latest monthly anomaly is 1.511C. That is obviously not a “trend” either. It is just a typical no-change anomaly since February 1999.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 9:19 pm said:

    >”Climate scientists are besotted with their theory so they just “know” their signal is there SOMEWHERE, hidden away, “masked”, undetectable, overwhelmed by natural variation, but it’s there – trust them, they’re climate scientists”

    “Masked” seems to be a conventional climate science term:

    Claim: natural variation ‘masked’ global warming, creating ‘the pause’ – From McGill University’s Shaun Lovejoy
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/21/claim-natural-variation-masked-global-warming-creating-the-pause/

  64. Dennis N Horne on October 10, 2016 at 9:20 pm said:

    [DNH] “Natural variation is very large and any signal difficult to see”

    [Andy] “Yes I think most of us agree on that one. It does rather contradict the alarmist narrative though, wouldn’t you say?”

    No. Antarctica is a very cold and very large place. The scientists looked at 1%. That warmed about 2.8C between 1951 and 2000. Now cooling slightly.

    The global mean temperature has gone up 1C since the Industrial Revolution, most of that in the last 50 years, noting some 90% of the ‘extra’ energy retained by the ‘extra’ CO2 has ended up in the oceans.

  65. Dennis N Horne on October 10, 2016 at 9:29 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    What are you talking about you? Where does 2005 come into it?

    There is an obvious trend and the global mean has gone up 1C, mostly in the last 50 years.

  66. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 9:30 pm said:

    >”Only a lunatic denies the greenhouse effect due to greenhouse gases.”

    The theory is an ENHANCED greenhouse effect Dennis. As implemented in the CO2-forced climate models.

    And a theory implementation that has to be seriously questioned in the near future according to von Storch. And already questioned by the IPCC in Chapter 9 Evaluation of Climate Models in respect to CO2.

    If there isn’t any radical warming between now and 2018 (von Storch, UKMO) the theory is a BUST at surface. It already is at TOA.

    I’ll be kind and give them to 2020.

  67. Dennis N Horne on October 10, 2016 at 9:40 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Keep wriggling.

    But just for you I’ll state the facts again.

    More CO2 means more energy retained. Temperatures up. Ice melting, lost. Predicted. Observed. Measured.

  68. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 9:42 pm said:

    >”What are you talking about you? Where does 2005 come into it?”

    2005 is the 1C annual anomaly in your out of date BEST graph Dennis. Look at the graph you referenced below and the data sheet for it.

    >”There is an obvious trend and the global mean has gone up 1C,

    Again, 1C was the 2005 anomaly in your out of date graph:

    Graph
    http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/annual-comparison-small.png

    More recent data
    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Full_TAVG_complete.txt

    The “obvious trend” was 1970 – 2000. There has been no warming trend since then.

    >”mostly in the last 50 years”

    Actually only about the last 30 years of the 20th Century. Since than Nada.

  69. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 9:43 pm said:

    >”Keep wriggling”

    Says Arch-wriggler Dennis Horne.

  70. Richard C (NZ) on October 10, 2016 at 9:55 pm said:

    >”More CO2 means more energy retained”

    In their RF theory yes, a couple of thousand ZetaJoules since 1750.

    And that’s the IPCC’s major problem Dennis (actually an indictment). They have no atmospheric warming to point to this century at a time when industrial emissions have been greatest in the industrial era. They admit that in AR5.

    So to account for their theory blowout they must have the bulk of the excess energy simply dissipating to space as OLR i.e. NOT “retained”. Then they MUST have an anthro ocean warming attribution to account for the residual.

    That’s where their scientific fraud comes in. They have no physical evidence for their anthro ocean warming attribution.

    We have already covered all this elsewhere of course. This thread being about adjusted temperatures last century, and a lack of warming in relatively unadjusted temperature this century.

  71. Dennis N Horne on October 10, 2016 at 9:56 pm said:

    http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
    Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.

    No, 1C was the estimate I gave for the increase in the global mean temperature.

    No, 2005 is irrelevant. Overall, the graph shows the upward trend. Go to Specsavers.

    No, the graph is not out of date.

  72. Dennis N Horne on October 10, 2016 at 10:01 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Recently, every month every year has had record temperatures.

    Of course most of the ‘extra’ energy is going into the oceans. They cover most of the surface and are the biggest heat sink.

  73. Maggy Wassilieff on October 10, 2016 at 11:05 pm said:

    Dennis wrote at 9:40pm…”ice melting”. Lost.

    But the gains in snow/ice in Antarctica are offsetting losses.
    Net gain of 112 billion tons ice/year between 1992-2001
    Net gain of 82 billion tons ice/year between 2003-2008.

    Zwally et al 2015 : Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses. Journal of Glaciology 61
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2015/00000061/00000230/art00001

  74. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 12:35 am said:

    [BEST] >”The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”

    Again, this is NOT a “trend” as you previously implied Dennis. It is simply a difference in climate regimes, That statement is from their preliminary end of series 2011 results:

    A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011

    We [BEST] find that the global land mean temperature (comparing the average of the period 2001-2010 with that of 1951-1960) has increased by 0.90 ± 0.05°C

    http://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf

    That is not a trend. The statement takes no cognizance of what has happened in the 21st Century, simply that there was a climate regime about 1951 – 1960 that was 0.9C cooler than a regime 2000- 2010 (the end of series at that time). Prior to that it was warmer in the 1940s regime than the subsequent 1970s.

    This was their series to 2010.33 at that time (beginning at 1999 to show 21st Century only):
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1999

    Obviously the last datapoints in that version are garbage.

    >”No, 1C was the estimate I gave for the increase in the global mean temperature.”

    Your statement was – “Warming trend. Up 1C.” You gave no start and end dates. How was anyone to know what you are talking about? BEST’s 1C is NOT in respect to trend. There is no difference between an anomaly up 1C at 1999 or 2002 or 2010 or 2016 from 1951 – 1960 i.e. there has been no warming this Century. The IPCC made a miss-attribution to a 30 year hike and now they look like idiots along with everyone else that has been sucked in by their error.

    1C over 50 years is a 2C/Century trend. Obviously that is absurd. So a linear trend analysis has to be broken down to decadal per decade sections (see next comment). The IPCC admits the per decade trend this century is negligible and way short of GHG forcing-based predictions.

    >”2005 is irrelevant.”

    High Resolution (Zoom in 400%)
    http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-comparison.pdf

    Well, 2005 is the warmest anomaly (1C) in your out of date graph Dennis. So it certainly is relevant in the context of your reference. The last anomaly was only about 0.75C in that graph. BEST have revised their series since then.

    2005 and 2010.33 in the context of latest BEST version anomalies:

    Year, Month, Monthly, Annual
    1999 2 1.477 0.624
    2002 2 1.496 0.974
    2005 6 0.966 1.056
    2005 10 1.338 0.988
    2010 4 1.308 1.015 <“Overall, the graph shows the upward trend. Go to Specsavers. No, the graph is not out of date.”

    The graph is out of date Dennis, it is to 2010/11 or thereabouts. Look at the data sheet, look at the graph. There is no correspondence between that graph and their data 2005 – 2016.

    There is no warming this Century (to September 2016) when El Ninos/La Ninas are eliminated. The monthly anomaly AFTER the 2016 El Nino is about the same as February 1999 and typical of the 21st Century. The latest monthly anomaly is all that matters because it is closest to what actually exists now.

    >”Recently, every month every year has had record temperatures.”

    So what? We have also just had a strong El Nino in a no-change climate regime this century.

    >”Of course most of the ‘extra’ energy is going into the oceans. They cover most of the surface and are the biggest heat sink.”

    Except there is massive “extra” GHG energy far greater than OHC gain Dennis. And there is also “extra” solar” energy at TOA even in the IPCC’s TOA RF paradigm. There is also “extra” solar energy at surface but the IPCC threw out ‘surface forcing’ in AR4.

    The problem for the IPCC is: Their “extra” GHG energy is blowing out wildly i.e. increasing every year. But the earth’s energy imbalance either at TOA or surface isn’t. The imbalance is a constant fluctuation i.e. no climate change by IPCC definition.

  75. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 12:52 am said:

    >”1C over 50 years is a 2C/Century trend. Obviously that is absurd. So a linear trend analysis has to be broken down to decadal per decade sections (see next comment).”

    ‘Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures’

    Richard A. Muller1,2,3, Judith Curry4, Donald Groom2, Robert Jacobsen1,2, Saul Perlmutter1,2, Robert Rohde3, Arthur Rosenfeld1,2, Charlotte Wickham5, Jonathan Wurtele1,2

    6. Summary and Discussion

    Given that the 2-15 year variations in world temperature are so closely linked to the AMO raises (or re-raises) an important ancillary issue: to what extent does the 65-70 year cycle in AMO contribute to the global average temperature change? (Enfield, 2006; Zhang et al., 2007; Kerr, 1984.) Since 1975, the AMO has shown a gradual but steady rise from -0.35 C to +0.2 C (see Figure 2), a change of 0.55 C. During this same time, the land-average temperature has increased about 0.8 C. Such changes may be
    independent responses to a common forcing (e.g. greenhouse gases); however, it is also possible that some of the land warming is a direct response to changes in the AMO region. If the long-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases then the AMO region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the long-term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.

    http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf

    # # #

    Until multi-decadal variability/oscillation (MDV, MDO) is accounted for in global climate models there can be no anthropogenic attribution to a rising phase of MDV.

    MDV is a signal on top of the secular trend (ST). The ST in GMST should correspond to the GCM model mean but it is way too high.

    See,

    ‘Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record’
    Diego Macias , Adolf Stips, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz (2014)
    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107222

  76. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 1:02 am said:

    Correction, some lines went AWOL

    Year, Month, Monthly, Annual
    1999 2 1.477 0.624
    2002 2 1.496 0.974
    2005 6 0.966 1.056
    2005 10 1.338 0.988
    2010 4 1.308 1.015 <“Overall, the graph shows the upward trend. Go to Specsavers. No, the graph is not out of date.”

    The graph is out of date Dennis, it is to 2010/11 or thereabouts. Look at the data sheet, look at the graph. There is no correspondence between that graph and their data 2005 – 2016.

  77. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 1:11 am said:

    I’ll try this again without pointers. Correction, some lines went AWOL

    Year, Month, Monthly, Annual
    1999 2 1.477 0.624
    2002 2 1.496 0.974
    2005 6 0.966 1.056
    2005 10 1.338 0.988
    2010 4 1.308 1.015 …End of woodfortrees BEST series. About 0.75C annual on your graph Dennis
    2013 11 1.316 0.988
    2016 8 1.511
    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Full_TAVG_complete.txt

    >“Overall, the graph shows the upward trend. Go to Specsavers. No, the graph is not out of date.”

    The graph is out of date Dennis, it is to 2010/11 or thereabouts. Look at the data sheet, look at the graph. The clue is in the title of their paper:

    ‘A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011’

    And there is no correspondence between that graph and their data 2005 – 2016. The graph is out of date now but was in respect to their 2011 paper.

  78. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 7:29 am said:

    Dennis

    IPCC SPM Figure 1 Decadal Average illustrates what I’m trying to get through to you:

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

    From: Report Graphics – Summary for Policymakers
    http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/reports-graphic/report-graphics/

    BEST’s graph does not show the 2010 El Nino as the SPM figure (HadCRUT4) does. BEST’s graph is out of date. That is perfectly clear from BEST’s ‘Recent’ data sheet and SPM Figure 1..

    There was only 2 decades of warming 1980 – 2000 in the SPM Figure, about 0.5C. Considerably less than BEST’s 0.9C 1950s – 2000s..

    But you are looking at Northern Hemisphere skew. The GISS latitudinal breakdown tells a different story:

    GISS: Northern Extratropics, Tropics, Southern Extratropics
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Temperature_Change_for_Three_Latitude_Bands/graph.png

    Only 0.5C warming 1880 to 2015 in the SH Extratropics. The greatest hikes took place 1930 – 1945 and 1960 to 1970. 1970 was a climate shift that Salinger documented among others.

  79. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 7:45 am said:

    >”The IPCC made a miss-attribution to a 30 year hike and now they look like idiots along with everyone else that has been sucked in by their error.”

    Only a 20 year hike in their SPM Figure 1(a) Decadal Average

  80. Dennis N Horne on October 11, 2016 at 8:51 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
    This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2015 ranks as the warmest on record.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    Okay, never mind Specsavers. Get a blindfold.

    CO2

  81. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 8:56 am said:

    NCEP CFSR / CFSv2 Global 2-metre Temperature Anomaly, 1981-2010 climatology

    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

    Oct 2015 – Oct 2016 Northern Hemisphere, Mean, Southern Hemisphere
    http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cdas_v2_hemisphere_2016.png

    # # #

    Last 10-years: 0.171°C Mean
    Last 5-years: 0.166°C Mean

    2016 Global YTD: 0.481°C
    2016 NHEMI YTD: 0.696°C
    2016 SHEMI YTD: 0.266°C

    2016 Global MTD: 0.401°C
    2016 NHEMI MTD: 0.530°C
    2016 SHEMI MTD: 0.272°C

    Southern Hemisphere has been bumping along zero anomaly

  82. Dennis N Horne on October 11, 2016 at 8:58 am said:

    Black is white and blue is green
    Science denial is obscene
    Always wrong never learn
    Carbon we must not burn
    The atmosphere needs a clean

  83. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 9:14 am said:

    >”The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998.”

    Thankyou for defining the “Hiatus” in GMST Dennis. It has already been done by many others but your contribution is appreciated, albeit belatedly.

    >”The year 2015 ranks as the warmest on record.”

    As we would expect given the El Nino spike:

    Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly (C)
    ——————————————–
    Year+Month Station Land+Ocean
    2001.88 0.78 0.70
    2001.96 0.72 0.55
    2002.04 0.96 0.75
    2002.13 0.89 0.76
    2002.21 1.12 0.91

    2014.04 0.94 0.74
    2014.54 0.73 0.57
    2014.96 0.98 0.79

    2015.04 0.95 0.82
    2015.13 1.08 0.87
    2015.21 1.11 0.90
    2015.29 0.75 0.74
    2015.38 0.86 0.78
    2015.46 0.83 0.78
    2015.54 0.69 0.72
    2015.63 0.88 0.78
    2015.71 0.78 0.81
    2015.79 1.18 1.07
    2015.88 1.18 1.01
    2015.96 1.40 1.10

    2016.04 1.38 1.15
    2016.13 1.62 1.32
    2016.21 1.62 1.28
    2016.29 1.34 1.08
    2016.38 1.18 0.93
    2016.46 0.94 0.80
    2016.54 1.00 0.85
    2016.63 1.28 0.98

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.txt

  84. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 9:24 am said:

    [GISS] >”The year 2015 ranks as the warmest on record.”

    Satellites say otherwise:

    ‘No New Record? UAH Data Show 2016 Still Trails Behind 1998 Record Warm Year’

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/08/no-new-record-uah-data-show-2016-still-trails-behind-1998-record-warm-year/

  85. ironicman on October 11, 2016 at 10:24 am said:

    Dennis you are misguided, turn your back on NASA and think outside the square.

    Its my duty to inform you that regional cooling has begun and there is nothing we can do about it.

  86. Maggy Wassilieff on October 11, 2016 at 10:33 am said:

    @Dennis Horne,

    Thank you for those links discussing Zwally’s paper…. clearly not settled science.

    Did you read all the comments in the realclimate link?…. You should do so, especially what Prof Eric Steig writes….

    Anyway, seems the good folk at NoTricksZone caught up with Steig’s little gem that the West Antarctic instability predates any anthropogenic CO2 influence.

    http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/28/antarctica-expert-dr-eric-steig-evidence-antarctic-glacier-retreat-due-to-agw-is-weak/

  87. ironicman on October 11, 2016 at 10:47 am said:

    Dennis start afresh leaving out NASA and NOAA, then you will see regional cooling has begun .

  88. Dennis writes ditties about “science denial”. Dennis tells us that the anthropogenic signal is difficult to see in the sea of natural variability.
    Dennis tells us the world is doomed, because of this signal we can’t see.
    Dennis tells us that people who can’t accept the existence of the signal we can’t see are mentally ill.

  89. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 11:12 am said:

    Maggy

    “Like” #6:

    6. Schmithüsen et al., 2015

    ‘How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica’

    Holger Schmithüsen, Justus Notholt, Gert König-Langlo, Peter Lemke, Thomas Jung. First published: 14 December 2015

    “For this region [central Antarctica], the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. … For most of the Antarctic Plateau, GHE-TES [greenhouse effect as measured by the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer] is close to zero or even slightly negative; i.e., the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full

    Dennis will never grasp this. Nor will he want to even try to.

    Bonus is Figure 1:

    Calculations were performed using the line-by-line radiative transfer model ALFIP [Notholt et al., 2006]. Figure 1 shows the temperature profiles used in this work: monthly averages from South Pole station (data from 1994 to 2012) and the U.S. standard 1976 atmosphere for comparison.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015GL066749/asset/image_n/grl53769-fig-0001.png?v=1&s=5dd5728ede3b83db4c399d611a0260a4bbf2c76e

  90. Richard Treadgold on October 11, 2016 at 12:04 pm said:

    @Andy,

    Your summaries are genius.

  91. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 1:07 pm said:

    ‘Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) Experimental Design and Organization’

    Veronika Eyring, 16-18 May 2016, 2016 International Land Model Benchmarking (ILAMB) Workshop

    “A Central Goal of CMIP6 is Routine Evaluation of the Models with Observations”

    http://www.ilamb.org/meetings/washington2016/slides/P.9_Eyring_CMIP6FinalDesign_ILAMBWorkshop_160510.pdf

    # # #

    Novel approach. Should be fun given the CMIP6 timeline out to 2020 and what von Storch has gone on record with:

    Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013

    “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”

  92. Dennis N Horne on October 11, 2016 at 2:21 pm said:

    Maggy Wassilieff: “Anyway, seems the good folk at NoTricksZone caught up with Steig’s little gem that the West Antarctic instability predates any anthropogenic CO2 influence.”

    He said no such thing. (Besides, the shelves are losing ice by being undermined with warmer water [AGW] and that affects the stability of the sheets.)

    Dr. Eric Steig’s Comment 26:
    I think the evidence that the current retreat of Antarctic glaciers is owing to anthropogenic global warming is weak. The literature is mixed on this, about 50% of experts agree with me on this.”
    http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/28/antarctica-expert-dr-eric-steig-evidence-antarctic-glacier-retreat-due-to-agw-is-weak/

  93. Dennis N Horne on October 11, 2016 at 2:28 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ):
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
    Abstract
    CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.

    I am familiar with the paper and what it says and means. It means very high altitudes.

    Of course I’m not a [ad hom-self-inem deleted. Not an imbecile, so nobody called you this. Yet, you said it yourself; who am I stop you? What am I doing? – RT]

  94. Dennis N Horne on October 11, 2016 at 2:35 pm said:

    Andy

    We were discussing a signal in Antarctica which is very very large and very very cold, not anywhere else. However, as Richard says, it does show your genius.

    Antarctic ice shelves are melting dramatically:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/26/collapse-antarcticas-glaciers-ice-melt-sooner-than-thought-scientists-warn

  95. Off topic, but there is a climate change and business conference going on in Auckland right now

    Our glorious leaders are furiously tweeting about how they intend to cripple the economy

  96. Here is the link to that conference
    http://www.climateandbusiness.com/

  97. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 3:50 pm said:

    >”It means very high altitudes.”

    It means what it says – “the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling”.

    Radiative cooling is already predominant obviously, CO2 increases the cooling i.e. CO2 is an energy transfer medium and a surface coolant. The difference between South Pole and Tropics is humidity, (quotes from elsewhere) “the relative humidity of air at the South Pole is often as low as 0.03%” and “Equatorial Guinea has a typical tropical climate … climate is generally extremely humid (relative humidity is between 80 and 95%)”.

    The height contours are 1000m intervals. There is negative GHE between 0 – 1000m in SON and DJF.

    Figure 5: Mean difference in outgoing LW radiation at TOA for 15 day forecast with the ECMWF model for experiments with quadrupled to present-day CO2 concentrations.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015GL066749/asset/image_n/grl53769-fig-0005.png?v=1&s=4f2b0428633300d53e76785dba75d7c785f1339e

  98. Maggy Wassilieff on October 11, 2016 at 4:04 pm said:

    @ Dennis Horne 2;21pm

    I did suggest you read all of Eric Steig’s responses to the comments. (#12, 22, 31, 33)

    His response “yes, exactly” to comment #33 about “it’s not the instability that is due to anthropogenic factors”
    supports my earlier comment.

    Perhaps I was jumping ahead and assumed you may have been familiar with Ding & Steig 2013;

    This paper attributes sea-ice melting on western Antarctic peninsula to El Nino events….
    i.e. natural events in the Tropical Pacific govern weather/climate on the western Antarctic Peninsula.
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00729.1

  99. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 4:07 pm said:

    >”The difference between South Pole and Tropics is humidity,”

    And air temperature obviously. Goes without sayin’.

  100. Dennis N Horne on October 11, 2016 at 4:44 pm said:

    Maggy Wassilieff

    So he/they showed it was in no way related to AGW.

    Where?

    Ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water.

  101. Dennis N Horne on October 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    [Derogatory remark deleted. – RT] Try one step at at time.

    1. CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times.
    2. Like other GHGs, CO2 absorbs terrestrial LR and causes emission from the atmosphere to space.
    3. As the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, total LR to space is less than the surface emission.
    4. This does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica.
    5. For this region, emission to space is higher than the surface emission; GHE is 0 or negative,

    Losing most LR to space happens only in very high cold places. Elsewhere the GHE returns most LR to the surface.

    It is perfectly clear. [Derogatory remark deleted. Dennis, if you want to explain something, that’s helpful, but leave off the crap. – RT]

  102. Maggy Wassilieff on October 11, 2016 at 7:34 pm said:

    @Dennis Horne

    Perhaps this paper by Steig et al may present a clearer explanation of the role of tropical water fluxes on the undermining of the West Antarctica glaciers

    “Tropical forcing of Circumpolar Deep Water Inflow and outlet
    glacier thinning in the Amundsen Sea Embayment, West Antarctica”
    http://www.igsoc.org:8080/annals/53/60/a60A110.pdf

    Note how Steig et al point to significant warming in the central tropical Pacific during the 1940s as being a probable initiator of current ice shelf melting.

    Here’s a more popular version (but I think they’ve confused the Ozone-hole link, if you read the original paper)

    http://www.livescience.com/13643-warming-antarctica-linked-warm-pacific.html

    So, from my pov, I’m seeing natural events as being significant factors in the current melting of ice sheets in west Antarctica.

  103. Richard C (NZ) on October 11, 2016 at 8:48 pm said:

    >1. CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times.

    In theory. In reality – ““the presence of CO2 increases radiative cooling”.

    >2. Like other GHGs, CO2 absorbs terrestrial LR and causes emission from the atmosphere to space.

    Yes, exactly as I sid – “CO2 increases the cooling i.e. CO2 is an energy transfer medium and a surface coolant.”

    >3. As the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, total LR to space is less than the surface emission.

    I’ll defer to the paper in this case:

    “As the surface in most regions on Earth is warmer than the atmosphere, Tsurf4-Tatm4 in equation (1) is commonly positive; hence, the presence of the atmosphere reduces the TOA emission FTOA. Therefore, both the GHE and the instantaneous radiative forcing (−∂FTOA/∂εc) are usually positive. However, if the surface is colder than the atmosphere, the sign of the second term in equation (1) is negative. Consequently, the system loses more energy to space due to the presence of greenhouse gases. The GHE and the instantaneous radiative forcing turn negative. Furthermore, the energy loss to space FTOA then increases with increasing εatm.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full

    Note the subtle difference between “the presence of the atmosphere” and “the presence of greenhouse gases” (see 5 below).

    >”4. This does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica.”

    As in 3, it is simply whether Tsurf4-Tatm4 is positive or negative (and see 5 below).

    >”5. For this region, emission to space is higher than the surface emission; GHE is 0 or negative,”

    Rubbish. Tsurf4-Tatm4 is either positive or negative. GHE is either positive or negative.

    Where positive, it is “the presence of the atmosphere”.

    Anything with temperature radiates at T^4 according to S-B. AIR with temperature above 0 Kelvin radiates. Obviously tropical air has more temperature than Antarctic air and way more humid (80-95% vs 0.03%).

    There is most divergence of both tropics and poles from the Standard Atmosphere because air temperature varies most from Standard at the extremes.

    Where negative, it is “the presence of greenhouse gases”.

    >”Losing most LR to space happens only in very high cold places. Elsewhere the GHE returns most LR to the surface.”

    GHE in the paper is in respect to TOA – not surface. What makes the Antarctic different is the relative temperatures of stratosphere and surface:

    “An evaluation of monthly averages of GHETES shows that the increased cooling due to CO2 of Antarctica is strongest during austral spring and autumn; seasons when the stratosphere above 20km is mostly warmer than the surface. Even though the surface is coldest in austral winter, the temperature difference between the surface and stratosphere is not at its maximum then. Consequently, GHETES does not reach its minimum in austral winter. The TES results demonstrate that the yearly averages of GHETES being negative are unique to the Antarctic Plateau and nowhere else observed on the planet. This is due to the fact that Antarctica is the only region on Earth where the surface is frequently colder than the stratosphere.”

    Greenland just isn’t big enough. If there was a land mass th size of Antartica at the North Pole the situation would be the same. Even as it is GHE is weak over Greenland:

    “Over Greenland, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is also comparatively weak but invariably positive.”

    Today. Except if you look at the 4xCO2 scenario, negative GHE begins to emerge over Greenland:

    Figure 5: Mean difference in outgoing LW radiation at TOA for 15 day forecast with the ECMWF model for experiments with quadrupled to present-day CO2 concentrations.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015GL066749/asset/image_n/grl53769-fig-0005.png?v=1&s=4f2b0428633300d53e76785dba75d7c785f1339e

    See MAM Greenland. Also DJF Alaska/Canada.

  104. Dennis N Horne on October 12, 2016 at 2:42 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Resolute in your determination to misunderstand what is being explained to you.

    At very high cold places in Antarctica, there is no (little) LR from the surface for the GHGs to return to the surface. The GHGs still radiate to space, as they do everywhere. Since the energy is only (mainly) from the atmosphere there is a net cooling effect, ie it is colder than it would be without GHGs. In warmer places there is LR from the surface. The GHGs here are also radiating energy to space, which has a cooling effect, but there is an ongoing supply of energy from the surface, so there is net warming not net cooling. Yes, some energy is lost to space but more is returned to to the surface making it warmer than it would be without the GHGs/GHE. But the surface is only getting back energy it had in the first place.

    I know you struggle with concepts but you are among friends here and they will applaud your alternative explanations of reality.

    Meanwhile Earth continues warming more with more CO2.

  105. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 8:11 am said:

    >”At very high cold places in Antarctica, there is no (little) LR from the surface for the GHGs to return to the surface.

    First;ly. The paper neglects the most important factor that sets near-surface energy dynamics aprt from mid and upper troposphere. Can you think what is Dennis?. Clue is altitude but it is much much more than that.

    Secondly. Again, what you have stated is nonsense in respect to the paper’s methodology. It is simply whether Tsurf4-Tatm4 in equation (1) is positive or negative – “if the surface is colder than the atmosphere, the sign of the second term in equation (1) is negative. Consequently, the system loses more energy to space due to the presence of greenhouse gases.”

    And in the case of Antarctic the respective surface-stratosphere temperature – “The TES results demonstrate that the yearly averages of GHETES being negative are unique to the Antarctic Plateau and nowhere else observed on the planet. This is due to the fact that Antarctica is the only region on Earth where the surface is frequently colder than the stratosphere.”

    Thirdly. Positive GHE elsewhere is – “the presence of the atmosphere”.

    What this paper finds is heresy. That is why they had to insert the obligatory standard boilerplate disclaimer without which the paper would never have been published – think Climategate and Phil Jones vs Chris de Freitas) but it is appended with a contradiction:

    It is important to note that these results do not contradict the key statements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [Solomon et al., 2007; Ramaswamy et al., 2001; IPCC, 2013], namely, the well-known warming effect that CO2 has on the Earth’s climate. Yet we showed that for the cold Antarctic continent some care needs to be taken when discussing the direct warming effect of CO2.

    In Antarctica it is a “direct [cooling] effect” once the effect of warm air and humidity is stripped away (the most important near-surface factor is common – can you think what it is as above?).

    >”Meanwhile Earth continues warming more with more CO2.”

    Non-sequitur and false anyway.

    CO2 is totally ineffective as a TOA forcing. Theoretical currently 1.8 W.m-2 @ 400ppm and increasing rapidly but the TOA imbalance is only a constant 0.6 W.m-2 at TOA and surface. The surface forcing can only be solar because there is no other net flux into the surface in the surface energy budget.

    And there’s no “warming” in Antarctic Dennis. And no “warming” globally this Century. The theory is BUSTED.

  106. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 8:17 am said:

    >”What this paper finds is heresy. That is why they had to insert the obligatory standard boilerplate disclaimer without which the paper would never have been published – think Climategate and Phil Jones vs Chris de Freitas)…..”

    From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004:

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    What Climategate showed us is how corrupt climate science is.

  107. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 8:19 am said:

    Should be:

    “CO2 is totally ineffective as a TOA forcing. Theoretical currently [1.9] W.m-2 @ 400ppm and increasing rapidly but the TOA imbalance is only a constant 0.6 W.m-2 at TOA and surface”

  108. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 9:02 am said:

    ‘Interesting climate sensitivity analysis: Do variations in CO2 actually cause significant global warming?’

    October 10, 2016 by David Bennett Laing, Author, geologist, Earth systems scientist, ecologist, botanist, professor

    “For the record, I am a dedicated progressive and no friend of any of the fossil fuel industries, in which I have no investments whatsoever. I am simply concerned with doing science right and (to borrow a metaphor from Cervantes) with saving us from falling flat on our face by tilting at the wrong windmill.”
    ————
    Here in figure 1 is the Keeling curve, showing the steady increase in CO2 from 1959 to the present, as measured at the observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii:

    Figure1 – The Keeling curve of atmospheric CO2, Mauna Loa, HI
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/clip_image0026.jpg

    Notice that there is an annual cycle (small squiggles) superimposed on the general increasing trend. If you average the monthly records for these cycles for each year, you wind up with the curve in the inset, which shows that, on the average, CO2 reaches a maximum concentration in the month of May in the northern hemisphere, when the CO2 from the winter’s decaying vegetation has warmed up and can enter the atmosphere, and a minimum in September-October, when photosynthesis during the summer has used up some of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The difference between the maxima and the minima is about 6 parts per million (ppm).

    I have reproduced this inset curve for CO2, peaking in May, in the following graph as figure 2 (blue curve, all values in percent):

    Figure 2 Mean monthly value comparison of temperature, ozone, and carbon dioxide from 1975-1998
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/clip_image0045.png

    I took the NOAA record of northern hemisphere temperature anomalies (red curve, above) and gave it the same treatment for the 24-year period 1975 to 1998, when the globe warmed dramatically by nearly one degree centigrade. Notice that the temperature anomaly has its maximum value in March, two months before the maximum of the CO2 curve.

    Now, if variations in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had any effect on temperature, you would expect that the peak in CO2 would occur with or before the peak in temperature, but it actually occurs two months afterward, which shows that variations in atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly have a significant effect on temperature. Notice, however, that there is a very small up-tick in the temperature anomaly in June, showing that in fact CO2 actually does have a slight effect on temperature, but not a significant one.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/10/interesting-climate-sensitivity-analysis-do-variations-in-co2-actually-cause-global-significant-warming/

    # # #

    Hmmm……..CO2 lags temperature. Where have we seen that before?

  109. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 9:20 am said:

    >”I [David Bennett Laing] am simply concerned with doing science right and (to borrow a metaphor from Cervantes) with saving us from falling flat on our face by tilting at the wrong windmill.”

    TPW (NZSX) Trustpower Limited $7.420. Split tomorrow. TPW delists, two new companies list – TPX and TLT.

    $7.420 implies $3.71 each. The market will decide. I’m guessing TLT will slump. That would mean a significant loss of wealth from TPW.

    Could be wrong of course.

  110. Dennis N Horne on October 12, 2016 at 9:23 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    1. Antarctic surfaces absorb little energy from Sun, surface is very cold, esp at very high altitudes.
    2. GHGs radiate energy to space as they do everywhere.
    3. In AA the GHGs are not receiving energy from the surface so there is a net cooling.
    4. Elsewhere the GHGs receive energy from the surface so there is a net warming.
    5. This means Earth is +15 not -18 as it would be without the GHGs.

    Either that or science is a dream and a god created Earth 12,000 years ago complete with all the animals.

  111. Maggy Wassilieff on October 12, 2016 at 9:39 am said:

    @Richard C

    A couple of days back (8 Oct, 1:14pm; 1:47pm ) when presenting info from the NIWA 7SS you mentioned an abrupt +0.25C rise from 1997…

    Any thoughts whether this was a mathematical artifact (a fudge) or a climate shift?

    Some interesting papers on recent climate shifts mentioned in comments section of this new posting.
    https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/10/the-value-of-very-long-instrumental-data-series/#more-22244

  112. “5. This means Earth is +15 not -18 as it would be without the GHGs.”

    I don’t see how point (5) is derived from (1) to (4)

  113. In the “weather is not climate” dept, it is snowing heavily outside my house right now

  114. Dennis N Horne on October 12, 2016 at 9:54 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    The old hoary that CO2 lags temperature and therefore doesn’t cause warming, so loved by deniers’ poster-boy Bob Carter. Debunked more often than a sailor’s squeeze.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2

    First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
    Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing
    http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

    Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. D. R. Feldman et al
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

  115. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 10:03 am said:

    1 and 2 reiterate what everyone knows.

    3 is just stuff you are making up yourself Dennis. The paper says nothing of this, their methodology is nothing of that. The paper finds that the presence of GHGs in the Antarctic air INCREASES cooling:

    “if the surface is colder than the atmosphere, the sign of the second term in equation (1) is negative. Consequently, the system loses more energy to space due to the presence of greenhouse gases”

    The presence of GHGs in cold Antarctic air INCREASES cooling. You don’t see tis in the tropics because thew air is so much warmer and there is so much more humidity.

    >4. Elsewhere the GHGs receive energy from the surface so there is a net warming.

    Elsewhere the entire atmosphere receives energy from the surface so obviously for the tropics say, tropical air is warmer than Antarctic or Arctic air and the entire air mass radiates much much more. This has absolutely nothing to do with GHGs.

    Schmithüsen et al:

    ““As the surface in most regions on Earth is warmer than the atmosphere, Tsurf4-Tatm4 in equation (1) is commonly positive; hence, the presence of the atmosphere reduces the TOA emission FTOA.”

    >5. This means Earth is +15 not -18 as it would be without the GHGs.

    It is the presence of the entire air mass Dennis. GHE is subsequent dynamics i.e. a divergence from Standard Atmosphere. See Schmithüsen et al Figure 1:

    Figure 1 shows the temperature profiles used in this work: monthly averages from South Pole station (data from 1994 to 2012) and the U.S. standard 1976 atmosphere for comparison.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015GL066749/asset/image_n/grl53769-fig-0001.png?v=1&s=5dd5728ede3b83db4c399d611a0260a4bbf2c76e

    There is most divergence of both tropics and poles from the Standard Atmosphere because air temperature varies most from Standard at the extremes.

  116. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 10:10 am said:

    >”The old hoary that CO2 lags temperature”

    David Bennett Laing ably demonstrates that Mauna Loa CO2 peak occurs 2 months AFTER the temperature peak.

    Ergo, CO2 lags temperature.

  117. Dennis N Horne on October 12, 2016 at 10:30 am said:

    Maggy Wassilieff: [Alan Longhurst] https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/10/the-value-of-very-long-instrumental-data-series/#more-22244

    Steven Mosher | October 11, 2016 at 2:44 pm |

    [Alan Longhurst] “Steve. If you had read the piece, you would have seen that I chose a very selected set of GHCN data that originated in met services at least as competent as CRU and Goddard in ensuring the data were sound and not contaminated by station moves and so on.”

    1. you used the wrong data.
    2. the NWS have updated data since GHCN2
    3. A competent analyst would not use data that has been deprecated
    BY THE VERY PEOPLE YOU SITE AS COMPETENT

    [AL] ”For this text I wanted data that had not been homogenised with surrounding, perhaps less complete, stations or regions. I believe the resultant plots give a secure series of point temperature data from which some limited conclusions may be drawn.”

    1. GHCH V3 has raw data, if you knew anything you would have checked. You didnt
    2. It is a tested and scientifically “proven” fact that failure to correct
    for changes in observation practices, will give you corrupt
    data. The raw data is corrupt .
    3. your beliefs about what is secure are not science.

    [AL] “I’m sorry you don’t agree, but there it is. I think its a perfectly respectable approach to a difficult problem.”

    1. Using the wrong data ? FAIL
    2. Using the wrong data for a bogus reason ( its NOT the only source
    of raw data. FAIL
    3. failure to provide a copy of the data as used. FAIL
    4. failure to supply code documenting what you did. FAIL
    5. failure to rigorously justify the use of corrupt raw data. FAIL
    ==================================================

    Maggy, I know you can’t see why I generally disregard your links to the denier sites, but here is a typical example of the reason. They fill your head with junk science. I don’t have enough time left at my age to learn climate science and swim through the bullshite from cranks.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation