Coming climate clouded but present panic pretty plain

Well, which is it?

Will it be a nightmare or not?

In comments, I cited a statement by Jim Renwick from a few months ago. He said:

I feel a kind of morbid fascination with this stuff. It’s a really fascinating science issue – and I’m really interested to find out what’s going to happen to the climate and how much ice is going to melt and what’s the temperature in 2020 going to be and all the rest of it. It’s intriguing, it’s my bread and butter but you know what I feel is – I look at this and say jeez we’re really doing this, we’re doing this experiment, we’re really playing this game with the Earth, we’re gambling with millions of lives and I sort of feel disgusted with myself that I find it interesting from a scientific point of view. It’s certainly interesting, but it’s more than interesting — it’s a very dangerous game we’re playing.

I was illustrating a comment that only a few climate scientists of the alarmist school venture to tell us we’re destroying the world. Most of them are more cautious, almost as though they’re setting up for the long-term defence that they were never really converts to that alarmist view of climate change they claim is the consensus.

The reader Simon said this:

Jim [James Renwick] would be one of the most knowledgeable people about climate in the country and he is openly admitting that we don’t know how it will turn out. People who think they can describe the climate with a simple set of equations are kidding themselves. An alternative popular skeptic meme is that because the climate is complex we will never understand it so we shouldn’t bother trying and just keep on doing what we are doing. I would argue the precautionary principle that we should be careful and hedge our bets. Humans are twiddling the knobs of a complex non-linear system and there may (or may not if there is some negative feedback loop) be consequences, particularly to less adaptable flora and fauna.

So it’s a fair point: Renwick’s admitting ignorance, not saying the science is settled.

Trouble is, it’s the kind of ignorance that appears to contain devastating knowledge, don’t you think? For he describes a “morbid” fascination with climate change (global warming!). He says: “Jeez,we’re really doing this,” as though it’s daring and dangerous. In fact he finishes by saying: “it’s a very dangerous game.”

So, he doesn’t know what will happen, yet he calls it a dangerous game as though he knows what could happen. Further, as though he wants people to believe in a dangerous outcome to this “experiment”.

He takes two large bites of this small cherry of ignorance, I think. If he doesn’t know, he shouldn’t talk about fearing some dangerous result. Because if he did know, he wouldn’t be saying that he doesn’t.

Finally, with so much evidence refuting the likelihood of disaster, why should our policymakers lean towards expense, disruption, self-denial and fear rather than confidence in the continued beneficence of our wonderful planet?

33
Leave a Reply

avatar
9 Comment threads
24 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Richard C (NZ)ClarenceAndyRichard TreadgoldNick Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

You seem confused RT, to make it easier for you, try thinking of it in terms of a game of Russian roulette. That IS a dangerous game, the out come of which is also uncertain.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

James Renwick’s perspective is the IPCC view but a responsible risk analysis looks at all the alternatives, Repeating a comment from an earlier thread (sorry everyone but it seems appropriate in view of the above repetition), there are at least 2 empirical models based on natural cycles that adequately mimic the last century or so and better than the IPCC models. But the validation of any of those models is the test of time. Right now we have a choice for the next decade:

1. Warmer – IPCC (except one AR5 ensemble model run), currently invalid.

2. No change – Scafetta and one IPCC AR5 model run, currently valid.

3. Cooler – Pangburn, currently invalid

Given the Temperature/PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral correlation is 0.96, PDO and sunspots are in cool phases and the polynomial trend of HadSST2 is now in a cooling phase, Dan Pangburn’s model is looking like challenging Scafetta’s.

But why – as Renwick does – base attitudes and emotions on the invalid scenarios of the IPCC?

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
Why don’t you see if you can count how many fudge factors Pangburn had to add to his blog published and non-peer reviewed analysis to make it match observations.

Here’s one to get you started “The proportionality constant, X, was adjusted to 6.52E-9 to get the net energy from 1700 to about 1940 to have a fairly level trend”

Next you could ask yourself where the magnitude, period and shape of his “ESST anomaly” came from. Could it be that he just invented it to make his prediction fit the data?

Andy
Guest
Andy

OK, so it’s like a game of Russian Roulette.
This thing called modern industrial society that has enabled us to abolish slavery, have modern medicine, live longer and more prosperous lives that at any time in history has a 1 in 6 chance of killing us and/or the planet

So what happens if we go back to the “good old days” before we started burning fossil fuels?
How many barrels of the gun are loaded now?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

You’re completely missing the warming vs no change vs cooling alternatives Nick. Right now there’s NOTHING in the metrics to indicate a change from the present regime (modeled by Scafetta) to warming. There is EVERYTHING (including an impending solar grand minimum) to indicate a cooling regime is on the way. I’m currently embroiled in a to-and-fro at Hot Topic (#7 post) where I’ve put the case (supported by the literature) that the Gleissberg cycle explains not only the recent ocean heat accumulation but also SST and modulation of El Nino frequency. They deny it of course but CO2 cannot compete with this from a PhD paper by Yafang Zhong 2005, ‘Coupled Response of Global Climate to Solar Cycle Forcing’:- “The appreciable role of solar forcing is most clear in upper 450-meter ocean heat content in case of Gleissberg cycle. The correlation between Gleissberg cycle and HC450 is high up to .6, in other word, 36% of total variance is attributable to solar forcing. This fairly high correlation is a hint for a plausible role of slow solar variations in ocean-atmosphere coupled system.” http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/resources/publications/pdfs/CCR_917.pdf Followed by:- THE SOLAR WOLF-GLEISSBERG CYCLE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

You are a glutten for punishment Richard, back at HT again.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Just wanted to see if Gareth could back up his hand waving “most likely” SIE attribution but nothing forthcoming.

He avoids the challenge like the plague:-

Gareth October 5, 2012 at 10:36 am

“Sorry mate, you don’t get to issue challenges based on your worldview”

Not sure why he finds my “worldview” to be a criteria for rejecting the challenge (same as for Nick above) but I’m guessing it’s because it doesn’t conform to his. I would have thought that empirical observation was a valid worldview but apparently not at Hot Topic.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Never mind, the guys have got a new “troll” too deal with and provide their expertise in guiding him/her through the Skeptical Science

I sometimes wonder if I turned my computer off and came back in 2 years if anything will have changed.

Andrew W
Guest
Andrew W

I think moving forward and developing energy sources more advanced than fossil fuels is a better option.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I wonder how Gareth is reconciling this:- So what do am I looking out for in 2012? * More extreme weather events, with a pattern shift if ENSO changes phase. * Possible new global temperature record, if El Niño arrives early enough in the year. http://hot-topic.co.nz/shapes-of-things-2012-and-all-that/ With this:- http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif El Nino does fade negative for a while sometimes then goes back so he might get another chance. He quotes a Jan. 19, 2012 NASA press release at SciBlogs:- Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the next two to three years because solar activity is on the upswing and the next El Niño will increase tropical Pacific temperatures. The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie. “It’s always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it’s safe to say we’ll see one in the next three years,” Hansen said. “It won’t take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010.” http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/enso/ Hmmm, solar activity looks to have peaked:- http://www.wm7d.net/hamradio/solar/ NINO3.4 is completely out of whack with the ’87, ’98, ’07 and ’10 El Nino events that started with a LaNina:- http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/weekly-nino3-4-comparison.png?w=960&h=629&h=629 August UAH… Read more »

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Richard, the individuals who wander over from HT to lob a few scientific bon mots at us about the coming hell of global warming have obviously never looked at the temps that mankind seems designed for; those design criteria certainly don’t include cold, not the extreme cold of ‘Snowball Earth’ but just cold enough to kill crops and to promote disease in a similar fashion to temps during the LIA. I have read a number of accounts of life in England during the LIA and a couple of degrees of extra warmth seems a wonderful alternative.
Svensmark’s theories seem to fit data from empirical observations quite well and if he is correct, windmills and arguments about black-body radiation theory are not going to be of huge use to mankind.

Ken
Guest

Andy – I endorse that:

“I sometimes wonder if I turned my computer off and came back in 2 years”

Go for it.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From NZ Medical Journal via Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association:- Greenhouses, hot water bottles, cycles and the future of New Zealand climate W.P. DE LANGE, 2009 Department of Earth & Ocean Sciences, University of Waikato http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/122-1305/3869/DeLange.pdf Future New Zealand climate [my emphasis] The IPCC developed a range of scenarios to estimate future concentrations of Greenhouse Gases, and these were used as the basis of projections of future climate. They are not forecasts in the same sense as weather forecasts, and therefore it is difficult to assess the significance of any particular projection. It is clear that all the scenarios used have overestimated the concentrations of the Greenhouse Gases considered for the first decade of this century, even though it is argued that the estimated emissions have exceeded the assumed emissions for some scenarios. Based on the projections, the IPCC considered the most likely rate of increase in global temperature this century to be 0.2° per decade, and the rate of sea level rise to be 4 cm per decade. The other projections of climate change vary widely between models and there is no consistent projection that can be applied to New… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

I love you too. Ken.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Also, this 1995 book:-

‘Natural Climate Variability on Decade-to-Century Time Scales’

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5142&page=529

Figure 10

The waveform of the 79-year temperature oscillation compared to the envelopes of sunspot number (the Gleissberg cycle) and sunspot cycle length since 1700. The temperature and sunspot number waveforms were estimated using SSA, and are in dimensionless units. The cycle-length envelope is in years. There is an apparent lag of about 30 to 40 years between Gleissberg-cycle phase and temperature oscillations in Tasmania

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

And,

Sunspot numbers ~ Sea Surface Temp

(Tallblokes graph, SST is averaged over 43 mths, 1/3 solar cycle)

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1950/mean:43/detrend:0.5/offset:0.6/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1950/scale:0.0015/mean:12

While I’m at it but off topic/mildly interesting:-

Temperature: US Military Academy Westpoint NY vs Central Park NY City demonstrating UHI:-

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/primer/NewYorkState.gif

Both from Curious Anomalies in Climate Science

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm

Ken
Guest

Oh yuk!!!

I am off for a long shower.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
You seem to think I have missed the point but I am just responding to something you have presented several times in support of your claims. Do you seriously consider Pangburn’s work to be valid science?

Nick
Guest
Nick

You also say you consider Scafetta’s analysis valid but my understanding is that it has no physical mechanism which puts it on a par with astrology. It also fails to hindcast past 1850 so it is not clear that this model is even successful by normal measures.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Andrew W,

You seem confused RT, to make it easier for you, try thinking of it in terms of a game of Russian roulette. That IS a dangerous game, the outcome of which is also uncertain.

I wonder what makes you think I’m confused? Is it because I’m asking questions? The usual reason for asking questions is ignorance, not confusion. I’m trying to ascertain the knowledge that lies behind Renwick’s (and, it seems, your) discernment of dangerous future changes to the climate. Because I strongly suspect there’s no knowledge, only imagination.

You both, in the absence of evidence (to my knowledge), imagine fearful climatic effects in the future. Please describe what leads you to that view.

Likening the climate situation to Russian roulette is certainly colourful, but there’s clear knowledge behind it: a bullet to the brain will be fatal. What similar knowledge lies behind Renwick’s (and your) statement that we’re “playing a dangerous game” with the climate?

Also, bearing in mind that Simon acknowledged that Renwick was declaring ignorance of the outcome of the climate “experiment”: are you saying you know the outcome?

Andy
Guest
Andy

Ken
You are confused.
I am not Jimmy Savile

Andy
Guest
Andy

Off topic, slightly, but Ofgem in the UK are reporting that the lights may go out in three years time.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/10/5/three-years-until-the-lights-go-out.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

To recap, I said:-

“…the validation of any of those models is the test of time”

Then,

“3. Cooler – Pangburn, currently invalid” [See that Nick? “currently invalid”]

Then,

“Given the Temperature/PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral correlation is 0.96, PDO and sunspots are in cool phases and the polynomial trend of HadSST2 is now in a cooling phase, Dan Pangburn’s model is looking like challenging Scafetta’s”

Now,

Only time will tell if Dan has come up with a verification of natural climate change (Net energy/sunspot numbers/ESST) that has predictive capability (fudge factors ‘n all). If the climate does in fact turn to a cooler regime, THEN the validity issue will be difficult to refute.

Time has found out the IPCC models and Scafetta will face the test eventually. However, the zig-zag nature of the temperature progression that Dan’s model exhibits has been identified all over (Scafetta’s is similar), see:-

The Sixty-Year Climate Cycle

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

Add to that the fact that solar forcing controls OHC and SST but CO2 does not and natural climate change has all the verification needed to challenge the IPCC view (currently invalid except for one model run).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“….you consider Scafetta’s analysis valid”

If you’d been paying attention to my comments for weeks, you would know that I don’t think his analysis is valid (even though I thought it might some time ago) by way of the negative inflexion in HadSST2 that invalidates the underlying quadratic that Nicola uses and yes, I agree that it doesn’t hindcast past it’s start date. In other words, I’ve run a V&V of Scafetta’s model and discovered there’s a flaw in it’s predictive capability.

However, right now (when it really matters), Scafetta’s model is only one of two mimicing absolute temperature and trajectory. That cannot continue for long though with SST trending down.

Andy
Guest
Andy

When this happens, people will probably die.
They will die as a direct result of climate change and energy policy.

How’s that game of Russian Roulette looking now?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

More projections using cycles (Dan Pangburn’s is quasi 60 year cycle) along with CO2-centric:-

* IPCC – CO2 based models, compares TAR (2001) and AR4 (2007)
* James Hansen – CO2 based models (1988)
* Nicola Scafetta – based on astronomical harmonic model (2011)
* Don Easterbrook – based on multi-decadal oscillations (2001)
* Syun-Ichi Akasofu – based on multi-decadal oscillations (2008)
* Patrick Michaels – straight-line regression on last 30 years (2008)
* Joe the Actuary – sine-wave regression on HadCRUT data (2009)
* Alan Cheetham – based on visual recurrent cycles from HadCRUT data (2009)

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_TemperatureProjections.htm

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Theodore Landscheidt:-

“Analysis of the sun’s varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8°C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the secular Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove ‘skilful’ as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct, as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.”

http://www.schulphysik.de/klima/landscheidt/iceage.htm

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The Watts and Copeland Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Model EVIDENCE OF A LUNISOLAR INFLUENCE ON DECADAL AND BIDECADAL OSCILLATIONS IN GLOBALLY AVERAGED TEMPERATURE TRENDS Basil Copeland and Anthony Watts http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/elsi2n-wpics2.pdf Quoting:- Besides the shift in interest to discerning an anthropogenic influence on global climate, the lack of agreement on any kind of basic physical mechanism for a solar role in climate oscillations, combined with the apparent lack of consistency in the relation between solar cycles and terrestrial temperature trends perhaps has made this an uninviting area of research. The difficulty of attributing temperature change to solar influence has been thoroughly surveyed by Hoyt and Schatten [28]. In particular, there are numerous reports of sign reversals in the relationship between temperature and solar activity in the early 20th century, particularly after 1920 [28, pp 115-117]. More recently, Georgieva, Kirov, and Bianchi [29] surveyed comprehensively the evidence for sign reversal in the relationship between solar and terrestrial temperatures, and suggested that these sign reversals are related to a long term secular solar cycle with solar hemispheric asymmetry driving the sign reversals. Specifically, they argue that there is a double Gleissberg cycle in which during one half of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Watts and Copeland weren’t on-the-money by 2010 in their Figure 8 projection compared to HadCRUT3 but they’re back in-the-money 2012:- http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.png The W&C Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar model uses a band pass filter. Alternatively EMD could be used but predictive techniques are only just evolving. The following is a sample of work in that direction:- ‘Analysis of Temperature Change under Global Warming Impact using Empirical Mode Decomposition’ Md. Khademul Islam Molla, Akimasa Sumi and M. Sayedur Rahman 2007 http://www.waset.ac.nz/journals/waset/v7/v7-89.pdf Quoting from Conclusions:- “The IMFs partitions the time series as a function of time-scale (frequency) in a statistically significant way. The residual series show that the data is overall fitted though a slight under-prediction of extreme values is occurred due to small underlying trends caused by El Nino or climate change. Some further statistical research would be needed to address these problems. The IMFs, each carrying its own time scales, could be used in statistical prediction of future climate scenarios. However, those climate predictions still remain as a challenge for future research” Further research here (paywalled):- ‘Prediction of climate nonstationary oscillation processes with empirical mode decomposition’ T. Lee, T. B. M. J. Ouarda 2011 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JD015142.shtml Abstract… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Alexander re “I have read a number of accounts of life in England during the LIA” Andy invoked the specter of a Katia eruption about a week ago and that in combination with a PDO in cool phase and a very weak solar cycle is the scenario of this article under ‘Economics”:- ‘Triple Crown of global cooling could pose serious threat to humanity’ https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/economics/#comment-32655 I don’t think a populace fed a steady diet of “warming world” news and views has much conception of what that apposite scenario would entail. Snippets from that article are a indication:- During the Dalton Minimum, the abnormally cold weather destroyed crops in northern Europe, the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. Historian John D. Post called it “the last great subsistence crisis in the Western world.” The record cold intensified after the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815, the largest volcanic eruption in more than 1,600 years. During the 70-year Maunder Minimum, astronomers at the time counted only a few dozen sunspots per year, thousands fewer than usual. As sunspots vanished, temperatures fell. The River Thames in London froze, sea ice was reported along the coasts of southeast… Read more »

Clarence
Guest
Clarence

Simon says: “I would argue the precautionary principle that we should be careful and hedge our bets. Humans are twiddling the knobs of a complex non-linear system and there may (or may not if there is some negative feedback loop) be consequences” The precautionary principle means anything you want it to mean. But is is generally taken to promote a “least regrets” approach to climate change policy issues. That approach is well described in this week’s policy statement by Mitt Romney in the US: “I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community. Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response. President Obama has taken the view that… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Gareth Renowden’s fall-back (my emphasis):- Gareth October 5, 2012 at 10:36 am Sorry mate, you don’t get to issue challenges based on your worldview. Your real challenge, as Rob suggests, is to persuade me/us/the world that you have good reason why we should ignore the overwhelming balance of evidence and 150 years of scientific endeavour and do nothing about climate change. For a man with your internet research skills, that should be a doddle. Just remember you have to persuade the experts through the peer-reviewed literature, not just Treadgold, Dedekind and Scrace. Do let me know when you’ve done that. http://hot-topic.co.nz/prat-watch-7-the-unbearable-rightness-of-being-wrong/#comment-34710 John O’Sullivan (my emphasis):- PSI researchers [50+ now] like Latour are no lightweights in this debate as Roy Spencer learned to his cost. Dr. Latour is renowned in the field of thermodynamics having worked on the NASA Apollo space mission before embarking on a stellar career as a chemical process control systems engineer to the international oil and chemical process industry. Professor Spencer on his blog addresses the “33 degrees” number and admits he first “became aware of its significance” from reading Professor Richard Lindzen’s 1990 paper, ‘Some Coolness Regarding Global Warming.’… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I might be able to lay claim to the origin of the Hansen unit.

# Richard C NZ 2012-01-20 15:59

I propose that rather than “whatchamacallits”, the units of the T-t sum be known as ‘Hansens’ (Hn).

So T = 15C at surface minus radiant t = -18C = -33Hn

This should avoid any confusion with actual temperature in degrees Celsius.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-33422

Reply from Dr Latour,

# Pierre R Latour 2012-02-06 15:26

Richard C NZ 2012-01-20 15:59

Your suggested name for the GHG 33C effect, Hansen’s (Hn), is a valid whatchamacallit.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect#comment-34048

Post Navigation