NIWA says it wasn’t about climate change

UPDATE1

So shut up, you lot!

NIWA, in its memorandum to Justice Venning about the costs of our court case, says some curious things. I’ve pulled out a few of the ripostes that the NZCSET’s lawyers have just delivered to the judge and which I’m delighted to share with you. (Bear in mind that the APPLICANT is the Coalition. The DEFENDANT is NIWA.) This one’s a pearler:

29. The defendant alleges in paragraph 17 that the proceeding did not concern climate change…

This is breathtaking. It will surprise their long-suffering supporters – having endured NIWA’s hogwash about the 7SS not being “official” or even a “national” temperature record (“oh, it’s only for study”), and that this organisation of top scientists has no obligation WHATSOEVER to strive for excellence, they now have to stand cringing as their favourite publicly-paid climate scientists argue that the court case had nothing to do with climate change.

Really? What rot. I’d like to shake these men up and make them see sense. They have quickly forgotten that the Coalition gave detailed evidence about the important consequences of the 7SS trend to national climate change policy.

But the case had nothing to do with climate change.

Some pretty fundamental central and local government policy decisions are based on the trend in our temperature history, and it is an important component of NIWA’s projections of future temperatures, which will have a profound effect on us all. The most prominent of the policies relying on the course of the climate is the ETS, but every day we pay heavily for academic courses and programmes in a diverse range of sectors at all levels to ward off climate change.

But the case had nothing to do with climate change.

NIWA are now contradicting some mighty powerful allies. Remember what the NZ Herald editorially opined

If the coalition had managed to discredit Niwa’s methods, it would also have discredited the evidence for climate change, and the part played by human activities.

So NIWA now says to their willing and most visible journalistic supporters that they didn’t know what they were talking about. Oops.

You know that NIWA are asking for money from named members of the Coalition, don’t you? Their reasoning is curious, for it implies that, had the Coalition won, NIWA’s scientists should have personally contributed to our costs. Which seems to follow the same idea of liability that convicted those Italian geologists of manslaughter for their failed earthquake prediction.

It’s hard to believe that NIWA thinks that would be fair and just, which means they don’t really think our members should be personally liable for costs either.

Sorry, have to rush, but there’s more to say on this business of costs.

UPDATE1 27 Oct 2012 17:43 NZDT

While I was distracted by work, first, Tallbloke’s Talkshop picked up the story, then WUWT repeated it. This is wonderful. Now we have John Christy looking at the details.

This is much more about Bob D than me, but I’ll try to keep up, with Richard Cumming’s help.

I’m catching up with Tall Bloke and WUWT.

266 Thoughts on “NIWA says it wasn’t about climate change

  1. Hurricane categories are solely a measure of wind speed. They do not indicate size or potential rainfall. You are either intentionally putting up a misleading straw-man or you are lacking a basic understanding of meteorology.
    Sandy is exceptional due to record warm ocean temperatures and a extreme outlier Greenland blocking high. For a balanced discussion see Revkin’s latest blog post. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/two-views-of-a-superstorm-in-climate-context/
    There are papers that show how more intense hurricanes occur in years with warmer ocean temperatures, just as the physics would predict. I’m not going to find a reference for you though.
    Nowhere did I attribute any of this to anthropogenic causes, but rather that it is the consequence of an unusual Arctic Oscillation and consistently warmer than usual global temperature.

  2. Brandoch Daha on October 31, 2012 at 11:11 am said:

    As expected, Mr. C., you refuse to list the “far more powerful drivers of climate” that you imply are overwhelming the CO2 contribution in the current epoch.

    This is, of course, simply because you can’t; humanity is the equivalent of a vast volcanic eruption over hundreds of years, a dire forcing indeed, and one that you cannot hide from without resorting to desperate handwaving and cherry-picking of raw data over carefully-selected time periods.

    Time to wake up, C., smell the coffee and check the news!

    Across Africa, Asia and Latin America, hundreds of millions are struggling to adapt to their changing climate. In the last three years, we have seen 10 million people displaced by floods in Pakistan, 13 million face hunger in east Africa, and over 10 million in the Sahel region of Africa face starvation.

    Even those figures only scrape the surface. According to the Global Humanitarian Forum, headed up by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan, climate change is responsible for 300,000 deaths a year and affects 300 million people annually. Linked economic losses are costed at more than $125 billion a year. By 2030, the annual death toll related to climate change is expected to rise to 500,000 and the economic cost to rocket to $600 billion.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0620/1224318256659_pf.html

  3. Brandoch Daha on October 31, 2012 at 11:29 am said:

    You are either intentionally putting up a misleading straw-man or you are lacking a basic understanding

    Amen to that!

  4. Brandoch Daha on October 31, 2012 at 11:31 am said:

    You’re welcome, bob.

    Has Christy found your error yet? I’d check the powers of 10 first…Hilarity all round.

  5. You still haven’t provided any proof that this climate change is caused by man though, have you Brandoch. As mentioned before, CO2 can only raise the temperature a maximum of 1.2C per doubling of total (not just man’s) CO2 levels – in other words, it’s greenhouse effect is so weak it’s practically impotent.

    Where is the evidence of the positive feedback from water vapour that is supposed to amplify the minute effects of CO2? Where is the tropospheric hot spot that would go along way to proving such feedbacks are happening?

    The predicted hot spot is a no show according to 2 satellites, and over 30,000,000 weather balloons.There is no evidence for positive feedback, therefore no evidence for amplification, and as a result no evidence that man is the cause of any temperature changes beyond the tiny amount CO2 contributes – and it is tiny, so tiny it’s practically indistinguishable from whatever else is causing the warming.

    Whatever is warming the planet it isn’t CO2. How can it without positive feedback from water vapour? Since you have no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, and CO2 is such a weak source of warming, perhaps you can explain how the theory of AGW can be responsible for the warming without the amplification of water vapour?

    Perhaps one of the ‘consensus’ scientists might know, try asking them. Until you can answer this question anything you say in support of climate change is irrelevant, because you simply have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. All you have are failed computer models and a temperature record supporting the findings of the satellites and radiosondes that find the tropospheric hot spot is non-existant.

    C’mon Brandoch, deep down you know I’m right. If I’m not I’m sure you can correct me by showing evidence of positive feedback from water vapour. If you can’t, why do you believe in something for which the evidence actually seems to point in the opposite direction from the hypothesis? Over 40 yrs worth of evidence from multiple sources too.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 12:29 pm said:

    >”The US Government might even consider doing a cost/benefit analysis of future mitigation,”

    What hurricane mitigation projects do you suggest Simon?

    NOAA FAQ:-

    Q. What water temperature is needed to sustain a strong hurricane?

    A. In most cases, water temperature above 80F (26.5C) and warm water depths of 150 feet (50 meters) as well.

    Coastal Water Temperature Table, Atlantic Coast: South

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/satl.html

    Miami Beach FL June – October bi-monthly:-

    81 84, 85 86, 86 86, 84 84, 83 83

    Water temperature was higher than October in the other 3.5 months above 80F but no hurricane. Hurricane season in the Atlantic begins June 1st and ends November 30th. Therefore, ocean heat would have to be lower than 80F for 6 months of the year so as not to sustain a strong hurricane just to be sure – how do you propose to achieve this?

    But how much warmer are Florida SSTs over the last century? From Global Warming Science:-

    “The following figures show the annual average sea surface temperature anomalies to 2008 for Florida. (from the Hadley Climate Research Unit HadSST2 database plotted at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx) The figures show [left] Gulf SST in the 25-30Nx80-85W grid, and [right] Atlantic SST in the 25-30Nx75-80W grid. The Gulf coast exhibits a cooling trend for the last 60 years, whereas the Atlantic coast has warming since 1970.”

    Gulf http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_FloridaUSA_files/image013.jpg

    Atlantic http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_FloridaUSA_files/image014.jpg

    The Atlantic off Florida was generally as warm or warmer 1930 – 1960 as it was 1978 – 2008 i.e. there is nothing extraordinary about current SSTs off Miami and I have my doubts that hurricane mitigation was proposed in 1938 when SST spiked well above normal and recent levels.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 12:42 pm said:

    >”Sandy is exceptional due to record warm ocean temperatures”

    No it is not exceptional and what “record warm ocean temperatures” (Atlantic coast vicinity of Florida say)?

    See this comment for SST plots that don’t show any recent Atlantic/Florida SST record to 2008, the record is 1938.

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/10/niwa-says-it-wasnt-about-climate-change/#comment-133965

  8. So maybe, after all, it is just coincidence after all that Sandy occurred at a time when sea surface temperatures were not at a record high, during a period noted for a lack of land-falling hurricanes, while the hurricane ACE continues near 30-year low values.

    I’m now very confused about which coincidence we’re supposed to be looking for.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 1:10 pm said:

    >”As expected, Mr. C., you refuse to list the “far more powerful drivers of climate” that you imply are overwhelming the CO2 contribution in the current epoch”

    No I don’t refuse. I was waiting for you to quantify the all-CO2 forcing 1981 – 2010 to make a comparison but nothing forthcoming. Since you’re either incapable or in denial, let me help you out.

    dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co).

    Co 340.10
    C 389.78

    dF = 5.35 ln(389.78/340.10)
    dF = 0.73 W/m2

    So a 49.68 ppm change in CO2 concentration results in the following power (supposedly):-

    a) Total all-CO2 forcing 1981 – 2010: 0.73 W/m2
    b) Per decade all-CO2 forcing 1981 – 2010: 0.24 W/m2
    c) Per year all-CO2 forcing 1981 – 2010: 0.024 W/m2

    Compare to Hatzianastassiou (2011) 2001-2006 all sky SWsfc (observed solar at surface modulated by cloud cover)

    Change: -2.7 Wm-2 or -4.5 W/m2/decade or -0.45 Wm-2y-1

    SWsfc is 18.75 times greater (0.45/0.024) forcing than CO2 over 2001 – 2006. Assuming aCO2 is 0.4 of all-CO2 (from SkS), SWsfc is 450 times greater (0.45/(0.024*0.4) forcing than aCO2 2001 – 2006.

    There is the most significant of the “far more powerful drivers of climate” that [I’ve just proved is] overwhelming the CO2 contribution in the current epoch.

    Wild et al 2012 comes up with even wilder numbers for 1993 – 2010 but that’s next if you want to go on with it.

  10. Two very good replies, one by Magoo, one by Richard C.

    Popcorn, anyone? While we wait for Brandoch to reply with:
    a) evidence of the actual, hitherto unfound, tropospheric hotspot, and
    b) evidence that CO2 forcing is not tiny compared with SWsfc.

  11. Brandoch Daha on October 31, 2012 at 2:42 pm said:

    All sky SWsfc (observed solar at surface modulated by cloud cover)… is the most significant of the “far more powerful drivers of climate” that [I’ve just proved is] overwhelming the CO2 contribution in the current epoch.

    As expected, C., you are confusing internal forcings (intrasystem energy transfers) with external forcing (net system energy increase), and hiding “in the noise”.

    This is as intellectually bankrupt as claiming that anthropogenic CO2 emissions aren’t a problem, as they are dwarfed by natural biospheric annual emissions…

    Whilst this is true, it is misleading and irrelevant, as natural emissions and absorptions balance themselves out over a year, whilst anthropogenic CO2 steadily accumulates in the system, and has driven atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 390 ppm and rising.

    Unless you prefer to remain confused xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, this article will aid your understanding:

    Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

  12. Lord Daha:

    As expected, C., you are confusing internal forcings (intrasystem energy transfers) with external forcing (net system energy increase), and hiding “in the noise”.

    Nope, I think not. Richard C.’s quote definitely stated

    Change: -2.7 Wm-2 or -4.5 W/m2/decade or -0.45 Wm-2y-1

    So what about it? As far as I understand it, incoming energy is modulated over decadal timescales by increases or decreases in cloud cover, and these are not covered by the models (see Hansen, 2005 – note list of forcings, and absence of cloud cover or ENSO).

    Therefore the warming seen over the past few decades could well have been caused by cloud cover changes and PDO, not CO2. therefore Hansen’s climate sensitivity numbers could be out by orders of magnitude, no?

    After all, we hear continually that the scientists “cannot explain the warming by any other means than by CO2”.

    When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

    Strawman alert. Skeptics refer to the lack of the tropospheric hotspot, which is a consequence of positive water vapour feedback.

  13. Brandoch Daha on October 31, 2012 at 3:37 pm said:

    Ah yes, cloud cover, the last refuge of the denialist scientist – just like the “God of the Gaps” beloved of creationists everywhere.

    Unfortunately, clouds don’t generate their own energy, they just process latent energy of evaporation and condensation over a short time scale, i.e. they are a feedback, not a driver.

    Have you, perchance, been reading Roy Spencer?

    Spencer … proposes a relationship between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and clouds by considering a variety of combinations of initial ocean temperature, ocean thickness, cloud feedback, and forcing by clouds (neglecting forcing by CO2 and the water vapor feedback entirely) in a simple energy balance model, and finds a relationship between PDO and clouds using 9 years of satellite data.

    By exploring parameter space randomly he found the agreement with the observed 20th century warming was best for an initial ocean temperature 0.6ºC below normal, which means almost all of the warming that his model explains is simply the ocean returning to normal, not the response to decadal variability in clouds. (Ed: note that the details of this calculation are heavily criticised by Barry Bickmore in a series of posts).

    Of course, decadal variability in clouds can only be a response to decadal variability in the surface conditions or atmospheric circulation that drive cloud formation, because the lifetime of cloud systems is days rather than decades.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/review-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/

    But don’t let me “misunderestimate” you, Bob, perhaps your theory is different from Spencer’s? If so, please elucidate while I prepare the popcorn…

  14. I believe Dr Spencer managed to correlate the change in cloud cover with the observed warming, and then there is Svensmark’s theories about cloud formation and cosmic rays that might drive these changes in cloud cover. There was also the CLOUD experiment at CERN that corroborated some of these findings.

    All jolly interesting and real science, and obviously “debunked” at Skeptical Science

    [..insert link to SkS or failing that an ad hom from Desmogblog here..]

  15. ‘When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.’

    And what positive feedback would this be Brandoch? I take it you have some evidence for it, maybe the tropospheric hot spot.

    Just a quick question, if there is no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, what evidence do you have for AGW beyond the tiny, minute amount CO2 contributes (1.2C max. per doubling of total atmospheric CO2)?

  16. Brandoch Daha on October 31, 2012 at 4:04 pm said:

    Yes, and it might also be fairies at the bottom of the garden…

    Cue Spencer evisceration here:
    http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/

    The link that follows is a balanced review of potential cosmic-ray effects, but the problem for you is that:

    there has been no significant trend in the cosmic ray flux over the 50 years, so while we cannot rule out cosmic-ray/cloud mechanisms being relevant for historical climate changes, they certainly have not been an important factor in recent climate change.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/

  17. Brandoch Daha on October 31, 2012 at 4:15 pm said:

    Your point escapes me, Mr. Magoo. WV is obviously an important positive feedback and a major contributor to climate sensitivity, as the IPCC notes.

    Direct emission of water vapour (a greenhouse gas) by human activities makes a negligible contribution to radiative forcing. However, as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water vapour concentrations increase and this represents a key positive feedback but not a forcing of climate change. Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting equilibrium climate sensitivity

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-3.html

  18. Magoo:
    Seconded.

  19. Your point escapes me, Mr. Magoo. WV is obviously an important positive feedback and a major contributor to climate sensitivity

    I thought the question was exceptionally clear. What evidence do you have for the tropospheric hotspot, which in turn provides us with the evidence for positive WV feedback?

    Simple question, really. The answer should be really easy, no?

  20. You know I really don’t give a damn. I am celebrating the death of the UK wind industry tonight.

    Happy days indeed

  21. Brandoch Daha on October 31, 2012 at 4:35 pm said:

    So, boys, having failed in claiming that short-term WV feedbacks are somehow long-term forcings, you produce a tired old straw man, the mythical THS.

    Is that really the best you can do?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

    BTW, you can feel the evidence for positive WV feedback on your own skin, by going outside on a cloudy night, then on a clear, starry night.

    I certainly notice the difference on the way to the milking shed at sparrowfart, but perhaps you city boys aren’t up that early?

  22. As Bob said, it’s a simple question: cite some evidence. Your anecdote is interesting but not evidence of a global trend.

  23. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 4:40 pm said:

    >”….you are confusing internal forcings (intrasystem energy transfers) with external forcing (net system energy increase), and hiding “in the noise””

    Rubbish. we’re talking about CHANGE, and yes I AM presenting “external forcing (net system energy increase [or decrease])”. “Internal forcings (intrasystem energy transfers)” in oceanic terms is heat transport currents and suchlike but that’s NOT what I’m presenting.

    The observed SWsfc is a CHANGE in radiation reaching the surface, just as TSI Maunder Minimum – present is a CHANGE in radiation reaching TOA. But TOA levels aren’t all that relevant In isolation if cloud reflects around a quarter of SW back out to space. Therefore, any CHANGE in cloudiness (and aerosols) must be taken into account. That is why SW is measured all-sky and clear-sky, the “all” sky taking into account cloudiness (same for LWdown).

    Clearer skies produce brightening, cloudier and polluted skies produce dimming. It is generally accepted (including at SkS) that there was dimming from around 1950 to 1980ish and brightening from 1980ish to 2000. From Wild 2011 via SkS this brightening/dimming graphic (Wild et al 2012 has a similar graphic for Potsdam Germany):-

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/WildFig2.png

    Those CHANGE values are W/m2 and obviously far greater on a per decade basis than CO2. From 2000 onwards there’s a difference between BSRN-only (little CHANGE, Wild 2011/12) and GEBA+BSRN (dimming, Hatzianastassiou 2011).

    So given the 5 – 13 W/m2 range of SWsfc 1980 CHANGE between brightening and dimming in the graphic, we should expect SST to exhibit inflexions at 1980 and again at 2000:-

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2gl/from:1950

    Sure enough, 2 inflexions and CO2 had no influence because all that happened was that there was a huge turnaround (a CHANGE) in SWsfc from -ve to +ve around 1980 and a whole lot more energy reached the ocean surface from 1980 – 2000. Now that the solar/cloud/aerosol forcing combo has weakened and either neutral or dimming, there’s been no more SST or SAT increase since 2000.

    !910 – 1940 saw a similar energy influx at the ocean surface due to brightening in that period also:-

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2gl/from:1845

    No CO2 correlation in that graph. The ocean being a heat sink, doesn’t necessarily give up all the energy over the same time span that it takes it up unless there’s strong dimming (e.g. 1880 – 1910) so the heat steadily accumulated after 1980 as we see in OHC charts but by solar input via brightening-dimming cycles, not by fierce heat injection from GHGs. That process will reverse over the predicted solar grand minimum.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 4:57 pm said:

    >”BTW, you can feel the evidence for positive WV feedback on your own skin, by going outside on a cloudy night, then on a clear, starry night”

    Duh! Cloud is liquid, WV is gas, they are not one-and-same. WV is a negative feedback on temperature. In an arid tropical location the temperature can reach 50 C by day and freezing by night. A humid tropical location only goes into the 30s (or 40s perhaps) and certainly doesn’t get down to freezing so it acts against temperature rise and fall as a modulator (negative feedback).

    See Carl Brehmer’s The Greenhouse Effect . . . Explored
    Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?

    http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Greenhouse_Effect_Research/Water%20Feedback_files/Is%20Water%20Vapor%20Feedback%20Positive%20or%20Negative.pdf

  25. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 5:05 pm said:

    “…as global average temperature increases, tropospheric water vapour concentrations increase”

    Speculation by the IPCC that hasn’t been borne out in the metrics except at the surface (and minimally there). Above the surface at mid and upper troposphere, WV has declined:-

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

  26. Brandoch Daha on October 31, 2012 at 5:14 pm said:

    so the heat steadily accumulated after 1980 as we see in OHC charts but by solar input via brightening-dimming cycles, not by fierce heat injection from GHGs. That process will reverse over the predicted solar grand minimum.

    Three questions, Bob:

    1. wanna bet?

    2. what happened to the invisible undersea volcanoes that you earlier claimed were causing the rise in OHC? (Bruce Bayliss had a giggle about that at the pub last night).

    3. Monckton tried running this line to Congress, and was shot down in flames. Do you really think you can do better?

    Regarding ‘global brightening’, there is a side bar commentary on global dimming and brightening in Chapter 3 of IPCC. The station network showing these changes is confined to land and near urban areas. There is no evidence that such changes occurred over the oceans (70% of the Earth), indeed the evidence is otherwise. Again there is a tendency to cherry pick low and high points in some record that are not representative of the bigger picture.

    http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/monckton-testimony-at-us-congress-ignorance-or-perjury/

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-brightening-global-warming.htm

  27. Lord Daha:

    So, boys, having failed in claiming that short-term WV feedbacks are somehow long-term forcings, you produce a tired old straw man, the mythical THS.

    Is that really the best you can do, to simply mis-state our question, pretending that the hotspot is mythical?

    I thought so.

    By the way, while you’re desperately searching through Skeptical Science for an answer, what does the fact that the THS is mythical say then about the IPCC – it predicted the hotspot, after all?

    You should read AR4 – it’s really very entertaining, in a sad sort of a way.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 5:39 pm said:

    >”…there has been no significant trend in the cosmic ray flux over the 50 years”

    There’s more to it than that:-

    Galactic Cosmic Rays vs Cloud Cover

    In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled “Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover”,[26] which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years. Svensmark responded by saying “Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds”.[27] Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as important “as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data”. Harrison studied the effect of cosmic rays in the UK.[28] He states: “Although the statistically significant non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out”. Brian H. Brown (2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant (p 3 months)and GCR gave correlations of p=0.06.[29]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark#cite_note-12

  29. ‘Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting equilibrium climate sensitivity’

    Well good Brandoch, maybe the IPCC has some evidence for positive feedback from water vapour. Where do you think it is, where have they cited it?

    Until you come up with some evidence of positive feedback from water vapour your theory of AGW has no evidence to back it up, something that is reflected in the failure of the computer models. Face it Brandoch, all you have is faith in the failed gaia religion with absolutely no evidence to back it up whatsoever.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 6:56 pm said:

    >”…clouds don’t generate their own energy, they just process latent energy of evaporation and condensation over a short time scale, i.e. they are a feedback, not a driver”

    Clouds do MUCH more than that Brando. Clouds reflect solar energy (albedo effect), around 25% but varying. Cloud increase/decrease modulates insolation at surface so although clouds aren’t an energy source as solar is, clouds certainly determine the amount of solar energy reaching the surface. So cloudiness change (from dimming to brightening and vice versa) is a forcing and a driver at surface but a modulator not a feedback on solar. Solar at TOA is conventionally a “solar constant” (but see below), A modulation is not necessarily a feedback. If there was a positive or negative feedback on the solar constant, it wouldn’t be a solar constant.

    Cloud (lower in particular) is posited to be related to cosmic ray flux and the flux is modulated by solar wind and magnetic field:-

    Cosmic Ray Modulation

    The flux (flow rate) of cosmic rays incident on the Earth’s upper atmosphere is modulated (varied) by two processes; the sun’s solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field. Solar wind is expanding magnetized plasma generated by the sun, which has the effect of decelerating the incoming particles as well as partially excluding some of the particles with energies below about 1 GeV. The amount of solar wind is not constant due to changes in solar activity over its regular eleven-year cycle. Hence the level of modulation varies in autocorrelation with solar activity. Also the Earth’s magnetic field deflects some of the cosmic rays, which is confirmed by the fact that the intensity of cosmic radiation is dependent on latitude, longitude and azimuth. The cosmic flux varies from eastern and western directions due to the polarity of the Earth’s geomagnetic field and the positive charge dominance in primary cosmic rays; this is termed the east-west effect.

    Continues…..

    http://www.optcorp.com/edu/articleDetailEDU.aspx?aid=1739

    Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth’s Climate

    by Henrik Svensmark* 1998

    During the last solar cycle Earth’s cloud cover underwent a modulation more closely in phase with the galactic cosmic ray flux than with other solar activity parameters. Further it is found that Earth’s temperature follows more closely decade variations in galactic cosmic ray flux and solar cycle length, than other solar activity parameters. The main conclusion is that the average state of the heliosphere affects Earth’s climate.

    […]

    The solar cycle length has been shown to be an important parameter due to its close connection with temperature variations of the Earth. This parameter is determined empirically and it has not been straightforward to interpret. The present work gives a hint on why it is relevant to Earth’s climate. The physical interpretation is based on the close agreement between variations in solar cycle length, GCR flux, and temperature as seen in Fig. 3. The solar cycle length is therefore a measure of the processes occurring within the sun of unknown dynamical origin which manifest themselves in the solar activity within the heliosphere that modulates the GCR, averaged over the solar cycle.

    This does not imply that other factors cannot affect clouds or climate. However, a cloud cover that is modulated by solar activity in this way will have an influence on climate and could be important in explaining the observed agreement between climate proxies and solar activity [1,3,4]. There is at present no detailed understanding of the microphysical mechanism that connects solar activity and Earth’s cloud cover. It is necessary to identify a microphysical mechanism, which might not be an easy task. The present study hopes to increase not just the interest in finding a physical mechanism but to point at where and how to locate it in the atmosphere.

    http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/CREC.html

    Subsequently Aarhus University’s EMMA and CERN CLOUD

  31. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 7:15 pm said:

    1. wanna bet?

    Bet on it Brando.

    2. what happened to the invisible undersea volcanoes that you earlier claimed were causing the rise in OHC?

    Actually I was claiming THE MINOR INPUT of hydrovents injecting siperheated water (up to around 400 C) into climate critical areas (e,g, tropical east Pacific, GNS did at least one paper on this as did others) mostly at 2000 – 2500m IN COMBINATION WITH THE MAJOR SOLAR INPUT, but here’s NIWA:-

    ‘Niwa observes underwater volcano changes’

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7871961/Niwa-observes-underwater-volcano-changes

    3. Monckton tried running this line to Congress, and was shot down in flames. Do you really think you can do better?

    Err, I’m going by Wild et al (CMIP5/AR5 commentary) and Hatzianastassiou et al. Are you dissing ALL of that? If you are, couldn’t that be construed as – in warmist parlance – “denial” Brando?

  32. The world does not actually revolve around you Richard. When the sun is not shining on you it is actually shining somewhere else. Localised differences in temperature, pressure and moisture is called weather.

  33. This Bruce Bayliss of yours wouldn’t be connected with THE Bruce Bayliss mate?

  34. Brandoch Daha on October 31, 2012 at 7:26 pm said:

    Ok, so is this all you’ve got?

    Mythical volcanoes, non-physical interactions between cosmic rays and clouds, a misconstrued section of AR4 and some Moncktonian handwaving?

    Come on, where’s Christy’s reanalysis of the NZCSET temperature record? That’s sure to take the world by storm…

    http://www.salon.com/2012/10/30/global_warming_hits_home/

  35. There is the point of no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour rendering the AGW hypothesis impotent. Surely if you believe in AGW you must have a reason. Where’s the evidence of positive feedback from water vapour, and if you can’t provide it then explain how the AGW hypothesis works without it.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 8:15 pm said:

    >”Ok, so is this all you’ve got?”

    A whole lot more than you’ve got Brando

    >”Mythical volcanoes”

    That NIWA is investigating? No, I repeat for your comprehension (hopefully):-

    “Actually I was claiming THE MINOR INPUT of hydrovents injecting siperheated water (up to around 400 C) into climate critical areas (e,g, tropical east Pacific, GNS did at least one paper on this as did others) mostly at 2000 – 2500m IN COMBINATION WITH THE MAJOR SOLAR INPUT”

    >”…non-physical interactions between cosmic rays and clouds”

    No, Aarhus University’s EMMA and CERN CLOUD are investigating physical interactions

    >”….a misconstrued section of AR4 and some Moncktonian handwaving?”

    No, Hatzianastassiou et al 2011, Wild et al 2012, Rob Painting/Skeptical Science, and this search of Google Scholar for dimming+brightening:-

    http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?hl=en&q=dimming%2Bbrightening&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

    7,950 results

  37. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 11:05 pm said:

    >”There is no evidence that such changes occurred over the oceans”

    AR4 3.4.4.2 Surface Radiation (from Pinker, see link below)

    In addition, the satellite observed increase in surface radiation noted by Pinker et al. (2005) occurred primarily over ocean, whereas the increase observed by Wild et al. (2005) was restricted to land stations

    + + +
    Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?

    Pinker, Zhang and Dutton, 2005

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.short

    Abstract
    Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent independent satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe.

    + + +
    Monckton:-

    “Allowing for the fact that Dr. Pinker’s result depended in part on the datasets of
    outgoing radiative flux from the ERBE satellite that had not been corrected at that time
    for orbital decay, it is possible to infer a net increase in surface radiative flux amounting
    to 0.106 W m–2 year–1 over the period, compared with the 0.16 W m–2 year–1 found by
    Dr. Pinker.”

    “Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global
    brightening amounting to ~1.9 W m–2 over the 18-year period of study would be
    expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1
    K (1.8 F°). To put this naturally-occurring global brightening into perspective, the
    IPCC’s estimated total of all the anthropogenic influences on climate combined in the
    256 years 1750-2005 is only 1.6 W m–2.”

    + + +
    0.106 W m–2 year–1 is 1.9 W m-2 over the 18 years 1983 to 2001 for SWsfc
    0.024 W m–2 year–1 is 0.4 W m-2 over the 18 years 1983 to 2001 for all-CO2

    Rachel Pinker doesn’t think SWsfc and CO2 forcing should be compared as Monckton does (so do I, so would anyone thinking this through) because (She quotes AR4 WGI FAQ 2.1):-

    “Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change
    per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’,
    and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’”

    + + +
    She can’t object on that basis because the emitted flux from CO2 is in all directions including down to surface and both are a “rate of energy change per unit area”, therefore directly comparable.

    Rachel very helpfully clarifies cloud forcing however:-

    The effect of clouds F, on the Earth’s radiation balance is measured as the difference
    between clear-sky and all-sky radiation results both in shortwave (SW) and longwave
    (LW)

    FSW (cloud) = FSW (clear) – FSW (all-sky)
    FLW (cloud) = FLW (clear) – FLW (all-sky
    Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud)
    Fnet (cloud) => Clouds have a cooling effect on Climate if Clouds have a warming effect on Climate if > 0

    Usually, it is applied at the Top of the Atmosphere, but can be also defined at the surface. [as for CO2 forcing Rachel]

    + + +
    Monckton’s Congressional testimony 6 May 2010

    http://globalwarming.markey.house.gov/files/HRG/050510climateScience/monckton.pdf

    Pinker answering questions re Monckton’s testimony

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/i-3ee75ca959427e6a5c1396646172693c-debate_australia_tim_lambert.pdf

    Cook’s dizzy commentary

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-brightening-global-warming.htm

  38. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 11:18 pm said:

    >”There is no evidence that such changes occurred over the oceans”

    AR4 3.4.4.2 Surface Radiation (from Pinker, see link below)

    In addition, the satellite observed increase in surface radiation noted by Pinker et al. (2005) occurred primarily over ocean, whereas the increase observed by Wild et al. (2005) was restricted to land stations

    + + +
    Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?

    Pinker, Zhang and Dutton, 2005

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.short

    Abstract
    Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent independent satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe.

    + + +
    Monckton (see link below):-

    “Allowing for the fact that Dr. Pinker’s result depended in part on the datasets of outgoing radiative flux from the ERBE satellite that had not been corrected at that time for orbital decay, it is possible to infer a net increase in surface radiative flux amounting to 0.106 W m–2 year–1 over the period, compared with the 0.16 W m–2 year–1 found by Dr. Pinker.”

    “Elementary radiative-transfer calculations demonstrate that a natural surface global brightening amounting to ~1.9 W m–2 over the 18-year period of study would be expected – using the IPCC’s own methodology – to have caused a transient warming of 1 K (1.8 F°). To put this naturally-occurring global brightening into perspective, the IPCC’s estimated total of all the anthropogenic influences on climate combined in the 256 years 1750-2005 is only 1.6 W m–2.”

    0.106 W m–2 year–1 is 1.9 W m-2 over the 18 years 1983 to 2001 for SWsfc
    0.024 W m–2 year–1 is 0.4 W m-2 over the 18 years 1983 to 2001 for all-CO2

    + + +
    Rachel Pinker doesn’t think SWsfc and CO2 forcing should be compared as Monckton does (so do I, so would anyone thinking this through) because (She quotes AR4 WGI FAQ 2.1 in link below):-

    “Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’”

    She can’t object on that basis because the emitted flux from CO2 is in all directions including down to surface and both are a “rate of energy change per unit area”, therefore directly comparable.

    + + +
    Rachel very helpfully clarifies cloud forcing however:-

    The effect of clouds F, on the Earth’s radiation balance is measured as the difference between clear-sky and all-sky radiation results both in shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW)

    FSW (cloud) = FSW (clear) – FSW (all-sky)
    FLW (cloud) = FLW (clear) – FLW (all-sky
    Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud)
    Fnet (cloud) => Clouds have a cooling effect on Climate if Clouds have a warming effect on Climate if > 0

    Usually, it is applied at the Top of the Atmosphere, but can be also defined at the surface. [as for CO2 forcing Rachel]

    + + +
    Monckton’s Congressional testimony 6 May 2010

    http://globalwarming.markey.house.gov/files/HRG/050510climateScience/monckton.pdf

    Pinker answering questions re Monckton’s testimony

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/i-3ee75ca959427e6a5c1396646172693c-debate_australia_tim_lambert.pdf

    Cook’s dizzy commentary

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-brightening-global-warming.htm

  39. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 11:27 pm said:

    Oops, the above comment went wrong somehow during editing, “Undefined” so I resubmitted.

    Please ignore the above comment and refer to the edited version following below.

  40. Richard C (NZ) on October 31, 2012 at 11:48 pm said:

    Correction, the following would not copy properly from the Pinker pdf:

    “Fnet (cloud) => Clouds have a cooling effect on Climate if Clouds have a warming effect on Climate if > 0”

    Should be:-

    Fnet (cloud) => Clouds have a cooling effect on climate if less than 0
    Fnet (cloud) => Clouds have a warming effect on climate if greater than 0

  41. Brandoch Daha on November 1, 2012 at 1:55 am said:

    Yeah, that’s Brucie – he sure gets around, eh boy!

  42. Brandoch Daha on November 1, 2012 at 2:08 am said:

    This blog is really very entertaining, in a sad sort of a way.

    Meanwhile, the world’s most media-rich city has just had an object lesson in rising SST and SSL, storm surge, coastal erosion, salt water penetration, flooding, extreme weather and economic shock, aka the predictable consequences of AGW.

    Here’s a link to cheer you up in these difficult times:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYP10UU8ACM

  43. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2012 at 6:33 am said:

    >”BTW, you can feel the evidence for [energy modulation by clouds] on your own skin, by going outside on a cloudy night, then on a clear, starry night”

    What you are effectively conceding here Brando, is that clouds have a greater forcing effect than GHGs.

  44. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2012 at 6:37 am said:

    Meanwhile, the world’s most media-rich city has just had an object lesson in………downgraded tropical cyclones.

    Happened in the past (notably 1938) and it will happen again.

  45. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2012 at 6:52 am said:

    >”I would expect that Christy will be able to identify the error(s) in Bob’s analysis”

    You never did expound on what that(those) “error(s)” is(are) Brando – it would be helpful if you did so.

    On the other hand, if you can’t come up with anything you’re just making up stuff and slinging mud in the hope it sticks aren’t you?

    I’m not expecting anything enlightening forthcoming because the latter alternative seems to be your preferred MO. Neither am I expecting John Christy to identify anything untoward in Bob’s analysis, but NIWA’s analysis? Now that’s a different story.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2012 at 7:01 am said:

    Just to clarify what’s going on here. The dimming-brightening cycle has emerged as probably the greatest threat to CAGW alarm. Needless to say (but let’s be clear), every warmist that recognizes the threat has swung into damage control mode in order to spin it to the moon.

    Those spinners would include: Wild, Lambert, Painting, Cook and Johnny-come-lately Brando. No doubt the IPCC will join in next year.

  47. So your real name is Fred Dagg then?

  48. The number of people killed as a result of this storm was less than that from the Christchurch earthquake.

    Just putting this in some perspective

  49. Brandoch Daha on November 1, 2012 at 8:05 am said:

    So your real name is Fred Dagg then?

    Nah, “Fred Dagg” just a fictional character dreamt up by John Clarke, but my mate Brucie does some TV work in between driving the milk truck and working his farm up in the sticks behind Whangamomona.

    Anyway, speaking of not knowing how lucky we are, have you seen the latest good news?

    http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/the_wave_for_obama/

    Looks like the would-be climate-change-denier-in-chief is “drowning in the bathtub”, as they say.

    If there really is a God responsible for storms, perhaps He doesn’t like Mormons?

  50. Brandoch Daha on November 1, 2012 at 8:16 am said:

    What you are effectively conceding here Brando, is that clouds have a greater forcing effect than GHGs

    What you are effectively conceding here Richardo, is that water in the atmosphere increases the climate sensitivity to CO2.

    Again, read my lips: atmospheric H2O is a short-term FEEDBACK, not a FORCING.

    The effect of CO2 persists for millenia (Solomon et. al.), whereas H2O typically persists for only a few weeks.

    on average, the residence time of a water molecule in the troposphere is about 9 to 10 days.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

    Perhaps you have heard of – or even experienced – the atmospheric phenomena known as “rain”?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

  51. Brandoch Daha on November 1, 2012 at 8:29 am said:

    And now the denialists push back – sort of…

    http://www.salon.com/2012/10/31/you_cant_keep_a_good_climate_skeptic_down/

  52. From a holistic perspective, it’s worth exploring the relationships between Arctic ice melt, shifting of the jet stream, Rossby waves, blocking highs, oscillations in large scale weather patterns and changes in ocean temperature. They are all inter-related in a chaotic system. There are feedback loops everywhere. How can you be so confident that greenhouse gas concentration is irrelevant?

  53. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2012 at 9:11 am said:

    You’re confusing the difference between cloud (liquid) and water vapour (gas) Brando. They are both H2O but different phases (states). It takes a change of phase/state for the gas phase/state (water vapour) to become liquid phase/state (cloud) and thence rain.

    Water vapour is a negative feedback on temperature when it is present (easily proved as per Carl Brehmer). In humid conditions, water vapur “damps” (remember YOUR terminology Brando) rise and fall (think Singapore). When humidity is absent (but CO2 is present) there’s little damping to rise or fall (think Sahara) and no WV feedback obviously. This demonstrates the overwhelmingly superior GHE properties of WV compared to CO2. Humidity becomes a forcing when long-term levels trend up or down but the posited up trend has not eventuated and if anything WV has trended down in the bulk of the atmosphere.

    Clouds are a long-term forcing (dimming/brightening, see Rachel Pinker’s cloud forcing definition) and short-term modulator of solar and convection by day and of out going radiation and convection by night but not a feedback on the solar constant because if it was it wouldn’t be a solar “constant” as I’ve pointed out previously. Cloud feedback on temperature acts diurnally, annually and decadally and in the longer term becomes a forcing with the greatest effect being on the ocean so although cloud is transient, the long-term effect of cloudiness is profound in combination with the oceanic heat sink and thermal lag as explained previously.

    I realize your imperative to make dimming/brightening go away by any means fair or foul Brando but dissing 7,950 Scholar catalogues puts you in very lonely company indeed.

  54. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2012 at 9:13 am said:

    >”How can you be so confident that greenhouse gas concentration is irrelevant?”

    History.

  55. Propaganda, unsupported by the science, as you know

  56. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2012 at 12:18 pm said:

    >”on average, the residence time of a water molecule in the troposphere is about 9 to 10 days.”

    Blockbuster: Earths Energy Balance measured – models are wrong

    JN – “Another major implication is that water is churning up and falling out of the sky faster than the experts thought. The Earth’s evaporative cooler is lifting more water, taking more heat, and dumping that heat in the atmosphere. At the top of the atmosphere heat is radiating off the planet to offset the radiation coming in. On the water planet, it really is all about water.”

    “Though latent heat and evaporation are so important to our energy balance, the uncertainties on the water cycle are large. How much rain falls on the oceans? We only know to within 10 or 20%.”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/blockbuster-earths-energy-balance-measured-models-are-wrong/#more-24658

    Graeme L. Stephens, Juilin Li, Martin Wild, Carol Anne Clayson, Norman Loeb, Seiji Kato, Tristan L’Ecuyer, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr, Matthew Lebsock & Timothy Andrews An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations, Nature Geoscience, 5, 691–696 (2012)

    “….the surface energy balance needs to be revised….”

    “…the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm–2, than earlier model-based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.”

    “For the decade considered [2000-2010], the average imbalance is 0.6 = 340.2 − 239.7 − 99.9 Wm2 when these TOA fluxes are constrained to the best estimate ocean heat content (OHC) observations since 2005 (refs 13,14). This small imbalance is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm2(95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors12,15. Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change11.”

    Figure 1 | Surface energy balance. Observed and climate model deduced energy fluxes (all in Wm2) in and out of the TOA (a) and at the surface (b). The observed fluxes (containing error estimates) are taken from Fig. B1 and the climate model fluxes are from simulations archived under the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) twentieth-century experiments. The fluxes from a 16-model ensemble are summarized in terms of the range in model values (maximum and minimum fluxes) with the ensemble mean fluxes given in parenthesis. ‘SW in’ and ‘SW out’ refer to the incoming and outgoing (reflected) solar fluxes at the TOA and ‘LW out’ is the outgoing longwave radiation. Similarly ‘SW down’ and ‘SW up’ refer to downward and upward (reflected) solar fluxes at the surface, and ‘LW up’ and ‘LW down’ refer to the upward emitted flux of longwave radiation from the surface and the downward longwave flux emitted from the atmosphere to the surface, respectively. SH and LH refer to latent and sensible heat fluxes.

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/earth-energy-budget/stephens-surface-energy-balance.gif

    Figure B1 | The global annual mean energy budget of Earth for the approximate period 2000–2010. All fluxes are in Wm–2. Solar fluxes are in yellow and infrared fluxes in pink. The four flux quantities in purple-shaded boxes represent the principal components of the atmospheric energy balance.

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/earth-energy-budget/stephens-earth-energy-balance-diag-crop.gif

    # # #

    The effect of CO2 forcing “is lost in the noise of uncertainty” – JN Hat tip to Doug Hoffman for the phrase.

  57. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2012 at 12:30 pm said:

    Basically, the hydrological cycle is the planet’s primary climate modulator – as we already knew.

  58. Richard C (NZ) on November 1, 2012 at 1:03 pm said:

    Some sense in this article:-

    ‘Meteorological bomb’ or climate change? Experts eye Sandy’s cause

    Sandy began as a late-season hurricane coming up from the Caribbean in what many experts believe were conditions fuelled by unusually warm water temperatures for this time of year. It then joined forces with a large Arctic weather system, which increased its size and transformed it into a winter storm with far more power than would otherwise have been expected.

    The third unusual element was a high pressure system off Canada’s east coast that blocked Sandy’s escape route. While hurricanes usually turn eastward, the system forced Sandy to make a very sharp left turn and slam into the New Jersey coast.

    “Many, many hurricanes have threatened the east coast of the United States over many, many years,” said David Nolan, an associate professor of meteorology and physical oceanography at the University of Miami. “Virtually all of them move up the coast and eventually turn to the right and head out to sea.”

    Nolan said there would likely have been a winter storm forming at about this time. Because Sandy happened to be coming up the coast at exactly the right moment, it gave that storm a head start.

    “Instead of starting from nothing, the storm is starting from a circulation as strong as a hurricane,” he said.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/meteorological-bomb-or-climate-change-experts-eye-sandys-cause-20121101-28l5j.html#ixzz2AvqhLkDp

  59. Thanks for the link. That was exactly the point that I was trying to make.

  60. Brandoch Daha on November 1, 2012 at 8:56 pm said:

    Basically, the hydrological cycle is the planet’s primary climate modulator – as we already knew.

    Indeed, we do, Richie. Now, here’s the $64K question… think carefully …. where does the heat to drive the climate come from?

    Yes, indeed, go to the top of the class, Richie, it’s THE SUN!

    Now – you’ll have to really concentrate for this one – the sun’s energy output is stable, so why is the Earth system accumulating heat?

    OK, if you’re stuck, you can look in the back of the book for the answer:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/kids/

  61. Brandoch Daha on November 2, 2012 at 1:19 am said:

    Hey, guys, Governor Cuomo of the State of New York has a few words for you:

    “There has been a series of extreme weather incidents. That is not a political statement, that is a factual statement,” Cuomo said. “Anyone who says there is not a dramatic change in weather patterns is denying reality.”

    http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/10/6538853/cuomo-whoever-doesnt-see-extreme-weather-pattern-denying-reality

  62. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 7:33 am said:

    “…the sun’s energy output is stable”

    TSI was stable at a higher level than Maunder Minimum but now on a decline for a couple of decades at least.

    SSN is never stable.

    SWsfc is cyclical (dimming/brightening).

    The hydrological cycle modulates the energy and the effect of CO2 forcing “is lost in the noise of uncertainty”

    Case closed.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 7:51 am said:

    “There has been a series of extreme weather incidents. That is not a political statement, that is a factual statement,” Cuomo said.

    What Cuomo didn’t say was that he hadn’t checked his facts or metrics or scientists opinions. Facts and metrics like this:-

    Number Of October US Hurricane Strikes Per Decade

    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-sxfL–JnNpo/UJEwnN1BuKI/AAAAAAAANQw/drIbcl9nleQ/s400/hurricanceoctober.jpg

    # October Hurricane Strikes Are Becoming Much Less Common: Occurred almost 3 times as often during 19th century as they do now

    #’They used to happen about once every 1.7 years, and now they happen about once every five years. The peak decades for October hurricanes were the 1880s and the 1940s, which both had six

    And this,

    US Hurricane Strikes Vs. Atmospheric CO2

    https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0-2kYBNkDAk/UJKr_M-hIzI/AAAAAAAANUE/JhAu33Nkkyc/s400/hurricaneco2.jpg

    # The US Has Had 285 Hurricane Strikes Since 1850: U.S. has always been vulnerable to hurricanes. 86% of U.S. hurricane strikes occurred with CO2 below Hansen’s safe level of 350 PPM

    And a graph you can do at home (as Steven Goddard did),

    Eleven Year Running Mean Of US Hurricane Strikes

    http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/screenhunter_142-aug-03-22-42.jpg?w=960&h=584

    # “There were plenty of hurricanes below 350 PPM, and recent claims that hurricanes are caused by CO2 are simply idiotic”

  64. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 7:53 am said:

    And scientists opinions like this:-

    Prof. Pielke Jr.: ‘Sandy was terrible, but we’re currently in a relative hurricane ‘drought’ — It’s been ‘more than 7 years since’ Cat 3 or larger made landfall, ‘longest such span in over a century’

  65. The mainstream media is pretty much unanimously reporting that AGW increases the probability of storms like Sandy:
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/10/hurricane-sandy
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/10/30/did-climate-change-cause-hurricane-sandy/
    Even the Daily Mail (which I wouldn’t catagorise as high class journalism) is struggling to spin it otherwise.

  66. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 8:02 am said:
  67. Brandoch Daha on November 2, 2012 at 8:04 am said:

    It’s not the number of hurricanes, its the increasing intensity, idjit.

    Here’s more “tabloid journalism” from the right wing:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/11/01/bloomberg_endorses_obama_citing_climate_change/

  68. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 8:34 am said:

    The only accurate part of this Bloomberg Business Week cover is “stupid” – Roger Pielke Jr.

    BTW, Michael Bloomberg has been both a Democrat and a Republican, at present endorsing left wing Obama.

  69. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 8:48 am said:

    >”…its the increasing intensity, idjit”

    These graphs of cyclone energy indicate that the “idjit” is you Brando:-

    Global and Northern Hemisphere

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/files/2010/09/Hurricane-intensity-to-Sep-2010.jpg

    Global Tropical

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/2012/ACE-Global_10_2012__540x343.jpg

  70. It’s also about where these storm systems are going too. Sandy wouldn’t have done what it did without the necessary conditions of warmer ocean temps and a big blocking Greenland high pushing Sandy in an unusual direction. The blocking high was a 3 sigma extreme outlier. You can argue that it was all an unlikely coincidence (the high spring tide didn’t help), a perfect storm if you will, but the blocking high was likely a product of the Arctic melt affecting the jet-stream which forced the high to sit and intensify. Fingerprints on a smoking gun….

  71. Brandoch Daha on November 2, 2012 at 9:08 am said:

    Excellent point, Simon; this event had either a significant contribution from AGW, or God hates Mitt Romney…

  72. Even if the intensity of hurricanes is getting stronger (which Richard C’s scientific evidence shows it isn’t), how can you connect that with man’s emissions when the amplifying effect of positive water vapour feedback is non-existent. I don’t think you understand Brandoch, all your points that you raise are redundant if you can’t prove the WV effect. If you can’t prove the WV feedback, you can’t prove AGW, and if you can’t prove AGW you can’t prove that man is responsible for anything to do with the climate or the weather. Sandy was a big storm, so where is the proof that man was responsible for it? You have absolutely nothing whatsoever to back up your fantasies, the scientists don’t either. Here’s another question for you – if the evidence for AGW is so ‘overwhelming’, why can’t you provide evidence of positive WV feedback?

  73. Brandoch Daha on November 2, 2012 at 9:37 am said:

    all your points that you raise are redundant if you can’t prove the WV effect

    ** YAWN ** BORING STRAW MAN ALERT

    Sorry, Magoo, the burden of proof is on you deniers to come up with an alternative theory to explain 150 years of consistent scientific observation and experiment.

    RC, by the way, is not a climate scientist – or any kind of scientist, as far as I can tell. Maybe a pensioned-off engineer?

  74. The good old “God of the Gaps” argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In matters outside of my expertise, I am happy to defer to the experts. Richard C does not qualify until he submits his paper to Nature.

  75. Well try this one then Brandoch, it has to be something else because the empirical evidence shows it can’t be CO2.

  76. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 9:53 am said:

    >”..the burden of proof is on you”

    No, the burden of proof is on the proponent of the hypothesis – we hold the null.

    >”…to come up with an alternative theory to explain 150 years of consistent scientific observation

    Considering the effect of CO2 forcing “is lost in the noise of uncertainty” and the hydrological cycle modulates the variations at surface of solar energy, itself varying over 150+ years, we have plenty of alternative.

    >”…and experiment”

    What “experiment” is that exactly?

  77. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 9:58 am said:

    >”…this event had either a significant contribution from AGW”

    ONE downgraded cyclone that turned left instead of turning right as usual proves AGW for you Brando? Get a grip

  78. In over 40 yrs of looking more than 30,000,000 radiosondes have failed to find the hotspot. This is backed up by 2 satellites that have also failed to find the hotspot. Both of these are backed up by the temperature record that show hows the computer models falied when they took account of the positive feedback of water vapour:

    Page 13 of http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

    I think the evidence is pretty strong that the hot spot doesn’t exist. So what evidence is there for positive WV feedback without the hotspot? If there is no WV feedback, what evidence do you have for AGW theory?

    As for Richard C, I’m sure if you ask him nicely he’ll provide the source of the scientific data for his graphs regarding hurricane intensity.

  79. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 10:03 am said:

    You can argue that it was all an unlikely coincidence (the high spring tide didn’t help), a perfect storm if you will”

    Yes

    >”…but the blocking high was likely a product of the Arctic melt affecting the jet-stream which forced the high to sit and intensify”

    All natural phenomenon, no anthro attribution.

    >”Fingerprints on a smoking gun….”

    Of compounded factors, none of which point to anthro cause in view of historical cyclone records.

  80. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 10:07 am said:

    >”Richard C does not qualify until he submits his paper to Nature”

    No need for me to bother when there’s this:-

    1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

  81. Ah right, here’s the source of Richard C’s graphs:

    Maue (2011) Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity: (published June 2011)
    Geophys. Res. Lett. (2011, in press PDF)

    About halfway down the page under ‘Most Recent Peer-Reviewed Literature’

    http://policlimate.com/tropical/

  82. As far as your ‘strawman’ argument assertion goes, it’s not a strawman argument at all. If you can’t prove that man is responsible for a changing climate then you can’t say that things like storms or rising temperatures are caused by man.

    ‘To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.’ Wikipedia.

    Disproving a vital supporting foundational basis for a theory so that it is no longer valid is not a strawman, it is an attack on one of the core components of the argument. You can’t say man is responsible for the storm when you can’t even prove that man has the ability to do so. There is no substituted parallel argument used. All your arguments that are based on the assumption that man is changing the climate are false until you can prove that man actually is changing the climate – and the empirical evidence shows that he isn’t.

  83. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 11:45 am said:

    Now Simon, since you say “I am happy to defer to the experts”, what do you say to Dr Ryan Maue’s compendium (H/t Magoo) of Cyclone Activity and Accumulated Cyclone Energy?

    I note the list of citations:-

    Maue, R. N. (2009), Northern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclone Activity, Geophys. Res. Letts. paper PDF

    Maue, R. N. (2011), Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity. , Geophys. Res. Letts. VOL. 38, L14803, 6 PP., 2011 doi:10.1029/2011GL047711 ( paper PDF )

    Weinkle, J., R. N. Maue, R. Pielke Jr. (2012), Historical global tropical cyclone landfalls. J. Climate ( in press). PDF in press

    Maue, R. N. (2012), Are tropical cyclones becoming more intense? (submit after AMS tropical)

    Expert enough for you Simon?

    Ryan Maue: ‘Global warming/hurricanes stuff will die down quick. Actual science will prevail over tabloid quality speculation from attention whores’

    # # #

    ‘We must prepare for extreme weather events, not vainly try to stop them’

    by Tom Harris

    http://www.fcpp.org/blog/we-must-prepare-for-extreme-weather-events-not-vainly-try-to-stop-them/

    Listening to climate campaigners, you would think that Hurricane Sandy, already downgraded to a tropical storm, was something that never happened before in the United States. While damage has indeed been severe for a number of reasons I discuss below, winds are already slowing due to drag produced as the storm moves over land.

    In fact, there have been many storms far more powerful than Sandy, which, by the time it hit the coast of the U.S. was barely a category 1 hurricane.

    […]

    This didn’t stop main stream media, ever anxious to hype extreme weather events as harbingers of climate catastrophe, from pronouncing it a hurricane of unparalleled proportions. In many cases they simply echoed the excited claims of climate campaigners such as 350.org’s Bill McKibben, who described Sandy as “really something that we haven’t seen before.” As Terry Corcoran wrote in Canada’s National Post, “Frankenstorm, he [McKibben] said, “is really the right name for it,” as he linked the hurricane to man-made climate change, Mitt Romney and “the most powerful and richest industry on earth.” Big oil caused the big storm.”

    […]

    ICSC Science Advisory Board member, Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, an “Expert Reviewer” of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007), said in a telephone interview with the author Tuesday evening that claims such as McKibben’s are “absolute bunko”. Listen in to his interview on CFRA Radio in Ottawa later in the evening of October 30 by clicking here. Dr. Khandekar explains how tropical cyclones (called hurricanes in the North Atlantic) are not on the rise worldwide. The following graph illustrates this point:

    [graph from Maue compendium]

    Instead of vainly trying to stop extreme weather such as Tropical Cyclone Sandy from happening, we need to harden our societies to these inevitable events by burying electrical cables underground, reinforcing buildings and other infrastructure and ensuring reliable energy sources so that we have the power to heat and cool our dwellings as needed.

    In the meantime, there is no excuse for most of the power failures. Year in and year out, we see parts of the electricity infrastructure fall apart in storms that meteorologist tell us are inevitable from time to time. Power companies should simply pay more attention to preventive maintenance and better harden our power supply by burying more electricity transmission cables underground.

  84. Brandoch Daha on November 2, 2012 at 11:45 am said:

    Dear Mr. Magoo, you win again! Your logic is impeccable…

    Now, please feel free to leap out of tall buildings, as what could possibly go wrong?

    After all, what greenies call “gravity” is just a theory that lacks vital supporting foundations.

    Firstly, they would have to unify General Relativity with quantum mechanics; and then go on to prove the Universe exists by explaining the Big Bang (or Bangs, if it turns out that perpetual inflation is the correct model).

    Whilst we’re about it, are you aware that no supporting foundation has yet been found for mathematics? Or that, given the AdS / CFT correspondence, the Universe itself may be a hologram?

    Goodness, so much doubt, it’s a wonder you can function at all; hardly surprising, then, that your neurons seem impaired – it’s not easy, when you don’t even known how many dimensions you exist in – is it 4, 5, 11, or that of the Monster Group?

    Gosh, why is life so hard? Why do we always have to find things out, one step at a time?

    I can see how it would be so much more comforting to hide away in the fantasy Denialoverse, but some of us have to live in the real world…

  85. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 11:57 am said:

    >”…but some of us have to live in the real world…”

    I see you haven’t made the adjustment yet Brando.

  86. 1. Who collated this list?
    2. Why don’t the editors list their last names and employer?
    2. Who paid to have this list collated?
    3. Do all of these papers really dismiss AGW?
    This looks suspiciously similar to the CO2Science crock.

  87. Brandoch Daha on November 2, 2012 at 12:09 pm said:

    Yeah, I thought that would be over your head, Richard, buried in the sand as it is….

  88. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 12:13 pm said:

    33 papers in the ‘Hurricanes’ section Simon

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Hurricanes

    Should keep you in reading for a while.

  89. No disagreements there. You’re missing the point, which is that there are underlying reasons for why Sandy did what it did and that it is related to Arctic melting and the Northern Arctic Oscillation.

  90. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 12:21 pm said:

    >”..buried in the sand as it is….”

    Enlightening sand is is too. In it I found this review:

    ‘New Global Energy Balance Data Shows Climate Models Profoundly Uncertain’

    http://www.thegwpf.org/doug-hoffman-new-global-energy-balance-data-shows-climate-models-profoundly-uncertain/

    The net energy balance is the sum of individual fluxes. The current uncertainty in this net surface energy balance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm−2. This uncertainty is an order of magnitude larger than the changes to the net surface fluxes associated with increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    In other words, the radiative forcing due to doubling CO2, estimated to be ~4Wm−2, is lost in the noise of uncertainty

  91. Now they’re good examples of straw man arguments Brandoch.

    I have evidence that shows that there is no positive feedback from water vapour – the tropospheric hot spot does not exist, as evidenced empirically by over 30,000,000 radisosondes over a 40 yr period, 2 satellites, and a supporting temperature record that backs up the lack of the water vapour feedback. What evidence do you have that it might exist, nothing?

    As the theory of AGW is as follows:

    1/ Man is increasing the levels of CO2.
    2/ Man’s emissions of CO2 warms the atmosphere by a tiny amount.
    3/ The warming attributed to CO2 causes increased water vapour that is supposed to amplify the effects of CO2 by the vast majority of the predicted warming.

    The final part (the the one that is supposed to be the major driving force of temperature change) is non-existent, therefore the theory failed an empirical test, and is falsified as a result. The fact that the temperature is no longer rising despite increasing CO2 levels, and the previous warming is nothing unusual compared to historical records further reinforces the failure.

    What does the pro AGW camp have? No rising temperatures for the past 16 yrs. despite ever increasing CO2 levels, a string of failed computer models, no tropospeheric hot spot, no water vapour feedback, no scientific connection between the world’s weather and man’s CO2 output, etc., etc. You have no evidence, all you have are doomsday speculations based on faith in a theory that has failed numerous empirical tests.

    The funny thing is you’re willing to present a storm as evidence of AGW without a shred of evidence to back it up, yet you reject the peer-reviewed science that shows empirically that the AGW theory is a failure. You then say that those who don’t agree with you belong to the ‘fantasy denialoverse’ when you have not one piece of evidence to back you up. As I said before, whatever is causing the Earth to warm it certainly isn’t CO2.

  92. Richard C (NZ) on November 2, 2012 at 12:24 pm said:

    >”…it is related to Arctic melting and the Northern Arctic Oscillation.”

    Among other factors, none of which points to CO2.

  93. Brandoch Daha on November 2, 2012 at 2:20 pm said:

    Wow, that’s a great compilation of discredited xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx [we’re not insulting you, buster, so you keep your cheap mouth shut! – RT] ] memes, Magoo, but it will not save your credibility, which is no better than the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx science from xxxxxxxx websites that Richard alone seems to think matters a damn.

    Reality has finally caught up with your little movement in the US, as it is in Australia, and there will be hell to pay when the full cost of the last two decades of AGW inaction hits home! [Think you might support those wild assertions with some credible evidence? AFTER you’ve provided evidence for the AGW theory!!! – RT]

  94. Oh, for heaven’s sake, BD, stick to the point you’re trying to make – nobody argued that gravity doesn’t exist! Of all the strawman arguments, that one gets first prize! When the argument goes against you, you resort to meaningless, time-wasting arm-waving. What’s your evidence, man?

  95. Reality has finally caught up with your little movement in the US, as it is in Australia, and there will be hell to pay when the full cost of the last two decades of AGW inaction hits home!

    I often wonder if people like Lord Daha actually believe this tripe, or if they’re just having a laugh.

    Nobody in their right mind could actually have this view of the world, surely? I sometimes worry about their mental stability, seriously.

    Have they really never looked into the history of weather-related events in the past, or are they simply wishing it were true that these things never happened before?

  96. Brandoch Daha on November 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm said:

    The history that is relevant here, boys, is that of the cancer-denying tobacco companies, who were eventually emeshed in the web of their own lies and forced to reveal how they had funded denialist “science” and lobby groups for decades.

    Do any of you smoke, by the way?

    Thought not….

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid#p1

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/its-global-warming-stupid-telling-it-like-it-is-in-post-sandy-usa/#comment-35307

  97. BD, I’m serious now: one more straw man argument in this thread and you’re gone for good. This is idiotic time-wasting and you’re obviously uninterested in pursuing a sensible argument or even in listening. Neither gravity nor smoking are relevant, you nincompoop. I don’t smoke, and I don’t know who might, but that, too, is irrelevant. If you’re so concerned about “caring” for the earth, why do you make money by dirty dairying?

  98. Actually, the history that’s relevant is the 40 yrs of looking for a tropospheric hot spot and failing to find one, and no amount of hissy fits will make up for the fact that it doesn’t exist.

  99. Presumably we can also attribute the apparent increase in earthquake activity along the Pacific Rim to AGW?

    Even though I make this statement flippantly, some people have been making this claim

  100. Brandoch Daha on November 2, 2012 at 8:25 pm said:

    Try to keep up, RT, I was pointing out the absurdity of Magoo’s assumption that science deals in some kind of absolute knowledge, which it does not.

    Science deals in the empirical validation of hypotheses, out of which come reasonably settled areas of knowledge (“Theories”).

    We know that apples fall, but we don’t know what happens inside black holes; both are manifestations of gravity, but our best theory of falling apples doesn’t scratch the surface of a black hole.

    Nevertheless, apples still fall, and we “know” why, to a high degree of accuracy. Our lack of knowledge of BH interiors does not invalidate General Relativity.

    Neither does our lack of knowledge as to what caused the Big Bang invalidate the science we do know; we can always find out more, and should strive to do so.

    Whatever of wherever the fabled THS is, it does not disprove AGW, which comes from a huge body of knowlege based in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, chemistry, meteorology, climatology, etc., etc.

    Clearly, Magoo does not understand this, or is dissembling.

  101. How do you accurately measure temperature in the upper troposphere?
    Can you explain exactly why the THS is a necessary condition for AGW but not for any other form of radiative forcing?
    Are you really 100% sure that the Tropospheric Hot Spot (THS) is not present even at short time intervals?
    How do we know what the troposphere actually looks like at other concentrations of CO2?
    If you can’t answer these questions then your assertion does not carry a great deal of weight.

  102. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 8:33 am said:

    >”If you can’t answer these questions”

    Don’t have to answer any questions, the onus is on the proponents to prove the (undocumented) hypothesis.

    At present, the observing systems are inadequate (Trenberths “travesty”) to detect any anthropogenic signal among the major forcings operating and the uncertainty of measurement whether posited THS or TOA imbalance i.e. AGW forcing – if it even exists – is minor, negligible and of no consequence.

    >”Can you explain exactly why the THS is a necessary condition for AGW”

    It IS AGW Simon. The posited AGW effect (that we can glean from the disarray of posits), apart from TOA imbalance, is the interception of OLR at the “last stop” (about 100 hPa) of the troposphere above the tropics. The interception is supposedly due to increasing CO2 concentration (along with the minor GHGs) and a posited increase in humidity (positive feedback) at that altitude. That top layer then re-emits (supposedly) back down to the layer immediately beneath (about 150 – 350 hPa, 10 km) causing a build up of heat (supposedly). That is the AGW fingerprint, signature or whatever and the models – if they are valid – exhibit this e.g. here:-

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/missing-fingerprints/

    Given the buildup of heat has not eventuated and neither has the humidity increase in the upper troposphere, the fingerprint is entirely absent unless you wish to imagine it is there as you seem inclined to do Simon.

    There has been plenty of time (satellite era plus radiosondes) if the THS was ever to eventuate for it to become apparent but it hasn’t.

  103. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 8:42 am said:

    >”Whatever of wherever the fabled THS is”

    See this comment for a synopsis:-

    https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/10/niwa-says-it-wasnt-about-climate-change/#comment-136214

    >”it does not disprove AGW”

    Wrong way round Brando. If it eventuates, it validates the CO2-forced GCMs and AGW. If it doesn’t (and it hasn’t), it proves the CO2-forced RF methodology of the models and AGW to be invalid.

    BTW, for someone subscribing to AGW you don’t know much about AGW if you don’t know “whatever of wherever the fabled THS is”.

  104. Brandoch Daha on November 3, 2012 at 8:46 am said:

    At present, the observing systems are inadequate (Trenberths “travesty”) to detect any anthropogenic signal among the major forcings operating

    As we have come to expect, Richard, you have once again created a false “quote” from a respected climatologist to somehow bolster your nonsense.

    Trenberth’s comment related to the need to better track energy transfer between components of the earth system, not a failure to detect an anthropogenic signal.

    Whilst I do not expect honesty from you, I would at least hope for a little more quality in your disinformation!

    These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 10^20 joules per year. This falls well short of the total 145 x 10^20 joules per year (although the error bars do overlap).

    Trenberth expresses frustration that observation systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy. It’s not that global warming has stopped. We know global warming has continued because satellites find an energy imbalance. It’s that our observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm

    Here is an update that includes the latest Argo data:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming-advanced.htm

  105. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 9:38 am said:

    >”We know global warming has continued because satellites find an energy imbalance.”

    Update: Stephens et al 2012. We don’t know squat.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html

    >”It’s that our observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.”

    Exactly – Trenberth’s “travesty” as I said. Right now, any anthropogenic signal – if it even exists – is undetectable among far greater forcings operating and is minute in comparison to the uncertainty of measurement. This leaves the IPCC in a precarious predicament in the lead-up to AR5 – how, in the fifth report after four others since 1990 do they support their AGW hand waving when the anthropogenic signal in undetectable?

    And if the anthropogenic signal is undetectable, why should there be concern or alarm?

  106. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 9:59 am said:

    >”Here is an update that includes the latest Argo data:”

    How do you know that work includes ALL the ARGO data Brando?

    NODC (read Willis) is in the habit of discarding floats that don’t provide the requisite data to keep the trend rising. Thanks to Bob Tisdale’s data obsession we now know that UKMO EN3 (-ve) disagrees in sign with NOAA (+ve) over ARGO era 0 – 700m OHC.

    Must have been embarrassing because UKMO hastily (but too late) withdrew their OHC data from their website after the news went around the world.

  107. ‘How do you accurately measure temperature in the upper troposphere?’

    Measuring the tropospheric temperature has it’s flaws, but measurements from both radiosondes (thermometers) and satellites both confirm that the hot spot doesn’t exist. The temperature record also confirms a temperature record that would be expected without the positive feedback of water vapour. Would you be asking this question if the same methods found the hot spot?

    Can you explain exactly why the THS is a necessary condition for AGW but not for any other form of radiative forcing?

    It can be a result of any radiative forcing you like, but the source of the THS is irrelevant. The fact that it doesn’t exist shows that there is no evidence for positive water vapour feedback whatever it’s cause. AGW relies on positive water vapour feedback for the vast majority of it’s warming and is invalidated as a result.

    Are you really 100% sure that the Tropospheric Hot Spot (THS) is not present even at short time intervals?

    Show some evidence of it. It needs to be warming faster than the surface during times of warming. Here’s the result of 30 yrs. of radiosondes on page 116:

    http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

    And here’s the predicted hot spot vs. the observations. The satellite record confirms a missing hot spot as well:

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hot-spot/hot-spot-model-predicted.gif

    Source page 25: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap1.pdf

    How do we know what the troposphere actually looks like at other concentrations of CO2?

    Does it matter? The missing hot spot means the expected evidence for water vapour positive feedback doesn’t exist, regardless of CO2 levels. You’re getting confused between the ‘fingerprint’ argument and evidence for WV feedback. Without WV feedback the AGW hypothesis fails, and several lines of scientific observation have failed to find it.

    If you have no evidence for the tropospheric hot spot, thereby proving positive WV feedback, thereby confirming the AGW hypothesis, what evidence do you have for AGW? In the absence of positive WV feedback, how do suggest the temp. can rise beyond the 1.2C per doubling of total atmospheric CO2 concentrations? If you can’t answer these questions on what grounds do you base your belief in AGW?

  108. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 11:12 am said:

    Stephens et al (2012) available in entirety here:-

    ‘An Update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/8gkbto14cy8ip2y/ngeo1580.pdf

  109. Brandoch Daha on November 3, 2012 at 11:24 am said:

    As expected, a flurry of irrelevancies and increasingly desperate attempts to muddy the waters by our resident Pinocchio.

  110. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 11:34 am said:

    I note that the only CMIP5 model to actually mimic temperature so far this century (INM-CM4, Russian Academy of Sciences) is also the only model to exhibit positive all-sky OLR (Figure 2a).

    Those Russians just might know something that everyone else doesn’t.

  111. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 11:53 am said:

    >”a flurry of irrelevancies”

    To you of course Brando. But to policy formation, most definitely relevant.

    >”and increasingly desperate attempts to muddy the waters”

    The waters are already very muddy if 17 W/m2 uncertainty is anything to go by. Just think, at the current rate of (posited) CO2 forcing (about 0.24 W/m2/decade), the measurement uncertainty is 70 times greater than the forcing that is claimed to be bringing life-as-we-know-it to a close.

    Kinda takes the sting outta the narrative dont it Brando?

  112. Brandoch Daha on November 3, 2012 at 12:43 pm said:

    RC, ever since Monckton got trounced by Abrahams et al for misrepresenting scientific papers by quote-mining out of context, this has been a risky game to play…

    In the example above, you take a clause out of context from a paper about energy flows:

    ”It’s that our observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.”

    Here is the full abstract of that paper:

    Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas. As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth’s surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain.

    This lack of precise knowledge of surface energy fluxes profoundly affects our ability to understand how Earth’s climate responds to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In light of compilations of up-to-date surface and satellite data, the surface energy balance needs to be revised. Specifically, the longwave radiation received at the surface is estimated to be significantly larger, by between 10 and 17 Wm−2, than earlier model-based estimates. Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.

    This was what Trenberth was talking about, the need for better instrumental coverage of the Earth’s entire surface, and the ocean depths, to better see where the additional heat from AGW is going.

    That is a completely separate issue from the direct observation of AGW from the net flow at the top of the atmosphere, by satellites.

    You attempt to conflate the two, by confusing energy flows WITHIN the system with the global TOE net energy imbalance between solar energy in, and thermal radiation out.

    As I have said, this is dishonest and will only fool some of the people here, some of the time.

  113. Brandoch Daha on November 3, 2012 at 12:57 pm said:

    As for the sources you quote above, Richard (GWPF and populartechnology.net), here is their fossil-fuelled background:

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently published a flashy headline that reads, ‘900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm’. The article links to a blog post on Populartechnology.net listing more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

    The “900+ papers” list is supposed to somehow prove that a score of scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. One might be persuaded by the big numbers. We’re not.

    Oh, where to begin? First, a note of caution about the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It’s a UK group opposing climate change action. Sourcewatch’s digging reveals links to right-wing libertarian climate change deniers. According to the UK Charity Commission, GWPF’s mandate is to “advance the public understanding of global warming and of its possible consequences, and also of the measures taken or proposed to be taken in response to it”. Actually, they’re a heck of a lot more interested in sowing seeds of doubt than in disseminating knowledge. The GWPF’s director is the Heartland Institute’s* Benny Peiser, climate change denier extraordinaire. Other notable members include Canada’s Ross McKitrick of the Fraser Institute.

    Curiously, the GWPF was launched just as the Climategate emails were released. An op-ed by Chairman Nigel Lawson announced the GWPF, predicted the (hopeful) failure of the Copenhagen climate talks, and called for an inquiry into the content of the stolen emails.

    Using a screen-scraping process to analyze the data on the “900+” list, the folks over at Carbon Brief dug up some pretty incriminating information. Turns out nine of the ten most cited authors on the list (representing 186 of the 938 papers) have links to ExonMobil-funded organizations. The tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors.

    Anyone familiar with these kinds of lists (“More than 500 scientists dispute global warming” or “more Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”) knows that if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all. Many familiar climate skeptic names appear over and over again.

    Dr. Sherwood B Idso is the most cited author on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the papers. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a think tank funded by ExxonMobil and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

    The second most cited is Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, a well-known climate sceptic who admits that around 40% of his funding comes from the oil industry.

    When you really crunch the numbers, all you really find is a small echochamber of the same individuals who pop up on every denier list and petition around.

    Now a note on the most cited journals on this list. Articles from trade journal Energy and Environment are cited 137 times on the list. Energy and Environment is edited by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Benny Peiser. Numerous known climate skeptics sit on the editorial staff including Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, and Richard Lindzen. The journal has become a go-to resource for policymakers and politicians who are skeptical of the scientific consensus of climate change.

    Michael Ashley of the University of New South Wales has described it as “the climate sceptic’s journal of choice”. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge is considered a key resource for establishing the credentials and influence of key academic journals. It does not list Energy and Environment.

    A further 24 papers come from the journal Climate Research which is perhaps best known for publishing a 2003 paper by Sallie Baliunas and Willy Soon that received funding from the American Petroleum Institute. In response to the paper’s publication, the editor in chief, Hans Von Storch, and five of ten members of the editorial board, resigned in protest.

    Let’s contrast this “900+ list” with the real facts. Expert Credibility in Climate Change, which appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examines over 2,400 climate scientists and authors who have signed public statements on climate change. Their research says that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field believe that global warming is happening, and that we must respond to it.

    http://desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition

  114. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 12:59 pm said:

    >”This is what Trenberth was talking about, the need for better instrumental coverage of the Earth’s surface,”

    Which is EXACTLY what I was referring to when I mentioned Trenbrth’s “travesty”. Can’t you see that I am NOT disagreeing with you Brandoch and not misrepresenting Trenberth in the slightest? You really are a nincompoop at times Brandoch.

    The consequences of the travesty have now been documented in agonizing detail by Stephens et al (you should read the paper Brandoch – it’s sad, so have tissues handy) as they state in ‘The challenge ahead’:-

    “Essential observations such as precipitation, TOA radiative fluxes, ocean surface winds, and clouds have to be sustained if progress is to continue. But even with these steps in place, the precision needed to monitor the changes in fluxes associated with forced climate change remains a significant challenge”

    By “if progress is to continue” read – if we are to ever actually identify an anthropogenic signal this century (or maybe next) among all those observations.

  115. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 1:03 pm said:

    >“900+ list”

    Update: 1100+ list

  116. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 1:09 pm said:

    “real facts” ?

  117. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 1:33 pm said:

    ‘Expert Embarrassment in Climate Change’

    By Thomas Fuller

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/expert-embarrassment-in-climate-change/

    The paper ‘Expert Credibility in Climate Change,’ published in PNAS by Anderegg, the late Stephen Schneider, James Prall and Jacob Harold attempts to measure the credibility of climate scientists by counting how many papers they have published and how often their work has been cited by others.

    This led to the creation of a blacklist that will be used to injure the careers of those who have signed letters or petitions that do not agree with the Al Gore/James Hansen position on climate change, and to intimidate future scientists, effectively silencing dissent.

    The paper is poorly done, as I’ve explained elsewhere. They used Google Scholar instead of an academic database. They searched only in English, despite the global nature of climate science. They got names wrong. They got job titles wrong. They got incorrect numbers of publications and citations.

    As I’ve mentioned, the highly respected Spencer Weart dismissed the paper as rubbish, saying it should not have been published.

    But the worst part of this is the violation of the rights of those they studied. Because Prall keeps lists of skeptical scientists on his weblog, obsessively trawling through online petitions and published lists of letters, and because those lists were used as part of the research, anyone now or in the future can have at their fingertips the names of those who now or in the past dared to disagree.

    Continues…….

  118. Speaking ‘of irrelevancies and increasingly desperate attempts to muddy the waters’ have you come up with any evidence for positive water vapour feedback yet?

    If the largest part of the AGW theory has failed to eventuate, how does anything else to do with AGW matter considering the hypothesis has failed so decisively. If you think it hasn’t failed then go ahead and provide some evidence as to how the temp. can rise above 1.2C without the non-existant amplifying positive feedbacks.

  119. Richard C (NZ) on November 3, 2012 at 2:26 pm said:

    >”…the direct observation of AGW from the net flow at the top of the atmosphere, by satellites”

    Stephens et al:-

    This small imbalance [0.6 Wm–2 for the decade considered] is over two orders of magnitude smaller than the individual components that define it and smaller than the error of each individual flux. The combined uncertainty on the net TOA flux determined from CERES is ±4 Wm–2 (95% confidence) due largely to instrument calibration errors12,15. Thus the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change11

    AGW is currently undetectable at TOA and therefore untrackable. The CERES uncertainty is ±4 Wm–2 for measurement over the 2000 -2010 period when CO2 forcing was in the order of 0.24 Wm–2 (which if valid leaves a 0.36 W/m-2 forcing unresolved BTW, 0.6 – 0.24 = 0.36) according to the IPCC forcing expression and assuming that is valid (it isn’t).

    This inadequacy is in no way a sound basis for public policy formation and until such time as climate science can come up with substantial evidence of human climate forcing there is no need to persist with abatement regulations and punitive taxes.

  120. Just to put this one to bed finally, Joe Bastardi has a nice analysis via Anthony Watts:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/next-time-somebody-tries-to-tell-you-hurricane-sandy-was-an-unprecedented-east-coast-hurricane-show-them-this/

    This picture says it all:
    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/images/tracks/majors_1951_1960.jpg

    Note the 6 major hurricanes (categories 3 and 4 – Sandy was only a cat 1) in only two years!

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation