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
Leave a Reply

avatar
33 Comment threads
233 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
18 Comment authors
Richard TreadgoldBrandoch DahaRichard C (NZ)MagooSimon Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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… Read more »

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Amen to that!

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

You’re welcome, bob.

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

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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”… Read more »

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

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.

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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… Read more »

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

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… Read more »

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

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..]

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

‘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)?

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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/

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

Magoo:
Seconded.

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

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?

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Happy days indeed

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch 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?

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?

Richard Treadgold
Guest

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”….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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“…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

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…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

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

‘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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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?

Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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/

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

So your real name is Fred Dagg then?

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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?

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha
Simon
Guest
Simon

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?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

History.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Propaganda, unsupported by the science, as you know

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

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

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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/

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“…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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“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

comment image

# 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

comment image

# 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”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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’

Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…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

Simon
Guest
Simon

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….

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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?

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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?

Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”..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?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…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

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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/

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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… Read more »

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

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

Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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.

Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”..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

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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?… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

Among other factors, none of which points to CO2.

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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]

Richard Treadgold
Guest

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?

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

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?

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Richard Treadgold
Guest

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?

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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.

Andy
Guest
Andy

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

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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.

Simon
Guest
Simon

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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”.

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

‘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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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?

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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,… Read more »

Brandoch Daha
Guest
Brandoch Daha

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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>“900+ list”

Update: 1100+ list

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“real facts” ?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘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… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

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.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…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… Read more »

Bob D
Guest
Bob D

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!

Post Navigation