IPCC created and controlled by activists

illusion in grey

Be in no doubt

A reader, Simon, made some interesting points when he commented on my assertion that scientists “incite” policy, saying:

The relatively recent trend of activism by individual scientists is solely because of the way their work is being misrepresented and their concern over the changing environment.

What he calls “concern over the changing environment” is the motivation for activism, so I’m glad we agree on that. But if they only looked more closely rather than satisfying their expectations at first glance they wouldn’t detect any change beyond the ordinary. Because no unprecedented climatic fluctuations have been reported. So why be concerned?

He refers to scientific activism as a “recent trend”, blatantly ignoring the fact that the whole climate scam was started by activists, and describes activism by “individual scientists” to imply they are few. In fact, they are thickly distributed throughout the UN, the IPCC, national and international scientific organisations and national governments, and their pronouncements and opinions are broadcast constantly.

How much more must they do before Simon notices them?

He is either deluded or his eyes are shut. Scientists everywhere get into policy, not just those who leave science to become activists. But not all scientists are biased.

The activism of scientists was well established when the UNFCCC was written in 1992 — even earlier, when the WMO and the UNEP set up the IPCC in 1988. Who could deny that their very purpose was climate activism, when the IPCC was prevented by its founding principles from investigating the truth of anthropogenic climate change. They were forced to take it as gospel and simply find evidence for it. Which is not normally considered a scientific approach.

Climate illusions

The opening paragraph of the treaty on the Framework Convention asserts:

that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind.

From then and for ever, IPCC investigators have been prevented from examining the truth of those assertions. If they don’t accept them, they don’t get used by the IPCC. Meanwhile, Pachauri insists the IPCC is a scientific organisation. That is just the greatest illusion ever created.

Definition of an activist

The IPCC’s first chairman was Bert Bolin, a meteorologist (in other words, a scientist), who “cajoled a reluctant world into recognising the urgency of the issue [of climate change],” in the words of one commentator. A pretty good description of an activist, I would say. It’s been the same ever since.

Look among the ranks of lead writers, principal authors and other contributors to the IPCC reports and you’ll find many who hold full-time positions with WWF, Greenpeace and other activist organisations — you can be sure they’re not there because of their neutrality towards global warming. Donna Laframboise wrote “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” describing this and other defects of the IPCC authors and processes.

The current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, is an activist of the first order and thoroughly involved in promulgating policy and an urgent need for policy.

In his address to the meeting of COP 18 last November he stated openly:

I would like to submit with due emphasis that knowledge from the recent work of the IPCC must drive and define decisions that need to be taken now to deal with the growing challenge of climate change.

Chilling new move

I have just come across this. It is perhaps not surprising to hear of a bold new initiative with the latest Assessment Report, taking the IPCC’s policy involvement to a completely new level, but it is chilling. They’re beginning to leave the heavily controversial science behind them to concentrate on policy. This is revolutionary. Pachauri announced it:

In the case of WGIII, an innovation in AR5 is the “Human Settlements, Infrastructure and Spatial Planning” chapter. This is important because while urban planning is referenced in AR4 there is no comprehensive survey on the role which urban planning can play in adaptation and mitigation. WGIII is also providing greater emphasis on social science aspects of mitigation measures. For the first time, WG III is going beyond the technical aspects and into the social science aspects. WG III AR5 Report is also providing greater focus on technologies, sectors and regions, in order for the distribution of risks and costs to be more specific, i.e, there is less reliance on averages. And finally, it is focusing more explicitly on mitigation options, costs, strategies and policy requirements, with a more integrated approach to adaptation and mitigation.

Those with eyes to see, let them see.

It could not be clearer or more stark. Here is the first sign (the first I’ve seen, anyway) of the IPCC acknowledging its links to Agenda 21 and the over-arching ambitions of the United Nations to rule the world. For what guidelines for “urban planning” or “policy requirements” could the IPCC adopt but those handily available and vigorously promoted for 21 years by its parent, the UN? This is the very scenario Lord Monckton has warned us about since Copenhagen in 2009. If we let the UN take control, the world will indeed be damned. We must visit this again; now, moving on…

Activists in New Zealand, too

Here in New Zealand, public scientists active in the “fight” to restrict industry because of its emissions of carbon dioxide include (off the top of my head) David Wratt, Andy Reisinger, Jim Salinger, James Renwick, Keith Hunter and Martin Manning. There are many others — I apologise if I left you out.

I was looking at the Antarctic Research Centre web site, which seems otherwise entirely focused on scientific topics and purposes, when I came across a “Policy” page. For anyone concerned about freedom, it, too, makes chilling reading, for they are fully involved in formulating public policy.

Policy

One of the main purposes of climate science is to provide reliable knowledge that can be used by society to make decisions concerning our relationship and responses to a climate system that is undergoing marked change. This involves:

• increasing our knowledge of the climate system and human interactions with this system (scientific basis),
• helping to understand the nature, scale and timing of climate change risk (vulnerability),
• helping to develop realistic climate change adaptation goals and strategies (adaptation), and
• helping the formulation of realistic climate change mitigation goals and strategies (mitigation).

The role of the ANZICE policy component is to help translate the relevance of the research findings for a policy audience.

To the naive, this looks innocent. But to the activist, it’s a golden opportunity to manipulate society and gain control of it. They will grasp the opportunity. Just look at what has happened to Greenpeace.

Nothing’s happening

People who believe in dangerous anthropogenic global warming should stop saying the same things endlessly like a machine and start to notice the real world.

The climate has not been warming dangerously — it hasn’t warmed at all for about 20 years — sea level rise is not accelerating, colder northern winters are not caused by melting ice and the only sign of future dangerous temperatures is unproven computer models.

The climate scam is driven by activists, some of whom are scientists too.

188
Leave a Reply

avatar
27 Comment threads
161 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
AndyRichard C (NZ)NickMagoorealityrulesok Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Ken
Guest

Rather dishonest to change “concern” to “assert” Richard?

Alters the whole meaning.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

You’re on moderation, Perrott, but I had to approve this one, just to say: prove it.

Enlighten us: how could the UN express “concern” about something they did not “assert”? How does it change their meaning by saying they asserted something they were concerned about? You’re sounding idiotic, but go ahead, explain.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Ease off the conspiracy theory RT. Climate science is a is a key part of Antarctic research for at least two reasons:
1. Climate change is most pronounced towards the poles. These ecosystems are the most under threat. As an example, a friend passing through from Campbell Island tells me that this year the waters around Campbell are far warmer than usual and the krill has been replaced by a kind of jellyfish. Krill is central to the whole ecosystem.
2. The environment is relatively pristine and the opportunity for ice samples allow high quality paleo-climatic reconstructions.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

I don’t use the word conspiracy, nor do I believe it. I simply cite public documents. It’s a fact that the UN wrote Agenda 21. Read it. The point about mentioning policy was your denial that scientists get involved with it. Forgotten already? 1. The Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years — why do you say “poles”? What does “far warmer” mean? Did your friend give you a temperature record showing how SST around Campbell Island have actually changed and by how much over many decades? Do you know anything about the regular cycles of oceanic species? Can you say if the “replacement” of krill by jellyfish is at all unusual, or how long it will last before the krill return? Are you sure, if krill is “central,” that it’s not available nearby? Do you know that there’s no definition of “ecosystem”? 2. Which environment? If you mean the Campbell Island environment, what’s wrong with pristine jellyfish? What’s the problem with warmth? Where are the ice samples taken? Why does a pristine marine environment make any difference to them? Oops, missed the punchline. Finally, what makes you think we’re responsible for any… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

I don’t know why I bother but…
Only parts of Antarctica are cooling as circulation patterns change. The Antarctic peninsula is warming rather quickly. My Campbell Island example was just that, only a sample. The warm conditions could be very localised for all I know. I’m not attributing it to AGW, merely pointing out that a warmer ocean affects the krill life cycle.
Please restrict the ad hominem, you are under moderation.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

I don’t know why I bother but… Do you agree with anything in the post? For example, do you agree that the IPCC is not and cannot be a scientific organisation, for the reason that it cannot practice normal science, since its own rules prevent it from trying, and it has never tried, to falsify the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming, either with its own work or with a literature review? Do you agree that several thousand scientists write each assessment report, or do 80% of IPCC members have no science qualifications? Only parts of Antarctica are cooling as circulation patterns change. The Antarctic peninsula is warming rather quickly. So when you find cooling, you say it’s caused by natural variation, but warming is caused by us? Is that what you mean? Since 1979, the UAH satellite record at http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUSPol.html shows no significant trend. The peninsula is a tiny fraction of the continent, extending over 600 km beyond the Antarctic Circle into warmer waters, and lies in its warmest climate. Of course any warming there says nothing about the vast bulk of it, with ice kilometres thick. My Campbell Island example was… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

If there was a significant body of scientific literature that rejected the AGW hypothesis, the IPCC would be unable to ignore it in their preparation of AR5. That body of evidence does not exist so I suspect that AR5 will reach similar conclusions as AR4 but hopefully with some additional insight into what is going on.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I suspect that AR5 will reach similar conclusions as AR4 but hopefully with some additional insight into what is going on.”

From Lexology.com down-thread, the legal fraternity are already reporting this:-

The new IPCC draft report suggests two key findings:

1. actual global warming measurements do not match IPCC model predictions in the IPCC 2007 report; and
2. global temperatures overall have leveled off since the 1998-1999 timeframe.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8791ec6c-49da-419e-8428-bfb4bd9693bd

SimonP
Guest
SimonP

Dana Nuccitelli (who is a real climate scientist) can explain things better than I can but I know that this will be disregarded out of hand as it is from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/apr/24/reuters-puzzled-global-warming-acceleration?CMP=twt_gu

Andy
Guest

Dana Nuccitelli (who is a real climate scientist)

What makes Dana a “real climate scientist”, as opposed to say Richard Lindzen

Update: I don’t automatically reject everything from The Guardian. I take each newspaper article at face value, whether it be from the Mail, Telegraph or Guardian.
Leo Hickman did a good job recently exposing some of the dodgy claims about Afric by David Attenborough, for which his deserves credit.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…but I know that this will be disregarded out of hand”

Yes and no.

Truncate the OHC data – in true warmist fashion – back to 2009, ignore therefore the most recent data showing a standstill in OHC, do not make recourse to other OHC datasets e.g. UKMO EN3 that doesn’t exhibit the OHC acceleration that the heavily “adjusted” NCDC dataset does, don’t do a basin-by-basin analysis.

Otherwise – apart from that scientific trivia – global warming is accelerating in ideological terms.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Dana Nuccitelli (who is a real climate scientist)”

Spin it up Simon.

“Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master’s Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

So by your rationale Simon, anyone who has been researching climate science as a hobby is a climate scientist, albeit with transferable knowledge from academia.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>Dana Nuccitelli ……can explain things better than I can”

Are you sure about that Simon? There seems to be some mixed messages:-

Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?

Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside (v2)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kol9es16MgoyxdL_4f2jwf1Bxqp6CyOtQnSCfNC-j6U/edit?usp=sharing

Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing

Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRTABbfREFs-1bYfzUdLzikf22N_Dp2wbBBQXzCfb5c/edit?usp=sharing

SkS have a glitch in their “global” warming going into the ocean meme.

3-month heat content from 1955 to present

* Basin time series

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html

– World: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
2005.875 , 12.637 , 7.849959
2012.875 , 16.630 , 10.641594

– Atlantic: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
2005.875 , 6.256 , 4.896
2012.875 , 6.882 , 4.491

– Pacific: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
2005.875 , 4.188 , 3.291
2012.875 , 4.227 , 2.858

– Indian: 0 – 2000 meters (Oct-Dec) , 0 – 700
2005.875 , 2.194 , 1.094
2012.875 , 5.520 , 3.923

Over the last 7 years, “global” warming has been going into the [Indian] ocean, and 70% (2.8×10^22) of the 7 yr World: 0 – 2000 meters heat increase (4×10^22 Joules) has gone into the 0 – 700 m layer of the Indian Ocean.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Simon, We all hope for some insight from the IPCC! If there was a significant body of scientific literature that rejected the AGW hypothesis, the IPCC would be unable to ignore it You’re quite trusting, aren’t you? Actually, the IPCC has proved itself again and again perfectly capable of ignoring anything inconvenient, as Donna Laframboise describes in her book. For example, they ignored Christopher Landsea’s expert view that global warming does not have a strong influence on hurricanes. As Donna puts it: “Kevin Trenberth, who is not a hurricane expert, had participated in a press conference in which the media and the public were led to believe that a link exists between global warming and more intense hurricanes. When Landsea protested to the IPCC that this was improper, especially given the fact that Trenberth was in charge of the hurricane section of the climate bible then being prepared, he was blown off.” Chairman Pachauri refused even to acknowledge an injustice had occurred or to correct it. That body of evidence does not exist Of course, no AGW hypothesis has been set out (or, please, cite the paper!). And there’s no need for a… Read more »

Willy
Guest
Willy

Nope, the studies showing the “warming” of the Antarctic peninsula are almost entirely from the west of the divide (the mountain range). Our intrepid climateers tend to avoid the east because it’s too cold there. The recent change is that the climate contrast between west & east has recently sharpened. This can be seen in the sea ice, of which there is little on the west side but considerably increased on the east side. But the average temperature of east & west is a wash.

Simon
Guest
Simon

It is not only the Antarctic peninsula that is warming, West Antarctic is as well. Anthony Watts rather infamously tried it blame it on the Urban Heat Island effect, unaware that there is a network of automated stations well away from the extremely well insulated huts. It is more complex than the Arctic but things are changing quickly. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/ice-hockey/ for more detail.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Recent Antarctic climate, glacier changes at the ‘upper bound’ of normal’ University of Washington, April 14, 2013 In the last few decades, glaciers at the edge of the icy continent of Antarctica have been thinning, and research has shown the rate of thinning has accelerated and contributed significantly to sea level rise. New ice core research suggests that, while the changes are dramatic, they cannot be attributed with confidence to human-caused global warming, said Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences. Previous work by Steig has shown that rapid thinning of Antarctic glaciers was accompanied by rapid warming and changes in atmospheric circulation near the coast. His research with Qinghua Ding, a UW research associate, showed that the majority of Antarctic warming came during the 1990s in response to El Niño conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Their new research suggests the ’90s were not greatly different from some other decades – such as the 1830s and 1940s – that also showed marked temperature spikes. “If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”It is not only the Antarctic peninsula that is warming, West Antarctic is as well” Steve McIntyre writes:- In a recent RC post entitled “Ice Hockey” and a recent Nature article, Steig and coauthors have introduced a novel and very baroque “hockey stick”, one without a blade. A true Halloween of horrors: in addition to Gergis’ zombie hockey stick, the bladeless Hockey Stick of Sleepy Hollow is now at large. The appearance of Steig’s bladeless hockey stick was apparently so horrifying that he dared not show it in the RC post. However, I believe that CA readers are made of sterner stuff and will be able to withstand the sight of even a bladeless hockey stick, which is shown below. http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/steig-2013-figure-3.png?w=647&h=438 Steig described d18O values in “recent decades” as “highly unusual”: “Our results thus show that, indeed, recent decades in West Antarctica, which have been characterized by very rapid warming, and very rapid loss of ice from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, are highly unusual.” Steig also asserted that there was a “strong trend” in O18 values in the past 50 years, which was, according to Steig, “largely driven” by high values in… Read more »

Willy
Guest
Willy

Simon says: “It is not only the Antarctic peninsula that is warming, West Antarctic is as well. Anthony Watts rather infamously tried it blame it on the Urban Heat Island effect, unaware that there is a network of automated stations well away from the extremely well insulated huts.”

Why, this representation is a total lie, AW never said anything of the sort. This “Simon” is obviously out to dissemble, and isn’t worth bothering with. The “Simon says” of our childhood was fictional but still a higher ethical calibre than this “Simon”.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Meanwhile, Pachauri insists the IPCC is a scientific organisation. That is just the greatest illusion ever created.” Probably the one and only aspect of the climate policy boondoggle that is “unequivocal”:- UN IPCC Official Admits ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’ (NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies. (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all. (NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know. (EDENHOFER): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest… Read more »

Andy
Guest

Delingpoles book Watermelons describes the history of the movement, if you want to call it that.

Crispin Tickell and John Houghton were two prominent figures in starting up the IPCC, Houghton being the first head of that organization. Margaret Thatcher was also quite close to this pair in the early days.

Thatcher later recanted and became quite sceptical, as documented in her book Statecraft.

Many current commenters seem to conveniently ignore the fact that Thatcher changed her mind, as she also did on the EU project

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Watermelons’ Review – John Brignell

“As for the insults, they come from a numerous body of hangers-on (Lenin’s useful idiots)”

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/watermelons.htm

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The Human-Hating Roots of the Green Movement’ Behind the environmentalist facade lies a totalitarian agenda that is already being enacted. By Arnold Ahlert · April 24, 2013 Monday was the 43rd celebration of Earth Day, an event hailed as an effort to promote responsible stewardship of the environment. Fittingly, it is also the birthdate of Communist Party creator Vladimir Lenin, a reality that the radical environmentalists responsible for the creation of Earth Day dismiss as a mere coincidence. Yet there is little question that under the guise of “saving the planet,” the earth-firster crowd would be more than willing to impose the same kind of totalitarian control over the masses envisioned by Lenin. Like communism, the radical environmentalism that forms the heart of Earth Day celebrations is all about collectivism. In a 2007 column for the Cato Institute, former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus called environmentalism one of the main dangers to freedom in the 21st century. “Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection,” writes Klaus. “Behind their people- and nature-friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior, and our… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day By Paul Kengor on 4.22.13 Environmentalists of the world, unite! [From page 1] Our more knowledgeable friends on the left will cry foul at my crass connection between Lenin Day and Earth Day. They might note that Lenin was not an environmentalist. True, Lenin was a collectivist. He was also an angry atheist who detested human beings, mowing them down, filling land-fills with them. He did, however, share the penchant for central planning championed by environmentalists. And like environmentalists, more people were a problem for Lenin and his minions. Both environmentalists and Leninists view people as a drain on resources. For environmentalists, too many people consume too much of the earth’s (alleged) limited resources. For Leninists, too many people consume too much of the state’s limited resources. Both see mass collectivism and redistributionism — not to mention government control and seizure of property — as solutions to perceived global problems. http://spectator.org/archives/2013/04/22/happy-earth-day-and-lenin-day [From page 2] Indeed, if you want to see real pollution, the communist world had it by the river-load. It was horrid — toxic. If you want to clean up your environment, you need capitalism, because… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Climate change: IPCC 2014 draft report insights * Jenner & Block * E. Lynn Grayson * Global * * April 22 2013 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is working on its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change to be released in 2014. Interim drafts of certain portions of the report released by one of the three working groups suggest that things are not as bad as predicted in the IPCC’s 2007 report. Emerging insights are good news for the environment but pose greater uncertainty for the scientific community challenged to understand overall climate change impacts. The new IPCC draft report suggests two key findings: 1. actual global warming measurements do not match IPCC model predictions in the IPCC 2007 report; and 2. global temperatures overall have leveled off since the 1998-1999 timeframe. Whether or not rising temperatures resulting in global warming have stopped altogether is unclear. What we do know is that the slowed progress of global warming, as indicated by the last ten years of global temperature data, means less immediate and perhaps more mitigated climate change-related impacts. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8791ec6c-49da-419e-8428-bfb4bd9693bd Lexology is an innovative, web-based service that provides company law departments… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Consensus and Controversy: New Report On The Global Warming “Battlefield” Details Published on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 12:31 Written by Emil Røyrvik, SINTEF This report outlines the main positions and debates surrounding the literally hot topic of man-made global warming. Inspired by social studies of science and technology, the goal of the report is to document, describe and take stock of this potent scientific and public “battlefield” that plays out arguably some of the more pressing issues of our time. Presenting two broad “ideal type” of positions involved in the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the “consensus” and the “contrarian” perspectives, the report analyses both their cultural premises and places them in relation to the philosophy of science. The report positively concludes that an alleged near unanimous scientific consensus on AGW, that “the science is settled”, is overstated. The report finds a robust, critical scientific discourse in climate related research, yet it highlights that a “consensus-building” approach to science might represent a politicised and unscientific belief in science – a belief in tension with the ethos of “normal science”. The report calls for a continuing questioning, critical, and undogmatic public debate over… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From the new SPPI & CO2 Science report:

“There is little need to ascribe a unique cause to late 20th-century global warming (such as elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations), as this latest warming is merely a run-of-the-mill relative warming, sitting atop a solar-induced baseline warming that has been in progress for the past four centuries.”

“In considering Qian and Lu’s findings, it is important to note that, once again, no help from greenhouse gas emissions was needed to reconstruct the past thousand-year history of Earth’s global mean temperature; it was sufficient to merely employ known oscillations in solar radiation variability. And as for the future, the two authors predict that “global-mean temperature will decline to a renewed cooling period in the 2030s, and then rise to a new high-temperature period in the 2060s.” Given the cessation in warming observed in the surface and lower tropospheric temperature records over the past decade, it appears their prediction is well on its way to being validated.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/analysis-finds-sun-explains-climate.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

SPPI:-

The claim that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have been responsible for the warming detected in the twentieth century is based on what Loehle (2004)[1] calls “the standard assumption in climate research, including the IPCC reports,” that “over a century time interval there is not likely to be any recognizable trend to global temperatures (Risbey et al., 2000), and thus the null model for climate signal detection is a flat temperature trend with some autocorrelated noise,” so that “any warming trends in excess of that expected from normal climatic variability are then assumed to be due to anthropogenic effects.” If, however, there are significant underlying climate trends or cycles-or both-either known or unknown, that assumption is clearly invalid.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/solar_influence_on_global_temperature.html

Report:-

‘Solar Influence on Global Temperature’

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/solar_influence.pdf

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From page 5/6:- With respect to the causes of these and other Holocene RCCs [rapid climate changes], the international team of scientists [the 16 authors of Mayewski et al. (2004)] says that “of all the potential climate forcing mechanisms, solar variability superimposed on long-term changes in insolation (Bond et al., 2001; Denton and Karlén, 1973; Mayewski et al., 1997; O’Brien et al., 1995) seems to be the most likely important forcing mechanism.” In addition, they note that “negligible forcing roles are played by CH4 and CO2,” and that “changes in the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 appear to have been more the result than the cause of the RCCs.” And, Complicating the matter, however, Raspopov et al. report there can sometimes be “an appreciable delay in the climate response to the solar signal,” which can be as long as 150 years, and they note that regional climate responses to the de Vries cycle “can markedly differ in phase,” even at distances of only hundreds of kilometers, due to “the nonlinear character of the atmosphere-ocean system response to solar forcing.” Nevertheless, the many results they culled from the scientific literature, as well as their… Read more »

Andy
Guest

Bishop Hill has a post on philosopher Pascal Bruckner’s new book on environmental catastrophism, entitled The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/25/bruckners-opus.html There was a great deal to enjoy. I kept having to pick up my pen to jot down things Bruckner said that had never occurred to me before or older ideas that were explored from new angles: The idea of catastrophe has replaced the idea of progress Racial minorities, women and slaves have been replaced as principal victims by Mother Earth Fear has become something to be desired. We are being transformed into children, ready to obey the orders of an enlightened elite. Friends of the earth have become the enemies of mankind Environmentalism is universal but “end of the worldism” is purely western. Environmentalism is about keeping the world for the bobos (bohemian bourgeois) I’ve started working my way through the book and it’s not an easy read (although much more straightforward than most works by philosophers). But I think Bruckner’s view on greenery is rather penetrating and it’s a valuable counterblast against apocalyptism. If you like struggling with ideas, it could well be worth a look. Looks interesting.

stan stendera
Guest

Richard T: Even on my unfortunately short span of reading this blog I have come to the conclusion you should ban Simon.. Yes, I know about fairness and being “an open site”, but I also know what realclimate does to skeptic commenters. Boy do I ever. He has ceased to be funny.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Yes, Stan, I quite understand. But we persevere. I suggest you try to carry on, because the matter is more important than just feeling comfortable. Our answers, as someone said here recently, strike a wider audience than our proximate interlocutor. At least, I think that’s what he said…

Richard Treadgold
Guest

I referred earlier to the “AGW hypothesis” and its falsification. Astute readers will note there is officially no such hypothesis. No paper has been located (to my knowledge) which proposes one and sets it out in scientific terms. So, of course, no falsification has been possible. The entire AGW “debate” is built on shifting sand, as protagonists on all sides are at liberty to describe the theory as they please. No falsification is possible.

Ken
Guest

Brilliant, Richard!

Now why not take a case to the high court – that seems to be the same sort of argument you used last time?

Just imagine, without such brilliant minds to keep scientists in check they would get away with blue murder.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

What nonsense, Ken. As you know perfectly well, we didn’t argue the causes of DAGW in the court case.

Now please cite the scientific paper you have in mind that sets out an hypothesis to explain the DAGW phenomenon which you’re so convinced is true. There must be one somewhere, surely? You’re a scientist, you know how important it is for everyone to be on the same page — so where is the page that describes the mechanism/s behind dangerous anthropogenic global warming?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The irony being that Ken will have to defer to this paper for anything resembling a hypothesis (not that he would know):- ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’ Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009) Gerhard Gerlich Ralf D. Tscheuschner http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf 3.1 Defi nition of the problem After it has been thoroughly discussed, that the physical greenhouse e ffect is essentially the explanation, why air temperatures in a closed glass house or in a closed car are higher than outside, one should have a closer look at the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse e ffects. Meanwhile there are many di fferent phenomena and diff erent explanations for these e ffects, so it is justifi ed to pluralize here. Depending on the particular school and the degree of popularization, the assumption that the atmosphere is transparent for visible light but opaque for infrared radiation is supposed to lead to  a warming of the Earth’s surface and/or  a warming of the lower atmosphere and/or  a warming of a certain layer of the atmosphere and/or  a slow-down of the natural cooling of the Earth’s surface and so forth. Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

So the AGW conjecture problem is two-fold:-

1) As G&T point out, “there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse eff ect is introduced in harmony with the scientifi c standards of theoretical physics”

2) There is no anthropogenic enhancement extension in the literature (a secondary hypothesis) of the effect in 1) which is not formally documented as the primary hypothesis in the first instance.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Nice work, RC, thanks.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Arrhenius, S. A. (1896): On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine (41): 237-76

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Arrhenius, S. A. (1896)” In answer to the question “the [paper] that describes the mechanism/s behind dangerous anthropogenic global warming?” Really? G&T:- 3.6 The hypotheses of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius 3.6.1 The traditional works In their research and review papers the climatologists refer to legendary publications of Svante August Arrhenius (19 Feb. 1859 – 2 Oct. 1927), a Nobel Prize winner for chemistry. Arrhenius published one of the earliest, extremely simple calculations in 1896, which were immediately – and correctly – doubted and have been forgotten for many decades [44{46]. It is a paper about the influence of carbonic acid in the air on the Earth’s ground temperature. In this quite long paper, Arrhenius put the hypothesis up for discussion, that the occurrences of warm and ice ages are supposed to be explainable by certain gases in the atmosphere, which absorb thermal radiation. In this context Arrhenius cited a 1824 publication by Fourier18 entitled Memoire sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires” [37, 38]. Arrhenius states incorrectly that Fourier was the fi rst, who claimed that the atmosphere works like a glass of a greenhouse as it lets the rays of… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

You are correct RC, Tyndall proved the greenhouse effect existed in the 1850s. Arrhenius formulated his law ΔF = α Ln(C/Co) in 1896
where C is the CO2 concentration (ppmv),
Co denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2,
and ΔF is the radiative forcing (W/m²).
This is the AGW hypothesis. Disprove it.

Andy
Guest

Simon, you describe the increased forcing ascribed to an increase of CO2

However, I don’t think this is the AGW hypothesis, since the equation doesn’t mention heat or temperature.

The AGW hypothesis has to include the climate response to that forcing.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”This is the AGW hypothesis. Disprove it”

The modern form (Myhre et al): ΔF = 5.35 Ln(C/Co)

From 2002 – 2012

ΔF = 5.35 Ln(C/Co)
ΔF = 5.35 Ln(393.82/373.22)
ΔF = 0.29 W.m2

ΔT = λ ΔF

A typical value of λ is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2

ΔT = 0.8*0.29
ΔT = 0.23 K/decade

ΔT 2002 – 2012 GISTEMP Trend: -0.017 ±0.245 °C/decade (2σ)

Disproved

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Tyndall proved the greenhouse effect existed”

That being another contention on a huge scale and to which I refer you to the Slayers (real GHE sceptics, not luke-warmers) if you really want to go on with it.

But in short, the greenhouse effect is restricted convection as has been subsequently proved.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I referred earlier to the “AGW hypothesis” and its falsification. Astute readers will note there is officially no such hypothesis. No paper has been located (to my knowledge) which proposes one and sets it out in scientific terms. So, of course, no falsification has been possible.” But there is a null hypothesis:- ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2′ Submission to: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 [The Endangerment Finding] Summary The energy transfer processes that occur at the Earth’s surface are examined from first principles. The effect of small changes in the solar constant caused by variations in the sunspot cycles and small increases in downward long wave infrared flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on surface temperature are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The effects on surface temperature of small increases in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Nice work again.

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Nice to see the two Richard’s admiring their reflections in each other’s highly-polished tinfoil hats.

Meanwhile, back in the world of real scientists studying empirical data, we’re heading for a re-run of the Pliocene – how far above sea-level do these Richards live, I wonder?

“Fueled by industrial greenhouse gas emissions, Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years, according to new regional temperature reconstructions covering all seven continents. This period of human-made global warming, which continues today, reversed a natural cooling trend that lasted several hundred years, according to results published in the journal Nature Geoscience by more than 80 scientists from 24 nations analyzing climate data from tree rings, pollen, cave formations, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and historical records from around the world.

“This paper tells us what we already knew, except in a better, more comprehensive fashion,” said study co-author Edward Cook, a tree-ring scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who led the Asia reconstruction.

The study also found that Europe’s 2003 heat wave and drought, which killed an estimated 70,000 people, happened during Europe’s hottest summer of the last 2,000 years…”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422101313.htm

Richard Treadgold
Guest

You give no link to the paper, neither does your source, Science Daily. So we don’t know how much it “warmed more”, nor how much hotter the 2003 European summer was than every other European summer in the last 2000 years. That’s a lot of crucial information not to tell us. For if the global climate only “warmed more” by a few thousandths of a degree, as it did in the “record” temperatures of a few years this millenium, who cares? It’s no basis for panic. It was known at the time that the 2003 heat wave, which sadly killed many and for which Europe was completely unprepared, hence most died needlessly, was caused by meteorological conditions and not by any kind of “global warming.” For you would have to claim that global warming has raised average temperatures about 18 °F, and you don’t, do you? I would be surprised if the paper used the words “fueled by industrial greenhouse gas emissions” but I would be positively astonished if it provided evidence of such causation. It’s hard to credit the sheer incompetence of some people, claiming that man-made global warming “continues today,” when… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Here’s the paper RT (paywalled):- ‘Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia’ * PAGES 2k Consortium Abstract Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1797.html Steve McIntyre had an advance post on this:-… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The fact that solar output was at a 1000 yr high at the end of the 20th century seems to have escaped the attention of the PAGES 2k Consortium:- ‘Sunspot activity hits 1,000-year high’ July 12, 2004 The Sun is burning brighter than at any time over the past 1,150 years, according to a study by a professor at a Swiss university. Professor Sami Solanki said this could be compounding the effects of greenhouse gases and contributing to global warming. “We have to acknowledge that the Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago, and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years. We expect it to have an impact on global warming,” he told swissinfo. Last week Solanki, who is a professor at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, presented the findings at a conference of solar and stellar scientists in Hamburg, Germany. His research team reached its conclusions after studying data from samples of ice collected by Swiss scientist Jürg Beer on an expedition to Greenland in 1991. Most scientists acknowledge that greenhouse gases from fossil… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The last time solar activity was as high as the late 20th century was 11,000 years ago. Nothing in between even comes close except for 8,800 years ago. See page 50:-

‘A History of Solar Activity over Millennia’

Ilya G. Usoskin

Sodankyl¨a Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit)
FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland

Published: 21 March 2013
(Update of lrsp-2008-3)

Figure 21: Sunspot activity (over decades, smoothed with a 12221 filter) throughout the Holocene, reconstructed from 14C by Usoskin et al. (2007) using geomagnetic data by Yang et al. (2000). Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively.

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/download/lrsp-2013-1Color.pdf

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Here’s the -4000 BC to 2000 AD half of Usoskin (2013) Figure 21:-

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z36/AlecRawls/Environment%20and%20climate/Sunspots_Usoskin2007_4000BC-2000AD_zps9dc7f477.png

The DAGW sceptic’s hockeystick.

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Richard, it is indeed hard to credit the sheer ignorance of some people, claiming that man-made global warming “has stopped,” when the heating has accelerated for about 20 years. Heh, heh. The kind of scientific illiterate who doesn’t know the difference between the thermal energy of a system and the surface temperature?

Here are references to the relevant papers (warning – may promote insight / awareness):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-research-confirms-global-warming-has-accelerated.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/guemas-attribute-slowed-surface-warming-to-oceans.html

Andy
Guest

RROK – the IPCC use surface temperatures as their main metric for “global warming”, so we are just following suit. [thanks, Andy -RT]

Richard Treadgold
Guest

rrok

claiming that man-made global warming “has stopped,” when the heating has accelerated for about 20 years.

The atmosphere gets practically all its heat from the oceans alone. The atmosphere has not warmed in about 20 years (please don’t call it a decade as Perrott does). Therefore the oceans have not warmed in about the same period. Please explain how energy can accumulate without any effect on temperature. My present understanding is that it’s impossible. Note that I said “any” effect on temperature. It may help to phrase the question thus: how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?

Ken
Guest

Thought I heard my name taken in vain. Richard, for a proof reader you show a shocking tendency to misrepresent.

FYI
Decade = a period of 10 years.
Decadal = pertaining to 10, consisting of tens.

Hence my use of decadal to refer to several terns of years.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

What nonsense. You said “Cumming only “noted” the recent decadal plateau of surface temperatures because he thinks it fits his story.” It wasn’t a decadal plateau. It was a 20-year plateau. You bristle at nothing. Now, how about the substantive issue of thermal energy? Please?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Re Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). Response as for Simon’s oblique reference up-thread:-

Truncate the OHC data – in true warmist fashion – back to 2009, ignore therefore the most recent data showing a standstill in OHC, do not make recourse to other OHC datasets e.g. UKMO EN3 that doesn’t exhibit the OHC acceleration that the heavily “adjusted” NCDC dataset does, don’t do a basin-by-basin analysis.

Otherwise – apart from that scientific trivia – global warming is accelerating in ideological terms.

Re Guemas et al. (2013). Tisdale:-

The abstract suggests that the tropical Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are responsible for 65% of warming of global ocean heat content for the depths of 0-700 meters since 2000. However, the much-adjusted NODC ocean heat content data for the tropical Pacific (Figure 1) shows a decline in ocean heat content since 2000, and the ocean heat content for the Atlantic (Figure 2) has been flat since 2005. [Figure 1]:-

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure-1.png?w=960&h=594

From post,

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/on-guemas-et-al-2013-retrospective-prediction-of-the-global-warming-slowdown-in-the-past-decade/

Warning – may promote insight / awareness

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…the IPCC use surface temperatures as their main metric for “global warming” ”

Thing to remember too though is that the largest component of say HadCRUt4 is sea surface temperature (HadSST3) not atmosphere, but that SST and OHC are not necessarily in sync anyway.

SST (and therefore GMST) has been cooling since about 2003:-

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst2gl/from:2003/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend

But 0-2000m OHC has only just reached standstill since 2011/12

2005-3,9.047265
2005-6,9.440074
2005-9,9.737721
2005-12,12.702446
2006-3,11.986115
2006-6,13.062301
2006-9,12.342897
2006-12,13.410676
2007-3,13.660851
2007-6,11.580516
2007-9,12.458247
2007-12,12.539561
2008-3,13.499634
2008-6,14.740957
2008-9,13.240829
2008-12,12.241559
2009-3,12.811517
2009-6,12.374052
2009-9,13.947054
2009-12,15.183682
2010-3,16.048752
2010-6,13.671132
2010-9,14.129639
2010-12,15.070600
2011-3,15.453777
2011-6,14.812579
2011-9,17.095699 <<<<<<<<<
2011-12,14.983609 <<<<<<<<
2012-3,17.434353 <<<<<<<<<
2012-6,15.622717 <<<<<<<<<
2012-9,15.494756 <<<<<<<<<
2012-12,16.831072 <<<<<<<<

0-700m OHC has only been accumulating in the Indian Ocean but that is now at standstill to:-

2000.875 0.838
2001.875 1.498
2002.875 0.812
2003.875 1.048
2004.875 1.272
2005.875 1.094
2006.875 1.925
2007.875 1.980
2008.875 1.606
2009.875 2.691
2010.875 4.040 <<<<<<<
2011.875 3.636 <<<<<<<
2012.875 3.923 <<<<<<<

That lag is just a measure of the thermal inertia of the ocean and the time it takes to equilibrate at a high energy input level (solar Grand Max). The upper Pacific and Atlantic having already done so and the Pacific now cooling.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”

Because the ocean is a heat-sink (reservoir of energy) and the atmospheric response to energy input to the ocean is not instantaneous generally (the only instantaneous response being radiation refection from the surface).

Planetary inertia – the time lag between change in energy input and energy output in the sun => ocean => atmosphere system – is generally agreed to be around 12 – 14 years. The 14 year calculation being +/- 6 years so anywhere between 8 – 20 years.

Therefore we should expect to see near-sfc cooling about 8 – 20 years after peak solar input at 1986 and that is exactly what has happened. And ocean enthalpy (total heat) reached maximum at the end of the modern solar Grand Maximum (1930 – 2012), also to be expected.

The process will go into reverse now that solar output is declining i.e. the ocean will release heat to the atmosphere faster than it is replenished by solar input.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Earth’s climate warmed more between 1971 and 2000 than during any other three-decade interval in the last 1,400 years”

How much has it warmed since 2000 Rob? That’s the issue for those of us not living in the past.

1971 – 2000 only betters 1908 – 1939 by 0.035 °C

HadCRUt4 Trend 1971 – 2000: 0.176 ±0.058 °C/decade (2σ)
HadCRUt4 Trend 1908 – 1939: 0.141 ±0.052 °C/decade (2σ)

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Thanks, RC.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>’This period of humanmade global warming, which continues today, reversed a natural cooling trend that lasted several hundred years, according to results published in the journal Nature Geoscience” Baloney. The natural cooling trend ending in the 1600s and subsequent warming from the LIA ending in the 2000s coincides with the quasi-1000 yr Eddy solar cycle e.g. ‘High-resolution sea surface reconstructions off Cape Hatteras over the last 10 ka’ 1. Caroline Cléroux1,2, 2. Maxime Debret3, 3. Elsa Cortijo1, 4. Jean-Claude Duplessy1, 5. Fabien Dewilde1, 6. John Reijmer4, 7. Nicolas Massei3 Article first published online: 9 FEB 2012 [1] This study presents high-resolution foraminiferal-based sea surface temperature, sea surface salinity and upper water column stratification reconstructions off Cape Hatteras, a region sensitive to atmospheric and thermohaline circulation changes associated with the Gulf Stream. We focus on the last 10,000 years (10 ka) to study the surface hydrology changes under our current climate conditions and discuss the centennial to millennial time scale variability. We observed opposite evolutions between the conditions off Cape Hatteras and those south of Iceland, known today for the North Atlantic Oscillation pattern. We interpret the temperature and salinity changes in both regions… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I referred earlier to the “AGW hypothesis” and its falsification. Astute readers will note there is officially no such hypothesis. No paper has been located (to my knowledge) which proposes one and sets it out in scientific terms. So, of course, no falsification has been possible.”

There is the IPCC statements (based on their case) that might be considered hypotheses:-

e.g. AR5 SOD SPM Detection and Attribution:-

“It is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s”

For which the competing hypothesis would be:-

“It is extremely likely that significantly increased solar output in conjunction with the positive phase of the 60 climate cycle caused the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s. The subsequent negative phase of the 60 year cycle in conjunction with peak solar output is extremely likely to have caused the standstill in global average surface temperature since the early 2000s”

trackback

[…] deniers/contrarians/pseudosceptics gather at, may have let slip details of a possible project. In a blog comment today he revealed: “I referred earlier to the “AGW hypothesis” and its falsification. […]

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The AGW conjecture (in the absence of a hypothesis) being encapsulated in the CO2-forced global climate models. Those now, by the modelers own falsification criteria, on the cusp of falsification:-

http://www.mutantblog.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/dailymail.jpg

Word is getting around. Even the law fraternity is reporting climate science’s conjecture-reality mismatch:-

The new IPCC draft report suggests two key findings:

1. actual global warming measurements do not match IPCC model predictions in the IPCC 2007 report; and
2. global temperatures overall have leveled off since the 1998-1999 timeframe.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8791ec6c-49da-419e-8428-bfb4bd9693bd

Andy
Guest

The “AGW hypothesis”, such as it is, can probably be summarised thus:

(1) The “Greenhouse Effect” due to downward longwave radiation is real, and measurable

(2) The no-feedback sensitivity of CO2 assuming a blackbody earth is around 1.2 degrees of warming for a doubling of CO2

(3) Net feedbacks are positive (mainly due to increased water vapour), resulting in an increased overall greenhouse effect than from just CO2 alone. The IPCC central estimate of this sensitivity has always been 3 degrees C

Some people argue about (1) and (2), but the most uncertainty is (3).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Well defined Andy. The thing about the model implementations is that they all return different CS (λ) values, not the IPCC’s calculated value (“naive calculation” is the term I think, see below), e.g. http://troyca.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/figure3.png Caption:- “This is showing the radiative restoration strength in the CMIP5 models examined (each X is a different run from that model), which is generally inversely related to sensitivity. The solid gray line represents the likely value from observations, and the dashed lines represent +/- one standard deviation. As can be seen, the vast majority of these runs fall below the observational likely value for radiative restoration strength, suggesting these CMIP5 models likely have too high a sensitivity relative to the observations. Interestingly, inmcm4 and MRI-CGCM3 are both well above the line, and while they are among the CMIP5 models with the lowest sensitivity, they are not nearly as insensitive as the 50-yr radiative restoration strength would make them appear (which would be ~ 1.2 K for ECS if we performed a naïve calculation).” From ‘Sensitivity / CMIP5 comparison paper now in press at Climate Dynamics’ http://troyca.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/sensitivity-cmip5-comparison-paper-now-in-press-at-climate-dynamics/ INMCM4 has “X” of 3 (inversely proportional to CS (λ) 0.33 –… Read more »

Andy
Guest

Bishop Hill has a timely summary of studies supporting low sensitivity to CO2. This links to a similar article on WUWT

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/25/climate-sensitivity-in-ar5.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I can’t decipher the model CS diagram at BH Andy but Troy CA has another post on CMIP5 sensitivities that is enlightening (well, for me anyway):- ‘CMIP5 Effective Sensitivity vs. Radiative Response in Last 40 Years’ http://troyca.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/cmip5-effective-sensitivity-vs-radiative-response-in-last-40-years/ Quoting:- “If we were confident in that regression, our “likely” estimate for “effective sensitivity” would be right around –2.0 W/m^2/K, which would correspond to an ECS of ~ 1.85 K if we assumed a negligible difference between the “effective sensitivity” radiation response and that response over the full time it takes to equilibrate. However, I don’t think much stock can be placed in that regression, given that we have not used particularly accurate forcing data for the individual model aerosols, and the radiative response is well outside the main cluster of models. I think this latter fact is the more interesting qualitatively – there IS a fairly strong underlying relationship between this 40 year radiative response and the longer term “effective sensitivity”, and only 3 model runs of all the model runs looked at here have this radiative response fall within the 2.5%-97.5% uncertainty range as diagnosed from OHC in my last post. Of those, 1… Read more »

Andy
Guest

It is great to know that we are gathering at one of the “echo chamber nodes” according to Ken

Sounds a bit Red Dwarf/Dr Who to me.

(* calling all attendees at Node#13, sector A6, conspiracy 5)

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Just Ken’s inimitable way of saving the planet, one obscure blog post at a time.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Cutely said.

Ken
Guest

Can’t navigate in this mess but this is for Richard Treadgold

You should really take more care with your reding and check your dictionary more often.
‘I repeat deacadal = pertaining to 10, consisting of tens. That includes 20 years!

Now stop diverting pathetically like that.

David
Guest
David

Ken
“You should really take more care with your reding and check your dictionary more often.”
Reding? Perhaps you should check your dictionary Ken

Ken
Guest

Sure David – but it’s a childish complaint.

In this case my problem was not dictionaries or senility but that in trying to correct mistakes the comment ended up being posted twice without any indication in my browser.

But – you get the story and it has shut Treadgold up, hasn’t it?

David
Guest
David

“You should really take more care with your reding and check your dictionary more often”
” it’s a childish complaint”

Quite so

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Richard Treadgold says:
April 27, 2013 at 4:40 pm

“Please explain how energy can accumulate without any effect on temperature. My present understanding is that it’s impossible. Note that I said “any” effect on temperature. It may help to phrase the question thus: how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”

WOO-HOO! Would any of the great minds on this blog (RC, Magoo, andyS) like to educate RT as to the difference between heat and temperature, and why it matters? Or are you going to try to pretend the the host of this so-called “Climate Conversation” blog hasn’t just shredded any credibility he may once have aspired to?

Thought so… OK, RT, here’s a clue, from intermediate school general science:

http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/energy/heatAndTemperature/heatAndTemperature.html

An important example is “latent heat”, which is the energy absorbed / emitted when a phase change occurs WITH NO CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE. For example, when ice at 0 C melts to water at 0 C, which accounts for 2.1 % of the current global energy imbalance.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12

BTW, if you’re genuinely interested climate matters, there’s a great introductory text that you can download – it even mentions some friends of yours…

http://www.skepticalscience.com/New-textbook-climate-science-climate-denial.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”WOO-HOO! Would any of the great minds on this blog (RC, Magoo, andyS) like to educate RT as to the difference between heat and temperature, and why it matters?”

Except the difference between heat and temperature has absolutely nothing to do with RT’s question (wrt ocean heat and atmospheric temperature):-

>”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?”

The answer is here:-

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-194669

You might like to have a read and a think Rob, given your off-the-mark response to RT’s question.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

BTW Rob, you would look a bit silly trying to calculate OHC without recourse to temperature:- ‘Oceanic Climate Change: Contributions of Heat Content, Temperature, and Salinity Trends to Global Warming’ Christopher M. Mirabito November 18, 2008 2.1 Quantifying Heat Content The total heat content of a material is the amount of heat energy stored there. It can be determined by the formula Q = cpmT; (1) where Q is the total heat content (J), cp is the specific heat capacity of the material at constant pressure (J  kg􀀀1 K􀀀1), m is the mass of the material (kg), and T is the temperature (K). Thus, we can determine the change in total heat content by relating it to the (measured) change in temperature: DQ = cpmDT: (2) Since sea water has a (high) specific heat capacity of cp = 4184 J  kg􀀀1 K􀀀1, which is more than four times that of dry air, and because seawater is much denser than air (by a factor of about 800), and since the World Ocean is very large, a 1 K rise in ocean temperature changes the global heat content by three orders of magnitude… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

rrok,

An important example is “latent heat”, which is the energy absorbed / emitted when a phase change occurs WITH NO CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE.

First, please forgive my ignorance. I checked out the oddly-named Zona Land Education reference you kindly provided but it proved to be very low level and added nothing to my knowledge. But thank you anyway. I’ve avoided the Skeptical Science references because they can’t spell sceptical. Second, I’ll try to keep this short and simple for you, because I’m having trouble wading through the ad hominem attacks you launch and the political messages you broadcast to discover the substance of what you’ve said. Now:

I’m not under the impression that the water in the oceans is anywhere near a phase change, except for the top few micrometres, where it constantly evaporates. So I don’t know why you mention phase changes, as the ocean water is nowhere near boiling. That means that incoming shortwave solar energy, rather than contributing to a phase change instead of raising the temperature, raises the temperature. Is this all right so far?

Please tell me if you disagree.

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Wrong again, RT, as you are ignoring the melting of ice by said oceans (e.g. sea ice, glacier tongues, ice shelves), plus the movement of heat within the oceans on multiple time scales:

http://www.gdrc.org/oceans/fsheet-01.html
(simple)

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/rahmstorf_eqs_2006.pdf
(intermediate)

Sorry, RC, but I won’t bother with your “paper” until you find a peer-reviewed publisher; do let us know when that happens.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Sorry, RC, but I won’t bother with your “paper” until you find a peer-reviewed publisher”

Got nothing to do with publishing Rob. What that series does is document events and reveals just how tenuous and problematic the claims of anthropogenic ocean heating are. The internet will do the rest.

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

RC, your “series” and $3.50 will buy you a cappucchino.

No doubt you have a perpetual-motion machine in your garage as well?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

So your answer to RT’s question Rob – that being:- >”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?” Is to link to a “simple” blog article which doesn’t actually answer the question except for:- One consequence of the ocean’s ability to absorb more heat is that when an area of ocean becomes warmer or cooler than usual, it takes much longer for that area to revert to “normal” than it would for a land area. Nothing at all about oceanic thermal lag (inertia) and the time frame between solar insolation => ocean heat-sinking => temperature change in the atmosphere. Moving on to “intermediate”. Lots about internal oceanic circulation and a bit about mixing after insolation but nothing whatsoever about oceanic thermal lag (inertia) and the time frame between solar insolation => ocean heat-sinking => temperature change in the atmosphere. Let’s move on to “advanced” then Rob. Keeping in mind that RT’s question was answered here:- Richard C (NZ) says: April 27, 2013 at 6:12 pm >”…how can thermal energy increase without raising the surface temperature?” Because the ocean is a heat-sink (reservoir of energy) and the atmospheric response to energy input… Read more »

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Hmmm… I think I see your problem, RC; you believe, as an article of faith and despite all observations to the contrary, that changes in solar output are the fundamental driver of earth’s climate.

This is, of course, arrant nonsense. In the words of Ray Pierrehumbert:

“That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”

Such nails include the paleoclimate record and direct solar observation by satellite. The following link lists genuine papers, not junk science from the Exxon-funded denier sites you apparently prefer:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

BTW, why can’t RT speak for himself? Despite appearances to the contrary, this is his site, not yours.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Such nails include the paleoclimate record and direct solar observation by satellite. The following link lists genuine papers, not junk science from the Exxon-funded denier sites you apparently prefer:” It’s the wildly diverse estimates prior to the satellite record that are the problem for the IPCC Rob (the 11 yr cycle is irrelevant). From IPCC AR5 SOD, Chapter 8:Radiative Forcing, Jones, Lockwood and Stott (2012):- [25] How much change there has been in historic TSI is still open to much uncertainty. One very recent study produces a reconstruction that gives an increase in TSI since the Maunder Minimum of 6 W m.2 [Shapiro et al., 2011], over twice as large as even the L00 TSI reconstruction, while another study claims that the very quiet Sun in 2009 is characteristic of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum [Schrijver et al., 2011], supporting the small increase seen in K07 and L09. I think we can discount Schrijver et al., 2011 given that during the Maunder Minimum people walked across the frozen Bosporus to Constantinople. I don’t recall those conditions being in the 2009 news. BTW, I see you’re resorting to argumentum ad auctoritatem Rob –… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

rrok,

Wrong again, RT, as you are ignoring the melting of ice by said oceans (e.g. sea ice, glacier tongues, ice shelves), plus the movement of heat within the oceans on multiple time scales

About as much ice as is melted freezes in the other hemisphere. The movement of heat is significant, but not overwhelming. You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day. But let a little of the phase change and most of the long-term movement by current modify my next comments.

I don’t believe you’ve answered my question. Let me reiterate:

…the ocean water is nowhere near boiling. That means that incoming shortwave solar energy, rather than contributing to a phase change instead of raising the temperature, raises the temperature. Is this all right so far?

You are wrong to say the atmosphere is heated by insolation, as the incoming short-wave radiation leaves it virtually unscathed. It warms instead by long-wave IR from land, ice and water.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day” Citation please. That’s not what I’ve ever seen in the literature. The Global Longwave Radiation Cascade indicates that energy leaves the Earth’s surface through three different processes. 7 units leave the surface as sensible heat. This heat is transferred into the atmosphere by conduction and convection. The melting and evaporation of water at the Earth’s surface incorporates 23 units energy into the atmosphere as latent heat. This latent heat is released into the atmosphere when the water condenses or becomes solid. Both of these processes become part of the emission of longwave radiation by the atmosphere and clouds. The surface of the Earth emits 117 units of longwave radiation. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7i.html But WHEN does that release occur in response to changing energy input? Even if just the annual solar cycle is considered it certainly isn’t that “very day”:- ‘Temperature response of Earth to the annual solar irradiance cycle’ David H. Douglass a, Eric G. Blackman a,b, Robert S. Knox… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Should be (your statement in quotes RT):-

>”You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day”

Citation please. That’s not what I’ve ever seen in the literature.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Sorry, there’s no citation. I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface. Practically all the heat in the surface atmosphere comes from the oceans, land and ice, mostly by convection, and not directly from insolation. Some thermal energy finds its way beneath the surface before it returns to it by convection. That energy may exit the ocean on time scales of months, years, decades, centuries or longer. But that is a minor fraction of the insolation falling on the oceans. Hence I say “most of it” gets to the atmosphere “that very day.” If this is incorrect, I’m very happy to be corrected.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Another paper demonstrating air temperature lag behind the annual solar cycle:- ‘The spatial structure of the annual cycle in surface temperature: amplitude, phase, and Lagrangian history’ Karen A. McKinnon, Alexander R. Stine and Peter Huybers Dept. of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2013) 22 1. Introduction 23 It has been long understood that the annual cycle in surface air temperature is largely 24 controlled by the annual cycle in solar radiation, local surface conditions, and atmospheric 25 circulation. Generally, oceanic climates have a small amplitude and large phase lag with 26 respect to solar forcing, while continental climates have a large amplitude and small lag 27 (Von Hann and Ward 1903), with additional structure associated with the direction and 28 strength of prevailing winds (Ward 1906). This qualitative understanding of the systematic 29 patterns in amplitude and lag of the annual cycle has also been supported by quantitative 30 analysis, with a historical focus on obtaining a single measure of “continentality” that would 31 reflect the relative influences of land and ocean. 72 2. Structure of the annual cycle 95 Gain and lag exhibit coherent spatial structure (Fig. 1). Gain… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Scafetta and West (2005) found that the climate is 1.5 times as sensitive to 22-year cyclical forcing relative to 11-year cyclical forcing, and that the thermal inertia of the oceans induces a lag of approximately 2.2 (± 2) years in cyclic climate response in the temperature data. ‘Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite’ N. Scafetta Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA B. J. West Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA Received 17 June 2005; revised 1 August 2005; accepted 26 August 2005; published 28 September 2005. [14] Figure 4 compares the band-pass curves D7(t) and D8(t) for the TSI data and global temperature anomalies. For the period 1856–1980 we apply the MRA to the TSI proxy reconstruction by Lean et al. [1995], while for the period 1980–2002 the MRA is applied to the ACRIM TSI. Several 11-year solar cycles are easily recognizable in the corresponding D7(t) temperature cycles, in particular after 1960. The slow 22-year solar cycles are clearly recognizable in the temperature detail curve D8(t)… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop:-

Since the advent of satellite observations of lower tropospheric temperature in 1979, we have been able to make accurate comparisons of air and sea surface temperature. What we find is that changes in sea surface temperature precede the consequent changes in air temperature by several months. The ocean surface temperature is apparently driving air temperature, not the other way round.

The lag of air temperature in red behind sea surface temperature in green is clear from this plot:

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sst-lt.png?w=921&h=690

# # #

But SST is not the same as OHC at progressively reducing temperature from surface down to 300m, 700m, 1000m, 2000m etc. There are entirely different dynamics and timeframes operating between the surface and the lower layers and then different dynamics and timeframes again between the lower stratifications, particularly tropics vs extratropics and polar say.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface.” The ocean predominantly gains heat in the tropics and loses it in the polar regions. The time lag of heat transport, tropics to polar, is rather more than “seconds or minutes”. This ocean heat gain/loss paradigm is what is taught at Columbia University, among most other oceanography institutions that I know of, so if you think that paradigm is incorrect you better advise them to change their curriculum to your version:- In a steady state condition ocean currents must carry heat from the ocean areas with excess heating to regions with a deficit of heat, […] Generally heat transport across latitudes is from the tropics to the polar regions, but in the South Atlantic Ocean the oceanic heat transport is directed towards the equator! This is due to the thermohaline circulation- as warm upper kilometer water is carried northward, across the equator, offsetting the southward flow of cooler North Atlantic Deep Water near 3000 m. Much of the heat lost to the atmosphere in the North Atlantic is derived from this cross… Read more »

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

RT: “The atmosphere get practically all its heat from the oceans alone. The atmosphere has not warmed in about 20 years (please don’t call it a decade as Perrott does). Therefore the oceans have not warmed in about the same period.”

Not only does RT not understand the difference between heat and temperature, he doesn’t understand that both the atmosphere and the ocean are heated primarily by insolation, then by the effect of GHG’s in the atmosphere (which reduces heat loss from the ocean).

He also has no clue that the ocean is itself a complex system, rather than just a large bathtub;

http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/The-Ocean-in-Action/NZ-Research/The-Ocean-in-Action

Again, he needs to grapple with an introductory text if he wants to be taken seriously – not that that probably matters to most of the denizens here, as they appear to have very few clues either. What was that about the blind leading the blind?

No wonder they so easily fall prey to a smooth-talking scam artist like Monckton, with his faked slides and risible “mathematics”… (except Andy, I expect).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Not only does RT not understand the difference between heat and temperature

Missed this did you Rob?

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-194689

At least TRY to keep up. The difference between heat and temperature is totally immaterial to RT’s question (and the answer linked)

>”…the ocean are heated primarily by insolation”

Thank you Rob, you got this right.

“>….then by the effect of GHG’s in the atmosphere (which reduces heat loss from the ocean).

Whoahhhh, not so fast cowboy. The IPCC has not yet, after 25 years of trying, defined any posited GHG ocean heating mechanism. They only “expect” air-sea fluxes. And it’s all highly problematic:-

Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?

Part 1: Skeptical Science Offside (v2) [where they succumb to Revkin’s and their own “single study syndrome”]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kol9es16MgoyxdL_4f2jwf1Bxqp6CyOtQnSCfNC-j6U/edit?usp=sharing

Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing

Part 3: Rahmstorf, Schmittner and Nuccitelli

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KRTABbfREFs-1bYfzUdLzikf22N_Dp2wbBBQXzCfb5c/edit?usp=sharing

Basically, your problem is Rob: why is heat restricted from leaving the ocean surface the second time around after (supposedly) being reintroduced to the ocean after unrestricted egress the first time around?

Willy
Guest
Willy

Great checkerboard image, thanks for that. It shows the amount of processing which our minds do to make sense of the world, and by analogy, all that could be hidden or lost by that processing — especially the processing not related to our lyin’ eyes.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Well said, Willy. I could hardly believe it. My lyin’ eyes! Of course, our eyes don’t lie, nor are they all that deceived. They simply understand what happens to colours in the shade. When two shades are adjacent, the eyes will see their similarity or their differences.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

New paper demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels, not man-made CO2 A recent paper published in Nature Climate Change finds a disconnect between man-made CO2 and atmospheric levels of CO2, demonstrating that despite a sharp 25% increase in man-made CO2 emissions since 2003, the growth rate in atmospheric CO2 has slowed sharply since 2002/2003. The data shows that while the growth rate of man-made emissions was relatively stable from 1990-2003, the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 surged up to the record El Nino of 1997-1998. Conversely, growth in man-made emissions surged ~25% from 2003-2011, but growth in atmospheric CO2 has flatlined since 1999 along with global temperatures. The data demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels due to ocean outgassing, man-made CO2 does not drive temperature, and that man is not the primary cause of the rise in CO2 levels. ‘Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends’ * Roger J. Francey, * Cathy M. Trudinger, * Marcel van der Schoot, * Rachel M. Law, * Paul B. Krummel, * Ray L. Langenfelds, * L. Paul Steele, * Colin E. Allison, * Ann R. Stavert, * Robert J. Andres * & Christian Rödenbeck Nature Climate Change 3,… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

A gamebreaker! The paper shows quite a different curve from the Mauna Loa graph so they must have used different data. I can see the first page in ReadCube and the last incomplete sentence on the page says

Figure 2a shows our most precise indication of the recent slowing
trend in global CO2 growth using stringently selected baseline
data measured at Cape Grim (CGO, 41◦ S, 141◦ E) from 2002

so Cape Grim it is. I might spend $4.99 to see the whole paper. Busy now but this looks like dynamite.

Ken
Guest

Careful, Richard.

Dynamite could just blow up in your face!

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Well, life’s dangerous. Got anything to say about climate or the IPCC? It’s notable that you trolls have been silent on the egregious failings of the IPCC.

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Richard C (NZ) says:
Richard C, April 28, 2013 at 3:16 pm

“Should be (your statement in quotes RT):-

>”You can’t say for any period that 100% of the day’s insolation is retained by the water because most of it, rising to the surface, is transferred to the atmosphere by convection that very day”

Citation please. That’s not what I’ve ever seen in the literature.”

Yes, I’d like to see the source of that statement as well, RT; [some pseudo-science denial site, perhaps, or did you just make it up to sound sorta, kinda “sciency”? – Cut it out, mate. Nobody’s keeping score, you know. You don’t lose marks when you’re courteous. Above this you’ll find an answer to the request for a citation. – RT]

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From the prior-linked article at The HS:- Bart says: January 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm “human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere” They’re actually not. It’s going to take a long time to seep through the mental block which has accumulated over time, but that was never more than an assumption, for which evidence consistent with it was sought, but falsification was never attempted. If, however, you actually look at the data, it is clear that temperatures are driving CO2. This plot http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/gistemp/from:1959/scale:0.2/offset:0.075 shows that, since accurate records began, CO2 has evolved to a high degree of fidelity according to the difeq dCO2/dt = k*(T – To) where k is a coupling constant, and To is an equilibrium temperature. This is simply a 1st order Taylor series expansion of a continuous transport process for which the rate of change depends on temperature. One such process is the continuous transport of CO2 into downwelling waters and out of the upwelling waters of the thermohaline circulation. With this equation, if you have the starting point and the temperatures in between, you can calculate the CO2 concentration to high accuracy at any time up to the… Read more »

Andy
Guest

Ken seems to be getting a lot of mileage out of this blog. His latest post uses more material from here.

The guys at Hot Topic seem to be having a conversation with someone that they think is me

The world is getting weird

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

It goes with the weird weather, old boy.

Andy
Guest

I haven’t noticed any weird weather. The record snow and cold in Scotland, France and Spain did cross my radar during my recent travels, but I wouldn’t describe it as “weird”

Richard Treadgold
Guest

He’ll be surprised to hear that there’s no Global Weirding after all.

Andy
Guest

I must be a Global Weirdimg Denier,.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

I didn’t say that, Andy, you did. Actually, to be honest, I couldn’t say it. With the misspelling I don’t know how to pronounce it. ;-/

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Too easy – or haven’t you heard of Google, RT / Andy?

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

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2012/10/10/weather-disasters-climate-change-munich-re-report/1622845/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/03/20/weather-extremes-global-warming-climate-change-louis-uccellini/2003513/

But, hey, what do the reinsurance companies and US National Weather Service know about extreme weather, compared to the mighty minds of the Climate Conversation Group and their ability to ignore uncomfortable truths?

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Hmmm, are you sure about that extreme weather? The data doesn’t seem to back your theory on that one:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Well done, Magoo. I’m happy to believe NOAA, the US Geological Survey, the EPA, Dr Roger Pielke and various universities before USA Today, cited by rrok.

rrok,

You’re perfectly content to insist: “I won’t bother with your “paper” until you find a peer-reviewed publisher” when it suits you, but still you cite tabloids or alarmist nonsense from the insurance industry back to us. You are, sir, incredible.

Andy
Guest

For some reason (possibly connected with ownership of a seriously damaged Christchurch property) I don’t have a very high opinion of insurance and re-insurance companies.

Besides which, they are hardly a non-partisan player in the climate change game.

Richard Treadgold
Guest

His latest post uses more material from here.

Glad to be of service!

Hot Topic conversing with phantoms, eh? That’s hilarious!

To add to the weirdness, I haven’t been able to access email or my own domains for two or three hours; I was blocked by the web server, which thought I’d been hacking into it. Which I hadn’t. Really. There’s hardly any need, is there?

Andy
Guest

Any hope for climate science is now lost. Lewandowsky has been awarded the “Wolfson Research Merit award” by the Royal Society.

As Bishop Hill puts it

It’s hard to imagine anything funnier. If Manchester United signed up a three-legged pug dog to play centre forward you wouldn’t laugh any less.

First Erlich, now Lewandowsky. What next? Homeopaths? A fellowship for Kim Jong Il? A cabbage patch doll?

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Wow, Andy and RT, what great examples of epistemic closure you offer…

“Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting-conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News.

Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!) This epistemic closure …”

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure

Andy
Guest

Are you able to be a bit more specific about what you are actually referring to?

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Yes it’s true, you need to be wary of what you read in the media. That is exactly where you went wrong referring to businessweek.com and usatoday.com about AGW induced extreme weather, instead of the empirical evidence which proves conclusively on all fronts that there is absolutely no grounds whatsoever for such a belief.

Considering what you just tried to pull above regarding extreme weather I think it’s hilarious that you’re accusing others of such things. Maybe you’re so blind that you’re oblivious to your own hypocrisy.

Richard T is right when he says – ‘You are, sir, incredible.’

Andy
Guest

So I am still waiting to hear which bit of “epistemic closure” you are referring to, RROK.

The issues around Lewandowsky’s papers are well documented. There are various claims against them.

He has been awarded a “merit” award by the Wolfson Foundation.

This suggests to me that the Royal Society and the Wolfson Foundation are completely clueless

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Epistemic closure: putting your faith in snake-oil charlatans like Bishop Hill, Delingpole, Watts, Tallbloke, Monckton and the rest, whilst distrusting those who actually do the science.

It’s a politer term than “batshit crazy, paranoid nutters”, but means pretty much the same thing.

Sure, I do pity you, but I pity your children more. I think of a German friend of mine, and the shame she felt that her father had been in the SS during WWII. He did have an excuse though – he was drafted.

What’s your excuse going to be? Think carefully, because your grandchildren will expect an answer.

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it – first as tragedy, then as farce”.

I guess old George Santayana saw you guys coming.

Andy
Guest

I don’t need to put any faith in anyone to see that Lewandowsky is a crook. The guy hardly merits passing a degree, let alone getting a professorship.

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Careful, Andy, Lewandowsky could be surveying this blog right now, and adding your comments to his award-winning database.

Better put your best tinfoil hat on…

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Oreskes and Conway do the end of the world’

“It’s extraordinary how this “massive campaign” by fossil fuel interests has gone almost entirely undocumented. There is, to the best of my knowledge, virtually no evidence to support the claim at all. It is something of an indictment of the standards in academia that this kind of conspiracy theorising goes unremarked and entirely unchallenged.”

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/4/29/oreskes-and-conway-do-the-end-of-the-world.html

And Lewandowsky strangely silent on this particular conspiracy theory too.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Any comment on the ‘extreme weather’ data RROK, or are you still placing your faith in Businessweek and USAToday?

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.”

Yes, dogmatic belief is all that is required of faith-based science – even if you understand it.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Yes that’s right, ‘faith is superfluous if you understand the science’. Let’s have another look at the science, see what it says about AGW extreme weather:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

Nick
Guest
Nick

Holland and Bruyère (2013) and Grinsted et al. (2012) show that Hurricane intensity and storm surges have increased in recent years in the Atlantic and is strongly correlated with temperature.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1713-0#page-1

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/03/14/1209980110.full.pdf+html

I also note that the WattsUp link shows increasing precipitation and temperature extremes in various categories.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Re Grinsted et al. (2012)

‘I Remain “Roughly” 18 Feet Tall’

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/i-remain-roughly-18-feet-tall.html

Re Holland and Bruyère (2013) – in their own words:-

“An important finding is that the proportion of intense hurricanes appears to initially increase in response to warming oceans, but then approach a saturation level after which no further increases occur. There is tentative evidence that the saturation level will differ across the tropical cyclone basins and that the global proportion of Cat 4–5 hurricanes may already be near it’s saturation level of ~40–50%.”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Faith is superfluous if you understand the science.”

Climate Science Articles of Faith: Doctrine

# Warming in the pipeline is unequivocal…….

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I also note that the WattsUp link shows increasing precipitation and temperature extremes in various categories.”

Snow too.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Interestingly Pielke, Jr has co authored a paper that shows that the global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive with a p value of 0.06 which means there is only a 6% chance that this trend could have happened by chance.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2012.04.pdf

So we can see from various media reports, 3 peer reviewed papers and the WattsUp blog that extreme weather events of certain classes (including snow fall) are increasing.

Perhaps Magoo or Richard C would like to comment on why they believe this is happening?

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

A few problems with the Holland and Bruyère (2013) paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/on-holland-and-bruyere-2013-recent-intense-hurricane-response-to-global-climate-change/ Regarding Pielke Jr’s paper – did you actually read it? ‘Thus, in the context of climate variability, it is impor- tant to recognize that certain shorter time periods during the past half-century may indeed show significant trends (upward and downward) in TC landfall activity on de- cadal time scales (e.g., Callaghan and Power 2011). The NATL basin has been in an active period since about 1995, which some have attributed to the positive phase of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (Goldenberg et al. 2001). A linear trend analysis shows a significant upward trend in NATL activity (R2 5 0.13; p 5 0.011) during the past several decades (1970–2010); consideration of the longer period of 1944–2010 exhibits no secular trend in hurricane landfalls (and even longer periods show no increasing trend; see, e.g., Pielke 2009). Intense typhoon frequency has also been shown in the WPAC to be modulated by multidecadal variability (Chan 2008) on time scales of 16–32 years associated with the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and variability of the El Nin ̃ o– Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and no significant trend is found in… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Magoo,
Nice to hear that you accept the IPCCs science on climate change.

I also see you have chosen to ignore the 1.89% increasing trend that is explicitly written on the graph you presented from Watts.

Finally Pielke Jr does not tell us what level of significance he uses in his paper. But it is likely to be 95%

The global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive and significant at the 94% level.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Magoo, I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events.

Please remind me exactly what the point you were trying to make was?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events”James Taylor:- Decade-by-decade analysis of the last century by James Taylor:- ‘Don’t Believe The Global Warmists, Major Hurricanes Are Less Frequent’ When Hurricane Isaac made landfall in southern Louisiana last week, the storm provided a rare break in one of the longest periods of hurricane inactivity in U.S. history. Seeking to deflect attention away from this comforting trend, global warming alarmists attempted a high-profile head fake, making public statements that the decline in recent hurricane activity masked an increase in strong, damaging hurricanes. “The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage, are increasing,” John Abraham, a mechanical engineer on the staff of little-known University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, told Discovery News. Normally, of course, the subjective global climate opinions of a mechanical engineer at an obscure Minnesota university wouldn’t be national news. However, global warming alarmists put Abraham forward as the point man for their self-proclaimed Climate Science Rapid Response Team. But hey, if Abraham is the best they can do, so be it. Abraham… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C, Magoo and Richard T have already stated that they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media so I presume they will be along shortly to berate you.

In the meantime perhaps you might like to consider what percent of global hurricane activity is covered by the article you pasted.

[“and Richard T have already stated that they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media” — Did I? Where? — RT]

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Nice to hear that you accept the IPCCs science on climate change.” Not so fast Warmy. “Climate change” has its own specific IPCC definition (and another at UNFCCC) but a report assessing “Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters” is not necessarily “climate change” by IPCC definition. The report assesses what “relationship” there might be between the two, but “extreme events and disasters” include “natural climate variability” and “socioeconomic development” so there are other considerations. Quoting the brochure at Magoo’s link:- “This Summary for Policymakers presents key findings from the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). The SREX approaches the topic by assessing the scientific literature on issues that range from the relationship between climate change and extreme weather and climate events (‘climate extremes’) to the implications of these events for society and sustainable development. The assessment concerns the interaction of climatic, environmental, and human factors that can lead to impacts and disasters, options for managing the risks posed by impacts and disasters, and the important role that non-climatic factors play in determining impacts. Box SPM.1 defines concepts central to the SREX.” And,… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

My point is, Nick, that the Global Hurricane Frequency data prior 1978 is similar to that after 1978 – there is no long term rising trend in global hurricane frequency. You can choose to cherry pick a starting point & ignore the previous data to make it look like it’s unprecedented but the truth it’s not. ‘Magoo, I also note that the Watts link you present shows that the Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present shows an increasing trend for Major events.’ Yes that’s right, a rising trend of 2-3 major hurricanes over the last 25 yrs. Hardly a significant trend don’t you think, especially when the long term shows no rising trend in hurricane activity? ‘Finally Pielke Jr does not tell us what level of significance he uses in his paper. But it is likely to be 95% …… The global hurricane landfall trend for major events since 1970 is positive and significant at the 94% level.’ What’s your source for the second statement please? The long term data according to Pielke shows that there is nothing unusual with the hurricanes – no trend. Why just look at 1970 onwards? Re:… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…they prefer peer reviewed science to opinion pieces in the media” Opinion piece? The data source is here The National Hurricane Center http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml Hardly necessary for a peer-reviewed paper to analyze publicly available information. >”In the meantime perhaps you might like to consider what percent of global hurricane activity is covered by the article you pasted.” If ACC is not evident in US/Atlantic hurricane activity its not eveident:- Global Warming and Hurricanes An Overview of Current Research Results 1. Has Global Warming Affected Atlantic Hurricane Activity? Thomas R. Knutson Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA Sept. 3, 2008; Last Revised January 30, 2013 A. Summary Statement Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following: * Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity? * What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from current IPCC models? In this review, I address these questions in the context of published research findings. I will first present the main conclusions and then follow with some background discussion of the research that leads to these conclusions. The main conclusions are: * It… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

Hi Richard C,
This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf

Start with table 7.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from”

Dispensed with truth completely now have you Nick?

James Taylor did provide the source of the data so why say (a lie BTW) he got it from somewhere else?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Start with table 7″

OK. From ‘Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.: Sober Analysis, Cool Graphics from Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger’:-

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Normalized-Hurricane-Damages-2012-Including-Sandy-300×176.jpg

U.S. tropical cyclone damage adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth, 1900-2012 [Note – I am using a more updated graph than the one appearing in Addendum. Source: Pielke et al. 2008. Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900-2005, Natural Hazards Review, DOI: 10.1061/1527-6988, 9:1(29), updated 12/31/2012].

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/01/18/climate-change-impacts-in-the-u-s-sober-analysis-cool-graphics-from-patrick-michaels-and-chip-knappenberger/

“Hurricane damages keep going up and up, but that’s due to the ongoing rise in population and development in coastal areas. When hurricane damage is adjusted for changes in population, wealth, and inflation, there is no long-term trend.”

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

‘This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.’

Ever seen this graph Nick?

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1304/vuwflag2.pdf

The same applies to your claim that your table 7 shows increasing major hurricanes. Comparing decades to each other as Richard C has done in his comment above is more accurate don’t you think?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…it [Table 7] shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.”

No it doesn’t. It shows AVERAGE number over different time spans i.e. not an apples-to-apples comparison that James Taylor made with decade-to-decade analysis.

The last Table 7 period 1995 – 2010 average 3.8 had 16 of which 7 were in 2005 (see Table 8a). There were 8 in 1950 (the record) and also 7 in 1961 but there’s no comparison of those in 15 year context to compare to 1995 – 2010.

“lies, damned lies, and statistics”

Nick
Guest
Nick

Richard T, you said “I’m happy to believe NOAA, the US Geological Survey, the EPA, Dr Roger Pielke and various universities before USA Today” if you want to add Mr Taylor’s opinion piece at Forbes.com to your list of credible sources then I apologise for misrepresenting you.

Richard C, name calling is unnecessary. Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to.

Magoo, if you want to put me in the same class as Victoria University and the IPCC then I am flattered. Monckton’s accusation was met with hilarity as I recall.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

As your claims of increasing extreme weather are also met with hilarity. Really Nick, how far do you need to stick your head in the sand to ignore the multiple sources of data that show the extreme weather claims to be complete rubbish. Only an idiot would believe the extreme weather propaganda when confronted with the real world empirical evidence showing otherwise.

Next you’ll be saying there’s a tropospheric hot spot and that it’s been warming for the last 17 yrs. The reality of it all is that you’re just incapable of admitting you’re wrong, which is why you grasp at straws like ‘extreme weather’ in desperation – even the IPCC admits it’s bogus and their job is to promote AGW. It’s easier just to be honest and face the reality of the empirical evidence instead of trying to twist it into what you want it to say. Even if you could prove extreme weather, you can’t pin it on AGW because there’s no tropospheric hot spot to prove man is responsible. You have empirical data from multiple well regarded sources that prove you wrong on every front.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to” You really are prone to untruth aren’t you Nick? James Taylor was responding to this statement (also an untruth we note):- “The hurricanes that really matter, that cause damage, are increasing,” John Abraham, a mechanical engineer on the staff of little-known University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, told Discovery News. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/ The source of James’ data is (quoting his article):- “The National Hurricane Center (NHC) provides information [hotlinked] on major U.S. hurricanes during the past 100-plus years.According to the NHC……..” The hotlink is to this page for “NHC Data Archive”:- http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml Nowhere in James’ article is there a reference that “explicitly mentions the report [you] linked to”. Clearly Nick, you either a) have reading comprehension difficulties, or b) you just make up any old BS and miss-attribute that to be what the target of your disparagement (in this case James Taylor) said i.e. you are prone to untruth and therefore a liar. Which is it Nick? reading difficulty? or liar? And you say:- >”Mr Taylor’s opinion piece at Forbes.com to your list of credible sources” Are you actually implying The National Hurricane… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”[RC, please stop the personal abuse! – RT]” Are you condoning blatant lies (untruth) now RT? If Nick insists on propagating lies then he should expect to be called out on such and be referred to as a liar because that is exactly what he is. There is no personal abuse just statement of fact unless he retracts or clarifies that his wrongful statements are actually the result of a reading comprehension difficulty or suchlike.. Same goes for his activism. If he insists on an activist approach (a lying one at that on the face of it) on behalf of the anthropogenic global warming faction then he should expect to be called a Warmy or similar. There is no personal abuse just statement of distinction. He long ago abandoned his original professed stance of objectivity, now he’s just an activist on a mission. BTW I’m actually on topic on this except for no Nick-IPCC connection but his activism is the same as your activist-IPCC post. [An allegation of lying isn’t a statement of fact. What a man says might be untrue; to refute it calls for reasoning and the presentation of evidence, but… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”[An allegation of lying isn’t a statement of fact. What a man says might be untrue; to refute it calls for reasoning and the presentation of evidence,….” But an allegation of lying is a statement of fact when, by your standards, your own criteria is activated as above and as I did (see below). Unless Nick retracts or clarifies his wrongful statements as miss-comprehension or similar then he remains a liar and you are condoning it by your (rather dubious) moderation policy. >”….but to call him a liar is to pretend to know his motives, and that’s the ad hominem part.” I’ve called him a liar by your own stated criteria above having laid out your criteria of “reasoning and the presentation of evidence” here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195957 And here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195967 And here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195973 And here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-196180 Having so far seen no retraction by Nick or explanation of miss-comprehension then on the face of it, Nick is a liar and you are condoning that by your moderation policy RT. >”By the way, it’s strategically unwise to provoke me. Don’t suggest I condone lies. Try to calm down. – RT]” Your moderation RT, in the face… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Record number of days between major hurricane landfalls.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/hurricane_drought_may2013.png

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’ve given up trying to access the “information” James Taylor alludes to at the NHC Data Archive. I’ve looked at both the Atlantic HURDAT2 and NE/NC Pacific HURDAT2 databases in conjunction with the data description and nomenclature, “L” = Landfall, “I” = Intensity etc but can’t make head or tail of how to extract Cat 3,4, and 5 hurricanes. The information is there but I can’t retrieve it. Although Taylor doesn’t “explicitly mention” NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 in his article it does appear at the bottom of the NHC Data Archive page he linked to as:- Deadliest, Costliest, Most Intense Atlantic Tropical Cyclones * The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense Reports There is a decade-by-decade analysis of major hurricanes in Table 6 (not the Table 7 Nick points to) but the decade figures don’t match Taylor’s exactly, the 100 yr total is different (65 vs 70), and the average per decade is different (6? or 6.5? vs 7). It is not out of question that Taylor did use Table 6 as his data source but if he did it was incredibly sloppy transcribing. He may have just rounded 6.5 to 7 to… Read more »

realityrulesok
Guest
realityrulesok

Alas for the faithful deniers who parrot his pseudoscientific nonsense here, Watts is not any kind of scientist, but merely a failed meteorologist and paid propagandist for the pollutocracy, via Fox and WUWT. In short, a “useful idiot”…

“Watts admits “I’m not a degreed climate scientist” on his WUWT profile, and his primary credential appears to be an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval. This does not mean that Watts is “AMS Certified” as some sources have inaccurately claimed. The AMS Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor’s or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology.

Watts’s “About” page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. Watts has refused to say whether he graduated, and a number of direct queries to Watts to find out if he graduated from college were rebuffed.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

The data on the following page isn’t from Anthony Watts though, is it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

It’s what’s called empirical evidence and is from the following:

Dr. Ryan Maue, PhD
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The US Geological Survey (USGS)
The Austrian Central Administration For Meteorology (ZAMG)
Rutgers University
University of Regina
University of Colorado at Boulder
Florida State University
University of Alabama
University of California

Hardly the work of Anthony Watts is it, except that he collected the various the data in one place. What does desmog.com have to say about the institutions above, and do they they have something on your sources – Businessweek and USAToday as well?

Andy
Guest

If not having a degree is a handicap, then we would also write off Bill Gates as a has been

trackback

[…] see how Cumming presents this paper (in a comment on the ironically titled post by Treadgold “ IPCC created and controlled by activists). He implies an abstract completely different to the real abstract (see table […]

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Hmmm, Ken’s not using TangledParachute for his climate change viewpoints any more? Perhaps he thinks more people will read it if he disguises it on a blog that discusses religion instead. Ironic considering the fact that AGW lacks any actual scientific evidence and needs vast amounts of faith as a result.

Andy
Guest

Ken writes

The easy copy and paste key commands on computers has a lot to answer for.

which is why we see the same article from Ken appear in several places.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ken obligingly propagates the HS article and paper in the manner of my expectation “the internet will do the rest”.

Although I wasn’t expecting Ken to be one of more helpful in the process, or even participate.

Thanks Ken.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

The problem with that though Richard is that nobody visits Ken’s websites. But still, it’s a nice gesture on his part I suppose – it’s the thought that counts.

Andy
Guest

It’s not fair to say that Ken’s blog receives no visitors as his own site rankings list OP as number 27

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Yes, but the audience consists almost entirely of only 3 people, with an occasional unsuspecting poor bugger making the mistake of clicking on it every once in a blue moon. The newbies soon discover their mistake and never return.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Sorry I forgot to mention, the publication of the site rankings boosts his visitor numbers for a short term when other blogs such as Whaleoil refer people there to look at the blog ranking stats.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From Quark Soup:-

‘Will CO2 Reach 400 ppm? (Probably Not.)’

[…] So is CO2 going to hit 400 ppm this year? (Technically that should be “ppmv.”) It already has in some northernly monitors, and of course it is already much beyond this in many cities, but will it make this number at Mauna Loa, the Yankee stadium of greenhouse gas monitoring?

It’s not obvious, and it’s looking a little unlikely.

Here are the recent weekly CO2 numbers from Mauna Loa: [graph]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-E7TseNSpC1s/UYBSkFxdtwI/AAAAAAAAB7c/NSlflpmWg2E/s1600/Mauna+Loa+weekly+CO2.jpg

and here is the one-year change for each week: [graph]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OdT7NJrAZBQ/UYBS_aIF2VI/AAAAAAAAB7k/ZxXNfyCf8oE/s1600/MLO+CO2+1yr+chg.jpg

Lately, for whatever reason, the 1-yr change has been below average. Since last year’s MLO CO2 peaked at 397.13 ppm on 5/6/12, we probably need a 2.9 ppm annual increase (assuming the peak occurs on the same week, which isn’t always true), which based on the recent numbers isn’t looking likely [at least for the weekly published average].

>>>>>>>>

http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/will-co2-reach-400-ppm-probably-not.html

# # #

Hmmm……… “for whatever reason”? I wonder what that might be?

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Richard C, I haven’t followed all the references from everyone, but I notice that Table 7 in NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 shows major hurricanes increasing. I cannot see it has been answered so far, even though you get somewhere near it in pointing out that damages adjusted for inflation, population growth and wealth show no trend. Because that doesn’t mean the major hurricanes have not been increasing. Of course, explaining the reason for the increase could be problematic. You complain about my “policy”. I don’t have one that differs from courtesy. If you want to nitpick, go ahead, but you come across as obsessive and strident. I never got around to responding to your disagreement about movement of thermal energy in the ocean. I remember I said some of the water warmed by the sun is moved at scales of days to decades or longer before its heat comes again to the surface, and this is confirmed by your comments. However, most of the energy rises to the surface that very day. My evidence for that is simple: the cold air after every night is warmed, as shown by every continuous temperature… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I haven’t followed all the references from everyone,…” Then you have not determined the facts and are in no position to make an assessment as to whether Nick is lying or not. >”….but I notice that Table 7 in NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6 shows major hurricanes increasing” Firstly, the whole point of James Taylor’s decade-by-decade analysis in his article was to show that the assertions of major hurricanes increasing (e.g. the one you make by misinterpretation above) are entirely wrongful (lies, untruth, dishonest). This was noted by Magoo here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195985 I also (in addition to posting James Taylor’s analysis) addressed the wrongful interpretation here:- https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/04/ipcc-created-and-controlled-by-activists/#comment-195993 Secondly, Table 7 is NOT the source of James Taylor’s data as Nick states “This is apparently where Mr Taylor got his data from and it shows that the number of major hurricanes is increasing.” i.e. Nick lied (and it doesn’t show what he asserts anyway i.e. he also misinterprets as you do and both of you propagate your misinterpretation). Then Nick states in a subsequent comment “Mr Taylor explicitly mentions the report I linked to”. James Taylor did not mention that report let alone explicitly i.e.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”….frankly, I cannot believe that you’re disputing that warm water rises.” I’m not. Clearly, going by the above statement, and as Rob Taylor points out too, you are completely ignorant of ocean heating processes, mechanisms and circulation systems. All of the educational material and oceanographic papers presented and discussed on this bog have been a waste of time in your case. Even Gareth Renowden, Rob Painting et al understand ocean energy absorption and heat circulation far better than you do. They will make mincemeat of you if they get hold of your incredibly inept understanding, that being:- ”I base my comment on the knowledge that warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface.” So according to your application of that convention (convective law), energy that has been laid down by radiation path-length to a depth of 100 – 200m depending on water clarity, necessarily rises to the surface of the ocean in its various states of externally forced turbulence and thermal imbalances and gradients both internal and to the overlying air (not at all like a water pot on a stove element note) “within seconds or minutes”? Why… Read more »

Richard Treadgold
Guest

Thank you for your patience, Richard, but this becomes almost vexatious.

At least you no longer overlook my use of the word most in “most of the energy rises to the surface that very day.” You ask “how could there possibly be the horizontal heat transport.”

Listen carefully: it’s because of the heat remaining after “most” has risen to the surface. I guess you must consider the possibility that “most” could be anything from 51% to 99%. But you must have considered this yourself, since you bring a scientific bent to everything else you study here.

If you agree that the tropical atmosphere warms afresh each day, then you accept also that the horizontal transport you cite transports the remaining fraction of heat. Now please describe your understanding of how the atmosphere warms anew every single day.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Now please describe your understanding of how the atmosphere warms anew every single day.” As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog, the specific heat capacity of air is a fraction of the specific heat capacity of water and the amount of heat in each can be easily calculated if the respective temperatures are known. If “most” of the heat absorbed by the (tropical) ocean in one day were immediately released to the (tropical) atmosphere that same day, the tropical atmosphere would be far hotter than the observed temperature actually is, because (quoting following lecture linked):- “The upper 2.5m layer of ocean has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above.” And, “Heat transport from tropics to polar regions” [Page 19] http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/as222d/lec9-07-atmos-ocean-sm.pdf But solar insolation is down to 100 – 200m, not 2.5m. The ocean therefore, acts as a “heat-sink” (a store or reservoir of energy) that is far more efficient in that capacity than land is. So “most” of the energy absorbed by the tropical ocean is not released to the tropical atmosphere. It is instead transported to where thermal gradient takes it (the air over tropical seawater is… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Should be:-

“Clearly, [generally] ocean heating is in the tropics (red bars) and cooling south and north towards the poles (blue bars).”

There are exceptions of course.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Schematic diagrams showing predominant global “Heat release to atmosphere/air” from the heat transport circulation belt occurs from the North Atlantic (2 regions), and a lessor loss occurs from the South Atlantic (1 region). All 3 regions of predominant loss are adjacent to either the North or South Pole.

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/ocean/images/image2.jpg

comment image

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/thermohaline_circulation_conveyor_belt_big.gif

http://www.celsias.com/media/uploads/admin/thermocirc2.gif

http://www.eoearth.org/files/111001_111100/111095/620px-2_thermohaline_003.png

But those diagrams however, do not reconcile with the heat gain/loss quantities in Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1:-

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/images/408453aa.2.jpg

They calculate a gain in the South Atlantic and South Pacific with the major loss occurring from the Southern Indian (add south of Australia to that too), The next order of losses are almost equal across the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Mid-South Atlantic. The gains/losses are in units of PW where 1 W = 1 J/second i.e. enormous amounts of energy being transferred from ocean to atmosphere every second.

The major heat gain on the other hand, is the even greater influx of energy to the equatorial/tropical Pacific. The next but lessor gain is to the southern tropical and equatorial Atlantic. None of the major oceanic heat loss regions are in the tropical zone of either Pacific, Atlantic, or Indian.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Listen carefully: it’s because of the heat remaining after “most” has risen to the surface.”

Before you preach to me RT, with nothing to back your claim, no citation of relevant studies, no energy budget diagram i.e. hand-waving waffle, I suggest you study Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1 below very intently.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/images/408453aa.2.jpg

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I suggest you study Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000), Figure 1 below very intently” To assist, a description in words from Ganachaud & Wunsch (2000):- “Figure 1 shows the heat (actually, enthalpy) transports, across each hydrographic section (arrows) along with the residuals reflecting atmospheric heat exchanges (boxes). Residuals are accurately determined at middle and high latitudes, but are more uncertain at lower latitudes (for example, in the Atlantic Ocean) owing to an enhancement of the geostrophic noise there. Nevertheless, the total heating over the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans are well determined, respectively 0:7 ± 0:2PW (1PW = 10^15 W) and 1:6 ± 0:4 PW. No significant heat transfers are found in the Indian Ocean because of the large, uncertain, warm water inflow from the Pacific Ocean. This large warm water flux is the main heat escape from the Pacific Ocean, resulting in a northward heat flux in the South Pacific. In the southern Pacific sector, significant heating is found, in contrast with the sparse in situ observations, but in qualitative agreement with the recent re-analysis of the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts. Figure 3 shows the globally integrated heat fluxes compared… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Proportional allocation of solar radiation absorption in the tropics to atmosphere/ocean latitudinal transport from an educational resource:- 1.3 Latitudinal energy transfer Energy deposition is not uniform with latitude. Less solar radiation is deposited at high latitudes than low, and in the winter than in the summer hemisphere. A local equilibrium temperature can be computed at each latitude, but the resulting temperature distribution has a much steeper decline toward the poles than is observed. Thus, energy must be transported from the tropical regions toward the poles. Let us make a quantitative calculation of this eect for the case in which the sun is directly over the equator, i. e., at the equinox. The key issue is the actual versus the projected area of a latitudinal strip of the earth’s surface, as illustrated in gure 1.4. The actual area of the strip of earth’s surface illustrated in this gure is S = 2Rcos   R, while the projected area of this strip as seen from the sun is Sp = 2Rcos   Rcos . Assuming albedo A at latitude , the energy balance at this latitude is Fs(1 􀀀 A)Sp = T4 radS,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The flow of energy through the earth’s climate system’ By KEVIN E. TRENBERTH∗ and DAVID P. STEPANIAK National Center for Atmospheric Research†, Boulder, USA (Received 1 June 2004) (Symons Memorial Lecture: delivered on 21 May 2004) [Page 9] (b) The oceans […] The mixed layer on average involves ∼90 m of ocean. The thermal inertia of the ocean depends on the rate of ventilation of water between the mixed upper ocean layers and the deeper more isolated layers through the thermocline. Such mixing is not well known and varies greatly geographically. An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response caused by the oceans is 10 to 100 years. The slowest response should be in high latitudes where deep mixing and convection occur, and the fastest response is expected in the tropics. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/QJRMSenergyflow04.pdf # # # “fastest”: 10 year ocean => surface temperature response delay – tropics (expected) “slowest”: 100 year ocean => surface temperature response delay – high latitudes (expected) That 10 – 100 year lag is consistent with Abdussamatov, Scafetta, Usoskin (I think) and others I can’t recall right now. But is in no way consistent with “warm water rises… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

If, in respect to the tropical ocean say, “warm water rises and within seconds or minutes will be at the surface” or ““most of the energy rises to the surface that very day”, then we should expect to see a diurnal SST and subsurface day-time maximum to pre-dawn minimum temperature fluctuation range of about 20°C (or more than 15) for day-time SST of about 30°C. But the largest observed diurnal fluctuation (variation) I can find in the literature is 3.5°C from Deschamps and Frouin (1984), in the Mediterranean Sea, and Stramma et al. (1986), near the Long Term Upper Ocean Study (LOTUS) mooring in the Atlantic. Diurnal warming can be on the order of 3°C or more in the Tropics under calm and clear conditions according to Fairall et al. (1996) and Soloviev and Lukas (1997). Clayson and Weitlich (2006) show typical fluctuations of 0.37°C and 1.48°C on successive days, see:- FIG. 1. Several days of SST observations from a TAO buoy, along with indications of the predawn and maximum SST and resulting dSST value for two of the days. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/pne/pdf/clayson_weitlich_07_jc.pdf Cronin and McPhaden (1997), ‘The upper ocean heat balance in the western… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Assuming solar radiation penetration to 150m (clear water), the 20 C water at 150m depth…” That is not to say I’m also assuming that the daily solar radiation pass is actually the direct and only mechanism that heats the water to 20 C at 150m. My understanding is that NIR IR-A and SWIR IR-B absorption is most effective in only about the 10 micron to 10m depth range (also a little but minimal UV heating effect) and that is where most energy is laid down by radiation. That’s going by Hale & Querry (1973) primarily:- http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif It’s the subsequent mixing and conduction/convection processes (“venting” as Trenberth and Stepaniak term it) that heat the water lower down in the main in my understanding and also the major cause of oceanic thermal lag along with water’s thermal properties, the radiative heating is all but exhausted at 100 – 200m depending on water clarity I think I recall i.e. there’s not equal amounts of energy laid down over the entire pathlength of radiation penetration therefore the effectiveness as a heating agent is not equal at every point on the penetration pathlength (I think I could dig… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”If you agree that the tropical atmosphere warms afresh each day, Yes I do, but Tair is not necessarily dependent on Tskin or SST (0.45m deep). See Chen and Houze Jr (1997) quote below for the diurnal air/sea heating process and Figure 15 (page 18) for the respective temperature profiles. It is not possible to conclude therefore that ALL of the warming occurring in the air each day is a direct result of ALL of the energy being released from the sea surface that arrived in the sea from the sun the same day after subtraction of horizontal transport to give “most”. >…then you accept also that the horizontal transport you cite transports the remaining fraction of heat.” No I don’t. As for above and also, there is varying heat storage in a unit mass of surface water and transfer to lower depths (Cronin and McPhaden up-thread) which is not released to the air diurnally. Also, Chen and Houze Jr (see below) state “direct solar absorption by the moist surface air apparently plays a role in the diurnal cycle of Tair”, meaning not all of the energy added to the air during the… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…this might cheer you up a bit RC”

Not really Magoo. I’m convinced solar cycles control climate from all the evidence and R.J. Salvador’s correlation just adds to that already very large body.

But as with the warming scenario of climate controlled by GHGs, the solar explanation will undergo the test of time in the very near future too just like any other scenario prediction. I certainly wont be cheered up if the solar cooling scenario is proved correct because the consequences are considerable to human well being, to put it mildly. I will however be satisfied that the solar explanation is the correct one when cooling is evident in non-La Nina conditions over the next few years i.e. from empirical observation.

That satisfaction, if realized, is what is colloquially referred to I believe, as “cold comfort” so any cheering up in that event would be bittersweet (to use another colloquialism). Hasn’t happened yet though but the early indicators are in-the-money.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…the early indicators are in-the-money” Like this one:- ‘Temperature change in a Nutshell’ Written by Ed Hoskins MA (Cantab) BDS (Lond) [See graphs] The UK Met Office long term Central England Temperature record has kept a continuous and consistent data set since the 1660s. It appears to be reliable and to have maintained its quality. It has not been adjusted as have so many other official temperature records. Although the CET record covers only a small part of the northern hemisphere, it has shown a consistent rise since the end of the little ice age in 1850 at a rate of about +0.45°C / century or about +0.67°C in the last 150 years. This rise accords well with other temperature records. However since the year 2000, diminishing solar activity in solar cycle 24, moving back towards little ice age patterns, appears to be having an real effect. So since 2000 the CET shows an annual temperature diminution at the rate of -0.49°C / decade or -0.59°C in 12 years: this negates ~80% of the entire CET temperature rise since 1850. Although this is a very short period, the extent of the climate change… Read more »

Andy
Guest

On the topic of activists, Bill McKibben is coming to NZ for a speaking tour in June.
Dates are at Hot Topic.

Andy
Guest
Richard Treadgold
Guest

Penetrating questions!

Andy
Guest

Hilary Ostrov has some thoughts on IPCC lead author Andrew Weaver and the role of the taxpayer-funded CBC in Canada

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/cbc-censoring-again-or-honking-for-ipccs-andrew-weaver/

Post Navigation