Has your intelligence forsaken you Mr Morgan

Gareth Morgan writes a post that’s, frankly, beneath him.

He rants against those he calls “climate deniers”. Though he’s shown in the past he makes efforts to be informed, in this article he recklessly misrepresents the sceptical position. Well, that’s a charitable interpretation; it’s more likely that he is trying to marginalise the sceptics. It’s pathetically easy to show he’s wrong (give me a minute on that).

Mr Morgan stoops to uttering an untruth about the temperature; we know it has not been going up, yet he insists:

  1. “global temperatures are rising at a rate faster than any past ‘natural’ changes”
  2. “this rapid upswing in global temperatures”
  3. “why the planet is warming so quickly”

The short-lived late-20th century warming halted 15-20 years ago. He must have heard about the pause and knows that these statements are false. For heaven’s sake: the IPCC tried unconvincingly to explain the pause in the Fifth Assessment Report. The Hockey Schtick lists 63 excuses given around the world to explain away the pause. A paper last year by Dr Ross McKitrick claims the pause had lasted 19 years at the surface and up to 26 years in the lower troposphere.

Everyone agrees there is a pause. You cannot remain pig-headedly defiant of the evidence.

But don’t take my word for it. Here, in a single handy graph, are five major global temperature records (UAH, RSS, GISS, NCDC and HadCRUT4) from Climate4you:

caption

The five major temperature records to April 2015. Since about 1995 the temperature, though varying, has shown little or no warming trend. The temperature trend shows no sign of “rising at a rate faster than any natural changes” or a “rapid upswing”—in other words, it hasn’t been warming. These are not my graphs, they are produced by international teams of scientists; Mr Morgan should retract his foolish statements. Click to enlarge.

Mr Morgan promises:

In this first blog we will strip back the rhetoric and take a dispassionate look at the facts of climate change.

Then he spends over 40% of his article just moaning about the sceptics, or “deniers” as he prefers. He gives no evidence to support the allegation of global warming, much less does he help us believe that it’s caused by something we’re doing.

His lamenting over sceptical disagreement is weak and forgettable, but it’s worth making a couple of points. He says this:

Firstly to the small, vocal but shrill community of deniers. There are two common objections to the weight of evidence. The first is that either there’s not enough evidence yet. The second is that it’s fair game for any lightweight to blithely dismiss climate models because after all, they’re “just a model, not reality”. That’s it, that’s as deep as the deniers (what’s left of them) can manage to put up these days. Pathetic.

A Horizon poll last year suggested to its respondents: “I am uncertain that climate change is really happening.” (Bear in mind that the expression “climate change” is these days taken to mean that a human influence is causing it.) The results show a majority of New Zealanders are not sure we’re causing climate change. Like this:

First, 47.8% of respondents disagree or strongly disagree—they’re certain they cause climate change.

Then, 27.6% strongly agree that they’re uncertain, and almost as many, 23.8%, can’t decide whether they’re uncertain or not. I think it’s clear that being unable to decide is the definition of uncertainty. That makes a total of 51.4% of us who are not convinced we’re causing climate change.

What were you saying, Gareth, about “a small group of deniers clinging to an evaporating argument”? There’s no argument involved here; there are many questions that you, who are so convinced we’re destroying the planet, simply refuse to answer. Here are five of the most urgent questions:

  1. The temperature is not going up; when do you predict that it will?
  2. The oceans are sometimes observed to be warming; as there is no mechanism for the air to significantly heat the ocean, do you agree that our emissions cannot be causing it?
  3. Vigorous debate is occurring among climate scientists on climate sensitivity (CS), or the amount of warming to be expected from a given level of airborne CO2; the IPCC strongly believes in high CS, while recent papers on the continuing lack of global warming report low CS; do you agree we should delay expensive policy responses until this vital factor is better understood?
  4. The warming response of airborne CO2 is logarithmic, meaning the more that is added, the less warming is caused by each new addition; do you agree this strongly diminishes the warming to be expected from our emissions in the future?
  5. The only predictions of dangerous temperatures come from climate models which reflect our deeply imperfect knowledge of the climate and consistently fail to match the past; do you agree we can safely ignore them until their performance has been shown to be skilful?

This graph illustrates the diminishing effect of further parcels of carbon dioxide emissions. The WUWT post by David Archibald provides a good discussion of the principle:

If the “weight of evidence” for climate disaster really does “stack up with each passing year” why does Mr Morgan resort to such bitter deprecation of sceptics?

When you’re trying to change a person’s mind, evidence works well. There’s nothing to say in the face of evidence, unless you can refute it, for which you need evidence. The only reason to abuse and revile the one who disagrees with you is that you have no evidence. But if you have no evidence, reviling him is still the worst tactic, since it immediately proves you have no evidence.

Wake up, Gareth. Your million dollar inquiry into global warming has purchased a membership in the losing side.

125
Leave a Reply

avatar
120 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
HemiMcKMagooKuniMike JowseyAlexander K Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Simon Papps
Guest
Simon Papps

You are actually confirming everything that Gareth states in his article about deniers. Did you actually read this sentence?
For many years sceptics enjoyed pointing out that 1998 was the hottest year on record – claiming there was a ‘hiatus in warming’ – until 2014 racked up record temperatures. The fact is that both record years are irrelevant; it is the long-term trend that matters.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I used the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

GISSTemp

1998 – 2014
0.057 +- 0.123 degC

2000 – 2014
0.061 +- 0.144 degC

2002 – 2014
-0.004 +-0.174 degC

are some random date ranges I chose that suggest that 1998 isn’t that important

Simon
Guest
Simon

You are confusing variation with trend. There is insufficient statistical evidence for a hiatus.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar/
The reasons behind natural variation are many and varied but the long-term trend is undeniable.
The next year or two will be very interesting given the sudden sharp swing to El Nino conditions.

Andy
Guest
Andy

“I am confusing variation with trend”

using the SkS Trend Calculator, how so?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon P, this quote from Gareth Morgan is rubbish:

>”For many years sceptics enjoyed pointing out that 1998 was the hottest year on record – claiming there was a ‘hiatus in warming’ – until 2014 racked up record temperatures.”

I don’t recall sceptics “enjoying” anything of the sort, let alone “pointing it out”.

The hiatus in warming is determined statistically (see McKitrick 2014 below) by starting at the present and working back in time to ascertain the length of flat trend, the addition of new present data simply extends the hiatus in whatever temperature dataset is being analyzed. The 2014 “record” was a couple of hundreths of a degree in GISTEMP but no such record in HadCRUT4 or the satellite sets UAH or RSS.

From what I recall, the hiatus does not start at 1998 in any temperature dataset. Some start before, some after. Read for yourself:

A STATISTICALLY-ROBUST DEFINITION OF THE LENGTH OF THE GLOBAL WARMING PAUSE

McKitrick, R. (2014) HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series. Open Journal of Statistics, 4, 527-535. doi: 10.4236/ojs.2014.47050.
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”but the long-term trend is undeniable”

Who’s denying it Simon?

Here’s Moberg et al (2005) 2000-year Northern Hemisphere Tempoerature Reconstruction

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g316/patrick1952/GlobalTemperatureReconstruction-2000Years.gif

What is your assessment of the “long-term” “undeniable” trend in this dataset Simon?

And why exactly did the current positive phase (upswing) start around 1700?

No CO2 uptick late 1600s so no attribution possible there.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Yes I figured RT, thanks

Anyway, we seen to have missed the later blog post that I linked to on an earlier thread

GM states

But under the current approach, methane gets treated like it has a similar impact as carbon dioxide, lingering on in the atmosphere interminably – it doesn’t. The currently accepted methodology for measuring methane in terms of carbon dioxide “equivalents” puts the potency of methane at 25 times that of carbon dioxide, but there has been quite a bit of research done to suggest that grossly overstates the long term damage methane does, given its decay rate. Pressing this point home could be a major win for New Zealand, and take the heat off our farmers whose main way to reduce methane at the moment is to shoot their stock.

https://garethsworld.com/blog/environment/three-big-ideas-for-new-zealands-climate-change-target/

Haven’t we been saying this all along?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”RC, Has your research uncovered anything about the strength of current El Nino phase?”

No I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows until it plays out.

>”My impression is that it’s very mild and could fizzle out,”

That’s one of several possibilities but again we’ll have to wait and see. Weak or strong doesn’t necessarily mean a weak or strong temperature response is guaranteed.

<"but Simon seems optimistic there'll be strong warming."

Well he would wouldn't he?. But his mindset is conditioned by the temperature datasets that are at "record" highs. Those datasets are NOT sensitive to ENSO.

Compare GISTEMP to RSS
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1978/plot/rss

1998 doesn't stand out in GISTEMP.

RSS is sensitive to ENSO, as are the radiosondes (HadAT2):

http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadAT.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Prof Bob Carter in 2006 was the first sceptic I’m aware of to “point out” the trendless temperatures.

He certainly wasn’t “pointing out that 1998 was the hottest year on record – claiming there was a ‘hiatus in warming”, contrary to Morgan’s misrepresentation of sceptics. The ward “hiatus” evolved along with “pause” (Hansen, Sato, and Ruedy), “standstill”, “stasis”, etc.

The IPCC seems to have settled on “hiatus” in AR5 – their latest assessment, so sceptics are just using IPCC terminology.

Robin Pittwood
Guest

Just over four years ago, early 2011, a decadal global temperature bet was made. That the decade beginning Jan 2011 would be significantly warmer than the decade beginning Jan 2001. Based on the average of RSS and UAH.

In January 2015 I did an update as to how that bet was turning out. Look at the graph. 2014 is nothing special.

http://www.kiwithinker.com/2015/01/the-decadal-global-climate-bet-dec-2014-update-4-years-into-the-race/

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Goodness me, Simon is not easy to have a discussion with, is he?
It must be kept in mind, when one is discussing the hiatus with those who call we followers of the scientific method and demand evidence of anything before we accept an unproven proposition ‘Deniers’, that warming, even if the most determined search fails to find any statistically-significant warming at all, is the Big Evil that the world must strive to eradicate.
Cold is the real danger. as anyone who has read history can verify. Cold stops any form of seasonal growth in cereal crops, crops which become stock foods and foods for humans, therefore removing the basis upon which all of modern agriculture is built: one only has to read various accounts of the rise and fall of various cultures around the world to understand that humanity thrives in warmth and does not thrive at all when the world cools.
To read the accounts of ordinary village life in the UK during the LIA is to understand the misery and death that extreme cold brings. Only lunatics would pursue a lack of warming as their goal.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Skeptical Science have a bit of a discussion about the Pause/Hiatus that doesn’t exist
https://www.skepticalscience.com/making_sense_of_the_slowdown.html

Andy
Guest
Andy

Dave Frame also jumps in with his views
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/68891920/kiwi-proposal-aims-to-break-barriers-to-action-on-climate-change

He does make some good points.

Given the remarks by Gareth Morgan regarding agricultural methane and Prof Frame’s similar views (I wonder if they are somehow connected???), leads me to think our farming friends should use this to their advantage and get agriculture out of the ETS and climate talks for good.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The Tide Is Turning, Time For Global Cooling’ [Warning: peer-reviewed literature] Doug L. Hoffman’s blog Climate scientists have constructed models to predict what Earth’s climate will look like decades, even hundreds of years in the future. Unfortunately, many major components of Earth’s climate system have not been accurately monitored for very long. This makes such predictions suspect if not laughable. A case in point are variations in ocean circulation and temperature. In the Atlantic there is a cycle for sea surface temperatures variation called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The AMO is linked with decadal scale climate fluctuations like European summer precipitation, rainfall in Europe and India, Atlantic hurricanes and variations in global temperatures. A new study in the journal Nature reports that the AMO is again transitioning to a negative phase, meaning the vaunted “pause” in global warming may be with us for decades. In fact, scientists at the University of Southampton predict that cooling in the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures a half a degree Celsius. Climate scientists and oceanographers have studied ocean circulation patterns for years and—given the ocean’s massive capacity for absorbing, storing, and releasing heat energy—they have… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

GM’s video on methane is on YouTube now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xehi83jWSLk

Andy
Guest
Andy

In the video posted above, the presenter states that the GWP figure of 25 for methane is a number that negotiators came up with, and it could be anything really, e.g 7

And there was I thinking that this was all about science. How silly

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”….scientists at the University of Southampton predict that cooling in the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures a half a degree Celsius”

That’s the amount of warming in the IPCC’s 1951 – 2010 anthro attribution period (see AR5 SPM Figure 1).

Climategate II emails:

[Tommy Wils] – “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably”

Andy
Guest
Andy

Yes the video is “amusing’ for the sound effects. Less amusing for the fact that they are now saying the same things about methane that we have been banging on about on this blog for quite some time now.

That is the problem with not listening to other people’s views.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I think “they” are trying to come up with some plausible numbers and policies to put on the table at Paris

I rather suspect Dave Frame has something to do with this methane issue

Andy
Guest
Andy

Yes, I think so. It’s not just the GWP either, it is the fact that ruminant methane gets recycled through the natural carbon cycle.

Someone on GM’s blog made the comment that methane breaks down into water and CO2, “which are also GHG’s”

The fact that the methane was a product of the CO2 and water in the first place seemed to elude this person. No matter how many times you repeat these facts, no one seems to get it.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I am referring to the subject of ruminant methane. There are clearly other sources of methane

(1) CO2 and water forms grass via photosynthesis

(2) Cows then eat the grass.

(3) Cows belch methane, which is a product of the digestion of the grass.

(4) The methane enters the atmosphere, where it reacts with the OH radical to form CO2 and water

(5) Go to Step (1)

If there are other inputs such as fertilizer, then the parameters change, of course.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Enjoy your lunch and may your flatulence be guilt free.

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Andy,
You have just reminded me of the very good reason not to get excited about the supposedly excessive farting of animals on grassland farms. There is always so much wrong about their silly ideas that it is hard to keep all these facts with which to shoot down said silly ideas in one’s mind at all times.
Seriously is what I cannot be about the fears of Warmists as their ignorance ALWAYS turns around to bite them on their nether regions. (I was going to say BUM, but they would accuse me of being rude, crue and uncultured!)
Richard T.
Cross-fertilisation of trains of thought can be hilarious, but one must first be equipped with a sense of humour.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Alan Carlin, ex Sierra Club activist and Chapter Chairman, economist and physical scientist with degrees from Caltech and MIT and publications in both economics and climate/energy, 38 year US EPA career, now CO2 sceptic and author of new book “Environmentalism Gone Mad”:

“The purpose of this book is to explain why I changed from my lifelong support of the environmental movement to extreme skepticism concern their current primary objective of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.”

“Although I and the many other climate skeptics are now referred to as ‘deniers’ by the climate alarmists, that does not change the science—and there is no valid scientific basis for the alarmists’ catastrophic climate predictions—or justify their fantastically expensive and useless ‘solution.’”

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/leaving-the-church-of-environmentalism.html

What say you Gareth Morgan?

Gareth’s World quote from post above:

>”There are two common objections to the weight of evidence. The first is
that either there’s not enough evidence yet. …….”

My reply at GW:

“Wrong …………..There isn’t ANY evidence yet. Read the IPCC’s AR5 report……”

No response forthcoming from Gareth Morgan. I would have thought this was easy pickings if the “weight of evidence” could be referenced. Apparently it’s a futile quest.

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Simon Papp’s comment upthread regarding an impending El Nino (“The next year or two will be very interesting given the sudden sharp swing to El Nino conditions”) is on shaky ground imo. For 18 months NIWA and Metservice have been hyping the possibility – nay, the high-confidence probability – of a strong El Nino any minute soon. Philip Duncan, of Weatherwatch, has this to say: For the past 18 months global and local climate scientists have been calling for a “High” chance of El Nino forming, many saying it would be as brutal as the one in the 1990s that caused major droughts in New Zealand. Despite the alarming prediction last summer passed us by with no El Nino. After 18 months in the media the term “El Nino” has almost developed it’s own persona. It sounds like the Jesse James of the weather world. My issue isn’t with the climate scientists thinking El Nino is coming – my issue is with the messaaging that comes with it – the high confidence it will happen…and then 18 months go by and it’s brushed off as ‘it’s still coming’. Well, we’ve had concerned farmers… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>’it’s still coming’ [El Nino]

Michelle L’Heureux, a scientist at the U.S. Climate Prediction Center, in August 2014:

“Waiting for El Nino is starting to feel like Waiting for Godot”

Karen Olsen, TV1 meteorologist and weather presenter, when asked by Simon Dallow, news presenter, about NIWA’s prediction of El Nino conditions was nonplussed:

“Pretty much what we’re already getting”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

JoNova:

‘North Atlantic cooling means climate change of a different kind coming?’

Is this the way the backdown plays out? The endless warming becomes cooling, and man-made change becomes natural cycles one paper at a time? The press releases still talk of “change”! No mention that natural cycles could have been the cause of past warming, and that skeptics have been saying this for years.

[snip]

The press release is below for this tricky paper [also linked upthread] that doesn’t follow the IPCC plan. In the world of climate news it’s important that the headlines include the words “climate”, “global” and “change” and not the words “cooling”, “natural cycles” or “skeptics might be right”.

[snip]

Reference:

Gerard D. McCarthy, Ivan D. Haigh, Joël J.-M. Hirschi, Jeremy P. Grist, David A. Smeed. (2015) Ocean impact on decadal Atlantic climate variability revealed by sea-level observations. Nature; 521 (7553): 508 DOI: 10.1038/nature14491 [hotlink]

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/atlantic-cooling-means-global-climate-change-of-a-different-kind-coming/#more-42767

# # #

Yes, “tricky” paper for the CO2 obsessed.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘When Will Climate Scientists Say They Were Wrong?’ Guest essay by Patrick J. Michaels, May 29, 2015 Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper. The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science. The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15. ?w=720 The picture shows the remarkable disconnect between predicted global warming and the real world. The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979, predicted by the UN’s latest family of climate models, many of which are the handiwork of our own federal science establishment. The forecasts are for the average temperature change in the lower atmosphere, away from the confounding effects of cities, forestry, and agriculture. The blue circles are the average lower-atmospheric temperature changes from four different analyses of global weather balloon data, and the green squares are the average of the two widely accepted analyses of satellite-sensed temperature. Both… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Have to say it’s very refreshing not being censored at Gareth Morgan’s World (as opposed to Gareth Renowden’s World).

Andy
Guest
Andy

Yes it is refreshing to not get censored. One gets used to fascistic rhetoric like “Denialists that have been marginalised” in our modern tolerant “inclusive” world, I suppose.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

My latest comment at Gareth’s World replying to my own first comment: >”There isn’t ANY evidence yet” Gareth’s observational “evidence”. 1) global temperatures are rising A natural phenomena. Temperatures have been rising since the 1600s, an uptick around 1700 but no CO2 uptick therefore no CO2 attribution. Same in the 20th century (see IPCC SPM Fig 1), temperatures rising at the same rate early century (1910 – 1940) as late century (1970 – 2000) but no CO2 uptick until 1950s. The only temperature rise that the IPCC attributes to GHGs on a decadal basis is the 1980s and 1990s (see AR5 SPM and SPM Fig 1). This century, temperatures are NOT rising. Certainly not rising at a rate to validate the CO2-forced models. 2) sea level is rising Again, a natural phenomena (the default rate). AGW demands a boost (acceleration) in SLR but that boost is not evident in global or regional SL metrics either satellite or tide guage. Case in point: Wellington Harbour tide guage data. Tonkin & Taylor, in their report to the WCC, explicitly state that they did not ascertain the historical rate of rise. They could have gone to… Read more »

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Nice one Andy. Sock it to ’em!

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Interesting trends over regions in the new UAH Version 6.0 data:

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/typo3temp/pics/d28b843ac4.jpg

NE USA up to NW Canada and Alaska (a little above trendless) completely different to SW USA (warming).

China and Japan only a little above trendless.

Radical warming Australia, Eastern Europe, NE Canada, Africa, Sth America. Arctic.

Vast areas of ocean trendless.

Some cooling across Antarctica.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/new-analysis-brings-uah-temperatures-closer-to-rss.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”One gets used to fascistic rhetoric like “Denialists that have been marginalised” in our modern tolerant “inclusive” world…” The Liberal Gulag by Kevin D. Williamson April 6, 2014 […] Katherine Timpf, a reporter for Campus Reform, faced a human barricade to keep her from asking questions of those attending a feminist leadership conference, whose organizers informed her that the group was “inclusive” and therefore she was “not welcome here” […] The convocation of clowns on the left screeched with one semi-literate and inchoate voice when my colleague Jonah Goldberg, borrowing the precise words of one of their own, titled a book Liberal Fascism. Most of them didn’t read it, but the ones who did apparently took what was intended as criticism and read it as a blueprint for political action. Welcome to the Liberal Gulag. That term may be perverse, but it is not an exaggeration. Mr. Weinstein specifically called for political activists, ranging from commentators to think-tank researchers, to be locked in cages as punishment for their political beliefs. “Those denialists should face jail,” he wrote. “You still can’t” — banality alert! — “yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. You shouldn’t be… Read more »

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Intelligence is how they figured out how to detect the “DNA/fingerprints” of CO2 to know, without any doubt, what source said CO2 came from. Something about “various geochemical characteristics” and something about CO2 from different sources having a “different isotopic composition” that are used to determine what/which source the CO2 being geo-chemical-ed/isotopic-ed came from. That is how we know that those trying to claim that “natural sources” are the source for the CO2 responsible for global warming are in fact conspiring to commit mass murder on a global scale with AGW. To quote one of the experts: There is a way that scientists can tease apart the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to see how much of the CO2 is from natural sources and how much is from combusted fossil fuel sources. Here’s how scientists know. The same elements (i.e. same number of protons in the nucleus) with different mass numbers (arising from the different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus) are called isotopes. Each carbon molecule has six protons in the nucleus, but there are many different isotopes with varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. Carbon isotopes from different sources are “lighter”… Read more »

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

There is only a pause if one pretends to forget the extra heat that the ocean is storing down to the 700 meter level. Just because the ocean now needs to be tested in 3D, instead of just on the surface, does not change the fact that added global heat is still added global heat.

Also, the fact that there is even an alleged pause in surface temperatures during what should be a natural cooling cycle is not a good thing. When the next strong el-Nino year comes along we will finally have something to honestly compare 1998, that last strong el-Nino year, to.

Claiming that a year that should be colder is the same as a strong el-Nino year only proves that the effects of AGW is now stronger than the entire Earth’s natural warming/cooling cycle.

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Damn that Liberal Gulag and its supporters intolerance of those whose sincerely held religious beliefs and ideology involves hijacking passenger jets and crashing them into office towers. Science has spoken. When it comes to global warming there is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is no opinion. There are those who want to commit mass murder on a global scale with global warming, and those who do not want to commit mass murder on a global scale. Science has discovered how to detect the “DNA/fingerprints” of CO2 to know, without any doubt, what source said CO2 came from. Something about “various geochemical characteristics” and something about CO2 from different sources having a “different isotopic composition” that are used to determine what/which source the CO2 being geo-chemical-ed/isotopic-ed came from. That is how we know that those trying to claim that “natural sources” are the source for the CO2 responsible for global warming are in fact conspiring to commit mass murder on a global scale with AGW. Science has discovered how to detect the causation between CO2 and global warming. Science has proven what everyone in the literate world has, regardless of what… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”we know that those trying to claim that “natural sources” are the source for the CO2 responsible for global warming are in fact conspiring to commit mass murder”

Interesting conspiracy theory Kuni, did you make it up yourself or do you represent a group i.e. who is “we”.

I would point out that you are directing your tirade against,from my experience in the climate change debate, unidentifiable persons i.e. who are “those” making that claim exactly (quote please)?

Anyway, I hope you feel better now that you’ve vented some excess spleen.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>That by “Using high-resolution FTIR spectroscopy, we can measure the exact wavelengths of long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.” Also, something about “we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming.” OK, fine Kuni (except for the “considerable warming”). So let’s look at Global Energy Flows (Trenberth et al 2009 Figure 1): http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200904/trenberth.cfm See also Changes in the Flow of Energy through the Earth’s Climate System, Kevin E. Trenberth http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200904/trenberth.cfm Just 3 of the problems with your reasoning. 1) “surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming” The global average “Net absorbed” at the surface is 0.9 W.m-2. Except in the tropics, in excess of 24 W.m-2 of solar energy is absorbed at the surface of the ocean (Fairall et al 1996) and must be transported horizontally towards the poles where it can dissipate i.e. there is a Net released. So the sun heats the ocean surface – not CO2. You will also note that… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Correction:

“You will also note that net longwave infrared is [63] W.m-2 of surface cooling.”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Kuni does tend to exemplify (or is that epitomize?) the Williamson/Goldberg Liberal Fascism argument upthread, doesn’t he?

Viz,. “When it comes to global warming there is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is no opinion.”

And,

“Not only do we not tolerate those who conspire to murder us wholesale because of their warped ideology, we also eventually confiscate their assets to pay for the damage they are responsible for”

His rant is quite a quote mine, not often we get all that in one hit.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”There is only a pause if one pretends to forget the extra heat that the ocean is storing down to the 700 meter level. Just because the ocean now needs to be tested in 3D, instead of just on the surface, does not change the fact that added global heat is still added global heat.” OK, there’s a pause then because IPCC has no science (see AR5 Chapter 10) to back up their speculation that “air-sea fluxes” are their “expected” anthro ocean warming mechanism i.e. they’re “pretending”. Besides there’s a solar energy accumulation explanation. >”Also, the fact that there is even an alleged pause in surface temperatures during what should be a natural cooling cycle is not a good thing.” Heh, we’ve had a natural warming cycle (1970s – 1980s), now we are in the natural cooling cycle (2000s – present). This natural multi-decadal variation (MDV) is what sceptics have been telling AGW proponents that the IPCC have neglected in their anthro attribution to the 1970s – 2000 natural warming phase. This is only the oscillatory component of global temperature though. What you’re neglecting Kuni, is that the secular warming trend started way… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

As it happens I have a copy (that I have read) of Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” and I highly recommend it (it is well referenced and not just a “right wing polemic”) with lots of historical observations over the 20th C in the USA mainly

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Okay, I’ll bite. 1) How is comparing a year that was a very strong el-Nino year, i.e. the peak of the natural warming cycle, to the years that follow it that are la Nina, the colder part of the natural average cycle, years or just average years – global warming ending/taking a hiatus? You are trying to compare an oven to a fridge and claiming that it proves that the oven does not ever help warm the kitchen and that the temperature of the oven still cannot be turned up even if it is proven that it could be turned up. One can only compare a strong a very strong el-Nino year to the next very strong el-Nino year if one wants to use the first very strong el-Nino year as a benchmark, for said benchmark to have any relevance to global warming. 2) How does the graph you are using not show an increase in the warming trend when it clearly shows the trend line going up close to around .2 degrees from 1979 to 2014/2015 like the scientists that have science supporting them have stated? Why did you pick a trend… Read more »

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Reply to Richard Treadgold’s 4:11pm post:

I would recommend that you get your hands on a high-resolution FTIR spectrometer and measure the exact wavelengths of the long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.

That way there is no disputing, internally, the data that you get. You will know that you have the proof many of you claim does not exist.

I wonder if your reaction will be similar to what you have now attempted to do by intentionally pretending that the data, that proves that the misnamed “hiatus in warming” has in fact gone into the ocean warming it down to the 700 meter lever, has magically disappeared.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Interesting conversations. I thought the IPCC and others acknowledged the “pause”. I also thought that we all got the isotopic signature of anthropogenic CO2. Where is the disagreement?

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Reply to Richard Treadgold’s 4:18pm post: Where is the missing misnamed “hiatus in warming” heat documented? Pu-Leeeeeze I am sure that you have heard the science deniers version of it. It goes along the lines of “NASA: Oceans’ Depths Don’t Explain Why Global Warming Has Stopped” Conveniently pretending, as per their MO, to leave out the fact that NASA never said that it was in the deep ocean. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters has found this so-called missing heat: 700 meters below the surface of the ocean. It also manifested in 2014, the warmest year on record, also putting the misnamed “hiatus in warming” to bed. I would recommend that you get the latest charts/graphs from the sources that the older charts you are using claim to get their data from. No year should be colder, or hotter, when discussing global warming, only the direction of the long term trend is relevant. One can claim anything if one gets to select the starting and ending points in a discussion. For example if one were to talk to you right after the moment you started doing something and stopped talking to you… Read more »

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Reply to Richard C (NZ)’s 6:06pm post:

What the IPCC allegedly has, or does not have to date, is not relevant to the discussion unless of one’s goal is to obfuscate.

At the end of the day the IPCC is a customer of the data that various countries climate experts contribute to, and whose job it is to re-package the data to meet the sleaziest political requests to debase the data so politicians can avoid being forced to act.

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself.

So WTF does the IPCC have to do with the fact that the alleged and misnamed “hiatus in warming” heat has been found?

Yes, we are in a cooling cycle. So where is the drop in the trend line from 2000’s-present?

Like I said: The fact that there is even an alleged pause in surface temperatures during what should be a natural cooling cycle is not a good thing

Also, if your warming from the 1700 is not global, it is also not relevant; seeing as that the little ice age that ended around that time was regional.

Andy
Guest
Andy

The “alleged” hiatus on warming

There has been no surface warming of any measurable degree in the time spent on this planet by anyone of school age, yet this is the “biggest crisis facing humanity”

Have a nice day

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Jeez, the lack of any warming for approximately the last 2 decades really does make the environmental activists froth at the mouth. It isn’t the full moon at the moment is it? Delusionus hydrophobias maximus.

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Reply to Richard Treadgold’s 12:26 post The “why” was addressed in the next paragraph: That way there is no disputing, internally, the data that you get. You will know that you have the proof many of you claim does not exist. My comment was not intended as “personal” abuse. It was intended to communicate that the only person who can prove to you, beyond any doubt, the fact that they have found the linkage between the CO2 that we have spewed into the atmosphere and global warming, is you. The amount of heat that has “eluded” the Argo floats??? Don’t you mean the alleged missing misnamed “hiatus/pause” heat discovered by the Argo floats? I am sorry but you lost me with that one. Here is a link to the “Surface warming hiatus caused by increased heat uptake across multiple ocean basins” study at the NERC Open Research Archive: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/508810/ The “Where is the missing misnamed “hiatus in warming” heat documented?” comment was in response to your “Please provide a source for this assertion.” & “If AGW is overwhelming the entire earth’s temperature cycles, why isn’t it warming?” comments. The “misnamed” clarifier addresses the… Read more »

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Reply to Andy’s 8:49 post

There is a big, big difference between “there has been no surface warming” and trying to claim/imply that there is a pause/hiatus in global warming.

The claim that there is a pause/hiatus in global warming is akin to claiming that someone did not have a heart attack because there has been no change on the surface of their skin.

But even the claim that there has been no surface warming is also wrong: The latest 12-month period (May 2014–April 2015) ties with the record set last month (April 2014–March 2015) as the warmest 12-month period among all months in the 136-year period of record. . .

. . . Similar to the pattern seen over the past several months, it was sea surface temperatures driving the global warmth. . .

Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201504

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Reply to Richard C (NZ)’s May 30, 9:49 post.

Funny thing there about that chart you posted a link to. From a post I recently made at the same site that you linked to:

So much for the BS that the chart is the average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models.

A call to Easterbrook inquiring as to where he got the chart resulted in a “I can’t find it anymore. It must have been removed.”

After some searching, the chart that is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models” is in fact the output of a SINGLE model, the HadCM3 temperature simulation which depicts individual model global temperature change simulations to greenhouse gas changes only, rather than simulations responding to changes in the total global radiative forcing. It represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of aerosols.

So when will the CATO Institute, and everyone else who got conned into repeating this BS, be saying that they were wrong?

Andy
Guest
Andy

So the claim that I didn’t make (namely that global warming has “stopped”) is wrong. Also, the trend over the last 18 years is no longer zero (give or take) because we can take a single year without any numbers, claim that it is “warmest Eva” or similar, and say this with a completely straight face, yet at the same time dismiss people for “cherry picking” things that don’t fit the narrative.

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Reply to Andy’s 7:16am post

Actually the claim that you made vis-à-vis there being no recent surface warming, when you posted that “There has been no surface warming of any measurable degree in the time spent on this planet by anyone of school age” is what was wrong.

So what part of the following did you miss?

But even the claim that there has been no surface warming is also wrong: The latest 12-month period (May 2014–April 2015) ties with the record set last month (April 2014–March 2015) as the warmest 12-month period among all months in the 136-year period of record. . .

. . . Similar to the pattern seen over the past several months, it was sea surface temperatures driving the global warmth. . .

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Richard Treadgold After reading what I was going to originally open this post with, I realized how you might misconstrue it for a personal attack so I changed it. I am not in any way questioning your integrity/intelligence, but the chart at the top of this page is wrong. The person/people you got the chart from have lied to you and have given you bogus data. (If your personally know them, taking the boots to them would be the appropriate response.) If you not know them, then I would recommend avoiding anything from them in the future like it were the dose. I will assume that you posted it in good faith because you are not the first person to have been given bogus climate charts/graphs by the elites behind the anti-science jihad. The CATO Institute, an allegedly reputable think tank, is peddling a graph that they are claiming is “the average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models.” Going all the way back to 1974 http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong while forgetting (more likely thinking that none of the Sheeple that take the CATO Institute seriously would bother to confirm its validity) that in the original graph… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

I’m sorry I didn’t realise a single outlier could invalidate a trend over 18 years. I missed that bit.
I also missed the bit where you gave us some actual numbers instead of “warmest since blah”.

As we know, if you are on a high plateau, it is statistically quite likely that there will be several points along that plateau that are the “highest ever”

As for oceans driving temperatures, we can accept this. What of course we dispute is that CO2 is heating the oceans 700m below sea level without heating the atmosphere, and that at some stage in the future this heat will re-emerge from the depths and cause surface warming.

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

You seem to have no problem using the single outliner, the last strong el-Nino year in 1998, to claim that there has been no increase in surface warming since “the time spent on this planet by anyone of school age.”

2014 isn’t an outliner, it is the continuation of the trend.

And while we can dispute all kinds of things, the fact remains that global temperatures continue to trend upwards and the ice caps continue to melt.

Andy
Guest
Andy

“You seem to have no problem using the single outliner, the last strong el-Nino year in 1998, ”

I never mentioned 1998

Kuni seems to be having an argument with himself

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Where did I say that you mentioned 1998?

I would love to see that sentence.

[Kuni, you said to Andy: ‘You seem to have no problem using the single outliner, the last strong el-Nino year in 1998, to claim that there has been no increase in surface warming since “the time spent on this planet by anyone of school age.”’ It was not Andy who said the lack of warming began in 1998; it was you. This has gone on long enough. You seem to be deeply disturbed in ways we cannot change. You are now on permanent moderation and only sensible comments will be published. – RT]

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

A cruise ship leaving port: That must explain why the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data sets shows a 0.08°C warming from 2000 through 2011.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I guess if the pause doesn’t exist, then Skeptical Science can remove their page explaining why the pause exists, and we can stop scientific research on the pause, as research into something that doesn’t exist seems pretty futile, as is discussing anything with a representative of the Church of Settled Science

Andy
Guest
Andy

Anyway, back to Dr Morgan’s blog, it seems that the methane message from him isn’t getting home, since many of his commenters on the blog and Facebook page seem to think he is wrong and keep repeating the 25x GWP figure, also omitting the fact that cows don’t increase the GHG stock.

One commenter even thinks that cows breathing out CO2 is a problem.

It does seem that a certain part of NZ has been completely indoctrinated with the methane message

Andy
Guest
Andy

Off topic, but these before and after shots of wind farm development in Germany are rather shocking

http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/02/shocking-before-and-after-photos-how-wind-parks-are-devastating-idyllic-german-countryside/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Kuni >”1) How is comparing a year that was a very strong el-Nino year, i.e. the peak of the natural warming cycle, to the years that follow it that are la Nina, the colder part of the natural average cycle, years or just average years – global warming ending/taking a hiatus?” Well you’ve got this all wrong. Nobody has stated “a year that was a very strong el-Nino year” was peak of cycle (and read the Macias et al reference). Also the years that floolow are BOTH La Nina AND El Nino. The oscillatory cycle (MDV) has an approximate 60+ yr period. The warming phase was late 1970s – early 2000s. The cooling phase is early 2000s – whenever the phase changes. this corresponds to the current hiatus. Simple. >”2) How does the graph you are using not show an increase in the warming trend when it clearly shows the trend line going up close to around .2 degrees from 1979 to 2014/2015 like the scientists that have science supporting them have stated?” Got this all wrong too Kuni. 0.2 degrees over 2.5 decades is only 0.08 C/decade. CO2-forced “science” requires rather more… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Back on the methane topic, I have a question that may have been answered when Jim McK and co were working on this issue.

If the herd size is constant (for sake of argument) and therefore the methane level in the atmosphere is constant ( I will assume that this is correct, for sake of argument anyway), then what relevance do the values for GWP for methane have for different time scales?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I would recommend that you get your hands on a high-resolution FTIR spectrometer and measure the exact wavelengths of the long-wave (infrared) radiation reaching the ground.That way there is no disputing, internally, the data that you get. You will know that you have the proof many of you claim does not exist.” You appear to be having difficulty reading and comprehending the response I provided for you Kuni. There was no dispute that “long-wave (infrared) radiation [is] reaching the ground” (DLR). Everyone knows this and it is portrayed in the graphic from Trenberth el al (Earth’s Energy Flows) as 333 W.m-2. And outgoing longwave radiation is leaving the ground (OLR). More OLR is leaving (396) than is reaching (333). Therefore long-wave (infrared) radiation has a cooling effect on the surface. >”…he data, that proves that the misnamed “hiatus in warming” has in fact gone into the ocean warming it down to the 700 meter lever…….” What data, what “proof”? There isn’t any of either. You cannot produce it Kuni. What you are referring to Kuni is the problem of the “missing heat”. Climate science has not identified such an air to sea transfer… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters has found this so-called missing heat: 700 meters below the surface of the ocean.”

It would be good if you actually referenced this paper Kuni (if at actually exists). I don’t think it exists because if it did it would be huge news splashed all over the media, both climate science reports and MSM.

From what I can see – nada.

In other words, I’m calling your bluff Kuni.

>”It also manifested in 2014, the warmest year on record, also putting the misnamed “hiatus in warming” to bed.”

Didn’t “manifest” in the satellite data or HadCRUT4 (no “warmest year” records there), by a couple hundreths of a degree).

The hiatus is still very much in place Kuni,

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”What the IPCC allegedly has, or does not have to date, is not relevant to the discussion unless of one’s goal is to obfuscate.” What a load of rubbish Kuni. The IPCC reports are an assessment of your cherished “science” – are you denying it? >”So WTF does the IPCC have to do with the fact that the alleged and misnamed “hiatus in warming” heat has been found?” You had better inform the IPCC post haste that it has been found Kuni. I’m sure they would be most grateful for your communication of this revelation to them, seeing as they were completely in the dark regarding the “missing heat”. >”Yes, we are in a cooling cycle. So where is the drop in the trend line from 2000’s-present?” Already detailed this for you upthread Kuni. Reading and comprehending is not your strong suit is it? The cooling phase is in the oscillatory component of temperature (MDV), NOT the secular trend (ST). MDV is a quasi 60 year cycle, the ST fluctuates warm-cool-warm-cool over centuries. The ST peak has not been reached yet, wait until the 2020s for that. >”Also, if your warming from the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”After some searching, the chart that is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models” is in fact the output of a SINGLE model”

Tosh. It would have been a good idea to contact Pat Michaels at CATO in the first instance for confirmation Kuni. Instead you just lie about it. Truth doesn’t appear to be one of your strong suits either.

These models vs observations graphs are ubiquitous now Kuni – there’s no escaping them. Just do a search of Google Images with “models vs observations”. you don’t even need “climate”. The projection-reality divergence is the biggest problem facing climate science and the IPCC, their credibility is being shot to pieces with every passing month of new data.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”How is it that the HADcrut4 data on the chart at the top of this page shows that the temperature anomaly for 2013 as being around 0.3 degrees when the original data HADcrut4 at the UK MET Office’s website shows that the median temperature anomaly for 2013 is 0.492 degrees?”

Similar for UAH, GISS, NCDC.

The anomaly data has to be converted to a common baseline in order to plot them all on the same graph Kuni. The different series have different baselines for the anomalies.

I take it that you’re a newby to all of this?

If you want up-to-date data go to woodfortrees: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

Here’s what happens when you plot (as in the post) UAH, RSS, GISS, and HadCRUT4 without converting to a common baseline:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/uah/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979

Obviously different to the graph in the post with a common baseline.

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

The intemperate communications from ‘Kuni’ are an object lesson of the old saw ‘Never wrestle with a pig – you get covered with all sorts of distasteful stuff and the pig loves it!’
Kuni has serious problems with keeping all of his arguments straight.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Tosh. It would have been a good idea to contact Pat Michaels at CATO in the first instance for confirmation Kuni. Instead you just lie about it. Truth doesn’t appear to be one of your strong suits either.”

You could could have just carefully read the article:

“The story is told in a simple graph, the same one that University of Alabama’s John Christy presented to the House Committee on Natural Resources on May 15?”

The graph is by John Christy UAH.

>”Going all the way back to 1974 ………..the original graph it clearly states “1979-83, 5-year running mean.”

No Kuni, the article states:

“The red line is the 5-year running average temperature change forecast, beginning in 1979”

Nothing about 1974.

Again, reading and comprehension is not your strong suit is it?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…..the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRUT4 global surface temperature data sets shows a 0.08°C warming from 2000 through 2011″

Whoop-de-doo.

The IPCC’s CO2-forced models exhibit 0.3 C/decade out to 2050, 3.75 times more.

The IPCC’s “expert opinion” is for 0.2 C/decade out to 2050, 2.5 times more.

Obviously, if there is actually any CO2 forcing of climate, it has been overwhelmed by natural variation over this century i.e. CO2 is not the primary climate driver.

HemiMcK
Guest
HemiMcK

Andy, I think that you may be on the money about Paris, which would be very exciting.

“I think “they” are trying to come up with some plausible numbers and policies to put on the table at Paris
I rather suspect Dave Frame has something to do with this methane issue”

I supplied the methane calculations that we discussed at length a couple of years ago on this blog to Dr Frame and others but really got no response. Hopefully it eventually got to the right hands.

Incidentally Gareth the “negotiated” part is not quite how it came about. The basic calculation as per the graph on your video comes out at 7. Then the creatives, all trying to outdo each other, got to work and each applied another multiple for a range of spurious reasons (all documented in IPCC material) which I don’t have the energy to go over again.

The fact that the number has been set in stone for 15 years will however require a serious negotiation to change. Brazil tried and failed, hopefully this team will do better.

Andy
Guest
Andy

HemiMcK, sorry I didn’t make the connection that you are Jim

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Obviously, if there is actually any CO2 forcing of climate, it has been overwhelmed by natural variation over this century i.e. CO2 is not the primary climate driver.”

Another way of putting this is that the anthropogenic “fingerprint” has not been identified outside natural variation.

So why is Tim Groser (NZ negotiator) going to Paris?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”After some searching, the chart that is the “average of 102 IPCC CMIP-5 climate models” is in fact the output of a SINGLE model, the HadCM3 temperature simulation which depicts individual model global temperature change simulations to greenhouse gas changes only, rather than simulations responding to changes in the total global radiative forcing. It represented model simulations of temperature responses only to greenhouse gas changes, which neglects for example the temperature response to the cooling effects of aerosols.”

Kuni, I think it is reasonable that you provide proof of this (i.e. documentation of this heinous crime)?

[Comment deleted by moderator. This is a bit rough, RC. To be scrupulously fair, the reasoning is faulty; lack of proof does not demonstrate he’s lying. – RT]

Either that or this is just one of the many conspiracy theories that seem to abound in your mind.

HemiMck
Guest
HemiMck

Hi Andy

“If the herd size is constant (for sake of argument) and therefore the methane level in the atmosphere is constant ( I will assume that this is correct, for sake of argument anyway), then what relevance do the values for GWP for methane have for different time scales?”

In a global steady state situation the number is 7 over any time frame. The rate of change of methane concentrations on a global scale is very small, certainly not large enough to move away from the steady state assumption.

I know that doesn’t directly answer your question.

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Reply to Richard C (NZ)’s 3:35 post.

That’s nice, BUT, the baseline has nothing to do with what the actual temperature anomaly is per year.

If the HADcrut4 data says that the 2013 number is 0.492 degrees then the graph needs to show the HADcrut4 2013 number is 0.492 degrees.

Anyone can claim anything it they are allowed to make their own numbers up for each year while trying to claim that the made up numbers are the real numbers.

Kuni
Guest
Kuni

Reply to Richard Treadgold’s 11:52 post:

Umm, 0.08 x 100, i.e. a century, is 8.0 not 0.8.

Andy
Guest
Andy

In a global steady state situation the number is 7 over any time frame.

HemiMcK, thanks that does answer my question. If the radiative power of methane is 7 times that of CO2 and the situation is steady-state, then that is the value we should use.

We also need to take into account the recycling of methane. So if agriculture were to be included in any ETS, then deltas in herd size would be the metric to use, along with this GWP figure.

It would be unfair to charge farmers every year for the stock numbers. It is not the same problem as increasing the CO2 stock via fossil fuel combustion.

Andy
Guest
Andy

So 0.08 × 10, i.e., a century, is 0.8.

One could argue that 0.8 degrees per century is roughly the amount of warming we have experienced over the last century, therefore “the pause” doesn’t exist. QED.

I also have a proof that 1 = 0 by the way

Out of interest, I used the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator to find some randomly chosen rates over various periods in the GISS series (error margins not included for brevity)
(Rates are degrees C per decade)

2000 – 2011 0.112
2001 – 2011 0.047
2001 – 2012 0.016
2000 – 2012 0.075

so the numbers are very sensitive to the endpoints, yet all values are less than the error bounds.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I’m just wondering why Kuni picked the date ranges he did. Was it a random chance that his data was the highest rate out of the 4 random ones I chose?

Andy
Guest
Andy

1 = 0 . I have a “proof” I got from a good book called “Zero” by Charles Seife, on the history of the number zero.

The “proof” has a fundamental flaw in that there is a hidden divide by zero in it.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”That’s nice, BUT, the baseline has nothing to do with what the actual temperature anomaly is per year”

Actually it does Kuni. That is what an “anomaly” is in regard to climate – a temperature difference per year from a baseline. NCAR confirms this:

What is a climate anomaly?

A climate anomaly is the difference of a future climate compared to the present climate. We have provided four time period anomalies; Near Term (2020-2039), Mid-Term (2040-2059), End of Century (2080-2099), Last Decade (2090-2099) for our anomalies. The present day climate is computed from the 20th Century Experiment (1980-1999). We use a twenty-year average to compute our anomalies in order to filter out noise from the model and better see the climate signal.

https://gisclimatechange.ucar.edu/question/57

No baseline, no anomaly. Period.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Kuni, I suspect you’re confusing “anomaly” with “absolute”.

Absolute is the actual temperature in degrees Celsius or Kelvin, the baseline for both is zero (0). Except the Celsius baseline of 0 is actually 273.15 K therefore, strictly, Celsius is a temperature anomaly in terms of 273.15 K.

Only Kelvin is measured as the “absolute” difference from no temperature at all (0 K).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Or are you saying that because they’re all less than the margin of error, none are significant, and there’s been no warming? Though surely you hesitate to draw that conclusion from only four data points. Help.” Each of Andy’s 4 data ranges and the statistical linear regression calculation for each range has a different margin of error specific only to each respective range RT. The “no statistically significant warming” issue is in terms of a margin of error that contains zero, therefore the trend could be zero (no warming), or any other value within the margin positive or negative i.e. also possibly a little cooling or some warming. So to find “statistically significant” warming the length of the data range has to be extended back in time from the present until zero is eliminated from the margin of error i.e. all trend possibilities are positive, a zero no warming trend is not a possibility. This was Ross McKitrick’s statistical exercise (the paper that warmies hate with a vengeance): A STATISTICALLY-ROBUST DEFINITION OF THE LENGTH OF THE GLOBAL WARMING PAUSE I have published a paper proposing a definition of the length of the pause… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”If the HADcrut4 data says that the 2013 number is 0.492 degrees then the graph needs to show the HADcrut4 2013 number is 0.492 degrees.” No it doesn’t Kuni. You have to understand the meaning of “in terms of”. The 0.492 anomaly is “in terms of” HadCRUT’s climatological anomaly baseline (see below). The graph in the post is NOT “in terms of” HadCRUT’s climatological anomaly baseline. Each series in the graph is “in terms of” a common climatological baseline in order to compere apples-to-apples, the common baseline not necessarily corresponding to the baseline of the provider (HadCRUT in this case). The HadCRUT4 anomaly baseline is 1961 – 1990. See the CRU information on the series: Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90? Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries measure average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Kuni] >”Umm, 0.08 x 100, i.e. a century, is 8.0 not 0.8.”

You provided the rate for a decade Kuni i.e. 0.08 “per decade”.

There’s 10 decades in a century. This is why Richard T multiplied, correctly, 0.08 x 10.

By multiplying by 100 you’ve got the rise for 10 centuries Kuni (8.0 C), that’s 1000 years (3000, not 2100).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Comments are now closed at Gareth’s World:

https://garethsworld.com/blog/environment/why-are-we-still-dragging-our-feet-on-climate-change/

Turns out to be a very useful template for future reference (in my case anyway). I just hope Gareth has a better handle on the issues now (unless he’s completely blinkered of course – that’s a possibility).

Kuni (Kuni Lemi) has spammed the thread with the same cut-n-paste tripe he’s copied into this thread. The last comment posted was Kuni’s:

“Science has spoken. When it comes to global warming there is no debate, there is no discussion, and there is no opinion. There are those who want to commit mass murder on a global scale with global warming, and those who do not want to commit mass murder on a global scale.”

I’m wondering whether Gareth was a bit uncomfortable having Kuni on HIS side and shut up shop.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I had a quick look and Kuni has this to say on GM’s blog

The difference between Conservatives and al-Qaeda/ISIS members: al-Qaeda/ISIS members are a better class of hominid because at least they don’t lie about wanting to murder us

So Kuni thinks that “conservatives” are worse than people who commit rape, behead people for their faith, throw gays off tall buildings, stone women to death, burn people alive in cages, etc

Glad we don’t have to deal with that any more.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Is it just me or are the climate change activists getting more hysterical in the various comment threads?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Is it just me or are the climate change activists getting more hysterical in the various comment threads?” Not just you and not just comment threads Andy. Reminds me of the “pure evil” in Ghostbusters being let loose. It’s like someone pushed an “activate” button. But I don’t think these are true greenies whose concern is “saving the earth”, I think they’re the radical wing of the ideological Left climbing on the climate change bandwagon. Case in point: US Democrat Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse: ‘Senator: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics’ By MARK HEMINGWAY, Jun 2, 2015 That’s right — a sitting U.S. Senator is suggesting using RICO laws should be applied to global warming skeptics. Courts have been defining RICO down for some time and in ways that aren’t particularly helpful. In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled RICO statutes could be applied to pro-life activists on the grounds that interstate commerce can be affected even when the organization being targeted doesn’t have economic motives. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sen-whitehouse-d-ri-suggests-using-rico-laws-global-warming-skeptics_963007.html RICO Passed in 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a federal law designed to combat organized crime in the United States. It… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Naomi Orekses and Suzanne Goldenberg, seem to like the idea of having climate “deniers” arrested under RICO act for thought collusion.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/24/the-merchants-of-smear/

They would wouldn’t they?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

From Climate Depot: In June 2009, a public appeal was issued on an influential U.S. website [hotlink] asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.” The appeal appeared on Talking Points Memo, an often cited website that helps set the agenda for the political Left in the U.S. The Talking Points Memo article continues: “So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?” (For full story see: ‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’ – June 3, 2009) After all the attention drawn to it by Climate Depot, the Talking Points Memo article was later pulled and the website published a retraction and apology, but the sentiment was stark and unequivocal and has significant company among climate fear promoters. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/06/02/climate-depot-responds-to-sen-whitehouse-the-warmists-have-it-exactly-backwards-it-is-the-global-warming-proponents-who-are-guilty-of-the-tobacco-tactics/ # # # Freedom of speech is out… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Their mindset is: If you disagree with us, we want to kill you [and we’re convinced we’re justified to do so]”

Stalin’s actions meant the death of 66,000,000 people, that was your prospect if you dissented from his regime or did not conform.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I had an “interesting exchange” with Gareth Morgan on his Facebook page

He has a post on why it is “worse than we thought”.

I made a couple of points from the IPCC. He and his gang of trolls called me a “denialist” “scientifically illiterate” etc etc. All the usual eco-fascist stuff. He thought I was from the Donald Trump school of politics

Then he blocked me.

All I did was quote from the IPCC and take objection to the stream of abuse directed at me

This guy is actually trying to sell investment products to the public. Simply unbelievable rudeness and arrogance.

Post Navigation