Stakes on climate change are indeed too high to keep silent

But not in the way the Herald means it.

Phillip Mills and Barry Coates, like good zealots everywhere, loyally maintain the view pushed down our throats by the IPCC that we need to reduce our emissions “to meet the aim of limiting global temperature rise to 2°C.”

They say they can’t stay silent, as the stakes are too high. I actually agree, but they’re thinking nobly of the whole world. I see the stakes a little differently. We’re just a small country and I want to know how much it could cost.

The MfE is setting the country’s target for emissions reductions after 2020. It says the cost to each family of a 20% reduction would be $1400 per annum. But why don’t they tell us the total cost?

The 2013 census says the country has 1.136 million families. If fighting climate change cost each family $1400, the total would be $1.6 billion per annum. Projections suggest that by 2027 there could be another 364,000 families, which would add $500 million. But there’s more.

But they know what they’re doing, right?

There will also be an economic cost because the economy won’t flourish under a “price of carbon” of perhaps $50 per tonne. If our target is a reduction of 20% on 1990 levels, the MfE says the annual economic cost by 2027 in lost production could be $4 billion.

Total estimate: $2 billion from families + $4 billion from taxpayers = $6 billion per annum. It only takes $1.5 billion to run our prisons; $3 billion for our Defence Force; and $1.6 billion for the Police.

Yep, stakes are high. But they know what they’re doing. I mean, the science is all settled, isn’t it? Actually, it isn’t settled, but that’s not the worst of it. Much of it has been obfuscated, distorted and fraudulently misrepresented (but that’s for another post).

Everyone else says it hasn’t been warming for about 20 years. Our two brave opinion-makers must have heard about it: this hiatus in the Earth’s brief temperature rise from the mid-1970s to the millennium has been talked about for years. Doesn’t it make them curious? It makes hundreds of thousands of us curious, but not them.

The ones we call “deniers”

I would encourage them to give quiet thought to this problem. The climate is gigantic and complex and any investigation will quickly discover a daunting array of materials and processes about which little is known. It will require many facets of study and our two zealots will quickly find themselves lost in a swamp of climate facts, figures and theories. But they might notice a conjunction of two facts in particular. Let me help by pointing them out.

1. The current complete failure of the climate to warm.
2. The shrill predictions of dangerous climate warming.

Now that they can acknowledge the incompatibility of these two facts, a question may pop up in them (as it did in us) that simply asks why.

Sceptical inquirers (you know, the ones we call “deniers”) have been asking this and other questions for a long time.

Never mind why it might be a good idea to limit our emissions; never mind how the figure of 2°C was derived; don’t even be concerned that we regularly go on winter holidays where temperatures are 20 or 30 degrees above the ones we’re escaping and it doesn’t feel a bit dangerous.

Never mind that: if you can respond reasonably to this incompatibility of undeniable facts, you are no denialist.

They say, “This is the time for us to make a decision on New Zealand’s role. We cannot afford to fail again.” Well, I agree this is too wrong to stay silent on because any climate change target New Zealand sets will not change the climate. See the first point in my submission to the MfE in my post Assisting the Minister fight the climate.

Naively uninterested in investigating

Mills and Coates present an article devoid of science, urging us to respond to this urgent global warming but naively uninterested in investigating it. They waffle on about boosting the economy through unspecified “low-carbon policies” and reductions in the cost of batteries and insinuate that just because electric cars and solar panels have gone down in price they are now affordable. They rely not on science to persuade us but appeal instead to some nebulous morality. If they persuaded us properly (evidence works well) they wouldn’t need to resort to morality.

They display ignorance of Germany’s phase-out of nuclear reactors, apparently not knowing it has forced a desperate return to coal-fired generation (and, to correct their article, Germany generated only a quarter, not a half, of its electricity from renewable sources last year, and increased their use of coal). They might be horrified to learn that Germany’s heroic installation of about 70 gigawatts of renewable capacity since 2002 has not reduced its dependence on fossil fuels one bit. In fact, it’s risen to the highest ever.

They will certainly be horrified to learn that China is not “transitioning away” from coal: they are building a coal-fired power plant every 7 to 10 days, and they intend to keep that up for the next ten years. Japan is building 43 coal-fired plants to replace its nuclear generators.

China puts into the atmosphere the same amount of carbon dioxide in seven weeks as we produce in a whole year. Just the increase in China’s emissions over six to eight weeks is equivalent to New Zealand’s emissions for a year. Our emissions are puny—a mere 28 hours’ of China’s output. [My apologies for misconstruing Dr Mike Kelly’s presentation on 9 April. – RT]

Old-fashioned and irrelevant

Mills and Coates wax fairly passionate about fixing this climate peril we’re in. But it’s oddly irrelevant and even seems (dare I say it) old-fashioned to panic about dangerous man-made global warming when there’s been for so long so much evidence against it.


As always, don’t believe what I say, believe what the scientists tell us. Here’s Dr Roy Spencer’s comparison between a bunch of climate models and the reality of atmospheric temperatures observed by balloons and satellites. It clearly shows the blue blobs of reality and the out-of-this-world model temperatures soaring high above them. It’s been about four years since this graph was assembled, but temperatures have not risen and the model predictions show no sign of coming down.

caption

Carbon dioxide is the most important determinant of atmospheric temperature, according to the models—but only because that’s what the modellers tell them. Doh! Click to enlarge.

40
Leave a Reply

avatar
38 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
SimonAlexander KAndyMichael KellyHemiMck Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Robin Pittwood
Guest

“China puts into the atmosphere the same amount of carbon dioxide in seven weeks as we produce in a whole year. Our emissions are puny.”
Suggest you check this. I think it may be more like a day, maybe a bit more, not seven weeks. The last bit is right though. Our emissions in comparison are indeed puny.

Robin Pittwood
Guest

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
The list is for 2010 and shows China as producing 24.65% and New Zealand 0.09%. The ratio is 273; equivalent to about 32 hours of the year. China has continued to develop since then, so NZ in proportion is now even more puny than that.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”As always, don’t believe what I say, believe what the scientists tell us. ”

Even the IPCC can be believed that their models aren’t valid, they dumped them in favour of “expert opinion” in AR5. No wonder, as they state in Chapter 9 Evaluation of Climate Models, Box 9.2:

‘Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years’

“However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a;
CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21ºC per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error”

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

# # #

In other words, the bulk of the IPCC’s climate models are junk in the current configuration.

But this is their “evidence” isn’t it?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging’ by Rupert Darwall May 22, 2015 […snip…] Selecting isolated phenomena — an iceberg here, a typhoon there, even the disintegration of Syria into barbarism — is a substitute for the real thing, namely, the eighteen-plus years’ failure of average global temperature to rise in line with climate-model predictions. The pause, or hiatus, is a problem for climate scientists in the sense that nature is presenting them with something they had not anticipated and want to understand. For climate alarmists led by President Obama, it is a bigger problem than that. “The science is indisputable,” the president said Wednesday at the Coast Guard Academy commencement address. “The planet is getting warmer,” he falsely claimed. The non-warming is rattling alarmists who are adopting two distinct coping strategies. Nassim Taleb of black-swan fame argues that the less we understand about climate change, the more we ought to try and stop it. Climate models don’t need to tell us that pollution puts the planet into uncharted territories, he argues. Invoking the case for precaution, Taleb’s convoluted logic places the burden of proof with deniers to demonstrate absence of harm. Twenty… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>“Mainstream scientific discourse has inherited, and is now extensively using, a framing that was demonstrably created by contrarians,” argue psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky and Harvard historian of science Naomi Oreskes in a new paper Mainstream climate scientist pushes back against Lewandowsky’s ‘seepage’ Anthony Watts / May 18, 2015 The indefatigable Barry Woods has left this comment over on Lewandowsky’s “Shaping Tomorrow’s World” blog on “seepage”. It features IPCC lead author Professor Peter Thorne, who is none too happy about Lewandowsky’s latest “seepage” paper and pulls no punches in his pushback. Barry Woods at 05:32 AM on 17 May, 2015 Professor Peter Thorne (IPCC lead author) commenting on an article about all this in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/15/are-climate-scientists-cowed-by-sceptics#comment-52286021 “As a contributor to the hiatus box in IPCC AR5 and an author and reviewer of several relevant papers frankly this whole thing is depressing and shows extreme naivety as to what constitutes the scientific process and the accrual and acceptance of scientific knowledge. Indeed the only relevant part is the final sentence. That as climate scientists we have to develop thick skins. To maintain that as scientists we should not investigate the pause / hiatus / slowdown… Read more »

HemiMck
Guest
HemiMck

“The list is for 2010 and shows China as producing 24.65% and New Zealand 0.09%. The ratio is 273; equivalent to about 32 hours of the year. China has continued to develop since then, so NZ in proportion is now even more puny than that.”

It is in fact about 20 hours if the agricultural gases which make up half our number where given the proper weighting.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Climate zealots blinded by confirmation bias’

Written by Joseph Perkins, OC Register on 22 May 2015.

[…snip…]

Indeed, as I read the White House transcript of Mr. Obama’s remarks at New London, I was reminded of an observation by Leo Tolstoy.

“I know,” the Russian author wrote in his 1897 treatise, “What is Art?,” “that most men – not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical or philosophical problems – can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it is such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty – conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.”

This phenomenon to which Tolstoy referred is known today as “confirmation bias.” Raymond Nickerson, founding editor of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, defines it as “the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations or a hypothesis at hand.”

More>>>>>
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-zealots-blinded-by-confirmation-bias.html

Robin Pittwood
Guest

Richard, there is an interesting article at Climate Etc along these lines. Talks of the writings of T C Chamberlain, on the theory of multiple hypotheses.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/21/the-method-of-multiple-working-hypotheses/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Robin, I followed the Climate Etc hotlink “politicized in Madrid”, arrived at this 5 Part series:

‘Madrid 1995: The Last Day of Climate Science’ [SAR]

by Bernie Lewin

We continue our quest for how human attribution was first established by the IPCC with a close look at the dramas on the final day in Madrid using the Australian Delegation Report as our guide. The first and second essays on the Chapter 8 Controversy will help readers follow the story, but the main tip for new readers is to catch up on the importance of Barnett et al 1996 in maintaining the scepticism of all but the published version of Chapter 8.

https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/madrid-1995-the-last-day-of-climate-science/#more-820

I wasn’t aware of this series so thanks for the lead.

Michael Kelly
Guest
Michael Kelly

My comment in Auckland recently was that the Chinese increase their carbon emissions by an amount equal to the total NZ emissions every 6-8 weeks. NZ could decarbonise completely at great self-harm and China would replace those emissions within 2 months. And you can only decarbonise once!

Robin Pittwood
Guest

Very happy to have joined the discussion here today. Thanks Richards T and C, and thanks to Dr Kelly for clarifying. That statement makes good sense now, and is a very important statistic. The point would be a useful addition to my submission to MFE re NZ’s proposed emission targets post 2020. Dr Kelly, are you OK with me mentioning your name in the submission to MFE?

Andy
Guest
Andy

Phillip Mills has made his money from the successful Les Mills fitness centres, and from franchising their intellectual property of strutting around in gyms to tunes, around the world.

Since he now wants to save the world, why doesn’t he combine the two and connect spin bikes to the grid, so that fitness fans can generate carbon free energy while they get fit?

What could possibly go wrong?

HemiMcK
Guest
HemiMcK

Finally economic realities are driving decision making. Fortunately it is not too late for NZ as the wasted investment in nutter projects has been relatively small compared to others countries.

“Origin Energy is set to enjoy some relief to its stretched balance sheet after its majority owned New Zealand subsidiary Contact Energy declared it would return $NZ367 million ($343 million) to shareholders after failing to find suitable growth opportunities in renewable energy.”

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-resources/origin-energys-contact-energy-to-pay-nz367m-special-dividend-20150525-gh8qz8.html

Andy
Guest
Andy

Gareth Morgan weighs into the argument with his piece “Why are we still dragging our feet on climate change?”
https://garethsworld.com/blog/environment/why-are-we-still-dragging-our-feet-on-climate-change/

There is lots of droning about “deniers”, who we are advised, have been “marginalised” (thankfully, he says) and a brief mention of Milankovic Cycles

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Strewth, Gareth Morgan does love the sound of his own voice, even when he’s talking arrant nonsense. His opinions should not be taken seriously as they are nothing more than ‘his opinions’.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Alexander, yes his opinions do seem a little light on facts. However, Dr Morgan apparently spent a million dollars of his own money researching his book “Poles Apart”

Would you buy a used car/investment portfolio from this man?

Andy
Guest
Andy

I have left a few polite comments on GM’s blog. I don’t respond to the “denier” rhetoric anymore.

Also, I would add that when GM claims that “deniers” are small in number and marginalised, might I suggest that the UK Labour Party also thought the same about the Tories before the last UK election? Just because they have locked themselves in their echo-chamber doesn’t mean that the world outside doesn’t exist anymore

Simon
Guest
Simon

Gareth Morgan gets it. A common meme here is that concern about climate change is green or socialist zealotary when in fact it is about economically rational behaviour in the face of overwhelming evidence.

https://garethsworld.com/blog/environment/why-are-we-still-dragging-our-feet-on-climate-change/?utm_source=Gareth-Morgan&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=general-content

Andy
Guest
Andy

No it is not zealotry alone. it is also crony capitalists lining up to cream subsidies off the government for their useless green projects.

Then again, the whole socialist edifice seems to be built on “inspirational leaders” using the false premise that they are either helping the poor or saving the planet whilst lining their own pockets.

Take Tony Blair, for example

Andy
Guest
Andy

It is a shame, for someone that “gets it”, that Gareth Morgan’s arguments are content-free. Apparently the “evidence” of whatever is getting stronger every year.

All non-anthropogenic climate sources are Milankovic cycles, “deniers” are getting shriller and less in number, and their only argument is that models don’t work.

It is really a shame that someone could spend a million dollars of their own money and this is all they can come up with.

At least I know not to invest any money in his Kiwisaver scheme.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I submitted this at Gareth’s World. >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”. Wrong and wrong. There isn’t ANY evidence yet. Read the IPCC’s AR5 report, full of conjecture but rather than evidence they’re desperately trying to come up with excuses as to why their models are wrong. Chapter 9 Evaluation of Climate Models in particular. 111 of the 114 simulations submitted to CMIP5/AR5 are junk. They have not modeled reality and the IPCC is trying to explain why. One of their reasons, natural variability i.e. ocean oscillations, is what deniers have been telling them for about 20 years that they’ve neglected. Tim Groser should not be going anywhere near Paris (or any COP) until the models are reconciled with reality. But the IPCC got their solar reasoning horribly wrong (And so have you and Dr Jan Wright Gareth – “Milankovic cycles”? No,not a model forcing, that’s TSI). The IPCC’s solar excuse for the lack of… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Also replied to Peter, the climate model tester.

>”Climate models are built from around 1million lines of fortran code that
solve mathematical time-dependent equations based on our fundamental
understanding of fluid dynamics”

And after being run they produce garbage like this:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

[BTW, the graph is from RT’s post above]

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon, you say: >”economically rational behaviour in the face of overwhelming evidence” What exactly (specifically) is the evidence that is “overwhelming” (let alone evidence at all)? Cite it. Quote it from the IPCC reports (if you can find it). I’ve already shown in the previous post the sheer redundancy of the IPCC’s case from their SPM but let’s see it again: First note the IPCC’s anthro attribution period (page 15 pdf): D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3} OK, 1951 to 2010 (and note there has been no statistically significant warming this century). Figure SPM.1 (a) on page 4 pdf shows just how weak the IPCC case above is. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf 1) Only 2 decades of warming within the anthro attribution period (1980s and 1990s). At first glance looks like 0.6 C, but the 1940s (prior to the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Gareth Morgan gets it”

Yes, gets it politically and ideologically.

But clueless as to the contra scientific argument given his conception of it above..

Simon
Guest
Simon

Richard C,
Read this with an open mind (if you can).
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/is-earths-temperature-about-to-soar/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I had read it some time ago Simon (it’s a Dec 2014 post), Tamino, like Lewandowsky and Oreskes, is desperately trying to discount any notion of a pause. Except it’s not me he has to convince, it’s the IPCC. They recognize the “hiatus” (as they term it). Contrary to Tamino’s linear and GISTEMP-based reasoning, the trajectory is flat when all metrics and trends (not just linear) are considered (including satellites). And Tamino might include a bit more data, say the entire 20th century. His blog post is simply conjecture, the title confirms that: “Is Earth’s temperature about to soar?” He answers himself with this: “Of course there will still be fluctuations, as there always have been. But if future temperature follows the path which really is indicated by correct statistical analysis, then yes, Earth’s temperature is about to soar.” Except Tamino has indicated an erroneous path. The path of the secular trend is determined by signal analysis, see Macias et al (2014): ‘Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record’ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107222#pone-0107222-g005 From the abstract: “However, and contrary to the two previous events, during… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon, these are the 2 figures from Macias et al that relegate Tamino’s simplistic linear analysis to irrelevancy: Figure 1. SSA reconstructed signals from HadCRUT4 global surface temperature anomalies. The annual surface temperature (gray line), multidecadal variability (MDV, blue line), secular trend (ST, red line) and reconstructed signal (MDV+ST, black line) are indicated. ST represents 78.8% of the total energy of the series; MDV accounts for 8.8% of the energy and the reconstructed signal for 88%. The dashed thin red lines indicate the range of variability of the ST obtained by applying SSA to the temperature time series obtained for each individual month. And, Figure 3. Global warming rate analysis. a) Warming rates (°C year−1) obtained from the different signals identified in the SSA: ST (red line), MDV (blue line) and reconstructed signal (black line). The dashed thin red lines are the confidence intervals for the warming rate associated with the ST obtained from each individual month’s time series. b) Zoom on the last 25 years of the time series. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107222#pone-0107222-g002 Tamino doesn’t come close to emulating this analysis which isolates MDV and ST signals from the original signal. Macias et al is… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

Ha, that paper has zero citations.
Signal processing? Next you’ll be talking about notch filters and a mysterious Force X from outer space.
Solar variation is only about 0.1% of total output as you well know. It can’t explain the increase in temperature.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT, your quote is from Simon, viz:

“Solar variation is only about 0.1% of total output as you well know. It can’t explain the increase in temperature.”

What he’s referring to here is the 11-yr solar cycle which is completely irrelevant. He doesn’t know what he’s on about (or does and is indulging in misdirection). Of course the 11-yr cycle cannot explain centennial scale temperature but so what?

The 2 relevant solar forcings are Grand Mimimum to Grand Maximum (e.g. LIA – CWP) change at TOA and surface solar radiation (SSR) or solar received at surface. The former explains the increase in temperature both before the IPCC’s anthro attribution period and during it (the secular trend, ST). The latter is a major factor in multi-decadal variation (MDV).

>”Is it like cloud cover, whereof, according to Roy Spencer, approximately 2% could account for all GMST variance?”

SSR forcing is, yes but in respect to MDV – not ST. Cloudiness changes, especially over the last 3 decades means a change in SSR. SSR forcing (from Martin Wild’s report) from 1990 was about 27 times greater than CO2 forcing in some regions (assuming CO2 forcing is valid of course).

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Ha, that paper has zero citations.”

It’s only just been published, why would you expect any?

>”Signal processing?”

You might look at the references (by no means exhaustive):

25. Vautard R, Yiou P, Ghil M (1992) Singular Spectrum Analysis: A toolkit for short noisy chaotic signals. Phys. D. 58, 95–126.

27. Broomhead DS, King GP (1986) Extracting qualitative dynamics from experimental data. Phys. D. 20(2–3), 217–236.

Gee, 1986 and 1992, goes back awhile doesn’t it?

I can dig out other earlier papers than Macias et al, that was just the latest. But it’ll have to be tomorrow now.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I was going to ask about this too. Is it like cloud cover…”

RT, there’s articles and papers by Martin Wild dealing with SSR forcing, cloudiness changes, and global dimming and brightening that will clarify all this e.g article (see references for papers):

ENLIGHTENING GLOBAL DIMMING AND BRIGHTENING
by Martin Wild
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00074.1

But there’s a better Wild poster that I can’t bring to hand at the moment but I know where to get it (Robin Pittwood’s). It’l be tomorrow now.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

The poster isn’t better, here’s what can be gleaned from Wild above: WHAT OBSERVATIONS TELL. Fig. 2. [page 29] Changes in surface solar radiation [SSR] observed in regions with good station coverage during three periods. (left column) The 1950s– 1980s show predominant declines (“dimming”), (middle column) the 1980s–2000 indicate partial recoveries (“brightening”) at many locations, except India, and (right column) recent developments after 2000 show mixed tendencies. Numbers denote typical literature estimates for the specified region and period in W m–2 per decade. Based on various sources as referenced in Wild (2009). Average USA/Europe/China-Mongolia/Japan/India: 1950s-1980s: -4.8 W.m-2 1980s-2000: +2.0 W.m-2 After 2000: -0.6 W.m-2 Table 1. [page 33] Magnitudes of linear 2-m temperature trends shown in Fig. 4 during dimming and brightening phases in the NH………Units °C decade–1. Dimming phase (1958–85) Observed T trend NH −0.002 Model-calculated T trend NH +0.12 Brightening phase (1985–2000) Observed T trend NH +0.29 Model-calculated T trend NH +0.19 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND PERSPECTIVES. The latest updates on solar radiation changes observed since the new millennium show no globally coherent trends anymore (see above and Fig. 2). While brightening persists to some extent in Europe and the United States,… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Gareth Morgan’s latest post on climate change is making the very sensible suggestion that we change our views on methane as a short-lived GHG.
https://garethsworld.com/blog/environment/three-big-ideas-for-new-zealands-climate-change-target/

Amazing!

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Re cloudiness changes and increased SSR: ‘Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis’ by Judith Curry on May 26, 2015 It’s nice to see that our ‘discredited’ theory doesn’t seem to go away. – Richard Lindzen The new Mauritsen and Stevens paper (discussed in the companion post by Rud Istvan [see link below]) is breathing new life into Richard Lindzen’s iris hypothesis. […snip…] 9Lindzen] – “So, what was the result of these criticisms that were clearly made in the absence of any serious attempt to understand LCH [the original iris hypothesis paper]? In the environmental literature as well as in papers by scientists like Jim Hansen and Steve Schneider, LCH is accompanied by the adjective discredited.” discredit (from American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition) TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: dis-cred-it-ed, dis-cred–it-ing, dis- cred-its 1. To damage in reputation; disgrace. 2. To cause to be doubted or distrusted. 3. To refuse to believe. NOUN: 1. Loss of or damage to one’s reputation. 2. Lack or loss of trust or belief; doubt. 3. Something damaging to one’s reputation or stature. “I would suggest that this is an unusual word to use in connection with a serious paper.” More>>>>>… Read more »

Post Navigation