Fatal deficiencies destroy scientific case for climate catastrophe

snow flake

As a member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition, I am frequently privy to learned conversations. Occasionally I publish excerpts, suitably altered to preserve privacy. The conversation below emerged sedately over several weeks and expertly defines the fatal deficiencies in the believers’ case for alarm. It deserves a big audience.

A:

I like what is in effect your invitation to the climate science community to contemplate the absence of a) any substantive empirical data that dangerous global climate warming is occurring, and b) a single refereed paper that contains data (not untested models) which invalidate the hypothesis “The climate change that we observe today, like past climate change, has natural causes.” The burden of proof is on those who promote alarmist statements on global warming.

B:

This is an interesting question: in matters of science where does the burden of proof lie? In criminal matters it is on the crown—in some civil matters (defamation, for example) it is on the defendant. But in science? Applying the NZ Royal Society Code the burden rests on the individual (whichever side of the fence he or she may sit) to ensure that their views and opinions are based on ALL the available evidence or are reasonable deductions of projections based on ALL the available evidence. The problem lies in defining the ALL.

C:

No amount of experiments can prove me right; one experiment can prove me wrong. – Albert Einstein

D:

It simply makes me weep how hard it is to get these simple, rock-solid aspects of science methodology considered in the debate. As we approach Paris the pervasive press cover is if anything becoming less rather than more scientific in tone. I guess we just have to be prepared to weather the storm.

The first speaker (A) points out there’s no evidence of dangerous global climate warming, no evidence that the fault lies with humanity and not nature, and reminds us that it is up to the believers in warming to prove their case—their demands that sceptics refute a vaguely stated argument are both unscientific and logically wrong. With these three vital scientific principles unfulfilled, the alarmist case fails—no matter what the temperature record shows.

Speaker (B) outlines the difficulty of establishing a case in science but allows everyone the authority to make a case.

Speaker (C) conveys Einstein’s insight; contrast the alarmist hubris that turns a blind eye to refutations.

The fourth speaker, (D), despairs that the true principles of science are most abandoned by those who would most earnestly adopt its authority.

Who would declare the truth, first admit the truth.
Who would be free, first free the mind.

178
Leave a Reply

avatar
178 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
AndyRichard C (NZ)SimonAlexander KMan of Thessaly Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The algebra upthread is only just High School level I (probably Intermediate School without looking, maybe Primary)”

Now that I think of it, I distinctly remember using colour coded wooden sticks to do arithmetic (sums) in Year 1 Primary School . So in terms of Macias et al and Equation (1):

Total gray sticks = red sticks plus black sticks
GMST natural [gray sticks] = ST [red sticks] + MDV [black sticks] (1)

In terms of Kosaka & Xie (HIST) and Equation (3):

Total blue sticks = red sticks plus purple sticks
Model mean [blue sticks] GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST [red sticks] + TRF) [purple sticks] (3)

This is Year 1 Primary School arithmetic. Unless anyone failed Year 1 Primary School arithmetic and never progressed, in which case you are excused, there is no excuse for not understanding this basic maths.

Applied Maths, which is the application of math fundamentals to quantify numerical problems (Andy may have a better definition) is in this case, the process of applying colour coded stick basics to global mean surface temperature and the components of it. But it is still Year 1 Primary School basics that are being applied.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Something to look at, maybe tomorrow now, is that the modelers have fooled themselves (and the rest of the world) i.e. the model runs neglect MDV therefore their model mean without MDV will NEVER conform to observations. Model mean to observations is not apples-to-apples. Observations include MDV, model simulations neglect MDV. The modelers “tweak” their non-MDV simulations to conform to observations, this is specious. First MDV must be added in. I suspect that the simulations without the anthropogenic “forcing” component (TRF) actually conform to the natural secular trend (ST) as it should. As I recall, this “experiment” yields a profile that comes in BELOW current observations. It SHOULD do. There were some fuzzy charts of this in AR4 so I’ll bring those up but also see if there’s some better figures from the papers AR4 cites to support their argument.” The natural-only AR5 simulation mean (different to AR4) does come in BELOW observations, but too low and wrong trajectory. For background before getting into this, Judith Curry has a post on it with the AR5 charts included: ‘The 50-50 argument’ by Judith Curry, Posted on August 24, 2014 | 832 Comments http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/24/the-50-50-argument/ The… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The natural-only AR5 simulation mean (different to AR4) does come in BELOW observations”

Just to be clear, before moving on, the natural-only simulation mean still does NOT introduce MDV.

Macias et al state:

“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 series” is ST + MDV + fluctuations (noise). The “reconstructed signal” as a proportion of “the series” including noise is ST + MDV or 78.8 + 8.8 = 87.6% (rounded to 88%).

Therefore MDV is 11.16% of the “reconstructed signal” i.e. neglecting MDV throws out a little over a tenth of the intrinsic signal of the series. This is not a basis, as Judith Curry corrctly points out, from which to make detection and attribution conclusions. The MDV signal MUST be modeled and introduced to the natural-only simulation. After 25 years of assessment reports, the IPCC still have not done this yet.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Now that I think of it, I distinctly remember using colour coded wooden sticks to do arithmetic (sums) in Year 1 Primary School .” Year 1 or maybe Year 2. This was a teaching aid novelty but still of traditional arithmetic operations. From Wiki: Arithmetic in education “Primary education in mathematics often places a strong focus on algorithms for the arithmetic of natural numbers, integers, fractions, and decimals (using the decimal place-value system). This study is sometimes known as algorism.” “The difficulty and unmotivated appearance of these algorithms has long led educators to question this curriculum, advocating the early teaching of more central and intuitive mathematical ideas. One notable movement in this direction was the New Math of the 1960s and 1970s, which attempted to teach arithmetic in the spirit of axiomatic development from set theory, an echo of the prevailing trend in higher mathematics.[18]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic So then we were hit with New Math until it was abandoned. From Wiki again: New Math Praise “Boolean logic and the rules of sets would later prove to be very valuable with the onset of databases and other formations of data that were emerging in society.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Judith Curry in The 50-50 argument: The IPCC notes overall warming since 1880. In particular, the period 1910-1940 is a period of warming that is comparable in duration and magnitude to the warming 1976-2000. Any anthropogenic forcing of that warming is very small (see Figure 10.1 above). The timing of the early 20th century warming is consistent with the AMO/PDO (e.g. the stadium wave; also noted by Tung and Zhou). The big unanswered question is: Why is the period 1940-1970 significantly warmer than say 1880-1910? Is it the sun? Is it a longer period ocean oscillation? Could the same processes causing the early 20th century warming be contributing to the late 20th century warming? Not only don’t we know the answer to these questions, but no one even seems to be asking them! Solar-centric MMCC sceptics such as myself are certainly asking these questions and think we have the answers but there is so much uncertainty in historical solar metrics (the IPCC admits this) that it is hard to make a solidly conclusive case. >”Why is the period 1940-1970 significantly warmer than say 1880-1910? Is it the sun?” Yes, and not just 1940-1970.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Judith Curry again in The 50-50 argument in respect to IPCC AR5 Figure 10.1: “Note in particular that the models fail to simulate the observed warming between 1910 and 1940.” Figure 10.1 from AR5 WGI (a) is with natural and anthropogenic forcing; (b) is without anthropogenic forcing: A week ago before really thinking about this I would have agreed with Judith Curry. But now with the fact fixed firmly in my mind that the models have no MDV component, I look at (a) and (b) somewhat differently. To a degree up until 1940 both (a) and (b) DO simulate the observed warming because MDV is neglected. The observations SHOULD oscillate about the simulation mean – and they do so. But after about 1940 BOTH (a) and (b) go horribly wrong. There has been too much “tweaking” for volcanic activity and such like, the models are just not that sensitive (if they don’t model MDV, why include volcanism?). The models should have been left to run. The drop just after 1960 should NOT occur (precipitous in (b) – stupidly so). The profile trajectory of BOTH (a) and (b) SHOULD be ABOVE observations around the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

3) The observations SHOULD be on a trajectory to cross the model simulations, both (a) and (b), at around 1985 [from BELOW].

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Judith Curry] – “The big unanswered question is: Why is the period 1940-1970 significantly warmer than say 1880-1910? Is it the sun?” Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Dr. Alexander Hempelmann and Carl Otto Weiss think so: Study: German Scientists Conclude 20th Century Warming “Nothing Unusual” …Foresee “Global Cooling Until 2080″! By P Gosselin on 21. August 2015 – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/study-german-scientists-conclude-20th-century-warming-nothing-unusual-foresee-global-cooling-until-2080/#sthash.NRtJCZNt.Tcv78JRp.dpuf The German trio of scientists says the 0.7°C of warming occurring since the late 19th century is the result of the increase in the De Vries / Suess solar cycle [ST] and that the well-known oceanic AMO/PDO oscillations can also be seen [MDV]. “These two cycles practically determine by themselves the earth’s temperature.[ST + MDV]” And, Compared to the maxima and minima of the past, the current minima and maxima show that there is nothing unusual happening today. The scientists say today’s temperature changes are within the normal range. The German authors write: “Especially the 20th century shows nothing out of the ordinary.” Nothing out of the ordinary for the last 2500 years. Figure 1: Temperature changes of the past 2500 years (with linear regression). http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/zyk1.jpg Figure 2: Sinusoidal representation of solar activity and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Eventually I’ll find the paper(s) this graph [IPCC AR5 WGI Figure 10.1] is derived from. It(they) deserves much scrutiny but I don’t recall anyone dissecting it(them).” The full set of 6 graphs can be seen directly here (click to zoom): Figure 10.1 | (Left-hand column) Three observational estimates of global mean surface temperature (GMST, black lines) from Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set 4 (HadCRUT4), Goddard Institute of Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP), and Merged Land–Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (MLOST), compared to model simulations [CMIP3 models – thin blue lines and CMIP5 models – thin yellow lines] with anthropogenic and natural forcings (a), natural forcings only (b) and greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing only (c). Thick red and blue lines are averages across all available CMIP5 and CMIP3 simulations respectively. CMIP3 simulations were not available for GHG forcing only (c). All simulated and observed data were masked using the HadCRUT4 coverage (as this data set has the most restricted spatial coverage), and global average anomalies are shown with respect to 1880–1919, where all data are first calculated as anomalies relative to 1961–1990 in each grid box. Inset to (b) shows… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Among papers the IPCC cites for “A range of studies have used statistical methods to separate out the influence of known sources of internal variability” is Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). This is to support their statement: “These consistently attribute most of the warming over the past 50 years to anthropogenic influence, even allowing for potential confounding factors like the AMO.” This is IPCC scientific fraud and deception on a grand scale. The Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) residual goes through 2010: Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) Observations vs Residual animation http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif Rahmstorf, Foster and Cazenave (2012) Figure 1 Observations vs Residual http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/RFC12_Fig1.jpg The CO2-forced CMIP3/5 model mean goes through heavily smoothed early 2000s to mid 2000s observations then passes WELL ABOVE 2010: IPCC AR5 WGI Figure 10.1 (a) http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig10-1.jpg Since MDV SHOULD oscillate about the CO2-forced model mean but MDV is absent from the models, the model mean SHOULD pass WELL BELOW the early 2000s and cross 2010 observations from BELOW just as the Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) and Rahmstorf, Foster and Cazenave (2012) residuals do – but no, the CO2-forced model mean passes WELL ABOVE the residuals at 2010. Worse, The observations are the… Read more »

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Simon still missing in action huh? Not a man of his word, but it’s not surprising at all.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

No, it’s not at all surprising. “Conversation group”? It’s more like watching a broken fire hydrant. Except they’re usually fixed quite quickly.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Man of Thessaly might find it “fascinating” that nearly 300 people have signed up to the Canterbury Coastal residents Facebook page in just 3 days.

We expect most of these to summit proposals against Christchurch City Council against their agenda to depopulate the east side of the city.

Man of Thessaly might find it “fascinating” that such ignorant common people could be challenging The Scientists and The Government and The Science

man of Thessallly might find it “fascinating” that there will be a legal challenge in the courts, and judging by the Kapiti Coast result, this will be in the “deniers” favour.

I define “denier” as anyone who doesn’t uncritically accept all government science and doesn’t uncritically bend over and grab their ankles to get uncritically get rogered by bureaucrats and lose all their equity and retirement savings

man of Thessaly will no doubt find this amusing and pulsate with excitement.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Sorry if I mistook Man of Thessaly for a drive by from Hot Topic who seem to revel in such misfortunes. I will amend my views accordingly and offer my apologies if offense was taken.

Man of Thessaly
Guest
Man of Thessaly

No worries Andy! I was about to respond to say that you seemed to have pigeonholed me without cause, but I’m not offended. No, I’m not a “drive by from Hot Topic” – never posted there, but if they’re talking about Chch sea level planning I’ll pop over for a read. This discussion should really be over in the other thread, but what the hell, let’s bring it here. I was reading about the CCRU today, and had a look at the Facebook and form submission. Congratulations for getting involved. If “The Government and The Science” can’t stand scrutiny from “ignorant common people” (your words not mine), then what would it be good for? I do find it fascinating and will be following closely. I don’t believe that the CCC has an “agenda to depopulate the east side of the city”. Their motives, like yours, are reasonable – to do due diligence in planning with the best information available; to manage future liability; to obey the law, and to get the opinions of ratepayers, which they are doing. Clearly locals don’t want to lose all they own, but here’s a hard truth: if… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Legal processes are already underway.
There are many issues here, and like you say, this is the wrong thread.

Anyway, thanks for taking my off colour comment in good faith.

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Richard C:
Those coloured wooden rods are ‘Cuisonnaire Rods’ (which I may have mis-spelt) which were once standard equipment in every NZ Primary classroom. Those rods were invaluable for teaching concepts of number with ‘concrete’ materials. When I trained as a primary teacher donkey’s years ago, I found that these rods gave children a concept of number appropriate to each child’s individual stage of intellectual development.
I find it sad that this simple but brilliant resource is no longer available to round out children’s mathematical education.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Alaexander >”Those coloured wooden rods are ‘Cuisonnaire Rods’ (which I may have mis-spelt) which were once standard equipment in every NZ Primary classroom. Those rods were invaluable for teaching concepts of number with ‘concrete’ materials.” Interesting, I didn’t realize this. I thought it was a novelty aid that just came and went maybe in only a few schools and mine happened to be one. I suppose from my perspective of doing same. I did think there was a name for the method but had no idea what it was. I vividly remember working with those rods but am having trouble remembering as to what year (“donkey’s years” ago too). I know it was very early Primary, probably Year 1 or 2. I also remember having trouble finding “half” numerically, which exasperated my folks at home. For example 8 rods in a row, but half is 4 numerically (8/2 = 4). I baulked at this, hey! how can that be? There is no rod at the half point between rod 4 and rod 5 when you split the 8 rods, 4 on one side, 4 on the other i.e. half on one side half… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Tier 2 – Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) residual, passed off as being CO2-forced but not.” Foster and Rahmstorf inadvertently make a very good case when they take volcanic activity out of GMST that volcanic activity should be left out of model consideration instead of being introduced. Three reasons, first it is random and cannot be predicted, second it is a short-term effect, and third the modelers make a complete hash of post 1940 temperature both anthro-forced and non-anthro-forced when they include it in their model mean as per demonstration upthread. ENSO activity is not in the models so removing it from GMST has some merit for comparison to the model mean (Except F&R do not compare their residual with the model mean, neither does the IPCC). But problem is: the whole residual approach comes crashing down if the 2015 El Nino is now to be removed. Because of 21st century GMST flatlining once ENSO is discounted, the Foster and Rahmstorf approach would result in a completely different and new residual than the one they were left with in their 2011 paper. That went through 2010 observation data. That would be impossible now. The… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”But problem is: the whole residual approach comes crashing down if the 2015 El Nino is now to be removed. Because of 21st century GMST flatlining once ENSO is discounted, the Foster and Rahmstorf approach would result in a completely different and new residual than the one they were left with in their 2011 paper. That went through 2010 observation data. That would be impossible now. The axis of the residual would still be the same but the point at which it crosses observations will have moved on to 2015 but sans 2015 El Nino effect.”

I’m wrong come to think. The original residual from the 2011 paper stays the same and just makes an abrupt turn at 2010 to horizontal i.e. the hiatus commences in the residual at 2010, the trajectory is flatline, and is completely divergent from the CO2-forced model mean.

Highly embarrassing for Foster and Rahmstorf – and for the IPCC – and for Simon.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The original residual from the 2011 paper stays the same and just makes an abrupt turn at 2010 to horizontal i.e. the hiatus commences in the residual at 2010, the trajectory is flatline, and is completely divergent from the CO2-forced model mean.” You can see this clearly in GISTEMP from 2010 onwards (even with subsequent version “adjustments”). Keep in mind that the 2015 El Nino effect still has time to run i.e. there is still more El Nino peak than what is shown to be “removed” by the residual (Tier 3) approach and that there was no La Nina in the intervening years. The last data[point in this GISTEMP graph is 2015.5: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2010/trend The Foster and Rahmstorf residual is ABOVE the green trend line at 2010 i.e. only the tip of 2010 is removed in the F&R residual (see RFC12 Fig 1 upthread). The El Nino effect around 2015 must be “removed” by the residual approach which probably lops off to where the green trend line is at 2015.5 (maybe lower). So the 2010 – 2015.5 Tier 3 residual is just a flatline hiatus – no CO2 effect whatsoever. Again, highly embarrassing for… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”(see RFC12 Fig 1 upthread)”

That’s this:

Rahmstorf, Foster and Cazenave (2012) Figure 1 Observations vs Residual
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/RFC12_Fig1.jpg

Compare to the GiSTEMP analysis last comment:

GISTEMP 2010 – 2015.5
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2010/trend

Easy to see that the RFC12 residual trajectory passes WELL ABOVE a 2015 residual after EL Nino is removed. There is no observation data on that trajectory – it does not exist, even with an “adjustment” that puts the 2015 peak a few hundredths of a degree higher than the 2010 peak.

The F&R trajectory is rising about 0.17 C/5 years (I’ll look up the exact trend) i.e. that would put an extrapolated F&R residual up around the top of the woodfortrees chart (maybe off it),

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Re: Foster & Ramsdorf.
So many years, so much BS from these two. I am chuckling at their silliness.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I should point out that Rahmstorf, Foster and Cazenave (2012) Figure 1 is highly misleading i.e. scientifically and ethically fraudulent.

Their residual projection SHOULD stop where it last crosses the 2010 observations. Instead they assume there will be subsequent non-ENSO data on their residual that supports their assumption that the residual will continue on its upward trajectory. This was one of my main criticisms of the graph from the outset in 2012. The post 2010 residual makes up a profile where no data exists to justify it. Same for 1984 and 2006.

As it turns out, the subsequent data after 2010 does NOT support their assumption.

Well, that’s enough from the “broken fire hydrant” for today, have to go to work now. “Fixed” for 24 Hours eh, Man of Thessaly? Must be frustrating, sitting on the fence not being able to do anything about the flow of water.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The F&R trajectory is rising about 0.17 C/5 years (I’ll look up the exact trend)” Rahmstorf, Foster and Cazenave (2012) 2. Global temperature evolution The removal of the known short-term variability components reduces the variance of the data without noticeably altering the overall warming trend: it is 0.15 °C/decade in the unadjusted and 0.16 °C/decade in the adjusted data. From 1990–2011 the trends are 0.16 and 0.18 °C/decade and for 1990–2006 they are 0.22 and 0.20 °C/decade respectively. The relatively high trends for the latter period are thus simply due to short-term variability, as discussed in our previous publication (Rahmstorf et al 2007). During the last ten years, warming in the unadjusted data is less, due to recent La Niña conditions (ENSO causes a linear cooling trend of −0.09 °C over the past ten years in the surface data) and the transition from solar maximum to the recent prolonged solar minimum (responsible for a −0.05 °C cooling trend) (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011). Nevertheless, unadjusted observations lie within the spread of individual model projections, which is a different way of showing the consistency of data and projections (Schmidt 2012). Figure 1 shows that the adjusted observed global temperature evolution closely… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Wrong:

“At 2020 a small amount of the (-ve) MDV signal must be [SUBTRACTED from] the ST to arrive at observations.”

“At 2030 MDV will be maximum negative i.e. in trough as opposed to peak at 2000. All of the MDV signal must be [SUBTRACTED from] the ST to arrive at the observations.”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Problem is: that [F&R residual] slope came to an abrupt end at 2010, the slope is now horizontal (a “hiatus”)”

F&R, and subsequently RFC (poor Anny), just assumed their residual slope would continue beyond 2010 because they had no “signal” that there was a change in regime going on i.e. they were in the dark. Signal analysts had been “signalled” that the trajectory was changing so had a different mindset.

Despite that deficiency in the residual approach, the change in the Tier 2 residual has been radical after 2010 – now flat. Conversely, the change in the Tier 3 secular trend is just a slight deflection in the slope, a small negative inflexion, very subtle, and nowhere near peak. As such the residual approach could be considered a leading indicator of the secular trend peak which has not yet been reached.

And an indicator of radical proportions.

Climate scientist’s, and the IPCC’s disdain for signal analysis explains their haplessness in regard to “natural variability” (MDV mostly). But now the IPCC’s own approach as per F&R is swinging around to bite them on the backsides – with very sharp teeth.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Rahmstorf, Foster and Cazenave (2012) cite Hansen et al (1981) in respect to oceanic thermal lag. Hansen et al (page 3 at link below) put the initial atmospheric response at 6 years (as does Trenberth). But they add that heat exchange between the mixed layer and the thermocline may delay the response by “a few decades” (Trenberth says similar – “10 – 100 years”). A “few decades” oceanic thermal lag seems to be what the literature is returning recently, over 30 years after Hansen et al (1981) i.e. not much progress on this but the long lag makes more sense than only 6 years. Hansen et al is CO2-centric (due to miss-attribution – see below) but they concede that, in respect to the 20th century (page 5): “The time history of the warming obviously does not follow the course of the CO2 increase (Fig 1), indicating that other factors must affect global mean temperature” Well yes, the drivers are multi-millennial scale lagged solar change in the secular trend (ST) overlaid by a multi-decadal oscillation (MDV), which they neglect. Unfortunately, on the solar driver, Hansen say (page 7): “Solar variability is highly conjectural” Well… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

To be fair to Hansen et al, there was no knowledge of MDV in 1981, neither were there readily implemented signal analysis tools and techniques.

But this is no excuse for not re-visiting the paper as science progressed and correcting it appropriately.

Remote possibility, the paper is probably a sacred manuscript by now,

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Climate Models Fail: Global Ocean Heat Content (Based on TOA Energy Imbalance)’

Bob Tisdale / 1 hour ago August 26, 2015

“Obviously [see Figure 7], based on the energy imbalances in the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report, there is no agreement on how much heat the oceans should be accumulating, or even if the oceans are accumulating heat. And the differences in the simulated ocean heat accumulation are so great that using the model mean to represent the models is very misleading, because the model mean gives the impression of a consensus when there is none.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/26/climate-models-fail-global-ocean-heat-content-based-on-toa-energy-imbalance/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Lags and Leads’

Willis Eschenbach / 2 days ago August 24, 2015

“thermal lag is generally modeled as an “exponential” lag”

“the delay in the response is governed by a time constant called “tau”. The larger the time constant tau, the greater the lag time”

“the longer the lag, the smaller the resulting thermal response”

“If we are looking for the result of sinusoidally varying forcing, the thermal response will have the same shape as the input forcing, but it will occur later in time.”

“any signal will decay to within a percent or two of zero within one cycle.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/24/lags-and-leads/

Follow up:

‘Wrong Again, Again’
Willis Eschenbach / 2 days ago August 24, 2015
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/24/wrong-again-again/

# # #

‘Leads and Lags’ is good background for oceanic lag and atmospheric temperature response. Unfortunately far too short time frame to see how it works out for centennial scale climate.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Gross Suppression Of Science …Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees “Were Cautioned Not To Talk About Natural Cycles” By P Gosselin on 26. August 2015 Former NOAA meteorologist David Dilley has submitted an essay below that has 2 parts: 1) How the government has been starving researchers who hold alternative opinions of funding, and 2) climate cycles show we are starting a cooling period. Readers will recall that David Dilley is a 40-year meteorology veteran and the producer of the excellent video: “Is Climate Change Dangerous?“, which first was presented at NTZ. Since then the video has been viewed more than 10,000 times and the NTZ story shared in social media over 800 times. ================================== Suppressing the Truth – the Next Global Cooling Cycle By David Dilley, former NOAA meteorologist “According to some university researchers who were former heads of their departments, if a university even mentioned natural cycles, they were either denied future grants, or lost grants. And it is common knowledge that United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles. It is well known that most university research departments live or die via the grant system.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Using nominal dates starting 1955, the MDV relationship in respect to ST is:” Starting 1895 we have: 1895 – neutral 1910 – MDV maximum negative (-ve) 1925 – neutral 1940 – MDV maximum positive (+ve) 1955 – neutral 1970 – MDV maximum negative (-ve) 1985 – neutral 2000 – MDV maximum positive (+ve) 2015 – neutral 2030 – MDV maximum negative (-ve) This is in respect to HadCRUT4: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl If CO2 is the driver of the secular trend (ST) in GMST, the CO2-forced model mean MUST pass through all the MDV neutral observation dates because MDV is absent from the models. That is this spline: 1895 – from below 1925 – from above 1955 – from below 1985 – from above 2015 – from below Obviously this is NOT the case in the current IPCC climate models which pass through 2000 – MDV maximum positive (+ve) and are then WELL ABOVE the 2015 observations making it impossible to pass through 2015 from below. Hansen et al (1981) have in Figure 3, firstly an observation profile that does not conform to HadCRUT4 in the early part of the 20th century Hansen et al (1981)… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Hansen et al [1981] then set to with dodgy sun and volcanoes which “tweak” the CO2-based profile to conform to the GMST profile.” I mean here that their solar input is dead wrong but not the volcanoes. The volcanoes however are completely irrelevant to the long-term secular trend of GMST on a millennial time scale, and don’t matter in the short-term either. The effect of Pinatubo has been and gone for example and it did not change the secular trend one bit, or upset MDV. And Pinatubo although thought large by today’s standards doesn’t even rate in the volcano rankings: List of largest volcanic eruptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions Age (Ma) is this unit: Ma (for megaannus), is a unit of time equal to one million years. It is commonly used in scientific disciplines such as geology, paleontology, and celestial mechanics to signify very long time periods into the past or future. For example, the dinosaur species Tyrannosaurus rex was abundant approximately 66 Ma (66 million years) ago (ago may not always be mentioned; if the quantity is specified while not explicitly discussing a duration, one can assume that “ago” is implied; the alternative “mya” unit… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…volcanoes however are completely irrelevant to the long-term secular trend of GMST on a millennial time scale, and don’t matter in the short-term either.” >”Hansen et al in 1981, and subsequent IPCC climate modeling, should neglect volcanoes entirely (Occams Razor) and get solar right in order to get the model mean conforming to the MDV-neutral spline as laid out previously. THEN they must introduce MDV in order to trace the GMST profile.” Once the modelers have got that right (long long way to go on that), only then can they turn their attention to volcanic “wiggles” in GMST (as if it will matter since CO2 will not be an issue then). But there’s a whole body of climate literature already fixated on volcanoes. For example: ‘Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown’ Dana Nuccitelli, Wednesday 3 December 2014 “A new study [see below] estimates surface temperature cooling from volcanoes at 0.05–0.12°C since 2000” “A new study has found that when particulates from small volcanic eruptions are properly accounted for, volcanoes may be responsible for much of the slowdown in global surface warming over the past 15 years. ”… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

Richard,
Multi-decadal variation is variation around the mean; it does not explain the warming that has occurred over the past century. They are patterns within a chaotic system and are not wholly predictable. This is especially true when the system is being perturbed.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon. >”Multi-decadal variation is variation around the mean; it does not explain the warming that has occurred over the past century.” EXACTLY Simon. Whatever made you think I did not know this? That is what I’ve been elucidating for days (or is it weeks now). The CO2-forced model mean is NOT on the secular trend (ST) – it SHOULD be because MDV is absent from the models and must be introduced now (the IPCC concedes this, sort of, in Chapter 9 – see upthread). Foster and Rahmstorf did NOT find the secular trend, neither did Macias et al but they are very close. The fact that the CO2-forced model mean is NOT on the ST indicates that the ST is driven by something else. That “something” driving the ST is on a multi-millennial time scale and it is the sun as Luedecke, Hempelmann, and Weiss demonstrate over the last 2500 years (from upthread): Luedecke, Hempelmann, and Weiss (2013) and (2015) http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/21/study-german-scientists-conclude-20th-century-warming-nothing-unusual-foresee-global-cooling-until-2080/#sthash.BXEr03W9.dpbs You cannot do that with CO2. Clearly, the solar signal is the driver of the secular trend (ST) in GMST. Overlayed on that is a trendless MDV signal as Luedecke, Hempelmann, and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon. >”The CO2-forced model mean is NOT on the secular trend (ST) – it SHOULD be because MDV is absent from the models” For the model mean to be on the secular trend it MUST pass though the non-MDV spline in GMST. From upthread, that is this spline of MDV-neutral dates: 1895 – from below 1925 – from above 1955 – from below 1985 – from above 2015 – from below Obviously this is NOT the case in the current IPCC climate models which pass through 2000 – MDV maximum positive (+ve) and are then WELL ABOVE the 2015 observations making it impossible to pass through 2015 from below. The spline is central to this sequence: 1895 – neutral 1910 – MDV maximum negative (-ve) 1925 – neutral 1940 – MDV maximum positive (+ve) 1955 – neutral 1970 – MDV maximum negative (-ve) 1985 – neutral 2000 – MDV maximum positive (+ve) 2015 – neutral 2030 – MDV maximum negative (-ve) This is in respect to HadCRUT4: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl If CO2 is the driver of the secular trend (ST) in GMST, the CO2-forced model mean MUST pass through all the MDV neutral observation dates… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

“mean” should be omitted from Equation (2).

>”Model mean GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV (2)”

Should be just be,

Model GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV (2)

An equation for the current model mean omits MDV:

Model mean GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) (5)

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Foster and Rahmstorf did NOT find the secular trend”

This is actually a minor quibble. The F&R residual goes through 2010 from below. It SHOULD go through 2015 (or close) from below so F&R were 5 yrs out and their residual has now flatlined since 2010. Embarrassing for F&R, RFC, and the IPCC, but still a minor quibble because at least their residual passes through 2010 from below.

MAJOR quibble is: contrary to the RFC12 comparison, the non-MDV CO2-forced CMIP5 model mean is nowhere near the F&R residual, or the actual GMST secular trend once MDV is removed. The model mean is WELL ABOVE both and it is impossible for it to pass through 2015 (or even 2010) from below (see IPCC graphs upthread).

In other words, CO2 is not the driver of the secular trend in GMST despite all of Foster and Rahmstorf’s assertions.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The [CO2-forced] model mean is WELL ABOVE both [F&R residual and ST] and it is impossible for it to pass through 2015 (or even 2010) [observations] from below (see IPCC graphs upthread).”

IPCC AR5 WGI Figure 10.1 (a)
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig10-1.jpg

The inescapable, undeniable, unequivocal evidence – from the IPCC.

Note that the non-MDV model mean is actually quite good at the MDV-neutral dates (the spline) in the early part of the series:

1895 – from below (Yes, valid)
1925 – from above (Yes, valid)
1955 – from below (Yes, valid)

But the modeling breaks down (hopelessly) after 1955. The non-MDV model mean should NOT conform to MDV-included observations from 1955 – 2000. After 1955 the model mean SHOULD pass through the MDV-neutral dates (the spline) as shown previously:

1985 – from above (No, invalid)
2015 – from below (No, invalid)

Obviously the models are DEAD WRONG after 1955.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I should point out that the secular trend (ST) in GMST as defined by say Macias et al (2014) is really also just an oscillation over the last 2500 years at least, as per Luedecke, Hempelmann, and Weiss (2015) above.

The secular trend in Ljungqvist (2010) is about -0.175 C/1000 yrs for the last 2000 years (see page 1 of comments). This is the multi-millennial spline.

Multi-centennial variation (MCV) oscillates about that multi-millennial ST spline, as Simon correctly states in respect to MDV and MCV.

The multi-millennial ST spline is probably an oscillation too i.e. MMV.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”An equation for the current model mean omits MDV:
Model mean GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) (5)”

Should be Equation (3) as per page 1 comments:

Model mean GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) (3)

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”MAJOR quibble is: contrary to the RFC12 comparison, the non-MDV CO2-forced CMIP5 model mean is nowhere near the F&R residual, or the actual GMST secular trend once MDV is removed. The model mean is WELL ABOVE both and it is impossible for it to pass through 2015 (or even 2010) from below (see IPCC graphs upthread).”

Also perfectly clear from the graph previously posted in page 1 of comments:

Climate models vs Global Average Surface Temperature
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png

Where:
Model mean GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) (3)
GMST natural = ST + MDV (1)

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Lobbed this in to Climate Etc:

richardcfromnz | August 29, 2015 at 3:59 am |
http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/28/week-in-review-science-edition-19/#comment-727991

Jim D, you have identified a non-MDV spline in GISTEMP that passes through 2015. Similar exists in HadCRUT4.

The spline is central to this sequence:

1895 – neutral
1910 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)
1925 – neutral
1940 – MDV maximum positive (+ve)
1955 – neutral
1970 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)
1985 – neutral
2000 – MDV maximum positive (+ve)
2015 – neutral
2030 – MDV maximum negative (-ve)

This is in respect to HadCRUT4: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl

Now see relevant model mean vs observations comparisons:

IPCC AR5 WGI Figure 10.1 (a)
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig10-1.jpg

Model mean vs GMST (HadCRUT4)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png

Model mean trajectory:

1895 – from below (Yes, valid)
1925 – from above (Yes, valid)
1955 – from below (Yes, valid)
1985 – from above (No, invalid)
2015 – from below (No, invalid)

Obviously the CO2-forced model mean does not pass through the MDV-neutral spline after 1955, the trajectory becomes much steeper. This is highly problematic. It implies that CO2 does not drive the secular trend in GMST after MDV is removed.

More in page 2 of comments at Climate Conversations Group:
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2015/08/fatal-deficiencies-destroy-scientific-case-for-climate-catastrophe

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Lobbed in the IPCC’s climate change criteria too for good measure:

http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/28/week-in-review-science-edition-19/#comment-728167

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

For the record, given the IPCC’s TOA climate change criteria:

‘No Consensus: Earth’s Top of Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in CMIP5-Archived (IPCC AR5) Climate Models’

Bob Tisdale / August 11, 2015

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/no-consensus-earths-top-of-atmosphere-energy-imbalance-in-cmip5-archived-ipcc-ar5-climate-models/

I think I referenced this upthread but good to have it next to the Climate Etc links.

Andy
Guest
Andy

You really have to watch US Senator Ted Cruz demolish this climate activist who harasses him
[Video]

http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-schools-two-separate-climate-change-activists-who-were-trying-to-work-him-over/

Andy
Guest
Andy

Richard C

I’m not sure where we got to on this

Dd we look at Tisdale’s post on WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/no-consensus-earths-top-of-atmosphere-energy-imbalance-in-cmip5-archived-ipcc-ar5-climate-models/

He quotes Trenberth who claims TOA energy imbalance is 0.5-1W / m2

Sounds like the numbers you were quoting.

Am I right?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy >”I’m not sure where we got to on this. Did we look at Tisdale’s post on WUWT […link…] He quotes Trenberth who claims TOA energy imbalance is 0.5-1W / m2. Sounds like the numbers you were quoting. Am I right?” Yes that is correct Andy. Although the numbers I’m quoting (0.6 W.m-2) are from the IPCC Chapter 2 citations, Loeb et al (2012) and Stephens et al (2012) at both TOA and Sfc. Loeb et al Figure 1 http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Loeb2012-TOAfluxvsOHC.jpg Kevin Trenberth’s reaction to the Loeb el al Letter is here: http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/trenberth-response-to-todays-loeb-et-al.html I didn’t say much about Tisdale’s post upthread except to reproduce this quote: “Obviously [see Figure 7], based on the energy imbalances in the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report, there is no agreement on how much heat the oceans should be accumulating, or even if the oceans are accumulating heat. And the differences in the simulated ocean heat accumulation are so great that using the model mean to represent the models is very misleading, because the model mean gives the impression of a consensus when there is none.” The Trenberth quote you refer to from… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”This [Trenberth et al 2014 intro] is just miss-attribution.”

The TOA imbalance forcing has already occurred at the surface by solar change on a millennial scale and which is lagged by oceanic thermal inertia. I detailed the lag at the Climate Etc thread linked above (twice).

Theoretical CO2 “forcing” on the other hand, is instantaneous speed-of-light radiation between Sfc and TOA i.e. no oceanic lag.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Notice in Trenberth et al (2014) that after “greenhouse gases increasingly trap more radiation and hence create warming” in the intro they neglect to apply GHG theory for the rest of the paper. This is no different to IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution. The criteria for a valid agent of climate change is stated elsewhere in Assessment Reports and AR5 Chapter 2 actually cites the observed TOA imbalance. But Chapter 10 neglects to apply the criteria to the observations. Easy to see why Trenberth et al (2014) didn’t want to go there. Their Figure 9 is the equivalent of Loeb et al Figure 1: Trenberth et al (2014) Fig. 9. Net radiation from the TOA from CERES [Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Ed2.6r; http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/products.php?product=EBAF%5D. The ASR (red) and OLR (blue) are given on the right axis and RT (ASR − OLR; black) is given on the left axis (W m−2; note the change in scale). For ASR, OLR, and RT, the ±1 standard deviation range is given in light red, blue, and gray. Also shown is the Niño-3.4 SST index (green; right axis, °C). The decadal low-pass filter is a 13-term… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Given the trendless nature of TOA imbalance, scenario RCP 8.5 looks like a very long shot.

I’ve been a bit side-tracked by climate sensitivity. Since RCP 8.5 is having a direct effect on my life, and thousands of others, it has really focussed my mind on the key issue.

So thanks Richard C. I am all ears and eyes.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy. >”it [RCP forcing] has really focussed my mind on the key issue.” Yes, the primary climate change criteria is paramount. To reiterate in full: IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?”). FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing? What is radiative forcing? The influence of a factor that can cause climate change, such as a greenhouse gas, is often evaluated in terms of its radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that affect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature. The term forcing is used to indicate that Earth’s radiative balance is being pushed away from its normal state. Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2).… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”CO2 is simply a passive energy transfer medium, a coolant by definition, refrigerant code R744.” NASA agrees except, oddly, via NCAR, for the troposphere Andy (see articles quoted below, and especially the NCAR video in the second article). The NASA articles also largely disagree with the University of Virginia MAE 494 – Special Topics in Aerospace Engineering Part 3 in respect to CO2 (see below). I’ve been reading up on EUV heating of the thermosphere. No CO2 there so heat can’t radiate, 1000 K at TOA but 1400 K at 11 yr solar max, temp gradient goes down to mesopause where there is IR radiating gasses mainly CO2. The heat moves down to the mesopause by conduction and from there is radiated to space – no “increasing” GHG “radiation trap” whatsoever. And this is massive amounts of energy (see below). University of Virginia MAE 494 – Special Topics in Aerospace Engineering Part 3 The Thermosphere [heating and dissipation] 1. EUV Heats 2. At Lower Altitudes : Cooling # N2 , O2 and O Cannot Radiate IR # No CO2 ( diffusive separation ) # Must Conduct Deposited Heat to a Region Containing CO2… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

NASA Science News David Hathaway. “During solar minimum, the gas temperature in the thermosphere is around 700 °C. That’s high, but not nearly as high as the temperature during Solar Max. When the Sun is active, high levels of solar EUV raise the temperature of the thermosphere all the way to 1,500 °C.” “The extreme ultraviolet photons that heat the thermosphere aren’t the same as the UV rays that give you sunburns,” says Dr. Judith Lean, a physicist at the US Naval Research Labs. “They are much worse. Sunburns come from the UV-A and UV-B bands around 3000 Angstroms. The photons that heat the thermosphere are at least 10 times more energetic and they vary 100 times more [between solar minimum and solar maximum]. It’s good thing they’re all absorbed by nitrogen and oxygen at high altitudes — otherwise a day at the beach would be no fun.” If the thermosphere is so hot, wouldn’t astronauts feel uncomfortably warm during space walks? No, says Hathaway. The air up there is so tenuous that you can’t really feel the heat. In fact, it’s so thin that scientists can’t even measure the temperature directly. Instead,… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

I did see a graph from the Met Office some time back that showed the energy imbalance as trendless for 10 years or more.

Shame I didn’t bookmark it.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I did see a graph from the Met Office some time back that showed the energy imbalance as trendless for 10 years or more.”

It might have been a paper by Richard Allan, University of Reading. Scroll down to:

‘Changes in Earth’s radiative energy balance 1985-2010’
(2011)
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/latest.html

Post Navigation