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

178 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy

The case for AGW seems to be fairly simple:

Climate scientists have run GCMs (general circulation models) with, and without, anthropogenic “forcing”

They can’t explain the current climate without the anthropogenic “forcing” component.

Therefore, the anthropogenic “forcing” component must exist

QED

Simon

Learned conversations? Does anyone in the NZ Climate Science Coalition have a degree in climate science?

Andy

Does Michael Mann have a degree in climate science? Or any of “The Team”, for that matter…

Simon

I think it is disingenuous to call yourselves the NZ Climate Science Coalition when you reject large chunks of that science. I also think it is wrong to call something the NZ Climate Science Education Trust when it is nothing to do with education and the entity was clearly not a charitable trust where trustees are responsible for the debts owing to that trust. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public as to your true intentions.

Richard C (NZ)

>”you reject large chunks of that science” Rubbish. There is only one very small theory-experiment-result that matters in climate science Simon and the IPCC stipulates it explicitly. Then THEY, the IPCC, ignores that science. But sceptics don’t, do you? IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?”). # 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2). # 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro). Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than double the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing. # 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA. No need to invoke CO2 “forcing” and it is impossible to invoke anyway – it doesn’t fit between Sfc and TOA. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this. Game… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than double the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing.”

Actually now more than treble.

Richard C (NZ)

>”There is only one very small theory-experiment-result that matters in climate science Simon and the IPCC stipulates it explicitly. Then THEY, the IPCC, ignores that science.”

Which begs the question:

Was the oversight just sloppy incompetent work?

Or was it willful negligence?

Richard C (NZ)

The foundation of CO2-centric climate science can be easily proved false by a couple of bullet points.

Simon demands a degree in this?

Richard C (NZ)

>” Then THEY, the IPCC, ignores that science. Which begs the question: Was the oversight just sloppy incompetent work? Or was it willful negligence?” That is in respect to these guys: Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional Coordinating Lead Authors: Nathaniel Bindoff (Australia), Peter Stott (UK) Lead Authors: Krishna Mirle AchutaRao (India), Myles Allen (UK), Nathan Gillett (Canada), David Gutzler (USA), Kabumbwe Hansingo (Zambia), Gabriele Hegerl (UK), Yongyun Hu (China), Suman Jain (Zambia), Igor Mokhov (Russia), James Overland (USA), Judith Perlwitz (USA), Rachid Sebbari (Morocco), Xuebin Zhang (Canada) Contributing Authors: Beena Balan Sarojini, Pascale Braconnot, Oliver Browne, Ping Chang, Nikolaos Christidis, Tim DelSole, Catia M. Domingues, Paul J. Durack, Alexey Eliseev, Kerry Emanuel, Chris Forest, Hugues Goosse, Jonathan Gregory, Isaac Held, Greg Holland, Jara Imbers Quintana, Gareth S. Jones, Johann Jungclaus, Georg Kaser, Tom Knutson, Reto Knutti, James Kossin, Mike Lockwood, Fraser Lott, Jian Lu, Irina Mahlstein, Damon Matthews, Seung-Ki Min, Daniel Mitchell, Thomas Moelg, Simone Morak, Friederike Otto, David Pierce, Debbie Polson, Andrew Schurer, Tim Osborn , Joeri Rogelj, Vladimir Semenov, Dmitry Smirnov, Peter Thorne, Muyin Wang, Rong Zhang Review Editors: Judit Bartholy (Hungary), Robert Vautard… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

The Chapter 10 authors looked at everything EXCEPT what they SHOULD have looked at i.e. the primary critical criteria. Had they done so the chapter would have been reduced to one paragraph and the rest of the report made redundant.

The Summary For Policy Makers (SPM) would have just read:

“We were wrong”.

But no, this is not about science or the environment as we were informed by Ottmar Edenhofer:

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy

Apparently, we have to “free” ourselves from the “illusion”. I don’t think so.

Simon

OK, lets play:
A: Marcott et. al (2013) demonstrated how the current rate of warmth is unprecedented in the past 11,300 years. There is only one logical explanation, and it is not natural solar variation.
B: I suspect that this question is posed by a former lawyer, rather than a scientist. The standard scientific test is the 95% confidence interval, i.e. almost certainly. As 97% of climate papers, (actually more like 99% these days) confirm that AGW is occurring, the minority opinion can be ignored.
C: I will happily modify my opinion if anyone actually successfully constructed the experiment that proves AGW wrong.
DI I agree, actual scientific expert opinion will likely be drowned out by the misinformed and vested interests.

Magoo

Simon. The experiment proving AGW wrong that you require has already been constructed and completed by the IPCC, and the empirical data provided by the IPCC has proven AGW conclusively wrong. Here is a nice summary using both the prediction and the empirical data disproving it by none other than the IPCC: http://dailymediareview.weebly.com/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-climate-change.html As this has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions I very much doubt you have the ability to modify you opinion, regardless of how much evidence is presented or from what source. If not then please explain how CO2 can be responsible for the warming without positive feedback from water vapour, and please don’t quote Chung or Sherwood as both of their papers find a hotspot when the Earth has not been warming, i.e. when the models say there shouldn’t be one. As the IPCC’s own report has disproven at least 50% of the AGW theory, the OPINION of Marcott that AGW is the only explanation cannot be correct. The empirical data shows that CO2 cannot possibly be the culprit for the warming as CO2 is incapable of warming that much without positive feedback from water vapour. Tell… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”C: I will happily modify my opinion if anyone actually successfully constructed the experiment that proves AGW wrong.” Good, you will be conceding then Simon. Look upthread and you will see exactly what you suggest. The IPCC constructed the experiment and AGW is certainly proved wrong. Here it is again since you apparently don’t follow the comment thread: IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?”). # 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2). # 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co), IPCC Table of Forcings, same as net anthro). Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than treble the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing. # 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics, -11 W.m-2 southern ocean). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA. No need to invoke CO2 “forcing” and it is impossible… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”A: Marcott et. al (2013) demonstrated how the current rate of warmth is unprecedented in the past 11,300 years. There is only one logical explanation, and it is not natural solar variation.” You might read this Simon: ‘A History of Solar Activity over Millennia Ilya G. Usoskin (2013) 4.4.2 Grand maxima on a multi-millennial timescale Keeping possible uncertainties in mind, let us consider a list of the largest grand maxima (the 50 year smoothed sunspot number stably exceeding 50), identified for the last 11,400 years using 14C data, as shown in Table 2 (after Usoskin et al., 2007). Table 2: Approximate dates (in –BC/AD) of grand maxima in the SN-L series. (after Usoskin et al., 2007). No. center duration 1† 1960 80 2 –445 40 3 –1790 20 4 –2070 40 5 –2240 20 6 –2520 20 7 –3145 30 8 –6125 20 9 –6530 20 10 –6740 100 11 –6865 50 12 –7215 30 13 –7660 80 14 –7780 20 15 –7850 20 16 –8030 50 17 –8350 70 18 –8915 190 19 –9375 130 † Center and duration of the modern maximum are preliminary since it is still ongoing. Figure 17:… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”B: ……..97% of climate papers, (actually more like 99% these days) confirm that AGW is occurring……….”

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

AGW is proved wrong by one experiment as per IPCC criteria. See comment 2nd above.

Richard C (NZ)

>”A: Marcott et. al (2013) demonstrated how the current rate of warmth is unprecedented in the past 11,300 years.” ‘New global warming scandal hits climate science’ April 2, 2013, By Ian Wishart The scientists behind a widely reported new climate change study suggesting we are currently in the warmest climate of the past four thousand years have had their work shredded in peer review, and been accused of skating close to scientific “misconduct”. The paper, led by Oregon State University’s Shaun Marcott, claimed to have validated the discredited “hockey stick” graph and proven that modern temperatures were the highest in four millennia. Their research was published in the prestigious journal Science and sparked worldwide media headlines. The New York Times trumpeted “Global temperatures highest in 4000 years”, while Associated Press went even further: “Heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years”. Now, the story is rapidly unraveling. After being peer reviewed by skeptical scientists, Marcott et al were forced to retract their biggest claim, admitting the so-called modern heat spike was not supported in the actual data after all: “The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered… Read more »

Andy

Marcott et al spiced instrumental data onto the end of their paleoclimate reconstruction. This is similar to “Mikes Nature Trick”

Are there any hockey sticks that aren’t complete bunk?

Richard C (NZ)

Met Office withdraws article about Marcott’s hockey stick Jun 14, 2013, Bishop Hill The Met Office’s My Climate and Me website has removed a blog post about the Marcott Hockey Stick: ***************************************************************************************** We previously posted an article entitled “New analysis suggests the Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented for 11,300 years” covering the paper by Marcott et al in Nature. The title of our article drew on the original press release for the paper. However, we note that authors of the paper have since issued an extensive response to media coverage [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/] which includes the following statement: Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years? A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Climate Depot Round Up of Marcott’s Collapsed New Hockey Stick Study

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/04/01/climate-depot-round-up-of-marcotts-collapsed-new-hockey-stick-study/

Simon

The ‘hockey stick’ has been validated time and time again from multiple studies and datasets. Splicing is necessary because some proxy datasets drop out and actual measurements kick in. There are no serious scientific papers that contradict the shape of the curve, you have been spending too much time on denier websites Andy.

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and a positive feedback from increasing temperature, is anyone seriously denying this?

Richard C (NZ)

>”OK, lets play:”

Still wanna play Simon?

Andy

“The ‘hockey stick’ has been validated time and time again from multiple studies and datasets.”

For example?

Andy

“Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and a positive feedback from increasing temperature, is anyone seriously denying this?”

Well we are “deniers”. What do you expect?

On a more serious note, the theory is that warmer air will hold more water vapour, but we don’t know much about clouds, so we don’t know whether the net feedbacks will be positive or negative.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Splicing is necessary because some proxy datasets drop out…..”

Yes, more low frequency data required. At this point in a scientifically ethical process one would expect the splice to be to similar low frequency data.

>”and actual measurements kick in”

But no, it’s high frequency data to the rescue because it goes up so they use that instead. Splicing low frequency data that declines just means they would have to “Hide the Decline”. Why bother with all that messy stuff?

Andy

I can’t think of any other scientific discipline where data of different resolutions is spliced together to reach a conclusion

Richard C (NZ)

>”Water vapour is a greenhouse gas…….is anyone seriously denying this?”

No. But humid tropical zones do not exhibit the extreme temperatures of dry tropical zones so WV modulates temperature rather than amplifies it.

>”and a positive feedback from increasing temperature, is anyone seriously denying this?”

Yes.

A) Where is the empirical evidence that positive WV feedback exists from climate forcing that both increases AND decreases temperature (as evidenced by historical records)?

B) Proof that theoretical CO2 and net anthro forcing is not the forcing of recent climate has been posted here. Therefore, even if a positive WV feedback exists from increasing temperature (pending answer to A), it has not been as a result of CO2 or net anthro forcing anyway.

Magoo

‘Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and a positive feedback from increasing temperature, is anyone seriously denying this?’

The empirical evidence from ALL temperature datasets in the IPCC’s AR5 disputes that water vapour has a positive feedback. Which is correct – the empirical evidence from multiple sources disproving the theory, or the unfounded theory that lacks any supporting evidence?

Richard C (NZ)

>”The ‘hockey stick’ has been validated time and time again from multiple studies and datasets.”

Except for the proxy reconstructions that DO NOT validate a hockey stick. Examples:

2,000 Years of “Rate of Temperature Change” [Moberg, 2005]

“There is no evidence in the Moberg reconstruction of the past 2,000 years that the current rate of warming is unusual in any way. The rate of the recent warming is comparable to each of the warming peaks in the past 1,000 years and substantially less than the peak warming over the past 2,000 years.”

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/04/2000-years-of-rate-of-temperature-change/

A NEW RECONSTRUCTION OF TEMPERATURE VARIABILITY IN THE EXTRA-TROPICAL NORTHERN HEMISPHERE DURING THE LAST TWO MILLENNIA

BY FREDRIK CHARPENTIER LJUNGQVIST (2010)

Fig. 3. Estimations of extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere (90–30°N) decadal mean temperature variations (dark grey line) AD 1–1999 relative to the 1961–1990 mean instrumental temperature from the variance adjusted CRUTEM3+HadSST2 90–30°N record (black dotted line showing decadal mean values AD 1850–1999) with 2 standard deviation error bars (light grey shading).

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf

Richard C (NZ)

The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts

By Michael Krüger, Science Skeptical Blog (Translated, condensed, edited by P Gosselin)

“An examination of the five IPCC reports published thus far reveals a remarkable scientific reversal. What follows is the evolution of the 1000-year temperature curve: from double hump (1990) – to hockey stick 2001) – and back again to double hump (2013)”

See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals-of-all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/#sthash.jwlJdNI4.dpuf

Richard C (NZ)

Climate Reconstruction For the Past 2000 Years [ LJUNGQVIST (2010) ] By LWHancock [About] – “I am a RF Engineer (FCC Licensed) and mathematician (with a focus in time series modeling and statistics). I am a researcher with numerous leading journal peer revewed papers in the subjects of technology and medicine. I write for several international periodicals and on-line science sites.” […] Dr. Ljungqvist’s work is what is called a meta-study, meaning he did the legwork to collect temperature reconstructions from 30 new proxy reconstructions, most of them created within the past 10 years. They are more accurate and more complete than earlier reconstructions used to document historical temperatures. His work is the largest ensemble of reconstructions and the most accurate dataset available today. So, I took an interest in it. With the above explanation, here’s what I did. It happens that Ljungqvist, being a good scientist, made his data readily available for anyone who wanted to reproduce his work. So, I downloaded it and plugged it into my graphing program to visualize what the dataset had to say. The result was interesting to say the least. And here it is: Graphical Results… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”the linear trend in my graph”

-0.175 C/1000 yrs.

Andy

If there are so many really great Hockey Sticks, why do people keep dragging Marcott et al out when the authors themselves have distanced themselves from it?

Where are the other ones?
Are they all so overwhelming that we feel too overwhelmed to name them?

Have we reached “peak Hockey Stick”?

Richard C (NZ)

>Have we reached “peak Hockey Stick”?

Yes, TAR 2001. Now we are in Hockey Stick decline. Quick! Hide it before anyone notices.

Andy

It’s worse than we thought. Hockey Sticks could be extinct by 2020.

Children just won’t know what hockey sticks are. They will be a rare and exciting event.

Andy

Judith Curry has a review of Mark Steyn’s book on Michael Mann
http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/13/mark-steyns-new-book-on-michael-mann/

Not for the faint hearted

Richard C (NZ)

[Curry] >”……for my post on this book, I decided to focus on snippets from climate scientists who generally support the consensus (explicitly, or lacking any evidence of the opposite), including Mann’s collaborators”

With indictments like that who needs the “denier” side?

Richard C (NZ)

‘Bond Event Zero’ Posted on 6 April 2009 by E.M.Smith (Musings from the Chiefio) I’ll be expanding this posting over time. For right now, I’m putting up a skeleton just to anchor the space and get me doing something. So what is a Bond Event? They are abnormally cold periods that happen about every 1470 years. We are likely headed into one now, IMHO. While the world panics over heating, it ought ot be planning how to grow more wheat without northern fields like Canada or northern Eurasia. I’d hoped to not last long enough to reach the next Bond Event, however, we have 3 nagging little points: 1) It’s a 1470 year or so cycle and the last one started about 1470 years ago… take a look at what was happening in about 530 to 540 A.D. It was cold, and dark, and the sun wasn’t very bright… In fact, they called it The Dark Ages. 2) The sun has gone very very quiet. Not pleasing in the context of #1. 3) We’ve had a sudden onset of more cold and more snow at the poles with the oceans cooling starting in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

‘Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales’ Willie Soon, David R. Legates (2013) Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850–2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.362.7315&rep=rep1&type=pdf # # # Obviously this paper was not written to gain friends from the “consensus” side, the opposite has been the outcome. The EPTG is a paramount climate metric given the massive amount of energy moving away from the equator. See: Introduction to climate dynamics and climate modelling 2.1.5.2 Heat transport http://www.climate.be/textbook/chapter2_node7_2.xml But CO2 has no correlation with the EPTG: NIPCC Chapter 3 Solar Forcing of Climate: Figure 3.1. A comparison and contrast of the modulation of the Northern-Hemispheric equator-to-pole temperature gradient (both panels, dotted blue curves) by Total Solar Irradiance (TSI, left panel, solid red line) and by atmospheric CO2 (right panel, solid red line). Adapted from Soon, W. and Legates, D.R. 2013. Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 93: 45–56. http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-3-Solar-Forcing.pdf Hence… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

From 2.1.5.2 Heat transport:

Figure 2.17: The required total (RT) heat transport in PW (10^15 W), needed to balance the net radiation imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (in black) and the repartition of this transport in oceanic (blue) and atmospheric (red) contributions, accompanied with the associated uncertainty range (shaded). A positive value of the transport on the x axis corresponds to a northward transport.
Figure from Fasullo and Trenberth (2008). Copyright 2008 American Meteorological Society (AMS).
http://www.climate.be/textbook/images/image%2815%29.png

Demonstrating that TOA imbalance (the IPCC’s climate forcing criteria) is a sun-ocean-space EPTG system and that CO2 is irrelevant to it.

Richard C (NZ)

Make that:

“Demonstrating that TOA imbalance (the IPCC’s climate forcing criteria) is a sun-ocean-space [and atmosphere+ocean] EPTG system and that CO2 is irrelevant to it.”

Richard C (NZ)

>”Does anyone in the NZ Climate Science Coalition have a degree in climate science?” Does anyone in the IPCC have a degree in climate science? Let’s start with the first 10 of the Chapter 10 author list linked upthread: Coordinating Lead Authors: Nathaniel Bindoff (Australia), BSc Hons http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/people/profiles/current-staff/b/Nathan-Bindoff Peter Stott (UK) First degree in Mathematics, Part III of the Mathematics Tripos. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/peter-stott Lead Authors: Krishna Mirle AchutaRao (India), M.Engg Mechanical Engineering B. Engg (Hons) Mechanical Engineering M. Sc (Hons) Mathematics http://web.iitd.ac.in/~akrishna/biosketch.html Myles Allen (UK), Degree ????, Doctorate focusing on atmosphere-ocean interactions and internally generated climate variability http://www.ukela.org/content/page/704/0.15%20Biographies.pdf Nathan Gillett (Canada), MPhys Physics, http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=En&n=F97AE834-1&formid=9AB46F0E-0597-46B4-B01F-DE48031E2A9B&xsl=scitechprofile David Gutzler (USA), Degree ????, Ph.D ???? http://epswww.unm.edu/faculty-and-staff/gutzler/ Kabumbwe Hansingo (Zambia), BSc, MSc, Degree of Doctor of Philosophy http://start.org/download/doctoral06/Hansingo%20Abstract.pdf Gabriele Hegerl (UK), BA, MS, PhD ???? http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/geosciences/people?indv=1613 Yongyun Hu (China), Ph.D. ????, M.S., B.S. http://www.coaaweb.org/COAA2013/hu_yongyun.pdf Suman Jain (Zambia) Degree ????, Based in the Department of Mathematic and Statistics, School of Natural Sciences http://www.unza.zm/public-relations/three-unza-academicians-honoured # # # No degree in climate science among that bunch which is probably typical of the rest, climate science doesn’t appear to be a prerequisite. But impressive Mechanical Engineering credentials of Krishna Mirle AchutaRao I note.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Comment just went into moderation/spam re:

Does anyone in the NZ Climate Science Coalition have a degree in climate science?
Does anyone in the IPCC have a degree in climate science?

Too many links (10). This was the first 4 – Let’s start with the first [4] of the Chapter 10 author list linked upthread:

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Nathaniel Bindoff (Australia),
BSc Hons
http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/people/profiles/current-staff/b/Nathan-Bindoff

Peter Stott (UK)
First degree in Mathematics, Part III of the Mathematics Tripos.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/peter-stott

Lead Authors:

Krishna Mirle AchutaRao (India),
M.Engg Mechanical Engineering
B. Engg (Hons) Mechanical Engineering
M. Sc (Hons) Mathematics
http://web.iitd.ac.in/~akrishna/biosketch.html

Myles Allen (UK),
Degree ????, Doctorate focusing on atmosphere-ocean interactions and internally generated
climate variability
http://www.ukela.org/content/page/704/0.15%20Biographies.pdf

[…6 omitted….]

# # #

No degree in climate science among that bunch [same for next 6] which is probably typical of the rest of the Chapter 10 author list, climate science doesn’t appear to be a prerequisite. But impressive Mechanical Engineering credentials of Krishna Mirle AchutaRao I note.

Unfortunately, their combined expertize and academic credentials did not enable them to address the critical issue. Perhaps a climate science degree SHOULD be a prerequisite.

Andy, you seem to be at least on a par with Coordinating Lead Author Peter Stott?

Andy

Andy, you seem to be at least on a par with Coordinating Lead Author Peter Stott?

Not quite. I didn’t do Part III which is generally a postgraduate option

Richard C (NZ)

>”…no coalition member has a degree in “climate science” (that I know of), but that’s because nobody has a degree in climate science. Well, perhaps some off-the-wall university somewhere in the world offers such a degree,” I found this a while ago: Applied Meteorology and Climatology MSc, University of Birmingham Duration: 1 year full-time for MSc (Postgraduate Diploma, Graduate Diploma, Postgraduate Certificate, PGDip, PGCert, or part-time registration is possible but you should first discuss your requirements with Dr Martin Widmann, the Programme Director ) http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/postgraduate/courses/taught/gees/applied-met-climatology.aspx Entry requirements A good Honours degree, preferably upper second-class or above in a relevant discipline such as Geography, Environmental Science, Mathematics, Engineering, Physics, Chemistry or Biology. In special cases, applications may be considered from those holding non-graduate qualifications that are deemed by the University to be a satisfactory alternative to an Honours degree in the subject areas mentioned above. Modules The course is modular in nature, comprising 180 credits, 120 from MSc-dedicated taught modules and 60 from a dissertation. In line with University Regulations it is intended that 60 credits be the equivalent of a Certificate, 120 credits a Diploma and 180 credits the MSc. All taught courses… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Applied Meteorology and Climatology MSc Module M1a: Theoretical Meteorology: Atmospheric Composition and Physics M1a provides students with theoretical training in the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, microphysics and radiation and their implications for a range of meteorological processes and air pollution phenomena, coupled with an introduction to the controls on atmospheric composition. Specifics include: (1) to review the basic nature of the atmosphere in terms of its physical properties; (2) to introduce mass balance modelling of atmospheric composition and its time evolution; (3) to introduce a range of physical laws relevant to meteorology such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the equation of state; (4) to review cloud microphysics and cloud formation processes; and (5) to introduce basic radiation laws and radiative transfer processes in the atmosphere. Module M1b: Theoretical Meteoroloy: Atmospheric Dynamics M1b provides an understanding of governing equations, fundamental theories of atmospheric dynamics at a variety of scales. At the end of this course, students should be able to: (1) understand the fundamentals of atmospheric dynamics; (2) have knowledge of conservation laws of mass, momentum, and energy; (3) analyse force balance using dynamics equations; (4) quantify geostrophic wind, gradient… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

For comparison to Applied Meteorology and Climatology MSc Modules M1a (PGCert) and M1b (PGDip), the Bachelor of Engineering (BENG) – BEng Mechanical Engineering Major covers these thermofluids dynamics topics (page 25): MEC2101 Thermodynamics Year 2 [Similar to my Year 3 level of Int NZCE (Mech), now superseded, except my topic was Engineering Science (Electricity and Heat, includes Work, Power, and Energy) ] MEC2401 Dynamics I [Similar to my Year 3 level of Int NZCE (Mech), now superseded, except my topic was Mechanics (includes Work, Power, and Energy) ] MEC3102 Fluid Mechanics Year 3 [Intro in Year 3 Int NZCE (Mech) Mechanics] MEC4103 Heat Transfer Year 4 [Intro in Year 3 Int NZCE (Mech) Engineering Science] http://www.usq.edu.au/handbook/2014/pdfs/BENG.pdf MEC2101 Thermodynamics RATIONALE The rationale for the thermofluids strand of the Bachelor of Engineering requires that students are provided with a thorough fundamental understanding of the nature, dynamics and thermodynamics of fluids. A number of practical applications are covered to provide familiarity and reinforce this fundamental understanding. Expertise in this strand is expected of mechanical engineers in practice. In addition a small number of applications are taken to full professional practice level to provide the necessary personal… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Should point out that M1a, M1b, MEC2101, and MEC2401 are all one semester papers.

Equivalent Int NZCE (Mech) papers (e.g. Eng Science and Mechanics) were full year including intensive 2 week laboratory block courses at Central Institute of Technology if the course was done off-campus (reading theory, applying and writing up experiment results until early hours almost mandatory).

Eng Science was split electricity/heat but not quite 50/50, the bias was to electricity. So I suppose the heat component of Eng Science was about the equivalent to one semester including a 1 week lab corresponding to MEC2101 and in part to M1a .

Mechanics was about the equivalent (plus some?) to MEC2401, and had aspects of M1b.

Richard C (NZ)

Off topic for climate catastrophe, on topic for environmental catastrophe: ‘America’s Pervasive Indifference Towards Double Standards Will Let the EPA Off the Hook’ Aug. 15, 2015 9:00am. Mary Ramirez, The Blaze [see hotlinks in original] […] Ok, so what do Richard Nixon, Watergate, and Hillary Clinton have to do with the Environmental Protection Agency? (Other than the fact, incidentally, that Nixon created the EPA.) Not unlike how Hillary Clinton will probably get away with lying and Nixon didn’t, the double standard that is so pervasive in our political culture will all but guarantee that the EPA gets away with a toxic spill that would probably ruin a private entity. This isn’t just about the “gotcha” moment. It’s not just about preaching to the choir. It’s about illuminating the double standard; the “get out of jail free” card that only a chosen few possess. In what is now a disaster three times as large as originally reported, the EPA is responsible for spilling several million gallons of toxic waste (rife with things like arsenic and mercury at incredibly high levels) into a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado—ultimately exposing residents in three states… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Despite 4,000 mile round-trip, EPA Chief skips mine disaster site: ‘but I did visit the river’ ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “Well the most important thing for this trip was for me to actually come to the Unified Command Center to meet with the governors or whoever would like to meet, local community representatives, so that we can make sure that their needs are being met. That is my first order of business. I did not go to the mine. As you know it’s a significant distance away, but I did visit the river and I took a look at it myself. I wanted to get a sense of the river and I think that the good news is that it seems to be restoring itself but we have continued work to do and EPA is here today. And, just because I’m not here it doesn’t mean you don’t have experts, actually more than a hundred experts right here as well as additional folks, hundreds of them back at EPA working this issue with our federal and state and local partners and tribal partners.” http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/13/despite-4000-mile-round-trip-epa-chief-skips-mine-disaster-site-but-i-did-visit-the-river/ # # # “Good news” “EPA is here” “A hundred… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

McCarthy to Navajo Nation after Animas River toxic spill:

“Good news! The EPA is here, A hundred experts right here, hundreds of them back at the office”

Custer to Navajo Nation before Battle of the Little Bighorn:

“Good news! The Cavalry is here, A hundred soldiers right here, hundreds of them back at the fort”

How Custer’s rise and fall was covered by The New York Times
http://www.indianz.com/News/2015/017338.asp

Magoo

Simon made the following statement the other day: ‘C: I will happily modify my opinion if anyone actually successfully constructed the experiment that proves AGW wrong.’ Now that the experiment from the IPCC has been shown to him, where has he gone? Where is the acknowledgment of the modification of his opinion he promised? Is his statement below the only defense of his beliefs that he can muster when faced with the empirical evidence from the IPCC’s AR5 proving the opposite: ‘Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and a positive feedback from increasing temperature, is anyone seriously denying this?’ As this statement regarding water vapour is disproven by the empirical evidence, is it fair to say his beliefs are based on nothing but a stubborn faith? Perhaps he’s spent the past 3 days looking for sources that disprove the empirical evidence from ALL datasets in the AR5, maybe that’s where he’s gone. Perhaps people such as Simon might like to consider why the rest of us should be forced to pay our hard earned money for their own personal religious beliefs that have no scientific basis. Perhaps only those who believe in AGW… Read more »

Andy

I’m still waiting to hear about all these Hockey Sticks that apparently are in such abundance we don’t need to worry about Mann or Marcott.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Now that the experiment from the IPCC has been shown to him, where has he [Simon] gone? Where is the acknowledgment of the modification of his opinion he promised?” Yes, could ask the same questions myself Magoo but I didn’t have high expectations at the time as I recall: “Man-made climate change theory posits that the TOA energy balance moves synchronous with and commensurate with anthropogenic forcing.” Obviously it doesn’t so I look forward to you “[happily] modifying your opinion”. Not holding my breath though. Simon’s appearances seem to coincide with school hours so I suggest wait until then Magoo. For his next appearance I mean, not his concession. I’m highly sceptical we will ever read that but there’s no time limit except our life expectancy (well, in my case at least). “samoht” (Thomas at HT, and physics teacher) never came back after inadvertently agreeing with me that DLR is not a surface heating agent. We can’t search comments from inside CCG like we used to but I can find his comment from outside the blog just by using the search term “outed himself”. “Nick” never came back after I eventually got through… Read more »

Andy

I was at a meeting of “concerned residents” in ChCh yesterday. One person told me that his daughter’s teacher thought that “climate change deniers should be hanged”

Maybe clubbed to death by a Hockey Stick might be more appropriate. There are so many of them, after all

Andy

I was just browsing the IPCC AR5 (as you do on a Sunday afternoon) and came across this:

Climate models are unable to predict extreme events because they lack spatial and temporal resolution. In addition, there is no clear evidence that sustained or worldwide changes in extreme events have occurred in the past few decades.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/index.php?idp=232

Must have been written by some “deniers”.

Richard C (NZ)

>”climate change deniers should be hanged”

Before, or after breakfast?

Richard C (NZ)

My last request will be for organic hemp rope – and breakfast.

Andy

I’m surprised that teachers need to suggest hanging for “deniers” when we have the Red Button option shown in 10-10

Simon

A couple of years ago I suggested that on this website the next El Niño would be, barring a large volcanic eruption, the warmest year ever recorded. It looks as if 2015 will prove me correct. How could I know this? Because there is an underlying warming trend discernible from natural variation well understood by scientific theory. Do we have to wait until January 2016 until everyone admits that the “pause/hiatus” was simple natural variation?

Man of Thessaly

[Andy] I was just browsing the IPCC AR5 (as you do on a Sunday afternoon) and came across this:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/index.php?idp=232

I assume that was an honest mistake, Andy, to refer to AR5 and then provide a direct quotation from a 1997 report (and deep in a chapter on Health impacts in North America too – your Sunday browsing is strange indeed!).

In the actual AR5, the headline statement on extreme events from the Synthesis Report is:
“Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.”

It indicates some scientific progress, and some climate change too, in the last 20 years, doesn’t it? No doubt deeper in the report there are caveats about the ability of models to simulate extreme events, and I’m pretty sure they still don’t predict individual events in the distant future, but who would expect that?

Andy

Yes, thanks for the correction. I’m sure science “advances” and we are certainly experiencing a decrease in cold weather extremes, well other than the minus 22 the other week, which was the coldest I have ever known in NZ, and the winter in the UK when the entire country was covered in snow, unprecented in my lifetime.

As for AR5, I thought they had low confidence in future extreme weather, but then I’d have to find another Sunday when I’m not out enjoying some extreme cold and “rare and exciting events” on the ski fields.

Andy
Mike Jowsey

“Point man on The Pause” bloody funny!

Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”It looks as if 2015 will prove me correct [warmest year ever, neglecting RMP, MWP, etc]” The satellites beg to differ. But by how many hundredths of a degree if the next four months go to plan? Theoretical CO2-forced temperature rise should be at least 0.2 C/decade. >”How could I know this? Because there is an underlying warming trend discernible from natural variation well understood by scientific theory.” “Masked” according to Trenberth i.e. it is indiscernible. Except, as above, the CO2-forced models encapsulate CO2 forcing theory (a theory not proven) and the bulk of the models exhibit 0.33 C/decade, which gives temperatures well ABOVE the current level. But the scientific theory of man-made climate change theory posits that the TOA energy balance moves synchronous with and commensurate with anthropogenic forcing.” Obviously it doesn’t so I look forward to you “happily modifying your opinion”. Not holding my breath though. IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?”). # 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2). # 1.9 W.m-2 CO2… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

RT >”To put it another way: why has the lack of warming been so well hidden?” “Masked” according to Trenberth: ‘Internal climate variability masks climate-warming trends’ Public Release: 13-Aug-2015 Amid climate change debates revolving around limited increases in recent global mean surface temperature (GMST) rates, Kevin Trenberth argues that natural climate fluxes – larger than commonly appreciated – can overwhelm background warming, making plateaued rates, or hiatuses, deceiving in significance. After many years of monitoring, it’s clear that the GMST can vary from year to year, even decade to decade; these differences, Trenberth argues, are largely a result of internal natural variability. For example, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a phenomenon where the Pacific Ocean goes through periods of warming and cooling, can have a very strong impact on the climate by altering ocean currents, convection, and overturning. The PDO results in more sequestration of heat in the deep ocean during the negative phase of the PDO; therefore GMST tends to stagnate during this negative PDO phase, but increases during the positive phase. Indeed, observations and models show that the PDO is a key player in the two recent hiatus periods. Some other… Read more »

Magoo

Simon, your last comment was a nice little change of subject – why would you do that I wonder. Now, let’s get back to your original comment of:

‘C: I will happily modify my opinion if anyone actually successfully constructed the experiment that proves AGW wrong.’

Here’s the prediction from the IPCC they say is evidence of positive feedback from water vapour:

‘In GCMs [global climate models], water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases).’

And:

‘Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the upper troposphere. In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical upper troposphere, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4).’

Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html

And here is the empirical data from ALL temperature datasets showing the opposite of the prediction:

IPCC AR5 report 2013, Working Group I, Chapter 2, page 197, table 2.8
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

Stick to the subject please, & don’t forget to keep your word regarding your comment ‘I will happily modify my opinion …’.

Richard C (NZ)

If internal climate variability oscillates about a CO2-forced secular temperature trend and “masked” it as Kevin Trenberth implies, then we SHOULD see the following observations:

1980s level BELOW mean model trend
1990-2000 ABOVE mean model trend
2010+ level BELOW mean model trend
2020+ level ABOVE mean model trend

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

Obviously the inferred Trenberth conjecture is NOT the case. CO2 is not the driver of the secular trend.

And the “mask” trope is baloney.

Richard C (NZ)

The models in Spencer’s graph above were constrained by observations to a an extent (volcanoes etc) prior to about the dashed blue line at 1998 so the Trenberth scenario cannot be applied as I did but that just trashes Trenberth’s contention anyway..

Point is, the end of the 20th, beginning of the 21st century was peak of the MDV cycle. 1998 was the strongest El Nino recorded and right on top of peak MDV cycle. Observed late 1990s temperatures SHOULD BE WELL ABOVE a secular trend driven by CO2 but NOT SO.

This scenario discrepancy, Trenberth vs models, demonstrates the utter hopelessness of the CO2 case.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Simon, your last comment was a nice little change of subject – why would you do that I wonder”

To give the guy credit – he sure can wriggle.

Although he does appear to be rapidly running out of wriggle room.

Richard C (NZ)

>”1990-2000 ABOVE mean model trend”

The Trenberth scenario basically conforms to the Foster and Rahmstorf exercise. Simon seems to be an active member of Grant Foster’s cheer team (a.k.a. Tamino) but F&R do NOT prove CO2 is the driver of the secular trend. The F&R rationale was to remove turn of the century natural variability that was ABOVE the secular trend to give the residual secular trend in GMST (Macias et al also do this by signal analysis).

Problem is: having removed natural variability F&R’s secular trend is nowhere near the multi model mean as graphed by Spencer above. F&R’s secular trend goes through 2010 observations. Silly analysis though because done properly (e.g. Macias et al) the GMST profile can be reconstructed by adding MDV to ST i.e. the Macias et al ST is well below F&R’s.

Bigger problem is: all of Trenberth, Macias et al, and F&R, are well below the CO2-forced multi model mean after removing natural variability.

Ooops.

Andy

It must be a mistake, if natural variability can overcome anthropogenic effects when we have so many overwhelming hockey sticks that are so overwhelming we can’t even name any of them

Richard C (NZ)

Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) [RFC12]: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article Figure 1. Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-months running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the third assessment, green from the fourth assessment report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data. http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/7/4/044035/Full/erl439749f1_online.jpg You can see immediately that the comparison between residual AFTER removal of natural variability and model projections is eye-roller bogus when the AR5 series begins at equal level 1983 instead of TAR/AR4 at 1990/2000. Compare to: Climate models [AR5] vs Global Average Surface Temperature http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) [F&R] made minimal adjustment to 2010 even though 2010 was an El Nino year so the residual trend line effectively goes through the original 2010 observation data albeit about 0.07 C lower, and RFC12 portray the impression that their residual trend matches the model mean. Now look at the Spencer graph… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

The fundamental difference between the residual secular trends of Macias, Stips, and Garcia-Gorriz (2014) and Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (2012) is that RFC12 is a very short segment starting only from 1980 with a linear assumption. The MSG14 secular trend is a curve that begins way back at 1850. They provide a zoom of the last 25 years “warming rate”, b) below, that corresponds to RFC12. RFC12 http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/7/4/044035/Full/erl439749f1_online.jpg MSG14 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. file:///C:/DOCUME~1/User1/LOCALS~1/Temp/journal.pone.0107222.g005.png Unbeknown to RFC12, due to their superficial approach, the secular trend of GMST is not only not linear but the rate has been reducing since 1997. By 2013 the rate is down to about 0.002 C/yr from the high of 0.0075 C/yr in 1997. The 2013 rate is the lowest since 1905. By the 2020s (maybe sooner)… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”By 2013 the rate is down to about 0.002 C/yr” [in respect to the secular trend]

2 thousandths of a degree Celsius. Which gets Simon all fizzed up and hyperventilating over warmest year ever stuff.

A similar spectral breakdown of the satellite series would return 0.0 C/yr or maybe even a negative rate.

Magoo
Richard C (NZ)

>”Now look at the Spencer graph and select a point 0.07 BELOW HadCRUT4 observations at 2010. This point corresponds to F&R’s residual trend intersecting 2010. The point is fully 0.25 C BELOW the AR5 model mean”

I’m wrong here. Just realized HadCRUT4 is smoothed so the 2010 El Nino peak has gone. This would put F&R’s residual fractionally ABOVE the smoothed observations I think.

Still well short of the model mean.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Do we have to wait until January 2016 until everyone admits that the “pause/hiatus” was simple natural variation?”

Past tense “was”? You need more than an El Nino year to make that pronouncement Simon.

And for all the 2015 El Nino hype and expectation, GISTEMP is not progressing along with it:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2015
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2013

So far it looks to have gone over the top. Not even a blip so far in RSS:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2010

Richard C (NZ)

In an earlier post to the one Magoo links to Spencer had this: ’15 Years of CERES Versus Surface Temperature: Climate Sensitivity = 1.3 deg. C’ July 20th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. “The NASA CERES project has updated their EBAF-TOA Edition 2.8 radiative flux dataset through March of 2015, which now extends the global CERES record to just over 15 years (since March 2000, starting with NASA’s Terra satellite). This allows us to get an update of how the radiative budget of the Earth responds to surface temperature variations, which is what determines climate sensitivity and thus how much warming (and associated climate change) we can expect from a given amount of radiative forcing (assuming the forcing-feedback paradigm is sufficiently valid for the climate system).” http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/15-years-of-ceres-versus-surface-temperature-climate-sensitivity-1-3-deg-c/ He doesn’t graph the updated CERES series but THS has a post featuring the earlier version: ‘Observational data shows 86% of the “missing heat” is still missing and not in the oceans or atmosphere’ Wednesday, October 29, 2014, THS http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/10/observational-data-shows-86-of-missing.html See charts: The IPCC says that the net forcing is +2.30 W/m2 right now. On top of that, there should have been water vapor… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”He [Spencer] doesn’t graph the updated CERES series [EBAF-TOA Edition 2.8r] but THS has a post featuring the earlier version” Wrong. Actually THS has a graph of the EBAF-TOA Edition 2.8r update (I lied). Below (paper 6) Kevin Trenberth graphs EBAF-TOA Edition 2.6r. But first the latest Trenberth essay a synopsis of which has already been posted upthread: ‘Has there been a hiatus?’ – Kevin E. Trenberth, Science 14 August 2015: “Several small volcanic eruptions (18) may have played a role in the 2000s but were not included in IPCC model studies (6, 18). Solar irradiance was slightly lower during the last sunspot minimum (2003 to 2009), and decreased water vapor in the stratosphere after 2000 may have also contributed to decadal variations, but these effects likely accounted for only up to 20% of the recent slowing of the GMST rise (6).” (6) K. E. Trenberth, J. T. Fasullo, M. Balmaseda, J. Clim. 27, 3129 (2014). http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6249/691.full ‘Earth’s Energy Imbalance’ (6) Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo, and Magdalena A. Balmaseda (2014) Abstract Climate change from increased greenhouse gases arises from a global energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). TOA… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

This:

“Climate change from increased greenhouse gases arises from a global energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA).”- Trenberth, Fasullo, and Balmaseda (2014)

is in effect a statement of the man-made climate change hypothesis. It lacks the extra detail that I infer from the IPCC:

“Man-made climate change theory posits that the global energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) moves synchronous with and commensurate with CO2 forcing”

But it is falsified by real-world observations nonetheless.

Richard C (NZ)

Trenberth, Fasullo, and Balmaseda (2014) Abstract

>”An inventory of energy storage changes shows that over 90% of the imbalance is manifested as a rise in ocean heat content (OHC)”

OK, so only 10% of climate change is atmospheric.

>All estimates (OHC and TOA) show that over the past decade the energy imbalance ranges between about 0.5 and 1 W m−2.

10% of 0.75 W.m-2 is 0.075 W.m-2 attributable to atmospheric climate change. Theoretical CO2 “forcing” is now 1.9 W.m-2 at TOA. 1.9 is 25 times greater than 0.075 therefore CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric climate change.

Richard C (NZ)

Temperature is very much a secondary consideration in climate change, radiative balance is primary. The following is how the IPCC places temperature in context of climate change: FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing? [A] – “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 [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] controls the Earth’s surface temperature” And, [B] – “When radiative forcing [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html The radiative imbalance in [A] is already minimal but Trenberth Fasullo and Balmaseda say only 10% of it (0.075 W.m-2) is attributable to atmospheric climate change which “controls the Earth’s surface temperature” according to the IPCC. This becomes highly problematic in [B]. The theoretical CO2 “factor” in [B] is now 1.9 W.m-2 but this can only be applied to… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”These climate clowns are completely nuts” What the idiots have done in effect is introduce a theoretical atmosphere => surface reversal to energy flow through the planetary climate system contrary to the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “Heat will not of itself flow from a lower temperature to a higher temperature” Consequently, the climate clowns are now faced with a few realities: 1) The 10% portion of the TOA imbalance (0.075 W.m-2) attributable to atmospheric climate change by climate clown rationale is nowhere near enough to “control” surface temperature. 2) The predominant planetary climate system energy flow is sun => ocean => atmosphere+space in accordance with the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics above. 100% (90 +10) of the TOA energy imbalance (0.75 W.m-2) has already occurred in the initial sun => ocean segment of climate system energy flow. No further theoretical forcing in the ocean => atmosphere+space segment has any effect whatsoever on TOA radiative balance and therefore surface temperature. 3) Theoretical man-made radiative “forcing” (e.g. 1.9 W.m-2 for CO2) does not fit anywhere in planetary climate system energy flow. But the climate clowns will keep calm… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”100% (90 +10) of the TOA energy imbalance (0.75 W.m-2) has already occurred in the initial sun => ocean segment of climate system energy flow”

GMST = ST + MDV (see Macias et al upthread)

Where:
GMST is global mean surface temperature
ST is secular trend
MDV is multidecadal variation

The long-term ST trend component of GMST over hundreds or thousands of years is determined by the “sun” component of the “sun => ocean segment” of climate system energy flow i.e. the system input.

The “ocean” component is the system heat sink where the current TOA energy imbalance accumulates, therefore “ocean” also controls system lag (“10 – 100 years” – Trenberth).

The oscillatory MDV component of GMST occurs in the “ocean” component of the “sun => ocean segment” of climate system energy flow.

CO2 plays no part in GMST.

Richard C (NZ)

>”GMST = ST + MDV (see Macias et al upthread)”

CO2-forced climate modeling introduces a third but theoretical element, radiative forcing (RF). So the equation becomes:

GMST = ST + MDV + TRF

TRF is superfluous as the following graph demonstrates:

Climate models [AR5] vs Global Average Surface Temperature
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png

superfluous definition – adjective, unnecessary, especially through being more than enough.

Alexander K

Richard, Andy, Magoo et al:
You guys need to be reminded that trying to put lipstick on a pig will not alter the opinion held by the pig, but the pig will enjoy the skirmish much more than you will.
In a similar vein, when I was a young bloke my dad advised me that arguing with those whose mind is closed to science, knowledge, logic or even sense will eventually put you in their camp in the view of the observing public.
You will never convince Simon that he is pursuing rainnbows as he has very obviously made his mind up that us Deniers cannot know the scientific truth of that which he ‘knows’.
I have been absent for a couple of weeks due to wrestling with a change from an old and flaky PC using a now-unsupported Microsoft platform to a new and cheapish laptop which operates on Microsoft 10.

Andy

I’m not sure Simon would appreciate the pig analogy.

I do find it somewhat depressing the lack of understanding of climate issues in the general public though. Statements of the bleeding obvious like “climate is definitely changing”, and “my Mum remembers when the puddles were frozen on the way to school” are so commonplace

Andy
Richard C (NZ)

I think you are being too harsh on Simon Alexander, the pig analogy certainly does not aid communication. He sees warmest year ever records which valid or not is simply as I’ve laid out above: GMST natural = ST + MDV (1) This is normal natural forcing but beguiling to the unaware, like Simon, who misconstrue the elements. Simon makes the mistake of assuming theoretical radiative forcing (TRF) is what drives the secular trend (ST) but it doesn’t. TRF is ADDED to the natural ST like this: GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV (2) But when TRF is added, the profile is too hot by the factor of TRF. MDV is actually absent from the models but the equation above adds it back in. Note the resulting profile from equation (2) is NOT the model mean as graphed by Spencer which neglects MDV. The model mean profile graphed by Spencer is this: Model mean GMST = (ST + TRF) (3) This is actually a subtle distinction that I’ll bet many MMCC sceptics don’t understand. It really should not be a surprise that Simon doesn’t. That Simon does not… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”It is Equation (2) above, GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV, that is tying climate science in knots. I have not seen this profile graphed anywhere because the models do NOT generate this result. Spencer does not graph it because of this. You can see from Spencer’s annotation of his graph that he’s tied in knots too”

Climate scientists, including Lukewarmers like Dr Roy Spencer, do not know how to properly apply the Second Law of Thermodynamics (e.g. Clausius statement upthread). Consequently, they have a fallacious reversal of energy flow coming back down to the surface (TRF) which makes the surface far too hot compared to observed GMST.

THEN climate science neglects MDV.

When climate science is in such a mess is it any wonder that the likes of Simon are too?

Richard C (NZ)

>”You can see from Spencer’s annotation of his graph that he’s tied in knots too”

Spencer’s graph annotation:

“…but the “pause” in warming now suggests they neglected sources of natural warming…”

No they didn’t. There is only ONE natural warming source (TSI) which is NOT neglected. It is integral to the models. They neglected MDV which is an oscillatory modulation but it is not an energy source.

“….used a model sensitivity [to CO2] that was too high……”

Well yes, but not only that, the theoretical radiative forcing (TRF) is not just “too high” it is completely superfluous. And not only that but also, TRF is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

“…and now the models are too sensitive, and thus predict too much warming.”

Well, err, yes (duh). This is what happens when thermodynamic laws are violated.

Andy

Matt Briggs writes of the Pause and Trenberth’s interpretation of PDO and “internal variability”
http://wmbriggs.com/post/16705/

Richard C (NZ)

>”It is Equation (2) above, GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV, that is tying climate science in knots. I have not seen this profile graphed anywhere because the models do NOT generate this result.” The closest anyone has come yet (that I know of) was Kosaka & Xie (2013), a letter: ‘Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling’ Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie (2013) http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/climate/files/kosaka_nature_2013.pdf Compelling on the face of it but immediately problematic when you think about it in the context of Equation (2). “The historical (HIST) experiment is forced with observed atmospheric composition changes and the solar cycle.” HIST is the equivalent of Equation (3): Model mean GMST = (ST + TRF) (3) “In Pacific Ocean–Global Atmosphere (POGA) experiments, SST anomalies in the equatorial eastern Pacific (8.2% of the Earth’s surface) follow the observed evolution (see Methods). POGA-H attempts to introduce MDV but instead of adding it in they SUBTRACT it. They SHOULD end up with: POGA-H = GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV (2) Instead they have something more like Equation (4): POGA-H = GMST natural + theoretical… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Matt Briggs: “Trenberth skirts around the lack of skill exhibited by climate models and implies the models would have been right—which means he acknowledges they were wrong—had this nasty PDO not had its way with the atmosphere. Such faith. He says, “the associated changes in the atmospheric circulation are mostly not from anthropogenic climate change but rather reflect large natural variability on decadal time scales. The latter has limited predictability and may be underrepresented in many models”. This is silly. The models claimed to be able to identify the main causes of atmospheric change. Because the predictions were so awful is proof that this claim is false. We do not know all the main causes of atmospheric change. If we did, our forecasts would have been accurate.” I don’t think Briggs quite “gets it” either. What Trenberth is addressing is simply GMST natural = ST + MDV (1) i.e. the PDO (MDV) is actually added in to Trenberth’s graphs – no neglect of that. But there is no theoretical radiative forcing (TRF) in that equation, Trenberth assumes, erroneously, that ST is driven by TRF. Simon makes EXACTLY the same mistake as Trenberth. Kevin… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Simon makes EXACTLY the same mistake as Trenberth”

Although I doubt Simon will ever be able to appropriately deconstruct actual GMST anf theoretical GMST in order to “see” it.

He may do, if he thinks about it enough in this thread (he’s probably gone though, thinking he scored a crucial point with his last comment), but I doubt he will or has the ability.

Our task is to communicate the issues simply so he can – tall order when sceptics don’t “get it” either.

Richard C (NZ)

Kosaka & Xie (2013) Figure 1 is here: Figure 1 | Observed and simulated global temperature trends. Annual mean time series based on observations [black line], HIST [blue line] and POGA-H [red line] (a) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/images/nature12534-f1.jpg HIST (blue line) is not observations, HIST is the model mean. HIST is the equivalent of Equation (3): Model mean GMST = (ST + TRF) (3), No MDV has been introduced to HIST, MDV should be ADDED thus: GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV (2) Problems with Kosaka & Xie Figure 1: Problem #1: the oscillatory POGA-H profile SHOULD be starting to converge with HIST around 2015 from ABOVE in anticipation of the MDV phase change – it isn’t, it is diverging BELOW because they subtracted MDV instead of adding it. Problem #2: for Equation (2) to be valid, viz., GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV (2), HIST must be starting to converge with observations and POGA-H around 2015 from BELOW in anticipation of the MDV phase change – obviously this is impossible, the TRF factor has put the HIST profile WELL ABOVE the observations. Conclusion: TRF is… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

More problems with Kosaka & Xie (2013), this time at TOA and further proof that theoretical radiative forcing (TRF) is an invalid factor in TOA energy balance and GMST. The former being the primary criteria for climate change, the latter a secondary consequence. Extended Data Figure 3 | Net radiative imbalance and ocean heat content increase in POGA-H and HIST. a, b, Net radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere [TOA]. Positive values indicate net energy flux into the planet. [page 9] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/images/nature12534-sf3.jpg a is POGA-H (left) b is HIST (right) HIST imbalance at TOA is already too great. The observed TOA imbalance 2000 – 2010 was around 0.6 W.m-2. HIST exhibits about 1.2 W.m-2 on average. POGA-H is even worse than HIST, exhibiting about 1.5 W.m-2 imbalance on average 2000 – 2010, 2 W.m-2 at 2000, 2008, and 2013, and 2.2 W.m-2 2011. HIST is never above 1.5 W.m-2. The methodology of POGA-H is wrong as evidenced by the incompatibility with HIST as described previously. But at least Kosaka & XIe are on the right track by attempting to introduce MDV. Problem being that they are trying to compensate the erroneous… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”Kosaka & XIe (and all climate modelers) first need to reconcile the model mean (HIST) with the secular trend (ST) in GMST. This means dumping theoretical radiative forcing (TRF) by at least 0.6 W.m-2″

The IPCC actually implies this in Chapter 9 Evaluating Climate Models, Box 2 (I think it is) but doesn’t say so explicitly.

Doesn’t apply so much to the 3 models that are actually tracking GMST at present e.g. INMCM4, because in the case of INMCM4 at least, they have done that to a degree. But the erroneous TRF factor (and solar recession) will catch those 3 out too eventually.

Richard C (NZ)

>”The IPCC actually implies this [dumping a dollop of TRF] in Chapter 9 Evaluating Climate Models, Box 2 (I think it is) but doesn’t say so explicitly.” Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years [page 769] 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 [MDV], (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing [TRF] and (c) model response error [TRF]. These potential sources of the difference, which are not mutually exclusive, are assessed below, as is the cause of the observed GMST trend hiatus. Model Response Error Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. There is medium confidence that the GMST trend difference between models and observations during 1998–2012 is to a substantial degree caused by internal variability [MDV], with possible contributions from forcing error [TRF] and some CMIP5 models overestimating the… Read more »

Andy

For a bit of light relief, Mark Steyn, author of “total disgrace” writes of Hockey Sticks, and has a young Mann groupie who has a Hockey Stick tattooed on her arm!
http://www.steynonline.com/7123/the-ugly-misogyny-of-big-climate

Tattoes don’t age well as you get old and saggy, I’m told. You probably need skin grafts to “hide the decline”

Richard C (NZ)

>”For a bit of light relief” – ‘The Ugly Misogyny of Big Climate’

Actually found it very unpleasant. Grant (Tamino) Foster’s reference to Dr Judith Curry is disgusting. Mann’s re-Tweeting of Curry slurs no less so.

These people are foul.

Andy

Yes I agree with the above sentiments. My idea of “light relief” is others idea of hell

I also agree with Steyn’s remarks about the outrage over Tim Hunt and his “sexism”, and the Big Climate Enforcers Misogyny

But they are leftists. So what do we expect? Consistency and no double standards?

Alexander K

Richard C
My apologies if you think I was being too rude to Simon, but I get a bit tired of those who, like Simon, attempt to perpetuate nonsense. For me, It is pointless using science-based arguments with such individuals as they appear to willfully misunderstand basic science due to the influence of prior programming.

Mike Jowsey

Richard C: “I don’t think Briggs quite “gets it” either. What Trenberth is addressing is simply GMST natural = ST + MDV (1) i.e. the PDO (MDV)”

TLA overwhelm. WTF? Please speak a little more English.

I was actually interested in your answer, but you rapidly lost me. I don’t “gets it” either.

Richard C (NZ)

Mike >”I don’t “gets it” either.” You don’t “get it” Mike because you don’t make the effort to learn the language of climate science – or the maths of it for that matter (simple algebra in this case – see definition below). Maths is the tool of science, if you can’t follow the rudimentary maths of it then you will never get to grips with science whatever its scope. algebra definition – noun, “the part of mathematics in which letters and other general symbols are used to represent numbers and quantities in formulae and equations.” >”ST + MDV (1)” This is a simple algebraic equation, Equation (1), as per the definition above. The missing part is “GMST =” i.e. the full equation is: GMST natural = ST + MDV (1) Where: GMST is global mean surface temperature, otherwise known as average. ST is secular trend, otherwise known as long-term. MDV is multidecadal variation, otherwise known as natural variability. This is the nomenclature used by Macias et al (2014) upthread. You cannot understand the paper and its results and how I’ve applied theoretical radiative forcing (TRF) to them if you don’t understand the nomenclature.… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

Alexander >”For me, It is pointless using science-based arguments with such individuals [like Simon] as they appear to willfully misunderstand basic science due to the influence of prior programming” I disagree Alexander (although I agree with the “due to the influence of prior programming” part). I don’t think Simon is “willfully” misunderstanding. We now have 2 other examples of individuals that don’t “get it” either. I’m not 100% sure about Matt Briggs but I think Mike Jowsey can safely be described as being in the opposing camp to Simon i.e. Mike is a MMCC (Man-Made Climate Change) sceptic who has openly admitted he doesn’t “get it” just as Simon does not “get it” as evidenced by his statements. The communication breakdown, scientific floundering, and misunderstanding of the issues stems from neglect of specific terms, nomenclature, and definitions and how they are applied as I’ve laid out in my reply to Mike above. As a consequence, there is widespread erroneous conflation of natural climate change with theoretical man-made climate change. There are those who are quite comfortable with this of course but I think in many cases it is just lazy, sloppy, ignorant, loose… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”As a consequence, there is widespread erroneous conflation of natural climate change with theoretical man-made climate change. There are those who are quite comfortable with this of course but I think in many cases it is just lazy, sloppy, ignorant, loose use of metrics and terms on both sides of the debate.” Dr Kevin Trenberth’s “masks” trope is a classic example of “those who are quite comfortable with this”. Trenberth is actively distorting, misrepresenting, and misconstruing climate science by asserting that MDV “masks” an “underlying” trend assumed to be forced by TRF i.e he flagrantly conflates the natural ST with TRF. This plays into the hands of warmies like Simon because it reinforces their prior misunderstanding. The Macias et al paper demonstrates that MDV does not “mask” either the ST or TRF, MDV is easily identified and removed leaving ST, and TRF is entirely absent when that is done. The model mean demonstrates that man-made climate change theory ADDS the TRF to ST and in doing so arrives at a profile that is too hot. Matt Briggs misses this by miles: ““Trenberth skirts around the lack of skill exhibited by climate models and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”TRF violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I’ve shown previously. It turns a portion of the sun => ocean => atmosphere energy flow back on itself from the top of the troposphere back down to the surface – this is bogus thermodynamics”

Actually the energy flow is reversed from every CO2 molecule in the troposphere from near surface up to the top – but you get my drift.

Richard C (NZ)

>”Simon, and pretty much every other warmy, sees “warmest month/year ever” records in GMST natural (Eq 1) and thinks he is seeing man-made climate change – he isn’t.” Simon, and pretty much every other warmy, sees this Google lead-in: Earth On Track for Back-to-Back Records for Highest Temperatures Bloomberg‎ – 22 hours ago Which is this article: ‘Earth on Track for Back-to-Back Records for Highest Temperatures’ Brian K Sullivan, Bloomberg Business, August 21, 2015 With an El Nino growing in the Pacific Ocean and climate change spurring global temperatures ever higher, almost nothing can stop Earth from breaking 2014’s mark for the warmest year on record. The average annual temperature last year was about 1.24 degrees Fahrenheit (0.7 Celsius) above the 20th century average, making it the warmest year in records going back to 1880, according to the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Information. Through July, 2015 is on pace to surpass that. “It is global warming, and the El Nino that is enhancing global temperatures,” said Jessica Blunden, a climatologist with ERT Inc. working at the agency in Asheville, North Carolina. “The likelihood that 2015 will fall lower than 2014 gets smaller… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

RT, your comment astounds me. >”Your comments in reply to Mike are perfectly accurate, if perhaps unfriendly in tone, but they raise the question of why we should come to grips with maths and science at the level you have mastered.” The answer to the question is as I replied to Mike, simply this (Note it has NOTHING to do with me): “You have no choice Mike but to “decipher” the nomenclature of climate science if you are to get to grips with the issues of it. Otherwise you are just engaging at a superficial abstracted level as do most warmies and similarly not understanding i.e. you are not rising above their level. The entire science and debate is not going to bend to you just because you demand it does to cater for your avenue of understanding, you have to bend to it.” >”For the real motivation for me and many sceptics is to describe the climate change scare in terms our fellow citizens can understand and so motivate them to question and to resist it—to be a force for reason in society. We’re not all interested in mastering maths and science… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)

>”these [SLR and glaciers] are ambiguous to attribute”

Wrong. SLR is unambiguous. The posited man-made boost (acceleration) is not occurring.

Richard C (NZ)

Andy says (very first comment):

“The case for AGW seems to be fairly simple:

Climate scientists have run GCMs (general circulation models) with, and without, anthropogenic “forcing”

They can’t explain the current climate without the anthropogenic “forcing” component.

Therefore, the anthropogenic “forcing” component must exist

QED”

I agree, this is “fairly simple”.

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.

Post Navigation