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.
Visits: 502
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
Yes, not hard to understand. I suppose you think that’s an argument from ignorance? Typical nonsense from the sceptic echo chamber. The evidence is now overwhelming. Don’t ask me for the evidence, look it up for yourself.
Learned conversations? Does anyone in the NZ Climate Science Coalition have a degree in climate science?
Does Michael Mann have a degree in climate science? Or any of “The Team”, for that matter…
Simon,
Your incredulity at the idea of learned conversations occurring in the coalition is discourteous. Pull your head in, mate.
To answer your question: 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, but, for example, Auckland doesn’t, Victoria doesn’t, Otago doesn’t, neither does Waikato or Massey. Climate science is new and highly complex which does not have its own department. Appropriate disciplines include earth sciences, environmental science, geography, geophysics, atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, etc., etc. A host of them.
Our members, while sporting disparate kinds of degrees, are I think mostly scientists and engineers, whose qualifications include many that touch on climate science. We include members of the Royal Society, leaders or past leaders of the country’s prime scientific and other organisations and at least one professor of earth sciences.
They try hard to understand how our activities threaten the planet, but their investigations raise questions that cast strong doubt on assertions that the planet is at risk.
Now, how about your comments on speaker A’s remarks?
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.
>”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 over.
All the other “large chunks” of “the science”, which are mostly just anecdotal or non-real world, are rendered moot, immaterial, and irrelevant by the above experiment.
You might also consider that no formal hypothesis for man-made climate change has ever been written. Well, here’s one inferred from the IPCC’s own criteria:
“Man-made climate change theory posits that the TOA energy balance moves synchronous with and commensurate with anthropogenic forcing.”
Obviously, it doesn’t.
>”It is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public as to your true intentions”
Which are? The NZCSC NZ 7SS has now entered the scientific literature – that’s education as was the original Statistical Audit Simon. No-one would have known about NIWA’s shonky methodology otherwise.
And man-made climate change theory is proved wrong above. So where does that leave you and your spleen Simon?
>”Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than double the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing.”
Actually now more than treble.
Simon, you say:
We don’t reject any science, but the scientific approach for you would certainly be best: please describe the specific chunks we reject, or your argument can go nowhere. In case you are conflating proper scientific inquiry and doubts with rejection of science—always a possibility when emotions run high—I confess we don’t view climate change as settled or even understood, and we acknowledge a number of areas where observations are few, theory is uncertain or reasoning is faulty.
Regarding the NZ Climate Science Education Trust (NZCSET), you should know by now (I’ve said so countless times) that the judge required us to create that body; he would have been extremely annoyed had a body with no legal existence brought that suit before his Court. The education aspect is quite clear and open, and has been for many years: the coalition’s web site constantly presents new material informing the public about climate science.
As to the “debts”, we paid all the legal costs of that suit. We took care of (or performed voluntarily) the research, the travel, the fees and the legal counsel. But nobody could have predicted that for the first time ever, a New Zealand judge would rule in favour of a wealthy public body and against a group of whistle-blowing citizens trying to bring that body to some public accountability. Every avenue we had tried to that point had failed because NIWA deserted their public duty; they refused to answer our questions and hoped we would go away. They lied to their minister and to the Parliament and later to the judge but they got away with it. When the judge awarded $96,000 against us we were astonished. It was completely unexpected. We were unprepared for it because it was unprecedented. We had no hope of paying such a huge amount, although I know the warmist echo chamber portrays it as though we did a night flit just to avoid the rent.
Whenever I have given a detailed explanation like this (although they’re all different) my interlocutor has remained silent. I have never been challenged on the reasoning; presumably they have all been happy with our performance, once they know the truth. That’s what science does, of course. On honest inquiry, it reveals knowledge of the truth.
You have not responded to my answer to your previous questions. You have not commented on the substance of the conversation this post reports. The coalition has not, does not and will not mislead the public. We have never hidden our intentions, but what are yours, Simon?
>”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?
The foundation of CO2-centric climate science can be easily proved false by a couple of bullet points.
Simon demands a degree in this?
>” 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 (France), Tetsuzo Yasunari (Japan)
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/WG1AR5_SOD_Ch10_All_Final.pdf
# # #
Demonstrating that quantity does not necessarily deliver quality.
Note also that Jones, Lockwood and Stott above have their CO2-forced model-based contra-solar paper cited in Chapter 9. Their simulations to 2100 were already wrong when published in 2012 but it passed peer-review. Gives an indication of the group-think bias at work in this working group.
These people have a lot to answer for but I suspect they will never be held to account.
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:
Apparently, we have to “free” ourselves from the “illusion”. I don’t think so.
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.
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 me, did Marcott account for the failure of water vapour to provide the expected positive feedback, or did he just ignore it in order to arrive at his desired and preconceived conclusion in a similar fashion to yourself?
>”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 to invoke anyway – it doesn’t fit between Sfc and TOA. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this.
Game over.
All the other “large chunks” of “the science”, which are mostly just anecdotal or non-real world, are rendered moot, immaterial, and irrelevant by the above experiment.
You might also consider that no formal hypothesis for man-made climate change has ever been written. Well, here’s one inferred from the IPCC’s own criteria:
“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 “modifying your opinion”. Not holding my breath though.
>”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: Sunspot activity (over decades, smoothed with a 12221 filter) throughout the Holocene,
reconstructed from 14C by Usoskin et al. (2007) using geomagnetic data by Yang et al. (2000). Blue and
red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively.
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2013-1/LR_min.png
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-3/download/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
# # #
The highest solar activity in the past 11,000 years was the modern maximum.
>”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.
>”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 representative of global temperature changes,” they admitted in a news release over Easter. In other words, there is no evidence to support the grand claims that swept through world media last month.
As other reports have shown, modern warmth is nowhere near the usual highs between ice ages.
One of the harshest critics, the usually moderate scientist Roger Pielke Jr, was so incensed after conducting his own analysis he has accused Marcott et al of skating close to scientific misconduct, and he is calling for a retraction and correction of the paper published by Science.
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano is calling for retractions and apologies from the New York Times and Associated Press as well.
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/3532/new-global-warming-scandal-hits-climate-science/
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?
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 that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.
In the light of this statement from the authors, we no longer consider our headline to be appropriate.
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/
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?
>”OK, lets play:”
Still wanna play Simon?
“The ‘hockey stick’ has been validated time and time again from multiple studies and datasets.”
For example?
“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.
>”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?
I can’t think of any other scientific discipline where data of different resolutions is spliced together to reach a conclusion
>”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.
‘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?
>”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
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
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 of Ljungqvist’s 30 Proxy 2010 Meta-Study of Temperature Reconstructions (Ljungqvist 2009) http://www.lwhancock.com/images/Ljugzvist2010.gif
I took the liberty to annotate the graph according to his description of the timeline in his textual abstract. The dark navy blue line is the averaged temperature from all 30 proxy reconstructions. The light gray lines are the error ranges above and below the calculated temperature. The bottom axis (the X axis) of the graph is the decade for each datapoint on the graph. Actually the graph line has a resolution of ten years per data point whereas the years are displayed only every 20 years (every two ticks). To try to display every 10 year range ran the text together to where it was unreadable. The light blue line is the linear trend of temperatures across the 2000 year span.
It is interesting to note that it was quite warm (likely warmer than the present) during the Roman Warm Period. The hottest point in our present Holocene interglacial was 8,000 – 4,000 years ago during what is called the Holocene Optimum, which was easily several degrees (F) hotter than today. It has been steadily growing colder since then, which can also be seen in the linear trend in my graph. And, as you can see, temperatures go up and they go down. Most of this change is caused by a millennial scale sun cycle where the sun’s intensity changes by a few percent. The period of time that correlates to these temperature swings is called the Bond cycle, named after Dr. Gerald Bond, who discovered it in 1997.
Going further back in time, we can see the Holocene Optimum
http://www.lwhancock.com/images/HoloceneOptimumTemperature.jpg
The five periods of climate shift most recognizable in my graph of Ljungqvist’s dataset are:
The Roman Warm Period (RWP) – This is the period of time in which the Christian account of Jesus unfolds. It was a period of considerable agricultural expansion and cultural development. Vineyards in the south of England were plenty. Date trees grew in Greece. Olive presses were found in the Roman cities of Sagalassos in Anatolia, where it it remains too cold to grow olives there today (Scheidel et al., 2007).
The Dark Ages Cold Period (DACP) – This was a time where history documents a great retreat of agriculture and depression of human activity, punctuated with starvation and plagues in many regions. Food was more scarce and there was considerable migration of people away from former farm lands which led to reforestation in large areas of central Europe and Scandinavia. It was a period of rapid cooling associated with the first Bond event identified in the North Atlantic sediments (Bond et al., 1997).
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP)- The Vikings established farms and grew wheat on Greenland, where today the land is covered mostly by ice and is too cold to be suited to agriculture. The industrial revolution began during the MWP. There was considerable agricultural expansion as well as expansion of warmer climate fauna. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot (Behringer 2008). Wineries sprang up in Germany and citrus orchards sprang up in parts of Asia where it is too cool to exist today (Lamb 1989).
The Little Ice Age (LIA) – This was a period of great upheaval and misery in human history. Fur trappers reported that Hudson Bay remained frozen long into the spring. Eskimos were seen paddling canoes off the coast of the British Isles, Alpine glaciers engulfed mountain villages, cold and wet weather killed farm animals and destroyed crops, the bubonic plague killed more than a third of Europeans, farms and villages in Northern Europe were deserted due to persistent crop failures, bread was made from the bark of trees because grains wouldn’t grow (Windows2Universe 2008), and the famous potato famine starved over 1 million people in Ireland and caused a mass emigration of another 1 million people out of Ireland (Kinealy 1995). It was too wet and cold for the Irish to grow their staple crop, potatoes.
The Current Warm Period (CWP) – Rebounding from the LIA, we’re gradually warming up again. We are in a period where satellite imagery across 30 years shows a significant greening of the earth (Liu et al., 2010), Northern latitudes have seen higher productivity in agriculture, wineries exist in upper New York, Arctic ice is at a historic low, and human population has exploded along with technology and agriculture (I don’t need to cite this – just check out your cell phone and pay a visit to the grocery store).
Some parting thoughts… Beyond the year 1999, the last sample in my graph, 13 years have passed. During the 13 years, there has been no warming. We’re pretty much at the same temperature as the last tick on the graph shown. Will temperatures continue to rise or fall? Getting back to the Bond cycle, it seems evident that temperatures will cool. There is considerable debate that us humans have short cycled the bond cycle and we will continue to warm significantly. However, it isn’t happening at the moment despite our reluctance to give up our SUVs. Our current climate is not unusual in comparison to the last 2000 years. In fact, it’s rather normal and and in keeping with the ~900 year Bond cycle. I will remain open minded on the issue but, in my opinion, the empirical data (reality) assembled by Ljungqvist tells a compelling story.
http://www.lwhancock.com/Blog_120706.aspx
# # #
>”It has been steadily growing colder since then, which can also be seen in the linear trend in my graph”
Ordinarily this would be the “long-term trend” albeit “cherry-picked” from only 2000 years of data.
But apparently, according to Gavin Schmidt and cheer team, the real “long-term trend” is shorter.
>”the linear trend in my graph”
-0.175 C/1000 yrs.
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”?
>Have we reached “peak Hockey Stick”?
Yes, TAR 2001. Now we are in Hockey Stick decline. Quick! Hide it before anyone notices.
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.
Ha ha! You guys are a hoot.
Simon must be checking your references, RC. I would answer his “Let’s play” comment but I’m cooking and about to drive to our daughter’s for dinner. Odd, yes, I know, to take food when you’re going out to dinner. But this is family!! And she’s trying to finish an amazing birthday cake that rivals anything you’ve seen on the telly.
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
[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?
‘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 2003 (it takes a while to cool a few gigatons of water…)
Now to me it’s pretty clear that we have a very warm ocean (and will for a few more years) especially in the tropics, putting lots of water into the air – being by definition hot and humid, not snowy… That air then hits a very very cold polar region and dumps boat loads of snow. That than accelerates the run to the cold side…
So we will be in this ‘battle ground’ state for a few more years, but only as long as it takes to cool the ocean enough to make us really wish for the good old days of a warm climate with plenty of food to eat.
Please note: Computer climate models don’t mean a darned thing if they can not explain Bond Events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500-year_climate_cycle
It is my opinion that we are watching the early stages of an entry into a Bond Event (and will be for the next 30 years or so) and I can only hope that we find a way to mitigate the extreme cold that is headed our way with the attendant crop failures at northern latitudes. We ought to know in about 15 years… geological time is slow like that, even the fast whip of a 1500 year cycle takes decades to observe at the inflection points.
So welcome to “Bond Event Zero” (copyright E.M. Smith) hold on to your hats, it’s going to be a bumpy ride…
You can expect crop failures, some modest famine, and wars fought over warm places to live. The history of these cold periods (where the historical episodes were named “pessimums” before we knew they were periodic) is not encouraging.
“The Iron Age Cold Epoch (also referred to as Iron Age climate pessimum or Iron Age neoglaciation) was a period of unusually cold climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about 900 BC to about 300 BC, with an especially cold wave in 450 BC during the expansion of ancient Greece. It was followed by the Roman Age Optimum (200 BC – 300 AD).”
“The Migration Period Pessimum (also referred to as Dark Ages Cold Period) was a period of cold climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about 450 to about 900 AD.[1] It succeeded the Roman Age Optimum and was followed by the Medieval Warm Period.
This Migration Period Pessimum saw the retreat of agriculture, including pasturing as well as cultivation of crops, leading to reforestation in large areas of central Europe and Scandinavia.[2] This period corresponds to the time following the Decline of the Roman Empire around 480 and the Plague of Justinian (541-542).[3] Climatically this period was one of rapid cooling indicated from tree-ring data[4] as well as sea surface temperatures based on diatom stratigraphy in Norwegian Sea[5], which can be correlated with Bond event 1 in the North Atlantic sediments.[6] It was also a period of rising lake levels, increased bog growth and a peak in lake catchment erosion.”
Continues>>>>>
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
‘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 the angst from the “consensus”.
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.
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.”
>”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.
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?
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, 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
>”…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 are compulsory for non-maths and physics graduates.
Modules (details omitted):
Stage 1: PGCert (a total of 60 credits out of the 80 credit modules)
Module M1a: Theoretical Meteorology: Atmospheric Composition and Physics
This module is assessed by three practical exercises (40%) and a two-hour exam (60%).
Module M2: Weather Forecasting and Climate Modelling
The weather forecasting part of this module is assessed by practical exercises (50%) and the climate modelling part by exam (50%). A work experience week is an integral component of this module.
Module M3: Atmospheric Data Processing and Statistics
The programming component is assessed by four worksheets (25%) and one 1.5-hour test (25%), while the statistics component is assessed by a one-hour exam (25%) and one project (25%).
Module M5: Physical Climatology and Climate Change
The module will be assessed by a written exam (50%) and a combined student presentation and essay (50%).
Module M10: Meteorological Applications and Services
The module is assessed by one PowerPoint presentation (25%), an essay (25%) and the production of a business plan and marketing material for a meteorological company (50%).
Stage 2: PGDip (a total of 120 credits)
Module M1b: Theoretical Meteoroloy: Atmospheric Dynamics
M1b is assessed by a two-hour exam (100%)
Module M4: Mathematics
The module is assessed by exam (100%).
Module M7: Weather, Climate and Society (optional to M4)
The module will be assessed by exam (100%).
Module M8: Applied Micrometeorology (optional to M4)
The module will be assessed by a project (100%).
Choose one from the following three [there are 4 ?]:
M9 Atmospheric Observation
The module is assessed by a field observation report (25%), a presentation (8%), and an exam (67%).
M11 Air Pollution Chemistry (optional to M9)
The module will assessed by a multi-problem coursework exercise (3000 word essay equivalent; 40%) and one two hour examination (60%)
M12 Causes and Effects of Air Pollutants (optional to M9) [no exam]
M13 Carbon Cycle and Carbon Management
The module is assessed by 2 pieces of coursework; 1. Developing a Climate Change Strategy (25%) and 2. Strategy for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions at a Local Level (75%)
Stage 3: MSc (a total of 180 credits)
Research components:
M6a Research Proposal for Dissertation
The module will be assessed by a research proposal (75%) and a PowerPoint presentation (25%).
M6b Dissertation
The module will be assessed 100% based on a 10,000-word dissertation.
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/postgraduate/courses/taught/gees/applied-met-climatology.aspx#CourseDetailsTab
Module M5: Physical Climatology and Climate Change
The understanding of the variability of the climate system and its inherent changes in time will be a major component to address any questions of natural and anthropogenic climate change. This module will help students to become familiar with the underlying physical concepts as well as with its applications to attribute and detect anthropogenic climate change. The module will cover the basic physical laws, their application in the climate system, basics of the observed atmosphere and ocean general circulation, its 3-dimensional features, and will focus on main modes of large scale variability (e.g. NAO, PNA, ENSO, etc). The variability on different time scales will be addressed as well as anthropogenic climate change including an impact assessment and an introduction into actual political and social processes related to it.
# # #
>M5: “This module will help students to become familiar with the underlying physical concepts as well as with its applications to attribute and detect anthropogenic climate change”
1) So far I have not seen any IPCC Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution authors with this module or the equivalent of it.
2) When climate change forcing criteria is applied to the TOA energy budget, theoretical anthropogenic forcing is impossible to detect and therefore impossible to attribute to planetary climate. This makes M5 and M13 redundant (not to detract from the rest of the course which could be completed without those 2 anyway)
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 wind, potential vorticity, thermal wind, surface fluxes, gravity waves, etc.; (5) interpret physical meaning of important parameters such as Rossby number, Richardson number, etc.; (6) identify dominating processes at micro-, meso-, and synoptic-scales.
Module M8: Applied Micrometeorology (optional to M4)
This module will provide students with an understanding of: (i) the principles of meteorology at small scales (metres to kilometres), (ii) the meteorological processes near the earth’s surface (e.g., over a range of different surfaces/environments) associated with the exchange of heat, mass and momentum, and (iii) transport and dispersion of pollutants in the atmospheric boundary layer.
By the end of the module the student should be able to: (i) demonstrate a knowledge of meteorological processes near the earth’s surface and the exchange of heat, mass and momentum between the earth’s surface and the atmosphere; (ii) transfer this knowledge to applied micrometeorological problems in different environments e.g., urban/rural climate and air quality; (iii) become familiar with methods for analysing near-surface meteorological data: (a) to derive quantities such as heat and moisture fluxes; (b) to estimate energy budgets for a range of natural and human-made surfaces and so predict local climate; and (c) to assess the effects of micrometeorological processes upon air quality.
M9 Atmospheric Observation
The module encompasses all aspects of observing the atmosphere through direct and indirect measurements/observations. Module components included in Semester 1 concentrate upon conventional measurements and field observations, while semester 2 concentrates upon satellite measurements, data assimilation and proxy data sets. By completing the module, students will gain knowledge of meteorological instrumentation and observations, appreciation of observation accuracies and requirements, interpretation of meteorological data, understanding of satellite systems and subsequent observations, and knowledge of applications of satellite data sets.
# # #
>”M1a (3) to introduce a range of physical laws relevant to meteorology such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics”
Which immediately disqualifies LWIR as a surface heating agent. One wonders what is actually taught i.e. is the surface relevant to meteorology and if so what is actually taught in respect to it in terms of 1st & 2nd LoT?
>”M1b (5) to introduce basic radiation laws and radiative transfer processes in the atmosphere.”
But not radiative transfer processes applied to surface materials (but see M8 below). Something on which climate scientists are particularly inept.
>”M1b (4) quantify ……… surface fluxes”
LWIR is the 2nd largest surface cooling flux after latent heat of evaporation i.e. again, this immediately disqualifies LWIR as a surface heating agent. The oceanic heat sink and heat transport lag is a massive planetary climate system component but is not covered except for “surface fluxes” (but see M8 below).
>”M8 (iii) become familiar with methods for analysing near-surface meteorological data: (a) to derive quantities such as heat and moisture fluxes; (b) to estimate energy budgets for a range of natural and human-made surfaces”
Energy budgets are critical but only “near-surface” in this course. What about Sfc and TOA where theoretical CO2 and net anthro forcing doesn’t fit anywhere?
>”M9 By completing the module, students will gain knowledge of ………..applications of satellite data sets.”
And hopefully knowledge of the primary climate forcing criteria at TOA. Which when applied eliminates theoretical CO2 and net anthropogenic factors from contention.
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 development and allow the student to establish
a measure of self confidence. This course has an educational as well as a training purpose. In
view of the applicability of thermofluids laws and principles to universal and biological processes
this course should serve as a foundation for those taking the specific study further and provide
a broader appreciation of the universe to those students who will subsequently specialise to a
subset of thermofluids such as “water engineering” or “hydraulics”. It also provides a general
appreciation of thermofluids to those students who will do no further courses which are directly
dependent on this one. Courses in this strand are major studies for students doing the mechanical
engineering major and electives to others.
SYNOPSIS
Thermodynamics is that branch of physics which seeks to derive relationships between properties
of matter, especially those which are affected by temperature, and a description of the conversion
of energy from one form to another. Mechanical engineering systems are primarily about energy
exchanges. All mechanical engineers must therefore be well grounded in the relationships which
describe those exchanges. They must also be skilled in analysing machinery and systems in
which the energy exchanges occur. Thermodynamics is therefore an essential and most important
part of any mechanical engineering course of study.
OBJECTIVES
On completion of this course, students should be able to:
1. apply thermodynamic laws and principles to the analysis of particular thermodynamic
hardware;
2. analyse the thermodynamic processes and cycles associated with a given situation;
3. analyse a given thermodynamic problem by: (a) examining its nature and selecting
appropriate techniques for its solution, (b) applying the selected techniques in a
numerical analysis of the problem, (c) evaluating the results of the analysis;
4. apply broad thermodynamic principles to common the analysis of engineering systems;
5. discuss operational features of various thermodynamic systems and components.
TOPICS
Description Weighting (%)
1. Basic concepts 5.00
2. Properties 10.00
3. Energy Transfer 10.00
4. First Law 15.00
5. Second Law 10.00
6. Entropy 10.00
7. IC Engines 10.00
8. Steam Power 10.00
9. Refrigeration 10.00
10. Air conditioning 10.00
3 hour exam [all my Year 3 Int NZCE (Mech) exams were 3 hour too]
TEXT and MATERIALS required to be PURCHASED or ACCESSED
Cengel, YA & Boles, MA 2002, Thermodynamics, An engineering approach, 4th edn, McGraw
Hill,
REFERENCE MATERIALS
Reference materials are materials that, if accessed by students, may improve their knowledge
and understanding of the material in the course and enrich their learning experience.
Kinsky, R 1989, Applied heat: An introduction to thermodynamics, 3rd edn, McGraw-Hill,
Sydney.
Rogers & Mayhew 1992, Engineering thermodynamics, 4th edn, Longman, England.
Van Wylen, GJ & Sonntag, RE 1998, Fundamentals of classical thermodynamics, 5th edn, J
Wiley and Sons, New York.
http://www.usq.edu.au/course/specification/2005/MEC2101-S1-2005-40461.pdf
MEC2401 Dynamics I
Synopsis
A working knowledge of the basic laws of motion and of the concepts of force, energy, momentum, impulse and vibration is fundamental to the study of mechanics and the solution of many engineering problems. In this course these basic concepts are reviewed and a number of techniques are developed to assist in the analysis of the plane motion of particles, bodies, interconnected bodies, mechanisms and geared systems.
http://www.usq.edu.au/course/synopses/2014/MEC2401.html
# # #
My required heat text was Applied heat: An introduction to thermodynamics above.
Chapter 17 Heat Transfer:
1 Conduction through a flat plate
2 Conduction through a composite wall
3 Radial conduction through a pipe
4 Radial conduction through a composite wall
5 Heat transfer by convection
6 Factors affecting the convection heat transfer coefficient
7 Estimating the convecting heat transfer coefficient
8 Combined conduction and convection
9 Radiation heat transfer
10 The Stefan-Botltzmann Law
11 The Inverse Square Law
12 Kirchoffs Law
13 Variation of emission with wavelength
14 Real surfaces
Chapter 11 Theory of Heat Engines, 11.7 The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Kelvin-Plank statement
“No heat engine can continuously convert all the heat it receives into work. That is, the work output will always be less than the heat input due to the rejection of heat to a low-temperature sink.”
[Climate models e.g. Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012) cited by IPCC AR5 Chapter 9, violate this statement of the Law. Solar heat is retained in the atmosphere instead of being rejected to space in accordance with the statement]
Clausius statement
“Heat will not of itself flow from a lower temperature to a higher temperature.”
[Low temperature CO2 cannot heat a higher temperature earth surface. CO2-centric climate science violates this statement of the Law]
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.
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 to “an array of health problems from cancer to kidney disease to developmental problems in children.”
(And this, by the way, is the same agency tasked with enforcing the sweeping climate regulations I wrote about last week. Go figure.)
Sure, there’s been some outcry. However (save for those really paying attention or directly affected) it sure seems like it’s barely news. While the effects of this accident have the potential of being far more detrimental in the long run than say, the BP oil spill, it’s receiving a fraction of the coverage (and a fraction of the outrage).
You see, they’re on the safe side of the double standard.
And, once the river’s yellow hue has fully faded, so will the story. And the EPA will continue on with business as usual—wasting no time in coming down hard on individuals and companies purportedly guilty of environmental sins infinitely smaller by comparison.
It’s a glaring double standard.
Remember when the EPA sued Navistar International Corporation for violating the Clean Air Act in 2010, after Navistar “sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered engines that did not satisfy emissions standards applicable to model-year 2010 engines”? It could potentially cost the company $37,000 a day, per violation.
Remember when the EPA sued Edge Products for “manufacturing and selling electronic devices that allowed owners of model year 2007 and later diesel pickup trucks to remove emission controls from their vehicles”? That suit sought $500,000 in civil penalties.
Remember when the EPA accused Wyoming welder Andy Johnson of violating the Clean Water Act by building a pond in his back yard? The EPA’s threats in that case included a $75,000 a day fine.
Remember when the EPA tried to subject the Sackett family of Idaho to a similar $75,000 a day fine over claims that the construction of their new home was interfering with wetlands?
I’m not saying that the EPA will face zero blowback over this river spill. At least for now, certain groups plan to file lawsuits (and it certainly wouldn’t be the first time the EPA’s been sued).
The difference, however, is that the EPA has the full force of the federal government behind it.
And unlike the companies and families the EPA has targeted, the EPA doesn’t have to worry about much—regardless of one or a million lawsuits levied against it. (If anything, the unelected agency will grow increasingly stronger as they enforce the president’s sweeping Clean Power regulations.)
Not only is it unlikely that the EPA will experience a taste of its own medicine, but the agency is actually taking an active role in trying to prevent that from happening. Specifically, the agency has tried to coax members of the Navajo Nation to “waive rights to future compensation for damages incurred by the toxic spill.”
In other words, the EPA knows darn well that the spill’s consequences are far from over, despite claims that the river is “back to pre-spill quality.” Waiving rights to future compensation just saves the agency future headaches.
You see, it can do whatever it wants—no consequences—because by virtue of its position as part of the federal government bureaucracy, it’s on the favorable side of the double standard.
After all, what else explains the fact that this agency—whose sole existence is ostensibly to protect the environment—is responsible for an accident that left the riverbeds in three states laced with poisonous toxins like arsenic and lead to be stirred up for years to come, yet it’s hardly a blip on the news cycle?
Imagine for a moment if a private company had caused the spill.
There would be an all-hands-on-deck, full-fledged investigation. Every shred of evidence would be combed through, particularly claims that such a spill would be convenient for “superfund site” designation, and that a leak of precisely this nature would achieve exactly that.
I’m not holding my breath, because on this side of the double standard, you don’t have to answer for your actions outside of a few public appearances and apologies.
Believe it or not, it really does matter. A pervasive, persistent indifference to double standards lets bad behavior keep right on rolling.
I realize I’m not telling most of you something that don’t already know. Yup, there’s double standards in government. (Insert collective snore here.)
So seriously—when are we going to start caring?
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/americas-pervasive-indifference-towards-double-standards-will-let-the-epa-off-the-hook/
# # #
I read somewhere else where it was suggested that the oil companies monitor the EPA.
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 experts right here” “Today” “Hundreds of them back at EPA”
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
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 should be the ones who pay tithes to the great Church of Climatology – none us are forced to pay for any other religion against our will, are we?
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.
>”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:
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 to him what an “acceleration” actually was (fraught process) and that SLR was not accelerating, at which point he immediately disappeared. Bob D had already experienced similar, evoking The Matrix (“If you want to go down that rabbit hole” and “Nick hasn’t come back, must have taken the blue pill”).
RT banned Ken “one-trick-pony” Perrott, Rob Taylor and his multiple personalities, and Kuni “mass murder” Leml after varying levels of tolerance. Can’t think of any others.
I introduced the Navajo Nation off-topic upthread, just think of those now absent warmies as scalps.
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
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
Must have been written by some “deniers”.
>”climate change deniers should be hanged”
Before, or after breakfast?
My last request will be for organic hemp rope – and breakfast.
I’m surprised that teachers need to suggest hanging for “deniers” when we have the Red Button option shown in 10-10
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?
“there is an underlying warming trend discernible from natural variation well understood by scientific theory.”
So why, for about 20 years, has the temperature record’s absence of trend been so clearly discernible from warming? To put it another way: why has the lack of warming been so well hidden?
[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?
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.
Point man on The Pause
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/the-pause/
“Point man on The Pause” bloody funny!
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 “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 to invoke anyway – it doesn’t fit between Sfc and TOA. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this.
Game over.
[Let’s see if Simon denies this for the 3rd time this thread. Apologies for repetition RT]
In addition, as upthread, CO2-centric climate science violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Kelvin-Plank statement:
Climate models e.g. Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012) cited by IPCC AR5 Chapter 9, violate this statement of the Law. Solar heat is retained in the atmosphere instead of being rejected to space in accordance with the statement.
Clausius statement:
Low temperature CO2 cannot heat a higher temperature earth surface. CO2-centric climate science violates this statement of the Law.
Neither does CO2 have any effect whatsoever on the EPTG which generates all weather and horizontal heat transport in both atmosphere and ocean.
Altogether proving, CO2 climate forcing theory is BUSTED.
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 examples of causes behind natural variation include El Niño, volcanic activity, and decreased water vapor in the stratosphere. These natural variations are strong enough to mask steady background warming at any point in time, Trenberth argues. As researchers develop and test climate change models, it’s important to expect these variations and plan for them.
###
Article #7: “Has there been a hiatus?,” by K.E. Trenberth at National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/aaft-icv081015.php
OK, so what happens when the oscillatory component of GMST (MDV) is isolated and removed?
The residual is the secular trend (ST). Problem is: the secular trend is not conforming to the CO2 trend:
‘Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record’
Diego Macias, Adolf Stips, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz (2014)
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107222#pone-0107222-g005
Others will wait patiently for the penny to drop among the “scientific community” once they eventually get around to addressing “this change of behavior”.
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 …’.
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.
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.
>”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.
>”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.
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
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 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 contrary to what RFC12 would have everyone believe in respect to TAR and AR4.. Since 2010, observations have been below F&R’s residual trend. There is now no way that F&R/RFC can create the additional residual after 2010 HIGHER than the observations to match their projected residual prior to 2010.
In other wards, F&R’s rationale has failed miserably. We should expect SkS to point this out any day now (sarc) given their post:
‘Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections’
http://www.skepticalscience.com/rahmstorf-foster-cazenave-2012.html
The model mean is effectively the theoretical CO2 forced residual trend AFTER natural variability has been removed. If your residual after removal of natural variability does not roughly approximate the model mean than your residual is not CO2 forced. This is axiomatic. Clearly the F&R residual is nowhere near the model mean.
Conversely, if the observation residual after removal of natural variability is simply accepted to be the CO2 forced trend irrespective of nullification by TOA criteria (as I suspect Simon does) and the fact that the residual trend post 2010 is rubbish, then the IPCC’s entire modeling paradigm is wrong. This is the silly option of course.
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) the secular trend rate will probably be 0.0 C/yr.
This will confound the climate clowns no end given their disarray just with MDV.
Again, the secular trend in GMST does not conform to the model mean therefore it is not CO2 forced.
>”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.
Roy Spencer has a new article on the hotspot/climate models:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/new-evidence-regarding-tropical-water-vapor-feedback-lindzens-iris-effect-and-the-missing-hotspot/
>”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.
>”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
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 and cloud feedbacks for another +1.75 W/m2. But all that is showing up is 0.535 W/m2. 86% of the energy is no longer here or is missing.
http://s13.postimg.org/turztazs7/Missing_Energy_Increase_OLR.png [may not render as per post]
The latest numbers from CERES shows that there is no change in Net Radiation since the year 2000, almost 14 years now.
http://s27.postimg.org/kzn3tepub/CERES_Net_Radiation_2000_2013.jpg
Updated CERES numbers to April 2014.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_anom_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000toapril-2014.png
# # #
So much for the now 1.9 W.m-2 of CO2 “forcing”. This THS post is exactly my case upthread (repeated 3 times for Simon to ignore) but couched in different but equally concise language and aided by different graphs.
Mike Jowsey wants a thesis from me on this. Well, others “see” it too in just a few sentences and graphs.
>”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 measurements of radiation from space can track changes over time but lack absolute accuracy. An inventory of energy storage changes shows that over 90% of the imbalance is manifested as a rise in ocean heat content (OHC). Data from the Ocean Reanalysis System, version 4 (ORAS4), and other OHC-estimated rates of change are used to compare with model-based estimates of TOA energy imbalance [from the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4)] and with TOA satellite measurements for the year 2000 onward. Most ocean-only OHC analyses extend to only 700-m depth, have large discrepancies among the rates of change of OHC, and do not resolve interannual variability adequately to capture ENSO and volcanic eruption effects, all aspects that are improved with assimilation of multivariate data. ORAS4 rates of change of OHC quantitatively agree with the radiative forcing estimates of impacts of the three major volcanic eruptions since 1960 (Mt. Agung, 1963; El Chichón, 1982; and Mt. Pinatubo, 1991). The natural variability of the energy imbalance is substantial from month to month, associated with cloud and weather variations, and interannually mainly associated with ENSO, while the sun affects 15% of the climate change signal on decadal time scales. All estimates (OHC and TOA) show that over the past decade the energy imbalance ranges between about 0.5 and 1 W m−2. By using the full-depth ocean, there is a better overall accounting for energy, but discrepancies remain at interannual time scales between OHC- and TOA-based estimates, notably in 2008/09.
2. The global energy imbalance
3. Changes in energy balance over the past decade: CERES versus OHC
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1
# # #
First sentence:
Theoretically. Except at no point in the paper do Trenberth Fasullo and Balmaseda actually apply theoretical CO2 “forcing” (1.9 W.m-2 and increasing) or net anthropogenic “forcing” to the global energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). If they had they would have discovered that theory is not supported by reality.
This omission demonstrates why the scare keeps rolling on unabated and unnecessary. Or, as RT puts it:
This:
is in effect a statement of the man-made climate change hypothesis. It lacks the extra detail that I infer from the IPCC:
But it is falsified by real-world observations nonetheless.
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.
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?
And,
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 10% of the imbalance (0.075 W.m-2) according to Trenberth Fasullo and Balmaseda, to arrive at the “controller” of the Earth’s surface temperature according to the IPCC.
These climate clowns are completely nuts.
>”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:
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 and carry on, regardless of the realities in 1, 2, and 3.
>”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.
>”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.
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.
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
If in doubt, indoctrinate the kids
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/merchants-of-doubt-insidious-propaganda-in-schools/
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 understand is evidenced by his statement:
I could have made exactly the same prediction just from equation (1) which excludes the "scientific theory" Simon alludes to. Simon's 4th sentence demonstrates that he does not know HOW TO APPLY the "scientific theory" of man-made climate change. I'll annotate his elements to demonstrate:
"….there is an underlying warming trend [natural ST] discernible from natural variation [MDV]……"
"…..well understood by scientific theory [TRF]"
Simon misconstrues natural ST for TRF, as do Rahmstorf, Foster, Cazenave, Trenberth, all the boy scouts at SkS, etc, so it is not as if Simon's malady is unique. He is in some esteemed company (except SkS).
The components and reconstructed profile of Equation (1) above, GMST natural = ST + MDV, are graphed by Macias et al (2014) Figure 1 here:
Figure 1. SSA reconstructed signals from HadCRUT4 global surface temperature anomalies.
The annual surface temperature (gray line), multidecadal variability (MDV, blue line), secular trend (ST, red line) and reconstructed signal (MDV+ST, black line) are indicated. ST represents 78.8% of the total energy of the series; MDV accounts for 8.8% of the energy and the reconstructed signal for 88%. The dashed thin red lines indicate the range of variability of the ST obtained by applying SSA to the temperature time series obtained for each individual month.
file:///C:/DOCUME~1/User1/LOCALS~1/Temp/journal.pone.0107222.g001-1.png
From paper Macias et al (2014):
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107222#pone-0107222-g005
For comparison, Spencer's graph again:
Climate models vs Global Average Surface Temperature
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png
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.
I challenge any sceptic to lay out Simon's error in more concise or better terms than this. First requirement is complete understanding of the above explanation. Therefore I challenge any and all sceptics to demonstrate their own understanding before rounding on warmies like Simon who don't. Although simple, it is actually a very difficult concept to communicate, hence the endless argument.
>”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?
>”You can see from Spencer’s annotation of his graph that he’s tied in knots too”
Spencer’s graph annotation:
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.
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.
Well, err, yes (duh). This is what happens when thermodynamic laws are violated.
Matt Briggs writes of the Pause and Trenberth’s interpretation of PDO and “internal variability”
http://wmbriggs.com/post/16705/
>”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).
HIST is the equivalent of Equation (3): Model mean GMST = (ST + TRF) (3)
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 man-made = (ST + TRF) [-] MDV (4)
You can see the problems in their Figure 1, page 2:
Figure 1 | Observed and simulated global temperature trends. Annual mean time series based on observations, HIST and POGA-H (a) [Note: HIST is not observations, HIST is the model mean]
POGA-H looks very nice, bang on observations in the 21st century. Except it SHOULD be oscillating about HIST i.e. 1998 and thereabouts SHOULD be significantly HIGHER than HIST. The POGA-H profile SHOULD be up with observations back in the 1950s rather than tracking HIST.
Both HIST and POGA-H converge with observations at the late 1970s MDV phase change, so that’s OK.
Problem #1 is: 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 is: 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 an invalid factor, Equations (2), (3), and (4) are invalid. The valid equation is (1) in which TRF plays no part: GMST natural = ST + MDV (1).
Matt Briggs:
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 Trenberth neglects to add the TRF factor of the model mean into the equation giving GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV (2). But he rightly points out that MDV is neglected, which takes the wind out of Briggs sails somewhat.
That, (2), is an entirely different profile to the one that Kevin Trenberth is addressing. I don’t think Briggs “sees” this. Hence why I wrote this upthread:
I think I’ve won that bet in respect to Briggs at least.
>”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.
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 an invalid factor, Equations (2), (3), and (4) are invalid. The valid equation is (1) in which TRF plays no part: GMST natural = ST + MDV (1).
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 TRF in HIST by reducing the POGA-H profile i.e. subtracting MDV instead of adding it. In the process their TOA imbalance blows out even further.
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 (dumped entirely if sun-ocean thermal lag is introduced properly too). The model mean then comes in BELOW the observation profile right up to 2012/13 and coincides with the ST extracted by Macias et al. GMST ST is coinciding with observations and MDV around now in 2015.
This progression can be visualized with Macias et al Figure 1:
file:///C:/DOCUME~1/User1/LOCALS~1/Temp/journal.pone.0107222.g001-1.png
Then Kosaka & XIe (and all climate modelers) must ADD (not subtract) MDV to ST (HIST being reconciled to ST as above). TRF having already been dealt with and MDV being merely an oscillatory component.
Post 2015 the GMST ST will be ABOVE the GMST profile (see Macias Fig 1) as it was 1960 – 1980 except this time it will be peaking as evidenced by the recent inflexion. MDV will be negative until about 2030ish (contrary to Trenberth’s thinking). ADDING negative MDV to the ST gives the reconstructed GMST profile BELOW the ST.
By the time the climate modelers get around to all this the GMST ST will have peaked and be going into negative phase and MDV will be still in negative phase, ST being driven by TSI + oceanic thermal lag and therefore going negative eventually. So negative MDV will be added to an ST that is in negative phase.
The resulting GMST profile will decline quite rapidly with both ST and MDV in negative phase around 2020. This will put man-made climate change theorists in further disarray as I’ve stated previously upthread:
>”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.
>”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.”
They’ve got MDV right, although so far only Kosaka & Xie have even attempted to introduce MDV. They imply TRF must be reduced so they get that right too but they don’t say by how much. Obviously (total confidence), given the CMIP5-Obs ST discrepancy, wrong TRF is not just a “possible contribution”, either substantial or total reduction is required. Given observed TOA and Sfc imbalance, a total reduction is in order.
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”
>”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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
nomenclature definition – noun
the devising or choosing of names for things, especially in a science or other discipline.
“the Linnean system of zoological nomenclature”
the body or system of names used in a particular specialist field.
plural noun: nomenclatures
“the students found it hard to decipher the nomenclature of chemical compounds”
formal – the term or terms applied to someone or something.
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.
>”i.e. the PDO (MDV)……..”
PDO is Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This is widely used nomenclature in climate science. Trenberth used it in the first instance above, not me. PDO is a major component of MDV (AMO is the other – look that one up yourself). All the acronyms I’ve used have been defined many many times over, by the literature e.g. Macias et al, by me upthread, by everyone else engaged in this debate. It is you Mike who is has not learned the nomenclature, which leaves you floundering.
The profile of Equation (1), ST + MDV (1), is natural forcing of surface temperature. Total solar irradiance (TSI) is the energy input, MDV is the oscillatory component that modulates but is not an energy source. The atmosphere “sees” MDV as an energy source however because the oceanic oscillations control the flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere in the sun => ocean => atmosphere system.
Simon, Trenberth, Rahmstorf, Foster, Cazenave, et al, are treating the GMST (natural) profile of Equation (1) as if it includes man-made forcing – it doesn’t.
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.
The scientific theory of man-made climate change ADDS the theoretical radiative forcing factor which gives Equation (2):
GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV (2)
Where:
TRF is theoretical radiative forcing, otherwise known as man-made climate change. “Theoretical” distinguishes from real i.e. TSI is a real forcing, TRF is merely theoretical and unproven.
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.
Except the climate model mean neglects MDV so the equation for the model mean is Equation (3):
Model mean GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) (3)
So now we go to the respective profiles that I will annotate with the above nomenclature. Roy Spencer’s graph first:
Climate models [Model mean GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) (3)] vs Global Average Surface Temperature [GMST natural = ST + MDV (1)]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/90-CMIP5-models-vs-observations-with-pause-explanation.png
Now Macias et al (2014)
Figure 1. SSA reconstructed signals from HadCRUT4 global surface temperature anomalies.
The annual surface temperature (gray line) [GMST natural = ST + MDV (1)], multidecadal variability (MDV, blue line), secular trend (ST, red line) and reconstructed signal (MDV+ST, black line) are indicated. ST represents 78.8% of the total energy of the series; MDV accounts for 8.8% of the energy and the reconstructed signal for 88%. The dashed thin red lines indicate the range of variability of the ST obtained by applying SSA to the temperature time series obtained for each individual month.
file:///C:/DOCUME~1/User1/LOCALS~1/Temp/journal.pone.0107222.g001-1.png
You can see that the only annotation I had to add to Macias et al Fig 1 was “[GMST natural = ST + MDV (1)]”. THEY have defined the nomenclature. So why do you criticize me Mike?
Obviously, given Spencer’s graph, the Macias et al GMST profile is NOT Equation (2):
GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV (2)
Neither is it Equation (3):
Model mean GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) (3)
The TRF factor is entirely missing from the Macias et al GMST profile (Note the Macias et al authors don’t understand this either)
Now do you “get it” Mike?
[I despair when this has to be explained to MMCC sceptics. How can warmies like Simon possibly understand if MMCC sceptics don’t either?]
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 use of metrics and terms on both sides of the debate.
Hence my challenge:
OK, “the influence of prior programming” is a factor with Simon, but it certainly isn’t with Matt Briggs or Mike Jowsey.
>”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:
Well yes, that IS what Kevin Trenberth would have everyone believe. Briggs doesn’t buy it but for the wrong reasons. Trenberth has not addressed a temperature profile that actually includes TRF.
>”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,
Your comments on Mike’s lack of effort comes across as unfriendly criticism, even if you don’t intend them that way. Go easy on our friends, please. You are wrong to assert that he does not make efforts in this direction, even if they’re not up to your standards. You harangue him with a bunch of definitions and advice that is uncalled for. He only asked lightly for a clearer description of what you meant because he’s interested in what you say and wants to understand it; so help him out.
I agree with Mike.
I had to look up TLA (again!), though I know WTF, as my children use it a lot, and increasingly, regrettably, even my grandchildren. Mike wrote this in frustration, but I, too, appeal for more joined-up writing from you to explain what you’ve found. To see you apparently exhaust your patience when simply asked for clarification is discouraging. We might admire your work here though we cannot properly understand it (though some do!), but you are best placed to describe it for us. When you provide clearly worded conclusions or describe ramifications of your results, they appeal to a wide audience. I hope your writing becomes more accessible.
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. 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 to degree level, nor need we. We are content to rest on some lesser vantage point high enough for a good view of the subject; to climb higher would require effort we prefer to apply in other directions. In point of fact, everyone selects a place to rest. Very few keep climbing.
So we can follow your long and difficult posts even if we skip the hard bits, trusting in your conclusion or summary, and knowing your innate honesty will have you declare from time to time: “No, I was wrong; it’s like this, so the conclusion is now…” which I find inspires great trust.
Sorry we’re not all mathematicians and scientists, but maths can be perfectly well translated into English, even at the cost of brevity. If you can do this then communication will be good and all our efforts more fruitful.
>”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:
Easy to see this follows the Trenberth “masking” trope except Jessica Blunden seems to think natural variability only occurs “year to year”.
>“It’s reaffirming what we already know: the world is warming,” – Jake Crouch
Well yes, except the current warming is miniscule and nowhere near CO2-forced.
>“There are underlying trends with global warming.” – Jessica Blunden
Well yes, the secular trend (ST) but that’s not CO2-forced
>”There is natural variability in temperatures from year to year, but the overall trend is up, she said. Climate-change skeptics have said that the climb in world temperatures leveled off since 1998.” – Jessica Blunden
Well yes, but there is also natural variability on a multidecadal scale (MDV) which is an additional component to the secular trend (ST). The climb in world temperatures have certainly leveled off since 1998 and turn of the century MDV change-of-phase but yes, the overall secular trend (ST) is still up but now going into negative inflexion prior to peaking (Macias et al 2014).
>”Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat and cause the Earth’s temperatures to rise.” – Jessica Blunden
Err no, that conclusion cannot be drawn because the “Back-to-Back Records for Highest Temperatures” do not include the theoretical radiative forcing from greenhouse gases (TRF).
>“The bottom line though, is it’s not just about the temperatures, it’s about the changes we are seeing happening,” Blunden said
Well yes Jessica. Except the primary criteria for changes happening, according to the IPCC, is not about the changes you think (“Sea-level rise is caused by climate change and it ’s real. Glaciers are melting faster than they ever have since we have been keeping records”) or temperature, these are ambiguous to attribute. The criteria is TOA energy balance and GHG “forcing” does not fit.
# # #
So we can add Jessica Blunden and Jake Crouch to the list along with Simon, Mike Jowsey, Matt Briggs, Kevin Trenberth, Stefan Rahmstorf, Grand Foster, Anny Cazenave, and so on…………
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):
>”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 to degree level, nor need we.”
Degree level? Get a grip RT. The algebra upthread is only just High School level I (probably Intermediate School without looking, maybe Primary):
Algebra I: High School
http://study.com/academy/course/algebra-i-high-school.html
>”We are content to rest on some lesser vantage point high enough for a good view of the subject; to climb higher would require effort we prefer to apply in other directions. In point of fact, everyone selects a place to rest. Very few keep climbing.”
And so the malaise continues.
>”So we can follow your long and difficult posts even if we skip the hard bits, trusting in your conclusion or summary, and knowing your innate honesty will have you declare from time to time: “No, I was wrong; it’s like this, so the conclusion is now…” which I find inspires great trust.”
Long and difficult? You have GOT to be kidding? What you are conceding in effect is that you are out of your depth at the fundamental (High School, maybe lower) level so have not a hope in the wide world of communicating the issues. I’m amazed you guys cannot follow this. Can I assume that you don’t “get it” either RT?
>”Sorry we’re not all mathematicians and scientists, but maths can be perfectly well translated into English, even at the cost of brevity. If you can do this then communication will be good.”
The maths and science IS translated into English. This is the NOMENCLATURE. No-one in their right mind is going to write out the maths and science long-hand, it is just too cumbersome (you complain my posts are “long” already – think how long they would be expanded). That is why the nomenclature is defined for maths equations and science expositions. All you need is the key to “letters and other general symbols ……used to represent numbers and quantities in formulae and equations.” Same for just about every scientific paper ever written where expansion becomes cumbersome. If you can’t be bothered making the effort to apply the key to the letters and symbols that is you prerogative. But don’t complain to me when you cannot understand the issue as a result.
The entire fallacy of the temperature aspect of man-made climate change is summarized in the 3 equations upthread for which the key and nomenclature has been defined for you already but I repeat for your convenience:
GMST natural = ST + MDV (1)
GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) + MDV (2)
Model mean GMST natural + theoretical man-made = (ST + TRF) (3)
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.
TRF is theoretical radiative forcing, otherwise known as man-made climate change.
What “clearer description” is there than that?
How can you possibly start to dissect Kosaka & Xie (2013) which attempts to introduce MDV to the models but does so incorrectly and find their fundamental error as I have upthread (their Method is expressed as an algebraic equation BTW, their key leaves a lot to be desired) if you cannot first understand where TRF fits, or doesn’t fit, in GMST?
Kosaka & Xie (2013) was actually a huge leap forward for climate science but how many MMCC sceptics have even heard of the paper, let alone understand enough of the GMST components (real and theoretical) to dissect it?
>”these [SLR and glaciers] are ambiguous to attribute”
Wrong. SLR is unambiguous. The posited man-made boost (acceleration) is not occurring.
Andy says (very first comment):
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.
Thanks for the informative reply, Richard.
Well, quite so; no thanks for not understanding. You readily dismiss others’ difficulties but display your arrogance. My shortcomings in science and maths have never been disguised, in fact they’ve been on public display for years. I did not complain to you, I asked for your help in understanding, yet your response is pugilistic. I wonder if your admirable drive for knowledge is enhanced by such a haughty intolerance of our failings.