Gareth Morgan settles for anti-science

Doesn’t realise global warming theory still undefined

Andy wrote a comment that reveals a darker side to a man who has become a household name in New Zealand.

A few years ago Gareth Morgan went through a very public examination of the case for and against man-made global warming. The result was Poles Apart: Beyond the Shouting, Who’s Right About Climate Change?, written with co-author John McCrystal and published in 2009.

The book attempts a balanced presentation of modern climate science and appears to succeed. At least, both sides have been upset with it, which is a fair indication of even-handedness. But it comes down on the side of the warmists.

Morgan has come to believe that the science of climate change is settled, it needs no further investigation or debate and that only climate “deniers” still question whether we’re responsible for wrecking the environment. But for all his apparent respect for science, when his conclusions are challenged he rejects the scientific method and resorts to self-important preaching. On his Facebook page recently he posted the following comment.

We’re not debating the science here – that’s done and dusted. The issue is about whether Paris will endorse enough mitigation to prevent 2 degrees or more. … Any comments on the science will be deleted from here on – there are plenty of dark little corners for deniers to have their discussions in.

No scientist would claim the science is settled, even on so-called established matters, but it’s especially foolish concerning a theory as vague as dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW). Despite its enormous significance, despite its popularity, despite the trillions being demanded to restore so-called climate “justice”, not a single paper has been published that sets out a theory of DAGW.

No paper, no science

Among the purported legions of warmist climate scientists and the undeniable legions of climate activists not a single one has been bothered to write a paper clearly setting out the “greatest challenge of our species”. Which means we don’t even have a clear definition of man-made global warming, much less has it been “proven” (how would you know that you had proved something still undefined?). This is worse than merely lazy, it sends a strong signal that the scientists at the centre of the DAGW scare don’t think they can prove their case.

Thousands of us know they can’t prove it, but if we’re wrong, why don’t they prove it? Let them write a paper—we demand they write a paper. It’s very simple: describe and define the DAGW theory, then write down how it works. Easy.

It’s strange that it hasn’t been done, because it’s totally implausible that activists have motivated thousands of politicians and millions of people to “fight” for “climate justice” on the basis of a fictional “settled science” that doesn’t exist.

The threat of DAGW depends on the suggestion that strong feedback from increasing atmospheric water vapour will greatly magnify natural warming. So far this hasn’t been observed. Observations of water vapour over recent decades show little change during warming and cooling, so on this ground alone there’s good reason to conclude that the theory of DAGW is fatally flawed.

Anyway, all references to climate science will be deleted on Gareth Morgan’s facebook page. As Andy said: and we sceptics get called “anti-science” … sheesh.

60
Leave a Reply

avatar
60 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
AndyRichard C (NZ)Richard TreadgoldSimonAlexander K Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy

I noticed that quite a few comments have been deleted on GMs page, leaving what appears to be a group of commenters arguing with invisible foes.

Andy
Guest
Andy

The latest from GM on Facebook

This post is about discussing New Zealand plan for reducing emissions. If you don’t believe in climate change, put your head back in the sand and enjoy it while it lasts because sea level rise is coming.

Is he an idiot? Certainly seems that way.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Gareth Morgan settles for anti-science” Well, he is an economist. [Morgan] >”there are plenty of dark little corners for deniers to have their discussions in”. “[The science] is done and dusted.” Heh, the largest climate science blogs (by far) are luke-warm and rightwards. Morgan would be out of his depth in no time if he ventured into the fray outside his cosy little “done and dusted” enclave. Mind you, I think this applies to the media “go to” guys Dave Frame and James Renwick too (Frame’s appearances at HT notwithstanding). Renwick nodded sagely saying on TV3 news that the anthro forcing was now more than 2 W.m-2. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that this is merely theoretical and 3 – 4 times actual. He will probably never be taken to task on this given he doesn’t debate in public forums. And the media interviewers wouldn’t have a clue, they think he’s an “expert” whose every word is to be taken at face value and disseminated verbatim – no questions asked. I’d like to know what specifically is “done” and what is “dusted”? Not the impression I get reading AR5 Chapter 9… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Doesn’t realise global warming theory still undefined” The broad theory, although probably not quite definitive, is reasonably well known I think. Dr Roy Spencer lays it out here: GW 101 – Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter. Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the… Read more »

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

I have to be brief on this as GM is not worth wasting time, grey matter or electrons on.
He may have made a lot of money, but that does not translate into him having any understanding of how the scientific method functions.
He is a loud and hubristic twit, even if a very weal;thy one.

Andy
Guest
Andy

I haven’t read his book “Poles Apart”.

I thought it was maybe a tale of expatriate plumbers in England, but apparently it is about climate change, and how there are two groups of people with completely different and irreconcilable points of view. This may be the cartoon version that gets portrayed in the media

This is an example of the “false dichotomy” or “false dilemma” fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

So the book fails before even opening a page.

Simon
Guest
Simon

If there was any doubt at all that anthropogenic climate change was not occurring, it would be in the interest of oil, gas, and coal producing countries to argue this. No country will do so, because the evidence is so conclusive.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Oil companies have a fairly strong interest in carbon trading, CDM and the like.

Everyone’s a winner, except the public.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon

>”the evidence [for man-made climate change] is so conclusive.”

1) What evidence in respect to what IPCC criteria specifically (quote please)?

2) What evidence in respect to what falsifiable hypothesis specifically (word-for-word please)?

If you don’t have 1) and 2), you have no conclusion – just anecdotal, or non-real world speculation i.e. guessing. Much like the IPCC.

Or will you just continue to make the same unsubstantiated statement ad infinitum? Gets tiresome when you never produce Simon. And does nothing for your credibility either.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Spencer] >”Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature”

This has to be the #1 assumption fallacy I think. The notion that the earth normally maintains a Goldilocks climate is baloney.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Unsurprisingly, but the activists at Hop Topic are now in full lying mode Macro October 28, 2015 at 8:25 pm I seem to recall the same circular argument from andy before – he is a one track record – or perhaps a one pea brain – it can only hold one “fact” at a time – and this one “fact” – (1.9mm SLR Lyttleton Harbour) is all it can take. andy – strange as it may seem – observations of physical data can change over time. And right now – as Rob has shown you – the observations of SLR for the Canterbury coast show that SLR is now up to around 4 mm per year. Furthermore, we should not be surprised by that result. The other inconvenient fact, that you do not wish to address, is that the Earth is continuing to heat at an unprecedented rate, and that implies accelerating SLR whether you like it or not. There is no evidence to support these assertions These guys are full on liars, rent seekers, parasites and frauds Herr Thomas of Hot Topic, Macro, Rob Taylor, Rob Painting and others. You are liars,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Why Tyndall’s experiment did not “prove” the theory of anthropogenic global warming’ THS, Tuesday, October 27, 2015 Many warmists cite Tyndall’s 1861 experiment as “proof” of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, but in fact the experiment demonstrated only that CO2 and H2O are IR-active molecules capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation, nothing more. Of course, CO2 does indeed absorb and emit very low-energy ~15 micron infrared radiation, equivalent to a “partial blackbody” at a temperature of 193K (-80C) by Wien’s Law. However, radiation from a true or “partial” blackbody cannot warm the much warmer atmosphere (with an “average” temperature of 255K (-18C), equivalent to the equilibrium temperature of Earth with the Sun), nor the even warmer Earth surface at 288K (15C). Yet the Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory falsely assumes that “backradiation” from the 193K CO2 “partial blackbody” can warm the Earth surface temperature from the 255K equilibrium temperature with the Sun by 33K up to 288K. This would require a continuous and dominating heat transfer from cold to hot, thus requiring an impossible decrease of entropy, and therefore a gross violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which requires entropy to… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Yes, sorry I get carried away at times,

Agreed I can better direct my energies at more constructive pursuits

Please accept my apologies for my intemperate behavior

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

One of my ‘Gym buddies’, survivor of a massive stroke that zapped one hemisphere of his brain but who is now fit and strong despite his medical history, has an amusing collection of tee shirts for gymwear: my favorite is the one that bears the legend “Of course I talk to myself – I need good advice!” For some reason, this shirt brings to mind the the echo-chamber that is Hot Gossip.

Simon
Guest
Simon

As usual, everyone misses my point. If there was any doubt about AGW at all, them it would be in the interest of countries that have a lot to lose to argue that there is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions. The fact that no country is willing to do this demonstrates that the science is ‘done and dusted’.
Hansen’s predictions in 1988 are holding up quite well given the uncertainty in future emissions:
http://moyhu.blogspot.co.nz/2015/10/hansens-1988-predictions-revisited.html
The onus is on ‘sceptics’ to devise an alternative hypothesis for the increase in temperature and then explain why CO2/CH4 and the additional water vapour are not acting as greenhouse gases in accordance with theory.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Just to clarify, we “skeptics” need to explain the “more than 50% of warming” since 1950 that is “likely” due to anthropogenic forcing (that doesn’t match theoretical forcing) or the pre 1950 warming that no one can explain, or the lack of warming since 1998 (the pause that doesn’t exist)

Just need to clarify because the “sceptics” don’t have the $100 billion of money to investigate “done and dusted” science that is already complete and no one needs to study anymore because is is finished, done and dusted.

If the scientists on tenured academic salaries who all agree that the science is settled, done and dusted, who presumably are spending their days sharpening their pencils and have lots of free time to explain and clarify the above, we might progress.

Or not.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”The fact that no country is willing to do this demonstrates that the science is ‘done and dusted’.” No it doesn’t. All that fact demonstrates is that every country is taking the IPCC’s assessment reports at face value and none wish to be seen to be out of line. New Zealand cannot be seen as anything other than “clean and green” i.e. NZ’s emissions stance is greenwash. This is especially so with New Zealand because exports to Europe (mostly) would be in jeopardy otherwise. And also why the greater number of Tim Groser’s 19 strong contingent to Lima was from the Ministry of Trade and Industry – NOT Environment. It’s political pragmatics Simon, nothing whatsoever to do with science. To think it is is naive. Why do you think negotiations are so protracted? If the science was “done and dusred” and the issue was in fact non-political, there would have been unanimous agreement long ago. Instead, when push comes to shove, it’s all bluster for show. China made a deal with USA to simply carry on with their economic path until growth peaks at which point emissions will also peak. In other… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Climate science still out there’ – ANDREW BOLT Herald Sun IS MALCOLM Turnbull a secret global warming sceptic? Check who has won his $250,000 Prime Minister’s Prize for Science. Graham Farquhar won our richest science prize for work that suggests global warming might actually not be that bad after all. In fact, it could be good in one important way. Farquhar is a Distinguished Professor at the Australian National University who won for modelling photosynthesis — how plants turn sun, air and water into energy. That took him into global warming science and he found good news. For instance, the man-made carbon dioxide we’re told is heating the world to hell and must be cut is actually plant food that’s helped crops grow. Says Farquhar: “If we could get rid of all the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emitted since the industrial revolution, then agricultural productivity would drop by 15 per cent.” Farquhar also found that the mathematical models that scientists use to predict much higher temperatures got some big things wrong. Most models predict that as the world warmed, the winds would get stronger and air drier, causing more evaporation. But Farquhar found evaporation… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

“is actually plant food that’s helped crops grow”

We live in a sad world if this is presented as news.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Apparently Exxon “overstates the uncertainty” in this graph (models vs obs):

http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/content_top_breakpoints_theme_solve_mobile_1x/public/climatechart2.png?itok=KALxGBBS

‘How Exxon Overstates the Uncertainty in Climate Science’

Exxon mistakes climate policy choices for scientific uncertainty.
By John H. Cushman Jr., InsideClimate News Oct 29, 2015

http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/29102015/exxon-overstates-uncertainty-climate-science

Some desperate spin in the article but at no point are the observations mentioned (sshhh, don’t mention the observations). The offending Exxon statement quoted in respect to a similar graph is this:

“This should refute the claim, central to activists’ conspiracy theories, that anyone had reached a firm conclusion about catastrophic impacts of climate change back in the 1970s and ‘80s. “As you can see, the scientific community that contributes to the IPCC report is, even today, still projecting a broad range of potential outcomes.”

I would have thought that Exxon was just stating the obvious. And an understatement at that given the models-obs discrepancy is overlooked, even by Exxon.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”If there was any doubt about AGW at all, them it would be in the interest of countries that have a lot to lose to argue that there is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions. The fact that no country is willing to do this demonstrates that the science is ‘done and dusted’.” OK, Putin is not a country but here’s his argument based on govt advice and an instance that refutes your “fact”: Russia’s Putin Says Global Warming Is ‘A Fraud’ = Michael Bastasch 10/29/2015 Russian President Vladimir Putin believes global warming is a “fraud” — a plot to keep Russia from using its vast oil and natural gas reserves. Putin believes “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries, including Russia,” Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and Putin critic, told The New York Times. “That is why this subject is not topical for the majority of the Russian mass media and society in general,” Belkovsky said. Putin has been casting doubt on man-made global warming since the early 2000s, according to the Times. In 2003, Putin told an international climate… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Simon still hasn’t responded to my questions.

97 scientists agree on something.

Apparently AGW is real, urgent and the biggest crisis facing humanity.

Obviously we need to spend more money fighting AGW than anything else,
Including feeding undernourished kids, poor housing etc,

We all agree because 97 scientists agree.

But what do these 97 scientists actually agree on?

We need to “take action” everybody agrees (including the 97 scientists)

Thousands, possibly more, will be taking to the streets next month, “urging our leaders”
to “take action” on climate change

What “action” do we demand?

Should we ask the 97 scientists?

For god sakes please think of the children.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Is climate sensitivity 1.5 or 4.5 degrees? Why has this range increased between AR4 and AR5?
Why has the central estimate of 3 degrees been dropped?

I thought the science was “done and dusted”?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The Sun is brightening- but not in China’ University of Gothenburg 30.10.2015 Analysis of weather station data shows that aerosol-driven solar dimming has led to a decrease of surface solar radiation in China In the world as a whole, surface solar radiation has increased since 1990, although in China, it has decreased. http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/solar-dimming-has-cut-surface-radiation-in-china.html ‘Impacts of wind stilling on solar radiation variability in China’ Lin et al (2015) To clarify the role of aerosol effects on SSR variations, three sub-regions with different pollution densities have been defined according to the distribution of AOD values (see Fig. 1). The sub-regions include the heavily polluted central-eastern region of China (CE), the moderately polluted southern region of China (SC), and slightly polluted other regions of China (OT). The decadal SSR variations in the three sub-regions were calculated with quality-controlled SSR data20 (see Supplementary Figure S1a). During the “dimming” period (1970–1989), the most substantial decrease in SSR occurred in CE and SC (−4.4 ± 0.5 and −4.3 ± 0.6 W m−2 decade−1, respectively), and the dimming magnitude in OT was relatively small (−1.9 ± 0.1 W m−2 decade−1). The solar brightening since 1990 was only observed in SC (1.6 ± 0.5 W m−2 decade−1). However, the SSR in CE… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

At this point, having my alarm set early, I hope the “energy imbalance” is in favour of the All Blacks.

Normal service will resume soon.

GOOD LUCK!

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Karl et al. do not know that we have two hiatuses, not one’

October 29, 2015 by Arno Arrak

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/29/karl-et-al-do-not-know-that-we-have-two-hiatuses-not-one/

# # #

Figure 1 (2 hiatuses) is replicated in the BEST New Zealand temperature series.

Figure 1
comment image

There was actually minor cooling from 1970 to 1997.in BEST NZ. An abrupt +0.4 C jump occurred at 1998.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Dissent in the climate ranks over Karl’s “pause buster” temperature data tweaking’ Anthony Watts / October 27, 2015 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/27/dissent-in-the-climate-ranks-over-karls-pause-buster-temperature-data-tweaking/ ‘Meehl bashes Karl’ Andrew Mountford Oct 27, 2015 The US CLIVAR project publishes a newsletter/cum journal, a recent issue of which was dedicated to the hiatus in global warming. Featuring papers from a variety of well-known climatologists, I was interested to see the headline article, from Gerald Meehl, which seems to take a fairly hefty pot-shot at the data tweaking approach adopted by many climatologists. There have been recent claims that the early-2000s hiatus…was an artifact of problematic sea surface temperature (SST) data (Karl et al. 2015), lack of Arctic data (Cowtan and Way 2014), or both. Such claims indicate that when corrections are made to SST data, by taking into account various measurement methods that introduce biases in the data, then “there was no ‘hiatus’ in temperature rise…[and] a presumed pause in the rise of Earth’s average global surface temperature might never have happened” (Wendel 2015). Often there are issues with observed data that need adjusting – in this case such claims of “no hiatus” are artifacts of questionable interpretation of decadal timescale… Read more »

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

Simon, most of us understood your point very well. Please understand that most of us ignored it, as it’s a part of your usual evidence-free nonsense.

Andy
Guest
Andy

What does the “done and dusted” scientist do with his or her day?

Other than furiously tweet about #deniers, take people to court, get interviewed by the Guardian and BBC etc.

Must be kind of dull, really

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Forget Paris. Asia Building 500 New Coal Power Plants (This Year Alone)’

Dr. Benny Peiser, GWPF, 03 November 2015.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/forget-paris-asia-building-500-new-coal-power-plants-this-year-alone.html
http://www.thegwpf.com/asia-building-500-new-coal-power-plants-this-year-alone/

Full story
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/03/us-asia-energy-power-idUKKCN0SS0IF20151103

“Coal is still the cheapest and the fuel that most Asian countries will use,” said Loreta G. Ayson, undersecretary at the Philippine Department of Energy.

Forty percent of the 400 gigawatts in generation capacity to be added in Southeast Asia by 2040 will be coal-fired, the IEA says. That will raise coal’s share of the Southeast Asian power market to 50 percent from 32 percent, while natural gas declines to 26 percent from 44 percent.

And growth in coal is not only seen in developing economies. Coal’s share of the energy mix in Japan, top importer of LNG, will rise to 30 percent by 2030, up from 22 percent in 2010, according to the nation’s Institute of Energy Economics, while natural gas will hold at 18 percent.

# # #

We’re doomed. SE Asia didn’t get the “done and dusted” memo.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Gareth Morgan is really excelling himself now

who writes

Clearly most of the 1.02 degrees of global warming since pre industrial times has occurred since 1980 – in fact 0.56 degrees of it.

https://garethsworld.com/blog/environment/why-avoiding-2-degrees-is-a-sick-joke/

I’m going to give GM a bit of credit that he is actually quite thick and not really a bad guy at all, even though he now blocks all people that question his “reasoning” on his Facebook page and blog.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

0.56 degrees since 1980? NOAA? I don’t think so, certainly not “clear” and RSS disagrees too.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1997/trend

0.13 rise 1980 to 1997
0.3 rise 1997 to the entire 1997 to 2015 era
0.43 total approx

No rise 1997 to 2015. Fall more like. And the difference between 1980 and 2015 as per Morgan’s graph is only 0.25 according to RSS:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/to:1981/trend/plot/rss-land/from:2014/to:2015/trend

Global warming apparently occurred as one abrupt +0.3 climate shift immediately after 1997 after a bit of a warm up. Then it went away according to RSS, which used to be the politically “correct” dataset before it was dumped. Now of course, the NOAA dataset is politically “correct”. But Peter Hannam at Sydney Morning Herald prefers Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA):

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png

Looks like about 0.65 since 1980. Time for Morgan to dump NOAA and run with JMA, far more politically “correct”.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Perhaps Gareth was looking at GISTemp:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:2015/trend/pl
ot/best/from:1980/to:2015/trend
Why create an artificial discontinuity at 1997? Maybe I should post a link to that Skeptical Science chart again.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Peter Hannam at Sydney Morning Herald prefers Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)”

Depending on the message. He does present other datasets e.g. GISS, UKMO, and NOAA (but NEVER RSS). But for a really scary graph JMA October temperatures fits the bill:

‘Heat records smashed again as big El Nino rides on global warming’
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/heat-records-smashed-again-as-big-el-nino-rides-on-global-warming-20151116-gl0j1j

Note how the October JMA series differs from the Annual JMA series in previous comment. Here they are side-by-side:

JMA Annual (to 2014)
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png

JMA October (to 2015)
http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/gl0j59/octh1.PNG

October’s REALLY scary huh?

Just not sure how “global warming” explains October 2015. It’s the timing of the El Nino that makes the difference to 1998 and 2010 in October.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Perhaps Gareth was looking at GISTemp” No, as I stated above, his graph clearly states “NOAA” when you take the effort to actually check. GISTEMP simply adopts the NOAA/Karl et al “adjustments”. >”Why create an artificial discontinuity at 1997?” What “artificial discontinuity”? It is perfectly clear that an abrupt shift occurred immediately after 1997 either globally or regionally. EXACTLY the same situation exists in the BEST NZ monthly data where there is a +0.4 C shift immediately after 1997. Remember BEST Simon? You used to be a fan, what happened? The trends either side of 1997 are flat for BEST NZ, even slight cooling: Moving Annual Average Trend BEST NZ -0.024 C/decade (2.6 decades 1972 – 1997) -0.196 C/decade (1.77 decades 1997 – August 2013) Obviously there is a genuine discontinuity (a climate shift) immediately after 1997 because the overall linear trend is positive (not that a linear trend is representative – obviously it isn’t in either RSS or BEST NZ) Or is BEST junk now Simon along with RSS? Only the NEW politically “correct” datasets now, the OLD “correct” ones having been discarded? You had better inform NIWA if it is because… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon’s woodfortrees plot is GISTEMP vs HadCRUT3 but doesn’t demonstrate the discontinuity at 1997. I’ve added the trends either side of 1997 to both datasets:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend

Speaks volumes.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Morgan] – “Clearly most of the 1.02 degrees of global warming since pre industrial times has occurred since 1980 – in fact 0.56 degrees of it.”

Except, as demonstrated by the IPCC’s CO2-forced climate models vs observations, this warming falls way short of theoretical CO2-forced warming.

And theoretical CO2 forcing is having no effect on the earth’s energy balance at TOA – the IPCC’s primary climate change metric in their radiative forcing paradigm.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Interestingly, BEST (land only) suggests a 0.8C warming since 1980:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1980/to:2015/trend
There is absolutely no evidence of a change point in 1997:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/recent-global-warming-trends-significant-or-paused-or-what/
This was merely a device used by fake sceptics to hide the warming between the discontinuity of the before and after trends.
1997/98 was, of course, the last significant El Nino before this year. All the fake sceptics will have to reset their pause-o-meter to 2015 next year.
Your claim that the models have been over-predicting is false too:
comment image
comment image

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Interestingly, BEST (land only) suggests a 0.8C warming since 1980:” Not CO2-forced though (see below) but land-only cherry picking aside, lets add the data series and trends either side of 1997 and compare to GISTEMP: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1980/to:2015/trend/plot/best/from:1980/plot/best/from:1997/trend/plot/best/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1997/trend The break (shift) at 1997 and disparity with GISTEMP should be obvious. And don’t forget that 2015 is an El Nino peak which will probably be followed by a La Nina (and see below). Also don’t forget that Foster and Rahmstorf removed ENSO activity i.e. they would have to remove the 2015 peak completely (and see below). Remember Grant Foster (Tamino) Simon? You used to be on his cheer team, still on it? >”There is absolutely no evidence of a change point in 1997″ And there are none so blind as WILL NOT see. RC neglect satellites and everything else that doesn’t fit their meme including regional and you still haven’t addressed BEST NZ Simon: Moving Annual Average Trend BEST NZ -0.024 C/decade (2.6 decades 1972 – 1997) +0.4 C shift -0.196 C/decade (1.77 decades 1997 – August 2013) That’s 26 years of FLAT or slight cooling prior to 1997 and NIWA’s VCS agrees. RSS agrees. 3… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

Unfortunately, no climate scientist in the world agrees with you. Even Judith Curry attributes 50% of the warming to human causes, and her reasoning was wrong even then:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Curiously Simon, your other model-obs graph which is a laughable gif animation that “adjusts” everything and eliminates the “catastrophe”, puts the models on pause trajectory with the observations:

comment image

“+solar” is only the start of course. The significant solar change is on a millennial timeframe, that adjustment is only the minimal recent change since 2005. And MDV is still missing i.e. the residual still has superfluous CO2 forcing.

But it is progress. Next step is +MDV and +even more solar as time goes on i.e. pause ends, cooling begins, and -CO2. At which point we will have models that actually mimic earth’s climate.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”no [warm-biased] climate scientist in the world agrees with you”

Of course they don’t. That proves nothing.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Unfortunately, no climate scientist in the world agrees with you”

Fortunately, the IPCC’s climate change criteria (earth’s energy balance measured at TOA) and observations of it as cited by IPCC AR5 Chapter 2 (Loeb el 2012, Stephens et al 2012) does agree with me.

Theory: 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 forcing, increasing (net anthro more).
Actual: 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance, trendless.

No warmy climate scientist agrees with me (yet) because the theory failure was not reported in AR5 Chapter 10 Detection & Attribution. I’m guessing that there is more than a little disquiet among some at the thought that one day this will become known outside blogs like this (Monckton is another aware of it).

BTW, re now-Lukewarmerr JC. I posted the case at Judith Curry’s blog but she made no comment and probably didn’t see it:

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

But just a matter of time now. The truth will out eventually.

Andy
Guest
Andy

The IPCC attribute “at least 50% of the warming since 1950” to humans

The pause that doesn’t exist is tacitly acknowledged in IPCC

Are IPCC “fake sceptics” or “deniers”?

Should policy makes ignore the IPCC?

Should policy makers get their science from blogs?

Simon
Guest
Simon

Andy, You have fallen for the same fallacy as Judith Curry did. At least 50% of the warming is the 99% lower confidence interval. The mean is actually 110% of the observed warming, which implies that we would be in a cooling phase if it had not been for AGW. Read this article if you genuinely want to know more:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The IPCC attribute “at least 50% of the warming since 1950″ to humans”

And referring to the AR5 SPM Figure 1, that was only 2 out of 6 decades:

comment image

But the warming since 1950 is commensurate with the warming prior to 1940 for which there is no anthro attribution. This is one of Judith Curry’s points of contention. It is impossible to make a post 1950 anthro attribution on this basis if CO2 is, supposedly, the primary climate driver.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”You have fallen for the same fallacy as Judith Curry did. At least 50% of the warming is the 99% lower confidence interval. The mean is actually 110% of the observed warming……..” No “fallacy” Simon. The situation is rather different. Judith Curry responded to this and some of Gavin Schmidt’s RC post here: ‘Most’ versus ‘more than half’ versus ‘> 50%’ by Judith Curry, Posted on January 19, 2015 | 532 Comments Seeking once again to clarify the problems in communicating the IPCC climate change attribution statements. Context The immediate motivation for this post is a tweet from Gavin Schmidt that he is #stillwaiting for a response to his critique of my 50-50 essay [link]. Well this post is a response to only one point that he raises (some of the rest of his points seem pretty incoherent to me), but it is an issue that has been used by Schmidt to discredit my arguments about attribution. […long post….] Bottom line: the climate attribution problem needs to be reframed. Attempting to discredit my arguments over semantics reflects tilting at windmills, with the root cause being very unclear statements made by the IPCC in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”the Schmidt-Curry argument”

Silly thing is, as I understand, the bell curve (PDFunction) they are arguing over is of “multiple attribution studies” according to Schmidt’s post.

This is science?

Haggling over the mean is senseless if there are erroneous studies. And becomes moot as the error number increases.

Besides, it is now nearly 2016 i.e. we are 1.6 decades into the 21st century (the highest emissions era) therefore attribution, or otherwise, should be focused on now, not on a couple of decades last century. And the only warming now is due to an El Nino. Once that’s gone – no warming this century – no further attribution possible. Game over.

Andy
Guest
Andy

The only fallacy I have fallen for is reading the IPCC report

If they can’t explain it to the public then it’s not my problem

Andy
Guest
Andy

They key point behind GM’s logical fallacy is to take the post 1950s warming, subtract it from the total 20th C warming and assume that the rate has accelerated.

He is missing the point that the rate pre-1950 was about the same as post 1950, separated by a couple of decades of cooling

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”He [Morgan] is missing the point that the rate pre-1950 was about the same as post 1950, separated by a couple of decades of cooling” Yes, silly man. This is pointed out over and over in blogs that Morgan would never frequent so he remains ignorant. Obviously can’t think it out for himself or doesn’t want to. And the IPCC don’t want too much known about attribution for that period either. From Judith Curry’s Climate Etc: ‘Overconfidence in IPCC’s detection and attribution. Part IV’ http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/14/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iv/ 5.1 IPCC’s detection and attribution argument “The substantial warming during the period 1910-1940 has been attributed by nearly all the modeling groups to some combination of increasing solar irradiance and a lack of major volcanic activity.” But nothing about MDV. 5.3 Bootstrapped plausibility “The IPCC’s argument has effectively eliminated multi-decadal natural internal variability as a causative factor for 20th century climate change. Whereas each model demonstrates some sort of multidecadal variability (which may or may not be of a reasonable amplitude or associated with the appropriate mechanisms), the ensemble averaging process filters out the simulated natural internal variability since there is no temporal synchronization in the simulated chaotic… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dang, missing endquote tag (…..ensemble members.”) and no edit available in the Opera version that I’m using at the moment. Sun streaming in the window doesn’t help either.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

STATEMENT TO THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE AND COMPETITIVENESS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

Data or Dogma?

Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Climate Change

December 8th 2015 My name is Mark Steyn…………

http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/c6a57a91-8bbd-45f3-9eaa-51cc8f64e9dc/5DDB5BDF028B536F0A1A4E116D144E9D.mr.-mark-steyn-testimony.pdf

From:

Witness Panel 1
Dr. John Christy
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Dr. John Christy Testimony.pdf (2.6 MBs)
Dr. Judith Curry
Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. Judith Curry Testimony.pdf (1.5 MBs)
Dr. William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Mr. Mark Steyn
International Bestselling Author
Mr. Mark Steyn Testimony.pdf (187.2 KBs)
Dr. David Titley (Rear Admiral, USN (ret.))
Professor of Practice, Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University
Director, Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk
Dr. David Titley Testimony.pdf (736.5 KBs)

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/08/mark-steyn-rebukes-democrats-in-climate-hearing-youre-enforcing-a-state-ideology/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

BREAKING: Greenpeace co-founder reports Greenpeace to the FBI under RICO and wire-fraud statutes

By Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. December 8, 2015

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/breaking-greenpeace-co-founder-reports-greenpeace-to-the-fbi-under-rico-and-wire-fraud-statutes/

‘Quote of the Week: Dr. Will Happer’s blowback to Greenpeace during ambush at Senate hearing today’

“You son of a bitch, I haven’t taken a dime.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/quote-of-the-week-dr-will-happers-blowback-to-greenpeace-during-ambush-at-senate-hearing-today/

And the article Greenpeace wanted from their “undercover investigation”:

‘Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science’

Suzanne Goldenburg

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

Andy
Guest
Andy

Bob Jones unveils his plans for a 5000ft statue of Gareth Morgan
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/77162988/Sir-Bob-Jones-mocks-Gareth-Morgan-in-5000m-statue-proposal

Andy
Guest
Andy

Morgan is starting his own Political Party.

 

I think it might be the “Done and Dusted Party”. No one is allowed to comment on the Great Man’s views

http://www.top.org.nz/

Post Navigation