Renwick, Naish invoke malignant ‘consensus’, cite scandalous papers

Desperation palpable

See UPDATE, below

Professors James Renwick and Tim Naish are sounding global warming warnings around the country. We have received a copy of their presentation, called Ten by Ten: Climate Change – Ten things you didn’t know about climate change.

This academic presentation is filled with errors, though it’s funded by the Victoria University of Wellington and the Royal Society—which means your taxes, at least in part. Just now I want to comment on one slide (No. 14) that appears to claim that almost all scientists believe that anthropogenic global warming is caused by mankind. This is the slide.

TEN by TEN slide 14

It illustrates the malignant “climate consensus” that poisons most popular discussion on climate policy. Mere disagreement of even thousands of people won’t create warming if the temperature has been falling. It matters little whether they’re scientists or not. But the very mention of a consensus inhibits the examination of evidence—and even armed with evidence it still takes a brave man to disagree with “97 per cent of scientists.” So claiming a consensus, even if it doesn’t exist, can be an effective ploy.

Of course, resorting to a consensus, even if it does exist, to win a scientific argument is erroneous. The late Michael Crichton said: “In science consensus is irrelevant. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” He was contemptuous that claiming a consensus could settle a scientific question: “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Perfectly unpersuasive

For convenience and a kind of shorthand there may well arise a consensus on some scientific topic, and it often happens, but though the truth in science might create a consensus, no consensus ever established a scientific truth.

Professor Judith Curry quotes a post by Ben Pile which is further food for thought as we contemplate this crisis in climate science:

Being an advocate of science seems to mean nothing more than shouting as loudly as possible ‘what science says…’, second hand. And those who shout most loudly about science turn out to be advancing an idea of science which, rather than emphasising the scientific method, puts much more store — let’s call it ‘faith’ — in scientific institutions. Hence, the emphasis on the weight, number and height of scientific evidence articles, and expertise, rather than on the process of testing competing theories.

This road-show presentation is, as I said, full of errors. But when I received it recently what stood out for me was that Professors Renwick and Naish cite a number of research papers that have been comprehensively invalidated. This is a major mistake. If they are unaware of the faults revealed in these papers by subsequent research then they cannot have been diligent. If they are aware of them, they should at the very least have mentioned that the papers are controversial. To present them to the lay public as good science is a perversion of their academic authority.

For these papers are scandalous.

The paper Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature is the infamous study by John Cook et al. that is widely disparaged for its fatal and particularly egregious errors. It’s hard to understand why anyone familiar with the paper would cite it or why anyone would cite it who was not familiar with it. Unless they were desperate for support and didn’t care where they found it.

Surely no reputable academic would cite these studies. They purport to prove a consensus of almost all climate scientists but either use a weak definition of consensus that most would agree with or their samples of papers or survey respondents are unreasonably small.

For a solid analysis of Oreskes (2004) see Christopher Monckton (2007). Oreskes does not reveal how many papers explicitly endorsed her watered-down consensus, but subsequent research found that only 1% explicitly endorse that consensus—not 100%.

An excellent dissection of the execrable Cook et al. (2013), by Paul Homewood, is available at Not a lot of people know that. An earlier paper by David Legates et al. (2013) showed that Cook et al’s claimed consensus of 97%, when measured correctly from their own data, was in fact only 0.3%.

This one slide we’ve discovered being foisted on amateur audiences around the country during yet another junket funded from your taxes would be enough on its own to dismiss Profs Renwick and Naish’s specious arguments that we’re destroying the climate and laugh them out of town.

Unfortunately this slide is just one of 49. Watch this space.


UPDATE 17 Jul 2016 1315 NZST

Here are the studies cited in the presentation that claim some level of consensus concerning climate science, with papers that contradict them (including the two references given above in the post). I’ve found some errors not mentioned in the original post, above.

Oreskes (2004) 97% Consensus? No! Global warming math myths & social proofs, The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

Doran (2009) 97% Consensus? No! Global warming math myths & social proofs, The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

Anderegg (2010) 97% Consensus? No! Global warming math myths & social proofs, The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

Cook (2013) Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change, The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’,

Verheggen (2014) Authors and lead authors associated with the IPCC appear strongly represented in this sample, and they could reasonably be expected to believe strongly in dangerous man-made global warming, as it’s the subject they’re writing about, but whether that slants their results I don’t know. It seems to be a high-quality paper. I’ve found no rebuttals.

Stenhouse (2014) Surveys the American Meteorological Society (26% response) and provides a limited view.

Carlton (2015) The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. I’ve uncovered a curious error. The slide claims this demonstrates 97% “scientific agreement on human-caused global warming” but the paper doesn’t say this. It actually says 96.66% answered Yes to:

Q4 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures” (Question displayed only if respondent thinks temperatures have risen).

But how many respondents think temperatures have risen? It’s the answer to the previous question:

Q3 When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

We find that 93.48% answered Yes, and you can calculate that 96.66% of 93.48 is 90%. So the paper provided the data for the correct calculation to be made but for some reason inflated the answer. The correct number of respondents was 90% but our road-show presenters incorrectly show 97%.

Professors are not allowed to make a mistake as large as 7%. Their skill with percentages is presumed to be perfect. I cannot avoid the impression they were trying to mislead us. Shame on you, sirs.

I have to say this list of papers is persuasive only by repetition of 97% and similar numbers because on close inspection their errors make each paper singularly unimpressive. More drab and humdrum than gripping.

49
Leave a Reply

avatar
49 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
SimonRichard C (NZ)Richard TreadgoldMaggy WassilieffMagoo Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Gary Kerkin
Guest
Gary Kerkin

It is essential, Richard T, that the proponents of AGW know that their views (faith?) are constantly reaffirmed, and being assured that there are many of the same point of view is one such example. It is akin to what I understand of the concept of midrash in Hebrew teaching—in the stories of the Old Testament. For example it wasn’t Moses alone who parted the waters for the people to cross. So did Joshua part the waters of the Jordan to enable his army to cross. Not only did Solomon build a temple. So did Zerubbabel, and later, Herod. Even Elijah saw a temple built in a vision. My understanding is that by repeating the stories the Rabbis were reminding the people that Jehovah was still with them. It was a reaffirmation of the interest of the Almighty in His chosen people. Do I detect a necessity in the proponents of AGW (or should that now be ACC—and no I am not referring to compensation!) for such reaffirmation. Surely the evidence of the last nearly 30 years must be shaking their very foundations. Of course, we know they are “deniers”! We know “they”… Read more »

Gary Kerkin
Guest
Gary Kerkin

Richard,

Yes, it’s been a while. I often feel like that Peter Sellers’ character who expressed it as, “So much to do. So little time!”

I used the Biblical references, not because I am religious—far from it, although I will own up to being a Freemason (which is not religious, just in case someone objects!)—but because I find it the easiest way to explain what I can only consider to be “blind faith”. In my opinion probably the best way to fight such “faith” is by quietly undermining it with simple facts expressed in such a way that everyone can easily understand them.

Simon
Guest
Simon

So what proportion of climate papers and/or scientists state that anthropogenic climate change is occurring? Show us some peer-reviewed studies that claim less than 90%.
Consensus is completely relevant, until the paradigm is broken by proven study.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Global temperatures are increasing as a result. All of these statements are true.

Gary Kerkin
Guest
Gary Kerkin

Simon,
A little proof would be extremely useful and would add to our knowledge. You are quite correct that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that it is increasing in the atmosphere. But perhaps you might like to reveal the incontrovertible, physical evidence that it is causing global temperatures to increase as a result.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

I’ve already racked over Naish and Renwick’s rubbish in a series of comments in the previous post but rebuttal of points 3 and 5 is worth repeating (there’s much more in subsequent comments): ************************************************************************************ Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2016 at 2:36 pm said: Naish and Renwick blowing hot air too: ‘Ten things New Zealand can learn about climate change’ – Tim Naish and James Renwick http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11669116 “3 ……the radiative effects of carbon dioxide and methane as powerful greenhouse gases has been known for more than a century. The physics is beyond question.” Yes the physics of “the radiative effects of carbon dioxide and methane” is “beyond question” depending on the scope of the statement (e.g. absorption and emission, and surface measurement of DLR by BSRN and SurfRad stations, except CO2/CH4 are minor components of DLR). But so what? That is NOT the issue. There are 2 issues: 1) Is theoretical GHG forcing a valid climate driver? No, as demonstrated by theory (Chapter 8) vs observations (Chapter 2) in the IPCC’s own AR5 report but they ignore their own climate change criteria and the obs-theory discrepancy in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution:… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”CO2 is a greenhouse gas.” Again. already raked over in a series of comments in the previous thread but worth bringing up again because it arrives at this: ********************************************************************************************* Richard C (NZ) on July 16, 2016 at 2:06 pm said: An internally contradictory article from UCAR/NCAR re CO2 a “heat-trapping greenhouse gas”: [Title] ‘Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation’ UCAR Centre For Science Education © 2012 UCAR [see CO2 molecule animation] Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, [1] the molecule gives up this extra energy [/1] by emitting another infrared photon.Once [2] the extra energy has been removed [/2] by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating. This [3] ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy [/3] is what makes [4] CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. [/4] The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

My reply to Richard Treadgold: ******************************************************************************************* Richard C (NZ) on July 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm said: RT >”So you can call it trapped and it increases with the increase in CO2. So I’m not sure it’s useful to excoriate such as the UCAR as “peddling bunk”. Unless I’ve misunderstood” Yes you sure have misunderstood RT. The UCAR article is specifically in respect to the CO2 molecule absorbing and emitting – nothing else. Nothing at all about what you extrapolate from it. I don’t know how you make the leap you’ve taken. Note too upthread that it is not just me that sees the utter falsity of the CO2 “heat trapping” notion. Here’s the UCAR animation of the CO2 molecule again: http://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/long-content-page/Create%20Long%20Content%20Page/co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif This is the sole basis (nothing else) for UCAR’s internally contradictory claim in their article: “This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. The first element “this ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy” contradicts the second “makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas”. The contradiction is because the first element is describing TRANSFER: Heat transfer – Radiation Thermal radiation is a… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Naish and Renwick (thanks to Victoria University of Wellington and the Royal Society) are just “useful idiots” for a political cause that has nothing to do with science, and they’ve already been shafted anyway: Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Quote by Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

7 meta-studies claiming in excess of 90% scientific agreement on human caused global warming. Please cite a meta-study that suggests otherwise. Only one peer-reviewed paper is cited (Legates et al. (2013)) and it is a critique of the Cook paper. If you are unable to cite a contradictory independent study, literature review, or meta-analysis; then Slide 14 must be valid.
I look forward to your analysis of other ‘erroneous’ slides.

Harry Dale Huffman
Guest

“If you are unable to cite a contradictory independent study, literature review, or meta-analysis; then Slide 14 must be valid.”

Simon is not arguing science, he is arguing ideology. He himself cites a contradictory review (Legates et al. 2013), then immediately dismisses it. He is utterly unaware of his thoughtlessness, in determined pursuit of a false certainty. He is a liar, to himself above all. And he is representative of all who cling to the “global warming” alarmism as their faith.

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Simon, you say the following:

‘7 meta-studies claiming in excess of 90% scientific agreement on human caused global warming. Please cite a meta-study that suggests otherwise.’

Here you go, it’s in the IPCC AR5 (Figure TS.14, page 87, Technical Summary, Working Group I, IPCC AR5 report):

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Or if you can’t be bothered waiting for the AR5 to load:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig11-25.jpg

It’s not a consensus of opinion either, but empirical evidence from 4 sources – a consensus of empirical evidence if you like.

Maggy Wassilieff
Guest
Maggy Wassilieff

There is a new paper out that summarises the histories and flaws of the consensus papers.
Enjoy.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2807652

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon

>”CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”

Completely ineffective as such during the latest El Nino apparently.

Climate scientists Gavin Schmidt, Stefan Rahmstorf, Steven Sherwood, Micheal Mann, and the UK Met Office all claimed the bulk of the El Nino spike for AGW/MMCC. All are now being proved wrong by temperatures returning to neutral.

The oceanic El Nino heat has simply been transferred (not “trapped”) by the troposphere (including “greenhouse” gases) to space in accordance with the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which in essence says the excess energy is expelled to a heat sink (space in the El Nino case).

The latest El Nino falsifies the “heat trapping greenhouse gas” notion, and makes the above climate scientists look like idiots. Do you REALLY want to subscribe to their idiocy Simon?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The entire temperature profile of the atmosphere (surface to TOA) is determined WITHOUT recourse to radiative transfer as I’ve shown upthread (see “Greenhouse Equation”).” [Where “upthread” is in the previous post – see “Greenhouse Equation” below] This refers to the initial and final state of the CO2 molecule in the UCAR animation (from upthread in this post): UCAR – Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation http://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/long-content-page/Create%20Long%20Content%20Page/co2_absorb_emit_infrared_anim_320x240.gif No energy is “trapped” in this absorption-emission process. The energy is TRANSFERRED. For CO2 in the troposphere the animation should show some molecular excitation in the initial and final state rather than the zero excitation shown (O Kelvin temperature). The temperature of the lower mid troposphere is 273 K i.e. molecular excitation. In the context of the atmosphere, the initial and final state of the molecule is the ambient temperature at whatever the altitude of the air mass containing the molecule, technically Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE). The ambient temperature of air at EVERY altitude in the standard atmosphere is calculated by the “greenhouse equation” (see below) but without recourse to any “greenhouse” or radiative effects except for the solar constant and Stefan–Boltzmann constant. It is impossible… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Too invoke radiative energy transfer as determining temperature at any altitude is not only redundant but fallacious. The entire temperature profile of the atmosphere (surface to TOA) is determined WITHOUT recourse to radiative transfer as I’ve shown upthread (see “Greenhouse Equation”).”

Not true when I look at this again. I was referring to CO2 absorption and re-emission (“radiative energy transfer”) being termed “heat trapping” by UCAR i.e. a miss-characterization.

Obviously the Stefan–Boltzmann constant is “recourse to radiative transfer” – my bad.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Already 240 Published Papers In 2016 Alone Show AGW “Consensus” Is A Fantasy!’

770 papers questioning AGW “consensus” since 2014
By Kenneth Richard

http://notrickszone.com/2016/07/03/already-240-published-papers-in-2016-alone-show-agw-consensus-is-a-fantasy/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Following Maggy upthread:

Consensus=Nonsensus – Reviewing Cook et al (2016)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/16/consensusnonsensus-reviewing-cook-et-al-2016/

Stirling, Michelle, Consensus Nonsensus on 97%: Science is Not a Democracy (July 10, 2016).

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2807652

Abstract:
A number of scholars who have previously undertaken studies on the alleged ‘consensus’ of the human impact on global warming have recently published a paper (Cook et al. 2016) which they claim confirms and strengthens their previous 97% consensus claims. This author rejects their findings and deconstructs both the premise of the relevance of consensus in the empirical evidence-based world of science and finds the claims are in fact ‘nonsensus.’ Several of the scholars’ consensus claims and those of scientific bodies were published prior to the 2013 IPCC Working Group I report wherein it was reported that there had been a hiatus in global warming for some 15 years (to 2012), despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide from human industrial emissions.

Open source paper here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2807652

# # #

>”the 2013 IPCC Working Group I report”

Chapter 2 observations falsify Chapter 8 theory. Chapter 10 neglects to address the issue, see:

‘IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria’
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf

Gary Kerkin
Guest
Gary Kerkin

Richard C, it is worth pursuing the Stirling’s paper further. For examples she writes of Arrhenius, ‘Arrhenius amended his initial catastrophic view of the effects of increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere in a little known paper “Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen” published only in German6 in 1906 to state that the effect of increased carbon dioxide would be nominal and beneficial.’ This is probably a “consensus” view that most of us could agree with. I’m still in the process of reading the paper having picked it up this morning. There are some quotable quotes e.g. “Science is about inquiry, not compliance.”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Gary >”There are some quotable quotes” Yes, plenty. Also ‘gateway belief model’ is an interesting concept (just belieeeeeve……pleeeeease……). But my interest centres on the IPCC AR5 report as you might have picked up by my article upthread (link below): Michelle Stirling misses a critical issue, as do just about everyone else. The IPCC’s primary climate change criteria is: “the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system…..measured at the top of the atmosphere” AR5 WG1 Chapter 2 observations of the imbalance falsify Chapter 8 theory and Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution ignores the issue. Chapter 10 also makes attribution-by-speculation in regard to anthropogenic ocean warming which Naish and Renwick have morphed into (from upthread): 5 Ninety-three per cent of the heat ………….. from humankind’s use of fossil fuels has gone into the ocean. This is bogus as I’ve detailed upthread. Read about the IPCC’s Chapter 10 omission (neglect) here: ‘IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria – Incompetence or Coverup?’ https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf Interesting though is that Michelle Stirling shows the drop in solar activity after 2006 in Figure 3 page 16. The observed TOA energy imbalance according to IPCC Chapter 2 citation was only +0.6 W.m-2 2000… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”…..an updated earth’s energy imbalance will be altered in some way [by recent solar change]. We will have to wait and see what the effect is”

Outgoing radiation (OLR) from the El Nino will obscure this picture, as will a following La Nina. It will probably be at least the end of 2018 before we see neutral conditions again. And that’s if there’s no further ENSO activity.

Abdussamatov (2012) below says the earth is now in “energy deficit” relative to Modern Maximum solar levels but it wouldn’t surprise me if the TOA radiative imbalance change is minimal. The IPCC assumption is that the budget should be in balance (i.e. 0 imbalance) but there’s no justification for that given the enormous amount of heat stored in the oceanic heat sink and the delay the ocean adds to the sun => ocean => atmosphere system (ocean adds “10 -100 years” – Trenberth).

Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov (2012)
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/download/14754/10140

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT >”Verheggen (2014) — Authors and lead authors associated with the IPCC appear strongly represented in this sample, and they could reasonably be expected to believe strongly in dangerous man-made global warming, as it’s the subject they’re writing about, but whether that slants their results I don’t know. It seems to be a high-quality paper. I’ve found no rebuttals.” Here’s one: Comment on “Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming” [Verheggen (2014)] Jose L. Duarte Verheggen et al.1 report a survey of scientists’ views on climate change. However, they surveyed a large number of psychologists, pollsters, philosophers, etc. The number of nonclimate scientists who responded is undisclosed, and is likely unknowable given the design. Thus, the valid results of the study are unknown, and it should be withdrawn. Moreover, the core method of including mitigation and impacts researchers creates a structural inflationary bias, ultimately conflating career choice with consensus. Finally, an estimate of the consensus is unlikely to be reliable without accounting for the extraordinary personal cost of dissent, especially when an issue is moralized. Verheggen et al. searched the topics “global warming” and “global climate change” at Web of Science, and surveyed… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘A psychologist’s scathing review of John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ nonsensus paper’ Anthony Watts / August 29, 2014 Psychologist José Duarte writes: The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. Let’s go ahead and walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. I only spent ten minutes with their database — there will be more such papers for those who search. I’m not willing to spend a lot of time with their data, for reasons I detail further down. This paper is vacated, as a scientific product, given that it included psychology papers, and also given that it twice lied about its method (claiming not to count social science papers, and claiming to use independent raters), and the professed cheating by the raters. It was essentially voided by its invalid method of using partisan and unqualified political activists to subjectively rate climate science abstracts on the issue on which their… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”It’s much more than bogus science we’re up against, we are up against an ideology.”

And megalomaniacs conflating both:

‘Christiana Figueres launches UN secretary general bid’
Costa Rican says she will keep vow to protect world’s most vulnerable if she is appointed to New York post later this year
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/07/christiana-figueres-launches-un-secretary-general-bid/

‘Figueres delivers climate pitch to UN General Assembly’
Costa Rican diplomat says her experience forging a global warming pact fits her for the secretary general job
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/13/figueres-delivers-climate-pitch-to-un-general-assembly/

# # #

Lysenkoism + Totalitarianism + Megalomania + Climatism + Socialism

What could go wrong?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT >”Not that the energy is trapped permanently in the scientific sense, as it’s only held up temporarily. I don’t know how long, as I’ve never seen a quantification of the delay caused by being emitted downwards then eventually to space. But held up enough to cause some measurable increase in temperature” ‘Why Tyndall’s experiment did not “prove” the theory of anthropogenic global warming’ THS, October 27, 2015 http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/10/why-tyndalls-experiment-did-not-prove.html Excerpts: 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… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Michael Mann:

“I am a climate scientist and have spent much of my career with my head buried in climate model output and observational climate data, trying to tease out the signal of human-caused climate change.”

http://www.ecowatch.com/right-wing-denial-machine-distorts-climate-change-discourse-1924120031.html

That difficult huh?

Gary Kerkin
Guest
Gary Kerkin

Richard C: “That difficult huh?”. Now! Now! Richard, sarcasm does not become you 😉. We do have to remember he is a poor, struggling, academic who is just trying to support himself in a world where (horror of horrors!) the “science is settled” and there is no need to keep devoting money to determining it (witness CSIRO). Of much more import to me is Figure 1 of Michelle Stirling’s paper (Consensus Nonsensus) which is sourced from Spencer and Christy (UAH). I haven’t gone looking for the original (Richard T thinks there is an updated version with later data) but that doesn’t lessen Stirling’s representation. The figure shows the evolution of the consensus papers with their dates shown on a plot of temperatures from model predictions and actual data (satellite and balloons). I am unable to display it here, but for those who haven’t seen it and would like to I have uploaded it to my web site for quick access. It can viewed at this URL http://kerkin.co.nz/weather/stirling.png. The import of the figure is simply brilliant. What stands out like the proverbial is that any sort of consensus is totally irrelevant because the time… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

There are a few things you need to know about that widely misunderstood figure:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Gary >”Of much more import to me is Figure 1 of Michelle Stirling’s paper”

Agreed. There’s a variation on that theme with very clear graphs here:

‘IPCC’s Confidence Grows as Models Get Worse’
http://www.energyadvocate.com/fw95.htm

At the most recent and widest models-obs divergence, the IPCC’s confidence is greatest at “Extremely likely >95%”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”There are a few things you need to know about that widely misunderstood figure”

And here’s John Christy’s rebuttal of Schmidt:

Christy: Schmidt Is “Completely Wrong”
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/05/08/christy/

Also,

McIntyre: “Schmidt’s Histogram Diagram Doesn’t Refute Christy”
https://climateaudit.org/2016/05/05/schmidts-histogram-diagram-doesnt-refute-christy/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Analysis: How much did El Niño boost global temperature in 2015?’ – Carbon Brief Almost as soon as the news broke that 2015 was the hottest year in the modern record, the conversation quickly turned to how much of the record-breaking warmth was down to climate change and how much to the Pacific weather phenomenon known as El Niño. Carbon Brief has spoken to climate scientists working on this question, who all seem to agree El Niño was responsible for somewhere in the region of 10% of the record warmth in 2015. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-much-did-el-nino-boost-global-temperature-in-2015 NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt: Schmidt estimated El Niño was responsible for 0.07C of the above-average warming we saw in 2015. Dr Adam Scaife, head of the UK Met Office’s long-range forecasting division: “We think El Niño made only a small contribution (a few hundredths of a degree) to the record global temperatures in 2015.” Dr Thomas Cropper, a climate scientist at the University of Sheffield: has estimated the contribution from El Niño to 2015 temperature. He says it is about 0.09C Also, Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of physics at Potsdam University: “The record is helped along a bit by El… Read more »

Gary Kerkin
Guest
Gary Kerkin

Richard C, the “confidence grows as the models get worse” is akin to my view of why a consensus is required: reaffirmation of a faith. (If others agree with me, I must be right – post hoc ergo propter hoc).

Simon’s “misunderstood figure” reference is another example of someone scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to find some small iota of justification. Arguing about placement of baselines, vertical scales, scatter of models, inconsistencies of smoothing, and structural faults is just playing with words. Of course any system of smoothing using, say, 5 year rolling averages will have inconsistencies at one end or other. If the period of smoothing is 5 years there will be periods of 1, 2, 3, and 4 years either at the beginning or at the end. To make such a criticism is trivial carping. The data from satellites and balloons at the University of Alabama, Huntsville is highly regarded and to suggest it has “structural faults” without precisely detailing what those faults may be is unfair and possibly insulting.

I’m still waiting for Simon’s incontrovertible physical evidence that carbon dioxide is the cause of global temperature rise.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Gary >”Simon’s “misunderstood figure” reference is another example of someone scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to find some small iota of justification.” Exactly. He and his hero Schmidt don’t acknowledge that other renditions paint the same picture. I referenced the UKMOs decadal forecast just above, that’s this graph: UKMO Decadal Forecast Figure 3: Observed (black, from Met Office Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted (blue) global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1981-2010. 22 model simulations, from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), that have not been initialised with observations are shown in green http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/q/o/fig3_dp2015_fcst_global_t.png Note that CMIP5 (green) “HAVE NOT” been initialised with observations. Decadal forecast (blue) HAVE been initialised with observations This is neither satellites, nor Spencer, nor Christy. It’s UKMO (Probably from one or some of Smith, Eade, Dunstone, Fereday, Murphy, Pohlmann, and Scaife. Maybe other names now but Scaife’s still there), HadCRUT, NASA GISS and NCDC (NCEI now). >”……any system of smoothing using, say, 5 year rolling averages” “…….periods of 1, 2, 3, and 4 years either at the beginning or at the end.” Shortcomings accepted. The smoothing problem in Figure would… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Re UKMO decadal forecasts. Fun thing is they do a new one each year so there will be a new and improved forecast at the end of this year. UKMO stopped doing actual 10 yr decadal forecasts when their Smith et al (2007) “established skill” 10 yr forecast turned out horribly wrong: ‘Ooops – Met Office decadal model forecast for 2004-2014 falls flat’ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/21/ooops-met-office-decadal-model-forecast-for-2004-2014-falls-flat/ So now they do 5 yr “decadal” forecasts every year in the hope they’ll get lucky. Their December 2012 forecast (Figure 1) and a comparison (Figure 5) of the forecasts from 2011 and 2012 is on this page: ‘Decadal Forecasting – What is it and what does it tell us?’ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/decadal-forecasting I would not have thought Figure 1 in conjunction with Figure 5 would have been very encouraging but they’ve persevered. Didn’t do so well each year until their end of 2014 forecast when they finally got super lucky with a big El Nino in 2015 (Woo Hoo !!). But they’ll be back in egg-on-face serial failure mode at the end of this year again. Their next forecast will have to be from the BOTTOM of the El Nino… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

UKMO’s mission statement:

Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Killer cold in Peru’

17 July 2016 – In Atuncoya and Cachipascana cold kills.
Extreme cold in Puno. Temperatures reaching 15 degrees below zero.

13 children under five have died in the Puno region from April to date.
19 thousand hectares of crops have been ruined by hail and bitter cold.
More than 18,000 animals have died.

http://iceagenow.info/killer-cold-peru/

# # #

Peru is a Non-Consensus zone apparently..

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Uni professors are making biased claims about climate change Sunday, 24 July 2016, 10:38 pm Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1607/S00055/uni-professors-are-making-biased-claims-about-climate-change.htm # # # This is a bit limp. I hope the NZCSC has compiled more ammunition than what is presented here. Rebuttal of points 3 and 5 as upthread for example Doesn’t represent the full sceptic spectrum either, or at least not well: In fact, the authors of the papers referred to in their Slide 14 do not say that all climate change is ‘human-caused’ anyway. Some man-made greenhouse gases have contributed, and that is agreed on all sides if the climate debate. Not so in terms of radiative warming it’s not agreed. That is only agreed upon by Warmers and Lukewarmers.The Slayers don’t agree, the Hockey Schtick doesn’t agree. I don’t agree. The US Standard Atmosphere Model doesn’t agree, The earth’s energy balance doesn’t agree and that’s the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria i.e. the IPCC cannot agree by their own climate change criteria despite their attribution statements. The only agreement by those is that greenhouse gases contribute simply by being an atmospheric constituent. Even then the US Standard… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Naish has had to concede that West Antarctic climate is “not unusual”, “natural variability” apparently: ‘Antarctica’s temporary cooling phase – what does it mean?’ RACHEL THOMAS July 25 2016 Q: Why is Antarctica cooling down? The Antarctic Peninsula experienced rapid warming from the early 1950s to the late 1990s, but that warming has paused as the peninsula cools instead. New research from British scientists found stabilisation of the ozone hole, changing wind patterns and natural variability have caused the peninsula to enter a temporary cooling phase. A: Professor Tim Naish, director, Antarctic Research Centre, Victoria University of Wellington, says: This is a really interesting new study and confirms the conclusion of earlier research – cited in the news and views, that the 20th and 21st century warming trends in west Antarctica were not unusual in the context of natural climate variability of the last 2000 years. Natural climate processes that control the timing and strength of the El Nino Southern Oscillation and the Southern Annular Mode are thought responsible for the variability. This new paper focuses specifically on the temperature records of the Antarctic Peninsula, which has often been referred to as a… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT Good to have those passages from the paper highlighted. The last 3 sentences of that quote reveal the problem for attributing the late 20th century warming to human cause and the problem that anthropogenic forcing in the models is at least excessive with respect to the Turner et al study. The last of the 3 sentences first: [Sentence 3] “Climate model projections forced with medium emission scenarios indicate the emergence of a large anthropogenic regional warming signal, comparable in magnitude to the late twentieth century Peninsula warming, during the latter part of the current century. OK, this gives the impression that the warming was anthropogenic in origin. But immediately prior in the previous 2 sentences the attribution was (sentence 1) “natural decadal-scale climate variability”: “[Sentence 1] “Therefore all these studies suggest that the rapid warming on the AP since the 1950s ……… [is]………. within the bounds of the large natural decadal-scale climate variability of the region.” Then again in the last sentence (sentence 2) “decadal-scale natural internal variability”: “[Sentence 2] This result is also consistent with the very high level of decadal-scale natural internal variability of the regional atmospheric circulation seen in… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Climategate email:

“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably “

— Tommy Willis, Swansea University

Simon
Guest
Simon

Who wrote that CSC press release? If you are going to personally attack scientists, you should at least have a decency to put your name to it. It’s a bit rich claiming to be tax-payers when your debt to NIWA remains unpaid.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Inevitable spin on Turner et al by Grist: just a li’l chill Don’t be fooled by a cooling Antarctica — warming is winning out By Andrea Thompson on Jul 24, 2016 http://grist.org/climate-energy/dont-be-fooled-by-a-cooling-antarctica-warming-is-winning-out/ Mixed messages though, and more than a little desperate. Examples: The cooling is relatively minor — less than 2 degrees F (1 degree C) since the 1990s — and it doesn’t negate the background warming that is happening because of the steady rise of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, the researchers said. It is simply masking it for the time being. Eventually, human-driven warming will overwhelm the influence of the ozone hole recovery and natural climate drivers, and temperatures will once again rise. There sure seems to be a lot of natural “masking” going on. Not so much “heat trapping” though. Warming will win out To put the warming and cooling periods into context, the team included analyses of ice core records. These cylinders of ice drilled from Antarctic glaciers can reveal temperature patterns and showed that episodes like these had occurred in the past as the result of natural variations in climate. The warming period, while unusual, wasn’t… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dr Jarrod Gilbert: Why climate denial should be a criminal offence (H/t Andy)

“”Since the 1960s, it has been known that heat-trapping gasses were increasing in the earth’s atmosphere, but no one knew to what effect. In 1979, a study found “no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible”. Since then scientists have been seeking to prove it, and the results are in. Meta studies show that 97 per cent of published climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activities.”

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11681154

Dr Jarrod Gilbert is a sociologist at the University of Canterbury and the lead researcher at Independent Research Solutions. He is an award-winning writer who specialises in research with practical applications.

# # #

Heh, “heat-trapping gasses” again. From a Sociologist no less. Expert in radiative thermodynamics of course.

But scientific truth is determined by vote now? And refuted papers (see upthread and post) still remain valid?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Two papers that together falsify the Man-Made Climate Change Theory. 1) ‘An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950’ D. M. Murphy, S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, T. Wong (2009) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/full There is obviously a massive discrepancy between theoretical forcing and actual earth heating. Murphy et al describe the discrepancy as “striking”: [38] A striking result of the Earth energy budget analysis presented here [Figure 6 below] is the small fraction of greenhouse gas forcing that has gone into heating the Earth. Since 1950, only about 10 ± 7% of the forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation has gone into heating the Earth, primarily the oceans. Murphy et al (2009) Figure 6 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2009JD012105/asset/image_n/jgrd15636-fig-0006.png?v=1&s=1d48ee59aed4b059a12eea9575028e88a7b134ce Total cumulative theoretical forcing is 1700 x 10^21 Joules 1950 – 2004 of which 10% is 170 x 10^21 Joules. In Figure 6, solar forcing is already 100 x 10^21 Joules leaving a residual of 70 x 10^21 Joules. Nordell and Gervet (2009) below estimate only 27.3 x 10^21 Joules (say 30 at 2004) actual energy accumulation total over the entire extended period 1880–2000 (say 2004): 2) ‘Global energy accumulation and… Read more »

Post Navigation