Warmists more frantic

The more one studies James Renwick’s desperate letter to the Herald the more frantic appear his attempts to malign by any means, fair or foul, the increasingly confident climate sceptics who question his global warming thesis. For example, he says of Chris de Freitas:

He claims that hysteria is being stirred up against those raising “serious questions” about climate change. What are these serious questions? Can he give an example of the hysteria?

Ethically forlorn RSNZ

Serious questions in a moment, but for hysteria Renwick need only visit Hot Topic. The toxic drivel from this local stronghold of warmists is republished on the Royal Society’s own lickspittle website, SciBlogs, so Renwick can claim ignorance of it to the same extent that he can justify his association with it. When its history is written, the current chapter of the formerly illustrious RSNZ will come to be seen as its most ethically forlorn.

For the RSNZ is engaged wholeheartedly in climate activism while entirely disengaged from scientific reflection and process. These scientists allow Hot Topic daily to pour scorn, ad hominem invective and worse on every visitor with doubts about global warming orthodoxy or who refuses to embrace Gareth Renowden’s religious climate change zeal. The site is an excellent example of the climate hysteria of which Renwick claims ignorance.

Renwick’s own use of the obnoxious, pejorative epithet “climate deniers” to refer to climate sceptics is another example of this hysteria, for a confident, capable scientist would simply answer their doubts with science.

Serious questions

So what are these serious questions? De Freitas already mentioned some of them:

  • What is the evidence that there should be a constant climate? For 4.2 billion years, climate has always been getting warmer or colder, wetter or drier, and there has never been runaway warming or cooling.
  • What is the evidence that the putative change from rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel use would be large or damaging? Output from computer models is not evidence unless model performance has been validated and so far it has not.
  • For significant global warming to occur, positive (or destabilising) feedback processes, such as rising water vapour concentration, are required for significant global warming to occur. What is the evidence that they have begun?
  • How can you maintain your hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW), despite scientific evidence to date suggesting that negative (stabilising) feedback processes prevail, possibly due to the cooling effect of increased cloudiness from water vapour increase?
  • What evidence is there that “climate change” is caused by carbon dioxide from human activities and not natural processes? This must be provided.
  • What is the evidence that the influence of increasing human-produced carbon dioxide on global warming is discernible? What is the evidence that warming will be significant?

But there are more:

  • For the last 20 years there’s been no significant warming.
  • No evidence that atmospheric radiation can warm the ocean.
  • No evidence of significant melting of ice sheets or glaciers.
  • No evidence that man-made CO2 detectably warms the earth.
  • No evidence of increasing hurricanes, storms, droughts or heat waves.
  • No evidence of substantial or widespread decrease in ocean alkalinity.
  • No evidence of positive feedback in atmospheric water vapour.

No doubt Chris himself has further serious questions, but these are what I can think of.

No evidence

Renwick  says:

De Freitas states that there is no evidence to distinguish between “natural” and “human-caused” warming. There is an 86-page chapter on this topic in the last IPCC report, citing over 600 scientific papers on the subject. The conclusion was: “It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature from 1951 to 2010.”  How can this be characterised as “no evidence”?

Fingerprints

It’s not hard, since no evidence is presented. In CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional, p894, there is a revealing description of attribution studies. Here’s what the IPCC says (my emphasis).

FAQ 10.1 | Climate Is Always Changing. How Do We Determine the Causes of Observed Changes?

The causes of observed long-term changes in climate (on time scales longer than a decade) are assessed by determining whether the expected ‘fingerprints’ of different causes of climate change are present in the historical record. These fingerprints are derived from computer model simulations of the different patterns of climate change caused by individual climate forcings. On multi-decade time scales, these forcings include processes such as greenhouse gas increases or changes in solar brightness. By comparing the simulated fingerprint patterns with observed climate changes, we can determine whether observed changes are best explained by those fingerprint patterns, or by natural variability, which occurs without any forcing. The fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse gas increases is clearly apparent in the pattern of observed 20th century climate change. The observed change cannot be otherwise explained by the fingerprints of natural forcings or natural variability simulated by climate models. Attribution studies therefore support the conclusion that ‘it is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010.’

They claim a human fingerprint is “clearly apparent” but consider this: the “fingerprints” of a human influence on climate are “derived” from a computer model, and a computer model is constructed from our knowledge of climate processes, which means we create the “fingerprints” it produces of a human influence, which “prove” to us there’s a human influence. Tell me this is not a circular argument, ipso facto, there’s no evidence.

This is not science

As if to prove beyond reasonable doubt that behind this process lies nothing but our own ignorance, we read this amazing confession:

The observed change cannot be otherwise explained

This is beyond revealing. The scientists are saying: “No matter where we look, whether at natural forcings or natural variability, we cannot find an explanation for the apparently unnatural late 20th century global surface temperature increase. Having found no explanation, in our ignorance we make one up.”

To conclude that it must be we wicked humans is not science, it’s policy looking for a pretext.

If it were science

  • these scientists would still be looking for an answer; instead they’re shouting at us.
  • they would be modest, restrained and happy to hear questions and doubts; instead they insult us.
  • they would have developed a single skilful model, because we only need one.
  • they would not pretend that the average of a hundred or more incorrect models is somehow the truth.
  • they wouldn’t have prepared policy prescriptions before they announced the crisis.

Above all, if it were science, they wouldn’t belong to a political committee called “intergovernmental”.

87
Leave a Reply

avatar
87 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Richard C (NZ)AndyRichard TreadgoldSimonMike Jowsey Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Brilliant!

Simon
Guest
Simon

Dialogue is impossible when one side is spouting rubbish.
◾For the last 20 years there’s been no significant warming.
False
◾No evidence that atmospheric radiation can warm the ocean.
Why are you ignoring conduction and convection?
◾No evidence of significant melting of ice sheets or glaciers.
False
◾No evidence that man-made CO2 detectably warms the earth.
False
◾No evidence of increasing hurricanes, storms, droughts or heat waves.
The big reinsurers believe that there is and they have a lot of money riding on this.
◾No evidence of substantial or widespread decrease in ocean alkalinity.
Maybe…
◾No evidence of positive feedback in atmospheric water vapour.
False.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon ◾ For the last 20 years there’s been no significant warming. [Simon] >”False” True. The El Nino warming is gone, temperatures are on the way back to neutral (see GISTEMP, UAH, RSS) and there’s a La Nina on the way i.e. the “pause/hiatus” is back. ◾ No evidence that atmospheric radiation can warm the ocean. [Simon] >”Why are you ignoring conduction and convection?” We’re not Simon. Look at the typical earth’s energy budgets at surface. Surface Heat Budget Comparison: Tropical Pacific (Fairall et al) vs Global (Stephens et al) vs Southern Ocean (Shulz et al). Tropical Pacific, Global, Southern Ocean (Wm-2) +191.5 ……. +165 ………. +130 …………… SW solar Radiation -103.3 ……….. -88 …………. -76 ……………. Latent Heat (your “convection” Simon) -7.7 …………… -24 …………. -19 ……………. Sensible Heat (your “conduction” Simon) -57.1 …………. -52.4 ………. -45 ……………. LW outgoing Radiation (OLR) +23.4 …………. +0.6 ………. -10 ……………. Mean net heat flux Q (Gain/Loss) W.m-2 The Pacific Ocean gains heat in the tropics and loses heat north and south in the high latitudes. There is no heat gain in either tropical Pacific, or Global, or Southern Ocean from “man made heat” by… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”All we need to falsify man-made climate change theory is this: …..[critical criteria & observations]……”

Game over.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change”

Or, in the case of ocean warming – Attribution by Speculation

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Even if there was a net DLR flux, there could be no warming because DLR only penetrates water a maximum of about the thickness of a human hair (100 microns) in ideal conditions………”

This was of course dismissed out of hand by the IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution authors when in the Chapter 10 review process, John McLean demanded a retraction of attribution that depended on false AO interface physics.

Read about that in this section of the following article:

The question of AR5 Chapter 10 author competency
IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria – Incompetence or Coverup?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf

Not the only false physics that the man-made climate change conjecture depends on either. The entire AGW notion of heat moving from a cold object (troposphere) to a warm object (surface) violates the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A violation proven by the earth’s energy budgets upthread.

You wont read about that in any IPCC assessment report though. It would NEVER get past the review gatekeepers as in the case of McLean above.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Or, in the case of ocean warming – Attribution by Speculation”

Details here:

Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart2TheImprobableIPCCMechanism.pdf

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Warmists more frantic” Resorting to all sorts of maneuverings now: ‘Decadal Climate Variability’ – Posted on August 8, 2016 | by Judith Curry The National Academies Press has published a new document: Frontiers in Decadal Climate Variability: Proceedings of a Workshop. [hotlink] https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/08/decadal-climate-variability/ Excerpts from the Overview and Introduction provide context: Because the storage of heat in the ocean has been implicated in the recent warming slowdown as measured by GMST, participants discussed the limitations of using GMST as the primary metric of global climate change. Many participants supported the notion that, because 93 percent of the excess heat from GHGs is stored in the ocean, sea-level rise, or sea-level rise together with GMST, may be a more appropriate metric of global climate change. JC reflections It is certainly gratifying to see this topic [‘Decadal Climate Variability’] being addressed by the NAS, since decadal variability is too often dismissed by the ‘establishment’ as climate ‘noise.’ The questions asked in the report, and the knowledge gaps, raise the important unresolved issues. There are no particularly new insights in the report, and there is much interesting (and recent) research on this topic that didn’t get… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Many participants supported the notion that, because 93 percent of the excess heat from GHGs is stored in the ocean, sea-level rise, or sea-level rise together with GMST, may be a more appropriate metric of global climate change

The very same thought crossed my mind too.
Apparently, Renwick and Naish did a special version of their climate roadshow for Christchurch, which spent some time on the sea level issue

Apparently some new research on the Antarctic suggests that it might be “worse than we thought”. That’s all I managed to glean from our community meeting last Friday

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

They’ve lost at TOA, lost at GMST, so inevitably they have to go to the ocean.

They’ll lose there too. The physics and heat budgets preclude a win. When people with enough transferrable heat smarts investigate their “93 percent of the excess heat from GHGs is stored in the ocean” meme, they will find the claim has no basis in fact.

Again (from last post), this is a monumental scientific fraud.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘How The Left Is Weaponizing The American Legal System’ [“Lawfare”]

Various progressive factions have undertaken an effort to criminalize dissent using the courts and statutory law.
By Daniel Payne

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/08/how-the-left-is-weaponizing-the-american-legal-system/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Payne: The Left’s Hatred for Dissent “It’s 2016,” many on the Left will say, sneeringly. Meaning: “It is no longer appropriate or acceptable for you to say or think things with which I disagree.” So the Left is turning to lawfare: a systematic effort to turn the American legal system against liberalism’s political opponents. The point is to take the court system (which is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of justice) and the law itself (which in many cases is ideologically neutral) and convert both into partisan weapons for liberal political advancement. It should cause you no small measure of discomfort to know that the Left has been largely successful in these efforts. Lawfare works. And, Global Warming and RICO After years of alarmism and hysteria, climate change activists are dismayed to find out that the general public really doesn’t care all that much about global warming. Angry and embarrassed by the failure of the climate change campaign, liberals are turning towards a new tool to help quash dissent on the subject: lawsuits. Last year Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse proposed using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute fossil… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

What a load of rubbish, ocean heat content has been well studied and is well understood:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon >”ocean heat content has been well studied and is well understood:” EXACTLY. From the thread in last post a breakdown of the data you refer to Simon (didn’t you keep up with that?): Global 0 – 2000m OHC is down considerably, North Pacific is up. Graphs http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ Basin data http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_tsl_data.html Pacific 3-month 0 – 2000 meters (Apr-Jun) 10^22 Joules YEAR PO NP SP 2005.375 11.039 15.070 7.735 2006.375 14.439 19.223 10.519 << Similar to 2016.375 2007.375 9.109 14.388 4.782 2008.375 12.022 17.200 7.777 2009.375 13.734 19.404 9.086 2010.375 10.937 15.404 7.275 2011.375 9.532 7.738 11.002 2012.375 13.284 16.522 10.630 2013.375 15.233 19.521 11.718 2014.375 16.989 14.648 18.907 2015.375 19.806 14.947 23.788 2016.375 14.109 19.071 10.041 << Similar to 2006.375 10 years ago http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month_sl/a-mm-p0-2000m4-6.dat World 3-month 0 – 2000 meters all months 10^22 Joules 2014-6,19.914608 << As it is now in 2016-6 2014-9,18.526079 2014-12,21.123238 2015-3,23.416958 2015-6,22.368597 2015-9,21.546423 2015-12,22.271896 2016-3,22.931677 2016-6,19.944710 << Back where it was 2 years ago http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv Confounds and defies anthropogenic attribution but Liu, Xie,and Lu manage it nonetheless: 'Tracking ocean heat uptake during the surface warming hiatus' Wei Liu, Shang-Ping Xie, and Jian Lu (2016) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821003/ Discussion “The deep (700–1,500 m)… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”ocean heat content has been well studied and is well understood:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

BIG PROBLEM for the Warmies.

“93 percent of the excess heat from GHGs is stored in the ocean”

0 – 2000m OHC 1950 – 2004 about 22 x 10^22 Joules or 220 ZetaJoules (10^21) assuming data from 1950.

Murphy et al (2009) total accumulated theoretical forcing 1950 -2004 (GHGs + Solar) 1700 ZetaJoules. About 100 solar, residual 1700 – 100 = 1600 x 93% = 1488 to ocean from GHGs theoretical.
220 – 100 solar = 120 actual estimate.

1488 ZetaJoules to ocean from GHGs – Theory and [miss]attribution 1950 – 2004
120 ZetaJoules to ocean from GHGs – Obs estimate assuming data from 1950 and solar estimate correct.

Houston, we have a problem.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”BIG PROBLEM for the Warmies.” This is how Steve Easterbrook explains it away: ‘What Does the New IPCC Report Say About Climate Change?’ Steve Easterbrook, 08. October 2013 […] [SPM](Box 13.1 fig 1) The Earth’s energy budget from 1970 to 2011. Cumulative energy flux (in zettaJoules!) into the Earth system from well-mixed and short-lived greenhouse gases, solar forcing, changes in tropospheric aerosol forcing, volcanic forcing and surface albedo, (relative to 1860–1879) are shown by the coloured lines and these are added to give the cumulative energy inflow (black; including black carbon on snow and combined contrails and contrail induced cirrus, not shown separately). http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/IPCC-AR5-Box-13.1-fig-1.png This chart summarizes the impact of different drivers of warming and/or cooling, by showing the total cumulative energy added to the earth system since 1970 from each driver. Note that the chart is in zettajoules (10^21J). For comparison, one zettajoule is about the energy that would be released from 200 million bombs of the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima. The world’s total annual global energy consumption is about 0.5ZJ. […] [SPM] (Box 3.1 Fig 1) Plot of energy accumulation in ZJ (1 ZJ = 1021 J) within… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”SSR forcing far exceeds TSI forcing at TOA, and SSR is the surface heating agent that easily explains 275ZJ ocean storage 1971–2010″

Fairall et al (1976) data (Table 5) shows tropical Pacific SSR forcing exceeded the total upwards flux by 23.4 W.m-2. From Upthread:

Surface Heat Budget Comparison:

Tropical Pacific (Fairall et al) vs Global (Stephens et al) vs Southern Ocean (Shulz et al).

Tropical Pacific, Global, Southern Ocean (Wm-2)
+191.5 ……. +165 ………. +130 …………… SW solar Radiation
-103.3 ……….. -88 …………. -76 ……………. Latent Heat (your “convection” Simon)
-7.7 …………… -24 …………. -19 ……………. Sensible Heat (your “conduction” Simon)
-57.1 …………. -52.4 ………. -45 ……………. LW outgoing Radiation (OLR)

+23.4 …………. +0.6 ………. -10 ……………. Mean net heat flux Q (Gain/Loss) W.m-2

The Pacific Ocean gains heat in the tropics and loses heat north and south in the high latitudes.

There is no heat gain in either tropical Pacific, or Global, or Southern Ocean from “man made heat” by any energy transfer flux – radiation, sensible heat, or latent heat.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Wrong Steve. OLR is not losing “increasingly more energy back into space” Why don’t Warmies check the actual data BEFORE making their brainless claims? They’re so fixated on what they THINK is happening that it never occurs to them to check the facts. Steve Easterbrook is a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto. His blog, Serendipity, is about “Applying systems thinking to computing, climate and sustainability”. In the quote upthread he links (see “[hotlink]”) to this page: The Climate as a System, part 3: greenhouse gases http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2013/08/the-climate-as-a-system-part-3-greenhouse-gases/ His”system” is this LOOP (apparently): The energy system interacting with the basic climate system http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/Screen-Shot-2013-08-27-at-10.54.31-AM.png Steve obviously doesn’t understand thermodynamics, energy budgets, or systems, going by the lower LOOP. It’s not a LOOP Steve. The system is this: Solar energy in => oceanic heat sink => energy out to atmosphere (hence “temperature +”) + space (OLR). “GHGs in atmosphere” have no effect whatsoever on OLR (see obs graph upthread) contrary to Steve’s “system” showing “outgoing infra-red radiation +”. The difference between energy in and energy out is the TOA energy imbalance – not a “net radiative forcing +/-” LOOP which is merely theory,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”SSR forcing far exceeds TSI forcing at TOA, and SSR is the surface heating agent that easily explains 275ZJ ocean storage 1971–2010″ That explanation starts in the 1920s: Observed decadal variations in surface solar radiation and their causes Atsumu Ohmura (2009) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011290/full 5. Conclusion [16] Global solar irradiance showed a significant fluctuation during the last 90 years. It increased from 1920 to 1940–1950s, thereafter it decreased toward late 1980s. In early 1990s 75% of the glob indicated the increasing trend of solar irradiance, while the remaining area continued to lose solar radiation. The regions with continued dimming are located in areas with high aerosol content. The magnitudes of the variation are estimated at +12, −8 and +8 W m−2, for the first brightening, for the dimming and the recent brightening periods, respectively. The global dimming of −8 W m−2 and recent brightening of +8 W m−2 are considered to be caused by the variations in the aerosol content in the atmosphere. The 40-year period of dimming and the subsequent brightening offer an opportunity to separate aerosol effect into the direct and indirect effects, and further, to evaluate the surface temperature sensitivity due to… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ohmura:

“The temperature sensitivity of the [SSR] radiation change is estimated at 0.05 to 0.06 K/(W m−2)”

+12 W.m-2 (1920 to 2005) x 0.055 = +0.66 K.

This is the true “climate sensitivity” (CS) to SSR – not GHGs. This corresponds to the temperature rise 1920s – 2000s:

[IPCC AR5] (Fig SPM.1) Observed globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850-2012. The top panel shows the annual values; the bottom panel shows decadal means. (Note: Anomalies are relative to the mean of 1961-1990).
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/IPCC-AR5-WG1-Fig-SPM1.png

One day, far off in the future, Warmies and LukeWarmies will figure this out.

But it will take time. Lots of time. They are really REALLY slooooow at figuring stuff like this out..

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Factoid

The total internal energy of the whole ocean is more than 1,600,000 ZetaJoules, about 2000 times larger than the total internal energy, 940 ZetaJoules, of the whole atmosphere.

That’s a lot of “Hiroshima bombs”. Easterbrook – “one zettajoule is about the energy that would be released from 200 million bombs of the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima”. So 1.6 million x 200 million = 320,000,000 million “Hiroshima bombs” of heat in the ocean.

Question: What is the source of the ocean heat?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The total internal energy of the whole ocean is more than 1,600,000 ZetaJoules”

275 ZetaJoules increase 1971–2010 is 0.017%.

wow.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Scientist Predicts ‘Little Ice Age,’ Gets Icy Reception From Colleagues’ Michael Bastasch, 08/09/2016 Professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University is being attacked by climate change proponents for publishing research suggesting there could be a 35-year period of low solar activity that could usher in an “ice age.” Zharkova and her team of researchers released a study on sunspot modeling, finding that solar activity could fall to levels not seen since the so-called “Little Ice Age” of the 1600s. Zharkova’s conclusions may have huge implications for global temperature modeling, but her analysis is not accepted by some climate scientists. “Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy,” she told The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) in an interview on her solar study. In fact, Zharkova said some scientists even tried to have her research suppressed. “They were trying to actually silence us,” she said. “Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release.” […] Climate scientists were quick to ask the U.K.’s Royal Astronomical Society to suppress Zharkova’s findings. “The Royal Astronomical Society replied… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks’ Date: 09/08/16, Global Warming Policy Forum […] Professor Valentina Zharkova: We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum. What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small. Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Renwick in the press today”

Experiments with climate models show that only by including greenhouse gas increases can we capture the rise in global temperatures over the past 60 or more years. Changes in the Sun’s output or other “natural” factors just don’t do it.

The climate models use TSI at TOA but not SSR. So of course they get it wrong in the models – GIGO.

From upthread:

TSI forcing at TOA is only about +0.1 W.m-2 1750 – 2005 (ludicrous in itself)
SSR forcing at Sfc is estimated +12 W.m-2 1920 – 2005.

SSR is 120 times greater than TSI at TOA.

Worse still.

Theoretical GHG forcing is far in excess of actual earth’s heat as detailed upthread – GIGO again.

Most of the extra warming coming from increased carbon dioxide is warming the oceans – they absorb more than 90 per cent of the heat…….

This is a falsehood. A miss -attribution. Unsubstantiated by the IPCC. And physically impossible as detailed upthread.

GIGO all the way down.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”The climate models use TSI at TOA but not SSR. So of course they get it wrong in the models – GIGO.” They try to simulate SSR (not parameterize note) but they get that wrong so effectively GIGO. ’20th century changes in surface solar irradiance in simulations and observations’ A. Romanou,1 B. Liepert,2 G. A. Schmidt,3 W. B. Rossow,3 R. A. Ruedy,4 and Y. Zhang1 Received 5 October 2006; revised 23 December 2006; accepted 5 February 2007; published 8 March 2007. 1 Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 2 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA. 3 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA. 4 Sigma Space Partners, New York, New York, USA. [1] The amount of solar irradiance reaching the surface is a key parameter in the hydrological and energy cycles of the Earth’s climate. We analyze 20th Century simulations using nine state-of-the-art climate models and show that all models estimate a global annual mean reduction in downward surface solar radiation of 1–4 W/m2 at the same time that the globe warms by 0.4–0.7C. In single forcing simulations using… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

Prof. Renwick has had the opportunity to write an op-ed on stuff.co.nz:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/82917858/ten-things-to-know-about-climate-change
He seems fairly confident about a 1m sea level rise projection by 2100. I am less sure, but at least I acknowledge that he knows more about the subject than I do.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Romanou et al:

>”The amount of solar irradiance reaching the surface [SSR] is a key parameter in the hydrological and energy cycles of the Earth’s climate”

Really just stating the obvious and basically a no-brainer. So OK, where’s the “key parameter” SSR in the IPCC’s table of forcings?

IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 8 Figure 8-17: Components of Radiative Forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2008/Fig8-17.jpg

Conspicuously absent. Why? Reason: Those 8-17 forcings are only applicable at TOA and from 1750. The major 20th Century forcing at the SURFACE (SSR) far exceeds any forcing at TOA from 1750, real or not.

AR5 Chapter 8 Radiative Forcing:

“As in previous IPCC assessments, AR5 uses the radiative forcing1. (RF) concept”

This “concept” is the fatal flaw in IPCC reasoning and climate modeling. It neglects the major (by far) 20th century forcing SSR.

GIGO all the way down.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon

>”He [Renwick] seems fairly confident about a 1m sea level rise projection by 2100. I am less sure, but at least I acknowledge that he knows more about the subject than I do.”

Renwick’s not an oceanographer. And it wouldn’t take much to know more than you Simon.

But Renwick’s basing his confidence on the IPCC’s fatally flawed radiative forcing concept (see previous comment).

GIGO all the way down

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon

Andy on August 10, 2016 at 9:01 am said:

Renwick in the press today
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/82917858/ten-things-to-know-about-climate-change

Simon on August 10, 2016 at 11:30 am said:

Prof. Renwick has had the opportunity to write an op-ed on stuff.co.nz:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/82917858/ten-things-to-know-about-climate-change

Andy beat you by 2 and half hours Simon.

If you actually followed these threads you wouldn’t keep coming up with mindless trivia.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”If you [Simon] actually followed these threads you wouldn’t keep coming up with mindless trivia.”

Not implying that Andy’s first reference to Renwick was “mindless”, just Simon’s second reference to exactly the same article was.

Besides, Andy’s comment generated a subthread:

#28 Andy
#30 Richard
#31 Richard
#33 Richard

Johnny-come-lately Simon (as always) comes in at #32 duplicating #29 by Andy.

But as trolls go, Simon’s “mindless trivia” is as good as any I suppose. He’s the only regular troll we’ve got now so we haven’t got much choice anyway.

Andy
Guest
Andy

>He [Renwick] seems fairly confident about a 1m sea level rise projection by 2100

At some point we would need to see some fairly noticeable acceleration in SLR, which in NZ anyway seems to be absent

I think that the one metre claim could be falsified by observations in 10-20 years or less, unless there is a claim that very non-linear behaviour will kick in at some stage

Simon
Guest
Simon

Following these threads is impossible due to the gross regurgitation and verbiage that lie in between.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Simon

>”Following these threads is impossible due to the gross regurgitation and verbiage that lie in between.”

In other words, you have a gross comprehension problem Simon. An inability to comprehend. Explains why you never learn anything Simon.

Have you tried a remedial reading course?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘How well do IPCC-AR4/CMIP3 climate models simulate global dimming/brightening and twentieth-century daytime and nighttime warming?’ Martin Wild, First published: 1 May 2009 Abstract [1] Observations indicate that greenhouse induced twentieth-century warming has been strongly modulated by variations in surface solar radiation. Between the 1950s and 1980s, declining surface solar radiation (“global dimming”) likely caused a dampening of global warming, whereas increasing surface solar radiation (“brightening”) may have contributed to the rapid warming in the last 2 decades, and possibly also in the first half of the twentieth century. This is also reflected in the decadal evolution of diurnal temperature range, which is highly correlated with surface solar radiation, and which shows a distinct transition from a strong decrease between the 1950s and 1980s, toward a leveling off thereafter. The present study investigates to what extent these effects are simulated in the latest generation of global climate models used in the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report (AR4) (phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) models). While these models reproduce the overall twentieth century warming over global land surfaces well, they underestimate the decadal variations in the warming and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Pinker et al: Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?’ Posted: April 10, 2013 by tallbloke Errrmm, why I have not heard of this 2006 paper before? 1.6W/m^2 per decade is a not insignificant trend. Did the IPCC ignore this? Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation? R. T. Pinker, B. Zhang, E. G. Dutton (2006) Abstract Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent independent satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe. SSR trend Pinker et al (2006): Global Full paper here… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Romanou et al 2007

”The amount of solar irradiance reaching the surface [SSR] is a key parameter in the hydrological and energy cycles of the Earth’s climate”

Wild 2009

“While these models reproduce the overall twentieth century warming over global land surfaces well, they underestimate the decadal variations in the warming and particularly also in diurnal temperature range, indicative of a lack of decadal variations in surface solar radiation [SSR] in the models.”

Wild and Schmucki 2010

“Climate models and reanalyses are therefore not yet at a stage to provide regionally consistent estimates of decadal changes in SSR.”

Ohmura 2009

”The magnitudes of the variation [1920 – 2000] are estimated at +12, −8 and +8 W m−2, for the first brightening, for the dimming and the recent brightening periods, respectively.”

“The temperature sensitivity of the [SSR] radiation change is estimated at 0.05 to 0.06 K/(W m−2)”

+12 W.m-2 (1920 to 2005) x 0.055 = +0.66 K.

SSR explains 20th century warming without recourse to GHGs.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Did the IPCC ignore this?” Do we need to ask?

From Google:

9.2.2.2 Aerosol Scattering and Cloud Feedback in Models

“,,,,, with the long-term upward trend in surface radiation found by Pinker et al, ,,,,”

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2-2.html

3.4.4.2 Surface Radiation – AR4 WGI Chapter 3

“In addition, the satellite-observed increase in surface radiation noted by Pinker et al.”

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-2.html

# # #

Nothing in AR5 that I can see. Be interesting to see what they made of this in AR5 Chapter 3 especially.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Be interesting to see what they made of this [Pinker et al 2006] in [AR4] Chapter 3 especially.” Chapter 3 refers to Pinker et al 2005 but it is probably the same paper. 3.4.4.2 Surface Radiation The increase in surface solar radiation (‘brightening’) agrees with satellite and surface observations of reduced cloud cover (Wang et al., 2002b; Wielicki et al., 2002a; Rossow and Dueñas, 2004; Norris, 2005b; Pinker et al., 2005), although there is evidence that some of these changes are spurious (see Section 3.4.3). In addition, the satellite-observed increase in surface radiation noted by Pinker et al. (2005) occured primarily over ocean, whereas the increase observed by Wild et al. (2005) was restricted to land stations. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-2.html # # # No assessment of SSR in respect to surface temperature. For that we go to the Technical Summary (TS): Technical Summary https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ts.html TS 2.6 Surface Forcing and the Hydrologic Cycle “The instantaneous radiative flux change at the surface (hereafter called ‘surface forcing’) is a useful diagnostic tool for understanding changes in the heat and moisture surface budgets and the accompanying climate change. However, unlike radiative forcing, it cannot be used to quantitatively compare… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

IPCC AR4 Technical Summary 2.6:

”[‘surface forcing’] cannot be used to quantitatively compare the effects of different agents on the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change.”

Really? Ohmura 2009 managed quantification and didn’t need a comparison,

”The magnitudes of the [SSR] variation [1920 – 2000] are estimated at +12, −8 and +8 W m−2, for the first brightening, for the dimming and the recent brightening periods, respectively.”

“The temperature sensitivity of the [SSR] radiation change is estimated at 0.05 to 0.06 K/(W m−2)”

+12 W.m-2 (1920 to 2005) x 0.055 = +0.66 K.
SSR explains 20th century warming without recourse to GHGs.

Seems easy enough. Why couldn’t the IPCC do this?

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Critical assessment of surface incident solar radiation observations collected by SURFRAD, USCRN and AmeriFlux networks from 1995 to 2011’

Kaicun Wang, John Augustine, Robert E. Dickinson (2012)

Abstract
[1] Surface incident solar radiation (Rs) drives weather and climate changes.

1. Introduction
[2] The surface incident solar radiation (Rs) absorbed at the surface drives weather processes through latent and sensible heat fluxes [Wang et al., 2010a, 2010b] and longwave radiation emission [Wang et al., 2005]. It therefore determines the Earth’s weather and climate, and its change results in climate and environmental change [Trenberth and Fasullo, 2010].

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017945/full

# # #

Surface incident solar radiation (Rs, SSR), Romanou et al’s “key parameter”. Thrown out by the IPCC.

Wang et al directly contradict the IPCC:

”[‘surface forcing’] cannot be used to quantitatively compare the effects of different agents on the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change.”

IPCC “assessment” is scientifically fraudulent.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Recent regional surface solar radiation dimming and brightening patterns: inter-hemispherical asymmetry and a dimming in the Southern Hemisphere’ N. Hatzianastassiou, C. D. Papadimas, C. Matsoukas, K. Pavlakis, A. Fotiadi, M. Wild, I. Vardavas (2011) Abstract Recent variations in surface solar radiation (SSR) at the beginning of the 21st century (2000–2007) were determined at scales ranging from local/regional to hemispherical/global, on the basis of radiative transfer computations and information from satellites, reanalyses and surface measurements. Under all-sky conditions, in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) there is no clear dimming/brightening signal after 2000, whereas in the SH there is a more clear dimming arising from both increasing clouds and aerosols. Dimming is observed over land and ocean in the Southern Hemisphere (SH), and over oceans in the NH, whereas a slight brightening occurred over NH land. However, opposite tendencies are found even within the same continent, indicating the need to assess SSR changes at regional/local scales apart from hemispherical/global ones. 3. Results Good agreement is also found between our model-based SSR tendencies and surface data for other regions, such as the brightening over New Zealand and Israel (Liley, 2009; Stanhill and Cohen, 2009). Tendencies of SSR… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Liley B. 2009. New Zealand dimming and brightening. [See next comment]” ‘New Zealand dimming and brightening’ J. B. Liley (2009) Abstract [1] Recent papers in the international literature on global dimming found a mixed pattern in data from New Zealand. Closer analysis of pyranometer data from four long-term sites shows a downward trend up to 1990, with a reversal at three of them after that time. How much can be attributed to the direct aerosol effect is uncertain from the pyranometer data, but aerosol optical depth data from Lauder show too little aerosol for this to be a substantial component. A comparison with much longer records of sunshine hours shows that there was a trend of increasing cloudiness to around 1990, and a decline since then, consistent with the global pattern. 2. New Zealand Irradiance [6] There are few New Zealand climate stations with pyranometer data before 1970. The four with the earliest data are at Auckland (37.0°S, 174.8°E, WMO 931190, Nov 1969), Wellington (41.4°S, 174.9°E, WMO 934370, Jan 1954), Christchurch (43.5°S, 172.5°E, WMO 937800, Jan 1960), and Invercargill (46.4°S, 168.3°E, WMO 938440, Jan 1954). [7] …………………For comparison with other sites and studies,… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Frantic Warmist Dr John Fasullo:

This article shows that the acceleration of sea level rise is real and ongoing. It is also an example of how climate models can play a key role in both the interpretation of observations and the prediction of near-future climate.

And, in the same article,

barring another major volcanic eruption, a detectable acceleration is likely to emerge from the noise of internal climate variability in the coming decade.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/10/climate-scientists-make-a-bold-prediction-about-sea-level-rise

# # #

If audacity was an Olympic event he’d get a gold medal.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Frantic Warmist John Abraham:

‘Climate scientists make a bold prediction about sea level rise’

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/10/climate-scientists-make-a-bold-prediction-about-sea-level-rise

# # #

A “bold prediction” of something that is already supposed to be happening but isn’t happening.

Why is that “bold”?

Andy
Guest
Andy

If their bold prediction is wrong, then will they boldly tell us so, or sweep it under the carpet?

Presumably this is a tacit acknowledgement that SLR isn’t actually accelerating at the moment

Andy
Guest
Andy
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Frantic Phys.org Warmists: ‘Climate change already accelerating sea level rise, study finds’ Phys.org , Science X network, August 10, 2016 Greenhouse gases are already having an accelerating effect on sea level rise, but the impact has so far been masked by the cataclysmic 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Satellite observations, which began in 1993, indicate that the rate of sea level rise has held fairly steady at about 3 millimeters per year. But the expected acceleration due to climate change is likely hidden in the satellite record because of a happenstance of timing: The record began soon after the Pinatubo eruption, which temporarily cooled the planet, causing sea levels to drop. The new study finds that the lower starting point effectively distorts the calculation of sea level rise acceleration for the last couple of decades. The study lends support to climate model projections, which show the rate of sea level rise escalating over time as the climate warms. The findings were published today in the open-access Nature journal Scientific Reports. “When we used climate model runs designed… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?’

J. T. Fasullo, R. S. Nerem & B. Hamlington (2016)

Abstract

Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric mass loss increase over time. In stark contrast to this expectation however, current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era. Here, a combined analysis of altimeter data and specially designed climate model simulations shows the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo to likely have masked the acceleration that would have otherwise occurred. This masking arose largely from a recovery in ocean heat content through the mid to late 1990 s subsequent to major heat content reductions in the years following the eruption. A consequence of this finding is that barring another major volcanic eruption, a detectable acceleration is likely to emerge from the noise of internal climate variability in the coming decade.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245

# # #

This is not science. This is speculation.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Fasullo et al

Insight from Tide Gauges

The resulting estimates of the GMSL trend from 1900 to 1990 range from 1.2 mm yr−1 to 1.9 mm yr−1, albeit with significant decadal variability about this long-term trend [1, Fig. 13.7b]. Coupled with the higher GMSL trend observed during the satellite altimeter record discussed above, the tide gauge record demonstrates unequivocal acceleration since the early 1900 s, with estimates ranging from 0.009 +/− 0.002 mm yr−2 17 to 0.017 +/− 0.003 mm yr−2 20. Based on these same studies, however, the majority of the acceleration arises from a shift that occurs around 1990 when the rate of sea level rise increases to the satellite-measured trend of 3.3 mm yr−1.

So it’s actually “insight” from tide gauges “coupled” with satellite altimeters.

Beenstock et al found 65% of good quality long-running tide gauges were flat or falling.
That’s “insight” from tide gauges

Andy
Guest
Andy

Herr Thomas of Hot Topic writes:

Andy, your nitpickery about slopes and gradients with regard to CC is irrelevant.

The rate of acceleration of SLR in the future depends on many factors and feedbacks and also on our actions to revert the CO2 trend or the lack of the same. Your mathematical number play will have no impact on that whatsoever, nor will it inform you or the CCC about prudent methods of risk management.

Yeah who need numbers, maths and logic

So old fashioned

Andy
Guest
Andy

Herr Thomas of Hot Topic had previously stated that he didn’t need to look at my numbers because they must be tosh (by definition) and that he is a maths teacher

Do maths teachers not teach maths anymore? If numbers are not needed, then presumably neither is maths.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Fasullo et al An estimate of this near-future GMSL acceleration can be made using LE projections of OHC, TWS, and PW in conjunction with independent estimates of future ice sheet losses [1, Figs 3 and 4]. The estimate suggests that, as discussed above, it is unsurprising that acceleration has yet to be detected given the forced response to Pinatubo and the noise of internal climate variability in both OHC and TWS (shaded regions of Figs 2, 3, 4), and potential retrieval biases12. Moreover, the result also demonstrates that as anthropogenic influences continue to increase (as a result of both increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and decreasing anthropogenic aerosol emissions), a detectable acceleration of GMSL rise is likely to emerge as it exceeds the noise of background climate variability (shaded) in the coming years. The main contributor to this acceleration is the accelerated increase in OHC, which is offset somewhat by increasing but secondary influences from atmospheric and terrestrial storage (Figs. S2 and S4), while a key component of the noise obscuring acceleration is the variability of TWS. Moreover, when the effects of the Mt Pinatubo eruption estimated form the LE are removed (blue), acceleration… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”More screeching from Redfearn”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/09/why-one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-demand-for-empirical-evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk

Helpfully providing the hotlink to Malcolm Roberts website:

conscious – The Work of Malcolm Roberts
Protecting Freedom by understanding climate, science and sovereignty
Climate Conscious – Summary
http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Andy

>”Presumably this [Fasullo et al] is a tacit acknowledgement that SLR isn’t actually accelerating at the moment”

Fasullo et al:

“…..when the effects of the Mt Pinatubo eruption estimated form the LE are removed (blue), acceleration becomes apparent, even in the present day.”

“….it is unsurprising that acceleration has yet to be detected given the forced response to Pinatubo and the noise of internal climate variability…..”

Yes SLR is accelerating. No it has not yet been detected. This is unsurprising.

The strange logic of CO2-centric climate science.

Andy
Guest
Andy
Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Gavin Schmidt’s prediction of a 2016 temperature record:

Gavin Schmidt ‏@ClimateOfGavin

“With Apr update, 2016 still > 99% likely to be a new record (assuming historical ytd/ann patterns valid).”

Predicting the 2016 GISTEMP LOTI mean anomaly [About 1.3 C (1.15 – 1.45) ]
comment image

https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/731599988141248512

# # #

1.3 C anomaly now appears to be > 99% unlikely. Even the 1.15 lower limit looks iffy. LOTI mean to end of June was 1.095 C

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Schmidt will be frantic. There’s still another 6 months of 2015 data to come in.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Lew thinks there are “three main tactics of climate denial”.

Aside from the inane “climate denial” branding, those are:

1) “The necessity of conspiracism”
2) “The Galileo gambit”
3) “The sounds of science”

What a goose.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘New FOIA’d Documents Show AGs’ #ExxonKnew Campaign Isn’t Even About Exxon — It’s About … Paris?’ August 9, 2016 by Katie Brown, PhD New documents released today further confirm that the Democratic state attorneys general engaging in climate RICO investigations specifically targeted certain organizations as a means of providing support to the Administration’s climate agenda – not, as the AGs have claimed, because the investigations themselves were meritorious in their own right. In a letter dated March 7 inviting the AGs to join in the March 29 press conference with Al Gore, the attorneys general from New York and Vermont write: “The commitments of the United States and other nations at last year’s Paris climate change conference are very significant steps forward, but states must still play a critical role in ensuring that the promises made in Paris become reality.” In other words, the #ExxonKnew campaign isn’t really about Exxon at all. Rather, it’s about providing the air support these AGs believed was necessary to hasten the adoption and implementation of policies that were discussed in Paris. As Craig Richardson of E&E Legal put it, “That is a political cause, which the AGs… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Secret Deal Among AGs to Prosecute Climate Change ‘Deniers’ Challenged in Court’ Kevin Mooney / August 08, 2016 By signing a “secrecy pact” with fellow Democrat attorneys general preparing to prosecute climate change skeptics, Rhode Island’s top law enforcement officer jeopardized free speech rights and government transparency laws, according to two legal organizations that have taken him to court. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin’s tactics in supporting President Barack Obama’s climate change policy violate state law guaranteeing access to public records, the two groups, Energy and Environment Legal Institute and Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, claim in their lawsuit. If Kilmartin and the other attorneys general prevail in the deal to keep select details secret, the ordinary citizen will be the loser, Chris Horner, a leading critic of climate change orthodoxy, said. “It will mean that they can create privilege for what are otherwise public records, even when shared with ideological activists and donors, so long as everyone who wants to keep their scheming secret agrees in advance,” Horner told The Daily Signal. The lawsuit, filed July 27 in Rhode Island Superior Court, calls for Kilmartin, a Democrat, to release records that… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Ship Of Fools “could be in trouble”

Posted on August 10, 2016 by tonyheller

“We had 6/10 ice, and if we ploughed on until the middle and got caught, we could be in trouble. Im already losing sleep, and don’t want to lose any more unnecessarily,”

Home – The Polar Ocean Challenge [hotlink]

I’v been trying to warn them for a month, but they blocked me and listened to climate fraudsters instead. And then went on a massive drinking binge. I think they could be in serious trouble, because the southerly winds coming in tomorrow will likely compact the ice around them.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/ship-of-fools-could-be-in-trouble/

# # #

‘It’s deja vu all over again’

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Latest excuse: ‘Pinatubo eruption masked sea level acceleration in satellite record’

Anthony Watts / August 10, 2016

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/10/latest-excuse-pinatubo-eruption-masked-sea-level-acceleration-in-satellite-record/

Comments are fun.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Bryan A August 10, 2016 at 12:42 pm Funny how this report [Fasullo et al] talks about the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 causing a “Decline” in sea level which is conveniently just before the Satellite Record begins. Every Sea Level reconstruction I can find, like this one from SkepticalScience here https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm shows that the actual fall in sea level happened in 1986 or 87 and was in fact recovering before during and after the eruption. …….. And this one from the EPA here https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/sea-level also shows the sea level falling around 1986 and then rising with just the slightest of blips around 1992 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/10/latest-excuse-pinatubo-eruption-masked-sea-level-acceleration-in-satellite-record/#comment-2275124 # # # The SkS “rising faster as time goes on” curve (Blue, Church 2008) is no more than a positive inflexion 1920 – 1940. 1991/92.5 is on the trend line (Blue). Prior to that there was below-trend 1984 to 1991 measurements and prior to 1984 there was on-trend measurements, more or less, right back to 1940. After 1992.5 there is a minor drop below the trend 1992.5 to 1997 after which the data goes above trend and back to trend. Satellite altimetry begins 1992.9595 (Red). This is right… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Democratic AGs ignore polls, press case against climate skeptics’ By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times – Tuesday, August 9, 2016 Democratic attorneys general mounted a dogged defense Tuesday of their effort to prosecute climate skeptics amid signs that the 4-month-old campaign is deteriorating into a legal and public relations flop. With a newly released poll showing an overwhelming majority of voters — including Democrats — oppose the investigation, the coalition of attorneys general pressed on, urging a federal court in Texas to uphold a subpoena filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey against Exxon Mobil. “No company — no matter how rich or powerful — is above the law,” New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman said in a statement. “Exxon’s lawsuit in Texas is nothing more than an attempt to put its practices beyond the reach of state prosecutors.” The amicus brief filed in support of the Massachusetts investigation comes with the coalition showing signs of fraying after suffering a series of setbacks. So far only three of the 17 attorneys general — those in Massachusetts, New York and the Virgin Islands — have acknowledged starting investigations into Exxon or other… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Just heard Daniel Corbett on One News weather in respect to Dunedin:

“One of the coldest Augusts there. Ever!”

That’ll make the Warmists frantic.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

On Fasullo et al at WUWT: rokshox August 10, 2016 at 9:04 am Wouldn’t a temporarily lowered starting point mean that sea level rise rates are overestimated? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/10/latest-excuse-pinatubo-eruption-masked-sea-level-acceleration-in-satellite-record/#comment-2274961 Richard Bond August 10, 2016 at 9:37 am Exactlly. Mary Brown August 10, 2016 at 10:42 am I was thinking the same thing. Lower starting point means Pinatubo is masking an even greater deceleration [Not quite. rokshox had it right. Fasullo et al acknowledge a deceleration in their paper. Raising the start point means a LESSOR deceleration but also a lessor LINEAR rate] William Yarber August 10, 2016 at 10:47 am They’ve got it backwards. Pinatubo temporarily cooled Earth, lowering sea level. A lower starting sea level would accelerate rate of sea level rise. Must be wonderful to be a scientist these days. Remember a line from Beatles song “you can get wrong and think it’s alright”! How did this get past peer review? Silly me! [A lower starting point would accelerate the LINEAR rate. The lower start point produces a pronounced deceleration which Fasullo et al acknowledge] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/10/latest-excuse-pinatubo-eruption-masked-sea-level-acceleration-in-satellite-record/#comment-2275045 # # # Anyone with synapses firing can see the fatal flaw immediately but authors and… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Inevitable hyperbole from Chris Mooney:

‘Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.’
By Chris Mooney August 10

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/10/seas-arent-just-rising-scientists-say-theyre-speeding-up/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_ee-searise-1000am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.bbc27739e380

These guys tie themselves in knots. They end up fooling themselves with their own convoluted reasoning.

But it grabs headlines via the usual conduits – that’s the main aim. Mission accomplished.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Look, you are putting on weight. Even though the scales haven’t changed, the weight gain is masked by the exercise you are doing.

When you stop that exercise, you will pile on the pounds

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Not only is there observed and “real” SLR, there’s observed and “real” temperature too:

Observed and eventually expected (“real”) temperature at concurrent CO2 concentration, via Bits of Science
comment image?w=836

From – ‘Climate inertia’ by Bart Verheggen August 9, 2016
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/climate-inertia/

“This is a nice way to visualize the warming that’s still in the pipeline due to ocean thermal inertia.

First comment:

vuurklip Says: August 9, 2016 at 17:41

So, “observed” is not “real”? Oh, the hubris …

Andy
Guest
Andy

Don’t force your satanic metric ways on me mr T

When we get this Brexit thing done, I’ll be lobbying for a return to pounds shillings and pence, too

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Re “Observed and eventually expected (“real”)” graph. Note that the GISTEMP 30-year mean has been projected from 2001 to 2016 (dotted red) i.e. they cannot accept that there was a negative inflexion in the 30-yr mean at 2001 because it doesn’t fit their CO2-driven story. The projection at 2016 coincides with the peak of the El Nino anomaly. The trajectory of the projection for full year 2016 lies just below Gavin Schmidt’s prediction which is based on the same, erroneous, “long-term trend” reasoning (from upthread): Gavin Schmidt ‏@ClimateOfGavin “With Apr update, 2016 still > 99% likely to be a new record (assuming historical ytd/ann patterns valid).” Predicting the 2016 GISTEMP LOTI mean anomaly [About 1.3 C (1.15 – 1.45) ] https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/731599988141248512 The GISTEMP LOTI mean to end of June was 1.095 C but still another 6 months of 2016 data to come in. These guys are in for a rude shock when the 30-yr GISTEMP mean is calculated with full year data for 2016, 2017, 2018 etc. And > 99% likely that Gavin Schmidt will have to swallow a dead rat, eat crow, humble pie, whatever. Credibility zero. In short, their CO2-bias, and… Read more »

Andy
Guest
Andy

Bernard Beauzamy, président de la Société de Calcul Mathématique : « Le phénomène d’élévation du niveau de la mer n’a strictement rien à voir avec le réchauffement climatique.

http://www.kernews.com/bernard-beauzamy-president-societe-calcul-mathematique-phenomene-delevation-du-niveau-mer-na-strictement-rien-voir-rechauffement-climatique/207/

(Rising seas have nothing to do with global warming)

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Dutch “science journalists”, Rolf Schuttenhelm and Stephan Okhuijsen, have got their Toceaninertia curve (orange) wrong too, That’s in this graph from upthread: Observed and eventually expected (“real”) temperature at concurrent CO2 concentration, via Bits of Science ?w=836 Yes, at 2001 they have a 20 year ocean/atmosphere LEAD/LAG. This is at least reasonably correct. But at 2016 they have about a 27 year air temperature LAG. 20 years is probably characteristic but for some unknown reason they seem to think oceanic thermal inertia is extending rapidly, 7 years longer in only 15 years 2001 – 2016. This is dead wrong.They obviously have never heard of the oceanic “time constant” in respect to thermal inertia. But the “time constant” is not a specific time in years (e.g. 20 years), it is a characteristic range of years (e.g. 20 +/- 10 = 10 – 30 years). So Toceaninertia cannot be a thin line, it must be a range similar to their Tpaleoclimate but of constant width. Next error is that they assume atmospheric temperature drives ocean heat (rather than ocean heat driving atmospheric heat – think El Nino) because they have extended Toceaninertia (orange) past the… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

RT >”How do you know?” [These guys are in for a rude shock when the 30-yr GISTEMP mean is calculated with full year data for 2016, 2017, 2018 etc.] Easy to see. Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen assume a 30-yr GISTEMP mean (Tmean, red line) 2001 – 2016 based on CO2 rise because there’s not enough data to calculate the actual profile (15 years short). At 2016 their 30 yr Tmean is at the TOP of the GISTEMP observations at the El Nino Peak i.e. there is NO temperature data whatsoever to support that CO2-based assumption. Their 2016 assumption is about 1.2 C anomaly. Problem with that is (from above): “The GISTEMP LOTI mean to end of June was 1.095 C but still another 6 months of 2016 data to come in.” Worse, there’s a La Nina building that will mean cooling over the next couple of years. So by 2018 temperatures should be back to ENSO-neutral which, in 2013, was 0.65: Annual 2013 0.65 ENSO-neutral 2014 0.74 2015 0.87 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt In other words, the data in June 2016 is already well below their assumed 30 yr mean at 2016 and will be even lower… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Roy Spencer caught himself out predicting a 2016 record too:

Record Warm 2016? What a Difference One Month Makes
July 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/

Now in his UAH updates he is including a section on the possibility, or not, of a record warm year.

UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2016: +0.39 deg. C
August 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2016-0-39-deg-c/

To see how we are now progressing toward a record warm year in the satellite data, the following chart shows the average rate of cooling for the rest of 2016 that would be required to tie 1998 as warmest year in the 38-year satellite record:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-2.jpg

Given the behavior of previous El Ninos as they transitioned to La Nina, at this point I would say that it is unlikely that the temperatures will remain above that projection for the rest of the year, and so it is unlikely that 2016 will be a record warm year in the satellite data. Only time will tell.

99% likely to be a new record” 2016 vs 2015

Roy Spencer says it is “unlikely” to be a new record 2016 vs 1998.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Should be

[Gavin Schmidt says it is] “>99% likely to be a new record” 2016 vs 2015

Roy Spencer says it is “unlikely” to be a new record 2016 vs 1998.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen assume a 30-yr GISTEMP mean (Tmean, red line) 2001 – 2016 based on CO2 rise because there’s not enough data to calculate the actual profile (15 years short). At 2016 their 30 yr Tmean is at the TOP of the GISTEMP observations at the El Nino Peak i.e. there is NO temperature data whatsoever to support that CO2-based assumption.”

There will have to be as much data ABOVE their 2016 1.2C 30 yr mean assumption 2016 – 2031 as there was BELOW it 2001 – 2016.

I wish them all the luck in the world with that but not a good start.

Similar with the UKMO’s 5 yr “decadal” forecast:

UKMO: Decadal forecast Figure 3
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

That wont be worth an imperial tuppence by 2018.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen’s 30 yr Tmean tracks Foster and Rahmstorf’s model residual:

Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen
Tmean:30-year mean observed temperature (NASA GISS)
comment image?w=836

Foster and Rahmstorf state (paper below):

“Annual averages of the result are shown in figure 8. This is the true global warming signal”

Foster and Rahmstorf
Figure 8. Average of all five adjusted data sets.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/downloadFigure/figure/erl408263f8

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) was cited by IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution:

‘Global temperature evolution 1979–2010’
Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf (2011)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta;jsessionid=86AA6579D0351E8CD9C3B55137421FB6.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org

In other words, all of Foster and Rahmstorf’s data manipulation can be replicated simply by projecting a 30-year running mean as per Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen.

Gavin Schmidt has also compiled a “corrected” GISTEMP series and Grant Foster has revised the Foster and Rahmstorf model. You can see a comparison between the two here:

‘Correcting for more than just el Niño’
Grant Foster | January 29, 2016
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/#more-8167

Thus the CO2-centric view of GMST is basically just a projection of the 30-yr mean. This is a fallacy as both the ongoing additional data and sophisticated signal analysis clearly reveal. CO2-centric thinkers all miss the turn of the century inflexion in the data trajectory. They’ll see it eventually but it will take time – lots of time.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Interesting going back through the Open Mind comment thread above in January (‘Correcting for more than just el Niño’). Aside from El Nino heat discussion, of varying understanding, the thread inevitably moves to the 1970s. Remember, Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf “removed” the effect of VOLCANIC aerosols in their model and same with Foster’s revision they are discussing: johnsaintsmith | January 31, 2016 at 3:44 am | I don’t understand the cause of the apparent change in the warming trend at the end of the 1970s. Since you have removed most of the noise from the record, presumably leaving only CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, there seems to be no reason for such a sigificant change at that time. Surely if aerosols (often used to account for the upkick) were so significant, it would be sensible to have removed their impact as well? Is there any other comparable shift in the rate of warming in the record? Perhaps 1910 might bear some comparison? https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/#comment-93366 Following, johnsaintsmith | January 31, 2016 at 4:00 am | [AMO vs HadCRUT4 vs CO2] http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:240/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/offset:0.5/plot/esrl-amo/mean:240 Maybe answering my own question? Is there another non-greenhouse influence on atmospheric temperatures… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Warmists more Frantic.

Meme du Jour at “Skeptical” Science:

‘Climate inertia’ – by Bart Verheggen, 11 August 2016
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-inertia.html

Also,

‘Climate scientists make a bold prediction about sea level rise’- by John Abraham, 10 August 2016
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-bold-prediction-slr.html

Post Navigation