It’s six years since NIWA published their Report on the Review of NIWA’s ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series (pdf, 8.5 MB), the latest version of the national temperature record. It’s six years, too, since NIWA promised the people of New Zealand (in Parliament) they would publish the methodology in that report in a peer-reviewed journal. But they haven’t done so—maybe they aren’t too pleased with it.
Last year, three scientists associated with the NZ Climate Science Coalition published a peer-reviewed paper concluding the New Zealand temperature rise over the last hundred years was only 0.28°C, much lower than the last NIWA effort, which claimed it was 0.91°C. Though I notice just now when checking the NIWA website they’re claiming 0.92°C.
Kenneth Richard has just posted an article on the de Freitas et al. paper at NoTricksZone – h/t Maggy Wassilieff. He describes the paper thus:
According to scientists de Freitas, Dedekind, and Brill (2015), removing “contaminated data” from New Zealand’s nation-wide temperature record — and using updated measurement techniques rather than error-ridden outdated ones — reduces the long-term (1909 to 2009) New Zealand warming trend from today’s +0.91°C to +0.28°C, a 325% change.
NIWA still have made no reply to the de Freitas et al. paper. I’m sure they would have if they had disagreed with it; they obviously recognise its value.
If NIWA haven’t published their own methodology they can scarcely claim their method superior, as they did during the application for judicial review in 2012. It also means they cannot reasonably argue with the amount of long-term warming in New Zealand — 0.28°C. Regardless of the global warming hypothesis, science shows there’s been no significant warming in New Zealand.
Mr Richard concludes by putting the de Freitas et al. paper in a stunning global context:
A few days ago, a compilation of over 50 temperature graphs from peer-reviewed scientific papers revealed that large regions of the Earth have not been warming in recent decades, and that modern temperatures are still some of the coldest of the last 10,000 years. Apparently the nation of New Zealand can now be added to this list as a region where no significant changes in temperature have taken place within the last 150 years.
Visits: 611
>”The global scientific community now regards global warming/climate change as a fact.”
So do I Dennis. I think you will find maybe 97% of AGW sceptics do too.
It’s the attribution of cause that is the bone-of-contention.
Richard C (NZ)
To a layman like you, Professor Muller proved man-made global warming, just as all the other groups investigating the science had done.
To his surprise, according to him.
But why wouldn’t we take Andy’s word that Muller is lying? I mean …
Note to those who show no understanding of the science whatsoever, why not start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
But why wouldn’t we take Andy’s word that Muller is lying?
I never said that Muller was lying, but that is what we expect from liars like Dennis
Dennis N Horne is a serial liar and fraud.
Clearly evidenced in these threads
James Lovelock on Climate Prediction: “I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
I expect Dennis gets his inspiration from Hillary Clinton and her rapist husband
Andy
You said Muller was not a sceptic.
He said he was.
So who is lying? You or Muller?
Muller is a professor at a top university and in the public eye.
Andy is an ignorant troll and laughable fool.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over
“Lovelock was no less bafflingly cheerful when he believed climate change was about to wipe out 80% of the world’s population.”
So Lovelock has changed his mind but thinks climate change will wipe out 80% of the world’s population.
Gosh, I’m sure glad he’s changed his mind otherwise it might wipe out 100% of the world’s population.
20% will be saved! By an old man touting his a book changing his mind.
I said I don’t believe that he was ever a “sceptic” in the sense that we understand in the climate ‘debate”, as evidenced by the complete lack of any writings to this effect
Of course, anyone can call themselves “sceptics”. There is a group of intolerant fascists that call themselves “sKeptics in the pub” in Christchurch. They are only “skeptical” (sic) about things that are fashionable to be skeptical” about.
I may be an “ignorant troll” but I have read about the history and philosophy of science, which is more than retards like Dennis will ever do.
Dennis is a cretin that thinks that he can explain the concept of “mean” by linking to a video of Jason Box droning about tipping points in Greenland
Idiot, retard, cretin,
>”Professor Muller proved man-made global warming, just as all the other groups investigating the science had done.”
Rubbish.
Muller provided his case for global warming that was already accepted anyway and I agree and so does Andy as we have stated. We are certainly warmer than the LIA, long may that continue as long as I’m alive.
But Muller did NOT “prove” man-made global warming. There is no hypothesis for it for starters. His series comes up well short of the CO2-forced climate models this century as do all the other global temperature series both surface/ocean, and troposphere.
Muller’s GMST has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change cause and effect that the IPCC defines at TOA. It is merely observations along a slim sliver of the earth’s surface – no OHC, no upper troposphere, no RF at TOA which is primary and critical.
If you think Muller, or anyone else, has “proved” anything in regard to the man-made climate conjecture you really are becoming even more irrational than normal.
>”So Lovelock has changed his mind….”
Yes, that is now.
>”but thinks climate change will wipe out 80% of the world’s population.”
No, that was then.
I always enjoy the ramblings of the Creed. I was put on permanent moderation at Hot Topic because I referred to Rob Taylor as “Jew Hating leftist scum”, which is statement that I fully stand by
Of course, it is OK for bottom feeders like Taylor to refer to me as a “Rent Boy” with impunity, as it is with guys like Dennis who take particular pleasure in insulting me.
Keep it up Dennis, I have only just started
Andy
You seem upset.
And what on Earth are you talking about? Whatever gave you the idea the video about Greenland was about understanding what the global mean temperature meant?
You really are as dim as a Naafi candle.
“And what on Earth are you talking about? Whatever gave you the idea the video about Greenland was about understanding what the global mean temperature meant?”
Why, because I gave the definition of mean, and you linked to a video of Greenland in response.
Are you so retarded that you don’t even remember what you wrote?
Guys like Dennis randomly link to irrelevant articles with no sense of coherence or pattern, and then claim that the rest of us have mental health issues because we can’t follow the “argument”
Andy. That was a new comment. If it had been connected I would have connected it. Moron.
You still have no idea at all the implications of a 1 degree let alone a 2C increase in the global mean.
“You still have no idea at all the implications of a 1 degree..”
Don’t I? Isn’t that what we are living in at present, more or less?
Richard C (NZ)
Apologies, you are right. The 80% referred to an earlier statement.
So we don’t die from climate change we will be killed by robots first.
Well that’s good.
Apart from the fact the temperatures are soaring and the ice is melting and being lost.
Robots better hurry up…
RC,
Andy
Whoooooosssssshhhh
>”but thinks climate change will wipe out 80% of the world’s population.” No, that was then.
“Then” was in 2008:
James Lovelock: ‘enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan’
Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive. To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.
Nuclear power, he argues, can solve our energy problem – the bigger challenge will be food. “Maybe they’ll synthesise food. I don’t know. Synthesising food is not some mad visionary idea; you can buy it in Tesco’s, in the form of Quorn. It’s not that good, but people buy it. You can live on it.” But he fears we won’t invent the necessary technologies in time, and expects “about 80%” of the world’s population to be wiped out by 2100. Prophets have been foretelling Armageddon since time began, he says. “But this is the real thing.”
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
# # #
Now in 2016, James Lovelock on Climate Prediction: “I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
The science has nothing to do with what we do or China doesn’t.
Well, the refugees are arriving in Europe by the millions.
And it’s just started.
“Now in 2016, James Lovelock on Climate Prediction: “I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
Second childhood.
Out of touch with reality.
I’m not really getting all these “whoosing” things..
Andy
Whoosh … right over your head.
Again
RT
>”It’s the attribution of cause that is the bone of contention.” Yes. That and the magnitude of consequent warming.
I my case I contest the assumption of “consequent warming”. There is no guarantee of that, merely conjecture.
We have to wait about another decade to see one way or the other, warming or cooling, or whether just more of the same benevolent climate optimum.
The Modern Warm Period fits very nicely with me I have to say. It even seems to accommodate ski bunnies. It’s great.
What is over my head? Your irrelevant ramblings?
(1) Whoosh
(2) Moron
(3) Liar
Must be getting inspiration from US Presidential debates
>”refugees are arriving in Europe by the millions”
Every thing is “millions” with you isn’t it Dennis.
But yes, having their houses businesses livelihood and families bombed to smithereens by everyone in a multi-faction ME war or war-torn North Africa and Central Asia is quite livable.
It’s the climate change that really drives them out. It’s impossible to live with.
The “refugees” that aid agencies have just stopped dealing with at Calais because they ain’t refugees?
Oh and Britain has built a wall to stop them climbing aboard trucks. Not paid for by Mexico
So we have warming by conjecture but it’s great.
Well, we’re there’s still a lot of warming to come from the “conjecture” we’ve already added to the atmosphere and it’s almost certain we’re going to add a huge amount more “conjecture” to the atmosphere.
As this added “conjecture” remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years and we’re destroying the great forests and jungles too, I suspect we may need to find a way of removing “conjecture” from the atmosphere.
We agree, though, it’s all about “conjecture”.
Of course the drone strikes that Obama has increased by 2000% have nothing to do with the migrant crisis, and guys shouting Allahu Akbah and stabbing people has nothing to do with Islam.
It’s all “climate change’s” fault, all the way, which is all the fault of White Males
How is adding CO2 destroying forests?
The evidence shows that the exact opposite is true
How is adding CO2 destroying forests?
Eh?
Who suggested that?
Oh, Andy did.
My apologies. The stream of consciousness postings tend to blend into each other. I see, “and we are destroying the forests too”..
The keyword being “and”, of course
>there’s still a lot of warming to come from the “conjecture”
Yes, horrendous. Just wish they would make their minds up on it though:
‘Comparison of IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) 2001 and Assessment Report (AR4) 2007’
The following figure shows Figure 9.14 from the TAR. It shows temperature projections to 2100: “results are relative to 1990 and shown for 1990 to 2100. future changes for the six illustrative SRES scenarios using a simple climate model tuned to seven AOGCMs. Also for comparison, following the same method, results are shown for IS92a. The dark blue shading represents the envelope of the full set of thirty-five SRES scenarios using the simple model ensemble mean results. The light blue envelope is based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings. The bars show the range of simple model results in 2100 for the seven AOGCM model tunings.”
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_TemperatureProjections_files/image001.jpg
We are currently at the lower bound on a trajectory parallel to the x axis.
Given the lack of model skill this century I don’t think those “scenarios’ anything to go by.
RC,
Exactly. So do I.
Dennis,
Your attempts via trolling to justify to yourself that your inherently flawed & untenable position on AGW is correct is really quite pitiful, I’m embarrassed for you.
You can try to delude yourself all you like, but the reality is that we all base our positions on empirical evidence from multiple sources published in the IPCC AR5, empirical evidence that falsifies the statements the IPCC has previously stated is evidence of AGW, e.g. positive water vapour feedback, etc. The best you have is ‘temperatures up, ice melting’ – you might as well just say ‘four legs good, two legs bad, baaaa’.
Trolling will never satisfy your inner need to justify your beliefs to yourself dear boy, as your repeated failures result in a deep source of immense frustration for you – hence your need to lash out frequently with name calling & abuse. Increasing the dissonance in your cognitive dissonance will not bring you any peace. You need to get out a bit more dear boy, meet some people, socialise, get a life, read the AR5, work on developing an open, discerning, & logical mind – that’s what’s missing from your life. Trolling will not bring any reassurance to your falsified beliefs that are based on a rejection of the empirical evidence, quite the opposite.
I suggest you have a deep think about your need for trolling, & if you can’t deal with the bad habit yourself then seek some help from someone who can help you dear boy.
>there’s still a lot of warming to come from the “conjecture”
Or cooling, or stasis. Depends on the conjecture. Here’s the extreme cooling conjecture:
Extreme cooling conjecture
https://meteolcd.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/scenario.jpg?w=450&h=259
Note I use the word “extreme”. That scenario is based on Shapiro et al’s 0.6 W.m-2 solar change LIA to MWP which is the extreme estimate i.e. the scenario is projecting the past into the future based on an estimate of the past.
IPCC don’t consider the possibility of course. IPCC’s Mike Lockwood – “I don’t understand” Shapiro et al’s methodology.
Solar change since the LIA is one of the IPCC’s greatest uncertainties and impossible to improve without observing future solar change. The “no change” camp has already been proved wrong since 2005.
>”Extreme cooling conjecture”
Note that is an anomaly i.e. we are at max positive anomaly. 2060 to 2100 is at max negative anomaly and Maunder solar. Zero anomaly is near the middle.
Even one of the IPCC’s Mike Lockwood’s papers has temperature dropping faster (precipitously) as a result of solar change than the time it takes to rise.
In other words, that scenario is 400 years (ish) of climate LIA – ModernWP but in the future drops from max to min in only 40 years.
Most climate in the past 400 years has been around zero anomaly and same in that scenario over the next 40 years. But at max negative from 2055 to 2115 similar to LIA.
Plenty of other cooling scenarios in between of course based on Geissberg solar, Dalton solar etc. The “no change” scenario that the IPCC climate models parameterize having been eliminated after 2005. IPCC carried on regardless.
>”Even one of the IPCC’s Mike Lockwood’s papers has temperature dropping faster (precipitously) as a result of solar change than the time it takes to rise.”
2013. Not explicitly temperature but the implication is there. He is referring to solar change, “climate”, and “colder winters”.
The Story Behind That 2007 [Lockwood] Paper
“Dr Mike Lockwood wrote a paper back in 2007 which claimed that changes in solar radiation had no impact on recent global warming. What is intriguing is that six years later, in 2013, he seems to have totally changed his mind”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/the-story-behind-that-2007-paper/
Real risk of a Little Ice Age, says leading scientist [Mike Lockwood October 30, 2013]
“He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate – witness the colder winters and poor summers of recent years – and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.”
https://iceagenow.info/real-risk-ice-age-leading-scientist/
Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%.
And he thinks a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum, which occurred in the early 1800s, is ‘more likely than not’ to happen.
Magoo
If I were trolling I wouldn’t use my real name, I’d hide behind a cartoon character like you do.
My position is that occupied by every climate scientist and scientific institution and society on the planet, while they regard you “sceptics” as cranks and crooks.
The planet is going to keep getting warmer and losing more ice as the full effects of the existing CO2 are seen, and as we add more CO2.
I wonder if Richard C (NZ) will put his money where his gibberish is. (In 10 years.)
I imagine you, Magoo, will just disappear in a puuf of smoke … (dear boy)
Did someone say climate models were rubbish?
The CMIP5 models were tracking a bit low for a while but CMIP3 has been bang on.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/
“Cranks and crooks”
Interesting, what “crimes” have we committed?
Compared to, say, Hillary Clinton and her rapist husband?
Magoo
You see the problem you have is the scientific community holds a wide and deep consensus based on the evidence and everything you offer to challenge it turns out to be worthless. Ignored.
One thing worse than being completely wrong is being totally unable to see it. And correct it.
Kind of like believing in a god or two, I suppose. Never mind the evidence. Just deny reality.
Or is it like a drug? Can’t deal with the withdrawal?
Kind of like believing in a god or two, I suppose.
You mean, like ManBearPig and Gaia?
Do Magic School Bus readers accept the science of catastrophic and irreversible climate change?
Sounds awfully depressing for schoolkids
Anyway. Back to mowing the lawn. This unusually warm and wet weather … won’t have been more likely because Earth is getting warmer and wet places wetter.
Because we’re adding “COnjecture” to the atmosphere.
Richard C (NZ) has assured me. He awaits an offer of a fellowship of the Royal Society and a call from the Nobel committee.
Dennis,
The scientific community believes that CO2 warms the atmosphere – you won’t see me disputing it dear boy.
Again, it’s one of your delusions you use to justify your falsified beliefs.
>”I wonder if Richard C (NZ) will put his money where……..”
I’m an empiricist Dennis. I look at the competing conjectures. And then I wait for the data to come in.
Come back to me around 2025.
There are people who bet on the climate. If I had any spare change, I’d be betting that the seas will not be one metre higher in 100 years, though I’d probably also have to bet on an immortality pill to take my winnings
Simon
>”The CMIP5 models were tracking a bit low for a while but CMIP3 has been bang on.”
Only thanks to a strong El Nino and an ANNUAL anomaly average. Monthly back down again. The annual average has pulled the early spike forward but it doesn’t exist anymore.
Take a look at the anomaly around 2013. That’s were the annual anomaly is heading after 2016. The monthly anomaly is already close to 2013 except for an Antarctic spike. El Nino and Arctic spike have all but GONE.
AGW Warmies like Simon and Real Climate look at the El Nino spike and say – Wow! Look at all that warming. The models are right after all. We’re doomed.
Thermo people look at the El Nino spike and say – Hmmm…that’s some ocean cooling going on there. What will replenish the sink and what is the variation in the input?
It’s a matter of heat transfer interpretation. Warmies seem to think the El spike is still there in the atmosphere because the annual average gives the apparent impression it is. They forget the heat came from the ocean but it has gone to space i.e. the annual anomaly is already out of date.
All that matters is the latest data. That’s back down. The spike has gone.
Magoo (dear boy)
I don’t really know what you’re disputing because I don’t spend enough time reading your rubbish
I stick to the science. CO2 warms Earth … water vapour feedback … factual stuff.
You know, what every rational person on the planet believes — thanks to the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, american Meteorological Society …
And, let’s not forget the RSNZ has been doing its bit too to counter the lies from the fossil fuel billionaires and their useful idiots. Now under attack by a couple of fellows who say there’s been no warming for 18(?) years. Well that nonsense won’t be hard to quash. Brainless.
Richard C (NZ)
The problem you have is the temperatures are soaring and the ice is melting and disappearing. Greenland is losing 300 GT/yr and the Antarctic is in trouble. West Antarctica is a goner for certain.
Rational people know it’s the “COjecture” we’re adding to the atmosphere.
You don’t understand the science now and you won’t In 2025. You’ll cling to your claptrap till your dying day.
>”Brainless.”
Brainless is thinking the El Nino spike is still there because ……..annual average.
Monthly begs to differ:
GISTEMP Monthly Mean
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
Latest Met Stn spike is in the Antarctic. L-OTI not so much. By the end of the year not much to expect L-OTI to be anything more than before the El Nino i.e. 2013- 14.
And out of CO2-forced model lower bound.
>”the temperatures [were] soaring”
Now back down. The El Nino spike has GONE Dennis. Don’t be fooled by historical graphs. That’s history.
Dennis:
‘You know, what every rational person on the planet believes — thanks to the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, american Meteorological Society …’
Riiiight. So where is this big consensus between these groups showing they all believe in positive feedback from water vapour dear boy? Hmmm? Another one of your delusions again?
‘I stick to the science. CO2 warms Earth … water vapour feedback … factual stuff.’
ROFLMAO!! Positive feedback from water vapour is another one of your little delusions Dennis, don’t you believe the IPCC’s empirical data that disproves it? Maybe if you chant ‘failed theory good, empirical data bad’ enough times it might drown out the empirical data – give it a go dear boy, see if it helps with the cognitive dissonance.
Oh goody, an entry point for me to return to the topic of this blog posting.
Now I’ve been planting up forests and gardens for the last 40 years or so, with little regard to future climates.
In the short term, I’d advise other folks to get into shoving a forest or three over your local hillsides and perhaps laying down an orchard and market garden, and if you’re smart and lucky (and know shit from clay), you might make a few bob, along the way. But even if you end up in the financial poo, at least you’ll be helping to suck some of the XS CO2 out of the atmosphere.
But here’s my problem, I’m not interested in short-term forests. I’m wanting self-sustaining forests that will be packed with long-lived trees (500-1000 years old). If I go with the peer-reviewed published papers on NZ temperature trends, then I know what to plant, for the local veg will cope with temperature rises of 0.3degC/century.
Of course, if NIWA is correct and NZ has warmed 0.92degC/century and as other folks are predicting much more warming in the future, then I’d better start planting up with subtropicals. (Of course, then I’ll have to determine if I should go with trees adapted to the dry subtropics or the wet subtropics).
is it too much to ask for NIWA scientists to put their research methodology out into the public domain, so I (and others) can judge the worth of their findings.
Magoo
Oh, now I see your problem. Here, download the overview from the NAS & RS
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
It will explain the greenhouses gases to you, including WV.
As your attention span must be a bit short, I’ll quote the page after page 23:
“Greenhouse gases affect Earth’s energy balance and climate
The Sun serves as the primary energy source for Earth’s climate. Some of the incoming
sunlight is reflected directly back into space, especially by bright surfaces such as ice and
clouds, and the rest is absorbed by the surface and the atmosphere. Much of this absorbed
solar energy is re-emitted as heat (longwave or infrared radiation). The atmosphere in turn
absorbs and re-radiates heat, some of which escapes to space. Any disturbance to this
balance of incoming and outgoing energy will affect the climate. For example, small changes
in the output of energy from the Sun will affect this balance directly.
If all heat energy emitted from the surface passed through the atmosphere directly into
space, Earth’s average surface temperature would be tens of degrees colder than today.
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane,
and nitrous oxide, act to make the surface much warmer than this, because they absorb and
emit heat energy in all directions (including downwards), keeping Earth’s surface and lower
atmosphere warm [Figure B1]. Without this greenhouse effect, life as we know it could not
have evolved on our planet. Adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere makes it
even more effective at preventing heat from escaping into space. When the energy leaving is
less than the energy entering, Earth warms until a new balance is established.”
See how easy it is to get factual information these days. You old fool (dear boy).
Maggy
>”I’m wanting self-sustaining forests that will be packed with long-lived trees (500-1000 year old)”
No reason to go for anything different according to dendrochronology:
‘Reconstruction of New Zealand Temperatures Back to AD 1720 Using Libocedrus bidwillii Tree-Rings’
Limin Xiong, Jonathan G. Palmer (2000)
Abstract
The longest chronology from New Zealand so faris from Libocedrus bidwillii Hook. f. (i.e.,from AD 1992 back to AD 1140, a span of 853 years). A subset of 11 chronologies was selected from anetwork of 23 sites to reconstruct past temperaturesbased on the similarity of significant responsefunctions. A comparison of climate data overdifferent seasons with these 11 chronologies wascarried out using a bootstrap transfer function. Average late-summer (February–March) temperature wasselected for reconstruction based on independentverification results. The reconstructed temperaturewas then presented for the period back to AD 1720. The chronologies reconstructed years experiencing hotsummers better than cold summers. The power spectrumof the reconstructed temperatures showed periodicitiessimilar to those of the observed temperatures. Reconstructed temperatures were significant lycorrelated with other proxy climate reconstruction s derived from tree rings in New Zealand. However,unlike the other tree ring-based reconstructions, theLibocedrus bidwillii series reconstructed boththe 1950s and 1970s warming periods. The resultsalso compared very favourably with other palaeoclimateevidence.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225999260_Reconstruction_of_New_Zealand_Temperatures_Back_to_AD_1720_Using_Libocedrus_bidwillii_Tree-Rings?enrichId=rgreq-3cf32a00d2cac86b322df823e4833f35-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNTk5OTI2MDtBUzozMTcyOTA3NDUxMzkyMDJAMTQ1MjY1OTQxNjU2OA%3D%3D&el=1_x_3
Fig. 2. Residual chronology plots for the seven different parameters. Note the difference in vertical scales of width and density
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jonathan_Palmer4/publication/225999260/viewer/AS:317290745139202@1452659416568/background/4.png
Maggy Wassilieff.
There is no possibility people are going to change their way of life. We’re addicted to cheap energy and unnecessary stuff so we’ll likely burn everything we can find.
So plant whatever you like. Won’t survive. Anywhere. No need to know shit from clay. Won’t help.
Come back in five million years.
Dennis tells us not to bother planting trees yet he mows his lawn.
Such a confused message.
I hope I don’t get sucked into this cult.
[NAS & RS] >“Greenhouse gases affect Earth’s energy balance and climate”
That’s their reasoning. Reality is different.
Theoretical WMGHG forcing (IPCC) – “The RF of WMGHG is 2.83 (2.54 to 3.12) W m–2”. And increasing rapidly.
Actual Earth’s energy imbalance (IPCC): 0.6 W.m-2 and stable.
NAS & RS do not address this disparity. They do say:
“Any disturbance to this balance of incoming and outgoing energy will affect the climate. For example, small changes in the output of energy from the Sun will affect this balance directly.”
Poor Dennis,
Yes dear boy, I’m quite aware water vapour is SUPPOSED to result in a positive feedback, but the IPCC’s empirical data shows that water vapour ISN’T resulting in a positive feedback, as you already know. Don’t you agree with the empirical data in the AR5? Why not?
Again, one of your little delusions to avoid the truth dear boy – ignore the empirical data and quote the falsified theory instead. Four legs good, two legs bad, baaa.
Magoo
I don’t really care what interpretation fits into your addled brain.
I’ll go with the science. You know, the Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences’ statement.
I don’t know why … perhaps it because I’m rational. I don’t know much but I know science when I see it. Clearly you don’t. Who cares (dear boy). Certainly not the NAS or RS.
You’re one of a dying breed (dear boy).
>”The longest chronology from New Zealand so faris from Libocedrus bidwillii Hook. f. (i.e.,from AD 1992 back to AD 1140, a span of 853 years).”
Xiong, L., Palmer, J.G. 2000. Libocedrus bidwillii tree-ring
chronologies in New Zealand. Tree-Ring Bulletin 56:1-16.
https://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/262532/1/trb-56-001-016.pdf
Figure 2. Time -series graphs of residual tree -ring chronologies. Chronology codes are explained in Table 1. [UWR 1140 AD]
1950s 70s climate shift looks ordinary.
>”I’ll go with the science. You know, the Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences’ statement.”
A statement that totally neglects reality and a massive theory-actual discrepancy.
Makes sense you would Dennis. Denial being your MO.
Magoo: “So where is this big consensus between these groups showing they all believe in positive feedback from water vapour dear boy?”
You asked me and I gave you the public statement from the NAS & RS. Can;t make it any simpler for you than that.
If you have information other institutions or societies contradict these two pre-eminent groups of scientists place it between the two asterisks here: **
Richard C (NZ): “A statement that totally neglects reality and a massive theory-actual discrepancy. Makes sense you would Dennis. Denial being your MO.”
Gibberish.
I’d think you were an arrogant fool if I didn’t understand your mind.
>”Richard C (NZ): “A statement that totally neglects reality and a massive theory-actual discrepancy. Makes sense you would Dennis. Denial being your MO.” Gibberish.
Where does the Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences address this theory-actual discrepancy:
Theoretical WMGHG forcing (IPCC) – “The RF of WMGHG is 2.83 (2.54 to 3.12) W m–2”. And increasing rapidly.
Actual Earth’s energy imbalance (IPCC): 0.6 W.m-2 and stable.
That’s the inconvenient reality Dennis. But go ahead – deny it. That is your prerogative after all. Free will and all that.
Richard C (NZ)
Why don’t you try to understand the principle of the GHGs and the GHE instead of your “pick and mix” /ad hoc/ random ramblings.
If you think you have found a flaw in the science, sent it to the scientists at VUW.
Or are they in the conspiracy too? Oh, I guess they must be … seems to include nearly every informed scientist on the planet.
>”Why don’t you try to understand the principle of the GHGs and the GHE instead of your “pick and mix” /ad hoc/ random ramblings.”
Change the focus again Dennis. Brilliant tactic when the going gets tough.
Except a theoretical ENHANCED GHE is not changing the Earth’s energy imbalance in accordance with the IPCC’s climate change criteria and FORCING theory at TOA.
That’s this discrepancy Dennis:
Theoretical WMGHG forcing (IPCC) – “The RF of WMGHG is 2.83 (2.54 to 3.12) W m–2”. And increasing rapidly.
Actual Earth’s energy imbalance (IPCC): 0.6 W.m-2 and stable.
It would appear that the theory is BUSTED.
Dennis, Dennis, poor Dennis.
This is a prime example of the delusions you adhere to dear boy, & why you should seek help. The IPCC gives the ‘interpretation’ (i.e. definition) of evidence of positive feedback and the empirical evidence in the AR4, not me. The empirical data published by the IPCC in the AR5 falsifies their definition in the AR4:
‘In GCMs, water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it roughly DOUBLES the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases) … Under such a response, for uniform warming, the largest fractional change in water vapour, and thus the largest contribution to the feedback, occurs in the UPPER TROPOSPHERE. In addition, GCMs find enhanced warming in the tropical UPPER TROPOSPHERE, due to changes in the lapse rate (see Section 9.4.4).’
source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html
Which part by the IPCC do you disagree with – their definition or the empirical data they published?
Take your time dear boy, no rush.
BTW, the Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences offer no evidence of positive feedback, just a statement of faith. Hmmm, baseless statement of faith or a consensus of empirical data – it’s a no brainer dear boy.
Magoo
But I don’t care what inconsistencies you find between AR4 and AR5 or ARS for that matter.
The scientists have presented a coherent narrative with more than sufficient evidence to persuade the global scientific community the science is right.
Earth is retaining more energy as predicted. Temperatures are soaring and ice is lost.
So shove it (dear boy).
Richard C (NZ)
You see I don’t really care about your ramblings either.
Global warming is now a fact in as much as any our knowledge is a fact.
All I was suggesting is you try to grasp the essence of the GHE, by reading the booklet from NAS&RS say, but you won’t because your brain is full of your own ideas which must be wrong.
Or not. Get back to me when you’ve collected your Nobel Prize for your brilliant work and Earth-saving discovery.
Magoo
Since you can’t understand what you read pretty picture here:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
Schmidt et al. 2010
Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, R.L. Miller, and A.A. Lacis, 2010: The attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect. J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/sc05400j.html
I mean, how silly can YOU be (dear boy).
>”Global warming is now a fact in as much as any our knowledge is a fact.”
As Andy and I agreed. So what? It is the attribution that matters.
>”All I was suggesting is you try to grasp the essence of the GHE…”
AGW theory is an ENHANCED GHE Dennis.
‘The Saturated Greenhouse Effect’
The paper,Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres by Ferenc M. Miskolczi shows that the current greenhouse effect equations are incomplete because they do not include the correct boundary conditions. The new theory presented in Miskolczi’s paper shows that the atmosphere maintains a “saturated” greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content.
[…]
Optical depth is a measure of how opaque the atmosphere is to long-wave radiation, and so is a measure of the strength of the greenhouse effect. Miskolczi computed the optical depth from 1948 to 2008 using the measured CO2 content at Mauna Loa, Hawaii and the global average water vapour content from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. The resulting optical depth curve is a measure of the total greenhouse gases by effect over the last 61 years. The result is given below.
Optical Depth
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Optical%20Depth2008.jpg
The blue line of the graph shows the optical depth of the atmosphere with changing CO2 and water vapour content. The green line is the linear trend of this data which indicates an insignificant trend. The pink line is the effect of increasing CO2 with water vapour held constant. It shows a small upward trend. The difference of these trends is the negative water vapour feedback. The changing water vapour offsets almost all of the warming effect of CO2.
The results show that the total effective amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has not significantly increased over the last 60 years.
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
Game over.
“The results show that the total effective amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has not significantly increased over the last 60 years.”
Said an engineer years ago. Never read such nonsense in all my born days. Temperatures soaring ice lost here on Earth.
You must be another planet old fruit.
Densus dear boy,
ROFLMAO!! You desperately keep repeating the THEORY of how water vapour is SUPPOSED to result in a positive feedback under the delusion that this is evidence of positive feedback – it isn’t dear boy, empirical evidence is. The empirical evidence proves the assumption of positive feedback from water vapour false, and repeating the falsified theory doesn’t alter the empirical evidence. Chanting ‘theory good, empirical evidence bad’ endlessly with your fingers in your ears only proves that you are scientifically illiterate & can’t admit you have no evidential basis for your beliefs.
Didn’t you know empirical evidence trumps theoretical speculation dear boy? Don’t you believe the empirical evidence and definition provided by the IPCC Dennis? Why not?
>”Never read such nonsense in all my born days”
Poor comprehension. Read again Dennis. In particular the word EFFECTIVE.
For there to be an ENHANCED ghe, additional gh gasses must to be EFFECTIVE.
“The results show that the total effective amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has not significantly increased over the last 60 years.”
>”Said [Physicist Miklos Zagoni] [June 2008 ]”
Of a journal publication:
Ferenc M. Miskolczi, “Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres”, Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Journal, Vol. 111, No. 1, January – March 2007.
http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Miskolczi-GH%20effect%20in%20semi-transp.atm.pdf
Ferenc Miskolczi – Astrophysics – Publications
Article: The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere
Conference Paper: Climate: Past, Present & Future Division program
Article: The stable stationary value of the earth’s global average atmospheric Planck-weighted greenhouse-gas optical thickness
Article: A comparison of radiative transfer models for simulating Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) radiances
Conference Paper: Comparison of radiative transfer models for AIRS
Conference Paper: Results of a comparison of radiative transfer models for simulating AIRS radiances
Article: An inter-comparison of far-infrared line-by-line radiative transfer models
Article: Simulation of Uplooking and Downlooking High-Resolution Radiance Spectra With Two Different Radiative Transfer models
Article: Modeling of Downward Surface Longwave Flux Density for Global Change Applications and Comparison with Pyrgeometer Measurements
Technical Report: HIGH RESOLUTION ATMOSPHERIC RADIATIVE TRANSFER CODE ( H A R T C O D E )Version No. 01
Conference Paper: A new high resolution transmittance code and its application in the field of remote sensing
Article: The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation
Article: Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres
Article: HIGH RESOLUTION ATMOSPHERIC RADIATIVE TRANSFER CODE (HA R TC O D E )
Article: HIGH ACCURACY SKIN TEMPERATURE RETRIEVAL USING SPECTRAL MEASUREMENTS OF MULTICHANNEL IR IMAGERS
Top co-authors View all
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ferenc_Miskolczi/publications
# # #
Very much a GHE aficionado Dennis.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. We all (bar Richard C) agree that this is true. Warmer air can hold more water vapour, we all agree with that statement too. Your sole argument is that climate change will result in lower humidity; which seems unlikely.
The models fit the data well. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/
If you compare Hansen’s 1981 original predictions with actual, you’ll see that he under-estimated the increase in temperature, despite correctly account for water vapour feedback.
Simon
>”Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. We all (bar Richard C) agree that this is true.”
Lying on my behalf again Simon. You don’t give do you?
Of course I know water vapour is a greenhouse gas. It is one of the major components of DLR. CO2 is only 2%. Go back up and read ‘The Saturated Greenhouse Effect’. Study Miskolczi’s work upthread.
And stop your despicable habit of spreading untruth on my behalf. You really are a low-life Simon.
Scum of the Earth.
You have so many positions that neither you nor I can keep track of them. All your previous posts ‘explaining’ the earth’s temperature are complete nonsense if there is a greenhouse effect. You must learn to be logically consistent.
@Maggy,
You’re a ray of sunshine, Maggy!
You make a sensible request, which I think contains two elements: 1) how did they calculate the NZ temperature record for the last 100 years (1909 to 2009)? and 2) working from the IPCC global and broad regional forecasts to 2100, what is NIWA’s forecast for NZ to 2100?
The answer to 1) was given in 2010, when they reconstructed the NZ temperature series, the 7SS, after our examination of it and set out their workings in the report Report on the Review of NIWA’s ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series. The Coalition wrote an analysis of the NIWA reconstruction, titled Statistical Audit of the NIWA 7-Station Review, showing the data, when adjusted properly according to Rhodes and Salinger’s actual methodology, mark a third of the warming over the last hundred years that NIWA’s reconstruction calculates.
The answer to 2) is given somewhere between the IPCC AR5 and NIWA’s web site which examines Climate change scenarios for New Zealand.
>”All your previous posts ‘explaining’ the earth’s temperature are complete nonsense if there is a greenhouse effect”
What comes first Simon: the entire atmosphere with mass constituency and properties, gravity, solar energy input?
Or radiative transfer through the medium?
>”You have so many positions that neither you nor I can keep track of them”
Lying in my case again Simon. Your repetitious communication of falsehood communicates your character.
Do you understand defamation?
Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
Cue Dennis with blog Pre De and Post debunking of Miskolczi (2007) in 3……2……1…….
Richard C (NZ)
I think Simon confused you with cartoon character Magoo (dear boy).
It’s CO2 that does it for you, isn’t it. For him it’s water vapour. Between you we live on Snowball Earth.
I must read what Professor Magoo said but I know you are waiting patiently for my attention. 🙂 🙂 🙂
The only reason I am here is because you constantly defame climate scientists and accuse them of fraud.
All I do is show you the logical inconsistencies in your statements. That’s not defamation.
Could someone explain this fixation with Niwa? I must visit the Niwa site again. From memory the 11 series has raw data and the 7 series was reworked. What is the problem?
Apart from the fact NZ sits in the middle of nowhere and the land temperatures are almost irrelevant to the global mean. A drop in the ocean …
NZ doesn’t affect the global mean much, but Southern Hemisphere temperature series are sparse, so the SH data sets are important for validating (or otherwise) the climate models.
This includes NZ and Aus, both of which have been involved in some controversy
>”The only reason I am here is because you constantly defame climate scientists and accuse them of fraud.”
You even misconstrue this Simon. There’s a big difference between fraud, which I don’t accuse of because there’s no case for it and I have no evidence and it’s a stupid assertion on your part anyway, and scientific fraud for which there is plenty of evidence in the UN’s climate science. Just that the UN can’t be sued. They are a law unto themselves.
Fraud – wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
The term “scientific fraud” is used to describe intentional misrepresentation of the methods, procedures, or results of scientific research. Behavior characterized as scientific fraud includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing scientific research, or in reporting research results. Scientific fraud is unethical and often illegal.
>”All I do is show you the logical inconsistencies in your statements. That’s not defamation.”
It is when what you communicate is dead wrong Simon. You are making statements about my case on my behalf that are wrong either intentionally which I’m inclined to think is your MO, or just numbskull incomprehension, but you persist in doing so because loose moderation allows you to.
If the boot was on the other foot in a Warmist enclave you would have been shut down long ago Simon. But push your luck here while you can, censorship and comment deletion isn’t moderation policy.
But take note Ken Perrott isn’t here anymore.
Spectacular rebound in Arctic SIE:
EUMETSAT Arctic SIE
http://osisaf.met.no/quicklooks/sie_graphs/nh/en/osisaf_nh_iceextent_daily_2016.png
Richard C (NZ): “Spectacular rebound in Arctic SIE”
Oh, I thought we had to wait until 2025 to know what was happening?
Anyway, the Mark I eyeball shows the ice is disappearing.
But keep clutching at straws. Soon you’ll have enough for another straw man.
>”Could someone explain this fixation with Niwa? I must visit the Niwa site again. From memory the 11 series has raw data and the 7 series was reworked. What is the problem?”
From memory, yes the 11SS uses long-running data without location homogenization like 7SS (but I could be wrong). But look at the 11SS, there’s no warming since 1970 in stations like Ruakura i.e. the contentious 7SS period is prior to 1970 (roughly). Everyone knows there was a climate shift then, that is non-contentious.
But both series are relatively short. Take a look at mid to late 1800s data and it is much the same as today e.g. Albert Park upthread. Same in Australia.
As Andy has already alluded. HadCRUT accepts the 7SS without question (no quality audit) into CRUTEM and therefore HadCRUT4 (also 11SS). On this basis, NIWA chief executive John Morgan says the 7SS is “internationally recognized” but will not release their 7SS methodology that NIWA promised NSCSC it would publish.
The 7SS has a trend 3x greater than what can be reproduced by following the established statistical methodology (R&S). Judge Venning did not address this critical aspect (evidence) in NZCSET v NIWA.
Yes, NZ could be dropped from Southern Hemisphere but what you have left is sparse SST. Even so, Southern Hemisphere temperature (Land+Ocean) just follows SST in lockstep. By adding in the 7SS in particular, HadCRU gets some extra “warming” in the middle of a vast ocean area. As I keep saying in respect to globally averaged datasets (e.g. SLR), all you need to skew a global or hemispheric series is a local anomaly.
In short, the fixation with NIWA and its 7SS is the inability to scientifically reproduce their series from the established methodology and NIWA’s evasiveness in respect to what they promised to published. I think I’ve got this right. RT may have a different take.
>”Oh, I thought we had to wait until 2025 to know what was happening?”
That was in respect to the outcome of the respective competing warming-stasis-cooling conjectures.
>”Anyway, the Mark I eyeball shows the ice is disappearing.”
Freezing and radically expanding SIE after 2 Arctic storms is “disappearing” ice? Complex problem you have Dennis. Is it the need for glasses, the eyes, or the brain behind the eyes?
In other news:
DiCaprio: Climate change doubters shouldn’t hold public office
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/leonardo-dicaprio-barack-obama-sxsl-climate-change
I’m not sure if this piece was penned from one of his private jets or superyachts
>”From memory, yes the 11SS uses long-running data without location homogenization like 7SS (but I could be wrong). But look at the 11SS, there’s no warming since 1970 in stations like Ruakura i.e. the contentious 7SS period is prior to 1970 (roughly). Everyone knows there was a climate shift then, that is non-contentious.”
>”But both series are relatively short.”
I’m not entirely correct about 11SS “long-running data”. There are several 11SS site moves but none prior to 1981 (Only one site at 1981) i.e. no contentious slices. There is long-running data prior to the 1990s though which goes into the pre-1970 7SS contentious period but well short of 1909..
11SS only begins 1931, there’s only 77 years 1931 – 2008 (7.7 decades i.e. only a decadal linear trend is appropriate but a linear trend isn’t appropriate in the first instance):
‘Eleven-station’ series temperature data – NIWA
What is the eleven-station series?
We have identified from the NIWA climate archive a set of eleven stations spanning New Zealand in which there has been no significant site moves for many decades. For six of these stations these records go back to at least the 1930s.
Note that not all stations have annual mean temperature values for all years in 1931–2008. It is common practice to in-fill isolated missing months, but we have deliberately not in-filled missing data here to keep this analysis as non-contentious as possible.
Table 1: List of stations with long-term records where no significant site changes have occurred.
Station name Network numbers Agent numbers Period Remarks
Raoul Is J99700 J99701 6169 6170 Apr 1940 – Oct 1998 Dec 1991 – present Automation of site
Tauranga Aero B76621 B76624 1612 1615 Feb 1913 – Feb 1989 Jun 1990 – present Automation of site
Hamilton, Ruakura C75731 C75733 C75734 2101 12616 26117 Nov 1906 – Feb 1997 Nov 1996 – Feb 2007 Dec 2005 – present Automation of site Small site shift
Gisborne Aero/AWS D87692 D87695 2807 2810 Apr 1937 – Feb 1993 Jan 1990 – present Automation of site
Mt Ruapehu, Chateau C95251 C95152 C95153 2363 2357 18464 Jan 1930 – Feb 1983 Mar 1981 – Oct 2000 Oct 2000 – present Small site shift Automation of site
Palmerston N E05363 E0536D 3238 21963 Jan 1928 – May 2001 Apr 2001 – present Automation of site
Westport Aero F11752 F11754 3810 7342 Mar 1937 – Oct 1991 Nov 1991 – present Automation of site
Molesworth G23021 G23022 4461 7427 Mar 1944 – Oct 1992 May 1992 – Jul 1994 Automation of site
Queenstown I58061 5446 Nov 1929 – present
Invercargill Aero I68433 5814 Jun 1948 – present
Campbell Is K94400 K94402 6172 6174 Jul 1941 – Aug 1995 Dec 1991 – present Automation of site
https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/temperature-trends-from-raw-data
# # #
>”Note that not all stations have annual mean temperature values for all years in 1931–2008. It is common practice to in-fill isolated missing months, but we have deliberately not in-filled missing data here to keep this analysis as non-contentious as possible.”
BEST would go ballistic with their ‘scalpel’ adjusting around all the missing data.
The only “warming” in the 11SS is 1945 – 1970. This was a well known Pacific climate shift. The 11SS captures the warm spike 1938 but nothing prior to 1931.
“The scientific consensus is in, and the argument is now over,” DiCaprio said during his opening remarks. “If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts, or science, or empirical truths; and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.”
This pronouncement by a Hollywood Oscar awarded actor. It has esteemed credibility therefore.
Al Gore also got an Oscar and is one of the world’s leading experts on the Climate Crisis
Richard C (NZ)
NIWA. As I said NZ is “a drop in the ocean”.
The first puzzle I pondered when I decided I needed to look at the science myself, after realising Bob Carter had done exactly what he accused everyone else of doing — abandoned science — was “mean global temperature” — what does it actually mean.
If you measure the heights of a row of men, you can calculate the mean, and you have a fairly good idea what it means. You can visualise the “average man”, even parade him.
If you run a bath with hot and cold taps, you know from experience you can mix the water to get the “average” you want. It has a very real meaning.
Mean global temperature is nothing more than a mathematical construct. Earth is so large and the system so complex.
There are two points to be made. First. It’s the “extra” energy remaining in the climate system that we are concerned about, temperatures mirror that. Second. An increase in mean of say 1C does not mean everywhere went up about 1C. Some might go up 5C then briefly 15C, say; other places may stay the same or go down even. Of course the effect locally may be very important and have global consequences politically but in terms of “mean global temperature” be “irrelevant”.
Richard C (NZ): “Freezing and radically expanding SIE after 2 Arctic storms is “disappearing” ice? Complex problem you have Dennis. Is it the need for glasses, the eyes, or the brain behind the eyes?”
First, no mention of the thickness or “quality” of the ice. Second, it’s a bit of a recovery from a very low extent. Third, I prefer the eyes of those who go and study it to someone so blinkered he can’t see past his own mad conjectures.
Between you with your no CO2-effect and Magoo with his no WV-effect we’d be living on Snowball Earth.
We’re not.
Are we.
But you’ll die a denier. That’s what deniers do.
Great, so mean global temperature is irrelevant, so the 2 degree limit is also irrelevant
Of course we all know the luvvies and activists are talking drivel anyway.
PS Thanks for the ad hom on Carter. real class act this Dennis guy. Real class
“The scientific consensus is in, and the argument is now over,” DiCaprio said during his opening remarks. “If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts, or science, or empirical truths; and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.”
Nothing new. Stating the obvious. Even schoolchildren know global warming/climate change is a fact.
The question in America is, will the politicians kowtow to the billionaires who want even more money at any price — to be paid by our planet? If so, it’s business-as-usual.
>NIWA. As I said NZ is “a drop in the ocean”.
And as I said, a local anomaly can skew a global metric (think satellite SLR and IPWZ). 7SS not so much obviously but for HAdCRU every little bit of extra “warming” helps “The Cause” (Climategate).
>”Mean global temperature is nothing more than a mathematical construct. Earth is so large and the system so complex.”
Exactly. It does NOT exist in reality. There is a huge disparity between Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere in trend, absolute, profile, everything.
>”There are two points to be made. First. It’s the “extra” energy remaining in the climate system that we are concerned about, temperatures mirror that.”
Exactly. And the attribution of it. All surface temperatures “mirror” is SST. I pointed that out previously:
“Southern Hemisphere temperature (Land+Ocean) just follows SST in lockstep”.
Basically, SH surface thermometers are just sensing heat transfer from Ocean (OHC) to Space. This is why Ocean attribution is critical and the IPCC’s speculative anthro attribution (scientific fraud) is especially contentious.
Even schoolchildren know global warming/climate change is a fact.
Even I know “global warming/climate change is a fact” the question is of course attribution.
Some school children might even get this bit too
[NIWA 11SS] >”Hamilton, Ruakura C75731 …….2101 ………Nov 1906 – Feb 1997″
BEST “adjusts” Hamilton, not because they pick up Ruakura data and take their ‘scalpel’ to it, but because they DON’T pick up Ruakura for Hamiltion. They establish Hamilton from Auckland (Albert Park) and Tauranga (see 11SS above).
Then they “adjust” Hamilton for their “Regional Expectation” i.e. confirmation bias.
NIWA make NO such adjustment whatsoever to Ruakura C75731, Nov 1906 – Feb 1997.
[NIWA 11SS] >”Gisborne Aero D87692…..2807……. Apr 1937 – Feb 1993″
NASA GISS “adjusts” Gisborne Aero D87692 massively (see previously) for no other reason except to conform to their CO2-forced Climate model.
NIWA make NO such adjustment whatsoever to Gisborne Aero D87692, Apr 1937 – Feb 1993
>”BEST “adjusts” Hamilton, not because they pick up Ruakura data and take their ‘scalpel’ to it, but because they DON’T pick up Ruakura for Hamiltion. They establish Hamilton from Auckland (Albert Park) and Tauranga (see 11SS above). Then they “adjust” Hamilton for their “Regional Expectation” i.e. confirmation bias.”
>”NIWA make NO such adjustment whatsoever to Ruakura C75731, Nov 1906 – Feb 1997.”
Consequently, BEST get sHamilton absolute DEAD WRONG. Hamilton is a different climate zone to Auckland and different again to Tauranga. And Tauranga is different to Auckland.
>”NASA GISS “adjusts” Gisborne Aero D87692 massively (see previously) for no other reason except to conform to their CO2-forced Climate model.”
Consequently, GISS gets Gisborne Aero absolute DEAD WRONG too but for a different reason than BEST gets Hamilton wrong.
NIWA. Whatever. Who cares.
More CO2 more warming. Observed. Measured. Predicted. (Scientific method for schoolboys.)
Temperatures are up. Surface mean about 1C. Land mean about 1.5C. Oceans changing. Ice melting, lost.
This is not internal variability.
‘Regional climate modelling in New Zealand: Comparison to gridded and satellite observations.
D. Ackerley1,2, S. Dean1, A. Sood1 and A.B. Mullan1
1National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Wellington, New Zealand.
2Monash Weather and Climate, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Abha_Sood/publication/233409086_Regional_climate_modelling_in_New_Zealand_Comparison_to_gridded_and_satellite_observations/links/0deec52683853d015e000000.pdf
2.3 Observational data
2.3.1 Virtual Climate Station Network (VCSN) data.
2.3.2 Satellite data
# # #
VCSN is NOT homogenized and only begins 1972.
NIWA do NOT use either 7SS or 11SS in this exercise. VCSN and satellite is preferred hands down.
>”More CO2″
Yes, but iINEFFECTIVE in terms of ENHANCED ghe. And completely INEFFECTIVE in terms of TOA forcing.
>”warming. Observed. Measured. Predicted. (Scientific method for schoolboys.)”
Yes. But not attributable to CO2 at TOA obviously. SSR at surface is the glaring truth..
Should be:
“But not attributable to CO2 [forcing] at TOA obviously”
Richard C (NZ): [More CO2] ” iINEFFECTIVE in terms of ENHANCED ghe.”
In your dreams.
There is no experimental or observational data that counters: “More CO2 more energy”.
Between you with your COtwo-less and (dear boy) Magoon with his WV-less effect we’d be on on Snowball Earth.
One of you is wrong. No, fair’s fair. You’re both wrong. 🙂 🙂 🙂
More CO2 more warming. Observed. Measured. Predicted.
Dennis, what caused the warming during the pre-1950s, the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period?
I’m just asking you a tiny little question, that you cannot answer, because you are a brainwashed robot
Andy: “Dennis, what caused the warming during the pre-1950s, the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period?”
You tell me.
You tell me.
I don’t know. It might come as a surprise, but we don’t have all the answers in science
However, despite scientists not knowing these answers, we are VERY confident that MOST of the warming since 1950 is caused by CO2
We know this because all the experts agree, and science works by experts agreeing.
>”Richard C (NZ): [More CO2] ” iINEFFECTIVE in terms of ENHANCED ghe.” ………There is no experimental or observational data that counters: “More CO2 more energy”.
Yes there is Dennis. In the IPCC paradigm, theoretical GHG forcing is tropospheric i.e. a theoretical ENHANCED ghe.
But GHG tropospheric forcing is in respect to the TOA because that is where the earth’s radiative balance is measured by satellite i.e. the satellites “see” the top of troposphere OLR from TOA.
So the experimental or observational data that counters (falsifies) “More CO2 more energy” is GHG forcing theory applied to TOA observations. I have laid this out over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over ……………
But here it is again:
Theory:
That’s the theory. CO2 now 1.9 W.m=2 @ 400ppm and increasing.
Observations:
Observations of the real-world TOA imbalance return only 0.6 W.m-2 and constant this century:
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg
Obviously “More CO2 DOES NOT EQUATE TO more energy” commensurate with increasing theoretical GHG forcing. Their theory is dead wrong. BUSTED.
Game over.
[No doubt I’ll have to continue to repeat this over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over ……………]
Andy.
There is a difference between science “working”, that is scientists doing science, and scientists “agreeing”, that is developing a consensus.
Have no doubts, the science IS understood. The so-called “warm periods”were internal variability, the evidence is there was NO global warming.
Now there IS global warming and the level of CO2 going up 40% from 280 to 400ppm explains it. Nicely.
Just as the scientist Richard Muller, checking the others, found.
My commiserations to you, it must be tough being clueless.