Plausible deniability

The orthodox climate view demeans sceptics as deniers. They refuse to acknowledge that sceptical questions are valid. If they took a moment to examine them, they would find numerous points of doubt about the argument that human activities are about to ruin the planet. One such point is the claim that “it must be our greenhouse gas emissions because nothing else explains it.”

The trouble with that view is that it admits that not all factors have been explored, else the cause would have been discovered, so why conclude it is mankind and stop looking? The argument was reiterated a few days ago by John Abraham at The Guardian – echoed at Skeptical Science. Abraham then goes on about recent warming:

Despite this, people who deny the basic facts of climate change have tried to argue that the Earth is either not warming or is only slowly heating. Well that just isn’t true any more. The last three years are the nail in the coffin of the deniers of climate change. We have enough data this year to call 2016 the hottest year ever – and we have three months left.

Hiatus is dead

So he says they have tried to argue about something that “isn’t true any more,” so it was once true — what a strange, amateur argument. The last three years of temperature rise are hardly coffin nails in sceptic arguments, though there’s been slight warming. Abraham cites a paper from the middle of 2015 that claims to eliminate the hiatus. But, just to enrage knowledgeable sceptics, On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming is by Lewandowsky, one James Risbey (I’ve not heard of him) and Oreskes. To remove the hiatus the paper uses funny maths while, weirdly, looking at dozens of papers together rather than examining discrete datasets. But along the way Lewandowsky et al. says:

In the public sphere, the claim that global warming has “stopped” has long been a contrarian talking point. After being confined to the media and internet blogs for some time, this contrarian framing eventually found entry into the scientific literature, which is now replete with articles that address a presumed recent “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming. The “hiatus” also featured as an accepted fact in the latest assessment report of the IPCC. Despite its widespread acceptance in the scientific community, there are reasons to be skeptical of the existence of the “hiatus”.

Which is quite clever, don’t you think? So the scientists wrote hundreds of papers analysing the great global temperature hiatus, not from their better judgement and interest in the subject, but because it was a “contrarian talking point.” So much for the independence and judgement of professional scientists, not to mention the foremost climate science organisation in the world, the IPCC. Forced into it, they were.

So Lewandowsky et al. are at odds with the orthodox scientific view, but nevertheless refer to those differing from them as themselves “contrarians”. Filthy contrarians — not like us. Lewandowsky et al. hint at errors in “the global surface temperature record,” suggesting that artifacts, when corrected, give “little evidence for a ‘hiatus’.” Somebody might like to follow that one up, I’m out of time.

So it must be humans because we can’t think of anything else

Is that good reasoning? Of course it isn’t. It’s the worst scientific reasoning imaginable, a simplistic approach to a highly complex situation—and what just happens to be the path of least work. Let’s clarify the steps required:

  1. Admit you don’t understand what’s causing the warming.
  2. In a vast, dynamic system containing numerous interlinked causes of warming, don’t investigate any of them, just pick the one you want.
  3. Announce dramatically (like King Canute) that you can actually fight the climate substantially and noticeably: you just have to reduce your emissions (which nobody had heard of) at an extremely high cost.
  4. Demand study grants to help you understand this new-fangled cause of warming which you’re certain will ruin the planet.

Give me a break

  1. The recent warming has been moderate and well within natural variation. It warmed faster than this in the late 19th century. Nothing to worry about.
  2. The warming record over the last three years is far too short to give cause for concern unless you’re a proper worry-wart. You might have noticed we’ve just had the largest El Nino ever recorded. It is unconnected with anthropogenic global warming, but it makes the global temperature go up! But the temperature has already gone right back down again, and it’s back where it was in late 2015. Note too, that each year has been a “record” by an insignificant few hundredths of a degree, which is no different from zero. So, scientifically, recent “record” years have been the same. But still the alarmists cry “record”. Unscientific bozos.
  3. So there’s a new paper on ocean heat content (Observed and simulated full-depth ocean heat-content changes for 1970–2005, by Cheng et al., including Trenberth (wow) and Abraham). They invent a new method of “observing” ocean heat content through the entire depth of the ocean. To do that they reanalyse bathythermograph records and spread sparse readings across more than four thousand kilometres of ocean. Genius. To check their new work they compare it with – ta-daa – climate model simulations. They find good agreement and suggest that past work underestimates ocean heat uptake. What a surprise.

In passing, I note in the paper some comments that could shake a facile confidence in scientific understanding. The authors refer to “large uncertainties … in OHC estimates which can confound our understanding of the changes in Earth’s energy imbalance…”

That must be the understatement of the year. We are completely ignorant of the temperature profile of almost all the ocean (we know somewhat more of the surface) so it is conceivable that we’re wrong (amazing!) about the amount of heat stored in the ocean. To illustrate, visualise this: each Argo float brings one thermometer to measure 97,000 square kilometres of ocean, or 357,000 cubic kilometres, about once a fortnight. [Basic data ex Wikipedia: 3739 Argo floats (as of yesterday) adrift on 361.9 million square kilometres of ocean totalling some 1.335 billion cubic kilometres.]

In passing, the paper comments:

The reasons why the models have large divergence are still an actively studied issue.

Well, it’s good they’re studying it. It could be that the models don’t match reality and, according to the AR5, most run too hot. If there was a single accurate and skilled climate model everyone would be using it – who would use the incorrect ones? If they run them all, they can’t have identified the correct one, can they? But they run them all, tell us the average is the truth and extort fortunes from the world’s taxpayers to mitigate the coming disaster.

Brain-dead reasoning

I hope I’ve shown a few good reasons to question the climate models and be sceptical of the ever-worsening climate “forecasts” and the rising tempo of alarm. Only a few — there are many more. Not saying it’s wrong, guvnor, just asking questions that occurred to me about what you said.

The warmies cannot know the heat content of the ocean because we’re not taking enough readings, therefore I cannot accept it when they tell us we’ve been dangerously warming the ocean and the damn warming is going to get damn dangerous when my grandchildren have become damn grandparents! I think that’s damn reasonable thinking, and to be constantly called a damn denier gets my damn dander up!

I speak for millions when I say this: I don’t deny climate change, I don’t deny global warming and I don’t even deny anthropogenic global warming. However, I deny dangerous anthropogenic global warming (it’s a matter of magnitude).

My reasons for denying it are entirely plausible—what you might call plausible deniability.

– h/t Dennis N Horne

Visits: 262

55 Thoughts on “Plausible deniability

  1. Dennis N Horne on 24/10/2016 at 6:36 pm said:

    Richard Treadgold

    You’ve been told by others: you don’t know any climate science.

    You could start here:

    But you won’t. You might learn something. Now that would be embarrassing…

  2. Magoo on 24/10/2016 at 7:00 pm said:


    Gavin Schmidt can waffle on as much as he likes, and you can hero worship him with wonder eyed devotion like a teeny-bopper at a Justin Bieber concert, but it still doesn’t change the fact that half of the predicted warming in the form of positive feedback from water vapour is missing (as confirmed by the empirical data from multiple sources in the IPCC AR5), or that the climate models are falsified by the empirical temperature data from multiple sources.

  3. Andy on 24/10/2016 at 8:07 pm said:

    Since we are heading in all directions other than North, I thought I’d throw in this quite good piece from PJMedia on the “echo chamber”

    It doesn’t refer specifically to the climate issue, although the principles are the same

  4. Simon on 24/10/2016 at 8:52 pm said:

    You are arguing semantics. Once natural variability (i.e. ENSO, volcanic aerosols and solar variation) is removed, there is a strong linear trend for both surface temperature and satellite data that is consistent with theory.

  5. Andy on 24/10/2016 at 9:21 pm said:

    ” You are arguing semantics. ”

    No we are not. Dennis N Horne has claimed that we are morons and mentally ill.

    Therefore “semantics” are a bit beyond our simple minds

    I will use some terms more familiar to you:

    ga ga mama dada wanna go potty

  6. Andy on 24/10/2016 at 9:33 pm said:

    Maybe Simon and Dennis would be better visting Hot Topic where they will find like-minded people like Herr Thomas

    Herr Thomas is an intelligent person who thinks that climate change is a “wired and wicket” problem.

    It is a bit hard for morons like me to parse the cricket references, maybe some more reading will help

  7. Richard Treadgold on 24/10/2016 at 10:50 pm said:

    I’m starting to think you’re right. I’ll check out your echo chamber piece.

  8. Dennis N Horne on 25/10/2016 at 5:30 am said:
    On September 20, 2016, 376 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, published an open letter to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change.

    Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.

    Our fingerprints on the climate system are visible everywhere. They are seen in warming of the oceans, the land surface, and the lower atmosphere. They are identifiable in sea level rise, altered rainfall patterns, retreat of Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification, and many other aspects of the climate system. Human-caused climate change is not something far removed from our day-to-day experience, affecting only the remote Arctic. It is present here and now, in our own country, in our own states, and in our own communities. (continues)

    I note Steven Weinberg signed.

    Magoof Magoon & Co should enlighten him

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 8:16 am said:

    World Meteorological Organisation (WMO

    “Between 1990 and 2015 there was a 37% increase in radiative forcing or warming effect, caused by a build up of these substances, from industrial, agricultural and domestic activities.”

    # # #

    Well, that’s the theory anyway. But the “forcing” has had no effect whatsoever on the earth’s energy balance, which is the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria.

    By the scientific method therefore, the theory is falsified.

    Game over.

  10. Dennis N Horne on 25/10/2016 at 8:29 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    Can you explain to me why the stratosphere is cooling with more CO2. Thanks.

    Game on. 🙂

  11. Andy on 25/10/2016 at 9:00 am said:

    …Our fingerprints on the climate system are visible everywhere. They are seen in warming of the oceans, the land surface, and the lower atmosphere. They are identifiable in sea level rise,

    That’s news to me

  12. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 9:05 am said:


    >”Once natural variability (i.e. ENSO, volcanic aerosols and solar variation) is removed, there is a strong linear trend for both surface temperature and satellite data that is consistent with theory”

    What theory is that? Quote/cite your “theory”/hypothesis from a reputable source please Simon e.g. the IPCC. It’s certainly not the IPCC’s radiative forcing theory which has the rapidly increasing GHG radiative forcing far greater than actual energy imbalance at TOA which is NOT increasing.

    And what happens when CO2-forced model temperature results are compared to actual surface temperature with ENSO smoothing?

    Multi-model mean vs HadCRUT4 61-month filter (basically the same as a 5-year running-mean)



    Perfectly clear that theoretical GHG forcing is NOT the forcing factor controlling surface temperature as IPCC theory implies it should be. And it gets worse for the Warmer World cause:

    Climate Prediction Center: ENSO Diagnostic Discussion

    La Niña is favored to develop (~70% chance) during the Northern Hemisphere fall 2016 and slightly favored to persist (~55% chance) during winter

    That would easily pull the ENSO-smoothed trendline in HadCRUT4 back down flat and out of the model envelope.

    Warmy’s worst nightmare?

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 9:08 am said:

    >”Can you explain to me why the stratosphere is cooling with more CO2. Thanks. Game on.”

    Irrelevant to the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria:

    IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (abbreviated):

    FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?

    [A] – “The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] controls the Earth’s surface temperature”


    [B] – “When radiative forcing [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system”

    Game over.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 9:26 am said:

    [376 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates] >”Our fingerprints on the climate system are visible everywhere.”

    For Warmies, everything is a human fingerprint on the climate system.

    >”They are seen in warming of the oceans”

    By scientifically fraudulent attribution, yes of course.

    >”the land surface, and the lower atmosphere”

    Just not this century though.

    >”They are identifiable in sea level rise”

    Except what’s the scientific literature saying about that:

    Is anthropogenic sea level fingerprint already detectable in the Pacific Ocean?
    H Palanisamy, B Meyssignac, A Cazenave and T Delcroix (2015)

    “the anthropogenic sea level fingerprint on regional sea level trends in the tropical Pacific is still too small to be observable by satellite altimetry”

    In short, no, “”Our fingerprints” “are [NOT} identifiable in [Pacific] sea level rise” or in the rest of the world’s seas.

    # # #

    Turns out 376 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, are group-thinking dupes who haven’t looked at the metrics or literature. probably ideologically driven too.

  15. Andy on 25/10/2016 at 9:31 am said:

    Off topic but the Project Veritas work is worth looking at, with respect to the voter fraud and other activities within the DNC.

    Lying, cheating fraudsters, and all supported by the media of course.

    Given the lying and fraud within the political class, why should we have any trust in scientists who are paid by these same lying cheating fraudsters?

  16. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 9:41 am said:

    >”I note Steven Weinberg signed.”

    This is REALLY important because………?

  17. Simon on 25/10/2016 at 9:42 am said:

    Richard C and Magoo once again claim “scientific fraud” with no evidence whatever. You are not sceptics, you are deniers

  18. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 10:14 am said:

    >”Richard C and Magoo once again claim “scientific fraud” with no evidence whatever.”

    We have the evidence Simon. The evidence is the IPCC’s AR5 report. They have no physical evidence whatsoever for their anthro ocean warming attribution in Chapter 10 where they only “expect” “air-sea fluxes” to be the anthro mechanism. They found no physical evidence of those “expected” “air-sea fluxes” in Chapter 3 but they attribute ocean warming to human cause anyway.

    Their attribution is merely an ASSUMPTION based on the circular reasoning of climate model simulations i.e. miss-representation of results, by definition – scientific fraud.

    The IPCC’s ocean warming is a MUST to keep their theory alive, Without it their theory is dead. Atmospheric warming is negligible in terms of theoretical accumulated heat:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Technical Summary TFE.4 Figure 1 (a) and (b) TS TFE.4-1 (a) (b)

    Note that most of their theoretical heat just dissipated to space as OLR i.e. it was never “retained”. What’s left “retained”? Negligible atmospheric heat and a whole lot of ocean heat.

    But the IPCC CANNOT attribute ocean warming to antho cause given the physics of the AO interface (max 100 micron DLR penetration of which CO2 is only 2 -3%), the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the IPCC’s own earth’s energy budget at surface:

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1

    An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations
    Graeme L. Stephens, Juilin Li, Martin Wild, Carol Anne Clayson, Norman Loeb, Seiji Kato, Tristan L’Ecuyer, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr, Matthew Lebsock & Timothy Andrews

    The only net flux into the surface is solar. Solar energy is therefore the only surface heating agent, particularly the ocean. To attribute otherwise, as the IPCC does, is scientifically fraudulent.

  19. Magoo on 25/10/2016 at 10:20 am said:


    I’ll show you why the surface temperature datasets are useless. Let’s look at NASA’s GISS:

    Note the part where it says ‘Smoothing Radius: 1200km’, and note all the red warming in the Arctic and Antarctica.

    Now, change the smoothing radius to 250km. Note that all the red warming in the Arctic and Antarctica has disappeared and is replaced by grey. Do you know why? It’s because there are no temperature readings in these regions so NASA have applied temperatures FROM UP TO 1200km AWAY!

    Now, do you think you can predict the temperatures in Timaru from those in Auckland, or the Gold Coast from Cairns? No? Same applies to NASA’s GISS temperature record.

    Which leads to the following question – if the surface temperature datasets are less accurate than the satellites (which cover the entire globe), why do alarmists like Tamino insist on using the less accurate surface datasets? Answer – because satellite daatsets show how little the Earth has warmed. Looks like Tamino shot himself in the foot with his own argument there Simon. The IPCC shows the satellite records as more accurate too, would you like me to post the error margins from the various datasets for you to see?

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 10:47 am said:

    >”why do alarmists like Tamino insist on using the less accurate surface datasets”

    And why don’t they talk about the GISTEMP zonal breakdown? Even GISS does that and very good presentation too but never a Schmidt mention.

    Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands

    And re 250 km smoothing option, there is also the option of the Hadl/Reyn_v2 ocean dataset. Generates this latitudinal breakdown for September (scroll down below map):

    GISTEMP Zonal Means September 2016 +0.75 C (250 km, Hadl/Reyn_v2 options)

    Now with 1200 km and ERSST_v3b ocean:

    GISTEMP Zonal Means September 2016 +0.83 C (1200 km, ERSST_v-3b options)

    Compared to August:

    GISTEMP Zonal Means August 2016 +0.93 C (1200 km, ERSST_v-3b options)

    Houston. we have a problem with our “global warming” ……..

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 11:16 am said:

    At Lat 37S where I live the Sept 2016 anomaly was just under 0.5 C. About the same as it was 15 years ago in Sept 2001:

    September 2001

  22. Simon on 25/10/2016 at 1:36 pm said:

    You do not need regular cross-gridded data points if you are attempting to infer a global temperature anomaly. There are strong cross-correlations between sites on monthly and annual time periods. Satellites also do a poor job at sampling the polar regions.
    If the fraud really exists, how on earth do they ensure that 97% of climate scientists do not break ranks and spoil the ‘plot’? Why don’t you write a paper and earn a Nobel Prize for a new paradigm? Is it because the journal referees are in on the plot also? Is this all tied in with Andy’s media / politics / voting conspiracy?
    All you are doing is confirming Stephan Lewandowsky’s contention that conspiracy ideation is correlated with rejection of science:

  23. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 1:39 pm said:

    >”At Lat 37S where I live the Sept 2016 anomaly was just under 0.5 C. About the same as it was 15 years ago in Sept 2001:”

    Wrong ocean dataset in that last comment link.

    Using ERSST_v4 ocean_and 1200km_”smoothing”:

    Sept 2016:-37.000000 0.61153829 (global ave 0.9)

    Sept 2001:-37.000000 0.52661729 (global ave 0.56)

    Works out to 0.053C/decade “warming” for Lat 37S Sept 2001 – Sept 2016 (0.08 total) using the ocean dataset with the most warming “adjusted” in and plenty of fictitious data as Magoo points out.

    These anomalies jump around depending on ocean dataset and “smoothing”. But obviously negligible change for 37S whatever you use.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 1:52 pm said:

    >”You do not need regular cross-gridded data points if you are attempting to infer a global temperature anomaly”

    Why would I want to “infer” that? What are you on about Simon?

    A “global temperature anomaly” does NOT exist anywhere on earth i.e it is not a real thing; it is an imaginary construct. Even a zonal mean is an imaginary construct. Every longitude on a particular latitude will not return the zonal mean for that latitude.

    The problem all you Warmies have is that once the fictitious notion of a “global” anomaly is thrown out (as it should be), the whole human caused “global warming” idea falls apart. There’s nothing “consistent” across the latitudes. Look at the huge differences in the September 2016 Zonal Mean just for example.

    This is why there is NEVER Warmy analyses of Zonal Means.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 2:00 pm said:


    >”If the fraud really exists”

    I’ve laid out my case for scientific fraud by the IPCC upthreadf. Prove me wrong Simon i.e. put up or shut up.

  26. Andy on 25/10/2016 at 2:11 pm said:

    “Andy’s media / politics / voting conspiracy?”

    Conspiracy facts, not theory

  27. Dennis N Horne on 25/10/2016 at 2:14 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ) at 9:41 am: [DNH] ”I note Steven Weinberg signed.”

    This is REALLY important because………?

    Because I know a bit about Weinberg and I trust his judgement, whereas I think you are insane. Magoon is an ignorant fool and Andy is a halfwit.

    I take it you can’t explain why more CO2 cools the stratosphere while more CO2 warms the troposphere. What a surprise.

  28. Andy on 25/10/2016 at 2:25 pm said:

    Isn’t it funny how a theoretical physicist like Steven Weinberg can opine on AGW, yet a theoretical physicist like Freeman Dyson, who was one of the creators of Quantum Field Theory, is referred to as a “denier”

    But what do I know, as a half-witted moron?

    Thanks goodness for polite and engaging people like Dennis to keep us on our toes!

  29. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 4:15 pm said:


    >”:I take it you can’t explain why more CO2 cools the stratosphere while more CO2 warms the troposphere”

    So what if I can or can’t.

    In respect to stratospheric cooling, speculation on your part Dennis. Correlation is not necessarily causation. And has nothing to do with the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (see upthread) anyway.

    In respect to “CO2 warms the troposphere”. What warming? i.e. what warming commensurate with theoretical CO2 forcing at TOA this century?

    There isn’t any.

    Theoretical CO2 forcing (1.9 W.m-2 @ 400ppm) is having no effect whatsoever on the TOA energy imbalance so obviously CO2 is NOT controlling tropospheric temperature at ANY level – upper, mid, near-surface, or surface.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 4:45 pm said:

    >”:I take it you can’t explain why more CO2 cools the stratosphere”

    ‘Why does CO2 cool the stratosphere & warm the troposphere? Warmists don’t agree on an answer’

    THS, August 2, 2014

    A paper published today in the Journal of Climate uses “a chemistry-climate model coupled to an ocean model” to arrive at a number of seeming contradictory conclusions about the opposing radiative effects of the greenhouse gases CO2, water vapor, ozone, and halocarbons (CFCs) depending upon the levels in the atmosphere where each of these are present.

    Conventional AGW theory proposes the existence of a mid-troposphere “hot spot” and an overlying cooling of the stratosphere because heat is “trapped” in the “hot spot” and therefore can’t make it to the stratosphere. However, despite millions of weather balloon and satellite observations over the past 60 years, the “hot spot” has still not been found and thus questions the fundamental theory of anthropogenic global warming climate change. The formation of a “hot spot” would also require a physically impossible reduction of entropy in the mid-troposphere and thus violate the second law of thermodynamics which requires maximum entropy production.

    According to the abstract below, the net radiative effect of these greenhouse gases in the troposphere vs. tropopause vs. stratosphere are:

    GHG troposphere tropopause stratosphere

    CO2 warming warming cooling
    water vapor ? cooling cooling
    ozone ? warming warming
    CFCs warming ? cooling?

    I’ve been asking CAGW believers for years why CO2 and other greenhouse gases have opposite radiative effects upon global temperatures depending upon where they happen to be located in the atmosphere, and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Even the warmists themselves can’t seem to agree on this fundamental question underlying CAGW theory. Wikipedia propagandist William Connolley disagrees with Gavin Schmidt and RealClimate on why increased greenhouse gases would cause the stratosphere to cool.

    RealClimate links to this site (update: link broken, but this is a mirror site) for their explanation, which upon examination makes no sense, violates basic physics including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, contains contradictions, and then concludes “We now know that stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming are intimately connected and that carbon dioxide plays a part in both processes. At present, however, our understanding of stratospheric cooling is not complete and further research has to be done.”:

    Excerpt in blue text from the site Gavin & RealClimate claim has the definitive answer to the question “why does the stratosphere cool?” [emphasis added]:


  31. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 6:29 pm said:

    ‘Climate change may help Ethiopia, increase the country’s access to water’

    A team of researchers from Virginia Tech have predicted that water availability in the Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia may increase in coming decades due to global climate change. It could also lead to increased crop production, spur massive hydroelectric power projects, and foster irrigation development in the region.

    “For all the catastrophic impacts of climate change, there are some silver linings,” said Zach Easton, associate professor of biological systems engineering. “The sad irony is that climate change may be the catalyst Ethiopia needs to become a food-exporting country.”

    # # #

    “Sad” irony ?

  32. Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2016 at 9:10 pm said:

    >”Kansas City Chiefs Laurent Duvernay-Tardif who is working towards his medical degree”

    When he qualifies he wants “MD” added to his name on the back of his player shirt.

  33. Richard C (NZ) on 26/10/2016 at 1:21 pm said:

    Exposed: How top university helped secure £9million of YOUR [UK] money by passing off rivals’ research as its own… to bankroll climate change agenda

    The chairman of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy since 2008 has been Nick Stern

    Academics whose work was misrepresented reacted with fury. Professor Richard Tol, a climate change economics expert from Sussex University, said: ‘It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant. I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks.’

  34. Andy on 26/10/2016 at 7:13 pm said:

    Scott Adams of Dilbert fame, writes of the Bully Party

    No surprises here.

  35. Richard Treadgold on 26/10/2016 at 9:55 pm said:

    Interesting. Hope the best man wins.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on 27/10/2016 at 8:44 am said:

    Simon on October 24, 2016 at 8:52 pm said:

    “You are arguing semantics. Once natural variability (i.e. ENSO, volcanic aerosols and solar variation) is removed, there is a strong linear trend for both surface temperature and satellite data that is consistent with theory.”

    Don’t know how he managed to draw “satellite data” into that but hey, this is Simon. And never was presented with said “theory” when asked (and not at all “consistent” with CO2-forced climate models), but complete baloney anyway:

    ‘Tamino’s adjusted temperature records and the TCR’ – October 26, 2016 | by Frank Bosse

    Separating out the impacts of internal variability on evaluations of TCR.

    In a blogpost from May 2016 I did some simple investigations about the Transient Climate Response (TCR) as it’s observed. The starting point was the record of Cowtan/Way (C/W) and the Forcings due to greenhouse gases (GHG), land use and so on as they were described in IPCC AR5 . The result was a TCR for this record very near the TCR as it was determined by Nicholas Lewis from the HadCRUT4 record.

    A few days ago Tamino (aka Grant Foster) released a blogpost with all the data (thank you for this, Tamino) in which he introduced a “sophisticated adjustment” to eliminate the influences of ENSO, solar TSI- changes and volcanic activities on the temperatures from 1951 to the present ( 8/2016) in many records. While there are several criticisms that can be made about this procedure, e.g. ENSO could be a part of the signal and not noise to eliminate, nevertheless I followed the method of Tamino. I was interested in using the records for the global mean surface temperatures (GMST) to recalculate the TCR as it was observed from 1951 to 2015 with annual data.


    [Step 2] Now let’s also take a look at the residuals of the years to the linear trend line in Fig. 2:

    Fig. 4: The residuals of the adjusted C/W series, which is the temperature variability not explained by the evolution of forcing with a 15 year smooth (Loess).

    The same procedure from the May- blogpost gave this:

    Fig. 5: The residuals for the unadjusted C/W series. The big (but short) ticks for volcanoes and ENSO ( see 1992/1993, 1997/1998) are not visible in fig. 4, however the long term pattern is not influenced by much.

    The smoothed time series shows the same picture. Also after removing the volcanic and ENSO events, the internal variability remains almost the same. In the May blogpost I compared this pattern with the AMO (see Fig. 5 there) and the similarity seems to stand. The uptick between 1990 and 2005 is also clearly visible in the ENSO- adjusted series of Tamino. Therefore this low frequency internal variability has nothing to do with ENSO; it seems to be a result of the AMO.

    In a third step I compared the records mentioned in Fig. 1. First, let’s have a look at the smoothed residuals:

    Fig. 6: The smoothed (15 years Loess) residuals of the linear regression of the GMST anomalies of the adjusted records versus the forcings.

    The pattern is very stable in all records. The exception here is GISS. During 1970– 1995, the internal variability is dampened. A possible reason for this could be the ERSSTv4 adjustment during this period due to the change of the measurement methods (Karl et al. 2015); see also Fig. 1.



    # The estimated TCR of ~ 1.35 (see Nicholas Lewis) is confirmed by the adjusted temperatures of the recent blogpost by Tamino. He stresses the physical importance of his statistical operation with the evaluation of his model.

    # In contrast to the statement of Tamino that “there is a steady warming since 1976” with almost no variability, there is a decadal up and down in the adjusted time series very similar to the AMO-pattern with an amplitude of round about 0.2K .

    # The TCR estimate from observations of ~1.35 is supported by at least 3 independent records: CRU, C/W and Berkeley with a deviation of only around 6%. The reason for the upward divergence of the GISS series associated with a suppressed internal variability can only be guessed. A closer investigation of this divergence is beyond the scope of this blogpost.

    # # #


    >”Therefore this low frequency internal variability has nothing to do with ENSO; it seems to be a result of the AMO”

    This is the Multidecadal Variability signal (MDV). Tamino is oblivious of it. This MDV signal MUST ALSO be removed BEFORE comparing to the CO2-driven climate model mean (which Tamino does NOT do). Obviously the residual after MDV removal will be nothing like the CO2-driven model mean – way too cool.

    >”# The estimated TCR of ~ 1.35 (see Nicholas Lewis) is confirmed”

    Not so. Confirmed ONLY IF after the next 14 years of the 15 year negative phase of MDV (neutral circa 2015) the MDV signal turns up again, the secular trend (ST) is continuing UP in linear fashion as per Tamino and Bosse. This will be AFTER 2030.

    There is no guarantee whatsoever that this will transpire. The solar conjecture is in respect to the secular trend (ST) and given the solar recession underway there is remote possibility of a continuing quasi-linear secular trend (ST) by 2030 (which obviously isn’t actually linear since 1951). SSA analysis of the secular trend (ST) does NOT return a linear trend (done before the latest El Nino). The ST was already exhibiting a negative inflexion i.e. indicating the ST will top out in the 2020s. Now there’s been a strong El Nino we will have to wait years to see where the ST is going.

    And these Tamino/Bosse analyses only begin at 1951. Was there no life on Earth prior to 1951?

  37. Richard C (NZ) on 27/10/2016 at 9:19 am said:

    [Tamino] – “sophisticated adjustment”

    By Tamino’s standard of sophistication that is. Which he only applies post 1951. Leaves him completely oblivious to the MDV signal and he still hasn’t extracted the actual long-term ST signal even after his experience with Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) which the IPCC cites in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution.

    So much for self-assessment, and IPCC assessment.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on 27/10/2016 at 11:36 am said:

    I should point out (Ad nauseam) that Tamino/Bosse, and any other GMST analyses, are effectively just dissecting Northern Hemisphere signals (Tamino about 10 years behind in his level of “sophistication”).

    Those NH signals are only similar to the SH post 1974 but then not in magnitude.

    ‘The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere’

    “Given the new information now available from the Southern Hemisphere, climate scientists must consider a larger role for natural climate variability in contributing to global temperature changes over the past millennium.” – Kim Cobb

    ‘Northern and southern hemisphere climates follow the beat of different drummers’

    The scientists discovered that most climate models are unable to satisfactorily simulate the considerable differences between the hemispheres. The models appear to underestimate the influence of internal variability, in comparison with external forcings like solar irradiation, volcanic eruptions or human greenhouse gas emissions. “Regional differences in the climatic evolution of the next decades could therefore be larger than the current models predict,” says Neukom.

    ‘Climate variability in the southern hemisphere’ [see SH vs Europe]

    [Disclosure: I’ve been sucked in by ‘The GMST Illusion’ myself in the past – not any more].

  39. Richard C (NZ) on 27/10/2016 at 11:43 am said:

    ‘IPCC Models vs Observations – Land Surface Temperature Anomalies for the Last 30 Years on a Regional Basis’ – Tisdale


    There are 22 regions illustrated in the IPCC’s Figure 9.12. I’ve also created graphs of global and Antarctic land surface temperature anomalies. That’s a lot of graphs

    Since the two presentations [Raw vs Smoothed] have their advantages, I will present the graphs in raw and smoothed forms. So not to overwhelm the post with a bunch of graphs, I’ve uploaded them and provided links to them in table form, allowing you to select which regions you wish to view and in which format. See Table 2. Use Table 1 and the map in Figure 3 as references. Happy viewing.

    # # #

    SH example:

    CMIP5 MM vs GISS L-OTI Southern South America

  40. Richard C (NZ) on 27/10/2016 at 1:08 pm said:

    ‘How Hemispheric Homogenization Hikes Global Warming’ [in GISTEMP]

    Posted on February 9, 2015 by Roger Andrews

    In last week’s post on the Horrors of Homogenization I presented examples of the large distortions caused by the adjustments applied by NOAA/NCDC to individual raw surface air temperature records. In this follow-up post I analyze the equally large distortions that similar adjustments applied by GISS introduce at the hemispheric and global scale. The analysis is performed by comparing the adjusted GISS series with unadjusted series I constructed from scratch some years ago using the same set of raw records as GISS and procedures which I describe briefly below.

    Record selection: Over a period of months I went through thousands of GISTEMP raw records one by one, selecting those which I could verify by comparison with adjacent records and throwing out those that didn’t fit. At the end of this process I had selected 800 raw records, about 500 in the Northern Hemisphere and 300 in the Southern Hemisphere.

    Projection distance: I found that there was no one-size fits-all answer, so I segregated the records into areas in which temperature trends were similar but different to the trends in adjoining areas, ultimately blocking out 64 areas ranging in size from a few hundred thousand to several million square miles.

    Averaging: I then averaged the records in each area and area-weighted the averages to construct global and hemispheric temperature time series.

    Finally I compared my global series with the published GISS “meteorological station data only” global surface air temperature series, which was constructed from homogeneity-adjusted versions of the same set of GISTEMP raw records that I had used. I don’t have the original GISS series to hand so in Figure 1 I compare it with the current GISS global series, which is not significantly different (the data are expressed as anomalies relative to 1890-1910 means so that the series start off around zero. My series on this and other Figures are labeled “RA”):

    Figure 1: GISS vs RA surface air temperature series, Global

    The peaks and troughs match up well but GISS shows about 0.3C more overall warming, which as illustrated by the GISS-minus-RA difference plot is added quite regularly. Since both GISS and I used the same raw data set we can reasonably assume that this added warming was a product of the GISS homogeneity adjustments.

    The question now becomes, is the added warming real or was it manufactured by the GISS homogenization algorithm? Comparing the hemispheric series gives the answer.

    Figure 2 compares my Northern Hemisphere series with the GISS Northern Hemisphere series. The two are very similar, showing a close peak-to-trough match and the same amount of overall warming. (The match is in fact close enough to allow my results to be considered an independent verification of GISS’s.) Clearly the GISS homogenization process has not added any significant amount of warming in the Northern Hemisphere:

    Figure 2: GISS vs RA surface air temperature series, North Hemisphere

    Which of course means that it must have added it in the Southern Hemisphere. And indeed it has. About six-tenths of a degree C since 1900:

    Figure 3: GISS vs RA surface air temperature series, South Hemisphere

    Is there any chance this added warming is real? None. Figure 4, which plots 1970-2000 warming calculated from raw GHCN v2 surface air temperature records at 495 stations against latitude, confirms a large warming differential between the hemispheres. I spent a considerable amount of time looking into this differential and confirmed that there is no way the Southern Hemisphere raw records can legitimately be adjusted to the point where they show as much warming as the Northern Hemisphere records:

    Figure 4: 1970-2000 warming from 495 raw surface air temperature records plotted against latitude

    Yet this is what the GISS adjustments have done. The GISS Southern Hemisphere series shows the same amount of warming since 1890 as the GISS Northern Hemisphere series (Figure 5). The trend lines in fact have almost identical gradients. If this is a coincidence it’s a very remarkable one:

    Figure 5: GISS North and South Hemisphere surface air temperature time series

    Not even climate models can match GISS’s Southern Hemisphere series. I downloaded the multi-model surface air temperature (tas) means from the CMIP5 suite of models the IPCC used in the AR5 from KNMI Climate Explorer and plotted them against the GISS and RA series. There’s a good match with both in the Northern Hemisphere:

    Figure 6: GISS (red) & RA (blue) surface air temperature series vs. CMIP5 climate model means (black), North Hemisphere

    But the climate models fall far short of matching the warming shown by the GISS series in the Southern Hemisphere. If anything they are a closer match to mine:

    Figure 7: GISS (red) & RA (blue) surface air temperature series vs. CMIP5 climate model means (black), South Hemisphere

    How did GISS achieve this result? As Euan pointed out to me in correspondence: “it should be obvious that the S hemisphere has been homogenised to match a nearby set of stations – the N hemisphere.” And if one starts in an area of the N. Hemisphere that shows significant warming, homogenizes the surrounding raw records with it, and then moves progressively south homogenizing raw records with the already-homogenized records to the north it’s possible to see how something like this could happen. Confirming that it did happen, however, would take a lot of work.

    # # #

    >”How did GISS achieve this result?”

    New Zealand stations have been among those SH stations massively “adjusted” by GISS to conform to their preconceived profile which is really just the NH profile.

    >”Not even climate models can match GISS’s Southern Hemisphere series.” [Figure 7] but “good match with both in the Northern Hemisphere” [Figure 6]

    The climate models are tuned to GMST but GMST is effectively just Northern Hemisphere, hence the VERY “good match” in the NH. But the whole charade falls apart in ‘The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere’, as Judith Curry puts it.

    In comments:

    Roger Andrews says: February 10, 2015 at 7:19 pm

    “And climate models, which are driven pretty much entirely by CO2 forcing, agree that there should be more warming in the NH than in the SH.”

    CMIP5 MM NH vs SH

    But GISS has manufactured a SH warming rate identical to the NH in this Met Stn analysis.

    “Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” – “Marmion” by Sir Walter Scott.

  41. Richard C (NZ) on 27/10/2016 at 2:41 pm said:

    RT Television network

    RT, originally Russia Today, is a television network funded by the Russian government. It operates cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia as well as providing. RT is the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news.

    Brent Budowsky [The Hill] to RT: ‘Washington has evidence Russia hacked US’… no proof though

    #Podesta conspiracy 2.0: Ex-Swedish PM & Soros ally Bildt makes false RT-WikiLeaks claims
    Bildt is a controversial figure having sat on the board of Lundin Oil – an organization which was investigated for alleged human rights abuses in Sudan in the late ’90s and early 2000s. Two Swedish investigative journalists were imprisoned for terrorist-related offenses while looking into Lundin’s business dealings in Ethiopia in December 2011.

    He was also a major supporter of the Maidan movement which eventually toppled the democratically-elected government of President Viktor Yanukovich in Ukraine and has caused continued unrest in the east of the country.

    Having worked as an EU High Representative for Bosnia in the ’90s, Bildt was one of three people nominated by controversial tycoon George Soros, in an email to Clinton, to be a senior EU mediator in Albania during a period of civil unrest in 2011.

    Clinton’s press secretary Brian Fallon made similar claims on Twitter while the campaign’s director of communications, Jennifer Palmieri, accused RT of collusion during a TV interview.

    The reality was simply that RT journalists were monitoring the WikiLeaks website and reacted quickest to break the story when the emails were uploaded.

  42. Richard C (NZ) on 27/10/2016 at 3:46 pm said:

    Unrelated to anything except E&E Legal (think E&E Legal vs Schneiderman, Mann) re their involvement in the Roundup controversy.

    From the RT website previous:

    ‘WHO cancer agency under fire for withholding ‘carcinogenic glyphosate’ documents’ – 27 Oct, 2016

    The agency [IARC – WHO] defended its methods as scientifically sound and “widely respected for their scientific rigor, standardized and transparent process and…freedom from conflicts of interest.” Numerous freedom of information requests by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), a US conservative advocacy group, have since been turned down with this reasoning.

    E&E Legal told Reuters that it is pushing a legal challenge over whether the documents in question belong to the IARC or to the US federal and state institutions where some of the experts work. Basically, it’s being decided whether the IARC, as part of the WHO, is truly independent and free from “conflicts of interest.”

    READ MORE: Conflict of interest? Members of UN panel on glyphosate have Monsanto ties

    Two people on the UN panel that just ruled the herbicide glyphosate “unlikely” to cause cancer in humans have ties to groups that have accepted over $1 million from Monsanto and another industry group representing agrochemical giants.

    The people in question are Professor Alan Boobis [ISLI], chairman of the UN panel investigating glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup and other similar products – and Professor Angelo Moretto [ISLI], the panel’s co-chair, the Guardian reported.

    Revelations of industry ties have drawn strong criticism from many environmental and anti-genetically modified organism (GMO) groups, who have said the connections between the UN panel and ISLI place the entire study into doubt.

    The non-governmental environmental organization Greenpeace also questioned the UN panel ruling in a statement, saying ISLI and its Health and Environmental gets most of its funding from private companies, including glyphosate producers.

    # # #

    Although, given the UN’s track record, “conflicts of interest” is just normal UN operating practice i.e. no conflict at all from their point of view.

    Ironic that in this case E&E Legal and Greenpeace are on the same side.

  43. Maggy Wassilieff on 27/10/2016 at 9:26 pm said:

    @Richard C

    Lots of stuff here today to process..

    The Southern Hemisphere temperature records are of interest. Probably worth having a link to Euan Mearn’s take on the topic.

  44. Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2016 at 8:19 am said:


    Both Roger and Euan replicated UAH Southern Hemisphere from surface data, Roger a little better than Euan. I think this speaks volumes for starters.

    Puerto Casado and Gisborne Aero are both stations in Euan’ series. Paul Homewood did a case study of Puerto Casado and I’ve been interested in Gisborne Aero. There are inexplicable adjustments to each by GISS, NCDC, and BEST. Those 2 are typical of just about all of the SH and plenty in the NH too (e.g. Iceland).

    CRU comes out looking a little better than the others but still a problem as Roger Andrews points out in comments:

    Roger Andrews says: April 13, 2015 at 5:57 pm

    Now contrast our results with the SH air temperature series published by GISS, NOAA/NCDC, CRU and BEST (below). They all show more warming than Euan and me. Why? Because they apply spurious warming “adjustments”; there’s no other way they can do it. And not only that, they can’t even agree on how large the adjustments should be (NOAA shows almost twice as much warming as GISS). Which brings up another problem. Which of these august scientific institutions is right? Do we even have a reliable published SH surface air temperature series? If we don’t we don’t have a reliable global one either.

    The whole GMST fiasco originates largely in the Southern Hemisphere. What NCDC, GISS, and BEST have done to SH data is diabolical. As Euan Mearns says:

    I have tortured the data for the 174 stations I selected every which way I know and cannot squeeze more than +0.18˚C per century out of them.

    It has taken more than data torture to achieve the spurious results – there’s been in-built “expectation” (confirmation bias). In comments Roger gives his idea of how BEST has “a temperature expectation of 0.9C of warming” built in by algorithm. And easy to see from GISS adjustment to Gisborne Aero how they achieve their results.

    Last word to Euan (Figure 6):

    “This chart does show a little warming since 1980 but don’t be deceived by the scale. Recent peaks are +0.3˚C compared with +0.1˚C back in 1914. Recent warming is real but trivial.”

  45. Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2016 at 8:22 am said:

    Should be:

    “Paul Homewood did [case studies] of Puerto Casado [and Gisborne Aero] and I’ve been interested in Gisborne Aero.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2016 at 8:38 am said:

    Now with the spurious SH warming in mind, take another look at Bob Tisdale’s graph from upthread (one of many):

    CMIP5 MM vs GISS L-OTI Southern South America

    Even WITH all the manufactured warming in the SH observational data, there’s still a massive discrepancy between CO2-forced models and (adjusted) observations.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2016 at 6:24 pm said:

    BOM and CSIRO pushing the miss-attribution and fallacy:

    “The oceans really provide us with the most reliable indicator of how the globe as a whole is warming,” said Steve Rintoul, interim director of the Climate Science Centre at the CSIRO.

    Oceans have taken up taken up more than 90 per cent of the extra heat trapped by the rising levels of greenhouse gases since 1960. [Peter Hannam]

    # # #

    Peter Hannam dutifully reports. Journalism is collectively brain-dead on this.

  48. Richard C (NZ) on 29/10/2016 at 10:34 am said:

    3 New Papers Reveal Dominance Of Solar, Cloud Climate Forcing Since The 1980s … With CO2 Only A Bit Player
    [18 paper compendium]

  49. Richard C (NZ) on 01/11/2016 at 8:22 am said:

    NYU Prof Who Spoke Out Against “Safe Spaces” and “Trigger Warnings” Gets Pushed Out

    “They claimed they were worried about me and a couple people had expressed concern about my mental health,” Rectenwald told The Post.

    “I’m afraid my academic career is over,” he said. “Academic freedom: It’s great, as long as you don’t use it.”

  50. Maggy Wassilieff on 01/11/2016 at 3:46 pm said:

    Anyone heading to Canberra next week?

    Might be worthwhile dropping in to Senator Malcolm’s report on the climate warming evidence of CSIRO

  51. Andy on 01/11/2016 at 8:35 pm said:

    “Climate sceptics widen their net to claim all science – from medicine to physics to computing – is ‘in deep trouble’




    I stopped reading the article after the first paragraph started droning about “climate change deniers ” and I noticed Bob Wards name


    suggestion for the propagandists:


    stop droning about “deniers” in the first paragraph and I might listen


    as it happens the underlying thesis has merit and was recently posited in The Lancet


    but hey, we are all racist deplorables, so having a good drone about “deniers” is worthwhile




  52. Richard C (NZ) on 02/11/2016 at 3:08 pm said:

    Meanwhile, clueless at Hot Topic over very old news:

    Tony says: October 26, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    A couple of links that might be of interest. The first one I understand, [………]

    The second link, however, is a wikileaks revelation that I find more difficult to fathom, given that Bernie Sanders was by far the best candidate on tackling climate change. Perhaps someone can offer an explanation.

    ‘Think Progress’s Judd Legum emailed John Podesta tips on how Hillary could combat Bernie Sanders during the primary debates’

    # # #

    >”Perhaps someone can offer an explanation.”

    Upthread we have the whole Soros-Media Matters-Think Progress-Clinton-Podesta machine documented. Tony is asking at the wrong blog.

    Bet he’s equally clueless about Climategate.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on 02/11/2016 at 4:01 pm said:

    Ballot troubles: Long lines, vote-changing machines reported amid record-breaking early turnout
    Published time: 25 Oct, 2016 18:29


    In Amarillo, a woman said she tried to vote Republican but was shocked as she watched the machine switch her ballot to Clinton/Kane


    In Tarrant County, a woman casting a vote for the Republicans saw it flipped to Democrat.


  54. Maggy Wassilieff on 02/11/2016 at 10:47 pm said:

    New paper out  by Piekle Sr, Mamood, McAlpine discussing the role of Land in Climate Change



  55. Maggy Wassilieff on 07/11/2016 at 11:32 pm said:

    Here’s the link to Senator Malcolm Robert’s Press Conference with Tony Heller and Dr Tim Ball.

    “CSIRO lacks empirical proof”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation