Kiwi Royal Society fails to produce climate evidence

The Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) cannot substantiate their claim that mankind is causing dangerous global warming. The NZ Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) have just spent months pursuing them for evidence, which they failed to produce. We believe that it does not exist.

For several decades publicly-funded climate scientists associated with the RSNZ have reported that global temperatures are increasing, sea level rise is accelerating, extreme weather events are more frequent and intense and that these and other dangerous effects are caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide, yet when pressed to authenticate their claims, they produce nothing.

The RSNZ have published some weighty climate reports, including Climate Change Implications for NZ, the Transition to a Low Carbon Economy and, most recently, the Human Health Impacts of Climate Change for NZ, all of which state that human emissions are causing dangerous global warming, but without evidence.

In mid-2017 the NZCSC asked the RSNZ for evidence of dangerous man-made global warming. In answer, the RSNZ first cited sources that didn’t address the mechanism of anthropogenic warming, then advised us to search everything on the Internet, then to “find the evidence yourself” in the hundreds of pages in the IPCC reports, and finally stopped talking to us.

We laid a formal complaint against the CEO of the RSNZ for breaches of the Society’s Code of Ethics by claiming without firm evidence that man-made global warming was real and dangerous. Eventually the RSNZ dismissed our complaint, calling it “insufficiently grave.”

RSNZ climate scientists have said for years that evidence for dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) is “overwhelming.” For example, in 2016 Victoria University of Wellington Earth Sciences Professor James Renwick (previously the Chair of the Royal Society of NZ Climate Expert Panel) was quoted as saying:

The climate is changing and it is due to human activity and that is very clear from all sorts of lines of evidence. The evidence showed that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming. – emphasis added

It is unreasonable for the RSNZ to conceal evidence that is overwhelming and critical to their argument, as, if it exists, they must know it (and if not, why not?). In their judgement on the ethics complaint, they acknowledged that “contention on all aspects of climate change, including its existence and causes, is notorious,” yet refuse to discuss it.

Many members of the NZCSC are also members of the RSNZ — scientists, engineers, scholars and friends of the Society. We have studied climate science for many years and are familiar with the IPCC reports and what they say about the detection and attribution of radiative forcing—they are vague when describing the human cause of warming.

The RSNZ have made great efforts both in public and behind closed doors to put our country on a costly and uncertain path to economic disruption by recommending substantial emissions reductions that will make not the slightest difference to the climate but will be ruinous to farming, industry and our way of life. Without clear evidence that warming is man-made and dangerous, that expense and disruption could be futile.

The Kiwi Royal Society have a duty to explain the science warts and all, and their refusal to answer demonstrates a broken relationship. Their actions suggest a precarious connection with the truth, and we scratch our heads at their peculiar intransigence. We don’t believe they have evidence, but in that case they ought to have said “there is no evidence” — and if they do have evidence, in failing to disclose it they have manifestly lost their way. In both cases they must be held to account.


Read more

Recent article by Barry Brill on the New Zealand Prime Minister’s new emphasis on combating climate change, in which he exposes the role of science in climate alarm.

—————

*Richard Treadgold is convenor of the Climate Conversation Group
and an executive member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition

51 Thoughts on “Kiwi Royal Society fails to produce climate evidence

  1. Simon on April 8, 2018 at 9:12 am said:

    If you had a scientific background, you would know that the first step is to do a literature review. Google Scholar returns 28,500 results. I recommend you start with the Stern Review.

  2. Richard Treadgold on April 8, 2018 at 9:49 am said:

    I’ve spent years searching for a description of the mechanism by which our emissions cause dangerous global warming and your suggestion is the best I’ve encountered. Why? Because everybody makes essentially the same suggestion and nobody answers my question.

  3. Richard Treadgold on April 8, 2018 at 9:59 am said:

    Anyway, do you honestly think the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change gave a good account of the science? When even the IPCC fudges the issue, I hardly think so.

  4. Barry Brill on April 8, 2018 at 12:19 pm said:

    Simon
    The Stern Review on “The Economics of Climate Change” is a 2006 report for economists. It was rejected almost unanimously by economists worldwide for many reasons, notably because it assumed a discount rate of 0.0% for events a thousand years in the future. Lord Stern was the UK head of Treasury and was appointed by PM Gordon Brown to prepare a political document to support Labour’s then policies. This was back when you were in primary school.

    Why would you think this was a good place to look for scientific evidence? Somewhere in a much-reviled, out-of-date 700-page economic report?

    Why not a reference to a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal? Even one would do – as long as it shows EVIDENCE that most of the observed global warming has been anthropogenic.

  5. Richard Treadgold on April 8, 2018 at 1:28 pm said:

    Simon likes to be the first to comment on our posts, but he seldom has the last word because he avoids our inquiries. None of the warmsters appear to grasp that some human warming is highly likely, given the scale of our earthly activities, and given that a regional human influence is readily observable on temperature, hydrology and atmospheric moisture, but that so far no global influence has been observed. So producing evidence of some global effect AND ITS MAGNITUDE is critical to enable analysis of the benefits and costs of policy proposals. Simple, really.

  6. Simon on April 9, 2018 at 8:58 am said:

    Global evidence of anthropogenic global warming is incontrovertible, your question was whether it is dangerous. First you need to define what conditions are dangerous, which is why I directed you to the Stern Report.

  7. The global evidence of AGW is indeed incontrovertibly correct in sofar as there is any, which there is not, Simon.

  8. Richard Treadgold on April 9, 2018 at 10:17 am said:

    Simon,

    The excellent Jacob makes an excellent point, but here is more excellence. First, kindly cite the incontrovertible evidence you mention, since I have found none.

    Second, my question was not whether it was dangerous, for it’s a necessary property of the man-made global warming, since if it’s not dangerous we don’t need to do anything about it. Define dangerous? Ask Greenpeace, check with the IPCC, maybe email the MfE and why not try James Renwick? Or would you make do with a metre-high increase in global sea levels?

    Read again what I said. My question asks for a description of “the mechanism by which our emissions cause dangerous global warming.”

    It’s quite simple, and surely you know how it works, since it underpins your whole campaign against “the greatest challenge of our generation” and your hatred of so-called ‘climate deniers’. Doesn’t it?

  9. Simon on April 9, 2018 at 11:18 am said:

    It is quite simple.
    1. Carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases.
    2. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been increasing due to human activity.
    3. The climate has warmed as a result.
    All of the above statements are undeniable.

  10. Richard Treadgold on April 9, 2018 at 11:34 am said:

    Well, no. 3 is certainly deniable, so it needs evidence.

    Please provide evidence of warming and state the period, describe the physical mechanism of the warming and state its magnitude. Your declamatory style doesn’t immediately suggest a conversation, but answering these important points might spark something.

  11. Simon, let me explain something. I have been struck by a similarity, a similitudinariness of deep significance, between the story of the selling of indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church and how one German priest by the name of Martin Luther eventually did show it up for the nonsense that it patently was, on the one hand, and the AGW phenomenon on the other hand. You may have heard a French expression to the effect that the more things change, the more they stay the same: Plus ca chance, etc. It can be found on the internet, the same with the entire history of the selling of indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church.
    History is repeating itself through human folly. Erasmus, a catholic and Dutch philosopher, did write a booklet tp praise folly. Erasmus was a most-learned person, so I don’t want to do him down, not too much anyway, by being overly critical of folly in general. However, not all follies are equal in the matter of deserving praise. Likewise, some follies are definitely not to be praised, Erasmus notwithstanding. In the matter of AGW, issue rather, since AGW itself is not a matter but a figment, a flight of fancey, however, I see myself more in the tradition of a Martin Luther. Think of it this way; if the evidence in favour of AGW becomes evident, as in, becomes a verifiable fact, then you could still be sorely disappointed if such evidence is not followed by further evidence pointing to facts concurring with your desire for everybody else to believe in such danger as there may be, to humanity, not the Earth, due, to the as yet unproven idea and false theory of AGW as, in that case, has become evident. The people you would like to call deniers are not disappointed by facts, other than the fact that there are still many who fall for false theories without wishing to make such false theories into proper scientific theories. Simon, do spare yourself greater disappointment than you must inexorably and inevitably already meet with. Do try and work from a scientific basis to prove your point, and remember even then that such scientific theories as are proven as so-called facts only stand up for a while. Other than universal/natural law, which, conceivably, might last the lifetime of our universe, nothing stands up indefinitely. Better to seek wisdom, or scientific proof if you must, than to persist defending a scam, a fraud, a figment of your imagination brought on by, perhaps, an atavistic vestige of the supposedly incontrovertible sinfulness of mankind. Do not, Simon, I beseech you, go sulk and spit the dummy. I would love to continue the conversation, as and when, of course, we can go sensibly about it.

    Jacob, An enormous slab of text is intimidating, hard to read and obscures your various points. Please create paragraphs by depressing the Enter key twice. Thank you. – Richard T

  12. Sorry, Richard. The last thing I would want to do is intimidate Simon. How can I change it? I’m nearly incompetent with computers.
    If you you have some time, can you change it, please.

    Must remember that.

  13. Richard Treadgold on April 9, 2018 at 1:27 pm said:

    Jacob, mate, it’s not Simon I’m concerned about, it’s me. It’s hard just to keep your place without some breaks. That’s why we have them. Just press Enter twice each time your topic changes slightly.

  14. Clarrie on April 9, 2018 at 1:30 pm said:

    Hi Simon, you seem to be trying to understand RT’s puzzlement.

    It derives from your three words “as a result”. He seeks evidence that the observed warming does, as a scientific fact, result from the human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases. He knows the hypothesis very well. But he hasn’t seen the evidence in the WG1 report of AR5, or anywhere else. The Royal Society of NZ has not been able to point him to the scientific evidence. He hopes that you might.

    Once the evidence is identified, a conversation can begin regarding the strength of that evidence. Whether it is ambiguous or non-conclusive or open to a different interpretation. It can be weighed against contrary evidence (if any) and experiments to test its reliability can be devised. The maths, when disclosed, can be replicated or questioned. Confidence levels can be assessed.

    There is widespread concern that the ‘evidence’ might prove to be no more than a print from a mathematical computer model (or the average of many such prints). Of course, that is not evidence at all – it is a product of many inputs including a plethora of assumptions and tweaks.

    The bottom line is that the scientific method requires full disclosure and replication. It cannot begin until you (or somebody) particularises the evidence for your words “as a result”.

  15. Richard Treadgold on April 9, 2018 at 1:44 pm said:

    Simon,

    What Clarrie said (well said, Clarrie).

  16. Simon on April 9, 2018 at 3:46 pm said:

    If you had done a literature review, you would know that the human induced and natural contributions to global warming are well understood. There is even a real time calculator that differentiates between both components: http://www.globalwarmingindex.org/

  17. Richard Treadgold on April 9, 2018 at 3:49 pm said:

    Simon,

    If you had answered our questions, we would know what you know and your battle to change our minds would be over.

  18. Simon on April 9, 2018 at 4:20 pm said:

    Read the paper and the associated references. The rationale for the human and natural attributions is all there. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14828-5
    You keep asking for evidence. When it is shown to you, you refuse to read or understand it. This is symptomatic of a closed mind.

  19. Richard Treadgold on April 9, 2018 at 4:40 pm said:

    Simon,

    That’s a good point, except as a matter of fact that you haven’t shown me any evidence, though you may have pointed to some. I’m in a hurry right now, but that’s not your fault. I wonder if you could help with just a brief summary of the paper? Just a few words. You know what I”m looking for—does it describe the physical mechanism of man-made warming and does it quantify that warming? Otherwise it’ll be a day or two before I can read it. Thanks.

  20. As I read it, the paper shows that there is a good correlation given the various factors they have considered. These factors do not include sunspot effects or the effects of cosmic rays as described by its Svensmark – or many other possible mechanisms..

    So it really says, “if you only take the effects we have considered into account and ignore all the other ones, then the correlation is excellent.”

    I don’t think this is good enough. It’s a bit like saying “nobody has found a cause-and-effect relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature. I have found one! Therefore I must be right!”

  21. Read the paper and the associated references, saith Simon. The rationale etc.

    It takes a minute to read the Abstract, but the word rationale as used by Simon is entirely appropriate and looking over the gobbledygook following the the Abstract, I think, but I cannot prove it, I admit, that a lot of it is compiled with the aid of AI-kind of computer programming.

    Without shills, it is without a doubt a lot of blog sites would be struggling or defunct and internet outfits might be reduced in their gross income.
    The rationale of the people thinking up this pseudo-scientific gobbledygook must be money. Why otherwise would they bother? These are obviously academics of some sort. Have they nothing better to do?

    I will read it once more, if I change my mind I will confess that I don’t understand it-But I do. If I were on the warmist gravy train…., hmmm, maybe I could agree, but no, it does not appear to be scientific.

    With apologies to Simon.

  22. Some years ago I had a conversation with Bhanu Padmo on a blog site since discontinued. Bhanu and I could not agree on everything, but as to modern academicians we were in accord, more or less.

    Academics are headed for the chop, except as spinners and lobbyists for vested interest. As for science, that too is severely compromised. Still, the experts like a debate: How many fairies are dancing on this spin?

  23. Stephanie Hawking on April 10, 2018 at 5:19 am said:

    Here is a link to an explanation of “proof” in science:
    https://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32

    Long before research exposed evidence that humans cause global warming, science made another sensational claim — that smoking caused lung cancer.

    That case has been proven beyond doubt. But there is a science story from this era that is mostly forgotten: The battle against cigarettes taught science how to prove.

    Before linking cigarettes to lung cancer, science had no established method to prove that one thing caused another. The fields of epidemiology and statistics were new, and while they had some prior successes, the questions were so evident — think about mercury causing madness — that proof did not require the level of meticulousness that modern science expects. The need to establish a link between cigarettes and lung cancers — and the backlash that ensued — changed this. Epidemiology and cigarettes grew up together.

    Today’s debate over global warming echoes that era. Because of politics, a post like this, intended to inform, will sway few minds. But I have spoken with skeptics who honestly want to understand, but don’t have the tools to grapple with such a large, complex field of science. And they have a point — while we talk a lot about the data, we rarely describe the path to a conclusion.

    Provoked by their questions, I began to dig. And I unearthed a notion that is rarely mentioned in the global warming debate: Science actually has a method for establishing that one thing causes another. Scientists don’t have to vote on the issue — the 97% consensus of climate scientists who believe that humans cause warming is telling, but only one part of a broader process. And for those who want to honestly weigh their skepticism in context of the evidence, there is a way.

    Here’s the story…

    Sadly one must read the article to get the benefit…

  24. Stephanie Hawking on April 10, 2018 at 5:38 am said:

    Plants and wild animals are responding to global warming.

    Trees of course can’t move; they don’t have the energy.

    Maybe those who can’t understand climate science have the same limitation as trees?

  25. If the warmistas were cancer experts, and telling all the world that smoking caused lung cancer, would anyone believe them if the cancer experts themselves were smoking heavily? It would confuse some people, but if it turned out that the heavily smoking cancer experts were being paid by the government to put out the cancer message, and the government itself was promoting the smoking in order to increase money supply and the inflation rate and the tax take, then a different picture emerges.

    The analogy as presented by Stephenie Hawking is not correct, however. In the lung cancer and smoking connection there has been proven correlation, although many environmental factors have been ignored. The campaign against smoking has been rather successful and, though not always an honest fight on the part of both sides, it cam be said that the West is the better for it. I don’t know if smoking habits were affected elsewhere in the world.

    However, if warmistas are hoping to emulate the anti-smoking campaign by trading on the ill-effects, real, surmised and imagined, of smoking, they have some way to go and are handicapped by the fact that there is no moral imperative underpinning the AGW hype. Quite the contrary, in fact.

    The story put out by the warmistas does not accord with their lifestyle. They are saying, do as I say, but don’t do as I do. Actions speak louder than words. If the warmistas really believed what they were saying, they would live frugally and perhaps encourage others to live frugally. Especially, the warmistas would lobby governments to reduce waste. Every dollar spent uselessly and wastefully increases the use of fossil fuels, the use of which is said to increase greenhouse gasses, which are said to cause AGW.

    Warmistas are in the business of picking taxpayers’ and consumers’ pockets through the government powers of legislation, regulation and taxation, amongst others. Democratic government in the West has been hijacked by false environmentalists and their globalising corporate masters. It’s tyranny.

  26. Richard Treadgold on April 10, 2018 at 10:19 am said:

    Hi Stephanie,

    Maybe those who can’t understand climate science have the same limitation as trees?

    Perhaps the tiny few who have trouble understanding. However, you make a huge mistake if you think that sceptics generally “cannot understand” climate science. Most sceptics have questions about features of the DAGW hypothesis that are not being answered by the not-so-helpful official climate scientists, so it’s not that they cannot understand, it’s that they cannot accept it. If you read the present post, you’ll understand this.

    When you say “global warming” what evidence are you referring to?

  27. Gary Kerkin on April 10, 2018 at 1:14 pm said:

    Stephanie, this is confusing.

    Before linking cigarettes to lung cancer, science had no established method to prove that one thing caused another. The fields of epidemiology and statistics were new, …

    … And I unearthed a notion that is rarely mentioned in the global warming debate: Science actually has a method for establishing that one thing causes another.

    There has always been a method to prove that one thing causes another, or disproved it. Curiously, it is called the scientific method. In brief, hypothesise a causal relationship, design an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis, analyse the results of the experiment, accept or discount the hypothesis based on the results of the experiment. Forgive me if I am stating what you already know. I wasn’t sure because of the confusion in your statements.

    Don’t confuse epidemiological studies with experimentation. Epidemiological studies might suggest possible links, but they do not prove the links. Your choice of smoking and lung cancer is a good one, because the initial epidemiological studies suggest a link based on a very vague trend in a broad scatter of information. Other studies have since identified causes and effects, but initially the vague trend was picked up by the anti-smoking lobby long before better proofs emerged. It can be argued that their action was good because it subsequently proved to be correct, but the process was true of the era and other examples were not so beneficial. It was the time when Rachel Carson wrote “The Silent Spring” which eventually resulted in a global ban on DDT with adverse (unintended?) consequences which are now recognised. It was the time when the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth” with its dire projections of disasters, since proved to have been unfounded. You can probably think of other examples.

    It is untrue, and unfair, to say that the scientific method is never mentioned in debates on global warming. Let’s leave aside the more irrational and strident adherents of either side in the debate and concentrate on the rational, sceptical view of the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming. No rational sceptic will deny that climate is not changing. No sceptic will deny that sea level is not rising.No sceptic will deny that both carbon dioxide and temperature are increasing. What a rational sceptic will argue is that no indisputable evidence relating an increase in atmospheric temperature to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has ever been presented. The only “evidence” presented supporting the case are based on calculations of radiation emission and absorption, and the outputs of computer based models which assume that AGW is involved and assumptions as to the extent of the greenhouse effects. In other words they assume the hypothesis and then claim the results are proof of the hypothesis. Argumentis circularis?

    The rational sceptics I know would, like me, be happy to accept indisputable evidence but it has not been forthcoming and none of the various analyses we have undertaken suggests that likelihood. For example I looked at the the increase in carbon dioxide and temperature in New Zealand over successive 30 year periods from 1910 to 1986 (I couldn’t go later than 1986 because I had data only to 2016). I would have thought a relationship would show up clearly if a direct link existed but that’s not what I found. I used what carbon dioxide data I could get hold of (not easy), and I obtained annual temperatures from the 7 Station Series of NIWA. You can see the results at http://kerkin.co.nz/climate/nz_data.php.

    What’s interesting about my analysis is that it does not rely on statistics. It merely takes the changes over a period of years and asks the question “do the results indicate a causal relationship?” Any one with a modicum of skill with a spreadsheet can do it for themselves. I invite you to try it.

  28. Sean Rush on April 10, 2018 at 2:21 pm said:

    Hi Stephanie,

    Some years ago I decided to ‘find out for myself’ what was happening climate wise. I was prompted because Al Gore’s movie mis-represented the true relationship between temp increase and CO2 (actually CO2 rise follows temp rise). I then found out that James Hansen, who started the whole scare back in 1988 orchestrated his testimony to Congress to fall on the hottest day of the year and arranged to turn off the air con – an odd way to support scientific conclusions Since then I have read numerous books and finally did a course last year at Vic Uni (directed by Prof Dave Frame, Lead Author for AR5 and AR6) and since then I have read peer reviewed articles and even struggled through AR5 WG1. In my travels I received a final draft report of WG1 (the science) for the Second Assessment Report (“SAR”) – this “final” draft was signed off by the scientists after long debate around human influences on climate in Asheville, Texas, and stated clearly that they could not attribute recent warming to human activities and didn’t know when they would be able to. This was consistent with the science set out in the First Assessment. But the draft was subsequently circulated to Govt reps for thoughts/comments – another odd thing for scientists to do and this is where it got ‘politicised’. The US comments, spearheaded by none other than Vice President Al Gore, wanted human attribution and detection ‘in’ and the final product, that was not circulated back to all the scientists present in Asheville, included the now famous ‘discernible’ human influence on climate which signalled the end of sceptical debate. Kyoto was signed a year later and the office of the Vice President was specifically thanked by the then president, Bill Clinton. I think that was the end of rational scientific debate and the start of the politicisation of the IPCC – had the final draft stood it is unlikely the IPCC would be in existence. Instead we had the Mann ‘hockey stick’ postered in the 3rd Assessment that wrote the Medieval Warm Period, a global phenomenon and ‘settled’ science, out of history. The MWP, as ascertained by science and documented with approval in the First Report, showed warmer temps than now around 1,000 AD. Greenland ice cores show the same thing and similar temps spiking every 1,000 years prior (the Roman and Minoan warm periods). Last weekend a well-known anti – oil environmental scientists and I were discussing hydrogen as described in IPCC AR5. He commented “as for the IPCC it is incredibly political and I know two lead authors who have given up because of the politicisation“ – so much for politics!

    The science – it is agreed that CO2 on its own cannot cause more than 1C of warming. It needs a positive feedback and water vapour is the IPCC candidate of choice. But water vapour is tricky – it turns to ice when it rises (increasing reflectivity of the Earth reducing warming), water when it condenses, removing it from the atmosphere as rain or clouds (cooling/warming) and we have no data on whether atmospheric concentrations of water vapour have increased– the text for the course I took is, ‘Principles of Planetary Climate’ by Raymond Pierrehumbert (who is no sceptic). He confirms that “clouds, in their many and varied manifestations, pose one of the greatest challenges to the understanding of earth and planetary climate’ and that ‘It will turn out that the net radiative effect of clouds are highly sensitive to the size of the particles of which they are composed. This leads to the disconcerting conclusion that the climate of an object as large as an entire planet can be strongly affected by poorly understood processes happening on the scale of a few micrometers.’ This uncertainty is clearly described in IPCC AR5 Ch7 “Clouds and aerosols continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to estimates and interpretations of the Earth’s changing energy budget.” They conclude a ‘likely’ positive feedback (i.e. Likely = 66%). Just to be clear, if there is no positive and meaningful water vapour feedback then we have no CO2 related problem and we could be missing what the real cause of recent warming is.

    In parallel with the ‘greenhouse effect’ the IPCC rely on ‘black body radiation’ theory where ‘energy in equals energy out’. Laws of Physics require surface or troposphere warming to occur where low wave radiation departs to space at a higher point (the ‘outer longwave radiation” point) because humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere – but the Earth isn’t a ‘blackbody’, it might take a million years for absorbed warming to manifest itself, and I can’t seem to find evidence that the atmosphere is radiating at a higher point despite NASA having satellites (CERES) measuring the energy budget – maybe the tiny human content is being overwhelmed by what water vapour might be doing on a day and this presupposes the CO2 actually makes it to the top of the atmosphere (Henry’s law tells us that rather than CO2 expanding the atmosphere (like a balloon blowing up) a good portion would be sucked into the ocean). A recent study suggests the biospehere (plants) might be taking more fossil fuel CO2 than previously thought – it is after all heavier than air and released on highways close to plants.

    The IPCC also rely on the ‘Bern model’ that models CO2 residence time where a volume of CO2 equivalent to ~40% of atmospheric CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 1,000 years but I understand this model is based on observations i.e. the decline curve matches current atmospheric levels of ~405 ppm, assumes the delta to the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm must be from fossil fuels (even tho el Nino pumped out ~3 ppm last year) and the rest (approx.. 100 ppm) has been absorbed in the biosphere/ocean. But there is no science behind this so it has no predictive value i.e. it is possible that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels fall out in 15 – 30 years and that current levels are being supported by natural CO2 fluxes. To test this I cross referred temp data from 1860 through to 1945 (when temps increased naturally) with CO2 levels and found a no real correlation – CO2 gradually started increasing but temps went down and up at various rates and times.

    I read the Hill article – interesting enough but I felt some of the data appears inconsistent with data elsewhere. So all a bit confusing – more work to be done. Richard, what’s the best way to contact you?

  29. Stephanie Hawking on April 10, 2018 at 4:10 pm said:

    A bit of reading here. Unfortunately they are experts.

    https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview#graphic-20896

    Overview
    The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

  30. Barry Brill on April 10, 2018 at 9:23 pm said:

    Dr David Wojcik offers an illuminating distinction between actual research results and the ‘speculative’ comments that appear in most scientific papers. He says the speculation is often overstated and may be related to further funding.
    http://www.cfact.org/2018/03/30/speculation-versus-research-in-climate-science

    Example:
    “That humans are actually causing global warming is a speculative conclusion, not a research result. There is no research project that finds that humans are causing global warming.”

    This is a very confident (not to say dogmatic) statement. One can assume that he has sought out research for the human attribution and has found none. In that regard, he seems to be in the same position as the Royal Society of NZ.

  31. Simon on April 11, 2018 at 8:43 pm said:

    One can also assume that Dr David Wojcik that works for an American lobby group (Heartland Institute) and is funded by Koch Industries and several fossil fuel companies.

  32. @Barry Brill: Dr David Wojcik, if quoted correctly, is likely to be wrong on one count. To wit: That humans are actually causing global warming is not even a speculative conclusion, but at best inconclusive speculation.

  33. Richard Treadgold on April 11, 2018 at 9:48 pm said:

    Simon,

    One can also assume that Dr David Wojcik that [sic] works for an American lobby group (Heartland Institute) and is funded by Koch Industries and several fossil fuel companies.

    Is this the extent of your rebuttal of what he says? I must tell you, this doesn’t work on us: it neither enrages nor diverts us. Put your considerable energy to producing evidence of your case, since we find it irresistible. For example, if you know of a research project that finds that humans are causing global warming, let us know. We’ll be on it like cowboys at a rodeo.

  34. Barry Brill on April 12, 2018 at 12:20 am said:

    Simon

    I was interested in your reference to a “Nature” paper, Haustein et al (2017), as an anthology of all the prior evidence that recent observed increases in global mean surface temperature (GMST) have been caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGW).

    The paper is concerned with the theoretical methodology that should be used in preparing a real-time index of AGW. This could be done by an improved version of the Otto et al (2015) suggestion of “a simple least-squares fit between observed temperatures and the EXPECTED responses to anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing …. [The index] satisfies the need for immediate availability. We update it using monthly GMST and revised monthly radiative forcing data”.

    The authors propose to take observed GMST from HadCRUT4-CW “as the dependent variable and estimated responses to human-induced and natural drivers of climate change as the independent variables”. Estimated responses? No evidence? How are the estimates done? Well, it turns out that they start with the estimates in chap 8 of AR5 and update those figures by GHG emissions data published monthly by NOAA.

    After wading through pages of this, it becomes crystal-clear that the authors know nothing of any EVIDENCE that GHG emissions are causing all or part of the GMST data. Nor is there mention of any EVIDENCE that GMST and radiative forcing by GHG emissions are even correlated in any way, let alone that their ratio is constant. All that is simply taken to be axiomatic. The relationship (ie the Charney Sensitivity) is built into the programming of all the models. Attribution is not up for questioning or discussion.

    Oddly, the paper says it is using the “multi-fingerprinting approach” introduced by Hasselman (1997), and yet it makes no attempt whatever to discover any human fingerprints. I’ve not yet found Hasselman, but its date suggests it is probably THE (unpublished) ‘human fingerprint’ paper that was so controversially relied upon by Ben Santer for the breakthrough 11th-hour change in the Second Assessment Report of 1995.

    At least we know that no NEW EVIDENCE has been discovered in the last two decades. Thanks Simon.

  35. Richard Treadgold on April 12, 2018 at 5:50 am said:

    Outstanding.

  36. Stephanie Hawking on April 12, 2018 at 8:56 am said:

    “David Wojcik [of] Heartland Institute funded by Koch Industries and several fossil fuel companies.”

    Is this the extent of your rebuttal of what he says? I must tell you, this doesn’t work on us

    Well it certainly worked on Barry Brill. He quoted his words as gospel: “One can assume that he has sought out research for the human attribution and has found none.”

    Humans have raised the CO2 level in the atmosphere 40%.

    No rational person disputes that.

  37. Richard Treadgold on April 12, 2018 at 12:00 pm said:

    Stephanie,

    Well it certainly worked on Barry Brill.

    That’s risibly confused, as Barry said that, not Wojcik. It’s nothing to do with Barry. I said your rebuttal doesn’t work because you failed to do any rebutting. Produce evidence, we love that.

  38. Stephanie Hawking on April 12, 2018 at 5:25 pm said:

    Richard Treadgold.

    No scientific institution or society agrees with your views. Not in any branch of science. Not in any country. Nothing, nowhere. Zero.

    Even the oil companies ignore you.

    So clearly the evidence for AGW is available if you want it. In fact, it’s considered overwhelming. Irrefutable.

  39. Richard Treadgold on April 12, 2018 at 10:35 pm said:

    Stephanie,

    No scientific institution or society agrees with your views. Not in any branch of science. Not in any country.

    You’re quite wrong. Institutes in Russia, China and India have sceptical views on AGW. Vladimir Putin has said humans are not causing global warming.

    Even the oil companies ignore you.

    Do they? I hadn’t noticed.

    So clearly the evidence for AGW is available if you want it.

    That doesn’t follow, but what is the evidence?

    In fact, it’s considered overwhelming. Irrefutable.

    Yes, it is. Several people and organisations have said that it is overwhelming. But it is not, I say not, irrefutable. Just tell me what it is and I will refute it.

    It’s unpleasant being called a crank and using the term in polite intercourse is discourteous.

  40. Richard Treadgold on April 13, 2018 at 10:10 am said:

    Stephanie,

    Humans have raised the CO2 level in the atmosphere 40%.

    Yes, that’s probably about right, but no evidence has been found that it has any significant effect on atmospheric temperatures. Why haven’t you found some evidence?

  41. Richard,
    You really have to cease these ludicrous statements. Even Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, and the mumblings of Monckton concur that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is causing some warming of the atmosphere. Their disagreement is over what the equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity is.

  42. But where is the evidence that humans have raised CO2 levels by 40%? Correlation is not evidence of causation, Richard.

  43. Richard Treadgold on April 13, 2018 at 1:21 pm said:

    Simon,

    You really have to cease these ludicrous statements.

    We’re pretty close on this, no need to call it ludicrous. We differ between my term “any significant effect” and your “some warming”, not on the essential point that it causes warming (though some argue strongly against that). If you want to volunteer some reference to magnitude, it would be warmly welcomed.

  44. Richard Treadgold on April 13, 2018 at 1:25 pm said:

    Jacob,

    But where is the evidence that humans have raised CO2 levels by 40%?

    Over the last two centuries that seems to be the accumulation of CO2 that can be attributed to human activities through differing ratios of isotopes of carbon. This is just my recollection, I have no reference to hand.

  45. “that seems to be”, ok, thank you. We’ll go with that until scientific evidence gives us more on that score.

  46. Richard Treadgold on April 13, 2018 at 3:39 pm said:

    There’s controversy on this point. Something I read recently suggests preferential treatment by plants to one or other of the carbon isotopes in either C3 or C4 photosynthesis pathways, producing an atmospheric ratio contrary to assumptions of long standing and thus muddling the attribution of fossil-fuel-derived carbon. The biosphere has by now removed most of the 14C derived from nuclear testing and is now returning some of it to the atmosphere. Something similar could be happening to 12C (the paleo or fossil fuel version).

  47. Quite, by the merest of margins, the CO2 isotope trope is a theory, and therefor falsifiable. Fifty years ago I was studying agriculture and some simple agri/soil science. Ever since the AGW carry-on I have wondered why the loss and uptake of carbon in the soil was given so little attention by the warmistas. It’s not as if myself and many others, before me and after, have not been trying to bring this into the conversation to pull this factor into the carbon exchange equation. Sofar, only in the case of permafrost has it been given any air, and only then to increase the clamour of false alarm bells.

    As for the science; The industrial revolution has been common knowledge. Likewise, explosive population growth, historically speaking, and the agrarian revolution in the West, which, to an extent, has kept pace with population growth in the West, is well-known. We now don’t need scientists to tell us that the increased burning of fossil fuels has caused smoke to go into the air. The CO2 isotope story is, in the AGW hype scheme of things, barely relevant. What is, in that regard, is the huge loss of soil humus(carbon) in the world and the increased loss of topsoil generally. The drainage of Holland Fens about three hundred years ago, for instance, has led to about 14 feet of shrinkage since. Significant or not? What say the warmistas?

  48. Stephanie Hawking on April 13, 2018 at 5:49 pm said:

    Human activity includes changes in land use.

    The amount of fossil fuel burned is known. It more than accounts for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2.

    (Isotopes shown the carbon came from fossil fuels and the oxygen level in the atmosphere is dropping.)

  49. Inter alia, the scare about permafrost relates to methane initially. As to Stephanie trotting out the assertion that the amount of fossil fuel burned is known, and that it supposedly “more than accounts for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2”, well, how simplistic can you get. That is not scientific.
    Since the AGW hype is about the climate globally, the amount and type of fossil fuel burned should be calculated globally over the periods relevant to match subsequent increases in atmospheric CO2 and subtracting the uptake of this, up and down in percentages of the different isotopic carbon. Please explain.
    No scientist has calculated all the fossil fuel burned globally before, say, fifty years ago-Impossible.

  50. Barry Brill on April 14, 2018 at 7:17 pm said:

    The lack of EVIDENCE for the attribution of extreme weather to “climate change” AND the attribution of climate change to anthropogenic emissions of GHGs is causing near-insuperable problems in the multiple US court cases against oil companies. See an excellent discussion by Michael Kile at –
    http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/04/climate-change-trial/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=e173cecd48-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_04_03&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-e173cecd48-20168641

    If the City of New York can’t find any compelling evidence of human attribution for observed warming, then what chance the miserable RSNZ?

    DICTIONARY: Attribution, n., the art of evaluating the relative contributions of multiple causal factors to a change or an event, according to one’s prejudices.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation