141
Leave a Reply

avatar
42 Comment threads
99 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Richard C (NZ)Richard TreadgoldMike JowseyMagooAndy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Andy
Guest
Andy

Australian Climate Madness has some good observations on SkS

John Cook, also writing in The Australian, simply rehashes the same old tired arguments we have seen so many times before, plugging his junk-science ’97% consensus’ paper to justify his incessant alarmism. At no point is there any acknowledgement from Cook about the problems with the IPCC process, and the unexpected halt in warming, which is becoming too big for even the mainstream media to ignore.

He also oddly fails to disclose his authorship of the climate activist website Skeptical Science (Curry, on the other hand, is open about her blog) – is he embarrassed by its zealotry, perhaps? Cook also claims his “server” was “hacked” and emails were “stolen” last year, when in fact it appears more likely a back door was simply left open at the SkS website, and the files were inadvertently made public. This is a cheap attempt to portray his critics as prepared to engage in unethical or illegal behaviour when in fact it was a self-inflicted wound.

The only positive is that Cook manages to avoid the “D” word for a change. Well done…

http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/09/21/curry-vs-cook-with-a-bit-of-flannery/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

On the right side bar at NoTricksZone there’s a link to “Climate Bet For Charity”. Pete’s update: ‘Honeycutt-Nuccitelli Climate Bet Progress Report…So Far New Decade Is Cooler Than The Last…Ready To Concede?’ By P Gosselin on 8. Juni 2013 To mark the start of the new decade, NoTricksZone and its readers made a climate bet (see right side bar) against two warmists from Skeptical Science: Rob Honeycutt and Dana Nuccitelli (and others). Also see update-5. The warmists are pledging more than $14,000.00! […] The bet is on whether or not the current 2011-2020 decade would be warmer or cooler than the previous 2001-2010 decade. NTZ and its readers say it will be cooler or the same. Messieurs Honeycutt and Nuccitelli say it’s going to get warmer for sure. After all, man is spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever. The money won will be donated to a charity for children in need. Almost two and half years have now passed and I think it’s a good time to see how the bet is coming along. Thanks to Robin Pittwood and his Kiwi Thinker blog, we now have preliminary results for the first… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

PMOD TSI composite from 1978:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1978

Last datapoint is 2011.67, 1365.56 but it’s clear that SC 24 after 2008/9 will be down markedly (maybe 0,5 W.m2 at 2013 maximum) from the previous 3 cycles and who knows where the minimum will end up given the end of SC 23 was down by about 0.3 W.m2?

That’s a cooler regime than the 1st decade 21st century locked in for over a decade ahead unless the sun wakes up and a pretty good bet at NTZ I think.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘The Skeptical Science Escalator … of Alarmism’

By Simon

No visit to the Skeptical Science website is complete without having one of their smug “escalator” graphics shoved down your throat.

Not content with the temperature escalator, which paints anyone who questions their zealous devotion to “The Cause” as a simpleton, they have now come up with the sea ice escalator, along similar lines.

So finally, ladies and gentlemen, we present the Australian Climate Madness version of [drum roll, please], The Escalator!!!

CLICK HERE to watch animation

http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/09/16/the-skeptical-science-escalator-of-alarmism/

Magoo
Guest
Magoo

Hehe, that’s good!

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

97% topical in OZ at the moment:

‘Wendy Bacon’s Warmist Wonderland’

The UTS academic’s 222-page study of Australian newspapers’ treatment of climate change is far worse than silly. It is more than a bit sinister

by Tony Thomas

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/11/wendy-bacons-warmist-wonderland/

’97 per cent of warmists cite a 97 per cent that’s false’

by Andrew Bolt

Reader James on a deceptive meme that’s repeated by warmists with little seeming interest in the truth:

“I have submitted this to ABC Fact Checkers”

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/97_per_cent_of_warmists_cite_a_97_per_cent_thats_false/#131753

# # #

Note that one of the last acts of the Keven Rudd government was to give ABC AU$10m for “fact checking”.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Behind the SkS curtain

http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/

A rather fascinating insight into SkS from Steve McIntyre, and contains some frank discussion of the problems with Mann’s hockey stick from the SkS team

Concludes with Cook’s “call to action”

So skeptics that I suggest we focus on, assuming we launch with 12 skeptics (welcome changes):
Pat Michaels
Fred Singer
Steve McIntyre
Roger Pielke Sr
Freeman Dyson
Chris de Freitas

Unless you think others are more deserving of being on the list.
[..]

I bet Gareth could get us some good de Freitas quotes. Michaels should be easy. The tough one is McIntyre.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘La Niñas Do NOT Suck Heat from the Atmosphere’ by Bob Tisdale Over the years I’ve seen a statement similar to the one made by MarkR in the SkepticalScience post The 2012 State of the Climate is easily misunderstood (my boldface): “Global surface temperatures were the 8th or 9th highest recorded, partly because the first two months were cool-ish thanks to a La Nina in the Pacific, where cooler waters sit on the top of the ocean and suck up heat from the atmosphere.” The error in MarkR’s statement, which has been repeated many times before, may stem from the assumption that La Niñas are the opposite of El Niños. That is, it is well known that El Niño events release enormous amounts of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. I assume the flawed logic is that La Niña events must then remove heat from the atmosphere. The vast majority of heat released from the ocean to the atmosphere, however, occurs through evaporation. It’s likely those assuming that La Niñas “suck up heat from the atmosphere” are thinking only in terms of “sensible heat flux”. SENSIBLE VERSUS LATENT HEAT […] As illustrated… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Blimey! Skeptical Science Admits Current Decade Running 0.053°C Cooler Than Last Decade!

By P Gosselin on 29. November 2013

http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/29/blimey-skeptical-science-admits-current-decade-running-0-053c-cooler-than-last-decade/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Climate Prat of 2013 – We have a winnah!’

Written by Pointman

“You’re pure-blood Dana. Say it loud, say it proud, you’re the climate prat of 2013.”

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/climate-prat-of-2013-we-have-a-winnah/

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-arse-of-2013.html

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Wanna Be Hackers? Izuru (Brandon Schollenberger) Have you ever wanted to know what it takes to be a hacker? Well you’re in luck. I’m here to tell you. I’m going to give you a step-by-step guide to how I got myself reported to the Feds by a major university. If you don’t already know, I recently received a threatening letter from the University of Queensland which, amongst other things, threatened a lawsuit if I showed anyone the letter. […] You see, a couple years ago, the secret forum on the Skeptical Science website was hacked. You can read all about it in a lengthy series of posts they wrote about it, starting here. […] Anyway, the important thing is after their secret forum was hacked, they moved their forum to a new, secret location: http://www.sksforum.org. This secret-secret forum stayed secret for a while because nobody cared. Then one day Skeptical Science published a post with a few links which included the secret-secret forum’s URL. I saw the domain name and decided to check it out. There wasn’t much to see. There was just a login page with an image on it. The image… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

>”I recently received a threatening letter [cease-and-desist] from the University of Queensland which, amongst other things, threatened a lawsuit if I showed anyone the letter.”

See the saga in this ‘Students desire knowledge’ thread:

https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2014/04/students-desire-knowledge/#respond

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Chronology of Tol’s Request for Cook et al 2013 Data’

Notes by SM, July 28, 2014

Introduction
Last year, Richard Tol requested John Cook’s ratings data, including anonymized rater ID and
timestamp. The data recently released by Brandon Shollenberger shows that the majority of
ratings (54%) were done by coauthors of the paper and a further 34% by acknowledgees
identified in the paper. The data also shows that the rater IDs were anonymized in the native
datafiles and that no special processing would have been required to respond to Tol’s request.
The data also shows that the native datafiles contained datestamps.

http://www.climateaudit.info/correspondence/foi/queensland/narrative%20of%20tol%20data%20request.pdf

18 pages.

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97%’ [From Climate Depot] José Duarte, 08/28/2014 The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. Let’s go ahead and walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. I only spent ten minutes with their database — there will be more such papers for those who search. I’m not willing to spend a lot of time with their data, for reasons I detail further down. This paper is vacated, as a scientific product, given that it included psychology papers, and also given that it twice lied about its method (claiming not to count social science papers, and claiming to use independent raters), and the professed cheating by the raters. It was essentially voided by its invalid method of using partisan and unqualified political activists to subjectively rate climate science abstracts on the issue on which their activism centers — a stunning… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘A psychologist’s scathing review of John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ nonsensus paper’

Anthony Watts, August 29, 2014

[Excerpt’s from essay above]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/29/a-psychologists-scathing-review-of-john-cooks-97-consensus-nonsensus-paper/

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Duarte: “Nuccitelli thinks that if a psychology paper uses the phrase “climate change denial”, it might count as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. We should linger on that. This is a staggering level of stupidity with respect to what would count as scientific evidence of AGW [emphasized]. The implied epistemology there is, well, I don’t know that it has a name. Maybe it’s some kind of postmodernist view of reality being based on belief, anyone’s belief (except for the beliefs of skeptics) — perhaps a grotesque misreading of Kuhn. Even if we thought reality was best understood via consensus, it’s not going to be created by consensus, and the only consensus we would care about would be that of climate scientists. That Marxist or neo-Marxist sociologists pepper their paper with “climate change denial” does not add to our confidence level about AGW — it is not evidence of anything but the ideology of two American sociologists. It doesn’t test the energy balance model, or revise or validate or estimates of transient climate sensitivity. It has no input into our knowledge of AGW. In any case, I’m stunned by Nuccitelli’s behavior in these… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Duarte (again): “I think some of you who’ve defended this “study” got on the wrong train. I don’t think you meant to end up here. I think it was an accident. You thought you were getting on the Science Train. You thought these people — Cook, Nuccitelli, Lewandowsky — were the science crowd, and that the opposition was anti-science, “deniers” and so forth. I hope it’s clear at this point that this was not the Science Train. This is a different train. These people care much less about science than they do about politics. They’re willing to do absolutely stunning, unbelievable things to score political points. What they did still stuns me, that they did this on purpose, that it was published, that we live in a world where people can publish these sorts of obvious scams in normally scientific journals. If you got on this train, you’re now at a place where you have to defend political activists rating scientific abstracts regarding the issue on which their activism is focused, able to generate the results they want. You have to defend people counting psychology studies and surveys of the general public as… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Duarte (in a nutshell):

“This study [Cook et al. (2013)] is a teachable moment, a future textbook example of scientific scams.”

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

[Bishop Hill] – ‘Iris hypothesis bridges model-observation gap’ [Stevens and Mauritzen abstract] – “A controversial hypothesis [Lindzen & Choi Iris Effect] suggests that the dry and clear regions of the tropical atmosphere expand in a warming climate and thereby allow more infrared radiation to escape to space. This so-called iris effect could constitute a negative feedback that is not included in climate models. We find that inclusion of such an effect in a climate model moves the simulated responses of both temperature and the hydrological cycle to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations closer to observations” http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/4/21/iris-hypothesis-bridges-model-observation-gap.html [John Abraham] – ‘Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming’ “What the present paper [Trenberth, Zhang, Fasullo, and Taguchi] shows is that future changes to clouds will cause slightly more warming. Scientists describe clouds as a “positive feedback” on global warming. This finding is consistent with the work of Dr. Andrew Dessler. He had published work here and here showing changes in clouds are making the Earth warm more than otherwise expected. The results of this study harken back to prior work by one well-known skeptic Richard Lindzen who published work on climate feedbacks… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

Hansen et al (2005) have an estimate for planetary oceanic thermal inertia (as do others in the literature). Here’s a synopsis for the record. The article, and Hansen et al, make a crazy miss-attribution but the point is the lag time between planetary energy input change and atmospheric temperature response: Mostly citing the above-linked Science study by Hansen et al Earth’s thermal climate inertia is often quoted as being ’40 years’ [“10 -100 years” – Trenberth]. The study [Hansen et al 2005 – see link in article] says something quite different though. It offers a confidence range between 25 and 50 years – with 37.5 years as most likely value. http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-climate-system-thermal-inertia-7086/ >”a confidence range between 25 and 50 years – with 37.5 years as most likely value” I think this is a very realistic estimate, it is longer than some others e.g. Abdussamatov’s 20 yr ocean-only and 14+/-6 land+ocean, and certainly a lot longer than “time constant” experts from other fields (think Electrical Engineers and David Evans N-D Solar Model series – many heated arguments over the oceanic time constant). For example, solar change occurred circa 2005 and is continuing. Using Hansen et… Read more »

Richard C (NZ)
Guest
Richard C (NZ)

‘New methods are improving ocean and climate measurements’ Posted on 20 June 2016 by John Abraham [Skeptical Science, The Guardian] “I have often said that global warming is really ocean warming. As humans add more heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, it causes the Earth to gain energy. Almost all of that energy ends up in the oceans. So, if you want to know how fast the Earth is warming, you have to measure how fast the oceans are heating up.” We wanted to know whether we could correct that archive of ocean temperature measurements to account for measurements made in cold waters. To solve this problem, I teamed up with world-class scientists Dr. Lijing Cheng and Rebecca Cowley. Lijing Cheng is a rapidly rising international scientist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He is currently producing some of the best research on the Earth’s energy imbalance. Rebecca Cowley is a data expert from CSIRO in Australia. Her group is recognized as among the best in ocean heat content measurements and data quality. http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-methods-improving-ocean-climate-measurements.html # # # I agree “that global warming is really ocean warming” but I certainly do NOT agree that “as… Read more »