Global warming

This thread is for comment and discussion on any aspect of global warming not covered by other threads.

207 Thoughts on “Global warming

  1. Quite a good comment from RIchard Tol in that thread:

    The worrying thing is of course that when the 2K warming comes to pass (e.g., when you move from Dublin to Brighton) and nothing terribly bad happens, people lose confidence

  2. Richard C (NZ) on December 5, 2011 at 8:11 am said:

    Comprehensive article in Forbes by Peter Ferrara:-

    Salvaging The Mythology Of Man-Caused Global Warming

    If you read this column completely and carefully today, you will learn about the true state of the scientific debate over global warming. You will not get the truth about that from the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the rest of the self-regarded “establishment” media. They are devoted to the fun and games of play acting as if there is no legitimate scientific debate over whether mankind’s use of low cost, reliable energy from oil, coal and natural gas portends catastrophic global warming that threatens life on the planet as we know it.


  3. Richard C (NZ) on February 1, 2012 at 8:21 am said:

    Global warming nonsense gets a true cold shoulder

    * by: Andrew Bolt
    * From: The Daily Telegraph
    * February 01, 2012 12:00AM

    LET’S take stock of the great global warming scare and see how it’s panning out.

    First, the planet hasn’t actually warmed for a decade – or even 15 years – according to new temperature data released by Britain’s Met Office.

    Hmm. That’s not what global warming scientists predicted.

    Look out of your window. The rain that Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery said in 2007 “isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems” any more has just flooded NSW and Queensland yet again.

    The Bureau of Meteorology – which three years ago warned “we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again” – now admits last year was our third wettest on record.

    The snowfalls that the University of East Anglia in 2000 said would soon become “a very rare and exciting event” are falling as hard as ever.

    The monster hurricanes we were told to expect by Nobel Prize winner Al Gore are coming no more often.

    The massive coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef that warmist Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg predicted would occur every second year from 2010 has not been seen in years.

    Wherever you look it’s the same wake-up-to-yourself story. Sea levels have recently dipped, the oceans have lately cooled, Arctic ice has not retreated since 2007, polar bears are increasing in numbers, global crop yields keep rising and now some solar scientists warn not of global warming, but cooling — a far deadlier threat.

    So what was that warming scare all about?

    And how do the warming activists respond to this increasing evidence contradicting their theory that our carbon dioxide is heating the world dangerously?

    Simple – they close their eyes in denial.


    One can only surmise that the warmists must be feeling a tad embattled at the moment, what with everything turning against them: the climate; the atmosphere; the ocean; the sun; the astrophysicists; the media; the politicians; the public; the growing body of scientists now willing to speak out and refute CAGW.

    Normally in these situations I try to make an effort to resist the temptation to succumb to schadenfreude but in the case of CAGW adherents I think I will make an exception.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on February 17, 2012 at 8:43 am said:

    Natural Climate Change

    The Debate on Global Warming

    Throughout the last decade, the debate has moved beyond the question of the existence of global warming to understanding the nature, extent, and predictability of these dynamic global climate changes that we are now experiencing first hand. Although considerable attention and resources have been dedicated to advocates of the greenhouse gasses theory, particularly those adherents who tend to emphasize man’s contribution to increased atmospheric CO2, many fundamental questions about global warming remain unanswered. For example:

    * To what extent is the earth warming?
    * In addition to man’s possible contribution, have we accounted for all of the possible drivers behind climate change? (i.e., natural variability caused by earth generated greenhouse gasses, hydrothermal heating, volcanic eruptions, seismic activity, and other natural geophysical/solar events)
    * What will be the long-term impact of global warming for life on Earth?
    * Do our climate prediction models represent real temperature trends? If not, why?

    NCC has identified two main camps within the global warming debate:

    1. Those who believe the current global warming we are experiencing is natural:
    The Debate on Global Warming-Natural Variability [Linked]
    2. Those who believe it is caused by human activities:
    The Debate on Global Warming-Human Causation [Linked]

    These are links to articles of interest within each side of the debate. The purpose is to present scientifically grounded arguments in support of each camp in order to help you determine the relative merits and future direction of this ongoing debate. The opinions reflected in these articles of interest are not necessarily representative of NCC’s views.


    Are Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases or Natural Geophysical Forcings the Cause of Climate Change? – The Real Story Behind Global Warming:


    Precedent Geo-Magnetic Jerks, Earthquakes, Episodic Hydrothermal Venting/Ocean Warming:




    Described as “an incredibly detailed analysis” by AJStrata – I’m inclined to agree.

    Update To The Geothermal Basis For ENSO

    Published by AJStrata

  5. Richard C (NZ) on February 22, 2012 at 7:59 am said:

    University of Auckland has had its head in the clouds

    Published: 6:15AM Wednesday February 22, 2012 Source: ONE News

    The University of Auckland has had its head in the clouds, and its conclusion is they are getting lower.

    The university looked at ten years of data from Nasa’s terra telescope to discover the average cloud height decresed by 1% over the past decade.

    The telescope showed fewer clouds were occuring at higher altitudes.

    Researchers believe a significant reduction in cloud height would lead to reducing the surface temperature of the planet and slowing global warming.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on February 23, 2012 at 9:40 am said:

    Repentance required for climate change ‘shrug culture’ say UK church leaders

    Posted on February 22, 2012 by Steve Milloy

    “The threat of runaway climate change is the most significant moral question facing us today.”

    Ekklesia reports:

    Church leaders from some of the UK’s biggest churches have made a call for ‘repentance’ over a prevailing ‘shrug-culture’ towards climate change.

    Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, Rt Rev Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, Most Rev Barry Morgan, Archbishop of Wales, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh and leaders of the Methodist, Baptist and URC churches are among those signing Operation Noah’s Ash Wednesday Declaration.

    Runaway global warming would “diminish food security, accelerate the extinction of huge numbers of species and make human life itself impossible in some parts of the world” the statement says…

    What’s the second-most significant moral question facing us today?

  7. Richard C (NZ) on March 9, 2012 at 7:59 am said:

    David Suzuki – “Lets’ suppose the world’s legitimate scientific institutions and academies, climate scientists, and most of the world’s governments are wrong.”

    OK by me David

  8. Suzuki’s still stuck with that Big Oil conspiracy.
    They just won’t let it go.

  9. New theory: CO2 makes you fat

    March 11, 2012 – 02:02
    Danish researchers have announced a rather wild hypothesis: Perhaps we are getting fatter and fatter because of the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on March 13, 2012 at 8:43 pm said:

    “We breathe more CO2, which makes our blood more acidic; this affects our brain, so we want to eat more”

    Yikes! Blood acidification.

    What happens when the tipping point is reached – crowd crush at McDonalds?

    I’ve heard (second hand) that smoking marijuana has a similar effect.

  11. It is good to see that the ODT is finally publishing sceptical voices.

  12. Andy on July 20, 2012 at 4:39 pm said:

    There was a rather curious comment from Mike Palin on that article stating that the BEST project confirmed the hockey stick graph.

  13. Richard C (NZ) on August 2, 2012 at 12:47 pm said:

    David Evens’ opinion article has made it to the Stuff website:-

    Global warming science tackled

    Excellent concise synopsis and comments are open.

    Also in SMH titled:-

    Climate change science is a load of hot air and warmists are wrong

    Read more:

    60 comments there but now closed.

  14. The trolls are out on the Stuff website

  15. Gareth has posted about the Stuff article by Evans

  16. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2012 at 11:10 am said:

    Vacuous from Gareth except this:-

    “The amplification Evans finds so troubling is a straightforward result of an extremely well understood phenomenon: a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour”

    He then links to AR4 showing an OCEAN-ONLY TPW graph from 2005 with a very unscientific linear trend slapped on it:-

    The AR4 graph is here

    Problem for Gareth (and modelers) is that time has moved on and new papers on TPW (a very uncertain area) are coming out, latest being Vonder Haar et al 2012 covered at WUWT:-

    New paper on Global Water Vapor puts climate modelers in a bind

    The Vonder Haar Global Monthly Average TPW Series looks a lot different to the AR4 ocean-only series and only a one eyed warmist wearing blinkers would dare to apply a linear trend to it. If anything, the series at 2010 is back where it was in 1988.

  17. Cindy seems a bit upset. However, in the interests of balance, it’s worth noting that Greenpeace are running their Polar Bear in London piece on TV3 and 4 this month (so rumour has it anyway)

  18. Richard C (NZ) on August 3, 2012 at 12:57 pm said:

    Certainly raised some hackles – Cindy’s really upset:-

    cindy August 3, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Almost too cross about this to comment.
    About lazy, ill-informed journalism
    About corporate power.
    About use of “opinion” as a cover to run any old shit in the media.

    What she is experiencing (albeit ignorantly) is what sceptics have been facing in the media for yonks.

    Rob Painting’s trotting out his usual rubbish:-

    Dappledwater August 3, 2012 at 8:04 am

    I think Evans greatest problem is that he has no idea how greenhouse gases heat the ocean.

    Apparently that’s the IPCC’s greatest problem too.

    John Russel has the same misunderstanding as Gareth:-

    John Russell August 3, 2012 at 12:18 am

    3) the amount of extra water vapour that’s held in the warmer atmosphere, and then; 4) the additional warming caused by the extra water vapour in the atmosphere; is all very well known and measured by scientists

    All very well understood by scientists, engineers, chemists, HVAC and refrigeration specialists, and probably a number of other disciplines too but not by Gareth and John.

    The Clausius-Clapeyron relationship does have a meteorological application and even climatological but Gareth and John Russel assume that the atmosphere will just keep on holding extra water vapour as temperature (that they also assume) keeps on rising irrespective of the pressure input.

    That is rubbish, water vapour condenses and precipitates out in the right conditions and pressure is critical to that process of cloud formation and thence rain. There’s a change of phase line between triple point and critical point where water vapour changes to liquid dependent on temperature and pressure in the phase diagram for water (blue line):-

    From Wiki Clausius–Clapeyron relation

    Needless to say, the empirical observations of Vonder Haar 2012 do not reveal any accumulation of atmospheric water vapour – it’s a self regulating system without the “additional warming” (positive feedback) that John Russel and Gareth Renowden imagine.

  19. A Cool-Headed Climate Conversation With Aerospace Legend Burt Rutan:

    Worth a read

  20. Richard Courtney has a potted history of the Global Warming Scare at Tallblokes

  21. Richard C (NZ) on September 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm said:

    SkS shoots themselves in the foot here I think:-

    New research from last week 37/2012

    Local growing season length has increased globally almost a day per decade since 1901

    Multidecadal variability in local growing season during 1901–2009 – Xia et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]

    Abstract: “Global warming exerts a lengthening effect on the growing season, with observational evidences emerging from different regions over the world…”

    Goodness! Global warming has benefits – who knew?

  22. NZCSC member and avid letter writer Joe Fone has just published a book, available soon from Amazon

  23. Richard C (NZ) on January 12, 2013 at 9:37 am said:

    Record low temperatures in Bangladesh

    DHAKA, Bangladesh, Jan. 9 (UPI) — Bangladesh has recorded its lowest temperatures in nearly 60 years, an unexpected result of global warming, scientists said.

    In the capital of Dhaka and elsewhere in the country the temperature dropped to 37.7 degrees F Wednesday, the lowest temperature in the last 57 years,


    Experts are blaming the cold temperatures on more intense cold fronts resulting from global warming melting polar ice.

    “Extreme events are on the rise throughout the world and they will continue to increase further due to global warming,” said Aninun Nishat, an environment specialist.

    “We’re part of the world. So, we’re also feeling here the pinch of the global warming.”

    Read more:

  24. Richard C (NZ) on January 14, 2013 at 9:51 am said:

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming… so who are the ‘deniers’ now?

    By David Rose–deniers-now.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    “We all get things wrong, and by definition futurology is a risky business. But behind all this lies something much more pernicious than a revised decadal forecast. The problem is not the difficulty of predicting something as chaotic as the Earth’s climate, but the almost Stalinist way the Green Establishment tries to stifle dissent.

    There is, for example, the odious term ‘denier’. This is applied to anyone who questions the new orthodoxy about global warming. It doesn’t matter if one states that yes, CO2 does warm the planet, but the critical issues we need to address are how fast and how much: if one doesn’t anticipate catastrophe, one must be vilified, and equated with those who deny the Holocaust.

    Yet the real deniers are those who don’t just claim that the pause is insignificant, but that it doesn’t exist at all. Such deniers also still insist that the ‘science is settled’. The truth is that the unexpected pause has triggered a new spate of research, in which many supposed ‘consensus’ conclusions are being questioned.”

  25. David Bellamy: ‘I was shunned. They didn’t want to hear’

    The botanist, 80 this week, says the end of his TV career was caused by his views on climate change. Paul Cahalan meets David Bellamy

  26. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2013 at 8:19 am said:

    Global Temperature Update Through 2012
    15 January 2013
    J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy

    Concedes “Global Warming Standstill.” (pg 4)

    Discounts solar forcing but doesn’t consider oceanic thermal inertia (pg 4). But offers “the great thermal inertia of the ocean” as a reason for planetary energy imbalance (pg 5).

    Along with UKMO, discovers different ENSO conditions predominate from time to time but “We conclude that background global warming is continuing” (pg 6). “Background global warming” is the warming you have to imagine BTW (just to be clear).

    The largest forcing is GHGs apparently, but makes things very confusing with what must be a typo (pg 5):-

    “The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined from about 0.05 W/m2 in the 1980s to about 0.35 W/m2 in recent years8”

    There were 3 of them to self-check this document but none of them could see that.

    And that synopsis is just from a quick skim folks.

  27. On aerosols:

    The second largest human-made forcing is probably atmospheric aerosols, although the aerosol forcing is extremely uncertain3,4. […]This aerosol forcing can be described as an educated guess

    and then

    The one major wild card in projections of future climate change is the unmeasured climate forcing due to aerosol changes and their effects on clouds. Anecdotal information indicates that particulate air pollution has increased in regions with increasing coal burning, but assessment of the climate forcing requires global measurement of detailed physical properties of the aerosols. The one satellite mission that was capable of making measurements with the required detail and accuracy was lost via a launch failure, and as yet there are no plans for a repllacement (sic) mission with the needed capabilities

    So aerosols are the second most important human “forcing”, it is an educated guess, we had one satellite mission to measure it but it was lost in a launch failure and the are no plans for a replacement

    I am just speechless

  28. Other than the typos it does seem a fairly honest piece of writing in that they acknowledge the uncertainties and makes better reading than some of the activist material on the “hiatus” in warming.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2013 at 11:53 am said:

    I agree, although I’ve yet to read word-for-word. There’s not so much of the “settled science” stuff and they offer an insight into some very unsettled thinking and uncertain processes.

    It’s the fall-back to “background global warming” that gets me (otherwise known as “the true global warming signal”). This is the notion pushed by Foster and Rahmstorf, SkS, et al, that “exogenous” factors can be “taken out” but I call bogus (and got sent to The Twilight Zone for doing so at Hot Topic). That all started here at SkS I think:-

    Hansen, Ruedy and Sato don’t actually present their rationale for “background” warming in terms of an F&R-style “measure”, they just “conclude” hand waving-style in the report.

    The problem with the F&R methodology is that when the “exogenous” energy is left in as climate models of course do, the upwards F&R trajectory from 2010 is not maintained and as the UKMO revision demonstrates, a flat trajectory is projected instead:-

    Effectively as I see the situation, the UKMO (HadGEM3) and Russian Academy of Sciences (INM-CM4) are now completely at odds with Hansen, Ruedy and Sato at NASA GISS and Foster, Rahmstorf and Cazenave at SKS (not that they’re an institution) in the context of the vaunted “background” trend/signal meme.

    The F&R approach will come back to bite them because they will also have to “remove” any future El Nino to be consistent. Given that all warmists – notably Hansen and Renowden here locally – are eagerly anticipating the next big El Nino to get warming back on track, they”ll tie themselves in knots trying to self-validate keeping El Nino in on one hand and taking it out on the other.

    The “background” warming trend/signal meme only has a year or two to survive I think so we’ll have to suffer it a while yet but given all the natural cycles and new improved projections I’m sure it will be buried by the end of this 5 yr prediction period.

  30. Conversely, compare Hansen’s handwaving and uncertainty with this piece from Slate

    The difficulties in debunking blatant antireality are legion. You can make up any old nonsense and state it in a few seconds, but it takes much longer to show why it’s wrong and how things really are.

    This is coupled with how sticky bunk can be. Once uttered, it’s out there, bootstrapping its own reality, getting repeated by the usual suspects.

    Case in point: The claim that there’s been no global warming for the past 16 years. This is blatantly untrue, a ridiculous and obviously false statement. But I see it over and again online, in Op Eds, and in comments to climate change posts.

    and concluding

    So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in science journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2013 at 1:18 pm said:

    That first “sticky bunk” snippet could equally be applied as a “case in point” to the “true background signal” touting (and recourse to SkS for it in that article too of course).

    As could the conclusion “when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science”.

    Phil Plait overdoes the angst a tad, he’ll blow a fuse if he keeps that up.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on January 16, 2013 at 3:58 pm said:

    Re aerosols:-

    ‘A bit of a bombshell from the AGU IGBR: Black carbon is a larger cause of climate change than previously assessed’

    “The landmark study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres today says the direct influence of black carbon, or soot, on warming the climate could be about twice previous estimates. Accounting for all of the ways it can affect climate, black carbon is believed to have a warming effect of about 1.1 Watts per square meter (W/m2), approximately two thirds of the effect of the largest man made contributor to global warming, carbon dioxide.”

    “In addition, the report finds black carbon is a significant cause of the rapid warming in the Northern Hemisphere at mid to high latitudes, including the northern United States, Canada, northern Europe and northern Asia. Its impacts can also be felt farther south, inducing changes in rainfall patterns from the Asian Monsoon. This demonstrates that curbing black carbon emissions could have significant impact on reducing regional climate change while having a positive impact on human health.”

    # # #

    Think Beijing air pollution. This (BC) along with LULUC is the about the only aspect of climate change that I think is worthwhile examining and following up on because it is about air/water/land quality and stewardship but more importantly human health.

    I got the impression that Christchurch’s regulations in respect to air quality were a bit heavy-handed (e.g. modern wood/coal burners) but I don’t really know the issues there well enough to make an assessment. In any event, those are far more sensible and realistic mitigation measures even if heavy-handed than the undoubted excessively heavy-handed long-term guess-based Kapiti Coast sea level regulations in my view.

  33. Christchurch smog used to be really bad (I used to smell like a bonfire after a 10km bike ride to work, when i would regularly have to wear a face mask)

    I think it is a bit better now, but the regulations on no wood burners for new houses is crazy in my view as wood burners are quite clean these days.

    I’d really like to hear about the black carbon emissions from places like Drax in the UK now that they are proposing to move to biomass. I suspect that most of the worst is from places like China.

    I remember that WUWT article about carbon in Greenland, and I saw that Jason Box was trying to raise money for a project to investigate this over at HT

    So not only does there appear to be no funding for this kind of research, there is no satellite to measure airborne aerosols. All the money is in CO2

    I wonder why…?

  34. Richard C (NZ) on January 21, 2013 at 2:08 pm said:

    Researchers Puzzled About Global Warming Standstill

    by Axel Bojanowski,

    How dramatically is global warming really? NASA researchers have shown that the temperature rise has taken a break for 15 years. There are plenty of plausible explanations for why global warming has stalled. However, the number of guesses also shows how little the climate is understood.


    Lot’s of speculation and tenuous explanation including the same line spun by Hansen, Sato and Ruedy:-

    “Meteorologists interpret that 2011 and 2012 were the warmest La Niña years since records began as a sign of progressive warming.”

    Yeah right. There was only one La Niña event overlapping both 2011 and 2012 but 2012 also had a complete El Niño event. The previous 3 La Niña’s don’t show a rising trend either.

  35. Richard C (NZ) on January 22, 2013 at 8:48 am said:

    German media waking up? Another paper raising questions, on front page no less:-

    Major German Daily Carries Front-Page Headline: “Global Warming Keeps Us Waiting…CO2 Over-Estimated?”

    “Is carbon dioxide being over-estimated? British scientists announce: the temperature increase stopped already 15 years ago.”

  36. Richard C (NZ) on January 25, 2013 at 9:16 am said:

    Whatever happened to global warming?

    Margaret Wente

    The Globe and Mail [Canada]

    “In other words, climate change is very, very complicated. Greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels are just one of many factors that affect the climate. Other factors – ocean temperatures, soot, clouds, solar radiation etc. – turn out to be a lot more important than we thought and aren’t so easily captured by computer models.”

  37. Richard C (NZ) on January 31, 2013 at 3:05 pm said:

    Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?


    Professor Robert (Bob) Carter

    Geologist & environmental scientist

    Katharine Hayhoe, PhD, who wrote the December AITSE piece “Climate Change: Anthropogenic or Not?”, is an atmospheric scientist and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. She is senior author of the book “A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions”.

    I am a senior research geologist who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on palaeo-environmental and palaeo-climatic topics and also author of the book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus”.

    Quite clearly, Dr. Hayhoe and I are both credible professional scientists. Given our training and research specializations, we are therefore competent to assess the evidence regarding the dangerous global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) alleges is being caused by industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

    Yet at the end of her article Dr. Hayhoe recommends for further reading the websites and, whereas here at the outset of writing my own article I recommend the websites and (Global Warming Policy Foundation). To knowledgeable readers, this immediately signals that Dr. Hayhoe and I have diametrically opposing views on the global warming issue.

    The general public finds it very hard to understand how such strong disagreement can exist between two equally qualified persons on a scientific topic, a disagreement that is manifest also on the wider scene by the existence of equivalent groups of scientists who either support or oppose the views of the IPCC about dangerous anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (DAGW).

    In this article I shall try to summarize what the essential disagreement is between these two groups of scientists, and show how it has come to be misrepresented in the public domain.


    “The reality is, then, that no scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today. In such circumstances the only rational conclusion to draw is that we need to be prepared to react to either warming or cooling over the next several decades, depending upon what Nature chooses to serve up to us.”

  38. Mike Jowsey on March 6, 2013 at 10:09 am said:

    This article, from WUWT, is one of the best “aha” moments I have had for a couple of years. It discusses the idea of black-and-white thinking in the CAGW debate. Well worth the read imho.

    When you sceptics try to talk about amounts of warming and model error and solar influence, it simply shows that you “don’t get it” in a categorical sense, that the climate is no longer “natural” and it is our fault. It is irrelevant how much we have changed it, we have changed the state, like spitting into the swimming pool makes everyone get out. The climate is now broken.

  39. Mike Jowsey on March 6, 2013 at 10:42 am said:

    And this rather long comment about the article is well worth the time to read also:

  40. Richard C (NZ) on March 6, 2013 at 11:57 am said:

    >”I think that linguistics has a very real part to play in the Climate change debate”

    As soon as you go from detail to abstract the debate changes fundamentally – if it can even be continued point-for-point. See the ‘Skeptical Science’ thread (link below) where I resurrected a comment (deleted by Mods) from Tom Curtis at SkS who “taught” me AGW using a reservoir and tap analogy full of assumptions.

    I’m not sure if he was intentionally condescending or genuinely trying to clarify a concept but why didn’t he just go with all the conventional terminology without recourse to an analogy? I’m inclined to think he used the simple abstract concept because he assumed I would understand AGW as he did by his reduction because in his view it is all so simple. I find these types have difficulty putting together a detailed argument using conventional terms.

    Observations render his analogy moot of course. And the SkS Mods removed his carefully compiled comment from view, poor guy. See:-

  41. Richard C (NZ) on March 16, 2013 at 8:46 am said:


    Dr David Whitehouse

  42. Richard C (NZ) on March 16, 2013 at 9:05 am said:

    The new Mini Ice Age is upon us!

    Piers Corban

    “MIA fingerprint now overwhelming”

    ● World cooling is now ‘locked-in’

    “The CO2 story is over. It has been pointing the world in the wrong direction for too long. The
    serious implications of the developing MIA to agriculture and the world economy through the
    next 25 to 35 years must be addressed.”

  43. Richard C (NZ) on March 17, 2013 at 8:56 am said:

    Ian Wishart has run with the Whitehouse report:-

    ‘Global warming stopped in 1997 – new study’

    Turned up in Google News ‘Science’ but not in ‘Climate Science’

  44. Unless I misread Dave Frames comment, his view is that agricultural emissions of methane is a non problem.

  45. Richard C (NZ) on March 29, 2013 at 10:31 am said:

    James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha and Makiko Sato have stirred up a hornets nest (if you read past the anti-coal spin):-

    Food for thought for Dave Frame re methane Andy?

  46. The methane issue keeps coming back ( as it should because NZ is very exposed to this via a potential ETS on methane)

    Neil Henderson’s comments in the HT thread are pretty much my views too. I don’t know if he got the numbers wrong as DF claims, but the fact is that if methane emissions from cattle will cause 0.2 degrees of warming globally, according to IPCC scenarios, then the contribution for NZ will be absolutely miniscule, and we will be the only ones doing it.

    Many farmers around my way are living a subsidence lifestyle. A tax on methane will bury them

  47. Richard C (NZ) on March 29, 2013 at 1:05 pm said:

    Ian Wishart: Global warming – did we get it wrong?

    “The essence of the “ice age” warning stems from some Russian research suggesting we are going to get colder. Tie that in with a massive drop in sunspots and solar magnetic activity in what NASA scientists are comparing to the cold spell of the Dalton Minimum, and confirmation by the UN IPCC climate change convenor Rajendra Pachauri (reported in The Briefing) that there has been no significant global warming since the 1990s, and you can see why some are seeing a frigid future.”

    “In themselves, the graphs show that the rise of modern temperatures may have far more to do with Earth coming back into balance from the Little Ice Age than CO2 emissions, but the question now is why have the temperature increases stopped? Is it the drop in solar activity? What happens if the cold feeds on itself as it has in the past in just a short space of time and if so, are we about to be plunged back into a new, cold, dark age?”

    + + +

    Thing is in those cold periods, it’s not cold ALL of the time. Just that when it’s cold it’s really cold and prolonged, crops fail, people and animals die. There’s a glimpse of this right now in Europe and wider Northern Hemisphere vs heat in the Southern Hemisphere but the current situation is only a harbinger and not conditions directly comparable to a solar minimum (we’re currently just past a maximum).

    The real conditions that will develop for the coming solar minimum – whether similar to Sporer, Dalton, Maunder etc – will be very different to the current climate regime and the only way to know what to expect from the respective scenarios is to study what was historically documented for each of them and relate that to current cold weather events in order to get a handle on what each scenario would produce in the decades to come. The link between sunspot numbers and wheat prices has been known since William Hershel in 1802 for example.

    I just don’t see these risk scenarios factored in to policy planning anywhere. Every risk is a continued warming scenario of some degree, In terms of risk and preparedness this is highly negligent on the part of planners because the repercussions of prevailing cold in the spectrum of solar minimum scenarios ranges from agricultural producer and production price difficulties, similar energy supply, domestic product and basic living condition difficulties, to horrendous international food commodity market upheaval and producer/production failure, inability to survive energy supply breakdown, famine, and widespread death of people and animals.

    I think it is high time everyone stopped fixating only on the warming scenario argument (will it just be a little warmer or much hotter?) and started presenting the full spectrum of future climate possibilities with the respective attendant mitigation and adaption strategies. The solar downturn commenced in 2013 so there is now no escaping a change of climate regime to one of the past minimums as a result, The minimum is predicted for 2042 and thereabouts so there is less than 30 yrs to prepare. Question is: how long will it take for the people that matter to acknowledge the risk?

    The precautionary principle – if is to be invoked for this application – works both ways,

  48. Barry on March 29, 2013 at 1:28 pm said:


    I’ve just read that the BEST temperature records show that 30% of the earth’s land surface experienced an overall cooling trend during the 20th century (despite aggregate warming of 0.8°C), and that Britain was one of the countries in that cooling group.

    With your energy and talent for researching tasty web morsels, I wondered whether you could discover whether New Zealand or Australia were also amongst BEST’s cooling areas?

  49. Richard C (NZ) on March 29, 2013 at 2:51 pm said:

    Hello Barry, your question:-

    >”I wondered whether you could discover whether New Zealand or Australia were also amongst BEST’s cooling areas?”

    Neither appear to be. See ‘List of Countries’ index:-

    Regional Climate Change: New Zealand

    Regional Climate Change: Australia

    >”Britain was one of the countries in that cooling group”

    Not from this BEST UK series:-

    Regional Climate Change: United Kingdom

    HadCET has taken a dive in the 21st century, now below 1659 levels:-

    I think that’s where items about UK cooling come from along with some of the recent UK winter comparisons.

  50. Richard C (NZ) on March 29, 2013 at 3:08 pm said:

    Mike Jowsey posted this re UK:-

    An interesting comment on long term temperature trends in the UK

    “Statistics from the Met Office Central England Temperature Record from the year 2000 onwards show: 2000 – 2012 annual trend figures: -0.7°C. This is equivalent to almost all the agreed global warming since 1850.”

  51. Richard C (NZ) on March 29, 2013 at 6:45 pm said:

    Barry, the cooling trends are station-specific, not region-specific i.e. the cooling stations are interspersed among warming stations. See:-

    ‘Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications’

    Charlotte Wickham1, Judith Curry2, Don Groom3, Robert Jacobsen3,4, Richard Muller3,4, Saul Perlmutter3,4, Robert Rohde5, Arthur Rosenfeld3, Jonathan Wurtele3,4

    Page 7,

    “67% of the slopes are positive, i.e. there are about twice as many warming stations as cooling stations. The dispersion is larger in the records of short duration, but even in the stations with records longer than 30 years, 23% have negative trends.”

    Page 8,

    Figure 3 Temperature trends. A histogram of the trends

    Page 10,

    Figure 4. Map of stations in and near the United States with at least 70 years of measurements; red stations are those with positive trends and blue stations are those with negative trends.

  52. Barry on April 1, 2013 at 2:48 am said:

    Thanks, Richard.

    The BEST graph bears no resemblance at all to the Salinger graph, with a burst of heating in 1910-18 and mild changes around 1950. Do they get these wildly divergent slopes by throwing darts?

    It’s also interesting that BEST thinks NZ warmed more slowly than either the global or the SH averages – until 1990 –when we took off, leaving the rest of the SH in the dust.

    I’ve no idea what significance should be given to their various figures and graphs.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on April 1, 2013 at 10:57 am said:

    Barry I decided after looking at BEST’s NZ series from 1840 -1860 that it was garbage unrelated to actual NZ conditions.

    But re the 21st century end, did you notice the discrepancy between the typical 21st century absolute values of mean temperature implied by the BEST series and recent values by NIWA e.g.

    11.5 C BEST (moving average)

    12.5 C NIWA (for 2012 and little ENSO activity – 2010 El Nino yr was 13.1)

    Now plot 12.5 C on BEST’s NZ series:-

    I’m sure you will see what I’m getting at.

  54. Barry on April 1, 2013 at 11:46 am said:

    Right. But I’m afraid that tends to confirm your assessment that the BEST record is garbage. NZ has never had an average absolute temp as low as 11.5°C.

    The 1868 composite recorded at Turnbull library shows 13.2°C as the earliest available national average. That was the highest of the several published series, but even the lowest was above 12°C.

  55. Richard C (NZ) on April 1, 2013 at 12:08 pm said:

    >”The 1868 composite recorded at Turnbull library shows 13.2°C”

    BEST has 1868 at just above 10.5°C – a 2.5°C mismatch.

  56. So that proves it. We must be feeling warmer by now.

  57. Richard C (NZ) on April 3, 2013 at 2:22 pm said:

    Ocean Cooling Contributed to Mid-20th Century Global Warming Hiatus

    Sep. 23, 2010 — The hiatus of global warming in the Northern Hemisphere during the mid-20th century may have been due to an abrupt cooling event centered over the North Atlantic around 1970, rather than the cooling effects of tropospheric pollution, according to a new paper appearing Sept. 22 in Nature.

    David W. J. Thompson, an atmospheric science professor at Colorado State University, is the lead author on the paper. Other authors are John M. Wallace at the University of Washington, and John J. Kennedy at the Met Office and Phil D. Jones of the University of East Anglia, both in the United Kingdom.

    The international team of scientists discovered an unexpectedly abrupt cooling event that occurred between roughly 1968 and 1972 in Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures. The research indicates that the cooling played a key role in the different rates of warming seen in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the middle 20th century.

    “We knew that the Northern Hemisphere oceans cooled during the mid-20th century, but the sudden nature of that cooling surprised us,” Thompson said.

    While the temperature drop was evident in data from all Northern Hemisphere oceans, it was most pronounced in the northern North Atlantic, a region of the world ocean thought to be climatically dynamic.


  58. Richard C (NZ) on April 3, 2013 at 3:33 pm said:

    Global Cooling – Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions
    Posted on April 2, 2013 by Guest Blogger

    Guest post by Dr. Norman Page

    1. Methods and Premises


    4.The present analysis which looks ahead to 2042 and 2106 is based on a few simple ideas and empirical observations..
    a) There has been no net warming since 1997 with CO2 up 8+% .Global Temperatures have been declining since 2003-4 The period from 2003- 2005 represents a peak in both the 60 year PDO cycle and in a millennial solar cycle.
    b) Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the more extreme regional high frequency variability of the land data the Global SST data are the most useful representation of the overall global climate trend.


    3. Summary

    1. Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2. Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3. Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4. Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
    5. Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
    6. General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7. By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
    8. The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
    9. Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

  59. Richard C (NZ) on April 7, 2013 at 1:52 pm said:

    Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?

    Climate change scientists acknowledge that the decline in rapid temperature increases is a positive sign

    By Geoffrey Lean, 05 Apr 2013, 451 Comments

    “Besides, a broader problem remains: on present policies, atmospheric CO2 levels will not stop rising when they reach the doubling point, but go on soaring past it – meaning that the world will still reach the danger point, even if more slowly.”

    Unless of course the rising CO2 levels are primarily a natural lagged effect of solar-driven rising temperature rather than being due to fossil fuel emissions (the lessor factor by far) in which case CO2 will not “go on soaring” when temperatures fall as they inevitably will now solar input is falling.

  60. Andy on May 20, 2013 at 9:33 am said:

    New paper in Nature on climate sensitivity with some well known names in this area of research.

    From Nic Lewis

    Headline best estimates of 2.0°C for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and 1.3°C for the – arguably more policy-relevant – transient climate response (TCR) are obtained, based on changes to the decade 2000–09, which provide the best constrained, and probably most reliable, estimates. The 5–95% uncertainty ranges are 1.2–3.9°C for ECS and 0.9–2.0°C for TCR. I should declare an interest in this study: you will find my name included in the extensive list of authors: Alexander Otto, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens, and Myles R. Allen

    and then

    The take-home message from this study, like several other recent ones, is that the ‘very likely’ 5–95% ranges for ECS and TCR in Chapter 12 of the leaked IPCC AR5 second draft scientific report, of 1.5–6/7°C for ECS and 1–3°C for TCR, and the most likely values of near 3°C for ECS and near 1.8°C for TCR, are out of line with instrumental-period observational evidence.

  61. Richard C (NZ) on May 20, 2013 at 11:27 am said:

    Main-stream news Andy:-

    ‘Warming to take longer in reaching forecast levels’

    Read more:

    However I see this:-

    University of NSW scientist Steven Sherwood – a lead author on the next IPCC report – said the Nature Geoscience study had found oceans were capturing heat more rapidly than expected over the past decade. [that’s highly contentious and the latest data doesn’t support it]

    ”By assuming that this behaviour will continue, they calculate that the climate will warm about 20 per cent more slowly than previously expected, although over the long term it may be just as bad, since eventually the ocean will stop taking up heat,” Professor Sherwood said.

    But other research had pointed out the recent ocean heat storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse, he said.

    ”So while their conclusions are interesting, they need to be taken with a large grain of salt until we see what happens to the oceans over the coming years,” he said.

    # # #

    I never, in my wildest dreams that sensibility would prevail eventually, thought I’d see that from Steven Sherwood.

    The Otto et al assumption that the atmosphere will in the future contain the heat at present (assumed to be) going to the ocean (impossible anyway on respective specific heat capacity) and the assumption OHC will rise in the future without additional energy input when it is currently at peak is simply bizarre.

  62. Richard C (NZ) on June 21, 2013 at 8:23 pm said:

    ‘Perihelion precession, polar ice and global warming’

    Duncan Steel

    The changing insolation theory (CIT) mooted herein is capable of explaining various
    observed phenomena which the AGW hypothesis has not yet been able to accommodate.
    Specifically, what has been observed and is pertinent here are the following:

    1. A gradual rise in mean global temperature over the past two centuries;
    2. Accelerating spring and summer melting of Arctic sea ice reaching an extent not
    previously witnessed;
    3. No substantial loss of Antarctic sea ice, and actually a small growth in its extent
    (Shepherd et al. 2010; Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012);
    4. The greatest rises in regional temperatures (and temperature variability) being at
    high northern latitudes (Liu et al. 2007; Wu et al. 2011). […]

    Note: this is a perihelion precession theory – NOT a TSI theory, TSI is kept constant in this paper.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2013 at 6:56 pm said:

    ‘The Age of Global Warming is Over’

    Paul Collits

    The age of global warming is over. I refer, not to any warming of the planet that may or may not be occurring, but to the world’s apparently serious and broadly shared belief in dangerous, man-made global warming and of equally serious attempts to implement policies of enforced decarbonisation to deal with it.

    Of course, the denouement will take time. There are too many vested interests involved for it all to simply die overnight. The architecture built by the warmists is quite grand, literally in the case of the ghastly and divisive wind farms. The architecture is both global and local. Think of all those grant recipients whose careers have been built on global warming, all those folks who work in Centres of Sustainability and the like. They won’t give up without a fight. But, in my view, their party is over


    In my view too. The WMO 2001 – 2010 decade report retrospectively chronicled, encapsulated, and signed off, the last chance to apply AGW alarmism to the actual climate I think.

  64. Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2013 at 7:40 pm said:

    Referenced in the Quadrant article:

    Book Review: ‘The Age of Global Warming, A History’, Rupert Darwall

    by SkeptEco on May 25, 2013

    “Darwall has made an important contribution to climate change literature, putting together in one place the history of global warming from ideological roots to the failure of the most recent attempts to forge a global agreement on CO2 under the supervision of a powerful supra-national organisation.”

    [Extensive review] >>>>>

    Other books too, including ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’ by Christopher Booker. So now we have the history of an age that ended in 2010.

  65. Richard C (NZ) on July 9, 2013 at 8:02 pm said:

    Collits on Darwall’s book:

    Darwall is very good on the science, and on the distinction between “science” and “predictive opinion”. But the abandonment by climate scientists of the need to verify their claims is at the heart of Darwall’s belief that the science is the critically weak point of the “idea” of climate change. Darwall is firmly on the side of those who regard science as being the empirical testing of verifiable and falsifiable hypotheses.


    Sixty-six pages of end notes attest to the book’s scholarship. This is no polemic. As Darwall says, “Global warming is a highly contentious subject and a history must be faithful both to evidence and to context.”

    + + + + +

    Ironic if the history of global warming is more faithful to evidence than the science of it.

  66. Richard C (NZ) on July 12, 2013 at 10:51 am said:

    ‘I tawt I taw a wattler: Global warming to cause snakes to eat more baby birds’ – Steve Milloy

  67. Mike Jowsey on August 29, 2013 at 1:43 pm said:

    Climate Deception: How The “Hottest” Temperature Game Is Played To Offset Prediction Failures

    The IPCC rewrote history by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) that was warmer than today. Weather agencies, increased the slope of temperature by lowering the old record – New Zealand is a good example (Figure 6). – See more at:

  68. Richard C (NZ) on December 10, 2013 at 7:01 pm said:

    Unprecedented (?) anthropogenic (?) global warming – again (?).

    Global October Temperatures: 1886-1949 vs. 1950-2013:

  69. Richard C (NZ) on December 21, 2013 at 6:55 pm said:

    ‘Tropics Go Wintery!’

    Written by P Gosselin

    A flurry of Middle Eastern and Asian news websites are reporting on “unusual” cold sweeping across vast areas of Asia and the Middle East.


    Snow – in Vietnam!

    The Asian Correspondent here writes that residents in North Vietnam “were treated to a rare sight Monday: snow“, writing that “the white stuff” is a “rare sight in this part of the world“.

    Not only Southeast Asia is being hard hit by unusually bitter cold, but also vast areas of Central Asia, Middle East, and North Africa. Some of these regions are typically famous for agreeably warm temperatures. The charts on this page are the forecast temperature anomalies for the coming 7 days.


    Animals “literally freezing where they stand”

    Also the entire Middle East and parts of Northern Africa are suffering from bitter, wintery conditions. Cairo last week saw its first snowfall in 112 years. Jerusalem saw its worst snowstorm in almost 70 years.

    Turkey also has been gripped by severe cold – for weeks. The reports: “Turkish cold snap literally freezes animals where they stand.”

    Syrian rebel commander freezes to death

    In Syria refugee camps are struggling to stay warm. The bitter cold and rare snow have even cost the life of a rebel commander. According to Australian ABC here, “A Syrian rebel commander has frozen to death in the bitter cold brought on by a snowstorm that has swept the country this week. … the body was ‘frozen’.”

    Tropical South America stays cool

    Even the tropical zone of South America is struggling to stay warm. Cooler than normal temperatures are forecast there for the next 7 days as well.


    Snow a “rare sight” – Viner was right after all.

  70. Richard C (NZ) on December 27, 2013 at 9:06 am said:

    ’16-Year Global Warming Pause, Scramble For An Explanation Among Spiegel’s Top 10 Science Stories of 2013!’

    By P Gosselin on 26. Dezember 2013

    Spiegel here presents the top 10 science stories of 2013 [hotlink].

    Among them is the stop in global warming, which Spiegel describes as “the mysterious temperature development of the past years“. In the sub-heading Spiegel writes:

    “An unexpected development has been occupying the attention of climate scientists: The air appears not to have warmed up in the last 16 years. Obviously natural phenomena are covering the increasing impact of greenhouse gases.”

    Here Spiegel appears to be very confused by the science, admitting that natural factors are running the show but at the same time illogically claiming that the impact of greenhouse gases is increasing! Spiegel then writes that skeptics should not be so sure that the warming has stopped, claiming that there’s “a variety of plausible explanations for the unexpected development“.

    Spiegel then cites ocean cycles, weak solar activity, and both natural and manmade aerosols, which is amazing because except for aerosols, these are precisely the factors that skeptics have been claiming and alarmists dismissing from the get-go.


  71. Richard C (NZ) on July 30, 2014 at 1:28 pm said:

    Updated list of 29 excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ in global warming

    For future reference.

  72. Richard C (NZ) on August 27, 2014 at 1:18 pm said:

    Interesting thermodynamic concept from the Met Office reported by Newsweek — a reduced energy input into a system (planetary climate) results in more heat in the system than at higher energy input levels:

    ‘Why We’re Definitely Not Headed for Another Ice Age’
    By Howard Swains / August 15, 2014

    “The Met Office estimates that even in the most severe case of solar inactivity, mean global temperatures would only be affected by “a few tenths of a degree”. Estimates of the effects of global warming, on the other hand, put the temperature hike at up to four degrees.”

    These “scientists” are no more than charlatans and snake oil salesmen,

  73. Richard C (NZ) on August 28, 2014 at 12:10 pm said:

    Climate scientists tying themselves in knots (and denial) about the “pause” in global warming:

    ‘A Closer Look at Turbulent Oceans and Greenhouse Heating’

    By ANDREW C. REVKIN, August 26, 2014


    Joshua K. Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory said this:

    “In regards to your question, if you mean how robust is the “slowdown” in global surface warming, the answer is it just probably just barely statistically significant. If you are wondering whether is it meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change, I would say the answer is no.”

    [Translated – “I wish it would go away”]

    Here’s Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University:

    “There are a few interesting things to note here.

    First, the hiatus is example of how science works. When it was first observed a few years ago, there were lots of theories — including things like stratospheric water vapor, solar cycles, stratospheric aerosol forcing. After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress and shows how legitimate uncertainty is handled by the scientific community.”

    [“Impressive progress”? Duh! Sceptics have been pointing to the ocean driver for years]

    “Second, I think it’s important to put the hiatus in context. This is not an existential threat to the mainstream theory of climate. We are not going to find out that, lo and behold, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and is not causing warming. Rather, I expect that the hiatus will help us understand how ocean variability interacts with the long-term warming that humans are causing. In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.”

    [Translated – “I wish it would go away”]

    # # #

    ‘Excuses for the 18 year ‘pause’ of global warming take a quantum leap up to #52′

    The Hockey Schtick, August 27, 2014

    Thanks to a quote-rich Andrew Revkin/New York Times article today, the updated list of excuses for the 18 year “pause” or “hiatus” of global warming has taken a quantum leap up to #52:

    ‘Before the deluge’

    Bishop Hill, Aug 23, 2014

    Last night climatologist Gareth Jones tweeted that there had been two dozen papers on the pause this year. In response, I wondered how many would have been published if David Whitehouse hadn’t have written his groundbreaking report [hotlinked] on the subject. This prompted Doug McNeall to comment “About two dozen”, a sentiment that was endorsed by Gavin Schmidt.

    It’s always nice to be challenged, so I thought I’d look into this a bit. Take a look at Google Trends:

  74. Richard C (NZ) on August 28, 2014 at 5:07 pm said:

    >”The Met Office estimates that even in the most severe case of solar inactivity, mean global temperatures would only be affected by “a few tenths of a degree”…..[AGW puts]…. the temperature hike at up to four degrees

    For the record. Mike Lockwood (IPCC AR5 Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution co-author, and co-author of the paper which is the basis for the above statement and cited by AR5 Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing – see below) states “I would be happy” with the following sentence:

    “… Mike Lockwood, of Reading University, found 24 occasions in the past 10,000 years when the sun was declining as it is now, but could find none where the decline was as fast. He says a return of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) is ‘more likely than not’ ”

    Note the term “Dalton Minimum” is in respect to solar activity, not climate. So according to the Lockwood/UKMO rationale (and therefore IPCC – see below), although the sun is “more likely than not” returning to Dalton Minimum conditions, the climate is not because increasing magic gas, CO2, will augment planetary energy supply when the sun goes into recession offsetting any temperature decline. Not only that but the magic gas will increase planetary heat far beyond what the sun achieved at the highest activity levels in the last 11,000 years, see ‘A History of Solar Activity over Millennia’, Usoskin et al, (2012) page 48:

    Figure 17: Sunspot activity (over decades, smoothed with a 12221 filter) throughout the Holocene,
    reconstructed from 14C by Usoskin et al. (2007) using geomagnetic data by Yang et al. (2000). Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively.

    Figure 17 here:

    Lockwood was co-author of the UKMO paper – Jones, Lockwood, and Stott (2012), cited in IPCC AR5 here (Line 49 SOD):

    41 Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of TSI
    43 Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001; Usoskin et al., 2003) reveal that currently the Sun
    44 is in a grand activity maximum that began ~1920. However, SC 23 showed a previously unseen activity
    45 decline (McComas et al., 2008; Russell et al., 2010; Smith and Balogh, 2008). Most current estimations
    46 suggest that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI than the previous ones (Abreu et al., 2008;
    47 Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010; Velasco-Herrera et al., 2012). Recent
    48 estimates of the RF between the modern minimum in 2008 and this 21st century minimum indicate a
    49 negative RF of about 0.04–0.07 W m–2 (Jones et al., 2012; Velasco-Herrera et al., 2012). However, much
    50 more evidence is needed and at present we have a very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
    51 estimates.
    53 Nevertheless, if there is such a diminished solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations
    54 will be much smaller than the projected increased forcing due to GHG (see Section 12.3.1).

    Note the “very low confidence” followed by “Nevertheless” and “high confidence”.

    Except Jones et al (2012) is a CO2-forced model exercise (simple energy balance climate model that is tuned to the Hadley AOGCM in terms of sensitivity and ocean heat diffusivity) using least-case solar scenarios, see:

    ’21st century solar cooling’

    by Judith Curry, March 10, 2012

    And we all know by now that the UKMO’s Hadley model has not modeled 21st century climate to date so their circular reasoning is immediately at fault. But the question remains: how exactly can increasing magic gas, CO2, impute substantially more energy to the planetary system than can the sun at its highest output?

    I’m sure that if this novel thermodynamic concept was valid there would be queues of entrepreneurial energy operators wanting to to commercialize it. But I don’t see the queues.

  75. Richard C (NZ) on August 28, 2014 at 5:13 pm said:

    Usoskin et al, (2012) should be Usoskin et al, (2010)

  76. Richard C (NZ) on August 28, 2014 at 5:55 pm said:

    The other AR5 citation in Line 49 above, apart from Jones et al, is Velasco-Herrera et al., (2012). That paper is here (click “View”):

    ‘Reconstruction and prediction of the total solar irradiance: From the Medieval Warm Period to the 21st century’

    There are other solar prediction scenarios of course but the IPCC likes this one for reasons known only to the Chapter 8 authors. Not that the CMIP5/AR5 simulations were forced with Velasco-Herrera et al TSI though. No, TSI was held constant from early 2000.

  77. Richard C (NZ) on August 28, 2014 at 7:48 pm said:

    Wishing away the hiatus continues unabated:

    ‘Temperature hiatus periods to become a ‘thing of the past’ [like snow?] as emissions soar’

    Peter Hannam, Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald. August 28, 2014

    The momentum of global warming caused by the build-up of greenhouse gases is likely to overwhelm natural cooling processes within decades, according to research [wild guesses based on unvalidated models – see below] by the University of NSW.

    Global temperatures have largely plateaued during the past 15 years as natural variability – including oceans absorbing more heat [or just oceanic solar energy accumulation reaching zenith] and volcanic activity – have acted to stall warming at the planet’s surface. [i.e. no anthropogenic global warming, just solar change+ocean oscillations]

    However, such “hiatuses” are increasingly unlikely if carbon emissions continue on their present trajectory, and will be “a thing of the past” by the century’s end, according to a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters. [hotlink – see below]

    “From about 2030, it’s highly unlikely that we will get one of these cooling decades,” [nearly two decades now] said Nicola Maher , a UNSW PhD-candidate and lead author of the paper. “When it does cool, it will not be enough to overcome [it is right now] the warming.” [what warming?]

    The researchers used about 30 models to simulate different events, including volcanic eruptions of the size of Krakatau, the Indonesian island that erupted in 1883 with an explosion so loud it was heard almost 5000 kilometres away.

    By 2100, assuming greenhouse emissions continue to build at the present rate, “even a big volcano like Krakatau is very unlikely to cause a hiatus”, Ms Maher said.

    While the oceans have [supposedly] absorbed [how?] much of the [hypothesized] extra heat trapped [trapped where? isn’t that the atmosphere?] over the past decade, the process [what process? could be ocean oscillation+solar change] can also go in reverse [well yes, solar change again], quickening warming [less solar = cooling, not quickening warming].

    El Nino events, for instance, see the Pacific going from a [solar] heat sink to giving up warmth [natural process]. The Bureau of Meteorology on Tuesday said the chance of an El Nino in 2014 remains above 50 per cent. [ever wishful]

    Read more:

    ‘Drivers of decadal hiatus periods in the 20th and 21st centuries’ [paywall]

    Nicola Maher, Alexander Sen Gupta, and Matthew H. England (2014)

    The latest generation of climate model simulations are used to investigate the occurrence of hiatus periods in global surface air temperature in the past and under two future warming scenarios. Hiatus periods are identified in three categories: (i) those due to volcanic eruptions, (ii) those associated with negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), and (iii) those affected by anthropogenically released aerosols in the mid-twentieth century. The likelihood of future hiatus periods is found to be sensitive to the rate of change of anthropogenic forcing. Under high rates of greenhouse gas emissions there is little chance of a hiatus decade occurring beyond 2030, even in the event of a large volcanic eruption. We further demonstrate that most nonvolcanic hiatuses across Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models are associated with enhanced cooling in the equatorial Pacific linked to the transition to a negative IPO phase.

    Might have been convincing if they had demonstrated modeling of the current hiatus first.

  78. Richard C (NZ) on August 28, 2014 at 9:46 pm said:

    >”There are other solar prediction scenarios of course but the IPCC likes this one [Velasco-Herrera et al] for reasons known only to the Chapter 8 authors”

    Perhaps a little unfair because Velasco-Herrera et al., (2012) serves as an extensive, but not complete, solar review and intercomparison paper.

    See the ‘Solar’ Open Thread (c. August 29, 2014) for Abstract and document link as above.

  79. Richard C (NZ) on August 28, 2014 at 11:46 pm said:

    Velasco-Herrera et al., (2012) as cited by AR5. Probably an advance to make the AR5 deadline because New Astronomy journal has a rather different history.

    Article history: Received 2 July 2013 Received in revised form 4 July 2014 Accepted 11 July 2014 Available online 23 July 2014 Communicated by W. Soon

    The WGI Chapter 8 guys must have blanched when they saw the Willie Soon connection. Or perhaps they missed that.

  80. Richard C (NZ) on September 12, 2014 at 10:58 am said:

    See ‘News’ for Science Codex article (and others) reporting Macias, Stips, and Garcia-Gorriz (2014):

    ‘Last decade’s slow-down in global warming enhanced by an unusual climate anomaly’

  81. I saw this film and noticed some of the digs at AGW – the evil Dr. Mann and the denial of the moon landings, etc. Good film too:

  82. Climate Researcher on December 22, 2014 at 9:24 pm said:

    A review of the new book “CLIMATE CHANGE THE FACTS 2014” by about 24 authors – available here.

    The best and most relevant chapter in this new book is that by William Soon, namely Chapter 4 “Sun Shunned” in which he discusses things such as the eccentricity of the Sun’s orbit that I have also pointed out as the principal regulator of glacial periods.

    The rest of the chapters on the “science” do not discuss the valid physics which is really what does determine Earth’s surface temperatures. Instead the “lukes” all reiterate the false claim that carbon dioxide causes significant warming of the surface by radiative forcing. Nowhere is the assumed process of forcing actually discussed. We just get the usual false paradigm that carbon dioxide traps outward radiation and thus supposedly makes the surface warmer.

    Carbon dioxide does not trap thermal energy. It disposes of what it absorbs either by subsequent radiation or by sensible heat transfer (via molecular collisions) to other air molecules which outnumber it by 2,500 to 1. It also helps nitrogen and oxygen cool through such collisions, and may subsequently radiate the energy thus acquired out of the atmosphere.

    All radiation between regions at different temperatures can only transfer thermal energy from the warmer region (or surface) to a cooler region. This means all heat transfer in the troposphere is generally upwards to cooler regions, with a proportion always getting through to space. There is no thermal energy transferred to a warmer surface. The energy transfer is the other way. The Sun’s radiation is not helped by radiation from the atmosphere which is only sending back some of its own energy now with much lower energy photons. Radiating gases reduce the insulating effect by helping energy to escape faster, and that is why moist air in double glazed windows also reduces the insulating effect, just as does water vapor in the troposphere.

    Nowhere in the book do we see the surface temperature explained correctly using Stefan Boltzmann calculations. No one ever does this, because it is an absolute stumbling block for climatologists. The mean solar flux entering the surface is only about 163W/m^2 after 52% of the solar radiation has been either absorbed or reflected by the surface, clouds or atmosphere. But such a low level of radiation would only produce a very cold -41°C. That’s even colder than what the IPCC claims would be the case, namely -18°C without greenhouse gases. They deduce that by assuming that the whole troposphere would be isothermal due to convective heat transfer, including sensible heat transfers by molecular collision.

    Hence all the “luke” authors fall for the trap of not actually explaining the existing surface temperature, let alone what carbon dioxide might or might not do. How could you work out the latter if you don’t know your starting point? The truth is that you cannot calculate the surface temperature of any planet that has a significant atmosphere by using radiation calculations. Hence all the considerations pertaining to radiation and absorption by carbon dioxide are totally within a wrong paradigm.

    That assumption by the IPCC (and thus by the “lukes” who have written this book) that the troposphere would be isothermal was rubbished in the 19th century by some physicists who understood the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is still being rubbished to this day, and even more so, now that physicists realise that the Second Law is all about entropy increasing to the point where there are no unbalanced energy potentials. In a gravitational field this state of thermodynamic equilibrium is attained when all the energy potentials involving gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy and radiative energy balance out. That is when the environmental temperature gradient is attained, and the very fact that it exists enables us to explain all planetary surface temperatures (and the required energy flows) without the slightest reference to back radiation, let alone trace gases like carbon dioxide. Only water vapor has a significant effect in lowering that gradient because of its radiating properties. It thus cools the surface, and that puts a big spanner in the works for the IPCC et al.

  83. I was just consulting the great oracles at skepticalscience.conjob’s temperature trend calculator and I notice they now include the Karl 2015 datasets. As Karl 2015 was supposed to be the big breakthrough that disproved the ‘hiatus’ I though I’d just a have a quick check:

    According to Karl 2015 there has been no statistically significant warming since 2000 for both their land/ocean and global datasets – a 15 year ‘hiatus’.

    Oops! Looks like the Chung 2015 & Sherwood 2014 papers that claim to have found the hotspot by using data when it hasn’t been warming is now officially kaput.

  84. Richard C (NZ) on February 25, 2016 at 9:32 am said:

    ‘Northern Winter Nights’

    Willis Eschenbach / February 23, 2016

    I got to thinking about the distribution of the so-called “global” warming. I’d heard that a good chunk of it was due to increasing nighttime minimum temperatures. So I grabbed the Berkeley Earth land-only temperature dataset. It has its problems, and I suspect the overall warming trend is exaggerated, but at least it is internally complete and consistent. I wanted to know both where and when the warming is strongest, and where and when it is weakest.


    Figure 1. Maximum daytime temperatures (orange/red) and minimum nighttime temperatures (dark/light blue) by hemisphere. Data goes from 1900 through 2014.

    This shows that as a hemispheric average, the nighttime minimum temperatures are rising faster than the daytime maximums, and that the northern hemisphere nights are warming the fastest of the four groups.


    Figure 2. Berkeley Earth month-by-month average minimum nighttime temperature trends, in degrees C per decade.

    This is what I was looking for, the details of the location and timing of the warming. The Northern Hemisphere nighttime temperatures are increasing the most during the winter in Siberia and Canada. And similarly, in the Southern Hemisphere the nighttime warming is greatest in the winter, although it is more evenly distributed spatially. Meanwhile, there is little trend change month-over-month in the tropics.

    Now, call me crazy, but I don’t recall anyone ever saying “Boy, I sure wish that the February nights in the Yukon were colder”


    Figure 3. Berkeley Earth month-by-month average maximum daytime temperature trends, in degrees C per decade.

    Curiously, or perhaps not curiously, this daytime view shows the same pattern as the nighttime temperatures. The warming is concentrated in the extratropics in the winter.

    Conclusions? Well, the most obvious conclusion is that the “global” warming is not global at all. Instead, it is strongest at night in the winter in Siberia and Canada. I’m pretty sure the poor people in Murmansk are not complaining about that …

    In addition, there are large regions of the earth where for one or more months of the year, over more than a century the temperatures have actually cooled … the entire southeastern US, for example, is now colder in January than it was a century ago, both during the day and at night. If nothing else, this highlights the complex nature of the climate.

  85. Richard C (NZ) on March 24, 2016 at 10:04 am said:

    ‘What global warming? Staggering study says temperatures rose more BEFORE 1997’

    A PANEL of esteemed scientists [incl Mann], some of who have campaigned for more action to tackle climate change, has concluded a controversial 17-year “pause” of global warming DID happen, and the world is heating up more SLOWLY now than before the Millennium.

    By Jon Austin Mar 22, 2016


    Climate change sceptics are celebrating the paper’s conclusions

    US political commentator James Delingpole wrote on “The findings represent a tremendous blow to the climate alarmist ‘consensus’, which has long sought to deny the ‘pause’s’ existence.

    “The study was published in Nature Climate Change a fervently alarmist journal which rarely if ever runs papers that cast doubt on the man-made-global-warming scare narrative.

    “What’s novel about this new study in Nature Climate Change, though, is that it’s not skeptics and Republicans doing the mocking and the debunking – it’s the kind of people who in the past were very much in the alarmist camp, including – bizarrely – none other than Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann, who co-authored the paper.

    “In the meantime let us all draw comfort from the fact that a) the alarmists are finally being forced to concede that their skeptic adversaries are right and b) that they are starting to turn on one another.

    “What we have here, in other words, is signs of a major rift within the climate alarmist camp with different factions adopting different tactics to cope with the failure of their collapsing narrative.”

    He said Mr Mann and his colleagues had produced a paper in which “finally they concede what skeptics have been saying for many years: that there has been no ‘global warming’ since 1998”.


  86. Richard C (NZ) on June 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm said:

    Nature – finally “finds” cause of Antarctic pause, will last centuries, tosses “global warming” out


    Nature ties itself in knots here, and reveals a lot more than they probably meant too, but mostly about themselves rather than about Antarctica. If it’s correct, the implications from this study are pretty big, not that the study will tell you that. The term “Global warming” is tossed under a bus, along with almost all the Antarctic man-made scares of the last two decades. The political nature of Nature is on full display.


    # # #

    Basically, they’ve “discovered” textbook thermohaline circulation (wow).

    And they are pushing HARD the (unproven) idea that GHGs are warming the ocean. After 25 years and 5 assessment reports the IPCC has still got nothing. Never will either given the impossible physics.

Comment navigation


Leave a Reply

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