IPCC science

This thread is for discussion of the IPCC and scientific matters.

Views: 1175

129 Thoughts on “IPCC science

  1. THREAD on 17/10/2010 at 4:25 am said:

    The 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

    Climate Change Reconsidered, was released on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at a press conference at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, DC, in conjunction with the Third International Conference on Climate Change. Heartland President Joseph Bast, editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, and authors Craig D. Idso Ph.D. and S. Fred Singer Ph.D.




  2. THREAD on 17/10/2010 at 4:47 am said:

    IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)


    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/02/2012 at 8:37 am said:

      Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5

      Posted on February 22, 2012 by Alec Rawls

      Guest post by Alec Rawls

      “Expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5 closed on the 10th. Here is the first paragraph of my submitted critique:

      My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call “the omitted variable problem” (or when it is intentional, “omitted variable fraud”). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.

      Introduction to the “omitted variable fraud” critique, continued

      For the 1750-2010 period examined, two variables correlate strongly with the observed warming (and hence with each other). Solar magnetic activity and atmospheric CO2 were both trending upwards over the period, and both stepped up to much higher levels over the second half of the 20th century. These two correlations with temperature change give rise to the two main competing theories of 20th century warming. Was it driven by rapidly increasing human release of CO2, or by the 80 year “grand maximum” of solar activity that began in the early 1920′s? (“Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints,” Usoskin et al. 2007.)

      The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity “explains,” in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.



      The evidence overwhelmingly supports the solar-magnetic warming theory

      The chapter on aerosols and clouds inverts the scientific method, using theory to dismiss evidence

      The authors declare their dissatisfaction with the available theories for how solar activity might drive climate, and use this as an excuse to completely ignore the massive evidence that there is some such mechanism at work.

      This is an exact inversion of the scientific method, which says that evidence always trumps theory. The IPCC is throwing away the evidence for a solar-magnetic driver of climate because it isn’t satisfied with the theories that have been proposed to account for it. This is the definition of anti-science: putting theory (or ideology, or anything) over evidence. Evidence has to be the trump card, or its not science. The IPCC is engaged in pure, definitional, anti-science, precisely inverting the scientific method.

      Hard hitting, comprehensive and damning.

      But just stating-the-obvious really.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/06/2012 at 9:39 am said:

      Interesting development for AR5

      Climate panel slammed for embracing controversial ‘grey literature’


      “After the scandals, some called for grey literature to be banished from IPCC assessments. Instead, the meeting embraced it, and set criteria for its use. From now on, for instance, any grey literature used in an IPCC report will have to be put online so that reviewers can assess its quality.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/04/2013 at 10:08 pm said:

      Climate change: IPCC 2014 draft report insights

      * Jenner & Block
      * E. Lynn Grayson
      * Global
      * April 22 2013

      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is working on its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change to be released in 2014. Interim drafts of certain portions of the report released by one of the three working groups suggest that things are not as bad as predicted in the IPCC’s 2007 report. Emerging insights are good news for the environment but pose greater uncertainty for the scientific community challenged to understand overall climate change impacts.

      The new IPCC draft report suggests two key findings:

      1. actual global warming measurements do not match IPCC model predictions in the IPCC 2007 report; and
      2. global temperatures overall have leveled off since the 1998-1999 timeframe.

      Whether or not rising temperatures resulting in global warming have stopped altogether is unclear. What we do know is that the slowed progress of global warming, as indicated by the last ten years of global temperature data, means less immediate and perhaps more mitigated climate change-related impacts.


      Lexology is an innovative, web-based service that provides company law departments and law firms with a depth of free practical know-how that would be impossible to produce internally. By collaborating with the world’s leading commercial law firms, Lexology is able to deliver fully tailored intelligence to the desktops of business lawyers worldwide on a daily basis.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/07/2013 at 9:41 am said:

      ‘Sensitive information’

      A peek inside the next IPCC assessment


      “In the new draft, the lower end of the range has been reduced to 1.5°C and the “most likely” figure has been scrapped. That seems to reflect a growing sense that climate sensitivity may have been overestimated in the past and that the science is too uncertain to justify a single estimate of future rises.

      If this does turn out to be the case, it would have significant implications for policy………”

    • Andy on 19/07/2013 at 10:17 am said:

      Pachauri has one PhD, not two as his IPCC bio suggests


    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/09/2013 at 5:13 pm said:

      ‘Five Points on the IPCC [AR5] Report (Wonky, Long)’

      Roger Pielke Jnr


      1. The core scientific understandings remain unchanged

      2. The IPCC itself is still engaged in PR spin and messaging

      3. We will not be able to clearly distinguish the influence of that human influence from natural variability for decades

      4. Actions to mitigate climate through reductions in carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) will not have a detectable effect on climate until after mid-century.

      5. There is not a strong scientific basis for claiming a discernible effect of human-caused climate change on hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought.


      Only 5 comments so far but all astute.

  3. THREAD on 17/10/2010 at 4:49 am said:

    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)


  4. THREAD on 17/10/2010 at 4:54 am said:

    IPCC Assessment Reports: 2001 (TAR) 1995 (SAR) 1990 (FAR)


  5. THREAD on 17/10/2010 at 5:03 am said:



  6. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 8:51 pm said:

    Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies

  7. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 8:55 pm said:

    The curious incident of the added heat at the surface

  8. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 8:57 pm said:

    IPCC “Consensus” on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper

  9. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 9:01 pm said:

    IPCC Studies And Reports Have Nothing to Do with Climate Change

    Every prediction or projections, as the IPCC evasively call them, have been wrong

  10. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 9:18 pm said:

    Maximum ‘Residence Time’ of Atmospheric CO2

    Plot illustrating how the IPCC’s view of long-lived CO2 is an oulier

  11. THREAD on 25/10/2010 at 11:13 am said:

    IPCC AR4 Climate Model Simulations

    • THREAD on 25/10/2010 at 11:19 am said:

      AOGCMs participating in the MMD at PCMDI are listed by IPCC identification (ID).

      Along with the calendar year (‘vintage’) of the first publication of results from each model.

      Also listed are the respective sponsoring institutions,

    • THREAD on 25/10/2010 at 11:25 am said:

      How to create a crisis graph in 6 simple steps

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2010 at 1:35 pm said:

      “circular reasoning” at work.

      “One of the main arguments from the IPCC is that essentially, we can’t explain temperature changes any other way than with carbon forcings. This is matched with impressive pink and blue graphs that pose as evidence that carbon is responsible for all the recent warming.

      This is argumentum ad ignorantiam — essentially they say: we don’t know what else could have caused that warming, so it must be carbon. It’s a flawed assumption.

      It’s easy to create impressive graphs, especially if you actively ignore other possible causes, like for example, changes in cloud cover and solar magnetic effects.”

      Thus it’s circular reasoning: decide that carbon is a problem; see its “effect” in this graph; declare carbon must be a problem, and rejoice, the models create what we fed them to start with. The Marvel!

      (It’s too easy, and politicians fall for it. Then they give us more money to do more “modelling”.) – Jo Nova

      These graphs are very important.

      Please Note:

      IPCC simulations categories:-

      1. Models using only natural forcings.

      2. Models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings

      Don’t be fooled by this internal IPCC distinction.

      1. and 2. simulations are run on the SAME models: SAME formulations; SAME spin-up datasets (just addition or deletion of the ACO2 driver); and, SAME IPCC Radiative Forcing (RF) methodology (i.e. in their own terms).

      NIWA uses the “A” module of UKMO’s UM model that is in the IPCC’s 1. and 2. categories.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/10/2010 at 10:26 am said:


      Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases:
      Estimates from climate models in the IPCC AR4

      Collins Et Al 2010

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/10/2010 at 9:52 am said:

      See – Climate Models

      NON IPCC and Natural Forcings ONLY

      Atmospheric & Environmental Research, Inc.’s (AER)
      Radiative Transfer Working Group

      The foundation of our research and model development is the validation of line-by-line radiative transfer calculations with accurate high-resolution measurements.

  12. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 11:31 am said:

    A Strange Problem with the IPCC Numbers

    Posted on October 23, 2010 by Willis Eschenbach


    The IPCC says that the expected change in temperature arising from a change in forcing is equal to the change in forcing times the climate sensitivity. The IPCC provides values we can use to estimate the total human and natural forcing change since 1850. The IPCC also proves estimates for the climate sensitivity. These can be multiplied to provide the IPCC expected temperature change since 1850. The value derived (best estimate per IPCC numbers = 1.4 °C warming since 1850) is twice the observed warming (HadCRUT best estimate = 0.7°C warming since 1850).

    • THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 4:18 pm said:

      The “Missing Heat”

      More Oddities with the IPCC Numbers

      by Willis Eschenbach

      “A number of people have said Hey, in your previous post, the missing forcing is going into the ocean, so it’s still “in the pipeline”. I had considered that, but it didn’t make sense. I’ve taken a closer look, and it still doesn’t make sense.

      According to the IPCC calculations in that post, about 0.7 W/m2 was missing. Let us assume that it is going into the ocean. Here’s my numbers, please check them. The spreadsheet doing the calculations is here.”

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 26/10/2010 at 12:34 pm said:

    Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations

    George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:

    Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.

    If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.

    See “Controversy and scandal”

  14. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 1:45 pm said:

    Global Warming’s Corrupt Science

    By Patrick J. Michaels, October 20, 2010

  15. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 3:21 pm said:

    Thursday, October 7, 2010

    Paper: Sun affects Climate much more than thought

    Adding the the recent spate of papers showing that – surprise – the Sun has much, much more to do with climate change than previously thought, the respected German Physics Journal Annalyn der Physik recently published a paper analyzing solar irradiance data from 1905 to 2008 which finds cosmic rays modulated by solar activity cause a large portion of atmospheric aerosols (clouds) with profound effects on climate [see the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al]. The paper concludes, “The contribution of the active sun, indirectly via cosmic rays, to global warming appears to be much stronger than the presently accepted [IPCC] upper limit of 1/3.”

  16. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 3:59 pm said:

    Sunday, October 3, 2010

    UN IPCC Scientist Asks Tough Questions

    Dr. Judith Curry, IPCC scientist and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, asks some tough unanswered questions of climate science and the IPCC in her new blog post What can we learn from climate models? The post begins with a sobering Short answer: I’m not sure.

    This is interesting in light of the fact that essentially all of the IPCC ‘consensus,’ conclusions, and predictions are based entirely upon computer models. In addition, the IPCC admits in the fine print that said models have not been validated and that they don’t even know how to validate the models.

    Other tough as yet unanswered questions include:

    How did they [climate scientists] manage to reach conceptual consensus in spite of persisting scientific gaps, imminent uncertainties and limited means of model validation?

    Why, to put the question differently, did scientists develop trust in their delicate model constructions?

  17. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 4:04 pm said:

    Nature hates straight lines

    October 25, 2010 by Willis Eschenbach

    Forcing is generally taken to mean downward radiation measured at the TOA (top of atmosphere). The IPCC says that when TOA forcing changes, the surface temperature changes linearly with that TOA forcing change. If there is twice the forcing change (twice the change in solar radiation, for example), the IPCC says we’ll see twice the temperature change. The proportionality constant (not a variable but a constant) that the IPCC says linearly relates temperature and TOA forcing is called the “climate sensitivity”.

    Today I stumbled across the IPCC justification of this linearity assumption. This is the basis of their claim of the existence of a constant called “climate sensitivity”. I quote it below.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on 16/11/2010 at 11:10 am said:

    IPCC science: are you willing to take the risk?

    11 November 2010 Marc Hendrickx

    If IPCC Climate scientists were Physicists:

    If IPCC Climate Scientists were engineers:

    If IPCC Climate scientists were laser eye surgeons:

    If IPCC climate scientists were historians:

    If IPCC Climate scientists were climate scientists:

    And if IPCC climate scientists were fruit pickers:

  19. Richard C (NZ) on 19/11/2010 at 8:48 am said:


    Thursday, November 18, 2010

    IPCC Forecasts are Incorrect

    Thank you for inviting my testimony. I am a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. This testimony represents no official point of view from either of these institutions and is tendered with the traditional protections of academic freedom.

    My testimony has four objectives

    1) Demonstration that the rate greenhouse-related warming is clearly below the mean of climate forecasts from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are based upon changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations that are closest to what is actually being observed,

    2) demonstration that the Finding of Endangerment from greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency is based upon a very dubious and critical assumption,

    3) demonstration that the definition of science as a public good induces certain biases that substantially devalue efforts to synthesize science, such as those undertaken by the IPCC and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), and

    4) demonstration that there is substantial discontent with governmental and intergovernmental syntheses of climate change and with policies passed by this House of Representatives.


    I like this in regard to the “missing heat” that is either in the deep ocean (Trenberth, Renowden) or the troposphere (Santer, Thorne):-

    “.An additional and important discrepancy between the models and reality extends into the lower atmosphere as well. In the lower atmosphere, climate models expectations are that the degree of warming with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations should be greater than that experienced at the surface, with the lower atmosphere warming about 1.4 times faster than the average surface temperature. Despite claims that observations and models are in agreement (Santer et al., 2008), new analyses incorporating a large number of both observational datasets as well as climate model projections, clearly and strongly demonstrate that the surface warming (which itself is below the model mean) is significantly outpacing the warming in the lower atmosphere—contrary to climate model expectations. Instead of exhibiting 40% more warming than the surface, the lower atmosphere is warming 25% less—a statistically significant difference (Christy et al., 2010).”

  20. Richard C (NZ) on 26/01/2011 at 10:11 am said:

    Lawrence Solomon: Has the IPCC discovered the Sun?

    The IPCC is investigating the Sun as a driver of global warming

    The IPCC for the first time will investigate “in depth” the role of global cosmic rays in climate change, according to a report last week in the Hindustan Times. Many solar and space scientists believe that cosmic rays, whose ability to enter Earth’s atmosphere is regulated by the Sun, are a dominant factor in global warming.

    The turnaround in the IPCC position was announced by the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, in a communication with India’s Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh. The announcement followed the release of a paper by U R Rao, the former chairman of Indian Space Research Organization, that showed cosmic rays alone were responsible for 40% of global warming. These findings by one of Pachauri’s most distinguished countrymen, rebutted IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other man-made causes were responsible for more than 90% of global warming. ………continues

    Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/25/lawrence-solomon-has-the-ipcc-discovered-the-sun/#ixzz1C5M1Xzgj

    • Andy on 26/01/2011 at 12:48 pm said:

      I saw the original paper and I can’t quite make the connection that the IPCC will suddenly change course mid-flight. It would take away their raison d’etre

      However, the paper looks interesting

    • Richard C (NZ) on 26/01/2011 at 1:13 pm said:

      The paper is interesting at least for the reason by Lawrie in this comment:-

      Whether Cosmic particles are a major or minor driver in modulating the earths climate is less important than the fact that the Indian scientific community is conducting research into factors other than CO2. Not only are they conducting research they are being supported by their government. Would it not be so here in Australia where government research is limited to CO2 and any scientist not in agreement is derided and ostracized. Many thanks to the Indian scientists who are living in the real world and not the dreamworld of the IPCC.
      from: Lawrie

      The IPCC is being forced to address just a part of the raft of natural influences on climate. There is nowhere near conclusive understanding of how combinations of solar/lunar/cosmic/celestial factors manifest in climate but the IPCC discounts all but TSI.

      If even a small amount of funding was directed to those factors in NZ as compared to $15m over 4 years focussed on GHGs then we would all be a great deal wiser – and the 15 mill could go towards paying off debt instead.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on 01/09/2011 at 10:34 am said:

    Massive Climate Model Failure: IPCC Models Unable To Predict Pacific Ocean Variability With Any Confidence

    Read here. Scientists know that the variability of the northern Pacific has a huge impact on global climate. If IPCC climate models are ever to successfully predict future climate changes, they first need to be able to predict the variability of the northern Pacific ocean. A new study by Furtado et al. confirms what has long been suspected, the IPCC climate models are unable to deal with the Pacific ocean variability.

    The North Pacific Decadal Variability (NPDV) is composed of two identified patterns of ocean variability. The first is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the second is the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO), neither of which can be consistently predicted by the IPCC’s models.

    “The authors write that North Pacific Decadal Variability (NPDV) “is a key component in predictability studies of both regional and global climate change,”…they emphasize that given the links between both the PDO and the NPGO with global climate, the accurate characterization and the degree of predictability of these two modes in coupled climate models is an important “open question in climate dynamics” that needs to be addressed…report that model-derived “temporal and spatial statistics of the North Pacific Ocean modes exhibit significant discrepancies from observations in their twentieth-century climate…conclude that “for implications on future climate change, the coupled climate models show no consensus on projected future changes in frequency of either the first or second leading pattern of North Pacific SST anomalies,” and they say that “the lack of a consensus in changes in either mode also affects confidence in projected changes in the overlying atmospheric circulation.”” [Jason C. Furtado, Emanuele Di Lorenzo, Niklas Schneider, Nicholas A. Bond 2011: Journal of Climate]


  22. Richard C (NZ) on 13/09/2011 at 5:30 pm said:

    A round up of selected background and responses to date, to the A. E. Dessler 2011 [D11] paper “Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget”. Keeping in mind that it is still in print and being revised subject to early criticism. Also related is Dessler 2010 [D10]

    The D11 paper responds to “On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance”, Roy W. Spencer, and William D. Braswell 2011 [SB11] and “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications”, Richard S. Lindzen, and Yong-Sang Choi 2011 [LC11].


    Background on the SB11 paper:-

    Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecast of global warming – Spencer/Gentry

    Background on the LC11 paper:-

    New Paper By Lindzen & Choi On Climate Sensitivity – Anthony Watts

    Hatchet Job On John Christy and Roy Spencer :-

    Opinion: The damaging impact of Roy Spencer’s science – Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick

    Hatchet Job on Spencer, Braswell, Soon and Baliunas

    Resignations, retractions and the process of science – Gavin Schmidt

    Hatchet job on Lindzen and Choi 2009 (rectified by LC11 – silence from RealClimate since)

    Lindzen and Choi Unraveled – Fasullo, Trenberth and O’Dell

    D11 press release

    Texas A&M prof says study shows that clouds don’t cause climate change

    Summary as to what the controversy is all about.

    A Primer on Our Claim that Clouds Cause Temperature Change …and Why Dessler, Trenberth, and the IPCC are Wrong – Roy Spencer

    SCORE: IPCC :1 Scientific Progress: 0

    Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing Resigns from Fallout Over Our Paper – Roy spencer

    A radiative accumulation of energy leads to a temperature maximum…later

    Rise of the 1st Law Deniers – Roy Spencer

    Re IPCC usual suspects dissing SB11

    Fallout from Our Paper: The Empire Strikes Back – Roy Spencer

    Responses re D11

    The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study – Roy Spencer

    More Thoughts on the War Being Waged Against Us – Roy Spencer

    The Stone in Trenberth’s Shoe – Steve McIntyre

    The Spencer-Braswell & Dessler papers – Anthony Watts

    Spencer & Braswell: Part III – Judith Curry

    Andrew Dessler: clouds don’t reflect light – Lubos Motl

    Responses re D10

    CERES and the Shortwave Cloud Feedback – Troy CA at Lucia’s

    More on Dessler 2010 – Steve McIntye
    My favourites from Steve McIntyre:-

    Re D11

    Whatever view one might take on the differences between observations and models in the above data, the lagged relationship is more significant than the instantaneous relationship – a point shown in both the figures in Spencer and Braswell 2011 and Dessler 2011. This suggests that the original scatter plot in Dessler 2010 should be re-done using a lag of 4 months. I used the common HadCRUT3 data for the comparison – Dessler had observed that this accentuated the difference between models and observations, but it is nonetheless widely used and, if Dessler takes exception to SB’s failure to illustrate re-analysis temperature versions, one might make the same observation about the HadCRU3 omission in Dessler 2010. The results are shown below.

    Doing the same regression with 4-month lagged relationships (which both Dessler and SB agree to be more significant than the instantaneous relationship), the sign of the slope is reversed. Whereas Dessler 2010 had reported a slope of 0.54 +- 0.72 (2σ) W/m2/K, the regression with lagged variables is -0.90 +- 0.95 w/m2/K and has better diagnostics. [Update Sep 8 – Nick Stokes observes that this reversal of sign may be a phase phenomenon. This is something that needs to be examined as I haven’t handled this data before. However, please note that a sign reversal also results on alternative grounds merely from using CERES clear sky data instead of ERA clear sky data, the latter being used in Dessler 2010 without an explanation for the variation. See here.)

    Re D10

    While peer reviewers at Science were unequal to the question, the issue was raised a month ago by Troy_CA in an excellent post at Lucia’s. Having exactly replicated Dessler’s regression results and Figure 2a, I’m re-visiting this issue by repeating the regression in Dessler 2010 style but making the plausible variation of CERES clear sky in combination with CERES all sky, and with the widely used HadCRUT3 series and got surprising results.

    The supposed relationship between CLD forcing and temperature is reversed: the slope is -0.96 w/m2/K rather than 0.54 (and with somewhat higher though still low significance).

    It seems the Team have a problem now that the hatchet is in different hands (and I don’t think it will be buried either).

    Have I missed any good science oriented responses?

    Politically related posts here

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/09/2011 at 9:13 pm said:

      Bombshell at Tallblokes:-

      Bill Illis: Clouds account for most of the variability in net radiation at TOA

      Over on the Spencer Good, Bad and Ugly response to Dessler 2011 thread on WUWT, Bill Illis quietly drops this little bombshell:

      Bill Illis says:
      September 10, 2011 at 10:11 am

      “I’m getting Cloud variability being a very large part of the variability in the total Global Net Radiation Budget – anywhere from 65% to 100% (with R^2 between 0.29 and 0.77).”


      Using Dessler’s own data!

      Or as Tallbloke puts it – holy moley!

      Also at WUWT:- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/11/bill-illis-clouds-account-for-most-of-the-variability-in-net-radiation-at-the-top-of-the-atmosphere/

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/09/2011 at 4:34 pm said:

      From what I can gather, Dessler 2011 (D11) basically restates Dessler 2010 and Trenberth et al 2010 in lines 79 – 95. All D11 has done is put the focus back on the former papers and as the results and comments of McIntyre, Illis, Spencer and many others now show early on – the Team has a problem.

      The two previous papers:-

      “A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade”
      A. E. Dessler, 2010 (D10)

      “Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top‐of‐atmosphere radiation”
      Trenberth et al, 2010 (T10)

      Obviously there’s some oddities in D11 (“THE BAD” etc) but there’s 3 interlinked papers in question that are the big picture: D11, D10 and T10 that must be read and dissected in conjunction because they all hang together (consistent as D11 says Line 92). If the D10 – T10 “consistency” is shown to be non-existent by errors in either paper, then the Team will be at loggerheads with each other – and they can’t let that happen.

      SB11 addresses D10 but is there a paper that similarly addresses T10?

      There’s a lot a stake, have I got this right?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/09/2011 at 6:43 pm said:

      More background from Spencer’s blog.

      New Results on Climate Sensitivity: Models vs. Observations




      Dessler 2010 only addressed ZERO time lag.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/09/2011 at 6:58 pm said:

      And this:-

      In his paper [D10], Dessler dismissed all of the evidence we presented with a single claim: that since (1) the global temperature variations which occurred during the satellite record (2000-2010) were mostly caused by El Nino and La Nina, and (2) no one has ever demonstrated that “clouds cause El Nino”, then there could not be a clouds-causing-temperature-change contamination of his cloud feedback estimate.

      But we now have clear evidence that El Nino and La Nina temperature variations are indeed caused in large measure by changes in clouds, with the cloud changes coming months in advance of the temperature changes.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/09/2011 at 7:17 pm said:

      And this:-

      Dick Lindzen has chimed in on my side in recent days, but Andy [Dessler] continues to claim that – at least during the 2000-2010 period in question — I have provided no evidence that clouds cause climate variations.

      This is remarkably similar to how Kevin Trenberth rebutted my last congressional testimony…”clouds don’t cause climate change”, is approximately what I recall Kevin saying.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 15/09/2011 at 10:49 am said:

      Commentary (in their inimitable style) from C3 Headlines:-

      Spencer Cloud Research Uses IPCC Gold-Standard HadCRUT Data, But New Dessler Study Avoids Gold-Standard Benchmark

      New research published today by Andy Dessler, an IPCC Climategate scientist, appears to have major shortcomings. His new study was greased, like goose leavings, through the peer reviewed process in just a few weeks, which may have contributed to the work’s shoddiness.

      Supposedly, Dessler’s new research was to be a refutation of the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study that revealed clouds were likely to be a negative climate feedback. Instead of doing an apple-to-apple comparison though, Dessler chose a different temperature dataset (a non-consensus dataset avoided by the IPCC) than the Spencer research.

      Unfortunately, the choice of non-HadCRUT, non-IPCC dataset, reflects the unbridled cherry-picking temptation that the Dessler research fell victim to. If the HadCRUT dataset is the IPCC benchmark that Spencer research followed, then Dessler should have met the scientific challenge by using the same best-of-breed data that the IPCC demands.

      It now seems obvious that Dessler knew his research would falter if based on the gold-standard of the IPCC. If this wasn’t the case, why not use the gold-standard?

      Even with his cherry-picking of the dataset, Dessler research does not hold up to the statistical scrutiny that Steve McIntyre brings to the table. It didn’t take long for Steve to ascertain that the positive cloud feedback that Dessler claims might not be so “positive.”


      “non-IPCC dataset” – ironic.

    • Andy on 15/09/2011 at 11:52 am said:

      Perhaps the editor of Science will send a written apology to Kevin Trenberth

      He he!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/09/2011 at 10:16 am said:

      Trenberth gets a rebuttal to Spencer and Braswell published: turnaround 1 day

      Posted on September 16, 2011 by Anthony Watts

      Turbo Peer Review is the new normal it seems. Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit writes:

      Bishop Hill draws attention to the publication of Trenberth’s comment on Spencer and Braswell 2011 in Remote Sensing. Unlike Trenberth’s presentation to the American Meteorological Society earlier this year (see here here here), Trenberth et al 2011 was not plagiarized.

      The review process for Trenberth was, shall we say, totally different than the review process for O’Donnell et al 2010 or the comment by Ross and me on Santer et al 2008. The Trenberth article was accepted on the day that it was submitted:

      Received: 8 September 2011 / Accepted: 8 September 2011 / Published: 16 September 2011

      CA readers are well aware of long-term obstruction by the Team not simply regarding details of methodology, but even data. Trenberth objects to incompleteness of methodological description in Spencer and Braswell 2011 as follows:

      Moreover, the description of their method was incomplete, making it impossible to fully reproduce their analysis. Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.

      Obviously these are principles that have been advocated at Climate Audit for years.I’ve urged the archiving of both data and code for articles at the time of publication to avoid such problems. However, these suggestions have, all too often, been resolutely opposed by the Team. Even supporting data, all to often, remains unavailable. I haven’t had time to fully parse Spencer and Braswell as to reproducibility but note that Spencer promptly provided supporting data to me when requested (as did Dessler.) In my opinion, Spencer and Braswell should have archived data as used and source code concurrent with publication, as I’ve urged others to do. However, their failure to do so is hardly unique within the field. That Trenberth was able to carry out a sensitivity study as quickly as he did suggests to me that their methodology was substantially reproducibile, but, as I noted above, I haven’t parsed the article.

      Trenberth observes that “minor changes” in assumptions yielded “major changes” in results, concluding that the claims in Lindzen and Choi 2009 were not robust:

      read the rest here: More Hypocrisy from the Team [Climate Audit link]


    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/09/2011 at 2:55 pm said:

      The Carnegie Institution for Science, Department of Global Ecology study focuses on LOW cloud but the Spencer – Braswell vs Dessler – Trenberth argument is about the NETT effect of all clouds.

      The argument however is being couched in warmist terms by Team cheerleaders i.e in a “warming world” blah-de-blah, see this Live Science article: Clouds: The Wild Card of Climate Change”:-

      Currently, all of the Earth’s clouds exert a net cooling effect on our planet. But the substantial and opposing influences of clouds begs the question: What will be the net effect of all of the Earth’s clouds on climate as the Earth continues to warm in the future? Will clouds accelerate warming or help offset, or dull, warming?”


      Most scientists doubt that the net cooling effect of clouds will ever be large enough to completely offset ongoing warming.

      [What on-going warming? And “most scientists” – who cares?]

      But many scientists say that if warming were to increase cooling clouds or decrease warming clouds, the current net cooling effect of clouds on the Earth’s climate would probably increase.

      [The author (Lily Whiteman, National Science Foundation) omits the negative feedback loop here and non-temperature drivers, see below]

      This would moderate, or offset, ongoing warming. The result: The Earth’s end-of-the-century temperature may be pulled down toward the lower end of its predicted range.

      But if, on the other hand, warming were to increase warming clouds or decrease cooling clouds, scientists say the current net cooling effect of clouds on the Earth’s climate would probably decrease, and an important moderating force on ongoing warming would thereby diminish. The result: The Earth’s end-of-the-century temperature may be pushed up toward the upper end of its predicted range.

      The resulting rise in temperature would, in a positive feedback loop, tend to promote the formation of even more warming clouds or further reduce the presence of cooling clouds.

      [Ah yes, the temperature-only driven “positive feedback” loop]

      Either way, temperatures would rise even higher. ”

      [The validity of the last sentence being predicated on the notion that CO2 is the major climate driver]

      Therefore, the controversy is in five parts:

      1) The cause of cloud variation

      2) The sign of the feedback from the nett effect (CLD) of the variation.

      3) Relationship between CLD forcing and temperature

      4) Difference between models and observations

      5) Climate change

      Opposing positions:-

      Team says 1) is caused by temperature only,

      Others say 1) is caused by a solar-cosmic dynamic.

      Team says 2) is positive only (Dessler 0.54 w/m2/K)

      Others say 2) is weakly negative (McIntyre -0.96 w/m2/K)

      Team says 3) is temperature >>> clouds only

      Spencer-Braswell says 3) is temperature >>> <<< clouds

      Team says 4) is agreement using instantaneous relationship

      Others say 4) is no agreement using lagged relationship that is more significant than instantaneous

      Team say climate warms only

      Others say climate warms and cools

      [I’ll need to check 2) and 4) at some stage]

      An increase in LOW cloud (see Carnegie study) caused by 1) is this action in 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5) depending on other (e.g. high cloud) variations:-

      Team: temperature >>> + CLD >>> temperature increase >>> disagreement >>> climate warms

      Others: solar-cosmic >>> – or + CLD >>> temperature decrease or increase >>> disagreement >>> climate cools or warms

      Obviously the Team say there is agreement in models vs observations but Dessler neglects the bigger picture.

      Obvious also is that the cause of evaporation in the Carnegie study (let alone an increase) and low cloud formation as a result of it is very complex in 1) for both Team and Others and we need to know as much about the process as possible.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/09/2011 at 3:13 pm said:

      More from Live Science, this time by Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer:-

      Within days of the editor’s resignation, Dessler published a study refuting Spencer’s claims in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

      “I said, ‘Let’s quantitatively measure how much energy the clouds are trapping and how much energy it takes to change the climate, and see if the clouds are trapping enough energy to change the climate,’” Dessler said. “The answer is, they’re not.”

      [McIntyre (using Dessler’s data) says implicitly, they are]

      The changes Spencer saw in his model are explained by El Niño/La Niña cycles, Dessler said, not caused by clouds.


      The El Niño/La Niña cycles seem to be a point-of-difference for the Team but I can’t yet get my head around how this fits into the controversy given the deficiency in Dessler’s paper (lag vs instantaneous CLD forcing – temperature relationship).

    • Australis on 17/09/2011 at 4:48 pm said:

      I think a key difference is that D10 contends that clouds can only produce feedbacks – and cannot provide the initial forcing.

      D11 says that the temp changes Spencer saw were the result of ENSO, not clouds. ie the cloud behaviour was a reaction.

      Spencer seems to say that the ENSO was itself driven by clouds. ie the cloud behaviour was the prime mover.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/09/2011 at 11:10 pm said:

      The El Niño/La Niña point-of-difference.

      Spencer responds to this:-

      The changes Spencer saw in his model are explained by El Niño/La Niña cycles, Dessler said, not caused by clouds.

      With this:-

      In his paper, Dessler dismissed all of the evidence we presented with a single claim: that since (1) the global temperature variations which occurred during the satellite record (2000-2010) were mostly caused by El Nino and La Nina, and (2) no one has ever demonstrated that “clouds cause El Nino”, then there could not be a clouds-causing-temperature-change contamination of his cloud feedback estimate.

      But we now have clear evidence that El Nino and La Nina temperature variations are indeed caused in large measure by changes in clouds, with the cloud changes coming months in advance of the temperature changes.


      And this:-

      At the heart of this debate is whether cloud changes, through their ability to alter how much sunlight is allowed in to warm the Earth, can cause temperature change.

      We claim they can, and have demonstrated so with both phase space plots of observed temperature versus Earth radiative budget variations here [SB10], and with lag-regression plots of the same data here [SB11], and with a forcing-feedback model of the average climate system in both of those publications. (The model we used was suggested to us by Isaac Held, Princeton-GFDL, who is hardly a global warming “skeptic”.)



      Dessler says: El Niño/La Niña “not caused by clouds”

      Spencer says: El Niño/La Niña “caused in large measure by changes in clouds, with the cloud changes coming months in advance of the temperature changes

      And Dessler refuses SB10 and SB11 as demonstrations of El Niño/La Niña being caused by changes in clouds.

      Now Trenberth has a comment on SB11 in Remote Sensing (linked at CA) that is the subject of this article by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:-

      “More Hypocrisy from the Team”


      Trenberth wildly overstates Dessler 2011 as well by saying that it “quantifies the magnitude and role of clouds and shows that cloud effects are small”. “Quantifying the magnitude and role of clouds” is an enormous undertaking and would take hundreds of pages of analysis. Dessler 2011 is a short little article addressing a narrow issue. It did not pretend to “quantify the magnitude and role of clouds” nor did it do so.

      See also more background here:-

      “More Thoughts on the War Being Waged Against Us” by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.


      It is obvious to many people what is going on behind the scenes. The next IPCC report (AR5) is now in preparation, and there is a bust-gut effort going on to make sure that either (1) no scientific papers get published which could get in the way of the IPCC’s politically-motivated goals, or (2) any critical papers that DO get published are discredited with any and all means available.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/10/2011 at 2:24 pm said:

      I’ve Looked at Clouds from Both Sides Now -and Before

      October 8th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

      …sometimes, the most powerful evidence is right in front of your face…..

      I never dreamed that anyone would dispute the claim that cloud changes can cause “cloud radiative forcing” of the climate system, in addition to their role as responding to surface temperature changes (“cloud radiative feedback”). (NOTE: “Cloud radiative forcing” traditionally has multiple meanings. Caveat emptor.)

      But that’s exactly what has happened. Andy Dessler’s 2010 and 2011 papers have claimed, both implicitly and explicitly, that in the context of climate, with very few exceptions, cloud changes must be the result of temperature change only.

      Shortly after we became aware of Andy’s latest paper, which finally appeared in GRL on October 1, I realized the most obvious and most powerful evidence of the existence of cloud radiative forcing was staring us in the face. We had actually alluded to this in our previous papers, but there are so many ways to approach the issue that it’s easy to get sidetracked by details, and forget about the Big Picture.

      Well, the following graph is the Big Picture……..

      [See plot and details]

      What this graph shows is very simple, but also very powerful: The radiative variations CERES measures look nothing like what the radiative feedback should look like. You can put in any feedback parameter you want (the IPCC models range from 0.91 to 1.87…I think it could be more like 3 to 6 in the real climate system), and you will come to the same conclusion.

      And if CERES is measuring something very different from radiative feedback, it must — by definition — be radiative forcing (for the detail-oriented folks, forcing = Net + feedback…where Net is very close to the negative of [LW+SW]).

      The above chart makes it clear that radiative feedback is only a small portion of what CERES measures. There is no way around this conclusion.


      I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, it’s going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/10/2011 at 7:22 am said:

      Our GRL Response to Dessler Takes Shape, and the Evidence Keeps Mounting

      October 12th, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

      I will be revealing some of the evidence we will be submitting to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) in response to Dessler’s paper claiming to refute our view of the forcing role of clouds in the climate system.

      To whet your appetite, here is a draft version of one of the illustrations (click for the large version). It clearly shows the large discrepancy which exists between the IPCC climate models and satellite observations in the way they show the Earth shedding excess radiant energy in response to warming. This is central to question of how much warming can be expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, because the less radiant energy the model’s shed per degree of warming, the more the models continue to warm.



  23. Maurice@TheMount on 16/09/2011 at 5:30 pm said:

    The Law of “it”
    If it is settled it is not science.
    If it is science it is not settled.
    Therefore IPCC Climate Science is NOT science, it is HIWTYL BS.
    HIWTYL….Heads I Win Tails You Lose.
    BS………….Bureaucratic Science (Akin to what a bull does)

  24. Richard C (NZ) on 16/11/2011 at 8:30 am said:

    Prominent Chinese Climate Scientists Conclude IPCC Is Worthless: “restricted by its political tendencies”

    Global warming agenda of elites becomes a major fail…empirical evidence does not support CO2 climate change hypothesis.

    Read here. The world’s science community is slowly but surely coming to the same conclusion as global warming skeptics: the UN’s IPCC is nothing more than political propaganda devoted to the anti-empirical science of big green special interest groups/lobbyists.

    The team of climate researchers, Fang et al., came to the following conclusions after an exhaustive review of the IPCC’s “consensus” climate science:

    “…with regard to the IPCC claim that “the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (including CO2) is the driving force for climate warming,” they note the following four problems:

    (1) “it remains unclear how the human and natural factors, especially the aerosols, affect the global temperature change,”

    (2) “over the past century, the temperature change has not always been consistent with the change of CO2 concentration,” since “for several periods, global temperatures decreased or were stable while the atmospheric CO2 concentration continuously increased,”

    (3) “there is no significant correlation between the annual increment of the atmospheric CO2 concentration and the annual anomaly of annual mean temperature,” and

    (4) “the observed significant increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration may not be totally attributable to anthropogenic emissions because there are great uncertainties in the sources of CO2 concentration in [the] atmosphere.” [JingYun Fang, JiangLing Zhu, ShaoPeng Wang, Chao Yue and HaiHua Shen 2011: Science China Earth Sciences]

    Unfortunately, the establishment apparatchiks are still wasting their time and untold billions on a political agenda, based on a failed global warming theory and climate change denial of reality, while real problems go unresolved.


    Great to see Earth Scientists stating the obvious – although the reaction to this coming from China is predictable.

  25. Richard C (NZ) on 12/02/2012 at 9:43 am said:

    Just read ‘Chivers on cosmoclimatology’ at Bishop Hill:-


    AM says:-

    One other thing about Tom Chivers’ posting:

    …if [cosmic rays] did lead to cloud formation, that would not necessarily lead to cooling. Clouds don’t only cool the planet: they reflect sunlight, but they also prevent heat from escaping from the Earth. Higher clouds and clouds further from the equator have a cooling effect; lower ones and ones near the equator tend to warm the planet.

    The effect of low level clouds was touched on the Hockey Stick Illusion, where I briefly discussed a review paper by Bony et al (2006) looking at the low-level clouds (boundary layer clouds, in the jargon). I was struck by how different Bony’s story on the effects of low level clouds is to Tom Chivers’. Here is what she said in her paper:

    Boundary layer clouds have a strongly negative [feedback effect] . . . and cover a very large fraction of the area of the Tropics . . . Understanding how they may change in a perturbed climate therefore constitutes a vital part of the cloud feedback problem.

    So my understanding of the scientific literature is that low level clouds actually cool the planet. In Tom Chivers’ defence, it’s easy to get confused in this area because as readers of the Hockey Stick Illusion know, when the IPCC came to discuss boundary layer clouds in the Fourth Assessment Report, they lifted Bony’s text almost word for word, but making one rather important alteration:

    Boundary-layer clouds have a strong impact . . . and cover a large fraction of the global ocean . . . . Understanding how they may change in a perturbed climate is thus a vital part of the cloud feedback problem.

    Not all climate scientists are charlatans, and those who suggest they are are wrong. That said, I hope Tom will concede that there is a real problem with charlatanry among some scientists working on the IPCC assessments.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on 14/09/2012 at 6:56 pm said:

    The IPCC Sinks to a New Low

    Roger Pielke, Jr.

    Back in May, Chris Field, co-chair of IPCC Working Group II emailed me with a request:

    As per your request, the IPCC is prepared to take another look at the AR4 text on disaster trends. The spirit of these “second looks” is to evaluate whether the assessment should have said something else, based on the literature cited and on the information that was available within the window for AR4 literature. The error protocol does not allow a new assessment based on literature published since the AR4 literature cutoff, and it is not intended as a broad reinterpretation of the information assessed by the authors.

    To clarify your request, can you send a specific statement of the alleged error or errors that you would like to see addressed?

    As my request to Field was informal, and not one I ever expected to see action on, this initiation of contact with me seemed to me like the IPCC was turning a corner, and taking seriously scientific accuracy on disasters and climate change. So I prepared a concise and specific reply to Field’s request. Today I heard back from the IPCC. The response is laughable, and indicates that the IPCC is more interested in playing games than in scientific accuracy. Nothing below is complicated or nuanced.

    Here are the details from the response that the IPCC sent to me today, annotated with my comments. In the material below the four passages under “Text from Roger Pielke, Jr.” is that which I provided to Chris Field in May in response to his email request. Under each of those I have blockqouted the IPCC response to my claims, which is titled “CLA Finding.” Below that I highlight my comments today in response to each of the four responses.

    With that, let’s have a look . . .



  27. Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 2:12 pm said:


    “….the science of radiant heat transfer has matured to the point where engineering solutions have been developed and widely implemented”


    R. VISKANTA and M. P. MENGO, 1987

    Abstract An adequate treatment of thermal radiation heat transfer is essential to a mathematical model of the combustion process or to a design of a combustion system. This paper reviews the fundamentals of radiation heat transfer and some recent progress in its modeling in combustion systems. Topics covered include radiative properties of combustion products and their modeling and methods of solving the radiative transfer equations. Examples of sample combustion systems in which radiation has been accounted for in the analysis are presented. In several technologically important, practical combustion systems coupling of radiation to other modes of heat transfer is discussed. Research needs are identified and potentially promising research topics are also suggested.


    [Warning: 64 pages and 334 references]

    “An in-depth review of the world literature on the thermal radiation properties of gaseous combustion products (H20, CO2, CO, SO2, NO and N20 ) has recently been prepared. 4”

    4. BLOKH, A. G., Heat TransJer in Steam Boiler Furnaces,
    Energoatomizdat, Leningrad (1984) (in Russian) (to be
    published by Hemisphere Publishing Corp., Washington,

    “Detailed reviews of radiation heat transfer in pulverized coal-fired furnaces are available. 4″272″299 Radiation heat transfer in furnaces is due to gaseous and particulate contributions. Emissivity data for the major emitting gaseous species CO2 and H20 are generally adequate. 4.64”

    64. SAROFIM, A. F. and HOTTEL, H. C., Heat Transfer–
    1978, Vol. 6, pp. 199-217, Hemisphere Publishing
    Corp., Washington, D.C. 11978).

    “The expressions for the total emissivity and absorptivity of a gas in terms of the weighted sum of gray gases are useful especially for the zonal method of analysis of radiative transfer.

    There are several curve-fitted expressions available in the literature for use in computer codes. Some of them are given in terms of polynomials 48- 50 and the others are expressed in terms of the weighted sum-of-gray gases. 51~-54”

    48. LECKNER, B., Combust. Flame 19, 33 (1972).
    49. MODAK, A. T., Fire Res. I, 339 11979).
    50. STEWARD, F R. and KOCAEFE, Y. S., Heat TronsJer–
    1986, C. L. Tien, V. P. Carey, and J. K. Ferrell (Eds),
    Vol. 2, pp. 735-740, Hemisphere Publishing Corp.,
    Washington, D.C. (1986).
    51. TAYLOR, P. B. and FOSTER, P. J., Int. J. Heat Mass
    TransJer 17, 1591 11974).
    52. SMrm, T. F., SHEN, Z. F. and FRIEDMAN, J. N., J. Heot
    Transfer 104. 602 (1982[
    53. FARAG, I. H., Heat Transfer 1982, U. Grigull, E.
    Hahne, K. Stephan and J. Straub (Eds), VoL 2. pp.
    489-492. Hemisphere, Washington, D.C. (1982).
    54. COPALLE, A. and VERVlSCH, P., Combust. Flame 49. 101

    “Radiation accounts for about 40 % of the total heat transferred to the cylinder, but the radiation from gases (CO2 and H20 ) is only 20 % of the total radiation, with the rest being soot radiation”

    Amazing to find what the IPCC DOESN’T defer to when you start digging.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 2:45 pm said:

      “Radiation accounts for about 40 % of the total heat transferred to the cylinder, but the radiation from gases (CO2 and H20 ) is only 20 % of the total radiation, with the rest being soot radiation”

      Interesting. Soot (black carbon) gets a mention in the IPCC’s net anthropogenic radiative forcing table when it’s on snow as an albedo forcing and is included in total aerosols:-



    • Simon on 18/09/2012 at 3:07 pm said:

      We don’t live in a pulverized coal-fired furnace though.
      We might in a couple of hundred years time though 😉

    • Oh, funny, Simon – but you over-mis-exaggerate 🙂

      The fact remains that the IPCC has mentioned only the reflective qualities of soot, not its radiative capabilities.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 3:40 pm said:

      “The fact remains that the IPCC has mentioned only the reflective qualities of soot”

      The Wiki Black Carbon link says “a more recent estimate by V. Ramanathan and G. Carmichael of 0.9 W/m2” [Reference is 48 but I think that’s an error, should be 50 – see below


      “Based on the IPCC estimate, it would be reasonable to conclude that the combined direct and indirect snow albedo effects for black carbon rank it as the third largest contributor to globally averaged positive radiative forcing since the pre-industrial period. In comparison, the more recent direct radiative forcing estimate by Ramanathan and Carmichael [50] would lead one to conclude that black carbon has contributed the second largest globally averaged radiative forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2), and that the radiative forcing of black carbon is “as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other greenhouse gasses (GHGs) such as CH4, CFCs, N2O, or tropospheric ozone.”

      50 ^ V. Ramanathan and G. Carmichael, Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon, 1 NATURE GEOSCIENCE 221-22 (23 March 2008) (“The BC forcing of 0.9 W m–2 (with a range of 0.4 to 1.2 W m–2) … is as much as 55% of the CO2 forcing and is larger than the forcing due to the other GHGs such as CH4, CFCs, N2O or tropospheric ozone.”)


      Not sure yet how they’ve gone about determining the forcing.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 3:53 pm said:

      “Not sure yet how they’ve gone about determining the forcing”

      Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with well-calibrated and miniaturized instruments apparently:-

      “Direct measurement of this solar heating has evaded us until
      now as it requires multiple aircraft flying over the same domain
      at different altitudes to measure flux divergences (that is, heating
      rates) for an extensive period of time. These challenges were
      recently overcome by deploying three lightweight unmanned
      aerial vehicles (UAVs) with well-calibrated and miniaturized
      instruments to simultaneously measure aerosols, BC and
      spectral as well as broadband radiation fluxes14,51,52. The UAV
      study14 demonstrated that ABCs with a visible absorption optical
      depth as low as 0.02 are sufficient to enhance solar heating of the
      lower atmosphere by 50%. Global average BC solar heating of the
      atmosphere, as per the present estimate, is 2.6 W m–2 (Fig. 2c),
      which is comparable to the TOA GHG forcing (Fig. 2a).”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 3:58 pm said:

      Figure 3’s an eye opener (yes I know – “simulated”):-

      Figure 3 Simulated atmospheric temperature change due to GHGs and BC for the
      South Asian region. The values are annual mean temperature changes over the
      South Asian region, averaged from 20° N to 40° N and from 70° E to 100° E. The
      blue line is the change due to the increase in all GHGs and sulphate aerosols as
      simulated by ref. 60. The red line is the estimated temperature change due to BC
      taken from the global circulation model study of Chung and Seinfeld67.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 4:02 pm said:

      “The uncertainty in the published estimates for BC emissions is a factor of two to five on regional scales and at least ±50% on global scales”

      “Unlike the greenhouse effect of CO2, which leads to a positive radiative forcing of the atmosphere and at the surface26 with moderate latitudinal gradients27,28, black carbon has opposing effects of adding energy to the atmosphere and reducing it at the surface. Furthermore the forcing has significant latitudinal gradients. It alters the radiative forcing through a complex web of processes7.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 4:19 pm said:

      “We have just begun to comprehend the chain of response and feedbacks on the regional climate due to BC9,12,14,23,59–65.”

      “What are the opportunities to reduce the positive forcing
      by BC? Providing alternative energy-efficient and smoke-free
      cookers and introducing transferring technology for reducing soot
      emissions from coal combustion in small industries could have
      major impacts on the radiative forcing due to soot97. Figure 4b
      shows the impact of replacing biofuel cooking with BC-free
      cookers (solar and bio and natural gas) in South and East Asia.
      The impacts are dramatic: over South Asia, a 70 to 80% reduction
      in BC heating; and in East Asia, a 20 to 40% reduction. The impact
      on human health will potentially be even more dramatic as over
      400,000 annual fatalities among women and children are attributed
      to smoke inhalation during indoor cooking93,94”

      Seems to me that BC-free cookers to alleviate “over 400,000 annual fatalities among women and children” outranks GHG concerns by a very wide margin.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 5:15 pm said:

      “Not sure yet how they’ve gone about determining the forcing”

      I’m guessing that if the IPCC didn’t defer to established heat transfer science for CO2, that Ramanathan and Carmichael didn’t for soot either. There’s nothing in the 98 references to indicate they did.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 6:04 pm said:

      “about 50% (soot) vs 50% (CO2) [uncertainty ±50%] in the atmosphere”

      Should be,

      about 33% (soot) vs 66% (CO2) [uncertainty ±50%] in the atmosphere

      That’s if soot is about 50% of CO2.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 4:43 pm said:

      “We don’t live in a pulverized coal-fired furnace though” – No we don’t, but “Green” Germany is doing their utmost to live BY coal-fired electricity though.

      The principles of radiative heat transfer are the same whether the atmosphere under consideration is in a furnace/combustion chamber or 0 – 10 km above the earth’s surface. WRT BC (soot), obviously the effect is different in either case because the dispersion is vastly different but it’s obvious that the effect is major in both compared to CO2: 80% (soot) vs 20% (CO2 + H2O) in a combustion chamber and about 50% (soot) vs 50% (CO2) [uncertainty ±50%] in the atmosphere.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/11/2012 at 8:08 am said:


      N. Lallemant*, A. Sayret and R. Weber


      Emissivity correlations are usually limited to calculations of the CO, and H20 total emissivity. Mathematically, these models appear either in the form of the weighted sum of gray gases model (WSGGM)4-‘5 or in the form of polynomials.‘-3 Existing WSGGM are somewhat less general than the polynomial correlations since coefficients for the WSGGM have to be recalculated for each H20/ CO1 partial pressure ratio. Polynomial correlations such as those of Leckner2 and Modak3 do not feature such shortcomings; they involve many more fitted coefficients (e.g. 48 for each species in Modak’s model) but retain all the generality required to model total emissivity of gas mixtures. Both types of correlations are accurate enough and simple to use in engineering calculations. However, they are often limited to total emissivity calculations in volumes of gas with a mean beam length greater than 1 cm. This section surveys the total emissivity correlations presented in Table 2. Only the models which have been widely applied in CFD modeling of flames and engineering combustion problems are described.

      3.2. Polynomial Approximations
      The two most well-known and general total emissivity correlations using polynomials are those developed by L.eckne2 and Modak.3 Prior to these publications, Hadvig’ derived polynomial expressions to calculate the total emissivity of HzO-CO2 gas mixtures for pW/pC = 1 and pW/pC = 2. However, in view of the limited range of applicability of this model, it is excluded from the assessment in Section 4.

      4.1. Generalities
      In this section, the exponential wide band model (EWBM)25,26 is used to provide benchmark data to validate the total emissivity models developed by Johnson6 Leckner,2 Taylor and Foster,’ Modak,3 Smith et a1.,13 Coppale and Vervish14 and Steward and Kocaefe” (see Table 2).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/11/2012 at 3:23 pm said:

      The above paper Lallemant, Sayret and Weber (1996) includes verification of the polynomial CO2 path length curves of Leckner from which Professor John Eggert selected the q(278) curve plotted here:-


  28. Richard C (NZ) on 23/10/2012 at 5:01 pm said:

    IPCC Check Kites Gergis

    Steve McIntyre

    A few days ago, WUWT pointed out that the American Meteorological Society webpage showed that the Gergis et al paper had been officially “withdrawn”. However, readers should know better than to presume that this would have any effect on IPCC use of the reconstruction.

    The withdrawal of the Gergis article hasn’t had the slightest impact on IPCC usage of the Gergis reconstruction, which continues to be used in the recently released AR5 Second Order Draft, thanks to academic check kiting reminiscent of Ammann and Wahl. Tim Osborn of CRU is a Lead Author of the AR5 chapter (as he was in AR4) and would be familiar with the technique from AR4.

    Although David Karoly had denied that Gergis et al had been withdrawn, the AMS finally admitted this at their website here.


    However, the Gergis reconstruction continues to be used in the IPCC Second Order Draft (released for review in early October). The figure below shows its use in the First Order Draft on the left and its use in the Second Order Draft on the right – the two reconstructions are identical up to smoothing.


    However, the attribution has changed. The First Order Draft attributed the reconstruction to Gergis et al (then submitted to Journal of Climate, later accepted and then withdrawn. See CA posts here). The Second Order Draft attributes the Gergis reconstruction to PAGES 2K Consortium (submitted to Science).

    I presume that the PAGES 2K Consortium has done a little academic check kiting a la Wahl and Ammann i.e. that they have cited the Gergis et al reconstruction even though the article has been withdrawn. The IPCC then cited the article that kited the check (a kitation? 🙂 )

    It would be interesting to see precisely how the PAGES 2K Consortium (of which Gergis was a member) stickhandled their citation of the withdrawn Gergis et al article. I doubt that they were entirely candid with Sciencemag on the matter.

    The PAGES 2K consortium article should be online to Second Order Draft reviewers at the WG1 website, but I haven’t seen it because I haven’t signed up as a reviewer since I am not prepared to agree to the secrecy demands instituted by Thomas Stocker at Phil Jones’ urging. But for any IPCC reviewers reading this post, take a look. See if this most recent check-kiting makes you proud to be part of the organization.


  29. Richard C (NZ) on 11/12/2012 at 8:40 am said:

    Climate change predictions right on the mark


    1990 IPCC Report Successfully Predicted Warming, New Study Shows


    “When Frame and Stone took natural variability into account, they found that the observed warming was consistent with the IPCC’s best estimate for warming”.

    # # #

    Another in the vein of Rahmstorf, Foster and Cazenave (don’t look at CMIP5, actual trajectory, global dimming/brightening, misconstrue natural variability etc but Bryan Leyland sets the record straight).

    David Frame loses all credibility with this effort.

    • Mike Jowsey on 11/12/2012 at 8:58 am said:

      Bryan Leyland gets an entire sentence in. Wow – balanced reporting huh?

    • Simon on 11/12/2012 at 10:58 pm said:

      Balance? I wasn’t aware that Brian Leyland had written any papers on climate change in refereed scientific journals. Unless he has done so, his opinion carries no more weight than any other lay-person.
      I see on Brian’s website that he claims that 2012 would be a “cool” year. Give that 2012 is tracking to be the ninth warmest on record despite La Nina starting conditions, his powers of prediction seem to be somewhat lacking.

    • Andy on 12/12/2012 at 6:39 am said:

      Amazing then , isn’t it, how 30% of the last IPCC report is non peer reviewed, including the infamous Stern Report on which governments base a lot of their climate policy?

      Presumably Stern should also be treated with the same disdain?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 12/12/2012 at 8:37 am said:

      >”Give that 2012 is tracking to be the ninth warmest on record despite La Nina starting conditions, his powers of prediction seem to be somewhat lacking”

      Are you sure?

      ‘Global warming is slowing down, says Met Office’


      “……2012 is cooler than the average for the past decade, that was pushed up by soaring temperatures in 2010 and 2005”.

      “Dr Stott said that 2011 and 2012 have been cooler because of La Nina pattern in the southern oceans”.

      + + +

      Comparing 2012 to Date with Previous Years

      Global Year to Date Temperature Anomalies



      # # #

      Definitely a “cool” year in the context of the decade. Stott is adamant that “”It has slowed down but it will speed up at some point”. Doubtful. The PDO’s in cold mode and the sun’s going into hibernation, get used to some more “cool” years in the near future.

    • Magoo on 12/12/2012 at 10:41 am said:

      Raises the question as to why Pachauri, Gore, & Ban Ki Moon keep getting quoted about climate change in newspaper articles. At least Leyland bases his arguments on scientific facts instead of making it up on the hoof like the aforementioned trio and their ‘voodoo science’.

    • Mike Jowsey on 12/12/2012 at 12:15 pm said:

      @ Simon:
      “his opinion carries no more weight than any other lay-person.”
      Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).

      I don’t give particular weight to letters after a name. If the logic and facts of their argument stack up and are reproducible, then it matters not whether they are a rocket scientist or a railroad engineer.

    • Andy on 12/12/2012 at 8:27 pm said:

      It’s funny though, as Prof Dave Frame points out the media are quite happy to quote Bill McKibben,


      Of course, for the terminally smug, it is ok to use far left anti capitalist activists such as McKibben as your source, regardless of their scientific credentials.

      Meanwhile, they furiously tweet their drivel from their iPads, braying about their moral superiority, prattling on about their carbon footprint and the number of solar panels they own.

      Tis the time to be merry folks….

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2012 at 9:02 am said:

      DF seems intent on “keeping it in the family”. Kudos to Rob Painting in that regard (“Dave Frame, you appear to be afflicted with a severe case of IvoryTower-itis”).

      There’s plenty of people from outside the climate science clique who are perfectly able to compile and interpret temperature series (despite Venning’s opinion) due to career-long experience and skills with similar data in far more critical environments.

      BTW re carbon footprints. DWTV Global 3000 reports Doha’s carbon footprint was over 133,000 tonnes.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2012 at 9:54 am said:

      Barbra on Climate Change.

      NOVEMBER 2, 2012, 5:10 am

      By Barbra Streisand.

      In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, I can’t comprehend how there are still climate change deniers out there. Yet there are. These last few days, we’ve all seen pictures of New Jersey and New York LITERALLY under water. And the extreme droughts in the Midwest, the floods in Vermont and the fires in Colorado and Texas this year only validate what nearly every leading scientist has confirmed: Climate change is REAL and causes extreme weather conditions.

      No matter how loud Mother Nature screams, we never seem to listen. We’ve got to get serious about investing in solutions to this serious threat before it gets any worse. We know which party thinks that climate change is a hoax. We know whose policies will subsidize polluters over funding FEMA. Think about the opportunity we have to invest in new sources of technology that will produce clean energy and the millions of new jobs that will be created. One party is willing to have this conversation, the other won’t even sit at the table. This is no longer a fight about ideology. It’s a fight about the kind of world we want to pass on to our children. So, let’s start the conversation on November 6th at the voting booth and make our voices heard.

      My Foundation started supporting climate change work in 1989, when I donated a quarter of a million dollars to support the work of environmental scientist Dr. Michael Oppenheimer at the Environmental Defense Fund. Since then, I, and others have spent countless millions on this issue. Unfortunately, due to the lack of political courage by some politicians and relentless lobbying and campaign contributions from the powerful oil and fossil fuel industries, progress on this issue has been impossible.


      “Environmental scientist” Dr. Michael Oppenheimer becomes “climate scientist” for this Borenstein AP article regurgitated in Stuff on the “new reality” after “Hurricane” Sandy:-


      Climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer stood along the Hudson River and watched his research come to life as Hurricane Sandy blew through New York.

      Just eight months earlier, the Princeton University professor reported that what used to be once-in-a-century devastating floods in New York City would soon happen every three to 20 years. He blamed global warming for pushing up sea levels and changing hurricane patterns.

      New York “is now highly vulnerable to extreme hurricane-surge flooding,” he wrote. [it always was]

    • DF provided some useful links (his climate sensitivity paper was interesting) but unfortunately the cretins have taken over the thread again

    • Andy on 11/12/2012 at 11:04 am said:


      Sea levels will rise, though it is hard to say by how much.

      Continents will have warmer winters. Heatwaves will increase.

      The warming will be greatest over land areas at the highest northern latitudes, and least over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic.

      Meanwhile, Moscow has early snow, as does most of the European Alps. Early snow for Scotland,

      It looks to be staying cold and snowy for the next 14 days or so and with heavy snow and drifting forecast over the coming days we hope to open more uplift. It is looking good for the Christmas and New Year holidays!

    • Andy on 11/12/2012 at 6:00 pm said:

      This line of reasoning sounds a bit like the Christchurch insurance industry’s approach.

      “We have decided how much we will pay you and make various ad hoc adjustments and assumptions until that value is met”

  30. Richard C (NZ) on 31/12/2012 at 5:14 pm said:

    AR5 Chapter 11; Hiding the Decline (Part II)


    Figure 11.33: Synthesis of near-term projections of global mean surface air temperature. a), b) and c):-


    They hid the decline! In the first graph, observational data ends about 2011 or 12. In the second graph though, it ends about 2007 or 8. There are four or five years of observational data missing from the second graph. Fortunately the two graphs are scaled identically which makes it very easy to use a highly sophisticated tool called “cut and paste” to move the observational data from the first graph to the second graph and see what it should have looked like:


    Well oops. Once one brings the observational data up to date, it turns out that we are currently below the entire range of models in the 5% to 95% confidence range across all emission scenarios. The light gray shading is for RCP 4.5, the most likely emission scenario. But we’re also below the dark gray which is all emission scenarios for all models, including the ones where we strangle the global economy.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on 04/02/2013 at 10:15 am said:

    Norwegian Study Shows Global Temperature Not Warming as IPCC Predicted


    Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics at Potsdam University conducted a study in 2011 which showed that CO2 is having less of an effect on climate than the IPCC asserts to be true and that their “claim that they are 90 percent sure that humans have ‘contributed to’ the observed warming” cannot be proven without a reasonable doubt. Rahmstorf explains: “It is evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming. This is the possibility they do not allow to be considered, because it would end all of their policy-changing goals.”

    While Rahmstorf does believe that humans are having an effect on climate change, he maintains that simply blaming humanity solely for the changes is obscuring “the bigger picture.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/02/2013 at 10:25 am said:

      James Annan on climate sensitivity

      James Annan has a must-read post on climate sensitivity today, picking up on the Norwegian study, Nic Lewis’s work and the contents of the leaked IPCC report. Here are some choice excerpts:


      And there are some interesting comments on Nic Lewis’s work too. Great fun. Read the whole thing.


      “Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/02/2013 at 10:47 am said:

      BREAKING: an encouraging admission of lower climate sensitivity by a ‘hockey team’ scientist, along with new problems for the IPCC


      Last night I was cc’d an exceptional email from Andrew Revkin forwarding an email (Update: Andy says of a comment from Dot Earth) quoting climate scientist James Annan, who one could call a member of the “hockey team” based on his strong past opinions related to AGW and paleoclimatology.

      Andrew Revkin published the email today at the NYT Dot Earth blog as a comment in that thread, so now I am free to reproduce it here where I was not last night.

      Below is the comment left by Andy, quoting Annan’s email, bolding added:

      The climate scientist James Annan sent these thoughts by email:

      ‘Well, the press release is a bit strange, because it sounds like it is talking about the Aldrin et al paper which was published some time ago, to no great fanfare. I don’t know if they have a further update to that.

      Anyway, there have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.

      And this is what many have been saying now and for some time, that the climate sensitivity has been overestimated. Kudos to Annan for realizing the likelihood of a lower climate sensitivity.

      UPDATE: Annan now suggests the IPCC “is in a bit of a pickle”,

      UPDATE2: Title has been changed to reflect Annan’s new essay, suggesting lying for political purposes inside the IPCC. Also added some updates about Aldrin et al and other notes for accuracy.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/02/2013 at 9:20 am said:

      A Closer Look at Moderating Views of Climate Sensitivity



      “This is also not a “single-study syndrome” situation, where one outlier research paper is used to cast doubt on a bigger body of work — as Skeptical Science asserted over the weekend. That post focused on the as-yet-unpublished paper finding lower sensitivity that was inadvisedly promoted recently by the Research Council of Norway.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/02/2013 at 10:03 am said:

      WUWT, ‘The Revkin-Gavin debate on lower climate sensitivity’


      Links to Chip Knappenberger: ‘The yearly lukewarm report’. Also relevant.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 9:45 am said:

    (Reuters) – Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.


    A rapid rise in global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s – when clean air laws in developed nations cut pollution and made sunshine stronger at the earth’s surface – made for a compelling argument that human emissions were to blame.

    The IPCC will seek to explain the current pause in a report to be released in three parts from late 2013 as the main scientific roadmap for governments in shifting from fossil fuels towards renewable energies such as solar or wind power, the panel’s chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.


  33. Richard C (NZ) on 18/04/2013 at 10:48 am said:

    IPCC Co-Chair Thomas Stocker Flunks Major Swiss Interview – IPCC Science Hanging From Its Last Thread

    By P Gosselin on 17. April 2013

    Last week hard-hitting Swiss weekly Weltwoche published a revealing interview with IPCC WG-1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker. The interview was conducted by Markus Schär.

    Dr. Sebastian Lüning was given permission to republish the interview at the Die kalte Sonne site here, adding his rebuttals and corrections. Lüning writes: “Thomas Stocker showed a number of memory lapses in the Weltwoche-Interview.”

    What follows is the interview along with Lüning’s rebuttals in English. Because of the interview’s length, it will appear in 3 or 4 parts over the next few days. Some parts have been slightly shortened and edited.

    The Stocker interview not only exposes misleading science, but also provides good hints as to how the IPCC intends to approach its 5th report.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/04/2013 at 4:51 pm said:

      Part 2 Thomas Stocker Interview…Lüning: “IPCC Increasingly Unable To Maneuver, Detached From Reality”

      By P Gosselin on 18. April 2013

      Part 2 of the Stocker/Weltwoche interview

      In part 2, Stocker contradicts Ben Santer and claims that 17 years are not enough to establish a climate trend, insists that warming is taking place and that the model projections have been “extremely good”. Part 2 reveals how the IPCC science is hanging from a thread. Stocker obstinately maintains there is no CO2 lag behind temperature, claiming that they moved “simultaneously” in the past. Stocker erroneously believes CO2 is the only explanation for the 20th century warming.


    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/04/2013 at 2:20 pm said:

      Interview Part 3…WG1 Co-Chair Stocker Exposes His Rank Non-Objectivity / Activism

      By P Gosselin on 19. April 2013

      Here’s the last part of the tough Weltwoche interview with IPCC WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker (see Part 1 here and Part 2 here).


      Lüning: Next Weltwoche refers Stocker to the natural cycles, which fit well with the 20th century’s overall pattern. The Little Ice Age also was characterized by low solar activity.


      Lüning: We had to wait until the very end for Stocker to out himself as an activist. “The problem is there, it is one of the biggest that humanity faces,” he says. We should all be concerned when a leading IPCC referee, someone who is supposed to view and summarize the scientific literature objectively, has already personally made up his mind for the climate-alarmism side. With this backdrop, what are the chances the IPCC will revise its overblown temperature projections and modify its models when there is so much powerful evidence showing that natural climate factors are playing a role in the warming? How will Stocker suddenly appear when the anthropogenic global warming effect is far less dramatic than what he vehemently projected in the past and projects currently?

      One of the most important tasks for the IPCC in the coming years will be to prevent personal interest conflicts and to assure an appropriate amount of skepticism when handling scientific literature. Until then the IPCC reports unfortunately will not be able make any sensible contribution to understanding the complex climate interrelationships.


  34. Richard C (NZ) on 21/06/2013 at 8:13 pm said:

    ‘Perihelion precession, polar ice and global warming’

    Duncan Steel


    […] In this article I present prima facie evidence that the ongoing natural increase in spring
    insolation occurring at high northern latitudes, coupled with the positive feedback effect of the
    resultant snow and ice loss reducing the region’s mean albedo over summer, comprises just such a causative agency. This concept frames a working hypothesis in which the melting of Arctic ice is not so much a consequence of global warming as its cause. In this picture AGW due to rising levels of greenhouse gases remains as a contributor to the overall warming, but is not necessarily the dominant influence.

    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). […]

    The magnitude of the insolation changes

    The year 1750 is conventionally taken as a reference epoch prior to the start of the Industrial
    Revolution and the concomitant enhanced emission rate of carbon dioxide through human
    activities. By subtracting the computed insolations for 1750 from those for 2000 I derived Figure1. The amplitudes of the changes in the incoming solar flux are seen to be of order 1–2 W/m2, the highest positive peaks being slightly above 1 W/m2.

    For comparison, in the most recent Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change (IPCC 2007) the net radiative forcing due to human activities since 1750 CE is estimated to be about 1.6 W/m2, the only natural forcing listed therein being a solar irradiance increase estimated at 0.12 W/m2. On that basis the insolation changes as a function of latitude, time-of-year and epoch as presented here appear to be significant. Note that almost all of the computed changes are due to the precession of perihelion; the slight alterations of e and C over a century or two have negligible effect. […]


    # # #

    Note TOA TSI is kept “constant” (1360 W/m2) in this study and that the IPCC’s TSI forcing (0.12 W/m2) is the only IPCC solar forcing, neither of which is anywhere near realistic although keeping TOA TSI constant is not a criticism (mine) of this study. The IPCC’s solar treatment on the other hand is just plain deficient.

    See page 7 “Why has this insolation phenomenon been hitherto overlooked?”

  35. Richard C (NZ) on 22/06/2013 at 7:38 pm said:

    ‘Brown Out’

    Robert G. Brown (rgbatduke) has posted another devastating comment at WUWT, which I [Andrew Montford] am again taking the liberty of reproducing in full here. [Snippets here]

    “I make this point to put the writers of the Summary for Policy Makers for AR5 that if they repeat the egregious error made in AR4 and make any claims whatsoever for the predictive power of the spaghetti snarl of GCM computations, if they use the terms “mean and standard deviation” of an ensemble of GCM predictions, if they attempt to transform those terms into some sort of statement of probability of various future outcomes for the climate based on the collective behavior of the GCMs, there will be hell to pay, because GCM results are not iid samples drawn from a fixed distribution, thereby fail to satisfy the elementary axioms of statistics and render both mean behavior and standard deviation of mean behavior over the “space” of perturbations of model types and input data utterly meaningless as far as having any sort of theory-supported predictive force in the real world. Literally meaningless. Without meaning.

    The probability ranges published in AR4′s summary for policy makers are utterly indefensible by means of the correct application of statistics to the output from the GCMs collectively or singly. When one assigns a probability such as “67%” to some outcome, in science one had better be able to defend that assignment from the correct application of axiomatic statistics right down to the number itself.”


    “And for the sake of all of us who have to pay for those sins in the form of misdirected resources, please, please do not repeat the mistake in AR5. Stop using phrases like “67% likely” or “95% certain” in reference to GCM predictions unless you can back them up within the confines of properly done statistical analysis and mere common wisdom in the field of predictive modeling — a field where I am moderately expert — where if anybody, ever claims that a predictive model of a chaotic nonlinear stochastic system with strong feedbacks is 95% certain to do anything I will indeed bitch slap them the minute they reach for my wallet as a consequence.”


    After throwing out the junk there’s only about 2 or 3 left within cooee of observations for individual analysis, and that doesn’t make them meaningful either.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on 30/08/2013 at 8:11 pm said:

    ‘Global Warming Slowdown Data Sought in UN Climate Report’

    By Alex Morales – Aug 29, 2013 – Bloomberg

    U.S. and European Union envoys are seeking more clarity from the United Nations on a slowdown in global warming that climate skeptics have cited as a reason not to “panic” about environmental changes, leaked documents show.


    ‘Key Issue’

    The current version of the summary needs more information about the hiatus, according to the EU and the U.S.

    “The recent slowing of the temperature trend is currently a key issue, yet it has not been adequately addressed in the SPM,” the EU said, according to an official paper that includes all governmental comments on the draft report. The U.S. comment suggested “adding information on recent hiatus in global mean air temperature trend.”



    • Richard C (NZ) on 31/08/2013 at 12:49 pm said:

      ‘Pause politics’

      by Judith Curry

      “U.S. and European Union envoys are seeking more clarity from the United Nations on a slowdown in global warming that climate skeptics have cited as a reason not to “panic” about environmental changes, leaked documents show.”

      Bloomberg has an article entitled Global Warming Slowdown Sought in UN Climate Report.


      JC’s take

      […] As an example to the IPCC of what tackling the pause looks like, see the evidence and arguments presented in my recent Congressional Testimony:

      ‘Policy relevant climate issues in context’ [hotlinked]

      Relevant excerpts from my testimony (see original for references and figures):


      t looks to me like the national and international policy makers are expecting a serious treatment of the pause issue, I have shown them one way to approach the issue of the pause in an integrated way. In spite of Michael Mann’s tweeted response to my testimony ‘typical denier talking points,’ the issues I raise are not easily dismissed, and my ideas are out there in the public domain and at least some politicians are paying attention to my arguments. And the recent Nature article on the central Pacific control on global climate adds fuel to my arguments. If anyone can refute my arguments, I would be most interested in seeing this.


      # # #

      Right on the money, except IMV:

      “…the direct forcing from greenhouse gases is well understood”

  37. Richard C (NZ) on 31/08/2013 at 1:37 pm said:

    >”…the direct forcing from greenhouse gases is well understood”

    JC statement in the testimony:

    “If all other things remain equal, it’s clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet,”

    Prompting this at PSI:

    ‘Loose Thinking’

    by Anthony Bright-Paul


    “Did you mean that CO2 acts somewhat like water vapour, that chief of the “greenhouse gases”? Did you really mean that like water vapour there is an insulating effect? Did you mean that it inhibits (or delays) heat loss? If that is what you meant – then why not say so?

    Well, I grant you, there is something in that. We all know that after a hot day if the skies are clear the temperature will drop abruptly as in dry desert areas. And we also know that where it is humid the heat of the day will barely escape until dawn, as say in Jakarta.

    But the question that I would put to Dr. Judith Curry is this: Why is the day time temperature of the Earth not as hot as the moon? If it were, then we would all fry to death by day and freeze to death by night?

    If we consider this question and acknowledge that the incoming infrared from the Sun far exceeds the outgoing infrared from the Earth, what conclusion must we come to?

    Yes, the only conclusion that is possible and that is logical is that Greenhouse Gases cool the Earth, that is to say they have a net cooling effect.”


    • Andy on 29/09/2013 at 1:11 pm said:

      A picture tells a thousand words!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/09/2013 at 5:34 pm said:

      Ross McKitrick says:
      September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am

      SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.


    • Andy on 29/09/2013 at 7:03 pm said:

      What I find depressing is the amount of traffic this report is generating on Facebook etc. It is completely vacuous and clueless, yet otherwise intelligent and educated people are taking it as gospel

      Sometimes, I just want to give up.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/09/2013 at 7:37 pm said:

      I wonder how long before it enters their heads to (try to) reconcile the attribution period and statement (1950 – 2010) with the SPM ‘Decadal average’ graph:


      No warming whatsoever from 1940 – 1980.

      So why 1950?

      The only warming in that attribution period is from 1980 – 2000, a mere 20 years and only 5 years longer than the pause that is too short to consider because 30 years is required, apparently,

    • Andy on 29/09/2013 at 7:50 pm said:

      This is my point that I keep making repeatedly around the place. The “bigger picture” is irrelevant because the IPCC only attribute CO2-AGW to post 1950, and as you say this is quite a small window.

      The arguments are so full of internal inconsistencies it would make a criminal lawyer weep. Somehow, though, the public gets duped by this

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/09/2013 at 8:14 pm said:

      I think we’re in knee-jerk phase at the moment. It’s only been a couple of days but once the fizz wears off there’ll be more clarity of thought. I hope.

    • Magoo on 29/09/2013 at 11:46 pm said:

      I hate to say it guys but we’ll have to wait until the next IPCC report before people will disregard the IPCC and AGW. Richard C’s right though, give it a month and the lack of warming will dominate again.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/09/2013 at 8:52 am said:

      ‘How the IPCC forgot to mention the pause’

      by Judith Curry

      [Marotzke] attributed the oversight to a tendency of each group working on each of the 14 chapters to rely on some other chapter to deal with the issue. And anyone who was thinking about it at all thought some other chapter should handle the issue. – CS Monitor


      JC comment:…………MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: “Well, Roger is completely wrong about the so-called hiatus. That is, the scientists looked at it very carefully. There’s an extensive discussion of it in the detailed background documents will be made public on Monday.”

      Well, it will be fun to start digging through the WG1 report to find where all this is buried.


      And dig we will.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/09/2013 at 8:59 am said:

      And to refresh our memories (H/t Climate Depot):

      Phil Jones Climategate email: ‘Bottom line: the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/10/2013 at 9:59 am said:

      IPCC’s pause ‘logic’

      by Judith Curry

      Well here it is, the pause discussion is buried in Box 9.2 of the IPCC Working Group I Report.


      JC summary

      My original intention for this thread was to go through and try to map the IPCC’s logical argument. I quickly got dizzy owing to seemingly unwarranted assumptions and incomplete information (such as: did the climate models use the correct external forcing for the first decade of the 21st century, or not?). I was then going to illustrate how any reasonable propagation of uncertainty of individual assertions/arguments through their main argument would produce much lower confidence in their overall conclusions. For example, they seem to have eliminated high CO2 sensitivity as a problem. Not to mention high confidence in increasing trend following 2012 (this high confidence comes right after blowing the prediction of the previous decade). And of course not to mention the relevant journal articles that didn’t get mentioned.

      Apart from these obvious flaws, reading that text and trying to follow it is positively painful. Can someone remind me again how and why all this is supposed to be useful?


      Their “main argument” from the summary is:

      “….the observed recent warming hiatus,…….., is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing”

      There are enormous implications to drawn from this, already identified from the leaks. No point going on here because this statement and it’s rationale will be (or should be) dissected remorselessly.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/10/2013 at 1:00 pm said:

      >”…this statement and it’s rationale will be (or should be) dissected remorselessly”

      Like this:

      ‘IPCC in denial. “Just-so” excuses use ocean heat to hide their failure’


      Tutorial for Science Journalists:

      A few questions serious journalists might want to ask instead of just cut and pasting press releases from activists.


  38. Andy on 30/09/2013 at 10:58 am said:

    Climate sensitivity is in the SPM, Page 11, Footnote 16

    No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies


    This is the key report for policymakers. The key metrics for policymakers is climate sensitivity, since that gives you an idea on the cost/benefit/timescale of mitigation policies that you may implement.

    On that number, we don’t know, because we can’t agree.

    However, we all agree that climate change is …etc etc

    What a waste of time these people are.

  39. Andy on 30/09/2013 at 5:43 pm said:

    A bit of light entertainment from Michael Mann writing in the Guardian:

    “The new IPCC climate change report makes deniers overheat”


    One of the highlights:

    serial climate disinformer Judith Curry

    super serial, that is

  40. Andy on 30/09/2013 at 8:32 pm said:

    Live in harmony with nature, says Pachauri

    COIMBATORE: Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change.


    (emphasis added)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/10/2013 at 8:44 am said:

      I’ll have to go back to the earthquake and tsunami section in the SPM. Must have missed it.

  41. Richard C (NZ) on 27/08/2014 at 7:23 pm said:

    ‘The 50-50 argument’

    by Judith Curry, August 24, 2014

    Pick one:

    a) Warming since 1950 is predominantly (more than 50%) caused by humans.

    b) Warming since 1950 is predominantly caused by natural processes.

    When faced with a choice between a) and b), I respond: ‘I can’t choose, since i think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50-50′. Gavin [Schmidt] thinks I’m ‘making things up’, so I promised yet another post on this topic.

    […extensive analysis…]

    The IPCC notes overall warming since 1880. In particular, the period 1910-1940 is a period of warming that is comparable in duration and magnitude to the warming 1976-2000. Any anthropogenic forcing of that warming is very small (see Figure 10.1 above). The timing of the early 20th century warming is consistent with the AMO/PDO (e.g. the stadium wave; also noted by Tung and Zhou). The big unanswered question is: Why is the period 1940-1970 significantly warmer than say 1880-1910? Is it the sun? Is it a longer period ocean oscillation? Could the same processes causing the early 20th century warming be contributing to the late 20th century warming?

    Not only don’t we know the answer to these questions, but no one even seems to be asking them!


    I am arguing that climate models are not fit for the purpose of detection and attribution of climate change on decadal to multidecadal timescales. Figure 10.1 speaks for itself in this regard (see figure 11.25 for a zoom in on the recent hiatus). By ‘fit for purpose’, I am prepared to settle for getting an answer that falls in the right tercile.

    The main relevant deficiencies of climate models are:

    # climate sensitivity that appears to be too high, probably associated with problems in the fast thermodynamic feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, clouds)
    # failure to simulate the correct network of multidecadal oscillations and their correct phasing
    # substantial uncertainties in aerosol indirect effects
    # unknown and uncertain solar indirect effects

    So, how to sort this out and do a more realistic job of detecting climate change and and attributing it to natural variability versus anthropogenic forcing? Observationally based methods and simple models have been underutilized in this regard. Of great importance is to consider uncertainties in external forcing in context of attribution uncertainties.

    The logic of reasoning about climate uncertainty, is not at all straightforward, as discussed in my paper Reasoning about climate uncertainty.

    So, am I ‘making things up’? Seems to me that I am applying straightforward logic. Which IMO has been disturbingly absent in attribution arguments, that use climate models that aren’t fit for purpose, use circular reasoning in detection, fail to assess the impact of forcing uncertainties on the attribution, and are heavily spiced by expert judgment and subjective downweighting.


    Note: In the original of the Nic Lewis quote from Bishop Hill, the word “without” was given emphasis, viz:

    [Lewis] – “Since the CMIP5 models used by the IPCC on average adequately reproduce observed global warming in the last two and a half decades of the 20th century without any contribution from multidecadal ocean variability, it follows that those models (whose mean TCR is slightly over 1.8°C) must be substantially too sensitive.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 27/08/2014 at 9:46 pm said:


      I am arguing here that the ‘choice’ regarding attribution shouldn’t be binary, and there should not be a break at 50%; rather we should consider the following terciles for the net anthropogenic contribution to warming since 1950:


      # # #

      I argue that the ‘choice’ should be in terms of all risk factor possibilities (including anthro, solar, ocean oscillations etc, which JC covers) rather than in narrow, unary, out of date, IPCC terms of anthro attribution-only thinking i.e. risk scenarios for the future are a far more useful and responsible tool because the respective probability weighting of each factor can be revised (even discarded) as the situation evolves over time.

      A cooler regime setting in over the next 5 years (or just continued stasis) automatically eliminates the top 2 attribution choices above (>66% and JC’s 33-66%), along with the risk assigned to them. Radical cooling after say 2020 would eliminate all but the “negligible” element of the lower attribution choice (<33%) i.e. attribution 'choice' in those terms is somewhat premature in view of the "pause" in global warming.

      Only if warming resumes in the next 3 – 5 years can JC's 33-66% attribution 'choice' even come back into contention let alone be selected. In other words, in terms of risk, the attribution period of 1951 – 2010 becomes less relevant as time goes on. It is out of date thinking.

  42. Richard C (NZ) on 11/09/2014 at 8:19 pm said:

    I stumbled on a University of Cambridge document that “synthesizes” AR5:

    The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group 1


    Curiously, on page 6 there is this definition of climate change (my emphasis):


    Natural and human factors drive climate change by altering the Earth’s energy budget. At present there is a net uptake of the Sun’s energy by the Earth system; that is, more energy is entering the Earth system than is being lost back to space. The outcome is an increase in heat energy stored by the Earth. This imbalance is driving the rise in global temperature. AR5 concludes that over 90% of the excess heat is stored in the ocean.”

    There’s no attribution for this statement so I assume it is by the University of Cambridge authors rather than the IPCC.

    Here’s the thing. Drop the two words “and human” and the remaining definition is one which I’m sure any solar-centric critic of the MMCC hypothesis would agree with. I certainly do.

  43. Richard C (NZ) on 20/04/2015 at 3:13 pm said:

    ‘Detection of Enhanced Greenhouse Warming: What the IPCC Said Back In 1990
    Changing goal posts or better science?’

    Ronald Bailey|Apr. 8, 2015

    “Detection of the Greenhouse Gas Effect in the Observations” in the 1990 IPCC report

    8.4 When Will The Greenhouse Effect be Detected?

    The fact that we have not detected the enhanced greenhouse effect leads to the question when is this likely to occur? As noted earlier, this is not a simple yes/no issue. Rather it involves the gradual accumulation of evidence in support of model predictions, which in parallel with improvements in the models themselves, will increase our confidence in them and progressively narrow the uncertainties regarding such key parameters as the climate sensitivity. Uncertainties will always remain. Predicting when a certain confidence level might be reached is as difficult as predicting future climate change – more so, in fact, since it requires at least estimates of both future signal and future noise level.

    Nevertheless, we can provide some information on the time-scale for detection by using the unprecedented change concept mentioned briefly in Section 8.14. This should provide an upper bound to the time of detection since more sophisticated methods should produce earlier results. We take a conservative view as a starting point namely that the magnitude of natural variability is such that all of the warming of the past century could be attributed to this cause. (Note that this is not the same as denying the existence of an enhanced greenhouse effect. With such a noise level the past warming could be explained as a 1°C greenhouse effect offset by 0.5°C natural variability.) We then assume, again somewhat arbitrarily that a further 0.5°C warming (i.e., a total warming of 1°C since the late nineteenth century) is required before we could say with high confidence, that the only possible explanation would be that the enhanced greenhouse effect was as strong as predicted by climate models. Given the range of uncertainty in future forcing predictions and future model-predicted warming when would this elevated temperature level be reached?

    Figure 8.5

    The answer is given in Figure 8.5. [Basically, the upper curve is assumes a fast warming rate and the lower one a slow warming rate. If fast, warming will be detected by 2002; if slow no detection until 2047.]

    Figure 8.5 Text: If a further 0.5°C warming were chosen at the threshold for detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect then this would be reached sometime between 2002 and 2047.

    On the basis of this simple analysis alone we might conclude that detection with high confidence is unlikely to occur before the year 2000. If stringent controls are introduced to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions and if the climate sensitivity is at the low end of the range of model predictions then it may be well into the twenty-first century before we can say with high confidence that we have detected the enhanced greenhouse effect.



    “I have earlier reported the various per decade warming rates in the observational record. The highest rate is +0.16°C per decade and the lowest is +0.13°C per decade. Assuming those rates had been maintained since 1990 (and they have not been so) mean global temperature would have risen by between +0.4°C and +0.325°C by now.

    In other words, enhanced greenhouse warming above the noise of natural climate variability would not yet have crossed over the benchmark (+0.5°C) set by the IPCC back in 1990. Interesting.”

  44. Richard C (NZ) on 06/04/2016 at 9:31 am said:

    ‘RCP 8.5: The “Mother of all” Junk Climate Science’

    David Middleton / 9 hours ago April 5, 2016

    Representative Concentration (or Carbon)Pathway 8.5 assumes a “rising radiative forcing pathway leading to 8.5 W/m² in 2100.”

    It is generally assumed, with little dissent, that each doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration will add 3.7 W/m² to the net infrared radiative flux.

    A doubling of the supposedly stable pre-industrial CO2 level (280 ppmv to 560 ppmv) should yield 3.7 W/m² of additional forcing to the net infrared radiative flux. In order to get 8.5 W/m², the atmospheric CO2 concentration would have to rise to 1,370 ppm…


    # # #

    Theoretical CO2 forcing as at 2015: 1.9 W.m-2

    TOA energy imbalance 2000 – 2010: 0.6 W.m-2

  45. Richard C (NZ) on 26/06/2016 at 2:30 pm said:

    Report Graphics – Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
    WORKING GROUP I – Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis [AR5]

    Figure 8.15 – Radiative forcing of climate between 1750 and 2011

    BIG PROBLEM. Total net anthropogenic forcing is +2.3 W.m-2, natural solar is negligible, but the earth’s energy imbalance is only +0.6 W.m-2.

    Worse, the surface energy budget, as cited by AR5 WG1 Chapter 2, shows the +0.6 imbalance is simply solar energy (SWdown) supplying surface heat accumulation (+0.6) predominantly in the oceanic heat sink:

    Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1 Surface budget

    +SWdown -SWup -SHup -LHup -LWnet(up) = Surface imbalance

    +188 -23 -24 -88 -52.4 = +0.6 W.m-2

    +188 -187.4 = +0.6 W.m-2

    Solar energy down is greater than energy up at the surface.

  46. Richard C (NZ) on 09/07/2016 at 2:14 pm said:

Leave a Reply

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