When Rodney Hide, in an NBR article, criticised Dr James Renwick for, in a TV1 interview, blaming anthropogenic warming for the recent drought, Gareth Renowden accused him of misrepresentation.
James Renwick has confirmed by email that he did not blame global warming for the recent drought. 10:00 pm 16 May 2013
First I defended Rodney. Later I pointed out that the NBR took exactly the same message from Renwick’s interview as Rodney had. It reported: “Dr Renwick told the programme that global warming was the only explanation for the drought.” In a detailed analysis of the interview and its introduction I show how this was the reasonable conclusion.
Now, our reader Andy has turned up a TVNZ press release dated 17 March that fully corroborates NBR’s interpretation, Rodney’s and mine. TVNZ states it as clearly as the NBR did:
Dr Renwick told the programme that global warming was the only explanation for the drought, saying the average around which temperatures vary is changing and will be hotter over time.
Some have noted that the interview doesn’t seem to mention the drought — at least not as broadcast. For instance, David says: “I have gone over the transcript and nowhere does Dr Renwick say “that global warming was the only explanation for the drought.”
Nonetheless, viewing the video clip, especially including Susan Wood’s introduction, it appears from the participants’ body language, timing and tone of voice that Renwick was asked about the drought and answered accordingly.
However, this impression was mistaken, as James has confirmed.
Views: 280
The issue here is TV One’s manipulation of the interview to present the story as they saw it. This is quite clearly stated in the executive summary on the scoop press release
Of course, people will hear what they want to hear from a TV story. This is human nature. We don’t all have time to delve into the minutia of what was said and what was implied.
I have posted this before but it is worth repeating, from Judith Curry’s blog
TV1 is not alone. NBR did it, too. So did I. So did Rodney. So did Renwick, who hasn’t complained. Good comment from Dr Curry.
The comment is from Lennart Bengtsson
He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.
To quote Dr Currys blog
Ah, thanks. It’s this very thinking that makes me fear the misconception about the influence on climate of (effectively!) our smoke could hang around for a thousand years. Unlike our smoke.
Of course, people will hear what they want to hear from a TV story.
Richard Treadgold clearly does.
I don’t want to hear from any scientist that we caused the drought. But that’s what he said. He explained… no, I don’t need to explain it again. Read my article.
Why doesn’t someone contact James Renwick for clarification?
OK, I just watched the James Renwick interview. At no stage does he say that this year’s drought was caused by climate change. He correctly states that AGW does change the probability of drought. This is typical of the way deniers such as Rodney work. Take something out of context, misquote it and attack the strawman argument.
No clarification is required from James Renwick. He was precise in what he said even when Cooran was trying to press him on a causal link between this year’s drought and AGW.
Tv nz clearly states in their transcript that Renwick claims that the drought was caused by global warming.
Do you now claim that TVNZ are deniers?
Simon,
As I write above: “the interview doesn’t seem to mention the drought — at least not as broadcast.” But, listening to what was said and how it was said, it’s clear that Dann was asking for the drought to be “explained”.
However, when you say:
I’m afraid I can’t see that anywhere. It’s your imagination. Where do you see it?
TVNZ quite clearly state in their press release
“Dr Renwick told the programme that global warming was the only explanation for the drought, saying the average around which temperatures vary is changing and will be hotter over time.”
TVNZ is a publicaly funded broadcaster. If they have misrepresented Renwicks views and misled the public, then there is a case for a formal complaint.
Given that Renwick has now confirmed that he did not attribute the drought to warming, TVNZ need to be taken to task. Rodney Hide and RT can do what they want with their various statements. However, I believe that TVNZ were deliberately trying to mislead the public on this issue. They are the primary culprit as the articles are based on the broadcast.
Splitting hairs >”James Renwick has confirmed by email that he did not blame global warming for the recent drought”
Not “global warming”, true. But note that he uses “global warming” with respect to temperature and “climate’s changing” with respect to the drought. And he links the two – “climate change, global warming”, with the implication global warming is anthropogenic – “Put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and things warm up”.
Here’s NBR’s miss-reporting (my emphasis)
But Renwick was making a broad statement wrt temperature there – not drought (see Q+A below), so he is correct in his confirmation but on semantics only. From the Q+A transcript (my emphasis):-
But further on Renwick specifically refers to the drought (my emphasis):-
Dann asks wrt to the drought “should we not be that worried?” but Renwick answers “Well, the way the climate’s changing, the likelihood is that summers will become drier”.
Renwick is putting the drought squarely in the context and attribution of climate change and anthropogenic global warming
There is a definite inference to be drawn that Renwick is attributing the drought to climate change (and therefore anthropogenic global warming due to his initial linking of the two and anthropogenic implication) and that it is a part of the progression “a one-in-50 year event now will be, say, one in 20, one-in-25 year event by the middle of the century. And in some parts of the country, it might be a one-in-five year event by the end of the century”.
James Renwick, you are not being totally honest in your email confirmation statement are you?
Yes, Renwick is an interesting being.
One hears that he, Boston and Frame have yet to supply satisfactory answers to Christopher Monckton’s formal complaint to VUW Vice Chancellor, Pat Walsh. Incidentally, at least one other respected commentator on matters economic/climatic has also complained about Renwick et al to VUW’s Pro Chancellor, Graeme Mitchell.
After what has happened to some mendacious Australian academics who chose to ridicule Monckton, Renwick would do well to return to the “comfort” of NIWA.
There is a very clear trend here: Three/four years ago the DAGW cultists dominated this debate. As their cover has been stripped, and their BS has been exposed for what it is, they are on the defensive being required, at long last, to actually produce data that can be reviewed and tested by others.
Richard, Andy and the lot:
Imagine the following scenario: You play dice at the Casino and loose $100,000 in the game.
A day later it is reported that Scientists have analyzed the dice used at the Casino carefully and found that was loaded to one of the sides.
You now need to decide if:
a) Your loss was CAUSED by the loading of the dice.
b) Your loss was made more likely due to the loading of the dice.
Obviously you can never prove a) with certainty. However, you would have a criminal case against the Casino and I bet, you would get your money back via the courts.
How does this relate to this SILLY DEBATE OF YOUS? [emphasis well earned]
Well obviously as the court would not be able to attribute a definitive cause of your loss to the loading of the dice, so nobody can put a definitive cause of THIS drought onto GW.
However I am sure any sane person would concur with me that science has told us now for a very long time: The probability of weather extremes, in particular droughts but also flooding events is raised due to GW. The dice is definitely loaded towards this type of event.
So I can say with confidence that a raised frequency of droughts and raised frequency of the resulting farming losses are a direct result of GW. Society needs to figure out how to attribute responsibility for these losses.
You are debating a straw man argument and it looks entirely silly on your end!
Yes I agree that it is all about probabilities
However, we have on record that
(a) Renwick said that the drought WAS NOT caused by Global Warming
(b) TVNZ said that – according to Renwick – the drought WAS caused by global warming
both statements are equally dumb in the attempt to apply a boolean true/false when a probabilistic statement is more appropriate
However, TVNZ appears to directly contradict what their interviewee is claiming.
and continuing on that theme, which of these statements make any sense?
“Climate change is real”
“Climate change is happening and it’s caused by us”
“We need to stop climate change”
“We need to take action on climate change”
“Climate change causes the climate to change”
Unfortunately, most of this drivel is spouted by the media every day, in one form or another
“Climate change is real” – Yes indeed, the climate is currently changing.
“Climate change is happening and it’s caused by us” – Yes according to an overwhelming majority of the people who have the expertise to inform us: The climate scientists.
“We need to stop climate change” – Most definitely – IF – we want to avoid the consequences.
“We need to take action on climate change” – Most definitely – IF – we want to avoid the consequences.
“Climate change causes the climate to change” – trivial tautology.
“Climate change is real” – Yes indeed, the climate is currently changing.
[ANDY] – Yes, trivially true
“Climate change is happening and it’s caused by us” – Yes according to an overwhelming majority of the people who have the expertise to inform us: The climate scientists.
[ANDY] All of it? All climate change is caused by humans?
“We need to stop climate change” – Most definitely – IF – we want to avoid the consequences.
[ANDY] We also need to stop the PDO, the AMO, ENSO, etc. How do you propose this?
“We need to take action on climate change” – Most definitely – IF – we want to avoid the consequences.
[ANDY] What kind of “action”?
“Climate change causes the climate to change” – trivial tautology.
[ANDY] This was a quote from the TVNZ interview with Renwick
UPDATE – If anyone thinks that this discussion is childish or trivial, note that the IPCC and the UNFCCC have different definitions for “climate change”. Given that one is the customer of the other, you would think that might actually be a slight problem
[ANDY] We also need to stop the PDO, the AMO, ENSO, etc. How do you propose this?
Straw man again Andy. The Earth’s natural cycles are just that – natural. Their effects are playing out in any case, on top of that trend you know, that we are currently adding into the mix, you know that GH thing and the forcing it entails.
The overlay of the cycles plus the trend are so well displayed here.
Also as the Earth warms – thanks to the climate forcing we created – we can expect changes to the ocean cycle dynamics too. Warmer oceans and melting ice will have a significant impact on ocean cycles, so much is clear. Already we are seeing the effects of changing global weather patterns cause in particular by the arctic warming, sea ice loss etc.
Interested people can find a lot of good material on all that on the net. Especially this talk by Prof. Francis from Rutgers University, which is detailed and very well presented.
If I had a dollar for everytime someone showed me that escalator graph….
Of course I know that “natural” climate change is different to anthropogenic. Unfortunately the media tend to conflate these, not helped by the UNFCCC and the IPCC having different definitions
I know you have seen that graph. I post it here again – just as you make comments on matters we hashed ‘elsewhere’ for the umpteens time – to show it to passer by’s who might wonder what this is all about. Its a game isn’t it, its raining, its Friday night and dinner is not ready yet…. 😉
You know and I know that neither of us stands a chance to change the others mind. Mine will stand where the evidence of the major science institutions of the world points to, yours where your political and other dogmatic convictions sit. Be each of us as they may.
But for observes sake, I put references to material to my comments to illustrate what I am saying. An image is worth a thousand words they say. It remains true.
Touchê…
Thomas, this game that Skeptical Science likes to play implies that all the warming of the 20th C is anthropogenic in origin, and that there is a decadal oscillation around that
The IPCC don’t accept this. They attribute post 1950s warming to mostly anthropogenic causes. The earlier 20th C warming is very much up open to question
Andy, you are still riding the straw man. Causality in statistical outcomes is not a black and white thing. For a TV channel to make statements that interpret what science tells us in a more definitive way as in – THIS drought was caused by climate change – AS OPPOSED TO – a rising frequency of droughts is caused by climate change, is quite benign.
If you would put however your standard of correctness on to those media that bleat out with the label of deep conviction the beliefs held by the host of this blog or Monckton or Delringpole or other like them, than you would have to a rather different argument, wouldn’t you?
People who say with deep conviction – without a shred of evidence to back it up – that: “CO2 is not a pollutant. There are no consequences for emitting it save that we contribute to a more productive environment.” (Treadgold) are the real culprits of misleading the public.
Causality in statistical outcomes is not a black and white thing.
Isn’t that what I just said?
You are pulling another straw man Andy.
Causality in single events is hard to nail down in events with a random component. But causality in averages, frequencies of events or distributions of events, that indeed can be attributed rather well. You studied Math at Oxford (as you asserted elsewhere), so you know that well.
Thomas:
True.
This is an interesting one. It isn’t a pollutant and has no adverse effects on the biosphere that we know of, in the concentrations seen on Earth to date (meaning that even when concentrations were at 4000ppmv life flourished). On the other hand we know that CO2 is beneficial to life, in that plants grow better with heightened CO2 (witness the greening of the planet that has been occurring for a while now).
So the ONLY argument yet presented that could be used to infer that increased CO2 has a detrimental effect is the greenhouse argument, which states that increased levels of CO2 will definitely lead to higher temperatures. This argument is supported by climate models, which project decadal increases of the order of 0.2°C/decade. All well and good.
The only fly in the ointment is that this prediction of increasing warming has failed to materialise, spectacularly so. For 17 years we have had no warming.
Therefore, as of right now, and until something else occurs, the weight of evidence is with those who suggest that more CO2 will not cause the end of the world as we know it.
Bob, what about Ocean Acidification? And do you really think GW has stopped?
Look at this graph
Obviously people could have argued that warming has stopped several times before since 1970, the start of that graph.
Also consider this article and graph.. As you can appreciate (with high school physics), the heat capacity of the oceans is very large compared to that of the air and the vast majority of the energy imbalance due to the radiative forcing of CO2 has gone and will continue to go into warming the oceans as a consequence. The wiggles on the temperature curve of the Air in comparison are pretty much insignificant on an energy content calculation.
I do not share your assertion that rising CO2 concentrations are inconsequential. Do you really think that doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will have little impact? You stand against the vast majority of the scientific community in your ideas.
>”…the vast majority of the energy imbalance due to the radiative forcing of CO2 has gone and will continue to go into warming the oceans as a consequence.”
What a load of baloney Thomas. OHC, using up to date data not SkS’s truncated rubbish, has stabilized:-
http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/images/OHCA_curve_2012.png
The upper Pacific and Atlantic have been cooling in the ARGO era and the upper Indian peaked 4Q 2010 i.e. the global aggregate 21st century ocean warming was simply due to the Indian ocean but that’s ended now:-
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/19-argo-era-ohc-atl-ind-pac.png
And after 25 years of existence (including AR5 SOD), the IPCC has not yet determined their assumed anthropogenic ocean heating mechanism, they only “expect” air-sea fluxes without any empirical scientific evidence whatsoever.
“Baloney?” Sure mate. Dream on then. I know you hate SKS as it is a straight source to refute your mantra.
For those with an interest in the source of the data, have a look at this graph from the website of National Oceanographic Data Centre
>”I know you hate SKS as it is a straight source to refute your mantra.”
Thomas, the SkS graph truncates the data. That is the nature of pentadal smoothing. What you are seeing is not the up-to-date situation. Clearly there’s been cooling in 0-700m Pacific and Atlantic over the ARGO era and the upper Indian stopped warming 4Q2010.
Any trend in the deeper ocean is lagged. Kevin Trenberth has written about this and I’ve already gone over this with Rob Taylor here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2013/05/renowden-a-scaring-warmist/#comment-199235
Even the lag in the top 90m of ocean is about 6 years but the most significant planetary thermal lag occurs at about 12 or 14 years (+/-) depending on the method of determination (Scafetta or Abdussamatov). And Dr Kevin Trenberth writes (from his article at the link above):-
“An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response caused by the oceans is 10–100 years. The slowest response should be in high latitudes where deep mixing and convection occur, and the fastest response is expected in the tropics”
Are you dissing Kevin Trenberth now too Thomas?
You then link to NODC’s 0-2000m graph which at cursory glance gives the impression that warming (solar-sourced energy anyway) continues unabated. But lets have a closer look at the graph data remembering that the current data is a reflection of the considerable lag in the oceanic heat-sink i.e. the the heat currently observed in the 0-2000m layer was laid down anytime from about 6 – 100 years ago. The 0-2000m data last 5 years:-
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
2008-3,13.499634
2008-6,14.740957
2008-9,13.240829
2008-12,12.241559
2009-3,12.811517
2009-6,12.374052
2009-9,13.947054
2009-12,15.183682
2010-3,16.048752
2010-6,13.671132
2010-9,14.129639
2010-12,15.070600
2011-3,15.453777
2011-6,14.812579
2011-9,17.095699 <<<<<<<< Peak
2011-12,14.983609
2012-3,17.434353 <<<<<<<< Peak (highest)
2012-6,15.622717
2012-9,15.494756
2012-12,16.831072 <<<<<<< Peak
0-2000m ocean heat has peaked Thomas, there's been essentially no change since 3Q2011.
That peak heat represents the entropy in the planetary system, the ocean being by far the greatest reservoir. The total entropy is simply lagged from peak energy input 1986. Since the input to the system is now declining (minimally 1986 – 2011/2, plummeting since) and the ocean lag has largely elapsed, there will be no more warming of any import in the 700-2000m layer and in time that layer will follow the trend in upper 0-700m which in the Pacific and Atlantic is a definite linear cooling trend.
This is not a "mantra" Thomas, this is simply a coherent and consistent analysis of real-world data and the processes and systems working. You have a physics degree, you should be able to grasp these concepts.
Actually, Thomas, you might find that Monckton and Delingpole use more correct language than the type we see in the media, such as this intervew with Renwick
For example, Monckton often claims that “CO2 will cause some warming, the question is, how much?”, which is a question that almost never gets asked in the MSM.
Delringpole and correct language, you must be kidding…. honestly, you don’t want to be associated by proxy to that person. Even for you that would be bad.
Let me ask you: Why do you have such a hesitation to accept the evidence and judgement of the leading climate scientists and instead prefer to eat from the plate of cranks and polemicists? Surely, if you were at all interested in the truth about all this, would you not go to read from the book of the best science institutions around?
If you were infected with Aids (hopes not), would you go to seek treatment from the best specialists available or would you resort to a self appointed crankster, like Monckton, who indeed claims to have invented a fabulous cure of the same….
Let me ask you: Why do you have such a hesitation to accept the evidence and judgement of the leading climate scientists and instead prefer to eat from the plate of cranks and polemicists?
Why don’t I accept the advice of Sir David King, former Chief Scientist in the UK, who stated in 2004 that the only inhabitable place in the world by the end of the century would be Antarctica?
Or perhaps the advice of Sir John Beddington, who suggested that Heathrow Airport would become a huge reservoir and the population of London would move to Dumfries and Galloway in Scotland?
Or perhaps the advice of James Hansen who told us the oceans may start to boil?
Hint:- my answer might contain “complete bollocks”
By the way, the great man Sir David King is visiting NZ soon so you can ask him whether he has booked his condo at Scott Base
Andy, You’re as bad as Rodney.
King was not predicting that Antarctica would be the only habitable place on Earth. He said that, if we continue emitting carbon dioxide under a business as usual scenario, then by the end of the century atmospheric levels would reach levels not seen for 55 million years. Extending the analogy, he then noted that the most habitable place for mammals at the time was Antarctica.
Hansen was talking about runaway greenhouse effects. Not that boiling oceans would happen, but that it could. He said that you could melt the ice sheets within a century. Not the same thing.
Transcript here: http://bigthink.com/videos/the-science-of-global-catastrophe
The link to the Geoffrey Lean article about David King is here
The best link to the Beddington claim I could find is here
The best llink I could find to the Hansen claim of boiling oceans is here
Andy: Suggested to go to the source (like I do) and read the science that the prime institutions and scientists working in the field publish.
I did NOT suggest at any time to you to go by what some press outfit somewhere makes of it, especially not dubious outlets like some you cited. You have shot yourself in the foot mate. Again.
On one hand you have a hissifit about TV On’s representation of Renwick, which was perhaps a tiny weenie bit on the definitive side in its summary, on the other you are happy to cite here the outfits and opinion pieces in some press somewhere as evidence instead of reading from the scientists themselves. Ridiculous as ever Andy!
Yes Thomas, I like to go straight to the sources
So perhaps you would like to stop quoting Skeptical Science, from now on.
This is not a scientific source, get it?
Oh, and maybe you could stop quoting from Slate, HuffPo, the Guardian, and all the other trash mags that you and your chums feed off
Thanks,
This has been a great case study in how the denialist echo chamber is not only malicious but dishonest as well. I’m afraid that none of you come out of this looking very good at all, despite the furious back-peddling.
Quoting lies about Sir David King and James Hansen only serves as further examples.
Simon, which lies did I tell about King?
I quoted an article from The Independent from Geoffrey Lean from 2004
If you are going to accuse me of lies and. Back peddling, then I’d like you to be more specific.
I was of course being sarcastic to Thomas. The warmists love to trot out unsubstantiated tosh from low grade newspapers like The Independent.
By the way, speaking of lies, the new survey by SkS claiming a 97% consensus is a case study in deception.
Simon, I am still waiting to hear why I am “lying” about Sir David King.
>”Hansen was talking about runaway greenhouse effects. Not that boiling oceans would happen, but that it could.”
Really Simon? Boiling oceans?
FYI, the current temperature of the tropical ocean is a little over 30 C at the most.
Learn to read critically. Note the direct quotes. What is said in those quotes is quite different from the reporter’s hyped-up summary. The problem is that this stuff starts bouncing around in the denialist echo-chamber until it changes into something else and assumes an importance that it does not deserve. For a bunch of so-called sceptics there seems to be a lot of gullibility.
Note also that King and Hansen are talking about feedback loops, unfortunately some engineering types tend to ignore non-linearity.
>”Note also that King and Hansen are talking about feedback loops”
Which in climate are self-correcting:-
The Greenhouse Effect . . . Explored Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
Carl Brehmer, © February 21, 2012
http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Greenhouse_Effect_Research/Water%20Feedback_files/Is%20Water%20Vapor%20Feedback%20Positive%20or%20Negative.pdf
By experiment, Brehmer finds:-
1) the addition of water to a climate system exerts a significant negative feedback against temperature changes night and day,
2) water vapor has the same graphical relationship to temperature that insulin has to blood sugar and insulin is known to exert a strong negative feedback against blood sugar levels and
3) over the course of time the addition of water to a climate system causes a perceptible drop in the yearly mean temperature
Simon
Every time a “climate scientist” utters some statement of impending doom or catastrophe, this gets regurgitated by a compliant media who hype it up and this then gets repeatedly regurgitated by the rest of the media until it becomes embedded in society as a “meme”
None of the media dare question any aspect of this “meme” because they will be jumped on by some intolerant eco-fascist who will “out” the journalist for their “denialist” views.
So I am presenting these examples to David who asked why we don’t accept mainstream science.
I don’t have a problem with science. It is the utter bollocks portrayed by the media I have a problem with
>”So I can say with confidence that a raised frequency of droughts and raised frequency of the resulting farming losses are a direct result of GW.”
Maybe you can say with confidence but that doesn’t mean there’s a definite causal process that will result in actual increasing frequency i.e you are only confident in your speculation and farming losses from a once in a 50 yr drought are the same in 2012/3 as they would have been in 1963 on an adjusted basis (equal terms of stock levels etc but remember farming practices have changed radically in that time).
In any event global warming peaked in the early part of the 21st century, both atmosphere and ocean surface temperature metrics have been indicating cooling since around 2002 and now OHC has peaked in the last few years too in the up to date data.
The cause of warming over the last 400 years being increased solar output, the uncertainty in the range of solar power change being over 3 1/2 times that of the posited anthropogenic CO2 forcing since 1750. Now solar output is declining the metrics are reflecting that and a change in climate regime is inevitable. But that new regime wont be a warming one if the energy input to the planetary system is less than it was 1950 – 2012 (Grand Maximum 1986ish).
How can the climate possibly get warmer in the face of that reality given CO2 forcing is simply recycled solar-sourced energy in a degraded state?
RC said “How can the climate possibly get warmer in the face of that reality given CO2 forcing is simply recycled solar-sourced energy in a degraded state?”
RC you could as well have said: How can putting a coat over the top of the shirt make you warmer?
Your question simply reveals that you don’t understand what the greenhouse effect is and how it works. This entry into the excellent hyperhpysics website is good and allows you to hyperlink from there to a lot of concepts that are useful in understanding radiation physics.
Thomas, my point had nothing to do with radiative heat transfer physics (the IPCC’c CO2 forcing curve is an over simplification i.e. a simplification of a simplification) or the contentious (among sceptics e.g. Spencer/Watts vs PSI) GHE.
My point is that energy enters the planetary system via relatively high energy-per-photon SW radiation. The intensity of that energy is now receding therefore any LWIR energy at a much lower intensity and energy-per-photon in the first instance compared to solar SW, will necessarily de-intensify too. So even assuming CO2 forcing is a valid concept (it isn’t above about 200ppm), there’s less energy to go around now than there was in the Grand Maximum levels that ended 2009 – 2012.
Less energy means less energy – period.
Can you supply references please for your assertion that “CO2 forcing is not happening above about 200ppm”?
You are correct about one point: Solar input has been at a relative minimum and slight overall declining trend over the last decades. The heat imbalance of Earth however has gone the other way.
Further: Your gibberish about photons and radiation makes no sense. Overall the sum of incoming and outgoing radiation on Earth is zero. The lower energy of IR photons is compensated by the fact that the Sun makes up only 32 arc seconds in the sky, while the Earth radiates at a lower per photon energy but over the entire sky and with an overall equal output to what it receives from the sun. However for the temperature on the Earth surface the radiative (IR Spectrum) properties of the atmosphere matter. An atmosphere that has a low transmissivity for IR will result in a hotter surface.
Consider this: You construct a greenhouse. Version (A) uses normal glass. Version (B) uses glass with a special IR reflective coating on the inside. Which of the two houses is warmer on average? Both receive the same solar irradiation. Any clue?
>”Can you supply references please for your assertion that “CO2 forcing is not happening above about 200ppm”?”
Sure. Graphed:-
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png
The Leckner curves (273K, typical of lower mid-troposphere) are verified (along with others similar but not the IPCC’s) by N. Lallemant, A. Sayret and R. Weber (1996), links here:-
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/un/ipcc-science/#comment-145449
>”The heat imbalance of Earth however has gone the other way.”
Hand waving. What is the latest data?
>”Further: Your gibberish about photons and radiation makes no sense.”
To you Thomas I’ve no doubt. But clear in the EM spectrum:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
See table: CLASS, FREQUENCY, WAVELENGTH, ENERGY
>”The lower energy of IR…”
I was distinguishing between solar SW IR and the re-emitted LWIR. If you look at the EM “WAVELENGTH/ENERGY” table and the infrared division scheme:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared
* IR-A: 700 nm–1400 nm (0.7 µm – 1.4 µm, 215 THz – 430 THz)
* IR-B: 1400 nm–3000 nm (1.4 µm – 3 µm, 100 THz – 215 THz)
* IR-C: 3000 nm–1 mm (3 µm – 1000 µm, 300 GHz – 100 THz)
IR-A and IR-B are in the solar spectrum, IR-C is in the “LWIR/DLR/OLR” re-emitted spectrum.
>”Consider this: You construct a greenhouse. Version (A) uses normal glass. Version (B) uses glass with a special IR reflective coating on the inside. Which of the two houses is warmer on average? Both receive the same solar irradiation. Any clue?”
Yes.
The solar radiation is IR-A/B for both so the “special IR reflective coating” would reflect all the sunlight if it were effective for A/B and no energy would enter either glasshouse. Assuming you mean only effective for C then exactly the same energy is input to both. In both cases, the IR-A/B energy is re-emitted/converted as/to IR-C in exactly the same amounts but there is also material absorption of energy manifesting as heat within the structure (soil/plants/trellises etc) so the output is not the same as the input in the daytime.
The heat build-up is due primarily to absorption by materials (absorption depending on respective radiation/material “tuning”) within each glasshouse and a lack of convective heat dissipation. At night there is heat dissipation by conductive transfer process so losses will accrue in both until heated again during the day.
A radiatively REFLECTIVE surface (irrespective of wavelength), reflects exactly the same energy as was intercepted i.e. no change in class, frequency, wavelength, or energy (think stealth technology). However, the reflective surface is reflecting IR-C back on to materials already heated by the more effective heating agent IR-A/B so unless the material is “tuned” for IR-C but not for IR-A/B no extra heating will occur in the material because it is already in a higher energetic state due to the more effective heating agent IR-A/B.
In short, Version (B) will be warmer but negligibly so.
>”think stealth technology”
What I mean here is that stealth technology combats reflectance – if it doesn’t your aircraft gets shot down.
>”The solar radiation is IR-A/B for both so the “special IR reflective coating” would reflect all the sunlight if it were effective for A/B and no energy would enter either glasshouse.”
Missed your “on the inside” Thomas, which I assume you mean reflective of outgoing LWIR-C radiation from plants, soil, moisture, internal structures etc but not to incoming solar SWIR-A/B from the other direction.
But Infrared radiation reflecting glass doesn’t “reflect” in a simple polished surface manner so I suspect that the reflective effect may be both ways i.e. more like a filter. See Patents:-
Infrared radiation reflecting glass
WO 2008142208 A1
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
“The glass according to the invention, in which the surface layer made from the IR-radiation reflecting material is arranged into a netlike structure, operates as a high-pass filter. The glass transmits most of the electromagnetic radiation in which the frequency passes a specific threshold (or corre- spondingly, the wavelength is shorter than a specific threshold) . This threshold is determined by the size of the holes in the surface layer. Electromagnetic radiation that has longer wavelength than the threshold is reflected from the surface layer of the glass”
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2008142208A1?cl=en
Note – “operates as a high-pass filter”
Well put, Thomas.
Note that RC’s reply below quotes Tallbloke, a brain-damaged motorcyclist with no scientific credentials, plus a paper from 1996.
All in all, just the usual Cummings melange of cherry-picking, fake quotes and outdated irrelevancies. Still, I guess it keeps him off the streets harassing normal folk.
.
>”Note that RC’s reply below quotes Tallbloke, a brain-damaged motorcyclist with no scientific credentials”
Completely inept comprehension (but actually willful miss-attribution) as usual Taylor. Tallbloke (actually a qualified scientific historian AFAIA) could run rings around you effortlessly now that he’s recovered from his accident. Would you like me to invite him to respond to you directly? I’ve left a note of your comment in his ‘Suggestions’ anyway. Perhaps he’ll do a blog post in your honour.
Tallblokes website is simply the host of Professor John Eggert’s graph.
>”..plus a paper from 1996″
On which industrial combustion engineering is still based the world over – should all such facilities now adopt the IPCC’s curve instead for furnace design at your behest?
Should be – “Completely inept comprehension (but actually willful miss-attribution [and denigration]) as usual Taylor”
Tallbloke is completely off the planet with his ideas. Total nonsense.
RC: The vast majority of the energy we receive from the sun is in the visible part of the spectrum.
Glass is basically opaque to IR in the wavelength of warm (room temperature) objects. You can hide behind a glass sheet from an IR camera:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzoq4WjnfVA
Glass normally absorbs IR light well, warms up as a consequence, and then, in case of the greenhouse for example, re-radiates that heat and also transmits it through conduction and then convection to the air outside. It also re-radiates energy back to the inside. The radiative greenhouse effect.
The IR-reflective coating on the inside of the glass does two things, it increases the reflection of IR back into the greenhouse and reduces the heat transfer into the glass from the inside. It will measurably increase the temperature inside the greenhouse and maintain a higher temperature also at night as the night cooling is slower.
Similarly stacking the atmosphere with CO2, which is great absorber (and emitter) of IR light with absorption bands squarely in the middle of Earth’s surface IR emission peak will increase the thermal insulation properties of the Atmosphere. This has been well established for well over a century.
Tallbloke is completely off the planet with his ideas. Total nonsense.”
What on earth are you on about Thomas? What “ideas”? State them specifically if you want to take issue. I’ll contact Roger to respond but leave off the vitriol.
All I did was present a graph (of information YOU ASKED FOR Thomas) by Prof John Eggert of verified (by the paper cited) Leckner curves. Roger Weatherall simply hosts that particular instance of the graph (actually from an Eggert paper) on his “Tallblokes Talkshop” blog.
>”RC: The vast majority of the energy we receive from the sun is in the visible part of the spectrum.”
Yes,but what is the heating effect of that on geologic materials compared to IR-A/B?
>”The IR-reflective coating on the inside of the glass does two things”
Please provide (as I did, works both ways as a filter) an example of the real-world IR-reflective coating that you are referring to.
>”Similarly stacking the atmosphere with CO2, which is great absorber (and emitter) of IR light with absorption bands squarely in the middle of Earth’s surface IR emission peak will increase the thermal insulation properties of the Atmosphere. This has been well established for well over a century.”
You describe how refrigerant R744 (carbon dioxide) works – “great absorber (and emitter)” i.e. CO2 is a very efficient heat TRANSFER medium and coolant by definition, no greater example being it’s re-emission back to space from the thermosphere of CME energy.
The damage was done two months ago, and even the so called retraction doesn’t hold up when examined. Renwick said global warming causes droughts, so when the public “hears” there is a drought, they “hear” Renwick placing the blame on global warming. Having a retraction or clarification isn’t heard by the public, they haven’t been given any alternatives, so any drought is automatically assumed to be caused by global warming.
Here in the United States the historical record shows the worst droughts occurred during the 1930s and 1950s long before global warming and an increase in CO2 could be held up as the cause of droughts.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ict/?n=drought
There has been no increase in droughts caused by global warming. Renwick’s statement that increased global warming causes more and frequent droughts isn’t born out by the historical record.
NZ is not the US. Most deserts are found around 30 degrees latitude. If the planet was warming, for whatever reason, where might those desert regions migrate to? Could northern NZ become drier? The answers are not certain but there is some evidence that Northland might be having drier summers.
On Drought: Perhaps look at the global drought monitor to get an impression of the wider picture of what is going on….
or on the future expectations for the USA see here
It shows southern Fiordland and Southland suffering an “exceptional” drought. Which invites doubt — great drought doubt.
HS – New paper finds remarkable correlation between solar activity and the longest temperature record, spanning 350 years
A recent paper presented by Dr. Ka-Kit Tung, professor of applied mathematics, University of Washington, finds a remarkable correlation between solar activity [TSI or total solar irradiance] and the longest continuous series of instrumental temperature measurements in the world, the Central England Temperature [CET] record spanning 350 years since 1659. Dr. Tung also finds there has been no acceleration of alleged “anthropogenic” warming over the past 100 years, despite an exponential increase in CO2 emissions, and that the rate of alleged “anthropogenic” warming is “less than half of the accepted values.” Dr. Tung finds much of the global and Northern Hemisphere temperature variability of the past 350 years can be explained by the natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO].
Natural ocean oscillations e.g the AMO control Northern Hemisphere [NH] and global temperature. Ocean oscillations in turn appear to be controlled by solar activity and the harmonics of planetary motions.
‘Evidence for a Multi-decadal Oscillation in Global Temperature and Its Impact on the Deduced Anthropogenic Warming Trend: A Review’
Prof. Ka-Kit Tung ( Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, USA )
Our work was inspired by the paper of Wu et al. [2011] , who showed, using the novel method of Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (Wu and Huang [2009 ]; Huang et al. [1998] ), that there exists, in the 150-year global mean surface temperature record, a multi-decal oscillation. With an estimated period of 65 years, 2.5 cycles of such an oscillation was found in that global record. They further argued that it is related to the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) and, if this oscillation is separated out, a monotonic trend emerges in the global mean temperature, with little acceleration of warming. Given the importance of this last implication on the recent anthropogenic global warming, it is quite natural that the scientific community is demanding more evidence that this oscillation is real, recurrent and natural, and in particular evidence that it is not a response to time varying anthropogenic forcing that happens to look like an oscillation.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/new-paper-finds-remarkable-correlation.html
Talk presentation:-
http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/download/talk/20120918_2297.pdf
# # #
Oh dear, cyclicity rears its ugly head – if you are a warmist and given beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Zhou and Tung shred Foster and Rahmstorf’s 32 year “true anthropogenic warming trend” 0.17 K/decade.
Dr Tung finds a steady net anthropogenic warming trend of 0.07-0.08 K/decade for the last 100 years. On this basis, do I really need to commit Hara-Kiri in order to save the planet? Do I even need to bypass a Dodge Ram for a Toyota Prius? Shouldn’t my guilt be on account of burning domestic/garden waste instead given the greater anthropogenic aerosol impact?
Pages 13 & 14 – Graphs of adjusted HadCRUT4, 1889 – 2010.
Profile of HadCRUT4 is unrelated to CO2 curve after linearly regressing out solar, ENSO, volcanic, AMO, and linear/anthro (13/14) over 122 years and adding back linear/anthro (13/14),
Page 17 – “Why doesn’t multidecadal variability play a more prominent role in AR4 models?”
Page 34 – “A more controversial conclusion: the anthropogenic warming rate during the early 20th century can be detected and it is no different than during the second half. The increasing anthropogenic aerosols likely masked the true greenhouse warming rate during the second half.”
Page 36 – Graph: ‘EEMD: Low-frequency component (last 3 IMFs)’ [1600 – 2010]
TSI (thin red) vs Low Frequency [EEMD] Component of CET (blue) vs Moving Average CET (green) vs Moving Average HadCRUT4 (thick red). The impending EMD IMF change of phase, from positive (1970 – 2010) to negative (near future) is readily apparent.
TSI trumps CO2.
Last remark page 35 – “This is our last argument: the Occam’s razor argument”
Hear, Hear.
Richard, nice paper. But did you actually read it or understand what it said? Did you read the conclusions?
What does that sound to you like? Perhaps we could say that the massive increase in coal burning, especially China, and the aerosol emissions from it, was well as aerosols from massive burning of rain forest due to deforestation for farm expansion has masked the true greenhouse gas warming rate. Many studies have suggested this link prior.
What else does the paper actually say: It says with clarity that when all known natural forcings and cycles are mathematically removed from the temperature measurements a very clear and rather astonishingly straight trend evolves that shows the anthropogenic warming contribution exceptionally clearly.
What else can we see? If the multi-decadal oscillation continues into the future (most likely) than in the next handful of years the upwards trend of that oscillation will once more add with the AGW trend line to a strong positive trend of atmospheric warming.
TSI trumps CO2? What nonsense. Can’t you read the graphs? The TSI and the AGW (CO2, Methane et.al) forcings add to the TSI. The TSI is periodic. It will not remove or negate the AGW trend. It simply adds an oscillation to the mix, which all the while is going up.
But I shall commend you for actually citing a contribution to the scientific discussion (the Tung paper) instead of pointing to random noise within the denial echo chamber. Tungs paper is btw also discussed here with a reply post by Tung himself, further talking about his paper. It is also interesting to witness the ensuing discussion between Tung and other scientists who comment on his methods. Tungs paper is one view point of many. It is lively discussed in the science community. Fact in Science is not determined by one paper, it takes time and review to discuss. That is science in motion…
>”Richard, nice paper. But did you actually read it or understand what it said? Did you read the conclusions?”
Yes and yes, Are you a policeman Thomas? You ask a lot of questions.
>”What does that sound to you like? Perhaps we could say that the massive increase in coal burning, especially China, and the aerosol emissions from it, was well as aerosols from massive burning of rain forest due to deforestation for farm expansion has masked the true greenhouse gas warming rate.”
Yes
>”What else does the paper actually say: It says with clarity that when all known natural forcings and cycles are mathematically removed from the temperature measurements a very clear and rather astonishingly straight trend evolves that shows the anthropogenic warming contribution exceptionally clearly”
Yes. Not accelerating (hardly “astonishing”), less than half of Foster and Rahmstorf’s (short) 0.17 C/decade 32 yr trend and negligible too. As I said, not worth committing Seppuku for when burning garden waste is the greater sin.
>”What else can we see? If the multi-decadal oscillation continues into the future (most likely) than in the next handful of years the upwards trend of that oscillation will once more add with the AGW trend line to a strong positive trend of atmospheric warming.”
Err no. The EMD IMF (blue line) is going into change of phase (positive to negative). I’ve also done EMD analysis on HadSST2 over 132 years with similar result except being shorter, the residual is what is the last IMF’s in Tung’s analysis but the impending phase change is not as pronounced as his. The change corresponds to solar-centric predictions out to 2035 and thereabouts.
>”TSI trumps CO2? What nonsense. Can’t you read the graphs?”
I suggest it is you that is having difficulty with the graphs Thomas, particularly:-
Pages 13 & 14 – Graphs of adjusted HadCRUT4, 1889 – 2010.
Profile of HadCRUT4 is unrelated to CO2 curve after linearly regressing out solar, ENSO, volcanic, AMO, and linear/anthro (13/14) over 122 years and adding back linear/anthro (13/14)
Page 36 – Graph: ‘EEMD: Low-frequency component (last 3 IMFs)’ [1600 – 2010]
TSI (thin red) vs Low Frequency [EEMD] Component of CET (blue) vs Moving Average CET (green) vs Moving Average HadCRUT4 (thick red). The impending EMD IMF change of phase, from positive (1970 – 2010) to negative (near future) is readily apparent.
TSI trumps CO2.
>”The TSI is periodic”
Yes. The most significant period being a quasi-1000 yrs, roughly half of that period being positive phase occurring 1600s (Grand Minimum) to present (Grand Maximum). See page 36.
>”It [TSI] will not remove or negate the AGW trend”
No it wont. But just the uncertainty in the MM – present solar forcing (range 6 W.m2) is over 3 1/2 times the posited 1750 – present anthro forcing (Lockwood 2009 report to Royal Society) and the anthro temperature response is miniscule in comparison when feedbacks are taken into account (Abdussamatov 2012).
>”It simply adds an oscillation to the mix, which all the while is going up”
Now about to come abruptly down (even the IPCC’s CO2-centric solar-specialist go-to man Mike Lockwood acknowledges this historical cyclical fact.
>”Tungs paper is one view point of many”
Actually no. Similar EMD analyses have been done in peer-reviewed literature and you can do it at home as I’ve done. The problem with such analyses is the assumption of an underlying trend e.g. Scafetta’s quadratic. But Scafetta’s rising quadratic has been found out recently by the more sensitive EMD. A few years ago my own EMD analysis returned a rising residual much like Scafetta’s single quadratic but with the addition of new data, a negative inflexion (new IMF and residual) appeared quite rapidly. Scafetta assumes the rise will continue in his harmonic model (doing far better than the IPCC’s GCM’s right now) but that is an incorrect assumption when there are multiple EMD IMF’s and a residual to consider in the more sensitive EMD analysis and additional data coming in.
>””TSI trumps CO2″
‘SOLAR INFLUENCE ON EUROPEAN TEMPERATURES’ [Review paper]
Excerpt:
“In yet another refutation of the theory of CO2-induced global warming, Mangini et al. found “a high correlation between δ18O and δ14C, that reflects the amount of radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere,” and they note that this correlation “suggests that solar variability was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia.” In this regard, they report that “the maxima of δ18O coincide with solar minima (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, as well as with minima at around AD 700, 500 and 300),” and that “the coldest period between 1688 and 1698 coincided with the Maunder Minimum.” Also, in a linear-model analysis of the percent of variance of their full temperature reconstruction that is individually explained by solar and CO2 forcing, they found that the impact of the Sun was fully 279 times greater than that of the air’s CO2 concentration, noting that “the flat evolution of CO2 during the first 19 centuries yields almost vanishing correlation coefficients with the temperature reconstructions.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/european_temps.pdf
TSI trumps CO2………279 times over.
Really? Who says it does? I would take anything from The Science and Public Policy Institute about as seriously as I would material from Greenpeace. Basing any arguments about climate change solely on material published by think tanks that have a stated commitment to climate change denial is like basing a decision over which car to buy from advice given by a Toyota dealer.
If you are genuinely interested in finding out the truth and want to use that article, then use it solely as a basis for framing an argument and search the academic literature for papers that address the issues raised and base your position on what you learn from them. Alternatively, only listen to people that are independently and widely recognised as experts and (most importantly) don’t have an agenda one way or the other.
It’s a lot harder than trolling sites that really only support one position in the debate for material to support your arguments, but it will give you a much more accurate and credible answer to your questions and you will probably learn something new.
I would take anything from The Science and Public Policy Institute about as seriously as I would material from Greenpeace
You take Greenpeace seriously?
Maybe read “Confessions of Greenpeace Dropout” by Patrick Moore.
I can’t think of any serious science that Greenpeace has engaged in; if you know otherwise then please let me know
He seems to share your view of Greenpeace.
Oh sorry! I misread that one. Duh
To some extent then, I agree. There are so many banging on with their various agendas that all the shouting drowns out any actual science.
>”I would take anything from The Science and Public Policy Institute about as seriously as I would material from Greenpeace”
It is a “REVIEW” paper David (as I noted “[Review paper]” – did you miss that?).
A “review” of the science is exactly what the IPCC does except the IPCC includes Greenpeace material (so why not include SPPI material in IPCC assessments too?).
The SPPI quote above is a review of the science. The science paper cited is “Mangini et al”.
Deny it if you will David – your prerogative.
A review paper from the SPPI is meaningless.
And trying to compare them with the IPCC is plain dumb – the SPPI is widely recognised as solely focussed on climate change denial and even a brief glance at their website supports that – the links to the Heartland institute, the recently published book on the benefits of CO2 enrichment and a paper with the title: “proved: there is no climate crisis. They have 5 science advisors, all of whom are well known deniers who have varying links to fossil fuel, right wing political parties etc and have very limited credibility (and I’m being generous) as climate scientists.
On the other hand, the IPCC “is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.” and “Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise.”
Comparing the two is just plain silly, but I guess you have no choice but to do that.
David, There is a video of Prof William Happer extolling the benefits of 1000ppm recently.
He is a Professor of Physics at Princeton University.
He pointed out that our primate ancestors lived in a time when CO2 was 3000ppm.
Are his views also worthless to you?
Is he a “denier”?
>”A review paper from the SPPI is meaningless.”
The science paper is “Mangini et al”, who reviews it is immaterial whether IPCC or SPPI although I doubt Mangini et al sees the light of day in AR5 (but I’ll have a look)
>”And trying to compare them with the IPCC is plain dumb”
Rubbish as above.
>”On the other hand, the IPCC “is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.”
The IPCC is CO2-centric with pre-conceived scientific and political standpoints. That is its raison d’être. It does not assess the full spectrum of climate related science i.e. there are climate-critical astrophysics papers that either get a lip-service acknowledgment, a brush off, or do not get assessed at all (Monckton has a list of 450 or so re MWP that didn’t in the AR5 SOD) and there is selective adoption of scenarios that are simply not realistic e.g. solar and ocean cyclicity, the omission of the latter from GCMs being the reason climate science is “puzzled” by the standstill. But the whole reason for the IPCC’s existence is now highly questionable given atm temperature and OHC standstills, CS revisions, ocean cyclicity, radical and unforeseen (by the IPCC) solar change etc.
>”…and “Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise.”
First on the list of IPCC AR4 authors was one Lenny Bernstein LLB – a Lawyer. The “2500 scientists” meme is a myth. The scientists that do participate often have something of an incestuous involvement e.g. Jones (Gareth), Lockwood and Stott’s solar paper gains precedence in Chapter 8 AR5 because those same fellows are authors as well of other chapters e.g. Stott Chapter 10 i.e. hardly “objective” or independent and certainly not “complete”, these guys have a vested interest in seeing that their papers get pushed to the forefront.
>Comparing the two is just plain silly, but I guess you have no choice but to do that.”
The science under review by both SHOULD be much the same so the comparison is far from silly. SPPI/CO2 Science has comprehensive reviews but there are papers e.g. Mangini et al that SPPI review but the IPCC does not for obvious reasons (non-CO2-centricity being the main one). I will have to check though, if in fact the IPCC has reviewed Mangini et al and what the assessment was.
David,
Don’t knock the useful effect of bias — I presume yours is doing you no harm, though it’s very strong. I almost get the impression that because you’ve already decided the SPPI are “well-known deniers” you cannot connect with what they’re saying and therefore you don’t hear them. Could that be true, that you’re saying they’re wrong without listening to them?
I should point out (though you surely know this) the founding raison d’être of the IPCC. The resolution of the UN General Assembly which kicked off the IPCC clearly stated that global warming caused by CO2 would be a problem and had to be fixed. They never initiated an inquiry into whether it was a problem, they simply stated that it is. That’s still the case.
When it set up the IPCC the UN said: “climate change is a common concern of mankind” and “necessary and timely action should be taken to deal with climate change.” That’s still the case.
The UNFCCC Convention which lies behind everything it does says: “human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind.”
It goes on to define that “climate change” is caused by mankind (simply define it like that), then prescribes action: “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects,” and “promote sustainable development.”
Still no inquiry, no checks and balances that climate change still needs preventing, still no intelligence. I’m singularly unimpressed. Well, I am impressed — by the audacity and skill with which this amazing scheme to manage all human affairs has been constructed. All that’s been done since in the scientific sense has been to sift papers for evidence to support their founding views. It’s been done skilfully, with intent and deception.
Andy; I pay little attention to “experts” who use hyperbole, loaded language, straw man arguments and who are in the employ of organisations that are going to be hurt if we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Richard C: If you use the work of a reviewer as the basis for an argument, then the credibility and reliability of that reviewer is of utmost importance.
Richard T: The reason I choose not to use material published by the SPPI is for the same reason I don’t use material published by Greenpeace. Anything that is published primarily to manipulate and influence the reader has very limited value and therefore doesn’t warrant spending my all too finite time on.
As for your shared disregard for the IPCC, that is not only what I would have expected from you, but it’s of no interest to me because your complaints are largely irrelevant in assessing their ability to do their job and therefore their reliability.
>”If you use the work of a reviewer as the basis for an argument, then the credibility and reliability of that reviewer is of utmost importance.”
Exactly. See Donna Laframboise’ ‘Citizen Audit’ of IPCC AR4 (contributions from reviewers Andy Scrase and Mike Jowsey note).
But in the case of Mangini et al/SPPI, it is the work of Mangini et al that is the basis of argument – NOT SPPI.
>”The reason I choose not to use material published by the SPPI is for the same reason I don’t use material published by Greenpeace.”
So you dismiss Mangini et al (a scientific paper, not an SPPI paper) out-of-hand on account the paper appeared in an SPPI review?
You will of course have edited out all the gray literature, including that from Greenpeace, from AR4. Prepare to do same from AR5.
Your expectation of my saying something is no rebuttal. But you’re not listening. I wasn’t just expressing disregard for the IPCC. My point was that you cannot claim that “the IPCC process [is] to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. [The] IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise.”
It does not. Its very aims require it to reflect only evidence that supports a human influence on the climate. If it is not seeking and sifting out such evidence, it is acting in disregard of its founding document.
The very definition of the expression “climate change” is man-made warming. The IPCC, the UN and their leaders have been distorting and manipulating the language and the conversation about global warming for decades!
Remember too that the UNFCCC has a different definition of “climate change” to the IPCC
One includes all influences, one anthropogenic only. I can’t remember off the top of my head which way round. It is described in Pielke Jr’s book The Climate Fix
The UNFCCC defines climate change as a man-made effect. The IPCC is more scientific as it considers that climate change can have any cause.
Andy; I pay little attention to “experts” who use hyperbole, loaded language, straw man arguments and who are in the employ of organisations that are going to be hurt if we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
My expert is a Professor of Physics at Princeton University
Obviously, not worth listening to
I’ll see your Professor of Physics at Princeton University and raise you a professor of climate science at Oxford/Cambridge/Yale/MIT…………
Andy, you may be rather in awe of his title, but he hasn’t published anything on climate science (apart from in the George C Marshall Institute, so he may be a very clever fellow, but he’s not actively researching in the area that the people he’s contradicting work in. And if all the excitement is about “the work of Mangini et al”, then why isn’t that what you sourced? All you have presented is the review (opinion) of a third party that is known as being biased your way – if that was really what you were interested in you would have cited their papers.
Come on, you’re all running out of arguments – don’t you think it might be time to change subjects?
>”And if all the excitement is about “the work of Mangini et al”, then why isn’t that what you sourced?”
You are confused here David, Andy said nothing of Mangini et al, that was me.
>”All you have presented is the review (opinion) of a third party that is known as being biased your way”
Again, me, not Andy. The paper is cited, you can access it and read it for yourself to fact-check that the review is accurate or not, have you actually done that David?
I suggest that before flinging unsubstantiated allegations of bias around in respect to Mangini et al/SPPI that you present the evidence of your allegation, or, as the recently banned from CCG Rob Taylor and former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark both put it: “put up, or shut up”
Thanks Richard C
As RC said, I haven’t actually presented any arguments as such. I merely presented the views of William Happer.
In the CNBC video makes a few claims. One of the more striking was that primates lived on Earth when CO2 was at 3000ppm, around 70-80 million years ago.
The rest of the interview rehashed views that you see around here quite a lot, namely that there has been no warming trend of note for 17 years or so, and no statistical evidence for increase in extreme weather.
So, my main takeaway from this video was the 3000ppm/primate question.
Is this true, and if so, what are the implications?
And if all the excitement is about “the work of Mangini et al”, then why isn’t that what you sourced?”
I think I’ve misconstrued a little what you are getting at here in my above comment – if so apologies (except for the unsubstantiated allegations of bias part – no apologies for that)
You seem to be conflating what I’ve presented (Mangini/SPPI) as something Andy subscribes to wholeheartedly as some sort of collective front e.g. you say “All you have presented is the review (opinion)….” and “…if that was really what you were interested in you would……” and “….you’re all running out of arguments”
FYI that is not how sceptics argue as a rule David. Andy will not, of sceptic necessity, accept everything I put forward nor do I accept everything he does. There is a kind of meeting-of-ways though with CS for example but we approach that from rather different levels of subscription to methodology I suspect. My approach more pragmatic than anything because a) CS is the generally accepted proposition even though I think the underlying premise is flawed (i.e. IPCC RF methodology), and b) I don’t really know enough about CS to know for sure whether my RF concerns are valid or not in the CS context so I go along with CS to a degree. But from what I can gather Andy accepts CS constructs without much question except for how they are applied (but Andy might correct me on that). Time will tell (next 5 years) on whether CS has validity though unless I’m badly mistaken.
In short, I doubt whether Andy is even interested in Mangini et al let alone cite them rather than Happer i.e. he was making a completely different argument than I was.
BTW, we’re certainly not “running out of arguments” – don’t kid yourself David, you’re not exactly on a winning streak..
In terms of “climate sensitivity”, i don’t have a “position” as such, My understanding of the term is that the climate is sensitive to external and internal forcings (e.g TSI, aerosols, etc) and how sensitive it is determines how the temperature of the climate changes over time.
We know that the Earth does have temperature changes over both geological and decadal timescales, and everything in between.
If you assume that the GHE physics are correct (I am not saying that they are, but for sake of argument), then the extra forcing due to a doubling of CO2 is around 3.7 W/m2, according to theory
How the climate responds to this forcing is a separate question. An analogy might be a person taking a punch on the stomach. A trained body builder will absorb the punch with ease. A lesser mortal might collapse in agony.
We can construct models that estimate this response to the forcing. Some are based almost entirely on models. Some are based on physical observations mainly (e.g Forster and Gregory)
Thanks for clarification Andy. I think I’ve had the right handle on your CS view in light of that and it seems to be much the same as Magoo’s (and I hope I’ve got that right too) i.e. this is how it is, go with it but make sure everything is kosher – my pragmatism too up to this point – and why bother pushing on string like PSI re GHE or try to dismantle IPCC RF by deferral to combustion engineering RF even though both cases have merits of varying strength – and both of which I’ve got caught up in but I don’t think you or Magoo indulge in, sensibly – when the CS studies coming out are implying a downward revision anyway
>”In terms of “climate sensitivity”, i don’t have a “position” as such”
That is what makes it a bit tricky for me trying to work out where you are coming from at times because your interest appears to me to be very high to the exclusion of perhaps some other climate issues (I guess we immerse in what we have an affinity with, I know I do). But I do know your investigation of the statistical aspects; something I probably wouldn’t know the subtleties of (very enlightening too) if not for your interest making me take a greater interest i.e. piqued.
>”Some are based on physical observations mainly (e.g Forster and Gregory)”
If I could gain the time and inclination over and above my other climate fixations (my “immersions”) these are what I would concentrate on due to the empirical aspect and I get the impression these are the ones making life difficult for the high sensitivity/response faction.
I’m getting more interested lately because some of the latest CS papers seem to be quite short term and recent reassessments with the latest data. That is always what I look for in any of this climate stuff – up to date analysis. Almost as if CS reassessment could become real-time updates (surely real-time input data feeds to algorithms or something are possible?), which, if implemented and given my solar-centric bias and near term expectations stemming from that, would make CS all the more interesting over the next 5 years.
RC
You might like the comment from Richard Verney here
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/20/ecs-with-otto.html#comments
Whew! A Richard Verney two-fer. I’m quite surprised at the negativity (for want of better description) and in the following “Well said” “I agree” comments too. I don’t think I would be as harsh even though there’s merit in his argument in places (without delving too deep in detail).
I think I favour the evolving aspect and constructiveness but maybe I’m being a softy. RV’s “position” has nothing of the pragmatism we’re allowing. He’s chopping CS off at the knees but I don’t think he’ll gain main-stream traction with that approach unless enough people swing in behind him. Not sure there’s enough of those with enough clout that understand enough to do so anyway. Even if there was, how many would actually take a stand in public or MSM?
My deepest and most sincere apologies for getting your posts mixed up, but in my defence I’m juggling several projects at the moment and my comment was written in a hurry, and most of the time you guys repeat the same stuff from the same sources. As to my bias, I assume you are talking about my undying allegiance to the mighty Crusaders? Hey, I’m a Cantab, so what do you expect? Or are you talking about my deep and near spiritual devotion to Triumph motorcycles and condescending politeness about all other brands? I admit it, my bias knows no reason, but if you heard that big old triple at full noise you would understand. It’s a deep and profound thing.
I’m not sure what relevance my Super 15 allegiance or chosen make of motorcycle is, but one thing I have learned about this site is that logic and reason are rare here.
David,
Who are you replying to? This comment seems to make no sense out of context. Thanks
That’s great Andy, it means I’m just like you guys. Like I said, I find it hard to tell you from one another because you all say pretty much the same things, so rather than reply individually I’ll just reply. Looking back the bias was in response to something Richard C was waffling on about, and given the (thoroughly deserved) win our mighty Crusaders had on Saturday I assumed he was wanting to find out which Super 15 team I supported. The only other bias I have is to Triumph motorcycles, although to be fair I will always cheer for Holden on Bathurst weekend, so maybe that was the allegiance he was so interested in.
Doesn’t make a lot of sense, but that’s one of the charms of this site and I must admit I have become quite fond of you guys and all your quirky little ways.
And on that note, playtime is over, back to work.
Uh…. riiiight. Thanks for that scintillating thrust of rapier wit, David. (/sarc)
Meanwhile the grown-ups will have more interesting conversations regarding climate (note the title of this blog site).
I’m genuinely sorry for my comments Mike, I was being a little overly flippant and dismissive and as you pointed out, this is a site intended for you guys to discuss your perspectives on climate change and there is nothing that I or anyone else can ever say that will shake your belief, so I will thank you for allowing me to say my piece and leave you to it.
Where does “belief” come into it?
David, thanks for apologising. But you say:
You’re right, there’s nothing so difficult to change as a man’s belief. But there is one thing more you may not have done: present evidence they cannot refute. I’ve never seen one of these guys change their mind so fast as when they have evidence for something. I strongly recommend you try it.
James Renwick has a very interesting interview with Gareth in which he discusses the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and Antarctic Sea Ice
James Renwick claims that most of the regional losses and gains of sea ice in Antarctica are due to winds patterns and natural variability.
The SAM first came to my attention last year as the extended positive phase of the SAM in early winter resulted in weeks of anti-cyclones with cold settled weather, but little snow. As a result, we got a late ski season when the pattern finally broke and the snow came.
Note also that James Renwick asserts that less sea ice reduces the intensity of storms as a result of a reduces temperature gradient between the tropics and poles, a commonly presented sceptic argument against the theory of more extreme weather as a result of AGW.
I don’t want to turn this into another political slanging match; it’s refreshing to hear some real science from Dr Renwick. Kudos
Looked up SAM at the BOM website Andy, seems to be wind but I was wondering if there was a SST connection because SMH has an article ‘Last chance for that ocean dip’:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/last-chance-for-that-ocean-dip-20130607-2nuqd.html
Apparently “There’s been an extended period of extremely warm water,” Dr Griffin [CSIRO] said. The chart that caught my eye was SST off NSW:
http://images.smh.com.au/2013/06/07/4472251/Sydney-620×349.jpg
Note the lone ARGO float (Mike Jowsey – this one’s for you) and the 18 – 24 C difference south – north.
Quoting article – “The present temperatures of 20 to 21 degrees are a couple of degrees warmer than usual for the region and higher than during some periods of February, said David Griffin, an oceanographer with the CSIRO.
Spurring the urgency of a late-season beach visit is a large “cold-core eddy” that is about to break up Sydney’s balmy coastal conditions. The large body of cold water has been edging westwards for some weeks from the Tasman Sea and is beginning to mix in and break up the warm currents flowing south along the coast, Dr Griffin said.”
“Westward” current movement and “westerly” SAM winds are opposite in direction so no connection that I can see, diametrically opposed rather.
The “cold-core eddy” now surrounds NZ going by this chart (15 – 16 – 17 C, 29 at the Equator):
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDX0084.shtml
And with light wind 17 C corresponds to daily Max air temp in the BOP lately (a little over 19 today, no wind at all).
The anomaly plot however shows mid Tasman cooler than normal, the NSW phenomenon is very much localized:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomp.6.10.2013.gif