Clouded thinking hampers science

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/kyoto-protocol/news/article.cfm?c_id=244&objectid=10393139

I guess the warmists will claim that this debate is a head-to-head of like-minded “deniers” blah blah

Interesting thoughts, but I confess I’m confused by one point. You point out the Twomey effect as:

The basic premise was simple and a wonderful example of Professor Twomey’s incisive thought: if pollution contributes additional nuclei upon which water can condense, then the condensed mass of water will consist of a larger concentration of smaller drops. The reflectance of the cloud will increase because the total surface area of the condensed water in cloud is greater when spread over more droplets. Although pollution alone may directly affect climate by modifying the absorption and scattering properties of the cloud-free atmosphere, the effect of pollution on clouds is potentially even larger; cloud droplets interact with radiation much more strongly than the nuclei upon which they form because they are typically several orders of magnitude greater in size.

So reflectance increases with increased aerosol pollution, and seems to make sense. But then you imply this is incorrect physics (or do you?), by saying:

[NASA] substituted for Twomey’s correct physics, a ‘surface reflection’ idea which apparently reconciled the new observations with theory. There’s no such physics. It was a con.

What then was the correct original Twomey idea, and how is it different to NASA’s?
I note you disagree with aerosol-cloud reflectance because you say later:

…the real AGW we had in the late 20th Century was probably from aerosol pollution,, as Asia industrialised, increasing light transmission through clouds.

and again:

Pat Michaels has commented that experiment disproves this because the Northern hemisphere has warmed recently more than the South, which is what you’d expect if Chinese aerosols acted in the way I describe, and it’s observed experimentally.

Because of major scientific errors, no climate model can predict climate. In 2004, NASA physicist Ferenc Miskolczi left because they refused him permission to publish his discovery that ‘back radiation’ in the 1922 paper by English Astronomer Sir Arthur Milne was a mathematical mistake; last year I realised the prediction by Carl Sagan of cooling by polluted clouds supposed to hide high feedback CO2-AGW assumes a single optical process when there are two. NASA knew this by 2004 and commissioned work to find out why.

In 2004, NASA [ http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/singh/winners4.html ] substituted for Twomey’s correct physics, a ‘surface reflection’ idea which apparently reconciled the new observations with theory. There’s no such physics. It was a con. to deceive from authority the rest of oxymoronic ‘climate science’ and it worked. The only ‘evidence’ for high feedback in AR4, ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling, Figure 2.4, doesn’t exist but climate science accepted it..

Yes, that’s right, AR4′s conclusions are fraudulent. Extend the logic and Miskolczi showed a water planet’s atmosphere self controls about constant greenhouse warming [well less than half the claimed 33K because they convolve in it lapse rate], also the real AGW we had in the late 20th Century was probably from aerosol pollution,, as Asia industrialised, increasing light transmission through clouds. Because it’s particularly marked at short wavelengths needed to warm deep seas, this explains palaeo-climate.

The latter is fascinating: Hansen was convinced of CO2-GW by palaeo-climate and set out to prove it by modelling. However, recent results show the fast heating of the ocean which restarted deep currents was at the edge of the Antarctic ice cap 1300 years before air temperature rose and 2100 years before [CO2] rose. [Warm water to 4°C and it sinks.]

So, there is no CO2-GW or AGW. The World is cooling fast. as we enter a new Maunder Minimum of solar activity. The UK Met/. Office shows the key signs of changes in official mindset, having moved its head of modelling and officially assuming 50% solar, 50% CO2-AGW as it tries to regain credibility. I suspect this claim is to massage Cameron and his eco-fascist wif’e's egos that CO2-GW is still in the Hadley model, but in reality I suspect they’re working overdrive to recalibrate for reality, hence they had to shift the boss.

I wonder if he was a Marxist entryist, perhaps like the guy who fiddled NZ’s very important.temperatures? Interestingly, Marxist Jim Hansen is keeping high the feedback CO2-AGW idea alive by claiming aerosol cooling is double what he had thought. Pat Michaels has commented that experiment disproves this because the Northern hemisphere has warmed recently more than the South, which is what you’d expect if Chinese aerosols acted in the way I describe, and it’s observed experimentally.

So, 35 years’ ago, Hansen made an honest mistake. Come 2004 and NASA lied to get AR4. The mistake has been identified and the weather organisations are quietly backtracking. The Marxist entryists are getting desperate and the backing down of your guy vs Monckton [a bit of a prat but sound] is yet another symbol of retreat.

“Ignorance is Knowledge – George Orwell 1984, Green Party 2011″

I think I hit a few buttons.

# On-going peer-reviewed science and data is considered with due consideration for already formed but moribund policy.

Whereas the process we would hope for from our govt:-

# Policy is formed and amended dynamically with due consideration for on-going peer-reviewed science and data.

The latter is the whole point of my “publish the metrics” thrust – how naive of me.

So if peer-reviewed science and data DOESN’T fit the policy – its excluded.

There’s plenty in that letter when you take it word-for-word and element-by-element but I haven’t got down to that detail yet, I’ll do that when I put the reply together.

BTW others, similar comments to Mike’s would help because in putting together the big picture it’s easy to miss the subtle detail I find in this exercise (I’m appealing for crowd-critique).

…in which peer reviewed data and science is presented with due consideration for its policy relevance

THERE YA GO!!
right there!
With Due Consideration To….POLICY

’nuff said. Welcome to 1984

I haven’t been pushing an “ocean is cooling” or “planet is cooling” meme with MftE CC, I went with “If the ocean is not warming, there’s no global warming – period.”

On reflection, I’m encouraged by Dr Power’s response because it helps set the respective positions for ongoing debate and opens up new angles of attack (among other things) on their “long-term” only rationale.

First, for example, Dr Power cites Easterling and Wehner (2009) “ls the climate warming or cooling?”, that gets prominence at blogs like SkepticalScience (no doubt Power is a loyal fan). Paper linked here:-

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

It looks at observed linear trends (simplistically) and modeled trends (why I don’t know – includes Meehl et al. 2007).

Now I’m not denying that there’s been an underlying trend of global warming over the last 300 years as perhaps Power thinks I do, I’m just questioning the attribution of significant anthropogenic influence. So where in that 300 year series is there evidence (apparent or proven) of an anthropogenically forced acceleration? And if its there, why has natural variability overridden it as Easterling and Wehner implicitly concede?

This ties in nicely with the new Loehle and Scafetta paper “Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Historical Time Series”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66%C2%B0ccentury-for-agw/

They calculate 0.66°C/century for AGW and the paper obviously has its roots in Scafetta’s “Empirical Evidence for a Celestial Origen of the Climate Oscillations and its Implications” paper. Their residual linear trend 1950 – 2010 (Fig 2 WUWT post) indicates anthropogenic acceleration starting at 1950 but remember that I plotted the underlying HadCRUT3 quadratic from “Celestial Origens” against LD-ML CO2 and found that temperature LEADS CO2 which I pointed out to MftE CC and they’ve studiously ignored. The temperature acceleration starts about 1870 and the CO2 acceleration starts around 1945 i.e. CO2 lags temperature in the 20th century.

E&W say:-

“Here we analyze both the observed record and a series of climate model simulations for the occurrence of both positive and negative decadal trends in the globally averaged surface air temperature to show that it is possible, and indeed likely to have a period of as long as a decade or two with no trend in an anthropogenically forced climate.”

From L&S (assuming the anthro attribution) and E&W, I posit that the climate is both naturally and anthropogenically forced and over the last decade natural forcing has overridden anthro forcing and probably will do to at least 2030 (excluding quiet sun consideration). Dr Power states:-

“In making my statement that the information ‘is consistent‘ with climate change I have accepted that there will be short term variability and have hence considered the longer timescales.”

1) Does she concede the possibility of “no trend in an anthropogenically forced climate” due to “short term variability” that may last 30 years (which defines “climate”) rather than the 20 years that E&W state if it is to follow the trends of “longer timescales” that L&S show?

2) How does she reconcile the inconsistency of CO2 lagging the underlying trend of temperature (1870 vs 1945) in her “longer timescales” with her assertion that “the observed climate metrics are consistent with what we would expect from anthropogenic climate change”?

Secondly, I will press for the MftE CC understanding of how the ocean is warmed e.g.

3) Do they subscribe to the notion as per the NewScientist article that the atmosphere and GHGs heat the ocean and if so to please describe the process in physics terms with reference to peer-reviewed science (and please refer to my Hale and Querry reference previously provided that proves the physical impossibility of it and has been cited 1470 times).

4) If yes to 3), a) do they subscribe to the notion that ocean warming will resume soon as a result of rising AGHG emissions so that anthropogenic forcing overrides natural variability? b) If yes, why hasn’t that happened since 2003/04? c) Or can anthropogenic forcing only happen when natural variability is in abeyance?

5) If no to 3), what would contribute to resumed ocean warming if rising AGHG emissions (and therefore anthropogenic forcing) will not?

Stuff like that.