Doctoring climate change

The court decision has been welcomed by the expected opponents, such as Renwick (who manages to fabricate our statements even when we write them down and file them with the High Court), NIWA (whose publicity, er, I mean legal team made mincemeat out of logic and science) and Hot Topic (but then Renowden wouldn’t know a climate scientist from an astrophysicist).

Now they’re joined by doctors eager to fight climate change, in Doctors Welcome Decision On Treacherous Temperature Case.

Hear the twisted science and scurrilous lies

The reference to “treacherous” has a nasty effect, doesn’t it? And it means there must be some treachery, right? Well, actually, wrong. Despicably, they don’t justify it.

The “press release” simply repeats twisted science and scurrilous lies we’ve heard a thousand times before. Laking says:

Health risks of climate change start with injury from heatwaves and storms, more tropical illnesses, and ultimately threaten collapse of food supplies and political insecurity from crop failure, coastal inundation and ocean acidification.

Can’t he see that he’s claiming all those calamities will be produced by “Health risks of climate change”? He can’t be serious. But to drive home his point about disaster he adds:

Global food prices are already rising with the extreme drought affecting half of the United States.

Don’t be fooled by this: climate change didn’t produce the drought, and food (or corn) prices were already rising because the Greens have forced so much of it to be turned into ethanol for cars.

So much for stupid science. He moves on to

the NZ Climate Science Coalition and their wealthy backers, apologists for the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel and mining industry.

We are not wealthy, members are all unpaid volunteers, and we have no links with the tobacco industry. Look at the “proof” listed beneath the press release. Like saying we’re “linked” to the bus company because we rode on one.

“Still peddling lies that kill, they are delaying action essential to protect human health”, says Dr Laking.

These are plain lies, Dr Laking. You would do more of value with your time by providing proof of the global warming scare. Which would be a world first, because nobody else does.

But this is from the medical association or something, isn’t it?

No, this is the never-heard-before “New Zealand Climate and Health Council”, represented by this George Laking, an oncologist. The “council” goes by the Maori title “OraTaiao” which seems to have something to do with the health of the Earth.

Looking around their heroically sparse web site, we find their mission is about saving us from climate change, which is a “real and urgent threat to the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.” The web site promises to “honour Maori aspirations” (whatever they are, but apparently nobody else’s) and to “uphold the principles” of the Treaty and it expresses “unity” and “caring” with Maori words to demonstrate their sincerity.

This is not the Medical Association with its 5000 members – it’s a tin-pot affair that only started, according to its web site, less than three years ago. This muck-raking attempt to deprecate the Coalition won’t impress anyone beyond their half-dozen members.

275 Thoughts on “Doctoring climate change

  1. Dan Pangburn on September 20, 2012 at 7:55 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ),

    Thanks for the comments and listing the links to my stuff.

    I am not at all knowledgeable about Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) but it appears to be a somewhat elaborate curve fitting technique with some similarity to Fourier Analysis. The predicting ability of any curve fit depends on the assumption that the process will continue to act like it has been acting.

    My equation is NOT a mathematical curve fit. It is based on the physical phenomena. It assumes that average global temperature depends on three things: Ocean oscillation, the time-integral of sunspot numbers and the PPMV of atmospheric CO2. The coefficients determine the relative contribution of each of these and are varied to obtain the maximum R2. The pdf made public 11/24/11 does a fair job of describing how it was developed.

    I included in the equation the log decline of the influence of added increments of CO2. Recent results show that the influence of CO2 has been very nearly constant since about 1995 which corroborates Eggert. However I think he may be overstating to say CO2 influence has stopped. I would say that it is declining to an insignificant level.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on September 21, 2012 at 7:02 am said:

    Hello Dan, thanks for your response.

    Re EMD, it is an inherent signal extraction method more similar to PCA except that it identifies intermediate mode frequencies (IMFs) the first few being noise and then for temperature or SST say, it’s possible to identify multidecadal and decadal oscillations. The residual is the overall signal and very sensitive but no predictive value whatsoever unlike curve fits under the assumption you state.

    Scafettta’s model is not a mathematical curve fit either, it’s based on historical celestial cycles overlaid on the underlying trend of HadCRUT3 (which I’m sure has changed radically without his knowledge). It’s the natural cycles in models such as yours and Scafetta’s that are missing from GCM configurations and also what make them closer to the observed metrics then the GCMs (a no brainer), so all credit to you Dan. The competition is heading off the IPCC simulations.

    Eggert’s saying increasing CO2 levels have no more climate influence after about 200 ppm because the forcing is imperceptibly minor and negligible (but not those words exactly) as per the “path length” curve (from Leckner/Hottel) in the following graph:-

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

  3. Dan Pangburn on September 23, 2012 at 9:08 am said:

    Rob,
    The usual journals, Nature, etc. are hopelessly biased on articles regarding climate. They would need to admit that they have been wrong about AGW for many years. They won’t even publish articles by a renowned Climate Scientist like Dr. Roy Spenser so what chance does a lowly engineer have?

    My equation has been validated by accurately ‘predicting’ global average temperature trends for several decades. The concept was first developed in the pdf made public 6/1/09. Subsequent refinements led to the version/equation made public 3/10/11 (see above link that was so kindly made available by Richard C). The equation will continue to be validated by correctly predicting the flat to declining average global temperature trend for at least two more decades.

  4. Rob Taylor on September 23, 2012 at 3:06 pm said:

    Yeah, right…. are you not aware that the oceans exchange heat with the atmosphere? If not, the next El Nino will be a real education for you!

  5. Richard C (NZ) on September 23, 2012 at 3:24 pm said:

    “are you not aware that the oceans exchange heat with the atmosphere?”

    Yes but on overall global average, an ocean about 3 C warmer than the atmosphere results in a predominately ocean => atmosphere (and space) energy flow.

  6. Dan Pangburn on September 24, 2012 at 6:35 am said:

    Rob,
    Since my equation accounts for all of the el Niños and la Niñas for longer than a century I don’t expect very much new from the next. With a little more knowledge of thermodynamics/heat transfer you might be able to understand why el Niños and la Niñas pretty much cancel each other out in a temperature trend.

  7. Rob Taylor on September 24, 2012 at 7:01 am said:

    Dan / Richard, with a little more knowledge of complex systems, you would understand that you have grossly over-simplified your analysis.

    However, I’ll play along – in your view, why is Arctic sea ice mass vanishing, and both Greenland and Antartica losing land ice?

    Not too mention pretty much everywhere else…

  8. Richard C (NZ) on September 24, 2012 at 8:13 am said:

    You’re all bluff and vacuity aren’t you Rob? When confronted with substance your response is just empty argument from authority.

    And then you change the subject (isn’t this the “Gish Gallop” you warmists prattle on abouit?).

    BTW:-

    GRACE satellite data shows Antarctica is gaining ice mass

    Antarctica is home to 90% of the world’s ice mass. Although Antarctic sea ice is currently at a record high and recent research predicts Antarctic land ice will continue to grow during this century, some warmists continue to believe that Antarctica is melting down. Additional evidence shows that the “most vulnerable” portion of Antarctica, the Antarctic Peninsula, has gained up to 45 meters of ice over the past 155 years. Gravitational data from the GRACE satellites also show that the vast majority of Antarctica is gaining, not losing, mass. Trend plots from the GRACE data browser, using all available online data, show that Antarctica has continued to gain mass since the beginning of the mission in 2001:

    >>>>>>>>>

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/grace-satellite-data-shows-antarctica.html

  9. Rob Taylor on September 24, 2012 at 8:43 am said:

    Gravitational data from the GRACE satellites also show that the vast majority of Antarctica is gaining, not losing, mass. Trend plots from the GRACE data browser, using all available online data, show that Antarctica has continued to gain mass since the beginning of the mission in 2001.

    Really, Richard? How gullible you are!

    If you bothered to check with real scientists doing actual research on the GRACE data, you will find a different story from your cloud-cuckoo-land fantasy denial websites:

    Here we use an extended record of GRACE data spanning the period April 2002 to January 2009 to quantify the rates of Antarctic ice loss. In agreement with an independent earlier assessment4, we estimate a total loss of 190±77 Gt yr−1, with 132±26 Gt yr−1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of −57±52 Gt yr−1, apparently caused by increased ice loss since the year 2006.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html

    Thus, the denial site you quote is engaged in what scientists call a “barefaced lie”…

  10. Your comments are vicious, Rob Taylor, you could at least try to sound a little objective. The web site RC links to (The Hockey Schtick) simply links to a calculator type of program hosted by the University of Colorado. Please explain why you say of the university web site “the denial site you quote is engaged in what scientists call a “barefaced lie””.

  11. Rob Taylor on September 24, 2012 at 9:43 am said:

    Nonsense, RT, the lie re Antartic ice is front-and-centre on the denial site; nothing to do with the link to UC, which is, presumably, just there to give it a spurious validity.

    This disinformation is similar in concept to the previously-exposed Jo Nova / CO2science “spin” on genuine science, albeit more blatant.

    Both, however, are relying on the ignorance and gullibility of their target audience…

  12. Richard C (NZ) on September 24, 2012 at 9:57 am said:

    This is the GRACE browser that the “denial website” used to extract the plots:-

    http://geoid.colorado.edu/grace/grace.php

    “This work is supported by the NASA ‘Making Earth Science Data Records for Use in Research Environments (MEaSUREs) Program'”

  13. Richard C (NZ) on September 24, 2012 at 10:04 am said:

    Here’s some of the IPCC’s “CO2science “spin” on genuine science” Rob:-

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/eggert-co2.png

    The IPCC of course “relying on the ignorance and gullibility of their target audience…”

    That’s you Rob.

  14. Richard C (NZ) on September 24, 2012 at 10:34 am said:

    More IPCC “CO2science “spin” on genuine science”

    “Formal attribution studies now suggest that it is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed warming of the upper several hundred metres of the global ocean during the latter half of the 20th century {5.2, 9.5}”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-4-1.html

    Only a suggestion and only likely. No mechanism is found at 5.2 and 9.5.

    Plays perfectly on “the ignorance and gullibility of their target audience…”

  15. Rob Taylor on September 24, 2012 at 10:39 am said:

    So, RC2, do you now deny that you posted this?

    Trend plots from the GRACE data browser, using all available online data, show that Antarctica has continued to gain mass since the beginning of the mission in 2001:

    >>>>>>>>>

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/grace-satellite-data-shows-antarctica.html

    Click on the link and you will see the full quote. The fact that the lying denier who owns the site also provides a link to the GRACE data won’t get you out of this hole, chum.

    This is on a par with your manufactured “Obama quote” earlier; and you wonder why you have no credibility left??

  16. Can you point us to the bit that you consider a “lie”?

  17. Rob Taylor on September 24, 2012 at 11:15 am said:

    * Sigh *, here it is, for the 3rd time:

    Gravitational data from the GRACE satellites also show that the vast majority of Antarctica is gaining, not losing, mass. Trend plots from the GRACE data browser, using all available online data, show that Antarctica has continued to gain mass since the beginning of the mission in 2001.

    the reality is, as highlighted above:

    we estimate a total loss of 190±77 Gt yr−1, with 132±26 Gt yr−1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of −57±52 Gt yr−1, apparently caused by increased ice loss since the year 2006.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/full/ngeo694.html

  18. The discrepancy is easy enough to explain. The paper Rob is waving about is looking at 2002-2009. The NASA is for the full period of GRACE, 2001 to 2012. If you look at the NASA data, you can see that in all areas except a very small region in West Antarctica, there has been a huge gain in ice since 2009, which was a temporary low point.

    Note that Rob’s paper says “in contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that East Antarctica is losing mass”. In other words, they are the only ones to have found this, but only because they based it on a short term trend which has now disappeared.

    Also, the geoid problem with GRACE means that all values are probably over-stated by a factor of at least 2.

  19. So person (a) says that “the vast majority” of Antarctica is gaining mass. Person (b) says that East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions

    Therefore person (a) is a liar

    Did I parse that correctly?

  20. Pretty much. You really should stop all that lying, Andy. :-)

  21. Dan Pangburn on September 24, 2012 at 8:43 pm said:

    Rob,
    I explained the arctic ice melting issue back on my Sept 12 post.

    Your comment referring to “complex systems” is revealing. Weather is primarily the study of energy moving about the planet and is indeed complex. Climate Scientists have huge codes called GCMs and AOGCMs running on powerful computers that address these complex weather problems. These codes are all similar and give good results initially. But their accuracy fades to computational noise within a few days. It is woefully naïve to believe that a weather program can become a climate program if you run it longer. Deficiencies in the Global Climate Models have been demonstrated in their total failure to predict the flat average global temperature trend since about 2001.

    Weather is complex but average global temperature is a problem in thermodynamics and radiation heat transfer and a simple one for an engineer like me. That I got it right is demonstrated by accurate calculation and prediction including the flat temperature trend since 2001.

  22. Rob Taylor on September 25, 2012 at 8:14 am said:

    Dan, you have confused weather with climate, an elementary mistake that shows you are a rank beginner – try reading a basic climate science text, rather than the rubbish put up by failed meteorologists (Watts) and brain-damaged motorcyclists (Tallbloke) abd their ilk.

  23. So on one hand we have sceptics like Tom Harris, the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition, who says that climate temperature is incredibly complex and we will never be able to estimate it, and on the other hand we have Dan, who claims that it’s a simple thermodynamic problem which any engineer can solve. Which is it?

  24. Richard C (NZ) on September 25, 2012 at 8:54 am said:

    Climate is an aggregation of weather is it not?

  25. No that is “old school” thinking Richard

    “Weather” is what we see out of the window and feel in our faces.
    “Climate” is how we feel about the world and our role in it

  26. Richard C (NZ) on September 25, 2012 at 9:01 am said:

    Which is it?

    The answer to that will be resolved over time by monitoring the performance of models (e.g. IPCC CMIP5, Scafetta, Pangburn) against observations.

    If one of the above (it will ONLY be one because they’re predicting different outcomes) is successful then Tom Harris will be wrong.

    At present, only Scafetta is in-the-money with Pangburn close and the IPCC out of the race (on another course entirely) but time will tell.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on September 25, 2012 at 9:46 am said:

    Same for El Nino. The following link shows all the Dynamical and Statistical Model El Nino forecasts:-

    http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/currentinfo/SST_table.html

    Given ENSO3.4 has just dipped back below the 0,5 El Nino threshold, about half the models are out-of-the-money and Tisdale asks:-

    Hey, Where’d The El Niño Go?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/24/tisdale-asks-hey-whered-the-el-nino-go/

    Hansen and local pundit Gareth Renowden were predicting (hoping for) a strong El Nino to get warming back on track (and validate the IPCC models) so this development must be disconcerting for them.

    As it is, a weak El Nino looks good for Scafetta and if conditions revert back to La Nina by the end of the year then Dan Pangburn might be worth a bet.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on September 25, 2012 at 10:22 am said:

    In the short term, even a simple polynomial projection of HadSST2 using a PC and Excel is performing better than the supercomputed GCM simulations.

    So we can add the Monkey Mean to the list of in-the-money predictions.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on September 25, 2012 at 10:37 am said:

    NINO3.4, not ENSO3.4.

  30. Dan Pangburn on September 30, 2012 at 5:18 am said:

    Rob,

    Since 2001 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased by 25.6% of the increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature trend is flat thru 2011 (slightly down if you include the part of 2012 that has been reported so far). How much wider will this separation between the rising carbon dioxide level and not rising temperature trend need to get for you and the rest of the ‘consensus’ to realize that you are egregiously wrong and have misled the rest of the world?

    Humanity has wasted over 100 billion (with a B) dollars in failed attempts using super computers to demonstrate that added atmospheric CO2 is a primary cause of global warming and in misguided activities to try to do something about it.

    You are apparently unable to fathom that an engineer, using a desk top computer, some science and a little engineering, could figure out what the ‘consensus’ has failed to do. My equation calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide with an accuracy of over 88%. When calibrated to measurements thru 1965 and using actual sunspot numbers, it predicted the average global temperature trend value in 2005 within 0.054°C. When calibrated thru 1995 and using actual sunspot numbers, it predicted the average global temperature trend value in 2011 within 0.002°C. The ‘consensus’ would be ecstatic to do anywhere near this well.

    A graph of. the average global temperature prediction through 2037 is shown in the pdf made public 11/24/11. The land temperature will cool about twice as fast.

  31. Rob Taylor on September 30, 2012 at 4:13 pm said:

    Dan, I look forward to publication of your theory in a peer-reviewed climate journal; until then, you are just another lost sock in the great laundromat of denial.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on September 30, 2012 at 4:19 pm said:

    “…just another lost sock in the great laundromat of denial”

    Whose model beats the socks (and pants) off the IPCC GCMs.

    So does Scafetta’s (“in a peer-reviewed climate journal” no less).

    So does a ‘Monkey Mean’ polynomial projection.

  33. Rob Taylor on September 30, 2012 at 5:36 pm said:

    Great, let Dan publish and become renowned as the man who overturned 150 years of work in his spare time – Nobel prize and all that.

    Sure, Einstein pulled it off, but I rather suspect Einstein would not have wasted his time on this site…

    BTW, Dick, the IPCC does not have any GCMs, as the IPCC does no research or modelling; it simply reports on the work of others.

  34. Richard C (NZ) on September 30, 2012 at 6:12 pm said:

    Nicola Scafetta HAS published Rob. His model is out performing the IPCC stable:-

    http://www.oarval.org/Scafetta_thumb.png

    And all Dan has to do is point to the success of his model over time (something the IPCC cannot come close to at present):-

    http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Verification%20Dan%20P.pdf

    That should be a doddle for Dan given the HadCRUT3/PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral correlation is 0.96.

    The IPCC has a stable of models (an “ensemble”). All using the same IPCC RF methodology and forcing expressions. All using the same RCP scenarios. And ALL (except one in an update of 38) are on the wrong trajectory:-

    http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/christy-fig.jpg?w=808&h=622

  35. Richard C (NZ) on September 30, 2012 at 6:23 pm said:

    “All using the same RCP scenarios” – as specified by the IPCC.

    That is, the modellers in the IPCC stable do NOT have the latitude to mimic climate on their own terms – hence their lack of success.

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation