Disproving AGW

This thread is for discussion of arguments and evidence against the existence of dangerous man-made global warming.


152 Thoughts on “Disproving AGW

  1. Richard C (NZ) on March 1, 2012 at 2:30 pm said:

    Climate Experts Spencer and Lindzen Lash Out as Pet Theory is Trashed

    Two irate top climatologists launch into a flurry of name-calling and innuendo as their beloved greenhouse gas theory collapses threatening to take their careers with it.

    Dr. Roy Spencer this week followed the lead of Dr. Richard Lindzen in spitting insults after fellow skeptic scientists debunked the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Lindzen confined his insults to private emails. But Spencer openly blogged his personal attack after reading how cutting-edge scientific research by specialists in astrophysicists, space engineering and mathematics had exposed Spencer’s weak grasp of physics; something particularly identified by NASA’s former Apollo Mission engineer, Dr. Pierre R. Latour.

    Highly credentialed scientists, among them Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle, Dr. Matthias Kleespiesand other leading experts in their respective fields have been remorselessly debunking the GHE in a series of articles and peer-reviewed papers. The GHE is the cornerstone of the man-made global warming hysteria.

    Discussions Terminated After Tempers Fray

    With unseemly venom Spencer and Lindzen have scorned further dialog from several fellow man-made global warming skeptics for refusing to toe the line over the increasingly discredited greenhouse gas theory (GHE).

    Like many climatologists, Spencer and Lindzen have built successful careers as skeptics of the man-made global warming narrative, but all the while they’ve denounced anyone who has pinpointed errors woven into the GHE. Some quarters refer to such skeptics as ‘lukewarmers.’

    But in recent months a paradigm shift has been underway and a whole slew of hard core GHE contrarians are no longer prepared to stay silent – and can you blame them?

    >>>>>>>>>

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9167

    Must confess I’ve had to think hard about the “paradigm shift”, being of the “cold space” (2.7K) belief.

    “Everyone who has studied thermodynamics knows space doesn’t have a temperature. That’s the first trick question you get on the first day of the first semester of introductory thermodynamics – nope, not that I remember, but I’ll look up ‘Applied Heat’ (our main text) to see what that says.

    I’m now struggling to understand how “…only the cooling effect of ‘wet’ gases in our turbulent atmosphere dispose of the excess heat energy via convection and conduction” – dispose to where?

    I had thought that the dissipation process included space but if space has no temperature (neutral), the dissipation must be completed within the atmosphere.

    This is shaking my tree.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on March 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm said:

    Yes, Virginia, the “Vacuum” of Space Does have a “Temperature”

    Written by Dr. Roy W. Spencer | February 23 2012

    Usually, I refrain from addressing silly scientific claims. But since some people seem determined to go to any extent to ‘disprove’ greenhouse gas theory, in this instance I am going against my better judgment to answer a particularly crazy article entitled, “Roy Spencer’s Fatal Error: Believing the Vacuum of Space Has a Temperature“.

    >>>>>>>>

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/9984-yes-virginia-the-vacuum-of-space-does-have-a-temperature

  3. Andy on March 1, 2012 at 3:25 pm said:

    What is “space”? If they mean a vacuum with no energy, then this doesn’t exist. “Space” as we know it has cosmic rays, photons, neutrinos and all sorts of other stuff flying backwards and forwards.

  4. Richard C, you say: “I had thought that the dissipation process included space but if space has no temperature (neutral), the dissipation must be completed within the atmosphere.”

    Let me hasten to say there’s little in this discussion I understand and I haven’t spent long reading it. But this statement stood out. It is surely incorrect. The earth, satellites, our moon, the planets and other bodies are warmed by heat from the sun. The heat energy, clearly, is radiated through space or it would not arrive. I must believe that the sun’s energy is radiated in every direction, not just towards bodies that are warmed. This means the sun is cooling directly to space, which gives us a direct analogue of the situation you mention with the Earth. Thus the (heat) radiation is independent of the medium through which it radiates or its temperature. The earth itself (say a large surface rock) can indeed radiate heat energy into space beyond the atmosphere. I haven’t considered whether the radiative frequency is important here.

    Do you agree?

  5. Richard C (NZ) on March 1, 2012 at 3:44 pm said:

    O’Sullivan says about half way down:-

    “Spencer and Lindzen wrongly assumed that the so-called cosmic ‘microwave’ – the background radiation (or CMBR, generated by the ‘Big Bang’) is what the rest of vacuum space registers as temperature (the CMBR is quoted at around 2.7K).

    But even that pro-green online encyclopedia, Wikipedia knows there is no ‘real’ temp in space – they refer to the “color temperature’ of the decoupled photons” which they say “has continued to diminish ever since [the ‘Big Bang’]; now down to 2.72548 ± 0.00057 K,[3]” ”

    I’m confused by this. They seem to be separating CMBR from vacuum space (how?) but as you say, there’s “other stuff” and I always thought that was what registered the 2.7 K. I think we might be wrong about that.

    I looked up my ‘Applied Heat’ text but it didn’t cover space. Being “applied”, my thermodynamic intro skipped the big picture and went on to the practical applications. I just accepted what I found when I looked up “temperature of space” on the internet without too much thought.

    Have to go for a run then sleep on this.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on March 1, 2012 at 4:40 pm said:

    May I be so bold as to modify a sentence RT?

    “The [energy], clearly, is radiated through space or it would not arrive”

    The RADIATIVE energy is only converted to HEAT energy when it encounters matter.

    I agree to a degree with what you say. What I was getting at is that the conduction, convection and collision processes that dissipate HEAT energy must be completed within the atmosphere in the “neutral space” paradigm..

    If space is neutral those processes cannot cross over from atmosphere to space.

    Then the only way for energy to leave the atmosphere after the HEAT energy dissipation is complete within the atmosphere is by RADIATIVE energy dissipation from atmospheric matter.

    This is a reverse of the sequence in the third sentence down from top of this comment. It’s only matter that can have temperature (anything above 0 K) and matter that has a temperature (molecular excitation) radiates

    (I’m not sure about photons, neutrons etc having temperature though, the “other stuff” Andy referred to. I had thought that there was the odd particle of matter suspended in space but maybe not).

    Plenty of earth’s surface RADIATIVE energy rockets out to space at the speed of light but once there it doesn’t heat space due to the lack of matter. HEAT energy dissipation on the other hand is a slow process (conduction, convection, collision) until RADIATION takes over.

    What Andy and I (and others apparently) are confronted with is perhaps a different understanding of the nature of space. That understanding (about only 2.7 K) makes a big difference as you can see by the acrimonious controversy.

    BTW, re frequency. The energy that heats land, ocean and atmosphere is within the solar range of the electro-magnetic spectrum but that gets complicated; different frequency/matter combinations result differently – heating from some, no heating from others.

    Suggest you get other reputable opinions on all the above but where from given the spat? Those involved in space exploration would surely have a better understanding of space than climate scientists I would have thought.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on March 1, 2012 at 4:45 pm said:

    Sorry, should have replied here, See down-thread.

  8. Richard C (NZ) on March 1, 2012 at 5:09 pm said:

    “HEAT energy dissipation is complete” might be better stated as:-

    “HEAT energy [transfer] is [minimal]”

    Energy dissipation then continues RADIATIVELY.

    Whew!.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on March 1, 2012 at 5:30 pm said:

    Neutrinos (as Andy stated), not neutrons (as I stated) – garrgh!

  10. Richard C (NZ) on March 1, 2012 at 5:40 pm said:

    Clues here:-

    Temperature

    The CMB gives a snapshot of the universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thus making the universe transparent to radiation. When it originated some 380,000 years after the Big Bang—this time is generally known as the “time of last scattering” or the period of recombination or decoupling—the temperature of the universe was about 3000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen.[53]

    Since decoupling, the temperature of the background radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1,100[54] due to the expansion of the universe. As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, making the radiation’s temperature inversely proportional to a parameter called the universe’s scale length. The temperature Tr of the CMB as a function of redshift, z, can be shown to be proportional to the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day (2.725 K or 0.235 meV):[55]

    Tr = 2.725(1 + z)

    For details about the reasoning that the radiation is evidence for the Big Bang, see Cosmic background radiation of the Big Bang.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

  11. Andy on March 1, 2012 at 7:06 pm said:

    Temperature is a measurement related to the kinetic energy of the matter that surrounds the measuring device.

    If there is no matter surrounding the measuring device, then you have no temperature, though the measuring device itself invalidates the experiment as it introduces matter into the system. This is the classical Observer Paradox postulated by Schrodinger.

    “Space” as we know it contains particulate matter in the form of various cosmic rays, neutrinos, and light quanta (photons) that can also be described as particles in quantum mechanics.

    Therefore, the theoretical concept of a matter-less and energy-less state that has a measurable temperature doesn’t actually exist, as far as I can see. If you introduce a thermometer into “space”, at some point it will register a temperature above absolute zero.

    That is my understanding, though I am always keen to be corrected.

  12. Richard C (NZ) on March 1, 2012 at 7:56 pm said:

    The “other stuff” has no temperature apparently.

    I don’t understand why the cosmic microwave background radiation has temperature but the “other stuff” doesn’t (or maybe is does but its close to 0 K).

    It could be that cold space and neutral space co-exist.in vacuum space because at least the CMB has temperature.

    That would not create a thermal path from atmosphere to space for heat transfer though (i.e. no medium I don’t think). The upper atmosphere is sparse enough, this study concludes particle heating only accounts for 5.5% of upper atmosphere heating if I\m interpreting correctly:-

    ‘Climatology of Extreme Upper Atmospheric Heating Events’

    http://spacewx.com/pdf/COSPAR200222nov.pdf

    Quoting:-

    “Solar extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation is the single largest contributor to the upper atmospheric heating budget and is typically assumed to account for about 80% of the energy. Joule heating [electrical – my insert] and precipitating particle heating, which together we call geomagnetic heating, make significant contributions to the remainder of the budget”

    Nothing about how the heat dissipates to space though. They’ve determined the input budget but not the output. I assume the output is all radiative energy (more research reqd by me).

  13. Richard C (NZ) on March 1, 2012 at 8:24 pm said:

    That’s my understanding too Andy (or at least it was) and even if it wasn’t I wouldn’t be the one to correct you because I’m at the edge of my zone.

    I’ve mulled over some sort of co-existent state up-thread here:-

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/disproving-agw/#comment-82447

    The “other stuff” may have negligible temperature as compared to CMB and the CMB temperature may not be temperature as we know it. O’Sullivan refers to “color temperature” but the Wiki description at my “Clues here” comment says “….the temperature of the CMB as observed in the present day”

    Someone has “observed” CMB temperature with some type of instrument somewhere, possibly from both spacecraft and remotely. I’ll have to read the rest of Wiki CMB tomorrow.for clues

    (This sure beats being ad hominemed at Hot Topic)

  14. Andy on March 2, 2012 at 8:43 am said:

    This simple explanation of temperature in space seems to concur, roughly
    (The biggest contribution is apparently the background microwave radiation)

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980301b.html

  15. Richard C (NZ) on March 2, 2012 at 10:13 am said:

    Couple of thoughts.

    CMB is thermal radiation (first sentence):-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

    Neutrinos are elementary subatomic particles:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

    CMB is BACKGROUND, implying there is foreground radiation, however radiation is not a medium that would facilitate HEAT energy transfer from atmosphere to space.

    Particles such as neutrinos might provide that medium but they are a) traveling too fast, b) too small. There is on the other hand, enough of them “Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun. About 65 billion (6.5×1010) solar neutrinos per second pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun in the region of the Earth”

    So it is only background (described in Wiki CMB) radiation that has temperature in space that matches the observed 2.7 K to the the theoretically determined 2.7 K (3000 K when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old).

    Not that I know what I’m talking about of course.

    On measuring CMB, turns out that the 2.7 K is an “average”:-

    “Often, experiments are interferometers which only measure the spatial fluctuations in signals on the sky, and are insensitive to the average 2.7 K background”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_experiments

    Search – Cosmic Microwave Background temperature measurement

    Returns:-
    Effects of CMB temperature uncertainties on cosmological …
    The evolution of the cosmic microwave background temperature …
    Cosmic Microwave Background Measurements
    Measurement of the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave …

    And

    Cosmic Microwave Background http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB.html

    Quoting:-

    “The graph above shows the measured brightness temperature TB of the CMB at many different wavelengths. Clearly TB = 2.725 K is consistent with all the data within the statistical scatter expected for the stated errors.”

    Includes data from FIRAS, ground and balloon, CN & ARCADE, 2.725 K Blackbody

    Also:-

    Color temperature is a characteristic of visible light that has important applications in lighting, photography, videography, publishing, manufacturing, astrophysics, and other fields. The color temperature of a light source is the temperature of an ideal black-body radiator that radiates light of comparable hue to that of the light source. Color temperature is conventionally stated in the unit of absolute temperature, the kelvin, having the unit symbol K.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

  16. Richard C (NZ) on March 2, 2012 at 11:08 am said:

    I see Nasif Nahle has a diagram showing upper atmosphere heat transfer and a note attached to atmosphere => space heat flow:-

    HEAT ESCAPES TO SPACE (HEAT SINK)

    http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Transfer.html

    I wonder if he will be making an amendment?

  17. Richard C (NZ) on March 2, 2012 at 7:42 pm said:

    Dr Latour:-

    “Thermal T is a point property of matter, a scalar measure of its kinetic energy of atomic and molecular motion. It is measured by thermometers. It decreases with altitude. The rate of thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection between hot Th and cold Tc is proportional to (Th – Tc).

    Radiation t is a point property of massless radiation, EMR, a directional vector measure of its energy transmission rate per area or intensity, w/m2, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is measured by pyrometers and spectrometers. Solar radiation t increases with altitude. Black bodies are defined to be those that absorb and radiate with the same intensity and corresponding t. Real, colorful bodies reflect, scatter, absorb, convert and emit radiant energy according to the nature of the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorptivity, emissivity and view factors”.

    “Much of GHE theory fails to make clear distinctions between these two different kinds of temperature, T and t. One temperature, t, is analogous to velocity, 34 km/hour north; the other, T, is analogous to density, 1 kg/liter.”

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect

    There’s the matter-radiation temperature distinction (I thought I had this first time around).

    The way I’m reconciling the situation is that the 2 components of black vacuum space are:-

    2.725 K = background cosmic microwave radiation (tr-b)

    0 K = foreground radiation + space matter (tr-f + Tm)

    I’m not intuitively convinced that tr-f + Tm = 0 K but I’ve nothing else to go by so I’m willing to go along with this until the facts change.

    Finally from me on this part of the paradigm-shift an anecdote I read somewhere recently but can’t recall the link (maybe Latour or NASA). The problem that NASA had in designing spacesuits was not cold in space but getting rid of body heat. Same goes for the space station, there’s large radiators to get to move the heat away radiatively.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on March 2, 2012 at 7:54 pm said:

    I suggest now that we focus on the 2nd part of the new paradigm and check out the validity or otherwise of it. That being GHE COOLING rather than GHE warming.

    This is important because it’s completely contrary to Hansen, Spenser, Lindzen et al.

    Some points from O’Sullivan’s article:-

    # ‘Thermos Flask’ analogy More Compelling than ‘Blanket Effect’

    # Time and again independent scientists have demonstrated to leading climatologists in private emails that space has no temperature because it is an empty vacuum and as such acts as a perfect insulator (like a thermos flask). Thus it inhibits the escape of heat energy from Earth’s atmosphere; only the cooling effect of ‘wet’ gases in our turbulent atmosphere dispose of the excess heat energy via convection and conduction.

    # The reverse of the alleged greenhouse gas effect is true – atmospheric gases act to keep out planet COOLER than it would otherwise be.

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9167

  19. Richard C (NZ) on September 23, 2012 at 6:53 pm said:

    A GRAPH TO DEBUNK AGW

    WORLD TEMPERATURES

    Fifty Years of Monthly Temperature Data have NO Correlation with CO2

    Diagrams showing HadCRUT3 [see source for GISS, and NCDC] monthly global surface air temperature estimates (blue) and the monthly atmospheric CO2 content (red) according to the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii.

    The Mauna Loa data series begins in March 1958, and 1958 has therefore been chosen as starting year for the diagrams. Reconstructions of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations (before 1958) are not incorporated in this diagram, as such past CO2 values are derived by other means (ice cores, stomata, or older measurements using different methodology, and therefore are not directly comparable with modern atmospheric measurements. The dotted grey line indicates the approximate linear temperature trend, and the boxes in the lower part of the diagram indicate the relation between atmospheric CO2 and global surface air temperature, negative or positive.

    >>>>>>>>>>

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10257

  20. Richard C (NZ) on March 6, 2013 at 9:36 am said:

    Man-made global warming theory is falsified by satellite observations

    Global warming theory proposes that CO2 traps longwave (infrared) radiation in the troposphere to reduce outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] to space. However, satellite measurements since 1975 indicate that global OLR has instead increased by about 1.3 Wm-2. This is in direct contradiction to global warming theory that “trapping” of radiation by CO2 should have instead reduced* OLR by .93 Wm-2 since 1975.

    >>>>>>> [Warning: linear trend]

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/man-made-global-warming-theory-is.html

  21. Richard C (NZ) on March 6, 2013 at 1:17 pm said:

    MECHANISMS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

    NATURAL CAUSES AND IPCC POSTULATE

    THE GEOLOGICAL AND RECENT RECORD

    Prof. Peter A. Ziegler Dr. h.c.
    February, 2013

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/ClimateChange_Ziegler-2013.pdf

  22. Magoo on April 8, 2013 at 1:08 pm said:

    A couple of interesting quotes from the IPCC regarding the tropospheric hotspot no show. The first from AR4 and the second from AR5 draft:

    ‘To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity.’ (2007)
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2-2.html

    ‘In summary, there is a high confidence (robust evidence although only medium agreement) that most, though not all, CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979-2011. The cause of this bias remains elusive.’ (2012)
    (Section 9.4.1.3.2, p. 9-27, lines 31-33)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/116938885/Ch9-Models-WG1AR5-SOD-Ch09-All-Final

  23. Richard C (NZ) on June 18, 2013 at 3:46 pm said:

    Man-Made Global Warming WRONG – The Ten Reasons.

    by COHENITE

    1 Temperature…….
    2 Models……….
    3 The sun (1).

    AGW science says the sun has little effect on temperature compared with CO2 forcing. Dr Ka-Kit Tung disagrees and has compared the long-term solar record with the longest temperature record on the planet, the Central England Temperature [CET]. The final image in Tung’s slide presentation is revealing and shows a remarkable correlation between the CET record and Total Solar Irradiation [TSI]. This correlation between temperature and TSI has also been derived in 2 other studies. The first is by Glassman at Figure 1 where he uses global HADCRUT3 data. The second is by Stockwell at Figures 4-7 where all the major land-based temperature indices are shown to correlate with TSI using his model. Stockwell’s model is simply that temperature responds to TSI mean with the rate of temperature increase/decline determined by the movement away from the mean.

    4 The sun (2)………
    5 The sun (3)………..
    6 The Moon………..
    7 Aerosols…………
    8 Water………….
    9 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)……..
    10 Angry summer……….

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

    From 3 The sun (1), “Tung’s slide presentation”:

    ‘Evidence for a Multidecadal Oscillation in Global Temperature and Its Impact on the Deduced Anthropogenic Warming Trend’

    K.K. Tung and J. Zhou

    Department of Applied Mathematics
    University of Washington
    September 2012

    Page 36, Analyzing CET data, Graph EEMD: Low-frequency component (last 3 IMFs)

    http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/download/talk/20120918_2297.pdf

    The CET 40 yr moving average and low frequency EMD IMFs correlate with TSI from 1659 (Maunder Minimum) – present.

    The 40 yr average is 8.6 C at 1680 and 9.9 C at 1980, a difference of 1.3 C.

    Short monthly series: CET Mean September 2012: 13.0 °C, Mean temperature whole of 2011: 10.70 °C

    http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_mon.png

    The (what looks like) 2010 CET update to the long annual series shows a plummet from 10.7 at around 2006 to about 8.8 C 2010, which is lower than the 9 C at 1659 and just above the 8.6 C 40 yr average at 1680.

    http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_an.png

    Small wonder the UK Met Office is convening a meeting to consider the recent UK weather when temperatures in the last 5 years have plumbed levels typical of the Maunder Minimum.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on June 18, 2013 at 7:55 pm said:

    Have laid out the Tung and Zhou, CET/TSI case in the latest Stuff Nation opinion piece on Bill McKibben by Sarah Hardie ‘Time to fight climate change':

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/share-your-news-and-views/8804618/Time-to-fight-climate-change

    Should send polymath into paroxysms of denial, dismissal, and denegration, if Fone and Harris form is anything to go by. And Hardie form in response to AndicNZ “…no warming for 17 years and 4 months…”:

    polymath 6 hours ago

    Lies, lies and more lies. […]

    Warming has NOT stopped for 17 years, or for any period. Every bit of evidence shows it is still getting warnmer. The models have been succesful – the predictions made in IPCC report in 1990 have been proven correct – the warming we have observed is firmly within the range predicted.

    # # #

    polymath is an NZer, very prolific, and more than a little manic (but his spelling is atrocious). I think there must be an activist connection somewhere.

  25. I haven’t read Tung and Zhou so I don’t know their case, but if polymath accepts the IPCC position, it might be useful to mention the increasing divergence in global temperature evolution between model output and observation. Dr Spencer’s interesting graphs at Global Warming Slowdown: The View from Space and EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature show considerable disparity.

    You can see similar divergence in the Climate Lab Book and the IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft, Chapter 9, p.26, says:

    ‘Nevertheless, almost all model ensemble members show a warming trend in both LT and MT larger than observational estimates’ and ‘In summary, … most … CMIP3 and CMIP5 models overestimate the warming trend in the tropical troposphere during the satellite period 1979–2011.’

    The paper Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series, McKitrick et al. (2010) states: “Over the interval 1979 to 2009, model-projected temperature trends are two to four times larger than observed trends in both the lower and mid-troposphere and the differences are statistically significant at the 99% level” — a strong sign that the GCMs are not too accurate.

    The report “State of the Climate in 2008” published as a Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society vol.90 (8), in 2009, said: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” So 15 years with no substantial warming means models are invalidated. We’ve seen at least 16 years.

    Other signs include the EU changing its mind on chasing a reduced carbon footprint, giving the green light to fracking to get cheap gas and planning new coal-fired power stations, along with the collapse of the carbon price and veritable slaughter of the Spanish solar “industry,” so what are we waiting for? Why don’t we just announce the end of AGW?

  26. Richard C (NZ) on June 19, 2013 at 11:18 am said:

    >”I haven’t read Tung and Zhou so I don’t know their case”

    There’s a link to a slideshow synopsis (T&Z) of their work (Z&T) up-thread but here it is again:

    http://www.tims.ntu.edu.tw/download/talk/20120918_2297.pdf

    It’s an easy clear read and among other things corrects Foster and Rahmstorf’s “anthropogenic warming trend” using a longer dataset (HadCRUT4) and F&R’s own methods which I’ve pointed out at Stuff. Z&T introduce AMO cyclicity (quasi 70 yr cycle) as a regressor in addition to F&R’s factors. This is interesting to me because I’ve always thought the 60 year PDO cycle was what produced the oscillation in HadCRUT3/4. Needless to say, Z&T incurred the ire of Foster (Tamino/Open Mind), Real Climate and Skeptical Science and were immediately tagged “deniers”.

    But if nothing else, take a look at the CET/TSI graph on page 36. 350+ years of clear indication that the sun is the driver of temperature, not CO2.

    >”…if polymath accepts the IPCC position, it might be useful to mention the increasing divergence in global temperature evolution between model output and observation”

    Yes, good suggestions, quoting the IPCC is a very good idea and I’ll give it a go, if not for polymath’s eyes then for others…..

    I’ve already put Dr Spencer’s graphs in front of polymath in the Fone and Harris thread but to no avail. In the Sarah Hardie thread he just says “The models have been succesful – the predictions made in IPCC report in 1990 have been proven correct” i.e. he’s not interested in facts, he just wants to perpetuate a meme for as long as possible.

    The problem is links at Stuff are not “hot” enabled (I’ve asked for them to be enabled but no response), they’re dumb so you have to copy them into your browser but in doing so the URL gains some extraneous characters that have to be edited out to get the link to work. This plays into the hands of the likes of polymath because he doesn’t link to anything except maybe SkS, he just waves his hands. Sceptics on the other hand, and myself as you know, tend to use links liberally in support of claims but quoting the IPCC doesn’t require the reader to look via a link.

    It’s more about tactics in these public forums than anything else IMO.

  27. “here it is again:” Thanks, RC, I’ll have a look.

    If it’s made clear that the statements from AR5 are more recent than anything we’ve heard from the IPCC (i.e., they have not been published yet) it should impress any Doubting Thomas.

    Good luck.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on June 19, 2013 at 1:34 pm said:

    >”If it’s made clear that the statements from AR5 are more recent than anything we’ve heard from the IPCC”

    I’ve done that using the word “latest”, should appear in the next comments update.

    What seems to happen is that comments without links get posted first and comments with multiple links have to get dug out of the spam trap so I’ve hedged my bets with two comments, the first one without links pertaining to the IPCC AR5 SOD quote and McKitrick et al, the other a multi-linked comment re models/observations divergence and model invalidation.

    UPDATE: the first linkless comment has been posted.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on June 19, 2013 at 3:32 pm said:

    >”Z&T introduce AMO cyclicity (quasi 70 yr cycle) as a regressor in addition to F&R’s factors. This is interesting to me because I’ve always thought the 60 year PDO cycle was what produced the oscillation in HadCRUT3/4″

    Turns out its a combo:

    ‘Paper finds ~50% of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations’

    A paper presented at the NTU International Science Conference on Climate Change finds that the natural Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO] are responsible for about 50% of the warming observed over the past 30 years. According to the author, “In the past 30 years, the two multi-decadal oscillations contribute about half of the global mean surface temperature warming.” Prior research has shown that solar activity changes were responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming over the past century. In addition, solar activity has been shown to influence ocean oscillations. Thus, most or all of the observed warming in recent decades can be attributed to natural causes.

    ‘An Observational Analysis of Oceanic and Atmospheric Structure of Global-Scale Multidecadal Variability’

    Prof. Peng Liu ( Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, China )

    “First we apply the Hilbert-Huang Transform (HHT) method to the global mean surface temperature (ST_gm) data to obtain a centennial global warming trend”

    “The two oscillations [PDO & AMO] are expected to slow down the global warming trends in the next decade.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/paper-finds-50-of-warming-over-past-30.html

    The fundamental part of the HHT is the empirical mode decomposition (EMD) method as used by Zhou and Tung. I see EMD being used more and more for climate data analysis.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on June 19, 2013 at 4:08 pm said:

    Comments closed after only 88 comments. Fortunately I managed to put my best case and all comments posted although I still had an ace to play (‘Paper finds ~50% of warming over past 30 years was due to natural ocean oscillations’, the other 50% solar).

    I guess it wasn’t going so well for Sarah Hardie:

    “…it’s going be a dark, scary future, and we have to fight it.”

    “So what do we do? How exactly do we fight? And will we win?”

    “Are we going to win?”

    “I’m going to fight, who’s going to join me?”

  31. Richard C (NZ) on June 19, 2013 at 5:37 pm said:

    >”…managed to put my best case”

    Forgot to quote Dr David Whitehouse from ‘The Global Warming Standstill’ (models “on the cusp of falsification”) in conjunction with Dr Roy Spencer’s recent similar statements which I did quote.

    Get’s a bit of a head full keeping it all front-of-mind – especially when there’s so much to choose from.

    Incidentally, comments in the Fone/Harris thread are now hidden but the time sequence of comments (not the nested reply sequence) can be accessed by clicking the RSS feed. I’m guessing the Sarah Hardie comment thread will be hidden in due course too.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on February 22, 2015 at 9:25 am said:

    ‘How pressure-dependent atmospheric warming explains the entire 33C greenhouse effect’

    The Hockey Schtick

    Nice to see that others are beginning to appreciate the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the greenhouse effect [hotlink], which completely explains the atmospheric temperature profiles from the Earth’s surface all the way to the top of the atmosphere at ~100,000 km, entirely without radiative forcing from greenhouse gas ‘back-radiation’ [hotlink].

    The latest is a forthcoming series of articles at the Swedish climate skeptic site Stockholm’s Initiative, the first chapter of which is below [Google translation + editing]. These concepts have been discussed in further detail in the series of Hockey Schtick posts on the ‘greenhouse equation’ [hotlink] and in relation to the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33K greenhouse effect [hotlink].

    ‘The atmosphere from inside out’

    02/18/2015 by Goran Ahlgren .

    Chapter 1.

    So here it is:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/how-pressure-dependent-atmospheric.html

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>