Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for GWPF

Comments matching the search GWPF:

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Risk

MA Rodger at 19:36 PM on 4 November, 2024

Paul Pukite @5,
I don't see Judy Curry having flipped.

While seeing her apparently agreeing with David Walliace-Wells is remarkable, the agreement is perhaps best seen as another instance of Judy re-defining the words of others. Over the last decade, since the WUWT failed to "change the way you think about natural internal variability" (WUWT=Wyatt's Unified Wave Theory which Judy calls the Stadium Wave), Judy has taken up ambiguity as a means of manufacturing what she calls "a wicked problem" to cloud the climate debate and give room for denialists to flaunt their nonsense.

Her book 'Climate Uncertainty and Risk : Rethinking Our Response' was published last year (a 40-odd page preview HERE) and a few months back she set out the same message at the denialist GWPF's AGM.
The book runs to fifteen chapters and 340 pages. Well hidden within it, Judy sets out her same old message, this from a book review.

The need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is much less pressing than the IPCC and the UN contend because of the implausibility of extreme emissions scenarios such as RCP 8.5 and of high values for the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide (the warming caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). Natural variability is likely to slow down the rate of warming over the next few decades, and further time can be bought by targeting greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, which account for up to 45% of human-caused warming.

(Note that the 45% number is wrong. The non-CO2 forcing is no more than 35% and over tha last decade it is down to 26%.) The hidden message from Curry is that her imagined natural climate wobbles have masked the weak nature of human-caused climate change and fooled us all. So we can sit back and enjoy ourselves while we make plans for when all the oil runs out.

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

Eclectic at 13:01 PM on 13 June, 2023

Likeitwarm @1550 commented: "These things are put out there by people I don't think are dummies. I wonder if they would put them out there if they knew they were wrong?" [answer: Yes, because of Cognitive Dissonance]

Thanks for the chuckle !

Yessir indeed. Even some very intelligent Denialists repeatedly put stuff out there when they know it's wrong. Over and over again, they put out there some favorite pieces of wrongness, despite repeatedly being shown wrong by scientific literature or repeatedly being shown wrong in science-based blogs such as SkS= SkepticalScience / ATTP= And Then There's Physics / etcetera.

Why do Denialists keep posting wrongness? ~ because they are angry and have huge cognitive dissonance and they indulge in Motivated Reasoning. And a small percentage are paid for such propaganda [looking at you, Heartland Institute and GWPF= Global Warming Policy Foundation ] of using half-truths & other misleading stuff.

Likeitwarm ~ there certainly is some value in reading denialist blogs such as WUWT= WattsUpWithThat , and ClimateEtc [blog by Dr Judith Curry]. You won't learn much genuine climate science there, but you will learn something of the flaws & follies of Human Nature. ~Which can be entertaining . . . as you see the persistent wrongheadedness of 90% of the commenters there.

The big question, the interesting question, is why do those people (both the intelligent ones and the moronic ones) keep on persistently misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting stuff**

** An amusing example from just a few days ago on ClimateEtc ~ a certain regular commenter stated: "many studies on sea level [show] rising for centuries at approximately the current rate" and he cited a scientific paper. When I myself accessed that paper: it showed the complete opposite picture in its very first diagram [which showed centuries of flatness followed by a spectacular "Hockey Stick" upwards trend in the past 200 years]. The original commenter's egregious error was pointed out by another commenter . . . whose post mysteriously disappeared a day later.

DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science

MA Rodger at 02:38 AM on 18 December, 2022

EddieEvans @43,

The most recent activity by this particular bunch was back in 2013-17 when they wrote out a second edition of their 'Climate Change Reconsidered' which did no more than use a serious number of words (again) spouting the same old nonsense. There was also alongside a strange 100-page publication with the title 'Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming', strange in that it was simply setting out again their nonsensical reasons for why they disagree with the IPCC about Global Warming. It concluded with a quote from the past that so easily is a warning about the NSIPCC itself:-

Policymakers should resist pressure from lobby groups [to silence scientists] who question the authority of IPCC to claim to speak for “climate science.” The distinguished British biologist Conrad Waddington wrote in 1941,

"It is … important that scientists must be ready for their pet theories to turn out to be wrong. Science as a whole certainly cannot allow its judgment about facts to be distorted by ideas of what ought to be true, or what one may hope to be true" (Waddington, 1941).

This prescient statement merits careful examination by those who continue to assert [the fashionable belief], in the face of strong empirical evidence [to the contrary], that human CO2 emissions are {not} going to cause dangerous global warming.

There are of course "others like it" who do continue oressing their nonsense onto the world. On my neck of the woods, the GWPF continue to shovel their nonsense into the world although not as energetically as previously. It is presently under investigation by the UK Charity Commission (again), the last time keeping its charitable status (an 'educational charity' would you believe) by forming the Global Warming Policy Forum to spout all the lies and leave the Global Warming Policy Foundation as a squeaky-clean charity. (As if that was going to happen!!) The Forum, now re-branded 'Net Zero Watch' continues its nonsense-generating.

From the eMail Bag: a review of a paper by Ziskin and Shaviv

nigelj at 18:39 PM on 1 February, 2022

Thanks Bob for the appraisal. I don't know enough physics to follow all of it, but I got something out of it, and I can see some of the flaws.

Did a quick google search on Nir J. Shaviv. The name was familiar: He routinely minimises affects of CO2, has links to Heartland Institute and GWPF, and supports websites like WUWT and Jo Nova, believes CO2 is plantfood, is sceptical of measures to control covid 19 pandemic, promotes nuclear power.

The complete classic package of a typical climate change denier. Almost textbook. Its almost a personality type. It always seems to include the same range of things and same leanings, spanning not just climate, but energy systems and covid issues and other things.

Not remotely surprised. Doesn't mean his paper is necessarily wrong, but it sure suggests dont take it at face value.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv#Rejection_of_human-caused_climate_change

sciencebits.com/GWPseudoScience

The New Climate War by Michael E. Mann - our reviews

MA Rodger at 21:26 PM on 23 June, 2021

Nick Palmer @88,
Delingpole? I don't see Delingpole as somebody who has any grip on anything that is worth my consideration. He is an absurd right-wing commentator, a wind-up merchant.

You are wrong to say the 2019 Katharine Hayhoe coverage"touches on the 'watermelon' aspect." It does not. It is saying some explain their denilaism by saying they see reds-under-the-AGW-bed, not that there are any there. All Hayhoe is saying is that the solutions to AGW have not been made as toxic as the science within the minds of those captured by denialism. That perhaps brings us back on-topic as the Mann book is saying that denialists are now laying claim to solutions such as CCS & nuclear to undermine the development of renewables. (I noted just yesterday on the BBC's Politics Live programme Steve Baker MP, one of the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy, happily arguing for CCS & nuclear and bad-mouthing solar.)
Your other two links both discuss the same paper - Campbell & Kay (2014) 'Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief'.
I would suggest these citations simply makes the case against your assertion that Mann is pushing some deep-green agenda insinuated into the world by the evil GreenPeace. Rather, it suggests Mann has spotted this denialist shift in tactic.

...

You then turn to addressing us pidgeons which doesn't last long before we get another dead cat lobbed at us. "I haven't finished trying to clarify things for you all but...."
You expend 1,700 words trying to convince us that Exxon are being unfairly stitched up by Greenpeace/Oreskes. (I would suggest this is now appearing as something you care rather too much about for you not to have a dog in the race.)

You insist GreenPeace cherrypick from ancient Exxon documents to create their case against Exxon. I would suggest that an accusation of fundamental cherrypicking by GreenPeace could be (indeed should be) backed up by some evidence (maybe show us some false allegstions of Rochefeller funding work to undermine Arrhenius). You tell us these cherrypicks are "relatively few in number" but it seem presenting them is too complicated for you even though you later tell us it "is actually very quick and easy to do"!!.

What we do see is within you ability is to present some of the cherrypicks from Climategate (something that tick Delingpole tries to lay claim to exposing). Perhaps you feel this has more need of exposure than the case you are trying to make against GreenPeace.

...

All in all, Nick Palmer, you do not present your argument or yourself well here. Rather than the cocktail of argument you attempt to present, we pidgeons get a pile of dead cats. Perhaps your arguments need presenting for you.

2020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #35

Eclectic at 23:01 PM on 6 September, 2020

Gseattle @18 ,

in your final paragraph, re Comments Policy, you seem to be misunderstanding the ordinary meaning of words.

For instance : where science is being discussed, the label "denier" is an accurate description of someone who promulgates untruths i.e. who asserts statements contrary to well-established facts

e.g. statements that evolution does not occur

. . . and that the Earth is Flat

. . . and rapid global warming is not occurring (or that it is not primarily human-caused; or that it is happening only to an insignificant extent; or that CO2 has little or no Greenhouse radiative effect; and so on. )

You will also see similar labels such as Denialist or science-denier or climate-science-denier or climate-denier and suchlike. The meaning of these terms is very clear ~ and in a "hard sciences" area like climatology, it is very easy to see who is a scientist and who is a pseudo-scientist. (Here I would emphasize the definition of a scientist as someone who thinks scientifically full-time, rather than part-time.)

The attribution of "another person's motives" for being anti-scientific, is usually best avoided, for we humans have complex brains and attitudes, often involving a Gordian Knot of tangled motives and emotions (some contradictory, some subconscious & unknown even to the possessor of anti-scientific views).

Perhaps, Gseattle, you have not recognized the psychological condition Motivated Reasoning ~ where an otherwise-intelligent person is driven by his emotional biases, to deny plain scientific evidence, and to use his intelligence to concoct all sorts of spurious reasons for denying well-established mainstream science.

Your man Dr Ed Berry (that you introduced in an earlier post) is a prime example of a Denier. Possibly a nice guy . . . possibly very correct in some other areas of science/engineering . . . but WRT the highly-important field of AGW/Climate science, he is a Denier. And it is efficient useful and proper, that we call a Spade a Spade.

In most cases, we can't be certain of the motives of climate-deniers. Some are crackpots, who can't think straight, but have a weird obsessive bee in their bonnet . . . though without an obvious political-extremist association. Others are simply "financial" shills who are paid to propagandize untruths & misleading half-truths. Some have extreme personality traits of anger and selfishness (you will see many of this sort on denialist website comments columns).

And some are in the very early stages of dementia from age, cranial arteriosclerosis, alcohol, etcetera ~ this can be the case with those elderly once-famous scientists who come to develop a Galileo Complex where they fancy that they can newly take up the science of climatology . . . and demonstrate how all the world's expert climate scientists are grossly mistaken! Amusing, but sad ~ so perhaps I shouldn't mention here some of the prominent names you will see associated with propaganda organisations such as Heartland and GWPF.

Models are unreliable

Deplore_This at 07:47 AM on 5 July, 2020

@Tom Dayton 1230

Alright, I’ll simplify this. How to I evaluate the following claim without relying on someone else’s opinion? (I’ve already read the IPCC reports).

“There is growing evidence that climate models are running too hot and that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is at the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC. Nevertheless, these lower values of climate sensitivity are not accounted for in IPCC climate model projections of temperature at the end of the 21st century or in estimates of the impact on temperatures of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.”
-— Judith Curry, the former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at my alma mater
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger at 21:24 PM on 4 July, 2020

It is an interesting thought that somebody who uncritically references both a GWPF publication (ie Briefing Paper No 24) that attempts to trivialise the usefulness of climate models (as @1193) and the 2019 Dutch denialist petition to the UN that attempts to reverse the global consensus on AGW (as @1194) would somehow obtain a deep enough understanding of the limitations of GCMs to form a useful judgement on ECS from a rather basic course on the subject, especially given that such a judgement could be gained more simply by other means.

The CLINTEL petiton (CLINTEL is basically an attempt to create a Dutch version of GWPF, the latter having been quite successful in masquerading as an educational charity and finding fertile ground within influential parts of right-wing UK politics) and the GWPF publication both contain the same bold assertion which is fundamental to their denialist argument that GCMs cannot be relied upon.

"The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change." CLINTEL petition.

"There is growing evidence that climate models are running too hot and that climatesensitivity to carbon dioxide is at the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC." GWPF Briefing Paper No24.

I would suggest the commenter first considers whether it is correct and proper to present such argument rather than attempting to "get under the hood and see how the models work for myself and to evaluate the predictive sensitivity of these models."

Operations Research (Operational Research my side of the pond) is only narrowly about the mathematics so I am intrigued that somebody with an "extensive background in operations research" (as per described @1162) would consider 'getting under the hood' as the first response to having "read criticism of the validity of the climate temperature models referenced by the IPCC."

Models are unreliable

scaddenp at 20:12 PM on 4 July, 2020

"Candidly a reason for your disappointment evades me." Well the right wing dog whistles and then repeating the GWPF nonsense with claims you should have been able to refute unaided given your IPCC reading had you looked at it critically.

I repeat that it is great idea to understand the models, but only if you are going into without the biases of trying to find something which would aid your disbelief and with no clear idea as to what might change your mind.

If your preference for Curry is because she expresses similar political belief to yourself and not her publishing record in climate models, then I dont think we have much to discuss, and certainly not on this thread.

Models are unreliable

Deplore_This at 01:23 AM on 4 July, 2020

@scaddenp 1187

Thank you for your response. To answer your question here this is an example of scientists who disagree with the IPCC’s conclusion on GCMs:

“GCMs are important tools for understanding the climate system. However, there are broad concerns about their reliability:

GCM predictions of the impact of increasing carbon dioxide on climate cannot be rigorously evaluated on timescales of the order of a century.

There has been insufficient exploration of GCM uncertainties.

There are an extremely large number of unconstrained choices in terms of selecting model parameters and parameterisations.

There has been a lack of formal model verification and validation, which is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

GCMs are evaluated against the same observations used for model tuning.

There are concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in a complex nonlinear system.

There is growing evidence that climate models are running too hot and that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is at the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC. Nevertheless, these lower values of climate sensitivity are not accounted for in IPCC climate model projections of temperature at the end of the 21st century or in estimates of the impact on temperatures of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The IPCC climate model projections focus on the response of the climate to different scenarios
of emissions. The 21st century climate model projections do not include:

a range of scenarios for volcanic eruptions (the models assume that the volcanic activity will be comparable to the 20th century, which had much lower volcanic activity than the 19th century

a possible scenario of solar cooling, analogous to the solar minimum being predicted by Russian scientists

the possibility that climate sensitivity is a factor of two lower than that simulated by most climate models

realistic simulations of the phasing and amplitude of decadal- to century-scale natural internal variability

The climate modelling community has been focused on the response of the climate to increased human caused emissions, and the policy community accepts (either explicitly or implicitly) the results of the 21st century GCM simulations as actual predictions. Hence we don’t have a good understanding of the relative climate impacts of the above or their potential impacts on the evolution of the 21st century climate.”
-— Judith Curry, the former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at my alma mater
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf

YouTube's Climate Denial Problem

Eclectic at 13:02 PM on 11 April, 2020

Nigelj , please pardon me if I have given you the impression my comments (above) were a sort of "lecture" introducing novel information to naive students. I know that you and all regular commenters here at SkS are very much aware of the common propaganda tricks used by Denialists. Rather, I was aiming to compose my thoughts into semi-formal order.

Yes, the GWPF ["sounds important"] is a sort of Heartland propaganda organization, but more of a one-man-band deriving from a wealthy Englishman (but of course gathering up a team of less-wealthy cronies ~ and some freelance denialist journos plus some "faded scientists" receiving stipend payments). When its prime funder Lord Lawson (age 88) dies, who will provide all the financing of GWPF ? Will it then fall apart gradually? In comparison, Heartland is somewhat more secure, as it has a multi-decade history of hustling from multiple American sources.

# More on your denialist climatescience.org.nz [also "sounds important & sciencey"] : I am sorry to hear that the website no longer has Comments columns. Was hoping to experience the flavor of Kiwi Denialists ~ and whether they brought a "regional" tang of madness to the standard international smorgasbord.

BTW , I did read one further article ~ the one by 80-year-old Professor Happer (co-written with his son). A very lengthy article, a huge cauldron of soup, swimming with formulae and graphs plus many irrelevancies ["plant food" . . . despotic world socialism threat, etc . . . the usual suspects . . . almost the full Gish Gallop]. SkS regulars would immediately see all the holes & errors & false logic. But a naive reader might well think : Wow this is all very impressive, here's a famous scientist who obviously knows his stuff, all this science & mathematics, and he's really intensely skeptical about all that Global Warming palaver.

Happer's "tour de force" commentary will re-confirm and re-convince the dyed-in-the-wool Denialists in New Zealand ~ but as they are the only ones likely to frequent the climatescience.org.nz website . . . then probably little harm is done to the general population.

# Nigelj , I don't intend to read the public comments attached to NZ newspapers etc. Worldwide, IMO, such publications attract vast numbers of bots & paid trolls, who flood the comments sections. No, I reckon the real essence of Denialist insane thinking is best found on Denialist websites : where they believe they are talking to "their own".

YouTube's Climate Denial Problem

Eclectic at 23:51 PM on 10 April, 2020

Thanks Nigelj , yes I do read Realclimate from time to time (and note your presence there too ).

Now I am reporting back after reading the first article listed on Page One of climatescience.org.nz

# It is a fine example of one style of Denialist propaganda.

The article is titled, in very large blue letters in upper case :- [ * Moderators please excuse my use of upper case for this exact quote] :-

" DROP IN NUMBER OF SUNSPOTS SIGNALS IMMINENCE OF A COOLER WORLD "

~ this is followed by a single paragraph in small font, commencing:

" An important new paper by Dr David Whitehouse for the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals that 2019 was mostly without sunspots. ... [and finishing:] This paper discusses some of these issues." With LINK to the GWPF important new paper .

Note the typical Denialist technique:

(A) The huge headline indicating Imminence of a Cooler World ( i.e. that the mainstream scientists are wrong about ongoing global warming)

(B) An entirely unrigorous newspaper-supplement-like report (by Dr Whitehouse) is implied to be a respectable scientific paper. It is no such thing.

# The editor of this website knows that many of his Denialist clientele will not bother to read past the headline, and they will proceed elsewhere holding the comforting knowledge that the planet is about to enter a cooling phase.

And that those who do actually read the single paragraph, also will proceed elsewhere, holding that same "Cooling" impression.

(C) Those who do follow the link, are met with a multi-page essay headed by beautiful huge photos & artistic illustrations of close-up views of the sun (all looking a bit National Geographic sciencey). Followed by 8 pages (plus sciencey reference list) of Whitehouse's text ~ discursively discussing cherry-picked famine in 17th Century France; horrible child mortality in Europe during the Little Ice Age; dire comments from a sermon by a contemporary English preacher . . . and various other irrelevancies including historical aspects of sunspot observations.

In the end, Whitehouse has given no quantification of the implied Grand Solar Minimum which is "imminently" about to strike us. Indeed, regarding future climate, he hasn't really said anything at all. His "important new paper" is lurid but vacuous commentary.

As such, it all comes as no surprise to regular readers of SkS.

Nigelj , I fear that the rest of the NZ website's headlines probably have a similar modus operandi. Is that correct? (And does that website have comments columns?)

I am very much reminded of that propagandist, the marvellous Lord Monckton who boasted that 400 scientific papers demonstrated the worldwide nature and much-higher-than-today warmth of the Medieval Warm Period. When science-journalist Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) challenged him for the list, Monckton blandly supplied the references [actually a list by Dr Idso]. Hadfield said that he carefully studied the first 6 papers on the list, and found none of them supported Monckton's MWP claims. So no point reading further down the list. (Monckton is well known for his bold mendacities/errors.)

Here Are 3 Climategate Myths That Have Not Aged Well

nigelj at 08:18 AM on 1 December, 2019

NYood @28

"This is another example from 2009 where uncertainty is expressed, but must never be admitted in public"

I strongly disagree. Of course there will be uncertainties and scientists are not going to publish their every utterance, just like you or anyone wouldn't, but the IPCC reports openly admit areas of uncertainty and in painstaking detail and pedantry. Read the summary for policy makers.

It's the sceptics who have never admitted uncertainty about their sceptical positions, and who have the most politiciesd processes, eg The Heartland Institute promotes climate scepticism and is a right wing political think tank, that tries to influence processes and other organisations. There are many similar organisations eg the GWPF. You cannot get more politicised than that, by any definition of political.

Top 10 most viewed rebuttals in September and October 2019

Eclectic at 10:29 AM on 14 November, 2019

Thanks, Nigelj.

I will make a few points about website WUWT, and then shut up ~ since it's getting somewhat off-topic. The comparison of the two websites has some interest here in "numbers" comparison only. There's no real other comparison . . . I think of SkS as an eagle flying in the sunshine, while WUWT is more like an octopus slithering in the murky depths.

For those readers wise enough to be unfamiliar with WUWT:- Anthony Watts & team run the WattsUpWithThat website. Allegedly they don't receive Big Oil funding these days. Be that as it may, they want to receive a lot of hits/views, partly in order to have enough high rank to pull in advertising of the incidental sort ( e.g. I myself am plagued with telescope advertisements when I click on the WUWT site).

Accordingly, WUWT has a high turnover of lead articles. Most articles are brief, and many are slanted propaganda against the reality of AGW and often are rather childish whinges about the teething problems of the gradual transfer to renewables (versus fossil fuel power stations) . . . or whinges about Greta Thunberg, James Hansen, and so on. There's the occasional leavening with articles about technical developments, or astronomical news, or things of general interest [but not many!]. Then we get the re-posts of Heartland propaganda articles, of GWPF, and of assorted Media op-ed propaganda pieces. And a succession of crackpot ideas from Lord Monckton, Dr Pat Frank, and similar fringe dwellers of Dunning-Krugerism and Delusion Land.

WUWT maintains a high hit rate, by having an open-door policy on its comments columns ~ provided that the comments do not support mainstream climate science nor support "climate action". (A tiny dribble of such comments is permitted by moderators . . . but mainly I suspect to act as red meat and keep the regular clientele in a savage mood. A prominent exception, is comments by scientist Nick Stokes, who often has something pertinent to say, which punctures the usual rubbishy comments. He is loathed by the standard clientele, and I suspect he is not moderated out . . . because his is a token presence to illustrate the respectabiity & toleration of the WUWT website!)

In short, WUWT is an echo-chamber for the Angries, the extremists, and the deluded. Comments tend to be repetitious ventings. But the sheer number of these, is part of what keeps the site ranking high enough to attract advertising dollars. Does the WUWT ranking intimidate politicians into thinking there's a lot of Denialists around? I don't know.

My own interest in the WUWT website, is to observe the ways that some intelligent minds engage in rampant Motivated Reasoning. And to a smaller extent, to keep in touch with the Dreck found in the murky depths. Know thine enemy!

Sorry, Nigelj, for my own lengthy vent of a post ~ but I hope it provided some "edutainment".

Brief overview of new IPCC report on oceans and ice risks

Eclectic at 05:35 AM on 18 October, 2019

Robincollins @5 ,

as far as I can make out, there's no real controversy.

There was a "Resplandy" scientific paper [Resplandy L.] published 11 months ago, about overall ocean warming. The paper showed a novel & clever method of assessing ocean changes via oxygen/CO2 alterations. Almost immediately, it was heavily criticized mathematically by statistician Nic Lewis ~ who pointed out that the warming conclusions were based on statistical figures which were much too fuzzy to be acceptably useful. The paper's authors acknowledged that criticism . . . and in the slow passage of time, the paper eventually got retracted officially . . . just now in late 2019.

Possibly, Resplandy & co-authors might be able to re-do their study using more data ~ but it may be that their new "alternative approach" (which I applaud as novel & clever) is unlikely to be as accurate as the conventional buoy-based thermometers. Thermometers which demonstrate the ongoing warming of the ocean.

As usual, the propaganda from GWPF, WUWT, etcetera, is trying to give the impression (by blaring headlines) that there is a new problem. But if you look deeper than the headlines of contrarian blogs, then you find that the mountain shrivels to a molehill.

A second minor point, was that a recent IPCC assessment had used (or at least cited) the discredited Resplandy paper as a source (alongside a hundred separate papers used). AFAIK at first glance, this was a typo by the IPCC ~ and referred to the wrong Resplandy paper (it should have been a different Resplandy paper). Either way, the IPCC's assessment still stands.

Again, that seems to be a giant beat-up by the "denialists". Who keep trying to turn a blind eye to the overall evidence.

Welcome to Skeptical Science

Eclectic at 01:32 AM on 1 October, 2019

(continued)

TungstenX, you ask #1. What is in it for the deniers?

I could respond on this (with another large coffee to help) . . . but the basic answer is: "emotional reasons". And yes, there's nothing in it, for the deniers' grandchildren. Excepting a load of unpleasant consequences for the grandchildren and their descendants.

Deniers - denialists - call them what you will - come in several categories.

Group A ... the 0.1 percenters who got very rich on oil & coal, and who wish to keep it that way. When your personal wealth is 20 billion$ . . . then something inside you dies a (big) little, when you think you might gradually be reduced to only 10 billion$ . Life can be hard, sometimes. So, by covert means, you finance tame thinktanks & strategic propagandists & astroturfers & Heartland institutes & GWPF's etcetera . . . to create a public sense of unease and doubt about the facts. And/or suspicion of scientists. And you don't stop at untruths & half-untruths. All to achieve political paralysis on climate issues.

If you are especially unethical, you would more directly manipulate/suborn politicians ~ but fortunately this has never yet occurred ( I gather).

Group B ... the clientele of Group A. Meaning the professional propagandists. Some of whom spent decades in a rear-guard battle denying the tobacco/cancer link. They know they are being "exceedingly economical" with the truth about AGW. But they don't care. It's a business, like being a defense attorney ~ no matter that you are defending someone who's guilty as sin. Just use Doublethink, to calm your conscience (if any).

Group C ... the unthinking reactionaries. They see the (social) world is changing and they don't like change (for various emotional reasons). They are easy meat for the propagandists ~ easily gullible that all changes must be bad for them socially & financially. Change ~ to renewable energy ~ must be resisted, because it is a change. And/or it's a start to a slippery slope.

Many of these people are angry people. Angry that their life is not perfect. Pleased to find a scapegoat, like the issue of AGW / climate change, which can be "denied" and resisted.

Group D ... the scientific crackpots, who hold that CO2 has little or no effect on climate. And that modern scientists are clueless. Essentially, the crackpots are an intellectually-insane subgroup of Group C.

Group E ... the tinfoil hatter Conspiracists. Fearful of the Illuminati, of World Marxists, or whoever. Also angry. Also a subgroup of Group C and often overlapping with Group D.

TungstenX , perhaps you can define other groups to add here !

There is no consensus

ERRATA at 11:14 AM on 30 September, 2019

Hi again and thanks a lot for all the answers and links, I extremely appreciate it!
Unfortunately, I didn't go through all the links and I didn't read a lot since it's a bit late and I'm dead tired and have to wake up early for work. I definitely will read it as soon as I catch some time, but I'll take some time to at least put my thoughts here, hope that you'll feed me with more material so I won't have a chance to be bored tomorrow :)

First, about the "500 scientist" paper. To be honest, I didn't recognize a single name from people signed there, I'm still fairly new in this whole topic, and I recognize just some names from IPCC, however, before sharing links with you here, I did a bit of a homework and tried to look up names from "500 scientist" letter and the very first name on the list (Professor Guus Berkhout) already did arise some suspicion ((...) once worked in the oil and gas industry and became a respected professor after that. Berkhout started his career working for Shell. — Wikipedia). But digging deeper and deeper, I came across the thing which I really don't like (from any side) - articles which "prove" that some of the conclusions of non-deniers (how do we call them anyways?) were driven by money, greed, political or personal agenda. I don't have links now, but I'll give my best to share them eventually with you. This I find extremely disturbing, because whenever I come across such article/statement, my personal conclusions just fall apart and divert me from logical thinking (I suppose that's the whole point of those in the end). I simply cannot believe that people who we call "scientist" are able to degrade them to such a low level to try to discredit others by silencing them or by using silly "arguments" like pointing out their work history. Both of you (MA Rodger and Eclectic) concluded your comments by completely discrediting their letter. This is exactly what I tried to point out in my previous comment — there is no "questioning" whatsoever. How so? Are you saying that everything stated there is 100% incorrect (well, some of the statements sounds dumb even to me tbh)?
I tried to look up a bit about Lord Mockton and GWPF, but I'm really tired now and will try to continue with that tomorrow. What I found interesting in that letter what the sentence in the first paragraph on second page - Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. It really might be just a propaganda trick, but that sounds honest to me in some way, and I don't understand why non-deniers sit with them and give them a chance to talk (or did this happen already in the past)?

About Myles Allen's message... I didn't even notice the comment section, might go through it tomorrow a bit, although I tend to avoid such things just because of mentioned "opinion-fest". But his article somewhat triggered my skepticism again. The first time, it was this particular article which I still cannot explain to myself whether is it true or not?
(Just a quick digression, while searching for this one, I came across this link in comments section. Is this really true?)

Anyways, to cut my story short and get to some direct questions, looking forward for your answers!

@MA Rodger:
I might be wrong, but you sound a bit more pessimistic than others? Are you saying that in last couple of years there is almost no progress in cutting down emissions, because I personally believe that western world is really giving its best (well, to some extent) to do so.

To any of you:
As I said, you discredited completely the "500 scientists" letter with labelling it "unscientific nonsense", "extremist political/religious positions", stating that "they still don't have any actual evidence", "unsupported assertions, none of which stand up to scrutiny", etc. Now, pardon my ignorance, but I personally didn't get and impression that this is politically/religiously motivated and also that there might be "scrutiny material" there (e.g. "Warming is far slower than predicted" or "Climate policy relies on inadequate models"). On the other hand, current "solutions" to climate change problem (e.g. "Green New Deal" or "Climate Strike") have hidden political agendas all over the place (even SR15 report, which I didn't read yet, has a part "efforts to eradicate poverty" in the title description. I still cannot understand what "getting rid of poverty" or has to do with climate change, this sounds very political to me).

And finally, maybe a bit off topic here, but the thing which is bothering me for some time now is, how comes that no one in this climate change topic is mentioning SOx or NOx emissions? To my understanding (again, pardon my ignorance), those are directly contributing to GHG chemical reactions and we don't have enough knowledge of direct impact on climate, however, they are massively emitted from cargo ships which still make more than 90% of world's transport.

Thanks again for your time and effort, apologies for any errors/typos and general stupidity, it's getting pretty late now, I should avoid commenting at this hour :)

There is no consensus

Eclectic at 21:41 PM on 29 September, 2019

My apologies to MA Rodger. I was overly brief in my comment above ~ I meant that the sort of "discussions" usually following on the tail of the "12 years" statement (wherever it gains headlines) . . . are discussions/posts which turn into an opinion-fest.

The statements by author Myles Allen were very calm and reasonably objective, and illustrate how very little time we have to get things on the right path. The exact amount of time & tonnage of burnt carbon we can "afford" is, of course, rather fuzzy ~ as is the 1.5C figure itself. It's a reasonable best estimate . . . and we shouldn't let rhetoric (by denialist propagandists) conceal the unpleasant reality of it all.

The comments following the Myles Allen OP were fairly civil, but slid off into an opinion-fest. But it was extraordinary to see that the comments were not bombarded by avalanches of bots & intellectually-insane trolls & rabid political extremists & CO2-physics-denying crackpots. It's almost as though a sensible moderation policy was in full effect !

OTOH, there's no getting away from the conclusion that "the 500 scientists" was an example of scientific nonsense & false/misleading propaganda . . . so typical of anything involving the hand of "the error-prone Lord Monckton". Or anything involving the hand of the Heartand Institute or the GWPF or their ilk. Nothing new, there.

Climate denier scientists think these 5 arguments will persuade EU and UN leaders

MA Rodger at 22:02 PM on 12 September, 2019

The OP suggests this silly denialist letter to the EU "represents the best case that climate deniers can make against the existence of a climate crisis." I feel that needs some qualification as it is a small set of denialists who came up with the silly five point 'oh-no-it's-not' rebuttal.

At the end of January we hear of a large number of academics writing to the Belgian "federal and regional governments." I cannot see the actual letter sent but it did result in swivel-eyed denialists from the Netherlands responding with a point-by-point counter-argument which was quickly translated for the English-speaking deniosphere.

(The authorship of the denial is given as the Climate Intelligence Foundation which is described as "a new Foundation that is funded by worried wealthy citizens. The Foundation focuses on independent public information. She does that by telling the entire climate story." somewhat similar to the nonsense spouted by the UK's GWPF who make out they are an educational charity (& thus trouser taxpayers money to fund their lies). The odd thing with this authorship for an OP posted 1st Feb 2019 is the Climate Intelligence Foundation (soon gaining the name CLINTEL) was not started until the end of March 2019, according to one of its co-founders. who says in this video that it will be set up "tomorrow" with the launch seemingly a couple of days later.)

The point-by-point counter-argument of early Feb runs to seven points. The first five of these present identical argument to the silly denialist letter, although the letter has hardened the message a bit. The first five Feb points were - (1) Climate has always changed with warming from 1850, (2) Calling recent warming 100% anthropogenic is unscientific, (3) There is no discernable trends in floods & droughts & plagues of frogs, (4) Models are hypersensitive to CO2 so any warming CO2 causes will be mild and nature can cool as well as warm. (5) The cost to Belgium & Holland of AGW mitigation is massive for "negligible and immeasurable" gain.

(These five from February are pretty-much the same as the five in the silly denialist letter of August. The February version adds (6) AGW mitigation is not more cost-effective than doing nothing, (7) They mix up a clean environment, which all agree with, with AGW mitigation.)

So the grand denialist message is no more than a knee-jerk response to a letter from Belgian academics supporting stronger action on AGW. That it has folk like Richard Lindzen signing-up to it when he disagrees with parts of it is presumably more a mark of solidarity than a mark of wholehearted agreement.

They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'

MA Rodger at 21:40 PM on 10 September, 2019

Yaeger @36,

If it is the Google Books Ngram Viewer graphs (as per the 3rd grahic in the OP), the link here (also linked within #34) takes you there. Enter the variables you desire and voilà.

If it is the Google Scholar data (as per the 4th graphic in the OP), it isn't clear to me how exactly that graphic was created but if you search Google Scholar for a particular term and a particular period, it does return how many 'results' it found, although I wouldn't be sure how accurate or reliable that 'returns' value is. (I see GWPF blogs listed which are not scientific documents and are dated as 1912 instead of 2012.) Yet it does support 'Global Warming' being a less used phrase than 'Climate Change' in scientific articles although the "the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming'" assertion in the OP isn't as strongly evident as that graph suggests.

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger at 20:09 PM on 15 August, 2019

rupisnark @1151,
The basic message is as Eclectic @1152 says, Christy is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. It may be he has managed to pull the wool over his own eyes as well. That would square with him being in denial over climate change.
And Eclectic @1152 is correct to say that AGW is a phenomenon at the TOA but Christy is not discussing TOA. He is indeed obfuscating.

Your first point, that global evaporation can vary by large amounts month-to-month (Christy quoted examples of 24 and 27 'units' in his talk, a variation peak-to-peak of some 12%, a little more variation than his words in GWPF Note 17 - "In other words, evaporation might be 24 one month, but it might be 26 the next."), looking at actual monthly variation, the maximum variation of measured global monthly precipitation over decads (there's a graph of it 1980-2011 on this web-page) is about 12% peak-to-peak. Thus to say such a variation could occur "one month" to "the next" is pure exaggeration. The typical variation month-to-month is far far smaller.
And it is far far smaller doubly-so. Your point that 12% is a big value is twice incorrect. As they say '100% of naff-all is still naff-all.' And the typical variation month-to-month in surface heat flux due to precipitation is naff-all relative to the total precipitation which in turn is a small component of the total surface heat flux.
And your inference that such variation in precipitation would be even larger at longer timescales, "annual, let alone centennial fluctuation" is not correct. Over longer timescales the variations will tend to average out, although there will be trends caused by the likes of AGW.
You also suggest that longer term fluctuation could exist in "the many other variables of both inut (eg amount of solar radiation) and output." The solar cycle resilts in TSI wobbling by 1Wm^-2 peak-to-peak. In Christy-units that would be 0.07 units peak-to-peak (of the 11-year cycle) but when averaged out over longer periods the measure would be far far smaller. That this is a minor effect climate-wise is evinced by the absence of any noticable 11-year climate cycle.

Your second point is that "Christy’s diagram does NOT imply 0.5 units is retained." I don't know why you would suggest such an implication. In GWPF Note 17 Christy states "The extra carbon dioxide we have added to the atmosphere amounts to about an extra 0.5 of a unit of the 100 downwelling from the air." So if the CO2 is there, surely the 0.5 units are there. I see no evidence of any implication that the forcing is not permanent.
You further suggest that there is "extra heat being lost in the troposphere" which might provide "one possible reason," this proposal "backed up" by an area of the upper troposphere that has not warmed in line with modelled projections. I don't follow the logic. By what mechanism would a cooler part of the upper troposphere constitute a sink for a heat flux of 0.5 Christy-units?

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger at 20:45 PM on 10 August, 2019

rupisnark @1138,
I'm not sure how helpful Christy's responses are other than to demonstrate again how error-prone Christy is.

Up-thread I branded Christy's talk as error-filled and we do get Christy admitting to one error. In so doing he demonstrates a few more errors.

He admits the "atmosphere" units needed correcting. I assume this "atmosphere" concern the 750 million figure. (Note, this issue can now be retrieved from your long grass @1117 as I see Christy quotes the figure in GWPF Note 17 linked @1130.)
The "atmosphere" units are obviously in need of correction but the corrected units are not "joules" as Christy says. The units are 1 unit≈3.4 j/m2 globally. This is something understood back @1113 so this should come as no great revelation. And of course this 750 million units is a measure of the total thermal heat content of the atmosphere down to absolute zero, as assumed @1113. It is a rather silly comparison. Perhaps a better comparison would be a value of the atmosphere's changed heat content that would entirely stuff the climate for us, say an ice age of -6ºC globally (or AGW of +6ºC) which would require losing (or gaining) 20 million of Christy's units in the atmosphere.

The 6 trillion figure appears solely within the talk transcript. "About £47 comes into this bank account (down at the surface). By the way, that account has about £6 trillion in it right now. So we’re talking about small numbers compared to the vast reservoir of these energies." The "£47 com(ing) in" is 47 x 3.4 = 160Wm^-2.
Up-thread @1119, I put this 6 trillion figure as being 80-times too big for the total ocean heat content (down to absolute zero). That 80-times estimate was in error. Totting it up again, perhaps it could be 0.6 trillion. But it is an absurd quantity to be wielding. The oceans, as oceans, have a lot less heat content before they freeze down to the sea bed and cease being oceans. Indeed almost half my estimated 0.6 trillion is the melt energy. And in a sensible comparison (ie the +/-6ºC one) the ice melt/freeze becomes even more the dominant factor, 0.002 trillion warming/cooling water & 0.004 or 0.008 trillion melting or freezing ice.

What is more interesting than Christy's silly use of big big big numbers is Christy's description of 'the missed point'. Actually it has not been 'missed'. As set out up-thread, I am well aware of the point he is trying to make. His 0.5 units is small in comparison to the other numbers he chooses to wield as he wishes to diminish the importance of the 0.5 units..
But in this 'correction' his reply to you is riven with error. (He can't even get a correction correct!!)

"The 0.5 is still very small compared to the fluctuations of the 100 units or so in the other flows of energy."

This is poorly written but does imply the "fluctuations" are "100 units or so" which is again absurd. And it is not what he says in either his talk or GWPF Note 17.

"...we have hundreds of units going back and forth, and varying by much more than half a unit over time. In other words, evaporation might be 24 one month, but it might be 26 the next. Radiation from the surface might be 105, or it could be 102. So now you see that 0.5 of a unit is almost in the noise level of what happens."

The constant 0.5 imbalance is "almost" (Christy also says "much more" which is a poor description - "more" yes, "much more" no.) the same size as the occasional fluctuations, his examples being monthly wobbles of +/-1.0 & +/-1.5. Christy is wrong with his comparison of the 0.5 with 100. He is also wrong to compare a constant effect with occasional wobbly ones.

And he is also wrong in stating "The 54 million joules is not being retained in the system each year as the critic implies."
I assume I am the critic and that the "54 million" originates @1113 which says:-

"But 0.5 'units' would amount to 0.5 x 3.4 x 8766 x 3600 = 54 million j/sq m in a single year. It would take a bit of a fool to dismiss this as "small numbers", but then we are talking about John Christy."

Christy is wrong to say I "imply" the retention of the 0.5 units flux. It is Christy's diagrams that imply it. Yet in both his talk and GWPF Note 17 Christy even manages to deny that any of this 0.5 unit is retained. "Note that the surface is in balance too, with the number of incoming units equal to the number outgoing." Of this 0.5 units (1.7Wm^-2) of climate forcing, the imbalance is 0.2 units (0.7Wm^-2 = 22Mjm^-2/yr) and this flux is "retained" energy. The source Christy uses to get his numbers ("Values per AR5 Fig. 2.11") makes the existence of that 0.2 units (0.7Wm^-2 = 22Mjm^-2/yr) quite plain, at least plain to the whole world but not to John Christy who appears to inhabit a different planet.

So a sensible comparison of that 0.2 units of global imbalance (or 22 million jm^-2/year) would be a comparison with the climate-busting AGW of +6ºC. That would require perhaps 68 million jm^-2 (3 years' worth) to warm the atmosphere and perhaps 20,000 million jm^-2 (a thousand years' worth) to warm the oceans and melt the global ice.
Taking the current rate of AGW (0.019ºC/yr) as being the product of the 0.2 units of global energy imbalance and we are 300 years away from +6ºC of climate-busting AGW, or should that be 250 years as we have managed +1ºC already.

It's cosmic rays

MA Rodger at 22:19 PM on 2 August, 2019

Aldaron @106,

First a correction. I said @109 that one of the citations of Fleming (2018) was an error as it didn't cite Fleming at all. That was wrong. I was looking at the wrong PDF. Vuori (2019) does cite Fleming (2018) but cites it as being an exemplar of climate change denial.

And I have 'read' Fleming (2019) but not from start-to-finish as it is packed full of denialist nonsense as well as being, shall we say, less than coherent. (For instance in Section 3 it kicks off citing a reference which insists global warming is in the long term due to the weight of the atmosphere and then one of the GWPF 'experts' Ian Plimer who's reliability is more a joke than questionable.)

Fleming (2018) gives more detail of method than Fleming (2019) while being consistent with Fleming (2019) in demonstrating a failure to understand the mechanisms of GHG operation. Where it differs from Fleming (2019) is in not carrying out that final analysis of Fleming (2019) which used that unusual deffusion coefficient. Thus, unlike Fleming (2019), his main finding (that w.r.t. CO2 the atmosphere is effectively transperent to IR in-and-above the upper troposphere) is in tune with everybody else but his interpretation of this (that CO2 "contributes low level heating and allows upper level cooling for a zero net effect") is so-much gibberish.

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger at 03:14 AM on 2 August, 2019

I note that the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy liked Christy's little talk on May 8th so much that they have published the guts of it as GWPF Note 17 - 'THE TROPICAL SKIES - Falsifying climate alarm'.

(It was actually published 23/5/19 prior to their publishing the transcript of the talk 18/6/19, with the Gentlemen posting it under the headline - "Climate Models Have Been Predicting Too Much Warming")

Models are unreliable

Eclectic at 00:34 AM on 30 July, 2019

MA Rodger @1121 ,

thank you for the link to McKitrick & Christy 2018. The paper suffers from major logical non-sequitur in arguing from the status of the high altitude Upper Troposphere (which he elsewhere misrepresents as the lower troposphere "TLT" ) instead of examining the planetary surface temperature and (even more important) the ocean heat content. Severe cherry-picking . . . as well as poor logic.

Thank you also for the link to Dr Christy's talk at the GWPF (actually given in May 2019, not in June). Much of the earlier part, as well as the middle part, must have been as clear as mud to most of the audience !

The talk contained the same logical fault as the McK & C 2018 paper . . . and then expanded into a great deal of waffle. And then finalized with poor analysis of storms and Californian wildfires . . . and with much irrelevant but emotion-charged rhetoric (including how Christy's Californian land-holder neighbour had dishonestly moved Christy's property-boundary marker peg ~ ??possibly a metaphor for all those dishonest mainstream scientists at the IPCC?? )

Irrelevancies, poor science, and demagogic rhetoric ~ just another ordinary day at the GWPF.

Considering that Dr Christy makes similar misleading presentations at senate/congressional committee hearings . . . it comes as no surprise that he was "uninvited" to return to contributing to the IPCC.

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger at 22:05 PM on 29 July, 2019

rupisnark @1120,
We discuss the serious error in John Christy's June 2019 GWPF talk. I could start running through the points @1120 and setting the record straight but as #1120 was the outcome of a previous record-straightening exercise @1119, I don't think a further round of record-straightening would achieve anything more than add to the length of this comment thread.

Perhaps then, rather than demonstrate the utter incomeptence engendered within the grand denialist presentation set out in John Christy's June 2019 GWPF talk (my original idea), perhaps it would be best to describe the nub of his theorising and why it is failing to establish itself. Note that this will be a little more technical than simple identification of gross error within his talk (error which was not of itself fundamental to Chrisity's argument).

Happily, this will be on-topic for this thread as Christy does attempt to refute the reliability of climate models.

Climate models have developed in complexity through the dacades. They all (simple and complex) show the same basic result from AGW. This result is disputed by Christy using a rather narrow argument. Christy first dismisses the performance of these various models at reproducing the global average surface temperature (GAST) increase. He insists "models are often adjusted to broadly match its (GAST's) evolution over time." GAST is thus, according to Christy, not an independent measure and thus should not be used to test the models (McKitrick & Christy 2018).

This argument is repeated by Christy in his June 2019 GWPF talk:-

"We cannot use the surface temperature, because the surface temperature record was used in the development of the model. That’s just as if I gave all the answers out to my students on Monday, I gave them the final on Friday, and they all did spectacularly well. Well, because I gave them the answers ahead of time! You cannot use surface temperature as a metric to test your model because that was used to tune the model, and you are not doing a legitimate scientific test."

(The actual abilities through the decades of the various models at projecting GAST is briefly reviewed by CarbonBrief.)

Instead of GAST, Christy uses specifically "the temperature of the atmosphere between 30,000 and 40,000 feet in the tropics, 20oN to 20oS." Given his insistence on not testing on 'Friday' what had been shown on 'Monday', Christy's choice is particulalry poor. His choice coincides with the long contentious "tropical hotspot" which has been argued over for decades. (So Christy is effectively testing on 'Friday' what had been shown on 'Monday'). And the "tropical hotspot" isn't a marker of AGW but of warming generally. I don't think Christy disputes that is happening. And as for measuring it to check whether it is there and to what extent, that introduces yet another layer of great uncertainty. (See this SkS post of 2009. And Christy in not addressing uncertainty plus other failings is considered by this 2016 post at RealClimate.)

So it is true that our present measurements suggest the "tropical hotspot" isn't as vigourous as expected, at its upper altitudes (although present at its lower altitudes).

Christy attempts to use the uncooperative "tropical hotspot" as some sort of essential failing of CMIP5 models and by implication as an essential failing of all models. As set out above, such attempts are poorly contrived and to-date even a corrected argument is far from unconvincing.

Models are unreliable

rupisnark at 05:51 AM on 28 July, 2019

MA Rodgers @1119
Re response to @1117
♣ ….You bat the"~750 Million Units" into the long grass but there is also the "6 trillion" which is part of the talk transcript While the 750M quantity could be considered as the rough total (that's total as in down to absolute zero) heat content of the atmosphere per sq metre of the planet, the 6T quantity would be 80 times more than the equivalent for the oceans (which are usually considered the largest thermal pool the climate has to cope with). So what the 6T quantity is supposed to be, I know not. I assume it is just meant to appear very very big.

->6trillion. As a guess, could the heat content of the Earth might be the figure he is referring to? The mass of the earth is more than 4*10^6 times bigger than the mass of the water on earth, so it is within a few orders of magnitude! I have no idea how much heat transfer is going on between the oceans and the rest of the Earth, there would obviously be different speed of change issues compared to atmosphere/ocean and atmosphere/Earth’s surface. Happy to be shot done on this one if my guess is unreasonable.

♣ Slide 1 of Christy (2019) says it takes the values from AR5 Fig 2.11. It is Christy's comparison, not mine.

->I was not sure whether you did or didn’t agree with my previous summary of the point:-
The imbalance of 0.6W/m2 (0.18 units?), the statement that at the surface it is in balance, and the claim that 0.5 units is caused by extra CO2 whereas 100 units is caused by H20, clouds and aerosols (and not mentioned but presumably also existing CO2).

I understand you do disagree with the 6tr figure (and 750 units).

[I may appear to be slowly going through certain points, but I have learned from experience in many different fields, that this is an effective method of reaching a proper understanding, clarifying where difference of opinion lie and exposing falsehoods (which I believe is also one of the aims of this website).]

Re response to @1118
♣ The non-denialist distortions would be a more interesting subject, if you know of any.
->I am making a list of them. I will then contact the people who appear to have distorted matters to enable them to respond (and if I have misunderstood, to enable me to correct my misunderstandings). I want to see who is distorting matters, not to add to the many distortions already floating around.
♣ Whether you have the time to cope with all the nonsense served up by Christy, or not. We haven't got very far with the content of this Christy talk in more than one iteration. And there is the question of whether I (or others) could be fussed to continue untangling the garbage of you into chunks you will understand.

->We have not got far because your initial response only discussed one of the many points raised in the lecture. The more points you can answer the quicker I will understand. I have come to this forum with the aim of checking for myself some claims which have extraordinary consequences and if the claims made by your side of the debate were wrong could reduce GDP in 50 years time by well in excess of current world GDP. If true it could have the widely discussed consequences.
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/06/cutting-uk-emissions-net-zero-cost-1tn-philip-hammond…. I am taking a 1% reduction in global GDP pa to combat global warming… again estimates vary widely.]
If you do not wish to respond fully, I can understand that; but don’t then complain that the public are not willing to reduce their own and their children’s standard of living for a cause that have less than complete faith in.
♣ Note these Sea Surface temperatures (which C&M 2017 appears to say it uses to subtract ENSO from its TLT record) are not de-trended (as for instance the AMO is) so they do still have an AGW signal. Subtracting the NINO signals will thus also subtract some AGW signal
->I need to read further on this point. References welcome.
♣ Does C&M(1994) repeat the method of C&M(2017)? The implication is that it does (note that I have not access to C&M1994) but one difference is the UAH TLT v5.6 record was not used in 1994 as it didn't exist. The corrections to the UAH data set (mainly not the result of work by the UAH team) would have made significant changes to the 1994 result. So it is strange that C&M(2017) only finds a very small difference
->You seem to have a good point here… I will try to get hold of Christy at some point and challenge him on this and other matters. ( I have no idea if he will respond).
♣ Christy was one of six lead authors of Chapter 2 of IPOCC WG1 TAR (1990). Note the prmary finding of that chapter "The warming rate since 1976, 0.17°C/decade." This contradicts the primary finding of both C&M(1994) and C&M(2017).

->He could agree with that conclusion and his 1994 and 2017 papers could still be valid, given for example that he is adjusting for Volcanic and El Nino effects and there may be other caveats in the paper; so I am not sure that it does contradict those findings.

♣ If Christy is happy to give the GWPF the time of day, he will get no respect from me!!!

->I have no idea what Christy’s views of the GWPF are. I don’t think Christy gets any respect from you anyway, given your previous comments. Again, I would rather that we just discuss issues, adding this type of comment is not helpful.

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger at 06:15 AM on 23 July, 2019

rupisnark @1117/1118,
In reverse order.
1118
♣ "Your website ... already do(es) that job." Firstly, SkS is not my website. Secondly, SkS addresses distortions that are prediminantly of 'denialist' origin, not "non-denialist". The non-denialist distortions would be a more interesting subject, if you know of any.
♣ Whether you have the time to cope with all the nonsense served up by Christy, or not. We haven't got very far with the content of this Christy talk in more than one iteration. And there is the question of whether I (or others) could be fussed to continue untangling the garbage fo you into chunks you will understand.
♣ NINO1+2 & NINO3. Note these Sea Surface temperatures (which C&M 2017 appears to say it uses to subtract ENSO from its TLT record) are not de-trended (as for instance the AMO is) so they do still have an AGW signal. Subtracting the NINO signals will thus also subtract some AGW signal.
♣ Does C&M(1994) repeat the method of C&M(2017)? The implication is that it does (note that I have not access to C&M1994) but one difference is the UAH TLT v5.6 record was not used in 1994 as it didn't exist. The corrections to the UAH data set (mainly not the result of work by the UAH team) would have made significant changes to the 1994 result. So it is strange that C&M(2017) only finds a very small difference.
♣ Christy was one of six lead authors of Chapter 2 of IPOCC WG1 TAR (1990). Note the prmary finding of that chapter "The warming rate since 1976, 0.17°C/decade." This contradicts the primary finding of both C&M(1994) and C&M(2017).
♣ The GWPF are anti-scientific to the point of being bare-faced liars. I will be happy to demonstrate that fact if you are interested. If Christy is happy to give the GWPF the time of day, he will get no respect from me!!!
1117
♣ Have you understood correctly? What we can call Slide 1 of Christy (2019) is saying AGW is trivial to the point of insignificance. That is not borne out by the science. And denying the energy imbalance is pretty unforgiveable. You bat the "~750 Million Units" into the long grass but there is also the "6 trillion" which is part of the talk transcript While the 750M quantity could be considered as the rough total (that's total as in down to absolute zero) heat content of the atmosphere per sq metre of the planet, the 6T quantity would be 80 times more than the equivalent for the oceans (which are usually considered the largest thermal pool the climate has to cope with). So what the 6T quantity is supposed to be, I know not. I assume it is just meant to appear very very big.
♣ Slide 1 of Christy (2019) says it takes the values from AR5 Fig 2.11. It is Christy's comparison, not mine.

Models are unreliable

rupisnark at 00:15 AM on 23 July, 2019

MA Rodgers @1113
The substantive criticism you made was relating to the his first graphic. You compare that to the linked graphic. The two appear to me to be saying similar things (but see below), at first glance Christy’s is simpler to read (which would make sense as it was based on a talk to laymen); the use of units puts numbers into percentage terms which makes everything simpler. Since the 750 million units is not mentioned in the text, it seems irrelevant to spend time making conjectures over what you or I think it might mean. I may try to contact Christy or GWPF to understand if it seems important later (not sure if I will get any answers).

Then there are the issues that are worth discussing. The imbalance of 0.6W/m2 (0.18 units?), the statement that at the surface it is in balance, and the claim that 0.5 units is caused by extra CO2 whereas 100 units is caused by H20, clouds and aerosols (and not mentioned but presumably also existing CO2). Have I understood this correctly? What are the errors in what Christy has said?

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger at 21:53 PM on 22 July, 2019

rupisnark @1114,

You must forgive me my intolerance of those in the scientific & political community that remain imprisoned in climate change denial. Yet you do bring a real humdinger of climate change denial here for comment. Christy makes many many 'points' in that GWPF talk and he is pretty-much wrong it all of it.

I could continue down the many arguments he makes but how long have you got?

Consider the second point (The nonsense of the first point I dealt with up-thread @1113.), the graphic "What's happening at the surface?"

This second graphic shows a very small "Extra CO2" effect. This likely makes sense only if this tiny box represents the imbalance in the surface energy flux which is causing AGW. If it is meant to represent the impact of the AGW-induced warming, the box should be roughly the size of the cooling "Heat Flux" box and also have a cooling box the same size to balance.

The second graphic as-presented is scientific nonsense. But as that is really only repeating the incompetence of the first graphic, perhaps I should consider the third argument set out by Christy.

So graphic number three which makes sense to also consider graphic number four. This bring quite a lot of stuff into the discussion - Christy & McNider (1994) and Christy & McNider (2017) as well as Hansen et al (1998). But without getting too deep into all this, the bottom line is that Christy makes two crazy mistakes. Firstly Christy grossly misprepresents Hansen et al (1988) both in his GWPF talk and in Christy & McNider (1994). Hansen et al did not predict a +0.35ºC/decade temperature trend as Christy states (see this SkS post). Secondly Christy & McNider (2017) attempts to expunge ENSO & volcanic effects from the UAH TLT satellite temperature record but in doing so also manage to expunge much of the warming signal of AGW. Thus a trend of +0.16ºC/decade in UAH v5.6 is converted into +0.095ºC/decade. Exactly how Christy & McNider achieve this would require some detailed analysis. Certainly their use of NINO1+2 and NINO3 as an ENSO signal is one possible cause as these two SST series do contain an AGW signal.

---

Certainly I would concede nothing regarding Christy's work without first checking it out. His work is totally untrustwothy.

And if you wish to check out "distortions of information from both sides", perhaps addressing the apparent distortions on the other non-denialist "side" would be a better appraoch.

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger at 04:03 AM on 22 July, 2019

rupisnark @1112,

A first indication that there will be a great many "errors" is the author of this talk you ask about. John Christy is not known for presenting factual accounts of AGW. And a second indication is the audience. The GWPF is allegedly a UK-based educational charity but they fell foul of the UK Charity Commission and now all the really dodgy stuff is posted, as is this talk, by the 'Forum' rather than the 'Foundation' (although dodgy stuff predominated on both).

I would say that John Cristy's GWPF talk is an untrustworthy account from beginning to end. As it runs to over 7,000 words I will address just the beginning and the end. He parting comments are saying that some doomy predictions from 1970 which proved to be entirely wrong mean that all doomy predictions are wrong. I hope the logical fallacy in such an argument is obvious.

And his first graphic is also shot through with nonsense. Christy tries to make AGW appear insignificant by saying that the effect of CO2 is only 0.5 'units' within a diagram showing energy fluxes measured in very large numbers of 'units'. Yet, even though Christy is simply adapting an IPCC AR5 graphic, he still manages to make some fundamental scientific errors. This is not unusual with John Christy.

Perhaps most profound is his assertion that the energy fluxes balance at the surface which is not true on Planet Earth, as the IPCC graphic makes plain.

Another scientific howler in this first graphic is his annotation "Atmosphere (~750 million units)". He presummably means to say that the atmosphere contains 750 million x 3.4 = 2,550 million joules of thermal energy per square but he is saying watts per square metre which simple jibberish. The atmosphere's thermal energy is roughly something like 2,550 million j/sq m and with the 0.5 'units' from "extra CO2", Christy tries to show the impact of CO2 as being insignificant ("small numbers" as he calls it). But 0.5 'units' would amount to 0.5 x 3.4 x 8766 x 3600 = 54 million j/sq m in a single year. It would take a bit of a fool to dismiss this as "small numbers", but then we are talking about John Christy.

Models are unreliable

rupisnark at 23:18 PM on 21 July, 2019

As someone new to this site and still in the early stages of reviewing the issues, I would be greatful if someone could explain in detail where the errors in this talk by Dr J Christy are (if any).

https://www.thegwpf.com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #28

Eclectic at 10:44 AM on 16 July, 2019

Nigelj , the "cosmic ray" article has been headlined as a Breakthrough , per that scrupulously-scientific and just-slightly propagandist organization, the GWPF. Also taken up by ClimateDepot & other bloggy deniosphere sites.

On somewhat tenuous grounds, the academicians at Kobe University etc have suggested that the latest geomagnetic reversal ( 780,000 years ago ) had — via a temporary increase in cosmic ray impingement — produced a variation, for several thousand years, in the Winter Monsoon in North-East Asia (but little effect on the Summer Monsoon).

As yet, I have been unable to see that this localized effect so very long ago, could have more than zero relevance to modern global climate or even the climate of the last 100,000 years. We already have experimental, historical, and paleological evidence that Cosmic Rays have negligible effect on world climate.

The GWPF seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel, in its ongoing attempts to find a whisker of doubt about mainstream climate science. Not that such attempts are anything new, from the GWPF. As yet, the GWPF's batting rate is steady at Zero.

2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8

MA Rodger at 03:41 AM on 25 February, 2019

alonerock @3,

These are the words of a deluded climate change denier from an address he made 3-years-ago to a room of other climatechange deniers (in total 6,300 words). The extract you present is still rather long (2,300 words). Is there a particular part of it that needs rebunking? (A quick scan down to where he starts off about tar sands shows it is all pretty-much waffly nonsense, so it is all up for the treatment.)

Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming

John Hartz at 03:54 AM on 21 January, 2019

@ Norm Rubin #82

Here's one response to pseudo-science poppycock written by Paul Homewood and posted on the GWPF website:

GWPF’s “Incoherent” Climate Reports Misrepresent IPCC; Chairman’s Resignation Unrelated, ClimateDenierRoundup, DailyKos, Jan 18, 2019

Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming

Norm Rubin at 07:34 AM on 20 January, 2019

Did anyone here respond to the recent article in Nature apparently documenting that hurricanes in the US have shown no trend, either in frequency or intensity or (the authors' index of) damage caused?

And while I'm asking, thegwpf.org recently published a compilation of stats on global cyclones that seems to show the same pattern so far globally. (This one NOT peer reviewed or published in maybe the most prestigious scientific journal.)

Models are unreliable

michael sweet at 09:06 AM on 27 November, 2018

JoeTP,

Your reference only discusses solar cycles, it does not mention climate. It discusses the magnetic cycles of the sun. It refers to a presentation made at the GWPF, a well known anti-science organization. Can you cite a peer reviewed report to support your wild claims?

Scientists generally have trouble predictinig solar cycles. Claiming to be able to predict solar cycles hundreds of years in the past and future does not seem like a reasonable claim.

How blogs convey and distort scientific information about polar bears and Arctic sea ice

Eclectic at 13:44 PM on 13 March, 2018

Bob Loblaw @47 , you are far too cynical in your supposition about the "protesting too much". Me — when I am phoning the VD clinic about some new symptoms, I am always enquiring on behalf of a friend. Truly and always.

ImaginaryNumber, there is almost no overlap in the positions of the scientific blogs versus the denier blogs, in regard to polar bears. Why do you suppose that might be ?

And why is there almost no overlap between Dr Crockford's position and the position of the mainstream scientists ?

The polar bear scientific experts dismiss Dr Crockford & her ideas, not for the reason that she lacks formal credentials in that area, nor for her failing to be among the "inner group" of mainstream scientists. Nor do they dismiss her for her lack of appropriate publications in the appropriate peer-reviewed journals.

Nor do the scientists dismiss her for being a contrarian, nor for having red hair.

The scientists dismiss her ideas, because she is wrong.

It is that simple.

(The question of her receiving money/benefits for promoting "Fake News" propaganda, is a somewhat separate issue. And please note that a friend of mine considers her actions as morally repugnant even in the absence of any transactions from Heartland, Koch, GWPF, etc. )

Polar bear numbers are increasing

Eclectic at 19:21 PM on 20 December, 2017

Bruce @72 ..... with all due respect, Dr Crockford's expertise in evolution/speciation & hybridization of polar bears has near zero relevance to the modern situation where there is an extinction threat to the species.

Polar bears are evolved for a specialized diet, and they do not have the fall-back position of an omnivorous diet (such as possessed by their ursine relatives). The polar bears' hunting habitat is heading rapidly toward 100% loss over the next one-to-two centuries, thanks to Arctic warming (per AGW).

Polar bear numbers (and importantly their condition) can be very difficult to determine accurately. It is a bold, very bold, scientist who undertakes to publicly express a complacent attitude about the survival of a specialized mega-fauna carnivore which is undergoing almost complete loss of habitat. Especially bold, for a scientist who is not a specialist "at the coal face".

It appears Dr Crockford holds an outlier opinion, and is also making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to relevant expertise.

As to whether she is receiving financial benefits (from propaganda organizations such as Heartland, GWPF or other slush funds) in the form of a retainer or fee-for-service or stipend [see for instance the case of Emeritus Professor Lindzen or maybe Dr Judith Curry] or receiving non-cash benefits for speaking engagements etcetera ..... a cynic like you Bruce would of course wish see an absolutely categorical denial from her, that "none of the above" benefits apply to the present financial year nor any years of the past decade. Alas, it is all too easy for propaganda organizations to arrange for covert benefits of various types.

All too often in this world, Bruce, situations are more "gray" than you would wish.

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM at 03:08 AM on 23 October, 2017

MA Rodger @ 154

I am very impressed with your summary of that portion of the Harris podcast with Cass Sunstein. I should have qualified my comment to Eclectic that not the whole podcast is on freedom of speech. But it is very interesting on the other things discussed so it would not have been a waste of time.

We all agree that freedom of speech is very important in our society. Sunstein's point is that we have to tolerate wackos like Jones denying the Sandy Hook massacre to protect our freedoms because to do otherwise puts us on the slippery slope of quelling any dissent with the "popular view" which would be very dangerous. I think his summary of where the US Supreme Court has drawn the line is a good one and one with which I generally agree.

As to Miersch, I have since noted that at the time of my post I did not realize that he had strong views on climate change. Of course I am familiar with GWPF because it and Judith Curry's blog are the other two that I look at only occasionally. I have now searched on Wikipedia for the German Wildlife Foundation and it is not listed as a conservation society in Germany. I am somewhat disappointed in GWPF for not making it clear who Miersch is and is not. If the German Wildlife Society was in fact a true conservation society, leaving Miersch in the position as Director of Communications would say something as to their views but that does not seem to be the case.

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

MA Rodger at 21:32 PM on 22 October, 2017

NorrisM @152,

Perhaps I should explain why I brand you a troll. In rough terms, it is evident that you come to SkS with a contrary view but fail at every turn when asked to justify that view. You appear more interested in piling on the startling contrary views than in attempting to reconcile the views you express with the views others expressed here, those which are in the main science-based.
Strangely, I don't appear to have branded you a troll before, strange as I don't usually hold back for so long. But let us consider the detail of your use of Miersch down this thread.
@122 you introduced Michael Miersch into this thread as an aside, suggesting his message comprises news from Germany of "a major backlash" against renewable energy. By the sounds of it, he is an enemy of on-shore wind power and is being invited to speak in the seat of UK government (the Palace of Westminster) by a UK educational charity, the GWPF. Of course, the GWPF is no normal charity but a cynical bunch of climate change deniers. (The last time I heard of a GWPF talk at Westminster it was veteran climate denier Richard Lindzen.) I can't believe you would not have known about the GWPF given you tell us @112 that your understanding of Miersch is based on GWPF information. If you did not, its dodgy nature was set out @114. ( Interestingly, your acknowledgement of this situation @127 is riven with the sort of gramatical nonsense you would expect from an non-English speaker, suggesting you found writing it very difficult. Perhaps the message you wrote there was foreign to you!)
It is true that you were goaded into continuing further with this, but you did so by citing in the most general terms an 80 minute pod-cast to support the case of Miersch having the right of freedom of speech to say what he does (even though we still don't know what it is he does say). I listened to what I assume is the passage of that pod-cast which you were citing. (It's at about 1hr to 1hr 6 here) What Cass Sunstein is saying is that you cannot slander or libel a person (which the German government were accused of by Miersch, but which the courts said otherwise. The courts say there is no libel as Miersch is a Klimawandelskeptiker). Cass Sunstein also says that a person has the right to describe the Sandy Hook massacre as being a real or imaginary event that was orchestrated by the US government to enable tighter gun laws. As long as you are sincere and not lying, you are allowed to say such outrageous things. This can be said as this is not slander/libel - no individual is being defamed. And apparently some seriously sick people do brand Sandy Hook a hoax/conspiracy. As it is difficult to establish legally that they are sincere in their belief (an so not lying) they are imune to legal challenges. Sunstein was also asked about malicious 'doxing' replying that newspapers do have the right to publish the names and addresses of rape victims even if the intention was to unleash violence against them. Sunstein says this is poor law, saying on this of Madison (a US founding father, apparently) "(it is) not clear if Madison would roll over in his grave if we said you can't disclose where someone lives if the purpose and effect of that is to increase the risk of voilence."
So that is pretty startling stuff you cite to defend Miersch's right to say... well... frankly, I get the distinct impression you do not know what Miersch says on "wind and solar versus nuclear" and so who can say if he is "someone who shared my views." So this continues to be a troll-like discourse here, or have you a source of Miersch-ism you have, golly, forgotten to share with us.

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

MA Rodger at 17:05 PM on 22 October, 2017

Michael Miersch - For the record.

The discussion of German denialist Michael Miersch was introduced into this thread by troll NorrisM @112 and in subesquent comments the trammels of Meirsch have been repeatedly highlighted by NorrisM as he considers denialists like Mersch have the right to set out their opinion without let or hinderence. This was not the view of the German Federal Environment Agency who in 2013 published a 120-page exposition titled 'Und Sie Erwärmt Sich Doch. Was steckt hinter der Debatte um den Klimawandel?' ('And yet it heats up. What is behind the debate on climate change') criticising German climate denial and naming Miersch and a couple of his colleagues. This naming is described as "unusual for a government agency" by Miersch (although without naming, it would be difficult to debunk any specific climate denier or instance of climate denial) who sets out a turgid account of (to quote Kenneth Williams) "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in f' me!" and how he and fellow denialst Dirk Maxeiner were taking the Federal Environment Agency to court to enforce a withdrawal of the government brochure. Sadly for Miersch, the German courts concluded that he was after all legally a Klimawandelskeptiker. His turgid account of all this was duly publshed by the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy. I think it is fair to say that, unless a translation of the full 'Und Sie Erwärmt Sich Doch. Was steckt hinter der Debatte um den Klimawandel?' is forthcoming, the rights and wrongs of all this belong in a German-speaking forum and should not be trolled around at SkS.

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Eclectic at 09:56 AM on 21 October, 2017

NorrisM @127 , thanks for the link about Michael Miersch.

Yes that is the Miersch, and he is quite the nutcase — so we needn't dwell on him, in this thread.

I just wished to clear up [your] point on the quotation: "Germany's green energy transition is destroying vast swathes of nature ... [etc]"

It is evident that the quote is not a factual statement whatsoever, but is the title of an upcoming talk [Oct 24th 2017] by Miersch.

The talk is being organized by the GWPF — the title is inflammatory and erroneous (as usual with the GWPF!).

Internal evidence, namely the un-Germanic word "swathes", indicates that the title was probably concocted by the GWPF rather than by Miersch. Also, the GWPF likes to have something inflammatory, to attract its own nutcases to the talk.

Still when you have time, NorrisM (and perhaps on another thread) it would be interesting to discuss why the Anglophone court system entirely fails to protect the public from the fake news and false information disseminated by the likes of journalist Miersch.

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Eclectic at 15:05 PM on 20 October, 2017

NorrisM @112 , your assistance please!

A link, please — I have not managed to find the source of journalist Michael Miersch's comments that [allegedly] "Germany's green energy transition is destroying vaste swathes of nature ... while much of the countryside is transformed into industrial parks."

And is his comment a sober & factual assessment, or the raving hyperbole by what the Germans call ein Spinner [= a nutcase] ?

( The latter "case" seems much more likely, if he was someone called in to address a meeting of the GWPF. )

All I have found about journalist Miersch, is that recently a German court has decided that he has been lying to his reading public (in his advocacy of false & misleading information about climate matters — in other words he has been lying about the science of Global Warming. It sounds like the court felt his wish for journalistic freedom of expression did not outweigh his untruthfulness. ) .

I must say that it is a great pity that the Anglophone courts do not similarly take action against the many liars in the Anglophone press, in connection with both the Holocaust deniers and the AGW deniers.

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

NorrisM at 09:04 AM on 20 October, 2017

Bob Loblaw @ 107 and 108

At least I now understand your position. In many ways it is not dissimilar to mine leaving aside the question of how much time we have to respond to AGW.

I suspect the biggest difference between us is that is that you are dealing with theoretical issues of what should be inputted into a carbon tax and whether the developed countries should pay for the costs of rising sea levels in the rest of the world (I completely agree on your cap and trade comments). You are talking about what should logically be included (and who should pay) and I am talking about what is and is not politically realistic in the United States today and the foreseeable future given the existing Republican administration. Perhaps even on this we agree because you do propose a low number to start with.

I am just not confident that there is any realistic chance of increasing the "low number" carbon tax (even if I agreed with increasing it beyond pollution costs) without suffering a major backlash when the American public and business finds out what a large carbon tax would mean to them in costs let alone what the brave new world looks like visually. On that note, Michael Miersch, the Director of the German Wildlife Foundation is now delivering that message of what it looks like in Germany to the British public in a speaking engagement. If the GWPF website summary of his position is correct it is something like this:

"Germany's green energy transition is destroying vast swathes of nature, agricultural lands and forests. In the name of climate policy, rare birds and endangered species are being killed while much of the countryside is transformed into industrial parks."

These are some of the "unintended consequences" that Karl Popper talks about. Perhaps Germany will prove to be the testing ground while the rest of the world waits for a US Democratic President and Congress.

I think a better way to approach the American public is with a carbon tax that is rationalized based on pollution costs and then present them with a cost effective method of switching to solar and wind power. That is why my focus has shifted to costs of implementation of such a system. Whether there are viable storage systems for VRE (see discussion above) is obviously a critical issue.

I still am very suspect of whether the US public would sign on to wind farms over even 6% of the continental US but that is for another day. A quick look at Clack suggests the wind farms would be far away from populated areas. I want to spend more time on why nuclear is so out of the question when both Sweden and France implemented nuclear power for 80% of their power generation over a very short time. What went wrong? I suspect we are talking about massive delays from political interference reflected in massive regulations and time delays. Could we see Trump start to promote nuclear power? Those regulatory delays might start to disappear. But again, that is for another time.

It's a natural cycle

Eclectic at 03:47 AM on 18 October, 2017

Postkey @29 , yes that video presentation evoked both laughter & boredom, simultaneously.

Postkey, as you increase and extend your knowledge of climate matters, you will soon discover two things :-

(A) For all their imperfections & uncertainties, the scientists aim to present things as honestly & truthfully as they can.

(B) The anti-science propagandists (such as Mr Heller/Goddard) do not hesitate to mislead and deceive. They will cherrypick / "doctor" / fabricate . . . to whatever extent they think they can get away with. They aim to outright deceive the reader — or at least get him thinking that with so much "controversy" then he might as well put the climate/AGW issue on the backburner 'cos it seems nobody knows what the hell's going on. ~Either of those outcomes will satisfy the propaganda industry, as represented by GWPF, Heartland Institute, and other such "front" organizations. (And you will notice, Postkey, that the more scientifically-ignorant their audience, the more these proagandists extend their lies & deceptions. You will see that in places as diverse as Wall Street Journal op-eds and "lie & spin" websites like WattsUpWithThat or JoNova. They are completely shameless in their disregard for truthful presentation.)

Postkey, as for the AMO — what do you mean by "a statistical base"? There are very short-term trends (e.g. the ENSO) having a short up-or-down effect on the global surface temperature, but which (when you think it through) are incapable of altering the long-term climate trends produced by real drivers of climate change (e.g. long-term solar activity changes / Milankovitch-cycle insolation / Northern Hemisphere ice albedo changes / continental drift positional effects / and of course Greenhouse gas alterations).

But as for long-term (decadal) oceanic events such as the AMO — do they actually exist as some sort of real physical cycle, or are they only a collection of random natural variations that we interpret in our minds as some sort of "real" thing? ~Interpret in a similar way as our minds "see" a Face in the Moon . . . when in reality we are only observing a random asteroidal-bombardment pattern on the Moon's surface.

Still, whatever existence the AMO has or doesn't have — it does not and cannot cause significant climate change in the real way that Greenhouse gasses & other such "drivers" do.

That video presenter was way off into crazy territory. Either from his own ignorance or from his insane Conspiracy Theory beliefs or from some underlying extremist-political ideation. And he was certainly shooting himself in the foot by using the mendacious Mr Heller as his "rock". BTW, the presenter seemed to be "into" some form of agricultural permaculture (which in general I would say is a reasonable thing) but he hints at a Survivalist-type tendency — which is crazy-wrong in regard to apocalyptic "ice-age" threats . . . but which might well make some sense if North Korean nuclear attack occurs! ~Alas, if the ongoing Global Warming gets very bad, then there will be no "hiding out in the mountains" for would-be Survivalists, since the climate change itself and the hordes of climate refugees will render such plans null & void.

Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist

Eclectic at 12:59 PM on 2 October, 2017

Magellan @90 , it is a strawman argument to say that: "Ivar Giaever is not fit to address the issue because its [sic] not his field of expertise". And I'd love to know who are the "very smart people on both sides of the isle [sic] here". And which island are you referring to?

Magellan, you entirely miss the point about criticism of Giaever. It is irrelevant which "field of expertise" he previously came from.

Giaever's incompetent assessment of climate science is being criticized because

(A) He got it wrong. And got it wrong bigly !

(B) He had the hubris to think that a few hours of googling the topic of climate science would gain him enough knowledge to make a worthwhile contribution to the public discussion.

(C) He had the arrogance to think that a few hours' reading on non-specialist websites would qualify him to declare that all the experts were wrong.

(D) At the age of 83 , he had the chutzpah to lecture a formal gathering of Nobel Laureates (and also of many bright young scientists) about how science is done properly — while at the same time demonstrating his own failure to think logically about science! What an embarrassing performance in front of the young scientists (not to mention in front of the Laureates). Truly cringeworthy stuff !

(E) And he had the lack of insight to recognize the above.

~ Magellan, possibly you do not recognize/comprehend Scaddenp's euphemism of "Gone Emeritus" about Giaever. "Gone Emeritus" is a term used about some retired professors or retired eminent scientists — it represents a pathological fusion of hubris & mild senile dementia. It shows itself as wacky beliefs and/or a maverick's disregard of the evidence base of mainstream science.

If Giaever were 50 or 60 years younger, then scientists would simply call him a silly young fool. Yet still have some hope that he would come to his senses as he got a bit older.

Magellan, possibly you are not aware of the insidiously corrupting effects of small amounts of money or other inducement. Money etc that Giaever receives from propaganda organizations (e.g. his payments from the Heartland Institute in his role as an apologist for Big Tobacco) might not appear to you as very much or very likely to influence a famous/wealthy person to any great degree. But psychologists' experiments show that a small amount (such as $25,000*) can be more effective than a large amount (say $500,000) in maintaining & entrenching a person's adherence to a particular line of thinking. So for rather small amounts, the propaganda paymasters get very good value for money!!

[ * I mention this figure because it is an example: of a sum paid to the science-denier Richard Lindzen by Peabody Energy. I have not seen the size of the payments / stipends / gratuities / subsidies received by Judith Curry or her like, from paymasters such as Heartland, the GWPF, or under-the-counter industry slush funds. ]

2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #39

NorrisM at 01:28 AM on 2 October, 2017

nigelj

The writer of the article. By the way, lawyers in the same position are called "ambulance chasers" (When I practiced law I was a business lawyer)

I think a couple of months from now would have been more appropriate to engage in this discussion.

On another somewhat related point, I have been reading the comments on Judith Curry. Is this all because of some interview I understand she had with Fox News? I am a little disappointed with her even appearing on that "news" source.

But I can tell you at one point when I was watching CNN and CBS etc covering Hurricane Irma when it was in the Caribbean, all of the predictions for the path of Irma at that time were up the east coast of Florida. I just happened to go on the Curry blog for other reasons (although I sometimes look at GWPF, I only regularly follow two blogs, one on each side).

At that time, when all the other predictions had the storm heading to Miami, Judith Curry's prediction that day showed the hurricane heading for the west coast of Florida.

It took another day before CNN was modifying its predictions. Perhaps there were others and this was just an example of news sources looking for the dramatic but it was both CNN and CBS.

So if one oil and gas company retains Judith Curry to predict hurricane paths I have no problem with that. People do have a right to earn a living while promoting their causes. I think her oil and gas interests are immaterial to the issues and have been fully disclosed. You cannot bar every person from this debate if they have had some present or past relationship with the fossil fuel industry. On that basis, everyone should disclose any advice (and compensation they receive) to any organization promoting the dangers of climate change.

PS One time I took a look at a YouTube video of the President of the Heartland Institute. That was all I needed to stay clear of that site.

The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change

Eclectic at 20:59 PM on 27 September, 2017

Randman @22 , about your quote: "she was" (unquote)

She was . . . what? What are you talking about? Please be precise! Readers here don't wish to bother second-guessing what you intend to mean.

Regarding Judith Curry :- the sources are her own comments :

(A) in April 2015 : "Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change" (unquote)

(B) also in 2015 at a Congressional hearing, she stated about the global warming [of the past 200 years] : "And that's not human" (unquote)

(C) in 2014 speaking at the National Press Club : "We just don't know [what's going to happen]. I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales." (unquote)

(D) in November 2015 [please specially note this very recent date, Randman] she supported the existence of the so-called hiatus or pause : "global average surface temperature ... has shown little or no warming during the 21st century" (unquote)

(E) in 2011, she supported Murry Salby's crazy/nonsensical "hypothesis" that oceanic-origin CO2 is the real cause of our modern rapid Global Warming.

Now, Randman, consider each of the above 5 statements. If you yourself had issued them, then it would be evidence that you were grossly ignorant about climate science. If they had been made by a scientist (a scientist not specializing in climate related matters), then that would count as intellectual dishonesty. Issued by a climatologist, that would rise to the level of gross intellectual dishonesty.

Individually, each of the above statements cannot be justified, for they are individually & severally false and/or misleading. Randman, I could add others to the list . . . but (to paraphrase an Einstein quote) :- "It only takes one" !

$$$$$$$

Randman, I do not in any way suggest that Curry receives money illegally from the Oil industry & other anti-science propagandists. Arguably, what money or other benefits she receives from such groups is immoral but not illegal.

~ In 2006, Judith Curry [climatologist] and Peter Webster [meteorologist] set up a private company "Climate Forecast Applications Network". Judith Curry is President (not an unpaid job, I gather!). Curry herself said (in an interview with Scientific American) : "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry ... [per my company] since 2007." (unquote). Please note, Randman, that that sort of thing is not illegal — it is simply one of the many ways that the Oil industry slush funds operate.

Perhaps you are innocently unaware, Randman, that the fossil fuel industry slush fund money percolates all around the place. [Though I had to laugh when I saw that Peabody Energy's filing for bankruptcy in 2016 had "stiffed" the prominent science-denier Richard Lindzen, for a USD$25,000 "consultancy fee" that they owed him — though I don't know whether that $25,000 was a one-off or an annual stipend.] Stipends, expenses, etc are paid in various ways — sometimes by "sinecure" payments, sometimes by propaganda "fronts" like Heartland or GWPF, sometimes by other under-the-counter indirect methods e.g. payments to a company (not to the individual).

As to other benefits [in non-monetary form, not in cash] there are the examples of Curry appearing at least three times in front of Congressional-level hearings. I am sure that even you, Randman, are not so naive as to believe that Curry paid for travel accommodation & incidental expenses, out of her own purse — if you act as a prominent stooge for Big Corporations, then they look after you in the premium style. That's just the way the business world is, Randman. (But it's not in any way illegal for her to be on the Big Oil teat.) And then there's the purely psychological benefits she receives — definitely an ego boost for a mediocre climate scientist, to appear (and often) in the national Congressional limelight (etc).

Then there are other benefits in cash e.g. in January and February this year [her academic retirement onto a teacher's pension, being at the end of December 2016] Judith Curry authored two reports, one for Koch Brothers and one for the British propaganda machine GWPF. I don't know whether she was paid directly into her personal account or indirectly via her CFAN company, or by other means — but it would have been a generous*-sized benefit. Again, not illegal — but of doubtful morality. ( *Randman, it is extremely difficult for denialism-pushing Big Corporations to find any scientist with more than a shred of repectability/reputation who can be relied on as a stooge who will play the "Doubt & Uncertainty" game, in the face of all the overwhelming evidence that proves "D&U" is unjustified/dishonest.)

In Summary :

So, all in all, Randman, your own phrasing: "her scientific reasoning is dishonest, biased and she is funded by the oil companies" . . . is a fairly good summation of the situation.

Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible

MA Rodger at 17:05 PM on 11 July, 2017

The comment NorrisM @49 has turned full circle to address what NorrisM described in an earlier interchange as "what also troubles me in everything that I have read so far on climate change." That interchange ended with NorrisM withdrawing to read up on SkS comment threads and for some reason "the Nigel Lawson GWPF site." It would be good to nail this discussion rather than have yet another run round the houses.

Models are unreliable

NorrisM at 04:01 AM on 28 June, 2017

Tom Dayton, Eclectic & MA Rodger. I would like to thank all of your for your comments. I think I have to spend more time reading the full thread both for this topic as well as on questions of MWP etc. I think that I will withdraw from any further comments until I have at least read the full thread on this topic (this could be a long time!).

As a lawyer and not a scientist, I find the best way to come to a conclusion is listen to both sides similar to the process in determining any litigation (I am actually a business lawyer not a litigator). For this reason, my plan is to stay on this website and also the Nigel Lawson GWPF site. I actually have never even looked at the Skeptical Science website. I think I can "filter" things sufficiently to read postings on both sites.

The information on Steve Koonin is quite interesting given his statements in the transcript of the APS panel hearing where he professes surprise a number of times on what he was hearing. I thought I was reading the questions of independent physicists who were trying to get at the facts (I just about said "truth"). But I do commend that transcript to all of you, if only to hear how these significant IPCC climatologists respond to the questions.

But one suggestion to the editor of this website. I think that "ad hominen" comments on the persons contributing to this website should be fully deleted and never appear at all on the website. Just "stroking them out" but allowing everyone to read them just encourages those kind of comments to be made. I do find that the proponents of anthropogenic global warming seem to be much more in "attack mode" than the other side. Can we not come up with a less pejorative term than "climate change denier" with all its connotations when literally none of the Curry, Christy et al group deny that the world is getting warmer.

This term "fake skeptic" is awfully close to "fake news". Is it recently invented since the advent of Trump?

Having said all of this, the recent post today indicating that Stephen Hawking is onside and part of a new organization gives me a significant degree of comfort. Reading his History of Time was a challenge but I got through it. Unless I have missed another YouTube, I was very disappointed with the Neil DeGrasse Tyson video explaining global warming because it is so simplistic and does not explain any of the challenges in trying to "predict" future changes in the climate. I appreciate why he has done this, reaching for the lowest common denominator amongst the public, but I think scientists do have a responsibility to qualify absolute statements. Otherwise, they move into the political arena which then undermines the confidence the public has in their scientific statements.

In any event, thanks very much for all of your comments. Lots of reading ahead of me.

Models are unreliable

MA Rodger at 00:45 AM on 15 March, 2017

SemiChemE @1012,
You disagree with opinion expressed in this thread, in that you consider that Curry's GWPF paper does have a place here in scientific discussion. Given the main thrust of Curry's GWPF paper reiterates Lewis & Curry (2014) which carries no such dispute, can you make clear what it is in Curry's GWPF paper you feel is necessary to include in this discussion but which is absent from Lewis & Curry (2014).
I should make plain my position. I have in the past examined a number of GWPF papers and found them "consistently wrong and entirely flawed." GWPF policy papers are thus entirely without scientific credibility. They actually make rather good comedy.

Models are unreliable

Tom Curtis at 17:20 PM on 13 March, 2017

SemiChemE @1004, neither Judith Curry, the Global Warming Policy Foundation nor Nic Lewis have a sterling reputation when it comes to climate science. All have shown a strong prediliction to cherry pick results in favour of low sensitivity/low impact projections. That is evidenced again in the report for which you provide the URL.

More specifically, in Table 1 Curry reports the climate sensitivity estimates of the IPCC AR4, the IPCC AR5, and the CMIP5 model ensemble, along with just two recent estimates. Nic Lewis is an author of both of those estimates, with Judith Curry being his coauthor in the first, and higher estimate. The two climate sensitivity (best) estimates are, respectively, 1.64 ^oC and 1.54 ^oC per doubling of CO2. Both estimates are by the energy balance method. I should note that by "best estimate", Curry means the modal value. Given the use of estimates of ECS in estimating likely damages from global warming, it is more appropriate to report the mean value. Given the assymetry in the uncertainty ranges, the mean value is likely to be higher than the modal value.

For comparison, using the same method but less controversial assumptions, Otto et al (2013) found a most likely (ie, modal) estimate of 1.9 ^oC with a 5-95% confidence range of 0.9-5.0 ^oC. That is warmer than the effective IPCC estimate of the modal value as determined by Rogelj et al (2014) (See supplementary data, tables 1 & 2, case f).

Further, when we look outside the strict confines of energy balance based estimiates of ECS, the range of values becomes much larger. Bodman and Jones (2016) report estimates of mean values for the ECS of 2.0, 3.2, 1.8, and 2.6 ^oC per doubling of CO2 for a range of studies, the oldest of which was published in 2012. An even greater range is obtained if we consider studies of paleo data, as shown in Figure 1 of Heydt et al (2016):

(To read the graph, the x axis shows the approximate GMST relative to 20th century values, while the y axis shows the climate sensitivity parameter. To obtain the ECS for 2xCO2, multiply that value by 3.7 W/m^2. As can be seen a range of values are obtained, most commensurate with the IPCC AR5 and CMIP 5 estimates, though with some lower and some much higher.

Lewis likes to argue that energy balance estimates are incontrovertibly superior to other estimates, but there are good reasons to doubt that. Indeed, there are good reasons to think that such estimates are biased low. Nic Lewis' results are further biased low on top of that by his controversial assumptions all of which tend towards a lower estimate of ECS.

To summarize, Judith Curry's GWPF report is typical of their productions in being based on extreme cherry picking of data to drive an ideological point. It is not a fair summary of the science, and therefore need not be considered in a science based blog.

Mail on Sunday launches the first salvo in the latest war against climate scientists

Jim Hunt at 04:58 AM on 9 February, 2017

Al @3 - "As far as the timing of all this, the timeline of publication is being utterly ignored by the denialists."

Something that's also been utterly ignored by the likes of Dana Rohrabacher & Lamar Smith is the "pre-bunking" of ex Prof. Judy's "shock news" by my very good friend "Snow White". Reproducing her news release at Climate Etc. yesterday:

Speaking from their Ivory Towers near the North Pole, Great White Con spokesperson Snow White announced by the light of the silvery moon:
We are extremely proud to have been selected as Feedspot’s 21st best Global Warming blog on the web. Whilst it’s galling to be below WUWT we’re well ahead of the GWPF and Climate Etc. is nowhere to be seen.
By way of celebration we have some Shock News to impart!
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/beta-testing-snow-whites-alternate-fact-detector/
We flipped the switch on the first beta test version of Snow White’s Alternative Facts Wetware™ (AFW™ for short) AF detection subsystem early on Saturday morning (UTC). We were astonished when the needle literally flew past the end stops later that morning. Initially we suspected a bug must have sneaked in via one of Snow’s unprotected ear canals. However when she rather reluctantly ran her exhaustive diagnostic routines they revealed that her mission was in actual fact absolutely nominal.
What happened next therefore came as no surprise whatsoever!

Surreal? Moi?

Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

Tom Curtis at 00:46 AM on 18 January, 2017

The misnamed RenaissanceMan (hereafter RM) @210 quotes Ottmar Edenhofer as saying:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

The quote is a translation of a comment Edenhoffer made in an interview, where in response to the interviewer saying:

"De facto ist das eine Enteignung der Länder mit den Bodenschätzen. Das führt zu einer ganz anderen Entwicklung als der, die bisher mit Entwicklungspolitik angestossen wurde."
{"De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy."}

Edenhoffer replied:

"Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun."
{"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."}

(Note that the translation is by Philip Mueller, apparently for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. As that organization has repeatedly proven itself an unreliable source, I do not trust the translation, but not speaking German, must relly on it.)

Stating the obvious first, RM, or his source, has reversed the order of the two sentences he does include in the quote, and deleted three of five sentences in the paragraph, one from between the two sentences, and all without any indication of the deleted sentences existence. That sort of manipulation of other peoples words is, in academic situations considers fraud. That is because the meaning of any sentence depends on its context - and RM (or his source) completely butchers the context whilst trying to hide the fact that they have done so. So, at best RM rellies on a fraudulent source without fact checking. I note that Larry Bell similarly butchers the text in an article for Forbes. CFACT also butchers the quote, but again not in an identical form. Simon Downing also has a similar, but distinct butchering. It appears that AGW deniers are almost as bad as creationists when it comes to lying by out of context quotation. But I can find no evidence that RM is not himself an original butcher of the quote; and hence a perpetrator of a deliberate fraud.

So what is the context of the quote, and how does it effect things? Well, to begin with Edenhofer had already stated clearly, in the immediately preceding response that:

"Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

That is, he has clearly acknowledged the objective of climate policy, ie, to keep the increase in Global Means Surface Temperature to 2 degrees celsius or less. But in doing so, he notes that the policy necessarilly will have impacts beyond the environmental, and specifically economic impacts. He clarrifies what that means afterwords. Specifically, the choice of different responses to AGW will de facto result in different consequences for the distribution of global wealth. He has already mentioned one example in the response before that (ie, two responses before the one RM, or source, butchered):

"That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all."

I might note that the current approach, of limits on emissions as a percentage of a nations current emissions locks in higher living standards for the first world as part of the treaty system well into the future.

No reasonable climate policy can be devised without noting, and negotiating these de facto effects. But they are, as Edenhofer clearly states, even in the butchered version of the quote, de facto effects. That is, consequences that were not the intended consequence of the policy.

Report helps scientists communicate how global warming is worsening natural disasters

Jonbo69 at 00:48 AM on 10 December, 2016

nigelj

Thanks. I ended up doing a bit more research anyway and found the journal the paper was published in to be extremely dodgy, plus i took a closer looke at the references which included A. Watt, Roger Peike Junior, the GWPF etc. That aside, are there any up-to-date papers on the subject of extreme weather that are worth referencing?

A climate scientist and economist made big bucks betting on global warming

chriskoz at 12:58 PM on 2 August, 2016

Hope is just a calculated money-maker: he did not risk anything. Annan risked quite a bit by betting 4:1, i.e. his winning return was only 1.25. As the scientists he knew the actual odds of strong LaNina year being a local maximum along the warming signal were much smaller than that, so he could affford it.

Having denialist "put their money where their mouth is", does not teach them anything because the amounts involved (e.g. £1000 in Hope case) are too small. The problem is that the rewards from FF market are far surpassing (in the order of millions $) the losses from foolish and ignorant bets, like this by Plimer and Rudge. They happily pay it, meanwhile collecting cheques hundred times that much of perhaps laundered money, remunerating them for their service to GWPF.

It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming

MA Rodger at 18:10 PM on 15 April, 2016

Haze @18.

You ask "Why is climate change viewed so differently by Republicans and Democrats?" I am a Brit so here assume the UK political scene is an equivalent to the US version.

I once got into a long interchange on the impacts of and evidence for AGW with Peter Lilley, a right-wing Conservative MP & recently a recruit to the GWPF (Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy). As well as exhibiting all the signs of delusion and denial, the man eulogised the political philosopher JS Mill. This I considered rather strange as JS Mill famously said (and thus I suggest answers your question):-

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims

Jim Eager at 01:00 AM on 25 March, 2016

I see no problem with Ryland's advice to Dr Death to check out WUWT, Jonova, ClimateEtc, the GWPF, et al. If Tom is truly sincere in his intention to with intelligence and an open mind compare almost 200 years of cohesive science with its multiple lines of non-contradictory evidence to what the "debunking side" puts forward it will only make reaching his conclusion that much easier.

GWPF throws out centuries of physics, climate scientists laugh, conservative media fawns

Tom Curtis at 01:01 AM on 3 March, 2016

BBHY @8, you are too generous.

Mills not only looks in the rear view mirror - he cherry picks break points to ensure a low trend for the final term for the segmented trends; and simply omits the trend term from his analysis to ensure a zero trend for the full autoregressive model. That is, for figure 5 above, his analysis finds a trend of 0.6 C per century, which he then simply omits in order to make a projection. For figure 6, his analysis finds a reduced trend in the final segment due to a cherry pick of 0.8 C per century (it would have been closer to 2 C per century with objectively determined breakpoints), which he then simply omits to get a zero C per century trend for his prediction. (Details from Nick Stokes at Moyhu)

On top of that, he has performed a statistical analysis showing that total radiative forcing is a robust predictor of temperature, with a Transient Climate Response of 2.1 +/-1 C per doubling of CO2 (significantly greater than IPCC estimates). Therefore he knows that the temperature history of the 20th century is a result of radiative forcings, not of a random walk.

GWPF throws out centuries of physics, climate scientists laugh, conservative media fawns

keithpickering at 02:42 AM on 2 March, 2016

I think it may be a problem for the GWPF when their scientist-for-hire produces the required drivel at such a level of detail that it is instantly falsifiable.

My climate prediction: Expect GWPF to hire someone less verbose, and more opaque, in the future.

GWPF throws out centuries of physics, climate scientists laugh, conservative media fawns

MA Rodger at 19:13 PM on 1 March, 2016

Tom Curtis @5.

The ridicule I present @3 is indeed unscientific but when a paper is as you say "not worth the paper it's written on," that paper hangs on to the very edge of science by its fingertips. Add to that the comments by McKitrick in the GWPF's forward (saying how important this paper is for policy makers) and Mills' no-temperature-increase-this century prediction reported in the press: given such a situation, for an academic to remain silent and not set out where he stands - that is unforgivable in science. The paper could just as as well be written in crayon in the kindergarden.

And do note that this particular set of GWPF are the Global Warming Policy Foundation. This part of the GWPF is a registered charity (an educational charity no less, so that'll learn you!!) and being a charity that £3,000 paid to Mills was part funded by the UK taxpayer. Yet again the Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy bring legitimate UK charities into disrepute.

Resorting to ridicule may not be entirely appropriate within an SkS comment thread where scientific analysis should not be drowned out by laddish invective but on the interweb generally I do consider ridicule an effective response to these GWPF jokers.

GWPF throws out centuries of physics, climate scientists laugh, conservative media fawns

Tom Curtis at 14:14 PM on 1 March, 2016

MA Rodger @3, your are correct about crudeness and inappropriateness of using cherry picked break points in this sort of study, although the references to 'kindergarden' are uncalled for. Also uncalled for are suggestions elsewhere that Mills is only publishing a report of this nature because of the fee he recieved from the GWPF. He has taken a similar line in the (dubious) Journal of Cosmology, although at least avoiding the fraudulent practise of cherry picking in that paper.

What is interesting is that in 2009 in Climactic Change, Mills performed an analysis showing that:

"Using an updated data set of global temperature and radiative forcings, it has been shown that temperature and total radiative forcing cointegrate and that this relationship is stable across the period from 1850 to 2000. A robust estimate of the temperature sensitivity to a doubling of radiative forcing is calculated to be in the range of 1–3^◦C, with a point estimate of just over 2^◦C. Since we cannot reject the hypothesis that the different radiative forcings have an identical impact on temperature, this result can also be interpreted as providing the temperature sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration."
(Note that the "temperature sensitivity" discussed is the Transient Climate Response.)

Thus, Mills has shown that total radiative forcing is a robust predictor of meant global temperature.

Mills also analysed NH trends in 2006 using a variety of methods, concluding that:

"In summary, then, although the techniques investigated here display certain idiosyncrasies, they share the common feature of a ‘long wave’ in trend NH temperatures with a pronounced warming trend since 1970. The range of trend functions provided by these techniques should, however, temper the enthusiasm of anyone tempted to use them for extrapolating trend temperatures far into the future."

That last caution is wise given the limitations of purely statistical techniques. Had Mills taken it at face value, he would never have published his latest excrescence for the GWPF. Needless to say, if purely statistical trend prediction are dubious for predicting the future, purely statistical trend prediction based on cherry picked break points is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Further, in a peer reviewed trend analysis in 2009, he wrote:

"As can also be seen from Figure 2, the trend slopes are all approximately constant, at around 0.03^oC per annum. This implies that, at this current rate of trend increase, Northern Hemisphere temperatures will be some 3^oC higher by this time next century. Being parametric, the stochastic trend model provides a standard error for both the current trend level and slope: these are 0.05 and 0.01 respectively. Forecasted trends will also have standard errors. Although the forecasted trend in 2105 will be around 3.6^oC (above the 1961-1990 mean), it will have a standard error of 2.3^oC attached to it, indicating the imprecision with which such long run forecasts are necessarily accompanied by: a 70% prediction interval runs approximately from 1.3 to 5.9^oC. This long-range trend forecast is very much in line with the projections made by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre coupled atmospheric-ocean general circulation models, HadCM2 and HadCM3, using a ’business as usual’ scenario that assumes mid-range economic growth but no measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions."

That paper also analysed the Central England Temperature series (CET), in which he found two short term trends of similar magnitude to the late twentieth century trend, but that is to be expected when that series represents temperatures over a small region. Hemispheric and global series, in contrast, will show the average over many regional trends and consequently be far less variable. Consequently, we need not expect temperatures of 14.08 C by 2005 (as predicted from the CET trend), and contrary to Mills assertion, that temperature is not inline with model predictions.

Taking the three papers together, Mills own work has shown that radiative forcings are a robust predictor of temperature, while statistical patterns in temperature patterns alone are not a robust predictor of gobal temperature. Further, purely statistical predictions are downgraded by cherry picking trend periods. Therefore, to treat projected trends based on cherry picked data as refuting climate models, whose results are consistent with the robust predictions of temperature from radiative forcing directly contradicts Mills' own work. In short, not only does he know that is work in the GWPF report is of poor quality - not only does he know that it is not robust - but Mills knows the conclusions drawn for him by McKittrick in the introduction are directly contradicted by Mills actually peer reviewed work.

It is no wonder that he refuses to confirm that he considers his result to be credible.

GWPF throws out centuries of physics, climate scientists laugh, conservative media fawns

MA Rodger at 04:32 AM on 1 March, 2016

The technical basis of this GWPF Technical Paper No1 actually rests on a method that is well known here at SkS. The result rests wholly on the method employed to identify the break-points in the HadCRUT4 & RSS TLT data series. This method is not without its critics so GWPF Technical Paper No1 presents the reasons for employing this method in Note 9. And these reasons are that the 'author' (posh word for kid with crayon) Terence C. Mills of Loughborough University (likely attached to the university's kindergarden) feels he can argue that (firstly) alternative methods are less well developed that his chosen approach and (secondly) break-points can be identified over the full length of the data series when using his chosen method.

This chosen method thus allows him a level of flexibility unavailable with any of the alternatives.

The method utilises a very powerful piece of equipment call a Mk1 Eyeball. Yes, you have it right. The kid with the crayon is cherry-picking his breakpoints visually. Note 9 does make plain that other break-points can still be considered but the kid with the crayon is happy to ignore any of that and go with his prediction for temperatures out to 2020. And I note there is some press coverage showing that the kid with the crayon has got his hands on a longer ruler than the one used in GWPF Technical Paper No1. He is reported predicting global tempertatures out to 2100(And they are talking years not hours!!) based solely on the data 2002-2014. The kid may well know that short sets of noisy data (less than 18 years or so) give statistically unsound results but he probably hasn't learnt to count up to eighteen yet.

9. The break-points were determined ‘exogenously’, in other words by visual examination of a plot of the series. This was done for two related reasons. First, methods for determining breaks endogenously remain in a relatively early stage of development (see Bai, 1997; Bai and Perron, 1998, 2003,McKitrick and Vogelsang 2014) and their properties in dynamic regression models have not been completely established. Second, these methods require observations to be ‘trimmed’ from the beginning and end of the sample to ensure that the tests have reasonable properties: any trimming at the end of the sample will make it almost impossible to find a break that occurs near the end of the sample, as may well have happened in this series, this being the well documented ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ in temperatures. Consequently, other researchers may wish to explore alternative break points: certainly bringing the last break point forwards from December 2001 will begin to produce a significant positive trend for the fifth regime.

GWPF throws out centuries of physics, climate scientists laugh, conservative media fawns

Jim Hunt at 02:33 AM on 1 March, 2016

Note also that the Global Warming Policy Forum is attempting to pull the same stunt with a porky pie production line of Arctic sea ice misinformation. For all the gory details of this long running saga please see:

The Great Global Warming Policy Forum Con

Dear Benny,
I note that the GWPF webmaster has still not taken on board any of the helpful [Arctic sea ice] advice I have proffered over the last few weeks, and has now posted some inaccurate information about “global warming”. Will he or she never learn?

Apparently not!

Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser

MA Rodger at 18:59 PM on 5 December, 2015

Ryland @7.

Do get a grip. All you are saying here is that the Wattsupia web site presents the same garbage to the world that the GWPF do. If you do not yet even recognise that there is a profound difference between scientific discussion and the error-filled nonsense presented both by Watts and his chums and by GWPF, then you really should start looking. It might save you making a fool of yourself repeating their error-filled nonsense. Unlike the science, Watts and Co don't don't give a monkeys who they make fools of.

Scientists' open letter to the Wall Street Journal re: Ridley and Peiser

MA Rodger at 10:00 AM on 5 December, 2015

For those who can cope, the offending WSJ nonsense-filled garbage is available outside a paywall here. And those who remember that the GWPF (Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy) include within their number both Benney and Matt will not be surprised by any misguided nonsense from the pair of them. Dogs bark. Bears misbehave in woods. Benney & Matt have a problem with denial.

Carbon pollution: the good, the bad, the ugly, and the denial

ubrew12 at 02:50 AM on 22 October, 2015

Corollary to what GWPF is doing with its report: "Take Colonheal and watch those painful Hemorroids disappear! (possible side effects include droopy lip, creeky neck, occasional blindness, paranoid delusions, and suicidal egomania. Discontinue use before any of these occur)."

It's the sun

MA Rodger at 21:23 PM on 31 August, 2015

qikplay @1152.

You may feel trawling SkS to identify posts to criticise is helpful but do pause a while. The BBC 'myth' addressed in the post here dates to 2004 and was written by David Whitehouse, a man suffering deep denial on AGW. Indeed, he has since been recruited by the GWPF (Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy). Whitehouse reports the work of Solanki which have been lost and forgotten by all but AGW deniers. And that is because the evidence, the data and graphs, demonstrates Solanki is plain wrong. You appear to reject the use of "competing graphs and data" as a way examining the unsupported fantasy of the likes of Solanki. How then would you suggest we examine his wild claims?

The Carbon Brief Interview: Prof Dame Julia Slingo OBE

billthefrog at 21:34 PM on 2 June, 2015

In her answer to the opening question regarding any linkage between climate change and the extensive flooding in the UK during 2014, Prof Slingo rather diplomatically stated that...

" ... There are those who were not pleased with what I personally said. But, actually, I wrote the paper that contained all the scientific evidence and that evidence is still as strong as it was a year ago. And I did challenge them at the time to come out with a counter-argument based on fundamental science and they didn't. ..."

I suspect that was, at least partially, aimed at Nigel Lawson of the GWPF in light of his scurrilously off-hand dismissal of her opinions. One needs to be imbuded with a really astonishing level of smug, self-aggrandizing arrogance to come out with...

"... It is just this Julia Slingo woman, who made this absurd statement ..."

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #17

Tom Dayton at 23:38 PM on 27 April, 2015

Hotwhopper already has answers to the GWPF's questions about temperature adjustments. She also has a few questions of her own, for the GWPF. Not expecting to get answers to those....

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #17

Tom Curtis at 14:05 PM on 27 April, 2015

DSL @2, Roman Mureika is a statistician that frequently comments at Climate Audit, being very critical of anyone disagreeing with McIntyre. As a rough measure of his ability, he has an effective Google Scholar h-rating of 6. Most of his papers deal with the ins and outs of record times for 100 meter sprints. For comparison, Grant Foster who is belittled on Climate Audit as a statistical nobody in comparison to Mureika has an effective Google Scholer h-rating of 10. What is more, unlike Mureika, he has published on the temperature record.

The GWPF is certainly stacking the deck with people with a known outlook. As Nick Stokes points out, they have also stacked the deck with the questions they put to the inquiry.

Having said that, van Wijngaarden has an academic record that certainly justifies his being on this sort of panel, including publications on climate statistics. Based on his publication record, he at least is unlikely to perform a simple hatchet job.

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #17

Tom Dayton at 13:56 PM on 27 April, 2015

rkrolph, that GWPF waste of time is covered by And Then There's Physics, and several other folks in the comments there.

2015 SkS Weekly Digest #17

DSL at 13:30 PM on 27 April, 2015

rkrolph, it's being put together by the GWPF, one of the core denial machines. It's Pielke Sr., Chylek, McNider (UAH), Roman Mureika (wth?), and William van Wijngaarden (wth, part 2).

Note that "experts" is the label rather than "climate experts." It's all rhetoric in the name of shaping public opinion.

Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist

MA Rodger at 21:51 PM on 12 January, 2015

It is strange that william tries to make out that the attacks on Mann are equivalent to the attack by Natalie Bennett on denialism in UK politics. The two situations are so very different.

Mann is expressly discussing attacks on "individual scientists." Bennett attacks "any cabinet ministers or senior governmental advisers." so definitely not just one person.

And individual scientists do not have any collective responsibility yet cabinet government does. As for the advisors, the point has been made already that government probably shouldn't be taking scientific advice from people who holds fantasy views on climate, or anything else for that matter.

Chief Veterinary Officer, Nigel Gibbens will be expected to give advice on diseases spread by rising temperatures, now and into the future. Thus his beliefs are directly relevant.

Unlike scientists, politicians often do their best to be all things to all men. My own MP, Mr Burns, a Tory back-bencher, does a reasonable job sitting on the fence on climate although with significant symptoms to suggest he is actually in deep climate denial. And that is very common within the right-wing of the UK Tory party. Owen Paterson, the then-cabinet minister Bennett was particularly aiming at, addressing the denialist GWPF after he had left cabinet was still speaking with a level of ambiguity.

"Despite all this, I remain open-minded to the possibility that climate change may one day turn dangerous."

Without the present coalition partners, that denialist Tory right wing would have far more influence in a Tory UK government. Yet when the UK goes to the polls in May this year, will any of the soon-to-be-elected Tory MPs be telling their electorate "Vote for me. I'm a climate change denier."?

So the two situations are actually back-to-front. Mann was discussing being attacked surreptitiously for his explicit scientific message. Bennett was explicitly attacking what are political views held surreptitiously.

Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change

JoeK at 08:45 AM on 21 November, 2014

Do you think that Obama's tweet was a fair representation of your study? I'm thinking particularly of the way that he added 'dangerous' to the consensus. I may have missed it, but I couldn't find the word danger in your ERL publication, or the Guardian blog post you linked to announcing it.

Does this matter? I think it does. Many skeptics (including e.g. Christopher Monckton, Patrick Michaels and Roy Spencer) have claimed that they are part of 'the 97%' on the grounds that they believe climate change is real and man made.

I suspect that if the consensus was 'real, man made and dangerous' then they would have a much harder time claiming to be part of the consensus.

To quote one of your critics, Andrew Montford:

"Differences over extent of any human influence is the essence of the climate debate. The vast majority of those involved – scientists, economists, commentators, activists, environmentalists and sceptics – accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will, other things being equal, warm the planet. But whether the effect is large or small is unknown and the subject of furious debate. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report shows a range of figures for effective climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that can be expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide levels. At one end are studies based on observations and suggesting little more than 1◦C of warming per doubling. If true, this would mean that climate change was inconsequential. At the other end are estimates based on computer simulations, which would, if realised, be disastrous."
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf

In short, these skeptics often claim that your study simply missed the point.

It may be that you're not interested in engaging with skeptics such as Montford or Michaels, and are more interested in talking to a wider 'unconvinced' public (although even there, I believe you have things wrong). Have you considered the possibility that some of the "criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change" arose because those scientists are engaging with a different audience, skeptics such as Montford and Michaels, where simply asserting that climate change is 'real and man made' does indeed miss the point?

Antarctica is gaining ice

Tom Curtis at 10:07 AM on 2 November, 2014

Further to the issue of peer reviewed publication, it turns out that DS has published in an open access, online Journal of Cosmology (article 6 of issue 22). The Journal of Cosmology purports to be peer reviewed, and does have some members of its editorial board who are noteworthy, and do publish in the Journal. Nevertheless, it does appear as #249 on Jeffrey Beall's 2014 list of "Questionable stand alone jounals".

The article differs in that, unlike the blogpost, it contains no estimate of the magnitude of the effect. Rather, it restricts itself to suggesting that the effect may be a factor in the reduction in Arctic sea ice extent and concurrent extension of Antarctic sea ice extent (which may be true). It also gives a more detailed account of climatologist's errors, actually naming names and citing articles. I have not gone through the list to see if Steel is correct, but none of the articles mentioned deal with recent climate change or climate models. So no evidence that DS presents that I have seen shows that climate models (and hence IPCC accounts of recent climate change) fail to correctly calculate changes in monthly insolation by latitude.

On a side not, DS has been busy promoting his theory, with two articles for the GWPF. He also has a 2002 article for the Guardian telling us that "Climate Change is good for us", apparently because it ensure we won't stumble into an ice age. That is inconsistent with his current account, based on which natural warming due precession of the perihelion relative to the equinox should guaranttee that for quite some time.

2014 SkS Weekly Digest #36

DSL at 00:29 AM on 10 September, 2014

herrhund: "I am sure they have no problem to responding to some of the points in the paper from the global warming policy foundation."

They've responded. You haven't looked. And, no, science isn't required to answer every publicly displayed argument against it. If that were the case, no science would ever get accomplished. GWPF is designed to shape public opinion, not be scientifically accurate. Its writers can write just about anything they want without facing scrutiny. The general public certainly won't scrutinize, and scientists, for the most part, completely understand what the GWPF is all about and treat it accordingly (by ignoring it).

2014 SkS Weekly Digest #36

herrhund at 17:03 PM on 9 September, 2014

Hey guys,

are you going to comment on this paper from the global warming policy foundation?

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics.pdf

Quote:

"While Cook’s approach appears to owe more to public relations or propaganda than the scientific method, there is little doubt that there is a scientific consensus, albeit not the one that the authors of the paper have led people to believe exists. The consensus as described by Cook et al. is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxideis a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. The figure of 97% is entirely discredited, whatever the nature of the consensus."

Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

MA Rodger at 21:35 PM on 18 June, 2014

likeithot @23.

Do you not feel that the OISM Petition Project has "a clearly pre-meditaded (+unscientific) political adgenda"?

I note elsewhere on this website you protest that your questioning went unanswered. With that sensitivity in mind, I would answer your question @21 by pointing out that the "someone" is surely the GWPF who certainly require a reality check. To publish that propagandist and scurrilous nonsense from Andrew Montford is, for an organisation registered as a UK educational charity, bringing the UK Charity Commission and the numerous legitimate charities it supports into disrepute.

Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project

likeithot at 08:29 AM on 18 June, 2014

Gee, I never knew it was so easy to write off 30,000 people's opinions as being meaningless. You'd think it would at least cool the sanctimonious rhetoric about 97%.

Maybe someone needs a reality check?:

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf

Resources and links documenting Tol's 24 errors

Tom Curtis at 09:56 AM on 8 June, 2014

Dana, I read Tol differently. His vendetta against Cook et al (2013) began by his making intemperate comments based on a blog post by poptech, and then digging his heals in rather than admit error. However, his initial acceptance of poptech's blog post is not explained by that, nor by a desire for publicity. Nor is his long term cooperation with Lomborg, nor his association with the GWPF, nor his absurd recent comments about the IPCC, nor the consistent bias from his various "gremlins" towards findings that require less action on AGW. I do not disagree that he is a glory hound, but that alone is inadequate to explain his actions.

Behind The Times - another manufactured climate controversy conspiracy theory

Paul D at 05:35 AM on 21 May, 2014

Regarding GWPF and Lawson...
Nigel Lawson (GWPF founder) was on the radio recently commenting on the attempted takeover of AstraZeneca by Pfizer, stating it would be a good thing.
Thankfully it never happened, but the comment did highlight the fact that Lawson cares not for science (or successful British businesses), only for markets and economics.

The media seem to be obsessed with Lawsons pronouncements these days, after spending years ignoring him in his retirement.

It's cooling

jetfuel at 11:51 AM on 12 May, 2014

TC, in #235, The trendline looks OK. .0447M km2 per year shown as straightline decline of maximums and so an 11.675 M increase in one seasonal swing 2012-13 is 261 times the .0447M/yr decreasing trend. I added in sept 2013 and sept 2014 since they are now on the books and could draw a last 11 year trend line with a positive slope for maximums.

How I get 11.675M for sept 2012 to Mar 2013: Was this ever exceeded before?

IPCC issue official rebuttal to more David Rose/Daily Mail nonsense

MA Rodger at 02:44 AM on 11 April, 2014

The errors within Richard Tol's work mentioned by the IPCC press release had already resulted in a spat between Tol & Bob Ward. The account Ward gives of Tol's behaviour does perhaps intimate some dark doings, with an initial less controversial version of Tol's WGII Chapter 10 "leaked to a blog for climate change ‘sceptics’" and then a section is quietly inserted into the final draft on "‘Aggregate impacts’ which was based almost entirely on Professor Tol’s 2013 paper", this being the source of the mentioned errors.

Of course, Tol is one of Nigel Lawson's GWPF so nothing would surprise me. In the Mail article, Tol says of the spat between him & Ward - "It’s all about taking away my credibility as an expert.” Well, I suppose, if he feels he can act like one of Lawson's Gentleman Who Prefers Fantasy, then his credibility will indeed be rather difficult to hold on to.

2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #13A

KR at 04:09 AM on 29 March, 2014

Poster - The low-ball estimates you describe come almost entirely from Richard Tol, taken from his own papers and inserted into the WGII report - as discussed at Rabett Run his work represents an extreme opinion, not that of the literature as a whole.

Richard Tols estimates seem to assume a best-case scenario (immediate curtailing of emissions), ignore many possible consequences of climate change, and only hold true up to the mid-21st century. They are by no means the mid-line estimates.

[Ridley and Tol, incidentally, are both on the Academic Advisory Council of the denialist organization GWPF]

"Do you have any thoughts or comments why on Ridley and Delingpole suggest the Summary for Policymakers will be "much more alarmist" than the report from the Working Party?" That outcome remains to be seen, as the WGII report has not been published yet - it may be more pessimistic than they expect. Clearly, though, denialists such as Ridley and Delingpole find it advantageous to highlight the lowest estimates.

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

Paul Pukite at 22:49 PM on 11 March, 2014

I do not understand how Lewis is given any deference. The fact that 6 years of data results in his analysis dropping the TCR that much can not be right. Nature does not change abruptly like that. A CO2 model of natural availablity that uses SOI, volcanic aerosols, LOD, and TSI, and other natural cyclical terms can predict 50 years of rising temperature including the fluctuations, based on a training interval that only goes to 1960.

CSALT model

I suggest to keep on confronting Lewis. He obviously doesn't like to be called on his cherry-picking work:

"WebHubTelescope needs to check his facts. "

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2014/gwpf/#comment-104601

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

citizenschallenge at 14:00 PM on 11 March, 2014

It amazes me how much people enjoy focusing on splitting hair, all so they can avoid evaluating the full scope of evidence... Well, setting up of impossible expectations doesn't do much for learning either.

In any event, thank you SkepticalScience.com for your stream of valuable information, stuff that we can actually learn from.

And thank you for your Reposting Policy, I'm honored to be able to Repost such an excellent article at my little effort.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/03/gwpf-misleading-public_10.html

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

Albatross at 12:25 PM on 11 March, 2014

jwhite @28,

It is a pity that Lewis chooses to keep airing his view and opinions at locations (such as the GWPF and CA) that habitually attack climate scientists and routinely try and undermine climate science by distorting the facts and data. Where is Lewis on this thread? He is undoubtably aware of it, yet he is posting on sites run by extremists and fringe elements. Him doing so does not bode well for his judgement being unbiased.

His biases aside, I doubt very much that Lewis (a retired finacier) has the depth of knowledge, understanding and experience to speak to a complex issue such as this. Just as I would lack the same when speaking to models used to predict the financial markets-- you do not see climate scientists trying to argue that the economists and financeers methods are incorrect. But for some reason every contrarian out there feels that climate science is fair game and that they somehow know better.

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

MA Rodger at 01:41 AM on 11 March, 2014

It is in examining GWPF Report 13 that Lewis & Crok's objections to the 'effective' TCR within GCMs can be fully assessed - within in the shorter GWPF Report 12, their explanation is cut down to incoherence.
The problems the IPCC GCMs exhibit, allegedly, is that they do not perform properly. The GCM 'effective' TCR values are far higher than even GCM 'actual' TCR values. This is what causes the GCMs to project their alarmingly high future temperatures (as opposed to the reassuringly low ones suggested by Lewis & Crok).

The 'effective' TCR of course can be determined by using "the observational-TCR based formula" as derived by those clever analysts Lewis & Crok.

ΔT(2012-2100) = (ΔF(2012-2100) x OTCR)/3.71 + 0.15ºC
:where OTCR is derived (as described in GWPF Report Note 86) not just from ΔT(1951-2010) attributions but actual ΔT(1951-2010) as measured by real thermometers and these compared not just to ΔF(1951-2010) but also to ΔF calculated from dF/dt(1951-2010), both of which yield the exact same result (TCR=1.4ºC excluding a minor adjustment) which only goes to show how accurate this TCR derivation is!

Not only that, Lewis & Crok manage to manipulate this highly sophisticated and complex model to yield GCM 'effective' TCR not just for 2012-2100 but also for 1850-2000.
This is why Lewis & Crok find without even wielding a single error bar that, "in the case of climate sensitivity and TCR, arguably the most important parameters in the climate discussion" (and few would disagree with that), the IPCC AR5 "failed" to provide an "understanding (of) the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change." And if (unlike Lewis & Crok) you link to the source document laying out the role of the IPCC, you will find that Lewis & Crok are accusing IPCC WG1 of being in contravention of the Principles Governing IPCC Work.

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

Russ R. at 00:55 AM on 11 March, 2014

I agree that this "report" from the GWPF contains nothing new. It's just a reshuffle and redeal of existing literature. The only thing I find noteworthy is that it further reinforces the point that there is no scientific consensus on a best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is entirely in agreement with the IPCC's statement in AR5 WG1 SPM: "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."

Tangentially, I'm not sure how to square Gavin Schmidt's statement above, with the findings in Keihl (2007).

Schmidt: "Climate model sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is intrinsic to the model itself and has nothing to do with what aerosol forcings are. In CMIP5 there is no correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity across the ensemble, so the implication that aerosol forcing affects the climate sensitivity in such 'forward' calculations is false."

Keihl (2007): "These results clearly illustrate a strong inverse correlation between total anthropogenic forcing used for the 20th century and the model’s climate sensitivity. Indicating that models with low climate sensitivity require a relatively higher total anthropogenic forcing than models with higher climate sensitivity....

These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity...

What is the major reason for the large uncertainty in total anthropogenic forcing? Figure 2 shows the correlation between total anthropogenic forcing and forcing due to tropospheric aerosols. There is a strong positive correlation between these two quantities with a near 3-fold range in the magnitude of aerosol forcing applied over the 20th century."

Is it somehow mathematically possible that if A and B have a "strong negative correlation" and B and C have a "strong positive correlation" that A and C can have "no correlation"?
Are the latest generation of GCMs somehow entirely different, rendering Keihl's observations out-of-date? Has Schmidt actually back-tested the CMIP5 ensemble in the same way that Keihl did with earlier models and found no correlation?

Also, could someone please link to a source for Gavin Schmidt's quotation? I couldn't find it on realclimate or anywhere else, except for here and in Dana's column in the Guardian (which linked back to here).

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

MA Rodger at 21:23 PM on 10 March, 2014

Praise be !! The gospel according to Lewis & Crok is now available in all its glory without having to hand out your e-mail to the GWPF gatekeepers.

The 44 page GWPF Report 12 linked in the post is but an edited version of the longer 72 page GWPF Report 13. (The shorter version was "written for the lay reader, and summarises [the] longer, more technical document.") Both reports are not solely the work of Lewis & Crok but also incorporate the "help & comments" of Annan, Curry, Henderson, McKitrick and Montford. Curry also wrote the forward for both documents, strangely both times providing "this report" with a word-for-word identical eulogy.

The question to be asked of Lewis & Crok is why they feel any serious scientific study should be presented to the world as a GWPF Report. These documents (along with GWPF Briefing Papers) have such an excellent track record of misrepresenting the evidence and presenting untrustworthy analysis that they manage to bring all UK charities and the UK Charity Commission into disrepute. Frankly I cannot consider a less appropriate method of publication (unless you consider a web-page on such planets as Wattsupia constitutes 'publication').

Surely, if this gospel according to Lewis & Crok were worthy of anything other than the rubbish bin, they would publish elsewhere, perhaps within a journal which peer reviews its content. Or perhaps Lewis & Crok believe the "help & comments" of Annan, Curry, Henderson, McKitrick and Montford are adequate to eliminate any embarrasing errors, a belief I fear that itself constitutes an embarrasing error.

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

dana1981 at 13:32 PM on 10 March, 2014

'Few' is vague. I'm pretty sure it's 2, but I said 'few' in case I missed any. I think he's just got Lewis and Otto though.

The Curry Foreword is kind of interesting from a psychological perspective. First, why did GWPF invite her to write it? She has no publications and no expertise in sensitivity research, as her comments on the subject make crystal clear. I can only guess they wanted a 'climate scientist' to write something since neither of the authors is really a climate scientist. Basically to try and make it seem more credible. And I suppose they couldn't think of many climate scientists who would be willing to endorse that report, for obvious reasons.

And then why would Curry agree to write the Foreword? It totally undermines her claimed role as the 'bridge builder', as GWPF is an anti-science, anti-policy, politcal advocacy group. Perhaps it's naîveté about what GWPF is and does. Perhaps it's that she views her role as amplifying 'skeptic' voices. That's basically how she explained it on her blog. But it's pretty hard to maintain the perception of a bridge-building open-minded skeptic when you're writing material for a group like GWPF.

In any case, we shouldn't turn the comments into a psychoanalysis of Judith Curry. More important is that the report itself is a totally biased, cherry picked misrepresentation of the full body of climate sensitivity research.

GWPF optimism on climate sensitivity is ill-founded

Albatross at 13:23 PM on 10 March, 2014

Dana,

You say Lewis has published a "few" papers on climate sensitivity. I am aware of only two papers by him in the peer-reviewed literature, and on one of those he was a co-author on a paper temperatures over western Antarctica. Did I miss a couple? For now Lewis lies squarely in the climate "hobbyist" desgnation, and his fellow fake skeptics are bending over backwards to try and boost his impact.

Curry's foreward was entertaining to read, nothing more. That she is falling over herself to praise this report is hardly surprising given that she has declared that she supports the (ideological and political) objectives of the GWPF lobbyists.

This report though is also another example of how the fake skeptics fail to present a coherent and physically plausible alternative hypothesis to the theory of AGW. Some of them deny it is even warming, others claim anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hoax, others claim that there is some magical negative feedback that will result in virtually no warming, others like Lewis cherry pick literature to delude themselves into thinking that climate sensitivity is low, while others are convinced that an ice age is imminent ;)

The epidemic of climate science false balance in the media

MA Rodger at 01:11 AM on 1 March, 2014

Chris Snow @11.

Back in October the BBC Radio 4 Today programme reported that the BBC could not find a British climate scientist that was not signed up to the IPCC's findings. That morning there were 6 items on the IPCC AR5 SPM release. The only skeptical voice was that of Lawson but from the archive and presented as an exemplar of wrongheadedness. It made for refreshing listening.

However, by luchtime the numpties had managed to get Bob Carter onto The World At One, resulting in an attrocious piece of news reporting by the BBC (transcript here - Peter Stott was not even allowed to hear what Carter had said, due to 'technical problems' apparently). Of course, in 'finding' Carter the BBC had not found a British climatologist. Carter is Australian and a geolologist. But he does have a UK connection - as one of Lawson's Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy, by dint of the GWPF being a charity, he is thus able to spread his untruths at the UK taxpayer's expense.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

DSL at 03:12 AM on 4 February, 2014

Vonnegut: "Would it have been so hard to get the whole scientific community involved in climate research to vote on what they thought? and then publish the results?"

Yes. It would have been difficult. It is difficult. Many scientists see this sort of project as catering to the whimsy of a handful of conspiracy nuts. It's a waste of time. How much research work has been done just to provide a response to the fake skepticism generated by the highly successful rhetorical project of the Heartland Institute, SPPI, GWPF, CA, WUWT, FoS, and other opinion-shaping organizations? Too much.

If you want a summary of the science, go to the summary of the science: IPCC AR5 WG1 -- composed by 300+ unpaid scientists, experts in their fields.

2013 SkS Weekly Digest #43

DSL at 12:51 PM on 30 October, 2013

No - he linked to a GWPF article on PDO. I posted the abstract to Kosaka & Xie 2013, and he disappeared. It was a Daily Caller stream. Yah, I stepped right into the middle of the madness, asking for the pride of conservatism: a well-evidenced, well-reasoned argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Despite the heavy traffic, all of four people took me up on it. From the number of "likes" on my interlocutors' posts, there must have been a decent crowd watching the exchange. Perhaps utterly useless, but perhaps deep seeding.

Carbon Economics and the Cost of Inaction

MA Rodger at 20:25 PM on 25 August, 2013

Going back to look at the sources, Figure 1 in the post plots World GDP in $ trillions at 2000 prices.

One of the problems I find with this economic side of AGW is that economics is a rather esoteric subject based on the wholly artificial concept of wealth. Developing any economic argument is difficult at the best of times and it appears all too easy for somebody to make a nonsense of your work if they wish. And with AGW there are plenty of wreckers who do so wish.

For instance, Figure 1 shows a drop of 40% in world GDP for the higher emission scenarios. "Ah, but they will still be vastly more wealthy than we are today," is the sort of reply you would get from the likes of GWPF who would probably add "And don't forget there will be benefits as well as costs associated with AGW."

The word "cost" makes everything allowable as long as you have the wealth to pay for it. Strangely, the damage wrought by our collective refusal to accept the "cost" of effective and timely AGW mitigation measures will initially impact those societies that have the least wealth and themselves wrought the least damage.

Heartland's Chinese Academy of Sciences Fantasy

Paul D at 19:19 PM on 15 June, 2013

I just love that update from the Chinese Academy of Sciences!

It characterises organisations like The Heartland Institute and GWPF to a 'T'.

UK Secretary of State for the Environment reveals his depth of knowledge of climate change (not!)

John Russell at 04:27 AM on 14 June, 2013

I think we're crediting Paterson with more understanding than he actually has. When he referred to the 'Holocene', I think he actually meant to say 'Eocene' (because that's what his GWPF mate Lawson has referred to in the past). As I wrote in a comment here...

He's quite right of course that the Arctic was ice free in the Eocene—as was the Antarctic—but to show how irrelevant this meme is he should also have mentioned that our primate ancestors, and all other mammals, were then no bigger than small dogs. Note the line in the link below, "the hot Eocene temperatures favoured smaller animals that were better able to manage the heat": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene (scroll down to 'Fauna').

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results