We could spend hours analyzing the new IPCC report about the impacts of climate change. Or we could just point out:
Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I.
( see footnote 1 SPM, page 3).
Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause.
The models are broken. They are based on flawed assumptions about water vapor.
Working Group I, remember, was supposed to tell us the scientific case for man-made global warming. If our emissions aren’t driving the climate towards a catastrophe, then we don’t need to analyze what happens during the catastrophe we probably won’t get. This applies equally to War, Pestilence, Famine, Drought, Floods, Storms, and Shrinking Fish (which, keep in mind, could have led to the ultimate disaster: shrinking fish and chips).
To cut a long story short, the 95% certainty of Working Group I boils down to climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause in surface temperature trends (von Storch 2013) . Even under the most generous interpretation, models are proven failures, 100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else (Taylor 2012). They get cloud feedbacks wrong by a factor 19 times larger than the entire effect of increased CO2 (Miller 2012). They don’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale (Anagnostopoulos 2010 and Koutsoyiannis 2008). They don’t work on the tropical troposphere (Christy 2010, Po-Chedley 2012, Fu 2011, Paltridge 2009). The fingerprints they predicted are 100% missing.
..
Even the IPCC admits in the fine print that the models don’t work. Water vapor in the tropics is the most important feedback, yet the models get it wrong. See Chapter Nine “Evaluation of Climate Models”:
Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years, and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. {9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8}
“…In tropical regions, the models are too dry in the lower troposphere and too moist in the upper troposphere,” (p763)
“Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets (e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013).”
How vulnerable are we to a changing climate? As vulnerable as we’ve ever been (apart from having electricity, antibiotics, radio, helicopters, cars, boats, planes, 24 hour satellite coverage, and more scientists and engineers today than existed in the whole of previous history.)
REFERENCES
Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]
Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]
Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]
Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A. (2008) On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]
Miller, M., Ghate, V., Zahn, R., (2012) The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel 1 and its Controls: A Perspective from
2 Observations and Global Climate Models. in press Journal of Climate [abstract] [PDF]
Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]
Po-Chedley S. and Fu Q. (2012) Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites, Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044018 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018) [Full text PDF (323 KB]
Christopher M. Taylor, Richard A. M. de Jeu, Françoise Guichard, Phil P. Harris & Wouter A. Dorigo ‘Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils’ will be published in Nature on 12 September 2012. www.nature.com DOI 10.1038/nature11377
Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmann and Eduardo Zorita (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? Academia
(Ge 8:22) While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
209
Quoting your mythology is not a productive way of engaging in a scientific discussion.
1023
Perhaps we skeptics do not realise that we are not really fighting a false science but rather the new dominant mythology called environmentalism in which Nature rather than mankind is the focus of all its activities including CAGW.
There is little doubt the West’s science and technology, which produced our modern industrialised societies, was built on the premises of its Judeo/Christian culture.
Have thought for a long time that CAGW is nothing more or less than an expression of a nature centred Neo-Paganism. Noticed this relevant article about today’s dominant mythology:
“The Church of Leftism.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374672/judaism-christianity-environmentalism-dennis-prager
272
this seems a fairly accurate, if over concise, summary of what we know of the histroy of the globe.
60
So, what is your own mythology Donald?…. Let me guess…. evolution, right? Which part of Ge 8:22 do you dispute? What exactly is your argument?
36
The religionist myth of stability is one of the misconceptions that “climate change” fears prey on.
An unchanging earth may have seemed sensible to pre-science people without measuring, recording, or analytical capability. Now we know that, no matter what, the world will not “remaineth” in one state – probably not a great idea to pretend there’s some Eden-like earth that tax-and-regulate can get us back to.
122
A structure of stupidity built upon a foundation of ignorance.
Only the collectivists would try and house their beliefs in such an edifice …
220
“Only the collectivists would try and house their beliefs in such an edifice”
And that is just what all the increasingly panicked shrieking is about. The global warming hoax is in full collapse and many members of the Professional Left have realised that in the age of the Internet the putrescent stain of global warming advocacy and the vilification of sceptics will never wash off.
Global warming was a global IQ test with results permanently recorded on the Internet.
No matter how the Professional Left thrash and flex, there is no escape. They were all so foolish they believed adding radiative gases to the atmosphere would reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. That’s industrial strength stupidity. You can’t laugh that one off.
230
I know you tire of theoretical hand-waving and would not sit still long enough to hear a rehashing of Houghton’s explanation of the GHE, so let’s jump straight to the observational evidence.
Chen, Harries, Brindley, and Ringer, “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006”. See page 4, Figure 3.
https://www.eumetsat.int/cs/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v&allowInterrupt=1&noSaveAs=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased#4
Fact: The Earth’s 9-month average sea surface temperature was 0.3 degrees higher in 2006 than in 1970.
Fact: The Earth’s outgoing radiation as measured by satellite increased overall between 1970 and 2006.
Fact: Within the geothermally relevant band in which CO2 has the highest emissivity (668/cm or ~15μm), there was a decrease in outgoing radiative cooling in that band between 1970 and 2006.
Interpretation: The increased CO2 since 1970 caused the decrease in outgoing ~15μm radiative cooling.
Interpretation: The radiative greenhouse mechanism is proven to exist due to the reduction in outgoing radiation from this particular radiative gas in measurements, as well as the corroborating predictions (1, 2) of radiative transfer theory.
However the size of the greenhouse effect on climate cannot be determined this way since an increase in Earth’s average surface temperature since 1970 (from any cause) would have resulted in outgoing radiation increasing anyway (even if the CO2 increase had or had not caused it).
Although the majority of warming since 1960 can be easily attributed to natural causes, it is nonetheless the case that a 40% increase in CO2 since 1960 was not accompanied by a cooling of the planet.
That radiative gas (CO2) can also weakly emit/absorb in other portions of the spectrum at current atmospheric concentrations (it has a continuum spectrum in addition to molecular lines), but the increase in outgoing radiative cooling in the rest of the spectrum cannot be interpreted as being uniquely due to the CO2 increase because the band where the gas is most radiatively active showed a decrease of radiance. Increasing the opacity of the atmosphere impedes the radiative cooling of the planet by increasing the effective average altitude of re-emission and decreasing the temperature and radiance of that re-emission, just as theorised by Houghton.
Conclusion: The satellite observational evidence (TES2006-IRIS1970) proves adding radiative gases to the atmosphere did “reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability” in that gas’s molecular emission band.
Questions? Criticisms? Contrary evidence??
11
And the first criticism of 2.1.1 shall be from myself. The “40% increase” should have been “24% increase”, since the increase after 1960 is reliably known (24%) but the 40% alleged increase since 1750 is not quite so reliably known. The point still stands based on the sign of the correlation and not just the magnitude.
10
“I know you tire of theoretical hand-waving and would not sit still long enough to hear a rehashing of Houghton’s explanation of the GHE, so let’s jump straight to the observational evidence.”
Let’s not. Because it is the net radiative GHE hypothesis itself that is in grievous error.
While I do tire of lukewarmers and sleepers trying to preserve the radiative GHE hypothesis and engineer a soft landing for the hoax, I have taken the time to prepare a little list of most of the false claims and tricks used to support them –
1. The Two layer game.
The claim – SW heated sphere surrounded by a SW transparent shell of lower emissivity will be driven to a higher temperature by IR exchange between the shells.
The tricks – Conductive coupling between the shells never solved simultaneously. Tmean for the inner shell in absence of the outer always incorrectly calculated.
2. The EEH / ERL game
The claim – Atmospheric OLR can be assumed to be being radiated from an Effective Emission Height or level and the temperature of this can be determined and surface temperature back calculated via lapse rate.
The tricks – EEH is a mathematical fiction with no basis in reality and no supporting empirical measurement. (NO, satellites looking down and ground looking up won’t do.) The atmosphere is provably not radiating 240 w/m2 from a shell or layer. It is radiating in 3D from different altitudes, in differing amounts at different times. Radiative gases present a far greater surface area that vertical dimension only IR opacity assumptions indicate.
3. IR opacity absorption/emission level game
The claim – Due to IR opacity radiative gases warm at low altitude and cool at high atltitude.
The trick – Speed of vertical circulation held constant for increasing concentration of radiative gases to show surface warming
4. The frozen oceans game
The claim – black body calcs show a -18C Tmean for the oceans without DWLWIR to warm them.
The tricks – black body calcs are out by 98C. DWLWIR cannot heat or slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. The “snow line” in the solar system is out at 3AU. Empirical experiment shows SW heated water reaches >80C in the absence of atmospheric cooling or DWLWIR.
5. The non-radiative atmosphere games
The claims – A non-radiative atmosphere would have its temperature set by surface Tmean
The tricks – Diurnal cycle and atmospheric circulation ignored (surface Tmax would drive the temp of such an atmosphere). Conductive cooling and heating of the atmosphere by the surface held equal despite gravity. Loss of effective conductive cooling ignored in calculating surface temp.
6. The clouds don’t cool game
The claim – clouds reduce incoming solar SW but increase DWLWIR for no net effect.
The trick – DWLWIR has no effect on ocean temps, therefore no effect over 71% of the planet.
7. The “averages” game
The claim – calculating incoming solar as constant 240 w/m2 is just fine
The trick – It only works for superconducting materials of zero volume. Incoming solar peaks at ~1000 w/m2 and not using the correct figure or diurnal cycle for the heating of transparent materials with slow internal non-radiative energy transports will always give the wrong answer.
8. The “choked radiator” game
The claim – Initially radiative gases cause cooling and drive convective circulation, but after a certain concentration they start to become less effective radiators. (yes, Pierrehumbert actually tried this one).
The tricks – there is no fixed ERL in the atmosphere. Gases cannot be treated as solid in terms of a radiator re-radiating its own fins.
9. The Trenberthian pole-wise energy flow game
The claim – Atmospheric circulation is primarily driven by equator to pole energy flow, with OLR being just a feedback from adiabatic compression in the descending leg of circulation cells.
The tricks – Massive buoyancy changes due to evaporation ignored. Vertical circulation is the shortest route for energy escape to space from the surface. Empirical evidence shows IR emission from ascending translating and descending air masses in Hadley circulation.
Now the important thing to note with all the tricks is that the “errors” do not lay in the calculations, they lay in the physical assumptions that underlie the calculations. The calculations can be carried out correctly, but if the physical processes they are meant to calculate are pseudo scientific tripe with no basis in physical reality there is no point to the calculations.
Your OLR measurements? OLR increased in line with past warming and has flat lined and decreased with the current cooling. At best TOA radiation balance measurements show a 5 w/m2 imbalance because of inaccuracies in satellite observation. Satellites looking down and ground looking up give no indication of the altitude of emission. The empirical experiment to determine the varying altitudes of emission, while simple, has never been conducted. The reason? It would destroy the oh so precious EEH assumption.
Your conclusion –
“Conclusion: The satellite observational evidence (TES2006-IRIS1970) proves adding radiative gases to the atmosphere did “reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability” in that gas’s molecular emission band.”
– misses the point. CO2 may be absorbing at low altitude and getting too cold to radiate at high altitude, but it is in conductive contact with an atmosphere full of water vapour. Total OLR increased with recent warming and decreased with recent cooling. Exactly in line with radiative gases acting to cool our atmosphere.
50
?!? You’re actually going to ignore the observational evidence of a greenhouse mechanism?
Instead you regurgitate a miscellaneous barrage of alleged tricks and furphies, most of which are unrelated to anything I said and thus are simply a smokescreen, but then in the end your conclusion is that the GHE must be false because the atmosphere radiates energy away from Earth.
Guess what, ice radiates energy. Eggs in China radiate energy. All objects naturally cool off radiatively, the atmosphere included. That doesn’t falsify the greenhouse effect.
I am reluctant to be drawn into hypotheticals about a “no radiative gases” planet, but I remind you the GHE is predicted by the same radiative transfer equations that you have already agreed are fine (“Radiative physics is fine, it’s just that it has been misused by climate pseudo scientists.”-Konrad).
I did not miss the point at all, you switched targets when faced with empirical evidence. In particular you have used the semantic trick of switching the meaning of “cool” and “warm” from relative terms to absolute terms when it suits you. The atmosphere is conventionally said “to warm” the surface because the surface is warmer with the GHE than without it. It’s a comparative term. Radiative gases cool the upper atmosphere certainly, but the GHE is a statement about surface temperatures. Radiative gases cool the upper atmosphere by radiating into both space and the troposphere. Gases cooling the atmosphere in absolute terms doesn’t contradict the statement that the same gases “warm” the surface in comparative terms.
Quite aside from hypotheticals about how the greenhouse effect gets started, the more pertinent question for the policy debate today is whether adding more CO2 will, as you say, “reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability”, to which the observationally-based answer is obviously “Yes it did but not by much”.
>> “it is in conductive contact with an atmosphere full of water vapour.”
“Full” of water vapour? Carbon dioxide is 31 times more concentrated than water vapour at all heights above the troposphere. Just check that the facts [Schlatter 2009, Page 21, Fig2] support whatever you intended to mean by “full”. There is some water vapour present at all altitudes up to 120km so in that sense the atmosphere is full of water vapour but the disparity with CO2 should not be overlooked.
There is no easy trick you can allege to dodge the end result. The measurement is net of all real physical phenomena. The radiance in the CO2 band was observed to decrease. Your only way out here is to say the satellite data processing is either flawed or dishonest. That is also the only condition under which I would disregard the satellite FTIR evidence for the GHE.
Why bother to do it when it would be wasted on you? The empirical experiment to determine whether adding CO2 to the atmosphere decreases outgoing radiation, while protracted, has in fact been conducted and you are ignoring the result. It went down, not up. Down is not up.
13
“?!? You’re actually going to ignore the observational evidence of a greenhouse mechanism?”
Yes, because it isn’t a controlled experiment. Correlation is not causation. (and bad correlation at that, just look at the chart at the top of this thread.)
You proposed skipping discussion of the underlying physics of the unproven and unworkable hypothesis of a net radiative greenhouse effect. I refused to skip it. Why? Because I know from empirical experiment that a net radiative GHE is a physical impossibility.
It’s no good claiming the net radiative greenhouse effect as a given, then diving into noisy uncertain observation. I know that trick. And no, you cannot claim the whole planet as a controlled empirical experiment.
Radiative gases have a net cooling effect on our planet at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. This can be shown by controlled empirical experiment. No need for fancy maths games, hand-waving or noisy, imprecise and often doctored weather observations. No need for satellite measurements with errors five times the size of the supposed radiative imbalance.
To understand that the idea of a net radiative GHE is total tripe you only need to answer a few basic questions –
1. Can DWLWIR slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool? – The answer from empirical experiment is no.
2. How hot would our oceans get if the atmosphere did not cool them? – answer from empirical experiment is around 80C if not higher
3. How could a non-radiative atmosphere cool the oceans if it could not radiatively cool itself? – Climastrologists have no answer.
I know lukewarmers and sleepers desperately want the answer to be “warming but not much”, to provide a face saving exit. But it is not going to be that way. Climastrologists have gotten it totally and utterly wrong. Without radiative gases our atmosphere can’t cool. If our atmosphere can’t cool, it can’t cool the oceans and just like evaporation constrained solar storage ponds they would hit 80C or beyond.
Climastrologists garbage calculations show our radiative atmosphere warming the oceans from -18C to +15C. Empirical experiment shows our radiative atmosphere cooling our oceans from +80C to +15C. They treated our deep SW transparent oceans as a blackbody not as a “selective surface”. I don’t know how they could have possibly gotten it more wrong. It truly is industrial strength stupidity.
30
Konrad, thanks for taking the time to present this info here…
10
Have a look at this, from the SMH:
“Indeed, the panel calculates that food demand is rising at a pace of 14 per cent per decade. But it estimates that climate change is already reducing wheat yields by 2 per cent each decade – compared with where they would be in the absence of climate change — and corn yields by 1 per cent.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/is-the-world-going-to-run-out-of-food-20140402-35xf5.html#ixzz2xgqjf1cY
‘Compared with what they would be’… is not the same as what actually is, it’s also, most importantly, not verified. These people live in another reality. In other words, models supplant reality. Yields have been increasing for some time, which is spun to mean they are somehow decreasing based on a non-verified model, (or ‘decreasing’ based on what they would have been if…), .
‘what it would be without .’
Surely the world’s scientists and other bodies are going to start waking up to this nonsense from the IPCC and do something about it. Anyone can see there is a flaw in the reasoning.
150
I’m wondering how someone’s predictions that were wrong many decades ago can be “vindicated” now. That’d be like taking out a lotto ticket, losing the draw, then being awarded the money years later if your numbers come up again, though they haven’t actually done so yet.
Porter and the SMH are as deluded as Malthus, Ehrlich (and hey, why not add Suzuki?) are/were.
190
I believe in Nostradamus Prophecies. They are more accurate then the IPCC tea-leaf readers….
80
I respect your lack of faith in the IPCC tea-leaf readers! But, in case you really do believe in the Nostradamus ‘Prophecies’ …
The best way to validate or invalidate ideas connected with Nostradamus is to go directly to the source (in either French or a dependable translation), or consult qualified academics. .. “Most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus’s quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power.” (Wikipedia)
Also: “There is no evidence in the academic literature to suggest that any Nostradamus quatrain has ever been interpreted as predicting a specific event before it occurred, other than in vague, general terms that could equally apply to any number of other events.” … By the way, I have heard that none of the quatrains are dated, so I believe they cannot be used to predict anything on a particular date in the future.
10
Of course yields have been increasing!
I am an Aussie farmer. Yield per hectare and per megalitre has nearly doubled in the last 30 years!
Much the same has occurred anywhere on the globe where there has been sensible investment in Agriculture.
That ‘what it would be without’ is complete nonsense & completely ignores the remarkable improvements that have occurred in Agriculture.
130
Thingadonta
Worlds crops have been increasing for DECADES – not that the MSM have got a CLUE.
You’d think they would have heard of Google at least – bunch of SIMPLETONS.
In twenty years time these warmists and their followers will wish they were snails and could hide in their shells. But now, it’s the age of the WWW and they are doomed to be ridiculed for the rest of their miserable lives.
Cheers,
70
From the AR5 report:
“One of the panel’s most striking new conclusions is that rising temperatures are already depressing crop yields, including those of corn and wheat. In the coming decades, farmers may not be able to grow enough food to meet the demands of the world’s growing population, it warns.”
The only problem is that corn, wheat and other crops are doing very nicely, thank you very much.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/01/la-times-tony-barboza-gets-gaught-fear-mongering-the-ipcc-report-becomes-first-victim-of-facts-that-dont-agree-with-claims/
230
Yeah, the simply spin it to say, although yields are increasing, they aren’t increasing as much without AGW.
This sort of reminds me of being in the former Soviet Union, where even if you achieve the 5 year plan you may be executed for not producing more than the 5 year plan required.
80
I wonder if they are counting biofuel crops in their tallies.?
30
Jo is exactly correct and should go to the top of the class.
Don’t forget the greatest hoax and fraud is the mitigation of CAGW.
Even the joint RS and NAS report tells us there is ZIP we can do to change co2 levels for thousands of years. Even if humans stop emitting all co2 today.
Just put this on Jennifer’s blog.
Chicago has just experienced the coldest 4 months on record.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/01/its-official-chicago-experienced-the-coldest-four-months-ever/#more-106800
171
Spot on Neville.
And to add to the IPCC’s stupidity the IPCC agrees:
“A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period. Surface temperatures will remain approximately constant at elevated levels for many centuries after a complete cessation of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Due to the long time scales of heat transfer from the ocean surface to depth, ocean warming will continue for centuries. Depending on the scenario, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. {Box 6.1, 12.4, 12.5}” P 26
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf
70
Which happens to be in violation of henry’s law and also contradicted by observation of atmospheric CO2 turnover.
Not that physical laws and observation have any merit vs GCMs of course.
60
well it’s not a contradiction of Henry’s law at all, nor is it contradicted by observation of CO2 turnover, but don’t let that bother you.
112
Well done Jo. I love it when I see problems/issues boiled down to the bare bones. It makes it so much easier for the average person to get to grips with it and much harder to argue against.
Information from Donna Laframboise I linked to yesterday allows a similar “boiling down” of the politics. Firstly in October 2013 the bureaucrats take the scientist’s Summary for Policy Makers to Stockholm and go line by line with it over several days to come up with a politically acceptable revision. The 10 pages of changes are sent back to the lead authors of the various chapters to alter the wording / data to align with the new Summary doc.
( remember the scientists have spent several years writing these chapters so it hard to see how they could make so many “errors” –or maybe they are not experts afterall)
Then we find out that the amended Summary is amended again by the UN bureaucrats due to pressure from probably anyone with a vested interest. This is again gone over line by line in Yokohama in a four day meeting, last week.
So how much “factual” data is in the final Summary and how much political spin is in it, is anybody’s guess.
140
Just listened to a podcast, Alan Jones talking to Miranda Devine.
What makes me angry, has been stated by Jo and mostly all here is the fact that this diversion has actually been a pause in science to serve humanity.
Certain warmists have stated that the sceptics should be jailed for a crime against humanity, democracy should be suspended and even worse.
I believe that the perpetrators should and will be pursued not long into the future for their crimes against humanity as the pause in real science will have unseen, as yet, repercussions on humanity.
So much could have been achieved for half the funding that has been soaked up in the name of AGW. Personally, I believe climate science at this time is not much further in understanding the complexities than when the wheel was invented.
140
Thank you Jo, you are doing the world of good to my sanity and serenity.
150
You have to love the idea that the computer models were all completely wrong, but the IPCC now know precisely why they were wrong. Ha! You can fiddle a model to predict anything in hindsight, but that does not make it right either. Just add a plausible fiddle factor in a super complex system until things go down again, for a while.
So what is their certainty that their error is now corrected with water vapour? I would suggest their certainty has an uncertainty of 98%.
What is necessary is a model which predicts all the known past, the previous warming periods, the ones which were rubbed out and cooling periods and for good measure, El Nino and La Nina. It is one thing to come up with a great Spanish name for the events, but does that mean we understand enough to predict the biggest single events in world meterology? Nope. Get tomorrow’s weather right first and establish some credibility. In Melbourne we seem to get climate change every day, or is that the climate?
90
I think you’ll find the spanish names were thought up by the local spanish speakers well before climatologists got involved.
Also El Nino/La Nina events are not worth modelling as they are a short frequency noise over a long term trend. Nobody knows whether in 21 years we’ll be in a La Nina or El Nino phase, so it does not get modelled. What you would say is that in 21 years such and such is expected, +/- El Nino influence.
112
you are quite right Matt, in fact ALL elements affecting the weather are “short term noise” and are not worth modelling. The contributors to this blogg know nothing of climate models. They are idealised descriptions and therefore produce the ideal (that is controlled) outcomes.
I have had a great deal of experience with models following the methods of Hornby,Dublo et al.
Last year I hacked into the UK Met Office and used their GCMs to correctly forecast Englands retention of the ashes. The apparent discrepency reported was due to Englands “missing runs”being hidden in the scoreboard. It was noticed that the scoreboard ran a lot slower when England batted – I saw this myself on at least 5 occasions. When the appropriate adjustment are made the “missing runs” will emerge from the scoreboard and the correct series result will be observed.
In my nest post I will show how Julia won the election and is still your PM.
131
Having been a regular visitor to Melbourne for decades I am well aware of the daily climate change and weather conditions, however in my opinion more CO2 is needed to maintain this present warm period in history before the new Little Ice Age commencing about 2040, possibly 2039 in Melbourne.
90
Certainly the ice age is coming, light night follows day. However the profiteers of doom will come up with a way to blame coal and all fossil fuel. In that way they will hope to snatch victory at the last turn and continue their unrelenting attack on Western society. There will be faux scientists aplenty to back them up. Everyone has their price.
100
If you have seen the solar theorist predictions there is an 11 year lag between the strength of the solar cycle and climate change.
If we get back to back low cycles then we have about 5 years before the cooling begins.
We are about to see a reasonably large El Nino from the looks of things which will dissipate a lot of ocean heat, there is a good chance of seeing a multi year la nina on the back of it.
Personally I’m hoping for a 70s like cooling rather than a new little Ice age.
80
“70s like cooling”
You mean like disco and safari suits? I’m all for that.
44
“Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I.”
Jo,
This is exactly where sceptics should be focusing their attack, because the foundation hypothesis, the idea of a net radiative GHE, is the weakest link.
I understand you may be a “lukewarmer” like Anthony Watts, but the “warming but less than we thought” position only provides short term gain. Science is still wounded if the idea of a net radiative GHE persists in any shape or form.
Have a look again at the calculations behind the radiative GHE hypothesis and have a think what they really mean in terms, not of maths, but actual physics. The claim of the Church of Radiative Climatology is that radiative gases in our atmosphere raises the surface temperature by around 33C.
That would mean that the atmosphere is warming the oceans from -18C (255K) to +15C (288K). This is essentially claiming that the net effect of the atmosphere over the oceans is warming of the oceans. Given the oceans lose most of their absorbed solar energy via evaporation to the atmosphere, does the claim of a net warming effect of the atmosphere over the oceans sound even remotely plausible?
Could a non-radiative atmosphere provide the same cooling to the oceans? No, because such an atmosphere would have no way to cool itself.
To see how hideously wrong climastrologists are, have a look at solar pond storage technology. When water is prevented from cooling to the atmosphere, water temperatures can reach 90C.
Another sanity check. -18C would mean our oceans were a solid block of ice. Where is the “snowline” in the solar system? It’s out at 3AU.
The mistake is that climastrologists treated our oceans as a blackbody in their calcs, not as a transparent material heated at depth. They got the temperature for the oceans in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR out by around 98C!
Our oceans need the atmosphere to cool them and our atmosphere needs radiative gases to cool it.
Yes, the “strongly positive water vapour feedback” thing is provably wrong, but there is actually a far greater error in WG1. Normal science cannot be restored until the very idea of a net radiative GHE is destroyed.
100
Someone here linked to forum of what appeared to be climate modellers. The conversation went along the lines of that alarmists and sceptics were arguing the same thing, that the temperature gradient is determined by the lapse rate, its just that the CO2 increases the altitude at which the atmosphere starts at 255 K.
People are playing games so its best to highlight things that are obvious to non-physicists that the alarmists are telling porkies. If they are not getting a carbon tax or anything else to leach off, defense of the dodgy physics will evaporate as well.
110
if there were no atmosphere there would be no oceans, in fact the oceans from that perspective ARE part of the atmosphere. But good luck with what you are trying to do…
113
It might be a bit of a frivolous analogy but you wouldn’t bother trying to blow on your spoon of soup to warm it up again.
110
unless it was frozen?
012
Matt,
are you getting the message of the thumbs? They’re terrified that I might be right, but they are sure you are wrong.
Radiative gases either cool or warm our atmosphere. There is no middle ground. No “soft landing” No “real politic” solution.
You want to be standing on the warming side? Then there is no difference between more warming and less warming. Your fist-biting error is just as great. Radiative gases cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. Or they warm.
Choose.
81
Mattb, the huge heat capacity difference between air and water means you would need about 100 L of air (20 minutes of blowing) for 25 mL of soup to bring it to half way between the difference of the two temps when warming it up. Evaporative cooling makes it worthwhile when trying to cool your soup.
40
Hi everyone, Jo’s hard work on the Lew-paper issue at UWA seems to of worked but the Green loving media don’t seem to like it. Please have a look at http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/conspiracist-climate-change-study-withdrawn-amid-legal-threats-20140402-35xao.html They don’t go into the details that Jo and other have raised. Just poor lewandosky and the like. Oh boo how.
As for the IPCC report a house of cards as they say isn’t such a great place to live in now isn’t. A report based on another report that’s full of holes, mistakes and assumption and prediction that to date haven’t come true. What a house of cards hey. Looking forward to seeing it come crashing down on top of them. Keep up the good work Jo.
PS Please have a look at the link if you haven’t already Jo
80
Interesting link Fox.
The tone of the writer is most telling. I see where the denial really is.
20
Damn, but I just love that graph. A picture worth a million words!
60
“Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I (see footnote 1 SPM, page 3). Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause.”
And the Models depend on the Mobius mind set of Working Groups 1 and 2 and so it came to pass that the World View was created and it was mad but verily I say unto you do not contradict The View as it is the work of its Creators in the service of The Cause.
90
” … in a policy report released by the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) on April 2013, IDSA expressed grave concern over the weak pipeline of antibiotics to combat the growing ability of bacteria … to develop resistance to antibiotics … “(Wiki).
A fraction of the wealth wasted on IPCC sponsored ‘science’ could have contributed to important advances in medical science of real benefit of mankind.
90
“98% of the models are not working” looks conservative to me, 100% looks more like it.
There has been no warming at all for 17 years despite widespread UHI and feverish ‘adjustments’ by CAGW enthusiasts, to the temperature record. There is no troposphere hot spot to indicate CO2 participation and water vapour impact outranks any effect CO2 could squeeze in to the wavelength gaps that remain.
The latest Media panic beat-up is simply to draw attention away from the total absence of any scientific basis to CAGW. It’s time for them all to hand the money back and get real jobs.
130
Nicholas, even if there was some warming, what would that prove?. Nothing, nada. This entire escapade is predicated on a dubious and unproven hypothesis, that being that human CO2 emissions have caused dangerous global warming. We are on our way out of the LIA, is the climate supposed to stand still?. No, this is an unholy alliance between those who should know better but are politically hidebound and those who couldn’t care less as long as there is a buck or a vote in it for them. I believe that’s why it still infests us. They rely on the gullible, good natured but scientifically illiterate general populace. They thrive on crusading acolytes, scary headlines and hopelessly compromised journalists. Ultimately we will win because truth and veracity are an existential imperative. It’s the collateral damage that worries me.
90
[…] El caso es que no resulta nada complicado mostrar la rotunda futilidad de casi todo lo que de alarmista tiene el citado informe. Nos lo explica brevísimamente Jo Nova en su blog: […]
10
“….A blazing star threatens the world with famine, plague, and war.
To princes death:
To kingdoms many crosses,
To all estates many losses,
To herdsmen rot, to ploughmen hapless seasons;
To sailors storms,
To cities, civil treason”
Guillaume de Sallustre Du Bartas, 1578
(Or, for ‘A blazing star’ just substitute ‘Climate Change’ and the IPCC takes us back to the ignorance and panic of the Middle Ages.)
50
Spot the difference
The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat.
Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries.
“They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,” Trenberth says.
. . .
On the other side, many Shi’ites from Lebanon, Iraq and Iran are drawn to the war because they believe it paves the way for the return of Imam Mahdi – a descendent of the Prophet who vanished 1,000 years ago and who will re-emerge at a time of war to establish global Islamic rule before the end of the world.
“They are all here as promised by the Prophet.
This is the war he promised – it is the Grand Battle,” he told Reuters, using a word which can also be translated as slaughter.
10
Those who quote the IPCC as science probably also quote astrology as reality.
40
Says it all, doesn’t it?
Even the dumbest shipbuilder knows you can’t build the deck on top of a hull with a hole in it.
Frankly, I quit trying to read IPCC output when climategate struck. That put their whole operation into perpetual doubt. And that doesn’t even mention the tedious nature of trying to find your way through it all. I don’t know how you can keep up that effort and not want to scream, Jo.
40
[…] Debunking every IPCC climate prophesy of war, pestilence, famine, drought, impacts in one line « Jo…. Like this:Like […]
10
My comment on the Daily Telegraph read “They may as well be studying the effects of Godzilla on Tokyo” – the Climate Change branch of science needs a good pruning, start with any paper that contains the line “in a warming world” .
20
Direct evidence that the climate models are crap – Every research group builds their own. If there was a model recognized as “very good” (if not “excellent), or at least “the best,” every research group would be using it. But they build their own because they all recognize the faults and limitations of the models of every other group.
20
I see your point, but I to not entirely agree.
Each research group is looking at different aspects of the same “mega non-problem”. It is like the old story of the four blind men investigating an elephant.
One takes hold of a leg, and declares that an elephant is like a tree. Another is touched by an ear, and says that an elephant is like a cooling fan. The third man touches the tail, and says that an elephant is more like a rope. The remaining man feels the elephant’s trunk wind around his wrist, and screams that the elephant is actually a snake, and that they will all be devoured.
So it is with climate. Every group has a different data source, and each group is investigating different aspects of “the problem”, and most groups “adjust” for “errors” in different ways.
Each approach appears reasonable, when viewed in isolation, and is accepted by the establishment on that basis. They only start to look odd when you stand back and compare all of them together, as Jo has done in this post.
The major political crime of the climate change fraternity, is to selectively choose the model that best supports their argument, whether it is appropriate or not.
20
[…] Debunking every IPCC climate prophesy of war, pestilence, famine, drought, impacts in one line – by JoanneNova.com.au – “We could spend hours analyzing the new IPCC report about the impacts of climate change. Or we could just point out: Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I… and… Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause.” – Good info in the comments on this one… Like this:Like Loading… […]
10
Off topic , but I need help ( not that sort of help smartass)
It looks like the Warmistas are praying for a large scale El Nino event to reestablish their CAGW psychosis.
Since the temperature of the globe is given as whatever value and that must include all ocean areas , surface areas and the atmosphere in general , what difference to a global temperature will an El Nino make?
If the El Nino distributes heat from the Pacific waters to the Atlantic waters =a reduction in pacific heat =increase in Atlantic heat , where is the increase in Global temperature?
There is not more heat ,energy has not been created so what is the fuss about?
Heat flows from hot to cold so apart from a small increase in evaporation and resultant precipitation what is and where is the glory in this much lauded event.
I see both sides of the CWGW fence being quite breathless over the matter,so I ask again , unless the basic tenants of physics are about to be breached what is the big deal?
00