Anja Taylor still didn’t ask hard questions or do her research properly. Catalyst viewers would be almost as much in the dark as they were before. It is as if the point of the show was training for the ABC faithful to answer the dreaded skeptics. Because even though skeptics were no longer completely ignored, in the end they’re still the kind of people that “hacked” and stole things, they “seized” and “misinterpreted” information, and as Matthew England says in the last word, skeptics are “obsessed” and “they’re wrong”. (This from the man who calls the IPCC 1990 predictions “very accurate” when it is written in black and white that every mainstream dataset came in below the lowest possible estimate. When will the ABC or Matthew England right that wrong?)
Catalyst is still covering up the mistakes, errors and uncertainties with the best kind of advertising tax money can buy – -the kind of advertising that looks (in a shallow way) like it is independent reporting.
The ABC science unit almost admitted there was a pause, but in the end it was just the usual list of excuses. There was “natural variability”, a solar slowdown, a few volcanoes, aerosols in China and the downside of the PDO. There was some pause-denial as the bottom line. “From the data he’s been analysing, Dr Trenberth sees a planet heating up just as fast as ever.”
Spot the contradiction, the missing heat is in the ocean, it’s hard to measure and we know skeptics are wrong…?
NARRATION
In total, aerosols and solar activity are thought to account for about 20% of the pause, but the biggest contender for where the rest of the heat is going is the one that’s hardest to measure. The oceans absorb a whopping 93% of the world’s excess heat.
Dr Kevin Trenberth
I’ve been working with the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, and they have developed an ocean-monitoring system that synthesizes all of the information – sea-level measurements, the measurements from the floats, sensors that are measuring sea-surface temperature and so on – and that we’ve found is that after about 1999, a lot more heat is going deeper into the ocean. And this is unprecedented. Is this just a consequence of the change in the observing system or is it real? And I think we have good reason to believe that at some of this is real.
Questions Anja Taylor could have asked but didn’t:
1. Precise ocean measurements only started in 2003 with the ARGO buoys, so isn’t it meaningless to say that the warming of the ocean below the surface is “unprecedented”? The last time the PDO shifted like this the temperature of the ocean was measured by a few boats with buckets. How would we know whether that shift was any different to this one?
2. Even if we call the ARGO buoys “precise”, they only have one thermometer for every 250,000 cubic kilometers of ocean. The changes in temperature we are looking for are in the order of one hundredth of a degree. Surely no scientist would claim that this data was remotely precise enough to make claims with any certainty at this stage? Why are we imposing billion dollar costs on Australian households based on data that is so uncertain?
3. The IPCC states it is 95% confident, yet they are relying on very short period of climate data with large uncertainties, and models which are proven to be wrong. Isn’t that misleading?
Taylor also could’ve pointed out that “internal variability” is not scientifically a force like radiation. Instead it’s a coverall term for modeler ignorance, the leftover after the effects of all the bits they think they know — natural cycles. It would be equally true to say it means “we don’t know what is going on”.
Trenberth admits there were “quite substantial discrepancies”
Apparently it’s OK for a scientist to admit there were substantial discrepancies in the past that they concealed, as long as they have an answer to them now. But these discrepancies occurred during years when the same scientists were calling skeptics “deniers” and were telling the public there was no debate. What politician would get away with admitting they had hidden and denied a budget discrepancy for years, but it was alright because they had excuses now?
Taylor seems to think concealing the model failure was fine. Trenberth admits there was a time when they couldn’t account for the missing energy, but he said he’s found it now, and she believes him. Given that he was not publicly honest then, why is he credible now?
Dr Kevin Trenberth Given that there’s an energy imbalance, where does that energy go? How much has gone into the oceans? How much has gone into melting Arctic sea ice? Warming the atmosphere, warming up the land, changing evaporation and therefore changing clouds which can also change the brightness of the planet. And when we first did this, there was some quite substantial discrepancies that in some years we can’t account for where the energy has gone.
Where were the press releases at the time, announcing that skeptics might be right and the climate scientists had doubts? The answer is that there is one kind of scientist who only ever announces something is missing when they are telling us they’ve found it — and that’s the unskeptical kind.
Perhaps it works for gullible journalists who have a personal position rather than an open mind?
Taylor invited Matthew England to offer us his latest excuse for the pause — “extra winds”. If she had done two minutes of Googling she would have found this post, which pretty much lays out all the mistakes and assumptions built into his weak excuse and the questions she ought be asking Prof England.
- If the PDO can cool the Earth, it must be able to warm the Earth too. Exactly how much of the previous warming that you said was CO2 should now be attributed to the Pacific Ocean?
- You say these winds are unprecedented in the records, but you even admit in the paper that these records are short, and there are few observations before the satellite era starting in 1979. Given that the PDO is 60 years long, isn’t it misleading to call a particular reading “unprecedented” when we don’t even have records for one entire natural cycle?
- Haven’t skeptics been saying for years that the PDO affects the climate and the models were exaggerating?
- Perhaps the trade-winds are affecting the climate. But what drives the trade-winds? The models can’t predict the trade-winds until they understand what drives them. If it turns out to be cloud cover changes, or lunar orbits, or solar magnetic effects, cosmic ray effects, or all of the above… that means there is another whole factor or lots of them that the models did not include. Every warming factor added to the models reduces the power of CO2 as a driver. How much does this reduce your future projections by? (Or your future job prospects?)
The bottom line for Catalyst is that there is no pause and warming is coming
Global Prophets for science?
NARRATION
What that means is we’re currently in the phase before the next global temperature jump.
Professor Matthew England
There will be warming out of this hiatus at some point in time – whether it’s this or in five years’ time, there’s gonna be warming – and unfortunately, what we’re seeing in the models is that the warming out of the hiatus is gonna be rapid, regardless of when that hiatus ends.
If the world cools instead, as solar-based theories predict, will Catalyst admit they were wrong?
Catalyst: inaccurate, and in denial of the data?
NARRATION: But a small minority of scientists disagree.
Catalyst could have said a small minority of (certified) climate scientists disagree, but they didn’t. They said “scientists” implying scientists in general — yet survey after survey shows that two-thirds of geoscientists and engineers, 48% of meteorologists and many other hard scientists, and by the thousands, absolutely do not agree.
These kinds of careless, repeated errors could be easily checked in a few minutes with an Internet search. Is it just confirmation bias or is it PR? Whatever it is, it’s not investigative reporting.
Climategate still hurts: hide the travesty
Anja Taylor was keen to take another opportunity to remind everyone of how unimportant it was. Indeed the Trenberth Climategate quote was so unimportant and misunderstood they spent four paragraphs discussing it without telling the audience what the quote was. Don’t mention the travesty!
NARRATION
Among the Many hacked emails in the 2009 Climategate scandal was one from Dr Kevin Trenberth to a colleague. Sceptics seized on one particular sentence as written proof that climate scientists were involved in a large-scale cover-up.
Dr Kevin Trenberth
It was picked up as me saying that there was no global warming, somehow or the other, and completely misinterpreted and it just propagated all over the place – it was amazing to see.
Let’s do that quote in full, so the ABC viewers could decide for themselves.
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
The definition of travesty: ˈtravɪsti (noun) a false, absurd, or distorted representation of something.
Anja Taylor describes this instead as “frustration” and the word “travesty” is never said. ABC viewers might be surprised to find the ABC covering up admissions of false, absurd, or distorted representations. Blog readers won’t be.
Instead of reporting the facts, Taylor reported guesses and speculation, saying that the emails were “hacked” — something the Norfolk police tried to find evidence for, but couldn’t. The only person who knows is FOIA, and they explained they were whistleblowing, which is legally protected in the UK. Other scientific “facts” Catalyst reported included the odd meteorological event they called a “climate conspiracy storm”. (Apparently that’s what you call it when scientists accurately quote leaked emails of other scientists admitting their research is a “travesty”.)
Is it raising public awareness of science, or promoting big-government science instead?
Catalyst seemingly has no interest or curiosity in discussing the real scientific questions that matter, not even when they are reporting what scientists as a profession are thinking and asking. If Catalyst was there to serve the public, or the science community at large, they would not discuss Climategate emails and hide the words they were supposedly discussing. They would not praise scientists who admit they were privately in doubt while they were publicly “certain”. Nor would they accept weak post hoc answers that depend on single thermometer correctly measuring 250,000 cubic kilometers of ocean, and models that we know are wrong.
Probably lazy reporters are just serving their own personal whims, which are genuinely held but based on dinner-party discussions and fashionable trendiness rather than on logic and hard evidence. Whim-based reporting is not what the ABC was chartered to do. Nor was it supposed to just be a mouthpiece for government dependent officials to promote government dependent work.
Have Catalyst ever served the public by seriously investigating the value or success of taxpayer funded grants? Has Catalyst ever questioned whether a particular ARC grant was misused, or irrelevant, wasted, or one-sided research? Whatever the intent, the outcome is to act as paid PR for ARC-funded scientists, to help them convince the public that their taxes are well spent. “Give me more money”. “Vote for big government”.
After decades of being almost entirely reliant on public funds would anyone be surprised if ABC employees personal views don’t tend to be skeptical of government funding? There’s a kind of natural selection at work. The base-aim of most publicly funded bodies must surely be to justify more public funding. Any co-dependent on government funding is a friend indeed. The needier, the better.
The one recent time Catalyst questioned a consensus they were hounded for it. It’s hardly a surprise they take the safe big-government policy position on science.
Related posts:
- The IPCC was wrong. (Matthew England and the ABC mislead Australians)
- Global Wind excuse — monkey-modeling shows global warming theory is Still Not Wrong.
- Witchcraft on Catalyst — Scary weather is coming, it’s all our fault, be afraid!
- Catalyst: climate astrology in your very own backyard
h/t to Matt, Chris, J.J., Peter, & John
I would have liked to see England’s appearance a year or so back, from the audience at Q&A, denying there is a pause and slandering anyone who says there is.
It would look funny now, juxtaposed to his convenient new explanation. Unfortunately, all the other clowns at the ABC either wouldn’t want the competition, or wouldn’t think it was funny.
302
Never forget that globally the push is to control perception and beliefs about real world problems, not convey the accurate truth. False beliefs intentionally created drive action and behavior in predictable ways and that’s the point.
Education ‘reforms’ are all geared to instill these false beliefs and UNESCO now actively pushes education to ally with media so that there is a consistency in what is communicated to the masses. It’s also the reason globally for pushing multimedia and the visual instead of print. The mind treats virtual reality as the same as physical reality and the former is quite easier to manipulate.
Every media company knows this. It is the average taxpayer and parent who does not. It’s why we see that term “cross-cutting concepts” used globally. Those are supposed to guide how everyday experiences are interpreted and creating a belief in the need for transformative change is always a front and center cross-cutting concept.
200
What pause?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
510
This pause
72
Oh ok, you mean the pause that occurs if you ignore >90% of the heat going into the ocean and focus only on the lower troposphere.
55
Hi John,
The Ocean Heat is still missing.
Its a travesty. (See above…)
(BTW: Occams Razor says that the missing heat is above the atmosphere…. – and not in Earths climate system).
21
Missing? If you wish to call millions of sea level measurements “missing”, ignore >90% of the heat going into the ocean and focus only on the lower troposphere, then yes, there is a pause.
32
John Abbott,
3,000 floats times 35 surfacings a year times 10 years equals 1.05 million readings, just makes the million by this simple multiplication which no doubt has errors in its assumptions. Not a lot, given the volume and complexity of the sea.
Sure, you can say that an additional measurement added to this 1.05 million is going to have undetectable effect. But, the real problem is, does any average, such as the average of temperatures from 0 to 10 deg S latitude, have any bias?
As with much climate work, one cannot set up to run a set of measurements over again. However, one can do engineering measures beforehand, such as running three or more completely independent float designs from 3 different manufacturers, in parallel for that 10 years. My bet would be solidly that they would not agree with each other any better than +/- 0.1 deg C. There is then the attendant problem that you still do not know which design is giving the ‘right’ result.
There is inadequate attention given to detection and estimation of bias in climate work in general. At least we have 2 independent analyses of satellite microwave sounding of oxygen emissions, RSS and UAH, to show that the flat temperature response in the troposphere in the last few years is likely not to be a strong upward trend.
Other satellite spectral and emissivity measurements at TOA are likewise unreliable, as different satellites have differed in their estimates of net change by amounts similar to the effect being sought. This is a bias problem, not a statistical precision one.
If there really is a pause, it is hard to deny it on the basis of any type of measurement that we are aware of.
20
GS, so data is ok when it agrees with you, but biased when it does not? And the lack of peer-reviewed science to support your “bias” is a global conspiracy!!
22
You know Geoff, I don’t think John understood a single word you said.
21
John,
Your the only one talking about a conspiracy.
Your simply blind to the points being made.
21
Hi John, you say…
There is no lack of peer reviewed science debunking MMGW. Now 1350+ papers and still growing.
12
That’s a cute list of miscellaneous items. Doesn’t really produce a cohesive theory with many items contradicting themselves.
Or are you about to highlight which “paper” discredits the warming, specifically the link I provided.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
No?
21
Oh dear,
I have just had a quick look at the NOAA measurements, and it would appear that the cumulative error function has the potential to swamp the the actual signal.
I am not saying that is anything bad. In fact, it is good that NOAA are honest enough to publish what they have without putting lipstick on the pig.
But I certainly would not be drawing any conclusions from those figures.
20
And the stupidity of those first two graphs is hilarious.
See if you can work out just how stupid they are, John. (Hint, a graph should have axes that tell you what it really is)
USE your brains if you can.
You do know why they use joules, and how that converts to temperature, don’t you.
And you really think they can measure it. roflmao !!!!
And all the other “steric” graphs stem from those two clown graphs.
Do they still have any scientists at NOAA ??
21
Hey, Griss,
Cut them some slack. It could be worse. Instead of joules, they could be quoting in ergs — now they would really be scary figures.
20
It appears your link to the peer-reviewed research failed to paste. Poptech listed hundreds, so which one was it supports your feelings and opinions?
Measure it as 4 atomic bombs per second if you like. The oceans are gaining heat, according to the science. There is no pause in global warming.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
30
John Abbott,
I rather resent the implications of your words above, as if I was taking sides in an argument and hoping for a particular outcome.
In 4 decades of scientific work, I probably personally generated over a million data points also. However, these were assessed unemotionally, because we all knew that it was pointless to try to rig our work. We were looking for new ore deposits, entities that unfortunately did not share in emotions and did not care if we fudged our figures. We found a dozen or so new ore deposits, one of the best record for any global explorer of the times, so we seem to have been doing science well. I suspect that current grants to university researchers have a measurable component of our new wealth creation – several of the mines are still producing most profitably.
In the course of this work, we learned much about sampling theory. We sent colleagues to France for months at a time to study the emerging geostatistics technique and said colleagues became world cutting edge class. We estimated the grade and tonnes of ore in deposits through modelling, before they were mined. We then compared the actual tonnes mined and the grade, after mining was over. In the case of Number One ore body at Ranger One, both figures were within +/- 5% when pre-mining models were compared to actual recovery. So we had experience in modelling and forecasting as well, with accuracy and precision.
Now, when you work with numbers as a fairly large part of your career, some people develop a feel for numbers, rather like some people seem to learn foreign languages quickly, as if the language was speaking back to them. Familiarity.
When I see exquisitely detailed analysis leading to conclusions of global importance derived from Argo floats, I recoil as would anyone who has done a lot of sampling. I am not ‘hoping for an outcome’ with Argo temperatures, I am merely stating from a neutral position that you could drive fleets of haul trucks through these Argo analyses, because they cannot yet hope to represent a fair sampling of the oceans in either time or space.
The apparent acceptance of Argo temperatures to back up statements about missing heat or global heat energy balances is most concerning.
If we used such sparse sampling to report tonnes and grade of ore in a new ore deposit, we would do so expecting to be hauled before a judicial body to justify our assumptions, particularly if we used them in a Prospectus to raise funds from public offerings.
The charge would be in words like ‘fraudulent misrepresentation with knowledge aforethought’.
I write about these things to try to help this new kid of climate research mature and start to produce science of acceptably high standard.
That the standard has been so low, despite the past funding excesses, should be of concern to you as well.
41
“Warm Saltwater Subduction”…catchy phrase methinks!
Catchy phrases do not explain reality too well. Nice theory but, dense and warm in the same sentence and expect it to play at the equator? Forced “subduction” instead of spreading pole wards??? Am I missing something here?
90
I notice in The Australian this morning :
“THE existence of a more than 15-year “pause” in average global surface temperatures has been “settled” but scientists remain split on what it means. ”
Oh the agony of having to concede but then pig headedly refuse to concede any further, instead holding to the Big Lie ….laughable stuff…..
81
Jo,
Congratulations for this essay.
It has needed to be spoken this way for some time now.
It needs to be compared with the ABC charter requirement of balance.
Shows like Catalyst reveal that those who favour global warming are often much less informed than those who question the hypothesis.
Yet, when time comes to review the ABC, some magic of public administration creates a panel with precisely this public ignorance.
Fiona, go off and do some reading of real observations.
ABC, go off and find a real meaningful for ‘balance’.
Catalyst, no hope, no future for science toadies.
,
351
Balance? In whose view, this balance? It’s a problem word and a problem concept.
The ABC was a staunch supporter of the Rudd/Gillard government, ever ready to propagate untruth on behalf of that government.
Since the election of the current government the ABC has acted constantly and strenuously to lead opposition to the new government, still ever ready to propagate untruth for this purpose.
The Abbott government made an undertaking to the electorate that it would not act against the ABC. The ABC has used that undertaking as a shield for its actions. But, surely, nobody can be allowed to continue to slag off the boss the way the ABC has done and is doing.
The ABC has so far abused the trust that the Abbott government put in it that Tony Abbott must now take action to punish the ABC for its misdeeds, and force it to act responsibly. Soon.
60
Cheer up Jo!
Until last night’s Catalyst my parents (ABC peons to the bone) thought I was making the whole “pause” thing up. They only associated the word ‘hiatus’ with ‘hernia.’
I’m trying my best here (really!) but I just can’t work up my usual levels of incandescent outrage.
Sure, it would have been nice if—having conceded the existence of a pause—they didn’t proceed to denialize it two minutes later like some kind of denialists or something, but the effect of their sledgehammer-subtle tergiversation was to make the voices of agnosticism (Curry and Paltridge) stand out as the only credible interviewees. “Nobody knows anything about the climate,” would have been the takehome for a muggle audience, I’m betting.
Besides, ‘investigative journalism’ is a lot to ask of someone like Anja with a hebdomadal deadline and a dilettantish grasp (at best) of the subject matter. They don’t make them like you anymore, Jo 😛
331
Not counting Christopher Monckton, I mean—who wasn’t really on screen long enough.
Anyway, bottom line: we’re winning, and by “we” I mean all of us who know it’s a matter of when, not if, the truth will out, thanks to the good scientists and the good bloggers!
310
Don’t you dare believe “we’re winning” until its done. We are dealing with The Devil here, remember. He will never let up till he is dead.
130
I always thought the Devil was smart….
What we are dealing with here is a class of people who have been brought up to think that making objective decisions between “right” and “wrong” is an act of discrimination, and hence akin to a thought crime.
Blind and witless indiscrimination is, they believe, the only way to avoid bigotry.
00
Sorry Brad, “incandescent outrage” has just been banned. You will have to make do with LED outrage from now on, in the name of reducing your carbon footprint.
200
” It is as if the point of the show was training for the ABC faithful to answer the dreaded skeptics.”
Jo: Spot on with the above observation!!!!!
“Our ABC” showing its usual smug, clearly morally superior attitude, all on the taxpayers dollar. Still, they must be hurting a lot from all the valid criticism pouring their way because, as you so rightly point out, they are actually showing smidgeons of sceptical criticism in order to rebut it.
But, boy oh boy, weren’t their explanations for the temperature data for the past 18 years so contrived!
230
The ABC is using our taxpayer money to prepare their Left-leaning audience base; in order to protect their Climate Change narrative!
I propose NOT cancelling the ABC, BUT introduce a tax idea (legislation?) in which the taxpayer gets to decide whether their dollars go to “Our ABC” or to hospitals, roads, defence, etc. A tickbox on the tax form (?) as well as the necessary legal mechanisms that prevent bureaucrats trying to circumvent the taxpayer’s wishes. (We know how these bureaucratic weasels work. They will do anything to work around people’s wishes because they believe they know better!)
One could then argue that it is the choice of the taxpayer to decide to support “Our ABC”.
ie: Throw it back to the Left => “Are you saying the Australian Taxpayer has no right to decide where their money goes and how its spent?”
What do you folks think? To actually hold ABC accountable by financially controlling the flow of their income stream.
This is our money. We have every right to demand that the ABC be following scientific principles of analysis and observation with honesty and integrity. I don’t give two-$hits of their personal opinions and personal biases. I want to know the whole bloody picture!
Jo has just shown us an example of the most unscientific presentation on our tax dollars. I am NOT happy! 😡
70
Climategate cooling travesty, debunked!
‘So on to the other example of criminal fraud. [we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t, well that’s self explanatory.] Is it? Kevin Trenberth is talking about cooling that was occurring in 2008-09, the explanation given by most climatologist give, is the obvious one, the Earth has being cooling for the last couple of years {at the time of the email} because we have been at the nadir of the 11 year solar cycle and last year was a particular strong La Nino year…Trenberth argues that the warming effect of co2,should be able to overcome these temporary cooling influences, if the McExperts had read the email that preceded…so the first thing to note is that Trenberth is expressing his own opinion, not necessarily that of the scientific community. Even if we accept that the scientist don’t agree, the quote still shows that he is expressing in private, he can’t explain the complete opposite! Isn’t he…actually if the blabbing McExperts…had read his email more carefully they would have seen he was referring to a paper he had written, he even give us the URL…they would have found out he was expressing publicly…so all they had to do was read his paper available on line!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWsya-FW8mw
132
Kevin Trenberth has dropped a real clanger if the words attributed to him above are correct:
“I’ve been working with the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, and they have developed an ocean-monitoring system that synthesizes all of the information……. “.
When I said they were using synthetic data I was spoken rudely to! But they are. And here we have KT declaring it to be so!
Exit KT!
130
b adder. You show your trollish ignorance of the subject. It’ “La Nina” and “El Nino”.
40
Precise ocean measurements only started in 2003 with the ARGO buoys, so isn’t it meaningless to say that the warming of the ocean below the surface is “unprecedented”?
There is no precise ocean temp measurement system in place. The limited ARGO buoys are however better than the previous ship bucket method/on board ship water temp method, etc, etc…
A stationary ARGO buoy system massively deployed as depth allows this to be possible would be similar in function to high quality surface stations. Still this would not allow precise ocean temp measurement but would indicate that those collecting the data were serious and CAGW might actually be a problem worth gathering high quality data.
150
Even if the ARGO buoys are sufficiently precise, the ocean is a vast, circulating body of water with local and large scale movements and environmental effects. The buoys themselves must be generating at least a small amount of heat from their systems. How on earth can they be expected to detect a statistically significant change of 0.01 degrees?
160
Hi Jo,
I can’t wait to see the size of their retractions!!
After-all, if these cyclopse-like media organisations like the ABC. and Fairfax are even half as professional as they keep reminding us they are. Sooner or later, when this whole Ponzi-le gike climate change scam comes crashing down around their collective over-inflated decoration-like craniums, surely they’ll have to offer up some huge retractions that run for weeks.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I guess I won’t be holding my breath waiting for this to occur.
(Nice theory though!!)
Thanks, keep up the good work.
Kind regards, reformed Warm of Logan
170
Raising the public awareness of science? I thought that was already done with shows like “The Big bang Theory” and other mainstream “science” shows. Seriously though it depends on what you define as science. If science is the systematic pursuit of a better and better understanding of how the physical world works using experimental evidence based on testable explanations and predictions, then yes we definitely need an awareness campaign, but not for just the public but also for the majority of scientists (and especially so). I see too many mainstream scientists using anything but testable and repeatable experimental evidence to support their findings. Instead they tend to use outrageous theories that are often illogical and contradictory. In other words, they tend to be basing their theories on faith and religion rather than experiential evidence. AGW is one example and there are several others.
110
Jo,
Then they haven’t met things like this!
Comment at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/16/a-simple-truth-computer-climate-models-cannot-work/
”
Alex H (@USthermophysics)
October 16, 2014 at 11:36 pm
I’d like to add my humble two cents to this good post to touch on one additional topic. I was the principal developer of large, 3-D electromagnetic codes for radiation transport modeling, which have been run on several thousand processors on one of the largest and fastest computers in the world; much like GCMs. After the initial architecture was in place, one of the first orders of business was to perform a rigorous set of validation exercises. This included comparing to analytical solutions for radiating dipoles and light-scattering spheres, which Gustav Mie on the shoulders of Hendrik Lorentz impressively accomplished. These validation procedures were *absolutely* necessary to both debugging, model verification and validation (separate things) and providing the incremental confidence we needed to eventually perform our own studies, which ended up demonstrating–through both model and experiment–the breaking of the optical diffraction limit using nanoscale transport mechanisms. I can’t overstate how important this validation was. The writeup fo this work was later awarded the national Best Paper in Thermophysics, which I mention for appreciation of co-authors Theppakuttai, Chen, and Howell.
But descriptions of climate modeling by news and popularized science didn’t satisfy my sniff test. Certainly I agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which has a net warming effect on the atmosphere. We understand the crux of the debate has clearly been the quantification and consequences of this effect. As I would recommend to anyone with the capability and/or open mind, on any subject, I studied primary sources to inform myself. I approached my investigation from the standpoint of a computational fluid dynamicist.
I was immediately shocked by what I saw in climate science publications. There is much to say, but the only thing I want to comment on here is the lack of rigorous validation procedures in the models, as far as I can tell. Various modules (and I’ve looked at NCAR and GISS, primarily) seem to have limited validation procedures performed independently of other modules and within a limited scope of the expected modeling range. I have not found any conjugate validation exercises using the integrated models (though I am hopeful someone will enlighten me?). To not have the coupled heat transfer and fluid dynamic mechanisms validated to even a moderate degree, let alone extreme degree of confidence required when projections are made several orders of magnitude outside the characteristic timescale of transport mechanisms is no better than playing roulette. It is like obtaining a mortgage with no idea what your interest rate is…absurd. The uncertainty will be an order of magnitude larger than the long-term trend you’re hoping to project. This is not how tier-1 science and engineering operates. This is not the level of precision required to get jet engines capable of thousands of hours of flight and spacecrafts in orbit and land rovers in specific places on other planets. Large integrated models of individual component models cannot rely on narrow component-level validation procedures. Period. It is an absolute certainty that the confidence we require in the performance of extremely complicated life-supporting vehicles cannot be claimed without integrated validation procedures that do not appear to exist for GCMs. This is one reason, I believe, why we see such a spread in model projections: because it does not exist. V&V is not a trivial issue; DOE, NSF, and NASA have spent many tens of millions of dollars in efforts begun as late as 2013 to determine how to accomplish V&V, for good reason. I support the sentiment behind those efforts.
So where does that leave us? GCM’s can’t be validated against analytical solutions of actual planetary systems, of course. That is a statement that can’t be worked around and should provide a boundary condition in itself for GCM model projection confidence. But there are analytical fluid dynamics solutions that are relevant, idealized planetary systems that can be modeled and compared to ab-initio solutions, as well as line-by-line Monte-Carlo benchmark simulations which can be performed to validate full-spectrum radiative transport in participating media. I’ve seen nothing that meets this criteria (though I am open to and welcome correction. I will give a nod to LBL radiation calcs which use the latest HITRAN lines but still don’t present validation spectra and are then parameterized from k-distribution form for use in GCMs)
My conclusion is that current GCMs are like lawn darts. They are tossed in the right direction based on real knowledge, but where they land is a complete function of the best-guess forcings put into it. This is in direct contrast to the results of highly complex models found elsewhere in science and engineering, which are like .270 rounds trained on target by powerful scopes. And they bring home prizes because they were sighted in.”
(Also posted at Jen M.)
240
The models are not like roulette where the chances are predictable, albeit random. It’s more like an electronic slot machine where the odds are always stacked in favor of the house. An illusion of winning is created to get people to buy in but the house is the only guaranteed benefactor and the longer people play, the more certain the loss. The only way for ordinary people to come out ahead is to avoid the game altogether.
60
Don’t worry. Catalyst is a program with tiny ratings and influence I a tiny country. It has no bearing on any debate. Or is something else bothering you?
55
Surprising to me, but I agree with you
Yes, the ABC bias is out of any sensible control, but the real point is:
So what ?
10
I got annoyed initially but then became amused by the sad attempt to deny clear evidence of model failure and replace it with unproven speculation from England and Trenberth. They have dissolved into farce. I call that Victory!
200
No problem , it can happen to anyone.
KK
Sorry if you were replying to the double posting ot Gee Aye and his apology I just removed them. (No problem Gee Aye. ) – Jo
40
It can happen to anyone.
No problem ,
KK
30
MOD Response to Gee’s double post which has now disparu.
Delete??
KK
20
I double posted? Never!
I posted double? Not ever.
51
40
This is NOT an echo chamber …
40
The “settled science” on which Trenberth and other deluded climate “scientists” rely postulates that though CO2 is a minor GHG post IR human emissions of CO2 are producing enough retained heat to cause evaporation of the powerful GHG, water vapor. Thus without a net positive feedback there can be no significant global warming from increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
If there is no net positive feedback, which in the present context of rapidly increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 but with no increase in global temperature, seems a reasonable assumption, then Trenberth and others surely should be looking at the plausibility of that “settled science” postulate.
Remember from the time of Arrhenius, who ignored the effect of clouds on the nature of the CO2/water vapour feedback, down to the contemporary climate scientists it is the gospel that that feedback is positive.
Obviously more research needs to be done on that aspect of the “settled science”. For without that net feedback being positive there can be no significant global warming and thus of course no tipping point to catastrophe. And of course until that is settled it is pointless looking for the possibly imagined missing heat in the ocean.
120
The problem tends to be that natural systems that are stable NEVER exhibit unbounded positive feedbacks, even the regular locust and mouse plagues, or ebola, or any other thing, have saturation effect that result in sharp negative feedbacks. For example when the pool of unexposed hosts falls below a certain point ebola will moderate. It will reach a saturation point. All natural systems are limited by negative feedbacks / saturation effects and so it is with temperature. As temperature rises climate sensitivity falls, until at a nice balmy 33 degrees over water it goes non-linear and rapidly falls to zero as the humidity at cloud pushes the dew point below that necessary to form thunderhead clouds. Things cool off pretty rapidly at that point. On average it may get warmer, but global warming is limited by this saturation effect, and as the average temp increases all that happens is that the saturation zone gets extended north or south from the equator. Earth will NEVER get hotter than the equatorial zone except in land locked areas and deserts that aren’t subject to this saturation effect.
I used to watch beyond 2000 all the time, but Catalyst is a poor substitute, I almost never watch it despite being a science nurd, it’s uncritical, simplistic, trite and often just plain wrong and not just on Global Warming. Think GM foods, Nuclear tech, Fracking, Nutrition, solar and wind power. I think even the primary school science of Professor Summermiller (sorry if that’s spelled wrong) puts Catalysts green-eyed worldview to shame.
40
The ABC Charter is set out below. I score them an overall FAIL. It’s not my ABC. Sack Mark Scott and the Board now!
The functions of the Corporation are:
(a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:
(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and
(ii) broadcasting programs of an educational nature;
(b) to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will:
(i) encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs; and
(ii) enable Australian citizens living or travelling outside Australia to obtain information about Australian affairs and Australian attitudes on world affairs; and
(ba) to provide digital media services; and
(c) to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia.
(2) In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting services within Australia:
(a) the Corporation shall take account of:
(i) the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and community sectors of the Australian broadcasting system;
(ii) the standards from time to time determined by the ACMA in respect of broadcasting services;
(iii) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialized broadcasting programs;
(iv) the multicultural character of the Australian community; and
(v) in connection with the provision of broadcasting programs of an educational nature—the responsibilities of the States in relation to education; and
(b) the Corporation shall take all such measures, being measures consistent with the obligations of the Corporation under paragraph (a), as, in the opinion of the Board, will be conducive to the full development by the Corporation of suitable broadcasting programs.
(3) The functions of the Corporation under subsection (1) and the duties imposed on the Corporation under subsection (2) constitute the Charter of the Corporation.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be taken to impose on the Corporation a duty that is enforceable by proceedings in a court.
100
“(4) Nothing in this section shall be taken to impose on the Corporation a duty that is enforceable by proceedings in a court.”
Did you just make that up?
Incredible.
20
Jo once again you have broken down another ABC
presentationpantomime and genuinely offer an alterative viewpoint and evidence to what many publically refuse to tackle, unfortunately as much as I love seeing our taxpayer dollars contribute to contrived propaganda and lies designed to further stupidify the populace, I would rather see our paid national broadcaster to actually follow it’s charter and offer a genuine counter argument to what is first presented, it’s been a long time between drinks on that one.I now believe that we now have a PC social block ingrained in the psyche of most of the population in the guise of an old saying, ‘Never discuss Politics, Religion, Sex and Climate at a dinner party’ yes the new taboo is Climate and it fits in nicely with the others too, oh if you’re wondering about where sex fits in just think of how many people have been fuc$#d over by this new taboo.
180
That fact that the increase has stopped has destroyed the extremely simplistic hypothetical and unlikely CO2 greenhouse explanation but there is still no public explanation for the temperature increase in the 1990s, except Lord Monckton’s paper on increased cloudless days and the effect of the really important greenhouse gas, water. Of course this would heat the oceans without any CO2. However this would explain increasing CO2 in the gaseous equilibrium between sea and sky.
What is missing in this one sided ‘debate’ is that the alleged ‘science’ is pure politics and has cost a generally wasted billion dollars a day and driven by the communist Green parties who openly want the crippling and destruction of Western society, especially Israel. It is no coincidence that the very Green Australian ABC (60+% vote Green) really does not care about the science and never did. It is all about the attack on the evil West and Western culture. The hypocrisy and ingratitude is amazing. The ABC needs to be sold. It serves no function now in an internet and NBN world.
The very idea that a massive publicly funded government media would be scrupulously fair and politically independent under a charter is now a very bad joke in Australia. If sold, maybe favorite Peppa Pig can be saved. CEO Mark Scott and his 1,000 journalists have already made it clear that if any cuts to funding are made, Peppa will be the first to be publicly beheaded. Stop the warming! Free Peppa Pig! Sell the ABC.
130
“…. but there is still no public explanation for the temperature increase in the 1990s….”
Yes there is!
A History of Solar Activity over Millennia It is a darn good read.
I especially liked the sections on
3.7 Verification of reconstructions
and
3.7.1 Comparison with direct data
refreshing!
Of course you have to be aware the paper exists….
80
Thanks. Interesting stuff and good concise science. The Beryllium proxy for sunspot/solar activity measured from cosmic ray interaction is very interesting and shows an unequivocal very high activity in the latter half of the 20th century which has nothing to do with CO2. They also conclude that historically this is not unexpected but a fundamentally random and previously observed fluctuation in solar activity on top of the usual 11 year cycle.
I found the section on C14 odd, as the discussion is about the lack of great accuracy of radio carbon dating rather than the rather lateral possibility of separating fossil CO2 from normal CO2, dating the CO2 itself rather than using the CO2 to date other things. The maximum figure of 25% also seems very high for the dilution of C14 through fossil fuels as noted by Dr Suess. The figure I have read previously was 1/10th of this. Remember the IPCC argue that the 50% increase is entirely due to human activity. The ability to accurately accurately measure the half life of absorption of CO2 in the oceans is missed entirely and this can debunk the IPPC claim of about 80 years, as half of it was gone in 14 years. Still the authors clearly conclude that based on thousands of years of history, air warming can happen any time simply through increased solar activity, as measured by a number of proxies. The politically important connection with industrialization is not necessary at all to explain the sort of minor warming seen.
40
TdeF
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
30
Thanks. There seems to be a reluctance to look at tiny C14, the radioactive one. The popular story is the questionable C13 vs C14, for some reason.
The business about the subtle difference between stable isotopes C12 (99%) and C13 (1%) seems to be missing the wood for the trees. Deducing the amount of fossil fuel CO2 against biosphere CO2 from this is method of plant differential uptake is complex and quite unnecessary.
However measuring the ratio of fossil fuel CO2 to modern (natural) CO2 is very easy. There is absolutely no C14 in fossil fuel. So if the IPCC says the 50% increase in CO2 is from fossil fuel, the dilution of C14 should be 66%. Simple. It isn’t. No need for calculations. The sudden doubling of C14 by atmospheric atom bomb blasts in the 1960s actually explains why as the C14 halved in only 14 years, not the 80 years claimed by the IPCC. Again, this is not complex. New CO2 is not supposed to utterly vanish in 30 years, but it does.
Personally, I cannot understand why this is not simple science. The truth will out, eventually.
100
Sorry C12 vs C13
10
TdeF,
Try the blog of Euan Mearns for a mechanism that depletes bomb isotopes in a way that affects conventional residence tiime estimates.
Also, keep in mind that the short half life of C14 restricts its use on all but the smallest of geological time scales.
Geoff.
20
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Dr Kevin Trenberth
It was picked up as me saying that there was no global warming, somehow or the other, and completely misinterpreted and it just propagated all over the place – it was amazing to see.
I’m sorry, there’s just no way to misinterpret Trenberth’s statement from that climategate email. These guys are actually wanting warming to occur. I guess you can’t be a hero unless there’s an event to save people from. Make no mistake… these guys are cheerleaders for an event to occur.
One would think the natural human reaction would be to say “gosh, maybe this pause means there won’t be any global warming and therefore the world will be safe from a future catastrophe.” But no, these guys NEED to be right more than anything else.
Sure, I’m wanting global warming not to occur. That’s a normal human reaction, I think. Can any of the Warmist sect say the same thing?
I sure hope I live to see the day where it becomes unequivocally clear that AGW is not happening and CO2 is cleared as the ultimate culprit for causing GW. And I hope the recorded history of what the warmists have said over the years is not very kind to them. Hopefully, they’re held accountable for their prior words and actions.
211
Perhaps they should be tried in the UN’s new International court on the Environment.
Some one can put forward a case about:
The bats and birds killed by bat-chomping bird-slicing eco crucifixes.
The birds flash-fried by Bird-Scorching Solar
The disastrous effect on local flora and fauna caused by Off-shore wind power
The trees and other plants living at a starvation level of CO2
And finally the 30,000 UK pensioners a year killed (but of course they do not count.)
60
Well, I’m wanting modest warming to occur. We can’t expect stable temps and warming beats cooling on all counts.
50
Jo, there seems to be a problem with your clock. My comment above was posted at 11.06 am on 18/10 not 10.19.
30
The 10/18 is the date.
00
They’ll no doubt be trying to take the credit for any non-warming that’s occurred.
Meanwhile,, saying its bound to warm again, its only a matter if time, is a pretty safe bet, like eg. saying its bound to rain again, in Melbourne. They might have to wait rather longer for warming to ‘resume’ though.
10
Trenberth: “you look out the window and you see climate change in action”
What’s Causing Unusually Hot Temperatures in U.S.? | PBS NewsHour | July 2, 2012 | PBS
KEVIN TRENBERTH: Well, I think it’s — you know, you look out the window and you see climate change in action.
This is the way it gets manifested. There’s normal weather events. There’s the normal seasons.
If we have June temperatures in March, well, you know, we have experienced them before because we get them in June.
If we have a very mild winter, actually, people like that, because the winter isn’t as cold. But we were breaking records then.
Now we’re breaking records, but we’re in the peak of the heat season.
And now we’re going outside of the realm of conditions previously experienced
. . .
Someone shoulda sneaked up on Trenberth & tapped him on the shoulder so he “looked out the window.”
70
NB:
Mother Nature seems to be making a mockery of climate change and global warming theorists, as the Earth is changing in ways that suggest that we are entering an age of global cooling.
As ice continue to grow in the North and South Poles, record cold temperatures are descending upon many countries, turning summers in dead winters.
Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research in Lexington, Massachusetts, a division of Verisk Climate, is trying to understand what makes snow pile up in Eurasia.
His (2013) hypothesis is that the melting of the Arctic ice cap has put more moisture into the atmosphere, which provides fuel for the higher snowfall.
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/26-4_cohen.html
According to Cohen’s research, there is a link between the snowcover and how much cold spills out of the Arctic and where it ends up once it escapes.
He said he hasn’t been able to discover a solid link between the two.
http://www.thecelestialconvergence.com/ice-age-now-global-cooling-continues-across-world-new-york-gets-frigid-winter-alarm-snow-piles-siberia-water-temperatures-great-lakes-6-degrees-colder-last-yea/
40
Trenberth has no windows in his office, perhaps.
00
Reality Check
The solid parts of the message are not getting through.
From a sufficient number of conversations I’ve had in person with alarmists, it’s clear they don’t know which skeptic arguments are solid.
They’re sheltered from that information.
There’s no way to even begin a sensible conversation with them about what is and what is not known about natural variability.
Think of all the skeptic blogging that has been done — countless hours invested. Where it matters most, it had zero impact.
There’s a need for ingenious change to the way skeptical blogging is done.
The Wrong Way
WUWT is erecting an impenetrable barrier that protects (and even enhances) alarmist narratives.
Remember: According to empirical measurement (not theory), WUWT’s currently a network central node.
Central Nodes Shift Just Like Climate
After making limited progress over a number of years, the skeptic movement has recently been stopped dead in its tracks by a shifting central node.
Serious Question
Do you volunteer to be a submissive puppet of compromised centralized control?
The central node is compromised.
Any new central node will be a security risk, as it too will be susceptible to hijacking and corruption.
Grade: F
The solid parts of the message are not getting through.
Let’s brainstorm efficient civilized correction.
The Response We Can Expect
The hardened administrator’s preferred tactic whenever possible is to build in delays. This keeps options open until deadlines force decisions. The counter-strategy we face dealing with administration-style players is the lack of a real (nevermind artificial) deadline.
30
Astute observations.
Natural variation is the unseen, unplanned force and on ‘our side’ in the climate wars.
It is the ‘blind side’ they never made plans for, so confident were they in the settled science.
An analogy might be the moment in the war of the Lord of the Rings, (pt III), when Aragorn sailed down the river leading the army of the dead, at the Battle of Minas Tirith.
But, recognising the moment, and running with the ‘fog of war’ confusion that ensues is the ‘art of war’.
The ebola scare has taken all the wind out of the scary climate stories.
Sea level rise in 100 years doesn’t matter when people down the road are dying. Now.
And getting the message out is also a challenge for us ‘climate rebels’ during this sad time.
The Climate Wars will be a notable sidebar to this ebola moment in the history of humanity, as it could be the plague moment of the 21st century.
Maybe the human boogeyman of climate/weather can be killed forever at this point:
3000 yo Ancient cult complex discovered in Israel: Ritual sacrifices for storm god?
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/17875/20141014/ancient-cult-complex-discovered-in-israel-ritual-sacrifices-for-storm-god.htm
*Blogger & commentator pointman has written about this moment a many times, but this time it is different. Ebola.
40
I was disappointed to see in Grahame Lloyds article in the Australian this morning on the “hiatus” this quote from our Environment Minister “The climate system, which includes the atmosphere, oceans, land and ice, has continued to accumulate heat over the last 18 years,” he said. “The government fully accepts the science.”
Does Greg Hunt have any scientific qualifications? Does he not listen to Maurice Newman? Why does he continue with the warmist mantra when it is quite obvious to any intelligent person, with science training or not, who does a little research of the information available, that the “consensus” is a crock.
100
If you go back to Mr. Rudd’s foray to climate conference in Copenhagen there were 130 officials including a few local Australian diplomats. Surely most of these people are still in the public service and would still be advising the Minister wouldn’t they? If Dr. Jensen were to be the minister in charge, perhaps the position would be different!
10
Hi Jo,
Another great from you.
Just wondering if this has been sent to “Catalyst”?
Last year I saw a piece about ocean acidification on Channel 10’s “The Project” by their ‘in house’ doctor ‘what’s his name’. I wrote to the shows and complained about the science etc etc. Their reply was that they obtained their information from the BOM, the CSIRO and NASA. After a couple of emails to ‘n fro I explained that I was a chemist and understood pH, measurements, uncertainties etc and never heard from them again.
Here’s and idea for said channel 10, since they entertain a skeptical view point alias Andrew Bolt can’t they be convinced to produce a “real science” based show providing for alternate views to those shown on the ABC run by people such as yourself and many of the other experts that support this blog?
A catalyst is a a substance that promotes and speeds up a chemical reaction without being changed itself in the process. When I was studying for a chem. degree at RMIT the Chemist’s news letter was called Catalyst with the view to promote discussion amongst chemistry students. The ABC’s Catalyst does nothing but promote a one side view point and is hence a MISNOMER.
Cheers
Ron
R-COO- K+
81
Hi Ron
I’ve been thinking along the lines of Channel 10 running a science show with Jo as host as well. Andrew Bolt rates well with his show and I reckon Jo can match the smug “Our ABC” science presenters if she had the right backing.
C’mon Channel 10, how about it?
20
Ooops sorry just noticed a few typos.
20
Beautiful quote from Tolstoy in Andrew Bolt this morning.
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.
How appropriate!
71
Yes, I would have liked to give him a tick for it but he doesn’t do comments on Saturday.
So I’ll give it to you for giving it a run here.
It’s not something those of the left really wish to read when it comes to their “travesty” of global warming.
I’ll mention it again but did anybody else notice that catalyst lost a “pole” the other night?
I really didn’t expect them to mention Turney and the ship of tools.
But Antarctica and all its continuous record breaking didn’t get a reference.
Not one!
Considering its influences on our weather, you’d have thought it would have got a run.
41
what is it about their beloved Obama that our MSM doesn’t get?
17 Oct: REUTERS SUMMIT-Can an oil and gas superpower lead on climate change?
By Valerie Volcovici and Ayesha Rascoe
Environmental activists see the U.S. natural gas and oil production boom, spurred by fracking, as a major contributor to global warming. Obama has lauded the country’s shale boom as an economic boon and a geopolitical lever…
“Whatever you do, you have people who are going to drive their cars,” said Jonathan Pershing, the Energy Department’s deputy assistant secretary for climate change policy. “You have people who want to heat their homes and you’re not going to turn those things off.”…
U.S. oil and gas production has soared as drilling techniques including hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, unlocked access to massive shale reserves.
Surging shale output has put the United States on track to pass Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest producer of crude oil and to become a major exporter of natural gas…
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/17/climatechange-summit-oil-policy-idUKL2N0S933V20141017
10
censored.
links to “final version”…
17 Oct: Guardian: Bob Ward: IPCC corrects claim suggesting climate change would be good for the economy
Controversial statement, that was based on faulty data taken from a report by economist Richard Tol, has been removed from the final version of the report
The final version of the IPCC’s report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability was published without fanfare on the web this week, including a chapter on Key Economic Sectors and Services…
The statement had been inserted into the draft report at a late stage in the preparation process, and after it had been sent to independent reviewers, including me, for comment…
Unfortunately, Tol had not used the correct figures from these studies.
I discovered the errors after a draft of the IPCC chapter was leaked online in January, and I alerted Tol and the other authors of the report.
The IPCC acknowledged the mistakes in the draft and agreed that the final version should not include them…
In a new paper due to appear in the The Economic Journal, published by the Royal Economic Society, Stern and Dr Simon Dietz show that if models are amended so that climate change impacts can affect the drivers of economic growth, they find that rising global temperatures could lead to a collapse in living standards.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/17/ipcc-corrects-claim-suggesting-climate-change-would-be-good-for-the-economy
20
SNAP!
I quoted Trenberth’s e-mail to a friend during the week, and he automatically noticed the misuse — or rather accidental correct use — of the word ‘travesty’.
20
apocalypse not now…
17 Oct: UK Telegraph: Tom Chivers: The Anthropocene age: what world will humans leave behind?
Scientific experts believe we are on the threshold of a new age that will intrigue alien civilisations to come
In Berlin, yesterday, a group of scientists met to discuss just what that story will tell – and how important a story it is…
Dr Jan Zalasiewicz, a stratigraphic geologist at the University of Leicester, who is at the Berlin meeting, says that the world has changed so much that we are, indeed, in a new epoch. “This was the first time geologists met to discuss it face to face, and the consensus is that it is real: the Anthropocene will look quite different to future geologists from the epoch that came before it.”
Mark Lynas, the author of The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans, agrees. “Certainly a new epoch; perhaps even a new era. The speed of change of our carbon excursion is unprecedented in all of measurable Earth history – even the Permian era, 245 million years ago, which was marked by extreme volcanism, didn’t put as much carbon into the atmosphere as we have. Our carbon output is 10 to 100 times the speed of that.”…
“Carbon lasts in the atmosphere longer than nuclear waste remains radioactive, in the order of a million years,” says Lenton (Prof Tim Lenton, an earth and climate scientist at the University of Exeter). “We’re committed to long-term change.” Lynas agrees: “This isn’t just a 10,000-year event, it’s a billion-year event.”…
But the “Anthropocene” need not, necessarily, be a synonym for human-caused global catastrophe. We have reasons to believe that we could be that life which sneaks through. “We are very good at telling apocalyptic stories, and there is science behind them,” says Lenton. “But we’re an ingenious species.”
Lynas and Lenton agree we can’t go back to a pre-industrial age “that would lead to a mass extinction of humans”, says Lynas. But technologies – nuclear power, carbon capture, efficient recycling of raw materials – could allow us to enjoy a modern lifestyle even with a population of billions. The trick is, says Lenton, to use our species’ foresight. “We have to decide on the sort of world we want, and to design the Anthropocene we want.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/11167165/Scientists-wonder-what-in-the-world-will-we-leave-behind.html
10
17 Oct: NBC: Ch-ch-ch-changes: Scientists Consider New Geological Epoch
Scientists from around the world met this week to decide whether to call time on the Holocene epoch after 11,700 years and begin a new geological age called the Anthropocene — to reflect humankind’s deep impact on the planet…
They appeared to agree it is time for a change of epoch. The working group, being in no overdue hurry to make such a resounding decision, will report its conclusions in August 2016 to the International Geological Congress.
(plus video) It’s Getting Hot In Here. Climate Change Myths, Debunked
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/ch-ch-ch-changes-scientists-consider-new-geological-epoch-n228321
00
I just watched the repeat this morning. One moment I was listening to speculation that the ocean was warming, and then suddenly she was talking about the warming ocean as an established fact!
31
Hi Jo
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
This was displayed on screen, it would not have shown in the transcript.
Note: warming = increase in temperature
3 minutes later he is allowed to spin that it was “completely misinterpreted” and spin it to “missing heat”, now in the ocean.
Justified by satellite measurements of the Earth’s energy budget, which he described as ”
It’s not absolutely accurate, but it does track the year to year variations very well”
Eh, enough with the details already, I could go on for pages. On a brighter note, notice the number of qualifiers in Trenberth’s statements.
20
Greg Hunt in The Australian:
Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt said warming of the climate system was “unequivocal”.
“The climate system, which includes the atmosphere, oceans, land and ice, has continued to accumulate heat over the last 18 years,” he said. “The government fully accepts the science.”
But Greg, isn’t CO2 supposed to heat the atmosphere? No atmospheric warming for 18 years – that’s the science Greg.
Tony Abbott should give him the flick. He’s a hopeless greenie.
40
Just what I said, back at 21. The man is a total waste of space and clearly has NO understanding of the science.
20
Is anyone impressed by the Catalyst staffing arrangements listed below from their website?
I can’t even figure out some of the functions or if there is duplication or whatnot!
BTW, the email addresses for staff are mostly formulated as follows:
[email protected]
presenters/reporters
Dr Maryanne Demasi
Mark Horstman
Dr Jonica Newby
Dr Graham Phillips
Anja Taylor
Ruben Meerman
Simon Pampena
producers
Adam Collins
Geraldine McKenna
researchers
Roslyn Lawrence
Dominique Pile
Wendy Zukerman
titles design Francesca Leto
titles music
Justin Shave
Uncanny Valley
graphics Toby Goulding
animations Murray Debus
animations writer Steve Walsh
transcriber Helen Salter (The Last Draft)
publicity Rosanna Ixer
assistant editor Kate Deegan
editors
Andrew Glover
Vaughan Smith
Rowan Tucker-Evans
colourist Simon Brazzalotto
sound post production Mark Walker
digital post production
Stefanie Braun
Ben Nunney
interactive producer Roslyn Lawrence
website producer Justine Langford
website developer Marc Howard
film research Brian May
production co-ordinator Rachel Storey
compile director Julie Adams
production manager Susan Brant
production executive Mark Grisedale
supervising producer Geraldine McKenna
head of factual Phil Craig
commissioning editor science Matt Scully
series producer Ingrid Arnott
00
Oh, and Anja Taylor, the presenter, has great experience in journalistic communication and scientific research, according to the Catalyst website:
I’m surprised that from her research and the interrogation of Matthew England that she did not quiz matters relating to the Antarctic versus his assertions about the Arctic. Also, WRT Kevin Trenberth’s conjecture of heat disappearing in the oceans, several matters, like for instance what about this following, concerning the massive Great Lakes in USA?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/16/given-the-cold-water-going-into-winter-the-current-ice-breaking-fleet-operating-on-the-great-lakes-may-be-inadequate-this-year/
10
That’s an interesting quote. The ‘monitoring system synthesizes data’.
monitor (verb): to observe, record, or detect (an operation or condition) with instruments that have no effect upon the operation or condition.
synthesize (verb): to form (a material or abstract entity) by combining parts or elements.
Why would a monitoring system be creating data? Specifically creating, as opposed to recording, logging? I believe what Trenberth means to say is “we have an ocean model”.
And when he says “after about 1999, a lot more heat is going deeper into the ocean. And this is unprecedented” it is with reference to this model as opposed to observational evidence.
20
I’m going to add a correction. I believe synthesize here would mean combining. sythesis: a complex whole formed by combining. I still reckon there’s a model, the product of the synthesis.
10
Of course it is. The oceans cover about 73% of the surface of the Earth, they are the unknown basement, where things which go bump in the night go bump. The oceans, even since the advent of the Argo project, are still hard to measure. They’re kinda deep. That’s really convenient for Dr. Trenberth.
I keep looking at submarine vulcanism. Lots of heat there. Given the oceans cover 73% of the surface it’s not a difficult point to consider they may contain over 73% of the planet’s volcanic activity. That makes the aerial volcanoes we watch a mere smear 27% of the activity. The ocean floor is not just the thinnest crust, it is home to all the tectonic spreading ridges and the resulting volcanic activity, hot spots and vents et al, with many very active subduction zones. Many of our 27% active aerial volcanoes are positioned just on the other side of subduction zones.
Over the last twelve months, Indonesia has had (or is still having) about 48 active aerial volcanoes. If that is a mere 27%, then the Java trench with the very active Sunda Arc could be rumbling away with over a hundred. Lots of heat. Add the Mindinao trench to the North west, the Mariana Trench to the North (recently active), the Japan trench, the Kurile-Kamchatka Trench (with a lot of recent activity on the Kamchatka Peninsular) as we go North,
there is potential for substantial oceanic warming.
So in one respect, Trenberth is correct: an awful lot of heat is hiding deep in the oceans. But it’s not the heat he thinks it is.
20
It does puzzle me why they think “deep” Argo buoys that go with the deep current would not show some warming.
Since warmer water upwells, it makes sense that the deep current are flowing from cold to not-so-cold, as they warm from the mantle or sea-bed volcanic activity.
So the Argo buoy going with the flow, SHOULD register some warming. !
21
Broken Link: Your link in
has lost all but one of its ‘-‘s, replacing them with spaces ‘%20’.
Fixed it here for ya.
10
I’m glad to see you referring to the “travesty” because the radiative greenhouse conjecture certainly is a travesty of physics, completely ignoring the reason for the temperature gradient that was first explained with sound physics in the 19th century. We don’t need water vapour and carbon dioxide to prop at the surface end of the temperature profile in our troposphere or the troposphere of any other planet in our Solar System and beyond.
31
Well said, Doug ! 🙂
The planet’s surface temperature is regulated by the pressure gradient and fuelled by the incoming solar radiation…..
(plus maybe other radiation and a bit of energy from the Earth’s interior.)
21
Last Thursday’s Catalyst program showed an extract from an email (too small to be read) from so called climate scientist Keven Trenbreth to Michael Mann (of Hockystick fame) that was reported in the Climategate revelations. Catalyst excused Trenbreth’s comments as being “completely misinterpreted and” .. “ just propagated all over the place – it was amazing to see.”.
This is what the email actually said: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate “. (The Australian. Tuesday, November 24, 2009)
This comment can only be interpreted as being unscientific. That excellent extract from a Richard Feynman lecture on the scientific method told us that hypotheses (guesses) should be tested against observational facts and that if the hypotheses do not match the facst then the hypotheses are wrong. (This extract can now be found on the blog ICECAP.) Put another way, facts should be used to test the guess and if the tests fail the guesses should be abandoned.
In his quote, Trenbreth is telling us that he is testing the facts against the guesses and where the test fails he is abandoning the facts. Hence his process is completely unscientific, (maybe pseudo-scientific or even post-normal science).
He is showing that the observing systems were good enough when the data supported the guess of anthropogenic global warming (AWG) but somehow those systems suddenly became inadequate when they ceased to so support.
It is possible that this approach is responsible for the homogenisation of the temperature records in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Britain and Europe where the new records are almost in accord with the guess of AGW whereas the raw data are not
20
“Catalyst – raising public awareness of science, or promoting big-government science instead?”
So the options are:
A) A science show is trying to present science
or
B) A science show is part of a propaganda machine to convince the populous to let the gov’t take their money away.
Pretty easy choice right boys, B) of course!
00