JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

New Science 1: Pushing the edge of climate research. Back to the new-old way of doing science

For those of you who are die-hard puzzle solvers here to spar about cutting edge research: good news, here’s where we begin the long awaited update to Dr David Evans’ climate research. There are a few surprises, sacred cows, we did not expect we would need to challenge, like the idea of “forcings”.

global climate models, basic physics

Government science is stuck in a rut, strangled – trying to capture the creative genius of discovery and force it through a bureaucratic formula, like it can work to a deadline or be judged by the number of papers, or pages, or citations, or by b-grade officials. Blogs are new, but this form of independent scientific research, done for the thrill of discovery, outside institutions and funded by philanthropists, is the way science was mainly done before WWII.

For the first time we are going to explain the architecture of the inner core of the climate models, the small model at the center that the big GCM’s are built around. It is mostly a physics model, and it’s mostly “basic” and mostly right. It’s the reason for the implacable confidence of the establishment in the climate debate. But there are a couple of big problems… and we’ll get to them. Mathematical analysis found the problem but once we explain it, it will seem obvious even without any maths. There will be a moment when people will say “Wow, they really did that?”

Evans takes his experience as a heavyweight expert modeler, Fourier maths PhD, and goes down through the basics, the key papers, to expose this flaw in climate model architecture. It will turn this debate upside down. There are now some things I used to say that I need to say differently. Some points we used to concede, that we now question.

To build a solar climate model David had to unpack the current CO2 driven model. As far as we know, this is the first time an independent modeling expert has gone through the climate architecture, looking at the key equations, assumptions, and structure.

What follows is a big shift forward, for us personally, as well as for the debate. We have always criticized the big spaghetti GCMs and their feedbacks. But within the big model there is a core basic physics model. That core is the foundation of the idea that CO2 causes 1.2C of  warming. Think Hansen 1984, the Charney Report 1979, then think Arrhenius 1896. (No, this is not about disputing whether the “Greenhouse effect” is real or the second law — we have outspokenly disagreed with such disputation, and still do.)

What was curious last time was the way skeptics led the debate. Fans of the establishment came up with no criticism themselves (bar the usual namecalling), but were left to copy skeptical lines. Disappointingly some skeptics resorted to personal attacks, which we expect from alarmists. We have less patience for that timewasting now.

In the end we are all on the same team, we’d rather work together.

Thanks to the supporters and philanthropists (largely readers of this blog) who make it possible. After seven years of blogging here, and three years of David working full time unpaid, these offices, this household, is entirely dependent on donations. It’s a strange, hard path. Exciting, but full of potholes. We are determined to improve climate research, for the sake of farmers, for families and for the environment. A talent finds an outlet, somehow. A gift must be used. Thanks to all those who have faith that research for its own sake is a pursuit worth pursuing.

Come on a journey with us…

Jo

1. Introducing a Series of Blog Posts on Climate Science

Dr David Evans, 22 September 2015. David Evans’ Basic Climate Models Home, Next post.

Breaking the Intellectual Standoff

There is an intellectual standoff in climate change. Skeptics point to empirical evidence that disagrees with the climate models. Yet the climate scientists insist that their calculations showing a high sensitivity to carbon dioxide are correct — because they use well-established physics, such as spectroscopy, radiation physics, and adiabatic lapse rates.

How can well-accepted physics produce the wrong answer? We mapped out the architecture of their climate models and discovered that while the physics appears to be correct, the climate scientists applied it wrongly. Most of the projected warming comes from two specific mistakes.

Given all the empirical evidence against the carbon dioxide theory, there had to be problems in the basic sensitivity calculation. Now we’ve found them.

Series of Blog Posts

We are going to explain this and more in a series of blog posts. To build a better model, we had to understand the conventional basic climate model, the core model used to compute the high sensitivity to carbon dioxide. We unpack it, show the errors, then fix it. We calculate the sensitivity to carbon dioxide using this alternative model — which shows that the sensitivity to carbon dioxide is much lower.

If carbon dioxide didn’t cause much of the recent global warming, what did? The series continues with the revamped notch-delay solar theory (the previous problem concerning causality of notch filters has been resolved). This finds evidence that albedo modulation involving the Sun is the likely cause of global warming, and produces a falsifiable prediction for the climate of the next decade.

In its complete form this work has evolved into two scientific papers, one about the modelling and mathematical errors in the conventional basic climate model and fixing them (carbon dioxide isn’t the culprit), and another for the revamped notch-delay solar theory (it’s the Sun). Both are currently undergoing peer review. These posts are useful in airing the ideas for comments, and testing the papers for errors.

The Basic Model is Crucial to Climate Alarmism

Our understanding of the effect of carbon dioxide rests on the conventional basic climate model.

That model is used to calculate the sensitivity of surface temperature to the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Dating back to 1896 with Arrhenius, it was updated in the 1960s and 1970s. The model is presented as the  first argument in the Charney Report of 1979, the seminal document that ushered in the current era of concern about carbon dioxide [1]. It is the cornerstone of the carbon dioxide theory of global warming. Predating computer simulations, it is often referred to as “basic physics” (though somewhat inaccurately — the basic model is actually the application of basic physics to the climate).

Despite the numerous mismatches between theory and climate observations to date, many climate scientists remain firm in their belief in the danger of carbon dioxide essentially because of this model, rather than because of huge opaque computer models. The basic model ignited concern about carbon dioxide; without it we probably wouldn’t be too worried.

There is no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts. The predictions are entirely based on models and calculations.

Modern climate science is imbued with the ideas of the basic model. For instance, it is from this model that we get the notion that the effect of a climate influence can be encapsulated by the radiation imbalance or “forcing” it causes.

Basic climate model

Figure 1: The basic climate model applies basic physics in a simple calculation done by hand, on paper.

Big computerized general circulation climate model

Figure 2: A general circulation model (GCM) is a big, opaque climate model expressed as many thousands of lines of code, run on big computers, that attempts to simulate the Earth’s climate in fine detail. It mirrors the ideas of the basic climate model and broadly gives the same results.

Most skeptics arrived at their doubts in the carbon dioxide theory of global warming by noting the discrepancies between that theory and empirical evidence. They are empiricists. Consequently, many skeptics are unaware of the basic model, or its power, because it has been irrelevant to them.

But establishment scientists are well aware of the basic climate model, and that it unambiguously points to carbon dioxide as the cause of recent global warming. If you believe the conventional basic model, there is indeed good reason for being alarmed about rising carbon dioxide levels. So the first part of this series, on the errors in the conventional model, may mean more to the leading lights of the establishment than to skeptics.

The conventional basic climate model is superficially compelling. It is at the heart of the belief that carbon dioxide poses a dangerous threat. It must be compelling—otherwise why else would many sensible scientists still support the theory in the face of ample confounding evidence? They are convinced the basic physics is correct, so they know the something must be wrong with data that appears to contradict it.

A Rock and a Hard Place

Something has to give. Which is wrong, the theory or the empirical evidence?

That “overwhelming evidence” the establishment talks about but never shows? It’s basically the conventional basic climate model, and by extension the big computerized models (global circulation models, or GCMs). Some would try to obscure this by adding all the data they say supports the GCMs. But when you boil it all back, past the conflicted real world data and the opaque computer models, what they mean is the basic climate model. That’s it. The basic model is why they are so confident they are correct. Of course, as they too know, models are not evidence, so they have been less than forthcoming about this publicly, at least on the PR front. Over the next two posts, we will present the basic model properly, in full detail, in keeping with the leading theorists and the dominant textbook.

Science

Science was established in the Enlightenment, as a method for finding the truth that was independent of anyone’s authority. It held replication of experiments or observations as it highest authority, not any person. Prior to the advent of science, the highest authority was usually taken to be a person, either living, such as the Pope, or dead, speaking via ancients text. If these were deemed to pronounce a ruling on some issue, then experiments weren’t even attempted. Very importantly, science is a means of finding the truth that is independent of the political power structure — and look how technical progress accelerated once the Enlightenment began.

Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment

Figure 3: Galileo’s Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment showed that objects fell at the same speed regardless of their mass (ignoring air resistance), proving Aristotle wrong. For over 1,900 years Aristotle’s theory went untested.

It is a sad feature of the climate fracas that the modus operandi for most journalists and politicians has been to ask the perceived experts — the ones with the highest positions in the political structure, the bureaucracy. They have reverted to pre-scientific behavior, making some humans their highest authority. It is the skeptics who have continued the scientific practice of making evidence their highest authority — taking data as the source of truth, believing data rather than experts when they are in conflict.

Science is about observers reporting what they saw. Nowadays peer review and one-sided funding feeds a confirmation bias. Lost is the culture where repeated observations matter and where no authority, and no opinion, is higher than the data.

Feedbacks

Skeptics who are aware of the basic climate model have generally accepted it, but dispute the value of the feedback parameter used in the model. They say the feedback parameter, the sum of all the feedbacks to the warming caused by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, must be quite negative, thereby dampening the overall warming due to the carbon dioxide. But the establishment says the feedbacks are strongly positive in toto, amplifying the effect of the carbon dioxide.

While some individual feedbacks are negative, the biggest one (water vapor) is strongly positive, and the sum of all the known (widely accepted) feedbacks is strongly positive. The main feedbacks are based on established physics in most cases, and at least arguably so via the big computerized models in other cases.

In the past I too have made this argument, but no longer.

Skeptical scientists say there must be a missing negative feedback, massive enough to turn the overall feedback parameter from strongly positive to quite negative, thereby bringing the model in line with the empirical evidence for a low sensitivity to carbon dioxide. Assuming the logical framework of the basic climate model is sound, there is no other possibility.

So the argument over whether carbon dioxide controls the climate became an argument over the sign and size of feedbacks, with alarmists saying we know them all and have them quantified correctly (roughly), and skeptics saying there must be a massive negative feedback missing.

In the past I too have made this argument, but no longer.

Carbon dioxide increases, the surface warms which causes feedbacks, but critics have not been able to demonstrate any omitted feedbacks of significance, despite searching for over 30 years. Perhaps there aren’t any. In any case, in this series we are going to proceed as if all such significant feedbacks are known and furthermore that they are correctly quantified as per the latest IPCC Assessment Report (AR5).

Here I will instead argue that the structure of the conventional basic climate model is wrong. The known ingredients or the model are correct or near enough, but the model is connected up the wrong way –  as if a plumber connected up the pipes wrongly (anyone see the movie Brazil?). Basically it is going to come down to one connection. The basic physics is correct, but the climate scientists misapplied it. After fixing the plumbing, it all flows beautifully.

This argument potentially breaks the intellectual logjam. The empirical reality was measured correctly after all.

Model Evolution

… climate changes slowly, so testing the basic climate model has taken decades.

The basic climate model, like any model, simplifies reality by making approximations that seem reasonable.  The model relies on the same techniques used in countless physical science models, but note the survivorship bias: those models have been tested against reality and found to be useful.

In modelling, it is difficult to know before testing whether a model will happen to work well enough. It is often impossible to know the impact of the errors introduced by the inevitable approximations, or whether anything vital has been left out. In fields where experiments can be performed quickly, like chemistry or electronics, a model is tested within hours or days and quietly discarded if it turns out not to work. But climate changes slowly, so testing the basic climate model has taken decades.

The fundamental predictions of modern climate science are failing — there is the stubborn fact of the “pause”, the water vapor emissions layer did not ascend when the surface was warming in the 1980s and 1990s (the “missing hotspot”), and temperature does not follow carbon dioxide in the ice cores.

The Three Big Model Failures

First, no conventional model predicted the pause . We’ve had increasing carbon dioxide  (a third of all human carbon emissions in history have occurred since 1998) but not the commensurate rise in global temperature predicted by the IPCC (it has not warmed significantly since the late 1990s). The First Assessment Report of the IPCC in 1990 predicted warming of 0.2 to 0.5 °C per decade for the ensuing decades, whereas it warmed at most 0.17°C per decade since then (and that was in the ’90s) — this is not a matter of interpretation or ambiguity; it is simply a matter of downloading any of the five main global temperature series.

Second, all mainstream climate models predict a “hotspot”, a warming in the upper troposphere (about 10 km or 6 miles up, in the tropics) caused by an ascending water vapor emissions layer, during periods of warming such as the 1980s and 1990s. This is crucial, because two thirds of their predicted warming is from water vapor; only one third is directly due to increasing carbon dioxide. So no hotspot means not much cause for alarm. Our only suitable instruments for detecting the hotspot are weather balloons—thirty million of them since the 1950s, released from hundreds of locations, twice a day. They show no hotspot, and indicate that the water vapor emissions layer descended slightly instead. Satellites are unsuitable because they intrinsically aggregate information from several vertical kilometers into each data point, but the predicted ascent is only tens of meters.

Third, changes in temperature did not follow changes in carbon dioxide over the last half million years, as predicted by climate scientists in the 1990s, but rather the other way around. This is also significant because this fact was well known and universally acknowledged by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie two years later in 2005, where he presented the ice cores as his only evidence that carbon caused temperature. Gore introduced this segment of his movie with some lawyerly weasel words.

Starting Point

I’m a professional modeler. The ever-inquisitive Lord Christopher Monckton has been plaguing me for years with questions about the basic climate model, ever since I showed an interest when we met in Bali in 2007. But because contradiction of the model is a necessary starting point for the notch-delay solar theory, I investigated it with renewed determination in 2013.

Some may recall that the starting point for the notch-delay theory we presented in June 2014 was to answer the question: “If the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, and had no dependence on carbon dioxide, what solar model would account for it?” When launching that theory, I noted:

“We also clear up a few theoretical befuddlements about the influence of CO2 that may have caused warmists to overestimate the potency of rising CO2. The fans of the CO2 dominant models are not going to be happy. It seems the climate is an 80-20 sort of thing, where there is a dominant influence responsible for 80% of climate change and a tail of 20% of other factors. It turns out that the CO2 concentration is not the 80% factor, but in the 20% tail.”

At the time, no one asked me where I got those figures from…

It’s taken a while to sort out the problems of the conventional model, neatly and simply. ["A while" means months of toil tracing through papers, following dead ends, to get back to the points that matter. - Jo] But now we are ready, finally.

Quantitative Reasoning

These blog posts employ quantitative reasoning — there will be some equations, but they’ve been kept to a minimum.

Significance?

The basic model architecture is wrong. Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control. Windfarms and solar panels are not just poor at reducing carbon dioxide — even if they did succeed in reducing carbon dioxide, they’d be useless at cooling the planet. It is only four billion dollars a day worldwide, wasted.

The findings here are unlikely to be popular with the establishment, and maybe nor with some established skeptics. Rebuilding paradigms is always painful. As J.K. Galbraith said in The Affluent Society, “We face here the greatest of vested interests, those of the mind.” Some old dogs will resent learning the new tricks. Career skeptics have their theories, their track records and preferences, and not all of them are compatible with this new material, though most are. If they expend hours examining or put their credibility on the line endorsing someone else’s ideas, what’s in it for them? Nothing really. The usual quid pro quo of the academic scientific world does not apply.  Some will be annoyed they didn’t think of it (and didn’t we see shades of that last year, when the notch-delay solar theory was introduced?). All contributions will be carefully acknowledged and credited. We’d rather do this as a team than battle alone.

We expect the usual brickbats al la Alinsky. We are used to it. The last thing we expect in the big wide world is polite, curious conversation. But we live in hope. Perhaps this time some skeptics will have the discipline to disagree with the ideas without also loading in emotional ad hominem or fact-free attacks?

(An historical aside, possibly apocryphal: In the 1920s a German newspaper held a contest for the most sensational headline possible. Most entries dealt with the end of the world, the second coming of Christ, and things of that nature, but the winner was “Arch-Duke Franz-Ferdinand Alive, World War Fought by Mistake!”. In the same vein, though of course much less momentous: “Modeling Errors Found: Climate Wars Fought by Mistake!”.)

So dear reader (and dear taxpayers of the first world), this series is proffered in the hope that perhaps some will appreciate it, and that truth and sanity will eventually prevail, somewhere down the track…

By the way, physicist Christopher Keating offered $10,000 to anyone who could “disprove climate change”. If the offer was still open I’d enter and expect to win, but unfortunately he closed it a year ago.

Now having got all that out of the way, hopefully we can stay technically focused for the remaining posts in this series.

 

ABOUT David:

Dr David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) [at Stanford], B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc.[University of Sydney]. His specialty is in Fourier analysis and signal processing. He trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University.

References

[1^] Charney, J., Arakawa, A., Baker, J., Bolin, B., Dickinson, R., Goody, R., et al. (1979). Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.2/10 (104 votes cast)
New Science 1: Pushing the edge of climate research. Back to the new-old way of doing science, 8.2 out of 10 based on 104 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/qj7chox

200 comments to New Science 1: Pushing the edge of climate research. Back to the new-old way of doing science

  • #
    bobl

    Waiting with fishy breath….

    I guess I should wait for the analysis, there are negative feedbacks and there are time lags. You can’t describe climate feedbacks in a scalar way. The biggest feedback can’t be water, it’s losses where the warm surface radiates direct to space. 4/5ths of incoming energy goes back out the way it came.

    Anyway, I expect the revised basic model will probably incorporate that, and I should just wait to see it.

    155

  • #
    Manfred

    Warmest congratulations on your Introduction David and Jo. It is as fascinating as it is promising. It is also extraordinarily timely on the eve of the opening of the 70th UN General Assembly this Friday by The Pope in which the draft post-2015 development Agenda may become more widely known.

    The foundational basis upon which the UN proposes to bureaucratically ‘manage’ future global social, financial, economic and environmental matters is breathtaking.
    Your seminal work in true climate science is not only potentially important for science, it is absolutely vital as the basis of a free, unshackled World.
    A profound thank you to you both.

    553

  • #

    Well, good luck. Unfortunately I think we’re at the stage with the fight against the climate change garbage, of a small squad of soldiers about to be overwhelmed by the enemy, “let’s get some!”.
    It was a nice ride while it lasted since the Renaissance. 500 years isn’t a bad run for a civilization. We ALMOST broke out into the universe, which awaits the gift of our lives and minds. The cold, dark, lifeless spaces will now wait a lot longer.
    When the prevailing paradigm is at odds with reality, no civilization will stand for long. Currently some of the paradigms at odds with reality are: AGW, Keynesian economics and communitarianism in its many forms.

    621

    • #
      Glen Michel

      So true! As we semi-detached life forms are to make our mark.Revisionists all to be sure but better armed.That universe is not the cold atomless void-it will not do! Allez mes enfants and man the barricades.Fix bayonets!!

      111

    • #

      The “run” has been shorter. It’s only since the Enlightenment that science and philosophy truly became unshackled from belief systems.

      92

    • #
      PeterS

      So true Mike. It’s all too little too late. Virtually all of scientists who were not directly involved in peddling the AGW scam were either asleep, against or in agreement with the AGW story. No one knows the proportions. In any case, those who were asleep (and still are) and against should have stood up to the scam – but they didn’t. Only a tiny number ever did, but that’s not enough. We needed a much larger proportion of the scientific community to right against those who are for the AGW cause. IMHO the window of opportunity is so rapidly closing it will be gone in a few short years, if not much sooner. We might have to go through the equivalent of the Dark Ages before the world wakes up and realises it was all a hoax. This is typical of mankind throughout the ages – we learn the hard way, not the easy way.

      50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    I have done some linking already ahead of the following comment1

    And I’m thinking

    1. The Paris-ites aren’t going to like this

    2. This is likely to generate more sparks than our RET

    I’ll be reading with interest

    401

  • #
    Just-A Guy

    Jo,

    You wrote:

    There are a few surprises, sacred cows, we did not expect we would need to challenge, like the idea of “forcings”.

    I’ve personally had a dislike for the word ‘forcings’ from the first time I encountered it back in Nov. 2014. (Yes, I fisrt heard that there was a ‘controversy’ concerning Global Warming a little less than a year ago. :o ). What the Global Warming Movement call a ‘forcing’ is nothing more than a variable. Simples!

    There’s all these variables involved in determining what happens in the atmosphere. If the climate is dominated by natural variability, then we should refer to the factors that determine variability as . . .
    well . . .
    . . . variables!

    Many people, including yourself, have mentioned the way our language has been usurped and words no longer convey their intended meanings. Why not begin taking those words back? Why not refuse to use their preferd, contrived language except to explain how it conceals and deceives?

    I also believe that it works both ways. Not only have some words been given new meanings, but old concepts have been given new words to represent them. Just sayin’! ;)

    Dr. Evans,

    You wrote:

    It’s taken a while to sort out the problems of the conventional model, neatly and simply. ["A while" means months of toil tracing through papers, following dead ends, to get back to the points that matter. - Jo] But now we are ready, finally.

    And not a moment too soon! I’m at the edge of my seat. Now, let ‘er rip! :)

    Abe

    362

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      I’ve personally had a dislike for the word ‘forcings

      Yep

      Junk science>

      221

    • #
      Mark D.

      Abe, I’m curious: what was it that caused you to find and investigate the “controversy” a little over a year ago?

      101

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Mark D.,

        My apologies for not responding sooner.

        Shortly after making that comment, the power supply unit (PSU) in my computer failed, probably due to overheating from accumulated dust. :( That left me without a computer for a week because of the holydays. After replacing the defective unit, I’ve been trying to play catch up reading all of the blog-posts I missed and the new ones. (Including, of course all of the comments.)

        In answer to your question, the video by Monkton of Brenchley, Lord Monckton vs Greenpeace sheep, is what got me started on the path to CAGW (TM) skepticism. That one video was enough to convince me to do exactly what Lord Monkton suggested to that Greenpeace activist. I.e., check for myself and evaluate the facts.

        Within a very short time, a day or two at the most, I found JoNova.com and have stayed here ever since. I spent the first month or so reading the blog-posts and all the comments. The links in the comments to other web-sites and pat’s links to news articles were both very helpful in my being able to get a clear picture of the ‘sorry state of affairs’ science now finds itself in.

        Only after that initial learning period did I venture to actually begin posting comments. I would also like to add that at first I held the luke-warmer’s view but eventually was forced to take the hard-skeptics view. Once you look at all the facts, there is no other position with a firm scientific foundation other than that of the hard-skeptic.

        Hope that helps.

        Abe

        11

  • #
    AndyG55

    And EVERY line of that code was written by a “climate scientist™” with a pre-conceived outcome !!

    313

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Of course.

      You cannot write a meaningful computer program, without knowing what it is to produce. It is the absolute fundamental flaw of using computer models as a research tool.

      Just on those grounds, alone, they cannot be proof of anything, other than confirmation bias.

      90

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    A broad outline of the problem from 2012 disputing the use of energy inputs and outputs in the atmosphere as useful measures.

    The original Man Made Global Warming by CO2 Fantasy lasted so long because it it was presented as final

    pivotal concept in the long scientific struggle to capture the essence of Earth’s Temperature change.

    Focus was therefore applied to the micro functioning of CO2 as an infra red absorber and emitter and so long

    as this focus remained there all was well.

    The trust in the “scientists” skill and honorable behaviour was the essential obscuring cover that kept the

    whole idea on the rails and allowing UN and Governments alike to funnel money to combat AGW to the friends

    and backers.

    But as always, the terms and conditions are always important in any transaction and this is the case with scientific analysis.

    It turns out that our trust in the science had been misplaced and the terms and conditions had been obscured from view, and analysis.

    All of the other factors, besides CO2, which had been assumed by the public to have been isolated and quantified had in fact been left out.

    Water, for example, with all its energy transfer capacity had been totally ignored and it seems deliberately

    left off the analysis, raising serious doubts as to the scientific credibility of the proponents of of CO2 AGW.

    Once the doubts were raised there was anger that the good reputation of science had been used as a screen to

    cover politically inspired scams and the resulting full analysis of the claims showed that the CO2 thing was

    a scam and that not even a dumb but honest scientist could have been stupid enough to believe the “science”

    behind the Man Made aspect of the claims.

    It was always a deliberate scam for personal and group advantage.

    The above Energy Budget is much the same and it can only be described as PRIMITIVE.

    There are too many factors to be listed and quantified to say that there is any real chance of isolating a back radiation effect by a Difference analysis of estimated inputs and outputs.

    It is a massive problem to do a mass, heat and momentum balance on the Earth.

    A staggering problem that labels anyone claiming to have the complete answer as a SCIENTIFIC FOOL.

    A DIFFERENCE ANALYSIS CANNOT WORK IN THIS PROBLEM where the object is to quantify one small factor.

    As Jo points out, the target is so small compared with known factors and their variability let alone all the unknown ones.

    The only solution is to physically measure back radiation or what ever it is that takes the fancy of Climate Scientists.

    If you can’t measure it then maybe it doesn’t exist?

    KK :)

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/blockbuster-earths-energy-balance-measured-models-are-wrong/#comment-1163015

    223

    • #
      Peter C

      KK,

      In my latest experiment I measure a difference between back radiation (from a nearby cooler object) and reflected radiation (hot objects own emmissions reflected back).

      My previous experiments have yielded a null result, ie no difference.

      Details at the weekend I hope.

      80

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Peter

        Your experiment probably has more validity than any Climate Models because, no doubt, you are working under easily controlled conditions and that means a lot.

        KK

        60

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    As a metallurgist, with some training in the analysis of complex, high temperature, interacting physical and chemical systems, it is easy to see the problem.

    Atmospheric energy Inputs and outputs have no rhyme nor reason as to their behaviour (extreme complexity) and cannot be accurately dealt with properly.

    Some are known and quantifiable others are known and not quantifiable and others are just in hiding and are unresolved.

    It is not a matter of just attaching a cool label like “chaotic” to these variables and waffling on about it before pulling a rough guess out of the air.

    It is also not a factor of how big a computer you have; what’s the use of a computer if you have no clue what’s happening to those factors that are identified and have been poorly assessed.

    Many factors have not even been identified and have not even been given a label such as the disturbed fluctuations that were labelled chaotic.

    Man Made Global Warming is a Chaotic Science and deserves a decent funeral.

    KK

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/blockbuster-earths-energy-balance-measured-models-are-wrong/#comment-1163797

    283

    • #
      Ceetee

      My Dad was also a metallurgist KK, and a very clever guy to boot. He despised the entire AGW panic. He said something similar to me. Far too complex, too many unknowns. You can take a spreadsheet of data and make it sing like a dog.

      222

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Another metallurgist I worked with on leaving school was also very interested in the CAGW mess.

        He (JH) occasionally posted on here and was an acquaintance of Cohenite who also posts less frequently now.

        I suspect that I may not be as clever as your father but with the right training it is possible to see things that are out of place and show that the man made CO2 warming idea is a scientific nonsense and easily falsifiable from several approaches.

        KK

        241

        • #
          Wayne Job

          Kinky, As a metallurgist you would be well aware of non linear equations and chaos, that is the maths that rules our climate,impossible to model, thus these climate people need huge computing power. Even if the right equations could be found I doubt if the world has enough computing power to model it.

          11

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      KK@22/09/15 8:13pm.

      As a life long farmer I can tell you that you don’t need much tertiary education to know that this is an excellent summary of the scene before us. Always my call was: Show us your data!

      Furthermore, one thing that I regard as a problem is that if multiple people have been involved in the development of a computer model, then it is likely that there is nobody who fully understands how the model works.

      30

  • #
    stevo

    ok, well and truly hooked, fascinated and awaiting more.

    … and I have seen Brazil ! De Niro the plumber is magic.

    70

  • #
    Just-A Guy

    Dr. Evans,

    You wrote:

    a warming in the upper troposphere (about 10 km or 6 miles up, in the tropics) caused by an ascending water vapor emissions layer, . . .

    By emissions are you refering to emission of radiative energy?

    If so, it’s unclear how this layer of water vapor, by ascending to a higher point in the troposphere, would cause a hot-spot to appear there?

    Will this be covered in the up-coming blog-posts?

    Abe

    81

    • #
      Just-A Guy

      OK.

      An ascending layer of water vapor emissions. Duh.

      Never mind.

      Abe

      61

      • #

        Abe, you seem to have self corrected. Yes, we will be covering it in detail in a later post just on the hotspot. The average vertical movement of the water vapor emissions layer (emitting to space) explicitly plays an important part in the alternative model.

        181

        • #
          Joe Born

          “Water vapor emissions layer” stuck in my craw, too, but I didn’t understand the above self-correction.

          Of the long-wave radiation that the earth sends back out into space, some of it came from water (-vapor) molecules in the atmosphere. If you add up all those radiating molecules’ altitudes and divide by the number of such radiating water-vapor molecules, i.e., of the water-vapor molecules whose emissions made it into space without interception by another molecule, that’s the water-vapor emissions layer? That is, it’s the average altitude of the water molecules that an observer in space receives his water-vapor-source radiation from?

          Or maybe you mean the average altitude from which water-vapor-source radiation is emitted, independently of whether that radiation escapes into space or is intercepted by other molecules?

          And, in any case, how exactly is it that a change in that altitude (if, as is still not clear to me, that’s what you mean) would cause greater warming at that or some related altitude?

          I recognize that the hot spot is someone else’s theory, not yours, but you seem to understand it, and I don’t.

          41

  • #
    Rob JM

    Water vapour positive feedback is fundamentally illogical. There is no impediment to evaporation, so logically if increased water vapour resulted in warming then warming and evaporation must occur irrespective of the concentration of over gasses. This is a fundamental tenement of chemistry, any reaction that can occur must occur. Then there are other thermodynamic principles in chemistry that are completely ignored by climate pseudoscientist. For instance it is proven that all system will move towards equilibrium and from equilibrium the system will resist any forcing. I’e Negative feedback is hardwired into the universe. Positive feedback are extremely rare. Most Positive feedback occur at the expense of another energy source within the thermodynamic system, ie one form of energy undergoes a positive feedback by cannibalising another. Of course the net energy in the system must be minimised (effectively the 2nd law). The second method of positive feedback is via the 0th law, where two separate systems are connected they will accelerate towards an new common equilibrium (ie a nuke). It is again clear that water vapour positive feedback violates these principle as it requires an increase in both sensible heat and latent heat energy to occur, thus violating energy minimisation.
    Once you apply energy minimisation to climate you quickly see that variability can only be driven via external sources or via a flip flopping between equally minimised states with different proportions of energy types. Ie you could have a high sensible heat energy, low kinetic energy phase alternating with its inverse.

    163

    • #
      A C Osborn

      Sorry I can’t agree “Water vapour positive feedback is fundamentally illogical.” because that is too simplistic.
      It depends on the input from the Sun, when it is shining (daytime) the feedback is as a regulator (mostly negative), which is why the temperature at the Tropics is more stable than the temperature in Deserts, where they are both much higher and much lower in a 24 hour period.
      When the sun is not shining (night time) then the Water Vapour acts as a regulator in the opposite direction (mostly positive).
      However overall I agree that it has a more negative role than positive.

      111

  • #
    el gordo

    If the cooling is to begin in 2017 we should be able to see signs before hand, like an increasing number of cool wet summers and freezing winters in both hemispheres.

    111

    • #
      Just-A Guy

      el gordo,

      Didn’t we just have a few of those in the last couple of years?

      Abe

      141

      • #
        el gordo

        Indeed we have, but they were regarded by the Klimatariat as normal behavior in a warming world.

        We need to convince the MSM that its the start of a mini ice age and that CO2 is innocent of the charges laid against it.

        If David is successful we can expect a paradigm shift.

        71

      • #
        Dennis

        7.04 am Wednesday 23 September 2015, mid north coast New South Wales, raining and just 12C in my office, reports of snowfalls on Barrington Tops which is part of the Great Dividing Range.

        71

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Freezing here in Newcastle Dennis.

          41

          • #
            el gordo

            Windchill on the Central Tablelands is horrifying the warmists round about, they have no answer for this anomaly.

            42

          • #
            Dennis

            2.38 pm and still 12C in my office, in my vehicle after lunch the temperature was 10C.

            51

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘Teeth chattered through a bracing spring morning in South Australia today – with more chilly starts on the way.

              ‘In fact, a few locations recorded their coldest September mornings in decades.’

              Weatherzone

              51

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          It’s 4.2C here on the Blue Mountains, at 6:30pm, with an apparent temp of -0.2C. Max today was 10C, well below average and the same forecast for the rest of the week. I am holding off on planting my potatoes in case of a late frost!

          31

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Though I may be lazy on this point, I like to just throw warmist excuses right back at them.
      We were told that, due to natural variability, 10 years was not long enough to form a significant climate trend or to make judgements about the fidelity of overheating climate models versus The Hiatus. Ben Santer even made the mistake of nominating a minimum period for a diagnostic trend: 17 years. Okay, fine.
      So when my model predicts cooling should have started 2 years ago yet neither SST nor satellites show any sign of it, I can simply say that if 17 years are needed to prove a hiatus then 17 years of no cooling is needed to falsify a model that predicts cooling. So wait until 15 January 2030 and then check if the observations have been kind to me.

      For some odd reason the Paris-ites don’t want to wait for the real data to roll in. Yes, we finally found something that moves slower than government bureaucracy: the climate! :D

      161

  • #

    Jo – I will be reading this with great interest!

    My take is that ‘its the physics’ is a fundamental that underwrites the establishment’s belief system, and makes it impregnable in their minds. At the molecular level, the radiative properties of CO2 are known, and can be described with exquisite precision. In fact, one of the few basics of the climate system that can… and so CO2 gets plugged in to the basic model as a ‘core’ effect.

    But the global situation is way different. As a biologist I’m used to EQUILIBRATING FEEDBACKS and I have my own view of why there is very little logic to the elevation of CO2 to prime suspect status. But I’ll read what you bring in this study first, to see if I’m way off beam, or if you bear any of my hunches out.

    What will also be of interest is whether, as you mention, any of the establishment scientists will engage openly with the subject matter. Up until now I haven’t found them prepared to defend their position outside of their own ivory towers.

    Keep it up, thanks

    L

    141

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Mothcatcher

      Your point that ‘its the physics’ is a fundamental that underwrites the establishment’s belief system” is indeed the heart of the matter.

      The comment excludes real world conditions which make it not so much a physics problem as an engineering thing.

      When Solar radiation, both ongoing and the residual that is leaving are worked on by warmers they omit the mass, heat and momentum transfer that occurs and which soaks up so much energy.

      Those little sunbeams whip up incredible storms and moving clouds weighing many tonnes each, ocean turbulence, gushing floods, falling rocks and so on which soak up energy.

      I don’t believe that any of it has been accounted for by the IPCCCCC.

      KK

      30

  • #
    thingadonta

    Just a hint about climate modelling that needs thought:

    the deserts get hotter than the tropical equator, despite the higher angle of incidence of solar energy at the equator.

    This is essentially because of one thing: more clouds and more water vapour, which produces a negative feedback.

    It’s more humid about the equator, and that’s the point: more water vapour generally means more clouds and less heat, not more heat. Climate scientists still don’t seem to get this, but then they may ask why are deserts hotter than the tropics?. It’s all to do with the unusual nature of clouds and water.

    Also, there is no ‘hotspot’ at the equator, because clouds and water vapour vastly over-ride whatever small effect C02 has.

    212

    • #
      A C Osborn

      +100
      Except for night time of course.

      81

      • #
        bobl

        No, including night,

        A negative feedback resists the change that gave rise to it, so as temperature falls the negative feedback opposes the fall moderating the change. IE the negative feedback causes it to be warmer at night than it would otherwise be.

        111

  • #
    Richard

    David wrote:

    “Third, changes in temperature did not follow changes in carbon dioxide over the last half million years, as predicted by climate scientists in the 1990s, but rather the other way around”.

    Apparently this is still the case even today, see here.

    How can changes in CO2 cause corresponding changes in temperature that occurred before the CO2 changes?

    I think the graph above may well be sufficient by itself to refute the entire CAGW-ideology.

    181

    • #
      Whalehunt Fun

      The holy words of the alarmists cannot be refuted. They are the basis of a religion, not a scientific theory. So sadly, no. There can be no refuting.

      132

    • #

      That’s an interesting graph Richard. Thanks.

      61

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      Richard, it is not sufficient. It simply shows that the biological carbon sinks are over half NH land, which is seasonal, and lags the seasonal temperature change.
      On long time scales, ice cores show that delta CO2 lags delta T by about 800 years. Simple consequence of Henry’s Law and the estimated overturning rate of thermohaline circulation.
      To refute CAGW needs time scales of 30+ to maybe 100 years. If the pause continues to about 2030 as some papers (stadium wave) predict, then the attribution question tips irrefutably to natural variation (oceans) and away from anthropogenic CO2. Essay C?AGw in ebook Blowing Smoke has other takes on this. My money is on at least 80% natural variation based on that analysis.

      60

  • #
    Peter Miller

    As a simple geologist, I would say if there is no evidence of it in the geological record, then it isn’t true today.

    Raising the CO2 levels from almost nothing to a little more than almost nothing has never previously had a measurable impact on our planet’s atmosphere, so why should it do so now?

    Then there is the problem of water vapour and carbon dioxide largely sharing the same infra red absorbtion wavelengths, which means the net impact of increasing CO2 levels is much less than alarmists would have you believe.

    However, I believe one of the biggest problems is that the impact of changing temperature on clouds and rainfall cannot yet be accurately modelled and this is almost certainly a negative feedback, which is conveniently ignore by climate alarmists.

    Well, as someone wrote here a short while ago, climate is to scientist as witch is to doctor, so the die hard Paris-ites and the CO2ists are not going to give up without a big fight. If you can xxx and xxxxx as much as Michael Mann and still be respected my many in the alarmist fraternity, you can surely realise the sort of fight which awaits you.

    Too often now in ‘climate science’, we are seeing the frightening practice of ‘If the data does not fit the model, then change the data’, the most blatant case in recent times being the ‘updating’ of the GISS and other land temperature records to get rid of the ‘Pause’ in time for the Paris meeting of the ecoloon faithful later this year.

    How many decades was it before the Phlogiston Theory got dumped?

    241

    • #
      Phil R

      Heh, I think that was me, though I can’t remember what it was in reference to.

      putting ‘climate’ in front of ‘scientist’ has much the same qualifying effect as ‘witch’ in front of ‘doctor.’

      Attributed to John Brignall at Number Watch.

      90

  • #
    Don B

    Bravo, David and Jo. I am truly excited about your series of articles.

    91

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Can’t wait to see him publish in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal then.

    [Sometimes you make an even greater fool of yourself than usual. Why would Dr. Evans want to publish in a journal with an already well demonstrated bias against any challenge to AGW orthodoxy? Instead of worrying about peer review, read what Dr. Evans has to say and point out any flaws you can find. I'm sure Dr. Evans would reply to you as he has always replied to critics of his theory, including admission of an error when it was pointed out to him. Which is more than any global warming enthusiast has ever done.

    I wonder if you can do it, Harry. Are you just a complainer or are you interested in being a contributor to science?] AZ

    445

    • #
      Annie

      Do any still exist?

      262

      • #
        Mark D.

        Ouch!

        The truth sometimes hurts…..

        122

      • #
        Peter Miller

        I understand Witch Doctors Weekly has now become the most reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal for climate papers.

        The rest have become disreputable due to their fawning devotion to ‘research’, which routinely requires massive data manipulation and their acceptance of the pal, as opposed to the anonymous peer, review process. Mann’s Hockey Stick was just one typical instance of this.

        Those who believe in the 97% myth will clearly believe in any old substantiated rubbish, an essential requirement for those peddling most of today’s supposed ‘climate science’.

        182

    • #
      Frank

      Harry,
      Don’t you know that according to the terminal skeptics the scientific world is corrupted and peer review even worse. Hence , they wouldn’t want to be tainted by having their evidence published in the biased publications, which is all of them, and keep knocking back the offers. The way to get their message across is to rally all the non-scientists together ,because the climate scientists dont know anything, and present their knockout evidence online.

      And Franks argument is that only “climate scientists” are scientists, and every other branch of science is full of ignorant know-nothings – nuclear physics? Pah! Specialist medicine? Stupid. Quantum physics? Dolts. Keep going Frank… Jo

      418

      • #
        llew Jones

        Interesting evaluation of the academic quality of climate scientists by Richard Lindzen when interviewed by the House of Commons Committee in 2014:

        Lindzen was asked what he thought of the “consensus” –”I think the majority of people working in climate science will go with the view that climate science is serious. I don’t think that would be surprising to anyone. There are very few people in any scientific field who say ‘My field is not serious’. Other than that there is so much penalty for saying that this is not an important problem that I don’t think people would go out on that limb, either.”

        “I’ve asked very frequently at universities: ‘Of the brightest people you know, how many people were studying climate [...or meteorology or oceanography...]?’ And the answer is usually ‘No one.’”

        “You look at the credentials of some of these people [on the IPCC] and you realise that the world doesn’t have that many experts, that many ‘leading climate scientists’”.

        Tim Yeo at this point asked, if that meant that scientists in the field of climate were academically inferior.
        “Oh yeah,” said Lindzen. “I don’t think there’s any question that the brightest minds went into physics, math, chemistry…”

        42

        • #

          I don’t see the A-team of STEM types in the backgrounds of the climate scientists. Lindzen is correct AFAIK.

          I don’t think the modelling errors I am going to discuss would have persisted long in the fields or among the people I am familiar with. Climate standards are low, IMHO.

          People from other fields with higher standards have expressed frustration and dismay at the low standards.

          That said, the high profile of climate science in the last 20 years should have attracted a young, more capable cohort of students, who are presumably well on the way to becoming significant in the field, and leaders before too long. So I expect the situation will gradually improve, once the current leaders move on.

          82

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          llew Jones.

          “Interesting evaluation of the academic quality of climate scientists by Richard Lindzen …”

          Well let us hope Dr Lindzen applies this evaluation to himself, or does he just consider himself superior to others?

          I have heard Dr Lindzen’s arguments against AGW, they are poor.

          34

      • #
        Frank

        Jo,
        Its the same as climate scientists trying to tell physicists, doctors , astronomers etc that they know their fields better.
        My point is that because your evidence is rejected constantly by all the scientific institutions , you attack the system claiming its corrupt and take your bat and ball back to the safety of your home, you cant have it both ways.

        34

        • #

          Frank, our evidence isn’t rejected, it’s blindly avoided because they don’t have an answer.

          I call the system corrupt because they hide data, won’t debate, call us names, anything bar explaining politely which empirical observations support them.

          63

          • #
            Frank

            Jo,
            They dont respond because theyr’e tired of repeating themselves and are bored into silence ( crickets) , you choose not to listen.
            For the same reasons they wont debate you, the burden of proof is with you and so far you’ve only convinced the nonscientists whilst retreating into your bunker to justify your stance.

            33

            • #

              You want our money for your project. The burden of proof is on you.

              We’ve offered to debate leading climate scientists, they are afraid. A debate was arranged at UWA, Evans and Kininmonth agreed, but not one expert from CSIRO/ BOM UNSW would do it.

              Prof Andy Pitman said he would not debate people who deny gravity.
              David’s qualifications: PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) [at Stanford], B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc.[University of Sydney].

              The word you are looking for is not “crickets” but “scared”.

              33

              • #
                Frank

                Jo,
                Its an old response to claim that your opponent is ‘scared’ in refusing to engage, its bolsters your views.
                Harry is right in pointing out your cognitive biases, this site is a check list of them.
                Just submit your evidence.

                [Jo is right, they have consistently failed to debate, proving what she said. When it looks like a duck...] AZ

                [Hell, Harry and Frank both have failed to debate or engage. The come here and drop little turds of Authority Argument. Useless, boring, shallow and not worth anyone's time] ED

                42

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                “David’s qualifications: PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) [at Stanford], B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc.[University of Sydney].”

                “The come here and drop little turds of Authority Argument”

                The point is science is not debatable. If anything it is a dictatorship, and the dictator is scientific evidence.

                I can understand why some scientists would rather not have a public debate. Debates tend to be won by the best speaker. And who would judge the outcome of the debate anyway – another scientist who knows the subject matter, the audience or the public? Sounds problematic.

                42

              • #
                Mark D.

                No Harry, (aka dum as-) Frank made the claim that there was no authority and therefore all Jo’s post was invalid. Her listing David’s credentials is not Argument from Authority it is simply to counter Frank’s false claim.

                By the way, this:

                The point is science is not debatable. If anything it is a dictatorship, and the dictator is scientific evidence.

                Is the only statement you’ve ever made here that is worthwhile. Congrats you might be redeemable after all.

                23

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Seriously?

            By that standard, most of the comments on this blog would not be acceptable. Why pick on me?

            If you are saying they “hide data”, show evidence of the data that has been hidden.

            “call us names” well that is the pot calling the kettle black. I refer you to terms in article such as “alarmists”, “the bureaucracy”.

            23

        • #
          Joe Born

          Its the same as climate scientists trying to tell physicists, doctors , astronomers etc that they know their fields better.

          It’s almost certain that practitioners of other disciplines know aspects of “climate science” better than those who identify themselves as climate scientists. Those who specialize in statistics, those who specialize in fluid mechanics, and those who specialize in numerical methods all undoubtedly know some aspect of “climate science” better than those who identify themselves as adepts at that discipline. When they see climate scientists writing something about those aspects they know, they are completely justified in saying it’s flawed if they’ve found it to be so.

          I don’t care if the guy’s Albert Einstein; if he tells me 2 + 2 = 5, I’m not going to accept it unless he has a really compelling explanation.

          52

          • #
            Frank

            Joe,
            The exception doesn’t prove the rule, the fact that the vast majority agree requires some extraordinary evidence from the skeptics which is still not evident.

            31

            • #

              The vast claims of believers (that coal fired power stations makes floods worse) requires some extraordinary evidence. Any time you want to start providing it, go right ahead.

              23

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Frank.

        “Don’t you know that according to the terminal skeptics …”

        I get the same arguments from Creationists and anti-vaxxers. They consider their work superior because it ISN”T up to the standard of reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.

        Call it what you will: Dunning-Kruger Effect, kill the messenger, motivated reasoning, conformational bias. Bottom line it is a drift way from reality. Or just a hoax.

        23

    • #
      Ceetee

      Harry, define ‘reputable’, ‘peer reviewed’ and while you’re at it, have a crack at ‘scientific’. Ultimately in a sad kind of way it is your understanding of what those terminologies should actually mean that is at the core of your own self delusion. It’s not a game of skittles. Give Dr Evans the credit for having (to quote some old fella) ‘an inquisitive mind’.
      Do you have an inquisitive mind, or has someone else made it up for you?.

      63

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      AZ.

      “Why would Dr. Evans want to publish in a journal with an already well demonstrated bias against any challenge to AGW orthodoxy?”

      You are making a claim that scientific journals are biased. I would be interested to see you present some evidence for that claim.

      The reason Dr Evans should get published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal is to demonstrate his research is up to an acceptable standard as judged by the journal’s editors and by his peers. Simple enough.

      13

  • #

    David (or anyone):

    A quick, slightly off-topic question, since you mentioned the temperature data sets. Out of the various worldwide temperature data sets, which one(s) is(are) closest to the actual raw data? Been to NOAA etc., but I am very frustrated that in their many pages of ftp downloads, they never seem to actually say what precisely the dataset IS. I am pursuing come investigations of my own, but I don’t have a climate background and I am finding that choosing the right data starting point is the step causing me the most trouble.

    On a related note re our BOM and the many years of identical “raw” and ACORN data, is this because the “raw” data has been back-edited from ACORN, or because ACORN happens to agree with the original data?

    Cheers, thanks, and back to your normal programming…

    171

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Ron House.

      The “raw” NOAA data set is fine. I can’t remember off the top of my head, but I think that just collect the CLIMAT notifications from the temperature stations around the world. It is described on their website.

      The BOM “raw” data set is AWAP, it is the measurements taken from Stephenson screens. ACORN is a climatic reference data set, not a measurement temperature data set as such; because it is “derived” thru homogenisation, past measurements can change. As far as I can tell AWAP measurements do not change.

      523

      • #

        Boy Harry, do we have a fun post on AWAP coming this week for you. Just wait til you see the graphs Lance Pidgeon has done for us. ;-)

        333

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Joanne Nova.

          Oh, goody. And I am sure the analysis will be as scientific as shown by previous examples (not).

          Everyone knows what the “Dunning-Kruger Effect” is, don’t they?

          25

      • #
        Bill

        NOAA no longer has any “raw data” as they’ve been homoginizing it under Obama for the past 8 years

        193

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          [NOAA has] been homoginizing it under Obama for the past 8 years

          That sounds like a most uncomfortable arrangement, if you ask me.

          51

      • #
        Popeye26

        Otter,

        You stated a very innocuous statement that I can’t let you get away with.

        You said: “past measurements can change”

        What utter BS – past temperatures can ONLY change if they’re FIDDLED with just like BOM has been doing for years.

        The temperature that was measured yesterday (or a decade ago) will NEVER change – only humans (read warmist “scientists) can change the temperature – lol.

        Cheers,

        203

        • #
          Annie

          Thanks Popeye, I was going to comment on that. It stood out like a sore thumb.

          72

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Going by Harrys logic in the past I claim to be a great philosopher that invented the question mark amongst other lauded deeds.

            Only had to change the past, the other foot’s in too now Harry…

            83

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Popeye26.

          “What utter BS – past temperatures can ONLY change if they’re FIDDLED with just like BOM has been doing for years.”

          Umm, the BOM say clearly on their website they do adjust the ACORN data set – it is called homogenization. I made a statement of fact and you have an issue with it?

          Look, do yourself a favour and read the BOMs FAQs and scientific papers before commenting.

          23

      • #

        Thanks Harry,

        The ushcn claim to have “raw” data – unless someone yells “STOP!” I’ll tentatively trust them. Also, at the page:

        ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/globaldatabank

        they do provide explanatory info on their “stages”. Their stage3 seems (repeat – seems – because I have become a bit paranoid about these folk) to just do combination of sanitised raw data into connected sequences using an impartial algorithm. They describe this in a doc called merging_methodology.pdf. Unless anyone knows of some shonky stuff I am not aware of, I think I’ll have to trust that too for now.

        Cheers and very best wishes to everyone trying to uncover the truth about this mess!

        91

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Ron House.

          The USHCN is the US data only. GHCN is the global data set.

          As far as I am aware they exist in “adjusted” (ie homogenised) and unadjusted versions. This is as far as I got, there is really no point in redoing work that has already been performed by a professional group, I accept their results.

          22

          • #
            Ceetee

            Harry, I looked up the term ‘homogenised” and it suggests to ‘make uniform or similar’. My question is, why do we do that.?

            42

  • #
    Ruairi

    A forcing which can’t be left out,
    Of the models which skeptics so doubt,
    Is the aim to ignore,
    The sun and much more,
    By those with political clout.

    180

  • #
    Mark Fraser

    It was an Aussie who changed the world’s approach to stomach ulcers, too, wasn’t it?

    212

    • #
      Len

      They continued research that was previously carried out but was not accepted.

      31

    • #
      Ceetee

      ..and what a smart cookies they were. I read the article, recognised the symptoms and went to the doctor and asked for the test. After years of suffering I was cured within two weeks. For the record it’s called helicobacter pylori and I believe it infects many people who may not realise that it is indeed an infection. Kudos to Warren and Marshall, now THAT is science Harry.

      51

  • #
    Margaret Smith

    With all the evidence I have seen over a couple of decades I see CO2 as a minor player in a game: there for the kick-off and playing vigorously for the first 5 minutes, is overwhelmed by big, brutish players, and retires to the sidelines for the rest of the match.

    111

  • #
    KR

    That core is the foundation of the idea that CO2 causes 1.2C of warming. Think Hansen 1984, the Charney Report 1979, then think Arrhenius 1896.

    The estimated 1.1C of warming from a doubling of CO2 is quite well supported – here are some of the major steps:

    * Arrhenius’s 1896 empirical testing of reference samples and use of Langley’s lunar reflectance spectra at different angles through the atmosphere
    * The spectrographic HiTRAN database and ModTRAN models developed by the US Air Force to develop infra-red homing missiles (I will note in passing that such missiles are _quite_ functional)
    * Myhre 1998 using those step-by-step models to estimate 1.1C warming for doubling CO2, and
    * The empirical evidence of Harries et al 2001, satellite observations, fully validating those radiative model estimates of greenhouse gas absorption within 1%.

    1.1C direct forcing from doubling CO2 comes from spectral absorbance/emittance of CO2, estimating overall effects with numerical integration of the spectral data through the atmosphere, and empirical observation of the changes though the atmosphere by satellites that confirm the spectral predictions. Doubling CO2, with no feedbacks included, reduces IR to space by an amount that requires 1.1C of surface warming to rebalance.

    If the current work somehow finds fault with the copious surface and satellite spectral data, I would be quite interested in seeing what empirical evidence Dr. Evans has supporting his hypotheses giving a different direct forcing by CO2. In other words, data.

    This is an extraordinary claim on his part, and will require some extraordinary evidence to overturn the last 150 years of spectrographic observations.

    330

    • #

      And we agree with the mainstream climate scientists and the IPCC on this. Covered in the next post.

      Also note that: “… in this series we are going to proceed as if all such significant feedbacks are known and furthermore that they are correctly quantified as per the latest IPCC Assessment Report (AR5).”

      I did not make any extraordinary claim about spectroscopy here, am not overturning any “spectrographic observations” as you claim. Please read more carefully.

      341

      • #

        David
        You say ““… in this series we are going to proceed as if all such significant feedbacks are known and furthermore that they are correctly quantified as per the latest IPCC Assessment Report (AR5).”
        I don’t really understand why you would want to spend the time to proceed on this basis. I say in comment 25 “The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. Their outputs fall into the “not even wrong ” category. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless.”
        The outputs of models run on this basis are simply gibberish and contain no information worth considering.

        151

      • #
        KR

        Your opening post appeared to be focusing upon, and disagreeing with, that direct forcing, the ‘basic model’ dating back to Arrhenius. If that’s _not_ the case, if you are in agreement with the ~1.1C direct forcing that would occur with a doubling of CO2, my apologies.

        Awaiting further posts.

        213

        • #
          KR

          Sorry, I’m being imprecise in my terminology.

          A doubling of CO2 should cause about 3.7 W/m^2 of direct forcing at TOA (forcing changes as predicted have been empirically demonstrated, Harries 2001 and subsequent works), which leads from the Stephan-Boltzmann equation directly to about a 1.1C increase in surface temperature required to reestablish equilibrium.

          213

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            I think that the number of uncontrolled, unknown, hidden and fluctuating parameters in this Earth – CO2 – Temperature analysis

            would make it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the Steffan-Boltzman equation would be of any legitimate use in this situation.

            SB is only “controllable” in very simple circumstances and otherwise is open to being made to give the results required.

            See: IPCCC, Climatebaggers, University of East Anglia etc.

            KK

            104

          • #

            No problem KR.

            Agree with the 3.7 W/m2 for CO2 doubling. I think this is well past reasonable doubt. In this series we basically agree with all the parameter values in AR5, and all the mainstream science, except we show that the basic model has some architectural problems and fix them. Will become clear in the future posts.

            KinkyKeith – the Steffan-Boltzman law does have some use here, but we are very careful in its application.

            91

            • #

              The IPCC. itself, has seen the light ,thrown up its hands, and given up on calculating a meaningful climate sensitivity – the AR5 SPM says ( hidden away in a footnote)

              “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”

              but paradoxically they still claim that we can dial up a desired temperature by controlling CO2 levels .This is cognitive dissonance so extreme as to be crazy.
              The opening sections of the blog post at
              http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
              say
              “1.1 The Inherent Inutility of the Modeling Approach when Dealing with Complex Systems

              The CAGW meme and by extension the climate and energy policies of most Western Governments are built on the outputs of climate models. In spite of the inability of weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, the climate modelers have deluded themselves, their employers, the grant giving agencies, the politicians and the general public into believing that they could build climate models capable of accurately forecasting global temperatures for decades and centuries to come. Commenting on this naive reductionist approach, Harrison and Stainforth say in: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/eost2009EO13/pdf

              “”Reductionism argues that deterministic approaches to science and positivist views of causation are the appropriate methodologies for exploring complex, multivariate systems … where the behavior of a complex system can be deduced from the fundamental reductionist understanding. Rather, large, complex systems may be better understood, and perhaps only understood, in terms of observed, emergent behavior. The practical implication is that there exist system behaviors and structures that are not amenable to explanation or prediction by reductionist methodologies … the GCM is the numerical solution of a complex but purely deterministic set of nonlinear partial differential equations over a defined spatiotemporal grid, and no attempt is made to introduce any quantification of uncertainty into its construction … [T]he reductionist argument that large scale behaviour can be represented by the aggregative effects of smaller scale process has never been validated in the context of natural environmental systems … An explosion of uncertainty arises when a climate change impact assessment aims to inform national and local adaptation decisions, because uncertainties accumulate from the various levels of the assessment. Climate impact assessments undertaken for the purposes of adaptation decisions(sometimes called end-to-end analyses)propagate these uncertainties and generate large uncertainty ranges in climate impacts. These studies also find that the impacts are highly conditional on assumptions made in the assessment, for example, with respect to weightings of global climate models(GCMs)—according to some criteria, such as performance against past observations—or to the combination of GCMs used .Future prospects for reducing these large uncertainties remain limited for several reasons. Computational restrictions have thus far restricted the uncertainty space explored in model simulations, so uncertainty in climate predictions may well increase even as computational power increases. … The search for objective constraints with which to reduce the uncertainty in regional predictions has proven elusive. The problem of equifinality (sometimes also called the problem of “model identifiability”) – that different model structures and different parameter sets of a model can produce similar observed behavior of the system under study – has rarely been addressed.”"

              1.2 The impossibility of computing valid outcomes for GCMs

              The modelling approach is also inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4

              Models are often tuned by running them backwards against several decades of observation, this is
              much too short a period to correlate outputs with observation when the controlling natural quasi-periodicities of most interest are in the centennial and especially in the key millennial range. Tuning to these longer periodicities is beyond any computing capacity when using reductionist models with a large number of variables unless these long wave natural periodicities are somehow built into the model structure ab initio.”

              91

            • #
              bobl

              Except David, then you will be as wrong as they are, because one of the assumptions is that the earth- atmosphere is a closed system and radiant energy in = radiant energy out – which is wrong. We are dealing with one of the lowest forms of energy here, almost everything that happens on earth degrades to heat and some things can convert that heat to other energies – especially latent chemical/entropy, kinetic and potential. Unless all of these contributions and losses are applied you can never know the temperature from the radiant forcings alone.

              While you may point out some mistakes, I don’t believe the corrected model will be any more accurate because of the missing energy sources and sinks.

              72

            • #
              Wayne Job

              I have seen other theories for why the earth is warm, the heat comes from inside the earth, recycling the energy that is the missing part of the universe wrongly labelled as dark energy and dark matter. the radiant heat variation from the sun controls how much heat is allowed to escape from the earth. Tends to make more sense to me and fits the known cycles over time.

              33

    • #
      Rud Istvan

      KR, I do not think he has implied what your post assumes. And the textbook answer varies between 1.1 and 1.2C per doubling. Lindzen adopted 1.2 in his talk British Parliament. It the Bode feedback on top of this that is at issue. This can be shown even for Monckton’s irreducable simple model (which itself can be reduced to a simple Bode- see my guest post on those mathematics at Climate Etc). Observational energy budget comes in around 1.7 ( lower if one accepts the newest aerosol estimate paper) implying Bode f about 0.25 rather than the IPCC implicit 0.65-0.67 from an ECS 3.0 (AR4) or 3.2 (CMIP5). I look forward to comparing Evans results to these markers.

      110

      • #
        Joe Born

        Although his main point here is correct, Mr. Istvan would have been wiser not to cite Monckton et al.’s paper. To those who understand the relevant discipline, the author’s math is as clearly wrong as saying you can find the product of two quantities by adding them: it almost never works. As far as the mathematics is concerned, Monckton et al. had clearly wandered in over their depth. And Lord Monckton has been at least evasive, if not downright dishonest, in defending that paper.

        Also, one should exercise caution in considering Mr. Istvan’s analysis of that paper at Climate, Etc. Understandably in light of the paper’s incoherence, Mr. Istvan’s analysis betrayed a misunderstanding of one of that paper’s central aspects, namely, its “transience fraction.”

        12

  • #

    David For a detailed discussion of the uselessness ab initio of the GCM approach to climate forecasting see section 1 at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

    The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year cycles so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale.

    The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. Their outputs fall into the “not even wrong ” category. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless.

    Here is a graph which shows the sort of thing they did when they project a cyclic trend in a straight line.
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/–pAcyHk9Mcg/VdzO4SEtHBI/AAAAAAAAAZw/EvF2J1bt5T0/s1600/straightlineproj.jpg

    The 60 year cycle seen above is detrended. In the real world it is underlain by an upward leg of the millennial temperature cycle which peaked in about 2003.
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gH99A8_0c6k/VexLL1zC7AI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/T50D6jG3sdw/s1600/trendrss815.png
    A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

    The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9.in the link above. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the neutron peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data above.
    There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.

    The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.

    160

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Basically what you have said is that climate models are dressed up and have lipstick applied so that they don’t look like the proverbial Pig.

      Good.

      KK

      111

      • #
        Ceetee

        Which is where most of us drop our brows and slowly shake our heads KK. To me a model in this context is not a prediction, not a vote of confidence in the process especially given the shenanigans employed for the last fifteen years in the application of lipstick on this pig. It is certainly not a validation of the billions of dollars of taxes of hard working people spent to prop up a failing ideology.

        11

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle…’

      The sine wave graph is a terrific way to explain what is happening and for a scientific illiterate audience to understand. The simplicity of the 60 year cycle (which shows up in ice cores and shallow sea cores) is clearly illustrated.

      ‘There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics.’

      Presumably this has something to do with the oscillations?

      40

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Fantastic! :-)

    70

  • #
    Paul Vaughan

    Take a most crude binary indicator of solar cycle phase

    – either above or below an activity threshold –

    …and use that to estimate the rate of change of solar cycle length

    = solar cycle deceleration:

    http://s7.postimg.org/ujm61i0jf/Atlantic_ACE_Sunspot_Streak_Deceleration.png

    Polite Curiosity …

    The simple indicator matches multidecadal Atlantic hurricane activity levels…

    Above David Evans expresses hope for “polite, curious conversation”.

    Wise & sensible. Thank you.

    101

    • #
      doubting dave

      Paul , several years ago now a certain well known skeptical climate blog in the states lead a call for all skeptics to ” stick to the science ” it soon became apparent that that phrase included acceptance of the basic “proven” physics of the green house effects and AGW , any skeptics challenging this basic physics was from then on dismissed as cranks and or a lunatic fringe to be laughed at and ignored. This in my opinion set back the skeptical cause for years , and lets hope that if certain attack dogs decide to pop over to comment on this article that they do so in ,as you put Paul a spirit of ” polite and curious conversation” cheers

      130

  • #
    doubting dave

    Jo and David , many of us will be curious as to know where these papers have been forwarded for publication and who the reviewers are ?? If the reviewers are seen as skeptical friends the papers will be quickly dismissed by the science establishment without more than a cursory glance , if the reviewers and the platform for release are even remotely acceptable by the mainstream , then i suspect they’ll try all they can to delay publication until after the Paris climate festival.

    120

    • #

      A lose-lose proposition.

      Just as well we have the Internet :) . Seriously, bypassing hostile or disinterested gatekeepers is a massive problem.

      123

      • #
        doubtingdave

        David perhaps a compromise would be to approach Anthony Watts and friends about publishing your work in their new online journal under the “THE OPEN ATMOSPHERIC SOCIETY” they say the names of the reviewers will remain anonymous but their opinions and or criticisms will be openly published for all to see , some of those skeptics that flock around Anthony were your fiercest critics concerning the notch theory so no one could accuse you of PAL review if you did

        90

        • #

          THE OPEN ATMOSPHERIC SOCIETY isn’t really doing anything yet AFAIK (perhaps because hours are scarce and unpaid or lowly paid). It is a good idea whose time will come, I expect.

          92

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Most skeptics arrived at their doubts in the carbon dioxide theory of global warming by noting the discrepancies between that theory and empirical evidence. They are empiricists. Consequently, many skeptics are unaware of the basic model, or its power, because it has been irrelevant to them.

    And even more important than this for me was hearing (reading) that the issue was settled and no more debate was possible. If you know anything about science this sets off alarm bells immediately.

    Over the last 3 or 4 years I’ve asked so many diehard climate change pushers for their empirical evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere can do what they claim it can do that I’ve lost count. And not a single one has answered me with so much as a single word. It tends to show something very basic to me about their confidence in their theory… …that they don’t quite trust it themselves.

    I eagerly await the rest of the picture from David.

    180

    • #
      Ceetee

      And even more important than this for me was hearing (reading) that the issue was settled and no more debate was possible. If you know anything about science this sets off alarm bells immediately.

      Thats the clanger for me. Only politicians say things like that.

      10

  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    I look forward to the comming articles, but please separate warming and climate.
    “carbon dioxide controls the climate”
    No it does not, it mostly controls the temperature. The climate is so much more than temperature that the sentence is meaningless.
    In my opinion IPCC lost their last credibility when they changed global warming to climate change.

    133

    • #
      Manfred

      Well Svend, the UN IPCC and UNFCCC doubtless adopted their committee defined term ‘climate change’ in preference to ‘global warming’ because they couldn’t advance the political Agenda with an the proposition that GW would be potentially falsifiable.

      As you know, the UN defined ‘climate change‘ fixed that nicely, it cannot be contradicted. This highlights once and for all, the political nature of this UN driven power grab, with the objectives of UN post-2015 development Agenda designed to have global government installed by 2030.

      August 25th, this Friday, sees the opening of the 70th UN General Assembly by The Pope. This is the session at which the installation of The Agenda will be attempted, if we let our politicians sign off on global governance by nothing less than central bureaucratic totalitarianism and the +4000 NGO hangers-on.

      60

      • #
        Popeye26

        Manfred – correction I believe.

        September 25th, this Friday.

        The Pope wasn’t in America in August.

        Happens to me all the time – that’s why I picked it up :-)

        Cheers,

        10

  • #
    • #
      David Maddison

      I published the links to Jo’s article and the above one on Facebook (under my name) if someone wants to go over and take a look and back me up when I inevitably get hammered.

      40

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    …scientific research, done for the thrill of discovery…

    This is what should drive science, and what science is really all about. It is not about hitting targets nor filling quotas nor satisfying a consensus – it is all about discovering facts or explanations that no-one else has yet discovered. This is what drove almost all scientists until the latter half of the twentieth century, when the field was subsumed by bureaucrats, when the principles have been almost completely reversed: [to hell with] (self-mod) the facts – hit those targets, get those quotas, placate the consensus.

    Oh, by the way – well done for your work so far! Keep it up!

    90

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “NASA GISS – there are skeptics doing your job for you , don’t ya know”

    For those of us interested in such things as “the GCMs”, and who like to build the “snapshots” that are made public, I do very much welcome the results from this series of articles.
    There is a sense of eager anticipation now, that we might actually be moving forward, especially after reading the latest from Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS ModelE2). (who has abandoned the idea of the Popperian paradigm, in favor of the Schmidt version)

    However, One has to ask the question Jo, how did you and Dr. Evans find the “backwardity” of what Messrs. Schmidt and Co are doing, when they have all of the resources of NASA available to them, and you and Dr. Evans do not.

    Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that you are simply much better scientists.

    p.s. Apologies , “backwardity” is not a word :o

    100

    • #

      “simply much better scientists”? No, not necessarily.

      The basic climate problems are simple enough to be accessible to most diligent and educated people, if explained properly. One might fault the establishment for not being more forthcoming in their PR and public face, but if you pick up a textbook and go through their public materials, and enough papers, it is clear enough what is going on, what the issues are, and where the weaknesses are. The main problem is finding enough time to do all this; by unusual happenstance this fell to us (and I wouldn’t particularly recommend our circumstances or the path we took, it certainly wasn’t planned, and there is an element of being forced into this by the untoward tactics of the establishment and their political allies).

      Yes, the difference in resources is fantastic. But then it wouldn’t really be sporting if they were more even, would it :) ? Seriously, we are very grateful for the financial support from readers of the blog.

      91

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    I have never been happy with the continued concession made about doubling of CO2.

    Statements that are aimed at defusing the Amplification theory concede that doubling CO2 will lead to 1.2 C deg increase.

    I am not at all sure that this is correct and it certainly hasn’t been tested empirically.

    It may also be taken to mean that after the first doubling you can “double up again” and get another 1.2 C.

    The asymptotic reduction in temperature gain for each doubling says that it won’t ever be 1.2C again but something much smaller.

    There is also the issue that is continually pushed that man made CO2 is responsible for the overall increase in atmospheric CO2 when the natural component of atmospheric CO2 is 97% of total.

    This begs the question as to how mankind could ever hope to be the cause of a “doubling” of CO2 in the first place.

    If there ever was a doubling it would logically come from some natural source and be beyond human control.

    If there was any real need to stop a doubling then a thinking person would buy shares in cement companies because we are going to need a lot of very big plugs to stop CO2 from venting from volcanoes and undersea ocean floor vents.

    The whole business is inherently unstable, nutty science and I’m not sure that the idea of 2 >< CO2 = 1.2 C. is at all correct or useful.

    There are other more technical issues relating to gas laws that are probably more relevant but from a very simplistic view the doubling meme should be left alone as an idea that has had it's day.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/#comment-1130169

    KK

    60

  • #

    They like to use the word “forcing” because it implies that it is a totally irresistible process which will not be able to produce counter-responses which are normal in all atmospheric processes. They also like words like “denier” for the same psychological reasons. When they are able to model clouds, they may get somewhere. While they cling to CO2 only, they are in a dead-end.

    160

  • #
    handjive

    “There is no empirical evidence that rising levels of carbon dioxide will raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface as fast as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts. The predictions are entirely based on models and calculations.”
    ~ ~ ~
    The VW Emissions scam …

    Suddenly we have evidence of unaccounted massive emissions of carbon(sic) from +11 million cars.

    Where is the relative rise in Global Warming?

    No climate change impact on insurance biz: Buffett

    The effects of climate change, “if any,” have not affected the insurance market, billionaire Warren Buffett told CNBC on Monday—adding he’s not calculating the probabilities of catastrophes any differently.

    While the question of climate change “deserves lots of attention,” Buffett said in a “Squawk Box” interview, “It has no effect … [on] the prices we’re charging this year versus five years ago. And I don’t think it’ll have an effect on what we’re charging three years or five years from now.”
    . . .
    If not a silver bullet, then surely a wooden stake through the dark heart of the vampire called Global Warming.

    60

    • #
      handjive

      “If not a silver bullet, then surely a wooden stake through the dark heart of the vampire called Global Warming.”

      Reword: If not a silver bullet, then surely a wooden stake through the dark heart of the vampire called Apocalyptic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

      60

    • #
      handjive

      Gillard reveals carbon price scheme

      Julia Gillard, 2011:
      “The scheme is projected to cut 159 million tonnes of carbon pollution from the atmosphere by 2020 – the equivalent of taking 45 million cars off the road.”
      9years:- 45M cars = 5M cars ‘off road’ per year by 2020

      Carbon(sic) tax existed for 2.6 years = 11M cars

      Therefore, VW emissions scam (11 million cars) wiped out any benefit from Gillard’s carbon(sic) tax.

      60

      • #
        handjive

        the irony …

        “Every year on or around 22 September, people from around the world get together in the streets, intersections, and neighbourhood blocks to remind the world that we don’t have to accept our car-dominated society.”

        worldcarfreeday.net

        50

  • #
    It doesn't add up...

    I look forward to the exposition, which I will follow carefully. My introduction to disentangling models goes back to a related enterprise: Limits to Growth. It was an interesting insight to dig around in the DYNAMO code and understand how all the bits fitted together, and in turn to gain an appreciation of the Limits to Modelling (including the choice of input data).

    60

  • #
    RB

    Science was established in the Enlightenment

    Before I start to read the science can you please get the history right. Newton wrote

    If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants

    which is its self borrowed from a 12th C philosopher.

    Galileo most likely didn’t perform the Pisa experiment but wrote about a thought experiment based on the actual experiments of Simon Stevin with the actual idea being as old as the Romans.

    The idea that a falling object under constant acceleration would travel a distance that was equal to the square of the time of travel is as old as the 14th C (Nicole Oresme) and the idea to measure precisely in order to understand physics is as old as the 12th C (Robert Grossteste). The first person to apply the method to accelerating bodies was di Casli in the 14th C. The first two became bishops and were just two examples of how the work of the Enlightenment was a continuation of work started centuries earlier (the Oxford Calculators and Paris doctors). The supposed Enlightenment seems to be sudden because of the change to publishing due to the printing press (di Casli’s work not being printed until 150 years later) and the airbrushing of history. I’m sure that you do not want to be a part of the latter.

    80

    • #
      el gordo

      Good work RB.

      60

    • #

      Thanks RB. I stand corrected.

      51

      • #

        Don’t roll over like that. I think RB has a point to some extent but she/he sort of missed the word “established” in his paragraph. Of course there were earlier instances of scientific practice that we recognise as science going even further back and in other parts of the world – the middle east and China being significant. But these did not establish “science” as a recognised distinct and ongoing segment of societal pursuit.

        We don’t consider that psychoanalysis existed before Freud just because people have been having long chats with each other to resolve internal conflicts for thousands of years.

        32

        • #

          I stand corrected and twirled around.

          Yes, as a methodical and widespread practice, the Enlightenment is widely recognized as the start of modern “science”. In either case, my point (that we all know anyway) about the anti-science attitude of our current political elite, who direct “science funding”, stands.

          61

          • #

            On the other hand!

            RB was more right than wrong (in my opinion anyway – I’ve learned my lesson about going off topic so I’ll desist here). The concept we think of as “science” that flourished and established itself 5-600 years ago of course did not pop out of nothing. I just would contest that the thing it popped out from was not formed enough to call an established thing. My Freud analogy was a bit sloppy – sorry RB- as it did not address the flow on aspect that RB mentioned.

            The “political” elite you speak of are reflecting different things around them I think, and I don’t see the attitude confined to elites. On the other hand fervent “pro-science” is confined to another elite sector that seems disconnected and remote from the tax payers who mostly pay for science.

            41

          • #
            Ceetee

            I would go a step further David. I believe many within our political elite hold opinions and hunches on this issue that they dare not publicly express. They are captives of the media and fantastic at skirting and diverting. The media themselves are children of the very motivated post modern element that drive just about every learning institution we have. In the many years I have been following this issue I have noticed an increasing level of desperation on their part, tipping points are postponed without the slightest hint of irony. Nobody asks real questions. Our mainstream politicians are captives to this issue simply because they have a fear of risk that overrides their ethics.
            Great to have you here by the way.

            61

        • #
          RB

          Gee aye, you need to appreciate that lack of reading material before the enlightenment and how that could stifle a good but esoteric idea.

          The early printed Bibles were about 3 years wages of a clerk and the RC was happy that it allowed them to afford to put one in every parish. Just appreciate how scarce and expensive books were before then. Appreciate how much information was lost and then rediscovered because there were few copies of the work (eg. the work of Islamic philosophers ended up in Europe centuries later as stories of alchemy and the philosophers stone) or it was written as a poem (as was the first suggestion that object will accelerate at the same rate regardless of mass). So much information was lost because word of mouth was still so much more important than reading.

          More importantly, considering the context, appreciate how important it is that as many people as possible have access to literature and the choice to agree or disagree. Would Newton had been such a genius if he lacked access to ideas that hadn’t yet gained traction? Ironically, a good example is the Cassegrain design for a reflecting telescope that was slow to take hold because the idea was harshly criticised as it competed with the Newtonian design. While the design was soon used by everyone after Newton’s death, Cassegrain himself was unknown until recently.

          10

          • #

            thanks RB… science as we know it (or similar enough for us to recognise) needed those structures that came with the enlightenment, things like those you mention. So much changed with the printing press etc so that “the west” (trying not to confine the geography too specifically) changed dramatically at every level to an extent that would be hard to imagine today.

            00

    • #
      Radical Rodent


      … faith and science, properly understood, can never be at odds.

      Here.

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    From New scientist 12th Sep 2015

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730383-100-everyone-in-the-us-and-australia-owes-12000-in-co2-emissions/

    Everyone in the US and Australia owes $12,000 in CO2 emissions

    Read more: Click here to read the original, longer version of this story.

    IF YOU live in the US or Australia, you owe more than US$12,000. If you’re in the UK, it’s about $4000.

    These are climate debts, worked out by Damon Matthews at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. He sees those who pollute more than their fair share – that is, above the global average – as being in “emissions debt”.

    Between 1990 and 2013, the US, for example, emitted an excess of 300 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person (Nature Climate Change, doi.org/7jb). That’s about as much as is produced by driving a family car from Los Angeles to New York and back 150 times.

    The US Environmental Protection Agency estimates that each tonne of CO2 produced today has a social cost of about $40, so the debt per person is $12,000.

    “It is important to acknowledge and own up to how much we in the developed world have over-contributed to historical climate change,” says Matthews. He hopes the work will inform any future talks over how much rich nations should pay poor ones to adapt to climate change.

    This article appeared in print under the headline “You owe the planet”

    40

    • #
      Bill

      Nope. Don’t “owe” anyone or anything a bloody finig. As a Canadian I have a message for matthews, yet another misguided fool in the basement of academia, Try to collect.

      00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    If CO2 could trap heat wouldn’t we use it as insulation?

    50

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Congratulations David and Jo.
    Have you considered extending an invitation to (say) senior staff working on the CSIRO GCM to get together to work through the process, step by step? All the genuine scientists I’ve worked with would welcome this type of approach. Genuine scientists accept that mistakes can be made and that the professional approach is to acknowledge them, correct them and move on.
    There is much interest shown above by people with private theories. I’m not going to disclose mine because it is logic based. Maths based arguments are much stronger. Let’s see if we were close.
    Having read the early radiative physics papers you mention, I do not find them needing a rethink. To me, they reveal only part of the scene. I’m more interested in what happens after it all moves from the lab into the less constrained atmosphere.

    90

  • #

    Oh Yowza! (cubed)

    This might look like I’m off topic here, but if so, then it’s actually only a slight sideways move, lateral thinking resulting from what Dr. Evans original thoughts were, and in relation to what it is that I do.

    I don’t claim to (comprehensively) understand this Science that Dr. Evans has shown here, and will continue to produce in later Posts, but I will work hard at it, and try to understand.

    When (the collective ‘we’ can be used here as well) I began doing what I do, those (right back at the start) original things we have been led to understand, and having now been in use for so long, well, were they incorrect right from the beginning?

    I have been seeing reports lately that the CO2 emissions from China have been (grossly) overestimated.

    What I wanted to know was to try and work out those CO2 emissions from power generation.

    It’s taken a couple of days, but I have found what I wanted, and the results are not just surprising, but actually startling.

    I won’t detail them here, (off topic) but I will have something for a Weekend Unthreaded.

    However, it works in with USC coal fired power, and an earlier Guest Post here where I mentioned that CO2 emissions savings could be 15% if current plants were replaced by this new technology.

    Well, that figure could actually be as high as 45% in fact, and the data and the maths calculations actually bear this out.

    If so, then China’s emissions have been grossly overestimated.

    All of this has stemmed from what Dr. Evans has mentioned here, that the original information that everything has been based around was most probably flawed from the outset.

    So, thank you Dr. Evans for making me look at something I may just have taken for granted.

    That, of itself, is what makes Dr. Evans series here something even I can look forward to.

    Tony.

    90

  • #
    kim

    It’s the exaggerated water vapour feedback and the complete bafflement at clouds and we’ve known so for a long time.
    ==================

    80

  • #
    John Watt

    It will be interesting to compare Dr Evan’s reasoning as to the lack of impact of CO2 with the analysis of Dr Nicol. In any case do we now have sufficient logic power to convince Australian politicians to focus on our existing abundant sources of energy and stop wasting scarce resources on a renewable dreamworld?

    If we now have a testable theory of climate then perhaps we can start formulating policies to enable us to co-exist with predictable climate changes. Again how do we convince our politicians to come out of their self-imposed Gore/IPCC gloom cave?

    50

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘If we now have a testable theory of climate then perhaps we can start formulating policies to enable us to co-exist with predictable climate changes.’

      The failure of the models to replicate the real world is a massive fail, nevertheless we have to come up with an alternative to AGW and catch public attention, or the politicians won’t budge. I’m assuming that climate change is not a ‘random walk’ and the null hypothesis is global cooling.

      ‘Again how do we convince our politicians to come out of their self-imposed Gore/IPCC gloom cave?’

      As you know big Al attracts sub zero temperatures, so if he turns up in Paris under blizzard conditions then the whole kit and caboodle would become a laughing stock.

      A negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and a modest El Nino is just the right mix to bring it off.

      50

  • #
    Drake

    I am not a scientist, so will not enter into any scientific discussion. But I am a rationalist and cannot understand how people in high places who should be able to think for themselves seem to just accept all the so-called science without questioning any of it. I can understand the position of those on the gravy train or on the public teat, but why do the non-involved not question what they are being told without supporting evidence? I can see so many paralells with religion. Is it just that we are all taught to accept argument from authority?

    60

  • #
    Kim

    Saying that CO2 is causing global warming, whilst ignoring the elephant in the room – the sun, is like saying that CFCs cause the Ozone Hole whilst ignoring that it is at the polar region – where the aurora is – charged particles – O3 is easily ionized.

    50

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    What I said when the notch theory was about to be first presented a couple years ago was — I am all in on Evans and Jo.

    I am still all in on Evans and Jo.

    Eugene WR Gallun

    PS — To those who have no secular life “all in” is a poker expression signifying that you are betting everything you got.

    80

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    I don’t know if I am doing anybody an injustice here by leaving them out, but for me David Evans was the primary whistleblower for the world on the AGW scam. His alert drew my attention to others, particularly the very extraordinary Christopher Monkton with his very ordinary way of making information understood.

    I must thank David in particular, and also his support team firstly for standing up for what is right, and secondly for putting in the hard work to achieve what you have.

    This item of work will surely prove momentous around the world. It will be very interesting to see who says what. We can’t depend on “the enemy” to act predictably.

    Professor Steve Keen of the University of Western Sydney gained world renown for being one of only a handful of economists to predict the GFC. He was subsequently forced to get a job in London because his uni closed his faculty for want of enrolments.

    This happened because of a change in government regulations. The UWS was too slow to realise that under the new arrangements they had to put serious effort into promoting their assets to school leavers. Meanwhile the school leavers were more interested in getting “sandstone” degrees than in studying under a world famous professor who hadn’t been promoted to them.

    Here’s hoping David’s success is more readily recognised than Steve’s was.

    81

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Hi Ted

    The two important starting “knowns” to the problem of modeling Earths Atmospheric Temperature are these:

    1. The Earth’s core is estimated (2013) to be about 6,000 deg C

    and

    2. The local space surrounding our Earth has a “temperature” of 1.6 K deg above absolute zero.

    This means that we are dealing with a TEMPERATURE GRADIENT of 6,000 deg over a distance of about 6,400 km.

    Of course we are only interested in what happens from the surface to deep space which I have nominated in the estimate above as about 30 km. and the temperature loss is only about 14 C deg .

    A recent flight at 10km altitude had an external reading of minus 38 deg C.

    It gets cold quickly and my main worry is that we need to conserve as much of the Earth’s heat as we can.

    That people can be working on the opposite problem of reducing Earths temperature is disturbing but all too human.

    Any “model” created will need to incorporate essential elements of orbital mechanics wrt to the seasons as well as more long term effects such as the recurring deep freeze and thaw cycle which has a decreasing periodicity of 100,000 years in addition to incorporating aspects of Solar Output which does change significantly.

    Anyone who can do it will have to be superhuman.

    For the moment I think it would be an admirable goal to find and investigate as many of the relevant factors as possible for without them being identified and quantified little progress can be made.

    KK

    30

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Not So Smart Heh?

      Of course those of you who read the above will have picked out the errors.

      This means that we are dealing with a TEMPERATURE GRADIENT of 6,273 deg over a distance of about 6,400 km.

      Of course we are only interested in what happens from the surface to deep space which I have nominated in the estimate above as about 30 km. and the temperature loss is only about 14 plus 273.15 or a total drop of 287.15 C deg .

      10

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Thanks for your comment. I depend on people like yourself for the finer details.

        But I wouldn’t have thought that we are only interested in what happens above ground. That 6,000 degrees at the centre is surely constantly sending heat to the surface at rates that vary with the type of material conducting it.

        This heat would be part of that measured by satellites. It would surely in some places also be melting ice sheets, especially very thick ice sheets, from the bottom.

        20

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          sending heat to the surface at rates that vary with the type of material conducting it.

          Exactly Ted.

          I actually went looking for it but couldn’t find it. I had a vague recollection of having a figure in watts/m2 from either physics or geology.

          If it’s any consolation the heat loss from the human body is about 25 watts.

          10

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            I didn’t know, but would have expected more than 25. I was told by a pig man many years ago, before modern piggeries were developed, that for heating a sow and piglets in winter, keep the space small so that the 150kg sow’s 1,500 watts of body heat could keep it warm.

            In an iron walled bush hall in winter you certainly notice a big difference if there is a crowd in the hall.

            10

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Yes Ted my memory of 25 watts was way off. One reference says it is more like 100 watts resting.

              Human operate at 36.8C and pigs run at 30C so you would expect pigs to be giving off more considering they have higher metabolic rate plus twice the mass.

              00

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Yes Ted my memory of 25 watts was way off. One reference says it is more like 100 watts resting.

              Human operate at 36.8C and pigs run at 39C so you would expect pigs to be giving off more considering they have higher metabolic rate plus twice the mass.

              00

  • #
    PetterT

    Dr. Evans; I think you have overlooked the info @hockeyshctick:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2015/07/physicist-richard-feynman-proved.html
    Physicist Richard Feynman proved the Maxwell gravito-thermal greenhouse theory is correct & does not depend upon greenhouse gas concentrations

    The great physicist Richard Feynman adds to three other giants of physics, Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot, who have explained the “greenhouse effect” is solely a consequence of gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density, and heat capacities, and is not due to “trapped radiation” from IR-active or ‘greenhouse’ gas concentrations.

    Only one 33C greenhouse theory can be correct, either the 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory (the basis of CAGW alarm and climate models) or the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Feynman gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, since if both were true, the surface temperature would be an additional 33C warmer than the present. As we have previously shown, the Arrhenius greenhouse theory confuses the cause (gravito-thermal) with the effect (radiation from greenhouse gases).

    21

    • #
      sophocles

      Patience, Grasshopper, patience.
      Dr. Evans is setting the scene. He has clearly stated:

      To build a better model, we had to understand the conventional basic climate model, the core model used to compute the high sensitivity to carbon dioxide. We unpack it, show the errors, then fix it.

      We’re examining the official IPCC model here, their `enhanced’ Faraday Tyndall Arrhenius Radiative Model, as he has said. We’re not at the fixing part. Yet.

      12

  • #

    It dates back to 1896 with Arrhenius [1]

    and

    [1^] Arrhenius, S. (1896). On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.

    The other morning as is my normal habit I was reading the latest science news from 1882. Using different wording there it is, catastrophic global warming and climate change caused by various man made greenhouse gases. Described a bit differently but with the same old death to all living things due to burning coal by the year 1900 part and the methane being more potent, plus the more extreme weather prediction bits we are all familiar with.
    Nature Dec 7 1882 “Pollution of the atmosphere” H.A. Phillips.
    Click here

    32

  • #
    Roger

    You say that “this is the first time an independent modelling expert has gone through the climate architecture, looking at the key equations, assumptions, and structure.” However I would refer you to Monckton’s paper of 2008 – “Climate sensitivity reconsidered” that arrived at a final estimate of 0.58K. When I first read that paper I thought that he had surely demolished Hansen’s Hypothesis – the foundation document of the IPCC. I still think so.

    20

  • #
    MikeO

    Can the picture of the ancient computer centre. It is not relevant and offers an unnecessary opportunity for criticise from the chattering classes.

    00

  • #
    ArchDukeFranzFerdinand

    jag er ett David’s Barn
    jag kommer aldrig att doe
    jag kommer att Haerska.

    00