Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[OldBlackDog]

Dr Rajendra Pachauri: the clown of climate change has gone - Telegraph

The only sad thing about the resignation of Dr Rajendra Pachauri as chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that it was brought about by allegations of sexual harassment by a young female employee of his Delhi research body, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri), from which he has also now stepped down.

Laughably described as “the world’s leading climate scientist”, this absurd figure, with his PhD in the economics of railway engineering from an obscure US university, should never have been given the job in the first place. As a vegetarian, he jetted round the world exhorting everyone else to save the planet by giving up air travel and meat. Thanks to the prestige of his position, his institute was showered with millions of dollars by international institutions, from global banks to Yale University (not to mention £10 million from British taxpayers).

But above all, Pachauri, with the looks of a pantomime villain, should have resigned when, in 2010, the super-scary IPCC report over which he presided in 2007 was shown – not least by this column and by the assiduous researchers of my co‑author, Richard North – to have been full of wildly unscientific errors emanating from green activists.

When we traced its claim that the Himalayan glaciers would have all but melted by 2035 to an obscure Indian scientist quoted by WWF (a claim so mad that even the IPCC had to withdraw it), we were even more amazed to find that Pachauri had hired the man responsible to be Teri’s chief glacier expert.

He may now finally have gone, But the damage he did to the IPCC’s credibility as a serious scientific body is irreparable. What a pity the politicians of the West, led by President Obama and our own here in Britain, still don’t seem to have noticed.

 

[GLG]

B.C. Conservative MP James Lunney tweets against evolution


Member of Parliament advises on Twitter to just 'stop calling evolution fact!'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/b-c-conservative-mp-james-lunney-tweets-against-evolution-1.2978984

James Lunney, a federal Conservative MP, is using his Twitter account to come to the defence of an Ontario Progressive Conservative who told reporters last week that he doesn't believe in evolution.
The British Columbia chiropractor, first elected as a member of Parliament in 2000, has jumped into a fray that started last week in the Ontario Legislature.
Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls, who represents the province's Chatham-Kent-Essex riding, was heckling the provincial education minister on Wednesday when the matter of human origins came up.
Education Minister Liz Sandals was responding to PC criticism of her government’s new sex-education curriculum when she quipped that a PC government "could opt out of teaching about evolution, too."
"Not a bad idea," said Nicholls, who later clarified his position to reporters in the lobby.

"For myself, I don’t believe in evolution," he said, adding that his views were "a personal stance" rather than party policy.
'Stop calling evolution fact!'

Interim Ontario PC Leader Jim Wilson was quick to distance himself from Nicholls's anti-evolution views, saying "it obviously didn’t help our position."
Ontario PC house leader Steve Clark and leadership candidate Christine Elliott also disowned the remarks.
But Lunney has come to Nicholls' defence.
"[Just] stop calling #evolution fact!" tweeted Lunney, who said he had no problem calling it a "theory."

Lunney, who represents the federal riding of Nanaimo-Alberni. seemed to be echoing views he expressed in a statement to the House in 2009:
"Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis," he said then.
"The evolutionist may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionist may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a Creator."
Also questioned vaccines, climate change

Lunney has also used his Twitter account in the past to question climate change.
Last year he tweeted "Science settled? Think again!" and posted a link to an article by a University of Guelph economist who is one of the signatories of a declaration disputing climate change.
In a 2004 speech in the House of Commons, Lunney cited figures he said showed a tenfold increase in the incidence of autism and said Canada should explore a link to vaccines.
"Why should Canada not be leading the world in actually addressing these issues, finding out if there is a root issue, doing some proper studies and making sure we get appropriate intervention for these children?" he said, according to a statement posted on his website.
Medical research has thoroughly discredited the purported link between vaccines and autism. But a widespread belief in such a link is thought to explain a decline in childhood vaccination that has permitted the resurgence of once-vanquished diseases such as measles.
Lunney has said he isn't running again in 2015.
==========================================

.....all off the crazy bus hey OBD...

I'll ask again... do you think slowing down is the same as a pause?
How would that work out for you at a red light?
No answer to the logic question, why am I not surprised.

 

[OldBlackDog]

reply to the pause again as you seem to have missed it.

 

[GLG]

reply to the pause again as you seem to have missed it.

No answer to the logic question, why am I not surprised.

Can't do it can you.... No wonder no one takes you seriously...


I'll ask again... do you think slowing down is the same as a pause?
How would that work out for you at a red light?

 

[OldBlackDog]

The 97% Consensus

Posted on March 3, 2015 by stevengoddard

97% of climate models are wrong. If it is indeed true that 97% of climate scientists trust climate models, that would indicate that 97% of climate scientists are idiots.

ScreenHunter_7670 Mar. 03 10.02

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

http://www.remss.com/research/climate

 

[OldBlackDog]

Science.
German Experts: New Paper By Gleisner Shows 2013 Cowtan And Way Arctic Data Hole Paper Was A Lemon

Browse: Home / 2015 / February / 16 / German Experts: New Paper By Gleisner Shows 2013 Cowtan And Way Arctic Data Hole Paper Was A Lemon
German experts Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt tell at their Die kalte Sonne site us why the 2013 Cowtan and Way paper has proven to be a flop.
========================================

Failed spectacularly: Arctic data hole theory for the warming pause collapses
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

For quite some time climate scientists have been desperately seeking an explanation for the unexpected warming pause. On November 15, 2013 in the Süddeutsche Zeitung Christopher Schrader declared that the solution had been found: There was no pause; the data had only been missing from the Arctic.

Climate change without pause
According to the data, the earth had not warmed over the past years. However, this impression is likely related to missing data from the Arctic. And there the temperature appears to have risen much more strongly than the global average.[…] These [temperature] measurements have large holes: Approximately one sixth of the earth is not covered. Foremost in the Arctic there are not enough thermometers. But according to all signs it is warming considerably more quickly than the rest of the planet. An English and a Canadian scientist now show how this hole can be closed up with estimated values and how the supposed warming pause practically disappears. Kevin Cowtan of the University of York and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa refer to satellite data. […] Thus ultimately Cowtan and Way arrived at the result that the Arctic warmed eight times faster than the rest of the planet. Before that it had been thought that it was warming three times faster.”

Unfortunately Schrader did not mention that the two scientists were climate activists who were close to the IPCC-friendly Internet platform Skeptical Science. Yet, he still was unable to let slip out a couple of critical words about the two authors:

However the process is too complicated in order to find widespread recognition. Doubt will be stirred up among many because both authors have no name in climate science. Kevin Cowtan is a theoretical physicist and computer specialist at the Department of Chemistry at his University. Robert Way is still busy writing his doctorate dissertation.

It’s been a full year since the appearance of the dubious paper by Cowtan and Way, one that was highly praised by Stefan Rahmstorf. So just how was this pioneering paper received by the science community? On January 29, 2015 the answer from their colleagues appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters. The dodgy Arctic data fill-in model has failed spectacularly and has been soundly rejected. The answer to the pause is not to be found in the Arctic as Cowtan and Way suspected, rather it is to be found at the lower geographical geographical latitudes, as a team of scientists of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen led by Hans Gleisner reports in a new publication. What follows is the paper’s abstract:

Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low-latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends. Recent studies have attempted to attribute this so called temperature hiatus to several causes, amongst them incomplete sampling of the rapidly warming Arctic region. We here examine zonal mean temperature trends in satellite-based tropospheric data sets (based on data from (Advanced) Microwave Sounding Unit and Global Navigation Satellite System Radio Occultation instruments) and in global surface temperatures (HadCRUT4). Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes cannot explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the prehiatus period. Instead, the dominating causes of the global temperature hiatus are found at low latitudes. The combined use of several independent data sets, representing completely different measurement techniques and sampling characteristics, strengthens the conclusions.

No answer to the logic question, why am I not surprised.

Can't do it can you.... No wonder no one takes you seriously...


I'll ask again... do you think slowing down is the same as a pause?
How would that work out for you at a red light?

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Here's a good response to criticisms of the Soon et al. paper: https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/monckton.pdf

"As Edward N. Lorenz pointed out in the elegant landmark paper Deterministic nonperiodic flow that founded chaos theory in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences in 1963, (though Lorenz did not use the term “chaos”), neither the precision nor the resolution of climatic measurements will ever be sufficient to allow us to obtain reliable very long-term predictions of future climate states.

...

In the overheated days of 1990, it predicted warming over the coming decades on the interval [0.19, 0.43] K decade–1. By 2013, it had just about halved what it now calls its “projections” to [0.10, 0.23] K decade–1. And the real-world outturn since 1990, when IPCC’s central estimate was 0.28 K decade–1? Just half that, or 0.14 K decade–1.

...

"No doubt there might be significant changes in the temperature of the atmosphere if there were significant changes in the input temperature from the Sun above or from the Earth’s molten core below; but, taking these inputs as broadly constant, such little heat as we are able to generate in the atmosphere will either be radiated harmlessly off to space or taken up into the ocean, which appears to have warmed during the ARGO decade at a rate equivalent to just 0.05 K decade–1 – well within the very large measurement and coverage uncertainties (each ARGO buoy has to try to monitor 200,000 km3 of ocean). [Note to Christopher Monckton: the atmosphere and greenhouse gases cannot "generate heat"]
Since the atmosphere has not warmed during the ARGO decade, it is not illegitimate to deduce that at least the upper or mixed stratum has not warmed during the past decade, for if it had done so the atmosphere – three orders of magnitude less dense than the ocean, and intimately mixed with it at its interface by tropical afternoon convection in low latitudes and baroclinic eddies in the extratropics – ought to have warmed too.

...

The significance of Bode is this. If it does not apply to climate, that is the end of high sensitivity; and that, in turn, is the end of the climate scare."

Bam.

There it is.

Climate models projecting high warming are flawed.

 

[GLG]

Science illiterates need not watch....

[oTdpdFUTyqs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTdpdFUTyqs&t=186

 

[GLG]

The 97% Consensus

Posted on March 3, 2015 by stevengoddard

97% of climate models are wrong. If it is indeed true that 97% of climate scientists trust climate models, that would indicate that 97% of climate scientists are idiots.

ScreenHunter_7670 Mar. 03 10.02

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

http://www.remss.com/research/climate

So is this where you stand OBD?
Going to put your money on the team from RSS?
Lets see what they say about climate change....


[h=3]Introduction[/h]Climate is the average weather in a given location, averaged over a fairly long time period, at least 10 years. When we talk about climate, we often talk about average values of meteorological or oceanographic variables, such as air temperatures, precipitation, humidity, wind speed or ocean temperature at a given location at a given time of year. If the climate changes over time, it can directly affect human activities by altering the crops that can be grown, the supply of fresh water, or the mean level of the ocean. It can also affect natural ecosystems, causing deserts to expand, wildfires to become more prevalent, or permafrost to melt.
Over the past two decades, there has been growing concern about the effects of human-produced greenhouse gases and other environmental pollutants on Earth's climate. These changes are predicted by climate models, which are also used to project changes into the next centuries. Satellite data records are beginning to be long enough to evaluate multi-decadel changes. These changes can be examined for evidence of climate change, and used to see if climate models can do a good job when used to "predict" the changes that have already occurred.
In order to produce a data record that extends long enough for climate change studies, measurements from different satellites must be intercalibrated with each other and then combined together into a single record. We have completed this process for atmospheric temperature and total column water vapor, and are about to release an intercalibrated wind speed product.
Compared to in situ measurements, the main advantage of satellite data records from polar orbiting satellites is the nearly complete global coverage and homogeneous data quality. The in situ data record is fairly sparse in regions located away from industrialized countries, which are concentrated on the land masses and in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes. For example, there are very few weather balloons launched in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, even though this region is where the changes in Sea Surface Temperature due to the El Nino - Southern Oscillation cycle are largest.
Below, we discuss some basic climate results obtained using Remote Sensing Systems microwave data, and discuss some climate related research we have performed.
[h=3]Atmospheric Temperature[/h]See the Upper Air Temperature Measurement page for details about how the atmospheric temperature datasets are produced. Here we present applications of this dataset to climate change analysis.
[h=4]TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE[/h]There are three tropospheric temperature datasets available from RSS, TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere), TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere), and TTT (Temperature Tropical Troposphere, after Fu and Johansen). Using these datasets, we can investigate whether there have been significant changes in the tropospheric temperature over the last 35 years, and whether or not the spatial patterns of these changes agree with those predicted by climate models.
Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

• Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
• Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
• The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

But....

• The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.

To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below. Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008. In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century. For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output. After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band. For the first two plots (Fig. 1 and Fig 2), showing global averages and tropical averages, this is not the case. Only for the far northern latitudes, as shown in Fig. 3, are the observations within the range of model predictions.

(snip for space and time but due read for yourself)

The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. Possible reasons include increased oceanic circulation leading to increased subduction of heat into the ocean, higher than normal levels of stratospheric aerosols due to volcanoes during the past decade, incorrect ozone levels used as input to the models, lower than expected solar output during the last few years, or poorly modeled cloud feedback effects. It is possible (or even likely) that a combination of these candidate causes is responsible.

more....
http://www.remss.com/research/climate

 

[GLG]

Foremost in the Arctic there are not enough thermometers..

Hey no problem .. if your "German experts" (another name for climate deniers) need a thermometer for the Arctic I have one for them, is called the Arctic Ice Cap. Nature has supplied us with a wonderful way to measure the temperature trend in the Arctic. Let's see what she is telling us about this trend.
PS your denial websites don't like to talk about this do they? Wonder why..... because they know it would make them look like the fools they are.

 

[OldBlackDog]

I love it when you do this.
They say that climate models are wrong.

So is this where you stand OBD?
Going to put your money on the team from RSS?
Lets see what they say about climate change....


[h=3]Introduction[/h]Climate is the average weather in a given location, averaged over a fairly long time period, at least 10 years. When we talk about climate, we often talk about average values of meteorological or oceanographic variables, such as air temperatures, precipitation, humidity, wind speed or ocean temperature at a given location at a given time of year. If the climate changes over time, it can directly affect human activities by altering the crops that can be grown, the supply of fresh water, or the mean level of the ocean. It can also affect natural ecosystems, causing deserts to expand, wildfires to become more prevalent, or permafrost to melt.
Over the past two decades, there has been growing concern about the effects of human-produced greenhouse gases and other environmental pollutants on Earth's climate. These changes are predicted by climate models, which are also used to project changes into the next centuries. Satellite data records are beginning to be long enough to evaluate multi-decadel changes. These changes can be examined for evidence of climate change, and used to see if climate models can do a good job when used to "predict" the changes that have already occurred.
In order to produce a data record that extends long enough for climate change studies, measurements from different satellites must be intercalibrated with each other and then combined together into a single record. We have completed this process for atmospheric temperature and total column water vapor, and are about to release an intercalibrated wind speed product.
Compared to in situ measurements, the main advantage of satellite data records from polar orbiting satellites is the nearly complete global coverage and homogeneous data quality. The in situ data record is fairly sparse in regions located away from industrialized countries, which are concentrated on the land masses and in the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes. For example, there are very few weather balloons launched in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, even though this region is where the changes in Sea Surface Temperature due to the El Nino - Southern Oscillation cycle are largest.
Below, we discuss some basic climate results obtained using Remote Sensing Systems microwave data, and discuss some climate related research we have performed.
[h=3]Atmospheric Temperature[/h]See the Upper Air Temperature Measurement page for details about how the atmospheric temperature datasets are produced. Here we present applications of this dataset to climate change analysis.
[h=4]TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE[/h]There are three tropospheric temperature datasets available from RSS, TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere), TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere), and TTT (Temperature Tropical Troposphere, after Fu and Johansen). Using these datasets, we can investigate whether there have been significant changes in the tropospheric temperature over the last 35 years, and whether or not the spatial patterns of these changes agree with those predicted by climate models.
Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models. Our results can be summarized as follows:

• Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
• Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
• The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.

But....

• The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.

To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below. Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008. In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures. The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century. For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output. After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band. For the first two plots (Fig. 1 and Fig 2), showing global averages and tropical averages, this is not the case. Only for the far northern latitudes, as shown in Fig. 3, are the observations within the range of model predictions.

(snip for space and time but due read for yourself)

The reasons for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed warming rate are currently under investigation by a number of research groups. Possible reasons include increased oceanic circulation leading to increased subduction of heat into the ocean, higher than normal levels of stratospheric aerosols due to volcanoes during the past decade, incorrect ozone levels used as input to the models, lower than expected solar output during the last few years, or poorly modeled cloud feedback effects. It is possible (or even likely) that a combination of these candidate causes is responsible.

more....
http://www.remss.com/research/climate

 

[OldBlackDog]

Memo To Global Warming Alarmists: Science Is Often Wrong

cartoon
The global warming debate often degenerates into one side — the alarmists — claiming the other side — skeptics — is anti-science. Believers wrap themselves in science as if it were an impenetrable and absolute defense.

But science is not perfect. As this headline in Wired says, "Scientists Are Wrong All The Time, and That's Fantastic."

According to author Marcus Woo, "When a researcher gets proved wrong, that means the scientific method is working. Scientists make progress by redoing each other's experiments — replicating them to see if they can get the same result. More often than not, they can't."

In the case of global warming — or climate change — scientists have replicated the results of each other's climate models. Almost all of them predict warming. The trouble for these scientists, though, is reality is not consistent with the modeling.

Woo acknowledges that when scientists are proved wrong, "it's way too hard for people to find out."

It shouldn't be that way with global warming. The end-of-times disasters predicted have not occurred, and temperatures have been flat for almost two decades now. These things are obvious.

Woo notes that "scientists don't like to step on each other's toes" and quotes Elizabeth Iorns, CEO of Science Exchange, who says researchers "feel a lot of pressure not to contradict each other."

She adds, "There's a lot of evidence that if you do that, it'll be negative for your career."

That's a complaint we've heard many times in climate science. Skeptical researchers are too often smeared, ostracized and silenced.

If climate science were truly settled, why would the dissenters be treated this way? Wouldn't it be enough to simply let the man-made warming take its course to prove them wrong?

The way much of the alarmist community continues to behave is further confirmation that the climate change debate is not about science. It's about politics.

Source

 

[GLG]

I love it when you do this.
They say that climate models are wrong.

Wrong again
They are saying that some models, not all, are running to warm.
I know that is hard to understand OBD seeing how you don't know the difference between stop and slow.

 

[GLG]

Here's a good response to criticisms of the Soon et al. paper: https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/monckton.pdf


...

The significance of Bode is this. If it does not apply to climate, that is the end of high sensitivity; and that, in turn, is the end of the climate scare."

Bam.

There it is.

Climate models projecting high warming are flawed.

Well there you go... You back Lord Monckton and his science.
Wonder how his cure for aids is selling?
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

Your team what a bunch of misfits.....

 

[GLG]

Memo To Global Warming Alarmists: Science Is Often Wrong

The global warming debate often degenerates into one side — the alarmists — claiming the other side — skeptics — is anti-science. Believers wrap themselves in science as if it were an impenetrable and absolute defense.

Due point out the skeptic as all I can see are the climate science deniers.
There is a big difference you know....

Your team is a bunch of misfits

and the stupid award goes to this statement

If climate science were truly settled, why would the dissenters be treated this way? Wouldn't it be enough to simply let the man-made warming take its course to prove them wrong?

 

[GLG]

[BLttCAsNiG4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLttCAsNiG4

 

[OldBlackDog]

I see your bus is stopped.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Well there you go... You back Lord Monckton and his science.
Wonder how his cure for aids is selling?
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

Your team what a bunch of misfits.....

Here's the part that matters:

"Dr Istvan has his doubts about just one section late in our paper, where we discuss
the Bode system-gain equation (see R.W. Bode’s weighty, 551-page tome published
by Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, in 1945). Now, as Professor Ray Bates pointed
out en passant in a characteristically precise, detailed and thoughtful paper in 2007,
one should be very careful when trying to apply to the climate an equation that was
originally derived for electronic circuits.
The problem with simply borrowing Bode, bolting it on to the climate models and
hyping for the best is that – tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon
– not all dynamical systems behave the same way. They fall into several classes. And
the climate falls into one of the classes to which Bode does not apply."

Hence,



Dyson eh? - what a misfit.

 

[GLG]

A very interesting debate is going on over on Judith Curry website in regards to the Monchton, Soon etal paper.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/01/lessons-from-the-irreducibly-simple-kerfuffle/

I'l point out two things that have not been addressed by the Monckton and his simple climate model. So does the paper have value? Yes it does if these problems are addressed.

Before I get to that lets set this up....
We have climate deniers, climate skeptics and climate alarmists.
It seems to me that climate deniers refuse to believe that CO2 has any effect on temperature. Some also refuse to believe that the earth is getting warmer (hoax theory) or if it is, it's natural (no mechanism, it just is).
We then have Climate skeptics that accept greenhouse gas theory but argue that the sensitivity is low and therefore it will not be a problem for many years to come. (100, 200 years perhaps)
Last we have climate alarmist that accept IPCC at face value and all the science that goes with it.

Next we need to know what the paper means. I'll just copy paste from Judiths website.

CMIP5 climate model simulations continue to diverge from observed temperatures because of the ‘pause’. This suggests the GCMs are oversensitive to increases in CO2 – CO2 continues to increase ‘business as usual’ per RCP8.5, while temperature hasn’t. MSLB discusses this divergence shown by their Figure 2, and then offers a non-GCM way to understand why this is happening and what it means for climate sensitivity.

The important part is Climate Sensitivity this is the bone of contention between climate skeptics and climate alarmists. Climate deniers just refuse that there is any effect CO2 has on temp (doh).... This is important when we try to calculate the effect that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere and what the temperature will be.

For this we will use Rud Istvan's explanation on how the math works.

What’s Right with MSLB
The mathematical derivation of the ‘irreducibly simple’ equation is impeccable. The ‘simple’ result (rearranged here for expository convenience) is:
ECS = (λ0/qt) ĸ ln(Ct/C0) rt /(1-λ0ft)
For those with math allergies, here is a translation into sort of English: ECS (equilibrium or ‘effective’ climate sensitivity) = λ0 (the traditional radiative forcing greenhouse effect with zero feedback. A radiative forcing equivalent to f0=1.2C in the Bode model, with the same result.

• qt is the proportion of total GHG that is CO2. This just scales from the CO2 portion to the whole of anthropogenic GHGs.
• ĸ is the CO2 GHG forcing constant.
• ln (CO2 at t something/CO2 at t=0). This is just the expected rise in CO2. For sensitivity, the traditional test is doubled CO2, so this term is just ln(2) = 0.69.
• rt (‘transience fraction’), the proportion of the eventual total climate response at time t. This lag arises mainly from ocean thermal inertia.
• (1-λ0 * ft), which is where all the bodies are buried. Since ft is none other than the simple (now familiar) Bode f over some feedback time t.

Lets rephrase this ‘irreducibly simple’ equation yet again, in even simpler more common sensical English using no mathy stuff at all: Climate sensitivity equals the radiative forcing from all anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2, times the (known since Guy Callender in 1938) logarithmically declining impact of increasing CO2, times the transient lag to climate equilibrium, times some feedback f changing this direct CO2 effect.

Now for the part I see wrong with the paper.
No explanation as to why Monckton used these 2 numbers in his calculations to get his sensitivity.
OBS: HadCRUT4, 63 yr at (hidden number)
OBS: RSS, 17 yr at (hidden number but looks like zero: OBD has this in his sig line)
Average is 0.09 (looks like a weighted average)

So what problem do I see here?

Is this not just a cherry pick of the data to get that 0.09 to make the rest of his calculations work?
Why use 63 years when you could use 30 years? The reason is that if you want to lower this number you go back further in time to before things started heating up. It's all about the average and the amount of samples.
here is an example. 1+2+3+4+5+6 (60 years) avg is 3.5 or 4+5+6 (last 30 years) avg is 5
So now we see how moving the starting point has an effect on the number to use in the Monckton calculations.
Next there is the 17 yr number. Why is this number used? Why not 20 of 30 yr. Well this is the RSS satellite data and it only goes back so far. But if you use all the data you get the number .125 and not zero. Again Monckton needed this number to be zero or his calculation (average) would not work out and it would then mess up his final model. That would have put his sensitivity higher and he can't have that can he.

So if Monckton want's to fix this then his model will have value as a "on the back of an envelope" quick calculation that would be great for anyone that want's to get an idea what doubling of CO2 means in the future. I would like to see it in MS Excel so as new information comes in the we could see the results and when we could expect a 2C world.

So far from what I'm reading is that the climate deniers are cheering Monckton and they don't see that the model needs CO2 to behave as a greenhouse gas and that is at odds with their hoax theory. (there not quick on the uptake) The climate skeptics are looking at it and have reservations on it's value. And the Climate alarmists are dismissing it as junk that should never have made it past peer review.

My guess is that the paper will get retracted so that the inputs can be corrected and we will see if the conclusions are still the same. If not then the paper goes to the dustbin of other failed ideas from the Lord Bunken.

So OBD an CK what are your thoughts?
Is either of you up to the task of commenting?
You both claim to know something, time to prove it.

 

[GLG]

Here's the part that matters:

"Dr Istvan has his doubts about just one section late in our paper, where we discuss
the Bode system-gain equation (see R.W. Bode’s weighty, 551-page tome published
by Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, in 1945). Now, as Professor Ray Bates pointed
out en passant in a characteristically precise, detailed and thoughtful paper in 2007,
one should be very careful when trying to apply to the climate an equation that was
originally derived for electronic circuits.
The problem with simply borrowing Bode, bolting it on to the climate models and
hyping for the best is that – tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon
– not all dynamical systems behave the same way. They fall into several classes. And
the climate falls into one of the classes to which Bode does not apply."

Hence,



Dyson eh? - what a misfit.

So what climate model has Bode equation in it?
A search of this question has turned up this.....
https://realagenda.wordpress.com/tag/james-hansen/page/2/

Each feedback, having been triggered by a change in atmospheric temperature, itself causes a temperature change. Consequently, temperature feedbacks amplify one another. IPCC (2007: ch.8) defines f in terms of a form of the feedback-amplification function for electronic circuits given in Bode (1945), where b is the sum of all individual feedbacks before they are mutually amplified: Monckton JANUARY 20, 2011

Ok fair enough.... let's check the IPCC PDF he claims that the models use the Bode Equation....
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Nope nothing in there that say the models use the Bode Equation.

Perhaps that's why the Lord Bunken won't tell us this answer.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/03/moncton-assumption-that-temperature.html

Curiously, a climate modeller at NASA GISS made a similar mistake to Dr Istvan,
even going so far as to say the Bode equation was not used in the climate models at
all. I referred him to not one but two papers by James Hansen, the creator of the
GISS model, each of which discussed the applicability of the Bode equation. One
paper even derived it from first principles not inelegantly – but without taking into
account the constraints on its applicability that I have set forth here.

Be my guest and find the papers from Hansen that Lord Bunken claims that some how climate models are based on Bode equations. Go ahead and try.... You wont find it... it's red herring for the misfits. Bunken is trying to give you the impression that Climate Models are based on Bode equations when they are not. He just want's you to think that and by your post it worked. Your team is so easy to fool.... what does that make you.