Tuesday
Oct102017
by 
Josh
Josh 'Daring to Doubt' Tony Abbot GWPF Annual Lecture 2017 - Cartoon notes by Josh
;)
Click image for larger version
Tony Abbott, former Prime Minister of Australia, gave an excellent GWPF annual lecture last night.
The text of the lecture is on the GWPF website here and the video is below.
Reader Comments (150)
Phil,
Indeed, but ever the optimist, maybe we can see if people are willing to address on thing at a time. For example, in his speech Abott said
This is not true; the evidence does not suggest this. For example, even though orbital oscillations can trigger change, what actually drives the changes are changes in albedo (ice sheets) and changes in greenhouse gases (mainly CO2). So, the evidence does not suggest that these other factors are at least as important as CO2, because our understanding of past climate changes is pretty consistent with our understand of what is the dominant cause of changes today (us emitting CO2 into the atmosphere). If anything studying these past changes have strengthened our understanding of anthropogenically-driven climate change, not produced evidence against it.
It's truly amazing Ken can tell his story so convincingly that you might imagine that he was actually there during several previous glacial/interglacial changes, observing the waning and gaining of icesheets, the variations in Earth's albedo, atmospheric CO2 variations and average Earth's temperatures.
Pity temperatures and CO2 are out of sequence and, in particular, high atmospheric CO2 persists for thousands of years into the first parts of glacial periods. So the glacial advances occurred in the face of the highest levels of CO2 induced warming.
So during an entire interglacial-glacial cycle and starting in an intergalcial
INTERGLACIAL
warm, high CO2, low ice sheet cover, low albedo
INTERGLACIAL to GLACIAL
Cooling but high CO2, increasing ice sheet cover, increasing albedo
FULL GLACIAL
Cold, Decreasing CO2 (no accompanying temperature decline)
GLACIAL TO INTERGLACIAL
Warming (no accompanying CO2 rise for almost a ky), rapid ice-sheet retreat, decreasing albedo.
When CO2 does rise no (or minimal) additional temperature rise.
CO2 is a busted flush. It explains nothing.
Just to be clear, is Supertroll is actually Alan Kendall?
Nothing is bit strong. I might have expected minimising its role, but claiming it explains nothing seems a bit extreme.
So, Mr Rice, the 3% of increasing CO2 that humans hold the blame for is all that drives climate change? Talk of clutching at straws; the Sun is the source of over 99% of our energy, thus any slight change in its output will have an impact on the Earth and its climate – just as it is for the other planets, with Mars also having shown an increase in its global temperatures. Also, all those who are actually pursuing research along these lines are getting far better results than the CO2 proponents… But – hey! – you’ve never let facts get in the way of your own prejudices before; why change?
Mr Rice: your point about Alan Kendall being…?
Attl.
"CO2 is a busted flush. It explains nothing."
If variations of atmospheric CO2 explains temperatures, then variations in CO2 should predict temperatures. So get yourself a modern graph of these two variables over the past few glacial-interglacial cycles. Place your finger on a late glacial value along the CO2 curve and move forward in time to see if you can predict when the temperature will rise and fall. Oh, the temperature bounds up and the CO2 values are still low. Dammit, missed predicting that one. Next time fuhshur. Keep going, oh up comes the CO2 but again, any predicted temperature rise ain't there. Another failure. Approaching the glacial now, look down plummets the temperatures, but where are you CO2 - still up there. Another failed prediction. Been cold for a while now, but lookyou here, the CO2 is coming down and temperatures remain as cold. The same pattern occurs cycle after cycle, just the same.
As a predictor (and potential cause) of temperatures it's as we said
CO2 is a busted flush. It predicts and explains nothing.
RR,
No point. Just clarifying who it was.
As for your earlier comment, virtually all the energy comes from the Sun (apart from a small amount of geothermal energy). This, doesn't, however mean that there isn't a planetary greenhouse effect (the surface is clearly warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere) or that increasing atmospheric CO2 won't cause the surface to warm (it will). Also, changes in the Sun's output are indeed very slight and can almost certainly not explain our observed warming. In particular the energy we've been getting from the Sun has - on average - been going down over the last few decades, while surface temperatures have - on average - continued to go up.
"This, doesn't, however mean that there isn't a planetary greenhouse effect (the surface is clearly warmer than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere) or that increasing atmospheric CO2 won't cause the surface to warm (it will)."
Oct 15, 2017 at 5:16 PM | ...and Then There's Physics
When will "it" happen?
Mann's Hockey Stick couldn't even be used to predict the past, but you have nailed your scientific credibility to it. You now concede that nothing has yet happened, despite (discredited) computer models claiming it has.
Golf,
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Most of the observed warming can be attributed to anthropogenic influences. It has already started happening. If we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, it will almost certainly - on average - continue to warm.
aTTP, once more, and as usual, you miss the evidence of history: why was it warmer, 1,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were lower? Why have temperatures not risen in conjunction with the rising CO2 levels for the past 2 decades? Why was there a temperature drop from 1945 – 75, when “anthropogenic CO2” was in its early ascendency? As the ever-trustworthy (despite his views on Brexit or the BBC; but – hey! – we’re all allowed to be wrong in something ☺) Minty has said: CO2 is a busted flush.
I wonder how your argument will evolve when the temperature fall is irrefutable.
If anything studying these past changes have strengthened our understanding of anthropogenically-driven climate change, not produced evidence against it.
Oct 15, 2017 at 1:12 PM | ...and Then There's Physics
No. It has just confirmed that they were not considered before it was decided that anthropogenic CO2 was the Planet's Temperature Control Knob,
Do you think the amount of warming that may happen due to CO2 has been overstated?
As a Politician, Abbott is stating that Climate Scientists have over-exaggerated, and that it is not worth over- burdening Taxpayers. Trump has already concluded this.
Radical Rodent points out well known discrepancies, that Climate Science won't address, so why shouldn't Abbott raise his concerns for the benefit of Australian Taxpayers?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/15/collapse-of-global-warming-deception-triggers-variety-of-bailouts-and-revisionism/
Collapse of Global Warming Deception Triggers Variety of Bailouts and Revisionism October 15, 2017: Dr. Tim Ball
"We will see an increasing number of people changing their positions on global warming as the global warming ship sinks. It will take various forms including; articles appearing that subtly shift previously held positions; reevaluation of data; or finding new evidence that allows a change and perhaps worst of all those who say they knew the science was wrong all along but did not consider it important to speak out; dredging up a sentence or two from their writings that they claim showed they knew. The level of inventiveness will astonish as rats desert the sinking ship."
A recent Climate Science Peer Reviewed paper confirming that Computer Generated Climate Models have always exaggerated, was an ideal opportunity for deeply entrenched Climate Science positions to be shifted.
We know that correlation is not causation, ATTP, but non-correlation,
well that's conclusive - the theory's 'wrawng.'
Golf,
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but - if I remember correctly - the suggestion that changes in CO2 could explain things like the ice ages, dates back to Arrhenius (early 1900s). Of course, that isn't all that matters when it comes to the glacial cycles (it's a combination of orbital forcing - which has a small global effect, but large effect at high latitudes - changes in albedo - ice sheets mainly - and changes in atmospheric CO2).
Politicians are not born; they are excreted. Never was a government that was not composed of liars, malefactors and thieves. It is human nature that what starts as gratitude, becomes dependency & ends as entitlement.
Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error. That's you Phil Clarke. That's not ad hom, It's true.
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Oct 16, 2017 at 9:15 AM | ...and Then There's Physics
& Radical Rodent & Supertroll
Is that why Mann got rid of the MWP and LIA from his Hockey Stick rather than attempt to explain it, in terms of CO2?
The Climate Science literature seems remarkably short on debate about the causes of historic variations in temperature, and with temperatures failing to rise in accordance with the computer models, that have been relied on by Climate Scientists, it seems curious that Abbott, an Australian Politician, is attacked by Climate Science advocates for pointing out the truth.
You wondered whether Supertroll was Alan Kendal, who dared to speak out about "problems" in Climate Science.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/one-lone-east-anglia-man-stands-up-against-poor-practice-where-are-the-rest/
Jo Nova (from 2011) highlights some Australian involvement, which has deteriorated since, with non-scientific attempts to shore-up collapsing Climate Science, that cannot stand up on its own foundation.
Ah that well known scientific journal, The Guardian"
You really are very gullible, Phil.
@ TinyCO2
Ha ha TinyCO2 - of course he is lonely - not much traffic over there. But VV Russell must like being a troll - maybe he is attracted to the Bish's bridge and stream. Might need to drain that stream.
VV Russell loses his way again –from the swamp
Perry - in the absence of any other argument, I fear it is pure ad hominem.
Of course, if you would be so good as to point out my error, I would be only too pleased to correct it.
If variations of atmospheric CO2 explains temperatures, then variations in CO2 should predict temperatures.
Only if the CO2 were a forcing, on paleo-climate timescales it acts as a feedback, amplifying a relatively weak forcing from orbital variations. Naturally CO2 lags temp in these circumstances. But this particular canard has been addressed here again here and here. Not to mention Andy Lacis (et al)'s seminal essay published in Science,
But hey, if you can indicate the point in the paleo record when gigatonnes of sequestered carbon were desequestered and burned - releasing hundreds of Gt of CO2, I'd love to see that ......
Bitter and Twisted - as opposed to those fiercely objective seekers after truth at the GWPF? LOL.
This is what I mean by noise - what does it matter where these eminent experts were quoted? Surely what matters is are their criticisms of Abbot's assertions correct?
The answer seems to be 'yes'..
Mr Clarke – as you are so concerned that no-one has addressed your post in what you consider a “proper” way, let me try to help: Dr Sherwood’s claims that models are nearly dead-on are easily shown to be false, as nearly all models show substantial more heating than reality shows. Sea-levels are rising at the same rate as they have for over 1,000 years – indeed, NASA has now reported that they may actually be falling; why is pointing that simple fact out so funny?
What is misleading about pointing out that climates have changed – and, more to the point, will always change? As we have no real idea as to why there have been such drastic changes in the past, how do we really know what is causing the present slight change?
“The fact is that it is changing now due to increasing CO2 on very rapid time scales.” Do you really believe this utter tosh? As has been said, you are rather gullible. There is actually NO evidence that CO2 is involved with the ever-so-slight climate change that we have seen – the rate from 1975-98 is no different from what it was from 1910-1940; and, while CO2 levels continue to rise through this present century, temperatures have not. As past changes can only be measured on the century scale, measuring the present change on a decadal scale is somewhat more misleading than anything Mr Abbott has said; the change over the past century has been <0.9K – in other words, hardly very scary, especially when there is evidence that (pre-)historical rates have been in excess of 8K per century.
The arguments in the article get more and more ridiculous as it goes on, but, if you are happy to swallow that tosh, do not let anyone stop you – just drop your victimhood, and do not try to pretend that you are being in the slightest bit scientific or rational.
This is very simply not true.
aTTP: No? Oh…
Come on Ravishing R, sea level went down in two previous years (2011,2013)and then started to rise again more than making up those smell declines. Straw clutching?"
Sea-levels are rising at the same rate as they have for over 1,000 years – indeed, NASA has now reported that they may actually be falling; why is pointing that simple fact out so funny?
Please quote or link to an official NASA statement that sea levels are or may be falling.
What you mean is, a graph on the NASA websites shows a modest, short term decline, which as Supertroll points out happen occasionally, against the background of a background, long-term rising trend.
I think you'd need the decline to continue for another 5-10 years to be able reasonably to say sea levels are falling.
Which is why NASA have reported no such thing.
Sea-levels are rising at the same rate as they have for over 1,000 years
19th Century SLR : 8cm (0.8mm/yr)
20th Century SLR : 19 cm (1.9mm/yr)
Current : 3mm/yr
Source
There is actually NO evidence that CO2 is involved with the ever-so-slight climate change that we have seen – the rate from 1975-98 is no different from what it was from 1910-1940; and, while CO2 levels continue to rise through this present century, temperatures have not.
Except the temperature trend reversed in 1940, in 1998 it carried on rising and shows no sign of abating.
Click
As past changes can only be measured on the century scale, measuring the present change on a decadal scale is somewhat more misleading than anything Mr Abbott has said; the change over the past century has been <0.9K – in other words, hardly very scary, especially when there is evidence that (pre-)historical rates have been in excess of 8K per century.
I am not aware of any global temperature shifts at that rate; indeed the energy fluxes required would seem to make such a thing implausible, but I am open to evidence.
[Or are you referring to Daansgard-Oeschgler events?]
Deja Vu
Phil Clarke, I take it you have not seen this before
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/16/alarmists-gone-wild-alarmist-co2-headlines-create-confusion-particularly-when-accompanied-by-sea-level-alarmism/
Sea-levels are rising at the same rate as they have for over 1,000 years
19th Century SLR : 8cm (0.8mm/yr)
20th Century SLR : 19 cm (1.9mm/yr)
Current : 3mm/yr
Source
Oct 17, 2017 at 2:33 PM | Phil Clarke
Why choose a paper from 2008?
I never knew research had a sell-by date. But here you go, a nice fresh paper..
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n7/full/nclimate3325.html?foxtrotcallback=true
This is the graph that is being referred to.
It does seem to be flattening out in recent years. However, the generally accepted rate of sea level rise of around 180mm per century is and has been for a long time, taken into account in our day to day activities and is no cause for alarm.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
330 mm / century in recent decades.
And accelerating, unsurprisingly.
Oct 16, 2017 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered Commenter golf charlie
Further to your comments the Bolt Report exposes the utter shambles the Australian government has got itself into in phasing out fossil fuels as a prime energy source in favour of wind and solar. The poster child for this is the state government of South Australia which has had several failures of electricity supply recently.
But most significant is the sheer hypocrisy and utter gall of Turnbull. And yet and yet ....Australia is a massive COAL EXPORTER.
Andrew Bolt exposes Malcolm Turnbull as a Bull***t merchant
I never knew research had a sell-by date. But here you go, a nice fresh paper..
Oct 17, 2017 at 6:31 PM | Phil Clarke
Climate Science passed its sell-by date with Mann's Hockey Stick, and subsequent "adjust-by" dates have been required, retrospectively.
From your link
"This is in approximate agreement with observed increase in GMSL rise, 2.4 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 (1993) to 2.9 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 (2014), from satellite observations that have been adjusted for small systematic drift, particularly affecting the first decade of satellite observations"
However, by the same author as the 2008 paper, you could have selected this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/20/new-study-finds-sea-levels-rising-only-7-in-per-century-with-no-acceleration/
"Although some regions have recently experienced much greater rates of sea level rise, such as the Arctic (3.6 mm/yr) and Antarctic (4.1 mm/yr), with the mid-1980s even exhibiting a rate of 5.3 mm/yr (Holgate, 2007), this newest analysis of the most comprehensive data set available suggests that there has been no dramatic increase – or any increase, for that matter – in the mean rate of global sea level rise due to the historical increase in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration.[Therefore, there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels]"
Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807. Global and Planetary Change 113: 11-22. Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J.C., Grinsted, A., Matthews, A.P. and Spada, G. 2014.
As Climate Science has now confirmed the "Pause", which bits of sea level rise should be linked to manmade CO2 and Global Warming?
Your own sources tend to confirm what Abbott said.
But GC, you're not quoting the paper are you? You're citing the amusing Mr Watts' site, who in turn quotes the Co2Science website.
If you ignore the noise and go straight to the source you find this
CO2Science is lying and Watts didn't bother to check. I would advise you to treat those two outlets with scepticism from now on, and go to the actual science.
My sources are consistent and show Abbot was flat wrong.
PS A review of the CO2 Science Modus Operandi
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/08/more_for_the_annals_of_climate_1.html
@Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 AM | Unregistered Commenter Phil Clarke
You say
CO2Science is lying and Watts didn't bother to check. I would advise you to treat those two outlets with scepticism from now on, and go to the actual science.
My sources are consistent and show Abbot was flat wrong.
Well mr Clarke in my neck of the woods the sea level rise is in the order of 180mm pa as indeed is widely considered to be on the global scale.
My reference is below.
The effect of sea-level rise on the frequency of extreme sea levels in New Zealand
Prepared for Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Prepared for Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment July 2015
2.3 Sea-level rise
Historical rates of linear SLR were calculated for the four locations by Hannah and Bell (2012), and these are shown in Table 2-4. The average for New Zealand is 1.7 mm yr-1 (Hannah and Bell 2012), which is close to the average rate of rise globally over the past century (Church et al. 2013b), which means that global-average SLR projections can be readily downscaled to the New Zealand region.3
Table 2-4: Historical relative sea-level rise rates. Source: Hannah and Bell (2012). The SLR rates are relative to the local landmass at the sea-level gauge locations (and implicitly include vertical landmass movement). Location Historical rate of sea-level rise (mm yr-1)
Auckland 1.5 ± 0.1
Wellington 2.0 ± 0.2
Lyttelton 1.9 ± 0.1
Dunedin 1.3 ± 0.1
3 Note: Ackerley et al. (2013) showed that for NZ region, there is likely to be a small increase of 0.01–0.05 m in SLR projections relative to the global mean.
The effect of sea-level rise on the frequency of extreme sea levels in New Zealand
Oct 18, 2017 at 12:58 AM | Phil Clarke
So which of the two papers by Jevrejeva are wrong? The one before the satellite data was adjusted or after?
Geoff, Historical values.
Also note that SLR is not the same everywhere, if there is a vertical land mass movements locally this will bias the measurements . This is made clear in your reference :
The paper was also wise enough to note:
Geoff, this also from the NZ PCE:
http://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/preparing-new-zealand-for-rising-seas-certainty-and-uncertainty
And congratulations to GC. A perfect Straw Man.
Oct 18, 2017 at 8:50 AM | Phil Clarke
Climate Science is built on Straw Men, by Straw Men.
Sea level rise has not accelerated as predicted, so the satellite record has been adjusted to fit (your preferred source)
Meanwhile Climate Science has admitted that the Pause is real, and the models are wrong, which does not fit Mann's agenda.
Abbott is right. Why should Taxpayers fund failed political dogma, especially when promoted by the Green Blob? It is time for Climate Scientists to adjust their position, not the data, as they compete for dwindling budgets.
330 mm / century in recent decades.
And accelerating, unsurprisingly.
Oct 17, 2017 at 8:36 PM | Phil Clarke
The "recent decades" include the pause, that Climate Science now accepts, even though they spent "recent dcades" adjusting records to deny its existence.
There is nothing unsurprising about Climate Science's predicted cashflow crisis. None of it makes sense.
Except in recent decades, sea level rise continued. At best, there is a short recent period (about a year) when it didn't rise, but, this is almost certainly just variability (we don't expect it to rise on all timescales - we do expect short periods when it might drop, or rise more slowly). If anything, the continued rise in sea level (and ocean heat content) is an indication that even though surface temperatures may have risen more slowly than expected in the last couple of decades, overall the system continued accruing energy at roughly the expected rate - it simply wasn't heating the surface as much as might have been expected (even this is not entirely correct, since short periods of enhanced/reduced surface warming was expected, we just couldn't predict precisely when this would happen).
Clarke, ATTP
Can you provide clear proof that the very small amount of warming seen last and this century are not caused by perfectly natural cycles. Surely that should be easy now?
Martin,
Science isn't about providing clear proofs, it's really about testing hypotheses. Could the warming seen over the last 100 years or so be caused by natural cycles? The simple answer is no (the IPCC tested this and rejected the hypothesis that the warming since 1950 could be more than 50% natural). Here's a couple of arguments as to why.
1. We're very confident that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The surface temperature of the planet is higher than it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. This has been known since the 1800s. The explanation for this is the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, with the non-precipitating greenhouse gases (CO2 mainly) playing key role in setting surface temperatures. If you want to explain most of the observed warming as being natural you would need to explain why adding CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) doesn't cause warming.
2. We're pretty confident that the Planck response is 3.2W/m^2/K. This means increasing surface temperatures by 1K should increase the outgoing flux by 3.2W/m^2. This means that in the absence of any other changes, an increase of 1K would radiate 5 x 10^{22}J into space every year. We know the heat content of the land/atmosphere. It should cool back down very quickly unless something else were acting to reduce the outgoing flux. However, the kind of things that could do so (water vapour, clouds, etc) should also respond to anthropogenically-driven warming and if they can amplify natural warming, they should also amplify anthropogenically-driven warming and we're back to it being mostly anthropogenic.
(I composed this as ATTP composed his response. His is better but I'm not wasting 5 minutes of typing ;-)
Not a particularly well-posed or useful question. One could equally ask where is the proof that enhanced greenhouse is not responsible? But neither question advances us very far. For two reasons; firstly all of science is effectively provisional: our best understanding at a given point. Almost nothing can be 'proven' (using the mathematical proof sense of the word). Even the IPCC conclusions are stated in degrees of likelihood, none of which is 100%. What we do is examine the balance of evidence and draw conclusions.
Secondly the null hypothesis of global warming being natural is obsolete. Nobody sensibly disputes that human activity has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, and we have a good estimate of the resulting radiative imbalance: about an extra 2.2 Watts per square metre at the tropopause, which translates to a large amount of energy accumulating in the system (about 4 Hiroshimas/second to use one metric).
A body with a positive radiative imbalance must get warmer or defy the Laws of Thermodynamics.
As to 'natural cycles', what exactly does this mean? By definition a cycle has a zero-sum effect over its lifetime, where are the cycles of the correct period and amplitude to explain GW? Chapter 10 of the most recent IPCC report is dedicated to detection and attribution of the warming. To (over) simplify they looked at the spatial and temporal distribution of the warming and matched it with possible drivers. For example if increased solar radiation was the cause then the stratosphere would warm faster than the surface. What has actually been observed is stratospheric cooling, which rules out a solar driver, but is entirely consistent with more heat being retained at lower altitudes.
Which is a fingerprint of greenhouse warming.