Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > GHG Theory step by step

Well, the NTZ post is certainly fake news. If you click on the graph captioned 'Image Source: NASA' it takes you to a graph with different axes, different labels and different data. I asked what gives? Turns out NoTricks had overlaid his representation of NASAs NH graph with a similar plot from the Hansen paper shown earlier. But something has gone with the scaling or the baseline or something. In the ‘Hansen’ graph the temperatures drop from around 0.4C to approx -0.1C 1940-1970. In the ‘combined’ version it’s magically morphed to from around 0.7C down to -0.1.

In the actual plot the drop is around 0.2 to -0.2C.

Nothing much erased. Mr NoTricks has tricked up a trick graph in the No Tricks Zone.

Plus, of course the whole post is attacking a Straw Man. Connolley's 'myth' was the idea that there was a 1970s consensus that the then cooling trend would continue and we were in for an imminent return to ice age conditions. In fact opinion was divided amongst those who thought the aerosol-driven trend would continue and those - a majority - who believed GHG forcing would result in a switch to global warming.

Now, of course, we know which faction were correct.

From the abstract: An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales

So when a paper cited to contradict Connolley contains the text (excised by NTZ, natch) 'But there is as yet no evidence that further cooling is likely in the immediate future', my irony meter breaks.

(I wrote that last bit to post at NTZ, but it seems I am on 'extreme moderation', or one might say, censorship. Didn't want to waste it)

Nov 28, 2017 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, why should the UK and USA trust anything with the names of Peterson Connolley or Fleck attached, if Climate Science can't find and correct its own mistakes, deliberate or otherwise?

The Germans are losing faith in the Green Blob now, as Merkel is realising.

Nov 28, 2017 at 10:49 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

it is good to see that you agree that a graph based upon a few trees in one area of the globe could give faulty results.

For a global reconstruction? That would be silly, but then I've never actually seen such a graph.

Nov 29, 2017 at 10:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Now, of course, we know which faction were correct.
Except we don’t, really; while CO2 concentrations continue to rise, temperatures do not. GHG “forcing” may not be all it’s cracked up to be.

The most plausible hypothesis I have heard goes more along the lines of: the late 20th century warming coincided with the removal of sulphur from the atmosphere caused by the clean air acts established globally, and that the plateau we are now experiencing is the Earth finally reaching quasi-equilibrium with that new, low-sulphur state. Whether this plateau is a peak or a pause, only time will tell, but there might be indications about it by 2020. Meanwhile, let’s continue monitoring, without jumping to any conclusions, and pretending that we can do anything about it.

Nov 29, 2017 at 10:09 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

That is some plateau.

So, your thesis is that the extra 1.6 watts per square metre reaching the planet is somehow having no effect at all?

Nov 29, 2017 at 11:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

That is some plateau.

So, your thesis is that the extra 6 watts per square metre reaching the planet is somehow having no effect at all?

Nov 29, 2017 at 11:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Wierd. Disappearing posts ....

Nov 29, 2017 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

1.6 is the correct number, if anyone cares.

Nov 29, 2017 at 11:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I suppose it depends on how you view a plateau. By your logic, I suppose Kilimanjaro rises steadily from the sea, and should go on forever upwards.

Not my hypothesis, I’m afraid, but, yes – not having the sulphur in the atmosphere to reflect the insolation would increase the amount of energy reaching the surface. Thank you for providing further evidence in its support.

Weird. Repeating posts…

Nov 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Repeated question alert!

Phil Clarke, do you think Peterson Connolley and Fleck 2008 should be repudiated, if Climate Science wants to demonstrate some honesty? It has been cited rather a lot, by people who believe (?) it to represent honest science, when it does not.

Nov 29, 2017 at 1:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

RR :- Hmmmm.

Although you've selected 2018 as the end date, you've selected HADCRUT3 as your data source. This has now been deprecated in favour of HADCRUT4, and woodfortrees only holds HADCRUT3 data up to April 2014. This is why the recent record temperatures are missing from your plot.

The plot including more current data looks a little different.

Nov 29, 2017 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I've seen no evidence that would lead me to question the honesty of <A href="">Petersen et al 2008.

Certainly NTZ ain't it.

Nov 29, 2017 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Nov 29, 2017 at 2:33 PM | Phil Clarke

Does that mean all those "Scientists" who cite Peterson Connolley and Fleck 2008 are more, or less competent, numerate or literate than you? If they cite it, surely they must agree with it?

Nov 29, 2017 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke, political activist Joseph Romm believed in Peterson Connolley and Fleck 2008, and so did the American Meteorological Society. Is this connected to the 97% Consensus of gullibility over FAKE NEWS by Climate Scientists?

Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus
By Joseph Romm on Nov 15, 2008

So begins an excellent review article [PDF] in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by Thomas Peterson, William Connolley, and John Fleck. I had blogged on this when USA Today reported it but just realized I hadn’t blogged on the article itself.

But who is Joseph Romm but a political activist who was hoping for a win for Clinton, having assisted in screwing up the USA for Obama, allowing Trump to win?

"Dr. Joseph Romm is a senior fellow at American Progress. He oversees the, which was named one of Time Magazine’s Fifteen Favorite Websites for the Environment in 2007. In December 2008, Romm was elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for “distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies.” In a March 2009 column in the New York Times, Tom Friedman noted that Dr. Romm is “a physicist and climate expert who writes the indispensable blog” In March 2009, Rolling Stone also named him one of of “The 100 People Who Are Changing America” calling him “America’s fiercest climate-change blogger.” And in April, U.S. News & World Report named him “one of the most influential energy and environmental policymakers in the Obama era.”

Nov 29, 2017 at 4:56 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Real Climate even did a post about Peterson Connolley and Fleck 2008, written by Connolley and Fleck, with Comment Number 2 from Joseph Romm.

Could FAKE SCIENCE get worse than Real Climate Science by the Hockey Teamsters? Yes! 97% of Climate Scientists know it does, particularly the faking authors.

Nov 29, 2017 at 5:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Meanwhile, more things Climate Science got wrong and are too frightened to tell Mann and his Lawyers: models, climate sensitivity and water vapour.

"Christy and McNider suggest two other possible explanations for the discrepancies between climate model forecasts and reality:

The transfer of heat energy between the atmosphere and the ocean isn’t well understood, including the roles of wind, currents and ocean conditions. If more heat is transferred to the oceans than is accounted for by the models, that “is a negative atmospheric feedback, at least on shorter time scales.”Heat the models suggest should be staying in the atmosphere might instead be expelled more readily through the atmosphere into space, or is being more rapidly mixed into the oceans. In either case, that heat would not be available for warming the atmosphere.

“Also, if the atmosphere isn’t accumulating heat at the rate forecast by the models, then the theoretical positive climate feedbacks which were expected to amplify the CO2 effect won’t be as large,” McNider said. “For instance, one of the major climate feedbacks built into the models is increased water vapor. It was hypothesized that if CO2 warmed the atmosphere, the amount of water vapor — itself a powerful greenhouse gas — in the atmosphere should increase."

Nov 29, 2017 at 6:43 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The IPCC uses different assumptions to model future temperature predictions compared with the assumptions used to reproduce historical temperatures.

How scientific is that?

Nov 29, 2017 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

Perhaps a second question is why would they do that? Perhaps the hindcasting model is not alarmist enough?

Nov 29, 2017 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

From the study ...

d. The unaltered value is +0.155 K dec−1 while the adjusted trend is +0.096 K dec−1

But I thought 'adjustments' were the work of the Devil?

Confirmation Bias

Nov 29, 2017 at 9:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

How scientific is that?

Nov 29, 2017 at 7:12 PM | Schrodinger's Cat

A lot of Climate Science's conclusions are unprecedented, because of the dodgy provenance of their supporting documentation

Nov 29, 2017 at 10:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Confirmation Bias
Nov 29, 2017 at 9:44 PM | Phil Clarke

Is that the explanation for Peterson Connolley and Fleck 2008?

Nov 29, 2017 at 10:38 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Climate Science lowers the bar even further, in search of anything credible, and still fails the theory test.

Nov 29, 2017 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

NASA decide that the Sun's variable output warrants further research

Nov 30, 2017 at 12:40 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"Introduction. How dependable is climate science? Global warming mitigation policies depend on the credibility and integrity of climate science. In turn, that depends on a deterministic model of the climate system in which it is possible to quantify the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) with a high degree of confidence. This essay explores the contrast between scientists’ expressions of public confidence and private admissions of uncertainty on critical aspects of the science that undergird the scientific consensus.

Instead of debating, highlighting and, where possible, resolving disagreement, many mainstream climate scientists work in a symbiotic relationship with environmental activists and the news media to stoke fear about allegedly catastrophic climate change, providing a scientific imprimatur for an aggressive policy response while declining to air private doubts and the systematic uncertainties."

Green Environmental Activists are destroying any truth in Climate Science theories

Nov 30, 2017 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The models don't agree with reality. Scientists question the models. Climate scientists question the observations. You couldn't make this stuff up.

Nov 30, 2017 at 4:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat