Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

IPCC summary report on extreme weather and disasters out now

Very hot periods will almost certainly lengthen and intensify while extreme weather is likely to increase over the coming…

More predicted: Typhoon Durian killed more than 1000 people and left more than a million homeless when it triggered landslides that buried Filipino villages in December 2006. Photo:AAP/EPA/Dennis M Sabangan.

Very hot periods will almost certainly lengthen and intensify while extreme weather is likely to increase over the coming century, according to a summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s forthcoming report, Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, which is due to be released in full in February next year.

Three Australian scientists (Neville Nicholls, John Handmer and Kathleen McInnes) were lead authors among the report’s 220 authors, and Dr McInnes has provided comments below about how climate change is likely to affect Australia, courtesy of the Australian Science Media Centre (AusSMC). Following Dr McInnes' comments is expert analysis of the summary report provided by the Science Media Centre of the UK, and the Science Media Centre of Canada (which also held a “webinar” on the IPCC summary report available here)


An ethnic Turkana woman in northwestern Kenya where a drought is taking its toll on millions of people and leading to militia violence over access to water. AAP/EPA/Dai Kurowa

Dr Kathleen McInnes, Climate Change Research Group (Sea Level Rise and Coasts), Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (a partnership between CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology)

Recognising that the effects of climate change will be felt most acutely through extreme events, this report is the first comprehensive assessment that focuses on extreme events as well as bringing together the experience of experts in climate change adaptation and disaster risk management to consider options for managing the risks associated with climate change.

While more regional detail will be available when the full report is released in February next year, some of the findings for Australia are that it is likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights. While it is likely that the storm systems that affect southern Australia have moved poleward, changes in observing capabilities means there is low confidence in changes in tropical cyclone activity.

It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures on the global scale and have led to increasing extreme coastal high water due to mean sea level contributions.

Because of the nature of extremes (i.e. their rarity), changes in many extremes and their causes are assessed with lower levels of confidence due to such factors as length of observational record and the influence of natural variability. However, low confidence in an observed change neither implies nor excludes the possibility that a change has occurred.

It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur through the 21st century and it is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, including heat waves, will continue to increase over most land areas. It is also likely that that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe. In Australia by the end of the 21st Century, a one in 20 year daily maximum temperature is projected to occur once every one to 10 years. It is very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future.

As well as addressing climate extremes, this report also integrates perspectives from research communities studying adaptation to climate change, and disaster risk management. The severity of the impacts of extreme and non-extreme weather and climate events depends strongly on the level of vulnerability and exposure of human, ecological and physical systems to these events.

James Lovelock, scientist, inventor, and founder of the Gaia Theory, which holds that Earth is a single, self-regulating system that will correct imbalances, sometimes through the mass mortality of what has led to the imbalance. Lovelock has said that authoritarianism may be required for a time if serious steps are to be taken against climate change. Flickr/Jon and Lu

Professor Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical Climate Hazards, University College London

One of the key ways in which anthropogenic climate change will affect human society is through the increasing impact of extreme events such as floods and droughts. This landmark report uses the latest observations and models to forecast what we will be up against in the decades to come. It also highlights the complex and sometimes unexpected ways in which climate change may drive dangerous extreme events, including a response from the solid Earth in the form of increased landslide activity and other geological hazards.

Dr Simon Brown, Climate Extremes Research Manager, Met Office Hadley Centre

This focus of the IPCC on extremes is very welcome as less emphasis has traditionally been given to these phenomena which are very likely to be the means by which ordinary people first experience climate change. Human susceptibility to weather mainly arises through extreme weather events so it is appropriate that we focus on these which, should they change for the worse, would have wide ranging and significant consequences. This review will be very helpful in progressing the science by bringing together a wide range of studies - not just on the physical weather aspects of climate extremes but also on how we might adapt and respond to their changes in the future.

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science

This expert review of the latest available scientific evidence clearly shows that climate change is already having an impact in many parts of the world on the frequency, severity and location of extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, droughts and flash floods. This is remarkable because extreme events are rare and it is difficult to detect statistically significant trends in such small sets of data. What is more, these trends have been identified over the last few decades when the rise in global average temperature has been just a few tenths of a centigrade degree. The report shows that if we do not stop the current steep rise in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, we will see much more warming and dramatic changes in extreme weather which are likely to overwhelm any attempts human populations might make to adapt to their impacts.

This report should leave governments in no doubt, as they prepare for the next United Nations climate change summit in Durban, South Africa, at the end of November, that climate change is, through its impact on extreme weather, already harming the lives and livelihoods of millions of people around the world. Governments must focus clearly on reaching a strong international agreement to strengthen their efforts to reduce emissions and to prepare their populations for those impacts of climate change that cannot now be avoided.

Flying over the coalfields of the Hunter Valley, NSW. Flickr/Jeremy Buckingham MLC

John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, CRC Chair in Natural Hazard Research, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University. Dr. Clague was one of the authors on this IPCC report.

First of all, I think the report does an excellent job in 1) defining terms that are central to the topic and 2) capturing large uncertainties that are inherent and unavoidable when seeking to identify possible trends in climate extremes. Uncertainty is captured by evaluating the evidence for trends (the type, amount, quality, and consistency of the data), as well as the level of agreement among the informed scientific community.

I picked up on several trends that will be important to Canada and that are considered “medium” to “very likely” [these findings are in italics]:

It is very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future. There is high confidence that locations currently experiencing adverse impacts such as coastal erosion and inundation will continue to do so in the future due to increasing sea levels, all other contributing factors being equal.

Sea level is currently rising at a rate of about 3 mm/yr and the rate is likely to increase through the remainder of the century. Low-lying coastal areas on all three of Canada’s coasts will experience increased erosion and inundation during extreme storms as the century progresses. Erosion and inundation occur during extreme storms, which as noted below, may increase along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts in the future. Greater erosion of some coasts in the Arctic will be exacerbated by reduced Arctic ice cover.

While on this topic, the recent devastating flooding in Bangkok is a harbinger of things to come for that city. Bangkok lies only about 2 m above sea level. The slow rise in sea level reduces the gradient of the Chao Phraya River, which flows through the city to the Gulf of Thailand. During extreme river floods, as occurred this year, the lower ‘freeboard’ to the tops of the protective dykes at high tides increases the likelihood of flooding.

Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.

This is an interesting conclusion - Some hurricanes track up the U.S. Atlantic coast to Nova Scotia (Hurricane Juan) and Newfoundland. An increase in the strength of tropical cyclones may have implications for cities like Halifax, Charlottetown, and St. John’s.

There is medium confidence that there will be a reduction in the number of extra-tropical cyclones averaged over each hemisphere. While there is low confidence in the detailed geographical projections of extra-tropical cyclone activity, there is medium confidence in a projected poleward shift of extra-tropical storm tracks.

Any poleward shift in the tracks of extra-tropical cyclones in the North Pacific might result in an increase in severe storms on the populated south coast of British Columbia. Strong winds resulting from severe storms are perhaps the most damaging natural phenomena in this region.

It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century on the global scale. It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, or heat waves, will increase over most land areas. Based on the A1B and A2 emissions scenarios, a 1-in-20 year hottest day is likely to become a 1-in-2 year event by the end of the 21st century in most regions, except in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where it is likely to become a 1-in-5 year event.

Without appropriate planning and remediation, more frequent hot spells, coupled with poor air quality, will increase heat stroke and early death in Toronto, other cities in southern Ontario, and perhaps Montreal.

There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas, due to reduced precipitation and/or increased evapotranspiration. This applies to regions including southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa.

A seasonal or multi-annual intensification of drought conditions in the “Palliser Triangle”, in southeast Alberta and southwest Saskatchewan, will reduce grain production and thus adversely impact the Canadian economy. This drought-prone semiarid region is the “bread basket” of Canada. Proxy research on past climates has shown that drought conditions unlike any that have occurred in the past century, including the 1930s “Dust Bowl” era, have happened in the past 1000 years.

There is high confidence that changes in heat waves, glacial retreat and/or permafrost degradation will affect high mountain phenomena such as slope instabilities, movements of mass, and glacial lake outburst floods. There is also high confidence that changes in heavy precipitation will affect landslides in some regions.

Glaciers in British Columbia, Alberta, and the Yukon will continue to retreat. In combination with increased thaw of alpine permafrost, the reduction in glacier cover will result in an increase in landslides and large ‘outburst floods’ from ice-dammed lakes in high mountains. The loss of glacier ice will also impact stream flow, with possible consequences for hydroelectric power production and water use.

Scenery from a Yangtze River cruise out of Shanghai. Flickr/maxful

Professor Hans Schreier, Aquatic Ecosystem Research Laboratory, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia

As a result of the critiques of previous IPCC reports this SREX report is very cautious. The reason for this is two fold; 1. The historic data and records of extreme event is generally poor 2. Land use changes have a significant impact on disasters and most often magnify the impacts

It should be remembered that most of the IPCC efforts and projections are using climate data as a basis and land use information is usually not incorporated into the modelling. I would argue that land use changes alone have likely a greater influence on water processes than climate but they both are changing at the same time. It is therefore impossible to state which is more important. However, what is critical is that the combined effect of extreme event and land use change will have an accelerated impact leading to greater disasters and risks particularly at local levels.

The lack of good historic data is the main reason why many of the experts are cautious in how much confidence they have in the current trends. However, most of the modelled projections to 2100 clearly show an increase in many aspects of extreme events. This means we need to focus on using adaptation and prevention methods to reduce risks. The report mentions that post disaster recovery provides an opportunity to reduce the effect of extreme event. A more appropriate statement would be to use the precautionary principle and start taking steps to reduce the risk of extreme events and prevent or reduce future impacts.

The experts are virtually certain that the frequency and magnitude of daily warm temperature extremes are increasing. The implications of this for food production and energy demands are significant.

They are also confident that the frequency of heavy precipitation and the amount of total precipitation in some regions will produce a much higher risk of flooding when land use changes are taking into consideration. This is of particular concern in urban areas where storm water systems are inadequate. The flooding problem is even more critical in coastal areas because of anticipated sea level rise.

Of particular concern are the Mountain Regions in Canada because are projections show high confidence that changes in heat wave, glacial retreat, permafrost degradation and extreme rainfall events will lead to accelerated sloe instability, landslides and flooding. This will have huge impacts on transportation and tourism and mining activities in mountain area.

Local knowledge needs to be incorporated into the risk assessments and high risk areas need to be identified and measures to reduce these risk should be initiated.

A great Canadian example of a mountain community that has taken the initiative to incorporate climate change and preventative measures in the District of Elkford in B.C. They have incorporated climate change and adaptations into their Official Community Plan. This is the first Canadian community that has taken this initiative and their effort is now highlighted by the UN Framework on Climate Change guidebook.

Professor Patrick M. Condon, James Taylor Chair in Landscape and Liveable Environments, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia

How does the design of cities need to change given that we can expect more frequent and increasingly severe storm events?

Canada must help prevent what is already a disaster from becoming a catastrophe. Vermont and Pakistan are only the latest locations, where rainfall amounts shattered records by huge margins, with resulting damages in the hundreds of billions of dollars. All this present chaos from a mere one degree rise in average global temperatures.

Even if we stopped spewing carbon into the atmosphere tomorrow, global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees Celsius. In this unprecedented circumstance our cities must do two things. First and foremost we must slowly rebuild them so they don’t demand so much carbon to operate. Our cities now demand at least five times more carbon per capita than they did prior to world war two, largely due to our reliance on the car, and the low density sprawl which the car spawned.

Doing our part to slow or stop global warming is not simply a practical imperative; its a moral one. Canadians are responsible for far more than their fair share of climate change. But its major victims live in places like Africa and Bangladesh, where people did very little to deserve this. Our traditions as Canadians demand that we do our share to help. Changing our carbon greedy cities is the place to start.

In rebuilding our cities for an altered world, we must work with our rapidly changing natural systems, not against them. One very simple example: “Green streets”, streets with ample shade trees and natural verges to infiltrate storm water, can both mitigate the threat of floods while naturally cooling our homes. The shade and protection thy provide can also make walking and cycling a more reasonable option than the car.

This “green infrastructure” approach is crucial, not just to help save the planet, but to provide affordable ways to climate-proof our cities. Already we are crushed under the financial burdens of maintaining an infrastructure for storm and flood management that is beyond our capacity to maintain or replace. Now we find that the performance of this expensive system was calculated based on the behaviors of a world that no longer exists. Only through a radical recalibration in conformance with the new uncertainties of an altered planet can we hope to affordably adapt.

The city of Linfen, China, with its very heavy reliance on burning coal, has topped lists as the most polluted city in the world. Flickr/fung.leo

Adjunct Research Professor John Stone, Department of Geography, Carleton University. Dr Stone was a member of the Bureau of the IPCC for the 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports

First, I’ve only seen the draft. And that’s important because over the last 5 days or so this report has been discussed with governments in Kampala. The purpose of these talks is to come up with a text that governments can understand, is useful and is in a language that matches the science. So the actual wording in the final document is likely to be different from what I’ve read.

From the draft, I’m not particularly surprised with the findings. It’s pretty much what I expected to see – and it’s a reflection of what’s been known for quite a while. Some of the things (like heat-waves) we have been pretty sure of have not change and some of the things (like hurricanes) still have questions-marks. In the draft report there are some changes to the levels of confidence we can put on the findings. Many of the findings are not much different from those in the IPCC’s 4th report or the one written for US Congress about 4 years ago. The report has addressed how we might respond – including such matters as disaster management. This should be quite useful to governments at all levels.

One thing it [the report] tells us is that heat waves are very likely to increase. This is important for Canada because that puts the health of a lot of people, particularly the elderly, at risk. In Russia there were 40-50,000 additional deaths last year attributable to the heat waves that occurred there. That’s very significant. We expect these heat waves to become more frequent and more intense.

Another variable that this report speaks to is floods. We expect there to be more heavy rain events, which could give rise to more flooding.

When people talk to me these days about climate change it’s often in connection to extreme events and particularly floods. The recent flooding in Thailand was caused by such extreme events, in this case, by tropical cyclones. Extreme rain events are also important for Canada, because they might involve not just rain, they might mean snow or freezing rain.

This is all quite understandable from basic physics: as globe warms it can carry more moisture, which can fall out as increased precipitation.

There is still a lot of controversy with respect to what we know about tropical cyclones – hurricanes in the North Atlantic. There are still some questions about whether there will be increases in hurricanes or not in the future. From what we know, it’s likely that we will see more category 4 or 5 hurricanes – the most intense. The overall number might drop but we may see increases in the number of the stronger ones.

The fact is, we still don’t fully understand them well. One of the factors that sustains hurricanes is the sea surface temperature, which we know is rising. But there are factors that influence hurricane development, such as winds in the upper atmosphere. Hurricanes are rather complicated systems that we still don’t understand entirely. So our confidence in predicting changes is still limited.

The IPCC report, in draft form at least, provides a weaker statement on hurricanes than in the previous report. By weaker, I mean weaker in terms of confidence levels.

From simple statistics and basic physics, we can say that there will be an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme events. What we’ve seen today doesn’t surprise us. It doesn’t mean we can attribute every extreme event to anthropogenic climate change, but it does support the idea that we’ve “loaded the dice,” so to speak. That these extreme events are more likely to happen now than they have been in the past.

With respect to floods, what we do expect to see is an increase in heavy rain events. Flooding is also caused by our changes in stream flow patterns such as when we close off flood plains, straighten rivers, build dams, and similar engineered modifications of river flows. These can exacerbate the flooding that we expect to see. The engineering changes that we’ve introduced into our landscapes confound making firm forecasts. But one of the conclusions we can draw is that because we have modified the climate there could be increases in local flooding.

Most of these extreme events are of a local scale. That’s a problem for science because these extreme events can happen at a scale that is too small for our observing network. Also, modeling such phenomena is difficult because of the challenges of representing small scale processes in the models.

But things have got better. In the past, the reason that we couldn’t say very much about hurricanes was that if they didn’t hit land, they didn’t occur. Now with satellites we have much greater coverage. The situation is also much better now that we have an extensive Doppler radar network. This technology allows us to track all sorts of storms, for example tornadoes. So our ability to track extreme weather has certainly increased. But in terms of providing solid statistics, we need a much longer series of data that isn’t always there.

We can say that the East coast of Canada could be more affected by hurricanes. But it all depends on their tracks, and whether they come on land or stay out at sea.

It’s important to understand that extreme events are not just a meterological phenomenon. They also tend to expose the vulnerabilities in our human socioeconomic structures. For example the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina was not simply an extreme meteorological event. It was also a social and economic catastrophe.

Extreme events are often short lived, but the effects of these extreme events can last a very long time. So it can be very difficult to recover from one extreme event before the next one hits. In developed nations most of the damage is to infrastructure and property and we can put a dollar value on these losses. In developing world it’s often measured in terms of lives lost. You can’t put a dollar value on that.

So extreme events can place a magnifying glass on people and their communities and their infrastructure.

As I have mentioned, from simple statistical and physical arguments we can expect that extreme events will increase and become more damaging. This is because of what we have done to alter our climate. We have in effect loaded the dice. However, the damage caused also has to do with the vulnerability of whatever is impacted. So we have to talk very carefully and we have to be careful in our attribution of cause and effect.

I was an author on the report on extreme events and climate change for the U.S. Congress. In putting together that report there were heated debates about the language that should be used. In the IPCC 4th report – when we came to discussing the summary for policy-makers there was protracted discussion about what we could say. So it will be interesting with this report to see what exact language is used.

Ultimately it’s important to understand that scientific knowledge is not absolute – and our understanding changes over time. That’s part of the scientific process.

One more thought regarding heat waves. There have been some interesting studies on the heat waves but there doesn’t seem yet to be a strong consensus. There are some research papers that are coming out which have said “yes, this is not surprising – the likelihood of these heat waves is actually greater because of climate change.”

I’m going to quote from a study by Stephan Rahmsdorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate in Germany. He wrote that he “estimates that the local warming trend has increased by five fold the number of records expected in the past decade, which implies an approximately 80% probability that the July 2010 heat wave in Moscow was attributable to anthropogenic climate change. That is quite different from a statement issued by NOAA earlier in the year, which said that the heat waves were mainly due to natural variability.

The caution here is that we are often dealing with different datasets, and different statistical methods. In my view the IPCC gives us the best assessment we’re going to get for the moment.

Comments welcome below.

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

156 Comments sorted by

  1. James Cooper

    logged in via Facebook

    The concept that man can adapt to what is going to happen to their planet due to refusal to curb CO2 emissions is kind of a new "Denial Lite" to ease our fears.

    In other words, this report is saying, if we just move a few people to new, safer sites all will be well.

    Not really. If heat in the temperate zones increases by 7 degrees C, we can't grow food. So people in the new, safer sites will starve.

    The magnitude of what will happen by itself prevents explanation for the general public. It is just too big a story to tell. It is just to grim for people to accept.

    This adaption approach I guess is trying to present things in an acceptable form. But it is not honest and will not help us do something to save part of humanity. It is a "feel good" approach.

    Lovelock was pilloried for honestly saying 5 billion people will perish. But he is a man not used to shaping his scientific conclusions to please some organization or media requirements.

    report
    1. Matthew Thompson

      Editor at The Conversation

      In reply to James Cooper

      Dear James,
      Thanks for bringing Lovelock to mind; I've added a photo of him.
      Yours,
      Matt.

      report
    2. Tim Scanlon

      Author and Scientist

      In reply to James Cooper

      Actually James, I was in an interesting Aussie-wide meeting discussing adaptation versus combating. Basic summary of 2 hours of science was that adaptation always tends to fail as it falls short or is not timely. Adaptation sets the bar too low and provides a false sense of security when it comes to meeting technology needs.

      So I completely agree with you.

      report
  2. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    According to Munich Re-Insurance the overall frequency of extreme weather events, including floods, cyclones, droughts and fires, has increased by about 2-fold between 1998 and 2008 (Frequency of global extreme weather events and geophysical events, 1998 - 2008. https://www.munichre.com/touch/login/en/service/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=/touch/publications/en/list/default.aspx?id=1060).

    Whreas no single flood, cyclon or heat wave can be attributed to the rise in mean global tempeatures, the increase in…

    Read more
  3. Ben Heard

    Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

    Interesting. As I expected, the early breathless media reporting that this work somehow lampoons the warnings and information put forward about climate change and extreme events does not seem to be the case. In my work over the years, I have generally found the scientific community to always be quite measured in their statements regarding extreme events, that seems to be continuing to be the case. Just typical straw man stuff from the media who play on general ignorance of the nature of certainty…

    Read more
  4. Gideon Polya

    Sessional Lecturer in Biochemistry for Agricultural Science at La Trobe University

    Sobering, expert comments from ANU paleoclimate scientist Dr Andrew Glikson.

    Reading the Summary for Policy Makers version of the IPCC SRAX report is complicated by a trichotomy of linguistic and numerical statements of probability and our own personal assessments of risk.

    Thus "virtually certain" means "" 99-100% probability", "very likely" means "90-100%", "likely" means "66-100%", "about as likely as not" means "33-66%" , "unlikely" means "0-33%", "very unlikely" means "0-10%" and "exceptionally…

    Read more
    1. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Gideon Polya

      I am the broken record on this subject, but the fastest, best way to cut emissions is deployment of nuclear power. Greens in government would be the worst possible outcome.

      report
    2. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      You are indeed a broken record, Ben, though you may be surprised to learn that I agree with the use of nuclear power - I don't like the soot from coal burning either. Just so long as they keep the nuclear plants far from civilisation and high enough up the mountains. God gave us nuclear power for constructive, not destructive purposes, because He knew the coal would not last for ever. There will be nuclear, and there will be better batteries developed to make it more transportable. More vehicles…

      Read more
    3. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Without the least mockery Doug, sincerely, faith is not a lynch pin of my life so I do my best with understanding evidence, even or indeed particularly when the evidence suggests that all is not well. I guess we are quite different there. The paper you quoted on this thread counts as far as I am concerned, and I'm learning from it. So thanks.

      I have indeed gone out of my way to call you to account, I have resorted to mockery, and perhaps I should learn to be a bigger guy than that. But I have two…

      Read more
  5. Toby James

    retired physicist

    The report says: “Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain”

    Its not as bad as we thought. We were expecting impending horror and doom, but it seems the IPCC thinks CO2 will be on holiday for the next 2 or 3 decades. I feel better already.

    report
    1. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Toby James

      Dude, copying and pasting your little meme from one thread to the other is a bit of a lame stunt, don't you think? I've already responded to this, you appear not to understand the issue of emission scenarios, and that the quote you have drawn is not a new finding. If you feel better, fine, but that's because you have been operating under a misunderstanding all along.

      report
    2. Toby James

      retired physicist

      In reply to Ben Heard

      Ben, the quotation I posted should be read by more than those reading a single 'thread', even though you have read it twice.

      Part of reason that its so interesting is, that at Durban, it will be welcomed by Russia, China, Japan, India, USA etc., as a vindication of their preferred position of 'no more Kyoto or its like - thank you'. And Burma, The Maldives, coral atoll countries, Australia etc. as a vindication of their embrace of CAGW.

      If, as seems likely, temperatures continue to fall and if atmospheric CO2 concentration levels off by 2025 - 27 it won't matter to the IPCC because its moral bankruptcy will by then have lead to its demise.

      report
    3. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Toby James

      Honestly, feel free to attack bad policy, I'm sure we'll find areas of agreement. Just try to resist bastardising good science in the process. It's getting boring to have to keep correcting people who make sweeping statements without seeming to understand what they are talking about. I don't know, maybe in my humble status as a non-scientist, I have felt compelled to actually read the IPCC reports closely to be sure I can comment in an informed way, rather than make assumptions or just lead with my outcome.

      Just out of interest, have you anything to suggest a levelling off of emissions in that timeframe? I'd love to know.

      report
    4. Toby James

      retired physicist

      In reply to Ben Heard

      Its not emissions Ben, its atmospheric CO2 levels in ppm that are likely to stop increasing. The emissions will continue to increase but with falling SSTs the CO2 transit time will decrease. The T1/2 transit time is <10 yrs but that is very likely to decrease with the decline in SST.

      Although those who are Warmistanis believe CO2 is a pollutant (because the high priests of Warmistan have told them to believe it) its not a pollutant for real world science - it is the physical foundation of the biosphere - and like all living things that depend upon it, it too waxes and wains according to the conditions that affect it.

      report
    5. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Toby James

      Ah... thanks for clearing that up. The IPCC are dead wrong. Yet again.

      Please direct me to your written work that has been submitted for peer review, or the peer reviewed work that backs those assertions

      report
    6. Toby James

      retired physicist

      In reply to Ben Heard

      Ben, are you asking for a higher standard for normal scientists than those who wrote the report for the IPCC? The IPCC have been unprofessional to the point of being quite slack when it comes to peer review.

      You've read the AR4 so you will have made your own assessment of its contents. What is your opinion of the fact that 5,587 references in the 2007 IPCC report (AR4) were not peer-reviewed. Among these documents are press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, MA and PhD…

      Read more
    7. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Toby James

      You misunderstand. I am unpublished. I comment. I do not make comments that seek to debunk an entire body of science. You do. I'm asking for either you work in science or someone else's to support it. Otherwise it is what's known as "making stuff up".

      report
  6. Doug Cotton

    IT Manager

    Recent extreme weather events cannot be blamed on a warming climate unless it is in fact warming. And warming cannot necessarily be blamed on carbon dioxide levels because there are other possibilities which the IPCC ignored, and their models have recently been shown to predict an incorrect ratio between temperature gradients in the lower troposphere and those at the surface. (Links to papers are in the "Self criticism" thread.) Thus, if the models are wrong on such an important point, then they…

    Read more
    1. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Remind us again of your formal contributions to climate science Doug? Shouldn't take long. The word "none" should suffice.

      report
    2. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      Here's the link to the paper showing empirical measurements significantly at variance with IPCC models. www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/2/9/2148/pdf

      Remind us again that you have a financial interest in maintaining the AGW hoax.

      report
    3. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      LOL. I had a private bet with myself that that desperate vested interest attack of yours would be your response!!! Thanks for being so completely predictable, Doug, you're a treat.

      Ah the tropospheric hotspot... the scope of Christy's claims against the consensus keep on shrinking in both scope and geography don't they? Be sure to read around a few papers on that subject Doug. Would hate for your bias to predetermine what you read.

      report
    4. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      One unpublished article versus the published work of nine (9) authors?

      Anyway, whatever you think of the models, I rest my case on my latest posts on the thread http://theconversation.edu.au/critically-important-the-need-for-self-criticism-in-science-4160 where I show no significant difference in the temperature gradient for 1895-2010 and that for 1950-2009, these periods being appropriate choices in view of the repetitive alternate cooling and warming periods commencing approximately every 30 years. Periods which are not multiples of about 60 years will always give understated or overstated gradients.

      report
    5. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      Except Christy and the eight other authors are not writing about the hotspot. You just assumed they were without reading the paper.

      report
    6. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      Ian - the words "the IPCC doesn't ignore anything that is important" are yours based on your assumption of what is important or not. The plain fact is that the IPCC did not even consider the effect of the damage to the crust which I have explained, let alone take any steps to measure the resulting temperatures due to the release of core heat. All they presumably did was calculate the thermal energy released in the explosions themselves and, quite rightly, determine that it was insignificant, as I wholeheartedly agree.

      My point is, such a consideration should have been very much in their domain to monitor. After all, what does the CC in IPCC stand for? They just didn't think of it.

      report
    7. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Show, quantitativley, the heat loss through crustal damage form nuclear weapons vs the hear loss through the crustal plate subduction zones in the ring of fire. Include your working.

      report
    8. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Doug, where has this sudden affection for peer reviewed work come from? I was under the impression, directly from your comments a couple of threads ago, that you refuse to involve yourself in peer reviewed science to review your assertions, theories and logic, because, in your stunningly circular reasoning, the findings of the peer reviewed science are so clearly wrong that you cannot be bothered? Yet now you seem to think we should bow down to a paper by Christy et al? Don't get me wrong, your reference is fine. They put in the yards to go through the process, the paper is therefore worthy of consideration and debate. Along with the rest of the body of peer reviewed work.

      Would you please settle on a position here?

      report
    9. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Well, the paper seems to be all about the temperature behaviour of the tropical lower troposphere compared to the surface and how there measurements compare with modelling "In terms of climate change due to increasing greenhouse gases from (primarily) energy production, climate models project a prominent warming of the TLT which in magnitude is on average twice as large near 300–200 hPa as changes projected for the surface [2]." and "The basic issue here is whether the relationship between the observed temperature trend of TLT and the observed temperature trend of the surface (Tsfc) is faithfully reproduced by the results given in climate model simulations. These model simulations indicate that a clear fingerprint of greenhouse gas response in the climate system to date is that the trend of TLT should be greater than Tsfc, by a factor on average of 1.4 (see below.)"

      I did read the paper Doug. Old habits. You know how it is.

      report
    10. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      Yes, and actual measurements found it was (and I quote) ...

      "~0.8 ± 0.3. This is significantly different from the average SR calculated from the IPCC AR4 model simulations which is ~1.4. This result indicates the majority of AR4 simulations tend to portray significantly greater warming in the troposphere relative to the surface than is found in observations."

      Thus the models were shown to be incorrect by between 1.4 / 0.5 and 1.4 / 1.1 that is the models were out by between about 27% and 180%.

      Yet we "expect" them to be so accurate that they can predict that the net flux at TOA is +0.5% rather than -0.5% of total incoming radiation, and thus distinguish between a net warming or cooling effect of GHG. (LOL)

      report
    11. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      Invest a few million in models and someone might. It would of course require estimates of the surface areas of the cavities, crack and crevices at various levels and details of temperature gradients which are approximately 30 deg.C per kilometre.

      Unfortunately the opportunity to measure the effects has long passed.

      report
    12. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      First things first: Is this another paper about the tropospheric hot spot or is it not? I hate to be a bore, but sometimes its the little things that truly make me wonder why you come here and play expert without seemingly knowing what you are talking about. So far the debate has gone Is/ Isn't/ Think you'll find it is/ (silence) Look! A bird!

      Bit of a pattern with you Doug when the going gets tough Doug, and I'm not even a scientist.

      As for the reference, it's perfectly credible, having submitted…

      Read more
    13. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      It is not.

      report
    14. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      The SkS article does not address the issue being investigated in this paper - namely the discrepancy between the ratio determined by the models and that measured. Nor has any other published paper (to my knowledge) as yet found fault in the paper.

      You all need to understand the HUGE significance of this discrepancy in the ratios (which is even worse further up in the troposphere) and, if you are honest and "self critical" you will acknowledge the implications for AGW as a whole.

      report
    15. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Oh shivers I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I think I have a new use for the expression "vintage Cotton".

      report
    16. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      I have always maintained that sea surface temperature data is the most representative because about 90% of the thermal energy is in the oceans and sea ice, compared with about 6% in the land and other ice and 4% in the atmosphere.

      Your plot is not of sea surface temperatures, and time lags help to explain the differences in the gradient for the shorter period on your plot compared with theirs. Yours should probably start 5 to 10 years earlier.

      I do agree that my "averaging" of the two ~30 year…

      Read more
    17. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      "Nor has any other published paper (to my knowledge) as yet found fault in the paper."

      Fair point. I can't say whether this is the case or not either, however it has been in publication for just over 12 months.

      "if you are honest and "self critical" you will acknowledge the implications for AGW as a whole." Silly point, persistently made by deniers. The science of AGW is not a house of cards that falls with the slightest tremor. It is made up of a great many disciplines and a great many lines of evidence, and is in continuous development. Queries over modelled outcomes, (particularly from a scientist with a track record of contrarianism who begrudgingly shifts as his positions gets scientifically untenable) is not remotely the wrecking ball you wish to make it out to be.

      report
    18. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      You will find plenty of peer-reviewed papers linked either directly or from articles linked on my websites. It is not an issue of counting such papers, but rather thoughtful consideration as to their validity based on peer-reviewed physics and statistics of which I am sufficiently knowledgeable for the purpose.

      report
    19. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      It's really not that hard, you know the mean surface area of the atomic test sites, and their number, compare that to the mean surface area of the ring of fire faults. That should do for at least order of magnitude comparisons.

      report
    20. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      I see... just not sufficiently confident to submit your own ideas to the same process, preferring to claim that you disprove the whole AGW hoax here on a blog thread day after day. Makes perfect sense.

      report
    21. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      You show a lack of understanding of the surface area to which I am referring, probably because you don;t understand my point at all. I am not talking about the surface area which is the circle on the Earth's surface when viewed from above. I am talking about the internal surface area of the three dimensional main cavity plus the surface area of all the peripheral cracks and crevices (no matter how narrow) which nevertheless have a surface area through which mantle heat would escape into the water or air.

      The surface area would also need to be expressed as a function of depth where temperature increases about 30 degrees for each kilometre. I wouldn't even know what the depths of the deepest cracks would be, or the cavities themselves, and there would be huge variations over 2,000 sites.

      You can't be serious in suggesting this is a one man / one year task.

      report
    22. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      It should fall when evidence of a wide variety (not only temperature data) points to errors and when there never has been any valid experiment confirming that carbon dioxide has a net warming effect in the atmosphere.

      It doesn't fall because of what I will call "intellectual momentum" which has been evident numerous times in history, be it physics, medicine or whatever, even though the previously well-established beliefs have been debunked.

      report
    23. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Sure, it should be fairly easy to estimate, just assume that all the test sites have the same penetration as the average ring of fire faults. Good enough for an order of magnitude estimation. Calculate away and give us the answer (physicists do this all the time, you don't need any fancy modelling)

      report
    24. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      For simplicity, assume the the heat leaked from an underground test site (atmospheric tests will not have affected the crust) is equivalent to 1/100th of the heat leaking from the active volcano Narahoe in New Zealand (a great over estimate). Now, there were roughly 1300 surface or underground tests done, and ther are around 1500 active volcanoes. Calculate the total heat budget form crustal damage by nuclear tests vs the heat from all volcanoes as a fraction of the total energy input to earth..

      report
    25. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      "when there never has been any valid experiment confirming that carbon dioxide has a net warming effect in the atmosphere."

      For information regarding the CO2 greenhouse effect look at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

      Blackbody radiation and the role of greenhouse gases is basic physics, formulated in the Planck, Stefan-Bolzmann and Krichhoff laws. Anyone who can refute these laws through the peer review literature will be due for the next Nobel prize

      report
    26. Andrew Glikson

      Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Response to Ben Heard

      Time is of the essence

      Even if nuclear power could prove 100 pecent safe (which, due to ever-present human error, is less than likely) by the time power generation is transferred from fossil fuel combustion to nuclear fission and/or fusion the atmosphere will have well above 500 ppm CO2 (+ methane + Nitric oxide) - an increase in atmosphere/ocean energy driving extreme weather events on a magnitude severely disrupting civilization.

      Due to the time factor priority needs to be given to a combination of C-emission reduction and draw-down of atmospheric CO2, using a range of methods - soil carbon, biochar, fast track revegetation, chemical (NaOH), serpentine-based sequestration and new methods.

      report
    27. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Andrew - please refer my post this morning now copied to this thread to save cross referencing. I have mentioned in a previous post that I believe blackbody formulas can only be applied correctly to the whole system including land and ocean surfaces and also the atmosphere - ie as viewed from space. The radiating temperature (perhaps around -18 deg.C) then makes sense as a weighted mean because obviously such temperatures would be found in the troposphere.

      The surface/atmosphere interface is…

      Read more
    28. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Andrew, I am intrigued. Like everything else, nuclear will never be 100% safe, and you are clearly enough of a scientist to know it. It's a question of relative risk. As it happens, it's the safest major power source in the world on the basis of accidents alone, quite apart from the absence of air pollution and GHG.

      Due to the time factor, which I agree with you 100% by the way, priority needs to be given to both turning off the carbon tap and draw down (where, just as an aside, I am increasingly…

      Read more
    29. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      Ben - My primary aim is to draw attention to the fact that there are indeed other peer-reviewed papers which are critical of the IPCC models and projections, and there are likely to be many more in the future, for they are finding more and more errors. I don't need to reinvent the wheel.

      How about you respond to the five points in the post at the foot hereof (if it's not deleted) either in this forum or by direct email if you wish to support@acclaim-soft.com

      report
    30. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      Ben - the points mentioned are ...

      1. The warming predicted by the models is not happening these last 9 years or so - as per peer-reviewed paper here: http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

      2. The above paper also stated that Trenberth seriously overestimated FTOA, which, they state, is most accurately determined by modelling. "In summary, we find that estimates of the recent (2003–2008) OHC rates of change are preponderantly negative. This does not support the existence…

      Read more
    31. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      "Ben - My primary aim is to draw attention to the fact that there are indeed other peer-reviewed papers which are critical of the IPCC models and projections, and there are likely to be many more in the future, for they are finding more and more errors. I don't need to reinvent the wheel."

      Doug, from what I have read of you that's rubbish. Were that your primary aim, it would be over and done with by now and no one would care, certainly not I who is perfectly pleased to read and acknowledge peer…

      Read more
    32. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      Ben - you wouldn't need to worry about Andrew's time factor if you stopped believing the incorrect science that is AGW theory, and start believing what those nine authors are saying. The AGW theory REQUIRES more warming in the lower troposphere than at the surface. In fact the opposite it happening. The surface will warm more partly because of urban sprawl - more black roads and dark buildings - more energy use etc. The very fact that the lower troposphere is only warming at 0.8 times the rate…

      Read more
    33. Ben Heard

      Director, ThinkClimate Consulting

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Well, that serves me right for going with empathy. Doug, you have shown that you are a man of God first and a man of science second. Your world view on climate change that you expressed above is "Can't be happening because He wouldn't let it". Your response to that premise is to put a magnifying glass on any thread of evidence or good science that supports you, or when there is none, to just make it up. In doing so, you threaten my family's future, all on the basis of your faith which you see fit to jam into discussions of science. It is a ridiculous bad joke. Please go back to the intellectual embrace of your fellow Christian believers, and leave the science to the scientists. Your contributions are an utter waste of space.

      report
    34. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ben Heard

      Ben - it's all out in the open now in the Climategate 2 emails - see Andrew's post or my copy further down this page. Back in 2009 at least some at the IPCC staff realised there were serious problems with the temperature measurements of the Lower Troposphere. That was even before this paper was published http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/2/9/2148/pdf confirming it in no uncertain terms.

      If ever there was proof the models are wrong it is in this paper. And, after all, Jones said it: "Basic problem is all models are wrong"

      I rest my case.

      report
    35. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      It's all out in the open now Michael in the Climategate 2 emails. Back in 2009 at least some at the IPCC staff realised there were serious problems with the temperature measurements of the Lower Troposphere. This is fundamental to the AGW case. If the LT does not warm about 1.4 times the rate of the surface, then the models are wrong. When it is actually warming at only about 0.8 times the rate, then carbon dioxide is having no effect whatsoever.

      Thorne/MetO: "Observations do not show rising…

      Read more
    36. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Doug Cotton, as usual is so willing to rush to judgement based on little evidence and quotes taken out of context yet hasn't the intellectual honesty to admit his complete erros and misrepresentation claiming warming is due to energy from the earth's core, perhaps enhanced by Jpuiter and relased by nuclear weapons.

      This is despite the fact that the basic physics and calculations on this post http://theconversation.edu.au/improving-climate-change-reportage-a-must-for-the-media-enquiry-4220 unequivocally shows such a suggestion is impossible (and which he hasn't been able to refute instead just, as usual, offering lame excuses and shifting ground)

      We can hope he will rest his case - but on past form that's unlikely - more probably he will continue to spread bogus science on threads like these

      report
    37. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Doug Cotton's totally ludicrous "theory" that damage to the crust by nuclear weapons has been comprehensively demolished on this thread http://theconversation.edu.au/improving-climate-change-reportage-a-must-for-the-media-enquiry-4220#comments

      But I'll reproduce it here since he hasn't had the guts to admit his errors and continues to spread patently incorrect "theories" in his attempt to deny AGW

      Of the 2000 odd nuclear tests that have been carried out around 1300 were underground and spread across…

      Read more
    38. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Doug Cotton claims that in order to validate the whacky theory that warming is due to nuclear testing leading to increased energy leaking form the core it would take "Invest a few million in models and someone might."

      Complete rubbish - showing that it isn't took me less than a hour of basic secondary reasearch and a few calculations. See my post above.

      Yet again Doug Cotton demonstrates he has no understanding of the science he purports to pontificate about.

      report
    39. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      In what context might Jones' statement that all the models are wrong mean they are right?

      When we know several papers all confirm that the lower troposphere is not warming anywhere near the rate the models say it should, then that would seem to confirm that Jones actually did mean what he said - all the models are wrong.

      Elementary my dear Harrigan - not an issue of context at all.

      report
    40. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Except that you didn't disprove it because you misunderstood the process and the need to ascertain surface areas of cracks and crevices, temperature differences - which increase at about 30 degrees per kilometre - and various other factors, not least of which relates to whether they fill with air or water etc etc etc.

      report
    41. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      PS Far more than 47TW flows into and out of the surface every day as the surface warms in the sun and cools at night. Consider the rapid temperature changes possible on the Moon which has a similar composition to the crust. On Earth 15 degrees of warming during the day is far from uncommon. How much energy due you think that involves flowing through the surface interface? As usual, you just don't think.

      The 47TW is just a net figure. So comparisons with it are quite irrelevant, especially when temperatures could be 50 degrees higher or more. You have no proof of any upper limit of rate of thermal energy flow deep under the surface by conduction (not radiation note) between rock and water for example. Yes it could be established, but you have not done so here.

      report
    42. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Folks should take note of the fact that several months ago, the CRU released all of the “climategate” raw temperature data that deniers had accused it of hiding.

      The whole raw temperature data-set has been sitting on the CRU web-site for about four months now, just begging to be downloaded and analyzed. So have any of the deniers who had been screaming for the CRU’s raw data done anything with it? Have they published any of their own results demonstrating the UHI is real and that the global-warming…

      Read more
    43. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      here's something else that has "been out in the open for a while" - but interestingly, neither Doug Cotton nor Anthony Cox or any of the other crew os pseudo skeptics have drawn attention to it?

      http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004

      In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."

      The directive, sent by Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, was issued less than 15 minutes after Fox correspondent Wendell Goler accurately reported on-air that the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was "on track to be the warmest [decade] on record."

      media "balance" anyone?

      report
    44. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      The 47 TW comes from "real" science Mr Cotton, not made up fabrications and fantasies which have no scientific basis.

      http://www.solid-earth.net/1/5/2010/se-1-5-2010.pdf
      Earth’s surface heat flux
      J. H. Davies1 and D. R. Davies2
      1School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University, Main Building, Park Place, Cardiff, CF103YE, Wales, UK

      You simply are completely unable to admit you are wrong. There is no scientific justifcation for your claim and no evidnece for it - indeed the evidence comprehensively refutes it but you simply lack the intellectual honesty to admit it. Or, to be charitable, you lack the capacity to understand it. Not sure which really

      report
    45. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Doug Cotton really has no idea. The data shows that even if the surface area he is claiming was the entire PLANET the amount of energy released would be worefully inadequate.

      he is very quick to "Demand" others admit errors but is incapable of admiting even the most egregious errors himself.

      He doesn't deserve to be even considered as contributing usefull to the science or the debate

      report
    46. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Some of those "B-grade emails" were not "alleging wrongdoing" Dr Harrigan. They were admitting "all the models are wrong" and with good reason because all but one study showed the lower troposphere was not warming in the way the models said it should - according to another email.

      No issues of wrong doing, Dr Harrigan, just fact. And, as you know, that peer-reviewed paper by nine (9) authors published in 2010 (after these emails were written in 2009) added further weight to the evidence that the models are wrong.

      Now how about addressing these actually issues, Dr Harrigan?

      report
    47. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      I don't blame Fox News covering themselves - for legal reasons no doubt. When the AGW hoax crumbles many editor's heads may roll.

      And, by the way, I think you'll find the 10 years 1997-2006 were warmer than 2000-2009. Last time you quoted this you referred to the 11 year "decade" 2000-2010 - make up your mind about what period you want to cherry pick.

      Whatever the period, such a statistic does not rule out the possibility that a maximum has been passed around 2005 to 2006.

      You'll probably note that, with the importance of the Climategate2 emails brought to our attention today, I have not quite quite the forum yet, but will soon I promise.

      report
    48. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      A few comments, not that Doug will understand them or accept them but

      1) Remore Sensing is a journal of poor repute and

      2) Christy is on record as continually 'revising" his estimates close and close to twhat the IPCC says. In fact Christy can't make up his mind about anything http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=6946

      Like global temperature itself, the rate of change in average global temperature that Dr Christy has been reporting appears to be increasing

      Again Doug Cotton indicates his predispostion to cherry pick that which suits him and to ignore anything else

      report
    49. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Laughable - you talking about cherry picking?? Give me a break. You pick whatever period suits you and completely ignore the established science that makes it quite lcear that periods of roughly 30 years are need to consider climate change, and in relation to AGW the relevant period is when CO2 emission exceeded abouit 310-320ppm in the mid 60's to 70's-

      You are so ready to jump on small erors that other make (e.g. my slight misnaming of a decade period) byt completely unwilling to acknowledge the totally ridiculous rubbish you have spouted about core temperatures.

      You don't derserve to claim being qualified in physics or any other science.

      report
    50. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      9 years?? cherry picking perhaps. I though you said you needed at least 60. keep contradicting yourslef Mr Cotton??

      report
    51. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      You are not addressing the issues raised in my post, namely the content of those two emails which indicated the models are wrong, nor the conclusion of the peer-reviewed paper which had eight other authors apart from Christy, and for which neither you nor I have any reason to doubt the conclusion.

      report
    52. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Well, Michael, maybe you'd like to address the issues raised in my post below, namely the content of those two emails which indicated the models are wrong, and the conclusion of the peer-reviewed paper which had nine authors, and for which neither you nor I have any reason to doubt the conclusion.

      report
    53. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      I don't pick short periods actually. It was you who talked about the hottest decade.

      I have clearly recommended that any linear trends be based on 60 year or 120 year periods in order to eliminate the misleading gradients that other periods generate because of the underlying 60 year cycle. My first preference is for a sinusoidal fit over 120 years, but linear is an approximation which will give more warming by 2100.

      By all means, let's agree on 120 years. Take any data you like over 120 years up till the present and the gradient you get will lead to no more than about one (1) degree C extra warming by 2100. Show me any plot that produces much more.

      report
    54. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      It's not relevant to talk about a dry atmosphere which never actually exists. I clearly said I was allowing for a minimum (or mean perhaps) of 1% water vapour. 100% less 0.93% argon less 1% WV = ~98%. I am always precise Dr Harrigan,

      By the way,I hope you have studied Timothy Curtin's latest post (at least in your email if it was deleted) about the forcing effect of WV. You can take up that issue with him.

      Now, obviously I didn't really mean one molecule would travel up 14,000 feet without…

      Read more
    55. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      1.I can pin point your error: "warmer air flows and water vapour" don't just "mix the heat up a bit."

      Warm air rises, Dr Harrigan, at least in the troposphere, because of the pressure gradient.

      So it is a one way (upward) physical movement of air molecules. When they rise away from the surface, cooler airs comes in and gets warm and rises. It's just like a metal oil filled convection heater warming a whole room to the ceiling. Open a skylight and warm air flows even further up into the sky outside…

      Read more
    56. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Now while on the subject of water vapour, you mentioned it varied from 1% to 4%.

      John Nicol calculated that the total radiation of mean WV (1%) was comparable with CO2.

      So, when WV increases to 4% in any particular region we should see a special preview of what it will be like when the world has four (4) times as much carbon dioxide.

      Wow, have you noticed how hot it gets when the humidity is high?

      Just think of all that back radiation which would be about four times the normal, that is a little more than the warmth of direct sunlight.

      You'll be singing in the rain.

      report
    57. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Dr Harrigan, you really seem to have no idea of statistical significance, trend analysis and the like. Yes there is a need for longer periods when calculating trends.

      But periods of 9 years are quite sufficient to determine if energy is accumulating or not, or whether the lower troposphere is warming fast or not.

      In this paper they used the latest information at the time and the only valid information - rejecting the incomplete and inaccurate data prior to that. It's all in the paper.

      When you can explain correctly how oxygen and nitrogen really do cool in some other way than what I have explained, then you will deserve my respect for your knowledge of physics.

      As you won't be able to do so, I'll say a personal good bye.

      report
    58. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      It is you who have consistently cherry picked. The science of AGW, which you so considtently fail to understand is clear on this matter.

      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
      JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D22105, 19 PP., 2011
      doi:10.1029/2011JD016263
      Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale
      Key Points
      •Models run with human forcing can produce 10-year periods with little warming
      •S/N ratios for tropospheric temp. are ∼1 for 10-yr trends, ∼4 for 32-yr trends
      •Trends >17 yrs are required for identifying human effects on tropospheric temp

      You can do all the bluster and handwaving you like. Buy you have no understanding of the science

      report
    59. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Fine, well use the latest available sea surface data for the 17 years ending September 2011 and you'll find a linear trend has a gradient such that the temperature in 2100 would be 0.3 degrees higher than the maximum in 1998.

      Better still, see the paper by those nine authors which covered over 30 years since 1979 and concluded that the lower troposphere is warming slower than the sea surface when the models said it should have been 1.4 times as fast. You don't like that result do you, Dr Harrigan…

      Read more
    60. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Strange that you suddenly put so much faith in peer reviewed science that suits your views when you are on record on the conversation as claiming it is corrupt.

      report
    61. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      You still do not understand do you?

      You cannot extrapolate a linear trend (no matter what period you use) without understanding the physics behind it. The physics is clear, more GHGs more warming.

      So your trend line would only apply IF we immediately stopped adding additional CO2 - which alas cannot and will not happen

      what your paper by 9 authors purports to show about the lower troposphere mean nothing (apart from maybe helping us to refine our models) - they do NOT overturn the GH effect…

      Read more
    62. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      It should be quite clear that I trust Professors Knox and Douglass far more than Trenberth whose theories (like missing energy) they rubbished. Why don't I trust Trenberth and company? Partly because of the motives exposed in Climategate 1 & 2, and partly because they, like you, overlooked what happens to the energy which gets diffused (not radiated) into oxygen and nitrogen.

      Because I trust the work of Professors Knox and Douglass (which cross checks with NASA sea surface temperature data since…

      Read more
    63. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Doug Cotton still does not get it. It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of evidence.

      I respect anyones right to hold religious views - but not to extend them into a public arena where debate about science is involved is unethical.

      Doug Cotton's claims are also logically inconsistent.

      He are on record as claiming that all climate modles are wrong. On what basis dohe now claim the models of Knox and Douglas (many of whose papers have been comprehensivelt rebutted) are valid? Apparently…

      Read more
  7. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    Response to Toby James:

    "The (IPCC) report says: “Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain”

    It comes to show how careful the IPCC report is, and yet:

    1. The frequency and intensity of extreme weather…

    Read more
    1. Toby James

      retired physicist

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      The report includes fatalities due to weather and geophysical events. Why earthquakes and landslides are included is a mystery - the report is not public yet.

      For the last 80 years fatalities due to extreme weather have droped sharply. see: Goklany, Wealth and Safety: The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010.

      report
  8. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    (Continued)

    The IPCC draft report states:

    "Models project substantial warming in temperature extremes by the end of the 21st century. It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century on the global scale. It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, or heat waves, will increase over most land areas. Based on the A1B and A2 emissions scenarios, a…

    Read more
  9. Doug Cotton

    IT Manager

    The following is an outline as to why I believe there is serious doubt surrounding the IPCC projections of a few degrees of warming by 2100. Obviously "extreme weather and disasters" will be somewhat less if such warming does not occur.

    GHG (including carbon dioxide and water vapour) have both a warming effect and a compensating cooling effect. The net difference (be it warming or cooling) is likely to be far, far smaller than the warming effect on its own. The two effects are likely to be similar…

    Read more
    1. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Doug Cotton says "GHG (including carbon dioxide and water vapour) have both a warming effect and a compensating cooling effect. The net difference (be it warming or cooling) is likely to be far, far smaller than the warming effect on its own. The two effects are likely to be similar in magnitude because all radiation out of the atmosphere is done by GHG molecules and about half is space-bound and half is Earth-bound."

      This really shows just how lacking in basic science he is. He takes basic facts…

      Read more
    2. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      I got as far as "There is NO logic, or science, in the idea that something that "stops" something from leaving can make it leave faster "

      GHG molecules acquire thermal energy from two sources: absorbed radiation AND through diffusion from other warmer molecules which collide with them.

      Clearly you haven't understood a word I've written about how thermal energy is diffused from oxygen and nitrogen molecules into GHG molecules.

      Perhaps you would like to answer the question no one else has been able to answer here in the last three weeks or so: "How do oxygen and nitrogen molecules shed the thermal energy which they acquire mostly through diffusion from warmer molecules and from a warmer surface?"

      You'll find the answer if you study my posts on this topic - or even my websites.

      In any event, Climategate 2 has now shed even more light on the hoax that is AGW.

      report
    3. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Actually - what is clear is that you do not understand a single thing you say, let alone the basic physics.

      (by the way - I note you do acknowledge that that is in fact collisions between molecules that lead to their energy acquisition from one another - when I told you that last time in response to your question on the matter you completely failed to understand). Gases transfer heat by direct collisions between molecules.

      What you are proposing is that somehow Oxygen and Nitrogen molecules :seek…

      Read more
    4. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Dr Harrigan thinks oxygen and nitrogen make up 99.9% of the atmosphere. What happened to the 0.93% argon and about 1% water vapour Dr Harrigan? Doesn't seem to add up.

      Then he thinks oxygen and nitrogen shed their thermal energy when they "mostly they diffuse their energy content with each other."

      I'm sure others will see the joke, but he probably won't because he knows how to destroy energy it seems - as well as argon and water vapour.

      Clever Dr Harrigan!

      report
    5. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      1. You know Dr Harrigan that the air is, say, 40 deg.C warmer just above the surface than it is at around 14,000 feet. NASA data will confirm such.

      2. You know this is the case because thermal energy from the surface (warmed by the sun) enters the air.

      3. You know warm air rises.

      So a cold carbon dioxide molecule up there at 14,000 feet is going to be swamped by warmer air (~98% oxygen and nitrogen) with a pretty high chance of a collision which, if it is not in an excited state, will warm…

      Read more
    6. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      You're right Doug - I am wrong (see it's easy!). I was a bit too rough and ready in my description of the earth's atmospheric composition. I apologise (2nd time I've admitted an error to you). The correct figures are, as you rightly point out, are:

      Nitrogen 78%, Oxygen 21% - so combined about 99% (not 99.9% as i said). The rest is argon at 0.9%, CO2 at less than 0.04% and various other trace gases. I was talking about dry atmosphere which is why I didn't mention water vapour but that is also…

      Read more
    7. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      It's not relevant to talk about a dry atmosphere which never actually exists. I clearly said I was allowing for a minimum (or mean perhaps) of 1% water vapour. 100% less 0.93% argon less 1% WV = ~98%. I am always precise Dr Harrigan,

      By the way,I hope you have studied Timothy Curtin's latest post (at least in your email if it was deleted) about the forcing effect of WV. You can take up that issue with him.

      Now, obviously I didn't really mean one molecule would travel up 14,000 feet without…

      Read more
    8. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      I can pin point your error: "warmer air flows and water vapour" don't just "mix the heat up a bit."

      Warm air rises, Dr Harrigan, at least in the troposphere, because of the pressure gradient.

      So it is a one way (upward) physical movement of air molecules. When they rise away from the surface, cooler airs comes in and gets warm and rises. It's just like a metal oil filled convection heater warming a whole room to the ceiling. Open a skylight and warm air flows even further up into the sky outside…

      Read more
    9. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Still incapable of admitting any erros but continuing to obfuscate I see and haven;t addressed the fact that the evidence simply does not support what you are saying

      report
    10. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Still avoiding any response to what I have explained in the above two posts are you Dr Harrigan?

      You and others really have been sucked in by the IPCC suggestion that 30 year trends are all we need look at.

      Just suppose for one moment there really is a 60 year cycle and that the cooling periods (roughly) 1880-1910 then 1940-1970 had been used for 30 year trends. All would have looked great for the future in 1910 and 1970.

      Now suppose we are having another from 1999 to 2029 (the cycles are actually…

      Read more
    11. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      No, thirty years is the minimum period to see decent statistically significant *trends* above the noise (as opposed to being able to say 2000-2010 is the statistically hottest decade, which we can because the uncertainties affect the averages less than the trend). You interpret the noise as a trend, without doing any appropriate statistical tests.

      Actually based on your hypothesis of the Jupiter/Saturn resonance, it should get hotter, not cool forever.

      report
    12. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      Thirty years is far too short for making projections 89 years ahead till 2100.

      Take yourself back to 1970 and look at the previous 30 years. Do it now with the 30 years of NASA sea surface data up to the end of September 2011. You'll get a trend which projects to only about one (1) degree more by 2100. Suit yourself, I'll accept that, though it will be less.

      No one has come up with anything that disproves my explanation of the cooling role of GHG molecules as (using John Nicol's term) they act as "conduit" helping the thermal energy from oxygen and nitrogen to escape the atmosphere. I'm right on that one, and it is highly significant because it wipes out any significant warming effect of carbon dioxide, doesn't it.

      Prove me wrong! No one has answered this challenge in nearly a full month

      report
    13. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      You are wrong on the data - which has been pointed out to you.

      I have proven you wrong countless times but you don't understand it or cannot accept it. You are not prscticing science

      The graph is here showing the changes in escaping long ware IR between 1970 and 1997 http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/harries_radiation.gif

      It comes from this paper

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
      Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation…

      Read more
    14. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      I fully understand what you are saying about catbon dioxide capturing radiation and then re-emitting some of it to space and some back to warm the Earth. After all, I've had had that explanation on my website all along. What made you think you had to explain such elementary stuff to me?

      report
    15. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      You say: "there is LESS thermal radiation escaping back into space" so I suggest you write and argue with Professors Knox and Douglass because their summary at http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf says the opposite, namely that a large positive radiative imbalance is not supported.

      Surely Dr Harrigan it would be more appropriate for you to write to them and explain to them why they must be wrong. I'll be interested to see you post a copy of their reply.

      report
    16. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      You talk about the extra radiation that goes back to the surface as warming the Earth. Is this permanent warming? If so, where is the large positive radiative imbalance that would result from storing such thermal energy?

      report
    17. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      When you tried to rubbish my explanation of the cooling effect of GHG molecules which radiate energy that they have absorbed by diffusion from oxygen and nitrogen molecules you spoke about totally different energy - namely that which was radiated from the surface and captured by carbon dioxide. Why did you diverge to discussing something altogether different from the energy that I was speaking of in my explanation?

      report
    18. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Rubbish - their paper is based on a model calculation (you know - the things you say are completely wrong??).

      The paper to which I refer is based on data and evidence.

      Again you demonstate no understanding

      report
    19. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      You really do not understand do you. The satellite data shows an ongoing, over time, reduction in the amount of thermal energy leaving the planet between 1970 and 1997. These observa.tions have been confirmed to continue more recently

      Basic physics, which you apparently fail to understand, emans that this MUST mean the thermal energy remains as increased heat content of the planet (stored largely in the coeans but some in the land and atmosphere). Of course the earth tried to radiate it away but it cannot radiate it all away so the planet warms.

      Please tell me you appreciate that very basic fact.

      If not you don;t deserve to call yourself a physicsit.

      report
    20. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      If you fully understood it why do you not retract your ludicrous statement that the planet is not gaining heat energy and that instead other atmospheric molecules can act as "conduit" to allow the energy to leak away.

      The data says there is more and more thermal radiation being retained, at exactly the wavelengths that GHGs absrob them.

      report
    21. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Do you accept, or not, that the planet is retaining more and heat energy? Stop fluffing around and avoiding the core question

      report
    22. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      PS The warming effect of carbon dioxide is temporary, whereas the cooling effect is immediate. The thermal energy returned to the surface will in a sense "bounce" up and down at the speed of light. Each time it bounces up, more than half goes to space. Even if only half, then it does not take many iterations of a series like 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + 1/128 + 1/256 + ... to get very close to unity. So the "delay" talked about which is supposed to cause climate change can, in fact, be only a matter of seconds at the most, more likely very small fractions of seconds. Hardly climate changing!

      report
    23. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      It doesn't work like that. The thermal IR does not "Bounce up and Down".

      It gets absorbed, adds to the heat and then more thermal IR is emiited - it's a constant flux. It's not like a 100 units of energy coming in, then 70 units bouncing up, of which half escape and half bounce back down

      Which part of the bath analogy do you totally fail to understand???

      I challenge you to submit your suggestion to ANY currently employed professor of physics at a university or to write a letter to nature or any other competent body in physica and see what they have to say.

      I have seriously met kindergarten children who show more intelligence than this. You are a disgrace.

      report
    24. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      Garbage. First, the radiation warms the surface. While the adjoining atmosphere remains at the same (cooler) temperature, thermal energy will then exit the surface instantaneously - by diffusion, evaporation and radiation. Thermal energy flows from warmer to cooler. It certainly will do so by night or by the next winter at the latest if in the oceans.

      Don't forget, it is possible for everything to cool in a particular hemisphere when winter is approaching. So just focus on one hemisphere…

      Read more
    25. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Again so much rubbish "Don't forget, at sea surface NASA data shows 2011 will be cooler than 2003, so I can say there has been absolutely no accumulation of thermal energy over that period - which " - still not understanding that temperatures and thermal energy are not the same - it depends where the energu goes. But the big laugh?

      "Thermal energy flows from warmer to cooler. It certainly will do so by night or by the next winter at the latest if in the oceans. "

      It may have escaped Doug's attention…

      Read more
  10. Doug Cotton

    IT Manager

    GHG have both a warming effect and a compensating cooling effect. The net difference (be it warming or cooling) is likely to be far, far smaller than the warming effect on its own. The two effects are likely to be similar in magnitude because all radiation out of the atmosphere is done by GHG molecules and about half is space-bound and half is Earth-bound.

    What data would I use to support it? All the links to peer-reviewed papers below have been on my websites ...

    1. The warming predicted by…

    Read more
  11. Doug Cotton

    IT Manager

    n reply to Dr Harrigan

    GHG have both a warming effect and a compensating cooling effect. The net difference (be it warming or cooling) is likely to be far, far smaller than the warming effect on its own. The two effects are likely to be similar in magnitude because all radiation out of the atmosphere is done by GHG molecules and about half is space-bound and half is Earth-bound.

    What data would I use to support it? All the links to peer-reviewed papers below have been on my websites ...

    1…

    Read more
    1. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Your "60 year trends" have no statistical support (you HAVE done a Fourier analysis of the data have you not?

      And you do realise that tidal force falls off as the cube of distance? Jupiter has 0.000006 of the Moons tidal force and Saturn is 0.0000002 of the Moons tidal force. Even if ALL the Earths surface temperature was due to Earth tides (and in fact it is only a tiny fraction), then the effect of Jupiter and Saturn will be negligible.
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

      report
    2. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      Final note to Ian Musgrave and Dr Harrigan:

      Indeed, but the quoted ratio of Jupiter's tidal force to the Moon's, namely 0.000006 is a mean and the variation in distance is from ~4AU to ~6.5AU which, when cubed, means the ratio varies more than four fold. So let's say it varies from 0.000003 to 0.000013 the difference being 0.00001

      Now, over say 450 years (about the time for such variation) that is about 164360 days the additional compound effect would be (as a multiple of the effect of the Moon…

      Read more
    3. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      PS I did overlook applying a mean to that 1.00001 figure because strictly speaking a summation should be done over all days using values from 1.000000 to 1.000010 Perhaps a weighted mean would reduce it to 1.000004 so we'd get 1.000004^164360 = ~ 1.93. But we could assume the Moon contributed 2 degrees, making Jupiter's additional contribution vary from 0 to ~4 degrees above the base. That base is the total for the Moon and the minimum from Jupiter, namely 1.000003 of that of the Moon.

      Regarding…

      Read more
    4. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      PPS re Jupiter: I should add a correction: the calculation 1.000004^164360 yielding 1.93. should be interpreted as Jupiter having 0.93. times the effect of the Moon. So, if the Moon contributed, say 2 to 5 degrees over many centuries, Jupiter could contribute nearly as much again in 450 years of daily compounding.

      report
    5. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      For heavens sake do the RIGHT calculations, they are not hard.

      Your tidal heat calculation, that is rubbish. Tidal heat does not compound like that (do the same calculation for the tidal heat of Venus compounding and the Earths surface is molten)

      Seriously, there are real calculations for doing this sort of thing (hint, Io), pulling stuff out of thin air isn't science

      report
    6. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      Of course thermal energy can build up in the core, mantle and crust. We are talking about such energy caused by friction which resulted from tidal motion. The use of compounding calculations is perfectly valid - you are just not thinking clearly about the situation. If it were not building up under the surface, it would do so at or above the surface - you can't destroy the energy.

      report
    7. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      1) The Sun-Earth-Moon (Jupiter Saturn) system is stable over time-scales of the order of millions of years, tidal contributions will be stable
      2) Even if it wasn't at equilibrium Heat doesn't build up as a power of a fraction, you need to do the explicit tidal heating calculations.

      report
    8. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      PS. I don't need to prove anything about Jupiter anyway - it's not critical to my argument that AGW is a hoax. There is plenty of evidence that natural causes affect climate, whatever those causes may be - and it may have something to do with sunspot activity which is itself related to planetary orbits anyway.

      What you all need to focus on is the fact that those nine authors have now shown that the lower troposphere is not warming anywhere near 1.4 times the rate of the surface, as is required…

      Read more
    9. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      PPPS And even if you just want to do a simple interest type calculation (which is probably, on reflection, more appropriate) then, using the original 0.000006 figure, 164360 x 0.000006 = 0.986

      report
    10. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      And it's right there in Climategate 2 emails: ""<1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...] Jones: Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. (Thanks, Andrew)

      Need I say more? I think not. Bye.

      report
    11. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      OK - apply simple multiplication. Tidal effect of Jupiter = 0.000006 times that of Moon, so multiply this by the number of days in about 460 years (half the eccentricity cycle of Jupiter) and you get about unity, meaning the cumulative effect of Jupiter builds up to something comparable with the more uniform effect of the Moon, but then fades away again in the second half of the cycle. So at the maximum, we have the effect of two moons.

      report
    12. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      But it does show you have no idea of the physical systems that make up climate and how to budget for them, and that any conclusion you come to is unjustified.

      report
    13. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      But it does show you have no idea of the physical systems that make up climate and how to budget for them, and that any conclusion you come to is unjustified.

      report
    14. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      You just can't do that, multiplying fractions as a contribution like that is mathematically invalid.

      Remember
      1) The Earth, Moon, Sunn (Venus, Jupiter, Saturn) system is at equilibrium, no further tidal heating will occur anyway.

      2) You have to use the actual forces exerted, not the fraction of tidal force, the calculations make no sense using fractions. And you can't just sum for x number of years, eventually the heat flow will come to equilibrium (will it already did some millions of years…

      Read more
    15. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      You are not understanding the situation at all. It has nothing to do with vector addition or increasing the tidal flexion. This remains (roughly) constant. But every revolution of the Earth generates thermal energy due to friction caused by the tides. Granted there may be some leakage, though it could take a long time for energy to find its way from the core to the surface. Quite a bit, though, is generated en route in the mantle and crust itself. One way or another, extra energy will have an effect on the equilibrium temperature at the surface which, after all, we do know does vary over hundreds of years.

      Anyway, as we have now seen, Climategate 2 has thrown more light on the farce that is AGW. Jones admitted all the models were wrong.

      report
    16. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      So Jupiter's been doing this for roughly 4 billion years, so Earth should be white hot by now. Unless you claim Jupiter came into existence 500 years or so ago.

      Climate gate Schmimate gate
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/two-year-old-turkey/
      http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/22/climategate-2-more-ado-about-nothing-again/
      http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/11/cru_tooo.php

      report
    17. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      Ian - Doug Cotton is completely opaque to any logic or evidence. I have demonstrated on many posts using basic phsyics and clear calculations that his fanciful nonsense is just that. But he simply doesn't get it.

      He also fails to understand that the measured total flux of power output from the core (sampled at over 800 bore sites spread across the globe - readily availble from google) is at most about 47TW. That has been constant for a VERY long time.

      If you do the energy calculations it is easy to show that what is needed is an ADDITIONAL amount five time that. Doug cotton's suggestions don't stack up.

      Doug Cotton, yet again, shows he has no idea what he istalking about

      report
    18. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      There has been a link on my website for months http://geology.com/press-release/earths-internal-heat/ quoting 44TW, though I won't argue about your 47TW.

      Don't bother to get your facts right, Dr Harrigan, let alone make any attempt to understand why it is not the flow of 44TW that stabilises the surface temperature.

      As I wrote months ago ...

      A more detailed explanation of the temperature "support" mechanism is required because an objection is often raised that the net outward heat flow from the…

      Read more
    19. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      No actually there are alternate warming and cooling periods of just over 450 years each which correlate with the eccentricity of Jupiter, with some effect from other planets, yielding a plot as shown here http://earth-climate.com/planetcycles.jpg which was derived solely from the orbits of the Sun and 9 planets. Note the 934-year and 59.6 year (superimposed) cycles, the latter correlating with the Jupiter/Saturn resonance cycle. (Sorry I shouldn't have assumed you'd read my websites.).

      report
    20. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mark Harrigan

      And you fail to understand that the formula to apply relates to heat transfer rates which are a function of temperature differences. The results of such calculations are orders of magnitude greater than 47 W/m^2 which has absolutely nothing to do with this, even though, as I fully agree, it is a reasonable estimate of the net mean outward flux. Such a rate is nothing like the maximum rate possible.

      report
    21. Ian Musgrave

      Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Have read it. Fictitious graphs are not an argument. The fact remains the the tidal effect of Jupiter is roughly 1/20000 th that of the Moon, and the Jupiter/Saturn resonance even smaller, and any heating effect will be negligible. Your "60 year cycle" is just random noise (Fourier analysis been done yet?). It is not even possible to determine longer cycles with the data available.

      report
    22. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Ian Musgrave

      And what does this show, Ian?

      "I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
      which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."

      Thorne: 3066

      report
    1. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      What a joke - this isn't a "paper" . It's a propaganda piece. It starts out with John Howard declaring his "agnosticism" - as if somehow the ceicen is a matter of reliegious faith tyhat you either have or do not - and not a matter of the evdience.

      It's published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. A UK-based climate change denial think-tankset up as a charitable organisation by former UK Conservative finance minister Lord Nigel Lawson (an avowed climate science denier)

      It has been caught numerous…

      Read more
  12. Doug Cotton

    IT Manager

    Dr Harrigan and others really have been sucked in by the IPCC suggestion that 30 year trends are all we need look at.

    Just suppose for one moment there really is a 60 year cycle and that the cooling periods (roughly) 1880-1910 then 1940-1970 had been used for 30 year trends. All would have looked great for the future in 1910 and 1970.

    Now suppose we are having another from 1999 to 2029 (the cycles are actually 59.6 years) then all you have to do is wait till 2029 and you'll predict the world will…

    Read more
  13. Doug Cotton

    IT Manager

    Mark Harrigan commented:

    "Anyone who claims that GHGs can cause cooling doesn't use physics"

    Physics says:

    1. Just like any gas molecules, GHG molecules can acquire thermal energy by diffusion

    2. The molecules from which they acquire thermal energy (eg oxygen and nitrogen) lose an equivalent amount of thermal energy.

    3. Losing thermal energy equates to cooling.

    4. Unlike oxygen and nitrogen molecules, GHG molecules can radiate thermal energy

    report
    1. Mark Harrigan

      PhD Physicist

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      This is like arguing that having more of something that increases the retention of another quanity will, in fact, bring about less of that other quantity - it is just plain nonsense.

      Again Mr Cotton fails to address the evidence. Satellite data clearly showing that since GHGs started rising above their historical average levels - it has been MEASURED that less thermal radiation is escaping into space. Less themral energy escaping into space means more thermal energy is retained on the planet which…

      Read more
  14. Doug Cotton

    IT Manager

    The IPCC report continues to propagate what the data now shows must be grossly overstated climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels.

    It is very apparent from the very significant change in the gradient of sea surface temperatures (which Knox and Douglass called a flattening around 2001-2002) that there MUST be significant natural causes affecting climate. The ENSO cycle, by the way, is a consequence of climate, not a cause. So something else must be affecting climate every bit as much (and…

    Read more
  15. David Lewis

    other

    A caution on using Lovelock quotes as if he might still be able to take a consistent position.

    Lovelock seems to be losing his ability to understand what is going on. Eg: Stewart Brand reports that he moderated his views on how serious climate change was when he was advised by Lovelock that "climate scientists have become overly politicized" and that "something unknown appears to be slowing the rate of global warming". Brand notes that Lovelock is "persuaded" by the "sensible skeptic" Garth Paltridge…

    Read more