.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

Maurice Newman: A Self-Portrait of an Utter Nutter Science Denier

Sou | 2:19 AM Go to the first of 147 comments. Add a comment

Warning to newcomers to climate science


I owe readers a warning. I don't normally highlight people who comment here because I like to encourage discussion.  However there are a number of somewhat complex issues that have been touched on in the comments below that could confuse someone who isn't familiar with science in general (and geology and climate science in particular).  In the comments below there is a lot of nonsense being posted by Greig, who rejects the greenhouse effect among other things.  He claims to understand science but he doesn't know the first thing about geology or climate. His comments are unadulterated pseudo-science at best.  Just as Maurice Newman did a self-portrait of himself as a science denier, Greig has done the same.

Sou Friday 17 January, 2014 9:00 pm AEDST




Australia's Maurice Newman comes across as a first order climate disinformer.  He's a plain vanilla climate science denier of the WUWT kind.  An embarrassment to the nation.  A shameful product of the right wing establishment.

Maurice Newman has held high profile positions in Australia.  Until recently he chaired the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.  Tony Abbott has just elevated him to chair the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council.  You'd think that our PM could find a less nutty person to lead that group.  (I hope that Tony Abbott gets turfed soon - and you never know.  A week is a long time in politics.  As each week passes our political leaders do worse and worse.)

Today the Climate Council announced a report that shows how heat waves are getting longer, lasting longer and getting hotter. As an almost complete contrast, yesterday, Maurice Newman followed up his previous climate science denial with more - and just as silly.  In effect it's his own self-portrait of himself as an utter nutter science denier.  Here are some excerpts from yesterday's Australian.
GIVEN the low-grade attacks on me following my piece "Crowds go cold on climate cost" (The Australian, Dec 31) readers of Fairfax publications and The Guardian may be shocked to hear I believe in climate change. I also accept carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The trouble is, I cannot reconcile the claims of dangerous human CO2 emissions with the observed record.

Maurice is probably referring to articles like these ones by Graham Readfearn in the Guardian and by climate scientist David Karoly in the Sydney Morning Herald.  Maurice is saying he's a lukewarmer denier and "accepts" that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  He's one of the "it's not bad" science deniers.  He doesn't accept science but he doesn't want to be seen as an utter nutter.  However read on - he is just another nutter and this little protest doesn't change that fact.


Maurice "I'm not a climate scientist" Newman says he knows better than climate scientists


Then he makes excuses saying he's not a climate scientist - as if that wasn't bloody obvious!
I admit it. I am not a climate scientist. 
Well, these climate scientists are climate scientists, Maurice.  You should listen to them.



Maurice "not a climate scientist" continues:
That said, I have closely followed this debate for more than two decades, having been seasoned originally by the global cooling certainty of the 1970s.

What debate, Maurice?  There is no debate about the fundamentals of climate science and greenhouse warming.  You are just making that up


Maurice - your ideology is showing


Oh, so he's not a climate science but he says the IPCC is "dominated by politics not science".  I bet you he hasn't ever read an IPCC report.

The climate consensus of the 70s, like the period since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988, was dominated by politics, not science. I was reminded of how deeply political awareness has infected today's academies when I received an apology from a respected climate scientist who corrected his own public cheap shot at me. He said, "I attempt to be politically even-handed ... I try to steer a middle course as a scientist."

Is Maurice Newman an evolution denier too, I wonder?


Despite saying that science is about evidence, Maurice quotes evolution denier Roy Spencer and disregards the other 99.99999% of climate science.
Really? Surely science is not about neutrality? It is about evidence and conclusions which fall where they will. So when an internationally acclaimed climatologist like Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville dispassionately analyses climate models covering 33 years and concludes that both the surface and satellite observations produce linear temperature trends that are below 87 of the 90 models used in the comparison, he does not politically neutralise his findings. They are empirical fact.

Maurice Newman doesn't check facts 1


Maurice Newman wouldn't know empirical fact if he fell over it.  Just see what I mean:
They eventually become political because the models he demonstrates to be seriously flawed are the bedrock on which the IPCC's global warming case is built. As Spencer said recently, "The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence of low climate sensitivity for many years ... The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new thing ... just one that is becoming more glaring over time."

Now if Maurice Newman had cared about fact, he would have checked this claim.  Let's look at this supposed discrepancy - without error bars:



In recent years up to 2005 the models could scarcely be closer to observations.  You wouldn't think so if you accepted Maurice Newman's disinformation.  The question is, why does Maurice Newman take the word of a known contrarian who disregards a lot of climate science because of his pseudo-religious beliefs?


Maurice Newman doesn't check facts 2


Wait a minute, Maurice has found another contrarian to quote.  Again he discounts virtually the entirety of climate science to quote from someone who's left the field of climate science.  Someone who was unable to "prove" his hypothesis about clouds counteracting global warming. (His Iris Hypothesis).
Spencer is joined by celebrated Massachusetts Institute of Technology climatologist Richard Lindzen, who says: "I think that the latest (AR5) IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase." He is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now". Any takers?

Any takers on that bet?  Well, first of all, Lindzen claims he was misquoted.  And it looks as if he is still being misquoted nine years later by Maurice Newman.  If Maurice Newman won't bother to check a quote from one of his contrarians, what does that say about his ability to tell the truth when it comes to anything else?

For the record, Lindzen's challenge (that he denies making) was made/not made in 2004.  In the nine years since then, every year bar one (2008) has been hotter than 2004.  I bet Lindzen is glad that no-one took him up on it in the end - there's still eleven years to go - but just the same....


Maurice Newman falls back on old denier memes


Maurice Newman is full of denier memes. (I wonder what nickname he uses when he comments at WUWT.) Take this next bit for example:
The lengthening pause in global warming is influencing the political climate. The language has changed from the specific "global warming" to the more general "climate change" and now to the astrological "extreme weather events" where "I told you so" can be almost universally applied.
Maurice doesn't even know what the letters "IPCC" stand for!  And he has the gall to pontificate on climate science.


Maurice Newman Climate Disinformer


Maurice continues with some straight out disinformation by omission, writing.
For example, we are to believe the recent cold spell in the US and the heat wave in Australia are both examples of global warming. Yet 2013 was one of the "least extreme" weather years in US history.

It was the "least extreme" weather in US history?  What does Maurice base that on?  Not on drought records, that's for sure. Nor on flood records. And why doesn't he mention the fact that 2013 was the hottest year on record for Australia? Or that 2012 was the hottest year on record for continental USA?


Who's to blame for the lack of political will?


And then Maurice Newman has the cheek to write about "political will", saying:
Political will is also flagging. The Copenhagen summit was almost five years ago, yet there is still no global, legally binding international agreement on emission reduction targets. Only talk.
If it wasn't for loudmouth deniers like Maurice Newman, Tony Abbott and others, then political will might have done the right thing.


Shoddy Maurice Newman is unravelling


Maurice Newman is a fine one to talk about shoddy.  He writes this - note his reference to Donna Laframboise.  I mean Donna "in the dustbin" Laframboise for goodness sake!:
What we now see is the unravelling of years of shoddy science and sloppy journalism. If it wasn't for independent Murdoch newspapers around the world, the mainstream media would be almost completely captured by the IPCC establishment. That is certainly true in Australia. For six or seven years we were bullied into accepting that the IPCC's assessment reports were the climate science bible. Its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, told us the IPCC relied solely on peer-reviewed literature. Then Murdoch papers alerted us to scientific scandals and Donna Laframboise, in her book The Delinquent Teenager, astonished us with her extraordinary revelation that of 18,000 references in the IPCC's AR4 report, one-third were not peer reviewed. Some were Greenpeace press releases, others student papers and working papers from a conference. In some chapters, the majority of references were not peer reviewed. Many lead authors were inexperienced, or linked to advocate groups like WWF and Greenpeace. Why are we not surprised?

Maurice Newman's UN Conspiracy Theory


If you were starting to think Maurice Newman is just another nutter you'd be right.  Read this bit, where he talks about the UN and a "cartel".  Oh, he mightn't be quite as obvious about it all as Tim Ball (here and here) - but all the ingredients are there, simmering away under Maurice's tin foil hat.
The IPCC was bound to be captured by the green movement. After all, it is a political body. It is not a panel of scientists but a panel of governments driven by the UN. Its sole purpose is to assess the risks of human-induced climate change. It has spawned industries. One is scientists determined to find an anthropogenic cause. Another is climate remediation. And, naturally, an industry to redistribute taxes to sustain it all. With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, this cartel will deny all contrary evidence. Its very survival depends on it. But the tide is turning and Mother Nature has signalled her intention not to co-operate.

Maurice and his childish attacks


Finally, Maurice does a bit of concern trolling - complaining about "childish personal attacks".
In the meantime, childish personal attacks on those who point out flaws in IPCC reasoning and advice only increase scepticism. They are no substitute for empirical evidence and are well into diminishing returns. The party's over.
This is after he's labelled all the world's climate scientists (except for Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen) as being political not scientific, of doing shoddy science and of bullying.  Well, whoopy doo, Maurice.  You are the one spreading disinformation.  You are the one who is denying climate science and promulgating disinformation. You've got to expect "personal attacks" and people questioning your motives.


147 comments:

  1. And it will surprise exactly nobody that Newman is a long-standing member of the Mont Pelerin Society (founder Friedrich von Hayek). Along with some chap called Charles Koch, who rings a faint bell.

    Yes, it's another node in the network of the ideologically-motivated, science-denying elite which fosters, develops and disseminates climate lies at the highest level right around the developed world. Because it suits them to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was unaware before now that Newman was integral in the formation of the Centre for Independent Studies.

      That explains a lot...

      Delete
  2. So of all the climate scientists in the world, Newman only talks to two - one a creationist and member of the Cornwall Alliance, the other a lifetime smoker who believes that smoking is not as harmful as it is made out to be.

    Meanwhile, he accuses every climate scientist who works for the Australian of being in a cartel of fraud.

    Yes, an utter nutter, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe some people attempted to take Lindzen up on his bet but he wanted odds of 50 to 1. So not really all that confident in his own prediction. Contrarians have never understood the concept of irony....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Australian cosmologist Brian Schmidt, the 2011 Nobel Laureate in Physics also has a reply to Newman. Unfortunately they have paywalled it.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/im-ready-to-bet-itll-be-warmer-in-2033/story-e6frgd0x-1226802693743#

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian Schmidt is yet another alarmist who has failed to grasp the issue fully. This isn't about whether CO2 is causing warming, everyone gets that, even Newman. What is important is whether it will cause dangerous warming in the future - it doesn't matter if its warmer in 2033, its whether it is 2 degC warmer that's what he should be putting $10,000 on (if he really genuine). Am I the only one who gets this?

      Delete
    2. You seem to be the only one convinced that sensitivity to CO2 forcing is so low that there will be no chance of dangerous warming in the future. How do you account for the early Cenozoic hyperthermals in a world where S is so very low? Perhaps it is you who "fails to grasp the issue fully"?

      Delete
    3. No, Greig. You're not the only one who claims "I believe in the greenhouse effect but maybe it won't be bad even if we keep burning hydrocarbons at an accelerating rate". There are a heap of people like you and Maurice at various pseudo-science blogs like WUWT (which is probably where Maurice gets his "science"), along with a heap of people who think we're about to enter an ice age and a heap of people who think global warming is a hoax and a heap of people who don't "believe in" the greenhouse effect.

      You don't get out much if you think that Maurice Newman "gets" anything or that "everyone gets that".

      Delete
    4. BBD, I am far from alone in my view on climate sensitivity - it is shared by many climate scientists who are starting to realise that most of the current climate models are flawed because they do not match observed warming. It is the low sensitivity models which align with reality. The processes that govern Cenozoic hyperthermals are not known, and assuming they were solely the result of greenhouse forcing is more self-fulfilling guesswork than accurate science.

      Delete
    5. Sou, you appear to be disinterested in discussing the issue of climate sensitivity that I raised and resort instead to howling me down by labelling me. Since this is your site, I suppose that is your prerogative, but it does you no favours. And FYI, any paleoclimatologist will inform you that we are about to go into another ice age, that is not controversial at all in scientific circles.

      Delete
    6. BBD, I am far from alone in my view on climate sensitivity

      See downthread, and yes, you are.

      The processes that govern Cenozoic hyperthermals are not known, and assuming they were solely the result of greenhouse forcing is more self-fulfilling guesswork than accurate science.

      This is simply evasive rubbish. Hyperthermals, eg the PETM and MECO are associated with large carbon isotopic excursions - in other words, large increases of atmospheric GHGs. If you wish to dispute GHG forcing as the causative mechanism, provide another one.

      Delete
    7. And FYI, any paleoclimatologist will inform you that we are about to go into another ice age, that is not controversial at all in scientific circles.

      Rubbish. Without post-industrial CO2 forcing, that might be a possibility, although it is far from certain as "any paleoclimatologist" will tell you, if you ask one. You are repeatedly arguing from ignorance and assertion. Please stop.

      Delete
    8. And FYI, any paleoclimatologist will inform you that we are about to go into another ice age, that is not controversial at all in scientific circles.

      ROTFL. Excuse me - I had to go wipe down the keyboard.

      Wow. You almost had me fooled there Greig, that you were merely an ordinary science denier. Here I provide lots of science and you're concerned about being lumped in with Maurice Newman and WUWT? Don't worry, I won't lump you in with Maurice Newman - you've moved into David "funny sunny" Archibald territory.

      ha ha ha - we're heading for an ice age. (We don't often get visits from "ice age comethers"!)

      If there's anyone reading this who is genuinely curious about when the next glacial might start, here's one paper and there are more in the comments to this article.

      Delete
    9. See also Archer & Ganopolski (2005) A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation

      Delete
    10. Sou, you are so quick to pour scorn and derision, yet you failed to recognise that my comment going into the next ice age was not quantified. ie I did not reveal a timeframe (years, centuries, or millennia) As the paper you posted reveals, I am absolutely correct, this interglacial warming will end soon. It just depends on how one defines "soon".

      I hope you are suitably embarrassed by your behaviour.

      Delete
    11. Ha ha. I'll take that as an admission of your mistake and a backing down, Greig. Particularly since 50,000 years is more than any 41,000 year cycle and half 100,000 years - so under no stretch of the imagination could it be classed as "soon" on glacial-interglacial time scales!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

      Embarrassed? Not one iota.

      Delete
    12. Grieg

      you failed to recognise that my comment going into the next ice age was not quantified [...] I hope you are suitably embarrassed by your behaviour.

      You have been discourteous enough to say this without having read the Archer & Ganopolski paper I linked for you.

      I hope you are suitably embarrassed by your behaviour.

      Delete
    13. And since you are being a smart-arse, perhaps you would like to discuss the similarities in the orbital dynamics between the MIS 11 interglacial and the Holocene? This with relevance to the potential duration of the current interglacial.

      Delete
    14. Very funny. You both fell neatly into my trap, and you still have the gall to carry on with your arrogant bluster.

      Do you really think I would be unaware of Milankovitch cycles?

      The Archer & Ganopolski paper is very interesting. It is apparent that increased CO2 is good, because it will prevent the certain calamity that would befall humanity at the onset of the next ice-age, at least for the next 500,000 years. So AGW has both short and long-term positive features worth slotting into the cost/benefit analysis. ;)

      Delete
    15. Don't be stupid, Grieg. It's irritating.

      Do you really think I would be unaware of Milankovitch cycles?

      Actually, I am now convinced that not only are you clueless about orbital dynamics, you also know nothing about climate models, climate sensitivity and paleoclimate behaviour.

      Anyway, prove me wrong and demonstrate how knowledgeable you are about orbital dynamics. I've already invited you to talk about the similarities between MIS 11 and the Holocene but for some odd reason you have not done so.

      Please explain, for the benefit of others, why there is an argument that the current interglacial is rather unusual and may be much longer than the two preceding it. Sou was good enough to link to a previous thread where a relevant study was discussed. If you read the links, you will have an insight into this topic.

      Delete
    16. There you go again, calling me stupid, ignorant, demanding that I prove myself in a silly little pissing contest.

      Although I am interested in this subject and will follow the links, I will not discuss them with you.

      Delete
    17. Grieg said:

      BBD, I am far from alone in my view on climate sensitivity - it is shared by many climate scientists who are starting to realise that most of the current climate models are flawed because they do not match observed warming. It is the low sensitivity models which align with reality."

      He spoke wrongly.

      Delete
    18. Captain FlashheartJanuary 18, 2014 at 2:17 AM

      I notice that this Greig chap has raised the "pause." Oh, the "pause." What ignorant shite. Everyone knows that every time series has a minimum length below which its slope is non-significant. This is easy to confirm - Greig can just run away and set up a data set in excel, which has the same slope and standard error as the temperature series, and will very quickly see that any 17 year long period in the temperature series is not statistically significant.

      In fact the global tempearture series needs 21 years in general to obtain a statistically significant slope, or about 25 years if the time period in question starts with an observation significantly above the trend. This fact is determined by the ratio of the true slope and the sampling error of the measurements. Every data series with a straight line slope shows this phenomenon. Pretending it is evidence that warming has stopped is a sign that one is either statistically illiterate, or a mendacious arsehole.

      Another way to show the same thing is to do a power calculation for the temperature series. Every data series has a minimum number of observations necessary to provide 80% power. As anyone who has "been studying this for 30 years" would know (right Greig!?) a minumum number of observations is required to have an 80% chance of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false. For the global temperature series, the minimum number of required observations is about 20. Anyone who doesn't understand this is either completely ignorant of experimental methods, or is an arsehole.

      Which is it Greig? Are you an arsehole, or just ignorant of basic research techniques?

      Delete
    19. Captain Flashheart.

      Indeed, and I made this point a few days ago on HotWhopper. Perhaps it's worth reposting here the link I used then:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/resolving-met-office-confusion.html#89481


      [Curiously Recaptcha says "updatef which"]

      Delete
    20. For what it's worth after my original post on HW about the matter I updated the graph to include 2012, although I haven't yet uploaded the file.

      The 2013 datapoint has 20 years for its y-axis value, where 2012 is 18.

      Delete
    21. I do not argue the finer points of statistical analysis, I am not a statistician. Nor am I an exprt in mathematical cliate modelling. Instead I rely on experts, and in this matter I will refer you to the IPCC, who have acknowledged the warming pause and its failure to match climate models, stating: "This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error. "

      So suggest you take up the question of arseholes or ignorance with the IPCC.

      Delete
    22. Grieg, you have completely evaded the substantive points that I made - perhaps you weren't able to perceive them? Or perhaps you were, and are pointing at squirrels...

      As you are hard of learning, I shall help:

      From the link above, at January 18, 2014 at 3:03 AM, and

      ...from an expert statistician and an exper climate researcher.

      If you do pretend to understand what my substantive points are, and want to persist in your denial of them (and of the material to which I have just linked), feel free to state what you understanding is and then counter with your evidenced research and understanding of the physics.

      Note bene, straw mannish and misrepresentative reference to tangential material doesn't count. It might fool your gullible denialist buddies, but it doesn't cut the mustard with intelligent folk.

      Delete
  5. Excuse me Miriam, first things first, WUWT is now more popular than discover magazine.

    Secondly, why do you continue to use fake graphs made by cock and the nutter when we know they have been adjusted to look like that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe at the moment One direction are more popular than The Beatles. I think you know science isn't a beauty contest, don't you?

      Delete
    2. Anon

      Have you read this since you think popularity contests are important

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

      Delete
    3. Your unsavoury language and rudeness is noted, Anonymous. This is a first and final warning.

      As for your allegation of fake graphs, HotWhopper uses data that has been compiled by real flesh and blood scientists and official meteorological agencies. Data sources are provided. You can check it all out for yourself.

      If you want to see fakery, you'll have to follow your most popular anti-science website on the internet. There are lots of examples I've documented, such as:

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/anthony-watts-is-in-serious-trouble.html

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/anthony-watts-trick-is-to-disappear.html

      As far as popularity goes, you no doubt have noticed that there are very few websites for science deniers, which is one reason why the 8% Dismissives have to flock to sites like WUWT, prison planet and Infowars etc.

      At the opposite end of the scale, people who prefer science to pseudo-science (the vast majority of people) not only have access to a much larger number of blogs, they have all the science websites at their disposal, scientific magazines, websites of scientific organisations and universities as well as hundreds of decent scientific journals. If you added up all the traffic to science and compared it to the traffic to pseudo-science and conspiracy theory blogs like WUWT, you'd find WUWT is hardly a drop in the bucket.

      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/denier-weirdness-crank-blog-popularity.html

      Delete
  6. So all climate scientists agree that the whole world is going to hell in a hand-basket? Nonsense.

    The amount of future warming is hotly debated, and current observations are favouring climate models that predict only moderate future warming (1.5 degC this century) - in other words AGW is real, but it's not important. Contrary to HotWhopper, lukewarmers have the science on their side. And Maurice Newman is a lukewarmer.

    Even the IPCC in its latest reports (AR5 and SREX) are moving away from the assumption that climate change will cause more floods, droughts and hurricanes. Don't believe me? Suggest you read up, the documents are publicly available.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So all climate scientists agree that the whole world is going to hell in a hand-basket? Nonsense.

      Strawman. Stop it, please.

      * * *

      Maurice Newman is a libertarian ideologue (see first comment on this thread). His views have nothing to do with science and he is manifestly ignorant of the science (see head post).

      * * *

      The "observational" studies so beloved of fake sceptics are subject to methodological limitations, specifically uncertainty over the early temperature data used, excessive sensitivity to transient variability in ocean heat uptake and uncertainty over the estimates for forcings used (especially aerosol). As a consequence, they are uninformative and it is unwise to build your sandcastle on top of such flimsy foundations.

      You might also ask yourself how we are going to avoid dangerous warming even if S is low unless there is a coherent, global policy response that limits emissions to no more than 2xCO2/~560ppm. That will not happen unless we make it happen. "Lukewarmers" *never* seem to acknowledge that their belief system does not get us of the policy hook.

      Let's round off with a comment from Alexander Otto on Otto et al. (2013). Read it carefully:

      The 'warming pause' over the recent decade does not show that climate change is not happening. And it certainly does not mean that climate scientists are "backing away" from our fundamental understanding. Every new decade of data brings new information that helps reduce uncertainties in climate forecasts. In some ways, the picture changes surprisingly slowly for such an intensely scrutinised problem: our new results may help rule out some of the highest-response models, but they are still consistent with the multi-model average, and our uncertainty range encompasses the bulk of the old range. It would certainly also help to test the physically based global circulation models against more than their transient climate response and climate sensitivity. Knowing how they perform in representing regional climate variables like air pressure at sea level (PMSL) or moisture variables is important and might lead to a narrowing of uncertainty eventually, and confidence in how they perform in projecting regional impact relevant quantities. This study highlights the importance of continued careful monitoring of the climate system, and also the dangers of over-interpreting any single decade's worth of data.

      Delete
    2. Greig, I've read the latest reports and keep up with the science. Are you like Maurice and claim "I'm not a climate scientist but I know the science better than they do?"

      Stop kidding yourself. And don't make the rookie mistake of confusing ultra-low estimates of climate sensitivity with projected temperatures by 2100 either. One is for a doubling of CO2 which will be well before 2100 at the rate we're going. The other depends on atmospheric CO2 levels at 2100 among other things.

      Time you read more science. Try these for starters:

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n8/full/nclimate1903.html

      or this paper by Rholing et al, also in Nature. Or any of a number of papers. You might want to only look at the 1.5 degree end of the scale of sensitivity because you don't enjoy being scared or for whatever reason, want to calm your cognitive dissonance, or are ideologically opposed to governments taking action to solve massive problems or whatever - but don't lose sight of the six degree end of the scale.

      Delete
    3. BBD, the alarmist argument inherent in the article above is that anyone who does not buy into dangerous climate change is denying the science. Science demonstrates that climate change is real – it does not conclude unambiguously that it is dangerous. Climate scientists do not agree unanimously in the prospect of dangerous climate change. Clear now, or do you still think it is a strawman argument?

      The observational studies are part of body of evidence we call climate science. Otto is quite right, but what he says about uncertainty applies to all of the science, not just the “warming pause” or its implications. As you say, observational studies are not perfect, but to therefore dismiss the need for the climate models to match observation makes you the climate science denier.

      Delete
    4. "Even the IPCC in its latest reports (AR5 and SREX) are moving away from the assumption that climate change will cause more floods, droughts and hurricanes. Don't believe me? Suggest you read up, the documents are publicly available."- Greig.

      We don't believe, we do facts.
      'Even the IPCC', please realize the conservatism of such a community. Reality is clear.

      MunichRE.

      Delete
    5. You're wrong Greig. You're building another strawman.

      The article above demonstrates that Maurice Newman gets his pseudo-science from quack websites like WUWT and climatedepot. Some of his silliness could almost have been lifted word for word from WUWT or "stevegoddard" or some other silly denier website.

      As demonstrated in the article above, real climate models are a much closer match to observations than any "modeled climate" you'll see on your favourite pseudo-science blog.

      And stop pretending you know anything about climate science. So far you've made several comments that show you don't have a clue about it. Not just tiny mistakes either - but huge bloopers.

      Try reading some actual science.

      http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

      Delete
    6. Sou, you seem to enjoy playing the "I am a scientist, so you are wrong" card, and extrapolating my opinion into some kind of personality flaw. Let's just say, I know you qualifications, and I consider my own tertiary level science qualifications to exceed yours when it comes to discussing climate science.

      If you had read the latest IPCC reports then you would know that what I am saying about extreme weather is correct.

      From Chapter 4 of the SREX:
      “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
      “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
      “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

      From the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.
      Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”
      “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
      “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
      “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
      “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
      “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
      “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

      So Sou, how do you maintain that we are compelled to take action to solve a "massive" problem when even the IPCC is distancing itself from climate alarmists like you.

      And as I have been trying to point out, climate models that predict 6 degC of warming do not match climate observations ie they are WRONG.

      Delete
    7. Oh, here we go with another denialist misdirection.

      Grieg, looking at C20th climate change is not informative with regard to C21st climate change (and beyond).

      So stop doing it. You are excessively fond of strawmen.

      Delete
    8. Consider what you like, Greig. You're just another nonentity climate science denying "ice age comether" with a big chip on his shoulder and a tendency to concern troll. You keep regurgitating stuff you've picked up on various pseudo-science blogs and want us to believe you understand any of it.

      You make up stuff, call me "alarmist" and then complain that I lump you in with idiots like Maurice Newman when you're spouting the same drivel as he does.

      I bet you don't even know what what low confidence or medium confidence mean in the context of the IPCC report.

      If you'd been in Australia these past few years (or anywhere on planet Earth if it came to it), you'd not be doubting the reality of global warming.

      Delete
    9. Grieg

      As you say, observational studies are not perfect, but to therefore dismiss the need for the climate models to match observation makes you the climate science denier.

      Not at all. The problem here is that you do not understand what "the models" are designed to do. So a quick recap:

      Climate models are designed to investigate forced climate change on multi-decadal scales. They are designed to provide some quantified insight into centennial trends under various forcing scenarios.

      What they are NOT designed to do is *forecast* the next decade of climate behaviour in the single instance of Earth's actual climate system. They are *not* expected to capture the current slowdown in the rate of surface warming. They are not designed to do that, so claiming that they have failed in this task and are thereby invalidated is doubly wrong.

      You have been profoundly misled on this point.

      Delete
    10. Sou, Sou, Sou … so much anger. And you suggest that I am the one with a chip on my shoulder?


      [i] You keep regurgitating stuff you've picked up on various pseudo-science blogs [/i]

      Such as? I wonder if you have noticed that I am not quoting blogs, I am quoting the IPCC. Hello?


      [i] If you'd been in Australia these past few years (or anywhere on planet Earth if it came to it), you'd not be doubting the reality of global warming. [/i]

      Oh dear. A rise in global temperature of 0.7 degC over the 20th century is far too small change to be directly observable relative to daily, seasonal climate variability, let alone when overlayed with multi-decadal oscillations and phenomena like ENSO. And as already cited through the IPCC, extreme weather events like floods, drought and cyclones are not correlating with a rise in atmospheric CO2. To cite anecdotal evidence such as weather events as proof of “the reality of global warming” demonstrates your lack of understanding on this topic. Perhaps you should choose another subject as a vehicle to vent your spleen.

      Delete
    11. What a muddle:

      Oh dear. A rise in global temperature of 0.7 degC over the 20th century is far too small change to be directly observable relative to daily, seasonal climate variability, let alone when overlayed with multi-decadal oscillations and phenomena like ENSO

      The "too small to observe relative to daily/seasonal variability" is just a daft strawman. So what? That is why there are centennial GAT reconstructions.

      When we turn to these, we need to remember that short-term oscillations cannot produce long-term trends. You need to *explain* the centennial trend instead of obfuscating it with a lot of blether about ENSO etc.

      I have already pointed out to you that C20th climate behaviour is uninformative as to C21st climate behaviour. The degree of GHG forcing being so very much *smaller* for most of the C20th that it will by by the end of the C21st. You have ignored this corrective and repeated your error. Stop doing this, please.

      Nor have you answered my twice-repeated question about the physical mechanism causing hyperthermals and we both know why.

      I don't like your bad faith, your evasions or your tone.

      Delete
    12. You can't fool us here, Greig. I know what passes for "science" at denier websites. You might kid someone else that you only know about those passages because you read the IPCC from cover to cover, but anyone whose read your contributions here so far knows full well you not only don't know anything about climate science, you probably don't understand your carefully copied quotes.

      Here they are again on denier websites:

      Global warming policy foundation - deniers plus


      Andrew Bolt - who takes pride in being ignorant


      Anthony Watts' anti-science blog - WUWT (which if you'd followed my link in the comment above, you'd have seen that I already addressed a similar WUWT article on the same topic)

      There's plenty more - was it one of the above or another one that you nabbed your distorted ideas from?


      And if you think me, my neighbours, my 93 year old mother or anyone else in these parts hasn't notice the frequency of extreme weather or the lack of frosts, warmer nights, longer summers, hotter heat waves, heavier rains, much more frequent big fires etc in the last few years compared to pre-1980 or so, you've got rocks in your head.

      I suggest you quit before you lose even more ground. You reject science. You've said so in practically every comment you've made here. There's no avoiding that fact.

      Delete
    13. What a muddle indeed. My comment above was with reference to Sou's suggestion that "the reality of global warming" was directly observable. You have confirmed that it is not, thanks for agreeing with me. You might also have noted that I acknowledge that the globe has indeed warmed by about 0.7degC . As I have said before, climate change is real. What we are discussing here is the question: "is it bad?"

      You have stated that C20th climate behaviour is uninformative as to C21st climate behaviour. It is a statement, you have not provided any evidence nor context, so I have treated it as an opinion.

      You refer to climate models as predicting future temperatures with confidence. I have already pointed out that these models show fundamental flaws, and you have failed to explain the mechanism for the pause in warming which reveals these flaws. You have ignored this corrective and repeated your error. Stop doing this, please.

      I will address your silly questions in my own time, not when you demand it.

      I don't like your smarmy rudeness and arrogance.

      Delete
    14. I don't like your smarmy rudeness and arrogance.

      Pot meet kettle.

      Delete
    15. Sou, my knowledge on this subject comes from reading the science, some excellent books (from both sides of the argument) and debating with people like you. Certainly not from the websites you have listed.

      You are the first person I have encountered to demand that global warming is directly observable from weather events. Such a view might satisfy your 93 year old mother as fact, but from a scientific perspective it is meaningless. The CSIRO doesn't agree with your view, nor does the IPCC.

      I think you are the one rejecting science and losing ground with each post. But don't quit, it's very entertaining.

      Delete
    16. Greig

      You have stated that C20th climate behaviour is uninformative as to C21st climate behaviour. It is a statement, you have not provided any evidence nor context, so I have treated it as an opinion.

      I have explained my reasoning twice now. There is no flaw in it. You are dismissing the argument without addressing it because it demonstrates that you are guilty of false equivalence.

      You refer to climate models as predicting future temperatures with confidence.

      No, I did not. You are misrepresenting me.

      I have already pointed out that these models show fundamental flaws

      No, you were mistaken and have been corrected, and have ignored the correction yet again.

      My questions are not "silly" and the reason you refuse to answer them is because they reveal that you have no valid arguments.

      Delete
    17. Yeah, well you probably live in a different part of the world or have a very narrow social circle. As for your "reading the science" - based on your comments here I have to say I don't believe you. If you have read any science you've either not understood what you've read and/or you haven't read anything relevant to what you've written here so far. Because what you've written is not in accord with science.

      About noticing weather - we live up the bush. We see it. We record the temperatures. We notice the same as is recorded on the BoM website. We've been through more bigger fires this century than probably occurred in the entire 20th century. We've been through a longer hotter drought than anything last century. It's because Australia has got much hotter.

      It's not at all uncommon for people to notice things before they are demonstrated to a level that satisfies science. In the case of Australia, though - the science already shows that last summer's heat wave would almost certainly not have happened if not for global warming. And it's not the only scientific study linking extreme weather to global warming. You are not keeping up with the science if you think that many weather extremes and global warming haven't been scientifically linked already. And it's barely begun. Just wait a couple of decades.

      Delete
    18. Grieg said:

      "A rise in global temperature of 0.7 degC over the 20th century is far too small change to be directly observable relative to daily, seasonal climate variability, let alone when overlayed with multi-decadal oscillations and phenomena like ENSO."

      Greig is wrong, and a visit to any class in statistical analysis would help him to understand why. Or he could vist a blog like Open Mind, or crack open a text book.

      These lay pontificators are beginning - just beginning - to shit me. Yes, they're scared of - and angry at - the messengers, but they should be more scared of and angry about the message.

      But no, they'd rather sand mine than confront their mortality and culpability. Stupidity and ignorance are no excuse in this matter, not when they're bringing the rest of the planet down with them.

      It's no wonder that I and many others are becoming intemperate.

      Delete
  7. Grieg

    anyone who does not buy into dangerous climate change is denying the science.

    They are. Please read everything I have written in response to you again, carefully this time.

    it does not conclude unambiguously that it is dangerous.

    Potentially dangerous if emissions are permitted to continue to rise at present rates. Basically you are spouting denier cobblers and wasting everybody's time.

    Now, back to business. How do we account for the Cenozoic hyperthermals if S is right at the bottom of the estimated range? You evaded this point for a reason, so we will continue to return to it for the same reason: it drives a truck through the "lukewarmer" nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BBD, the Earth's climate system is very complex. You are assuming the greenhouse forcing and associated feedbacks is the only possible mechanism for driving Cenozoic hyperthermals, you are not showing enough humility. I wonder if a decade ago you would have argued that stomach ulcers are caused by stress (because what else could be the cause?)

      You are also assuming those feedbacks apply exactly the same in both cases, when we are talking about very different atmospheric and terrestrial conditions in each case.

      Now lets apply your approach to the pause in warming. CO2 is going up, yet temperatures are not. If you wish to declare GHG forcing as the prime causative mechanism for observed warming, provide another mechanism to explain why in the last two decades, observation does not match the hypothesis..

      Delete
    2. This keeps getting better and better. Now Greig tosses in ulcers. Sheesh. Next it will be Galileo or the MWP or the climate's been changing for four billion years (unless Greig is also a creationist).

      Greig, I hope you're not waiting for someone to publish a paper disproving the greenhouse effect.

      And if you think the world isn't heating up, think again.

      First, an ice age cometh, then 50,000 years plus is "soon". Now there's no global warming? Greig, all you're displaying is your rejection of facts along with climate science..

      Delete
    3. You are assuming the greenhouse forcing and associated feedbacks is the only possible mechanism for driving Cenozoic hyperthermals, you are not showing enough humility.

      This has nothing to do with me and "humility". This is the standard position within the paleoclimate community. Feel free to check for yourself. Cenozoic hyperthermals are associated with major CIEs which provide a physical mechanism for the necessary forcing change. The burden of proof is entirely on you if you dispute this mechanism. Please provide an alternative, plausible physical mechanism to GHG forcing.

      You are also assuming those feedbacks apply exactly the same in both cases, when we are talking about very different atmospheric and terrestrial conditions in each case.

      The early Cenozoic hyperthermals occurred from a warmer baseline than the Holocene. This indicates that the standard denialist tripe about increasingly *negative* cloud feedback as the troposphere warms is incorrect.

      Now lets apply your approach to the pause in warming. CO2 is going up, yet temperatures are not.

      Actually, GAT is increasing (eg Cowtan & Way 2013) but transient variability in ocean heat uptake is modulating the rate of increase in surface temperature. OHC 0 - 2000m layer continues to rise as expected, demonstrating that energy is continuing to accumulate in the climate system, demonstrating the ongoing radiative imbalance caused by GHG forcing.

      You haven't got a clue, have you? Why are you doing this?

      Delete
    4. At least one bonus has come out of this exchange, I've learnt I've got something new to learn: - Cenozoic hyperthermals. I've already pulled up a couple of interesting papers on the topic. Thanks, BBD :)


      (Another bonus is that the article attracted a couple more "self-portraits" of science deniers for all the world to see.)

      Delete
    5. BBD, you demand that I provide you with alternative mechanisms Cenozoic hyperthermals , yet refuse to provide a suitable explanation for the pause in warming, and instead you deny the science. You do realise that is what you are doing by declaring the there is no pause in warming, right?

      The important issue here is that you are making a direct comparison between two circumstances that are operating in completely different circumstances. Yes, the early Cenozoic hyperthermals occurred from a warmer baseline than the Holocene, but again you assume greenhouse and water vapour feedback are the only factors that are relevant. What about land mass configuration, ocean currents, albedo, tropical evapo-transpiration etc - all of the factors that define the different climatic conditions 60 million years ago. Because there are different conditions, it isn't possible to conclude on "increasingly *negative* cloud feedback", even if it was the only relevant factor (which it obviously isn't).



      Delete
    6. No, Greig. I "demand" nothing. You are *denying* the standard scientific position therefore the onus of proof is on you. If you are unable to provide an alternative physical mechanism for hyperthermals, you have no argument and can either remain silent or accept the standard scientific position. I have already said this. Please try to follow the discussion more attentively.

      * * *

      You do realise that is what you are doing by declaring the there is no pause in warming, right?

      That's another misrepresentation, Grieg, and I'm getting sick of your doing this. I did not say this or anything like it. Since you force me to repeat myself (yet again), *this* is what I actually said:

      "Actually, GAT is increasing (eg Cowtan & Way 2013) but transient variability in ocean heat uptake is modulating the rate of increase in surface temperature. OHC 0 - 2000m layer continues to rise as expected, demonstrating that energy is continuing to accumulate in the climate system, demonstrating the ongoing radiative imbalance caused by GHG forcing."

      * * *

      you assume greenhouse and water vapour feedback are the only factors that are relevant. What about land mass configuration, ocean currents, albedo, tropical evapo-transpiration

      What about GHG forcing, Grieg?

      How can tectonics force a geologically near-instantaneous *and transient* event like a hyperthermal? Ocean currents? Tropical evapotranspiration? How do these force a hyperthermal? Just flailing around desperately is not what I asked for. You need to provide a plausible physical mechanism, which means you need to describe how it works. To spare your pain, I know you can't do this, so why not just concede the point? It would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

      Delete
    7. This just keeps getting better and better. Sou posts yet more argumentum ad hominem, and false characterisations. And reverts to arguing whether or not the Earth is warming (which has never been in dispute). And even somehow manages to convince herself that anecdotal evidence is just dandy for old mum, so its fine to offer it up as real science. What hogwash. I am reminded that half the population is below average, I wonder if Sou would want to argue with me on that.

      Delete
    8. Greig, you claim to have "read science" yet you propose that the land mass configuration suddenly changed to such an extent that it triggered those hyperthermals?

      And you propose that something (other than a sudden rise in greenhouse gases) from within the earth system, like ocean currents could all by themselves trigger a hyperthermal with no change in radiative forcing?

      Am I correct in guessing you not only missed climate science, you also by-passed geology in your "science readings".

      Delete
    9. BBD, actually evapo-transpiration can explain a hyperthermal. A major change in ocean current causes large landmass to fall into extreme, extended drought. Dry soils cause a dramatic increase in daytime temperatures. Such an event at the right scale could definitely cause global warming. This could also cause CO2 outgassing which is also observed, but lags warming which is driven by other mechanisms (as observed in ice core samples)

      So where is your alternative explanation for the pause in warming? Is it the sun, maybe? If so, evidence? Or is it maybe that feedback mechanisms are not as simple, and climate sensitivity is not as high, as previously assumed .

      Delete
    10. Greig says it "keeps getting better and better". In fact it's getting worse.

      I didn't offer the anecdotal evidence as science. I offered it as real observations confirmed by BoM (with links). Our combined observations span several decades. BoM data supports our own observations, as you'd have seen if you'd followed the link I gave.

      In the same comment I also offered up real science to you as real science (with a link), and you ignored it.

      Instead you disparaged my mother. I've had some rough comments here in the past, but now I'm wondering should I add "no offensive remarks about my mother" in the comment policy.

      And you haven't even got the wit to post your silly comment in the same thread.

      Delete
    11. BBD, actually evapo-transpiration can explain a hyperthermal. A major change in ocean current causes large landmass to fall into extreme, extended drought. Dry soils cause a dramatic increase in daytime temperatures. Such an event at the right scale could definitely cause global warming. This could also cause CO2 outgassing which is also observed, but lags warming which is driven by other mechanisms (as observed in ice core samples)

      First, I dispute this. Second I want to see a referenced argument. Specifically:

      - what change in ocean currents were coincident with which hyperthermals?

      - what large landmass(es) were subject to major drought coincident with which hyperthermals?

      IMO you are desperately avoiding the point: hyperthermals are associated with CIEs indicating very large increases in atmospheric GHGs which provide the physical mechanism that explains the forcing change that caused the hyperthermal.

      * * *

      So where is your alternative explanation for the pause in warming? Is it the sun, maybe? If so, evidence? Or is it maybe that feedback mechanisms are not as simple, and climate sensitivity is not as high, as previously assumed .

      You over-state your claim, yet again. OHC has continued to increase and GAT has continued to rise (Cowtan & Way). It does look as though several factors have slowed the rate of surface/tropospheric warming, including a transient increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake, possibly associated with La Nina conditions, the recent, unusually low solar minimum and potentially underestimated negative aerosol forcing from tropical volcanism.

      And NB, this all indicates that the climate system is relatively sensitive to radiative perturbation.


      Delete
    12. BBD, I deduce that Greig is scientifically illiterate - at least about anything relating to climate or geology.

      Fancy proposing that the land masses moved quickly enough to cause a sudden (geologically speaking) huge temperature hike. Or that a change in ocean currents, that apparently happened by magic (since Greig gave no reason for any change), suddenly caused drought over such huge areas that it caused temperatures to rise. Why would drought cause a temperature rise? It's usually humidity associated with the temperature rise caused by a rise in CO2 that causes further warming. In any case, dry soils might heat up under the sun, but they cool down pretty darn quickly once the sun goes down.

      Sheesh I'm getting caught up with details when Greig's entire idea is utterly ludicrous. Greig doesn't have a clue about the basics of climate.

      Delete
    13. A major reorganisation of ocean circulation would require the opening/closing of an ocean gateway. The Cenozoic has seen a few, eg Tasmanian Gateway, Drake Passage, Indonesian Gateway, Fram Strait, Central American Isthmus. None, to my knowledge, triggered a hyperthermal. So like you, I'm forced to conclude that Greig is clueless and desperately winging it. I loved the bit about worldwide drought supposedly causing GW:

      Such an event at the right scale could definitely cause global warming.

      The right scale for a global hyperthermal being, by definition, global. How could those dozy paleoclimatologists have missed the evidence for worldwide drought? Mind you, I sense that somebody hasn't considered that drought kills vegetation which increases surface albedo which one might expect to cool the climate system.

      What tickles me is the way these buffoons keep on digging when it must be obvious even to them that they are stuffed.

      Delete
    14. Oh dear, the buffoons still have there blinkers on, any way I am busy today so have to move on from this discussion - in the meantime here is some food for thought:

      James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Gary Russell and Pushker Kharecha Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide
      http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full#ref-5

      "... it has been shown that the hyperthermals were astronomically paced, spurred by coincident maxima in the Earth's orbit eccentricity and spin axis tilt [17], which increased high-latitude insolation and warming. "

      17. LJ, Sluijs A, Kroon D, Zachos JC, Thomas E, Rohl U, Bowles J, Raffi I. 2005 Astronomical pacing of Late Palaeocene to Early Eocene global warming events. Nature 435, 1083–1087. (doi:10.1038/nature03814) CrossRefMedline

      Hansen assumes that CO2 and methane hydrates (released by vulcanism) are exclusively the forcing factor but least admits that there are some parallel forcings as presented in Sluijs et al., although he thereafter makes no effort to quantify them (because it doesn't suit his agenda?). I would contend that there are many more forcings and feedbacks that have not been considered due to lack of data.

      It is disturbing that sudden changes in ocean currents and impact on climate seems so absurd to you. There is a whole line of scientific study into the speculative climate impacts of changes to the Gulf Stream, feel free to search for scholarly articles on the subject.

      Also very disturbing that Sou dismisses drought (dry soils) and its impact on global temperature. ("Why would drought cause a temperature rise?" ... I have to explain this, really?) She apparently displays the common misconception that temperature drives humidity/aridity when in fact it is the other way around - and this is not controversial amongst experts in hydrology. The processes of hydrology are important aspects of climate change and represents a major driver and feedback mechanism. Again, plenty of science out there go look it up.

      UNDERSTANDING EARTH’S DEEP PAST LESSONS FOR OUR CLIMATE FUTURE Committee on the Importance of Deep-Time Geologic Records for Understanding Climate Change Impacts

      "Studies of past climates and climate models strongly suggest that the largest impact of continued CO2-forcing would be regional climate changes, with consequent modifications to the quantity and quality of water resources—particularly in drought-prone regions—and impacts on ecosystem dynamics. A fundamental component of research to understand hydrology under warmer conditions is the requirement—because of its potential for large feedbacks to the climate system—for an improved understanding of the global hydrologic cycle over a full spectrum of CO2 levels and climate conditions. The deep-time record uniquely archives the processes and feedbacks that influence the hydrologic cycle in a warmer world, including the effect of high-latitude unipolar glaciation or ice-free conditions on regional precipitation patterns in lower latitudes. Understanding these mechanisms and feedback processes requires the collection of linked marine-terrestrial records that are spatially resolved and of high temporal resolution, precision, and accuracy."

      ... and BBD and Sou would dismiss the issue of hydrology as irrelevant to studying the paleoclimate record, and resort to their pet theory that everything is driven by greenhouse. And they have the utter gall to resort to petty name-calling. It is apparently ideologically driven, emotive behaviour like this which makes non-scientists so sceptical of the motivations of climate scientists.

      Delete
    15. Er, Greig

      I don't think you have understood the Hansen et al. and Sluijs et al. papers at all. The hypothesis is that orbital forcing triggered the release of GHGs which caused the hyperthermals.

      Oh, and you missed a couple:

      DeConto et al. (2012) Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost.


      And:

      Lourens et al. (2005) Astronomical pacing of late Palaeocene to early Eocene global warming events.

      * * *

      As you are fond of saying, this is getting better and better.

      :-)

      Delete
    16. ("Why would drought cause a temperature rise?" ... I have to explain this, really?)

      Well, yes. You argue that "drought could cause a hyperthermal". Since hyperthermals are extreme global events, presumably they could only result from a global drought. Quite apart from the fact that there is no evidence for any such droughts, you also haven't addressed the problem with the physical mechanism.

      Drought reduces vegetation, which increases surface albedo and so over time would cool the climate system because more SW energy will be reflected into space.

      Delete
    17. I'm glad you raised the Hansen study, though, as it is an illuminating examination of the hypothesis that not just hyperthermals but the gradual cooling ~50Ma to present can be substantially attributed to changes in the atmospheric fraction of GHGs. Also, you missed this bit:

      Superimposed on the long-term trends are occasional global warming spikes, ‘hyperthermals’, most prominently the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) at approximately 56 Myr BP [12] and the Mid-Eocene Climatic Optimum at approximately 42 Myr BP [13], coincident with large temporary increases of atmospheric CO2. The most studied hyperthermal, the PETM, caused global warming of at least 5°C coincident with injection of a likely 4000–7000 Gt of isotopically light carbon into the atmosphere and ocean [14]. The size of the carbon injection is estimated from changes in the stable carbon isotope ratio 13C/12C in sediments and from ocean acidification implied by changes in the ocean depth below which carbonate dissolution occurred.

      Delete
    18. This is not a new idea, but interested readers - and I hope you are one, Greig - can get the flavour of it from an earlier paper, Hansen & Sato (2012):

      CO2 is the principal forcing that caused the slow Cenozoic climate trends. The total amount of CO2 in surface carbon reservoirs (atmosphere, ocean, soil, biosphere) changes over millions of years due to imbalance of the volcanic source and weathering sink, and changes of the amount of carbon buried in organic matter. CO2 is also a principal factor in the short-term climate oscillations that are so apparent in parts (b) and (c) of Fig. 1. However, in these glacial-interglacial oscillations atmospheric CO2 operates as a feedback: total CO2 in the surface reservoirs changes little on these shorter time scales, but the distribution of CO2 among the surface reservoirs changes as climate changes. As the ocean warms, for example, it releases CO2 to the atmosphere, providing an amplifying climate feedback that causes further warming.

      The fact that CO2 is the dominant cause of long-term Cenozoic climate trends is obvious Earth's energy budget. Redistribution of energy in the climate system via changes of atmosphere or ocean dynamics cannot cause such huge climate change. Instead a substantial global climate forcing is required. The climate forcing must be due to a change of energy coming into the planet or changes within the atmosphere or on the surface that alter the planet's energy budget.

      Solar luminosity is increasing on long time scales, as our sun is at an early stage of solar evolution, "burning" hydrogen, forming helium by nuclear fusion, slowly getting brighter. The sun's brightness increased steadily through the Cenozoic, by about 0.4 percent according to solar physics models (Sackmann et al., 1993). Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m2 of solar energy, the 0.4 percent increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m2. This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era.

      Continent locations affect Earth's energy balance, as ocean and continent albedos differ. However, most continents were near their present latitudes by the early Cenozoic (Blakey, 2008; Fig. S9 of Hansen et al., 2008). Cloud and atmosphere shielding limit the effect of surface albedo change (Hansen et al., 2005), so this surface climate forcing did not exceed about 1 W/m2.

      In contrast, atmospheric CO2 during the Cenozoic changed from about 1000 ppm in the early Cenozoic (Beerling and Royer, 2011) to as small as 170 ppm during recent ice ages (Luthi et al., 2008). The resulting climate forcing, which can be computed accurately for this CO2 range using formulae in Table 1 of Hansen et al. (2000), exceeds 10 W/m2. CO2 was clearly the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic.

      Delete
    19. Yes, Greig - you have to explain it, really. I'd be interested in your references. I've not seen any material that explores the impact of drought on *global* climate. You are arguing that drought causes *global* temperatures to rise. We'll put to one side what caused your mythical drought in the first place.

      I'm well aware that increased humidity causes *global* temperatures to rise. It's called the greenhouse effect. I do not understand your mechanism by which dryer than normal air (presumably only over land) causes *global* temperatures to rise.

      Nor do I understand how presumably global drought could be sustained. If *global* temperatures rise then more water evaporates, so the air gets more humid. I expect your experts in hydrology would agree. Evaporation from oceans is far greater than any from land. And air moves. It travels across land as well as across oceans and it rains. But lets say by a quirk of fate over hundreds of thousands of years it only rained over the ocean. Even if the land were completely barren and lost plant and animal matter - if such a circumstance were to occur then it wouldn't stop water evaporated from the oceans from circulating in the air. (And as BBD said, surely someone would have noticed - like we wouldn't be here!)

      There is plenty of material on the impact of global and regional climate on drought but I can't find any that proposes there is a causal relationship whereby drought causes a rise in *global* temperatures. Maybe because it's counter-intuitive.

      If drought causes global heating, then what happens to evaporation? Are you arguing the drought will make the world so hot that the oceans will boil dry? I don't see it. In fact I don't see how "dryness" on land causes net heat gain at the global level. Especially when it reduces the level of greenhouse gases above the area under drought. And at night time, that means that the dry areas cool much more than other areas. More LW radiation over drought areas escapes to space - ie at night the LW radiation causes cooling to counteract warming from incoming SW radiation during the day.

      As BBD notes, drought means less vegetation. This changes albedo but it also reduces evapotranspiration, which means less water vapour into the air.

      I've had to split this comment. Part II to follow.

      Delete
    20. Part II (continued from previous)

      Drought means dust. Dust moves into the air. I don't know if anyone has worked out the details of the net effect, but I did come across this passage:

      The great variability in dust transport demonstrates the sensitivity of dust mobilization to changes in regional climate and highlights the need to understand how dust, in turn, might affect climate processes on larger scales. Many aspects of the radiative properties of dust are still open to question (1, 31). Nonetheless, dense dust clouds over the oceans reduce insolation at the ocean surface, thereby reducing the heating of ocean surface waters (32) and sea-surface temperatures, which in turn affects the ocean-atmosphere transfer of water vapor and latent heat, which are important factors in climate (28). Reduced heating over the tropical Atlantic could contribute to the interhemispheric, tropical Atlantic, sea-surface temperature anomaly patterns that have been associated with SS drought (11, 15). Thus, increased dust could conceivably lead to more intense or more prolonged drought. Also, the frequency and intensity of Atlantic hurricanes have been linked to West African rainfall (33), showing decreased activity during dry phases.

      Dust could also affect climate through cloud microphysical processes, possibly suppressing rainfall and conceivably leading to the perpetuation and propagation of drought (34). Over south Florida, clouds are observed to glaciate at relatively warm temperatures in the presence of African dust (35), an effect that could alter cloud radiative processes, precipitation, and cloud lifetimes.


      From 2003 paper in Science by Prospero and Lamb
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5647/1024.full

      So there's another impact, but not in favour of your theory. Dust clouds reflect incoming sunlight.

      Now as I say, if you can explain just how drought causes *global* warming and very rapid global warming (in geological terms), preferably supported by scientific papers, I'd be grateful.

      Perhaps another reader can point me to papers on the subject. I'm always keen to learn new stuff.

      Delete
    21. Sou, it is refreshing that you should seek more information on this subject, upon which you clearly know little.

      Firstly, you imply that increased temperature from drought needs to be very widespread (global) in order to impact global temperatures, and this is not correct. Recognise what drives global temperature measurement - it is an average taken over the Earth’s surface, therefore if warming occurs over a significant local region (eg mid latitude arid zones, orographic shadows) it will register as an increase in average global temperatures in the proxy data. This is how "dryness" on land causes net heat gain at the global level. By this means it can be a major driver (initiator) of global warming.

      In order to assist in understanding how aridity drives very dramatic temperature increases, I suggest reading material below. In a nutshell, when soil contains high moisture content, much of the sun’s energy is used in evaporation and consequently there is limited heating of the surface. However, during droughts, soil moisture content is low and consequently nearly all of the incoming radiation is converted into heating the surface. The result is that air temperatures rise significantly.

      If global temperatures rise then more oceanic water evaporates, but this humid air does not necessarily move to the arid region to relieve its aridity. High school geography reveals the mechanisms for this, I will assume you understand the concepts.

      Certainly drought means less vegetation and changed albedo, but this is feedback not a driver. Less vegetation also reduces evapotranspiration, which means less water vapour into the air which compounds aridity, a positive feedback. Similarly dust reflects sunlight, but it also affects climate "through cloud microphysical processes, possibly suppressing rainfall and conceivably leading to the perpetuation and propagation of drought".

      Suggested reading:

      On the recent warming in the Murray-Darling Basin: Land surface interactions misunderstood
      Natalie Lockart, Dmitri Kavetski, Stewart W. Franks

      This study demonstrates that significant misunderstanding of known processes of land surface – atmosphere interactions has led to the incorrect attribution of the causes of the anomalous temperatures, as well as significant misunderstanding of their impact on evaporation within the Murray-Darling Basin.

      Estimating Land Surface Evaporation: A Review of Methods Using Remotely Sensed Surface Temperature Data
      Jetse D. Kalma, Tim R. McVicar, Matthew F. McCabe

      Rainfall in arid and semi-arid regions
      Jetse D. Kalma. Stewart W Franks

      Delete
    22. BTW Sou's misunderstanding on this issue is widespread.

      From http://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709

      Immediately following the 2002-3 El Niño and Murray Darling Basin drought, Professor David Karoly authored a report under the auspices of the WWF-Australia. In this he noted that whilst rainfall had been low, the air temperatures had been particularly elevated. This led Karoly to claim that:

      "The higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed."

      While this may sounds intuitively correct, it is wrong. It completely ignores the known science of evapotranspiration and boundary layer meteorology (see my previous post).

      I mention this because of Sou;'s earlier claims that global warming effects are clearly observed in Australia weather conditions. As the above reveals, even the so-called experts can be fooled by anecdotal evidence.

      Delete
    23. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    24. Greig, in your second comment you reiterate my point. As David Karoly points out, warming can exacerbate drought in different regions (just like it causes more intense rain). However you were arguing the opposite - that drought causes warming.

      So I've looked at your preceding comment, in which you fail to explain any mechanism for how drought can cause *global* warming (you simply repeat/rephrase your assertion). (Without forcing, energy can move around but it can't be created out of nothing.) You do provide some references. I'll provide the links you omitted.

      I can't find a copy of your first reference and there is nothing in the abstract saying that drought causes *global* warming. At best it looks to be an exploration of local effects in the Murray Darling basin. If you can provide a copy of the paper I'll read it. If not, perhaps you will give us an inkling of what the paper says about drought causing "global" warming.

      Your second reference is to a book chapter (which was co-authored by Stewart Franks, an avowed climate science denier. He's a water engineer, not a climate scientist, so he doesn't qualify for the label "climate contrarian"), in a 2003 UNESCO publication on hydrological processes in arid and semi-arid zones. The abstract starts with:

      ABSTRACT: The chapter starts with an overview of rainfall types and mechanisms in arid and semi-arid regions. This is followed by a discussion of general circulation aspects and mesoscale climatic systems as they affect precipitation in arid and semi-arid regions.

      So far it's about the impact of climatic systems on rainfall, not the other way around. Moving on, the next two parts aren't relevant at all. They are just about measurement. So let's look at what follows:

      The penultimate section addresses climatic variability and change, and summarizes recent research of relevance to hydrological variability on multiple time scales.
      The first bit is about ENSO and its impact on precipitation. For example:

      Their results indicated marked increases in drought area since the late 1970s; these changes were especially marked over the Sahel region. It was also inferred that the global increases were related to a general increase in the occurrence of El Nino events and also corresponded to record high global mean temperatures

      and

      It must be conceded that changes of ‘climate state’ in (semi-)arid regions do occur. Climate shifts may occur naturally, but future shifts may be additionally affected through anthropogenic influences.

      Still nothing on drought causes global warming.


      In the final section of this chapter we provide an overview, reach some general conclusions and make a number of practical recommendations and suggestions for further work.

      Unsurprisingly, there was nothing in the overview either, to suggest that drought causes global warming. Even Stewart Franks wouldn't be likely to propose that idea of yours.

      So a big fail. Do you want to try again?

      BTW - when you write that you know something about climate that world-renowned climate scientist Professor David Karoly doesn't ("scientists don't know nuffin'") - you sound just like the duffers at WUWT.

      Delete
    25. BTW - your middle reference doesn't seem to address the issue at all. It "reviews methods for estimating evaporation from landscapes, regions and larger geographic extents, with remotely sensed surface temperatures, and highlights uncertainties and limitations associated with those estimation methods."

      I saw nowhere in it the proposal that droughts cause *global* warming.

      Delete
    26. On the first reference, I found out a bit more. There was a comment on the paper, which I gather suggested the authors made an error in their analysis. The original authors wrote a reply.

      Not having access to any of the above, I can't comment. Regardless, the original paper is about a particular region, going by the title. You are arguing for drought causing *global* warming. I'm open to the suggestion but since it's counter-intuitive I'd need a solid, well-grounded explanation, not just of how drought either globally or in only selected regions, could cause global warming, but also of what led to this supposed drought in the first place.

      The only explanation I could think of for how shifts in arid zones could cause global warming would be a change in albedo. Otherwise shifts in precipitation patterns would be just that - a shift of energy around and within the system not a net increase in energy within the system. And I can't think how it could possibly have the huge effect sufficient to cause the large jump in surface temperature in the Cenozoic hyperthermals.

      Delete
    27. Sou,

      You assume David Karoly says something, he is a “world renowned climate scientist” therefore he is right. And Stewart Franks says something else and he is not a climate scientist (and according to you, a climate denier), therefore he is wrong. The error in this thinking is that the subject is hydrology, evapotranspiration and boundary layer meteorology – and Franks is the expert on that subject, not Karoly. You are aligning with the wrong expert. And Karoly’s comment is wrong he has his foot firmly stuck in his mouth, the evidence of that is in the references supplied.

      The references are intended to discuss the issue of hydrology – why drought cause increased temperatures, not the other way around. Read again, and you will find that they do just that. They show that climatic systems (processes such as ENSO) determine rainfall, which drives temperature – and this ultimately drives greenhouse. It challenges the fallacious assumption made by greenhouse advocates that greenhouse drives temperature drives climate.

      The references do not *conclude* that drought causes *global* warming, why would you think that? Do a search on publications that conclude that plate tectonics or ocean circulation or solar activity or albedo cause global warming and you will find nothing, yet we know those factors all feature in processes that drive global temperature and are implicated in initiating global warming and cooling. You say you come to this subject knowledgeable from having “read the science”, yet you show know capability to think.

      Delete
    28. Actually, you're avoiding the question. You argued that drought is a plausible explanation for the Cenozoic hyperthermals. You argued that drought can cause *global* warming.

      And I can't "read again" because you haven't provided a copy of the paper to "read". I presume you have a copy. Why not upload it to Google docs or somewhere so we can all read it. As I said, I can't find a copy on the internet.

      Now you have a new argument, that an increases in greenhouse gases doesn't increase the energy in the system or some such nonsense. Or maybe you are arguing that burning fossil fuels doesn't produce CO2. Whatever you are trying to say, for you to claim, as you have just done, that the physics of the greenhouse effect is "fallacious" is pure denier nuttery!

      I've found out more about Stewart's paper by the way. You were right to a point. His paper was apparently about sensible heat from the surface. But during sunshine hours - not night time. And there's no suggestion that I could see that drought causes *global* warming.

      Here's a comment from him to illustrate:

      it is solar radiation that cause daytime temperature maxima. No mention of drought causing global warming. It's simply about how in a drought, the surface heats up during the day. It's a discussion of mechanisms during a drought - any drought, not global warming. It's not an explanation of global warming. In fact it's got nothing to do with global warming as far as I can see. I still don't know what the full paper covers. For example, whether it discusses what happens at night, when the air is dry and clear and more LW radiation shoots into space.

      Obviously in a hotter world droughts are also hotter. In a colder world, droughts are colder. I cannot find anywhere that states, as you have argued, that droughts *cause* global warming.

      Delete
    29. Sou,

      OK, Sou, you are struggling, so I'll make it simple for you. Based on your newfound knowledge of hydrology, if there is a widespread increase in aridity, will average global temperatures go up or down.

      Delete
    30. Science suggests that if the world cools then there is less water vapour in the air, but that says nothing about its distribution. In any case it's not what you are asking.

      Your contention is that drought can cause global warming.

      Before I respond, you'd best explain how there could be a widespread increase in aridity - how widespread and where - northern or southern hemisphere? (Not that there's much scope for further aridity in the two driest continents on the planet, but there's still South America and a bit of Africa.) Tropics, mid-latitudes or poles?

      Not that I should be wasting my time with someone who thinks the greenhouse effect is "fallacious".

      Delete
    31. This is a complete waste of time. Greig hasn't got the first clue about the way the climate system works. He is bluffing from a position of ignorance.

      He has completely failed to address *anything* I wrote yesterday, and everything you have written since. That makes him a troll, in my book. Enough time wasted. Suggest that he be *required* to respond substantively to several points and banned if he does not do so:

      -- what changes in ocean circulation were coincident with which hyperthermals?

      - what physical mechanism is proposed for altering ocean circulation? Eg ocean gateway opening/closure?

      - what large landmass(es) were subject to major drought coincident with which hyperthermals?

      - why does increasing albedo due to vegetation loss NOT cause global cooling by reflecting more SW to space?

      - why does an increase in dust aerosols NOT cause global cooling by reflecting more SW to space?

      Approximate dating is mandatory for all responses. No vagueness. References to published literature required for all responses. No bluffing.

      Delete
    32. None of your questions are relevant, you are obfuscating and attempting to change the subject.

      As you well know the answer to my question is: increased aridity causes global temperatures to go up. Simply, droughts cause global warming.

      Can this occur on a scale that might have initiated a hyperthermal event? That depends on many factors, and we surely do not have the data to determine if those factors apply to the Cenezoic hyperthermals. But I contend that it could have occurred, in theory.

      Finally, I have never stated that I think the greenhouse effect is "fallacious". And to suggest such is deliberate and transparent misrepresentation, all can clearly see that, so such tactics do your cause no favours.

      Delete
    33. None of your questions are relevant, you are obfuscating and attempting to change the subject.

      They are all relevant to debunking your nonsense which is why you refuse to answer them and simply repeat your rubbish once again. This is textbook intellectual dishonesty and I think you need to be booted off comments here because of this.

      Delete
    34. You made a false claim to avoid facing up to the fact that hyperthermals are the result of GHG forcing. Each question I asked you addresses flaws in your argument. Your physical mechanism does not work. I even suspect that you can see this, which makes what you are doing here worse.

      So let's try again:

      - what changes in ocean circulation were coincident with which hyperthermals?

      - what physical mechanism is proposed for altering ocean circulation? Eg ocean gateway opening/closure?

      - what large landmass(es) were subject to major drought coincident with which hyperthermals?

      - why does increasing albedo due to vegetation loss NOT cause global cooling by reflecting more SW to space?

      - why does an increase in dust aerosols NOT cause global cooling by reflecting more SW to space?

      Approximate dating is mandatory for all responses. No vagueness. References to published literature required for all responses. No bluffing.

      Delete
    35. BBD, as you well know regarding the Cenozoic hyperthermals the mechanism by which sufficient light carbon entered the atmosphere is not known, and it is pure conjecture that GHGs is the primary driver of warming. If the source was methane clathrates, how were they suddenly released? We don't know, we can only guess. There is simply insufficient data from appropriate studies to conclude. You can't prove your case any better, so it is therefore outrageous that you should expect me to prove to you anything with real data on subject line and hypothesis that has not attracted any funding for research.

      This is textbook intellectual dishonesty, and I think you should be booted off comments here for this.

      Delete
    36. BBD, as you well know regarding the Cenozoic hyperthermals the mechanism by which sufficient light carbon entered the atmosphere is not known, and it is pure conjecture that GHGs is the primary driver of warming.

      The mechanism by which the flux of GHGs entered the atmosphere is not relevant to the discussion of what happened to the climate system once it occurred. Intellectual dishonesty again, Greig.

      But we do know that hyperthermals are associated with major CIEs. That *is* relevant because it provides the physical mechanism needed to explain the hyperthermal - a rapid and very large increase in GHG forcing.

      You - not I - have questions to answer. So get on with it.

      Delete
    37. Greig says in this comment: I have never stated that I think the greenhouse effect is "fallacious".

      Not all that long after making this comment here:
      It challenges the fallacious assumption made by greenhouse advocates that greenhouse drives temperature drives climate

      Another instance of his short term memory problem?

      Delete
    38. So how much more intellectual dishonesty do you think is reasonable here, Sou? Where do you draw the line?

      Delete
    39. BBD,

      The mechanism by which increased aridity occurred is not relevant to what happened to the climate system once it occurred. Intellectual dishonesty again, BBD. Hyperthermals are associated with CIEs because of outgassing. That is relevant as a feedback mechanism, but is reliant on an explanation of what initiated the warming.

      So where did the GHGs come from? And/or what initiated the warming? You have questions to answer, get on with it.

      Delete
    40. Ah, no Greig. We have *evidence* for the CIEs but *no evidence* for your claimed droughts. That's why I keep asking you to provide some.

      Huge GHG increase > CIE > hyperthermal.

      You need something equally or more robust and you do not have it.

      You have also refused to explain these major problems with your claim:

      - why does increasing albedo due to vegetation loss NOT cause global cooling by reflecting more SW to space?

      - why does an increase in dust aerosols NOT cause global cooling by reflecting more SW to space?

      Tell me, Greig, are glacials associated with dry atmospheres and an increased dust aerosol loading? And are both factors considered to enhance cooling (positive feedback) or to reduce cooling (negative feedback)?

      Delete
    41. The statement "It challenges the fallacious assumption made by greenhouse advocates that greenhouse drives temperature drives climate" is not the same as saying "the greenhouse effect is fallacious". Yet more intellectual dishonesty.

      This is a bold restatement of Gore's infamous Error #4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills

      BTW I have no qualms with you banning me from this site. It says more about you than me. Go for it.

      Delete
    42. Where did that come from? I haven't said anything about banning you from the site.

      As for your statement about "fallacious", the greenhouse effect is that greenhouse gases are a radiative forcing. In other words implicit in the very definition of the greenhouse effect is that it drives temperature and energy, therefore it drives climate.

      To say it's "a fallacious assumption that greenhouse drives temperature drives climate" is exactly the same as saying the greenhouse effect is fallacious and exactly the same as denying the greenhouse effect.

      Delete
    43. BBD,

      You still haven't explained the huge "Huge GHG increase". When you have done so, and presented incontrovertible evidence from valid studies, then you may continue to insist on same from me.

      Regarding albedo and dust, I discuss both positive an negative feedback above, at 2:50pm

      Certainly drought means less vegetation and changed albedo, but this is feedback not a driver. Less vegetation also reduces evapotranspiration, which means less water vapour into the air which compounds aridity, a positive feedback. Similarly dust reflects sunlight, but it also affects climate "through cloud microphysical processes, possibly suppressing rainfall and conceivably leading to the perpetuation and propagation of drought".

      Delete
    44. Sou, look up error#4 and explain it to the judge.

      Delete
    45. BTW I have no qualms with you banning me from this site. It says more about you than me.

      No it doesn't.

      * * *

      Hyperthermals are associated with CIEs because of outgassing. That is relevant as a feedback mechanism, but is reliant on an explanation of what initiated the warming.

      Since you are trying to use this to get off the hook, let's deal with it in more detail before returning to the problems with your claim.

      Various mechanisms are proposed: volcanism on the N Atlantic seabed; orbital forcing causing Antarctic permafrost melt; large-scale clathrate destabilisation. All are mutually compatible. If you want to be technically correct, then volcanism and orbital dynamics would constitute the primary forcings that triggered a cascade of positive feedbacks (eg clathrate destabilisation, increased atmospheric water vapour and consequent GHG forcing; ongoing release of GHGs from permafrost melt etc) that contributed to the evolution of the hyperthermal.

      None of this is relevant to the central point that you refuse to address, which is that the GHG spike (recorded as a CIE) provided the physical mechanism that produced the hyperthermal:

      Orbital and/or volcanic forcing > GHG spike/CIE > hyperthermal

      Unless you provide *evidence* supporting your claims of widespread drought and *explanations* why increased albedo and negative aerosol forcing did not cool the climate system as they have at all other times, your argument collapses.

      It's time you either backed it up or admitted that what you claim does not have any merit.

      This has gone on long enough.

      * * *


      - what changes in ocean circulation were coincident with which hyperthermals?

      - what physical mechanism is proposed for altering ocean circulation? Eg ocean gateway opening/closure?

      - what large landmass(es) were subject to major drought coincident with which hyperthermals?

      - why does increasing albedo due to vegetation loss NOT cause global cooling by reflecting more SW to space?

      - why does an increase in dust aerosols NOT cause global cooling by reflecting more SW to space?


      Delete
    46. Please cite evidence for "Orbital and/or volcanic forcing" as the primary cause the GHG spike. If you don't have any study to cite, that's OK just state it clearly, and I will begin my own speculation (minus studies or citations) on how widespread aridity might have occurred in a way that resulted in a hyperthermal, OK?

      Delete
    47. Greig with a straw man about 'error' (mark those quotes - they are the judges) #4. Wants us to discover there might be more drivers of climate change change except [CO2]-changes. Even the judge didn't need explaing that. Please put some clothes on.

      Delete
    48. Sou, look up error#4 and explain it to the judge.

      The scientific response covers it okay. The judge didn't dispute the fact that more greenhouse gases cause global warming. It's just as I said above.

      What you are missing is what many deniers miss. In the past anything could have precipitated warming, like Milankovitch. Once a temperature rise is precipitated, CO2 is released from the oceans and warms the air more. As the air warms more, more water evaporates which warms the earth still more. That continues until the radiation out once again balances the incoming.

      This is very, very basic stuff. You should know it backwards if you'd been following climate science.

      It's different at the moment, because there is so much CO2 in the air that oceans are absorbing it rather than releasing it (to do with partial pressures). That's why it's warming and yet the oceans are still absorbing a large proportion of CO2 emissions.

      I hadn't realised till your "fallacious" statement that you were a greenhouse effect denier.

      Delete
    49. Please cite evidence for "Orbital and/or volcanic forcing" as the primary cause the GHG spike.

      Oh FFS Greig. We are deep into troll country now. Read your own links.

      Then read mine in response to your comment upthread.

      Delete
    50. Kennett & Stott (1991) Abrupt deep-sea warming, palaeoceanographic changes and benthic extinctions at the end of the Palaeocene

      (NOTE: K&S dating of ~57.33Ma subsequently revised to ~55.5Ma)

      Koch et al. (1992) Correlation between isotope records in marine and continental carbon reservoirs near the Palaeocene/Eocene boundary

      Zachos et al. (2005) Rapid acidification of the ocean during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

      Svensen et al. (2004) Release of methane from a volcanic basin as a mechanism for initial Eocene global warming

      Delete
    51. I never said that GHGs don't cause warming. I said that the assumption that GHG drives T drives climate is fallacious. The Vostock ice core studies show clearly that climate drives T drives GHG. That is what is observed and measured, if you don't accept that I think it is you who is in denial of climate science.

      Delete
    52. Again, a profound gap in your knowledge, Greig. Again you turn to denier memes instead of the actual published paleoclimate literature, eg Shakun et al. (2012) Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation

      Since I know you aren't reading a damned think I link, here's a summary:

      - NH summer insolation increases from ~21.5ka especially at high latitudes

      - By ~19ka, mid/high latitude NH temperature increase causes sufficient melt from NH ice sheets for freshwater flux to inhibit NADW formation and halt AMOC [THC fact sheet: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html see fig. 2]

      - NH now *cools* as equatorial >>> poleward heat transport stops

      - With the NH ‘heat sink’ turned off, the SH *warms*, as it must

      - Deep water warming in SH ocean causes release of carbon to atmosphere. This positive feedback globalises and amplifies the warming

      - NH melt resumes, fully engaging strongly positive ice albedo feedback

      - Deglaciation accelerates until largely complete by ~11.5ka. Holocene interglacial begins

      Delete
    53. But that's exactly what greenhouse gases do, Greig. When GHGs rise, more energy is retained on earth, the temperature goes up, which heats the air and oceans. The extra energy drives climate change.

      When GHG levels drop, more energy leaves the earth system, the temperature goes down and drives climate change.

      Like I said - I didn't realise you don't even understand the basics of global warming and climate science.

      It's not fallacious. It's fact. If something else precipitates the temperature change in the first place that still doesn't change the fact that a change in greenhouse gas concentration affects the energy balance and drives climate change. If something else precipitates the change then changing GHGs is a feedback. When it's a change in GHGs by themselves, like now, then it's a forcing. Either way the change in GHGs drives temperature which drives climate change.

      Delete
    54. Sorry BBD, all show as expected studies of deep sea carbon dissolution - none indicate *how* or *why* this occurred. To demand that I demonstrate how or why widespread aridity might occur is dishonest.

      And attempts at trying to prove that GHG precede warming are ridiculous:

      NH summer insolation increases ...
      NH ***temperature increase*** causes sufficient melt ...

      i.e. Orbital mechanics drives T drives GHG. Basic stuff.

      Yes increased GHG then causes a feedback, and this further increases temperature, basic physics. (this says nothing about other feedbaccks, eg H2), clouds, etc) The point is observations show that GHGs do not initiate warming, other mechanisms drive temperature first.

      Are we all on the same page now?

      Delete
    55. No. You're still a science denier, Greig. You refuse to accept the fact that there have been times in the past when a change in greenhouse gases initiated global warming.

      As for your "drought causes global warming" theory you've provided no plausible mechanism to explain how that could work and provided no examples of when it might have happened. Even when you thought you'd provided some evidence it turned out you didn't. I've commented down thread of examples when it didn't happen - with the megadroughts in the USA.

      All you're doing now is repeating denier memes and shuffling from one half-baked bit of pseudo-science to another without making any sense.

      Your time would be better spent reading a basic primer on climate science. There are also some good courses. David Archer has a terrific set of videos from his lecture series.

      http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

      Going by your comments that's probably too advanced for you, even though it's for non-science majors. Maybe start with a simple primer.

      http://www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page1.php

      Delete
    56. Hi Sou, thanks so much for your condescension, but since I have been studying this subject for over 30 years I have done my dues.

      I have already taken the time to show you why your US Megadrought analysis below proves nothing, I have kept it simple for you, happy to explain it further if you are still confused.

      And indeed I am not going to take the time to engage in a speculative discussion on aridity driving hypothermals, it was only ever intended as ain intellectual exercise. Your demands that I prove mechanisms without the time and financial resources for a proper study are disingenuous.

      But now that you understand a bit about hydrology (where before you knew nothing) I feel you have come a long way, and that is encouraging. Happy to help.

      Delete
    57. Sorry BBD, all show as expected studies of deep sea carbon dissolution - none indicate *how* or *why* this occurred.

      Just wrong. Go and look again.

      i.e. Orbital mechanics drives T drives GHG. Basic stuff.

      Not really. Orbital forcing is a *trigger* for cascades of positive feedbacks which drive T. In deglaciation, albedo and GHG are very important. DeConto et al. propose Antarctic permafrost melt and GHG outgassing as a mechanism for initiating the spike in GHG forcing that drives the hyperthermal.

      The point is observations show that GHGs do not initiate warming, other mechanisms drive temperature first.

      Oh FFS. Nobody ever made that claim. Read what Sou wrote properly. Either you are an idiot or you are trolling for all you are worth.

      Delete
    58. "Nor do I understand how presumably global drought could be sustained."

      Sandworms, of course.

      Delete
    59. "Either you are an idiot or you are trolling for all you are worth."

      The two are not mutually exclusive.

      Delete
    60. Sandworms, of course.

      Duh! It's so obvious. Now why didn't I think of that :)

      Delete
    61. @ Bernard J

      You are of course correct.

      @ Sou

      Me too.

      Delete
    62. @ Greig

      "As you well know the answer to my question is: increased aridity causes global temperatures to go up. Simply, droughts cause global warming."

      Oh yes, now I see. Err, on second thoughts no I don't.

      Is that supposed to be an explanation?

      Delete
    63. Speaking of condescension, I dunno why Greig thinks he somehow "helped" me learn anything new about hydrology. I didn't claim any new knowledge nor indicate I'd learnt anything new. (It's about 35 years since I studied anything related to the subject from an engineering perspective - as opposed to a climate perspective).

      Of the three papers Greig listed - without links mind you, two didn't address what he said they did and the one paper left that he might have hung his hat on, he couldn't provide a copy of. I don't expect he's read it himself.

      Given his selection didn't address the subject matter he claimed, my guess is he knows even less about hydrological engineering than I do.

      Delete
    64. I agree, Sou, you probably haven't learned anything. You probably still think Karoly is right and Franks is wrong.

      Delete
  8. Grieg (and many others) are probably relying on Lomborg's misleading analysis to justify their stance. Lomborg is a mountebank and charlatan of the first order, and anyone listening to him has lost control of their logical faculties. Try this:

    "The lower bound of the temperature rises estimated by the IPCC, which Lomborg happily cites, are based upon scenarios where governments implement policies, which Lomborg argues against, to substantially constrain emissions. Meanwhile, the IPCC report suggests we run a very real risk of a 4 degree rise by this century and more than 5 degrees next century if we followed the advice of Lomborg’s favourite economics oracle, Richard Tol."

    For more, check out this link:

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/9/30/science-environment/lomborg-misleads-ipcc

    Lukewarmers always cite the low end of estimates, conveniently forgetting that uncertainty cuts both ways. Climate sensitivity has always been around 2.5 to 3 degrees in the Paleo record, and is the IPCC's current best bet.

    From the above article:

    "If Lomborg was honest with people, he wouldn’t be citing results associated with either RCP 2.6 or 4.5 because they involve governments taking actions he recommends against doing.....

    The consequences are anything but moderate, and certainly worthy of alarm."

    Is that clear enough for you Grieg, or are you going to obfuscate further?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regrettably Debunker you have chosen to place your faith in climate models which have been shown to be flawed, their veracity is not supported by climate science (observation). I am challenging your base assumptions on the risk that we face, and believe the evidence is now strongly favouring the low end of estimates, that Lomborg quite rightly uses.

      Also, Lomborg's main point is not to challenge the science (he is not a scientist), but to challenge the policy response. He is very accurate in his analysis of the extreme waste in financial resources that emissions reductions entail, and also rightly points out these resources are better spent on addressing global health, overpopulation and poverty.

      Lomborg is not a charlatan, you simply haven't understood his analysis which is focussed on policy rather than climate science.

      Delete
    2. Regrettably Debunker you have chosen to place your faith in climate models which have been shown to be flawed, their veracity is not supported by climate science (observation).

      I've explained to you why this is a false claim yet you repeat it once more. In my book, that makes you a liar.

      Delete
    3. I have many times rejected your explanation as nonsense, and yet you persist. That makes you a liar.

      Delete
    4. You haven't even *acknowledged* my explanation why your claim is false. You just ignored it and carried on repeating your false claim. As you do with all your "arguments" here when they are countered.

      Delete
    5. Please dump the troll. Asked for it and has no qualms anyway.

      Delete
    6. BBD you have "explained" anything - merely fabricated some lame rationalisation for why climate models don't need to match observation, which flies in the face of basic scientific principles.

      Even the IPCC was forced in some way to acknowledge this:
      "This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error. "

      Regrettably for you no mention of "the models work on multi-decadal timescales, and 17 years isn't enough time." or whatever.

      Delete
    7. The models work exactly as explained to you. They are not designed to predict the next decade of Earth climate system variability and so cannot be "falsified" for not doing so. They are designed to examine long-term (multidecadal - centennial) forced climate change. Feel free to check this by reference to the published literature on climate modelling.

      I fabricated nothing. I leave that to you.

      Delete
    8. AR5:

      This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.

      Me, way upthread:

      You over-state your claim, yet again. OHC has continued to increase and GAT has continued to rise (Cowtan & Way). It does look as though several factors have slowed the rate of surface/tropospheric warming, including a transient increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake, possibly associated with La Nina conditions, the recent, unusually low solar minimum and potentially underestimated negative aerosol forcing from tropical volcanism.

      And NB, this all indicates that the climate system is relatively sensitive to radiative perturbation.

      Delete
    9. "The models ... are designed to examine long-term (multidecadal - centennial) forced climate change"

      BS, this is you opinion, no citation from valid reference.

      "this all indicates that the climate system is relatively sensitive to radiative perturbation."

      BS, again this is a claim only, no citation from valid reference.


      Delete
    10. Greig, if you doubt what I say about the design and purpose of the models, why not get off your lazy arse and check for yourself. I've already invited you to do so. So do it.

      * * *

      So a slowdown in the rate of surface warming during a period of low solar activity and possibly increased negative aerosol forcing indicates LOW sensitivity to radiative perturbation? What?

      Once again, you make it clear that you really don't understand even the most basic concepts of physical climatology.

      Delete
    11. So BBD, you can't justify your silly claim about the models operating on multi-decadal timescales, so you demand that I do your research for you. And I am the one who is lazy? ROTFL.

      And where is your citations for your theories on "low solar activity and possibly increased negative aerosol" - first you have to demonstrate the veracity of those claims before you can leap to conclusions about "sensitivity to radiative perturbation".

      Again you make it clear that you have no interest in real climate science, and are just making stuff up as you are going along to satisfy your preconceived bias.

      Delete
    12. Let's continue this on your thread. I don't think Sou wants you to continue commenting anywhere else at the moment.

      Delete
  9. I'll just make one more observation, since Greig seems to have given up looking for "evidence" that drought causes global warming. If anyone is deceived by him that he knows anything about climate science, his rejection of the greenhouse effect should be enough to persuade them otherwise - as if all his other silly comments aren't sufficient.

    This comment is a follow up to Greig's insistence that drought causes global warming. Here is an article on US megadroughts, which suggests they are associated with La Ninas - which cause global cooling, not warming. In Australia, droughts in the east and south east are associated with El Nino, which causes warming. But it's the influence of the ocean on the atmosphere that causes the change in precipitation patterns. Droughts don't cause ENSO events.

    I've lined up the US megadroughts with the known Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions and with the global temperature reconstructions from AR5. If they "caused" warming, it doesn't show up as a temperature rise in the northern hemisphere. Nor do they show up as a temperature rise globally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "his rejection of the greenhouse effect "

      Now you are just repeating lies, Goebells style.

      Re ENSO driving aridity, you forgot to mention that EL Nino events cause high aridity in Australia, and correlate strongly with increased global temperatures. Line up extended Australian droughts with EL Nino events, and you observe both temperature rise in the southern hemisphere and a temperature rise globally.

      Delete
    2. you forgot to mention that EL Nino events cause high aridity in Australia

      Your inattention is showing, Greig. Read the comment again until you see the words:

      In Australia, droughts in the east and south east are associated with El Nino, which causes warming. But it's the influence of the ocean on the atmosphere that causes the change in precipitation patterns. Droughts don't cause ENSO events.

      As for you rejecting the greenhouse effect - you did so, repeatedly, over several comments, up thread. You may think you accept it but your comments showed you didn't understand it. Same thing as rejecting it.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Greig has invoked the term "Goebells style". It's a sign that this thread is running out of puff.

      Delete
    5. "As for you rejecting the greenhouse effect - you did so, repeatedly"

      No I didn't. You are lying repeatedly.

      And I am the one teaching you about how the greenhouse effect is actually observed in nature, it is you who doesn't understand it.

      Sou: Greig, I'm getting sick of you accusing me of lying. You said upthread that the fact that GHG's drive temperature drive climate is fallacious. You even thought that Al Gore was wrong when he pointed out that GHGs affect temperature and climate in glacials and interglacials. You repeated it again and again.

      Whether you understand the greenhouse effect or not I don't know. I do know your own words betray you.

      The only thing I've learnt from you is that deniers can still come up with new pseudo-science twists - like drought causing global warming.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  10. Moderation has been turned on for the time being. The comment policy is being enforced.

    I'll be in and out. If your comment doesn't show up immediately, please be patient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This thread is a classic example of the admonition to wrestle with a pig, because both parties become muddy and the pig likes it.

      Grieng doesn't have to prove or otherwise substantiate his many fallacious, misrepresentative, erroneous, and outright lying claims. His purpose is to carpet the thread with his stink bombs - which doesn't require a cogently and evidentiary argued case - whilst leaving the science to be brought into the discussion by others whilst he moves on to his next load of bollocks.

      By the time one point of his has been trounced he's made a dozen more, just as wrong, but he's accomplished his goal.

      I'm pleased to see that moderation has been enforced. It's not my blog, but if I had any say I'd make Grieg substantiate each of his points, and address their rebuttals by others, before he is allowed to wander down another path.

      It's the quickest way to stop carpet bombers such as this.

      Delete
    2. "...of the admonition to never wrestle..."

      Delete
  11. Bernard, as you rightly point out, and BBD and others have done as well, I need to better manage this sort of carpet bombing - jumping from one crackpot notion to another.

    I've a lesson to learn here, but I'm not sure how to manage it. I really don't want to stop people commenting if I can avoid it. On the other hand, it's really difficult to follow the discussion when one person hogs the discussion, littering the thread with random denier memes, thinking it's sufficient to repeat them ad nauseum.

    Thing is they can't do much else, because there is no evidence supporting crackpot ideas (otherwise they wouldn't be crackpot ideas). And they can't explain them or rationalise them because crackpot ideas are by definition inexplicable and irrational.

    I'll have to think on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW - moderation is off again.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps you can apply a throttle of some sort. For example Tim Lambert used to disemvowel, which might work here - if a carpet bomber wants to persist with random rapid-fire unsubstantiated nonsense just pull the vowles out. That way s/he hasn't been censored away, and their nonsense is flagged as such, and if they want to revisit anything disemvowelled they'll have to put something testable on the table to keep their sub-thread legible.

      Just a thought.

      Delete
    3. Sou

      it's really difficult to follow the discussion when one person hogs the discussion, littering the thread with random denier memes, thinking it's sufficient to repeat them ad nauseum.

      It's very difficult and I do not envy you the job. And when I eventually lost patience this morning (UK time) and asked that Greig be required to answer some incessantly dodged questions or be moderated I immediately felt as if I had spoken out of turn. But there comes a point when the evidence of bad faith is simply overwhelming and commenters are getting pissed off and that's when moderation needs to kick in.

      FWIW, I favour the conditional approach I suggested - require referenced answers to a few oft-dodged questions from upthread or down comes the hammer. Engage in good faith or go.

      Delete
    4. Don't think of it as stopping someone commenting, think of it as turning down the volume on some loud background music, or throwing out the drunk and noisy patron who is spoiling it for everyone else.

      Basically the history of the internet shows that if you don't moderate trolls and cranks sensible posters leave and go elsewhere, leaving your blog full of cranks and trolls.
      A simple way to start with is, as suggested, disemvowellment. As used on all the best blogs. Or you just delete their latest rant and replace it with "Deleted until they answer the previous question".

      It is of course impossible to win though, because they can just lie about what they've posted and claim you are censoring them, and the usual suspects will listen. But who are you writing this blog for, people who are interested in science and climate change, or anti-science folks who spit all over it anyway?

      Delete
    5. Thanks for all your suggestions and feedback. Good ideas all of them. The last thing I want to do is turn off people who are interested in science and HW regulars.

      Thankfully HW doesn't get invaded by people like this too often. A thread got infested with someone worse than Greig early on and I just banned him. I delete the worst crude language and OT comments.

      Blogger doesn't make it easy to edit comments. Basically I have to delete them then copy them back, which is a pain as well as getting the posts out of order.

      So I'll probably settle for one of the other suggestions if it happens again. Or just do what some other bloggers have done (like Tim) and give them their own thread to play with. Or use a borehole, RC style.

      Delete
  12. Greig, I've set up a new thread for you to continue to comment if you wish to do so.

    ReplyDelete

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.