JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Models get the core assumptions wrong– – the hot spot is missing

This is part of a series that Tony Cox and I are doing that references the most important points and papers, as a definitive resource about the evidence. The missing hotspot is not just another flaw in the theory, it proves the models are wrong: not just “unverified”, not just “uncertain”, but failed. Apologies to those who feel I harp on about this! This is a condensed review, squishing years of a scientific battleground down to it’s bare bones… — Jo


It is not well known that even the IPCC agrees that the direct effects of CO2 will only increase world temperatures by 1.2°C. All of the projections above that (3.3°C , 6°C  etc) come from model projections based on assumptions of what water vapor and clouds will do (these are the feedback effects of the original 1.2°C).[i] Are the feedbacks correct?

If the IPCC models are right about the feedbacks, we would see a hot spot 10km above the tropics. The theory is that with more heat, more water will evaporate and rise, keeping relative humidity constant at all heights in the troposphere. The point has been conclusively tested with 28 million weather balloons since 1959.[ii]

 

The CCSP (Climate Change Science Project) published the predictions and observations as graphs in separate parts of its large 2006 report

The CCSP (Climate Change Science Project) published the predictions and observations as graphs in separate parts of its large 2006 report.[iii] ,[iv]

The observations don’t match the predictions

 

Figure 7. Based on Figures 2 and 3, page 13 of McKitrick et al.

 

Douglass et al [v] compared models with observations and officially pointed out the discrepancy in 2007.  The paper was rebutted by Santer et al [2008][vi], but the Santer paper did not contain new observations, instead it “found more uncertainties” in model projections and in radiosonde results, which widened the error bars until they overlapped. Santer et al strangely used a truncated dataset, ending in 1999, even though more recent data was available.

McKitrick, McIntyre, Herman[vii] – (2010) used the same datasets, but included newer data, extending the analysis, and used a more sophisticated statistical technique to show that the models all predict warming in the low to mid troposphere, and that their predictions are about 4 times higher and outside the error bars of what the weather balloons and satellites measure.  They answered the critics, with corrections in 2011, and the results became even stronger.[viii] All observational trends were now significantly below the average model trend.

Christie et al [2010][ix] also showed the observations didn’t fit the model predictions. They developed the Scaling Ratio – a ratio of the atmospheric trend to the surface trend. This neatly removes the effects of El Nino variations from year to year. They showed that global climate models predict a scaling ratio of 1.4 ±0.8.  (i.e. the atmosphere should warm 40% faster than the surface). Instead the scaling ratio for real world data was 0.8 ± 0.3  (i.e. the atmosphere was probably not even warming as fast as the surface.)  Fu et al[x] replicated the approach, largely coming to the same conclusion.

Not only are the model predictions exaggerated and feedback assumptions the wrong sign (positive, rather than negative), the small amount of recent warming was likely due to a natural climate shift in 1977 (McKitrick[xi]). This climate shift has been noted by many other researchers (Stockwell[xii] ) and implies man-made global warming is playing an even smaller role then predicted by the models.

The core assumptions of the IPCC favoured models are not supported by empirical measurements.

Miskolczi developed a theoretical explanation for the absence of a tropical hot-spot  in 2004, postulating that the production of entropy would already be maximized, therefore, an increase in one greenhouse gas will be matched by a decrease in another (namely water vapor) so that the efficiency of radiation leaving the Earth will not be changed[xiv] ,[xv].  He estimates that the greenhouse effect as shown by the atmospheric optical depth has not changed in 61 years (he used estimations of greenhouse gas concentrations, and radiosonde recordings of temperature and humidity).[xiii] Other studies by Paltridge et al 2009 [xvi] have shown that water vapor levels have dropped as CO2 levels have risen. Miskolczi’s 2010 work has not been challenged to date at a peer-reviewed level.

 

 


[i]  IPCC, Assessment Report 4, (2007), Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14 [PDF] Page 631

[ii] NOAA Satellite and Information Service, Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive, Data Coverage. June 8th 2010. [Link]

[iii]  Karl et al (2006), Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 1, 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000; [PDF]

[iv]  Karl et al (2006) Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 5, part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 [PDF]

[v]  Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. (2007). A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007.  [Abstract] [PDF]

[vi]  Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E Taylor, T. M Wigley,. L. Lanzante, J. R. Solomon, M. Free, P. J Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood and F. J. Wentz (2008), Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology, 28: 1703–1722. doi: 10.1002/joc.1756 [Abstract] [PDF]

[vii]  McKitrick, R., S. McIntyre, and C. Herman, (2010), Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series. Atmospheric Science Letters, 11: 270–277.  DOI: 10.1002/asl.290. Data/code archive. [Discussion on JoNova] [PDF]

[viii] McKitrick, R., McIntyre, S., and Herman, C. (2011) Corrigendum to Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series, Atmospheric Science Letters,  Vol. 11, Issue 4, 270–277. DOI: 10.1002/asl.360. [Abstract]  [See McKitricks page on model testing].

[ix]  Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010)  What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]

[x]  Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]

[xi]   McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Multivariate trend comparisons between autocorrelated climate series with general trend regressors, Department of Economics, University of Guelph. [PDF]

[xii]  Stockwell, David R. B. and Cox, A. (2009), Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts, Cornell University Library, arXiv10907.1650 [PDF]

[xiii]  Miskolczi, Ferenc M. and Mlynczak, M. (2004) The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation. Idojaras Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251 [PDF]

[xiv]  Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Idojaras Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40 [PDF]

[xv]  Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2010), The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness. Energy & Environment Vol. 21, No. 4, 2010 pp 243-263 [PDF and Discussion]

[xvi] Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]

 

———————————————–PS: Thanks to a generous soul in Adelaide. Another letter is on the way to thank you (your first letter arrived just fine, but my reply appears to have gone missing.) Merci! Cheers, Jo

9.4 out of 10 based on 74 ratings

167 comments to Models get the core assumptions wrong– – the hot spot is missing

  • #
    Turnedoutnice

    The IR physics behind the 1.2 K CO2 intrinsic climate sensitivity is probably wrong. This is because the thermalisation in the Tyndall and the ‘PET bottle’ experiments is indirect at the walls and there’s adiabatic heating from constant volume. Nahle used a Mylar balloon – no apparent heating but he used an infra-red pyrometer, path length problem?

    [The physics is that the climate people forget the most basic aspect of statistical thermodynamics, the principle of Indistinguishability devised by J W Gibbs – molecules have no memory. So, immediately another already activated GHG molecule emits the same energy photon, Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium is restored. This means in the lower atmosphere at least, the GHGs are probably an energy transfer medium with thermalisation at heterogeneous interfaces only. Real CO2 climate sensitivity must be much lower – a factor of 10 at least.]

    The IPCC’s so-called science is one of the worst conducted investigations in history. It’s easy to show the key scientific mistakes made by Hansen, Ramanathan, Houghton et. al. Sussing out when it changed from scientific hubris to fraud has taken some time.

    That started in 1995 when Santer changed the IPCC from science to activism. Then we had the hockey stick fraud and the alteration by GISS and CRU people of past temperature data. The sea level data fraud occurred fairly late in the day.

    On sorting through the science, I can accept incorrect theory, after all everyone is human. What I can’t stand is sheer experimental incompetence. This is the belief in climate science that just because ‘pyrgeometers’ [IR specific pyrometers] are calibrated against a black body and labelled in ‘W/m^2’, this is an actual energy flow. WRONG.

    It’s the nominal energy flux you’d get from an isolated black body in a vacuum, not a real energy flow. Thus, if you have two pyrgeometers back to back, zero temperature gradient, no net flux, the net reading is zero. Take one away and you purport substantial energy from the source temperature convolved with emissivity when there is no real energy flow.

    This signal is an artefact of the shield behind the device. Every such reading has to be rejected, along with the IPCC Energy Budget which adds imaginary ‘back radiation, double real solar flux to the surface, to make sufficient in total to fry eggs if real!

    Also every bit of satellite data derived from albedo has to be discarded because Sagan’s two-stream aerosol optical physics of aerosols is wrong. The list goes on and on.

    The heat transfer and cloud physics in the GCMs need to be completely rebuilt by new, competent people untainted by fraud. I suspect that you gather by now that I’m not impressed!

    41

    • #

      I’m trying to visualise the “back radiation” thing and I think I’m making progress. Take a thin shell made of black body material with a vacuum inside and electrically heat the shell. If I put an infrared thermometer inside I’ll see radiation coming from the walls no matter where I point it yet there is clearly no nett energy transfer.
      I need to think about this some more.

      01

    • #
      cohenite

      If backradiation is not measured correctly then that is a fatal flaw in AGW theory and the inability to match that theory with ‘real’ evidence. Morris Minor has summed up some of these measurement flaws:

      The case for ‘back radiation’ is weak. Nothing here gives evidence that ‘back-radiation’ has been detected or measured. The papers quoted do not show measurement of back-radiation. Instead they measure upward radiation and subtract this value from a hypothetical value relative to abs. zero. The difference is the so-called back-radiation. Surely a value of 300W/m2 would seem implausible to most, it is comparable in magnitude to radiance from the sun!

      Here is how it is explained by the makers of a typical Pyrgeometer..

      “In order to calculate the incoming LW irradiance at the detector, the temperature of the pyrgeometer body must be known. … The downward longwave radiation is then calculated using the following formula :-

      LW = Uemf/S + ( 5.67*10-8 * Tb4 )

      where Uemf is the output voltage from the thermopile, S is the calibration constant of the instrument, and Tb is the pyrgeometer body temperature, measured by the thermistor, in degrees Kelvin. Note that for an upward facing pyrgeometer, the thermopile output voltage will in most instances be negative. This is because the upwelling irradiance from the pyrgeometer is likely to be greater then the incoming irradiance from the sky. “

      I therefore challenge anyone on this site to show me direct evidence of back-radiation. Better, show me a method to power a 40W light globe using back-radiation. It should be easy as there is 300 W/m2 available. If back-radiation is able to raise the temperature of the Earths surface then it will be possible to harness this energy to produce a small electrical generator. The first person with a solution wins a multi-million dollar share of the IP rights.

      00

    • #

      To prove a theory false, it’s only necessary to show where it doesn’t match reality.

      Calls to provide a better theory or to show how the falsified theory is theoretically wrong are distractions.

      Keep in mind who’s being paid very generously to do proper science before letting yourself become distracted by coming up with a better theory. If they can’t accept that their theories are wrong in the face of contradictory measurement, they won’t listen to contradictory theory.

      10

    • #
      Streetcred

      This signal is an artefact of the shield behind the device. Every such reading has to be rejected, along with the IPCC Energy Budget which adds imaginary ‘back radiation, double real solar flux to the surface, to make sufficient in total to fry eggs if real!

      Also every bit of satellite data derived from albedo has to be discarded because Sagan’s two-stream aerosol optical physics of aerosols is wrong. The list goes on and on.

      mydogsgotnonose, is that you ?

      00

    • #
      Streetcred

      This signal is an artefact of the shield behind the device. Every such reading has to be rejected, along with the IPCC Energy Budget which adds imaginary ‘back radiation, double real solar flux to the surface, to make sufficient in total to fry eggs if real!

      Also every bit of satellite data derived from albedo has to be discarded because Sagan’s two-stream aerosol optical physics of aerosols is wrong. The list goes on and on.

      mydogsgotnonose, is that you ?

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      The IR physics behind the 1.2 K CO2 intrinsic climate sensitivity is probably wrong. This is because the thermalisation in the Tyndall and the ‘PET bottle’ experiments is indirect at the walls and there’s adiabatic heating from constant volume. Nahle used a Mylar balloon – no apparent heating but he used an infra-red pyrometer, path length problem?

      [The physics is that the climate people forget the most basic aspect of statistical thermodynamics, the principle of Indistinguishability devised by J W Gibbs – molecules have no memory. So, immediately another already activated GHG molecule emits the same energy photon, Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium is restored. This means in the lower atmosphere at least, the GHGs are probably an energy transfer medium with thermalisation at heterogeneous interfaces only. Real CO2 climate sensitivity must be much lower – a factor of 10 at least.]

      Could you explain in more detail? How did Tyndall’s experiment work? What was wrong with it? Have more sophisticated experiments addressed your concerns?

      00

  • #
    Turnedoutnice

    The IR physics behind the 1.2 K CO2 intrinsic climate sensitivity is probably wrong. This is because the thermalisation in the Tyndall and the ‘PET bottle’ experiments is indirect at the walls and there’s adiabatic heating from constant volume. Nahle used a Mylar balloon – no apparent heating but he used an infra-red pyrometer, path length problem?

    [The physics is that the climate people forget the most basic aspect of statistical thermodynamics, the principle of Indistinguishability devised by J W Gibbs – molecules have no memory. So, immediately another already activated GHG molecule emits the same energy photon, Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium is restored. This means in the lower atmosphere at least, the GHGs are probably an energy transfer medium with thermalisation at heterogeneous interfaces only. Real CO2 climate sensitivity must be much lower – a factor of 10 at least.]

    The IPCC’s so-called science is one of the worst conducted investigations in history. It’s easy to show the key scientific mistakes made by Hansen, Ramanathan, Houghton et. al. Sussing out when it changed from scientific hubris to fraud has taken some time.

    That started in 1995 when Santer changed the IPCC from science to activism. Then we had the hockey stick fraud and the alteration by GISS and CRU people of past temperature data. The sea level data fraud occurred fairly late in the day.

    On sorting through the science, I can accept incorrect theory, after all everyone is human. What I can’t stand is sheer experimental incompetence. This is the belief in climate science that just because ‘pyrgeometers’ [IR specific pyrometers] are calibrated against a black body and labelled in ‘W/m^2’, this is an actual energy flow. WRONG.

    It’s the nominal energy flux you’d get from an isolated black body in a vacuum, not a real energy flow. Thus, if you have two pyrgeometers back to back, zero temperature gradient, no net flux, the net reading is zero. Take one away and you purport substantial energy from the source temperature convolved with emissivity when there is no real energy flow.

    This signal is an artefact of the shield behind the device. Every such reading has to be rejected, along with the IPCC Energy Budget which adds imaginary ‘back radiation, double real solar flux to the surface, to make sufficient in total to fry eggs if real!

    Also every bit of satellite data derived from albedo has to be discarded because Sagan’s two-stream aerosol optical physics of aerosols is wrong. The list goes on and on.

    The heat transfer and cloud physics in the GCMs need to be completely rebuilt by new, competent people untainted by fraud. I suspect that you gather by now that I’m not impressed!

    00

  • #
    Todd

    This is always the first empirical point I make when debating anew on CAGW theory.

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Testing as all comments on previous posts seem to have disappeared!

    [thanks for testing! We are experiencing a technical problem. behind the scenes gurus are working on it and we hope to have it fixed soon] ED

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Jo, with matters like this it would be useful to force a response from the Government since their rationale for the carbon tax is based on the IPCC predictions and this refutes those predictions. I’m just not sure how we could force a public response.

    Letters sent by individuals to Ministers and MP’s simply get a ‘standard’ Climate Change is real blah blah blah type response. Can anyone think how a response could be demanded to address this and so many similar points which refute the IPCC predictions? Is there a Government Committee we can ask members of the Coalition to raise questions with? Could it be done through an FOI request from the CSIRO asking have they reviewed this issue and if so what were their conclusions and if not why not? Perhaps the Commonwealth Ombudsman?

    I’m just looking for ideas from anyone or suggestions on how we could force this Government to address these and other critically valid issues against the CO2 emission based catastrophic climate change predictions.

    10

  • #
    2dogs

    Have any sceptical scientists produced a predicted fingerprint for their suggested forcings such as solar, cosmic rays, etc?

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Surely it wouldn’t be the first or only elusive spot for which no convincing physical evidence could be found, yet is commonly believed to exist.

    00

  • #
    Joe Born

    Perhaps if I had taken the time actually to read the referenced papers, the following argument would seem more compelling:

    “They showed that global climate models predict a scaling ratio of 1.4 ±0.8. (i.e. the atmosphere should warm 40% faster than the surface). Instead the scaling ratio for real world data was 0.8 ± 0.3”

    But that excerpt as it stands seems to say the models admit of a range of 0.6 – 2.2, while the observations are in the 0.5 – 1.1 range, which the former range largely overlaps. Maybe other readers, too, are unable to see how this disproves the models, so that passage may bear some clarification.

    00

  • #
    Treeman

    Apologies to those who feel I harp on about this!

    Apologies are not required, Jo you’re right on cue as always. I suggest people across Australia have never been more receptive to the sceptical view of mainstream climate science. Here in Australia the ghastly Gillard government has done much to discredit the religion of environmentalism

    As Václav Klaus puts it:

    There are probably more and more people around us now who do not buy the alarmism of the GWD but we have to accept that they are not sufficiently motivated to do anything against it. And they don’t know how. Politicians and political activists, bureaucrats in the national and international organizations, and representatives of the subsidized businesses are organized and due to it are able to push this doctrine further ahead because to do so is in their narrowly defined interests. Ordinary people are not organized and do not have politically formulated interests. They are also not helped by the existing political parties because these parties are not raising this issue either. They are already – almost all of them – more or less captured by the Greens.

    For me, the bottom lip of climate alarmism is trembling and what better time to time to sink the slipper!

    10

  • #
    Popeye

    Jo,

    I’m missing ALL comments from ALL your blogs?

    What has happened?????????

    ALL: We’re experiencing some technical difficultites ATM. We are working to get them resolved ASAP. Yoda

    00

  • #
    Otter

    *gets popcorn* mattb, sillyfiller, brooksie and ross-the-false-outrager, to the rescue!

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Two thumbs down the very second I post? Sorry about that. *sighs* I really shouldn’t speak truth to bullies like ross.

    00

  • #
    warcroft

    OT. . .
    Lord Christopher Monckton had a good long interview on the latest episode of the Alex Jones show.
    Was aired over night in America and is being repeated all day today for us.
    Good topics such as Climate Change (now being called ‘sustainable development’), world government, the UN, etc etc. . .

    The Alex Jones show is repeated every three hours so Monckton will be on today at 6am, 9am, 12pm, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm.

    You can go here and choose the one with the most listeners:
    http://www.shoutcast.com/Internet-Radio/alex%20jones

    The direct link to the stream is here:
    http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-station.pls?id=1026951

    Or, if you use a internet radio streaming app or something, do a search for ‘Alex Jones’.

    00

  • #
    Ian George

    Where have all the comments gone? Or is it just a problem with my computer?

    00

  • #

    The observations show it, I know it, we all know it, but the believers will not accept anything that contradicts the models. It’s a belief and values issue, not about evidence. “The warming must be there, just hidden…. The last decade is the hottest… We don’t understand the process well enough, but scientists all agree… You flat earth, tobacco loving, holocaust denying, oil funded amateurs are holding us back from a glorious green renewable sustainable world.”
    I guess all we can do is keep plugging away at the contradictions, until the real world gap is big enough for all to see. Or enough voters get their backs up. Who knows how long?
    Good work Jo. You should use as your motto “Nil carborundum illegitimi.”
    Ken

    10

  • #
    Ian George

    Oh good. Back again.

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    It’s good to see this, Jo. New people are coming in all the time and it helps if they can find this information up front and easily.

    I remember when I was new (not so long ago either – about a month before Fakegate). I could not get enough. I still have to come get my daily dose. Keep up the good work. 🙂

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    butbutbut,

    The hot spot must be there somewhere, the computer told me it would be there and computers are never ever wrong.

    It must be lurking somewhere really clever just so it can come out and BAM, whack us all.

    They’re pretty bloody cunning those hot spots.

    /sarc

    10

  • #

    As a beancounter, I like to be able to reach the same conclusion via a number of different means. This is another example of climate science being undermined by a number approaches. Like Sherwood Idso’s eight different ways of demonstrating the low sensitivity of temperature to CO2; lots of independent studies across the globe showing that there was a medieval warm period; and lots of studies showing the benefits of increased CO2 levels.

    10

  • #
  • #

    […] Models get the core assumptions wrong– – the hot spot is missing […]

    10

  • #

    More bad science by Jo. The no heatspot thing debunked like 10 years ago.

    Meanwhile, apples will be scarce and expensive in the US due to unseasonal warm weather followed by frost. More CO2 doesn’t help plants and growers after all!

    http://climatecrocks.com/2012/05/18/canadaus-great-lakes-area-fruit-growers-wipeout-due-to-extreme-spring-deniers-they-need-more-co2/

    40 days and the Carbon Price Mechanism kicks in. Meanwhile, the Heartland Institute is losing sponsors at a huge rate, might reduce the flow of bad, pretend “science!”

    ——–

    REPLY: Debunked on the say so of an anonymous dog. Well that’s it then… I’m convinced. Jo

    00

  • #
    pat

    O/T but this must make your blood boil a little, jo. surely compromising for Lowy Institute to be involved!

    24 May: News Ltd: Anna Caldwell: Outcry over $53k taxpayer funded Gillard Government blogs
    Taxpayers will foot bill for two blogs with five likes
    The Lowy Institute paid about $500 for short articles
    “Extraordinary expenditure with lacklustre results”
    Taxpayers will foot the bill for two blogs for about three months, featuring little more than articles about Australia-Asia relations.
    Just one reader has bothered to leave a comment on the blogs, despite the sites being designed to engage with the public and the Government describing them as an “online conversation”.
    One of the two blogs doesn’t even allow reader comment, a staple of online blogs. It does, however, allow Facebook “likes”, with most posts garnering between just zero and five likes.
    Taxpayers are forking out for a full-time “editor” and a part-time assistant to run one of the websites.
    The blogs, operating from March 19 to June 30, have been outsourced by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to private think tanks the Lowy Institute and the Australia Institute of International Affairs…
    The Lowy Institute is being handed about $500 per working day on a $33,000 contract to post short articles and links to other websites.
    The Australian Institute of International Affairs has a $20,000 contract and has so far published two competitions and posted 10 articles, including a speech by Kevin Rudd when he was foreign minister…
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/outcry-over-53k-taxpayer-funded-gillard-government-online-blogs-outsourced-by-department-of-prime-minister-and-cabinet-to-private-think-tanks-the-lowy-institute-and-the-australia-institute-of-international-affairs/story-e6frfro0-1226365165154

    00

  • #
    R. Gates

    One thing that really must be separated is the notion of the basic theory of AGW and how this theory was then translated into creating global climate models. The theory can be right and the models wrong…and indeed this is exactly the case. The models were also wrong in predicting how rapidly Arctic sea ice would decline. They obviously have something wrong in the way they are modeling arctic sea ice dynamics and positive feedbacks in the Artic region. The models are an interpretation of how the basic energy imbalance caused by the greenhouse effect of increased greenhouse gases would operate in Earth’s climate system. The models will be wrong from the very beginning, but some can be useful for the tools they are.

    Regardless of where the models show the excess heat from the greenhouse induced energy imbalance will show up, the fact is that it is indeed showing up. It should be noted that for the period from May 1, 2011 through April 30, 2012, it was the warmest 12 month period on instrument record for both the troposphere and oceans down to 2000 meters. As a warmest who honestly tries to understand the skeptical perspective to AGW, I would like to see how they explain this instrument record warmth. The facts and data don’t seem to match up to the often repeated inaccuracy about warming having stopped.

    00

  • #
    pat

    it’s unravelling…

    22 May: Reuters: German bourse scraps EU carbon emissions trading
    Bavaria’s stock exchange will abandon its carbon emissions certificate trading operations in the EU-traded CO2 market on June 30 after volumes in Europe “plunged to practically zero” in recent months, it said on Tuesday…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-bavaria-emissions-idUSBRE84L0SN20120522

    23 May: AFP: EU warns climate talks at risk of floundering
    Europe warned at climate talks in Bonn on Wednesday that efforts to forge a new global pact to avert environmental disaster were in danger of floundering, and some pointed fingers at China.
    Nine days into talks meant to set the stage for a United Nations gathering in Qatar in December where countries must adopt an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, negotiators complained that procedural bickering was quashing progress hopes.
    With only two days left in this negotiating round, the parties have failed to appoint a chairperson or agree on an agenda for a newly established body dubbed the ADP tasked with overseeing the drafting of a new pact by 2015.
    “If this slow pace of negotiations continues … it poses the risk of unraveling the Durban package,” Danish chief negotiator Christian Pilgaard Zinglersen warned on behalf of the European Union…
    Pilgaard told the Bonn gathering that some parties, which he did not name, wanted to rehash issues that have already been settled…
    And Wael Hmaidan, director of activist group Climate Action Network, said China was “blocking the ADP” out of fear that rich nations were trying to shift more of the emissions curbing burden onto poorer states than was historically fair…
    ***As countries bicker, researchers recently predicted Earth’s temperature rising by as much as five degrees Celsius (9.0 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels, instead of the 2 C (3.6 F) limit being targeted…
    But Zinglersen said Wednesday: “We are very concerned that success in Doha is currently far from certain. With only two days left in Bonn we have made very little progress on a number of key issues.”
    ***The United States had never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, while Russia and Japan have said they did not intend to sign up from next year. Australia and New Zealand have not confirmed their positions, while Canada withdrew from the protocol last year.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5izDD4Hvuc840J7zG_PdlRSCs9M0A?docId=CNG.2a8f1c6c6ae3e9293d9ab2d9d9238115.271

    00

  • #
    pat

    u don’t say! of course, that would depend on it getting hotter.

    24 May: ABC: Laurissa Smith: Climate change could help Riverina wheat growers
    Farmers in parts of the NSW Riverina have been told that their wheat yields could increase by up to 10 per cent in the next 20 years because of climate change…
    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201205/s3509826.htm

    tomatoes tell their own story:

    24 May: Courier Mail: Kris Crane: Tomatoes treble in price wth Woolworths confirming production affected by lower yields of fruit after cool weather
    He expected prices to easesoon after a spate of warmer growing weather…
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/tomatoes-treble-in-price-wth-woolworths-confirming-production-affected-by-lower-yields-of-fruit-after-cool-weather/story-fn7kjcme-1226364930384

    00

  • #
    Ally E.

    Here in NSW Australia it’s definitely colder. We had our first frost a full two months before Winter this year (it killed our vegetable patch). We have also recorded around -5 C daily for the last two or three weeks. That’s ice and frost every morning. I should point out, that -5 to -7 is usually the coldest we get in the middle of Winter and we’re not officially in Winter yet!

    It’s going to be cold this year, folks. I know Europe got it bad. It’s coming around and now it’s our turn. Rug up warm. This is NOT a good time for electricity prices to shoot up!

    00

  • #
    handjive

    Hotspots?

    Time to go to the video for the ‘latest’ climate science from the Climate (C)ommission Community Forum at Parramatta RSL, 15 May 2012.

    Prof. Will Steffen video presentation begins @ 7.20 mins.
    ~ cO2 greenhouse radiation explanation @ 9.45 mins.

    Note @ 18.10, Flannery states the amount of money spent world wide on ‘clean energy’: $263 Billion!

    Informed folks will spot the myriad of information deliberately avoided in this q&a, (granted, time is limited)

    Some viewers might like the exchange between Steffen & audience when he claims scepticism is based on ‘belief’. Begins @ 34.0 minute with Flannery claiming ‘the truth‘ will eventually come out.

    00

  • #

    […] it all here and please note the number of references and the quality of the discussions and […]

    00

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    When Schmidt agrees that the hotspot does not exist, I’ll believe that CAGW theory actually considers the “hotspot” to be important.

    CAGW is the strangest “science” story I’ve ever heard. It holds correlations sacrosanct and observations, not terribly useful. It picks its own important criteria, and gives all benefit of the doubt, i.e. the truth of assumptions, to CAGW. Warming causes cold, more or less precipitation, less or more regional differences.

    Could we ever get Schmidt to discuss this? Otherwise we are like the minister preaching to the choir.

    00

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    While the radiosonde data does invalidate (falsify) the climate models, I’d be more cautious in saying it invalidates the GHG theory. This is because other factors affect mid-troposphere temperatures, in particular, aerosols and particulates.

    Aerosol/particulate data is poor to non-existent over this period (since the 1970s), a problem compounded by weak or false assumptions about aerosols/particulates. But it is possible that decreasing aerosols/particulates have caused mid-troposphere cooling, masking the warming from GHGs. Although this requires a lower CO2 sensitivity than the IPCC claim.

    From 1975 to 1978 the USA mandated emission controls on all new vehicles that reduced aerosol/particulate emissions by >90%. Because of the global nature of the vehicle manufacturing industry, these controls effectively became a global standard. IMO this is the likely cause of the step change seen in global surface temperatures around 1977. Decreased aerosols/particulates = increased solar insolation + mid-troposphere cooling.

    00

    • #

      Phillip, in the sense that it’s a theory of catastrophic man-made warming, the lack of a hot-spot does invalidate the theory. We just can’t get dangerous warming if water vapor doesn’t provide positive feedback.

      10

      • #
        Philip Bradley

        I wasn’t defending AGW or CAGW. I happen to think the net water feedback is close to X -1. That is, increases in GHGs produce little, or even no, net warming. I also think that the post 1970 measured surface warming is largely an artifact of increased solar insolation and doesn’t result from ‘global warming’. My point was that in evaluating evidence, you have to consider all possible causes.

        regards

        00

      • #
        Turnedoutnice

        I have shown above the reason why the modellers have gone very wrong – it’s the assumption that at TOA, emissivity UP = emissivity DOWN.

        In reality, when you go from primarily convective heat transport to radiative, the probability of a photon heading to space dramatically increases.

        So, they wrongly assume you have to balance that 240 W/m^ UP with the same DOWN hence their apparent belief in ‘back radiation’.

        PS photons were invented by Planck to explain quantisation of radiation at the emission and absorption stage. They have no meaning in the Aether and the Schwarzchild two-stream approximation is also wrong in that at a point there is only the net arrival of radiated energy.

        00

      • #
        Philip Bradley

        BTW, the troposphere hotspot is a prediction(from theory), not an assumption.

        00

    • #

      Phillip, in the sense that it’s a theory of catastrophic man-made warming, the lack of a hot-spot does invalidate the theory. We just can’t get dangerous warming if water vapor doesn’t provide positive feedback.

      00

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    While the radiosonde data does invalidate (falsify) the climate models, I’d be more cautious in saying it invalidates the GHG theory. This is because other factors affect mid-troposphere temperatures, in particular, aerosols and particulates.

    Aerosol/particulate data is poor to non-existent over this period (since the 1970s), a problem compounded by weak or false assumptions about aerosols/particulates. But it is possible that decreasing aerosols/particulates have caused mid-troposphere cooling, masking the warming from GHGs. Although this requires a lower CO2 sensitivity than the IPCC claim.

    From 1975 to 1978 the USA mandated emission controls on all new vehicles that reduced aerosol/particulate emissions by >90%. Because of the global nature of the vehicle manufacturing industry, these controls effectively became a global standard. IMO this is the likely cause of the step change seen in global surface temperatures around 1977. Decreased aerosols/particulates = increased solar insolation + mid-troposphere cooling.

    00

  • #
    Anna Keppa

    Jo, you just GOT to change your comments format to allow direct replies to commenters.

    It’s a major weakness of your site.

    You shouldn’t have to snip Maxine w/o letting others take her on “on the merits”. At least until she engages in vicious ad homs.

    Go ask Watts how comment responses add to the richness of his website.

    (She was thread bombing with no evidence provided to back up her wild statements) CTS

    00

  • #
    warcroft

    Lord Monckton said in his interview today. . .
    Its been 15 years since since the whole climate change thing took off. 15 years since the models told us what to expect.
    The warmists said that if the predictions dont come to pass over the next 15 years then the models are wrong.
    Well, here we are, its 15 years later. The models are wrong.

    For just how long does it have to be before people start realising its a load of crap?
    ITS BEEN 15 YEARS FFS!
    There are kids finishing up high school this year who dont know a life without climate change brainwashing. Those kids dont know any better. We have to keep fighting the good fight and help these kids to see the truth.

    20

  • #
    markus

    In reference to your work I want to draw your attention to a very interesting result of a study which was just released here in Europe.
    One of those arguments of the climate change lobby which has been brought up over and over again was the idea of there will be a tremendous increase of extreme weather events.

    The former days a study based on HISTALP (http://www.zamg.ac.at/histalp/) climate database was published.

    Sorry these articles are written in German language but I am sure you will get the point with the help of Google Translate:
    http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/klimawandel/760033/Studie_Wetterextreme-nehmen-doch-nicht-zu?from=suche.intern.portal
    http://diepresse.com/home/panorama/klimawandel/521765/Das-Klima-wird-nicht-verrueckter?from=suche.intern.portal

    Short summary:
    There is no evidence for an increase of extreme weather events in the alpine region…

    The guy who did the study: http://www.google.at/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=extreme%20weather%20events%20histalp%20b%C3%B6hm&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zamg.ac.at%2Fdocs%2Fwir_ueber_uns%2Fcv%2Fcv_boehm_reinhard.pdf&ei=49a9T5a4HfL24QSzp7kf&usg=AFQjCNFhFsihMHSAZkPgPk-pP7RKzIsAgw

    00

  • #
    pat

    more good news for Qld today (besides the Origin win):

    24 May: Ninemsn: Govt scraps northwest Qld solar farm
    The Queensland government has pulled funding for a solar farm in the state’s northwest to save money.
    Minister for Energy Mark McArdle on Thursday said the government had withdrawn its financial support for the Cloncurry Solar Farm to save Queenslanders about $5.6 million…
    “These are savings which will benefit all Queenslanders rather than localised climate initiatives,” Mr McArdle said in a statement on Thursday.
    ***It was up to the private sector to decide whether to invest in such projects, he added…
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8472810

    ***what a novel idea!

    00

  • #

    Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth’s Climate History
    James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
    Pumped out of Hansen’s computer at 4am on May 9.

    http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2012/20120508_ClimateSensitivity.pdf

    00

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    Readers may be interested in (the misleadingly named) Skeptical Science take on this issue.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

    In part 1 they indulge in some scientific sleight of hand, to explain away the lack of troposphere hotspot, by the use of the word ‘signature’. The intent is to mislead people into thinking that GHG warming doesn’t lead to mid-troposphere warming. When in fact GHG warming requires that the mid-troposphere warm faster than the surface.

    Part 2 ignores the radiosonde data entirely and uses a questionable proxy to show troposphere warming is in fact happening.

    10

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    Mostly O/T — —

    A small piece of advice to JoNova posters:

    This “R. Gates” (a pseudonym) posted for quite some time at WUWT, and finally gave us some relief when he realized that no one was buying his pseudoscience. He is a dedicated warmist in the sense of MattB, John Brookes, Ross James, et al, who, despite his claim, does NOT understand the skeptical viewpoint.

    His/her mind is closed, and your best choice is to ignore his/her posts. When the whole of the CAGW meme implodes under the weight of its own internal contradictions, rest assured that “R. Gates” will continue in his best Don Quixote.

    My warm-IST regards to all,

    Mark H.

    00

  • #
    Craig King

    Sorry, but isn’t the “Greenhouse Gas Theory of CO2” really a perpetual motion machine? There is no more energy coming into the ( Earth ) system so over all there can be no additional heat, just a slight slowing down of its departure.

    00

  • #

    OT – Site Admin note. For those who are wondering, yes the odd 100,000 comments on other older threads have got waylaid, but they will return (hopefully) within 24 hours. (The site may be down tomorrow, but only for half an hour I am told).

    – Jo

    00

  • #

    […] stations in the global CRUTEM4 temperature and humidity database. Peer-reviewed publications by Paltridge and others also find water vapor feedback is strongly negative. Without positive water vapor feedback, the […]

    00

  • #
    Craig King

    Reply to BobC
    May 25, 2012 at 3:10 am · Reply

    Not really, the coat stops the heat you are generating from escaping too rapidly but it doesn’t add heat. If you were, regrettably, to die with your overcoat on you would quickly cool down to the ambient temperature. The coat might slow that down a bit but it won’t stop you. In fact if the ambient temperature went up after you croaked the coat would slow down your heating up to equilibrium once more.

    The CO2 cannot generate heat. The CO2 AGW story just describes a perpetual motion machine.

    00

  • #
    Craig King

    For instance would putting a coat over a steel pole make it warmer?

    00

  • #
    Craig King

    The heat from everything mankind burns or uses to create useful energy is 1/2000 th that of the enrgy we get from the sun. Adding 1/2000th under the overcoat would make no measurable difference at all.

    00

  • #
    SNAFU

    shhh….don’t tell any one, but Perth just recorded it’s ‘Coldest May morning in almost a century’. (Friday, May 25th)

    The temperature dropped to 1.3 degrees just before 7:00am.

    That equals the record low set on 11 May, 1914.

    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/coldest-may-morning-in-almost-a-century/21695

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Speaking of models, Jennifer Marohasy has had a win.

    Notebook neural network beats supercomputer model for predicting rain

    Dr John Abbot and Dr Jennifer Marohasy of CQUniversity have developed a dynamic stand-alone time-delay recurrent neural network that combines current and lagged rainfall, temperatures, Southern Oscillation Index, Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Nino 3.4 data to predict rainfall.

    The model gave more accurate three-months-ahead forecasts than the [BOM] POAMA model for 16 out of 17 sites around Queensland.

    How is that 113th most powerful supercomputer in the world going guys? Sounds like you need to upgrade to a laptop.

    00

  • #

    […] of the positive feedback, working under the assumption that they are significant. In the meantime, empirical evidence is suggesting negative feedback. …or taking meticulous

    00

  • #

    […] contribution to the greenhouse effect that CO2 plays, its logarithmic properties and the likely negative  feedback in the climate […]

    00

  • #

    […] models get core assumptions wrong – the hot spot is missing 22 – 26, 28 – […]

    00

  • #
    James

    “No known mode of natural climate variability can cause sustained, global-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the lower stratosphere.”

    So says the science —> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121129143504.htm

    00

  • #

    […] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/ It is not well known that even the IPCC agrees that the direct effects of CO2 will only increase world temperatures by 1.2°C. All of the projections above that (3.3°C , 6°C  etc) come from model projections based on assumptions of what water vapor and clouds will do (these are the feedback effects of the original 1.2°C).[i] Are the feedbacks correct? […]

    00

  • #
    Nice One

    Jo, your latest post on the hotspot shows the hot spot. Did you not realise?

    00

    • #
      Dave

      .
      Nice One,

      You’re almost a year late on this post.

      Did you not realise?

      Get with it – don’t be like BOM and Tim Flannery – this is 2013.

      And then linked to a comment from Feb 25th 2013 on another post to a comment by yourself – stating the above. Do get paid by hits on your comments?

      You are only using linking comment syndrome to prove nothing. You have NFI.

      Go away quickly idiot. No one else is going to follow your little Yellow Brick Road Tom Foolerly.

      Nice One is linking continually to his own comments in different posts for other trolls to follow and give him a thumbs up. Clever little Nice One – use his own trolls to get him more money – this is a great system for the these GREEN IDIOTS.

      Fools – but mainly you Nice One.

      10

  • #

    […] AR4 they put in two graphs that show how badly their models really do. In the next report they plan to bury the spectacular […]

    00

  • #

    […] regional, or continental scale (Anagnostopoulos 2010 and Koutsoyiannis 2008). They don’t work on the tropical troposphere (Christy 2010,  Po-Chedley 2012, Fu 2011, Paltridge […]

    00