Ross McKitrick’s presentation to FOS

The Friends of Science 11th annual luncheon was on May 13, 2014, featuring Dr. Ross McKitrick, at the Metropolitan Conference Centre, Calgary, Alberta. In it he says:

“Climate models appear to overstate the effects of greenhouse gases.  This presentation will explain the problem and show why it undermines the assumptions behind carbon dioxide emission policies”.

Video follows along with a link to the PowerPoint.

The presentation in PDF format is here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/McKitrick2014_ThePause.pdf

See more about FOS and the luncheon here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=750

 

About these ads

41 thoughts on “Ross McKitrick’s presentation to FOS

  1. An excellent presentation – but perhaps more importantly, one that even all the warmists and alarmists must agree with the concluding remark. Everyone, including the warmists knows full well that making a bum policy decision is not wanted. But making a ‘doubly’ bum policy decision in terms of committing to the ‘wrong’ path when it would be easy to wait for just a few years longer, is BY FAR the most sensible option.
    Of course, it should also be noted that these ‘facts’ presented by Ross are well known and have been carefully glossed over by the AGWers to ensure continued alarm and avoid real pragmatic analysis. IMHO, any warmist that does not agree with this stance is most likely just worried about their place at the trough, rather than the possible waste of human resources and/or the waste of human lives affected by enforced fuel poverty, etc.

  2. If I had to guess at this point, I’d suggest the culprit is back radiation, the assumption and application of it when it doesn’t exist.

  3. “Everyone, including the warmists knows full well that making a bum policy decision is not wanted.”

    I wouldn’t be so sure.

  4. If I had to guess at this point, I’d suggest the culprit is back radiation, the assumption and application of it when it doesn’t exist.

    Radiation is known to go in one direction only and the direction is determined by gravity.

    /sarc

  5. Excellent! In the powerpoint .pdf, Ross says:

    This is the real issue:
    • At the point when the modelers could no longer peek at the answer, they started getting it wrong

    Bingo! Hence we get “heat hiding in the abyss” and other fairy nonsense.

  6. Ross provided a sorely needed healthy sense of perspective recently on the Bishop Hill blog:

    “If the GWPF put their reports through the same kind of peer review as the IPCC reports go through, it would look like this: Show it to lots of people and get them to submit comments. Make a great deal of noise about how many reviewers were involved, their expertise, their range of views, etc. Then let the author(s) throw out any and all review comments they either disagree with or can’t rebut. And, once the review process is over, let the authors do a complete rewrite without showing any of those changes to the reviewers, even if it involves reversing changes made earlier in response to the review round. Then upon publication, make a great deal more noise about how many reviewers were involved, their expertise, their range of views, etc.

    And if someone writes a report documenting the flaws in the review process, dismiss it for not having gone through the same type of review process as the one being criticised.”

    May 27, 2014 at 5:09 PM | Ross McKitrick

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/5/27/allen-atale.html

  7. “Of course, it should also be noted that these ‘facts’ presented by Ross are well known and have been carefully glossed over by the AGWers to ensure continued alarm and avoid real pragmatic analysis.”

    Part of the problem is that skeptics have played a role in diverting attention from these facts.

    1. When you spend time discussing the colors of charts, that is time not spent on these facts
    2. when you spend time discussing “gravity theories’ that is time not spent on these facts
    3. when you discuss the 97%
    4. when you focus on antarctic ice
    5. when you accuse NOAA of fraud in the temperature record
    6. even when you attack mann..

    any time you discuss something other than the facts that Ross focuses on you divert attention
    from the real issue, from the only important issue..

    focus focus focus

  8. From the clip:
    “[The] models are so deeply flawed as to be close to useless as tools for policy analysis. Worse yet, their use suggests a level of knowledge and precision that is simply illusory, and can be highly misleading.”

    Says everything you need to know about modeling a vast chaotic system with many unknowns.

  9. “If the GWPF put their reports through the same kind of peer review as the IPCC reports go through, it would look like this: Show it to lots of people……”“If the GWPF put their reports through the same kind of peer review as the IPCC reports go through, it would look like this: Show it to lots of people………”

    Best description of the IPCC peer review process ever.

  10. @Steven Mosher:
    There is so much observations from a given period of time, so there is a limit for direct climate facts. It’s natural skeptics sometimes talk about other things, all discussions which can appreciate facts, after all, other issues shouldn’t be ignored.

    BTW, great presentation.

  11. Steven Mosher says:
    May 30, 2014 at 2:53 pm
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Good comments. Now if only the MSM and POTUS would buy in …

    Seriously. Good post wrt science. But as you know, it is no longer about the science.

    Thanks.

  12. Mosher exclaimed: “any time you discuss something other than the facts that Ross focuses on you divert attention
    from the real issue, from the only important issue.. focus focus focus”

    What issue?

  13. Well done!

    Some should book mark this one……..

    Do all of these Climate disputes revolve around numbers, algorithms, and essentially personal interpretations of such? Think about it.

    No really,,,,, think about it….

  14. With the algorithm used by the record keepers keeps changing older data constantly, and the flurry of fiddles by GISS ~1998 to get rid of the 1937 record high in CONUS temps is what is being used, the climate models and the real temps are diverging even faster. Even if the changes to the series have some merit, you can be sure that, with the leeway that they are presented with, they would opt for the warmest temps that are decently marketable. This is precisely what fuels the models. I refuse to believe that the modelers and those who employ them do not have scruples about the divergence from observations and that they know they have to trim sensitivities substantially. Indeed the evidence suggests chopping off the top; 2/3 of the sensitivity range put out by the IPCC and you would have encapsulated the true figure. I’m convinced (if they are not evil folks) modelers have secretly tested the lower sensitivity case by trimming the forcings until they have a sensitivity of 1.3 and see what happens. No, what they do is inflate affects beyond decency for such as aerosols to hang on the CAGW holy grail sensitivity (dishonest, self-serving but I suppose evil would be too strong).

  15. Cal65 says:
    May 30, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    If I had to guess at this point, I’d suggest the culprit is back radiation, the assumption and application of it when it doesn’t exist.

    If I point a laser beam at a mirror obviously there is back radiation, therefor if i point an infrared beam at a cloud it must mean “back radiation” but does the reflective properties over power the energy of the beam? I think not! Reflective properties do not contribute to the source of energy.

  16. One of Calgary’s alarmists wrote in to smear Ross.

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Compare+data/9869291/story.html

    “Ross McKitrick conflates religion and science. He is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geological history.”

    It is his views that are faith based.

    Canadians Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way have shown that Had-CRUT data (compiled by the Hadley Centre of the U.K. Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia), which cover only 84 per cent of the planet, underestimate Arctic warming by a substantial amount.

    Using UAH (University of Alabama-Huntsville) satellite data (98 per cent global coverage) for two decades from fellow Cornwall Alliance signatories, Roy Spencer and John Christy, shows continued warming.

    Jack Dale

    Calgary”

  17. @Steven Mosher says:May 30, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    Mosher focus a little harder, name the issue you are referring to or are you just hand waving ?

    Ross McKitrick’s presentation address’s 5 issues, as page 2 of the presentation outlines.

  18. Copy edits for the slides:

    #20–”one another” is preferable to “each other” here (more than two)
    #22–Change Han to Hans
    #43–Append periods (as done in other slides)

  19. Translation of newfangled hockey stick opportunist Steven Mosher’s misdirective postmodern missive:

    Items 1-6: Stick only to “facts” that rely on a call to authority for their validity, and keep your nose to the grindstone instead of being outspoken real world activists with a healthy sense of perspective, willing to tell a stories of personalized corruption.

    Oh, no, no, no, never feel good about revealing climate “science” scams, like mathematician Mann’s dogged support for the latest bladeless “super hockey stick”:

    Yeah, Steven and other apologists for neo-Marxism think we’re so gullible that he’s our King now, our efficiency manager and our public relations guru, this spawn of French philosophy.

  20. Our 11th annual luncheon with Dr. McKitrick was very successful and the attendees said the presentation was excellent. Only people who did not attend the presentation wrote critical comments in letters to the newspapers. The last line of Dr. McKitrick’s abstract says, “Policy makers and stakeholders need to be aware of these developments to avoid making long term plans based on assumptions that look increasingly unlikely to be true.” We offered complimentary tickets to all of Calgary’s city Councillors and the Mayor. Few politicians attended and some said “never send information or email to me again”. The Mayor has given $300,000 to Pembina Institute whose recommended policies have all but bankrupted Ontario, and is trying to destroy Alberta’s oil and gas industry.

    The climate models have greatly diverged from the observations, indicating that they are too sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions. Climate modellers have to both reduce the sensitivity to greenhouse gases and increase the effects of natural climate change to bring the models back into line with the observations.

    The Integrated Assessment Models used to estimate the social cost of carbon are tuned to the faulty climate models, not to reality. The IAMs assume that hurricanes get stronger and more frequent with warming, but in fact there has been a 40% decline in accumulated cyclone energy since 1998. They predict that warming reduces crop yields, assuming that warming causes more droughts and that farmers would not change the strain of crops to sow in response to warming. But the data shows global drought intensity is declining slightly and farmers in Canada are hoping for a warm spring and summer. IAMs assume that warming is harmful to health, but thousands of Canadian ‘snowbirds’ go to southern states in the winter to escape the cold.

    The Financial Post reported May 29 that the cold, harsh winter has “copped off as much as 1.5 percentage points from GDP growth” of the US economy, which contracted at a 1.0 percent annual rate during the first quarter of 2014. The USA Q1 2014 temperatures were 1.4 degrees C colder that the average Q1 temperatures of the 21st century to 2013 according to HadCRUT4 data. This evidence strongly contradicts the AR5 WGII recently published report which states, “global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income.” Warming would be very beneficial for Canadians.

  21. Jack Dale from Calgary is well-known amongst the climate rooms on Facebook. Jack, a person’s personal beliefs and scientific understandings are two different things. Ask Newton and Einstein, for starters. Nice try, Jack. That’s how you win arguments, every time. I said “arguments”…because your debating method is, well, isn’t.

  22. Steven Mosher says:
    May 30, 2014 at 2:53 pm

    I agree Steve, there is undoubtedly wasted efforts on both sides. My personal take on Ross’ presentation is that it is totally logical and can be accepted from both or indeed all ‘sides’ – at least those that are still ‘scientifically’ driven. But what struck me is that this presentation is a collection of info that is/was well known but put together at just the right time (after the long ‘pause’) for it to be listened too.
    The arguments about the divergent models have fallen on deaf ears for the last half decade or so – hopefully (from Ross’ lecture) some of the less fanatical warmists can actually ‘see’ that now, and indeed, realise it’s time to put their favourite ‘Precautionary Principle’ boot, on the other foot. i.e. see that it is more prudent and precautionary to ‘wait’ before invoking ‘wrong’ policy or direction when clearly, the current ‘explanation’ is not working……kind of what many skeptics (who don’t believe in CAGW) have been saying for years,(me included)!!
    What I liked about Ross’ presentation was that there was very little opinion and the use of the ‘official’ IPCC data! – he basically demonstrated his point entirely using the alarmists ‘pet’ data and subsequently applied sensible logic in how to move forward.

  23. While it is demonstrated the GCMs are seriously flawed and simply do not work, the EPA is going through with decisions based on the assumption GCMs are not flawed and do work. So the government is going to treat CO2 emissions as a poison, shutting down perfectly fine coal burning power plants.

    Policy is not being based on science but on the personal beliefs of some individuals. The reaction of the politicians in Calgary to the invitations as described by Ken Gregory on
    May 31, 2014 at 12:32 am is a case in point.

    These people are determined to carry out their plans for fossil fuels no matter what the facts are.

    But human history is filled with folly, why should things change now?

  24. If the models were correct, it should be warmer than it is.
    Well it isn’t that warm, the models are wrong.

  25. Very good. Measured and clearly explained data.

    And for those that enjoy it occasionally, some delightful sarcasm at 20:40 to 21:00

  26. Steve Mosher is right, it is the most important point. The models are wrong and getting worse. Or reality is wrong and getting worse. Take your pick.

    But if WUWT wrote the same thing every day, nobody would read or pay attention.

  27. The main/real/overarching/primary/key/foremost issue is: Carbon Dioxide from burning fossil fuels is not the root cause of the observed warming from 1980 to 1997.

  28. Mosher, you should be smart enough to know that if you concentrate your efforts to one battle front, you will soon find yourself surrounded. Give your myopic head a shake.

  29. Robert in Calgary says: May 30, 2014 at 8:34 pm
    One of Calgary’s alarmists wrote in to smear Ross.

    Well, alarmists usually believe Marxist views of humans as uncreative and untrustworthy, notions soundly disproven in reality they can only be accepted on faith. the smearer wannabe should be careful which path he goes down.

  30. Let’s see ” Commentary on puzzling things in Life, Nature, Science, Weather, Climate Change, Technology, and Recent News…”
    Mr Mosher, how has this site lost “focus”,?
    How?

  31. Claudius has just been stabbed by the ‘envenom’d foil’ he created himself: the sensitivity factor, which is a whole-cloth invention of the AGW gamers, is turning out to have fatal consequences because it’s way too high in the models, and demonstrably so.

  32. Mosher is dead wrong. The present debate is highly asymmetrical with most policy-makers and general public giving benefit of doubt to the CAGW crowd because they are often credentialed “experts”. If skeptics make any valid scientific point, the opposition will trot out the 97% statistic. If skeptics point out hypo-warming of the past two decades, the opposition will produce deceptively framed, titled, or colored graphics. The only way to level benefit of doubt is to attack misinformation, error and propaganda every where it appears. This being said, skeptics have to be very careful to not make unforced errors with respect to non-controversial points, or to promote pseudoscience. It is far easier to make sensible points with respect to the economics of the issue, than to win over a scientifically confused and perhaps frightened public.

    This is far more a political debate than a scientific one. Make the mistake of sticking to science only and then expect politics to roll skeptics flat as pavement.

  33. I just sent the following LTE to the Calgary Herald:
    “In trying to discredit Ross McKitrick’s rebuttal of the blame-humans-for-climate political push by saying McKitrick is religious thus not scientific, Jack Dale should be careful what path he takes. (Reference your May 23, 2014 issue.)

    Most climate alarmists believe the views of humans taught by Marxism, an ideology so contradictory and disproven it can only be accepted by blind faith.

    Indeed climate alarmists deny that their theories have been disproven by reality, and choose to ignore specific errors in their models that people have pointed them to. There has been no statistically significant change in average climate temperature for 16 years, the rate of sea level has changed little in 150 years, water vapour is decreasing contrary to assumptions in models, and temperatures at middle altitudes are not increasing as models claim they will. Alarmists falsely claim consensus, apparently re-defining the word to mean group-think within their circle, ignoring thousands of solid technical papers by others and tens of thousands of scientists signing petitions in opposition to alarmistm. They avoid discussion of alternative theories for climate change, and often politick against questioners by pressuring scientific journals to not publish critical papers.

    I urge Jack Dale and other true believers to look in their mirror and ask why they are so eager to blame humans for what is obviously natural variation.”

    At least two people, including the editorial page editor, have already supported McKitrick:

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Math+doesn/9877139/story.html

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/op-ed/Corbella+Pause+global+warming+upsets+religious+believers/9848202/story.html

  34. Harold says:
    May 30, 2014 at 1:31 pm
    “Everyone, including the warmists knows full well that making a bum policy decision is not wanted.”

    I wouldn’t be so sure,

    I agree I swift kick in the … for the warmistas of this world

Comments are closed.