The WUWT Hot Sheet for Tuesday September 17th, 2013

WUWT_hot_sheet7

From JunkScience.com Joe Romm squeals like stuck pig over WaPo, NYTimes publishing anti-alarmist pieces

Joe Romm squeals at Climate Progress:

In a collective act of media irresponsibility, the New York Times and Washington Post have joined the Wall Street Journal in publishing “don’t worry, be happy” articles days before the big UN climate science report will say quite the opposite.

We expect the WSJ to be a haven for disinformation, and as I discussed Sunday, Matt Ridley didn’t disappoint.

Meh. Romm is paid to squeal. More here

==============================================================

From ICSC: UN has hidden research that shows that nature, not humanity, controls the climate

OTTAWA, Sept. 17, 2013 /CNW/ – “As the science promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) falls into disrepute, reporters face a difficult decision,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “Should they cover IPCC reports, the next of which will be issued on September 27th, as if there were no other reputable points of view? Or should they also seek out climate experts who disagree with the UN’s view that we will soon face a human-induced climate crisis?

“With today’s release of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II – see http://climatechangereconsidered.org/, a 1,200 page report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), it is now much easier for media to adopt the second more balanced approached,” continued Harris. “Co-authored and co-edited by Dr. Craig Idso, Professor Robert Carter, and Professor S. Fred Singer who worked with a team of 44 other climate experts, this document cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide (CO2) controls. In other words, the NIPCC report demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong.”

More here

=================================================================

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer:

‘We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations’

‘In the coming years, scientists will increasingly realize that more CO2 in the atmosphere is, on the whole, good for life on Earth. Given that CO2 is necessary for life, and that nature continues to gobble up 50% of the CO2 we produce as fast as we can produce it, I won’t be that surprised when that paradigm shift occurs, either.’ — ‘With over 20 years of forecasts from the early days of climate modelling, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost.’

Well worth a read: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/a-turning-point-for-the-ipcc-and-humanity/

=================================================================

Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog: Global Temperature Trends and the IPCC

A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field?

=================================================================

“Climate change a net positive” for US farmers: “16% of the total heat necessary to mature a corn plant in Fargo is due to the climate change”

Some crops migrate north with warmer temperatures

Statewide, North Dakota’s growing season since 1879 has lengthened by 12 days, says state climatologist Adnan Akyuz at North Dakota State University. Before the 1970s, corn just wasn’t grown north of Bismarck. “Now we’re seeing it all the way up to the Canadian border,” he says.

According to Akyuz’s calculations “16% of the total heat necessary to mature a corn plant in Fargo is due to the climate change.”

Climate change a net positive

The United States has the largest amount of arable land of any nation, and climate change has only made it better.

We have more area where production is limited by cold rather than by heat. So on net, we come off a bit better,” McCarl says.

In North Dakota, that has contributed to an economic boom. Growers are getting harvests that would have been unimaginable years ago, says Mike Ostlie, an agronomist at the Carrington Research Extension Center of North Dakota State University, about 150 miles northwest of Fargo. “Used to be, every three to five years there was a crop failure. Now I don’t know when that last happened.”

Things are so good that the long drain of children moving off farms is beginning to reverse, says Steve Metzger, a farm management expert at Carrington.

David Archibald talks about what will happen to the corn crop if we lose that advantage here The Climate-Grain Production Relationship Quantified

h/t to Tom Nelson

===============================================================

Reid Blames Colorado Floods On ‘Climate Change’

We should be facing the reality of climate change. Look what happened in Colorado. I talked to Senator Bennet yesterday, he said the floods were “biblical.” In one part of Colorado, it rained 12 inches in two hours. I can’t imagine that.

Fires all over the West — climate change is here.

1921 Pueblo Flood

On June 3, 1921, there was a sudden cloudburst ten miles west of Pueblo, Colorado. The always-volatile Arkansas River began swelling. About the same time, there was a downpour over the Fountain River 30 miles north. The two rivers meet in the heart of town. The waters rose to over 15 feet in some areas. When it was over, nearly 1,500 people were dead and damage to homes and businesses was widespread. Property loss was estimated to be over $20 million. The flood covered over 300 square miles. [Via DB]

===============================================================

Looks like Dana is in a “jam”

Bishop Hill: Speaking Nuccitello

Readers will recall that I recently wrote a briefing paper for GWPF on the Cook et al 97% consensus paper. Today Dana Nuccitelli has written a post in which he translates my paper into his own idiosyncratic language, Nuccitello. Readers may struggle with Nuccitello at first, but you will get the hang of it, I’m sure.

For example, many of you may find it hard to work out how it is possible to discuss my paper, with its consideration of the nature of the 97% consensus, under the heading of “consensus denial”. Once you see that this is merely a translation into Nuccitello, all becomes clear.

The same blog post has further examples of this strange language. In Nuccitello, those who helped themselves to the documents that Skeptic Science’s admins left open to public view are “thieves”. And where I quoted participants on the forum as saying…

Click to read more …

nuccitello_jam

Related from Bishop Hill:

Abraham’s Nuccitello

Writing at WUWT, Matt Ridley is taking John Abraham to task for his extensive use of Nuccitello in a Matt-bashing article at DeSmog. I thought this bit was very funny:

It’s a poor response, characterized by inaccurate representation of what I said, even down to actual misquoting. In the whole article, he puts just four words in quotation marks as written by me, yet in doing so he misses out a whole word: 20% of the quotation. Remarkable. If I did that, I would be very embarrassed.

==================================================================

McKittrick sets the cat among the pigeons

[Bishop Hill] Ross McKitrick has a must-read article in the Financial Post, looking at climate models and their environmentalist-like divergence from reality:

The IPCC must take everybody for fools. Its own graph shows that observed temperatures are not within the uncertainty range of projections; they have fallen below the bottom of the entire span. Nor do models simulate surface warming trends accurately; instead they grossly exaggerate them. (Nor do they match them on regional scales, where the fit is typically no better than random numbers.)

==================================================================

Monckton calls for Cook’s 97% paper to be withdrawn:

Dear Professor Kammen,

It must by now be patent to you and to every member of your Board that the paper by Cook et al. that you say “passed peer review” should not have passed peer review. It is gravely misleading.

The Cook paper stated that 97.1% of 4014 abstracts expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed the consensus on AGW, defined in the paper’s introduction as the consensus that more than half of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic, when the true percentage endorsing the scientific consensus thus defined was 0.3%.

Now that the extent of the misrepresentations in the paper is clear to you and to all the board, the should be withdrawn at once. Please now make the appropriate announcement and let me know that you have done so.

I sent a commentary to you in July, outlining the misrepresentations in the Cook paper. You sent my paper back and asked for it to be shortened to 1000 words. I did that. You then asked for two temperature graphs to be removed “before we can submit the comment for review”. I did that well over two months ago (see attached), expecting that you would “submit the comment for review” as you had said. But you did not reply.

On being chased, you now ask me to submit a paper, not a comment, via an online portal. It is difficult to avoid the impression that I am not being dealt with either promptly or fairly. As to my attached comment, there will be no need for you to “submit the comment for review” if you withdraw the offending paper. Otherwise, I hope you will submit it for review without further delay.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know your intentions, so that I can decide what to do next. I should not wish to involve the public authorities.

- Monckton of Brenchley

=================================================================

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Climatologist explains halt of global warming via natural North Atlantic Oscillation, solar activity

Climatologist Dr. Eduardo Zorita, one of the authors of the recent paper rejecting the climate models at a confidence level >98% over the past 15 years, has a new post in which he states that the model vs. real-world discrepancy is even greater during the winter months [Dec-Feb], with only 0.2% of 6,104 climate model runs projecting the observed negative trend in winter temperatures [-0.10 C/decade] over the past 15 years. Climate models instead predicted that the most warming would occur during the winter months, the opposite of observations.

About these ads

37 thoughts on “The WUWT Hot Sheet for Tuesday September 17th, 2013

  1. UN has hidden research that shows that nature, not humanity, controls the climate
    OTTAWA, Sept. 17, 2013 /CNW/

    Yeah, goal by the home team :-)

  2. McKittrick sets the cat among the pigeons
    [Bishop Hill] Ross McKitrick has a must-read article in the Financial Post,

    And another blow! What is it about those Canadians?

    But, I still expect the IPCC and choir to maintain the mantra. “Not as bad as we thought, but still very bad and scary”. They will then move on and continue the same BS at full throttle, assuming we all forget.

    Of course, they can just go into denial mode:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html

  3. In other words, the NIPCC report demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong.”

    Will it have a Summary for Policymakers? If not, it should.

    Also, will it have an appendix in a few months to deal with new material in AR5, such as the unleaked parts two and three?

  4. to me a mere layman how on earth could any rational person think we control this earth and NOT mother nature that humans are more powerful than the forces of nature

  5. Fort Collins, Colorado, owes its present location to flooding:

    http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/what-we-do/stormwater/drainage-basins/poudre-river

    Let’s not forget the Big Thompson River flood of 1976…..

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

    In other words, hey, you grandstanding ignoramus fear-mongering politicians, get a job doing some historical research before opening your pie-holes and p*ssing off a bunch of fluvial sedimentologists.

  6. Are we at the beginning of the end CAGW? Or are we at the end of the beginning of CAGW? Whatever it is it is dying a slow and painful death. Many sceptics predicted this stage of the end OR [] the beginning of the end.

  7. Roger Pielke, Jr.: allowed intolerant activists who make false claims
    ====
    oh!….bullcrap….now it’s the “activists” you guys were using all along…

    =======
    According to Akyuz’s calculations “16% of the total heat necessary to mature a corn plant in Fargo is due to the climate change.” “Before the 1970s, corn just wasn’t grown north of Bismarck.”
    ====
    Look at your temp history….moron
    temps have had nothing to do with it

    (lat’s into the chocolate again)

  8. For me, CAGW is already dead. There are now just stragglers hanging on. Yes, there are a lot of them. But they must now openly defy facts that even the most climate science illiterate person understands. Their attacks that someone isn’t a climate scientist no longer has any effect when the observations are so simple to see (no pun intended).

  9. [Bishop Hill] Ross McKitrick has a must-read article in the Financial Post, looking at climate models and their environmentalist-like divergence from reality:

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

    Here are the passages I liked best:

    To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.
    ………………
    There are five key points to take away from this situation.

    First, something big is about to happen. Models predict one thing and the data show another. The various attempts in recent years to patch over the difference are disintegrating. Over the next few years, either there is going to be a sudden, rapid warming that shoots temperatures up to where the models say they should be, or the mainstream climate modeling paradigm is going to fall apart.

    Second, since we are on the verge of seeing the emergence of data that could rock the foundations of mainstream climatology, this is obviously no time for entering into costly and permanent climate policy commitments based on failed model forecasts. The real message of the science is: Hold on a bit longer, information is coming soon that could radically change our understanding of this issue.

    Third, what is commonly called the “mainstream” view of climate science is contained in the spread of results from computer models. What is commonly dismissed as the “skeptical” or “denier” view coincides with the real-world observations. Now you know how to interpret those terms when you hear them.

    Fourth, we often hear (from no less an authority than Obama himself, among many others) slogans to the effect that 97% of climate experts, 97% of published climate science papers, and all the world’s leading scientific societies agree with the mainstream science as encoded in climate models. But the models don’t match reality. The climate science community has picked a terrible time to brag about the uniformity of groupthink in its ranks.

  10. Australia provided some funding for the following?

    btw how much more unrealistic would it be for such a company to be profitable in vast, sparsely-populated Australia?

    CBS Local: ECOtality may close doors

    17 Sept: ABC America: AP: Ecotality Files for Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Protection
    Ecotality, which makes charging systems for electric vehicles, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and wants to sell its assets in an auction…
    The San Francisco company makes charging and power-storage systems for electric vehicles under the Blink and Minit Charger brands, including charging stations for the Nissan Leaf. It also does testing for government agencies, auto makers and utilities…
    ***Ecotality has received more than $100 million in funding from the Department of Energy since 2009. The company has also received funding from the state of California and from Australia.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/ecotality-filed-bankruptcy-protection-20284446

  11. Climatism is becoming the “Rodney Dangerfield” of Environmentalism, and it’s so much fun to watch. No respect given, and none deserved.

  12. re: Nutticelli -er- Nuccitelli (OR WHATEVER) .. his head – his picture has always bothered me .. I think I figured it out … the top half looks to be undersized WRT the bottom half … it is as if the top portion is short on ‘room’ for the brain (‘a brain’?), which, thinking about it, would explain perhaps a lot … offered in all sincerity and without much in the way of malice or ill-thought.

    .

  13. Re:
    Monckton calls for Cook’s 97% paper to be withdrawn:

    Very very rare for me to call anything written by his Lordship into question, but I fear he may have missed a word out!!!! The final sentence, “Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know your intentions, so that I can decide what to do next. I should not wish to involve the public authorities.”, perhaps should finish with the addition of the word “unnecessarily”.
    If I am wrong, then I do apologise.

    JR

  14. “Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know your intentions, so that I can decide what to do next. I should not wish to involve the public authorities.

    – Monckton of Brenchley”

    Meh. Who’s he going to call? The police? Empty threats rarely work.

  15. One understands why it was imperative to act now, quickly as the science was settled back then… the risk of course with science, is that reality may blow a big hole in the theory and that some weird guy may come up with real science and explain things properly. Hence the urgency to act, that is spend money in favor of the lobbyists.

  16. David Appell is trying to say that the ice trend for 2013 indicates the long term will be no ice. I guess that is how they work. Develop a trend from a single point.

  17. Romm’s troops are having some internal conflict!!! Read the comments section on the first story related to Romm….and bring popcorn! There is much frustration, and the fracturing of the movement is ongoing….

  18. Phil–developing a trend from a single point is a mavelous opportunity, especially in 3-d space!

    But that’s the hallmark of Warmista “Climate Science”–guess anything, misrepresent anything, and get paid big bucks to do it, too!

    What’s not to like?

  19. Everyone is wrong except Romm – just ask him. There’s probably a name for that… denier, I think. Joe’s in denial.

  20. “UN has hidden research that shows that nature, not humanity, controls the climate”

    ‘Star chamber’ was not meant to be a literal term.

  21. So, Riley says we should listen to the IPCC because it is now says what he wants hear (or so he would have us believe). But Harris and Spencer say the IPCC is bunk because it is not saying what they want to believe. Yet Riley, Harris and Spencer are in agreement. Try not to trip over your crossed wires guys.

  22. Sure didn’t take long for Harry Reid to make the Colorado floods politicized. We knew that was coming. All I can say is, “Get ready for another big crisis boys and girls!”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323846504579073083671216784.html?mod=hp_opinion


    The problem is that Mr. Obama is never, ever going to unwind his signature legacy project of national health care. Ideology aside, it would end his Presidency politically. And if Republicans insist that any spending bill must defund ObamaCare, then a showdown is inevitable that shuts down much of the government. Republicans will claim that Democrats are the ones shutting it down to preserve ObamaCare. Voters may see it differently given the media’s liberal sympathies and because the repeal-or-bust crowd provoked the confrontation.

    With his own popularity fading, Mr. Obama may want a shutdown so he can change the subject to his caricature of GOP zealots who want no government. He’ll blame any turmoil or economic fallout on House Republicans, figuring that he can split the tea party from the GOP and that this is the one event that could reinstall Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. Mr. Obama could spend his final two years going out in a blaze of liberal glory.

    The defunders sketch out an alternative scenario in which Mr. Obama is blamed, and they say we can’t know unless Republicans try. But even they admit privately that they really won’t succeed in defunding ObamaCare. The best case seems to be that if all Republicans show resolve they’ll win over the public in a shutdown, and Democrats will eventually surrender, well, something.

    If this works it would be the first time. The evidence going back to the Newt Gingrich Congress is that no party can govern from the House, and the Republican Party can’t abide the outcry when flights are delayed, national parks close and direct deposits for military spouses stop. Sooner or later the GOP breaks.

    This all-or-nothing posture also usually results in worse policy. The most recent example was the failure of Mr. Boehner’s fiscal cliff “Plan B” in December 2012…

  23. OK, so ONE thing we do know… this administration mastered the art of stonewalling. So after all ‘eck breaks loose and the Conservatives get the blame… SpaghettiO anoints the Keystone Pipeline for an added attraction to disgusted independent voters?

  24. Joe “Shootin’ from the Lip” Romm is such a clown. I Google searched Historical Colorado floods and found this from NCAR: http://www.assessment.ucar.edu/flood/flood_table.html.
    Seems to me, without additional research, that the 1965 flood on the South Platte River at Denver which resulted in 8 deaths and $2,200,000,000 of damage (In 1999 $) would be of a similar intensity/scale with the current flood which Joe claims is “one of those purely coincidental once-in-a-thousand-year deluges”. I guess when your a young pup like little Joey Romm 1965 seems like a thousand years ago.

  25. Robert of Ottawa says:
    September 17, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    “McKittrick sets the cat among the pigeons
    [Bishop Hill] Ross McKitrick has a must-read article in the Financial Post,
    And another blow! What is it about those Canadians?”

    Robert,
    It is only fitting that Canada produce McIntyre and McKitrick to counterbalance arch-warmists David Suzuki, Andrew Weaver and Gordon McBean. And the atonement for the climate machinations of the original Dr. Evil, Maurice Strong, requires that Canada supply at least the sum of Tim Ball, Chris Essex, Tom Harris, Donna Laframboise and Hillary Ostrov.

  26. Joe Romm is a nattering sciolast, brushing crumbs from his high-chair’s bib napkin. Quite soon now, this mendicant dabbler’s Green Gang of Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al. will have gone the way of Rene Blondlot, J.B. Rhine, Trofim Lysenko, Immanuel Velikovsky (to name a few). Meantime, anyone with half a frontal lobe with treat Romm’s bleats-and-squeaks with the respect due Tom Thumb and Hunca Munca.

  27. I think Romm is channeling Reagan. In Northern California where I grew up there was a major flood in 1955. Then governor Brown called it the “hundred years” flood. When a much worse flood hit in 1964, then governor Reagan one upped his predecessor and called this one the “thousand years” flood (copyright). This image was so powerful that it’s been unwittingly copied by leftists ever since. :)

  28. Well this was a really interesting comment by Dr Spencer:

    …By way of background, I have always been convinced that the IPCC was created by bureaucrats to achieve specific policy ends. I was even told so by one of those bureaucrats, Bob Watson, back in the early 1990s. Not that there aren’t ‘true believers’ in the movement. In my experience, the vast majority of the scientists and politicians involved in the IPCC process appear to really believe they are doing what is right for humanity by supporting restrictions on fossil fuel use…. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/a-turning-point-for-the-ipcc-and-humanity/

    Bob Watson worked for NASA then the World Bank while the IPCC chair and now is in the UK at Chief Scientific Adviser, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs… http://blogs.worldbank.org/team/robert-watson

  29. Jquip says:
    September 17, 2013 at 7:13 pm
    “UN has hidden research that shows that nature, not humanity, controls the climate”

    ‘Star chamber’ was not meant to be a literal term.
    _________________________
    Maybe the Star Chamber needs to be re-opend to try to extract honesty from some of these guys…
    “Is this your signature on this ‘scholarly’ paper?” “It is? … Did you have access to the RSS temperature series?” “You did? But your still put your signature to that paper?” “Well in that case we will be sending a bill collector around shortly so that you can repay the grants you had been awarded.”

  30. Mike Bromley the Kurd says: @ September 17, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    Fort Collins, Colorado, owes its present location to flooding….

    In other words, hey, you grandstanding ignoramus fear-mongering politicians, get a job doing some historical research before opening your pie-holes and p*ssing off a bunch of fluvial sedimentologists.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually it is even worse than that.

    The Obama Admin. via the EPA plans to kill the US economy based in part on the recommendations of scientists TOO STUPID to reframe from building IN a river. And as my Geology prof said the flood plain IS PART OF THE RIVER… Shakes head.

  31. how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field?

    They wanted it more. Focused like a laser. Never had another goal in mind. Strapped on poisoned spikes on their sharp elbows.

  32. wow,that was my first foray into the fantastical world of joe and climate progress. i am surprised at his use of the word debunked.from my own limited knowledge on the subject of cAGW,i could debunk most of the psuedoinformation on the page the link took me too,mildly amusing ,but deeply worrying people actually believe anything he writes.

  33. Ed Mertin says September 17, 2013 at 7:52 pm

    If this works it would be the first time. The evidence going back to the Newt Gingrich Congress is that no party can govern from the House …

    Slight history re-write there Ed? What issues/what bills did Clinton (ever the polished politician) pick up and sign-off as his ‘own’ on as proposed/passed by the Gingrich Revolution?

Comments are closed.