Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Once again, it’s the NIPCC versus the IPCC – facts versus gloom-and-doom assertions.
Earth’s average atmospheric temperatures haven’t increased in almost 17 years. It’s been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the United States. Tornado frequency is at a multi-decade low ebb. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl and 1950s. Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades. And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century.
Ignoring these facts, President Obama continues to insist that “dangerous” carbon dioxide emissions are causing “unprecedented” global warming, “more extreme” droughts and hurricanes, and rising seas that “threaten” coastal communities. With Congress refusing to enact job-killing taxes on hydrocarbon energy and CO2, his Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to unleash more job-killing carbon dioxide regulations, amid an economy that is already turning full-time jobs into part-time jobs and welfare.
America and the world desperately need some sound science and common sense on climate change.
Responding to the call, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute has just released the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2013 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.
The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent “unprecedented” climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years.
The 14-page NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is easy to digest and should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science. The summary and seven-chapter report were prepared by 50 climatologists and other scientists from 15 countries, under the direction of lead authors Craig Idso (USA), Robert Carter (Australia) and Fred Singer (USA).
Unfortunately, the “mainstream” media and climate alarm industry have no interest in reading the report, debating its contents or even letting people know it exists. They have staked their credibility, reputations, continued funding and greater control over our lives on perpetuating climate disaster myths. So it is up to the rest of us to ensure that the word gets out – and we do have that long overdue debate on climate.
Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%). In fact, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, even under adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or hgh temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats.
The NIPCC also lays bare the false IPCC claims that computer models “prove” recent global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, and are able to forecast future global temperatures, climates and events. In reality, the models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human carbon dioxide; input data contaminated by urban heat island effects; and employ simplified configurations of vital drivers of Earth’s climate system (or simply ignorethem), such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, volcanoes, ocean currents and recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina).
In computer lingo, this can be summarized as: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other garbage in – predictive garbage out.
The NIPCC authors conclude that existing climate models “are unable to make accurate projections of climate even ten years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation, until they have been validated [by comparison to actual observations] and shown to have predictive value.”
And yet, that is exactly how the deficient models are being used: to devise and justify policies, laws and regulations that stigmatize and penalize hydrocarbon use, promote and subsidize wind and solar energy, and have hugely negative effects on jobs, family energy bills, the overall economy and people’s lives.
Countries are spending countless billions of dollars annually on faulty to fraudulent IPCC climate models and studies that purport to link every adverse event or problem to manmade climate change; subsidized renewable energy programs that displace food crops and kill wildlife; adaptation and mitigation measures against future disasters that exist only in “scenarios” generated by the IPCC’s GIGO computer models; and welfare, food stamp and energy assistance programs for the newly unemployed and impoverished. Equally bad, they are losing tens of billions in royalty, tax and other revenue that they would receive if they were not blocking oil, gas and coal development and use – and destroying manufacturing jobs that depend on cheap, reliable energy, so that companies can compete in international marketplaces.
Meanwhile, a leaked draft of the forthcoming report from the IPCC itself reveals that even its scientists are backtracking from their past dire predictions of planetary disaster. Professor Ross McKitrick, chair of graduate studies at the University of Guelph (Ontario) economics department, put it bluntly in a brilliant Financial Post article. “Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph,” he wrote.
The graph dramatically demonstrates that every UN IPCC climate model over the past 22 years (1990-2012) predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9 degrees C (1.6 degrees F) higher than they actually were! Considering how defective the models are, this is hardly surprising.
And yet, on this basis we are supposed to trash our hydrocarbon-based energy system and economy. It’s absolutely insane!
Two Climate Change Reconsidered briefings will be held next Monday, September 23, in Washington, DC – featuring NIPCC experts. Their title says it all:
“Climate Change Reconsidered: Science the UN will exclude from its next IPCC climate report”
The first will be at noon at the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE and will be co-sponsored by the Heartland Institute. The second will be held at 3:00 pm in room 235 of the Rayburn House Office Building, and will be sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition. Hard copies of the NIPCC Summary for Policymakers will be available for all attendees.
The events will be followed by a media tour of the East Coast, featuring Professor Bob Carter and other NIPCC scientists. For further information consult the Heartland Institute and NIPCC websites.
Instead of employing the scientific method to prove or disprove its CO2-driven climate disaster hypothesis, using empirical evidence, the IPCC has routinely assumed its hypothesis is correct – and used selected data that support its claims, while ignoring anything that contradicts them, and refusing to debate any scientists who disagree with them. This can no longer be tolerated. Far too much is at stake.
Climate Change Reconsidered proves there is no “consensus” on dangerous manmade global warming – and raises the debate to a new level. Read it, get the word out about it, watch this Fox News segment, and take action. Your future, and your children’s future, depend on it.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
I believe the Pres. used to word “toxic” to descrbie CO2 .
“other toxic substances like arsenic and mercury” IIRC. That means CO2 is “toxic”.
This shows such a poor grasp of the situation it needs to be clearly repeated.
“Earth’s average atmospheric temperatures haven’t increased in almost 17 years. ”
some qualifiers are required if that tis not be misleading. What “temperatures” are you refering to? No “statistically significant ” probalby needs to be added.
It is very easy to find some temperatures which have increased in 17 years. In fact, as stated, it is probalby demonstrably wrong. Not helpful.
about the climate models….if that were a car….wouldn’t you be pissed?
“And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century”
…can’t we do better than that?
“the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%)”
The doubling is usually refered to preindustiral levels, the 2 deg C likewise. ie doubling to 540ppmv expected around 2050.
Bow and kiss the ring otherwise vote these debt makers out of office. Australia did it so can we here in the U.S.
(bold added)
Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades.
Since that will get jumped on anyway, I’ll say the Arctic sea ice is not “back to normal”, as usually translated as according to the records of the satellite era. Come on, we’ve seen how this goes, next year the luck will turn again and the extent will be right back at the bottom again. After more than a few years of solidly positive build-up, maybe “normal” could be declared.
For all the sea ice, Arctic and Antarctic together, do we even know what “normal” looks like?
Anthony, keep up the pressure, you have been noticed by the Guardian……..again.
The UK’s Daily Mail isn’t holding back, today’s article is headlined “World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years.”
Here’s the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html
Has anyone noticed this prediction?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/Predict.txt
Let me keep it simple: We need to throw out MORE co2 into the atmosphere for the great benefit of plants and animals which eat those plants. There would be net good in 2C warming (IF we could manage it with co2). Olives in Germany just like during the Medieval Warm Period etc. What’s not to like?
Medieval Warm Perios – Dr. Michael Mann (olives here)
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf
Oooops.
Medieval Warm Period.
you said,
Earth’s average atmospheric temperatures haven’t increased in almost 17 years. It’s been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the United States. Tornado frequency is at a multi-decade low ebb. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl and 1950s. Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades. And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century
I say,
1. Selecting an arbitrary start date that happens to coincide with the abnormally high 1998 temperatures, which then became the “new normal” for the next decade or so doesn’t mean that warming has stopped.
2. A reduction in hurricane activity is predicted by climate models due to increased wind shear and dry air, both of which have contributed to the decline of hurricane activity
3. Tornado frequency is not a climate change indicator
4. The west is experiencing a drought that started in 2000 and has continued through to today, the Colorado river is now experiencing its lowest flow levels since modern records have begun. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3062/images/fig3.gif
5. Sea ice is not normal, not even close. it is almost tied with 2009 levels as shown in the following graph (curve) http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HistSummerArcticSeaIceExtent.jpg
6. It WAS a cold summer (in the arctic) very very good!!!!!
7. Sea level rates are a lagging indicator for global warming. These levels will continue to rise and they will increase in their rates of rise. We will be painfully aware of global warming long before sea levels become a major issue.
The Colorado flood was 1,870 times more destructive than flooding in previous decades (based on area affected and length of time for high water levels) it has produced an estimate of 2 billion dollars of damage so far, Boulder received an annual amount of rainfall in 1 week. It is a 1000 year storm.
These disasters are coming harder and faster now. It is time to grow up and take responsibility for our situation. Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.
Totally agree with this comment. I feel uncomfortable when I read comments from sceptics about the “recovery” of arctic ice. Claims like this are counter-productive since the ice extent will invariably be much lower next year. Stick to the hard facts. There has been a pause in warming – but only for about the last 10 years. To claim the pause is 17 years or so is simply using arbitrary (and demanding) confidence levels in a slightly misleading way. While it is technically true that the error bars for the 17 year trend include the ZERO trend, they also include the previous 0.2 deg per decade trend.
From this excellent article:
Instead of employing the scientific method to prove or disprove its CO2-driven climate disaster hypothesis, using empirical evidence, the IPCC has routinely assumed its hypothesis is correct – and used selected data that support its claims, while ignoring anything that contradicts them, and refusing to debate any scientists who disagree with them.
Absolutely correct. The IPCC has an anti-science agenda, which is promoted by self-serving folks like jai mitchell, who says:
1. Selecting an arbitrary start date that happens to coincide with the abnormally high 1998 temperatures, which then became the “new normal” for the next decade or so doesn’t mean that warming has stopped.
Mitchell ignores the fact that the start date was “selected” by the alarmist crowd, not by skeptics, when the alarmists were certain that global warming would continue. They were wrong. So now, people like mitchell are trying to shift the blame to skeptics — who are simply playing by the alarmists’ own rules.
2. A reduction in hurricane activity is predicted by climate models due to increased wind shear and dry air, both of which have contributed to the decline of hurricane activity
The models’ prediction was for increasing relative and absolute humidity to keep rising because of global warming. Instead, humidity has continued to decline. This is just another case of moving the goal posts to support the IPCC’s failed predictions.
3. Tornado frequency is not a climate change indicator
Changes in tornado frequency are not climate change?? Who knew?
4. The west is experiencing a drought that started in 2000 and has continued through to today, the Colorado river is now experiencing its lowest flow levels since modern records have begun. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3062/images/fig3.gif
Is this the same Colorado that is experiencing “Biblical” flooding?
5. Sea ice is not normal, not even close. it is almost tied with 2009 levels as shown in the following graph (curve)
Arctic ice has risen by 60% over last year, and Antarctic ice continues its decades-long rise. That is on our planet, of course, maybe not on jai mitchell’s.
6. It WAS a cold summer (in the arctic) very very good!!!!!
Regional climate fluctuations are not global warming, and they are 100% natural.
7. Sea level rates are a lagging indicator for global warming. These levels will continue to rise and they will increase in their rates of rise. We will be painfully aware of global warming long before sea levels become a major issue.
jai mitchell, prognosticator of future sea level. But the fact is that sea level rise is natural, and has not accelerated. Therefore, mitchell’s opinion is based 100% on his Belief; there is no supporting evidence.
The Colorado flood was 1,870 times more destructive than flooding in previous decades (based on area affected and length of time for high water levels) it has produced an estimate of 2 billion dollars of damage so far, Boulder received an annual amount of rainfall in 1 week. It is a 1000 year storm. These disasters are coming harder and faster now. It is time to grow up and take responsibility for our situation. Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.
Actually, severe weather events have moderated, therefore the ‘blatant denial and misinformation’ is again 100% jai mitchell’s. His emotion-based fright is palpable. He is very scared, for no credible reason. And as always, he is 100% wrong about everything.
======================
John Finn says:
“…the ice extent will invariably be much lower next year.”
“Invariably”, eh? John Finn is another alarmist who can clearly see the future. Why is he not in Las Vegas, making a killing, instead of wasting his time predicting the future on blogs?
Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades.
Global sea ice extent has been around the 30 year climatology for the last couple of years. And as normal is widely used as a synonym for average. The statement above is correct.
I’d add that those who think the above statement is about Arctic sea ice, need to brush up on their english comprehension skills.
jai mitchell says:……….
Oh yes it has. Do you want me to wait 2 more years? Then what will you say?
You say:
Then inform the climate scientists to put the alarmists like Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian straight.
‘Then inform the alarmists.
While Colorado suffers from terrible floods.
What is normal? MWP? 1920s to 1940s? Holocene Climate Optimum? Please tell me.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Show me the peer reviewed evidence that shows an acceleration in the rate of global sea level rise.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
ATTENTION
Maybe the author could have said it better but he does NOT say that the Arctic sea ice is back to normal. His statement about sea ice is correct.
Jai Mitchell. Funny how you accuse of cherry-picking, while doing so yourself. If tornadoes aren’t a climate indicator, why is it that they get such great press for being exactly that? And dragging the dollar value of Colorado Flooding into the “Extreme event” argument is bollox. Maybe check the geomorphology of the front ranges and see just how many landforms are the result of naturally-occurring extreme events. The dollar value is from those who ignore the indicators, insisting on building in canyons and floodplains prone to occasional severe flooding. Indicators such as: “it has happened before and it WILL happen again”. They took the risk. They lost. 1870% more extreme, huh? I suppose 97% of your thoughts came up with that figure.
“…the ice extent will invariably be much lower next year.”
If it is higher this year, then it can not be ‘invariably lower’ next year or any other future year.
As I said, english comprehension.
Oh, and Jai, how on EARTH did you find a climate model that supported your agenda? A cherry tree?
uh, jai mitchell, are you saying you now know 2 X 2 = 4?
(I remember that comment string from a couple of months ago, bubba.)
Jimbo –
Bloomberg is also carrying the orwellian Katherine Bagley/InsideClimateNews.org article, illustrated by an out of place/out of time pic of Pachauri!
20 Sept: Bloomberg: Katherine Bagley: Climate Skeptic Groups Launch Global Anti-Science Campaign
PHOTO CAPTION? – Indian Nobel Peace Price laureate and Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, speaks during a press briefing about the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland on June 7, 2012.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-19/climate-skeptic-groups-launch-global-anti-science-campaign.html
I feel uncomfortable when you make stuff up. The guest blogger wrote:
What happened after 2012 minimum?
The Arctic sea ice extent of 2013 was up over 50% on 2012.
Here is Dr. Phil Jones:
Did you say 10 years? The rest of your comment is usual nonsense and arm waving.
I hope the NIPCC SFP points to the failure and costliness of European renewable initiatives, and then say that Obama et al. have ignored their lessons and stubbornly plunged deeper into the Big Muddy.
NIPCC should also add “Global” before “sea ice is back to normal”.
Do you think the 22 boats trapped in the artctic have a claim against those who falsely predicted an open arctic this summer? http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice%E2%80%94yachts-caught/113788 Just thinking, not knowing..
Pachauri isn’t a Nobel laureate–that ought to be plain to all by now. Awards given to organizations apply only to those organizations, not to individuals composing them, as the Nobel people–and the IPCC itself–made clear in a statement on the matter.
For those Warmists concerned about the Arctic, I say we must act now before it’s too late. Co2 at below 350ppm is very dangerous indeed.
jai mitchell says:
September 19, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Selecting an arbitrary start date that happens to coincide with the abnormally high 1998 temperatures, which then became the “new normal” for the next decade or so doesn’t mean that warming has stopped.
Wrong. The start date is today, and the period of time where there is a 0° temperature trend stretches back for 202 months, or just 2 months shy of 17 years (Nov., 1996). When it hits the 17-year mark in November, it will officially become the “Santer Pause”. Ho-ho-ho..
From jai mitchell on September 19, 2013 at 3:48 pm:
Excellent graph!
It conclusively shows the start of the decline in Arctic sea ice began at WWII, when Europe was burning and there were massive amounts of black carbon (aka soot) that got deposited on that Arctic sea ice. Per current theory this lead to a dramatic reduction around 1939, it took about six years for the dirtiest multi-year ice to go away, there were a few years of surging thin first-year ice, but the die was cast. The precipitous downward curve took hold, likely aided by additional industrial pollution during the post-war manufacturing boom.
Strange that the graph ended in 2011. I can see the SkepSci kids leaving off the 2013 increase, but the 2012 record drop wasn’t included? Almost as strange as how they redefined “Summer” as July to September, rather than the accepted meteorological definition of June to August. Isn’t accepted meteorological science good enough for them?
Oh well, great find anyway!
Be kind to Jai Mitchell as he is only practicing his religious beliefs. He must repeat mantra. Hummmmmmmmmmmm.
PHOTO CAPTION? – Indian Nobel Peace Price laureate and Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, speaks during a press briefing about the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland on June 7, 2012.
Yeah? I wonder how much he paid them for that distinction? 😛
jai mitchell,think your self lucky this is a truly sceptic blog,where people from both sides of the debate can be heard.if i attempted to question any aspect of the warmist position on many warmist blogs,say sks for example.i would be instantly moderated.
that is why there are so few people commenting there,whereas this blog has a huge following.
after reading the link to the daily mail article,then further linking to the guardian article it is heartening to see a real (not imaginary like temperature in the last decade and a half) upward trend in sceptic comments on all guardian climate articles,the warmists are getting destroyed by actual facts.long may it continue.
Unfortunately, polemic hyperbole doesn’t help either side much. As illustrated somewhat here, from the lukewarmer POV.
True Science will out. Stick with that. Falsifiable null hypotheses. Observational evidence versus computer models. Examination of the increasingly prevalent Supplemental Informations to pal reviewed papers (e.g. Marcott and O’Leary per posts elsewhere).
jai mitchell talks about picking arbitrary dates. Here is a date on Arctic sea ice extent from the IPCC from the early 1970s. Is it still arbitrary?
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_170-jun-15-11-10.jpg
Source: IPCC FAR
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
I don’t think C02 has ANY effect whatsoever on mean Global temperatures the feedback mechanisms are totally overwhelming and this is what you are witnessing at the moment. Maybe in a laboratory C02 raises temps but to base a whole silly theory on Arrhenius experiments a century ago is madness and ridiculous. The Earth is homeostatic that’s why we are able to live on iit.
Greg Goodman,
Everything is toxic in large enough doses, even watter (and no, I don’t mean drowning): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/
Of course, based on naval submarine research the toxic level of CO2 is somewhere on the plus side of 8000 PPM, more than an order of magnitude increase in ambient CO2 levels.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 19, 2013 at 4:53 pm
It conclusively shows the start of the decline in Arctic sea ice began at WWII,
It also shows a decline and then a marked rise in the early part of the 20th century that corresponds with the widespread adoption of electricity and gas for cooking in Europe and N America, which replaced coal and wood stoves that produced black carbon.
* It’s a common misconception that industry is the main source of black carbon. When in fact domestic and agricultural burning along with forest fires are still the main sources globally and probably have been since before the industrial revolution. Although having said that, Russian industry up until about 10 years was a major source of Arctic BC and is still an important although declining source.
Dr. James Hansen has something to say. He says a lot at different times. Please remain seated and we have to warn you that the following contains disturbing ideas. Dr. James Hansen does not believe a word he says.
Greg Goodman
Actually, the Pres. shows a poor grasp of many, if not most, situations.
Hello,
Due to a lack of availability, we will not be able to obtain the following item(s) from your order:
Vahrenholt, Fritz “The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe”
We’ve canceled the item(s) and apologize for the inconvenience. We must also apologize for the length of time it has taken us to reach this conclusion.
These disasters are coming harder and faster now. It is time to grow up and take responsibility for our situation. Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.
BASE ON WHAT METRIC AND RECORD???
This is “Gobbles Speak” in it’s best form
The atmosphere in Australia is exciting. The climate alarmists are wringing their hands, waiting for voices to rise in outraged protest at the abolition of the economy wrecking green machine. And NO VOICES ARE RISING. Its like they’re expecting divine intervention, retribution from Gaia, for lightning to strike the Abbott government dead, for a series of climate cataclysms to drive the wilful, ignorant, selfish voters back into their congregation – and this SIMPLY ISN’T HAPPENING.
Isn’t the biggest miss the lack of increased water vapor, without which the whole scenario falls apart. Temperature is just a poorly measured end state, the core science was increased CO2 triggers a positive feedback in water vapor, which is a more significant greenhouse gas and thus warming, and melting, and inundating, etc.
That positive feedback (increased atmospheric water vapor) is measurable, its being measured, how does it meet the model’s prediction?
jai mitchell says:
“Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.”
—————————–
I just so love a good monster story jai,, but this one doesn;t frighten, it’s not realistic….
With the recent news (and science) against global warming, are you seeing a decrease in people spreading misinformation about global warming? Or, is the fear-mongering about the same?
Wayne
luvsiesous.com
It wasn’t a 1,000 year storm. The recent Colorado flood was nowhere near as devastating as the 1921 Pueblo Flood with 1500 dead and 15 ft water levels over a solid 300 sq. miles area, even though the recent flood included five additional counties and naturally covered a wider series of affected areas. Boulder got 18 inches of rain. The average rainfall in Boulder is 20.7 inches. Stop overstating things.
Your chart doesn’t show that. It only goes to 2003/2004. I live in the west. The cities haven’t built an intelligent means of capturing the heavy rains and dumping them into the Colorado River, so we get flash floods, and the resultant water seeks its lowest level and evaporates without a catchment system when it rains like a bathtub. We got the rains before Colorado. 24 days of it.
What is it with you guys and your breathless hyperbole? “1000 year storms.” “Biblical.” “1,870 times more destructive.” “Since modern records have begun.” “Exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.” [What a metaphorical turn of phrase that is. The Boogie Man from Mars is Comin’ to Getcha’, slouching through the heavens and hiding behind the clouds.]
And you always end your town crier taunts with disdain for readers, and sneer that “It is time to grow up and take responsibility for our situation.” Wag-wag-wag. There’s zero chance you have a PhD in climate science or geological physics behind your real name; the content of your argumentation and logic shows us that much.
Jai says; The Colorado flood was 1,870 times more destructive than flooding in previous decades (based on area affected and length of time for high water levels) it has produced an estimate of 2 billion dollars of damage so far, Boulder received an annual amount of rainfall in 1 week. It is a 1000 year storm.
Ummm…no. Similar floods occurred in just the last century. The 1921 flood virtually destroyed Pueblo and killed an estimated 1,500. A 1965 storm devastated Denver delivering 14 inches of rain in about 3 hours flooding some 250,000 acres. In 1976 a torrential storm killed 144. The recent storm, though tragic, was most certainly not 1,870 times more destructive than these storms. Sounds good, though.
They banned it in the USA and Canada. Order from amazon.co.uk with your Amazon US username and password.
jmitchell;
Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m curious. Coming from someone who demonstrated that he couldn’t correctly google the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, that he didn’t understand that dividing by two twice was the same as dividing by four, and that P varying with T^4 was the same as T varying with P^1/4, I’ve just gotta ask:
Do you even know what exponential means?
The basic reason for keeping the computer models in the UN-IPCC is that it gives a fig leaf of cover and added sustenance for big governments the world over. By reciting the UN-IPCC mantra allows these governments to steal evermore money through onerous carbon taxes, a large portion of which funds the UN and their NGOs.
So the computer model will not go as long as the funding merry-go-round keeps turning. Giving you –
Big Government,
Big Tax,
Big UN,
Big Fraud.
Don’t think so look-up Agenda 21
Do you know what “high treason” means?
It is our duty to act accordingly, starting with the President of the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason
High Treason and Crimes Against Humanity.
From policycritic on September 19, 2013 at 8:07 pm:
Banned?
The Amazon listing for the paperback says it’s out of print, but there’s no price. Looks like a placeholder. Says publication date was Sept 12.
It’s available here from a UK seller featuring free worldwide shipping, sort of. It’s taking pre-orders, currently says “11 days to go”, the bibliographic info says publication date is 01 October.
That UK seller is the only one Google Shopping found.
Here on WUWT it was announced the English version would be out Sept 1.
Amazon Canada says:
Looks like the publisher blew the original release date, what there was of the first run quickly evaporated, the UK seller is the only one showing up because they’re taking pre-orders while Amazon in North America, wary of getting burned, waits to see what supply will actually be available.
Amazon UK says: “Usually dispatched within 10 to 13 days.” I’m not seeing a “check availability” option. That range is within the ship date of that UK seller. Amazon UK can risk a bit more by taking orders as essentially they just have to drive across town and get them right from the publisher.
Banned? I don’t think so.
Reminds me of “Earth Versus Flying Saucers”.
In this case “Flying Saucers” = Obama + IPCC.
Both of the “Saucers” have an apparent short shelf life I would observe. That is good for Earth and Humanity.
🙂
Sonoma State University located in Rohnert Park, California (Northern California) has the following ‘survey’ under way. Those interested can easily participate and by doing so you qualify for a $50 Visa gift card. https://uweauclaire.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_eXsZXUL6P8kplYh
Late night conjecture on your part. The American distributor of the UK publisher refused to carry it. I checked.
This is off-the-wall.
This is the 21st C. The US distributor/publisher would do POD (Print On Demand) through Lightning Source just like every other printer in the US dealing with Amazon.
No books were sold through amazon.com or amazon.ca. I checked.
Greg Goodman says:
September 19, 2013 at 3:04 pm
///////////////////
That is so, but it is important to bear in mind that it is also a 2 degC rise from pre-industrial temperature levels. Obviously, going back that far, there is particular uncertainty as to what the temperature was in pre industrial times. Are we to take this as the temperature during the LIA, or the end of the LIA (and if so when precisely did the LIA end?
So there is quite some uncertainty, but it is reasonable to conclude that we have already had at least 0.8degC warming of the projected 2degC rise (that would really be just the warming since the late part of the 19th century) and strongly arguably some 1.2degC (if not slightly more) of the projected warming if one considers that the pre-industrial times were the end of the 18th/very beginning of the 19th century.
That being the case, it may be that by 2050 (the projected date for 540ppm of CO2), there will only be a further 0.8deg warming from today’s temperature. That does not sound very alarming to me.
Indeed, when considering the effects of global warming, we neeed precise regional data as to where the warming will occur and to what extent. Of course, one major problem is that it is accepted that the models do not perform well on a regional basis (of course, they are also completely hopeless on a global basis, but that is another issue) so it is difficult to project how the warming will impact and what effect it really will have. If you do not know where it is going to be warmer, nor by how much, it is impossible to estimate whether the warming will be a net benefit to the world, or whether problems will occur. This is why the forecasts of impending doom are fundamentally flawed save other than the most general of claims regarding sea level rise (which of course, is neither accelerating, nor taking place at an alarming rate – all indicators are that at the present steady rate that is currently being observed, adaption will be easy and not expensive).
PS. I am sceptical of all claims regarding warming and the reasons therefore, so I am not endorsing the above figures or that increasing CO2 emissions will lead to a significant warmer globe. Presently, based upon the 33 satellite data in which there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature changes, climate sensitivity appears so low that it is presently unmeasurable (ie., it’s signal cannot be extracted from the noise of natural variation).
Amazon doesn’t drive across town to pick up books from a publisher. Instead, the publisher or author (who has his own publishing company) emails the book file to Lightning Source in the US, Great Britain, or many of its many other locations worldwide. Lightning Source prints according to Amazon orders, which its computers are linked into, and ships to Amazon distribution warehouses.
rogerknights says:
September 19, 2013 at 4:43 pm
//////////////////////////
Further, this is not an accadmic award, or a science award, but rather the peace award.
The granting of a nobel peace award does not suggest that the recipient has any particularly strong accumen or inteligence. The peace award in recent times has become somewhat of a misnomer and I am far from certain that it commands any respect.From recent awards, it would appear a useful attribute to be a terrorist, former terrorists or in some other way have blood on your hands. It appears that to deal in death would stand one in good straights in the opinion of the awarding committee. It seems to me that the IPCC fits these attributes well since the policies which they have helped form have no doubt led to many deaths and missery. In the UK, there has been a significant increase in the premature deaths of the elderly in winter due to fuel poverty, people have died on the roads because local councils have got rid of their gritters because they were advised that snow would be a thing of the past, using agricultural land for bio fuels has exacerbated food shortages (the amount of grain/wheat the US exports has dropped significantly these past 10 or so years) and leading to hunger, starvation and misery in the developing world, some commentators claim that this was partly responsible for the arab spring which has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths (if one includes the Libyan and Syrian conflicts), it has kept those in the developing world shackled to poverty and early mortality due to restricting their use of energy production. Not a record to be proud of but appears quite fitting for a Nobel Peace Laureat. Personally, I would want to give that a miss and I would not wish for my character to be stained in that way. Not sure how these people sleep at night bearing the missery and suffering they have brought on the world when it appears that all they have observed in multi-decadel natural variation.
Jimbo says:
September 19, 2013 at 4:45 pm
/////////////////
You could add the late 1950s when the two nuclear submarines (Skate and Nautilus) surfaced at the North Pole. Arctic ice during this time was particularly thin and would appear less extensive than today.
Alarmists are lucky they have Arctic sea ice anomalies as all their other scare stories/predictions are entirely baseless.
However, Arctic ice extent is all about changes in ocean currents, soot levels, salinity levels, natural climate cycles and possible deep seated hydrothermal activity, all subjects too complex for alarmists to consider.
Jimbo says: September 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Medieval Warm Period – Dr. Michael Mann
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf
Quite cute how Mann in his chapter there Mann renames it the Medieval Climate Optimum, perhaps to avoid calling it warm (as in MWP). But in the process he is inferring a warmer climate is ideal, as also is used in referring to the Holocene Climate Optimum, (the early part of the Holocene which was warmer than today).
Though I believe Mann has more recently attempted to rename the MWP/MCO as the MCA; the Medieval Climate Anomaly.
Wow, this should have been open to outside reviewers. I also liked the grey literature they used.
I am all for a red team/blue team approach, but this document doesnt come close to the transparency we get from the IPCC.
Jimbo. Just so you know…
It’s the Loss making, low circulation Grauniad.
DaveE.
jai mitchel: “5. Sea ice is not normal, not even close. it is almost tied with 2009 levels as shown in the following graph (curve) ”
The whole concept of “normal” is meaningless when we only have 34 years of data to look at. While I would question the cliam that it’s “back to normal” for the same reason, the whole problem is idea that the average of the record since the arbitrary date at which me started looking has anything to do with “normal”.
We started looking at a lowe point in globel temperature and are just past a high point. OF COURSE ice area has been dropping. That does not signal the end of the world.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=521&action=edit&message=1
The rest is stupidity. Mostly deliberate.
Peter Miller says: Alarmists are lucky they have Arctic sea ice anomalies as all their other scare stories/predictions are entirely baseless.
The arctic is the last bastion of this disingenuous stupidity. Temps reached a ‘plateau’ since 2000 and this will necessarily take some time to play out in the ice record. Melting is now slowing as I showed here:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/16/inter-decadal-variation-in-northern-hemisphere-sea-ice/
this is in accord with integrating excess temperature which shows the drop in ice slowing down matches the temperature plateau. A rough estimation suggests a time constant of about 8 years characterises the response.
That means we are at the beginning of a ‘hiatus’ in ice loss. They are just going to wait for another 17 years before admitting there’s a problem.
The Green Agenda poses the biggest threat against our civilization since Hitler, Stalin and the Cold War.
We have arrived at the eve of total destruction of the Free West, the loss of autonomy of National States end the biggest genocide since the Second World War.
That the Green Agenda has nothing to do with the protection of the world’s ecosystems becomes clear when we look at the scale of Palm Oil production at the costs of tropical forests and the idiotic plans to burn our biosphere as a alternative fuel in our coal plants, resulting in the destruction of our forests on an industrial scale.
The Green Agenda is a “Human Induced Extinction Event”.
Just read every letter of the UN Agenda 21 and http://green-agenda.com
er van de website http://green-agenda.com
The UN IPCC is part of the criminal organization executing the destruction of our civilization.
Steven Mosher says:
September 19, 2013 at 11:01 pm
Wow, this should have been open to outside reviewers. I also liked the grey literature they used.
I am all for a red team/blue team approach, but this document doesnt come close to the transparency we get from the IPCC.
Since you didn’t include any specific reference to back up your claim they included gray literature, this sounds like so much mudslinging. However, that’s what I’ve come to expect from Mosher posts.
Oops, posted an ‘edit’ link above . Here’s graph:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=521
jai mitchell says:
“Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.”
Yet the IPCC persist in their anti-science climate change denial. Enough.
Bloomberg throughout see this as negative! potentially, Australia could lead the world back to climate sanity – what’s not to like?
19 Sept: Brisbane Times: Bloomberg: Abbott’s win seen stoking anti-carbon price sentiment elsewhere
The failure of Australia, the biggest emitter per capita among the world’s richest nations, to entrench its carbon price is emboldening opponents of fledgling emissions markets from South Africa to California and dimming prospects for a new global climate treaty…
“People who want a reason not to implement some form of emissions reduction would be able to point to Australia and say: they haven’t, why should we?” said Grant Anderson, a Melbourne-based partner specialising in carbon regulations for electricity, LNG and coal at Allens, a global law firm. “That’s the whole thing about international agreements. Once one party decides not to put forward a stronger commitment that was expected, it’s an excuse for others.”…
Abbott’s victory has strengthened the case against a carbon tax set to start in 2015 in South Africa, Nazrien Kader, head of Deloitte LLP’s local taxation practice, said in an e-mail. The country delayed the plan in April after metals companies such as ArcelorMittal South Africa Ltd. and Gold Fields Ltd. objected…
“We can only hope that it strongly influences the South African government’s stance,” Kader said. “A carbon tax has virtually no support from business.”
The American Energy Alliance, a Washington-based group that promotes fossil fuels, posted a note on Facebook on Sept. 11 saying “poor energy policies won’t get you re-elected” above a map of Australia. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a Sept. 5 statement that US lawmakers should learn from Australia’s “carbon tax failure.”…
Repeal of Australia’s carbon price would discourage cap-and-trade programs worldwide, Frank Jotzo, director at the Australian National University’s Centre for Climate Economics and Policy in Canberra, said…
“Australia is much more important internationally in these matters than its share of global emissions might suggest,” Jotzo said…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/carbon-economy/abbotts-win-seen-stoking-anticarbon-price-sentiment-elsewhere-20130919-2u2ek.html
See what happens to your country’s competitiveness when politicians believe in the IPCC report contents:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10321173/Germany-industry-in-revolt-as-green-dream-causes-cost-spiral.html
“Germany industry in revolt as green dream causes cost spiral
Germany’s top economic adviser has called for a radical rethink of the country’s energy policies, warning that the green dream is going badly wrong as costs spiral out of control”.
This wave of “unreality” is also hitting the shores of United Kingdom.
@mosher
“….the transparency we get from the IPCC.”
You forgot the sarc tags.
Steven Mosher says:
September 19, 2013 at 11:01 pm
I am all for a red team/blue team approach, but this document doesnt come close to the transparency we get from the IPCC.
OK, I’ll bite. The number being quoted everywhere is the IPCC’s 95% certainty that most warming results from human activities. If the IPCC is as transparent as you say, care to tell us what they measured and how they calculated that number?
Hey come on… 0bama got the Nobel Peace Prize simply for not being George Bush.
There may have been a time when the Peace Prize had meaning. That time is not our time.
“Once again, it’s the NIPCC versus the IPCC”
The ‘Clash of the Titans’ over again. Reviewers said last time around:
“I like the energy, the imagination, the silliness”
“all flash, trash, and crash”
“mildly entertaining regurgitation”
“good actors going for the paycheck and using beards and heavy makeup to hide their shame”
“most outstanding achievement is the ability to be both chaotic and dull”
This new head to head will, I’m sure, live up to such a fine legacy
“Instead of employing the scientific method to prove or disprove its CO2-driven climate disaster hypothesis, using empirical evidence, the IPCC has routinely assumed its hypothesis is correct – and used selected data that support its claims, while ignoring anything that contradicts them, and refusing to debate any scientists who disagree with them.”
— Standard BBC tactics. They’ve been acting exactly like this for decades, and still are.
“Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%).”
Yet almost everyone still seems oblivious as to WHEN we live!
Come on IPCC/NIPCC, it’s half-precession plus a few centuries and counting. The sun has gone all quiet on us. The PDO went negative a few years ago, the AMDO is soon to follow.
I await a cogent consideration, aside from http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf, as to why the Holocene will/should/might go long.
I’m waiting……
waiting……
It’s also an attack on capitalism?
I mean they are demonizing almost everything that big company(capital) produces? Food, meat, tobacco, cars, airplanes, etc etc.. If you read up on Agenda 21 you will find that mostly everything we do today is not sustainable for “Mother Earth” and will have to be stopped.
But When I look at all the solutions I get the creepy feeling of Dejavu with the 1950’s? Or is it more beeing easier to come along for a walk in the “Sinai desert” when we have nothing to loose or fight for?
The weak point of our western societies is an uninformed and hysterical public.
In Germany decades of misinformations about nuclear power caused the shut down of the entire nuclear power industry.
Today misinformation about CO2 is causing the shut down of our economies.
And so it happens that people find themselves protesting a coal fired power plant under freezing conditions and snow.
Even the Gore effect is unable to change the mindset of the misinformed masses.
Thank our media for that.
nothing left for the IPCC, except for the factions to battle it out amongst themselves. nonetheless, no to geoengineering – just shut the IPCC down:
20 Sept: Guardian: Russia urges UN climate report to include geoengineering
The Russian government is asking for ‘planet hacking’ to be included in the climate science report, leaked documents show
by Martin Lukacs, Suzanne Goldenberg and Adam Vaughan
Russia is pushing for next week’s landmark UN climate science report to include support for controversial technologies to geoengineer the planet’s climate, according to documents obtained by the Guardian…
Such ideas are increasingly being discussed by western scientists and governments as a plan B for addressing climate change, with the new astronomer royal, Professor Sir Martin Rees, calling last week for such methods to buy time to develop sources of clean energy. But the techniques have been criticised as a way for powerful, industrialised nations to dodge their commitments to reduce carbon emissions…
Responding to efforts to discredit the climate science with a spoiler campaign in advance of the report, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra K Pachauri, said he was confident the high standards of the science in the report would make the case for climate action. He said: “There will be enough information provided so that rational people across the globe will see that action is needed on climate change.”…
Observers have suggested that Russia’s admission that it is developing geoengineering may put it in violation of the UN moratorium on geoengineering projects established at the Biodiversity Convention in 2010 and should be discussed on an emergency basis when the convention’s scientific subcommittee meets in Montreal in October…
Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America director of the technology watchdog ETC Group, said: “We have been warning that a few geoengineering advocates have been trying to hijack the IPCC for their agenda. We are now seeing a deliberate attempt to exploit the high profile and credibility of this body in order to create more mainstream support for extreme climate engineering. The public and policymakers need to be on guard against being steamrollered into accepting dangerous and immoral interventions with our planet, which are a false solution to climate change. Geoengineering should be banned by the UN general assembly.”…
Sweden, Norway and Germany expressed more scepticism about geoengineering and asked that the report underline its potential dangers.
“The information on geoengineering options is too optimistic as it does not appropriately reflect the current lack of knowledge or the high risks associated with such methods,” noted the German government.
Geoengineering is expected to play a much larger role in the next IPCC reports coming out in 2014. Observers were surprised that it had turned up in this first major report – meant to assess physical science rather than mitigation strategies.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/19/russia-un-climate-report-geoengineering
O.T. but well worth a look.
Greenpeace will find out it doesn’t pay to p*** off the Russians 🙂
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130918/183548105/Shots-Fired-in-Arctic-Over-Greenpeace-Protest-at-Oil-Rig.html
More breaking news
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130920/183600132/Greenpeace-Russia-Conflict-Grows-Into-Diplomatic-Spat-With-Guns.html
The Russians should have left Greenpeace alone. This is just another stunt from them ahead of the latest IPCC sermon. The last three stunts from GP in London have largely been ignored by everyone, including the mass media. And if GP’s stunts can’t get more than a few lines in the Guardian then they must be in trouble.
Oh goodie, it is hoped this escalates in order to bring the real authority behind Greenpeace to the surface,..for to be sure it will the same shadowy elite behind the IPCC farce…
“The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation, until they have been validated [by comparison to actual observations] and shown to have predictive value.”
I should just like to point out that just because a model output agrees with observation doesn’t make the model algorithms correct. In the case of climate models, agreement with actuals is more likely to be the result of tweaking certain input parameters, or modifying certain algorithms within the model to obtain the desired output than to be the result of the modeler’s extremely nuanced, sophisticated understanding of each and every factor contributing to climate. We have seen plenty of this tweaking (both with inputs – think Yamal, and with algorithms) with the hockeystick business and one thing that shows the HS models are incorrect is that they do not reflect the actuals at the same time they predict the disastrous future they have been tweaked to produce. Because unless the models accurately reflect climate reality they simply cannot reproduce past observation and produce reliable forecasts.
The reliance on obviously incorrect models as the only source of climate prediction is a huge bar to good science. Let’s understand once and for all that a climate model, absent a rigorous and complete understanding of how world climate actually works, is just a program embodying a series of subjective guesses and tweaks. It is no more reliable than that. We need to stop accepting that the models represent “science” – because they don’t.
@Steven Mosher says:
September 19, 2013 at 11:01 pm
“The number being quoted everywhere is the IPCC’s 95% certainty that most warming results from human activities.”
Steven you are miss-quoting. You are mixing IPCC 2007 (most global warming) with IPCC 2013 (95% confidence).
Read the weasel words carefully in AR5. “More than half” it says.
As you have so ably demonstrated so many times, the point of weasel words is to communicate with multiple possible meanings while executing a genuflection toward reasoned comment. That is why you are continually asked to give more substance to your posts.
The IPCC raises the confidence and lowers the contribution. That is not a primary conclusion, it is downright pre-primary and only dupes repeat it. You are smarter than that.
Speaking of the need for common sense, someone should have the courage to “speak truth to power” (a favorite boast of liberals), and ask the fundamental question: where is our present climate in relationship to the optimum? Are we below optimum levels of CO2 for a healthy biosphere or above it? Is the temperature above or below optimum? Is our ability to grow grain for food above or below the optimum?
Answers to the Good Questions raised by theBuckWheat on September 20, 2013 at 5:23 am
Speaking of the need for common sense, someone should have the courage to “speak truth to power” (a favorite boast of liberals), and ask the fundamental questions:
1. Where is our present climate in relationship to the optimum? Somewhat cooler than the optimum.
2. Are we below optimum levels of CO2 for a healthy biosphere or above it? Far below optimum CO2 levels, but improving.
3. Is the temperature above or below optimum? Below optimum – see #1.
4. Is our ability to grow grain for food above or below the optimum? Below optimum but improving – see #2.
Regards, Allan
Katherine says:
September 19, 2013 at 11:28 pm
Katherine – just do what I do and just ignore S.M. posts. I made a New Year’s resolution this year not to respond to S.M. posts because they had become cryptic, incoherent, poorly worded, and often did not add anything to the topic being discussed. And rather than argue his points, in many cases he simply makes a drive-by posting and ignores any future postings. It’s just not worth debating anyone in that manner. I may disagree with Jai Mitchell, but at least he makes his points with clearly written paragraphs so you know exactly where he stands. Ditto for others on the warmist side who we frequently debate here at WUWT.
From Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yogyakarta on September 20, 2013 at 4:57 am:
But Crispin, you are actually quoting Philip Bradley’s comment on September 20, 2013 at 12:12 am that addressed Mosher, not Mosher himself.
And why are you saying Mosher is quoting like a young girl?
So dozens of wild predictions based on miniscule data have not come to pass and now don’t appear to be, and we’re picking on terms like “normal”?
“OMG the sky is green!”
“No, it’s quite blue”.
“Yeah, but still….”
I’m curious. If the NIPCC’s science is so much better than the IPCC’s, why doesn’t the NIPCC subject their findings to any kind of peer review?
REPLY: Instead of dismissing it snootily from the halls of academia, why not read it? – Anthony
For some reason I come to think of the Oracle of Delfi when I read short interventions from Mosher. Am I deluded?
@Jai Mitchell
1. Selecting an arbitrary start date that happens to coincide with the abnormally high 1998 temperatures, which then became the “new normal” for the next decade or so doesn’t mean that warming has stopped.
It hasn’t been the new normal, we have been COOLING since then.
2. A reduction in hurricane activity is predicted by climate models due to increased wind shear and dry air, both of which have contributed to the decline of hurricane activity
Then why did Al Gore and the IPCC hype increased hurricane FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY as a consequence of global warming??? You are claiming something completely opposite of the previous predictions of Al Gore and the IPCC and saying it is consistent with the prior prediction. Please stop lying.
3. Tornado frequency is not a climate change indicator
Then why is it that every time there actually is a big tornado, like in Missouri or Oklahoma, do we hear everyone on the Weather Channel attempting to blame it on climate change???
4. The west is experiencing a drought that started in 2000 and has continued through to today, the Colorado river is now experiencing its lowest flow levels since modern records have begun. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3062/images/fig3.gif
Then please explain all of the abundant rain they have had in New Mexico and Colorado this year!
5. Sea ice is not normal, not even close. it is almost tied with 2009 levels as shown in the following graph (curve) http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HistSummerArcticSeaIceExtent.jpg
When you are talking about Sea Ice, you have to talk about GLOBAL sea ice, which includes the Southern Hemisphere. Globally, Sea Ice has been pretty darn close to “normal” the entire year. Ignoring the Southern Hemisphere doesn’t make you look “smart”.
6. It WAS a cold summer (in the arctic) very very good!!!!!
Agree with you on this one; however, it would be well for you to recognize that it was a “cold” Summer in a lot of other places as well.
7. Sea level rates are a lagging indicator for global warming. These levels will continue to rise and they will increase in their rates of rise. We will be painfully aware of global warming long before sea levels become a major issue.
There is no proof whatsoever of your claim there in #7. Countless studies have shown absolutely no acceleration in sea level rise, and several recent studies have shown the rate of rise actually slowing as we start to cool.
This is the story that needs to get out. It is time for science to take control back from bad science. The apocalyptic climate alarmists should not be able to call those who do not follow them skeptics and deniers. The rest of us should be able to call them nuts and frauds.
Kon Dealer says:
September 20, 2013 at 2:08 am
O.T. but well worth a look.
Greenpeace will find out it doesn’t pay to p*** off the Russians 🙂
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130918/183548105/Shots-Fired-in-Arctic-Over-Greenpeace-Protest-at-Oil-Rig.html
Unlike some who like to “lead from behind” the Russians know what a Red Line means.
Kon Dealer says: September 20, 2013 at 2:08 am
O.T. but well worth a look.
Greenpeace will find out it doesn’t pay to p*** off the Russians 🙂
________________________________
Yes, the Ruskies to not pussy-foot around trying to be nice, like the West does. And I love all the scared twitter comments, by the stuuupid hand-wringing G.P. crew, as the Ruskies stormed their ship. The resounding bangs that could be heard were not Ruskie boots on locked cabin doors, but the sound of Luvvie Liberals comming into the real world with a resounding thud.
Actually, I’m surprised the Ruskies did not just ram the GP ship with their ice-breaker. That would have done us all a favour.
.
CodeTech says: September 20, 2013 at 12:59 am
Hey come on… 0bama got the Nobel Peace Prize simply for not being George Bush.
________________________________
And then he tried to start a war with Syria.
Did you hear the Nobel committee asking for 0bama’s Peace Prize to be returned? Me neither.
.
Not so fast Mr. PeterB in Indianapolis. Firstly the Arctic has had RECORD COLD THIS SUMMER in the “area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.” Take a look at the web page and go through all the years (I have as have others) and it’s a record for that area.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
It was a cold summer. Jai Mitchell. was trying to pull a fast one. Please don’t agree with Jai Mitchell without checking first. He’s that kinda guy, you have to look at everything he says or scoffs at for yourself.
ralfellis;
And then he tried to start a war with Syria.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Really? When was this? I recall the red line which turned into a pink line which then turned into a chalk line. Then, although he nonchalantly declared that if Congress didn’t take action on climate change, he’d take action without them. But a 100,000 people are dead in Syria, many of them civilians murdered en mass by their own government, and suddenly he needs the permission of Congress to take action?
He didn’t try to start a war. He pure bluffed, the Syrians and Russians called him on it and he’s now claiming he won as he makes an agreement with pure evil that will never be enforced.
Chris says:
September 20, 2013 at 6:32 am
I’m curious. If the NIPCC’s science is so much better than the IPCC’s, why doesn’t the NIPCC subject their findings to any kind of peer review?
REPLY: Instead of dismissing it snootily from the halls of academia, why not read it? – Anthony
————————
Unlike the UN’s IPeCaC, the NIPCC’s findings are based upon peer-reviewed literature, not grey area puffery & spurious pal-review that let’s anything pass which supports the Cause.
policycritic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/19/colorados-exceedingly-rare-flood-in-3-maps/
first graph shows the chance for the 24-hour rainfall total as less than 1/1000 so it is greater than a thousand year flood. This means that the chance for this happening in any one year is less than .001 .
PeterB in Indianapolis
1. only one temperature indicator suspiciously shows a decline in temperature since 1998, this indicator is not used in any credible scientific analysis that I have seen:
here is the graph
of course if you look one year after the abnormal spike that happened in 1998 you get this
So it really is a selection of data points, however only rss shows a decline in the period you claim.
2. I am not aware of Al gore’s hurricane predictions, I do know that the IPCC did show that hurricane activity was modeled to decline by 2100 with the model that showed the highest decline predicting >35% reduction in number of hurricanes by 2100. It should be noted that these same models predicted sea ice in the arctic to be gone in the summer of 2080 but now it looks like this will likely happen sometime in the next 10 years. — with regard to Al gore, I think you may be using him as a straw man argument, he is a politician not a scientist.
3. You are confusing news stories with science. It is a question whether or not tornado intensity is increased with climate change, however, I have not seen anyone with any kind of predictive model say what they think is going to happen under climate change. there are simply too many unknowns at this time. in any event, the variability of these events make it impossible to be absolutely sure they are caused by climate change, as Pielke jr. will tell you. What he WON’T tell you, however, is that by the time his models DO show that the events are statistically significant, we will have already experience thousands of deaths and billions of dollars of loss due to the increased storms and intensities.
4.that is the wrong watershed. that water all went into the Platte, new mexico got some extra rain this year, that is good, they rely on monsoonal flows. the western states rely on winter storm snowpack. today every county in California was declared a drought disaster area by the USDA, this is the driest 9 months in California state history. http://www.kmjnow.com/09/20/13/Most-of-California-Considered-Drought-Di/landing.html?blockID=714055&feedID=806
5. Global sea ice must be looked at as it affects the climate, not a total sum at any given time. In the polar winter season, with no sunlight, the sea ice acts as an insulation barrier that prevents heat loss to space. So more sea ice in the winter keeps the heat in. During the summer, less sea ice means more (much more) sunlight is absorbed by the ocean. So when comparing total annual sea ice one must look at the trends from summer (north) and winter (south) and add them together for the minimum that year.
It should be noted here that Antarctica has experienced declines in land-based ice. The increase in arctic sea ice is attributable to slowing down of the thermohaline circulation and resultant wind patterns caused by sea surface temperature anomalies. These variations are expected to happen.
6. with respect to this summer’s temperatures, I am not sure what you mean by “cold in a lot of places” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201308.gif This shows that it was incredibly warmer all over the globe. looking at a few small locations where it wasn’t is simply putting your head in the sand.
7. you are misinformed, we do experience and have witnessed sea level rise.
cheers!
jmitchell;
So more sea ice in the winter keeps the heat in. During the summer, less sea ice means more (much more) sunlight is absorbed by the ocean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Less ice in the summer would then also mean more (much more) energy (proper term, not heat) radiated to space. The balance of your arguments are similarly absent the facts regarding the system as a whole.
Repeat of Question: do you even know what exponential means?
William McClenney says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/real-climate-science-the-ipcc-doesnt-want-you-to-see/#comment-1421723
Henry says
well did you ever read my final report?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
some of my conclusions
1) I could not find in the data that any anomalous warming was caused by so-called GHG’s/.
The data showed that means increased because maxima were increasing, clearly indicating a natural process
2) Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations.
the cycle picked by me in the data for maxima is here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
3) The above cycle can be translated in a 100 (or 90-110 ) year weather cycle as noticeable from earth (means) which was already observed by William Arnold back in 1985 by looking at the flooding of the Nile.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
Interested?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
don’t tell me you are still waiting.
William McClenney says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/real-climate-science-the-ipcc-doesnt-want-you-to-see/#comment-1421723
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
interested in reading my final report on this?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
don’t tell me you are still waiting…
davidmhoffer
in the summer the sun is out all the time so the incoming radiation is much more than the potential longwave radiation escaping to space. that is why things heat up if you leave them in the sunshine.
Yes, more heat energy radiates out during the summer months in the arctic, just less than is coming in from the sunshine.
at night, however, it gets colder. In fact, in a cold, dry, sunless climate (like the Antarctic during the summer months) you can actually make ice by putting a copper dish with a thin coat of water out in under a clear night sky and make ice, even if the ambient temperature is greater than freezing. I’ve done it in the desert.
yes, do you?
William Mcclenney says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/19/real-climate-science-the-ipcc-doesnt-want-you-to-see/#comment-1421723
Henry says
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes
Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations.
Interested in my final report on this?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
don’t tell me you are still waiting.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 20, 2013 at 11:46 am
According to predictions from several Russian meteorological services, Europe could see abnormally low temperatures this coming winter. It might even be the coldest winter in the last 100 years.
[trimmed]
Highlights:
•This winter will be extremely cold
•European countries will be the most affected
•Atlantic jet stream and low solar activity are the reasons
•Russia temperatures more likely to be within normal range
http://jurnalul.ro/stiri/observator/iarna-care-vine-va-fi-cea-mai-rece-din-ultimii-100-de-ani-experti-rusi-651891.html
Thanks to Alex Tanase for this link
The truth will ALWAYS come out sooner or later, in this case it was sooner. By decade end AGW theory will be gone.
My average solar parameter theory states if these solar parameters are attained folllowing several years of sub-solar activity in general the temperature trend is going to be down.Sub solar activity in general started in year 2005.
THEY ARE:
solar flux avg. sub 90.
solar wind spped avg. sub 350 km/sec.
ap index avg. sub 5.0 some spikes the other 1% of the time.
cosmic ray count per min. north of 6500.
e 10.7 flux avg. sub 100.
solar irradiance avg. off .015% or more.
This over a duration of time of 3 plus years.
Some Secondary effects
A more meridional atmospheric circulation due to ozone distribution changes in the stratosphere due to very low EUV light values. In turn a more meridional atmospheric circulation will result in more clouds, precip., and snow cover for the N.H. Colder temperatures ,increase in albedo.
Low solar wind will result in an increase in galactic cosmic rays (also have to take into account the strength of earth’s magnetic field, which when weak will compound solar effects) which will result in an increase in clouds ,lower temperatures.
Weak solar irradiance will result in weaker amounts of visible light penetrating the ocean surface ,result will be lower ocean heat content.
Low ap index with spikes will promote more volcanic activity as will an increase in galactic cosmic rays ,many studies have shown. Mr. Casey of the Space and Science Center has research in support of this.
An increase in volcanic activity if high latitude will contribute to warming the stratosphere in the higher latitudes resulting in a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern, while at the same time cool the surface of the earth due to so2 particles reflecting incoming sunlight.
Some speculate that the cold phase of the PDO( more la ninas ,less el ninos) is tied into prolonged solar activity ,due to rotational changes in the earth ,due to an increase in gelogical activity.
That is my basic take, easily falsified if the solar parameters I said are reached and the climate does not show a decline in the temperature trend.
Oh give it a rest. One year when ice extent just creeps into the 2-sigma error band is not even worth comment. The trend for arctic ice extent is down. I spend a fair bit of time arguing with the pro-AGW crowd on blogs such as the Guardian and such like. I’m frankly fed up of dealing with nonsense like this which makes all sceptics look like statistical ignoramuses.
Yes I did – and even then there is no statistical evidence to state that the warming has stopped. The Hadcrut4 trend between 1975 and 2000 was around 0.19 deg per decade; the trend between 1996 and 2013 (17 years) is 0.1 deg per decade. Trends with error bars are as follows.
1975-2000 0.187 ±0.072 °C/decade (2σ)
1996-2013 0.094 ±0.122 °C/decade (2σ)
Note there is NO statistically significant difference between the 2 trends. In other words there is no statistical evidence (at 95% CI level) that the warming rate since 1975 has changed.
Do you fancy a wager? It’ll save me the trip to Las Vegas.
Oh, and by the way, I’ve just spent a fair proportion of the last week and a half arguing against die-hard warmers on Guardian blogs. I don’t think I’m what you would call an ‘alarmist’.
Jean Parisot says: @ September 19, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Isn’t the biggest miss the lack of increased water vapor, without which the whole scenario falls apart….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it is one of the three BIG LIES that support CAGW.
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere is another and that Global Temperature has any meaning at all.
Actually with a flat temperature and a decline in water vapor you have a net decline in energy if I am not mistaken.
John Finn says:
September 20, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Trends stay the same until they switch, whether in climate or financial markets. Arctic sea ice minimum might or might not be smaller next year, but “invariably & by a lot” seem to me not very justifiable forecasts to make, especially for a statistician.
Also, please analyze RSS or another satellite data set for supposed global temperature, since HadCRU is one of the more heavily “adjusted” series.
Thanks.
John Finn says:
September 19, 2013 at 3:51 pm
Please explain why you are sure that Arctic sea ice will invariably be much lower next year. Following the 2007 record minimum, extent was higher in 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011. Probably would also have been in 2012 but not for the freak August storm.
So IMO odds are pretty good that not just 2013, but 2014, 2015 & 2016 could also stay above the dramatic 2012 low, & not vary greatly from this year’s recovery. But who, expect I guess you, can know the future with such certainty?
Chris says:
September 20, 2013 at 6:32 am
I’m curious. If the NIPCC’s science is so much better than the IPCC’s, why doesn’t the NIPCC subject their findings to any kind of peer review?
REPLY: Instead of dismissing it snootily from the halls of academia, why not read it? – Anthony
Reading it or not reading it is irrelevant to the point made. I’ve seen many criticisms on this site regarding papers and the IPCC not allowing comments from all, including AGW skeptics. A simple question – did the NIPCC allow comments and input to their report from outside parties, including AGW believers?
Dan says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Sonoma State University located in Rohnert Park, California (Northern California) has the following ‘survey’ under way….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
A rather prejudice survey. The did not have ‘Other’ or H..L NO! as an answer where I would have like them
milodonharlani says:
September 20, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Should have written “if not”.
Here are the minimum Arctic sea ice extent numbers in sq. kms. from NSIDC, which differ from some other record keepers:
2006: 5.92
2007: 4.30
2008: 4.73 (+10% gain)
2009: 5.39 (+14%)
2010: 4.93
2011: 4.63
2012: 3.63
2013: 5.10 (+40.5%)
I know what “invariably” means, but not sure about “much lower”. After the 2007 record low, 2008 was higher, followed by an even higher minimum year. Next year could be another build, with more multi-year ice, but might not be. It’s weather, after all.
jai mitchell says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:59 am
in a cold, dry, sunless climate (like the Antarctic during the summer months)
Jeez, you talk some nonsense. The area south of the Antarctic Circle gets more daily solar radiation at the summer solstice than anywhere else on Earth, at any time of the year.
Crispin, I was aware I was paraphrasing AR5. I was too lazy to look up the direct quote.
jmitchell;
Yes, more heat energy radiates out during the summer months in the arctic, just less than is coming in from the sunshine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s during a short time period. There is a larger time period when the days start to shorten, the nights lengthen, and the ice cover doesn’t yet exist. The result is more (much more) cooling than if the ice existed. You keep grossly over simplifying the problem and demonstrating that you only want to consider those aspects of it that match your belief system.
As for your contention that you understand what exponential means, your discussion of the math regarding average surface temperature in another thread suggests that you don’t. That aside, your use of the term up thread also demonstrates that you do not understand the term, or the physics involved, or both. The direct effects of CO2 increases are logarithmic. Even including feedbacks, the effects are logarithmic. The climatic changes driven by CO2 increases are consequently also logarithmic. Your statement that the dangers are increasing exponentially is unsupportable.
Sasha says:
September 20, 2013 at 1:14 am
“Instead of employing the scientific method to prove or disprove its CO2-driven climate disaster hypothesis, using empirical evidence, the IPCC has routinely assumed its hypothesis is correct – and used selected data that support its claims……
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of Course that was the mandate from the very start. After all how else will you scare humans into doing what you want.
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” ~ Daniel Botkin emeritus professor Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” ~ Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
The IPCC mandate states:
That is not about understanding what causes climate change at all.
Pascal Lamy of the World Trade Organization tells us the actual ‘Cause’.
Kon Dealer says: @ September 20, 2013 at 2:08 am
O.T. but well worth a look.
Greenpeace will find out it doesn’t pay to p*** off the Russians 🙂
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130918/183548105/Shots-Fired-in-Arctic-Over-Greenpeace-Protest-at-Oil-Rig.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Seems Greenpeace can’t take a hint. The Russian just ran them off earlier this summer without shooting at them.
davidmhoffer
The temperature projections for the next 100 years follow an exponential curve. This is due to the continued accumulation of CO2 and a lag effect, it takes time for the earth to warm so we have a buildup happening.
Therefore the future dangers are going to grow exponentially until they come so fast and hard that there will be no possible way to adapt to them. That is why we must curtail CO2 emissions on a global scale immediately.
Your simplistic assertion that the dangers associated with climate change follow the logarithmic CO2 temp dependence curve belies your muddied comprehension of the natural responses to climate change by in a warming environment.
for example,
In our (earth’s) recent history, during the Eemian, this has proven to be true, During this period, the earth was slightly warmer than it is today, just slightly. Back then, during the latter portion of the Eemian climactic optimum, It took thousands of years to warm from the point that we were at only a few hundred years ago. Then, after sea levels had stabilized for several thousand years, the world’s sea level rose by over 17 feet within a period that is less than 1,000 years. The actual time period was very likely much shorter than that (since 1,000 years is the shortest timespan that we can pull from the record)
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/did-an-ice-sheet-collapse-120000-years-ago-pushing-sea-levels-up-to-9m-higher-than-today/
“he was confident that the 17-foot jump happened in less than a thousand years – how much less, he cannot be sure.”
From policycritic on September 19, 2013 at 10:12 pm:
Loser. I logged on to Amazon US, did live chat. Nice person said to give them 24 hrs while they checked higher up.
BOOM. Amazon’s listing is now active. Hit “See All Buying Options” and you can order it from that UK seller through Amazon.
THE BOOK IS NOT BANNED IN THE US. All you had to do was ask nicely.
Click This:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Neglected-Sun-Precludes-Catastrophe/dp/1909022241
davidmhoffer
with regard to the arctic losing heat as fast as it gains it, you forgot to include surface mixing after the sea ice is melted and stratification of the ocean once the ice begins to return. If what you are saying is true then the sea ice should have recovered to levels closer to the 1980-2000 average after the ice melts of 2007 and 2012, instead, because of the thinness of the sea ice, they only partially recovered to be lost (will lose) more in latter years, below the previous minimum.
Arctic Ice Volumes
jmitchell;
The temperature projections for the next 100 years follow an exponential curve.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They absolutely do not. Below you will find a link to the United Nations IPCC AR4 WG1 (The Physical Basis) figure 10.26 showing quite conclusively that the curve is logarithmic. If you bother to read the chapter itself, you will find that this is repeated throughout the chapter. The papers and models referenced in the chapter all show a logarithmic relationship. In other words sir, you are making a claim that the most ardent and well published warmist scientists in the world say is false. It is bad enough that you don’t understand skeptic arguments, but you don’t understand the official climate science itself either. Where your fantasies of an exponential curve come from is beyond me, but they certainly don’t originate with science, warmist or skeptic.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
jmitchell;
with regard to the arctic losing heat as fast as it gains it, you forgot to include surface mixing after the sea ice is melted and stratification of the ocean once the ice begins to return. If what you are saying is true then the sea ice should have recovered to levels closer to the 1980-2000 average
Below you will find links to the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment results that show quite conclusively that the earth suffers a net loss of energy (proper terminology) in the arctic regions and is a net absorber of energy in the tropics. As to what should happen if what I am saying is true, I repeat, once again, the system is more complex than that and pointing out a single correct issue can result in no conclusions regarding the outcome of the system as a whole. Once again, you have over simplified matters in order to fit them to your belief system, the facts aren’t cooperating.
http://eos.atmos.washington.edu/cgi-bin/erbe/disp.pl?net.ann.
http://eos.atmos.washington.edu/erbe/
I suppose the IPCC scheduled their conference on the 27th September because they expected a new record minimum Arctic ice the week before, so they could trumpet this and then meet as the center of the world’s attention. But instead the Gore effect has struck, a cold arctic summer and the ice has bounced back so nobody is paying attention to the IPCC, poor guys.
davidmhoffer says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:03 am
So David, in your opinion, the President of the United States has the right to impose his will on the internal affairs of a sovereign state simply because the mass media have demonized its president?
There is a 9th Commandment for a very good reason.
Rather than embracing lies from the MSM, and applying your own spin, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the UN’s Friendly Relations Declaration, which reads in part:
And beyond that, we do have a law in these United States that only Congress can declare war.
2625 (XXV). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations
http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm
davidmhoffer
temperature projections:
the image you posted shows exactly what I am saying:
If you look at the first half of the CO2 and CH4 emissions profiles for the A1Fl emission scenario (the one that we are currently on) you will see that CO2 and CH4 increase until approximately 1/2 way through the time series. (about 2050) after that, emissions go down.
During that same period the temperature curve for the A1Fl follows closely to an exponential rate of increase, it actually slows down a bit from exponential just before 2050 because of the projected decreases in methane emissions (which we already know won’t happen because of what is going on in the arctic.)
So, look at the first half of the A1Fl temperature curve during the period that CO2 emissions continue to increase at current rates
then compare, does the curve look like a l0garithmic or exponential curve?
example logarithmic curve
davidmhoffer
no one doubts that the earth absorbs energy in the tropics and releases energy in the arctic of the course of the year. That isn’t what we are talking about. What is important is how those things are changing as conditions change.
The facts are clear, as summer arctic ice cover goes away, it not only affects the amount of heat energy absorbed in the arctic during the summer months (which is more than at the tropics during those same months) it also affects precipitation and jet stream paths all over the world.
jai mitchell:
At September 21, 2013 at 10:34 am
Really? “The facts are clear, as summer arctic ice cover goes away,” “it also affects precipitation and jet stream paths all over the world”.
Please provide your clear “facts” which show reduction of ARCTIC ice affects Antarctic precipitation and Southern Hemisphere jet stream paths.
Richard
thanks for trimming my previous post.
“existing climate models “are unable to make accurate projections of climate even ten years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners.”
Paul, this is all fine and good, but clinging to CO2 as the central cause of warming, they can still add on a load of feedbacks (arising from human activity) to make them fit. This may fix medium term predictions but with a totally invalid model. They will do this. What is needed is a return to the drawing board. I wish I had been seeing some thoughtful papers examining the Eschenbach Effect – what is basically wrong with the idea (supported by a few billion years of relative temperature stability) that warming or cooling is naturally countered by negative feedbacks, apparently with various lags? What if with ECS even at 10, or warming or cooling being caused by several agencies, the earth simply counters this, largely with the enthalpy of water’s phase changes, clouds, convection, speed up or slowdown of currents, biosphere reactions plus other things on the laundry list you have presented…. The inexorable swings between ice ages and interglacials with temperature amplitude restricted between 283 and 291K (or thereabouts) is the real elephant in the climatology room. Solve this first and then play with the wiggles until heart’s content. We do have a climate. Watching the crash and burn of a totally failed theory without apparent stimulus for investigating a whole new paradigm means there is not a lot of big science being done on either side of the debate.
jai mitchell says:
September 19, 2013 at 3:48 pm
“4. The west is experiencing a drought that started in 2000 and has continued through to today, the Colorado river is now experiencing its lowest flow levels since modern records have begun.
………………………………….
The Colorado flood was 1,870 times more destructive than flooding in previous decades (based on area affected and length of time for high water levels) it has produced an estimate of 2 billion dollars of damage so far, Boulder received an annual amount of rainfall in 1 week.”
Serious drought now followed by serious flash flooding. Who’da thunk? Lake Powell down drastically during recent drought, jumped 2 feet in a day and probably should continue to rise for a week or two and flooding in Nevada last month bumped up Lake Mead. jai, this is how it works in dry country. Note we stopped hearing about losing the snows of Kilimanjaro, the drought in the Sahel – Lake Chad shrinking. The snow is back, the Sahel is greening. Climatology is a young science and even the experts are in a learning exercise it seems. I’m old enough to have taught them some of this stuff having seen all these things both ways – I even climbed Kilimanjaro in the mid 1980s when there was no concern and the no-concern has now returned. I lived in the Red River of the North valley when the flood of the Century hit in 1950 and then had dust in my eyes, ears, and throat in the mid 50s Great Plains drought that was almost as bad as the 1930s drought. Both had brown air filling the skys and soil drifting around fences and behind poles and buildings. I didn’t catch much of the 30s drought but heard plenty later. The experts will eventually discover that a pendulum swings back and forth. Don’t worry about it. It’s been worse.
Steve P says:
September 21, 2013 at 7:37 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You entirely missed my point.
jmitchell says:
September 21, 2013 at 10:26 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sigh. I don’t see it as worthwhile to explain how the manner in which you are misreading the graphs. You clearly don’t understand what logarithmic means in this context, and you also don;t understand the science being presented to you by your own side of the argument. The IPCC’s own equation for calculating CO2’s effects is 5.35ln2(c2-c1/c1).
The ln2 in the equation represents natural log 2. If you think otherwise, I suggest you take it up with the IPCC and the various scientists on your side of the fence since it is they who you are claiming are wrong, so go argue with them.
davidmhoffer
your equation shows the instantaneous temperature change associated with a difference in CO2. I am talking about real world stuff. Your own equations showed that I was right. Just look at the projections of temperature for the RCP 8.5 scenario.
I understand your frustration. Look, it isn’t a big deal, you are right when you look at the instantaneous effects. I am right when you look at real scenarios that include continual buildup over time with a lag effect built in.
here is the temp projection for the new models. so far we are following the worst case scenario, but realize that even that worst case scenario shows massive cuts in CO2 emissions (and methane) beginning in the year 2050
http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/uploads/RCP_best_and_worst_CO2_emissions_Temp.png
jmitchell;
I understand your frustration. Look, it isn’t a big deal, you are right when you look at the instantaneous effects. I am right when you look at real scenarios that include continual buildup over time with a lag effect built in.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A better proof that you do not understand the terminology, the math, or the physics could not be had.
jai mitchell appears to have a screw loose. Probably several.
How can anyone be so completely wrong about everything — and yet manage to pay his cell phone bills, his rent, and his utilities? Maybe he lives in his mom’s basement?
So maybe his mother pays his bills. It’s hard to understand how someone like jai mitchell even functions in modern society. Either that, or he is a self-serving rider on the global gravy train grant-mobile.
I suspect the latter. No human could be that disconnected from reality, and still function in modern society. So he is probably raking in whatever he can by promoting the CAGW scare. At least, that is my analysis. Really, no one can be that scientifically illiterate, and mentally function on a site like this.
Am I right, or am I right?
The odds are that I’m right…
…please debate, if anyone disagrees.
dbstealey says:
September 21, 2013 at 9:51 pm
…please debate, if anyone disagrees.
>>>>.
He’s sort of a curiosity to me. His comments have grown considerably more sophisticated over the course of time since he first made his appearance on this blog, so he is certainly capable of learning. I think the problem is that he doesn’t understand how poor his grasp of the underlying math and physics is, and that the graphs he links to frequently don’t mean what he thinks they mean. Sorta reminds of an inverse version of Myrrh or Greg House.
Natural climate oscillations can flip in months. It’s just the weather but makes all the difference. 2013 has been a cold one in the Arctic. Don’t be fooled by trends and go on making assumptions. Now play with this tool and let me know whether any summer year was colder that 2013?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
dbstealey says:
davidmhoffer says:
haha, you guys are pretty funny. I have shown you to be wrong in your assumptions and beliefs time and time again.
It is a simple thing to check in now and then and debunk your current understanding.
for example. I said, “the dangers are increasing at an exponential level”
to which davidmhoffer says, “its logarithmic, you obviously don’t understand math”
and I say, “real world response to a constant increasing concentration with a 300-year lag time to final equilibrium produces an exponential curve. And then I show the graph for the temperature projects (<a href="http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/graphics/RadiativeForcingRCPs.jpg" shown here in red- for the years 2010 to 2050 when emissions continue to grow with no cuts).
to which dbstealey says: duh he doesn't get it
and davidmhoffer says, yeah, I know.
you guys are so busy obfuscating and giving each other emotional support that you can't face the facts. You don't understand even the most basic realities about what global warming is or how the earth will respond to it, how it has been affected in the past and what the beneficial effects will be when we actually start to cut emissions.
you don't think temperature is projected to increase on an exponential scale for the next 40 years (and longer if we don't start cutting emissions)?
look again at the graph.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/graphics/RadiativeForcingRCPs.jpg
jai mitchell cannot face the fact that exactly none of his nutty alarmist pseudo-science predictions have come to pass:
• Arctic ice is well within the constraints of the Null Hypothesis. During the current Holocene, Arctic ice completely disappeared in the past — during times when CO2 was extremely low. And:
• Antarctic ice is still rising, as it has for many decades. And:
• There is no “ocean acidification”, as is proven every day by the fact that the Monterey Bay aquarium’s ocean intake pipeline shows no pH change for decades. And:
• Sea level rise remains on the same long term trend line that it has been on for centuries; nothing either unprecedented or unusual is happening. And:
• The endlessly repeated prediction of a tropospheric hot spot [the so-called “Fingerprint of AGW”] has been totally debunked, via empirical observations. There is no “hot spot”, so the always shifty alarmist crowd now shifts their Belief up to the stratosphere, based on …nothing. And:
• There has now been no global warming for sixteen years, ten months. And…
…well, you get the idea. EVERY alarmist prediction has been thoroughly debunked. Not one computer climate model predicted the halt to global warming. They were all wrong! Yet ‘models’ are all that True Believers like mitchell have — because the real world is serially debunking every alarmist talking point, prediction, and belief.
We cannot reason with a True Believer like jai mitchell, whose only ‘authority’ is based on always-wrong computer models, because his Belief is emotion-based, not fact based. When compared with empirical [real world] evidence, the models are a total fail. But models are all that jai mitchell has. Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority — is debunking jai mitchell and everything he believes in. No wonder he is reduced to vague name-calling. Because the science is certainly not supporting his nutty catastrophic AGW Belief.
I no longer care what Obama says about anything. He was wildly wrong about Syria to the extent he ended up making even Putin look credible. Why would we begin to imagine he could be right on the climate?
“REPLY: Instead of dismissing it snootily from the halls of academia, why not read it? – Anthony”
Huh? I didn’t “dismiss it snootily,” I asked a valid question. Wondering why a scientific report hasn’t been peer reviewed is “snooty” now? Especially when the promoters of said report are bragging about how it is so much better than actual peer reviewed studies?
What might be snooty is if I point out that the institution responsible for the report you’re touting, the Heartland Institute, is about the least credible source of info I can imagine, having been paid by the tobacco companies in the 90s to lie about the impact of second-hand smoke. Now they are being paid by the oil companies to lie about global warming.
“Unlike the UN’s IPeCaC, the NIPCC’s findings are based upon peer-reviewed literature, not grey area puffery & spurious pal-review that let’s anything pass which supports the Cause.” –milodonharloni
Please explain this claim. The IPCC’s findings are of course based on peer-reviewed literature. The NIPCC’s findings may be based on peer-reviewed literature, but the report itself was not peer-reviewed.
BTW, the Chris who posted on Sept. 20 in response to my comment is not me, but I do agree with him.
REPLY: Heartland offers a second opinion, tough noogies if you don’t like the second opinion, but the story stays. Again, why don’t you read it instead of dismissing it? Clearly you haven’t read one thing. – Anthony
I tend not to read scientific reports claiming to undermine the scientific consensus unless said reports have been peer reviewed. It’s a time management tool.
I asked a valid question, and it still has not been answered. If the NIPCC is so confident that their methodology is better than the IPCC’s, why did they not submit their findings to the long-established process of peer review?
David, I’m sure you must realize that if you claim I missed your point, it becomes incumbent on you to clarify that point.
Chris:
In your diatribe at September 24, 2013 at 9:18 am you say
The NIPCC Report is based on peer-reviewed literature. In many cases it is the same papers as the IPCC Report mentions but – unlike the IPCC – the NIPCC does not include so-called ‘grey’ literature which is not peer reviewed.
The NIPCC Report is peer reviewed. I know because if you read it you will see I am listed as one of the Reviewers.
At the request of NOAA and the IPCC Chairman, I also reviewed the AR4 IPCC Report, but that action informed me the IPCC Review process is a farce so I did not review the forthcoming AR5 IPCC Report.
Importantly, politicians and/or representatives of politicians approve each IPCC Report line-by-line before it is published. This alone invalidates IPCC Reports as scientific documents: politicians do not have right to veto statements in scientific documents.
The IPCC is a political tool with the stated purpose of conducting pseudoscience.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern its work. These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says
So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “and options for adaptation and mitigation” from which political policies can be selected.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation”.
The IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions and suggestions from which those political actions can be selected.
The NIPCC Reports attempt to provide pertinent scientific information which has been omitted from – or misrepresented in – the IPCC Reports.
Richard
Richard S. Courtney: “The NIPCC Report is peer reviewed. I know because if you read it you will see I am listed as one of the Reviewers.”
I’m sorry, Richard, but I think you’re misunderstanding what peer review means. You see, when most people say “peer review,” they mean review by other scientists. A quick Google search of your name shows that you do not hold any degree in science, so you’re really not who I’m talking about when I ask why the NIPCC report was not subjected to peer review. Since you have no degree in science I can see how you could make that mistake.
From Chris on September 25, 2013 at 4:59 pm:
Richard S. Courtney’s bio (bold added):
Rishard S. Courtney is recognized as a scientist, thus by your definition of peer review, he was qualified to peer review the NIPCC report.
That bio is from Heartland, which has been known to exaggerate the scientific credentials of their paid experts. I’d like to see evidence of Courtney’s actual qualifications, i.e., whether or not he has any degree in science. Perhaps Courtney can clear this up; it seems that he has been cagey about his credentials in past discussions here and elsewhere.
From Chris September 25, 2013 at 6:49 pm:
It is quite humorous how Richard S. Courtney was qualified as an IPCC reviewer, but you insist he must have better verified qualifications for the NIPCC report.
If Courtney isn’t qualified as a NIPCC reviewer, the IPCC must have abysmally low standards, which most likely would yield a final report of expected low quality.
And if a degree in science is a requirement to be a scientist, practical experience and expertise cannot qualify one into such a lofty classification, then Benjamin Franklin was never a scientist.
kadaka:
“It is quite humorous how Richard S. Courtney was qualified as an IPCC reviewer, but you insist he must have better verified qualifications for the NIPCC report.
If Courtney isn’t qualified as a NIPCC reviewer, the IPCC must have abysmally low standards, which most likely would yield a final report of expected low quality.”
Well, it depends on what Courtney means when he says he was a reviewer for the IPCC report. They actually DO have abysmally low standards for one of their reviews; anyone can ask to see a draft of the report and be named a “reviewer.” However, the report goes through multiple processes of review, not just one.
The public at large was invited for one stage of review. I would need evidence of Courtney’s claim that he was personally asked to be a reviewer before taking that claim at face value.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 25, 2013 at 7:26 pm
Nor were Charles Darwin or Michael Faraday scientists.
From Chris on September 25, 2013 at 7:35 pm:
Public at large for the fourth report? Are you sure of that, can you provide evidence? Because that conflicts with this progress report from Working Group 1, the group Richard Courtney was involved with, that I came across.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/session24/doc8.pdf
Comments from invited reviewers are mentioned. Comments from the “public at large” are not.