The IPCC climate science crisis looms…
The timing of the fifth assessment report falls into this critical juncture where a lot of momentum has built up in favour of the current modelling practices which now prove so elusive. While the IPCC tries to make last minute rhetorical adjustments in order to accommodate anomalies, some of its participants, looking beyond, already indicate that this institution may have run its course.
Story at Die Klimazwiebel
============================================================
Pat Michaels bets on 25 years of ‘no warming’ in HadCRUT
Dr. Michaels is betting on no statistically significant warming (at the 95% confidence level) in the HadCRUTx data for the 25 year period starting in 1997. Scott is betting on at least that much warming.
Scott doesn’t want to bet more than $250 (he says he likes to spread his betting $$ around), so the potential value of the embarrassment to the loser is probably worth much more than $250 will buy in early 2022.
More at Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog
==============================================================
Solar activity drops to 100-year low, puzzling scientists
LONDON: Predictions that 2013 would see an upsurge in solar activity and geomagnetic storms disrupting power grids and communications systems have proved to be a false alarm. Instead, the current peak in the solar cycle is the weakest for a century.
Subdued solar activity has prompted controversial comparisons with the Maunder Minimum, which occurred between 1645 and 1715, when a prolonged absence of sunspots and other indicators of solar activity coincided with the coldest period in the last millennium.
The comparisons have sparked a furious exchange of views between observers who believe the planet could be on the brink of another period of cooling, and scientists who insist there is no evidence that temperatures are about to fall.
More: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Solar-activity-drops-to-100-year-low-puzzling-scientists/articleshow/22719807.cms
[Note- maybe not so puzzling after all, I may have a guest essay coming that explains most of this – Anthony]
==============================================================
An article published today in Nature offers a “mix of [natural] explanations” for the halt of global warming, including
solar activity [after previously claiming such small changes in solar activity could not affect climate], stratospheric water vapour, “which warms the surface, has been relatively low since 2000″ [climate models instead predicted an increase]
and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, based on a paper from which Dr. Judith Curry concluded, ”no matter what, I am coming up with natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming,” which is contrary to the central premise of the IPCC.
Excerpt:
“A mix of explanations has been offered for the recent hiatus: the minimum in solar energy output in the latest 11-year sunspot cycle lasted longer than usual [after previously claiming such changes could not affect climate]; stratospheric water vapour, which warms the surface, has been relatively low since 2000 [models predicted an increase]; and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle of warm El Niño and cold La Niña phases in the equatorial Pacific, which is known to affect global mean temperature and not just the temperature of the equatorial Pacific, has favoured the La Niña phase since the major El Niño event of 1997–98. Empirical models that fit the observed hiatus have generally relied on La Niña-related cooling to offset a large fraction of the greenhouse- induced warming. Consistently, analyses of the heat being taken up by the oceans have pointed to an increase in this heat uptake, predominantly in the Pacific, as underlying the hiatus.”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/article-in-nature-offers-3-natural.html
============================================================
Nature editorial: “The IPCC’s mega-assessments are out of date by the time they hit the streets”
Instead, climate scientists should focus on smaller and more rapid assessments of more pressing questions that have a particular political interest and for which science is evolving quickly. These reports could look more like the panel’s recent special report on extreme weather [which concluded that there is no measurable impact of AGW upon extreme weather]; longer and more detailed assessments could be performed as needed, when there is sufficient interest from the governments that the IPCC serves.
Such a structure might also help to avoid an unfortunate consequence of the current framework, which ensures that the IPCC’s mega-assessments are out of date by the time they hit the streets.
…
Models get better with time?
Absent from next week’s report, for instance, is recent and ongoing research on the rate of warming and what is — or is not — behind the plateau in average global temperatures that the world has experienced during the past 15 years. These questions have important policy implications, and the IPCC is the right body to answer them. But it need not wait six years to do so.
A misleading infographic which falsely claims the climate models are getting better with time.
![IPCC-Graphic[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ipcc-graphic1.jpg?resize=640%2C354)
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/nature-editorial-ipccs-mega-assessments.html
================================================================
‘The data shows clearly that the observations are running cooler than the out-of-sample predictions of the IPCC from each of its past 4 reports’
1. The observations of global average surface warming are about half that predicted in the first IPCC report from 1990. Over the past 25 years, projections of rates of future surface temperature increase have clearly come down dramatically.
2. Subsequent IPCC reports reduced their projections, but global average temperature observations are still running lower than that projected in 1995, 2001 and 2007.
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/09/global-temperature-trends-and-ipcc.html?spref=tw
===============================================================
Obama energy secretary Moniz admits: Unilateral U.S. climate action is pointless
From Ernest Moniz’s written testimony for today’s House hearing on Obama’s climate change plan: ‘The third part of the President’s Plan is leading international efforts to address climate change. Although we are still one of the largest emitters on a per person basis, U.S. emissions represent only about a fifth of the global total. As such, a global effort will be required if we are to avoid increasing climate damages in the future.’
================================================================
More stupidity from The Rolling Stone. Trend That is Not A Trend: Rolling Stone Wildfire Article
Well what do you know? The number of fires and the acres burned in 2013 are not some sort of record high — in fact they actually are the, respectively, lowest and second lowest numbers of the last 10 years. In fact, both the number of fires and the total acres burned are running a third below average.
More at Coyote Blog
================================================================
In case you have not seen it yet…
The Rolling stone does not know about music, so only an idiot would read about them for climate news.
The Rolling Stone rolls down hill. Excrement rolls down hill too. Hmm!
“The timing of the fifth assessment report falls into this critical juncture where a lot of momentum has built up in favour of the current modelling practices which now prove so elusive.”
Elusive? I think that’s a typo which was supposed to read “completely and utterly broken and useless”!
Nature editorial: “The IPCC’s mega-assessments are out of date by the time they hit the streets”
And there was me thinking that the science was settled.
Nature editorial: “The IPCC’s mega-assessments are out of date by the time they hit the streets”
How is that different than “stillborn”?
Nature (editorial board) must be deniers!
Is Someone taking the mickey? The infographic shows that as the resolution improves to about (why about?) 45 models and 50 km resolution the map of Italy is appearing, complete with mountain ranges and the tip of Sicily at the toe across the Messina Straits.
QUICK! Somebody tell the IPCC.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/19/how-much-longer-can-earth-support-life/
on the klimazwiebel commenter “anonymous” has dug out a quite revealing forecast from the metoffice:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080708230357/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html
10 August 2007
The forecast for 2014…
Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre will unveil the first decadal climate prediction model in a paper published on 10 August 2007 in the journal Science. The paper includes the Met Office’s prediction for annual global temperature to 2014.
Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 °C warmer than 2004. At least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record
These predictions are very relevant to businesses and policy-makers who will be able to respond to short-term climate change when making decisions today. The next decade is within many people’s understanding and brings home the reality of a changing climate.
“The IPCC’s mega-assessments are out of date by the time they hit the streets”
True , but the odd thing BS never dates , so in fact it ‘out of dates before it was even written.
Another gem from the Nature “out of date” editorial:
http://www.nature.com/news/the-final-assessment-1.13757
Ah yes, that ancient cliche when caught doing something wrong that you knew was wrong but you really wanted to do: “Oh, that silly mistake!”
Donna Laframboise’s citizen audit showed just how badly non-peer-reviewed material was used , despite the IPCC chairman’s dissembling assertions it was all peer reviewed. It was from such material, that Pachauri insisted wasn’t used, the “Glaciergate” 2035 claim was extracted and elevated.
As to the rest, everyone from Bob Tisdale to Willis Eschenbach to The Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley have conclusively shown the IPCC models suck.
Critics have found little else of significance to crow about? No, not much at all. Once you see it’s complete irrelevant rubbish there’s little else to really say about it.
From wikipedia on WUWT..
David Suzuki recommends Skeptical Science for accurate science on the topic of climate change. “There are many credible sources of information, and they aren’t blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts”.
I immediately checked the CocaCola entry, and noted that it did not say
Janet Jackson recommends Pepsi for refreshing cola flavor in a tin can. “There are many potable sources of corn syrup flavoring, and they don’t have a swirly white stripe on the side.”
Let me tell you a scientific joke.
The consensus of IPCC scientists is that there is a thermodynamic process by which energy released by atmospheric Greenhouse gases is transferred to the oceans and hidden in its deep waters AND that the process is reversible.
You don’t get it?
Well, the scientific joke is the IPCC.
Solomon Green says:
September 19, 2013 at 10:59 am
“Is Someone taking the mickey? The infographic shows that as the resolution improves to about (why about?) 45 models and 50 km resolution the map of Italy is appearing, complete with mountain ranges and the tip of Sicily at the toe across the Messina Straits.”
Well big deal. What the desinfographic does not mention is that the approach of the climate models BREAKS DOWN when you improve the resolution (many process instances within one grid box are necessary for their statistical process descriptions to hold).
Furthermore, the desinfographic does not address the principal problems of chaos and the erroneous basic assumption of hydrostasis.
In one word, cheap agitprop dreck.
RE: Solar activity drops to 100-year low, puzzling scientists
The sun looks like its about to kick off again with more spot activity.
“[Note- maybe not so puzzling after all, I may have a guest essay coming that explains most of this – Anthony]”
We’ll see how well that goes.
“It is this interaction between sunspots, climate and global warming that makes analysis of the solar cycle so controversial. It is hard to write about sunspots without stirring furious reactions […]” — http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Solar-activity-drops-to-100-year-low-puzzling-scientists/articleshow/22719807.cms
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “this”.
I predict that (unless it’s from RJ Salvador) the guest essay will politically distract and seriously disappoint by focusing on a peripheral “this” while ignorantly &/or deceptively (dark either way) evading the central “this” that matters most.
“Dr. Judith Curry concluded, ”no matter what, I am coming up with natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming,” ”
Dr. Curry,
and I’m coming up with another 25% of warming from B.S. upward adjustments by activist record keepers.
“Instead, climate scientists should focus on smaller and more rapid assessments of more pressing questions that have a particular political interest and for which science is evolving quickly. These reports could look more like the panel’s recent special report on extreme weather [which concluded that there is no measurable impact of AGW upon extreme weather];”
Hey, Editor, Nature Climate Change, do you mean like the Climate Change Commission’s reports in Australia and the similar commission’s work in USA? Let’s hope not. Can’t you see yourself from the temperature record that “short term” trends and conclusions drawn from them are totally illigitimate?