The WUWT Hotsheet for Friday, Sept 20th, 2013

WUWT_hot_sheet7

“Covering up” the pause:

World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed. Leaked documents seen by the Associated Press yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.

…leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.

Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its tune after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat – and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.

The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.

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

Finally, the IPCC has toned down its climate change alarm. Can rational discussion now begin?

Next week, those who made dire predictions of ruinous climate change face their own inconvenient truth. The summary of the fifth assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be published, showing that global temperatures are refusing to follow the path which was predicted for them by almost all climatic models. Since its first report in 1990, the IPCC has been predicting that global temperatures would be rising at an average of 0.2° Celsius per decade. Now, the IPCC acknowledges that there has been no statistically significant rise at all over the past 16 years.

It is difficult to over-emphasise the significance of this report

More at The Spectator

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

meanwhile… Gavin Schmidt dismisses the pause with a wave of the hand:

“This whole thing is just a blogstorm in a teacup”

“This whole thing is just a blogstorm in a teacup,” the British climatologist told CBSNews.com “The IPCC is there to assess the literature and tell people what the scientists are saying.” The report is meant to explain what scientists have reported, not conduct original science, he continued. “The idea that IPCC needs to be up to date on what was written last week is just ridiculous.”

“It skews all of these diagnostics. Look at the long-term content, and ocean heat temperature is rising. We’re doing things to the planet that are geological in scope. I don’t use those words lightly.”

He doesn’t expect the IPCC to devote much time to the issue of the apparent lull. “This whole thing has an element for ‘what can we find to try to undermine the IPCC’ before it’s even done, and there’s a lot of that going around this week,” he said.

The deniers’ approach, says Schmidt is, “sling enough mud and hope something sticks. This seems to be a little sticky so this will be what they focus on.”

Controversy over U.N. report on climate change as warming appears to slow – CBS News

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

Obama aims to ‘criminalize’ CO2 emissions — ‘If you’re pumping more than your legal limit of CO2 into the sky, well then, you sir, are a criminal’

Read the Full Article at Bloomberg News

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

Eric Worrall writes:

Yet another climate fanatic has demanded the suspension of democratic processes:

This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.

This article was published in mainstream Australian media, on the eve of the Australian election.

Calls for green totalitarianism used to be comparatively rare, and therefore newsworthy – for example, Suzuki’s call to jail politicians who disagree with him, or Hansen’s promotion of Chinese style totalitarianism were widely seen as aberrations, as mistakes, as unrepresentative of the true feelings of people concerned about climate change.

However it is not difficult to predict that as voters increasingly reject greens at the ballot box, we shall see more of this nonsense in the future.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/archive/news/hidden-doom-of-climate-change/story-e6frep2o-1111114372364

Cartoon-Temperature-Rising-600[1]

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

image

The Telegraph reports:

“We need a drastic policy shift,” said Christoph Schmidt, chairman of Germany’s Council of Economic Experts. “They haven’t paid any attention to costs. These are now huge.”

The government has vowed to break dependence on fossil fuels and source 50pc of all electricity from wind, solar and other renewables by 2030, and 80pc by mid-century. But cost estimates have reached €1 trillion (£840bn) over the next 25 years.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/german-industry-in-revolt-against-green-energy-policies/

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

You genuinely have to be an idiot to think that Arctic sea ice is recovering

There are serious debates to be had about climate change, and what we should do about it. Whether or not the Arctic ice is retreating is not one of them.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100237031/you-genuinely-have-to-be-an-idiot-to-think-that-arctic-sea-ice-is-recovering/

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

Meanwhile, over at Dr. Judith Curry’s place, Greg Goodman writes to tell me that he agrees with what I said in this video about Arctic Sea ice reaching a new equilibrium point. See the graph below.

Inter-decadal Variation in Northern Hemisphere sea ice

On the deceleration in the decline of the Arctic sea ice.

The variation in the magnitude of the annual cycle in arctic sea ice area has increased notably since the minimum of 2007. This means that using a unique annual cycle fitted to all the data leaves a strong residual (or “anomaly”) in post-2007 years. This makes it difficult or impossible to visualise how the data has evolved during that period. This leads to the need to develop an adaptive method to evaluate the typical annual cycle, in order to render the inter-annual variations more intelligible.



Figure 4. Showing Cryosphere Today anomaly derived with single seasonal cycle

The rate of ice loss since 2007 is very close to that of the 1990s but is clearly less pronounced than it was from 1997 to 2007, a segment of the data which in itself shows a clear downward curvature, indicating accelerating ice loss.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/16/inter-decadal-variation-in-northern-hemisphere-sea-ice/

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

About these ads

71 thoughts on “The WUWT Hotsheet for Friday, Sept 20th, 2013

  1. Regarding the suspension of democratic processes: this is no problem for Marxists, who believe the revolution is inevitable, anyway. You have to crack a few eggs.
    We will be hearing more of this suspend-democracy idea as the rhetoric heats up. Here is an interesting book where we are informed that the only way to avoid the apocalypse is to…carry out our own apocalypse by destroying our industrialism-dependent civilization. It is called, “Time’s Up! An Uncivilized Solution to a Global Crisis:”

  2. “Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted…”

    To hell with science when it gets in the way of the political agenda. I guess we could call this German Climate Science, a worthy successor to German Physics.

  3. Did I miss this mention somewhere:

    Sep 20, 3:25 AM EDT
    OBAMA TAKES ON COAL WITH FIRST-EVER CARBON LIMITS

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_CLIMATE_CHANGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-20-03-25-32

    Excerpt:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency says global warming is one of the most significant public health threats of our time.

    That’s according to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. McCarthy is defending a plan to curb carbon pollution in a speech Friday morning. She says global warming is not just about melting glaciers.

    The proposal is the first significant step in President Barack Obama’s climate plan.

    But the plan only deals with future power plants. That means there is a limit to how much it will dent the emissions blamed for global warming.

    The existing fleet of power plants in the U.S. is the largest source of heat-trapping pollution. A proposal to deal with them is due next summer.

  4. Australia is shaking off the Green Nightmare because people finally got politically active. So, Buckshot, just what are YOU going to do?? (As they say on the docks in New Jersey: Money Talks and Bull S**t Walks. Just preaching to the choir doesn’t count for anything.)

    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  5. “…leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.”

    Imagine your doctor expressing ‘deep concern’ when he discovers you are in good health.

    “I am sorry, Mr. Smith, but there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with you. You might think that is great news, but it really sucks for me. I love giving people treatments, having control over their lives and making them pay me an inordinate amount of money, while I get to play the hero, even if my treatments are completely ineffective! That is what I love, and your good health is just really screwing it up for me! So I have decided to start giving you treatment for cancer anyway. While this will be extremely painful for you and very expensive, it will make me and the staff here feel better. Besides, what if you really do have cancer and the tests just didn’t show it? I mean…think of your children, Mr. Smith! Don’t you love your children?”

    Such behavior in a doctor would be easily recognized as evil, but politicians and activists see such behavior as noble.

  6. The Arctic sea ice minimum has been reached now. The NSIDC wasn’t paying close enough attention to their daily numbers because 2013 was the highest minimum since 2006 (just barely beating out 2009).

    We can make the call now because we have passed the Sept16-18 period which often has declines in the average climatology. Avg daily change from JaxaV2 and the NSIDC.

  7. Reference by authoritarians to the methods of science or the values democratic governance is always, inevitably a ruse to subjugate them, a means to advance the progressive agenda, which has no tolerance for either. Free markets, free thought, a free marketplace of competing scientific ideas is antithetical to statist ideology.

    Alinsky came to Climate Town a long time ago, and he is just getting started.

  8. The Climate Liars need to come up with new, more creative, and more devious ways of lying. It’s not an easy task, but they get a nice start with calling it a “10 or 15 year slowdown”, and calling 1998 the “start year” for the graph. Next, they can vanishexplain away the “slowdown” using a smorgasbord of “possibilities”.
    Or, they could go with Germany’s suggestion and just ignore it.
    My guess would be the former, though. They just love bafflegab. They use words not to inform, but to misinform and lead astray. It’s just what they do.

  9. meanwhile… Gavin Schmidt dismisses the pause with a wave of the hand:
    =============
    unless global warming is seen to be a threat, gavin is out of a job and NASA GISS will be forced to return to space exploration. the phd’s will end up being replaced with engineers. instead of building nice clean computer models, they will be tasked with building (horror upon horror) space ships and other nasty stuff. instead of being paid by the government to blog, the redundant phd’s will be forced to get actual jobs.

  10. Is the Telegraph photo of a chimney showing steam or smoke? If this was a court case this photo would be considered inadmissible if there was any indication of tampering.

  11. “This whole thing is just a blogstorm in a teacup”
    ========================
    from the head censor and government paid blogger at the cult of real climate. Since when did science need to censor information? It was the church that censored information in the past. Now it is government institution. In both cases funded using money taken from the public under threat. give us your money or burn in hell. give us your money or rot in prison. different names, same methods.

  12. Sorry, off topic, but if you read my book and liked, loved or hated it, it could use a couple of dozen fresh reviews. It remains the only book by an American author focusing on the unfolding grand solar minimum and attendant risks of global cooling. TIA

  13. Stephen Skinner says September 20, 2013 at 7:15 am

    Is the Telegraph photo of a chimney showing steam or smoke? If this was a court case this photo would be considered inadmissible if there was any indication of tampering.

    Stephen, have you ever noticed how a thicker (taller) cloud mass looks darker underneath? Same effect would come into play here.

    Notice how ‘dark’ the steam stacks appear … I’m not sure where the ‘source’ of illumination is in that photo … it is also possible that some of that steam vapor was darkened-up, for dramatic effect.

    .

  14. The wealth and prosperity that a majority of the world now enjoys is best when it is underpinned by the rule of law. How would a legal system be viewed if it was only made of prosecution with no allowance for defense? Worse still, how would a legal system be viewed if it was argued that having a defense was immoral? So it is with AGW in that any serious questioning or doubting is treated as an affront or even a crime itself. How safe is that?

  15. Gavin Schmidt on the leaving the “pause” out of the AR5:

    “The data looks at a 15-year time period, while the overall report is meant to cover the big picture.”

    Funny, the FAR published in 1990 thought the warming from about 1975 to 1990 was worth talking about.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

    (see figure 11, not to mention figures 8 and 9)

    I guess the importance of 15 years is in the eyes of the beholder.

  16. Any surprise indicated by skeptics of the political domination of climate policy reflected in such coverups only reflects ignorance of the AGW movement and drivers. The misguided focus on technical details and “research” disinformation has been to a degree counter productive.

    It was and is always political and science was always very secondary. The science first crowd have damaged legitimate skeptics who simply knew better long ago.

  17. _Jim says:
    September 20, 2013 at 7:26 am

    “Stephen, have you ever noticed how a thicker (taller) cloud mass looks darker underneath? Same effect would come into play here.”

    Yes I have Jim. I have spent a reasonable amount of time underneath clouds looking for lift and the darkest bits are normally where the best lift was. However, the colour was never black! And more importantly steam is not smoke.

  18. Good Lord! People are called “d-nigh-ers” when they don’t deny any scientific data while the lunatic ranters are in charge!

    Let us all remember, it is not whether we are warming, but whether humans are having any effect on the warming that is the question.

  19. I am surprised that none of the warmist alarmists have not taken the following approach:

    “Hey, look at the effect all our efforts have done so far in reducing climate change – global warming has been suspended for 15 years. But let us be ever diligent in our efforts, not resting on our past achievements, but let us continue on with an even greater drive to limit CO2 emissions and reduce global warming even more.”

    Do I hear an “Amen!”

  20. “blogstorm in a teacup”
    Well, that is an uncommon type of phrase; sounds to me like the type of comment that comes off around a bar stool with fellow alarmists. I wonder who really thought of it first? Gavin or the spinmeisters working over the weekend?

  21. Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.

    Totally agree. But, since we have only a VERY short record of “accurate” data, we can’t reasonably come to ANY conclusions about whether today’s climate is any “better” or “worse” than that of 1000, 2000, 3000, etc years ago. And even if it is, we don’t have sufficient evidence to say it’s due to human industrial activity.

  22. You genuinely have to be an idiot to think that Arctic sea ice is recovering

    You genuinely have to be an idiot to think that what is or isn’t happen to Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice, glaciers, etc is unprecedented during this interglacial or any of the previous ones.

    As I’ve said before, the entire CO2 scare is tantamount to waking up one morning, seeing that it’s raining, and becoming extremely alarmed when it’s still raining 5 minutes later. Obviously the trend, when extended out 10 years, means all life on the planet will be drowned before we know it.

  23. “We need a drastic policy shift,” said Christoph Schmidt, chairman of Germany’s Council of Economic Experts. “They haven’t paid any attention to costs. These are now huge.”

    —-
    This sounds like a man-made energy crisis.

  24. Stephen Skinner says September 20, 2013 at 7:36 am

    … have spent a reasonable amount of time underneath clouds looking for lift and the darkest bits are normally where the best lift was. However, the colour was never black! And more importantly steam is not smoke.

    Ah. “Storm spotter” perhaps? Same here …

    I’m thinking the contrast was enhanced, at the very least.

    Also noticed the vapor (US spelling) seems to be emanating from the very ‘walls’ near the top of the left ‘steam stack’ rather than out the actual top. WUWT?

    With what may be a source of illumination (the sun) off to the right judging from the illumination of the vapor, it SURE is strange the steam stacks DON’T show the same illumination on the side closest to the illumination. The steam stacks appear completely dark and un-illuminated. WUWT?

    .

  25. More interesting media maltruths and having fun with pliable numbers (bold beyond title added):

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430649/What-climate-change-Fewer-people-than-EVER-believe-the-world-is-really-warming-up

    What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up
    CLIMATE change scepticism is rapidly increasing in the UK with a FIFTH of people now unconvinced the world’s temperature is changing.

    By: Owen Bennett
    Published: Thu, September 19, 2013

    The number of people who do not believe climate change is real has increased by 400% since 2005

    A report from the UK Energy Research Centre also shows the number of those who resolutely do not believe in climate change has more than quadrupled since 2005.

    The Government funded report shows 19 per cent of people are climate change disbelievers – up from just four per cent in 2005 – while nine per cent did not know.

    Amazing how scary they make it sound, when it is still below the “dingbat” percentage who accept fortune tellers and extraterrestrial corpses being stored at Area 51. When anyone who really knows anything knows they were moved to deep in Yucca Mountain to conceal the implanted distress beacon signals, and not all are corpses.

    Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist and author of Climate Confusion, argues in his influential blog the UN report shows scientists are being forced to “recognise reality”.

    He said: “We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations.”

    Will this be cross-posted on this also-influential blog?

    Quoting Green Party leader Natalie Bennett (bold/italics added):

    When the government is so clearly failing to act on climate change, or take seriously its obligations under the Climate Change Act, it’s not surprising that the level of doubt about climate change has risen.

    Of course, however, the 72 per cent of the public who acknowledge the climate is changing are backed overwhelmingly by the scientific evidence.

    The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that half of last year’s extreme weather events around the world were in part caused by climate change.

    With massive floods in Colorado and Mexico in the grip of flood disaster, we’re reminded that the forces of nature have huge force that we must not continue to magnify.

    Faced with such huge forces of Nature, I’m reminded humanity is a flea on a dog’s tail that likes to convince itself it can wag the dog. Back to article:

    “I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying, ‘Look the IPCC is silent on this issue,”‘ said Alden Meyer, of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists.

    Kenji Watts needs to file an immediate protest, as it is embarrassing for his organization to make up words for the purposes of slander and vile obscene insults.

    In a leaked June draft of the report’s summary from policy-makers, the IPCC said the rate of warming in 1998-2012 was about half the average rate since 1951.

    IPCC math sure is strange. Since the rate of warming from 1998 to 2012 was statistically zero, doesn’t this mean the 1951 to 2012 rate was about two times nothing?

  26. The CBS article calls Gavin Schmidt a British Climatologist. When did he become British? Or is this just something else that CBS got wrong?

  27. “Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat . . .”
    Interesting. Last decade it was okay to use 1979 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally cool and made the graph show astonishing rising temps.

  28. WUWT says: “Meanwhile, over at Dr. Judith Curry’s place, Greg Goodman writes to tell me that he agrees with what I said in this video about Arctic Sea ice reaching a new equilibrium point. ”

    Thanks for the link to the article.
    In fact the result of my analysis was the following graph. The whole point being that it makes the post 2007 section much clearer.

    I also extract rates of change which shows the rate of area loss is now HALF what is was during 1997 to 2007.

    Anthony says in the video at 19m44 “mean seem fairly flat”. That was my opinion too but it was unclear with all the noise. That’s why I rolled up my sleeves and had a closer look. Once we get rid of that residual it becomes a lot clearer. We see that 2007 and 2012 were parts of repetitive pattern in the data

    We can also see that the reason it is flattening off because of the temperature plateau:

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=521

    It takes some time for the ice mass to respond to the temperature variations but the lesser rate of melting is as Anthony described it settling to a new equilibrium with the warmer conditions.

    If we are to believe that the ice is melting due to global warming we should expect the melting to slow when the warming stops/pauses/plateaus or has a hiatus hernia.

    Expect the IPCC to spend the next 17 years denying the “haitus” in arctic ice loss. Or expect the guardians of the data to start “correcting” some hitherto undetected ‘biases’ in the data. JAXA have opened the batting on the one this year already.

  29. Taphonomic says September 20, 2013 at 8:34 am

    The CBS article calls Gavin Schmidt a British Climatologist. When did he become British? Or is this just something else that CBS got wrong?

    Sounds like a native of Louisiana:

    /sarc

  30. From the Telegraph comments section:

    Your use of the word “testicles” is an argumentum ad gonades, and many of the replies are of similar calibre.

    Gave me a chuckle, that did.

  31. ferdberple says September 20, 2013 at 7:22 am

    from the head censor and government paid blogger at the cult of real climate. Since when did science need to censor information? It was the church that censored information in the past.

    We have separation of church and state too. I read that in books about the constitution …

    And we can’t own ‘guns’ unless we’re in the state militia. I read that in books about the constitution too.

    .

    .

    .

    /sarc all

  32. Taphonomic says:
    September 20, 2013 at 8:34 am

    The CBS article calls Gavin Schmidt a British Climatologist. When did he become British? Or is this just something else that CBS got wrong?

    I guess he’s got a Green card.

  33. In reply to:
    The deniers’ approach, says Schmidt is, “sling enough mud and hope something sticks. This seems to be a little sticky so this will be what they focus on.”

    William:
    C’mon man! Schmidt is trying to change the subject, using a misapplied euphemism. The extreme AGW pushers’ use of the derogatory term ‘deniers’ and the term ‘mudslinging’ is an attempt to belittle the messenger rather than to address the scientific issues in a scientific manner which is obviously mudslinging. The so called ‘skeptics’ are using observations and logic to support their assertion that there is no extreme AGW problem to solve which is the standard methodology to resolve scientific issues, not mudslinging. i.e. What does theory predict? Do observations and analysis agree with theory predictions. Any observed warming does not support the assertion that there will be dangerous warming. Observations and analysis supports the assertion that the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C. The fact that the planet has not warmed for 16 years while atmospheric CO2 increases is only one of many observations that disprove the extreme AGW hypothesis. The following are two other key logical points to support the assertion that the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C.
    1. Planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes. Peer reviewed analysis supports the assertion that planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases to resist forcing changes which is negative feedback. The IPCC models which do not agree with observations, assume the tropical region amplifies the CO2 forcing (positive feedback) rather than resists CO2 forcing.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/18/another-paper-finds-lower-climate-sensitivity/

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, by Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    ….We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity. …. … However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct.

    2. There is no observed warming in the tropical troposphere at roughly 5km and there is almost no warming in the tropics in response to the increase in the atmospheric CO2. The climate models used by the IPCC amplify the forcing due to CO2 assuming an increase in water vapor in the tropics, in the tropical tropospheric (at roughly 5 km). If there was an increase in water vapor with no increase in cloud cover the upper troposphere in the tropics would warm. The general circulation models (GCM) assume there is either a reduction or no change in planetary cloud cover in response to an increase CO2 forcing. Twenty years of measurement of atmospheric temperature using weather balloons and satellites shows there is no tropic tropospheric warming supports the assertion that tropics does not amplify CO2 forcing.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.

    New paper that again finds the upper troposphere is not warming as predicted.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018

  34. For over forty-five years now, death-eating Luddite sociopaths have proved relentless Public Enemies of post-Enlightenment industrial/technological civilization. On the record, to name a few other than fuss-and-grumble AGW Catastrophists, truly manic exemplars of this genre include Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Keith Farnish, Kentti Linkola, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. Anyone unfamiliar with these unbelievably infantile-regressive Wreckers had best do their homework.

    Crass and vulgar know-nothings as Green Gangsters are –for starters we include Keith Briffa, James Hansen, Paul Jones, Michael Mann, and Kevin Trenberth– their bleats-and-squeaks pale before the genocidal monomania of such as Farnish and Linkola. Propagandizing their communo-fascist New World Order, these vicious totalitarian ideologues care nothing for reality, and they want you dead.

  35. “You genuinely have to be an idiot to think that Arctic sea ice is recovering”

    At least, Tom Chivers has the courage of calling a growing percentage of his readers idiots.

    Maybe he’s tired of his job.

  36. @ DirkH on September 20, 2013 at 9:40 am:

    Hey, I ain’t going to say the Arctic sea ice is recovering either. The patient is out of bed and took a single step on their own. I’ll call it a recovery when they’re walking down the hall. For now we don’t know if they’ll fall over with the next step, or the one thereafter. This is way too soon to call it.

    Now if you don’t want to say it’s a recovery because it will inevitably decline, then you’re a blooming idiot.

  37. _Jim says:
    September 20, 2013 at 8:17 am

    > Also noticed the vapor (US spelling) seems to be emanating from the very ‘walls’ near the top of the left ‘steam stack’ rather than out the actual top. WUWT?

    I think there are at least three stacks in the photo. The front left stack is the obvious steam source. There’s just a hint of a left rear stack, that’s what’s giving the appearance of steam coming from the wall of the left front stack. The right front stack appears to be emitting something faintly visible, I think that is combustion smoke, so yes, there is a CO2 source in the photo! I’m not sure if there’s a right rear stack.

  38. JimS says:
    September 20, 2013 at 7:48 am

    I am surprised that none of the warmist alarmists have not taken the following approach:

    “Hey, look at the effect all our efforts have done so far in reducing climate change – global warming has been suspended for 15 years. ….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is a wee bit of a problem.
    Countries Worldwide Propose to Build 1,200 New Coal Plants
    …According to the World Coal Association, coal’s global share of primary energy consumption rose to 30.3 percent in 2011 from about 25 percent, where it had been for years, and generated about 42 percent of the world’s electricity. Coal’s global resurgence is due in part to the shale gas boom that lowered natural gas prices, making gas more competitive with coal, and pushing coal prices down on world markets.

    Coal’s recent global renaissance, with the world’s highest consumption for the fuel since 1969, is not just due to Asian countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, coal consumption increased by nearly a quarter between the second quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of 2012. Germany is encouraging the construction of 10 gigawatts of coal-fired generation to replace its nuclear plants and provide back-up power for its wind and solar units, which require backup when the wind isn’t blowing or when the sun does not shine.

    Europe overall burned more coal in the past year than any time since it pledged cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

    Graph “To put these new coal-fired capacity increases in perspective, the United States has 319 gigawatts of coal-fired electric generating capacity. Until recently, these plants have generated about 50 percent of America’s electricity. Now China and India are planning to build over 60 percent more coal-fired capacity than the coal-fired generating capacity that currently exists in the United States.”

    Graph: Coal Consumption and Production

  39. If this year wasn’t a recovery there was nothing notable happened last year either. Typical double standards for the propagandists. You can’t have it both ways.

    That means that everyone who though last year’s OMG worse than we thought ice area is equally stupid.

    When there’s a bad year, it’s a huge problem and we are told we must act NOW. When it comes back up a year later it’s irrelevant we need to take the long view.

    Who’s calling who stupid in this game.

  40. From Greg Goodman on September 20, 2013 at 10:32 am:

    If this year wasn’t a recovery there was nothing notable happened last year either. Typical double standards for the propagandists. You can’t have it both ways.

    So our side is allowed to be as wrong as theirs? Their jumping on UNPRECEDENTED events makes them look foolish. If we do the same, do you expect us to look learned and wise?

    Who’s calling who stupid in this game.

    That’s often a non-verbal self-designation, evident from their actions. What are you saying with yours?

  41. Ric Werme says September 20, 2013 at 10:29 am

    I think there are at least three stacks in the photo. The front left stack is the obvious steam source.

    If it is the left front, steam looks to be exiting the ‘wall’ of the stack; a better candidate is the left rear stack (close examination of the image I observe three stacks: two foreground and one on the left in the back. No indication/signs of anything in the right-rear.)

    Further examination of the ‘stack’ color shows better than 98% of the pixels possessing the same RGB value set; I’m thinking contrast was ‘enhanced’ on this photo until the desired darkness of the visible plume was achieved and any graytones on the stacks hit a lower limit (vis-a-vis a ‘cutoff’ in this case AKA ‘saturation’ into one color or tone, resulting in the same set of RGB values). Which means, with nearly the same RGB values for nearly all pixels in the steam stacks no ‘contrast enhancement’ is possible to reveal further individual stack details …

    Summary: While this photo may not have been in a sense ‘doctored’, it has been manipulated …

    .

  42. World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years

    Yet another case of ‘hiding the decline,’ in this case, hiding the decline in the rate of warming since 1980. We should come up with a nice, long list of inconvenient declines that AGW cultists would rather not discuss. I have a few to start with:

    • The decline in the rate of sea-level rise
    • The decline in concern over climate change
    • The decline in deaths from extreme weather
    • The decline in major hurricanes
    • The decline in NH ACE
    • The decline in hair count on Mann’s head

  43. Hi,
    does someone know which persons belong to the German delagation?
    Especially I’m interested whether Prof. Schellnhuber or Prof. Rahmstorf of the “Potsdam Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung” participates at that meeting with the IPCC scientists.

    Thanks!

  44. Hi,
    does someone know which persons belong to the German delegation?
    Especially I’m interested whether Prof. Schellnhuber or Prof. Rahmstorf of the “Potsdam Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung” participates at that meeting with the IPCC scientists.

    Thanks!

  45. 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.

    levitra levitra generic cialis generic cialis cialis cialis viagra viagra levitra levitra viagra viagra buy levitra buy levitra problems with viagra problems with viagra cialis cialis viagra 6 free samples viagra 6 free samples generic cialis generic cialis buy levitra buy levitra

    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 irradaince 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 ocen 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.

  46. Like the stock market, a majority must always be wrong before a phase transition takes place. That’s what’s needed to keep the cycle going.

  47. “Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change”

    I am truly ashamed of my country this time. Do we know who the butthead was exactly who has expressed his worries about adhering to reality?

  48. We are not all going to die on a baked Earth.
    This is good news to me.
    Why is this not good news for everyone?
    It represents “Deep concerns” for some.
    Yea, some suicidal misanthropes

  49. The deniers’ approach, says Schmidt is, “sling enough mud and hope something sticks. This seems to be a little sticky so this will be what they focus on.”

    It’s always amusing to see alarmists try to project their own pathetic failings onto skeptics. These are the same people who are on record over the years claiming that global warming causes warmer winters with less snow, colder winters with more snow, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, more rainfall, less rainfall, more desertification, more greening of the earth, less Arctic ice, more Antarctic ice, and global temperatures that mirror increases in CO2 except when the heat suddenly decides to play hide and seek in the deep oceans. Who are the ones that have been slinging mud and hoping something, anything will stick?

  50. _Jim says:
    September 20, 2013 at 7:26 am
    —————————————-
    I also thought the photo looked altered, from my first glance at it. Either that or the workers were having a barbecue.

  51. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    September 20, 2013 at 10:47 am

    From Greg Goodman on September 20, 2013 at 10:32 am:
    ————————————————————————–
    I am in the middle on this argument. I see your point about not imitating the actions of the warmists. Yet this Arctic minimum is different this year, in that the Arctic set a summer record for below average temps, which is the lowest seen in the 55 year record. That is out of the ordinary at least as much as the big melt of last year, caused by an unusual, powerful summer cyclone.

  52. Att: Anthony, mods. (Now a trigger word to make sure and hit the spam bin: HAARP )

    Salvatore Del Prete says September 20, 2013 at 11:46 am

    levitra levitra generic cialis generic cialis cialis cialis viagra viagra levitra levitra viagra viagra buy levitra buy levitra problems with viagra problems with viagra cialis cialis viagra 6 free samples viagra 6 free samples generic cialis generic cialis buy levitra buy levitra

    Strangest post (this same poster has actually had several like this) of the day …

    .
    [Nope, it didn't hit the spam list. Only the "mod" list. 8<) Mod]

  53. From Greg Goodman on September 20, 2013 at 8:47 am:

    In fact the result of my analysis was the following graph. The whole point being that it makes the post 2007 section much clearer.

    I also extract rates of change which shows the rate of area loss is now HALF what is was during 1997 to 2007.

    Honestly, sincerely, this is obfuscating crap. It’s the only description that fits. Really, from the first glance I saw something was wrong, and it keeps getting worse.

    It immediately fails the most basic eyeball test. It says it shows Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area. Arctic sea ice area in 2012 bottomed out below three million square kilometers, close to two. I’ve verified this by the Cryosphere Today graphs, by the WUWT Sea Ice page. That’s absolute amounts, not anomalies.

    Your Y-axis is showing about 8.25 million square kilometers at the bottom of 2012. Where did the extra six million square kilometers of solid sea ice area come from?

    Your graph is supposed to be four distinct time ranges.
    1. Pre-1988, which by the dataset you have indicated would be from the beginning of 1979 to the end of 1989.
    2. 1988 to 1997, which by that red squiggly section runs to the end of 1997 (is inclusive).
    3. 1997 to 2007, except the green squiggle runs from the start of 1998 to… I can’t tell, as it shows a drop and the next section keeps dropping, not what is seen at the end of the year.
    4. Post-2007, except it shows the then-record-breaking 2007 drop to just before the 2013 melt season.

    That’s screwed up enough. But then the obfuscation starts.

    The starts and stops of the trend lines do not match that of the squiggly lines. Trend and squiggle of the first range both start at 1979, but then you pull a “hockey stick” trick by covering up the light blue trend line with the red squiggle, concealing the end of the “Pre-1988″ trend line somewhere between 1990 and 1991. From there it gets more obvious.

    You have overlaps, mismatches, your garbage whipped-up Y-axis that says it’s sea ice area but is supposed to be “short-term mean + annual anomalies”… Why even do that when the absolute values are available? Obvious answer, you’re trying to pull a fast one.

    It’s an embarrassing thrown-together conglomeration that shows nothing, proves nothing, and certainly cannot show “…the rate of area loss is now HALF what is was during 1997 to 2007.”

    Your graph gives UIUC as the dataset source. Cryosphere Today (UIUC) uses NSIDC info. Extent tracks area good enough to examine trends. So I went to WoodForTrees, graphed the NSIDC Northern Hemisphere monthly extent data with trends, using the ranges you said you had used except corrected to match your sreal squiggle ranges close as possible, full years only. Note that since the decimal value of the last month of the year is 0.92, I used 0.95 to catch December on the end of range and January at the start.

    From start of a year to end of a year, ranges are 1979-1987, 1988-1997, 1998-2007, 2008-2012.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1978.95/to:1987.95/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1978.95/to:1987.95/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1987.95/to:1997.95/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1987.95/to:1997.95/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1997.95/to:2007.95/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1997.95/to:2007.95/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2007.95/to:2012.95/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2007.95/to:2012.95/trend/

    Rate of loss is clearly not now half.

    The chart is garbage. It shows nothing worthwhile. It reeks of obfuscation, manipulation, I can hear the screams of each individual datum as you mangled it into the form that suited your fancy. I have been forced to call those lines “squiggles” as they clearly do not represent “data” as I know it.

    This looks like the type of graph they would push on SkepSci, if they would lower their appearance standards.

    And what is so great about half the loss rate? You start with a million dollars, three years later you only have $500,000. Three years after that, you’re down to $250,000. Each period you have lost 50%, but you would say it is great that you only lost half as many dollars a year!

    Manipulation, obfuscation, deception… You open yourself up to ALL of those charges with this shoddy work. Do better!

  54. _Jim says (September 20, 2013 at 10:53 am): “Further examination of the ‘stack’ color shows better than 98% of the pixels possessing the same RGB value set; I’m thinking contrast was ‘enhanced’ on this photo…”

    The photo is of Eggborough Power Station, near Selby, North Yorkshire, dated 10/01/07 (I assume the “01” means January), photo credit John Giles/PA.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/mar/28/uk-co2-emissions-up-2012

    Anthony found evidence of photoshopping here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/25/photoshopping-in-the-worseness/

    BTW, it’s interesting that the Telegraph used a photo of an English power station to illustrate a story about German power plants. Are there no “enhanced” photos of German power stations?

  55. It looks like the NSIDC agrees with the post I made at September 20, 2013; 7:04 am. Both points I raised, in fact, that the minimum was reached on September 13th and that they hadn’t been paying close enough attention to the daily numbers.

    Revisions coming to push the 2013 minimum below 2009.

    “* According to near-real-time data, this year’s minimum extent is slightly lower than 2009. However, the ranking between 2009 and 2013 is close, and may change once the final version of the data are processed.”

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    New numbers presented in a table showing 2009 revised up to 5.13M km^2 from 5.05M km^2.

  56. Tomorrow, Sunday, September 22nd, 2013, there will be elections for the German parliament.

    Owing to a 30 percent-increase in costs of energy for private households due to the EEG – Erneuerbare Energien-Gesetz, “Renewable Energy Legislation” in German – over the past four years, which was introduced to pay huge subsidies for producers of “green” energy on the expense of average peoples’ money, the german Green Party “Bündnis 90/Die Grünen” is expected to lose a substantial share of votes tomorrow: From over 13,5 percent back in 2009 down to 8,5 percent tomorrow.

  57. Rather neat picture of icebreaker, seen by “North Pole Camera.” See bottom of my “camera diary” at: http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-the-darkness-decends/

    I haven’t been able to determine the name of the ship, or discover what it is doing up by our camera. Can anyone help me?

    In the mean time, in the general spirit of acrimony that is permeating Climate Science, I have decided to start a completely false rumor: The ship was sent up there by Greenpeace to break up the ice around the North Pole Camera, so it would look like the ice was melting, but unfortunately it got stuck in the ice and couldn’t exit the view before the camera took the picture. Please send help.

    There. Let’s hope that goes viral.

    In actual fact the camera made it down to 83.669°N yesterday, but now is once again merrily drifting the wrong way, up past 83.770 the last I heard. If it gets north of 84 degrees again it will the eleventh time it has crossed that imaginary line since they first crossed 84 degrees bringing the camera up there last April. It seems to show the ice is not getting flushed out through Fram Strait in the usual manner.

  58. Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted [...]

    Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.

    Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat [...]

    The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean [...]

    Nope, no conspiracies in sight anywhere! Move along now, nothing to see here. This is kind of a macro version of the Climategate emails, be it “scientists” or countries they will scheme, plot and strategize to get what they want. They are all criminals. Climate crooks and kooks. And some day Karma is gonna bite each of them right in their ass.

    Pieter F. [September 20, 2013 at 8:43 am] says:

    Interesting. Last decade it was okay to use 1979 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally cool and made the graph show astonishing rising temps.

    Right on Pieter. These crooks have been busy doing it using two different “bottoms” – the end of the Little Ice Age, and the end of the 1970’s cold period, whichever suits the argument du jour. But now they squeal like stuck pigs when we use a “top” of a trend.

    This was a long time coming because when you keep trumpeting record highs, there comes an inevitable turning point in an oscillating system that every new data point will fall below that high for a long time. To really drive them mad we should just concentrate on their record highs and measure everything against them. The only defense they have is to keep adjusting past temps higher, which they are doing.

Comments are closed.