The WUWT Hot Sheet for Sept 26th, 2013

WUWT_hot_sheet8

From Steve McIntyre: Two Minutes to Midnight

There is much in the news about how IPCC will handle the growing discrepancy between models and observations – long an issue at skeptic blogs. According to BBC News, a Dutch participant says that “governments are demanding a clear explanation” of the discrepancy. On the other hand, Der Spiegel reports:

German ministries insist that it is important not to detract from the effectiveness of climate change warnings by discussing the past 15 years’ lack of global warming. Doing so, they say, would result in a loss of the support necessary for pursuing rigorous climate policies.

According to Der Spiegal (h/t Judy Curry), Joachim Marotzke, has promised that the IPCC will “address this subject head-on”. Troublingly, Marotzke felt it necessary to add that “climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth”.

Unfortunately, as Judy Curry recently observed, it is now two minutes to midnight in the IPCC timetable. It is now far too late to attempt to craft an assessment of a complicated issue.

More here: http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/24/two-minutes-to-midnight/

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

Judith Curry: Can science fix climate change?

JC message to IPCC: Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know. Then please do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change before you tell us what constitutes ’dangerous’ climate change. And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.

More at  Climate Etc.

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

Pat Michaels: More IPCC Misdirection: Its Dodgy Sea Level-Rise Assessment

The leaked version of the AR5 SPM includes this description of sea level rise:

It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010. Tide-gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate of the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.

Notice that they dropped any statement wondering whether the recent rate of rise was an increase in the longer-term trend or the result of short-term variability or other non- climate-change-related factors—even though the difference between these cases has implications for our understanding of sea level rise and how it may evolve into the future.

We repeat—recent scientific findings argue that rate of sea level rise since 1993 is little different than the long-term (20th century) rate of sea level rise once natural variability and non-climatic influences are accounted for.

More here: http://www.cato.org/blog/more-ipcc-misdirection-its-dodgy-sea-level-rise-assessment

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

Donna LaFramboise’s op-ed in the WSJ: Warming Up for Another Climate-Change Report

My own examination of the 2007 IPCC report found that two-thirds of its 44 chapters included at least one individual with ties to the WWF. Some were former or current employees, others were members of a WWF advisory panel whose purpose is to heighten the public’s sense of urgency around climate change.

In a sense, the IPCC conducts the equivalent of a trial. The organization is supposed to be policy-neutral: Its job is to decide whether or not human-generated carbon-dioxide emissions are dangerous to the climate. Rajendra Pachauri is the chief judge.

Mr. Pachauri writes forewords for Greenpeace publications and recently accepted an International Advertising Association “green crusader” award. He is an aggressive advocate for emissions reduction and carbon taxes.

More here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981304579079030750537994.html

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

Via the Hockey Schtick: IPCC says only way to lower temperatures is NEGATIVE CO2 emissions

According to New Scientist, the forthcoming IPCC report will say, “CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period.”

In other words, even if all the world ran on carbon-free energy and deforestation ceased, the only way of lowering temperatures would be to devise a scheme for sucking hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

In essence, the IPCC says we’re doomed no matter what.

Fortunately, any small effect of CO2 on the climate is overwhelmed by natural variability, thus nature will do what it wants regardless of man’s attempts to control the weather with the harmless, essential, trace gas CO2. And even if you think CO2 has a significant climate effect, the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 14 years, not the hundreds claimed by the highly flawed IPCC Bern model.

More here: World won’t cool without geoengineering, warns report

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

Bishop Hill: Met Office concedes the error

Over the last day or so, Julia Slingo has sent a polite, but somewhat evasive response to Nic Lewis regarding his critique of the UKCP09 model. It can be seen here.

Nic Lewis’s reaction is here. I don’t think he is very impressed. The key exchange relates to the following paragraph in Slingo’s paper:

Having said that, it is true that the relationship between historical aerosol forcing and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) depicted in your Figure B1 is based only on the PPE. But we disagree with your assertion that the results from HadCM3 are fundamentally biased. It is certainly the case that versions of HadCM3 with low climate sensitivity and strongly negative aerosol forcing are incompatible with the broad range of observational constraints. But the key point is that the relationship between aerosol forcing and ECS is an emergent property of the detailed physical processes sampled in the PPE simulations.

Click to read more …

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

The GWPF: Most Climate Sceptics Are Also Environmentalists

A paper published today in Global Environmental Change finds that “a central organising idea for climate change sceptics” is that climate change is governed by natural cycles, such as ocean oscillations and solar activity, and that “‘sceptics can have pro-environmental values similar to climate change believers.“

According to the authors, “In contrast to other studies that postulate scepticism and denial as individuals’ fear management strategies in the face of climate change threat, we found that the natural cycles view is founded on a reassuring deeper conviction about how nature works, and is linked to other pro-environmental values not commonly found in sceptical groups. It is a paradox of natural cycles thinking that it rejects the anthropocentrism that is at the heart of science-based environmentalism. By contrast, it places humans as deeply integrated with nature, rather than operating outside it and attempting with uncertain science to control something that is ultimately uncontrollable.”

Quite true, most skeptics I know are pro-enviroment for things that actually matter, such as water quality, toxic pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, atmospheric particulates, etc., but opposed to wasting the majority of environmental efforts on trying to control the weather with the harmless, essential, & trace gas CO2.

http://www.thegwpf.org/climate-sceptics-environmentalists/

Note: I’m guilty as charged – Anthony

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

Dennis Stayer writes:

The DNS server OpenDNS has blocked the web site ClimateDepot.com claiming it is a Phishing Site.  I have responded to OpenDNS that this site has never requested any information personal or otherwise!

If phishing is occurring I suspect a “Warming Hacker”.

http://phish.opendns.com/main?wc=EWJpHBdxAQVHAgpyBws%3D&url=www.climatedepot.com&nref=&w=1271&h=1288&ifc=0

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

The SS Global Warming:

RC-titanic_header

James Delingpole writes:

Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.

Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: ‘We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.

More at Deligngpole: Global warming believers are feeling the heat

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

Shock, awe: I get a mention in the BBC with Andrew Montford.

BBC stops short of calling the Principia zealots out for being the irrational nutballs that they are, but I think readers can figure it out for themselves once the visit the Principia website.

Read it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24233643

About these ads

49 thoughts on “The WUWT Hot Sheet for Sept 26th, 2013

  1. From the
    BBC site referred to above:

    Bart Verheggen is an atmospheric scientist and blogger who supports the mainstream view of global warming. He said that sceptics have discouraged an open scientific debate.

    “When scientists start to notice that their science is being distorted in public by these people who say they are the champions of the scientific method, that could make mainstream researchers more defensive.

    “Scientists probably think twice now about writing things down. They probably think twice about how this could be twisted by contrarians.”

    It is about time that these so-called scientists now think twice before writing things down. They need to make sure what they write they can back up by solid science and fact, not supposition and wishful thinking. Their ‘science’ cannot be distorted if it is true.

  2. Originally posted on “Study: The late cretaceous period was likely ice free”. Probably has just as much relevance here as the IPCC report coming out tomorrow.

    And my point is . . . .

    (Sigh) Let’s remind ourselves . . . .

    Fact: Excluding CO2, 99.96% of ‘the sky’ is made up of all the other atmospheric gases. This leaves CO2 at just 0.040% (400 parts per million). For those decision makers who have still not grasped how miniscule this amount is and prefer it explained in simple terms, think of 1 x Imperial Gallon of CO2 to every 3,200 gallons of air (0.040% of 3,200 = about 1).

    Fact: There are two types of CO2 – ‘naturally occuring’ and ‘man-made’. 96.775% of CO2 is naturally occurring, thus leaving man-made CO2 @ 3.225%. For those decision makers who still have not grasped how miniscule this amount is and prefer it explained in simple terms, there are 8 pints in 1 x Imperial Gallon. Of the gallon of CO2, 7.75 pints of it is completely natural and 0.25 pints is man-made (96.775% of 8 pints = 7.75 pints).

    Are you still with me? Good.

    Fact: For every 3,200 gallons of air, 7.75 pints of CO2 is naturally produced by: All plant photosynthesis, Respiration in all animal life, Volcanic eruptions, Geysers, Natural ‘wildfires’, Marine life Respiration (incl. Corals), Micro-organism respiration, Anearobic digestion (plant decay), Cellular respiration, Food digestion waste (flatulence), Natural animal decomposition (Decay), Calcification (Stalactites & Stalagmites) and Natural fermentation (yeast moulds).

    Fact: For every 3,200 gallons of air, JUST 0.25 pints (5 Fl.oz.) is produced by humans. This includes: Burning of any fossil fuel (oil, oil derivatives, coal, natural gas, peat and wood alcohols); Burning of timber or crops (wood burners, domestic fires, wood chips in bio-mass, charcoal, human caused forest fires, garden incinerators); Global alcoholic beverage market (brewing industry, wine & champagne production, beer dispensing propellant, distillation); Carbonated drinks & beverage industry (man-made CO2 injected into soft drinks as a novelty effect – adding no flavour whatsoever); Decaffinated coffee manufacture; Food Manufacture (the world’s entire daily bread production, sodium bicarbonate aeration in snackfoods/biscuits/crackers/cakes/sponges, yeast extract, modified air packaging to prevent oxidising, dry ice used to keep fruit & vegetables fresh); Refridgeration (fridges, freezers, air-conditioning); Industrial Processes (coolant gas in welding & fabrication, lime kiln processes, industrial waste incineration, sand-blasting using highly pressurised pellets of frozen CO2, laser cutting of all PCB’s for electronics/TV’s/computers); Propellants (fire extinguishers, air bags, life vests, aviation ‘exit slides’); Stage, film & theatre (dry ice, CO2 cannons); Water purification; Limescale removal products; Denture cleaning products; . . . . and finally, anything humans throw out for Composting (garden waste, peelings, etc.).

    And my point is . . . . how can such a minuscule amount of man-made gas be responsible for a 1 degree C temperature increase in the last century – and that our decision makers feel that by curbing just the ‘burning of fossil fuels’ part of this minuscule amount of man-made gas (ignoring all the other ways we manufacture the stuff) that they will save the world from doom – however much it costs.

  3. If GW is mainly a manifestation of UHI effect as you seem to claim coupled with incorrectly sited weather stations. Then why has the UHI effect ceased to operate for the last 16 years?

    If it is so embarassing for the warmist scientists that there has ben this flatlining then since you claim that adjustments caused some of the earlier warming why have they now ceased to fiddle the figures in a suitable manner?

    Most odd!!

  4. “Troublingly, Marotzke felt it necessary to add that “climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth”.”

    If you look for a warmist apparatchik in Germany and Schellnhuber isn’t available, Marotzke is your man. He helped whip public opinion in Germany into shape in the run up to COP15 in Copenhagen, for instance, and there have been photo ops of him standing in the baltic sea with water up to his knees to help convince the Germans that it’s really really bad.

    I would say that his utterance by Marotzke is a simple way of saying “Send money” to Brussels.

  5. …”before you tell us what constitutes ’dangerous’ climate change. ”
    Does the working group 1 make that call? I thought they were always careful to avoid it.

    “In a sense, the IPCC conducts the equivalent of a trial. The organization is supposed to be policy-neutral: Its job is to decide whether or not human-generated carbon-dioxide emissions are dangerous to the climate. Rajendra Pachauri is the chief judge.”
    I thought that ‘ dangerous’ was always a presumption. As for what constitutes ‘dangerous levels’ , i thought that was ruled out by Bolin in early 90s as not a scientific question. And so it has been avoided ever since – something about which many were grumpy.

    Finally, do we really understand what is happening in Stockholm? Perhap someone needs to explain that that the IPCC is no monolith, that the expert authors job is pretty much over, that this is now a negotiation for consensus among country delegates who there and otherwise could hardly be identified as this monster we lampoon as the IPCC.

  6. I just went to weather.com and the first thing I see is “What’s brewing in the tropics?” and below that “4 Hurricanes at once?”. And I’m going ‘OMG did I miss something?” So I jump over to the National Hurricane Center website and see there is absolutely nothing going on. It turns out the article is referring to something that happened in 1998. Seriously?

  7. “sergeiMK says: September 26, 2013 at 4:58 am
    …….Then why has the UHI effect ceased to operate for the last 16 years?”

    Urbanization cannnot continue forever.
    In Japan most of station temp data stopped rising at around 2000,
    where urbanization reached saturation, roughly.

  8. sergeiMK:

    Your post at September 26, 2013 at 4:58 am says in total

    If GW is mainly a manifestation of UHI effect as you seem to claim coupled with incorrectly sited weather stations. Then why has the UHI effect ceased to operate for the last 16 years?

    If it is so embarassing for the warmist scientists that there has ben this flatlining then since you claim that adjustments caused some of the earlier warming why have they now ceased to fiddle the figures in a suitable manner?

    Most odd!!

    No. Your post is very, very “odd”.

    GW is exagerated by “UHI effect” “coupled with incorrectly sited weather stations”.

    You either misunderstand or you misrepresent when you assert that some people “seem to claim” GW “is mainly a manifestation” of these effects.

    The main problem of exageration is ‘adjustments’ of the data; see e.g.

    And the satelite data (RSS and UAH) is the reason such exageration now only consists of lowering past temperatures and not also raising recent ones. This is mentioned in Appendix B of this item

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    Nobody claims UHI has “ceased to operate for the last 16 years”. Global temperature varies: it always has and it always will. The warming prior to “the last 16 years” was mostly natural and the “pause” of “the last 16 years” is too.

    I am often amazed at the way true believers in AGW deny climate change which has always happened and will always happen. Their beliefs are most odd.

    Richard

  9. “BBC stops short of calling the Principi@ zealots out for being the irrational nutballs that they are, but I think readers can figure it out for themselves once the visit the Principi@ website.”

    Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (Brussels, 1957) has a Ph. D. in Physics from the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL, 1986 with highest honours), based on work done at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR, Boulder, Colorado) on the effect of global warming on Antarctic sea ice.

    He has specialized in climate change modelling and the study of the impact of human activities on climate. He is also interested by the impacts of climate change on human activities and ecosystems. As professor at UCL, he teaches, e.g., climatology, climate modelling, astronomy, geophysics, mathematical geography and environmental sciences, and directs the interdisciplinary Master programme in environmental sciences and management.

    As a fully paid-up member of the “science is settled” brigade, Ypersele is fully invested in keeping the whole “man-made-CO2-is-killing-the-Earth” story, and there is nothing he likes better than dismissing nay sayers as idiots (and I’m being kind). This stance makes him the darling of both the BBC and the Guardian and explains from where an enormous number of their “expert” statements originate. There is a 50-page PDF online detailing the thoughts of Chairman Ypersele on AGW but I won’t link it here because it is a waste of time as it just repeats (in enormous type) everything you’ve heard (ad nauseum) from the Guardian and the BBC for the last 20 years. Ypersele is going to defend to the death his reputation which rests on 100% AGW orthodxy as pumulgated by the BBC/Independent/Guardian/Royal Society, etc. and everyone who agrees with him, like the IPCC.

    Ypersele has a completely closed mind on AGW, and why any one would believe anything he says about the climate is beyond me.

  10. berniel:

    re your post at September 26, 2013 at 5:21 am.

    I am getting fed up with misrepresentations of the IPCC on WUWT threads. Yours is merely the latest. It seems that ‘Troll Central’ has issued a directive to provide such misrepresentations.

    The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.

    Over the past few days I have repeatedly explained this with links to the pertinent IPCC documents in several WUWT threads. This is a link to one of those explanations that I provided yesterday.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1426178

    Richard

  11. Tomorrow is the big day. Any chance that the IPCC will cave to the demands that the pause be treated with respect, realize that they need to change more than just the SPM (Summary for Policy Wonks), and delay releasing the whole AR5 for the six months or so it would take fix all the chapters that the SPM supposedly summarizes?

  12. Ric Werme:

    Your post at September 26, 2013 at 5:47 am asks

    Tomorrow is the big day. Any chance that the IPCC will cave to the demands that the pause be treated with respect, realize that they need to change more than just the SPM (Summary for Policy Wonks), and delay releasing the whole AR5 for the six months or so it would take fix all the chapters that the SPM supposedly summarizes?

    No, that would be contrary to precedent.

    As Sir John Houghton announced in a previous similar circumstance when he was Chairman of the IPCC

    We will ensure that the Report agrees with the Summary.

    They did, and that has been IPCC standard practice since then.

    Richard

  13. All of the CO2 kills and the earth will burn soon types of the IPCC should have to do all their research from now on out in the open in say Midland Texas, so’s they would at last notice the sun up there.

    Any contact with facts would help.

  14. “There is much in the news about how IPCC will handle the growing discrepancy between models and observations – long an issue at skeptic blogs.”

    I call this a WUWT Flash Back Hot Sheet article.

    From May 10 2011
    New solar reconstruction paper suggests 6x greater solar forcing change than cited by the IPCC

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/10/new-solar-reconstruction-paper-suggests-6x-tsi-change-than-cited-by-the-ipcc/

    I wonder if the IPCC report has changed their information to reflect Real Solar Irradiance.
    Chart I found at LISIRD: LASP Interactive Solar Irradiance Data Center

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

  15. ‘According to Der Spiegal (h/t Judy Curry), Joachim Marotzke, has promised that the IPCC will “address this subject head-on”. Troublingly, Marotzke felt it necessary to add that “climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth”.’

    I think what the climate researchers feel (but won’t say) is that their true obligation is to money and power.

  16. Just as we’ve known all along, and from their own mouths, it isn’t about facts or science, but about “communication”:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929360.200-climate-science-why-the-world-wont-listen.html#.UkQ5tX9v4w8

    “the argument is not really about the science; it is about politics and values.”

    “The way to engage the public on climate change is to find ways of making it resonate more effectively with the values that people hold.”

    “we must use the report as the beginning of a series of conversations about climate change – conversations that start from people’s values and work back from there to the science.”

    Scary stuff. They seem to think they can simply manipulate people in order to accomplish their goals.

  17. The IPCC does not conduct the equivalent of a trial, other than a kangaroo court. This week, they’re deciding what the outcome should be in their Summary for Policy Makers. Later they adjust the evidence and release their “scientific” report with the details which support the Summary which was created by political processes.

    Also, for the headline:
    The GWPF: Most Climate Sceptics Are Also Environmentalists
    The proper word there is “Conservationists”.

  18. Judith Curry: Can science fix climate change?

    JC message to IPCC: Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know. Then please do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change before you tell us what constitutes ’dangerous’ climate change. And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.

    – – – – – – – – –

    Also, we have a begged question. Can science fix the IPCC?

    Unlikely. The repair comes from elsewhere.

    John

    PS – late to the comment party, been wildly celebrating for the past 18 hours the unbelievable comeback by OTUSA to take AC34.

  19. The IPCC remind me of the old USSR politicos. We all knew they were liars: they knew we knew they were liars: but it made no difference, they just kept on telling the same old lies.

  20. “According to New Scientist, the forthcoming IPCC report will say, “CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period.”

    If that is true, it proves that anthropogenic emissions are a minor contribution to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. At present, natural sinks are sucking up at least 95% of all emmisions (both natural and anthropogenic) and anthropogenic emmisions contribute only about 5% of total emissions.

    We may have already reached our maximum global temperature, If atmospheric CO2 concentration follows temperature, we should expect a maximum CO2 within the next thirty years.

    Their models do not agree with reality. They fail with respect to the anthropogenic contribution to CO2 accumulation as well as to warming sensitivity to CO2.

  21. r coutney you say:
    “You either misunderstand or you misrepresent when you assert that some people “seem to claim” GW “is mainly a manifestation” of these effects.”

    recently roy spencer has claimed 50% of warming is due to uhi.
    Spencer shows compelling evidence of UHI in CRUTem3 data
    Posted on March 30, 2012 by Anthony Watts

    I believe 0.2 to 0.3C is attributed to adjustments (another 20%)

    In my books that makes 70% due to 2 effects. Then of course you have inaccuracy of measurement….

    Both these effects have now ceased as of 1998. So have these stopped or is there a negative effect that has countered their warming?

    What is this effect ?

  22. “German ministries insist that it is important not to detract from the effectiveness of climate change warnings by discussing the past 15 years’ lack of global warming. Doing so, they say, would result in a loss of the support necessary for pursuing rigorous climate policies.”

    Which Ministries and which people, I want names so we can address them in person.

    In terms of surrendering to Ideologies Germany has an historic obligation not to make the same mistake again.

    The fact that warming has stalled over the past 15 years should be celebrated, especially now the Energiewende is a complete faillure.

    I’m worried by the German response but we should give the German people a fair chance.

    They wil pay the price and all that was served until now is the lies from the political establishment and the endless stream of alarmist propaganda in the media.

  23. sergeiMK says:

    “recently roy spencer has claimed 50% of warming is due to uhi.”

    UHI is not global warming. It is an artifact of localized human activity. The fact that temperature measurements are taken in inappropriate locations such as airports indicates a serious problem with the methodology. It does not mean the global warming is as real as is claimed.

    AGW refers to global warming — but there is no testable, measurable scientific evidence proving that human activity contributes anything at all to global warming.

    [Disclaimer: it is possible that human activity does contribute something to global warming, even though there is not a shred of measurable evidence to support that conjecture. But if it is true, then the warming caused is so minuscule that it can be completely disregarded for all policy decisions. It is just too small to matter.]

  24. sergeiMK:

    My post at September 26, 2013 at 5:34 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/26/the-wuwt-hot-sheet-for-sept-26th-2013/#comment-1427171

    referenced and quoted your original post in full then refuted every part of it.

    But you continue with your post at September 26, 2013 at 9:12 am. I quote it here in full

    r coutney you say:

    “You either misunderstand or you misrepresent when you assert that some people “seem to claim” GW “is mainly a manifestation” of these effects.”

    recently roy spencer has claimed 50% of warming is due to uhi.
    Spencer shows compelling evidence of UHI in CRUTem3 data
    Posted on March 30, 2012 by Anthony Watts
    I believe 0.2 to 0.3C is attributed to adjustments (another 20%)

    In my books that makes 70% due to 2 effects. Then of course you have inaccuracy of measurement….

    Both these effects have now ceased as of 1998. So have these stopped or is there a negative effect that has countered their warming?

    What is this effect ?

    OK, so you have conflated the opinions of two different people to obtain an assertion.
    So what? If those people have said what you claim that indicates nothing.

    Firstly, the so-called “measurements” are nothing of the sort. They are estimates which are changed in most months. For example of how they change then see this

    And if you want know how meaningless those estimates are then read this, especially its Annex B

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    However, global temperature certainly did rise over the last century. It has been rising from the Little Ice Age (LIA) for ~3 centuries. The rise has not been constant. The recovery from the LIA seems to consist of alternate 30-year periods of global warming and no warming (or slight cooling).

    Do I know what effect caused the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Present warm periods?
    No, nobody knows.

    Do I know what caused the cool periods between those warm periods?
    No, nobody knows.

    Do I know if why the recovery from the LIA has alternative ~30 year periods of stall and warming?
    No, nobody knows.

    Do I know if the end of the existing stall (known as the “pause”) will be followed by warming to temperatures similar to the Medieval warm period or cooling to temperatures similar to the LIA?
    No, nobody knows.

    But some people pretend to know answers to these questions, and they are believed some gullible fools. Meanwhile, people who have not been duped by the now falsified AGW-scare continue to seek answers to these questions.

    Richard

  25. Sasha says:
    September 26, 2013 at 5:38 am

    Ypersele has a completely closed mind on AGW, and why any one would believe anything he says about the climate is beyond me.

    Completely agree with that. I have heard a speech of him for students at the University of Anywerp. Avoiding any answer to pertinent questions like about the current “hiatus” in upward temperature trend. And acting in the background to excert pressure so that a meeting of skeptics at the Free University of Brussels with Claes Johnson and Fred Singer was cancelled and had to move to a private place. Shame on him…

  26. GeeJam says:
    September 26, 2013 at 4:40 am

    This leaves CO2 at just 0.040%

    Right but irrelevant argument. No matter how small the amounts are, it is about its effect. 0.0001% of HCN in the atmosphere is enough to kill you…
    Not that I think that even a doubling of CO2 is a problem (to the contrary, possible more beneficial than problematic). But (relative) concentrations can’t be used as argument.

    There are two types of CO2 – ‘naturally occuring’ and ‘man-made’. 96.775% of CO2 is naturally occurring, thus leaving man-made CO2 @ 3.225%

    Again irrelevant and wrong this time: the emissions are 3% of the total emissions, but additional, the natural emissions are more than compensated by the sinks which are at about 98.5%. Thus more sink than source. Thus most of the natural emissions are simply cycling in and out and the human contribution is largely responsible for the 30% increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

    And my point is . . . . how can such a minuscule amount of man-made gas be responsible for a 1 degree C temperature increase in the last century

    Good question and probably only for a small part. But still not zero. And IF there is a substantial part of the warming caused by CO2, then humans are near fully responsible for it…

  27. fhhaynie says:
    September 26, 2013 at 7:42 am

    If atmospheric CO2 concentration follows temperature, we should expect a maximum CO2 within the next thirty years.

    It doesn’t look good for your theory: despite a flat trend, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up at a near constant ratio with human emissions…

  28. Ferdinand Engelbeen:

    This thread is in danger of being side-tracked onto debate of the carbon cycle. I write to make one point in hope of diverting the discussion back to its mainline.

    At September 26, 2013 at 12:10 pm you write

    fhhaynie says:
    September 26, 2013 at 7:42 am

    If atmospheric CO2 concentration follows temperature, we should expect a maximum CO2 within the next thirty years.

    It doesn’t look good for your theory: despite a flat trend, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up at a near constant ratio with human emissions…

    If you were right that “the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up at a near constant ratio with human emissions” (the meaning of “near constant ratio” is debatable) then it would not say anything about the statement of fhhaynie.

    Richard

  29. The Guardian’s latest ‘thesis’ is that we’re all hard wired ‘not to do anything about climate change’.

    You’ll not be surprised to learn that no evidence was provided to back up this ‘assertion’, but 500 eco-hippy bloggers all agreed that skeptics knew nothing about science.

    I have challenged one blogger to demonstrate that his credentials match or exceed those of Bob Carter (Professorial rank achieved) and John Christy (regular testimony on Capitol Hill)….

  30. 1) F. Englebeen: “the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up at a near constant ratio with human emissions”

    So? BOTH human and natural CO2 correlate strongly with temperature increase — delayed by a quarter cycle.

    2) F. Englebeen: “IF there is a substantial part of the warming caused by CO2, then humans are near fully responsible for it… .”

    You have provided no evidence for this conjecture. And you cannot. There isn’t any.
    Further, native sources and sinks for CO2 have so much greater a magnitude than human CO2’s that even a slight imbalance in net native CO2 OVERWHELMS any human CO2 component.

    Source for above: Dr. Murry Salby, lecture in Hamburg, Germany, April 18, 2013

    *************************
    .
    .

    @ Phil Jourdan, you said it — CONTROL FREAKS.

  31. Has OpenDNS fixed the phishing problem yet?

    Believe it or not, it is possible this is an honest mistake. OpenDNS marks most sites a phish site automatically. There have been cases in the past where other sites on a shared server cause multiple sites to be marked as phish sites.

  32. “we’re all hard wired ” (R. T. J. 1211 quoting Guardian).

    Yup. (good point) The brains of scientists doing hard science, i.e., doing REAL science using observations to verify or falsify genuine hypotheses, have excellent wiring. Those who are huffing and puffing mere speculation have only straw.

  33. Nothing political in the WG1 report at all. Only science.

    Professor Corinne Le Quere, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia and one of the authors of the IPCC report, said: “The policy makers see the information from quite a different angle as they have to make a relationship with policy.

    “They go through it line by line, paragraph by paragraph and suggest changes which the scientists then respond to.”

  34. John Whitman says:
    September 26, 2013 at 7:09 am

    Re: AC34 – if you believe the British newspapers, it was mostly down to a Brit!

  35. Janice Moore says:
    September 26, 2013 at 12:30 pm

    So? BOTH human and natural CO2 correlate strongly with temperature increase — delayed by a quarter cycle.

    You are looking at the derivative of the increase, which effectively removes the trends. If you look at the trends, then the increase in the atmosphere perfectly matches the human emissions and not the temperature increase:

    Or in ratio:

    And indeed, the variability in sink rate is mostly from the variability in temperature, but that is not the cause of the trend.

    You have provided no evidence for this conjecture. And you cannot. There isn’t any.
    Further, native sources and sinks for CO2 have so much greater a magnitude than human CO2′s that even a slight imbalance in net native CO2 OVERWHELMS any human CO2 component.

    I said IF (and only IF) there is a substantial effect of CO2 on temperature, then we are responsible for it, as humans are responsible for the increase of CO2…

    While the natural fluxes are huge, the net natural variability after a year (or even over the seasons) is surprisingly small: about 4-5 ppmv/°C, that is all. Humans currently contribute 8-9 GtC/yr. That is about twice the natural variability:

    And Salby is wrong on several counts, but that is a long discussion…

  36. Richard C,

    You say:I am getting fed up with misrepresentations of the IPCC on WUWT threads. Yours is merely the latest.

    But what followed felt like shouting me down rather than responding to what were quite specific point. My concern was that the original attack were not hitting the target. I am also concerned, and more so after your response, with the shrill rising among otherwise sober commentator such as yourself.

  37. berniel:

    I read your post at September 26, 2013 at 3:35 pm.

    Your original post at September 26, 2013 at 5:21 am was pure excuse for the IPCC. This link jumps to it for the benefit of others

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/26/the-wuwt-hot-sheet-for-sept-26th-2013/#comment-1427154

    My post in reply was at September 26, 2013 at 5:44 am. This is what it said in total

    berniel:

    re your post at September 26, 2013 at 5:21 am.

    I am getting fed up with misrepresentations of the IPCC on WUWT threads. Yours is merely the latest. It seems that ‘Troll Central’ has issued a directive to provide such misrepresentations.

    The IPCC is pure politics pretending to be science because that is its specified job.

    Over the past few days I have repeatedly explained this with links to the pertinent IPCC documents in several WUWT threads. This is a link to one of those explanations that I provided yesterday.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1426178

    Richard

    I thank you for giving me a reason to draw attention to it and the important link which it contains.

    Richard

  38. Here are two of my definitions which may assist the non AGW in their battle with the nonsense.
    Delusional and denial-the modern coping method – you don’t have to cope with reality.
    Propaganda-promoting an idea or concept while ignoring the facts of an opposing point of view.

    These two fit those who fly the pro AGW flag.

  39. Climatedepot.com looks normal right now, to me.

    On Sligo’s “emergent property” dodge: Fuel poverty is also an emergent property of relying on climate models.

  40. Climatedepot.com would look normal. But OpenDNS is still reporting it as a phishing site, which could be picked up by URL Filtering engines. I did submit a report that its appearances is probably a hack and attempt DOS for political reasons.

  41. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    September 26, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    GeeJam says:
    September 26, 2013 at 4:40 am

    This leaves CO2 at just 0.040%

    Right but irrelevant argument. No matter how small the amounts are, it is about its effect. 0.0001% of HCN in the atmosphere is enough to kill you…
    Not that I think that even a doubling of CO2 is a problem (to the contrary, possible more beneficial than problematic). But (relative) concentrations can’t be used as argument.

    Ferdinand,

    Nicely summarized. As you pointed out with the HCN example, a tiny amount of a substance can have a big effect. Small amounts of erythropoietin in our blood stream maintain our health.

  42. berniel says:
    September 26, 2013 at 5:21 am

    Bernie, I think the UHI effect continues. Look up discussions of the divergence of surface temperatures from satellite temperatures. Most likely this is due to continuing UHI.

  43. Pristine weather stations report no rise since the 1800s. They are treated as outliers by the weather computers and homogenized with stations in more populated zones. All fiksed!

Comments are closed.