(Personal note – apologies for the light posting today, I’m overwhelmed with work, and exhausted from overwork – Anthony)
The IPCC AR5 falls flat
Dr. Judith Curry has been making some heavy hitting commentary, we’ll lead with some of those:
Well here it is, the pause discussion is buried in Box 9.2 of the IPCC Working Group I Report.
The Final Draft SPM summed it up correctly as:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
Which of course disappeared in the Final version of the SPM. Before your head starts spinning trying to make sense of the WGI Report text, here is the main summary point IMO:
==============================================================
IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis
Diagnosis: paradigm paralysis, caused by motivated reasoning, oversimplification, and consensus seeking; worsened and made permanent by a vicious positive feedback effect at the climate science-policy interface.
==============================================================
How the IPCC forgot to mention the pause
[Marotzke] attributed the oversight to a tendency of each group working on each of the 14 chapters to rely on some other chapter to deal with the issue. And anyone who was thinking about it at all thought some other chapter should handle the issue. – CS Monitor
==============================================================
“some delegates wanted to remove all references to a slowdown…[perhaps] felt it would be seized on by climate-change deniers”
Has the U.N. Climate Panel Now Outlived Its Usefulness? by Fred Pearce: Yale Environment 360
…It is not called an “intergovernmental panel” for nothing, and every last nation had to agree to the text before it was published.
So is this science or politics?
…
Another contentious topic was how the report should deal with the recent warming hiatus. The draft acknowledged the scientists’ concerns and noted that climate models “do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years.” This was reportedly met with opposition from some delegates who wanted to remove all references to a slowdown. Some argued that the hiatus had not lasted long enough to be considered a temperature trend. Perhaps they also felt it would be seized on by climate-change deniers.
…
David Keith, a Harvard University professor who recently resigned as an author of the IPCC report, says “The IPCC is showing typical signs of middle age, including weight gain, a growing rigidity of viewpoint, and overconfidence in its methods. It did a great job in the early days, but it’s become ritualized and bureaucratic, issuing big bulk reports that do little to answer the hard questions facing policymakers.” It needs, he says, “a reinvention.”
==============================================================
Eisenhower was right.
Judith Curry: Gov’t grants have caused IPCC science to be ‘torqued in unfortunate direction’
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, says the IPCC is taking a huge credibility hit over the hiatus – and its pronouncement that it is 95 percent certain that human activity is responsible for most global warming.
“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”
That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming.
See my essay about Eisenhower’s prescient warning here
==============================================================
The Political Science of Global Warming
The U.N.’s latest climate-change report should be its last
The U.N.’s climate-change body is unreformable and its latest report should be its last.
By Rupert Darwall, WSJ
© Dave Reede/First Light/Corbis“Human influence extremely likely to be the dominant cause of observed warming since the middle of the last century,” was the headline from Friday’s release of the first instalment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment report. “Extremely likely”—indicating a 95%-100% likelihood—was ratcheted up one notch from the 2007 fourth assessment report’s “very likely.” Yet compared to 2007, the IPCC widened its estimate of the responsiveness of the climate system to carbon dioxide by reducing the lower band to a 1.5°C increase from 2°C, qualifying the new estimate as only “likely.”
This is a glaring discrepancy. How can the IPCC be more confident that more than half the temperature rise since the mid-20th century is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions when it is less sure of the climatic impact of carbon dioxide? The explanation is that IPCC reports, especially the summaries for policymakers, are primarily designed for political consumption. And as if on cue, British Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the IPCC report, “If someone said there is a 95% chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5% that doesn’t agree with it, you still take out the insurance.
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-341868/
==============================================================
Main AR5 WG1 Report published | The IPCC Report
Unfortunately, the Changes document linked above doesn’t make much sense at all, and seems to contain a lot of mistakes.
…
I suppose this shows that the stories of IPCC delegates being over-tired and not getting enough sleep were all true.
==============================================================
IPCC in denial. “Just-so” excuses use ocean heat to hide their failure. « JoNova
Now that the plateau in temperatures has lasted for 15 years, everyone, even IPCC lead authors, can see the “90% certain” models were 98% wrong. So the IPCC now claims the heat went into the deep abyss, which they didn’t predict, can’t measure accurately, and, even by the best estimates we have, has not been anywhere near enough warming to explain the missing energy.
==============================================================
Die Klimazwiebel: My problems with the IPCC report
Generally, it would have been a good idea to compare the major messages from the 2007 report with those of the 2013 report and say where changes in assessment were made and why. The IPCC shuns such an exercise, and at its peril. The reason why it doesn’t want to do this arguably (here I am offering a speculation) has to do with the desire to be perceived as sober, consistent, even infallible. Giving hints at a lack of confidence, the IPCC seems to assume, could provoke critical questions from the audience (and the heavy use of the word ‘confidence’ in the Summary for Policy Makers indicates that the IPCC wants to hammer home this exact point, that it has confidence…). But such a move gives rise to suspicion in the first place, as most of the interested audience can check for themselves what was said and how it was said last time, and if there are discrepancies between the two. So in reality this strategy is bound to backfire.
==============================================================
Climate change? What climate change? | Columnists | Opinion | Edmonton Sun
…the key admission in the IPCC report is, “There is a lack of agreement” on just how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide.
==============================================================
Climate Activists Need to Dial Back on the Panic
Instead of enacting phenomenally expensive policies, we need to come up with low-cost solutions to global warming that all nations can embrace
On Friday, the U.N. climate panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produced its first overview in six years. It wasn’t about panic and catastrophe, which unfortunately has dominated our climate debate, leading to expensive but ineffective policies.The IPCC is now extremely certain that more than half of the past six decades’ temperature rise was caused by man. But it does not support the scary scenarios of temperature rises of 9°F or more bandied about by activists — the likely rise over the 21st century is about 1.8°F to 6.7°F. Similarly it makes short shrift of alarmist claims that sea levels will rise 3 ft. to 6 ft. In reality, the IPCC estimates the rise by the end of the century at 1.5 ft. to 2 ft.
Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/30/climate-activists-need-to-dial-back-on-the-panic/#ixzz2gPz2oADi
==============================================================
IPCC is more about Politics than Science
The science debate is over. They lost.
Decades ago they proposed a theory that Earth’s temperature is controlled by the 0.004% trace of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This theory was used to make predictions by at least 73 computer models. Thirty years of observations has proven every prediction wrong. Therefore their theory is wrong. That is how science works.
Now, faced with collapse of their theory and de-funding of their activities, the alarmist crew have switched to politics.
The IPCC Summary document released last week with all the hoopla of a political convention is a political document produced by consensus. It was negotiated by a faceless committee of international bureaucrats for their government masters, most of whom have a vested interest in proving there is a continuing problem needing international taxes and controls.
Consensus is the tool of politics. Public opinion is where the next climate battle will be fought.
They will lose again.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia
=================================================================
SUPREME COURT:
Justices to consider review of EPA greenhouse gas rules
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059987993
In what could become a marquee environmental case of the Supreme Court’s next term, the justices on Monday are expected to consider reviewing a lower court ruling that upheld U.S. EPA’s regulations to reduce heat-trapping gases.
Nine petitions are asking the court to reverse aspects of an appellate court’s June 2012 ruling that backed EPA’s first rules following the Supreme Court’s landmark Massachusetts v. EPA decision, which instructed the agency to regulate greenhouse gases as harmful pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Some prominent environmental lawyers believe the court will grant certiorari to — or agree to review — some part of the petitions. The decision could come as early as Tuesday, less than two weeks after the Obama administration proposed regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions at new power plants.
Richard Lazarus, an environmental law professor at Harvard Law School, wrote recently that “the odds of a cert. grant remain significant, mostly because of … superficial trappings of cert.-worthiness.”
Writing in the nonpartisan Environmental Law Institute’s Environmental Forum, Lazarus said the number of petitions is unusually high and more than 80 interested parties are asking the high court to take the case.
He also pointed out that 17 states have signed onto the effort, a significant number considering that the dozen states that supported greenhouse gas regulation in 2007 played an important role in persuading the high court to review Massachusetts v. EPA.
==============================================================
Mike’s ‘hidden decline’ found in new study: Tree-ring analysis shows no warming in eastern Mediterranean past 900 years
The Register reports: There’s interesting news on the climate beat this week, especially given the background of the just-released IPCC AR5 report – which blames humanity for warming the planet. A new, comprehensive study examining temperatures in the Eastern Mediterranean region over the last 900 years indicates that global warming and associated climate changes actually […]
=================================================================
Oh, that’s gotta hurt:
‘Modern Warming Trend Cannot Be Found’ In New Climate Study
There’s interesting news on the climate beat this week, especially given the background of the just-released IPCC AR5 report – which blames humanity for warming the planet. A new, comprehensive study examining temperatures in the Eastern Mediterranean region over the last 900 years indicates that global warming and associated climate changes actually haven’t happened there at all.
…
According to a Helmholtz Centre announcement highlighting Dr Heinrich’s latest research:
For the first time a long temperature reconstruction on the basis of stable carbon isotopes in tree rings has been achieved for the eastern Mediterranean. An exactly dated time series of almost 900 year length was established, exhibiting the medieval warm period, the little ice age between the 16th and 19th century as well as the transition into the modern warm phase … [however] the modern warming trend cannot be found in the new chronology.
Heinrich and his colleagues write:
The twentieth century warming trend found elsewhere could not be identified in our proxy record, nor was it found in the corresponding meteorological data used for our study.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/30/global_warming_didnt_happen_at_all_according_to_new_treering_study/
==============================================================
What sad, hate filled little men they are:
.@MichaelEMann I get less hate mail than I used to. I think the number of skeptics declined as they die of old age/drool shorts out keybrd
— Andrew Dessler (@AndrewDessler) September 30, 2013
The only reasonable conclusion about the IPCC report is that it is paid for results. Pure and simple. In no other science would scientists continue to downplay observations that falsify their hypothesis. Lyshenkoism on steroids.
A few years ago I said on the Guardian comments section that we would soon know who the real deniers are. My predictive skill is better than the IPCC’s. I was told that there was no temperature standstill, then I was told the oceans ate my global warming. What a bloody farce.
It’s been over 15 years now and yet “we must be right because we can’t think of anything else.”
“Human influence extremely likely to be the dominant cause of observed warming since the middle of the last century,”
well yes it is…..
Global warming is just an artifact of technology
If we had invented this technology 1000 year ago, we would be trying to control an entirely different “normal” or “average”….
Can you imagine the hysterics that would have caused going into the LIA? LOL
It is the end of days for the CAGW hypothesis but the adherents of this quasi-religious belief system simply cannot let go. To do so would cause them deep psychological trauma; they have to continue to bleat their already-falsified trash which is dressed up as ‘scientific’ research because they cannot comprehend a world without an impending Armageddon of whatever nature.
Unfortunately for them truly scientific research is demonstrating time and again that their belief system is incorrect. This sphere which we call the Earth is doing its own thing, the paltry effluvia of mankind (CO2 amongst others) are not having any measurable effects whatsoever on climate, temperature, sea-levels or polar ice concentrations.
The biggest challenge now facing climate realists is just how are Governments to be convinced of this climate fallacy and the idiocy of bankrupting themselves trying to ameliorate a non-existent problem.
Will the media pick up upon this convenient deletion from the final?
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
The IPCC is definitely coming unglued. It will be interesting to see at what point they realize the fall apart is for real and what happens then. How will they dress up their “abandon ship” moment? It won’t be graceful, I can tell you that much.
Next, the U.N. as a total unit should be scrutinized – they are not what they seem.
As many have said, the AGW hoax was dead from the start, if only the REAL science had been considered. The cult grew based on political forces (aka “funding”) and emotions (it’s for the grandchildren!). But, the cult only needs a charismatic leader to stay alive.
AGW fails the science test. It fails the historical test. It fails model predictions. But, one charismatic leader can save the hoax.
Who will it be?
Hiding the hiatus. From Judith’s page I quote Michael Craig:
I noticed two specific differences between the final and the SOD, specifically in Chapter 1.
Figure 1.4 was the one that hit the skeptic airwaves when the SOD was leaked with regard to models diverging from observations. The new figure 1.4 is much less damning (looking).
As well, the wording with regard to that figure changed from:
“In summary, the globally-averaged surface temperatures are well within the uncertainty range of all previous IPCC projections, and generally are in the middle of the scenario ranges.”
to:
“In summary, the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections.”
SOD, Chapter 1: http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf
Final, Chapter 1: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter01.pdf
[End of Michael Craig quote]
Figure 1.4 is here: https://twitter.com/AndreVanDelft/status/384815047391723521/photo/1/large
The caption text is:
Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961–1990 (in C) since 1950 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are harmonized to start from the same value in 1990. Observed global annual mean surface air temperature anomaly, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as squares and smoothed time series as solid lines (NASA (dark blue), NOAA (warm mustard), and the UK Hadley Centre (bright green) reanalyses)
(…)
See Appendix 1.A for details on the data and calculations used to create this figure.
[End of caption quote]
The Appendix 1.A on page 33 contains:
The observations are shown from 1950 to 2012 as annual mean anomaly relative to 1961–1990 (squares). For smoothing, first, the trend of each of the observational datasets was calculated by locally weighted scatter plot smoothing (Cleveland, 1979; f=1/3). Then, the 11-year running means of the residuals were determined with reflected ends for the last 5 years. Finally, the trend was added back to the 11-year running means of the residuals.
[End of appendix quote]
See also Steve McIntyre’s piece “Two Minutes to Midnight”:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/24/two-minutes-to-midnight
The current figure 1.4 looks a bit like the First Draft version; the Second Draft version has the observed temperatures below the projected ones.
The discussion on JC blog makes interesting reading. The IPCC has few friends and many enemies there.
so that’s all! The other parts are correct! (Note: I assume some errors here and then). Dream on
the very concept of a GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE is ludicrous…and these con men claim to be able to measure it to 0.1 of a degree…reminiscent of debates about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin…or Ptolemaic astronomy with epicycles within epicycles…Phlogiston anyone ?…a lot of these global warming guys come by way of Malthus…Club of Rome…Paul Ehrlich…saying we consume too much…we must de-industrialize…reduce the population…how do you do that ? Prince Charles let the cat out of the bag…he said ….’IF I DIE AND AM RE-INCARNATED…I WANT TO COME BACK AS A DEADLY VIRUS AND WIPE OUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE’…
In AR5, there is not so much as a stubborn pretense of science. The writing is unreadable. It is unreadable because they have nothing to say and because they are trying to string together words that cannot be criticized. They have trashed science and are now out front doing cheerleading drills.
The spokespeople have been incoherent. Thomas Stocker states in public that the “missing heat in the deep oceans” is a new area of research and that there is just not much on it in the literature. Now why would you say that about one of the new pillars of CAGW?
They will make fools of themselves again and again over the coming weeks.
Faced with withering, widespread criticism of the inability to predict or address the 15 year halt in global warming, IPCC head Rajendra K. Pachauri now claims, “The lurkers support me in email.”
I cannot believe that the MICHAEL MANN rant today about the denier community did not make it’s own post on WUWT today. I was so looking forward to it. I see Anthony is quite busy, and I feel for his time woes. But still hope it can make it to a blog near us with some good Anthony analytics. Or maybe Willis could take a shot at that pompous donkey. I think he used the denier term 9 times in the article. He is losing it quickly. He even had the nerve to say his hockey stick was still intact.
There is certainly a “momentum for change” that seems to be building; but for some reason I don’t think it’s going in quite the direction they envisaged that this “enhanced communications capacity” would lead!
[More here]
Sorry, let me try that again …
There is certainly a “momentum for change” that seems to be building; but for some reason I don’t think it’s going in quite the direction they envisaged that this “enhanced communications capacity” would lead!
[More here]
“Models do not generally reproduce. . .”(global warming stopping for 15 years).
Do any of the standard models reproduce it? wouldn’t it be more correct to state “None of the studies IPCC uses have models that reproduce the hiatus.”
It seems if there were a model that reproduced it, it would be front and center right now.
gopal panicker says:
September 30, 2013 at 5:40 pm
___________________________
Yes, genocide is their aim. Tag, everyone is it, nothing personal…
Some people like to throw up NASA as an example of how government and science can be success. But they forget a key aspect of that relationship. NASA had a clearly defined mission and had to create the technology to make it happen. But once the mission was over, what has it done? Become another example of a missionless boondoggle. That wastes money and puts out garbage.
“The ocean stole my Global Warming!” is right up there with “The dog ate my homework!”
The IPCC admits warming has been far slower than they predicted (that it was effectively Zero since 1997 they refuse to acknowledge), that there is uncertainty around predicted melting of ice caps (they are growing), Predicted increases in Hurricanes and droughts may have been “overstated” (there has been a slight decline in both since 1950), and they can’t explain the reason for the “Decrease in the rate of warming.”
I can: it is exactly what they should have expected in a global ecosystem: positive forcing by increasing CO2 will cause a small increase in temperature before negative feedbacks squelch the warming. There are dozens of known negative feedbacks which work to maintain the environment at around the same temperature:
1) Warmer air evaporates more water from our oceans, which has a direct cooling effect, and creates more cloud cover reflecting more sunlight back into space.
2) More clouds generate more rain, reducing frequency and duration of droughts, so more plants grow, absorbing more CO2.
3) CO2 acts as a plant food, so higher CO2 concentrations make plants grow faster, binding more CO2.
4) Warmer temperatures mean longer growing seasons, so plants grow for longer periods, again binding more CO2.
5) More moisture in the air means more precipitation including snow on glaciers and icecaps, which explains the growth of both the Antarctic Icecap and of sea-ice. These increase the planetary albedo, again reflecting more heat into space.
The IPCC computer models will eventually be shown to over-estimate the power of CO2 as a temperature forcing, and to under-estimate the negative feedback effects of Planet Earth. They have no excuse, as the Gaia hypothesis was formulated by the scientist James Lovelock in the 1970’s and predicts exactly this behaviour in a living system. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
The U.N.’s latest climate-change report should be its last
No. The members of the IPCC should not be let off so easily. Lock them in a room, tell them to guess again until they get it right. The task of Sisyphus is too good for them.
Just noticed something from the sea ice page. The still normally functioning pole came went off line a few weeks ago (perhaps recovered by the ice breaker). However the other cam, the one that had fallen over / was knocked over, got buried in the snow. It is still transmitting. Of course all you can see is ice / snow. But given the relatively low latitude, it is still “daytime” and the light is filtering through to overlying ice / snow. Just FYI.
“(Personal note – apologies for the light posting today, I’m overwhelmed with work, and exhausted from overwork – Anthony)”
Take a break man. We need you well-rested, financially secure, and sharp.
If anyone is interested or so inclined, I recommend you read The End of the World… Again by Barry Vacker of Temple Univ. it is a lingo-fraught little volume which explores why societies are so enamoured with apocalypse myths. A hard read but interesting. The irony is that at the time ofublication, Vacker did not recognize that the global warming paradigm was just another of the apocalypse myths he was dissecting. By the way, I spent the evening of the Mayan world’s end with Vacker and colleagues and had a grand time with the count-down to the midnight anticlimax. Then we all went out in Centre City Philadelphia and had a good time to celebrate having made it heaven- did I really compare being in Phildelphia with heaven?
The deep ocean ate my homework.
The slowdown in warming is mentioned in the final version SPM,
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
with a more detailed analysis in the main report. What’s ‘hidden’?
Jimbo:
In being skeptical of the IPCC’s claims you’re on the right track. Please forgive me for suggesting that the situation is more complicated than you suggest. In particular, no events underlie the IPCC climate models. It follows that the IPCC does not make hypotheses and that empirical data are incapable of refuting the IPCC’s claims. Also, the methodology underlying these claims is neither scientific nor logical. If necessary I’ll supply details.
You are only scratching the surface with “sad hateful little men” comment……..
Unbelievable….. Mikey Mann in this piece of odious drivel
http://news.yahoo.com/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-150312836.html?bcmt=comments-postbox
Says “Career fossil-fuel-industry apologist Bjorn Lomborg, in Rupert Murdoch’s “The Australian,” wrote on Sept. 16: “UN’s mild climate change message will be lost in alarmist translation.” On the other hand, serial climate disinformer Judith Curry, in a commentary for the same outlet five days later, announced, “Consensus distorts the climate picture.”
“serial climate disinformer Judith Curry” Really REALLY?? Methinks Mikey has jumped the shark BIG TIME.
TonG(ologist) says:
September 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm
“ofublication”
__________________
Coinage?
TonG(ologist) says:
September 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm
“ofublication”
_______________
Philadelphia Mint?
Alan Rob-ERT-son, hi! Say, I’ve been trying to figure out your “a.k.a.” ever since we “talked.” The only guy I recall from OKC (if that ref. to Oklahoma City) was Luther Wu and I was SURE that was his real name. Are YOU “Luther Wu?” Aw, come on, Rumplestiltskin, spill it.
The report must be useful for something. An outhouse hook perhaps?
IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis
———————————————-
Brother can you paradigm
It was the best of climes – it was the worst of climes…
Janice Moore says:
September 30, 2013 at 11:30 pm
___________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Blissett_%28nom_de_plume%29
LAUGH — OUT– LOUD, Mr. Robertson (perhaps…). Well, God knew who you were and all my prayers for L.W. were actually for you. Hope that goal of yours is coming along very well. Take care.
Mark, you are SO funny. (a guy as smart as you ought to have two dogs — can’t help it; I just love them and cats, well, not so much. Cats are lovely animals, but dogs are more devoted and more versatile pets. I’d say that dogs are more affectionate, too, but every cat owner I say that to SWEARS that her or his cat is super loving (usually by saying, “just like a dog,” heh). Seriously, you may not need the motivation, but, if it weren’t for my German Shepherd needing to go out twice a day, I’d do much less jogging than I do! Well, my dog and I wish you and your two cats many more happy years together.
“Human influence extremely likely to be the dominant cause of observed warming since the middle of the last century,”
They’re right, you know. Humans created the UHI effect and performed the homogenization of temp records.
gopal panicker says:
September 30, 2013 at 5:40 pm
______________________________
It appears it was Prince Philip who made that stupid statement, not Prince Charles.
Al Black says:
September 30, 2013 at 7:14 pm
I fear you are indulging in ‘rational thought’. It’s not a concept recognised by ‘climate science’.
“The twentieth century warming trend found elsewhere could not be identified in our proxy record, nor was it found in the corresponding meteorological data used for our study.”
It’s easy to conclude global warming when everything you measure is, in fact, UHI-effect.
““If someone said there is a 95% chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5% that doesn’t agree with it, you still take out the insurance.”
That is wrong on so many levels.
geran says: @ September 30, 2013 at 4:31 pm
As many have said, the AGW hoax was dead from the start, …. But, one charismatic leader can save the hoax.
Who will it be?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They had hoped it was Obama but it turns out he can’t read his teleprompter AND can’t keep his mouth shut when not reading.
Viv Forbes is quoted “0.004%”. Should be 0.04%, no?
Yet another Mike from the Carson Valley where we deal with cold a lot and heat says: @ September 30, 2013 at 8:37 pm
The deep ocean ate my homework.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, It was The Dog Ate my Homework
The Goat Ate the Data
So this has to be The Kraken swallowed my Global Warming
Applause for Dr. Curry. She’s not letting it slide! Quite the spectacle on Twitter, Dana Nuticelli trying to go toe to toe with Judith Curry.
It’s good to see there are at least a few climate scientists with integrity and courage left to us.
Mark Bofill says: @ October 1, 2013 at 7:11 am
….. Dana Nuticelli trying to go toe to toe with Judith Curry…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Guess Dana never heard it is not smart to tangle with a mother grizzly…
It is not a fair contest when you think about it. Dana is used to a platform where the ‘opposition’ is controlled and banned. Dr. Curry has been trained by dealing with real debate on her own blog.
Between Judith Curry and here, so much to comment on. Been on vacation and am late coming to this…
Judith at http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/29/how-the-ipcc-forgot-to-mention-the-pause/#comments quotes:
I’ve said many times that they should have been assessing BACK IN 1988 or earlier what portion was natural variation and what was anthropogenic. They NEVER, EVER should have been allowed (…even among themselves they should have called each other out on it…) to claim that humans and only humans were the cause of the warming showing up in the data. That sort of claim should have been allowed only after ALL other forcings were specifically and completely excluded/falsified. (The reason I became a climate skeptic is because they had not done that process of elimination before declaring “Humans did it.”)
So, what does it mean that they now are saying (though not in AR5 itself) that ANY part of the recent climate record is due “equally to natural variability … and to a combination of factors”?
It’s bull. They are saying that when it was WARMING it was human activity at fault, but that when it is cooling it is equally to human activity and natural causes.
And even THEN, this dim bulb talking head is saying that the half that isn’t natural variability is also natural variability (volcanic aerosols) – and even THOSE done’t even exist! Where are the volcanoes in the 2000s? Nowhere. The amount of volcanic activity is nearly zilch – and certainly no greater than in the non-Pinatubo part of the 1990s.
As Steve McIntyre is always saying, “WATCH THE PEA.” This is all diversionary hand waving. They believe that the skeptic beast will be soothed by some off-the-official-record pap for the seething masses.
But it also means that we are winning the war. No sooner is AR5 out than they come out and address the very thing Marotzke – one of THE responsible people! – says they “forgot.”. That they are addressing it so soon means they didn’t forget it at all and that its being missing wasn’t unintentional at all. Addressing it already means that it was never NOT being discussed and that it therefore could not have been left out unintentionally.
Slightly OT, but the Hot Sheet is the best place:
Atlantic Depression 11 became Tropical Storm JERRY Sept 30 at 1300 UTC
As of 0900 UTC Oct 1, it is unlikely to make hurricane status. NHC gives it a maximum probability of 14% of reaching Hurricane status on Thursday. It is in the central Atlantic, expected to move northeast.
As of October, we have only 4 hurricane days in 2013.
Since 1970, only the years 1983, 1984, and 1994 had fewer hurricane days by Oct. 1.
Here is a scatter plot of number of Hurricane Days after Oct 1 vs. the cumulative up to Oct. 1.
http://i43.tinypic.com/2lth54k.jpg
There are 14 years out of 43 with 10 or fewer Hurricane Days as of Oct. 1.
9 of those 14 (about 2/3) had 2 or fewer additional Hurricane Days for the rest of the year.
Only 1 of the 14 had more than 6: 1984, a late start year, which squeezed in 14.5 hurricane days in the remainder of the season.
“The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.” — Bertrand Russell
Dr. Curry linked to this old WUWT post in her recent column, and it’s a good one! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/
“The planet is cooling! Quick, pump methane!” Amazing how wrong the “climate science community” has been, and how poorly they try to explain things away.
Solar influence? Nah….no wait, warming has paused, so yeah, solar influence, THAT’S the ticket!
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-solar-variations-dont-matter/
p.s. Thanks for this heads-up, Anthony! WUWT posters are a loyal community, and we can carry the conversation on for you if you need to take a break, no problem! Take care, Chuck the DrPH
Tropical Storm KAREN
Became a Tropical Storm Oct 3, 1300 Z (0800 CDT)
As of Oct 4, 1500 Z, NHC lists it as only a 15% chance of making hurricane status before landfall on Sunday afternoon Oct. 6.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2013/al12/al122013.wndprb.006.shtml?