Tomorrow, 9:00am Press Conference with the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is holding a press conference tomorrow morning, Wednesday, April 9, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on the subject of the recent publication of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.
Credentialed media are invited to attend to learn more about the report and question some of the scientists who produced it:
This is a visual representation of the model output. Credit: Christina Kaiser: IIASA/University of Vienna
From the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
The tiniest greenhouse gas emitters
Climate feedbacks from decomposition by soil microbes are one of the biggest uncertainties facing climate modelers. A new study from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the University of Vienna shows that these feedbacks may be less dire than previously thought.
The dynamics among soil microbes allow them to work more efficiently and flexibly as they break down organic matter – spewing less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than previously thought, according to a new study published in the journal Ecology Letters.
One wonders how they can make claims like that when we see models vs reality like this:
Future generations will have to pay more for today’s carbon emissions than what governments across the world currently understand. The climate models used by policymakers around the world to estimate the economic and social costs of CO2 emissions have to be improved according to Thomas Sterner, professor of Environmental Economics at the School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, and six other scientists in the prestigious journal Nature.
The seven scientists behind the article, due to be published 10 April (read online), conclude that the reports by the UN climate panel serve an important function in setting the agenda for climate research. Yet the most important role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to inform the global political discussion on how the harm caused by climate change should be handled.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Photo: Martin Koser of Denmark
Stephan Lewandowsky (of retracted Recursive Fury fame ) has just released a paper supporting the “precautionary principle” (h/t JoNova). According to Lewandowsky, the more uncertain you are about risk, the more you should spend to contain the risk.
Lewandowsky of course applies this principle to climate sensitivity – he suggests uncertainty increases the high end risk.
But now that Lewandosky has opened our eyes, let’s try applying his principle to other issues.
(See the note below before taking this post seriously – Anthony)
Guest essay by Steven Wilde
Here we see the classic energy budget analysis supporting the hypothesis that the surface of the Earth is warmer than the S-B equation would predict due to 324 Wm2 of ‘Back Radiation’ from the atmosphere to the surface.
It is proposed that it is Back Radiation that lifts the surface temperature from 255K, as predicted by S-B, to the 288K actually observed because the 324 Back Radiation exceeds the surface radiation to the air of 222 Wm2 ( 390 Wm2 less 168 Wm2) by 102 Wm2. It is suggested that there is a net radiative flow from atmosphere to surface of 102 Wm2.
I now discuss an alternative possibility.
The title of the post, of course, assumes that an El Niño event will form this year and carry over into the next.
This post is intended for persons new to the topic of El Niño events—and for those who are familiar with them. It should help provide a number of different perspectives on the evolution of an El Niño and supplement our earlier post An Illustrated Introduction to the Basic Processes that Drive El Niño and La Niña Events.
For this post, we’ll primarily be discussing animations of data maps and subsurface cross sections from the NOAA Global Ocean Data Assimilation System (GODAS) website. We’ll also be looking at subsurface temperatures and anomalies from a couple of ECMWF reanalyses. Because there are a number of gif animations, the post may take a few moments to download. Also, you may need to click start the animations, especially if you’d like a closer view.
LOTS GOING ON BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE TROPICAL PACIFIC
From Florida State University and the department of we’ve heard all this before comes this story
Researchers: Permafrost thawing could accelerate global warming
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A team of researchers lead by Florida State University have found new evidence that permafrost thawing is releasing large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere via plants, which could accelerate warming trends.
The research is featured in the newest edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Guest essay by Dr. Norman Page
1. The AR5 Reports and Responses.
Following the publication in early August of the final drafts of the AR5 WG1 and Summary for Policymakers I posted an initial response at
The opening sentences of the post summarized the main failure of the AR5 report and indeed the whole IPCC process.
“In the AR5 Summary for Policymakers the IPCC glossed over the developing cooling trend in global temperatures and so lost the last vestige of its scientific credibility and any claim to be a source of useful guidance on future climate trends for policymakers.”
The key factor in making CO2 emission control policy and the basis for the WG2 and 3 sections of AR5 is the climate sensitivity to CO2 .
Or is it…farce?
Charles Hushburg sends word of this political assessment. The Swiss might not like the comparison.
Blistering cold air from the Arctic plunged southward this winter, breaking U.S. temperature records.
A persistent pattern of winds spins high above the Arctic in winter. The winds, known as the polar vortex, typically blow in a fairly tight circular formation. But in late December 2013 and early January 2014, the winds loosened and frigid Arctic air spilled farther south than usual, deep into the continental United States. Animated video follows.
From the we told you so, time and time again department comes this story about Gore’s buddy, Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his Kilimanjaro glacier that just won’t die like they want it to, even though they don’t believe their own hype.
From ETN Global Travel Industry News:
Mount Kilimanjaro Glaciers nowhere near extinction
The legendary glaciers, one of key tourists ecstasy, on Tanzania’s majestic Kilimanjaro mountain, will not melt anytime soon after all, as it was earlier predicted.
America’s renowned climatologist, professor Lonnie Thompson in 2002 projected that the snow on the summit of Africa’s highest mountain would completely disappear between 2015 and 2020, thanks to global warming.
But 12 years down the lane now, local ecologists who have been monitoring the trend say the ice, in fact, remains steady and it is nowhere near extinction.
Included in this update, Dr. Spencer also discusses the probability on an El Niño this year, plus what will happen to the trend if it does occur.
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2014 is +0.17 deg. C, unchanged from February (click for full size version):
WGII climate risks overstated and invalid
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The UN IPCC AR5 WGII final climate report has been released. This UN WGII report attempts to evaluate various global risks associated with future climate change. The evaluation process utilized in the WGII report relies upon global temperature projections obtained from low and high CO2 emissions climate model scenarios that were developed and addressed in the UN IPCC AR5 WGI report which was released last year.
In the UN WGI AR5 report the climate models were shown to exaggerate and overstate projected increases in global temperatures based on CO2 levels assumed present in the atmosphere compared to actual observed global temperatures. This is extremely important given that the WGII report uses these exaggerated climate model higher global temperature projection scenarios to assess climate risks associated with increasing global CO2 levels.
Guest Post by Ira Glickstein
Some of the net Global Warming since 1880 is undoubtedly due to human actions, but how much?
[Update 10 April. My PowerPoint Show that includes the following graphic is available for download here: https://sites.google.com/site/iraclass/my-forms/2014%20Global%20Warming%20Civil%20Discourse.ppsx?attredirects=0&d=1 ]
The height of the bars on the graphic indicates the relative magnitude of Natural Processes and Cycles (in BLUE) versus Human-Caused Warming (in RED). The scale on the left is in °C with corresponding °F on the right.
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I was out trolling for science the other day at the AGW Observer site. It’s a great place, they list lots and lots of science including the good, the bad, and the ugly, like for example all the references from the UN IPCC AR5. The beauty part is that the ones which are publicly available are marked “FULL TEXT”, so you can just search for that and step from study to study knowing that they’re not paywalled. So as I said, I was trolling through the full text links and I ran across an interesting study entitled Global Decadal Upper-Ocean Heat Content as Viewed in Nine Analyses by Carton and Santorelli, hereinafter C&S2008. Here’s their money graph, Figure 1:
Figure 1. Nine different estimates of the change on oceanic heat content, including one model and eight observational estimates. When comparing to other analyses, note that this analysis has oceanic heat content (OHC) expressed in units of 10^8 joules per square metre, and not the more usual global total OHC which typically is measured in units of 10^22 joules. The conversion is described in the last sentence of the caption. (Actually, I think that the caption to Figure 1 in their paper was from another context and wasn’t updated … but the meaning is clear).
I was hooked when I read the abstract, with its mention of the volcanic analysis, viz:
The Week That Was: 2014-04-05 (April 5, 2014) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project
Quote of the Week: I’ve now been active for something like 70 years, and still I use the same mathematics. I think the main thing that’s changed as a result of computers is the magnitude of databases. We now have these huge amounts of data and very little understanding. So what we have now — I forget who it was who said this — are small islands of understanding in a sea of information. Freeman Dyson [H/t Thomas Sheahen]
Number of the Week: 25 to 30 years
THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Continue reading
David Rose has a rather depressing yet not surprising article in the Mail on Sunday that documents the hive mind mentality, or some might call it a ‘mob mentality’, of warmists.
It’s about Dr. Richard Tol, whose dared to try to distance himself from what he viewed as overly alarming claims in the IPCC Working Group II Summary for Policymakers. As a result, he has incurred the wrath of the Internet climate mob.
In the recent model-data comparison of satellite-era sea surface temperature anomalies—appropriately titled Maybe the IPCC’s Modelers Should Try to Simulate Earth’s Oceans—we compared trend maps of modeled and observed sea surface temperature anomalies from 1982 to 2013. See Figure 1. The models showed a general warming of the Pacific with the highest warming rates in the tropics and in the northwest North Pacific. In the real world, the data showed a C-shaped warming pattern, with extensive warming along the Kuroshio-Oyashio Extension east of Japan and along the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ) east of Australia and New Zealand, and with little to no warming in the tropics or the Eastern Pacific. It has come to my attention that some persons believe the start and end dates are responsible for the C-shaped pattern; that is, they think the C-shaped pattern appears in the data trend map because the Reynolds OI.v2 sea surface temperature data start in an El Niño development year and end with an ENSO-neutral year (which was preceded by back-to-back La Niña events). Their assumption is wrong, of course. The warming pattern does not depend on the start and end years I’ve used for the trend maps. The warming pattern is caused by what Kevin Trenberth and others called “ENSO residual” effects in their 2002 paper The Evolution of El Niño and Global Atmospheric Surface Temperatures. It might be easier to think of El Niño residuals as leftovers from strong El Niño events.