A response to the IPCC

I spoke at this conference in Washington DC yesterday, and presented preliminary findings of my surfacestations.org report which you can see here.

060209_Watts

I was also privileged to hear MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen give a presentation on the state of climate science today, as well as his views on Climate Sensitivity.

You can look at his powerpoint presentation here.

In addition, a significant new report was released, the NIPCC. It is a comprehensive rebuttal to the IPCC report.

Climate Change Reconsidered, the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), is the report on global warming the United Nations’ climate panel should have written – but didn’t.

image

The 880-page report, released June 2nd, 2009 at an international meeting in Washington DC of scientists and policy experts, rigorously critiques the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that harmful global warming “very likely” has been due to human activity in the release of greenhouse gases. The science behind that conclusion is soundly refuted in Climate Change Reconsidered, coauthored by Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso.

The full text of the report and related materials can be found here.

You can also watch a Youtube video of the press conference June 2, 2009 in Washington DC to announce the publication of Climate Change Reconsidered: the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Here is Joseph Bast, President of Heartland as he introduces it:

Here is the official written press release:

Scientists, Economists

Challenge Global Warming Alarmism

Third international conference

attracts SRO crowd to Washington, DC

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Global warming skeptics, who for a decade have emphasized hard-science evidence to refute doomsday predictions from alarmists, added new ammunition to their arsenal Tuesday at the third International Conference on Climate Change.

060209_Idso

Craig Idso, Ph.D., chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and coauthor of Climate Change Reconsidered, addresses the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 2.

More than 250 people crowded into Washington Court hotel meeting rooms to hear a dozen elite scientists refute the claim that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects on Earth.

But The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old think tank that produced the three international climate conferences, also recruited seven elite economists to focus on the devastating personal and broad economic impact of legislation, sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and headed for approval in the U.S. House, to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses, commercial structures, farms, and other emitters could purchase and trade the permits to emit carbon dioxide and other gases that exceed the cap.

While the scientists reported on a vast array of peer-reviewed literature that cast doubt on the causes and severity of global warming, the economists produced data that showed the cap-and-trade scheme not only wouldn’t halt the release of greenhouse gases, but would add huge costs to business activity that inevitably would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.

060209_SpencerDouglass

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. and David Douglass, Ph.D. discuss temperature trends over breakfast at the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 2.

Dr. Jeff Kueter, an economist and president of the George C. Marshall Institute, referred to Waxman-Markey as “a dismal down-payment on injuries more intrusive into our lives and economy” than ever seen before.

Kueter cited independent economic studies that showed the diversion of capital to emission permits from the investment in new plant and equipment in the U.S. economy would:

  • reduce employment by 1.1 million jobs a year from 2012 to 2030, and more than double that job-loss in 2035.
  • slash gross domestic product by an average of $491 billion a year from 2012 to 2035, and hit $662 billion in 2035 — a total evaporation of productive output of goods and services worth more than $9.4 trillion.
  • reduce average global temperatures by an insignificant 0.36º Fahrenheit by 2100 and by 0.09º F by 2050.

Similar costs with negligible benefits in Waxman-Markey were cited by other economists and public officials, including Dr. David Tuerck, president of the Beacon Hill Institute and chairman of the economics department at Suffolk University in Boston, and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a veteran global warming skeptic, urged attendees to call Waxman-Markey a “cap-and-tax plan” that amounts to “unilateral disarmament in the economic sphere” for American businesses and workers.

Another long-time skeptic, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.), provoked sustained applause when he declared that the partisans of Waxman-Markey are “stampeding the public and elected officials in the biggest power grab in the history of human kind.”

Economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid reviewed the dismal performance of cap-and-trade mandates in Spain, where unemployment has reached a daunting 18 percent, carbon emissions are higher today than before cap-and-trade was installed, and fraud and misrepresentation of emission abatement programs are rampant.

Calzada dismissed claims that such policies have created “green jobs” in the Spanish economy and presented data that showed Spanish businesses have spent billions of dollars on carbon credits and abatement programs, resulting in two jobs being lost in the regular economy or never being created for every one job created in the “green economy.”

Energy industry scholar Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation rounded out the economists’ dire projections by showing that by 2035, the added costs stemming from Waxman-Markey would add 58 percent to the price of gasoline at the pump, 90 percent to the typical family of four’s annual cost of electricity, 55 percent to the price of natural gas, and 56 percent to the price of heating oil.

In all, Lieberman said, the tax impact for a family of four would average $4,618 a year through 2035, creating a total additional outlay of more than $110,000 with no added benefit to the family’s quality of life or personal consumption.

Additionally, a parade of climatologists and scientists during the conference challenged the science, causes, and severity of global warming.

060209_Lindzen2Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology delivers a keynote addresses at the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 2.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of meteorology, reiterated premises underlying global-warming alarmism, such as dangerous increases in carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution, rising global mean temperatures, and the slackening of the sex drive in butterflies. Such questions, he said, “are meaningless except in the propaganda war” being waged by a compliant mainstream media and a scientific community that finds it easier “to accept authority than disputing questions that are at issue.”

Dr. Patrick Michaels, a Cato Institute scholar and research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia, blamed some of the success of doomsday alarmism on the absence of fact-checking in mainstream media when alarmists go on a sortie.

Citing recent television and print coverage, Michaels noted faulty assertions such as Al Gore’s statement that 49 percent of the United States is in drought conditions; U.S. Sen. Harry Reid’s statement that California wildfires are a manifestation of global warming; several alarmist predictions of a three-foot rise in sea levels; and a decline in agriculture yields.

Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who has closed each of the two previous international climate conferences, once again brought the crowd to its feet in a cheering standing ovation when he concluded his typically witty speech, “… the highly placed conspirators who seek to ride the climate scare to world domination have reckoned without one thing. You. You are here, and you will not let the truth go.

“Thanks to you, it is becoming evident that the rent-seeking promoters of this great boondoggle, through the very scientific ignorance that they had sought to exploit in others, have merely deluded themselves.

“In the end, it will be here, in the United States, that the truth will first emerge. … Not in Europe, for we are no longer free. … It is here, in this great nation founded upon liberty, that the battle for the world’s freedom will be won.”


For more information about the Third International Conference on Climate Change, visit the event’s Web site at http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/index.html or contact Dan Miller, publisher, or Tammy Nash, media relations manager, at 312/377-4000, email dmiller@heartland.org or tnash@heartland.org.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Gary from Chicagoland

Science is not a matter of opinion it is a question of data. Let the valid data rewrite the theory, but moving power, politics and money away is no simple task. I am not so sure that NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but the other story needs to told to the masses, but at $154 for a paperback copy?

buddyellis

“The 880-page report, released Junes 2nd, 2009 at an international meeting in Washington DC”
Bit of a typo, FYI

Phillip Bratby

I’ve emailed the BBC to ask if they will be mentioning this important work. I’m not holding my breath.

I see no intro by Joseph Bast. Is my browser verschimmelt?
REPLY: YouTube is having systemwide problems at the moment – Anthony

This may take a while to go through, but I see they cited you on pages 101-2.

Jim Norvell

The report is online and free. What more do you want?
Jim N

KW

I hope someone will notice this from DC!

deadwood

Waxman-Markey. Remember that in 2010 (unless the poles evaporate, that is).

Gary from Chicagoland (12:39:27) :
Science is not a matter of opinion it is a question of data. Let the valid data rewrite the theory, but moving power, politics and money away is no simple task. I am not so sure that NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but the other story needs to told to the masses, but at $154 for a paperback copy?
The report is free. Anyway, 154 US dollars is a fair price considering the NIPCC doesn’t receive funds from the UN.

John Galt

But is it peer-reviewed?

Truly a great conference. I don’t think I have been in the company of so much brain in my life! Very well run with very interesting speakers and many interesting people I met.
Sadly, I came home and caught the last half hour of Earth 2100 on primetime ABC NEWS TV. It was shocking and revolting. ABC placed this in the Technology category, when it should be in the fantasy category. This is what our young mind of mush are teething on.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Earth2100

RW

You claim that the IPCC “concluded that harmful global warming “very likely” has been due to human activity in the release of greenhouse gases”
I presume you are referring to this statement, in the “summary for policymakers”:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”
I can’t find any similar statements that include the word ‘harmful’ that you’ve attributed to them. Can you say where this came from? Also note the ‘Most of’ which your paraphrasing has omitted.

David Walton

Great blog entry, Anthony! Thanks for all the info. Best wishes.

tallbloke

Fred Singer is great. Well done Heartland for getting this published, and for the pdf you can get by clicking the image of the book cover. 😉

RW (14:02:52):
I presume you are referring to this statement, in the “summary for policymakers”:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”

Please, RW, don’t blink an eye… You know very well that although those guys wrote “very likely” on paper because they’re not sure what they are talking about, or because they are pretending not to notice the reality, or just because they are playing the dummies, they’re scaring people with the dubious anthropogenic global warming and anthropogenic climate change. They don’t show a little shame when writing that something is “very likely” when they are acting as if what they have said is “very likely” was absolutely a reality. Fortunately, there are many honest scientists who are trying to preserve the good name of science.

George E. Smith

“”” RW (14:02:52) :
You claim that the IPCC “concluded that harmful global warming “very likely” has been due to human activity in the release of greenhouse gases”
I presume you are referring to this statement, in the “summary for policymakers”:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” “””
Notice RW, that both the increase in global average temperatures, and the increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations, are stated to have been “observed”; yet there is no mention of the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century; which for the observed changes of GHG concentrations has continued to be an increase; even an accelerated one.
So what is the scientific basis for the opinion that the one is the likely cause of the other; when clearly there has been a change of direction of one, and not the other ?
George

George E. Smith

“”” John Galt (13:52:10) :
But is it peer-reviewed? “””
Yes. Peers not already programmed to be hostile to dissenting views, have already reciewed it.
Next question ?

Here’s an interesting Opinion Piece from today’s Investors Business Daily. Maybe some wide-circulation financial media outlets are starting to understand, but obviously not where “sun storms” and sun-screens are involved.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Apocalypse Sun?
Posted 06/02/2009 06:24 PM ET
Climate Change: NASA predicts the lowest sunspot activity since 1928. Is a major solar storm in the offing? While we worry about man-made warming, the sun may soon show us who’s boss.
It’s the sort of news that makes one’s eyes glaze over. “If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78,” said Doug Biesecker of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
Yes, space has weather, in the form of solar radiation that varies with solar activity in the form of sunspots and solar flares. Biesecker heads an NOAA panel that keeps an eye on such things and released this latest report.
But this dry statistic has more significance for the earth and its climate than all of Al Gore’s gloom and doom about tailpipe emissions and rising sea levels. Whether the warm-mongers like it or not, the sun rules earth’s climate — always has and always will.
First noticed in the 1800s, solar activity runs in roughly 11-year cycles. Some are as short as nine years or as long as 14. The valleys are usually brief, a couple of years, but sometimes, for reasons not fully understood, they stretch out for decades.
In the 17th century, a 70-year period of little or no sunspot activity known as the Maunder Minimum spawned what has become known as the Little Ice Age, which extended from roughly the 16th century to the 19th.
Washington’s famous winter at Valley Forge was part of that natural phenomenon. So was Napoleon’s bitter retreat from Moscow. During the winter of 1779-1780, the Hudson River was solid ice for five weeks. Early settlers going West crossed a frozen Mississippi near present-day St. Louis in 1799.
Global warming, you may have noticed, seemingly stopped dead in its tracks in 1998. Solar activity is in a valley right now, the deepest of the past century. NOAA reports that in 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind and low solar radiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare.
“The sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA’s lead representative on the panel. “In our professional careers, we’ve never seen anything like it. Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007.”
If the sun stays this quiet, is another Little Ice Age possible? NASA says it has detected a tiny uptick in solar radio emissions. This may be a sign of a return to normalcy, something similar to a dormant volcano returning to life.
“Even a below-average cycle is capable of producing severe space weather,” says Biesecker. “The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we’re predicting for 2013.”
That 1859 event electrified transmission cables, started fires in telegraph offices and produced Northern Lights bright enough to read a newspaper by. A recent report by by the National Academy of Sciences found that if such a storm occurred today, it could cause up to $2 trillion in damages to society’s high-tech infrastructure.
The National Research Council has estimated that such a storm would play havoc with our power grid, resulting in “large-scale blackouts affecting more than 130 million people (in the U.S.) and (exposing) more than 350 major transformers to the risk of permanent damage.”
NASA says this solar cycle will peak in 2013. The Mayan calendar identifies Dec. 12, 2012, as the end of the world as we know it. Seems to us we might better spend our money protecting our power grid and high-tech infrastructure against such a possibility rather than worrying about the emission standards for our cars.
That, and stock up on sunscreen.
© 2009 Investor’s Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved.

Leon Brozyna

Getting that 880-page report (for free) was easy – reading it, now that’s another tale. No wonder wannabe journalists go the ‘science for dummies’ route and skim through an executive summary or read someone’s ‘idiot’s guide to science’ press release and then whip up a scare headline or two.

John F. Hultquist

I thought it funny when I read that the Watts report on weather stations was too new to have appeared in a peer reviewed publication. Technically that is true but each of the “How Not To ….” posts and much of the related material in the Heartland publication was thoroughly reviewed on WUWT. The caliber of critique of a serious post on WUWT is outstanding. Well, okay, there can be some other things going on at the same time but these asides do not detract from the presented material getting a good work-over from many bright and well trained folks. Seems to me some of the esteemed peer review publications have stumbled in the last few years — the claim to peer review needs an update to catch up with net-technology.
BTW, I haven’t finished the entire report but it is now stored on my hard drive and I guess that adds $154 value to my system. Thanks, folks.

Jim G

I’m sure RC will give it a nice “pier”-review.
Right off the end of it.

Adam from Kansas

Of all the GH gases CO2 is not harmful at least, I look no further than the slightly to significantly oversized leaves in my own backyard.
This link here on climate outlooks doesn’t have the scent of AGW in North America for the rest of this year (the warm anomalies in the southwest forecast in the model disappear)
http://www.capecodweather.net/cfs-archive/810-may-15th-climate-forecast-system-outlook
While it’s all warm anomalies in one area (Alaska and the Yukon) another area is all cold anomalies(Eastern Canada and the normal US (in other words anomalies on both sides of 0 will happen all the time for the near future especially if warming stopped)
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp2.html

RW

“the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century”
George, do you know what ‘statistical significance’ is, and how to calculate it in relation to trends in global temperature?

David Segesta

This is fantastic! In a rational government the NIPCC report should at least spark calls for a legitimate debate between both sides of the issue. But sadly this is no longer about science. That fact was clearly demonstrated when the Democrats refused to allow Christopher Monckton to speak before congress. As Dr. Singer points out it’s all about money and power. Being less diplomatic than Dr Singer, I would say it like this: Our government is run by criminals whose objective is to increase taxes and make profits for companies like Al Gore’s Generation Investments.

Zer0th

I don’t suppose they’re serious, but…
“The Mayan calendar identifies Dec. 12, 2012, as the end of the world as we know it.”
It’s December 20th
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.13.0.0.0.0 in Mayan long count
The *actual* end of the Mayan calendar is 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0
Trillions of years hence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#2012_and_the_Long_Count

kent

We always focus on greenhouse gas’s ability to absorb IR but these gases also have other properties. These other properties turn these greenhouse gases into what I like to call GREEN GASES. Think about what happens to green plants when they have no H2O and no CO2, They turn brown because they are dead. Which property of these gases is more important? The one that helps keep the planet from freezing or the ones that give life to green plants and help feed most of the life forms on this planet.

Dave Wendt

RW (14:02:52)
I can’t find any similar statements that include the word ‘harmful’ that you’ve attributed to them. Can you say where this came from?
Are you actually contending that the IPCC has never characterized global warming as “harmful”, if so, I’d like to bid you a hearty welcome, since you are obviously a multidimensional tourist, who just popped in from some alternate universe.

Leon, it’s “only” 700 pages of meat. There’s also 140 pages of signers of the Petition Project, plus several appendices of plant responses to CO2.

Before “Cap and Tax” is passed, all 880 pages need to be read into the Congressional Record.

Jeremy

[quote] Our government is run by criminals whose objective is to increase taxes and make profits for companies like Al Gore’s Generation Investments.[/quote]
In which case the US really does look to be in trouble. The US swings from fear of WMD (and the potential for military contractors to make obscene profits) to fear of AGW (and the clean energy GE-type manufacturers with potential to make obscene profits). In others words, both parties exploit their brand of lobbyists, fear-mongers and profiteers, in order to have their hands in taxpayer pockets – one in the left pocket and the other in the right.
No wonder the US is broke.

Congratulations Anthony!. Did you take your armour and spear with you?
Too many believers around 🙂

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yessssssssssssssssssssss!
More ammunition.
Thanks to all.
I’m going to repost (with some modifications) here something somewhat germane I posted in a relatively dead thread:
Anyone here have experience organizing political groups? I have none, but would be willing to participate.
I have been very successful in getting the word out on Polywell Fusion and have had a hand (according to the researchers who would know) in getting it funded.
Steps:
1. Set up a Google Alert on terms you would like to respond to
2. Make up a text file of standard responses including links (you can do this as you go along)
3. Make sure to always start your response with a comment about the piece posted.
Have at it.
It will not get you instant results. It took me about a year to have an effect. Keep grinding away. Enlist others. This blog (or another) could serve as a clearing house i.e. “an argument is getting hot at xxx blog, any one care to provide reenforcements?” “Any one have a good argument for/against zzz ?
The fact that WUWT provides moderately moderated comments that are timely when the moderators are awake is very helpful.
Eventually some one will start a blog or a board focused on counter arguments. Topics might include Thermodynamics, Feedback, Data, Peer Review, etc. Such a place should be loosely moderated but membership only to keep out the spammers, rabid crazy warmists, etc.

John F. Hultquist

RW (15:40:28) :
“the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century”
George, do you know what ’statistical significance’ is, and how to calculate it in relation to trends in global temperature?
RW,
I’m a little rusty on my statistics so I wonder if you will explain your meaning? I assume someone has used some temperature measurements to show or plot a trend. How many measurements are we talking about and how are they distributed? Do we need to do this 30 times or so and take an average? Is it the average of these 30 or so attempts at determining a trend that is being tested? Or are we examining the data for measurement error? I seem to remember some comments by instructors about population mean versus sample mean and so on, and also sample size, and tests of significance when appropriate. I just wonder how all this shakes out with respect to what you and George seem to be arguing about?

Keith Minto

Our Senator Steve Fielding is there at the conference. At least he is independent and fair minded enough to attend. He is moving onto the White House I believe for the AGM story but he is quite open minded about AGM and good for him.
If you see him give him a good hearing, we need more of his kind in our parliament.

Anthony, thanks for all you do to help steer us out of these murky waters.
REPLY: Thanks for noticing – Anthony

hotlink

Interisting link regarding certain types of clouds and their effect on the environment.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17234-mysterious-nightshining-clouds-may-peak-this-year.html

I have my name in the BOOK.
One of the most shocking statistics referred to was the 18% unemployment rate in Spain. The Spanish author made a very nice presentation on the folly of renewable energy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/business/global/03euro.html?ref=world
Check out the electricity prices in Denmark, Netherlands and Germnay. The big leaders in percentage of wind turbines per capita. Note: the cost doesn’t all show up in electricity prices, because much of it is in behind the back subsidies.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html
Wait unless we get the cap and tax bill going. with much of the enormous TAX going to waste. The poor will only get 15% of the money.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/18203
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html

Just Want Results...

“”Leon Brozyna (15:10:08) : No wonder wannabe journalists go the ’science for dummies’ route””
They should be reading it all. It’s their full time job. They don’t have anything else to do during the day. But Americans are lazy, always looking for an easy way out. So America is falling.

Just Want Results...

David Segesta (15:45:59) :
You missed the biggest of all—GE.

Gary Alperin

Climate Change Reconsidered is wonderful material to ponder and share with my students. I just got done reading the key findings of each chapter and I am excited to get into the details. It seems well written and easy to read. Anthony, once again I find your blog to be most enjoyable and I cite your work often in my teachings. There is a whole new generation of young students to educate, and am I finding the Al Gore is not a favorite with today’s young people. I just graded an essay where my current 100 students had to write the EPA and state their stance and reasons why they believe the upcoming CO2 regulation should or should not become law. Just prior to this assignment, I taught my students the natural climate change theory vs. the Gore/IPCC manmade greenhouse gas theory. Five years ago, every student wrote that Gore/IPCC stance was correct, however starting about three years ago, the tide started shifting. This year, the results had 72% of my students stating that the natural climate theory better explained Earth’s temperature than the Gore/IPCC greenhouse gas theory. What a change in just a few years!

hotlink (19:13:25) :
Interisting link regarding certain types of clouds and their effect on the environment.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17234-mysterious-nightshining-clouds-may-peak-this-year.html

It’s just another greenie article. My football team lost the championship, it was the anthropogenic GHE. Heh! 🙂

Moderator: you need to add a – HSPACE=”x” – to your picture code to put a left border on them. Having text butt up against the pictures looks bad and is hard to read.

That would be picture blocks with text below.
BTW no need to clutter the thread.

Gilbert

John Galt (13:52:10) :
But is it peer-reviewed?
It would appear to have been written by the peers.

Mike Bryant

OT… Arctic ROOS has updated their graphs of Arctic sea ice.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Since about April 20th it appears that the ice area graph has 2009 above the 1979-2007 average until about May 20th. More recently the ice area is below that average but still within 1 standard deviation of average.

philincalifornia

John Galt (13:52:10) :
But is it peer-reviewed?
——————–
Wasn’t there a hit song called “Everybody wants to rule the world”, by a band called “Peers for Fears”, or something like that …. ??

Mike Bryant

Also NSIDC has 2009 arctic sea ice extent kissing 2007 while Arctic ROOS has at least 500,000 sq. km. between them.

The 880-page report, released June 2nd, 2009
Has a chapter 5 that greatly misrepresents the current status of long-term solar variations. e.g. extols the obsolete Hoyt-Schatten TSI and Lockwood’s non-existent doubling, and Krivova’s reconstruction based on Lockwood’s ‘finding’ and uncritically accepts the Grand Maximum notions that solar activity has been the largest in centuries or millennia [made doubtfull by recent GRL paper on 10Be from Greenland]. It is, IMHO, a grave mistake to base the ‘attack’ on a dubious solar connection. In my [unpopular] opinion chapter 5 should simply be scrapped altogether.

KlausB

[i]John Galt (13:52:10) :
But is it peer-reviewed?[/i]
sorry, my peer is in the pub, down the road, reviewing a view lagers.

deadwood

Tom in Texas (16:25:59) :
Before “Cap and Tax” is passed, all 880 pages need to be read into the Congressional Record.

I second the notion and suspect that the report was timed specifically to be used for that purpose.
But, and this is likely to be a big but, a member of congress will have to get it there.