Real Climate posted a weblog on June 21 2009 titled “A warning from Copenhagen”. They report on a Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Congress which was handed over to the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in Brussels the previous week.
Real Climate writes
“So what does it say? Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″, says the new report. And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years – because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
First, what is “physical climate science”? How is this different from “climate science”. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system.
More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics “are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” ;
1. “rising sea levels”
NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis.
Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.
2. “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”
NOT TRUE; see
Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.
Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.
3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice”
NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.
These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.
Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I read the IBD report and came to the quote:
‘As one climate activist group put it: … The strategy is to treat “climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is the route to mass behavior change.” ‘
I then spent some time trawling Google and I cannot find that statement attributed directly to any climate activist group though the skeptical blogs have picked it up and disseminated it in the last 24 hours.
I’m afraid being a skeptic cuts both ways. Unless we know what “climate activist group” has actually used these words and we can challenge them directly on their plans for “mass behavior change” and their reasons and justifications for their own behavior then we are really just scratching each others backs while gazing at our own navels (if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor!)
I have learnt a lot of science since I started reading this blog and I thank all of you (Anthony especially) for that. But it is not the minutiae of the science that is going to convince the media to change tack or the people to rise up in revolt. It is the evidence that they are being delberately lied to and manipulated by …… by who?
Here, it seems to me, was an ideal opportunity to blow the whistle on at least one of the eco-fascist groups and we’ve blown it, just as Demming persistently refuses to name the scientist who said to him “We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
Time to put up or shut up, surely.
Richard Steckis
Thank you for your feedback. With respect to sea level, it is clear that i) over recent years, the sea level is not rising (“progressing”) faster than “was expected a few years ago”, and ii) since 2006 the rate of rise has even flattened. Over the last 100 years it has risen, but the Real Climate article indicates the sea level rise is accelerating. This is inaccurate and the observations are misrepresented by Real Climate.
Dr. Pielke is going to be the target for particularly high levels and low class of personal attacks from the AGW community. I hope he and the group of scientists who works with him are well prepared for what is coming.
The fabric AGW is stretched so tightly that any tear in the basis of its fear mongering must be dealt with by attacking the ones who point out the flaw.
AGW cannot sustain its level fear, which is the only strength of the movement, after the public in general perceives properly the actual credibility of what the AGW promotion industry is selling.
As AGW falls apart, the level of hysterical claims and rhetoric, which the RC claims and Krugman’s shameful column are recent examples of, will only increase.
UK Skeptic,
“If there was no disaster you’d have to invent it.”
Nail. Hammer. Head.
An animal is most dangerous when it is cornered. When it is backed into a corner it has only one option left to survive, to fight.
The climate change crowd has been backed into a corner but blog exposing the truth of the situation. Of course, for some, they are protecting their easy $money$. Others are trying to protect their influence. Still others are blind worshipers who cannot accept any reality contrary to what they believe. All are most dangerous now. The only thing they have left is to keep on keeping on and ramp up the rhetoric to save what they hold dear.
I read that article on RC, and commented on those things….mostly I asked questions as to why they came to those conclusions when there was a lot of data, as far as I could tell, that indicated the opposite. Mostly I got lectured, referred to manuals on “how to talk to a skeptic”, etc., but no answers–until today!
Most of the RC readers absolutely rely on that blog for their information. They’re a pretty smart bunch for the most part, you’ve got to back up what you say, and I’m no scientist, so if I get in too deep, I’m pretty easy to pick off, or at least overwhelm. And they moderate the dissenting opinions (me) so that those responding to you look like they’ve proven something, then they’ll insert your comment making it look irrelevant, or long since explained–I definitely felt like they were trying to slow me down.
The alarmists like to paint us “deniers” as paranoid. After all, how else but conspiracy could all these scientists and governments be saying global warming is man-induced and is bad if it really isn’t true? Actually, that is a good question. I see many factors that have contributed to the illusion.
1.Hubris – some scientists really believe their models are better than the data.
2.Monetary interest – I can get 20 million for my supercomputer project!
3.Conflict of interest – some want to advance their environmental agenda.
4.A combination of 2 and 3: The scientist works for a politically-driven government agency or gets the bulk of funding from the government and has to toe the line.
Then there is just the sheer momentum of warmist propaganda in society at large, fed by the government and media. It truly sucks.
“Adam Soereg (03:37:06) :
While I could absolutely agree with Dr. Pielke, all of us have to admit that a 3 year period is just too short for an acceptable trend analysis. At the moment we can’t be sure that the global sea level trend has been flattened recently, but no one can see the acceleration projected by the IPCC.
See this graph about post-glacial see level rise, and this one from the last 60 years as measured by tide gauges. Nothing unusual, nothing unprecedented.”
Using the graphs you provided, I calculate a delta SL of 1.67 mm/yr for the past ~30 yrs, 1.33 mm/yr for the 30 years before that, both of which are well above the 0.33 mm/yr for the past 6 kyr. Don’t those suggest accelerating sea level rise?
Does anyone know why the University of Colorado sea level data has not been updated since very early 2009 ?
Sam the Skeptic (04:28:42) :
Here is the report. Don’t be too quick to judge the skeptic community. IBD should have given a reference.
http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=2240
Dr. Pielke,
Thankyou for your feedback. I thoroughly agree that the Real Climate people are misrepresenting sea level rise if they contend that it is accelerating (which it is not). I think this decline in the rate of sea level rise since 2006 fits well with Loehle’s data that shows ocean heat content has declined since 2003.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2009/00000020/F0020001/art00008
One of the most interesting things to come out of that RC thread is the discovery (comments 255, 363) by Jean S that Stefan Rahmstorf increased the length of the smoothing interval for fig 3 to get the required result (continued warming). But this was not acknowledged in the caption, something that Rahmstorf implausibly claims not to have noticed. See much discussion of fishiness at Lucia’s blackboard.
Roger P did you notice that and what do you think?
The irony is that some of the RC fanatics are now accusing Roger of cherry-picking (and worse)!
Edit note: ‘There’ instead of “Their has been no statistically…”?
But even so, as the AGWers grasp at straws – and the truth will set us free – it appears we are destined to enter financial destitution and government slavery before that will happen.
It’s infuriating that science today is bastardized into voodoo psychology, specifically designed for political gain at the expense of the educated and hard-working populace.
I’m reminded of the “Office Space” board game: spin a wheel and “jump” to a conclusion but with only one square. Sea levels rising? Man is to blame. Ice melting? Man did it. More hurricanes? Man again. Oceans heating up? Yup. Fundamentally, when questioning and asking for the reasons for this conclusion been drawn, it’s always an appeal to a higher authority (Someone at MIT said so). These are smart intelligent people who refuse to even look at the data – that they are fully capable of analyzing and understanding (excel, anybody?) – and see how that conclusion was made.
I am afraid that the battle is already lost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/opinion/01friedman.html?_r=1&hpw
My prediction: the Left will expend all its remaining political capital to win this “war”, and we will get some weird, conviluted, perverted “Climate Bill”.
This isn’t about Reality anymore, people, it’s hubris, plain and simple.
Passage of the “Climate” Bill will be followed by several winters of increasing severity, and Carter-Era-like stagflation (exacerbated by food shortages and a declinging dollar). Within five years, “Climate” will be off the table, but the bureaucracy and taxation will remain. We are fixin’ to become a very large version of the UK in the 60’s and 70’s, and it likely won’t be fixed for a generation, or until we get our own version of the Iron Lady, Maggie Thatcher.
I am urging my children to polish their language skills, add to their technical resumes (both are engineers), and keep their passports warm. The only folks who prosper in the next generation will be “internationalist” technocrats who can skim the cream whereever they light.
It’s the latest cultural indicator:
Our politicians have progressed from being just simple liars, to being swindlers, and soon to be untouchable thieves and tyrants. Just an opinion.
Thank you Dr. Pielke for calling BS when you see it! RC picked a fight when the published this anti-scientific opinion. I can’t think other than they are badly discrediting themselves with anyone who can read a graph.
OT, but I was watching Glenn Beck on Fox he had a special guest, The Mr. Carlin of the EPA report that got suppressed.
Tenuc (02:43:08) :
Anyone got any good stuff???
Yeah – A Rap Video called “Don’t Cap me Bro”. Sung to the tune of…?
The backstabber?
Smiling faces?
Each passage in the video can start with the average alarmist “sea level risin'”, then show a chart of sea level not rising, with a link to the correct webite shown…
Polar bears dyin
Sea level risin
Temperatures risin’
Sea acidifyin’
End of each refrain is “Don’t Cap me Bro”
So what is the tune, and what are the lyrics? We all know where to find the charts…
That could go viral and I’ll do what I can, but I’m not much with video editing (or rapping)
The ocean heat accumulation (or lack thereof) is a pivotal component of the argument. Roger Pielke’s link explains that there has been no accumulation, yet these end-of-the-worlders are claiming the exact opposite. For laypeople like myself, this all get’s confusing. Who’s right and why?
At what point can the lawyers be brought in. Are we not being victimized? my wife would be pissed if I sent off some $$ to fight this nonsense but, I’m way passed being amused by all this.
Good one Fatbigot
There MUST be some mistake. The only REAL climate scientists (whatever that means) are at RC. All others are not qualified to speak (RC knows what’s best ). After all, RC treats all views with respect (as long as you have the right view).
If you read their discussion, Schmidt is accusing PIelke of cherry picking:
Three things to note here: apparently cherry picking is bad, which means you’re probably better off throwing out a few thousand of the most recent `Climate Science’ papers that have been published. Secondly, it’s apparently ok to draw conclusions from very short term measurements (the familiar refrain on RealClimate, “you can’t draw any conclusions from 10 years of data”) seems to have been thrown out of the window) and (3) the increase in sea level is only relevant if its cause is an increasing amount of water, rather than other possible causes (of which I’m sure there are many).
In any case, is it significant? The PDO hasn’t long been negative. I’m sure there’s quite some inertia in the system.
smallz79 (06:57:42) :
OT, but I was watching Glenn Beck on Fox he had a special guest, The Mr. Carlin of the EPA report that got suppressed
I never saw that but out here in Thailand I’ve just seen the tail end of a live interview on Fow with Megan Kelly and Bill Hemmer. They had a congressman on and he reckons they’ll get Dr Carlin to testify in the congress.
We can hope that this snowball is gathering momentum…
No crisis = no funding.
’nuff said