Reactions are coming in worldwide worldwide to figure 1.4 of the IPCC AR4 draft report. and the revelation that climate sensitivity is lower by aerosol analysis than the IPCC officially projects. Hotheads are blowing gaskets because the hot air just went out of their cause. William Connolley (with an e) gets the “blown head gasket award” for this round, see below.
First some op-eds:
Washington Times: EDITORIAL: Chilling climate-change news
New leak shows predictions of planetary warming have been overstated.
Forbes: Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels: The UN’s Global Warming Forecasts Are Performing Very, Very Badly
Investors Business Daily: Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.’s Claims
PowerLine: Climate Alarmism: The Beginning of the End?
Climate scientist Richard Betts thanks Nic Lewis for “constructive contribution” to climate sensitivity debate. http://t.co/TU02i5rf
http://twitter.com/mattwridley/status/281706335320555521
Media Matters: WSJ’s Climate “Dynamite” Is A Dud (citing the duds dudes at “Skeptical Science”)
The Telegraph, Delingpole: Global Warming? Not a snowball’s chance in hell
Tom Nelson points out this fun exchange between Matt Ridley and William Connolley (with an e) via James Delingpole:
Twitter / JamesDelingpole: Climate troll and banned …
Climate troll and banned Wikipedia tinkerer William Connolley bursts a sphincter at Worstall’s place http://timworstall.com/2012/12/19/is-climate-change-really-a-damp-squib/ …
[Connolley comment] Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin. *Anyone* can be an “expert reviewer” just by asking to see the draft. It doesn’t mean the IPCC have vetted you in any way.
Is climate change really a damp squib?
[Matt Ridley’s sane, measured response] …I have since gradually come to the view that the extra feedback necessary to make CO2 warming dangerous is increasingly implausible, though still possible, and that the measures we are taking to cut carbon emissions are doing and will do more harm especially to poor people than warming itself. I may be wrong in this, but it’s not unreasonable to debate this possibility — and nor is it outside the scientific consensus, by the way.
I bring to the subject the same technique that I bring to all the topics I cover as a journalist. (Only on climate (and religion) am I told that my credentials disallow me from even having a view.) I read both sides of the question, I challenge assumptions and I listen to arguments. In this case reputable climate scientists like Judith Curry and Richard Betts agree that Nic Lewis has made a good case and deserves to be considered and debated. Would that Dr Connolley would show the same open-mindedness.
Over at Tamino’s place, Tamino is his usual self, calling other people and their conclusions “fake” while oblivious to his own use of a fake name.
Next, Tamino will call Nature itself “fake” for not cooperating at the correct pace. He seems to conveniently forget all the adjustments (all upwards) that been applied to the surface temperature record this past decade. No matter, as long as the adjustments fit his conclusion. /sarc
Maybe the Mayan calendar was predicting the end of this anthropogenic global warming claptrap. That’s one catastrophy I will certainly enjoy!
You gotta love Matt Ridley’s tweet:
“Connolley must be a sceptic double agent, paid by Monckton and Big Koch surely? ”
The thread at Tim Worstall’s is a hoot. Connolley has succumbed completely to hysteria and definitively proven he should never again be taken seriously in matters concerning climate.
Conclusion from reading the Post comments: David Appell is on
ChristmasWinter break and has nothing to occupy his time.: > )
@Carter says:
December 20, 2012 at 8:21 am
FAO RMB
‘The atmosphere can’t heat the ocean’ so why is the Arctic ocean colder than most other oceans?
Because of the sun?
Its all about the angle of the sun. Only radiation passes energy into the ocean so radiation going in at 90degs as at the tropics puts far more energy into the ocean than at the arctic where the sun’s rats enter at an oblique angle.
Carter says:
December 20, 2012 at 8:21 am
Um, last time I looked, Carter, being “colder” means less heat, not more. It just might have something to do with its location on this planet with respect to the sun.
See what Alec Rawls has done, with an able assist from Anthony Watts.
Maybe the Mayan Calendar actually refers to the IPCC and the CAGW narrative.
It’s good to see the warmists squirm.
FAO RBM
I’m with jorgekafkazar on this
‘Do you have any proof of this premise, other than your frequent assertions? Calculations? References? Experiments? Anything?’
I sent a reply to jorgekafkazar.
It is not over until there are no more studies that say “it is worse than we thought”, there are no more studies that attempt to blame our way of life on something, and there is no longer any political advocacy in science. You already see the transition beginning from “global warming” to “ocean acidification”. The reason may change, but the goal stays the same. It is not over until the goal is removed.
FAO RockyRoad
‘Um, last time I looked, Carter, being “colder” means less heat, not more. It just might have something to do with its location on this planet with RESPECT TO THE SUN’ Hmm, well is that not the same? Does the warm atmosphere not transfer some heat over to the sea?
Kev-in-Uk says:
December 20, 2012 at 8:07 am
pokerguy says:
December 20, 2012 at 7:57 am
..It’s not over by any means, but as it becomes ever more obvious that the IPCC has been exaggerating more and more scientists will be jumping ship to protect themselves. Once the rush for the exit starts in earnest, watch out below…
Totally agree – but those jumping ship will have a long swim – they have distanced themselves from the ‘ship of science’ by a long way as the vast majority of their many peer reviewed publications will verify!! As I see it, they not only have to jump ship and swim like buggery to catch up, they will have to expunge their science ‘records’ too! Something I don’t think many will find it easy to do.
Not easy to do at all. The true believers will never admit they were wrong, whatever the evidence, or in this case the lack of, and will go to their deathbed arguing that it is all just around the corner still. Those not quite at the heart of the madness will delay as long as possible but will eventually heap blame on ‘other’ people who provided them with wrong information, undermining their own work in the process as well as loudly keening that they never said it was all catastrophic, they only said it MIGHT be and they have have changed their view in the light of the evidence which they had never said was incontrovertible or overwhelming (even if they did).
It is also well to remember that the majority of ‘climate science’ is of the type, given CAGW is certain what will be the effect on ….. etc.
Wow, the Media Matters piece is just down right dishonest. Its full of straw man arguments. For example, Nick says aerosols have much less of a cooling effect than previously thought. Media Matters then runs out to one of their pet scientists, gives him a biscuit and has him say, “it is very clear [they] have a cooling impact,” adding, “I don’t know of any reputable scientist that would dispute that”. Well, no one ever said they didn’t have a cooling effect. Nick’s point was that their observed cooling effect is much lower than their modeled cooling effect.
Theo Goodwin – that’s made me chuckle!! 🙂
If Mann is an expert reviewer hasn’t Connelley just called him ‘cretin’? Doesn’t Mann sue people that call him names? Or is he selective about who he sues?
Most religious debates are interminable; you just can’t prove or disprove the existence of God (or whatever deity).
But the theory that man-made CO2 is destroying the planet is going to truly be a matter of “settled science” and quite soon.
The warmists are getting desperate and I fear things are going to get very ugly indeed.
Temperatures go up and down on whatever scale one looks, it is down to nature and driven by the solar and Earth’s properties as shown here
See NASA-JPL link within.
Must be the Mayan calendar is intended for the IPCC et. al.
Connolley comment:
“Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin.”
Cretin? Well, let’s look at the definition of “cretin”:
French crétin, from French dialectal, deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys…
Wasn’t it up in those Alpine valleys where the Hockey Stick was born? I do wish Connolley would quit denigrating the most notable example of someone who continually says “trust me” but fails in all else, especially when it comes to being open and transparent regarding his “science”.
FOA? Freaking All Over? Some one never escaped the language of bureaucratese.
Christmas comes early this year. The dam burst in 2009, the dirt has all eroded and now the flood begins to move.
Academia imitating nature?
Fooling lots of people once or twice is a sweet short term victory, unfortunately there is always fallout.
The politicians when put to the question will respond
.”I trusted my policy advisors from the bureaucracy” The bureaucrat, “I trusted the best scientists”
The scientists,”I,….I.. IEEEE.” The super computer tricked us?
Guess who gets thrown to the wolves first? And the wolves gather, poverty, destruction, distrust and decay bring them out.
Its our nature to have scapegoats for our group insanity and I am fully in support of my nature on this fraud.
Scams this vile and pernicious demand retribution.
Bad time to be wrapped in the trappings of climatology.
Carter says: December 20, 2012 at 9:24 am
=======================================
Water is opaque to infrared i.e., greenhouse gas radiation. See the absorbency spectrum of water. SST is totally unaffected by the greenhouse effect. Sea surface temperature is determined by insolation in the short wave spectrum i.e., visible light. This is one of the earth-sized holes in AGW theory.
I got a kick out of reading the comments on Media Matters. Every time an argument against global warming is made, someone using the name vhw2867 replies with a simple “no” or “not” in reply. I couldn’t help thinking of the Monty Python skit “Argument Clinic.” (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTl9zYS3_dc)
In Canada, our usual Environment Canada AGW propagandist David Phillips keeps selecting his 2012 weather news of the year with some dubious statistics…
http://ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=0B8D6A90-1
By the time one finishes reading his report, one can wonder why we even are heating our homes in balmy Canada… LOL
mpaul says:
”observed cooling effect is much lower than their modeled cooling effect.”
Let’s not forget that WHY they needed a large cooling effect from aerosols was to explain the lack of warming without including solar variation since they’ve repeated asserted only TSI matters and its variance is too small to account for the lack of warming.
It all goes back to only considering TSI variation of solar output in their models (both computer and mental).
News flash to climate scientists: The area under the curve of the solar output spectrum (TSI) is not the only variation in solar output that influences Earth’s climate. Variations in the position and shape of the curve (i.e.: more or less UV) matters as well.
Ah but remember, in politics and religion the end always justifies the means.