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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Connolley (with the ‘e’) clearly has issues. If he has anyone who cares about him he/she should get him some therapy.
“””””…..Gail Combs says:
December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am
margaret berger says:
December 20, 2012 at 8:41 am
Those young earnest believers who are saving the planet will allow the parasites to milk this farce longer as they will be lost without a noble cause.
………………………………………..
The $25 billion set aside by the Obama administration two years ago has, so far, produced little in terms of job growth……”””””
Obama doesn’t have $25 billion; he’s in the hole to the tune of $16 trillion or more.
So the only way for him to get $25B to create jobs, is to take it from people who have non- government jobs.
People in government jobs are paid more than those in private jobs doing the same work.
Ergo, Government can only make fewer jobs, than could have been made by that $25B if left in the private sector, with those who earned it.
george e. smith,
Correctomundo. And the proposed tax increase will go for more spending, as if the Administration is not already spending like drunken sailors. There will be a few token cuts, but they will be smoke and mirrors. By the end of Obama’s second term, I expect a deficit of around $25 Trillion. And they will have their hand out for more tax increases.
They lie through their teeth.
“””””…..RobertInAz says:
December 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm
latent heat of evaporation is 540 calories/gram (i,e, 540 grams of water reduced in temperature by 1C
540 calories (2260 joules) is absorbed (released) by 1 gram of water evaporating (condensing).
the specific heat of water is 4.2 joules/gram which is the energy required to raise its temperature by 1 degree C…….”””””
Well your numbers are correct; BUT your story is not qite correct.
True, water must absorb 50 cal/gm in order to evaporate; BUT it is water VAPOR which must have 540 cal/gm removed before it can condense.
Some people mistakenly believe that when water vapor condenses to make clouds, that somehow the temperature goes up from all that latent heat. Instead, a colder surrounding atmosphere must suck out that latent heat from a warmer water vapor. The Temperature of the atmosphere and vapor must be falling, for condensation to occur.
Also the 540 or 539 cal/gm, is the latent heat of boiling at 100 deg C at standard pressure.
Evaporation at lower temperatures, generally requres more latent heat.
Baa Humbug says:
December 20, 2012 at 8:48 am
The GHE hypothesis says the atmosphere isn’t heated by direct insolation (shortwave), only upwelling longwave from the surface heats the atmosphere which in turn heats the surface some more.
The GHE hypothesis doesn’t say that the atmosphere isn’t heated by direct insolation – water vapour absorbs a good proportion of shortwave IR, ozone absorbs UV. You’ve also omitted conduction/convection. Even Wikipedia gets that right.
DCA says:
“I don’t quite follow his logic.”
That’s because there is no logic, just lies like displaying observed warming from 1990 as about 0.015 °C per year when it’s really about half that (see table below), but even then the observations don’t come close to the middle of observed so he had to fiddle with the projections too (mostly truncating off the high side).
FAR: 0.02 to 0.05°C per year
SAR: 0.01 to 0.035°C per year
TAR: 0.016 to 0.062°C per year
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
LE = Low error (Taking highest possible 1990 and Lowest possible 2011)
HE = High error (Taking lowest possible 1990 and highest possible 2011)
FAR: page xxii Policymakers Summary
“If emissions follow a Business-as-U sual pattern Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C)”
SAR: (page 23) Policymakers Summary
“For the mid-range IPCC emission scenario, IS92a, assuming the
“best estimate” value of climate sensitivity4 and including the effects of future increases in aerosol, models project an increase in global mean surface air temperature relative to 1990 of about 2°C
by 2100.”
“Combining the lowest IPCC emission scenario (IS92c) with a “low” value of climate sensitivity and
including the effects of future changes in aerosol concentrations leads to a projected increase of about 1°C by 2100. The corresponding projection for the highest IPCC scenario (IS92e) combined with a “high” value of climate sensitivity gives a warming of about 3.5°C.”
TAR from figure 9.13
1.6 to 6.2 C by 2100
One must be careful with evaporation of sea water. It is not driven just by temperature, but also by the current humidity of the air above the water, relative to its temperature. Is more to do with diffusion or solubility, and moisture holding capacity of the adjacent air.
If the air immediately above the water is already holding 100% of its vapour capacity at its particular temperature, then evaporation is very difficult.
Skeptics should declare, 21st Dec 2012, the day the global warming hoax died.
mpainter says:
December 20, 2012 at 3:49 pm
You couldn’t be more wrong, Phillip. The arctic is cold because of lack of insolation. Kindergarten stuff. Air does not determine SST. That is backwards.
Were the oceans static, you’d have a point, but they are not. Water currently in the Arctic Ocean was at some point in the Tropics. As that water moved from the Tropics to the Arctic it got colder because the air above it got colder.
I guess ice forming on water surfaces when the air temperature drops below zero is just my imagination at work. 😉
R2D2 says:
December 20, 2012 at 9:06 am
@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?
==================================
Probably the lack of UV radiation at a level that will penetrate the surface tension. so its lack of warming from the sun… and black body radiation into space.. 🙂
The sun’s rays enter the ocean at 90degs at the equator, max energy ,at the a the arctic the entry angle is oblique so min energy.
1) We are told that the temperature has not gone up for 16 years, this is according to the “official” temperature record.
2) This “official” temperature record has been artificially “adjusted” upwards several times in the last decade.
3) Conclusion, it is NOT true that the temperature has not gone up in the last 16 years.
Actually, the temperature is dropping, and only the “adjustments” conceal this fact from us.
The math is simple, zero change in temperature minus ajustments equels negative change in temperature.
Soooo, what is making it colder?
And why am I the only one who can see that zero minus something equels a negative?
Philip Bradley:
You are recorded here as arguing that polar cold is not due to lack of insolation. I will leave it at that. Insofar as your imagination is concerned, I don’t believe that it does work.
george e. smith says:
December 20, 2012 at 4:00 pm
….People in government jobs are paid more than those in private jobs doing the same work.
Ergo, Government can only make fewer jobs, than could have been made by that $25B if left in the private sector, with those who earned it.
______________________________________
I agree completely.
Also if you are talking bureaucrats, esp. those making/enforcing regulations they do nothing but eat up wealth coming and going because we pay thrice over. Once for the bureaucrats salary, again for the persons in the private sector who must read and deal with those new regulations, and a third time for the installation/maintenance of the compliance mandated equipment and the record keeping The hidden cost of taxes and regulation is incredible. It is the main reason the USA/EU can not compete with China, India and ‘third world’ countries. Somewhere between 80-90% of our salaries/wages are eaten up by taxes/regulatory compliance.
If people actually had to pay the entire cost of government including regulatory compliance on April 15 their would be a mass revolt on April 16th.
Legatus says:
December 20, 2012 at 5:45 pm
….And why am I the only one who can see that zero minus something equals a negative?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are not.
That is why I post:
graph – N. H. Oct Snow Cover
graph – Length of Arctic Melt Season
graph -Movement of Koppen Climate Classification Boundaries by decade for 20th C.
winter weather news
I consider most global temperature records hopelessly mangled.
Philip Bradley;
Water currently in the Arctic Ocean was at some point in the Tropics. As that water moved from the Tropics to the Arctic it got colder because the air above it got colder.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No…. it got colder because it was radiating more energy to space than it was receiving from all sources combined. The air above it also got colder for the exact same reason.
Philip Bradley;
I guess ice forming on water surfaces when the air temperature drops below zero is just my imagination at work. 😉
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Itz a bit more complicated than that. Look up heat of transition.
Legatus says:
“Soooo, what is making it colder?”
Hmmm. The satellite record doesn’t show cooling yet and I don’t think its been fiddled with, but IMO it’s solar activity that’s driving the lack of warming and probably be the driving force behind any cooling we might see in the near future. If the AGW crowd is right and CO2 dominates over solar activity variations then it will have to get back to warming soon. If the AGW crowd is half right then we’ll probably see this sideways movement for a while. If the AGW crowd is mostly wrong and I’m right that the CO2 effect is “barely discernible” and solar variation other than TSI dominates then we should see cooling in the near (relative) future, however, there’s still a lot of energy that has built up in the ocean over decades of high solar activity and this energy ain’t going anywhere quick and it certainly effects global average temperatures.
“And why am I the only one who can see that zero minus something equels a negative?”
Zero minus something negative equals a positive. /snarc
I wish it were true that the warmists’ world is collapsing around them, but at present they are still battling on. Our friend Bill McKibben has begun a bus crusade to get university students to demand that administrators divest themselves of any stocks related to fossil fuels.
He was featured today (Dec 20) on the CBC radio program The Current; you can hear the broadcast at: http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2012/12/20/university-students-calling-for-a-divestment-from-fossil-fuel-industry/ Needless to say, given that it was the CBC, all his assertions were accepted at face value and he got only soft questions pitched at him.
IanM
In reply to Tamino’s scam.
“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.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/#more-6082
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”
I see Tamino (Grant Foster) appears to be unaware that the GISS temperature data set does not agree with the UAH or HADCRUT temperature data sets. There is a statistical difference from the GISS planetary data set and the UAH and HADCRUT temperature data set which does not make sense as they are all measuring the temperature of the same planet. The GISS is an algorithm adjusted temperature data set. The GISS temperature data set appears to be deliberately adjusted to indicate that there is significantly more global warming than measured.
I see the extreme AGW paradigm pushers also appear to be not aware that the GISS temperature data set is manipulated.
The discussion of the science behind the extreme AGW paradigm is over because observations and analysis obviously does not support the positive feedback extreme warming paradigm. The planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change by increasing or decreasing the amount of planetary cloud in the tropics thereby reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. If the earth’s response to a change in forcing is negative (resists rather than amplifies the forcing change) then a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes.
GISS vs UAH (UAH is a satellite measurement of planetary surface temperature. GISS is the NASA James Hansen’s departments manipulated global temperature algorithm. The Hansen algorithm adjusts temperature measurements in warm city locations to “measure” high latitude arctic and Antarctic regions. The GISS adjusted planetary temperature is always higher than the satellite measurement and the British hadcrut temperature measurement.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/17/divergence-between-giss-and-uah-since-1980/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/gistemp-vs-hadcrut/
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/12/massive-data-manipulation-at-nasa-warms.html
Massive data manipulation at NASA GISS warms most weather stations
In a talk given at the recent EIKE Climate Conference in Germany, Professor Friedrich-Karl Ewert compared the 2010 and 2012 data from 119 randomly selected stations from the NASA GISS temperature records. Prof. Ewert found “All appeared to have been tampered with. His conclusions: changes were made in most stations, probably in all. Two thirds of the changes resulted in stronger warming. A third of the stations showed enhanced cooling to simulate a homogenization.” According to Dr. Ewert, the data manipulation methods include: decreasing data of beginning sections, decreasing data between 1920 and 1950, increasing data of final sections, and deleting data of disturbing sections.
mpainter says:
December 20, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Air does not determine SST.
Then explain to me why water surfaces freeze when the air temperature falls below zero?
Legatus says:
“And why am I the only one who can see that zero minus something equels a negative?”
Actually , I have often stated that one of the reason for the levelling off in the “calculated global average urban land temperture” is that they have basically run out of “adjustments” that they can get away with easily. 🙂
But , I agree, there is a good chance that there has actually been a disguised COOLING trend over that period.
John West says:
December 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Legatus says:
“Soooo, what is making it colder?”
Hmmm. The satellite record doesn’t show cooling yet and I don’t think its been fiddled with….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will agree with that. Dr Roy Spencer I think is honest.
However what I have noticed, at least in my neck of the woods, is a change in the jets from zonal to meridional flow. This gives you blocking highs, droughts like we saw in the mid west this summer and in Russia. It also pulls arctic air down in to the mid latitudes (The polar express) so we are now seeing a swing in temps and record breaking cold.
The current record breaking cold in Russia is one example and there are a lot more here for the last couple of months.
Humans tend not to notice the nice days and focus on the extremes so we notice the record breaking cold in the winter and not the unseasonably warm days, however both are a result of meridional jets.
That is why I look at the length of the Arctic melt season and the Northern Hemisphere October snow record as indicators of change. They are likely to be the most sensitive to an actual change in climate.
Legatus
So what’s making it colder
Well as far as the cold winter in northern asia goes, it was been set in motion back in the summer when the Polar jet become very weak over Russia. Because the jet was so weak it allowed the cold and snow cover to bed in early over northern asia as the season turned
“And why am I the only one who can see that zero minus something equals a negative?”
Are you positive?
This cold winter in Russia was set in motion back in the summer when a very weak jet stream allowed early seasonal cooling to set in.
Ian McQueen, CBC is a mouthpiece for 350.org’s campaign. Perhaps University of Manitoba will do the same with Clay Riddell’s sponsored Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources that is feeding so many AGW alarmists…