Real climate science the IPCC doesn’t want you to see

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

Once again, it’s the NIPCC versus the IPCC – facts versus gloom-and-doom assertions.

Earth’s average atmospheric temperatures haven’t increased in almost 17 years. It’s been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the United States. Tornado frequency is at a multi-decade low ebb. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl and 1950s. Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades. And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century.

Ignoring these facts, President Obama continues to insist that “dangerous” carbon dioxide emissions are causing “unprecedented” global warming, “more extreme” droughts and hurricanes, and rising seas that “threaten” coastal communities. With Congress refusing to enact job-killing taxes on hydrocarbon energy and CO2, his Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to unleash more job-killing carbon dioxide regulations, amid an economy that is already turning full-time jobs into part-time jobs and welfare.

America and the world desperately need some sound science and common sense on climate change.

Responding to the call, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute has just released the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2013 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.

The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent “unprecedented” climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years.

The 14-page NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is easy to digest and should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science. The summary and seven-chapter report were prepared by 50 climatologists and other scientists from 15 countries, under the direction of lead authors Craig Idso (USA), Robert Carter (Australia) and Fred Singer (USA).

Unfortunately, the “mainstream” media and climate alarm industry have no interest in reading the report, debating its contents or even letting people know it exists. They have staked their credibility, reputations, continued funding and greater control over our lives on perpetuating climate disaster myths. So it is up to the rest of us to ensure that the word gets out – and we do have that long overdue debate on climate.

Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%). In fact, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, even under adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or hgh temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats.

The NIPCC also lays bare the false IPCC claims that computer models “prove” recent global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, and are able to forecast future global temperatures, climates and events. In reality, the models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human carbon dioxide; input data contaminated by urban heat island effects; and employ simplified configurations of vital drivers of Earth’s climate system (or simply ignorethem), such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, volcanoes, ocean currents and recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina).

In computer lingo, this can be summarized as: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other garbage in – predictive garbage out.

The NIPCC authors conclude that existing climate models “are unable to make accurate projections of climate even ten years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation, until they have been validated [by comparison to actual observations] and shown to have predictive value.”

And yet, that is exactly how the deficient models are being used: to devise and justify policies, laws and regulations that stigmatize and penalize hydrocarbon use, promote and subsidize wind and solar energy, and have hugely negative effects on jobs, family energy bills, the overall economy and people’s lives.

Countries are spending countless billions of dollars annually on faulty to fraudulent IPCC climate models and studies that purport to link every adverse event or problem to manmade climate change; subsidized renewable energy programs that displace food crops and kill wildlife; adaptation and mitigation measures against future disasters that exist only in “scenarios” generated by the IPCC’s GIGO computer models; and welfare, food stamp and energy assistance programs for the newly unemployed and impoverished. Equally bad, they are losing tens of billions in royalty, tax and other revenue that they would receive if they were not blocking oil, gas and coal development and use – and destroying manufacturing jobs that depend on cheap, reliable energy, so that companies can compete in international marketplaces.

Meanwhile, a leaked draft of the forthcoming report from the IPCC itself reveals that even its scientists are backtracking from their past dire predictions of planetary disaster. Professor Ross McKitrick, chair of graduate studies at the University of Guelph (Ontario) economics department, put it bluntly in a brilliant Financial Post article. “Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph,” he wrote.

The graph dramatically demonstrates that every UN IPCC climate model over the past 22 years (1990-2012) predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9 degrees C (1.6 degrees F) higher than they actually were! Considering how defective the models are, this is hardly surprising.

And yet, on this basis we are supposed to trash our hydrocarbon-based energy system and economy. It’s absolutely insane!

Two Climate Change Reconsidered briefings will be held next Monday, September 23, in Washington, DC – featuring NIPCC experts. Their title says it all:

“Climate Change Reconsidered: Science the UN will exclude from its next IPCC climate report”

The first will be at noon at the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Auditorium, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE and will be co-sponsored by the Heartland Institute. The second will be held at 3:00 pm in room 235 of the Rayburn House Office Building, and will be sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition. Hard copies of the NIPCC Summary for Policymakers will be available for all attendees.

The events will be followed by a media tour of the East Coast, featuring Professor Bob Carter and other NIPCC scientists. For further information consult the Heartland Institute and NIPCC websites.

Instead of employing the scientific method to prove or disprove its CO2-driven climate disaster hypothesis, using empirical evidence, the IPCC has routinely assumed its hypothesis is correct – and used selected data that support its claims, while ignoring anything that contradicts them, and refusing to debate any scientists who disagree with them. This can no longer be tolerated. Far too much is at stake.

Climate Change Reconsidered proves there is no “consensus” on dangerous manmade global warming – and raises the debate to a new level. Read it, get the word out about it, watch this Fox News segment, and take action. Your future, and your children’s future, depend on it.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Greg Goodman

I believe the Pres. used to word “toxic” to descrbie CO2 .
“other toxic substances like arsenic and mercury” IIRC. That means CO2 is “toxic”.
This shows such a poor grasp of the situation it needs to be clearly repeated.

Greg Goodman

“Earth’s average atmospheric temperatures haven’t increased in almost 17 years. ”
some qualifiers are required if that tis not be misleading. What “temperatures” are you refering to? No “statistically significant ” probalby needs to be added.
It is very easy to find some temperatures which have increased in 17 years. In fact, as stated, it is probalby demonstrably wrong. Not helpful.

Latitude

about the climate models….if that were a car….wouldn’t you be pissed?
“And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century”
…can’t we do better than that?

Greg Goodman

“the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%)”
The doubling is usually refered to preindustiral levels, the 2 deg C likewise. ie doubling to 540ppmv expected around 2050.

TRBixler

Bow and kiss the ring otherwise vote these debt makers out of office. Australia did it so can we here in the U.S.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

(bold added)
Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades.
Since that will get jumped on anyway, I’ll say the Arctic sea ice is not “back to normal”, as usually translated as according to the records of the satellite era. Come on, we’ve seen how this goes, next year the luck will turn again and the extent will be right back at the bottom again. After more than a few years of solidly positive build-up, maybe “normal” could be declared.
For all the sea ice, Arctic and Antarctic together, do we even know what “normal” looks like?

Jimbo

Anthony, keep up the pressure, you have been noticed by the Guardian……..again.

The popular skeptic website Watts Up With That has also picked apart leaked drafts of the report and is publishing multiple stories a day chronicling how the new IPCC report is filled with “dodgy statistics” and “serious frauds.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/19/ipcc-report-sceptic-groups-anti-science-campaign

The UK’s Daily Mail isn’t holding back, today’s article is headlined “World’s top climate scientists told to ‘cover up’ the fact that the Earth’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years.
Here’s the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

periwinkle

Has anyone noticed this prediction?
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/Predict.txt

Jimbo

Let me keep it simple: We need to throw out MORE co2 into the atmosphere for the great benefit of plants and animals which eat those plants. There would be net good in 2C warming (IF we could manage it with co2). Olives in Germany just like during the Medieval Warm Period etc. What’s not to like?
Medieval Warm Perios – Dr. Michael Mann (olives here)
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

Jimbo

Oooops.
Medieval Warm Period.

jai mitchell

you said,
Earth’s average atmospheric temperatures haven’t increased in almost 17 years. It’s been eight years since a Category 3 hurricane hit the United States. Tornado frequency is at a multi-decade low ebb. Droughts are shorter and less extreme than during the Dust Bowl and 1950s. Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades. And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century
I say,
1. Selecting an arbitrary start date that happens to coincide with the abnormally high 1998 temperatures, which then became the “new normal” for the next decade or so doesn’t mean that warming has stopped.
2. A reduction in hurricane activity is predicted by climate models due to increased wind shear and dry air, both of which have contributed to the decline of hurricane activity
3. Tornado frequency is not a climate change indicator
4. The west is experiencing a drought that started in 2000 and has continued through to today, the Colorado river is now experiencing its lowest flow levels since modern records have begun. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3062/images/fig3.gif
5. Sea ice is not normal, not even close. it is almost tied with 2009 levels as shown in the following graph (curve) http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HistSummerArcticSeaIceExtent.jpg
6. It WAS a cold summer (in the arctic) very very good!!!!!
7. Sea level rates are a lagging indicator for global warming. These levels will continue to rise and they will increase in their rates of rise. We will be painfully aware of global warming long before sea levels become a major issue.
The Colorado flood was 1,870 times more destructive than flooding in previous decades (based on area affected and length of time for high water levels) it has produced an estimate of 2 billion dollars of damage so far, Boulder received an annual amount of rainfall in 1 week. It is a 1000 year storm.
These disasters are coming harder and faster now. It is time to grow up and take responsibility for our situation. Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.

John Finn

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Since that will get jumped on anyway, I’ll say the Arctic sea ice is not “back to normal”

Totally agree with this comment. I feel uncomfortable when I read comments from sceptics about the “recovery” of arctic ice. Claims like this are counter-productive since the ice extent will invariably be much lower next year. Stick to the hard facts. There has been a pause in warming – but only for about the last 10 years. To claim the pause is 17 years or so is simply using arbitrary (and demanding) confidence levels in a slightly misleading way. While it is technically true that the error bars for the 17 year trend include the ZERO trend, they also include the previous 0.2 deg per decade trend.

From this excellent article:
Instead of employing the scientific method to prove or disprove its CO2-driven climate disaster hypothesis, using empirical evidence, the IPCC has routinely assumed its hypothesis is correct – and used selected data that support its claims, while ignoring anything that contradicts them, and refusing to debate any scientists who disagree with them.
Absolutely correct. The IPCC has an anti-science agenda, which is promoted by self-serving folks like jai mitchell, who says:
1. Selecting an arbitrary start date that happens to coincide with the abnormally high 1998 temperatures, which then became the “new normal” for the next decade or so doesn’t mean that warming has stopped.
Mitchell ignores the fact that the start date was “selected” by the alarmist crowd, not by skeptics, when the alarmists were certain that global warming would continue. They were wrong. So now, people like mitchell are trying to shift the blame to skeptics — who are simply playing by the alarmists’ own rules.
2. A reduction in hurricane activity is predicted by climate models due to increased wind shear and dry air, both of which have contributed to the decline of hurricane activity
The models’ prediction was for increasing relative and absolute humidity to keep rising because of global warming. Instead, humidity has continued to decline. This is just another case of moving the goal posts to support the IPCC’s failed predictions.
3. Tornado frequency is not a climate change indicator
Changes in tornado frequency are not climate change?? Who knew?
4. The west is experiencing a drought that started in 2000 and has continued through to today, the Colorado river is now experiencing its lowest flow levels since modern records have begun. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3062/images/fig3.gif
Is this the same Colorado that is experiencing “Biblical” flooding?
5. Sea ice is not normal, not even close. it is almost tied with 2009 levels as shown in the following graph (curve)
Arctic ice has risen by 60% over last year, and Antarctic ice continues its decades-long rise. That is on our planet, of course, maybe not on jai mitchell’s.
6. It WAS a cold summer (in the arctic) very very good!!!!!
Regional climate fluctuations are not global warming, and they are 100% natural.
7. Sea level rates are a lagging indicator for global warming. These levels will continue to rise and they will increase in their rates of rise. We will be painfully aware of global warming long before sea levels become a major issue.
jai mitchell, prognosticator of future sea level. But the fact is that sea level rise is natural, and has not accelerated. Therefore, mitchell’s opinion is based 100% on his Belief; there is no supporting evidence.
The Colorado flood was 1,870 times more destructive than flooding in previous decades (based on area affected and length of time for high water levels) it has produced an estimate of 2 billion dollars of damage so far, Boulder received an annual amount of rainfall in 1 week. It is a 1000 year storm. These disasters are coming harder and faster now. It is time to grow up and take responsibility for our situation. Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.
Actually, severe weather events have moderated, therefore the ‘blatant denial and misinformation’ is again 100% jai mitchell’s. His emotion-based fright is palpable. He is very scared, for no credible reason. And as always, he is 100% wrong about everything.
======================
John Finn says:
“…the ice extent will invariably be much lower next year.”
“Invariably”, eh? John Finn is another alarmist who can clearly see the future. Why is he not in Las Vegas, making a killing, instead of wasting his time predicting the future on blogs?

Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades.
Global sea ice extent has been around the 30 year climatology for the last couple of years. And as normal is widely used as a synonym for average. The statement above is correct.
I’d add that those who think the above statement is about Arctic sea ice, need to brush up on their english comprehension skills.

Jimbo

jai mitchell says:……….

1. Selecting an arbitrary start date that happens to coincide with the abnormally high 1998 temperatures, which then became the “new normal” for the next decade or so doesn’t mean that warming has stopped.

Oh yes it has. Do you want me to wait 2 more years? Then what will you say?

Met Office – July 2013
The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?”
__________________
Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
__________________
Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
__________________
Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

You say:

2. A reduction in hurricane activity is predicted by climate models due to increased wind shear and dry air, both of which have contributed to the decline of hurricane activity

Then inform the climate scientists to put the alarmists like Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian straight.

3. Tornado frequency is not a climate change indicator

‘Then inform the alarmists.

4. The west is experiencing a drought that started in 2000 and has continued through to today, the Colorado river is now experiencing its lowest flow levels since modern records have begun.

While Colorado suffers from terrible floods.

5. Sea ice is not normal, not even close. it is almost tied with 2009 levels as shown in the following graph

What is normal? MWP? 1920s to 1940s? Holocene Climate Optimum? Please tell me.

6. It WAS a cold summer (in the arctic) very very good!!!!!

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

7. Sea level rates are a lagging indicator for global warming. These levels will continue to rise and they will increase in their rates of rise. We will be painfully aware of global warming long before sea levels become a major issue.

Show me the peer reviewed evidence that shows an acceleration in the rate of global sea level rise.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

Jimbo

ATTENTION

Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades. And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century.

Maybe the author could have said it better but he does NOT say that the Arctic sea ice is back to normal. His statement about sea ice is correct.

Mike Bromley the Kurd

Jai Mitchell. Funny how you accuse of cherry-picking, while doing so yourself. If tornadoes aren’t a climate indicator, why is it that they get such great press for being exactly that? And dragging the dollar value of Colorado Flooding into the “Extreme event” argument is bollox. Maybe check the geomorphology of the front ranges and see just how many landforms are the result of naturally-occurring extreme events. The dollar value is from those who ignore the indicators, insisting on building in canyons and floodplains prone to occasional severe flooding. Indicators such as: “it has happened before and it WILL happen again”. They took the risk. They lost. 1870% more extreme, huh? I suppose 97% of your thoughts came up with that figure.

“…the ice extent will invariably be much lower next year.”
If it is higher this year, then it can not be ‘invariably lower’ next year or any other future year.
As I said, english comprehension.

Mike Bromley the Kurd

Oh, and Jai, how on EARTH did you find a climate model that supported your agenda? A cherry tree?

geran

uh, jai mitchell, are you saying you now know 2 X 2 = 4?
(I remember that comment string from a couple of months ago, bubba.)

pat

Jimbo –
Bloomberg is also carrying the orwellian Katherine Bagley/InsideClimateNews.org article, illustrated by an out of place/out of time pic of Pachauri!
20 Sept: Bloomberg: Katherine Bagley: Climate Skeptic Groups Launch Global Anti-Science Campaign
PHOTO CAPTION? – Indian Nobel Peace Price laureate and Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, speaks during a press briefing about the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland on June 7, 2012.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-19/climate-skeptic-groups-launch-global-anti-science-campaign.html

Jimbo

John Finn says:
…I feel uncomfortable when I read comments from sceptics about the “recovery” of arctic ice….

I feel uncomfortable when you make stuff up. The guest blogger wrote:

Sea ice is back to normal, after one of the coldest Arctic summers in decades. And sea levels continue to rise at a meager 4-8 inches per century.

Claims like this are counter-productive since the ice extent will invariably be much lower next year.

What happened after 2012 minimum?

Stick to the hard facts.

The Arctic sea ice extent of 2013 was up over 50% on 2012.

There has been a pause in warming – but only for about the last 10 years.

Here is Dr. Phil Jones:

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

Did you say 10 years? The rest of your comment is usual nonsense and arm waving.

rogerknights

I hope the NIPCC SFP points to the failure and costliness of European renewable initiatives, and then say that Obama et al. have ignored their lessons and stubbornly plunged deeper into the Big Muddy.
NIPCC should also add “Global” before “sea ice is back to normal”.

Half Tide Rock

Do you think the 22 boats trapped in the artctic have a claim against those who falsely predicted an open arctic this summer? http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice%E2%80%94yachts-caught/113788 Just thinking, not knowing..

rogerknights

Indian Nobel Peace Price laureate and Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Kumar Pachauri,

Pachauri isn’t a Nobel laureate–that ought to be plain to all by now. Awards given to organizations apply only to those organizations, not to individuals composing them, as the Nobel people–and the IPCC itself–made clear in a statement on the matter.

Jimbo

For those Warmists concerned about the Arctic, I say we must act now before it’s too late. Co2 at below 350ppm is very dangerous indeed.

Abstract
The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism
The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C…..
dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C4045:TETWIT%3E2.0.CO;2
Abstract
The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic
During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a dramatic warming of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. Warmer-than-normal sea temperatures, reduced sea ice conditions and enhanced Atlantic inflow in northern regions continued through to the 1950s and 1960s, with the timing of the decline to colder temperatures varying with location. Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish……
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2006.02.011
Abstract
Early 20th century Arctic warming in upper-air data
Between around 1915 and 1945, Arctic surface air temperatures increased by about 1.8°C. Understanding this rapid warming, its possible feedbacks and underlying causes, is vital in order to better asses the current and future climate changes in the Arctic.
http://meetings.copernicus.org/www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/04015/EGU2007-J-04015.pdf
Monthly Weather Review October 10, 1922.
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explores who sail the seas about Spitsbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface….
In August, 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitsbergen and Bear Island under Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. The oceanographic observations (reported that) Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81o 29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus…..”
docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
Examiner (Launceston, Tas. – 25 April 1939
…It has been noted that year by year, for the past two decades, the fringe of the Polar icepack has been creeping northward in the Barents Sea. As compared with the year 1900, the total ice surface of this body of water has decreased by twenty per cent. Various expeditions have discovered that warmth-loving species of fish have migrated in great shoals to waters farther north than they had ever been seen before….
http://tinyurl.com/aak64qf
IPCC – AR4
Average arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Arctic temperatures have high decadal variability, and a warm period was also observed from 1925 to 1945.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html

Bruce Cobb

jai mitchell says:
September 19, 2013 at 3:48 pm
Selecting an arbitrary start date that happens to coincide with the abnormally high 1998 temperatures, which then became the “new normal” for the next decade or so doesn’t mean that warming has stopped.
Wrong. The start date is today, and the period of time where there is a 0° temperature trend stretches back for 202 months, or just 2 months shy of 17 years (Nov., 1996). When it hits the 17-year mark in November, it will officially become the “Santer Pause”. Ho-ho-ho..

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

From jai mitchell on September 19, 2013 at 3:48 pm:

5. Sea ice is not normal, not even close. it is almost tied with 2009 levels as shown in the following graph (curve) http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HistSummerArcticSeaIceExtent.jpg

Excellent graph!
It conclusively shows the start of the decline in Arctic sea ice began at WWII, when Europe was burning and there were massive amounts of black carbon (aka soot) that got deposited on that Arctic sea ice. Per current theory this lead to a dramatic reduction around 1939, it took about six years for the dirtiest multi-year ice to go away, there were a few years of surging thin first-year ice, but the die was cast. The precipitous downward curve took hold, likely aided by additional industrial pollution during the post-war manufacturing boom.
Strange that the graph ended in 2011. I can see the SkepSci kids leaving off the 2013 increase, but the 2012 record drop wasn’t included? Almost as strange as how they redefined “Summer” as July to September, rather than the accepted meteorological definition of June to August. Isn’t accepted meteorological science good enough for them?
Oh well, great find anyway!

Jimbo

Be kind to Jai Mitchell as he is only practicing his religious beliefs. He must repeat mantra. Hummmmmmmmmmmm.

Katherine

PHOTO CAPTION? – Indian Nobel Peace Price laureate and Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, speaks during a press briefing about the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland on June 7, 2012.
Yeah? I wonder how much he paid them for that distinction? 😛

bit chilly

jai mitchell,think your self lucky this is a truly sceptic blog,where people from both sides of the debate can be heard.if i attempted to question any aspect of the warmist position on many warmist blogs,say sks for example.i would be instantly moderated.
that is why there are so few people commenting there,whereas this blog has a huge following.
after reading the link to the daily mail article,then further linking to the guardian article it is heartening to see a real (not imaginary like temperature in the last decade and a half) upward trend in sceptic comments on all guardian climate articles,the warmists are getting destroyed by actual facts.long may it continue.

Rud Istvan

Unfortunately, polemic hyperbole doesn’t help either side much. As illustrated somewhat here, from the lukewarmer POV.
True Science will out. Stick with that. Falsifiable null hypotheses. Observational evidence versus computer models. Examination of the increasingly prevalent Supplemental Informations to pal reviewed papers (e.g. Marcott and O’Leary per posts elsewhere).

Jimbo

jai mitchell talks about picking arbitrary dates. Here is a date on Arctic sea ice extent from the IPCC from the early 1970s. Is it still arbitrary?
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/screenhunter_170-jun-15-11-10.jpg
Source: IPCC FAR
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Eliza

I don’t think C02 has ANY effect whatsoever on mean Global temperatures the feedback mechanisms are totally overwhelming and this is what you are witnessing at the moment. Maybe in a laboratory C02 raises temps but to base a whole silly theory on Arrhenius experiments a century ago is madness and ridiculous. The Earth is homeostatic that’s why we are able to live on iit.

MattS

Greg Goodman,
Everything is toxic in large enough doses, even watter (and no, I don’t mean drowning): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/
Of course, based on naval submarine research the toxic level of CO2 is somewhere on the plus side of 8000 PPM, more than an order of magnitude increase in ambient CO2 levels.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 19, 2013 at 4:53 pm
It conclusively shows the start of the decline in Arctic sea ice began at WWII,

It also shows a decline and then a marked rise in the early part of the 20th century that corresponds with the widespread adoption of electricity and gas for cooking in Europe and N America, which replaced coal and wood stoves that produced black carbon.
* It’s a common misconception that industry is the main source of black carbon. When in fact domestic and agricultural burning along with forest fires are still the main sources globally and probably have been since before the industrial revolution. Although having said that, Russian industry up until about 10 years was a major source of Arctic BC and is still an important although declining source.

Jimbo

Dr. James Hansen has something to say. He says a lot at different times. Please remain seated and we have to warn you that the following contains disturbing ideas. Dr. James Hansen does not believe a word he says.

Abstract
Dr. James Hansen et. al. – 2003
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos
…..Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.short
—————————–

Dr. James Hansen – NASA – June 16, 2000
Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
“A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.full

Now Hansen says since the year 2000 global warming has been driven by Co2. What a nut. Warmists should hide their faces in shame.

ECK

Greg Goodman
Actually, the Pres. shows a poor grasp of many, if not most, situations.

KevinM

Hello,
Due to a lack of availability, we will not be able to obtain the following item(s) from your order:
Vahrenholt, Fritz “The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe”
We’ve canceled the item(s) and apologize for the inconvenience. We must also apologize for the length of time it has taken us to reach this conclusion.

These disasters are coming harder and faster now. It is time to grow up and take responsibility for our situation. Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.
BASE ON WHAT METRIC AND RECORD???
This is “Gobbles Speak” in it’s best form

The atmosphere in Australia is exciting. The climate alarmists are wringing their hands, waiting for voices to rise in outraged protest at the abolition of the economy wrecking green machine. And NO VOICES ARE RISING. Its like they’re expecting divine intervention, retribution from Gaia, for lightning to strike the Abbott government dead, for a series of climate cataclysms to drive the wilful, ignorant, selfish voters back into their congregation – and this SIMPLY ISN’T HAPPENING.

jeanparisot

Isn’t the biggest miss the lack of increased water vapor, without which the whole scenario falls apart. Temperature is just a poorly measured end state, the core science was increased CO2 triggers a positive feedback in water vapor, which is a more significant greenhouse gas and thus warming, and melting, and inundating, etc.
That positive feedback (increased atmospheric water vapor) is measurable, its being measured, how does it meet the model’s prediction?

jai mitchell says:
“Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.”
—————————–
I just so love a good monster story jai,, but this one doesn;t frighten, it’s not realistic….

With the recent news (and science) against global warming, are you seeing a decrease in people spreading misinformation about global warming? Or, is the fear-mongering about the same?
Wayne
luvsiesous.com

policycritic

jai mitchell says:
September 19, 2013 at 3:48 pm
The Colorado flood was 1,870 times more destructive than flooding in previous decades (based on area affected and length of time for high water levels) it has produced an estimate of 2 billion dollars of damage so far, Boulder received an annual amount of rainfall in 1 week. It is a 1000 year storm.

It wasn’t a 1,000 year storm. The recent Colorado flood was nowhere near as devastating as the 1921 Pueblo Flood with 1500 dead and 15 ft water levels over a solid 300 sq. miles area, even though the recent flood included five additional counties and naturally covered a wider series of affected areas. Boulder got 18 inches of rain. The average rainfall in Boulder is 20.7 inches. Stop overstating things.

4. The west is experiencing a drought that started in 2000 and has continued through to today, the Colorado river is now experiencing its lowest flow levels since modern records have begun.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3062/images/fig3.gif

Your chart doesn’t show that. It only goes to 2003/2004. I live in the west. The cities haven’t built an intelligent means of capturing the heavy rains and dumping them into the Colorado River, so we get flash floods, and the resultant water seeks its lowest level and evaporates without a catchment system when it rains like a bathtub. We got the rains before Colorado. 24 days of it.
What is it with you guys and your breathless hyperbole? “1000 year storms.” “Biblical.” “1,870 times more destructive.” “Since modern records have begun.” “Exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.” [What a metaphorical turn of phrase that is. The Boogie Man from Mars is Comin’ to Getcha’, slouching through the heavens and hiding behind the clouds.]
And you always end your town crier taunts with disdain for readers, and sneer that “It is time to grow up and take responsibility for our situation.” Wag-wag-wag. There’s zero chance you have a PhD in climate science or geological physics behind your real name; the content of your argumentation and logic shows us that much.

segraves42

Jai says; The Colorado flood was 1,870 times more destructive than flooding in previous decades (based on area affected and length of time for high water levels) it has produced an estimate of 2 billion dollars of damage so far, Boulder received an annual amount of rainfall in 1 week. It is a 1000 year storm.
Ummm…no. Similar floods occurred in just the last century. The 1921 flood virtually destroyed Pueblo and killed an estimated 1,500. A 1965 storm devastated Denver delivering 14 inches of rain in about 3 hours flooding some 250,000 acres. In 1976 a torrential storm killed 144. The recent storm, though tragic, was most certainly not 1,870 times more destructive than these storms. Sounds good, though.

policycritic

KevinM says:
September 19, 2013 at 6:12 pm
Hello,
Due to a lack of availability, we will not be able to obtain the following item(s) from your order:
Vahrenholt, Fritz “The Neglected Sun: Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe”
We’ve canceled the item(s) and apologize for the inconvenience. We must also apologize for the length of time it has taken us to reach this conclusion.

They banned it in the USA and Canada. Order from amazon.co.uk with your Amazon US username and password.

davidmhoffer

jmitchell;
Blatant denial and misinformation will not help us to overcome the exponentially increasing danger that is slouching toward us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m curious. Coming from someone who demonstrated that he couldn’t correctly google the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, that he didn’t understand that dividing by two twice was the same as dividing by four, and that P varying with T^4 was the same as T varying with P^1/4, I’ve just gotta ask:
Do you even know what exponential means?

tom0mason

The basic reason for keeping the computer models in the UN-IPCC is that it gives a fig leaf of cover and added sustenance for big governments the world over. By reciting the UN-IPCC mantra allows these governments to steal evermore money through onerous carbon taxes, a large portion of which funds the UN and their NGOs.
So the computer model will not go as long as the funding merry-go-round keeps turning. Giving you –
Big Government,
Big Tax,
Big UN,
Big Fraud.
Don’t think so look-up Agenda 21