From Steve McIntyre: Two Minutes to Midnight
There is much in the news about how IPCC will handle the growing discrepancy between models and observations – long an issue at skeptic blogs. According to BBC News, a Dutch participant says that “governments are demanding a clear explanation” of the discrepancy. On the other hand, Der Spiegel reports:
German ministries insist that it is important not to detract from the effectiveness of climate change warnings by discussing the past 15 years’ lack of global warming. Doing so, they say, would result in a loss of the support necessary for pursuing rigorous climate policies.
According to Der Spiegal (h/t Judy Curry), Joachim Marotzke, has promised that the IPCC will “address this subject head-on”. Troublingly, Marotzke felt it necessary to add that “climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth”.
Unfortunately, as Judy Curry recently observed, it is now two minutes to midnight in the IPCC timetable. It is now far too late to attempt to craft an assessment of a complicated issue.
Judith Curry: Can science fix climate change?
JC message to IPCC: Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know. Then please do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change before you tell us what constitutes ’dangerous’ climate change. And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.
Pat Michaels: More IPCC Misdirection: Its Dodgy Sea Level-Rise Assessment
The leaked version of the AR5 SPM includes this description of sea level rise:
It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993 and 2010. Tide-gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate of the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.
Notice that they dropped any statement wondering whether the recent rate of rise was an increase in the longer-term trend or the result of short-term variability or other non- climate-change-related factors—even though the difference between these cases has implications for our understanding of sea level rise and how it may evolve into the future.
We repeat—recent scientific findings argue that rate of sea level rise since 1993 is little different than the long-term (20th century) rate of sea level rise once natural variability and non-climatic influences are accounted for.
Donna LaFramboise’s op-ed in the WSJ: Warming Up for Another Climate-Change Report
My own examination of the 2007 IPCC report found that two-thirds of its 44 chapters included at least one individual with ties to the WWF. Some were former or current employees, others were members of a WWF advisory panel whose purpose is to heighten the public’s sense of urgency around climate change.
In a sense, the IPCC conducts the equivalent of a trial. The organization is supposed to be policy-neutral: Its job is to decide whether or not human-generated carbon-dioxide emissions are dangerous to the climate. Rajendra Pachauri is the chief judge.
Mr. Pachauri writes forewords for Greenpeace publications and recently accepted an International Advertising Association “green crusader” award. He is an aggressive advocate for emissions reduction and carbon taxes.
Via the Hockey Schtick: IPCC says only way to lower temperatures is NEGATIVE CO2 emissions
According to New Scientist, the forthcoming IPCC report will say, “CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period.”
In other words, even if all the world ran on carbon-free energy and deforestation ceased, the only way of lowering temperatures would be to devise a scheme for sucking hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
In essence, the IPCC says we’re doomed no matter what.
Fortunately, any small effect of CO2 on the climate is overwhelmed by natural variability, thus nature will do what it wants regardless of man’s attempts to control the weather with the harmless, essential, trace gas CO2. And even if you think CO2 has a significant climate effect, the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 14 years, not the hundreds claimed by the highly flawed IPCC Bern model.
Bishop Hill: Met Office concedes the error
Over the last day or so, Julia Slingo has sent a polite, but somewhat evasive response to Nic Lewis regarding his critique of the UKCP09 model. It can be seen here.
Nic Lewis’s reaction is here. I don’t think he is very impressed. The key exchange relates to the following paragraph in Slingo’s paper:
Having said that, it is true that the relationship between historical aerosol forcing and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) depicted in your Figure B1 is based only on the PPE. But we disagree with your assertion that the results from HadCM3 are fundamentally biased. It is certainly the case that versions of HadCM3 with low climate sensitivity and strongly negative aerosol forcing are incompatible with the broad range of observational constraints. But the key point is that the relationship between aerosol forcing and ECS is an emergent property of the detailed physical processes sampled in the PPE simulations.
The GWPF: Most Climate Sceptics Are Also Environmentalists
A paper published today in Global Environmental Change finds that “a central organising idea for climate change sceptics” is that climate change is governed by natural cycles, such as ocean oscillations and solar activity, and that “‘sceptics can have pro-environmental values similar to climate change believers.“
According to the authors, “In contrast to other studies that postulate scepticism and denial as individuals’ fear management strategies in the face of climate change threat, we found that the natural cycles view is founded on a reassuring deeper conviction about how nature works, and is linked to other pro-environmental values not commonly found in sceptical groups. It is a paradox of natural cycles thinking that it rejects the anthropocentrism that is at the heart of science-based environmentalism. By contrast, it places humans as deeply integrated with nature, rather than operating outside it and attempting with uncertain science to control something that is ultimately uncontrollable.”
Quite true, most skeptics I know are pro-enviroment for things that actually matter, such as water quality, toxic pollutants, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, atmospheric particulates, etc., but opposed to wasting the majority of environmental efforts on trying to control the weather with the harmless, essential, & trace gas CO2.
Note: I’m guilty as charged – Anthony
Dennis Stayer writes:
The DNS server OpenDNS has blocked the web site ClimateDepot.com claiming it is a Phishing Site. I have responded to OpenDNS that this site has never requested any information personal or otherwise!
If phishing is occurring I suspect a “Warming Hacker”.
The SS Global Warming:
James Delingpole writes:
Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”.
Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: ‘We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.
More at Deligngpole: Global warming believers are feeling the heat
Shock, awe: I get a mention in the BBC with Andrew Montford.
BBC stops short of calling the Principia zealots out for being the irrational nutballs that they are, but I think readers can figure it out for themselves once the visit the Principia website.
Read it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24233643