This is a bullet point collection of reactions as they come in, it will be updated throughout the day by adding new items to the list. It is also a sticky post – new stories will appear below this one.
My first reaction was: That IPCC had a golden opportunity, and blew it due to being unable to adapt to reality.
My second reaction was due to a tweet from the vice chair of the IPCC, who was so tired, he couldn’t even get the website right:
There’s nothing like sleep deprived group think under deadline pressure to instill confidence, right?
My third reaction after reading the SPM is this: Looking at claims, it strikes me that the damaged credibility of the IPCC remains intact.
When you still push increasing confidence in predictions while the IPCC referenced models fail to model reality, and this has been pointed out worldwide in media, it becomes a “jump the shark” moment where the advocacy speaks far louder than the science.
Here are other reactions:
================================================================
Marcel Crok: AR5 gives no best estimate for climate sensitivity; breaks with a long tradition; good news is hidden from policy makers
One of the most surprising things in the just released SPM is the absence of a best estimate for climate sensitivity. The SPM now says this:
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}
16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
So from a footnote we have to learn that no best estimate “can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”. How strange this is. Climate sensitivity is one of the most important parameters. It determines largely how much warming we can expect. If there is lack of agreement between different methods/studies, we want to know all about it. However, apart from this footnote, the SPM is silent about it. Hopefully the full report, which will be released on Monday, will give all the details.
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/09/27/ar5-gives-no-best-estimate-for-climate-sensitivity-breaks-with-a-long-tradition-good-news-is-hidden-from-policy-makers/
=============================================================
Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill:
Ducking, diving, bobbing and weaving are the general themes of the Summary for Policymakers, just released this morning.
You would imagine that the document would review what was said last time round and how things have changed since that time, but you’d be wrong. This is, after all, the bureaucracy at work: difficulties have to be brushed under carpets and stones left unturned.
…The general theme of obscurantism runs across the document. Whereas in previous years the temperature records have been shown unadulterated, now we have presentation of a single figure for each decade; surely an attempt to mislead rather than inform. And the pause is only addressed with handwaving arguments and vague allusions to ocean heat.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/27/thoughts-on-the-spm.html
=============================================================
Donna Laframboise:
9,000 Nobel Pretenders | NoFrakkingConsensus
The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.
=============================================================
Bob Tisdale at WUWT:
Regarding the cause of the warming, still living in fantasy world, they write:
Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
They’re still misleading the public. Everyone knows (well, many of us know) their models can’t simulate the natural processes that cause surface temperatures to warm over multidecadal timeframes, yet they insist on continuing this myth.
Sorry IPCC – How You Portrayed the Global Temperature Plateau is Comical at Best
=============================================================
Apart from the usual climate-fixated organs of the MSM, it’s being barely reported. Looks like a dead cat bounce to me …
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/armageddon-report-no-5/
==============================================================
Jimbo says:
We can’t explain the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. We have improved models that predict a decrease in extent. We don’t really know why but we will simulate it and create a scary scenario anyway.
D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models
Climate models have improved since the AR4…………..
Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations……
—–
There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability in that region
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
Let’s all hope this is the last IPCC report. There is nothing useful here.
==============================================================
Dr. Judith Curry:
The IPCC has officially (and anti-climactically) issued the AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers. I haven’t had time to go through the report in detail, I mainly looked for these two statements. Note the changes in these two statements from the final draft discussed last week:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951−2010.”
These changes as a result of the ‘conclave’ this week totally dissonates my cognitives. Well, IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast. Even though they still use the word ‘most’ in the attribution statement, they go all out and pretty much say it is all AGW: ”The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
In case you haven’t been paying attention, ‘extremely likely‘ in the attribution statement implies 95% confidence. Exactly what does 95% confidence mean in this context?
=============================================================
Douglas Fischer – The Daily Climate What we’re seeing now: Climate scientists get Swift-boated
Six years after the IPCC’s massive Fourth Assessment Report was excoriated for a handful of errors, four years after the uproar over leaked emails put scientists on the defensive, the climate denial camp still controls the message.
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/09/swiftboating-climate-scientists
=============================================================
Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger – Band-aids Can’t Fix the New IPCC Report
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today released the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the physical science volume of its Fifth Assessment Report. The SPM is the most widely-read section of the IPCC reports and purports to summarize and highlight the contents of the thousand-odd pages of the full report. The SPM is agreed to word by word by the international attendees of the IPCC’s final editorial meeting which concluded as the SPM was released.
The Humpty Dumpty-esque report once claiming to represent the “consensus of scientists” has fallen from its exalted wall and cracked to pieces under the burdensome weight of its own cumbersome and self-serving processes, which is why all the governments’ scientists and all the governments’ men cannot put the IPCC report together again.
http://www.cato.org/blog/band-aids-cant-fix-new-ipcc-report
==============================================================
Climate panel: warming ‘extremely likely’ man-made
By KARL RITTER
Associated Press
STOCKHOLM (AP) — Scientists now believe it’s “extremely likely” that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming, a long-term trend that is clear despite a recent plateau in the temperatures, an international climate panel said Friday.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used its strongest language yet in a report on the causes of climate change, prompting calls for global action to control emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
“If this isn’t an alarm bell, then I don’t know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it,” said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_CLIMATE_CHANGE?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
===============================================================
Models of misinformation — climate reports melt under scrutiny
A last-ditch effort to refute climate “skeptics”—people unconvinced that we need to spend trillions to reshape our economies to halt or slow “climate change”– has failed.
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a study by 13 prestigious atmospheric scientists that supposedly provides “clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/26/dont-be-fooled-latest-attempt-to-discredit-climate-skeptics-flops/
===============================================================
Stefan Rahmstorf – Man’s role in global warming is rock solid, and natural variability’s role is close to nil.
“Natural internal variability and natural external forcings (eg the sun) have contributed virtually nothing to the warming since 1950″
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/
================================================================
Simon Donner
“It is probably the largest, most comprehensive scientific assessment in history. Not just of climate change, but of any scientific subject”
http://simondonner.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-pause-in-public-understanding-of.html
================================================================
Brenda Ekwurzel, UCS
Warming has slowed in the last 15 years, but not stopped. (If the slow down in warming persists, it would suggest a problem with the models.)
“The global average surface temperature trend of late is like a speed bump, and we would expect the rate of temperature increase to speed up again just as most drivers do after clearing the speed bump.”
(Kenji asks: so, when then?)
http://blog.ucsusa.org/hot-topics-for-ipcc-release-surface-temperature-speed-bump-and-the-latest-on-extreme-events-253
=================================================================
Dr. Roy Spencer: IPCC: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity!”
The newly-released Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the AR5 report reveals a dogged attempt to salvage the IPCC’s credibility amidst mounting evidence that it has gone overboard in its attempts to scare the global public over the last quarter century.
The recent ~15 year lull in warming is hardly mentioned at all (nothing to see here, move along).
================================================================
It’s been six long years of relentless torment inflicted by Neanderthal skeptics. Worse, the public was even starting to become hopeful about the future once again, and were becoming less afraid of climate. For the climate catastrophe everything had been looking so bleak as the pesky real observations kept glaringly contradicting the modeled catastrophes 15 years long.
But happy days are back again – the catastrophe is coming, the UN reassures the world. The 15 years of model failure are not significant after all. In fact the UN now says the models are better than ever and the climate scientists are now 95% confident that the climate catastrophe is coming and that our living standards are responsible for it. Never before have scientists been more confident.
================================================================
Climate skeptics have seized on the fact that the rate of warming over the past decade or so has been less than climate scientists predicted given the continued increase in carbon emissions. The IPCC report address the warming “hiatus,” as it’s been called, raising a number of possible explanations—the ocean absorbing the warmth, changes in the solar cycle, volcanic eruptions that cause cooling—without pointing the finger at a single one. Which just underscores how complex the climate system remains, even as we keep experimenting on it. The scientists will keep working on those questions and others…
Climate Scientists Issue Their Report. Now It’s Our Turn | TIME.com
======================================================
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report:
‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’
Updates will follow, readers are welcome to point out other reactions in comments.
SPM AR4 says:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
“Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show interannual
variability and localised changes but no statistically
signifi cant average trends, consistent with the lack
of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures
averaged across the region. ” (pg 9)
Cherry Picking? – SPM AR5 brings in graphics of Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent, but leave out Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice extent (Antarctica!)
Yet the recent Met Office report (July 2013), shows a trend in Antarctic sea Ice extent (upwards) (pg 18) which is missing from SPM AR5
http://realclimategate.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/met-office-sect-2-cryosphere-arctic-antarctic-graphic.jpg
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
You will recognise a lot of IPCC graphs from these Met Office reports.
So if the Met Office can report on Sea Ice extent from both hemispheres.
Why not the IPCC?
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2013/09/ipcc-sinks-into-deep-ocean.html
“This was the reason he could not sleep, and why IPCC now will sink into the Deep Ocean”
[More wasted effort by a banned commenter. Deleted. -mod]
The best synopsis goes to ” the advocacy speaks far louder than the science.”
it is what I was trying to say, but failed to find the right words. Thank you.
As someone so rightly said once – I wish I could remember who – “Climate bollocks”.
Well I’m finding it really amusing. You see, if you are in a hole and you keep digging, then you are just going to bury yourself. If they were clever, then they would have admitted the ‘pause’, admitted the Antarctic, and admitted their models are useless. Instead, they have carried on as normal – digging. Now let us all sit back and watch the global temps dip. But I hope someone somewhere is taking the names of all these people. There may even be a charge of crimes against humanity!
Congratulations IPCC! With the release of your new Nonsensus Report you’ve miraculously managed to officially resurrect a state of knowledge eerily similar to that of the Dark Ages, which is doubly ironic since the keepers of knowledge on whose expertise you rely on have worked so hard to make any pesky evidence of medieval warming disappear from the records.
That was certainly no small feat. You fully deserve to take all the credit for this incredible accomplishment that will be given to you in the history books of the future.
Warmist regards, a fan
__________________________________________________
The biggest headline here in Germany is Sea Levels (we are of course beyond hope). Someone has suggested sponges.
Pointman’s comment was interesting.
I looked at the BBC News website for their post Most Popular news stories at 13:13 today.
The end of the world was only number 6.
1: Kanye West angry at Radio 1 parody
2: Goodbye, US passport
3: Two plead not guilty to Rigby murder
4: The man who may have saved the world
5: Cameron says no to Salmond TV debate
6: Global warming now ‘unequivocal’
7: Spain to consider time zone change
8: Quiz of the week’s news
9: Is Breaking Bad’s Walter White one of TV’s truly evil characters?
10: New Syria chemical attacks probed
No-one cares anymore…
Show me the warming… 🙂
Just heard Prof Bob Carter on BBC Radio4 World at One. Brilliant interview putting a sound sceptical perspective on the IPCC report. Well worth a listen again when it is available.
I heard a report on Canadian CBC radio this morning regarding the Summary for Policy Makers. It was NOT the lead story as it was in 2007, and they did NOT trot out David Suzuki for his routine anti-corporate rant. Though they still managed to give it the usual CBC fear-bias, but they actually had some questions about the Summary this time around. They questioned it? How dare they.
I’d say the leftist CBC is not completely on board with the alarmists anymore, perhaps enough of their journalists have seen the light. This is a major improvement over the embarrassing journalistic orgy that accompanied the release of the 2007 AR4 SPM.
I got a chuckle out of Jeff Masters comment this morning on the IPCC report and his action plan.
“We must elect new leaders and pressure our existing leaders to take the strong actions needed to advance us into a new, 21st century energy economy. You can all help make it so!”
Upon making a fortune selling his site to ” the weather channel”, he is not happy with Obama.
I normally would not link the absurd, but make an exception this time.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=2535
SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.
@M Courtney
On my computer at 13:28 UK time ‘Global warming now ‘unequivocal’ stands at number 8 out of 10, of the most read. (And what the hell, I thought it was ‘unequivocal’ ages ago, when the science was settled /sarc off).
I just checked Russain news site, and there is no mention of the report AT ALL. Not even in the small print. Top stories – Greenpeace gang getting punished, Syria, Kenian atrocity, and how much the prosecution office spent on buying new cars for themselves.
We should just be pointing out the errors now. There is no point discussing the virtual world the IPCC is talking about – they are not talking about the real planet Earth, but some virtual world, planet Nibiru in a climate model.
———-
One major graphic is clearly wrong. The observed change in temperature from 1901 to 2012 – figure SPM.1 (b), particularly the Oceans part.
There has been no warming in the central Pacific but it is shown as +0.4C or so in the graphic (large parts of it not shown despite there being a large number of measurements in this region covering the whole period). There has been no warming in the far southern ocean (again it is missing despite a large number of ships being there over the whole period – including whaling ships in the early part of the 20th century). Other areas have no warming over this period yet the entire Ocean area is shown as having warmed. Clearly the Figure is meant to show warming everywhere yet that is not correct.
———–
The graphic showing observed change in temperature relative to the climate models shown in earlier drafts is not included in the report anymore.
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
Lack of agreement??? What happened to the science is settled, with 97% consensus? Climate sensitivity is the CENTRAL issue.
What they are saying here is they don’t know how much it will warm, and by inference, they also don’t know who much of the warming that has already occurred has been caused by humans. If they know (with 95% certainty) that most warming since 1950 has been caused by humans, then they should also know how much warming will occur with doubling of C02. You cant know one without also having a very good idea of the other.
Still living in fantasyland.
In the MSM (BBC, CNN, etc) the IPCC report is being portrayed as the gospel truth on climate change. For example the CNN summary is “The world’s getting hotter, the sea’s rising and there’s increasing evidence neither are naturally occurring phenomena”. I think it’s fair to say that the MSM are onside with the warmists. The online debate is not reaching the consciousness of the general public.
The BBC are all over it today, of course. Fawning interviews with the IPCC crowd to spread their political message and – a new development! – the occasional few words from the likes of Bob Carter, now being allowed as the “minority view” to give the impression of balance. Overall, exactly as you’d expect from “The World’s Most Respected Broadcaster” (© BBC): junk reporting of junk politics.
I, meanwhile, remain unshaken and unstirred. Nobody has yet produced any evidence (that I’ve been able to find) to suggest that humanity has had any effect, still less a “catastrophic” one, on the world’s weather systems, therefore the null hypothesis holds. Still waiting, guys. Show me how evil we are, rather than how evil you are.
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
That statement may qualify as the new consensus.
Ross McKitrick says: September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
Thanks for the chuckle. It’s good to start the morning off with a laugh.
“Climate sensitivity is one of the most important parameters.”
Only a dark agent of ignorance &/or deception would believe this.
Wouldn’t now be an excellent time to release the CG III documents ?
According to the BBC
It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends
But apparently 1979-98 was long enough!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615
@ M Courtney, 5.19am
4. “The Man who may have Saved the World” was quite worth clicking on (BBC website). It kind of dovetailed rather nicely with recent “Americans dropped H bomb on the USA and it almost went off!” story we had last week.
Who writes this stuff, and why? It’s all very entertaining.
As for the IPCC, ho hum.. dull.
Climate sensitivity.
OK global warming is proportional to the climate sensitivity.
The document is the Summary for Policy Makers.
And the policy makers need to know what their policies should be.
So the policy makers need to know what the climate sensitivity is.
But the IPCC disagree amongst themselves as to what the climate sensitivity is.
So the IPCC cannot tell the policy makers what the climate sensitivity is.
So the IPCC issue a big expensive report to tell the policy makers they don’t know what the climate sensitivty is.
But at least they are able to tell the policy makers they don’t know what climate sensitivity is to a certainty of 95%.
At last they are making some progress!
Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
“SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
Love it – will file and quote that when blogging on the Guardian website.
I notice that IPCC 4 PR claimed 2,000 scientists contributed whereas IPCC 5 only claims 800. Is there any significance? Or are they now excluding railway engineers and Greenpeace lobbyists?
The SPM finds that contributions to the observed warming trend of 0.12°C over the period 2051-2010 were distributed as follows:
Greenhouse gases 0.5 – 1.3
Other anthropogenic forcing -0.6 – 0.1
Overall human-caused range -0.1 – 1.4
Natural variability -0.1 – 0.1
Natural forcing -0.1 – 0.1
Overall natural range -0.2 – 0.2
Anything within these swingeing ranges is acceptable. So what if total human-caused warming was -0.08 and natural was +0.2. How can that make it extremely likely that more than half (0.061°C) was attributable to human influences?
The lowest possible human contribution was 1.3 – 0.6 = 0.7°C. Subtract 0.2°C natural cooling and you’re left with 0.5°C net warming. But that is over 400% of the observed warming. A further 0.4°C reduction needs to come from somewhere and I nominate a sensitivity reduction.
[2051-2010 ? Mod]
And The Weather Channel slavishly picks up the ball and advances it. In typical fashion by showing a growing glacier cleaving icebergs into a sound. Idiots.
A new functional relationship:
Science + politics = IPCC^5
16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
============
Which means there must be reduced confidence in the role of CO2 in determining temperature.
The “unexplained warming” is like the “unexplained pause”. Since we don’t know the cause, it must be due to CO2.
post http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/
fredagen den 27:e september 2013
IPCC Follows Warming into the Deep Ocean
Sweden’s Environment Minister Lena Ek and Thomas Stocker, a member of an United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), attend an IPCC meeting in Stockholm September 23, 2013. REUTERS-Bertil Enevag Ericson-Scanpix
Swedish Minister of Climate Lena Ek assisting IPCC Co-chairman Thomas Stocker when presenting the Deep Ocean explanation of the non-existence of global warming.
Here is a summary the 2 hour IPCC webcast press conference presenting the Approved Summary for Policymakers concluding the yet unpublished IPCC 5th Asssessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis:
The key role is played by Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group 1, who reports that he has only slept 6 hours the last 4 days, which is less than 2 hours per night, and thus is very tired.
What has kept him awake is to come up with a convincing explanation why climate models predicting steady warming, while observations show no warming at all over the last 17 years, still can be used for reliable predictions over periods longer than 17 years.
No wonder that Stocker is tired, because his task has not been easy and lack of sleep is not the best precondition for good scientific work. Accordingly his explanation that the warming, which should have been observed on the Earth surface but was not observed, has been transferrred into the Deep Ocean where it cannot be observed, because it is so deep, was not convincing to media allowed to pose questions at the press conference. Nor the alternative of putting the blame on volcanic eruptions. In the Summary this was phrased as follows:
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence).
The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions…
But Stocker did not mention during the press conference the third alternative presented in the Summary:
There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing.
This was the reason he could not sleep, and why IPCC now will sink into the Deep Ocean.
critical constructive inquiry
fredagen den 27:e september 2013
IPCC Follows Warming into the Deep Ocean
Sweden’s Environment Minister Lena Ek and Thomas Stocker, a member of an United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), attend an IPCC meeting in Stockholm September 23, 2013. REUTERS-Bertil Enevag Ericson-Scanpix
A truck engine is tested for pollution exiting its exhaust pipe as California Air Resources field representatives (unseen) work a checkpoint set up to inspect heavy-duty trucks traveling near the Mexican-U.S. border in Otay Mesa, California September 10, 2013. REUTERS-Mike Blake
Swedish Minister of Climate Lena Ek assisting IPCC Co-chairman Thomas Stocker when presenting the Deep Ocean explanation of the non-existence of global warming.
Here is a summary the 2 hour IPCC webcast press conference presenting the Approved Summary for Policymakers concluding the yet unpublished IPCC 5th Asssessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis:
The key role is played by Thomas Stocker, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group 1, who reports that he has only slept 6 hours the last 4 days, which is less than 2 hours per night, and thus is very tired.
What has kept him awake is to come up with a convincing explanation why climate models predicting steady warming, while observations show no warming at all over the last 17 years, still can be used for reliable predictions over periods longer than 17 years.
No wonder that Stocker is tired, because his task has not been easy and lack of sleep is not the best precondition for good scientific work. Accordingly his explanation that the warming, which should have been observed on the Earth surface but was not observed, has been transferrred into the Deep Ocean where it cannot be observed, because it is so deep, was not convincing to media allowed to pose questions at the press conference. Nor the alternative of putting the blame on volcanic eruptions. In the Summary this was phrased as follows:
The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean (medium confidence).
The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions…
But Stocker did not mention during the press conference the third alternative presented in the Summary:
There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas forcing.
This was the reason he could not sleep, and why IPCC now will sink into the Deep Ocean.
“Global-scale observations from the instrumental era began in the mid-19th century for temperature and other variables, with more comprehensive and diverse sets of observations available for the period 1950 onwards. Paleoclimate reconstructions extend some records back hundreds to millions of years. Together, they provide a comprehensive view of the variability and long-term changes in the atmosphere, the ocean, the cryosphere, and the land surface.”
(from pages 2-3.)
So sixty-three years, plus reconstructions, enables “a comprehensive view of the variability and long-term changes in the atmosphere, the ocean, the cryosphere, and the land surface”, does it?
And a fifteen year pause [up to twenty plus years on some data series] with no significant warming, is nothing to get worried about?
A quarter, even a third of the detailed records – perhaps one seventh or an eighth of the whole series from ‘mid-19th century’?
i’d like a glass or two of whatever they’re on!
Auto
Somewhere Dyson Freeman is laughing.
Julian In Wales says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:18 am
Great post!
IPCC Correction. Update
The IPCC is now confronted by 95% uncertainty that that humans are to blame for global warming given the more than 15 years of flat temperature trend and an underlying trend of only 0.25 C deg per century evident from the longest temperature record of over 350 years.
Ignoring this “stand-still” in temperature all that can be predicted is that the maximum temperature rise would be no more than 0.25C this century, a rise that that has been consistent in the long-term well before industrialisation and temperature recovery since the Little Ice Age .
There fixed it!
Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
“SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
Yep, best summary yet.
How obviously a political document can be passed off as “science” is beyond me.
The tipping point of credibility has been reached. Or call it Peak Obfuscation.
More MSM headlines:
Channel4 news, UK: “Scientists deliver a bleak vision of a future in which storms are more frequent and the sea has risen by up to 82cm, as they say they are more certain than ever that mankind drives global warming”
BBC news: “A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s”
Of course these are the warmist-friendly media, but they’re the ones most people listen to. I don’t agree with them; I just want to highlight the mountain we still have to climb before the general population start to hear reality from their chosen news channels.
Despite asking less than half as many scientists to contribute; there is now (even) less agreement on a best estimate for climate sensitivity (to CO2) than last time. I’d call that “unsettling”.
Keenan writes to Sligo
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/9/27/keenan-writes-to-slingo.html
Doug Keenan has discovered a major problem in the fifth assessment report.
“Dear Julia,
The IPCC’s AR5 WGI Summary for Policymakers includes the following statement.
The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012….
(The numbers in brackets indicate 90%-confidence intervals.) The statement is near the beginning of the first section after the Introduction; as such, it is especially prominent.
The confidence intervals are derived from a statistical model that comprises a straight line with AR(1) noise. As per your paper “Statistical models and the global temperature record” (May 2013), that statistical model is insupportable, and the confidence intervals should be much wider—perhaps even wide enough to include 0°C.
It would seem to be an important part of the duty of the Chief Scientist of the Met Office to publicly inform UK policymakers that the statement is untenable and the truth is less alarming. I ask if you will be fulfilling that duty, and if not, why not.
Sincerely, Doug”
Amazing.
They just keep running for the shelter of their old pal CO2. It’s tiresome.
Its unequivocal all those that take these finding seriously should immediately stop all efforts at propagating and pursue the concept of self elimination with extreme prejudice and leave this world to the rest of us who don’t see any reason to join them in their purple shrouded exit.
Frost on the roof this morning, the cold is coming.
They’re uncertain the response to CO2 but they’re certain it’s the cause of some warming last century but not recently. LMAO! Such a ridiculous departure from reality! BTW does the IPCC show their work anywhere regarding the calculation of their degree of certainties? That would be hilarious.
Judith asks:
“In case you haven’t been paying attention, ‘extremely likely‘ in the attribution statement implies 95% confidence. Exactly what does 95% confidence mean in this context?”.
The answer is; “exactly the same as 90% confidence, 51% confidence or 1% confidence – it means ‘we hav’nt got a f***ing clue !’.
Oh dear, now the Economist is getting into the act: “climate change has not stopped and man is the main cause”. It’s enough to make you weep.
yes!
the climate is changing
it will get drier and cooler at the higher latitudes and more wet at the lower latitudes.
read my lips;
it is COOLING
and it won’t stop
not for a long time….
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
I think the IPCC Climate Liar’s lies have reached a tipping point of no return. They even have to lie about their confidence level. My god, no wonder they’re tired. Lying is hard work.
@chris nelli
Somewhere Dyson Freeman is laughing.
Or even Deeman Fryson.
Paul Homewood says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:07 am
Exactly Paul, – but like all LIARS, the web of deceit they weave will come back and bite them eventually!
I liked the graph in this piece (third one down IIRC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772
as far as I can see this shows basically what we all keep saying -that earths temps go up and down and certainly over the last 100 years it doesn’t look like particular ominous warming!! And the graph is from the MetOffice too!
Twitter doesn’t care, no AR5, IPCC, climate change or whatever. At least it’s not trending Worldwide or in the US and UK anyway. I’m sure it’s trending somewhere. Maybe on a few Pacific islands needing some funds for completion on future building projects?
When the data is outside the 95% confidence bands of the models, shouldn’t you be saying something like “we are 5% confident….”
On the date of the release, it is only fitting that the Atlantic is having a mild year. On this date, 2013 is the 5th lowest year since 1950 in ACE. Here are the top 10 years…
DATE 9/27/2013
1962 9.2925
1994 12.7625
1983 13.9575
1977 18.355
2013 23.055
1968 23.95
1970 25.335
1982 26.815
1959 26.9825
1991 27.2625
To go with the report findings: Increases in intense tropical cyclone activity – Assessment that changes occurred (typically since 1950 unless otherwise indicated):”Low confidence in long term (centennial) changes, Virtually certain in North Atlantic since 1970″.
Unless i read the chart wrong. It is not clear IMO what is this reports prediction.
\\ AR5 gives no best estimate for climate sensitivity //
When today’s best estimate is below the published minimum the the previous assessment, it tends to generate questions even from people not really paying attention.
“Hide the Decline” of the Best Estimate.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11131126
One of the most controversial subjects in the report was how to deal with a purported slowdown in warming in the past 15 years. Climate skeptics say this “hiatus” casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change.
Many governments had objections over how the issue was treated in earlier drafts and some had called for it to be deleted altogether.
In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records are sensitive to natural variability and don’t in general reflect long-term trends.
About what I expect from the Herald here, it’s slightly biased
Reblogged this on CACA and commented:
So the “experts” in 2007 (AR4) were 90% sure human’s were causing climate change (aka global warming). Now with a further six years of zero surface warming totalling ~15 years, the “experts” are now 95% certain that human’s are causing climate change/global warming or whatever they now call it.
As well, IPCC now recognise (taboo) ‘natural variability’ as influencing the current 15 year warming ‘pause’, 98% of climate models failing to model observed reality and no confirmation on climate sensitivity ~ would have thought their confidence level would have dropped not increased.
i.e “we actually have no idea what’s going on.”
Realistically, they were never going to be ‘less’ confident. That wouldn’t fit the political MO of the IPCC, who’s job after all, is to find and prosecute only the human influence on climate.
Politics still far more important than the science for the United Nations’ IPCC bureaucrats.
The sad part is most of the policy makers that will read this are going to fall for it. How long can this lie last and will anyone be held accountable when the jig is up?
Don’t know if it means anything, but the USAToday.com site has “UN: man to blame for climate change,” as a headline. Referring to the UN instead of the IPCC is a huge step down since the average person here would associate the IPCC with science geeks, and the UN with liars and politicians (sorry, redundant). Anything from the UN is something that can safely be ignored.
Note to fellow Policy Makers.
Ignore the summary and read the Science.
Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.
===========================================
Brilliant – and the Arctic may not be cooperating soon either.
It still won’t stop the people with lame lives pretending to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere though. I wonder if they ever even look at the Keeling curve ?
I suppose the pay’s better these days though for digging ditches and filling them in.
Weather.com’s homepage has this in their rotation: “It’s Only Getting Worse” accompanied by various photos of melting ice, retreating glaciers, etc. Subheadlines offer Expert Analysis, etc.
I see this and think, if I were relying on this for information, I wouldn’t have a clue about the pause. I wouldn’t guess that the Arctic ice minimum area, while still rather low, is up 60% from last year. I would believe that having most of the ten warmest years on record recently somehow contradicts the assertion that temperatures have leveled off lately.
But I suppose that headline is a fair summary of the IPCC’s latest.
The earth appears to be a self correcting system governed by energy transfers larger than the total human output… How do you determine human influence on a system like that without knowing all of the conservation factors?
Look at Figure SPM .10 (last one of the SPM)
It displays the temperature anomaly as a function of cumulative CO2 emissions, with black points being “historical”. The black point “2010” shows an increase of around 100 GtC with respect to 2000 (which is correct) but also an increase of 0.3 °C with respect to 2000 … which is “technically” correct, but misleading : 2000 was a La Niña year after the strong 1998 El Niño , and 2010 was a rather strong El Niño year. Statistically speaking, we all know that there has been no significant warming for 15 years. Yet another “trick” ….. (had they taken the “*8” years the graph would have looked totally different of course).
philincalifornia:
“It still won’t stop the people with lame lives pretending to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere though.”
Heh. I do CO2 chemistry for a living – but I don’t fool myself that I’m going to have any significant effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, and I’ve never yet tried to sell it as offering hope in the crucial battle against CAGW.
The official mouthpiece of the warming craze–The Weather Channel–is all over it this morning. It’s all propaganda, all the time, in your face, in your homes! Tune in to have your brain pelted to mush with all the silliness. I’m 95% confident they are 100% full of it.
Summary of the summary:
Our models are correct. We can’t explain why the climate refuses to comply with them. The only logical course of action is to continue on the established path until the climate succumbs. Any deviation from this doctrine would be disastrous to our funding stream.
“The religious analogy is appropriate because belief in global warming has taken on the trappings of traditional religion. Alarmists like to say the science is settled — which is nonsense, since science is a series of theories that can be tested by observations. When Einstein presented his theory of relativity, he showed how it could be tested during astronomical events in the next decade. The theory passed. Saying the science is settled is like demanding what religions demand — that you have faith.
Religion has ritual. Global-warming alarmism has recycling and Earth Day celebrations. Some religions persecute heretics. Some global-warming alarmists identify “denialists” and liken them to Holocaust deniers. Religions build grand places of worship. Global-warming alarmists promote the construction of windmills and solar farms that uneconomically produce intermittent electricity. Global-warming alarmism even has indulgences like the ones Martin Luther protested. You can buy carbon offsets to gain forgiveness for travel on carbon-emitting private jet aircraft.
Some religions ban vulgar pleasures, as the New England Puritan sumptuary laws did in banning luxuries. Some global-warming alarmists want to force most Americans out of big-lawn suburbs and into high-rise apartments clustered around mass-transit stations. This last element seems to be dominant among many global-warming alarmists. Stop the vulgar masses from living their tacky lifestyles of driving those horrid SUVs. They must be made to repent, conform, and then be saved.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359641/great-global-warming-disappointment-michael-barone
Scenario:
A group of the world’s top butterfly experts project with a 90% confidence level that Bermuda will see an increase in the total number of butterflies over the next 15 years. Fifteen years later there is no increase. The butterfly group issues a report and says that they are 95% confident and it is unequivocal that there will be an increase in the number of butterflies in the next 15 years. It’s like a Zombie.
The jig is winding down, the fat lady wants to sing, the ref is putting the whistle to his lips, the game is into stoppage time, the parrot is almost dead.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/09/ipcc-we-dont-need-no-stinking-climate-sensitivity/
Phil’s Dad says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:07 am
Note to fellow Policy Makers.
Ignore the summary and read the Science.
===
Where’s the science?
There are lots of models, some charts and graphs and things – all doubtless massaged to make the 1930’s look like a wet weekend in somewhere irredeemably dismal. Is that science?
Models [of the mathematical kid, not Airfix ones] re GIGO – especially if the model is a Mannian-type, that produces a hockey stick, even if a list of cricket scores is pushed through it.
And the model projections are that it may get a bit warmer – but ‘we’ don’t know what caused the current hiatus [over twenty years on some data sets], so ‘we’ are a bit vague on those cause thingies.
Ummm – yes, ‘we’ are 95% certain [although we were 100% certain] that the climate, it’ll change.
Auto
I have been watching something interesting happen all morning. Bloomberg posted the following article on their homepage this morning
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-27/global-warming-slowdown-seen-as-emissions-rise-to-record.html
The comments have been mainly pro-skeptic/anti-ipcc.
It was front and center with a picture to go along with it. About 20 minutes later I went back to the home page and it was now down toward the bottom of the page as the first link under “Sustainability”. 10 minutes later it was the third link. Now, an hour later it is gone off of the front page completely and can only be found after clicking on “More Sustainability” and looking under the “Energy” heading…
The front page now only contains the following links:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-26/climate-deniers-misinterpret-data-un-s-figueres-says.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-27/fossil-fuels-need-to-stay-unburned-to-meet-climate-target.html
Very interesting….
My bullet point on the IPCC report: They washed a very dirty hog (and didn’t get it clean) and are trying to sell the wash water as Champaign The usual suspects (BBC, CNN, etc..) are buying. I wonder how it’s going to taste..
Whoa, I searched BS for something apt and struck pay dirt.
It reads like a psychoanalysis of the alarmist.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/bullshit
“The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These “anti-realist” doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.
But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial — notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.”
― Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit
To all Brits and EU citizens.
In the UK the lights may well go out and electricity prices are going upwards fast.
The BBC and MSM will not be able to hide the pain of no electricity if the World doesn’t warm up soon because more and more people will notice that they undergoing hardship for no apparent reason.
I guess that the S”””storm that followed the last IPCC report wioll be nothing compared to what’s coming soon. I would like to see an investigation in the UK of the Met Office’s models, which are driving our energy policy and every UK contributor to the IPCC put under really hostile questioning.
The ‘Elephant in The Room’ is that the remit of the IPCC is limited to looking at ‘human induced’ climate change.
Maybe that’s why they were ‘up so late with only a few hours sleep’, because they were finding it difficult with their blinkers on trying to produce scientific evidence for the ‘anthropogenic’ element?
Just wondering if my earlier comment at 8:39 is still under moderation due to the 3 Bloomberg links? For future reference…
The whole AGW argument requires that the nature climate be rock stable, so that CO2 provides the initial deviation, which is then amplified by feedback mechanism. This is necessary because CO2 (doubling from 280 to 560) alone does not have enough impact to be a cause of alarm. The feedback mechanism (clouds, water vapor, ice, insert your favorite) must normally be rock steady for the AGW argument because otherwise it would not be amplifying the effects of CO2, so that warming can be ultimately attributed to fossil fuels. This was why the MWP had to be banished.
Now that IPCC is acknowledging natural variability, the implication is that the (former) feedback mechanisms are no longer driven solely by CO2 induced warming. So the whole feedback-amplification argument goes down the drain. Now the only impact that can be attributed to CO2 is the direct 1.7W/m2, which should only contribute 1C, hence no alarm.
I’m trying to laugh at some of the sarky comments, which are well deserved, but like Peter Ward my prevailing response is despair at the inert and sycophantic response of the media, whether live or print, to this farrago of IPCC nonsense. Every newspaper website I’ve looked at for the UK MSM is leading with this doom-mongering report.
We are living in a parallel universe, where those of us who bother to do enough work to understand the science can see the obvious, but 95% of the world doesn’t bother – including those in the media paid well to write on climate and related matters. The politicians certainly can’t be bothered: they just lap up what they are told
Untill we can find some means of conveying the reality of the science to decisions-makers and educators, nothing is going to change. My one consolation is that Australia has shown us that common sense can prevail.
In summary they wrote they are 95% sure that it is humans that caused it not to warm for 15 years… I dont see why anyone is upset.
Looks like the IPCC has decided that there is a reasonable chance of warming restarting soon. They only have to hold on until that blessed event transpires. Some scientific strategy!?
May Gaia help us if some sort of cooling does not become obvious soon. The public is ready to go all in, if warming becomes apparent again. We will race over the cliff of energy poverty faster than you can say “turn the lights off”. All of this… for a minor bump in temperatures. GK
In reply to the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), Fundamental issues not addressed, observations and analysis ignored that disprove SPM assertions. IPCC AR-5 SPM states:
“The net feedback from the combined effect of changes in water vapour, and differences between atmospheric and surface warming is extremely likely positive and therefore amplifies changes in climate. The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types combined is likely positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds. {7.2} “ (William: After 20 years of research the IPCC is uncertain concerning the sign and magnitude of low level clouds in response to green gas forcing. Com’ on man. There has been 16 years of no warming. Why?)
William: Same old, same old. AR-5 is the same as AR-4 in that observations, analysis, and logic that disprove EAGW are ignored. The IPCC reports are a one sided scientific debate where there is no advocate for the counter position. For example (excerpt):
1. Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation Vs short term changes in planetary temperature supports the assertion that planetary clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing changes (by reflecting more or less sunlight into space, negative feedback) as opposed to the IPCC’s assumed amplification of forcing (positive feedback) due to increased water vapour in the troposphere with no increase or a reduction in low level clouds (depending on general circulation model). The GCM’s assumed increase in water vapour in the troposphere with no change or a reduction in low level clouds causes the amplification of the green gas forcing. If there is no amplification, the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 is roughly 1C. If the planet resists forcing changes rather than amplifies forcing changes the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. How the heck can the IPCC be extremely certain the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 will be greater than 1C when the sign of the change in low level clouds in not known!
2. If there was an increased in water vapour in the troposphere as a result of AGW then there would be the predicted warming at roughly 8km in the tropical troposphere which in turn would cause increased warming in the tropics. That is not observed (warming in the tropics is three times less than that predicted by the general circulation models (GCM) and there is no tropospheric warming in the tropics at 8km which supports the assertion the planet resists (negative feedback) rather than amplifies (positive feedback) forcing changes.
3. The observed latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 150 years does not match the warming pattern predicted by the general circulation models based on AGW forcing being the cause of the warming. As CO2 is more or less eventually distributed in the atmosphere the potential for AGW forcing is more or less the same based on latitude. As the actual forcing due to greenhouse gas is also proportional to the long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in greenhouse gas and the most amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space occurs in the tropics, the GCM’s predicted the most amount of warming due to greenhouse gas increases should occur in the tropics.
4. There are cycles of warming and cooling (23 cycles have been found, 9 of which occur in the current interglacial period, with a mean period of 1500 years) in the paleo climatic record that have the same latitudinal pattern as the warming that occurred in the last 150 years. The past cycles of warming and cooling were not caused by CO2 forcing. The past warming and cooling periods correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The past cooling periods that following the past warming periods correlate with a Maunder like minimum in the solar magnetic cycle.
5. And so on.
William: The following is an excerpt of peer reviewed papers from so called climate ‘skeptical’ scientists that disprove EAGW.
Analysis of top of the Atmosphere Radiation Vs Planetary temperature change
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
“On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. ….”
William: The observed warming pattern in the last 150 years does not match the warming pattern if CO2 or any other greenhouse gas was the cause. http://www.klimarealistene.com/Christy%20-%20tempereaturanalyser%20i%20regioner%20viser%20liten%20CO2%20effekt.pdf Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years (William: 16 years and counting). The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. (William: This observation indicates something is fundamental incorrect with the IPCC models, likely negative feedback in the tropics due to increased or decreased planetary cloud cover to resist forcing). However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. (William: This indicates a significant portion of the 20th century warming has due to something rather than CO2 forcing.)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
New paper that again finds the upper tropical troposphere is not warming as predicted.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018
Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites
Hot under the collar:
Your post at September 27, 2013 at 8:47 am says
The biggest ‘Elephant in The Room’ is much bigger than that!
It seems I need to point out the following again.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says
So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science.
The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “and options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
The IPCC is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
Richard
P.S. PHIL’S DAD, ARE YOU HEARING THIS?
Son of mulder says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:25 am
“Just heard Prof Bob Carter on BBC Radio4 World at One. Brilliant interview putting a sound sceptical perspective on the IPCC report. Well worth a listen again when it is available.”
====
For those who can hear it, it is at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03bg4vp/World_at_One_27_09_2013/
Prof. Carter is introduced at a time index of 08:46, but the whole item starts at 07:28.
At 08:12, just before we hear the professor, Ed Davey who is the UK government “Energy and Climate Change Secretary” says “This piece of evidence that we’re seeing from Stockholm is probably the most robust, rigorous, most peer-reviewed piece of science in human history. I think it’s put the question of whether climate change is happening beyond doubt. We’ve got to stop debating this issue as if we’re some members of the flat earth society and get on and act.”…
The most significant emission from today’s IPCC press conference was from Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General of the WMO, who said:
‘ … But despite this really overwhelming scientific consensus around climate change, we need further assessment, we need further projection, in particular to downscale this information at the regional and more local level, so we should not stop our investment in that, this is essential investment for the future generations.’
This is newspeak for “Keep Giving Us Your Money”
I’m just getting so angry with these people – they had a chance to climb down gracefully, save their careers, and incidentally do the rest of the world a favour, and they blew it! So many really poor people are going to suffer if policies continue to be based on this nonsense. To gratuitously raise the price of energy and deliberately ration it by dismantling the infrastructure of civilization is going to kill more people than any of the usual tyrants. It’s a despicable crime against humanity which is being perpetrated by respected institutions and ‘democratic’ governments.
If none of these people will learn to respect everyone else, then how on earth do you work towards re-establishing rationality and in particular, breaking the noxious link between science and Macchiavellian politics? Not by arguing with them, apparently.
Richardscourtney
You quote the original IPCC objectives . However this was all changed in the SREX report in 2011. See my post at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2011/11/comments-on-ipcc-srex-summary-for.html
Here are some quotes
“The importance of the new report is that finally the IPCC recognizes that the uncertainties of climate prediction are much greater than they previously acknowledged. They are now in the embarrassing position of having to acknowledge that the whole UN CO2 scare is built on very uncertain foundations and they somehow need to as quietly as possible change their position .The first thing they do is to change the definition of climate change (Global Warming no longer seems a convenient term to use) They say :
“several of the definitions used in this Special Report differ in breadth or focus from those used in the AR4 and other IPCC reports.]
Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.2[INSERT FOOTNOTE 2: This definition differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.]
In other words where previously climate change meant change due to human activity now it means change due to human and natural causes . As previously quoted in the original post they now say that they can’t distinguish these causes for the next 30 years. The rest of their predictions re extreme events are simply trivial and tautologous speculation – they simply say that if warming continues, certain extreme events are more likely to occur. If they don’t know what is happening in the next 30 years they certainly don’t know what will happen in the next hundred.
I’m still reeling from the observations made by Judith Curry and Bob Tisdale – if the IPCC is admitting, as Judith and Bob astutely point out, no way to provide an estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity, and no sufficient data (other than the lame statement: “models do not reproduce . . .” which essentially refutes their entire conclusion) on which to base a “95% confidence, extremely likely” statement, how do they justify their conclusions about what factors are causing how much increase in temperature? Just more incredible baloney. If I were a policy maker, I would throw this summary into the incinerator.
The IPCC is always right until proven wrong. That is how thier climate science works, get with the program people.
The media message is, as presumed: “CO2 is causing heat, natural variation is causing cold”.
Of course, non of the media luminaries can figure out that surely natural variation would work both ways, otherwise it’s not natural variation.
This just in: Vikings still not farming Greenland.
The globe is warming (except that it isn’t). Man-made CO2 is causing it (except that it isn’t). A 97% consensus (except that it’s closer to 0.3%) is 95% certain (fictional nonsense) of these facts.
What a load of bollocks. The IPCC and their report deserve to be laughed off the planet. Sadly, progressive journalists and politicians will embrace it wholeheartedly and use our dollars to implement their oh-so-worthy programs to line the pockets of their cronies. Something like half the population will swallow the bait hook, line, and sinker.
Things really are worse than we thought 🙁
Dr Norman Page:
Your post at September 27, 2013 at 9:17 am replies to mt post at September 27, 2013 at 8:59 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/reactions-to-ipcc-ar5-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-1428543
Your reply begins by saying
Sorry, but No! You are mistaken.
The link to the IPCC “Principles” which I quoted was in my post and I copy it to here. It is
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
If you use that link you will see the document begins saying
So, the “Role” stated near the start of that document has been repeatedly reviewed, amended and agreed. The most recent approval of it was in June 2012 (i.e. last year and a year after you claim it was changed).
The nature and purpose of the IPCC is as I quoted and explained in my post you have replied.
Richard
Astounding to me is the IPCC, after the global media event they created, released a DRAFT SPM report to the world… you have to go to the end of the doc just to find the graphs they talk about in the text.
It is a shabby, unpolished release they should have held onto until it was done!!!
I wonder if Dr. Curry intended the pun on anti-climactically.
This headline really freaked me, until I worked it out;
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/taser-victim-police-ipcc-justified
Richard North’s take:
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84359
Science has nothing to do with it.
They’re playing for time, in the probably vain hope that global temperatures will turn upward again over the next five years. If not, the Sixth AR will have to admit defeat, ie it’s 95% certain that 95% of climate change is not man-made, & that all governmental attempts to ameliorate a non-existent problem have done nothing but impoverish humanity while harming its environment.
Or maybe they’ll just keep reiterating the same lies. We can only hope that their mendacity falls on even deafer ears in that case.
for Ross McKitrick re: “right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends”
Points taken. But for one additional item – what about sea level? I’ve noticed that their projected trends in sea level since 1990 are pretty close to what has transpired. Can credit be given for “right” about sea level in the same way as “right about the Arctic”?
tony nordberg says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:48 am
Advocates of the UN’s IPCC would like to do worse than tasering skeptics who point out the scientific evidence that more CO2 is good for the planet.
Have these people been reduced to guesswork? We have satellites, rain gauges, people on the ground etc. and all they can say is ‘likely’.
On the Sahel:
We didn’t cause this, did we?
Richard Barnes:
Your post at September 27, 2013 at 9:53 am says
Science certainly does NOT have anything to do with it.
This is not a matter of opinion: it is a result of the “Role” the IPCC has and is tasked to provide.
Please read my above post at at September 27, 2013 at 8:59 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/reactions-to-ipcc-ar5-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-1428543
What amazes me is the reluctance of people to accept the specified function and purpose of the IPCC despite the function and purpose being published in the public domain by the IPCC itself.
Richard
I predict that AR6 will find the IPCC, led by Professor John Cook, is 97% confident that climate change is caused by humans..
Jimbo says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:57 am
A warmer world would mean a wetter Sahara, as during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (see below) & previous hot spells, such as the Eemian Interglacial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial
Colder means dry, windy conditions, as shown by evidence supporting the Sahara Pump hypothesis.
Ar4 Summary for Policymakers = 18 pages
Ar5 Summary for Policymakers = 36 pages
How many pages until it stops being a summary
“The online debate is not reaching the consciousness of the general public.”
This comment by Peter Ward above is the only one here that counts. Every popular MSM is screaming the doomsday message, and its the only message people will hear. They won’t read the report, they won’t check out the debate, and they lack sufficient education to understand the discussion in any case. And they vote. Tony Abbott is a lonely man. None of his peers in the western world will do or think what Tony thinks – not Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, socialists or Conservatives. Welcome back to the future.
Note to climate activists: please don’t call me a “denier”. I prefer the more politically correct nickname “non-alarmist”.
I just love how they can release the summary before the report itself it released. Is somebody rewriting the body of the report to match the summary, or are they hoping nobody notices?
Today the IPCC Bureau issued the AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers to a much more critically skeptical audience than the AR4 audience and a more scientifically prepared audience.
The IPCC Bureau has a obvious self-confidence crisis. It knows after >20 years and 5 assessment reports that hard physical science knowledge does not reasonably and unambiguously support their ‘a priori’ (posited before the the IPCC was chartered) premise of net harm to the Earth-Atmosphere System (EAS) from burning fossil fuels. They only have left a pseudo-scientific irrationalism in support of their premise. Their premise was not a guess in Feynman’s scientific process sense, instead their premise was a strategic tool for activism. They now know their premise can no longer serve to promote activism in any meaningful scientific context, this is their self-confidence crisis.
The IPCC Bureau has only one option to restore their self-confidence. The option is a new extremely over-the-top and radical MSM crusade on the Bureau’s behalf in support of their premise and activism. A new crusade that supports the IPCC at a much much higher capacity than it previously supported the them in the past >20 years.
So far the MSM hasn’t shown signs of willingness to do so. Oops.
Leading politicians are keen in their abilities to smell subtle shifts in politically useful winds. Downwind of the IPCC’s AR5 its smells of decayed political usefulness.
John
“”””””……..Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16……..”””””””
Well with high confidence they admit they don’t know the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” to better than three to one, and it might be as much as a 6″1 unknown. But fear not, because they are able to break down the detail contributions to this Wild Arse Guess estimate into its constituent parts, but for the natural forcings and the internal variability they are 100% uncertain as to even the direction of the effect; they could be as big in one direction as in the opposite direction. Now that is real information you can bank on.
You can take a left turn or you can take a right turn and we are absolutely sure that the left turn choice is as likely to be as wrong as the right turn choice is.
And for sure, the weather is never going to be in equilibrium, since the earth rotates on its tilted axis, besides going around the sun in an elliptical orbit.
So just when was it the last time the earth’s climate was in equilibrium ??
And by the way, just what is it that the official definition of “Climate Sensitivity” is Today ?
Is it the “s” in any of these equations ??
1/……T1 – T2 = s. log2(CO2,1/CO2,2) Where Ti is mean global surface Temperature.
2/……Same as #1 where Ti is mean global lower tropospheric air Temperature (say 2m altitude)
3/…….CO2,1 – CO2,2 = s. log2(T1/T2) ; where Ti same as #1
4/…….Same as #3 where Ti same as #2
5/…….T1 – T2 = s. (CO2,1 – CO2,2)
6/……..CO2,1 – CO2,2 = s. (T1 – T2)
7/……..Your favorite math function; eg y = exp (-1/x^2)
Now remember we know that the “climate Sensitivity” is the “s” in one of these equations, and the data is good enough to confirm which one, yet we don’t know the value of “s” in that equation to better than 3:1 uncertainty, and maybe only 6:1
Yes this really is robust science we are talking here.
When NIST starts to publish the USA official Government approved value for “s” for all USA commerce to use, then I will start to believe they know what they are talking about.
Now I understand that these equations sometimes are translated into different languages, and CO2 translates into Watts per square meter; which really is a bizarre transformation; and for extra credit the student can determine whether these are the raw climate sensitivity numbers and formulas, or maybe they are the ones with water vapor feedback factored in; or not, or perhaps they have cloud feedback included.
There’s not a lot of real world experimental data, in existence, that was observed with water vapor, and or cloud feedback turned off while the data was gathered.
But we are confident that the science is quite robust; even unequivocal !
How many trees did they kill writing this thing up?
Bjorn Lomborg writes
Lower Temp on Climate Change Hype
“””””……Jimbo says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:30 am
Scenario:
A group of the world’s top butterfly experts project with a 90% confidence level that Bermuda will see an increase in the total number of butterflies over the next 15 years. Fifteen years later there is no increase. The butterfly group issues a report and says that they are 95% confident and it is unequivocal that there will be an increase in the number of butterflies in the next 15 years. It’s like a Zombie.
The jig is winding down, the fat lady wants to sing, the ref is putting the whistle to his lips, the game is into stoppage time, the parrot is almost dead…….””””””
May I remind you that when the fat lady finally does sing (for a whole 18 minutes non stop), it is the end of the twilight of the gods; and those scoundrels are finally sent to their well deserved destiny.
May the IPCC follow them to the ashes of Valhalla.
Do liepards change their spots?
If not, why is everyone so surprised that the political summary doesn’t relfect the report, the report doesn’t reflect the data, and the hope that something might change doesn’t reflect years of denialist experience.
william astley says
….supports the assertion that planetary clouds in the tropics increase or decrease to resist forcing changes (by reflecting more or less sunlight into space, negative feedback) as opposed to the
IPCC’s assumed amplification of forcing (positive feedback) due to increased water vapour in the troposphere with no increase or a reduction in low level clouds (depending on general circulation model).
Henry says
wake up
the climate IS changing
NATURALLY
just live with it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/reactions-to-ipcc-ar5-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-1428431
Just watched the BBC news. They said that Global Warming had now been proven, because snow and ice levels are decreasing, and droughts are increasing.
Err, did they ever look at the data?
Snow INCREASING:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/images/nhland_season1.gif
USA and world drought – no change or DECREASING:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/drought-figure1.gif
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7424/full/nature11575.html
Antarctic sea ice INCREASING:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/image_thumb348.png?w=594&h=360
etc: etc: etc:
The IPCC is in the world of DENIAL. It is only going to get worse as this decade proceeds and the temperature trend takes on a definitive down trend, which is very likely to happen due to the prolonged solar minimum which is currently in progress ,along with all the secondary effects which will come about as a result.
I want the IPCC, to stick to their agenda ,so when the time really comes(very soon) they will fall even harder flat on their faces and people like myself and others will be able to say; I TOLD YOU SO.
The IPCC is clueless ,or are liars or both and future data is only going to serve to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
LOOK FOR THESE SOLAR PARAMETER AVERAGES TO BECOME THE NORM AS THIS DECADE PROCEEDS AND WATCH THE TEMPERATURE TREND IN RESPONSE.
They are;
solar flux avg. sub 90.
cosmic ray count avg. north of 6500 per min.
solar irridiance avg. off .015% or more.
solar wind avg. 350 km/sec. or less.
ap index avg. 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time.
e10.7 flux avg. 100 units or less.
The above following a period of sub-solar activity in general which started in earnest in year 2005.
From my understanding of the work of Donna Laframboise, the IPCC:
1. Does not comply with its charter / framework basis.
2. Does not follow its own guidelines
3. States publicaly what is factually incorrect, including in its assessment reports.
4. Has significant staff that are activists and also, unjustifiably, significant staff that are low experience scientists.
Corollary=> Since it is a part of the UN, it is not what the UN says it is either.
John
And yet, for AGW and the UN-IPCC That Beat Goes On, And On, And On….
UPDATE 1-U.S. backs market scheme for aviation emissions from 2020
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/26/aviation-climate-idUSL2N0HM1ZF20130926
If it is available, now might be a good time to release the final emails from Climategate 3. Perhaps someone from the Maldives is willing to stick out his neck?
Getting old, grey and decrepit, perhaps I should summarize my own thinking on this global warming stuff.
1) From available data, increase in world temperatures since 1850 is about, say .09 C;
2) Thanks to Hansen, New Zealand data, Iceland data, Columbia data, Darwin data etc. etc. etc. were “adjusted” to suit his purposes, therefore deduct .05;
3) Homogenization of the temperature records have had a lamentable tendency to “adjust” upward.
Being a nice fellow, deduct .05;
4) Taking a couple of thousand monitoring stations off-line to aide the global warming scare…..
still being nice, deduct .05;
5) Urban Heat Island effect: still being nice: 0.05
Doing the math on a calculator…………….I end up at .07 degrees increase over (say) 163 years, which is about 0.5 degrees per century.
Coming out of the LIA, where is the problem? It would take till 2250 for a 2 degree rise!
– – – – – – –
more soylent green!
Astute comment!
The WG1’s scientific leadership team could potentially face a supreme test of their integrity. Do they or do they not change the ‘science’ in the WG1 science report, if requested by the IPCC Bureau, to match the revisions made over the last 4 days in the draft SPM that became this final SPM for WG1?
I think the WG1 science leadership team was selected by the IPCC Bureau using a strictly confidential selection criteria ( see IAC report and Laframboise’s books). The WG1 team could have been selected on a basis of being supportive of changing science when needed for a greater social purpose.
Based on CG1 and CG2, if it occurs in the AR5 process, then it would not be entirely unprecedented.
John
Pointman says:
“Apart from the usual climate-fixated organs of the MSM, it’s being barely reported. Looks like a dead cat bounce to me …”
Check google trends for “Global Warming”. There is indeed a very small bounce from a recent all time low in interest since 2005.
The public obviously has other problems.
But, what about the poley bears? I have looked in vain through the report for information about the fate of the poley bears. Yet, they have been the mascots of CAGW for years. Oh, well.
The SPM seems to be a damp squib. The inability to deal with sensitivity makes it look like a recommendation to go to war even though we don’t know whether the other party has any hostile intentions whatsoever. Policy analysts around the world who advise governments will not be slow to point this out.
To save face, there will still be huffing and puffing and rhetoric by politicians. But the rivers of cash will quite likely slow down to a trickle.
Bbould says at September 27, 2013 at 9:25 am
I wish.
They are proven wrong… for their previous predictions.
But I think it is worth looking at the lower limits of their current predictions for global temperature rise.
It looks like they are putting the sceptic (no discernible impact) scenario into the mainstream of climate science.
Therefore sceptics should be invited to every public debate on the science. That is an opportunity.
Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
Perfect!
Stuart B says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:11 am
“I’m just getting so angry with these people – they had a chance to climb down gracefully, save their careers, and incidentally do the rest of the world a favour, and they blew it!”
They are very successful parasites leading very wealthy parasitic lifestyles. They blew nothing. They serve the system; the system rewards them for pretending to be objective scientists, when everyone who cares to look sees them for the fat leeches they are.
Let’s look where the next climate junket will lead them. Last one was in the Al Qaeda-funding slaveholder state of Qatar; .
Next one? In November in Warsaw.
Oy vey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference
Let’s see how many screaming Greenshirts the EU carts there this time.
The IPCC is behaving like a treed cat. Instead of doing the rational thing, scurrying down the trunk, it’s climbing onto ever higher and thinner branches, while yowling louder and louder.
Why is it the BBC coverage, so far, of the ‘Janet and John’ version of the IPCC report – which as usual bears no relationship to any actual science – that of sycophants drooling over some golden tablet of revelation handed down by the gods (and goddesses I suppose in this PC world).
Suppose the ‘Summary for Policy makers’ had been issued, say, by the Tory Party Conference, the BBC would have been all over it, tearing it to shreds.
Yet the low grade bureaucrats and low grade scientists in many cases who run the IPCC (unemployable even within any ordinary country’s civil service) are treated as beyond criticism. Where is the investigative journalism needed here?
Do they even know how this SforPMs was created? The horsetrading that went on behind closed doors by people ignorant even of the basics of science and suffering sleep deprivation? No. Yet no one seems to want to investigate a document which, if foolishly pursued, will bankrupt the entire globe.
Why does the BBC news refer to a ‘slight slow down’ in global warming, when it has been in stasis for 15 years? ‘My car is slowing down. My car has stopped.’ There is a difference.
I’ve been reading all day and I haven’t seen one single mention of the little baby polar bears.
I forgot to mention:
The IPCC report is busting at the seams with inconsistencies, contradictions and tongue-in-cheek assessments. A veritable dogs breakfast.
Without a doubt a far bigger and monumental worldwide hoax and joke than Piltdown Man.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/piltdown-man-hoax/index.html
.
Solomon Green says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:20 am
I notice that IPCC 4 PR claimed 2,000 scientists contributed whereas IPCC 5 only claims 800. Is there any significance? Or are they now excluding railway engineers and Greenpeace lobbyists?
—
No, seems they have excluded the 1200 of the 2000 scientists that have doubts and by that were even able to RAISE the percentage of agreement they now claim. It is a huge farce.
Please people if you consider traveling the oceans. Here and there are monsters like Charybdis in the Odyssee who will suck all of you and all the warmth into the oceans!
C’mon folks, let’s quit being so cynical about the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Colossal ninCompoops). The following statement from the IPCC, as relayed by Judith Curry, is entirely correct:
‘“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951−2010.”’
All one has to do is add the word ‘the’ (not to be confused with, ‘duh’) immediately in front of the word ‘climate’ and the word ‘record’ directly behind it. I think we can all agree that with that very small addition to the wording we acquire a forcing that changes the incorrect, thus delicate, balance of that IPCC statement to a correctly balanced one. Forcings can work both ways. Now let’s see if we can force those intergovernments to balance their taxpayer financed checkbooks.
Knowing what we seem to know about variability, and beiing humble enough not to try calling tops and bottoms to a noisy time series…
Are we not likely to see a good temperature spike in the next five years? If its down they’re toast, if its up we’re toast.
To say that the 1998 spike (aware of its purported causes, I read here too) is not repeatable by some other effect invites defeat.
After all the handwaving this site will only do a small dent in the AGW.fraud. As I mentioned on this site many years ago the only thing that will eventually convince 100 percent of people is the climate itself which of course is now cooling and will continue to do so because of solar and cosmic ray activity. It took 100’s of years for communism to fall (the russians themselves had to do it) It will take many many yaers before this scam falls unfortunately. The IPCC and (climate establishment) are now entering the Hitler type dictartorship response.. beware. This will only fall soon after very very big money and legal action is taken, otherwise we will have to wait for. the climate effect to kick in which will takeanother 10 years or so sorry folks.
It may not be an exaggeration to state that the next USA election will be fought over this theme as it has in Australia.It may be wise for the next GOP candidate to state without doubt his/her total denial of AGW (by then skepticism will not even be in vogue, lukewarmers will not even exist)
The occasional stumble caused by ‘fatigue’ seems to be part of this theatrical event to be soaked up by the media. I was impressed by the questions and the persistence of the questioners. The Economist kept coming back for clarification on the ‘pause’ and kept getting a no answer. If there is a change over time it is in the doubt being expressed by the media. Let’s hope it filters into their columns.
The Collectivist/Authoritarians rode the horse of Communism until the Soviet Union failed and the Chinese adopted some market principles. Then they climbed onto the horse of Global Warming/Climate Change. I am wondering what the next horse will be if skeptics succeed in weakening the political power of AGW fear. Surely they will not go away or concede defeat.
Since WUWT is more than a climate site perhaps we aught to be looking for symptoms of the next great crusade and discussing them here.
Just for fun my impression is that Pachauri doesnt give a damm anymore and wants out (from his body language at the IPCC conference). Smart man he is leaving because he knows it ain’t happening LOL
As of (nearly) 2 PM in California, the NY Times article by Justin Gillis on the IPCC report did not make the top 10 articles viewed, emailed, or blogged by NYT readers.
Funny, you’d think the end of the world would attract more attention.
So, after climate change it is now time for regime change!
Austriala is leading the way, I hope the US and the EU will follow soon.
If ever there was a one day wonder this is it. (And it is being largely ignored in the non-committed media.)
However, the fun begins Monday when the actual report is released. At that point we can see what, if any, references to the peer reviewed literature there are to support the ocean heat idea. And we will be able to see the sensitivity which has been left out of today’s summary. And we will be able to see the divergence problems with respect to the Antarctic and models vs observations.
We will also have the opportunity to do the detailed analysis of that the difference is between AR4’s “CO2 caused warming (90%)” and AR5’s “50% of warming caused by humans (95%)”: these are two very different claims. 50% of warming being caused by humans leaves 50% caused by other things….like what?
The fact that sensitivity has been left out of the SOP means that it is now, officially, impossible to determine what, if any, effect reducing CO2 emissions is likely to have. No longer can politicians tout “carbon taxes” or “cap and trade” as having any IPCC sanctioned effect on climate. [Of course, I suspect the sensitivity issue is in the full report but it must be really uncertain if it did not make it into the SOP.)
Finally, the IPCC seems to be of two minds in dealing with the pause. On the one hand they want to claim it takes 30 years to make a trend – which opens a lot of the prior science up to questions and every claim about extreme weather up to derision.) On the other, it is willing to entertain assorted, apparently non-peer reviewed, ideas as to where the heat may have gone. “Into the deep blue sea” is adorable but even the IPCC admits it lacks the data and the instruments to confirm this wild assed guess. Not to mention that there was no indication in the SOP as to when this convenient submersion began. There is much fun to be had here, especially if the pause continues.
Here’s the thing: tomorrow the committed media will have moved on. The public did not give a rats arse before the SOP and there is not the slightest indication that today’s sloppy, ill written, scientifically incoherent, bit of alarmist puffery will change that. And, for the first time, sceptical voices are being heard in the MSM.
There is still a fight ahead. However, that fight will be against a demoralized, confused and divided foe. The IPCC juggernaut has hit the reefs of reality. For the sceptical community the task ahead is to point to the mistakes, incoherence, illogic and lack of scientific rigor or principle which today’s report has exposed.
Should be fun!
[snip – don’t repost complete articles here – copyright violation, use excerpt and link – mod]
@Philip Foster (Revd) says,
I wholeheartedly agree – the BBC over the top coverage and propaganda version of the IPCC report is an insult to the intelligence of its licence fee payer. It’s version of IPCC ‘Thermageddon’ is not even fit for the children’s channel.
And yes, a real investigative journalist (where have they all gone), would have a field day. The IPCC is pushing us all into fuel poverty with no real scientific evidence for climate sensitivity or appropriate consideration for natural variability.
I’m sure richardscourtney has seen:
http://www.un-documents.net/k-002988.htm
and
https://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/eirv34n23-20070608/50-55_723.pdf
Links from letmethink commenter on http://www.eureferendum.com
This morning’s pantomime in Stockholm and the reaction by the Lame Stream Media has been predictable but deeply disappointing.
[snip – stupid, hateful comment – policy violation – mod]
“These changes as a result of the ‘conclave’ this week totally dissonates my cognitives. Well, IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.”
15 year is long time for the old guard to bitterly cling to it.
If everything was going well, they probably would not want to punch the clock this long.
Though it certainly a more miserable future for them- but they expecting a miserable future-
not a surprise.
So they will get older and cranker, and only the dumbest will consider starting a career there.
But for those there, it doesn’t appear to a bad deal to get more than decade with all it’s perks-
hence, the bed they choose.
Paul Vaughan says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:07 am
“Climate sensitivity is one of the most important parameters.”
Only a dark agent of ignorance &/or deception would believe this.
I assume by this you mean anyone who works for the BBC or CNN.
My take. Politics as usual.
IPCC “science” gave politicians a lever to achieve their ends. The IPCC “science” is trying to keep the train on the tracks.
When has the UN ever been about anything but politics?
Time to end the climate of fear
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26/time-to-end-the-climate-of-fear
Auto says on September 27, 2013 at 8:38 am (in response to my earlier post)
“Where’s the science?”
Just for the avoidance of doubt when I say “read the science” I am not saying read the IPCC report.
richardscourtney says on September 27, 2013 at 8:59 am
“P.S. PHIL’S DAD, ARE YOU HEARING THIS?”
Every word sir, and I find nothing in what you say with which to disagree. I would go further and say the IPCC was set up initially to undermine the coal industry (no pun intended).
No sensitivity estimate means that policy makers are supposed to do nothing?
I kinda like that.
A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990.
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/12/ipcc-climate-predictions
If we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we face catastrophic levels of warming.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/17/1892241/hansen-climate-sensitivity-uninhabitable/
Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294.full
We are forcing a planetary state-shift from an environment that is very friendly to life to a much hotter, totally inhospitable one:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html
We can power the world and its future energy needs with existing clean energy technologies for the same amount of money we currently spend on fossil fuels (not including their damages):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-203
James Hansen, “Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change”
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html
Exceeding planetary boundaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
Carbon and methane trapped in ice, permafrost, and ground stores to cause a significant increase in global warming not accounted for in most predictions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121127094250.htm
Grey Oz,
Instead of parroting the nonsense you posted, try explaining in rational terms what you believe — and keep in mind that the planet is thoroughly deconstructing every alarmist claim.
Think for yourself for a change.
The likelihood of a bureaucratic department of a international socialist organisation producing a report on how it’s been wrong and why they aren’t needed anymore, with a summary worded by government climate change appointees instead of scientists. Was anyone really expecting anything else?
Grey Oz must be new around here,
No mention of the polar bears yet – maybe they’re all dying of obesity (apologies to More Seal and Groan, your contributions are far more worthy…). I’m sure I saw a pic of one, though, as a background to the BBC news at one point – must have been inadvertent, a slip, surely?
I also saw coverage of some people (I don’t *think* they were polar bears) trying to set fire to an iceberg, apparently – this is such an interesting and thought-provoking experiment it ought to be part of the national curriculum (UK). It would certainly help to silence the doubters… Hmm, Doubters, now there’s a possible alternative D-word.
To bed, I’m rambling.
Off the subject but on Al Gore regarding his current state:
Took a break from moving hay around cause its going to rain. Happend to turn on C-Span and catch some of the Senate stuff, they were on a break. So seems C-Span just had to have Al on to voice his opinion of Ted Cruz and the Republicans.
Al Gore has lost the rest of his mind. He looks like a re-issued death mask. He talks like an insane street preacher on meth. I dislike this man,, a lot, but he is in such a state we need to pray for him cause he has gone around the bend now.
Someone should be able to find the vid and post it. Real sad. Little he understand how the demon of History deals with those who lie as vile as Al has.
If anyone had any doubts that the Age Of Exploration (and as its corrollary, Scientific Progress) was over, anyone who is truly sentient now has those doubt erased. Welcome to the Post-Scientific Age.
Here is the correct link.
We can power the world and its future energy needs with existing clean energy technologies for the same amount of money we currently spend on fossil fuels (not including their damages):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
“Sustainability” will be the replacement religion for CACA when it is finally flushed.
At this rate the AR7 will be 109% confident that global warming is caused by humans.
Grey Oz on September 27, 2013 at 3:36 pm says:
“Here is the correct link.”
Oh, thank goodness you ironed that wrinkle out! Without that correction, you would have looked like a spineless mouthpiece for the alarmists.
Clearly, that’s not the case. Whew! 🙂
/sarc
@dbstealey: Why are studies, papers, data, and articles by some of the world’s top planetary scientists “nonsense” and why is listening to experts on a subject not acceptable? Just because you disagree with them? And I don’t know where you are getting your data from (perhaps you are not accounting for the increase in temperature in the oceans), but temperature readings all around the world confirm that each decade is hotter than the last, and planetary data only confirms that greenhouse gasses building up in the atmosphere are warming the planet and forcing us into a much hotter and inhospitable climate. The North Pole, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers all around the world are melting at an unprecedented rate (the North Pole is half the size it was 35 years ago, which alone should tell you something is wrong). The temperature has been increasing for some time, and dramatically since the 1970s, with all ten of the warmest years on record occurring in the last twelve years. Sea levels are rising at a rate that is double last century’s average, and the oceans are increasing in acidity — 30% since the start of the industrial revolution — from carbon absorption, jeopardizing the world’s coral reefs and the food chain. And as we’ve seen again in the last year, droughts, wildfires, heatwaves, hurricanes, and other weather are steadily growing in both intensity and duration, costing increasingly more lives and money every year.
@ HGW xx/7: Maybe someone would actually want to read the Stanford study on how we can power the world and its future energy needs for the same amount we spend on fossil fuels without destroying our environment?
greyoz..dead parrot squawking..greenhouse effect,the cornerstone of the IPCC’S CONJECTURE IS FICTION..as it violates 2 nd L.O.T….a cold upper atmosphere cannot transfer heat to a lower warmer one…also c02 is not pollution,,there is no problem to solve or money to spend
billions spent…nothing to show and you squawk about “doing something”
yet ,real people ,crying out for help with food/shelter/homes..
are bypassed and the money handed out for more research…more whatever
mindless ignorant..are you able to think for yourself?
Oh, All, sorry to talk about you to your face did not know you used the handle OZ as well as your old nick OOZE, sorry if it hurt your feelers.
Welcome to Watts Up With That fact based blog.
How the windmill investments going?
Not aware of Ooze and no windmill investments, but my Tesla stock is going through the roof.
Grey Oz:
There is so much wrong with your post at September 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm it would require writing a book to correct it all. So, in hope of getting you to think about the rubbish you are copying, I write to ask you gto explain the first assertion in your diatribe.
You say
OK.
What magnitude is this “increase in temperature in the oceans”?
How was it measured and with what accuracy and precision?
Where in the oceans is this “increase in temperature”?
Which “top planetary scientists” did the measurements?
Where did these “top planetary scientists” publish there measurement results?
In other words, “I don’t know where you are getting your data from”. Do you?
Richard
It is like the fight is over, the score card is on the net and the sports reporters are talking about how it was a knock out.
In comes Al Gores corner assistant and he starts wacking on the fight winner as the winner is doing TV interviews.
Grey Oz, your a bit off on your timeing guy.
Grey Oz notwithstanding your Tesla stock is doing good with the use of my redistributed tax money my family made off the wheat crop that the CO2 did so good feeding.
Sure Richard, you can read the Hansen paper “Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” published by the Royal Society, the Mathematical, Physical Sciences, and Engineering Journal, on the link at my post @ 3:10 the link, look at the “Approaching a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere” study published by Nature, the International Weekly Journal of Science, in the same post, or view James Hansen’s talk, “Why I Must Speak Out About Climate Change,” at the Technology, Entertainment, and Design conference.
@GreyOz, You are simply mouthing the standard-issue Alarmist nonsense, all of which has been debunked countless times. Stick around, and you might actually learn something (though I doubt it, as your type generally don’t want to learn).
FYI, fossil fuels are the reason we have the standard of living we have today, and we’re going to continue to need them for a long time. Switching to “green” or “sustainable” or whatever the nom-de-jeur is for high-priced, unreliable energy is an insane idea put forth by those who understand nothing about economics.
======================================================================
Who says they are “the world’s top planetary scientists”? They do.
If they are “the world’s top planetary scientists” then why isn’t the planet doing what it said would?
OH! No need to answer. We know. They were wrong. Most people call what they failed to model “Nature”.
(PS Do you think Man is a part of “Nature”? If not then why do you think that what Man does is Supernatural?)
Al Gore the ooze ( slow leak) under pressure has become much more than the drip he was prior.
IPCC did not agree on a value for climate sensitivity!
Are they 97% confident there can be no agreement?
@ Bruce Cobb: So you have to insult people who don’t see things the way you do to make your point? And again, why are studies, papers, data, and articles by some of the world’s top planetary scientists “nonsense”? And if they have been debunked, why does 97% of the peer-reviewed science support this position?
Just because fossil fuels got us the standard living we have today does not mean they aren’t doing damage to the environment. If you actually read the Stanford Study, you’ll see that clean energy is not expensive anymore, and since it doesn’t damage the environment, is actually much cheaper than fossil fuels.
I was 90% sure the Padres would win the world series this year. Next year I am 95% sure.
Is your take:
1. I am a terrible prognosticator.
2. Confidence in the Padres more sure now than ever.
Andrew Bolt, journalist down-under, has a cogent report in non-Warmista, but still hot, Australia.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_report_very_confident_our_gasses_havent_been_that_bad/
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 3:59 pm
I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about the North Pole being half the size it was. I think it’s always been about 6 feet tall:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jHmljQu9Fr8/UQFbvuJZ0uI/AAAAAAAAAc4/zMc4FFrYYWs/s1600/8.c.++COB+&+North+Pole+(1).JPG
@ Gunga Din: 97% of the worlds scientists agree that the world is warming and that mankind is responsible for most of it. So, you really can’t say that the remaining 3% are the world’s top scientists. There is natural variability, but the world is warming far too fast and without anything else to account for it for that to be attributed to natural causes, whereas, we know these specific gasses in the atmosphere change the makeup of the atmosphere and trap heat. And I think man is part of nature, and I also think global warming is a natural outcome of what’s gone before, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t thwart it and stop the destruction of all life on Earth.
Grey Oz on September 27, 2013 at 4:03 pm says:
Gotcha. I forgot how it works. You come and self-righteously post your articles without bothering to look at the plethora of data WUWT has that debunks practically every one of your (endlessly repeated) claims. Forgot that bit. Apologies.
I should listen to the experts more who tell me that hurricanes are increasing in number and intensity, even when the facts are quite the opposite. Perhaps you should go check the ACE figure and flip through a calendar to see the last time a major hurricane made landfall in the US. It would be the last day you marked with a big smiley face. (And please spare us the ‘fish storms’.)
It was smart of you, though, to leave ‘tornadoes’ off your shopping list (read: talking points) of horrors. Seems that gets left off a lot lately now that even the MSM has to admit their intensity and frequency has been in the basement for two years. But then again, models predicted that, right? Right? *wink wink*
And for the record, I’m a lukewarmer. I believe we are having some (to be determined) effect on temps. However, it’s carpetbaggers such as yourself that have shifted the environmental movement into a political one. It has been more counterproductive than you could ever imagine. We could be productive and clean rivers and tackle nuclear waste disposal but instead we’re scaring children to death. How wonderful.
Troll, smart stock-picker aside.
Grey Oz is dillusional or a liar:
… clean energy is not expensive anymore, and since it doesn’t damage the environment, is actually much cheaper than fossil fuels
Grey Oz,
Please respond with specifics to
richardscourtney says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Grey Oz:.
What magnitude is this “increase in temperature in the oceans”?
How was it measured and with what accuracy and precision?
Where in the oceans is this “increase in temperature”?
Which “top planetary scientists” did the measurements?
Where did these “top planetary scientists” publish there measurement results?
In other words, “I don’t know where you are getting your data from”. Do you?
Richard
Mr. Oz, you wrote, “with all ten of the warmest years on record occurring in the last twelve years”.
(without conceding the basic point of that statement)
That would be great for your side if your side said, “temperatures will rise for a while and then very slowly cool again”. They didn’t. They said temperatures will continue to rise. They didn’t.
@ Billy Liar: On Sept.16, 2012, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2010.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice-update-unlikely-to-break-records-but-continuing-downward-trend/#.UkYXFKywnTo
From Colorado State University Forecast of Atlantic Hurricane Activity September 27-October 10, 2013 (.pdf, September 27 ’13):
We believe that the next two weeks will be characterized by activity at below-average levels (<70 percent of climatology). The average ACE accrued during the period from 1950-2010 from September 27-October 10 was 12 units, and consequently, our forecast for the next two weeks is for less than 8 ACE units to be generated.
The most recent seasonal forecast called for an above-average season. Obviously, at this point, we realize that the seasonal forecast was a significant over-prediction, and we therefore do not expect to see the levels of activity this year that we earlier anticipated.
See http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Two_Week_Forecasts/september_27_2013.pdf
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm
I can tell you’re from the Warmish because you’ve got no sense of humor.
PS what was the minimum extent this year?
Aztecbill says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:33 pm
———————————————
So what you’re saying is I should bet heavily on the Padres?
@ HGW xx/7: Why is posting articles that you disagree with self righteous? And if it’s so debunked, why aren’t the world’s scientists on it? Also, why do you have to insult me when discussing a subject we have different points of view on? And last, no one wants global warming, it’s a result of our technologies that no one could have foreseen enough to stop back then. But to ignore it now, that would be a crime, as we will make the planet inhospitble to life in a very, very short amount of time if we do.
i read somewhere that Pachauri will soon leave his position as head of the IPCC. Dishonest yes, but Pachauri is no fool. The jig is up and he knows it. He is looking for a soft landing.
To accomplish that, before he goes, he will have to set someone up as his “fall guy” — someone to take over as head of the IPCC who will be so loud mouthed and obtusely committed to ACGW (not to mention “serially dishonest”) that he will become the center of all attention and Pachauri can, like an old soldier, “just fade away”.
The ideal person who meets Pachauri’s needs comes to mind immediately — John Cook-The-Books of Skeptical Science. Can anyone think of a more appropriate person to head the IPCC than John Cook-The-Books? And dimwit that he is John Cook-The-Books will think he is being honored.
Eugene WR Gallun
@ Robert of Ottowa: “I’m a delusional liar,” is your case against clean energy? So, anyone who doesn’t agree with the point of view held by most at this site is insulted and dismissed as a liar?
@ Mac the Knife: http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/impacts/signs/oceans.html
Ocean Heat Content in the 0-2000 metre ocean is increasing by 0.002C/yr or 0.53 W/m2/yr. The climate models had forecast it would be rising at 0.005C/yr or 1.3 W/m2/yr.
Most of the energy forecast to be there/accumulating in the atmosphere and ocean is actually missing or not showing up.
http://s17.postimg.org/4ts1blb4v/2013_Missing_Energy.png
Oz can ask Hansen what he forecasted it would be. Surprise, Hansen had it at 2.5 times higher than is being measured (but nobody told Oz that because they would prefer he be misled and continue to be a follower).
@ aztecbill: Each decade is warmer than the last and when the arctic melts, the carbon and methane trapped in ice, permafrost, ground stores… will enter the atmosphere and double the amount of greenhouse gas concentration we currently have.
We have a 70% chance for rain tomorrow, 90% Sat. nite and Sunday. So had to take off a few and get all the epuipment in out of the dreaded CO2 and acid rain that Al Gore makes when he sweats to much. Now that I am back and have reviewed Grey Oz’s post it seems he came here to get baned and make screen shots of said baning to use aginst this blog.
It can not be that any one is this uninformed. So be careful of this one.
Now if it is this dumb it may set a record for the Guinnes Book of dumb.
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:55 pm
Because the world’s climate so-called scientists are being paid billions of dollars to make CO2 and CAGW the propaganda campaign that it started as, stayed, and will likely remain until those so-called scientists stop denying the science and the measurements. Governments program their money to support the agencies and the scientists and the research that will provide those governments the answers they want and the taxes they are desperate for.
It can be no insult if the statement is true. Show that any of your claims are valid. We do, however, sympathize at the effectiveness of your brainwashing.
False. The current global warming is largely natural and cannot be stopped by denying men life, food, fuel, fodder, feed, and energy for safe water, clean air, and efficient farming. (Unless you, like many in the CAGW sphere DO want men to die a short life of pain, illness, starvation, thirst, and cold.) Global warming has been natural in the past, and was not affected by man either stopping nor starting. In the future, global warming will continue to be unaffected by man’s release of fertilizer for all plants and life on the planet.
And, by the way, the is no threat to life on this planet except from global cooling. There is NO HARM from global warming, but more bountiful life for all, and a more fruitful and productive life by using energy efficiently and effectively. Life on this planet will end when sun expands …. in about 2 billion years.
Grey Oz said:
“…when the arctic melts, the carbon and methane…”
Awww man! 🙁 Don’t tell me the Omaha steaks I’m asking Santa to bring me for Christmas are gonna smell like butt! Bah! Christmas is ruined! D:<
Here’s another Ocean Heat Content energy accumulation chart going back to 1955 for Oz.
As stark as it can get that the theory is screwy.
http://s9.postimg.org/htjhqe98v/Accum_Heat_Content_vs_GHG_Forcing_Accum_Q2_2013.png
***backbone or political masters?
27 Sept: BBC: Matt McGrath: Climate pause takes a wallop as IPCC comes out swinging
Even in the final draft of this report, the IPCC was putting forward a number of theoretical ideas behind the fall-off in temperature rises over the last 15 years, and was sheepishly acknowledging that its models failed to predict the slow-down.
But over the four days of negotiations with governments here in the Swedish capital, the UN body discovered its backbone.***
So the pause was not ignored or buried, but was, in science terms, given a ferocious kicking…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24308509
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm
1. So what? What is the problem if the Arctic sea ice continues to decline from its present levels, or from the 2012 levels, or from the 2012 levels?
2. At its present extents at the time of sea ice minimums in the Arctic, more energy is lost by increased evaporation, increased long wave radiation to space by radiation, increased heat loss to the air by convection, and increased heat loss by conduction from lower levels that is gained by solar radiation. Each km of extra ocean exposed cools the arctic even more.
3. Summer, melt season temperatures up where the ice actually is (per DMI 80 north latitude measured temperatures sine 1959) have not only not increased, but have been decreasing since 1998, and are decreasing now faster than recorded earlier.
4. Now, at the time of minimum sea ice extents, the Arctic sea ice is concentrated between 79 and 83 north latitudes. At those latitudes, the sun is not high enough to be absorbed to either the ice or the sea surface. But, the Antarctic sea ice IS at low enough latitudes to receive massively more energy, and the received that energy through thinner air masses and for longer periods of each day. Result?
the record-breaking EXTRA Antarctic sea ice is reflecting 4-8 times more solar energy than the small amounts of Arctic sea receive. But you don’t want to address the new records for south pole icepack and sea ice extents. Those records don’t fit your agenda and biases.
Grey Oz:
The Stanford “study” you cite is an article in Anti-Scientific Un-American magazine, too glossy to be of any use as a bird cage liner.
Every sentence of it is sadly, yet hilariously false. If wind & solar were as economical today as fossil fuels, why does China, the country that makes wind mills & solar panels & also has giant hydro projects, rely so heavily on coal & want to control South China Sea oil? Why does every other country heavily subsidize its everywhere failed wind & solar experiments?
The authors fail to include building electrical transmission lines in their alleged analysis. They blithely assume that hydro can back up wind & solar, without apparently ever having studied the place in the world where that hopeless system has been tried on the largest scale, ie the Pacific NW. Backing up wind there leads to generation of less hydro, waste of huge quantities of water & damages migrating fish & birds.
Maybe in their study they show their work, but the article is nothing but spew.
To mention just a few of your own many false assertions, Antarctica is not melting. Its ice mass is increasing, along with the sea ice extent around it, which reached a new “all-time” high this year. Many studies in recent years have found this to be the case, such as this one:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf
By “all time” of course is meant since 1979, when satellite records of Arctic & Antarctic sea ice began, along with observations of the “temperature” of the atmosphere from space. So when you claim that the past ten years are the warmest decade ever, you’re talking about three decades. What you fail to understand is that 1) the surface temperature record is an “adjusted” fabrication, & 2) use of raw data show that the ~1920-40s were actually hotter than the recent warm spell of 1980-2000, roughly. The warming during that period also occurred at the same slope as the recently ended period, without benefit of increased CO2.
Since the depths of the Little Ice Age Cold Period c. AD 1700, the planet has warmed in 20-30 year spurts, then cooled a little for a similar time frame, as it has begun doing again now, then warmed for two or three decades, etc. But we seem to be peaking, since the 1930s & 1990s were globally about equally as warm.
The Arctic didn’t melt, as you fear, during the much longer & warmer previous interglacial, the Eemian, nor during the thousands of years in our current Holocene interglacial when it was warmer than now, as it was during Minoan Warm Period, the Roman WP & the Medieval WP, each hotter than its predecessor (as shown by proxy data from around the world), as the Medieval was than the Modern WP.
Arctic sea ice extent was similar to now during the 1930s, when the USSR used the ice free summers to steam the Siberian coast, again without benefit of elevated CO2 levels. Ocean heat content oscillates naturally on a multi-decadal basis, as was discovered in 1997 by a PNW fisheries researcher, not by the raving lunatic Hansen of GISS. The earth has enjoyed CO2 levels of 7000 ppm, not just 400 ppm, in the past 550 million years without turning into Venus, as that liar spouts.
It is also untrue that 97% of “scientists” sign on to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism. The Cooked books claimed 97% of “active climate scientists”, a phony number arrived at by excluding all but 77 of the responses of a survey sent to about 10,000 scientists, then asking two question to which many skeptics might have answered yes. In the event, 75 of them did, hence the bogus number for which you’ve uncritically fallen hook, line & sinker. Were you a more frequent reader of this blog, you could have saved yourself that embarrassment.
There is no human fingerprint in unadjusted data & little even in the heavily adjusted fake data. In any case, CO2 is beneficial to life on earth. The planet has greened as a result of the gain since 1945.
Dear Grey Oz (re: 4:31pm, today),
1. Ignoring your first two questions to Mr. Cobb as not worth spending WUWT space on, re: #3 — 97% of peer-reviewed science does NOT support this position. For evidence, search WUWT using such terms as “Cook,” “consensus,” and “97% consensus.” You will discover what Bruce Cobb already knows: there is no evidence FOR the alleged 97% consensus, only MUCH EVIDENCE AGAINST it.
2. Re: the conjecture in your second paragraph:
1) There is no evidence that fossil fuels per se are causing “damage to the environment.”
2) Cite evidence from, not unsupported generalizations v. a v. “the Stanford Study,” all the evidence I have seen from reading excellent science papers and comments on WUWT supports the opposite conclusion: “clean energy,” not including hydropower, is still “expensive.”
3) Further, you have provided no evidence that “clean energy” causes less “damage”* to the environment than fossil fuels do.
*If by “damage” you mean CO2 emissions — CO2 causes NO DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT, it benefits it (do your own research). There is no evidence that human CO2 (or natural CO2) emissions damage the environment.
You provided no supporting documentation for your assertions and I am not going to do the research you could easily do to verify the truth for yourself, but here is a small sample for you re: wind power:
Windpower Is a Perpetual Negative ROI (Return on Investment) Scam
“… once allowance is made for the additional costs associated with wind-power, … For both near-term and medium-term projects, onshore wind ceases to be a competitive technology. … There is no economic case for wind-power. … .” Lea, Ruth, “Electricity Costs: The Folly of Windpower,” Civitas (January, 2012) at 19.
Link: http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf
Wind Power Causes Net CO2 Increase
(not that this is a rational basis for concern; just to inform you of the facts)
“Moreover, there is not even a CO2-cutting case for wind-power.” Ibid.
“… wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires (a) conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) … CO2 emissions associated with using back-up capacity must be regarded as an intrinsic aspect of deploying wind turbines.” Ibid at 29.
“… (fossil-fuelled) capacity is placed under particular strains when working in this supporting role… Consequently, operating fossil capacity in this mode generates more CO2 per kWh generated than if operating normally.” … “…wind-power … not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required, but also causes (CO2) cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation..” Ibid at 29-30.
*****************************
If you are a sincere seeker of truth, I wish you well, Grey Oz. Ask genuine questions with a demonstrated desire to find out the truth and WUWT commenters will gladly answer (when they have the time). You may not have intended to do so, but the tone of your writing makes you come off as a mere disingenuous poseur.
Best wishes to you if you are on a true search for science truth,
Janice
P.S. Hybrid Cars cause net CO2 increase (given that you think this is a problem).
(you can do the research for that one yourself)
Was enjoying a beverage this afternoon at a rather liberal watering hole when ABC news came on. The IPCC report was, surprisingly, not the top story. When the subject came up, about six or eight minutes into the broadcast, there was not much interest, and one person was basically calling bs – said the videos and graphics were scaremongering. I was pleased. Of course, this was being viewed within ten miles of UAH, so maybe Spencer and Christy are making some gains…
PS: The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which contains most of the land ice on earth, quit melting about 6000 years ago. I had previously read that soil at its edge was radionuclide-dated to 3000 years ago (end of the Minoan Warm Period), but this more recent study moves the end of its post-glacial phase melt to the middle of the Holocene Climatic Optimum:
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-cosmic-rays-radionuclides-contribution-east.html
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Each decade is warmer than the last..
===
uh no, can you read a NOAA ice core graph?
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
Oz, why is it that at the one point that CO2 levels should have had the most effect…
…temperatures went down?
“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
That’s pretty much the climate debate in a nutshell.
According to Al Gore, a leopard cannot change its stripes.
If it is already posted, I apologize. The gang that shoot straight in the Vomitorium.
Bill Illis says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Here’s another Ocean Heat Content energy accumulation chart going back to 1955 for Oz.
As stark as it can get that the theory is screwy.
http://s9.postimg.org/htjhqe98v/Accum_Heat_Content_vs_GHG_Forcing_Accum_Q2_2013.png
I think its obvious Bill that the IPCC are no longer stretching the truth or distorting it.
They are now flat out lying and cheating, Hansen is still adjusting and cant get GISS to hit Scenario C.
…etc.
====================================================================
Grey Ooze, you know, kool-aid isn’t good for you. It can rot more than your teeth.
Everyone ease up on Grey Oz, please. He’s just looking for the Wizard:
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain
I’d unravel any riddle
For any individ’le
In trouble or in pain
Oh, I would tell you why
The ocean’s near the shore
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I’d sit and think some more
I would not be just a nuffin’
My head all full of stuffin’
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain
Anthony Violi says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Bill Illis says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:51 pm
Here’s another Ocean Heat Content energy accumulation chart going back to 1955 for Oz.
As stark as it can get that the theory is screwy.
http://s9.postimg.org/htjhqe98v/Accum_Heat_Content_vs_GHG_Forcing_Accum_Q2_2013.png
—————————————————-
Nice graph Sir, thanks.
I think, however, that you meant “conjecture” not “theory”. Whatever it was, it had little chance of trumping the Second Law of Thermodynamics, right from the get-go.
Australian media are saying by 2100 the world will be 2 C warmer than today due to human activity. Well that won’t be too bad, if it gets colder in the mean time.
I work in the mines here in Australia, so I always set my TV to turn on in the morning for my alarm. I always have Sky News as the channel I watch as I like to see what’s happened in the world overnight. The first leading story at 5:30 this morning was “Scientists are in ‘no doubt’ that man is heating the climate” then almost in the presenters next breath she mentioned the 95% concencus. I’m sorry but if there is no doubt, that 95% should have been 100%! Sure enough I tweeted to @SkyNewsAust asking them should that be right, then sure enough the next half hour bulletin there was no mention of the ‘no doubt’! Sky News is just another media network wanting to keep the climate change dream alive!
It’s confusing. I distinctly remember that at least one of the previous Assessment Reports essentially ruled out that changes in Solar radiation could possibly have any impact on Earth temperature. It was soooo small that it just couldn’t. Now, suddenly, one reason for the pause is “…the recent solar minimum (a period of low solar activity)”, according to Andy Pitman here: http://theconversation.com/is-global-warming-in-a-hiatus-18367. How could it cause a pause if it doesn’t have any impact? And if it does have an impact, could it have raised temperatures in the past?
As for the heat hiding in oceans: Where did the heat go 18 years ago, before the pause started? Why, and when, did it suddenly developed urges to hide in deep ocean? And how does it get there without warming ocean’s upper layers – Harry Potter’s heat transfer?
Climate changes due to human activity is good media hype, particularly as the new government is halting one wind farm due in Glen Innes and Inverell areas. 189 wind mills. I hope we don’t hear their noise by near by residents will soon get annoyed, hoping that the 15 k a year rental will keep them wealthy farmers.
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm
@ Gunga Din: 97% of the worlds scientists agree that the world is warming and that mankind is responsible for most of it
You must be a troll. that 97% line has been debunked a long time ago, why are you still clinging to that lie?
Bob,
Thanks for the vid, notwithstanding it making the hair stand up on the back of my neck.
Watching this very cult like operation drives it home that in fact we are dealing with people who are in fact “zombies” now so deep is the control they have lost over their minds. Not sure they gave into greed or the lies. Does not matter, scary as can be. I my former line of work I was able to ambush the bad guys and deal with them direct. These ones are defenseless and not worthy of an ambush plan or even a jury trial. They have managed to bring us Oz as evidence of the power of the cults lies and fraud. The real evil is not these poor usefull fools zombie talking the script they were handed, the real evil is the ones in Washington D.C. and other places of power who fool the Oz’s into giveing up life and liberty for a redistribution of wealth con job.
Thanks any how.
let’s face it, they were never going to admit they were wrong. the public might ask for some accountability!
27 Sept: ABC: Ursula Malone: New South Wales desalination plant deal to cost consumers $10 billion over 50 years
Sydney’s privatised desalination plant, which is costing residents more than $500,000 a day to keep on standby, will not be needed for at least another four or five years.
The sale of the plant last year to a private company for $2.3 billion means residents are locked into paying about $10 billion in fees for the next 50 years, whether the plant is operating or not.
Not one drop of water has come out of the Kurnell facility since it stopped operating more than a year ago.
With dam levels at 93.4 per cent, the plant has been placed into “water security” mode, a long-term shutdown which is likely to continue for some time…
The buyer was a consortium split 50-50 between Hastings Funds Management and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, based in Canada.
Between now and 2062 they are guaranteed inflation-linked payments of about $10 billion from Sydney Water…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/nsw-desalination-plant-deal-costing-customers-10-billion/4985168
@ fobdangerclose: People should only come here if they agree with your point of view? And why do you have to insult me for disagreeing with your point of view?
for Australians, another waste of money & an eyesore to boot:
25 Sept: Gold Coast Bulletin: Andrew Potts: Tate desal plan rejected
A GRAND plan to convert the mothballed Tugun desalination plant into a tourism facility has been labelled “unrealistic” by stunned civic leaders.
The $1.2 billion “white elephant” facility, which has been used only twice since it was completed more than three years ago, is under the microscope as part of the Newman Government’s review of its manufactured water assets, which may look at decommissioning the plant…
Among the possible tourism ventures proposed were the conversation(sic) of its outlet pipes to become an offshore dive site and creating a bungee-jumping attraction…
http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/09/25/458795_gold-coast-news.html
——————————————————————————–
I just checked back in and Grey Oz is getting stuffed. Duh.
But no, GO, what about the birds and bats being killed by windfarms?
How are we supposed to kill them?
Where is the trumpeting of hydro-power? The only clean form of energy there is?
Can’t do that, makes too much sense.
Solar power creates too much shade in the desert for some kind of beetle.
I’m not picking on you, I just wish that someone would come up with a viable in-expensive alternative that doesn’t do more harm than good.
@ RACookPE1978:
“Because the world’s climate so-called scientists are being paid billions of dollars to make CO2 and CAGW the propaganda campaign that it started as, stayed, and will likely remain until those so-called scientists stop denying the science and the measurements. Governments program their money to support the agencies and the scientists and the research that will provide those governments the answers they want and the taxes they are desperate for.”
So, dozens of governments are paying scientists all over the world to falsify results, and scientists are risking their careers to do this? Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. Isn’t it more likely oil and gas companies are waging a massive disinformation campaign to protect their industry, as they don’t want to transition to other energy sources?
“It can be no insult if the statement is true.”
It’s not what one says, it’s how they say it.
“Show that any of your claims are valid. We do, however, sympathize at the effectiveness of your brainwashing.”
So, now I’m brainwashed because I don’t agree with your point of view and all the peer-reviewed science is falsified?
“False. The current global warming is largely natural and cannot be stopped by denying men life, food, fuel, fodder, feed, and energy for safe water, clean air, and efficient farming.”
How come there is no cause for this “natural global warming”? In the past, we see super volcanoes, asteroid impacts, and other events that cause global warming. What is it that is causing this “natural global warming?” We are in a solar minimum currently. Also, warming is accelerating and measurable over decades instead of centuries. What is causing that? And no one wants to deny anyone life, food, fodder, feed, energy, safe water, clean air, or efficient farming; they want to transition these activities to be powered by energy sources that don’t dump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere on a massive scale daily.
“And, by the way, the is no threat to life on this planet except from global cooling. There is NO HARM from global warming”
Once we hit a two degree increase in temperature (measured from before the industrial revolution), carbon and methane frozen in ice, permafrost, and ground stores will melt and enter the atmosphere, and more than double the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere currently. This will accelerate warming and put us well above a six degree increase (more if we continue with our current rate of emissions), which will be catastrophic to civilization. This will also likely lead to “runaway global warming, which will make the planet inhospitable to life [Hansen].
Some must resist the urge to attend to the paid posters.
They are actually paid by the responses.. Don’t forget that part of the equation.
I must say, upon watching my limited exposure to today’s support for the IPCC’s output, it is not only well organized, it is unpresidented. File that!
Remember that …….
Share links to the info you deem appropriate. They do, no matter how much resistance they find at the destination.
I have always believed in working smart!
Video redacted to help with distractions.
Oh Dear,
The IP-CCCP have painted themselves into a ‘Check’, ‘Mate’ and ‘Match.’
And all by themselves! By their own hands.
Astonishing.
That “Principle #2” also a curious creature to me since the ’90s. It reads as if “Climate Change”, “Global Warming” or even “Climate” ARE the artifacts of human activity! Did not the Earth exist 4.8 billion years ago; which by simple quotient would show how insignificant human beings are to the Earth as a ratio of years present.
Oh well. SETI@Home has yet to identify intelligent life on Earth and NSA@Home will suffer likewise with their presumptions of “Terrorists” in the “internet” and telephone networks and ATM networks and such; perhaps THEIR “Terrorists” are the shadows lurking in THEIR bathroom mirror in the mornings.
Religion
Ah! Religion has been always keen to find human beings guilty of all sorts of misbehavior throughout human history, thou significantly insignificant that history is. The Roman Catholic Church on 22 June 1633 (Solstice) found Galileo was “vehemently suspect of heresy,” was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition and the following day was commuted to house arrest, and his treatise “Dialogue” among others was banned and publication of any of his works forbidden including any that he might write in the future from that day on.
How wonderful it is that universities world wide teach the Heliocentric theory as a cornerstone of modern astronomy in their astronomy classes. Galileo WON!
Strange the IP-CCCP. Humans, to them, ARE the cause of Climate, Climate Change and Global Warming. Using their logic, for world Government, i.e. the UN, to eliminate Global Warming, the UN must sanction the mass slaughter of … [Drum Roll] … Human Beings! This is because the most illustrious Beloved Academia, the IP-CCCP, foretell that Human Beings are “very likely” GUILTY though evidence is not in their hands nor need be for such is divined by faith and a Religious Proclamation ordained.
QED
@ RACookPE1978: “1. So what? What is the problem if the Arctic sea ice continues to decline from its present levels, or from the 2012 levels, or from the 2012 levels?”
Because all the ice will melt, the planet will heat, and become inhospitable to life. And all that carbon and methane trapped in the ice and ground will rise up and help the planet heat much faster. Finally, when you change the temperature of anything, you change it’s behavior. And it’s in the best interest of life on Earth to keep the behavior of Earth stable.
“2. At its present extents at the time of sea ice minimums in the Arctic, more energy is lost by increased evaporation, increased long wave radiation to space by radiation, increased heat loss to the air by convection, and increased heat loss by conduction from lower levels that is gained by solar radiation. Each km of extra ocean exposed cools the arctic even more.”
Not enough to stop warming. Also, loss of ice reflectivity warms the planet more.
“3. Summer, melt season temperatures up where the ice actually is (per DMI 80 north latitude measured temperatures sine 1959) have not only not increased, but have been decreasing since 1998, and are decreasing now faster than recorded earlier.”
According to NASA, the rapid warming trend in the Arctic over the last 25 years has dramatically reduced the region’s sea ice extent.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/927
“4. Now, at the time of minimum sea ice extents, the Arctic sea ice is concentrated between 79 and 83 north latitudes. At those latitudes, the sun is not high enough to be absorbed to either the ice or the sea surface. But, the Antarctic sea ice IS at low enough latitudes to receive massively more energy, and the received that energy through thinner air masses and for longer periods of each day. Result?”
Antarctica is warming:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/351507/description/Taking_Antarcticas_temperature
It all sounds like middle ages superstitions, blame the witches (or wise women and men) for environmental abnormalities, burn them at the stake. Our new government has just stopped a scheduled wind farm near me on the Northern Tablelands, for more information. Land owners won’t be pleased as they are paid $15 k rental per year per turbine, and there are 189 planned. Of course this new government will come under fire, especially from the Flannery group, who are now setting up their private funded climate change commission to be manned by volunteers? I bet they won’t be receiving expenses?
I just think alarmists are panicking because their predictions based on false data will be found out. I just hope that something will be done and the UNCCFund dismantled as a result. For those who genuinely have been believers in AGW must feel let down but we all knew the lies the IPCC were telling years ago, and really little humans can do to change climate variations, but they can clean up pollution especially in third world countries. Electric cars need electricity to keep them on the road, so where are they going to get that from? Solar? Wind? I don’t think so.
Grey Oz,
If you stick around here you are certain to get slaughtered by the facts. Your appeals to bought-and-paid-for ‘authorities’ is über-lame, because Planet Earth disagrees with them. You opine:
“Each decade is warmer than the last and when the arctic melts… &etc.”
Arctic ice has melted before, and it will melt again. When it happened in the past it was not due to human activity, and it will not be due to human activity when it happens again. CO2 has nothing to do with it, either: on net balance, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Falsify that testable hypothesis — if you can.
Global temperatures have been extremely, unusually mild for the past century and a half, yet you find ways to scare yourself.
The periodic step changes in global temperature are completely natural, and they occur regularly — as admitted by arch-alarmist Phil Jones. Note that the same warming has taken place repeatedly, and during times when CO2 was very low. Where is your god now?
How far do you want to go back? Hundreds of years? OK, you can see that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Current temperatures are routine, and lower than in recent past decades.
The reality is that you have been fed nonsense. Planet Earth — the ultimate Authority — is busy debunking your self-serving ‘experts’, who couldn’t predict their way out of a wet paper bag if their grants depended on it.
Everything observed today is fully explained by natural climate variability. The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified — unlike your catastrophic AGW nonsense.
What’s the Sensitivity, Kenneth?
— http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWkMhCLkVOg
@ milodonharlani: “The Stanford “study” you cite is an article in Anti-Scientific Un-American magazine, too glossy to be of any use as a bird cage liner.”
You can find the studies referred to in that article here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
“If wind & solar were as economical today as fossil fuels, why does China, the country that makes wind mills & solar panels & also has giant hydro projects, rely so heavily on coal & want to control South China Sea oil?”
Because technological advances have only recently brought cost down.
“Why does every other country heavily subsidize its everywhere failed wind & solar experiments?”
Why do we heavily subsidize the oil and gas industry? In the case of wind and solar, it’s to speed up transition to clean energy. Most major industries have developed with government aid, e.g., oil and gas, railroads, computers…
“The authors fail to include building electrical transmission lines in their alleged analysis. They blithely assume that hydro can back up wind & solar, without apparently ever having studied the place in the world where that hopeless system has been tried on the largest scale, ie the Pacific NW.”
What about the Hoover damn? Wind and solar can account for something around 95-98% of energy. According to this study, hydro and other clean energy technologies are only meant to help during slow times for wind.
“Backing up wind there leads to generation of less hydro, waste of huge quantities of water & damages migrating fish & birds.”
There will be much more available clean water if we move off fossil fuels. Offshore and high altitude wind farms will mitigate damage to wildlife. Also, we only need an area the size of Manhattan to power the world, so we’ll get around the wildlife problem.
“Maybe in their study they show their work, but the article is nothing but spew.”
Greensburg, Kansas is using 100% renewable energy, and they did this very inexpensively. We can do it too.
http://www.go100percent.org/cms/index.php?id=70&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=59
http://www.greensburgks.org/
Many towns are also going massively solar, like Lancaster, California.
“To mention just a few of your own many false assertions, Antarctica is not melting. Its ice mass is increasing, along with the sea ice extent around it, which reached a new “all-time” high this year. Many studies in recent years have found this to be the case, such as this one:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf”
Latest news form NASA is not so good, “But in a number of places around Antarctica, ice shelves are melting too fast, and a consequence of that is glaciers and the entire continent are changing as well.”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130613.html#.UkZPxLw1Zcw
“By “all time” of course is meant since 1979, when satellite records of Arctic & Antarctic sea ice began, along with observations of the “temperature” of the atmosphere from space. So when you claim that the past ten years are the warmest decade ever, you’re talking about three decades. What you fail to understand is that 1) the surface temperature record is an “adjusted” fabrication, & 2) use of raw data show that the ~1920-40s were actually hotter than the recent warm spell of 1980-2000, roughly. The warming during that period also occurred at the same slope as the recently ended period, without benefit of increased CO2.”
No, last decade is the warmest since at least 1850, when we started keeping records. Anomalies have been adjusted for.
http://treealerts.org/topic/climate-science/2013/07/meteorologists-say-last-decade-was-hottest-ever-measured/
“The Arctic didn’t melt, as you fear, during the much longer & warmer previous interglacial, the Eemian, nor during the thousands of years in our current Holocene interglacial when it was warmer than now, as it was during Minoan Warm Period, the Roman WP & the Medieval WP, each hotter than its predecessor (as shown by proxy data from around the world), as the Medieval was than the Modern WP.”
So, it can’t possibly melt now?
“The earth has enjoyed CO2 levels of 7000 ppm, not just 400 ppm, in the past 550 million years without turning into Venus, as that liar spouts.”
Unfortunately, life cannot survive with 10-20 degree increase. The planet can.
“It is also untrue that 97% of “scientists” sign on to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism.”
People should be alarmed! It’s the greatest challenge civilization will likely face until the sun burns out. 97% of climate scientists do agree and virtually every major scientific institution around the world agrees to:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
http://theconsensusproject.com/
“In any case, CO2 is beneficial to life on earth. The planet has greened as a result of the gain since 1945.”
It’s the increasing heat that the Co2 traps that is damaging to life on Earth. Life can only survive in a very narrow temperature range and we’re going to bust that range if we continue to change the composition of our atmosphere.
Grey Oz says:
“…all the ice will melt, the planet will heat, and become inhospitable to life.”
OK, you’ve convinced me: you are completely nuts.
You assert that the Antarctic is heating up? As if. You can’t come here spouting easily disproved nonsense that you get from your alarmist propaganda blogs. Here, it’s put up or shut up. And so far you haven’t put up anything but baseless assertions, misinformation, and pal-reviewed papers. All of them are flatly contradicted by empirical [real world] evidence.
Run anlong now back to whatever blog you get your flat wrong talking points from. The ones you’re posting here have been deconstructed too many times to bother with again.
The last mini ice age, was caused primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, it last for approximate from the 14th century until around 1850. Grapes were grown in UK, but most grapes were then only grown in greenhouses. But the human populations in Northern Europe perished, not only from the black death either. The original wine presses were adapted for the first printing presses. That is fact. Ice fairs were held on the Thames in London in the 19th Century. Even in 1963 a cold winter caused the Thames to freeze near Windsor. There seems no logic to explain why this happened at the time other than the cold weather was not just in UK, it was everywhere in the Northern Hemisphere. We have to assume from palaeoclimatology that our planet did not favor the increase of agriculture or human expansion until 10,000 years ago, when the climate was entering into a warmer phase. But the majority of the last 100,000 years at least we have experienced very cold weather, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, so we are more an ice planet than a warm tropical one.
If we are going to retreat into a cold phase again, it will affect our ability to grow crops and the worlds population will be greatly affected. What Australia should be concentrating on is maintaining soil fertility and providing food just not for us alone. Now don’t you think UNIPCC would be taking more care in predicting what could happen if the planet cools greatly. Because I know what cold can do at least we can cool down if it gets too hot. Anyway, good luck with your arguments, and the UN should be ashamed of themselves. 2 CC by 2100 is nickles and dimes, particularly after 90 years of fluctuating temperatures that favor colder temps.
Alas, we are watching the end of the great and powerful IPCC.
The IPCC gig continues unabated in zombie mode. Will there be an AR-6? Is there a backup plan to address planetary cooling? (There is a rumor of up to 0.3C of cooling. Where did that come from?)
The BCC nightly news summary, US addition, had more time allocated for an update of the Kenya massacre than the AR-5 summary for policy makers.
What is there to report? Planet has stopped warming, IPCC not sure why. Perhaps the IPCC could explain why AR-4 stated that an increase in hurricanes was likely yet there has been a hiatus in hurricanes also. Curious the sudden cooling in the Arctic and record sea ice in the Antarctic. What has changed? Hint solar magnetic cycle.
I LOLd.
@ Janice Moore: “There is no evidence that fossil fuels per se are causing “damage to the environment.”
Burning fossil fuels creates C02. Increasing C02 in an atmosphere traps in heat. No scientists dispute this. It is the increasing heat, i.e., temperature, that will make the environment inhospitable to life on Earth. See the “Approaching a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere” study:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html
I answered your 2nd point above.
“Further, you have provided no evidence that “clean energy” causes less “damage”* to the environment than fossil fuels do.”
Solar and wind power, which can account for 95-98% of our power, will not wipe out life on Earth.
“… wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires (a) conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) … ”
Wind power is clean energy. You can read about it in the “Energy resources and effects on the atmosphere” section of Stanford researcher Mark Jacobson here:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
Hybrid cars are… hybrids. Electric cars (and planes) powered by solar and wind will be eco-friendly.
So in effect they are 95% certain that their wording is agreed to ensure policy makers keep paying their nice salaries until their retirement. In effect never has anyone created a job for themselves and kept it until their retirement by fearmongering, except “climate scientist” at the IPCC
Grey Oz, my dear friend, how can you get electric cars powered by solar and wind? They would have to store the electricity in the vehicle? By batteries. Petrol is burned and does not create CO2 it creates poisonous carbon monoxide. I know my son killed himself using this method. There is some objections with solar thermal, that I feel could be productive in the future, and geothermal both have safety factors involved and storing electricity using methane at night. But solar panels and wind turbines have been proven not to be the end all for electricity production, it hasn’t cut carbon emissions in the EU and is very expensive for the consumers while it is subsidized. Solar panels do not create much electricity in winter, when energy is required, particularly in the higher altitudes of Australia, where winters are very cold. Wind turbines freeze up too, and don’t work in high wind areas even break down. The sounds emitted can unbalance the inner ear, we can’t pick them up, but people have claimed they can experience symptoms like meniers disease. So unfortunately to spend money into clean energy on the basis, Co2 causes global warming if not cut down, is a poor excuse, when it is not true, and other than saying it is the oil industries etc., is it not the ones who want to invest in so called clean energy who see their investments being curtailed.
“Burning fossil fuels creates C02. Increasing C02 in an atmosphere traps in heat. No scientists dispute this. It is the increasing heat, i.e., temperature that will make the environment inhospitable to life on Earth.”
And that’s why planet Earth burned to a crisp during the Late Ordovician Period when CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today.
We are now living in Oz’ alternate universe.
Comment held in moderation after Jon 9:07 has a reply.
Despite the end of world catastrophe pronouncements, the main stream media realise climate change has become very toxic to their readership base. As one commentator said the latest IPCC report a bit of a dead man bounce, the MSM are starting to be really over the climate change astrology.
In the end crying wolf for decades falls on deaf ears.
Grey Oz: the last 17 years have demonstrated that CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT [the] main driver if climate. Despite continued increases on carbon dioxide [emissions], temperatures have not gone up over this time period. I can only assume you are a denier of reality, since acknowledging the decrease in droughts, hurricanes, and tornadoes, thirty years of decreasing temps and increasing ice in Antarctica, this year’s increase in Arctic ice that we have seen in recent years [would] undermine your religion. It is clear by your regurgitation of the bogus 97% consensus that you, unlike virtually all on this board, do not or cannot research issues yourself to deter the validity of what others claim.
What you fail to understand is that a great many on this board are scientists. We can read and interpret research papers. We can recognize when claims are made that are not backed up by actual research results. We don’t get our information from science magazines or [newspaper]; we read the actual research. We see the disconnect between research results and current theory.
If you are interested in learning about this issue, I suggest you lurk and learn. You are not contributing anything by posting links to old articles – they have been discussed and evaluated here years ago when they were [first] published, and many of them have been shown to be in error by actual events since their time of publication. You are certainly not going to change any minds and will only annoy quite a few. You are entitled to your opinions, but don’t expect anyone to consider them if you do not justify them with real-world data.
Finally, if new green clean energy is feasible and economical, there is nothing more to do or discuss; free markets and capitalism will make them realities. If that DOESN’T happen, then they are not feasible or economical. Also, if you are correct on this, then you need not be concerned about future global warming; we will no longer be burning fossil fuels. So if you have faith in what you say, why make an issue of anything? Just sit back and wait for that cheaper, greener, cleaner electric vehicle to be delivered.
Sorry for all the typos above. Still not use to inputting via my iPad, and trying to edit something is a nightmare. I’ll try to do better in the future.
Other Andy, then how do you explain how the planet froze over for centuries, until volcanic eruptions warmed the atmosphere up? Your palaeoclimatic theories are Hollywood inspired. This earth was very hot and molten at one stage, but when there were no plants or living organisms around to suffer. Plants created oxygen, and rocks created water. This was over billions of years.
Plus the fact of meteor and asteroid strikes, that messed up things.
Here are the facts:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/steffen-ipcc-report/4984656
The Earth has warmed significantly over the last century, and particularly strongly since 1970 up to the present. The global average air temperature has risen by 0.89 degrees Celsius over the 1901-2012 period, and the decade 2001-2010 was the warmest on record.
But global average air temperature is only a very small part of the warming story, as the atmosphere absorbs only 3 per cent of the additional heat trapped by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases. By far the biggest player in the climate system is the ocean.
Over 90 per cent of the warming since the mid-20th century has occurred in the ocean, and the heat content of the ocean has risen steadily since about 1970 with no pause or slowing of the rate over the past 15 years. That is really the “smoking gun” of warming. But there is even more evidence of a strongly warming Earth.
The ice cover over the Arctic Ocean is decreasing rapidly, at a rate of about 4 per cent per decade since 1979. Such rapid ice loss is unprecedented in the last 2,000 years.
Sea level has risen by 19 cm over the 1900-2010 period. This observed rate of rise over the past century is unusually high in the context of the last 2,000 years.
Glaciers and ice sheets around the world are shrinking and losing mass. The combined rate of mass loss from the large polar ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica was about 350 billion tonnes per year for the period 2002-2011, and is accelerating.
It is even more telling that the rate of sea-level rise, the rate of decrease of Arctic sea ice extent, and the rate of mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica have all increased in the period from the 1990s to the present, compared to earlier periods. This is exactly the opposite of what one would expect if warming of the Earth is slowing or has stopped.
All of this evidence points to the continued strong warming of the Earth since the mid-20th century up to the present, in stark contrast to the erroneous reports purported to be based on leaked drafts of the IPCC assessment.
“What’s the frequency, Kenneth?” I couldn’t understand a word of it, what is the message?
“Sweden’s Environment Minister Lena Ek and Thomas Stocker, a member of an United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), attend an IPCC meeting in Stockholm September 23, 2013. REUTERS-Bertil Enevag ”
So the full report and the summary for policy makers has been made by Environment Ministers and their representatives indirectly or directly. In other words its been “made” by policy makers them self?
Ideology triumphs reality?
WE NEED MORE SUCH PANELS or
HUMANITY’S ADDICTION
We need an IPWC, International Panel on Walking Change,
it could issue reports like:
In spite of thousands of years in which it could have changed,
Humanity continues its historical addiction to walking of feet.
Instead of on hands.
A small but growing number of people, in the sports and entertainment industry so far, are showing us the way.
The handywalking science scientists are consensually unanimous.
(even though they never discuss it in public, since only other handywalking scientists are sufficiently qualified)
The foot walking addiction is fed by propaganda from the shoe industry. And by the nefarious Shoemaker brothers, goes without saying.
We need to enlighten the people.
Let us support and subsidize the progressive glove industry.
The CorbettReport – Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed
More International Frauds and Bogus Enterprises,
Many of them about “Climate Change”, at the
website linked to my name. Hundreds of full
feature length videos like the one above.
Do research what Corbett Says, and look
out for his “new series on the IPCC” !
We will post a link at our site as soon as
Corbett’s new videos are available, and
we have posted a Corbett Report Player
on our Alternative News Page.
Please do pay us a visit, and I thank
you for your time in reading thus far
bushbunny says:
“Other Andy, then how do you explain how the planet froze over for centuries, until volcanic eruptions warmed the atmosphere up? Your palaeoclimatic theories are Hollywood inspired. This earth was very hot and molten at one stage, but when there were no plants or living organisms around to suffer. Plants created oxygen, and rocks created water. This was over billions of years.
Plus the fact of meteor and asteroid strikes, that messed up things.”
First of all I had my tongue firmly in my cheek.
While CO2 levels were about 12 times higher in the late Ordovian, it was also an ice age. I was wondering if Oz could explain that since he believes that CO2 is the-a main driver of global temperature.
And, I have no idea what you think my palaeoclimatic theories are.
Do I really need to use a \sarc tag?
Grey Oz:
I asked you to justify one of your plain wrong – and daft – assertions. You replied with evasion, so others asked you to answer my questions and you “forgot” to answer them.
Meanwhile, you have repeatedly complained that people are being rude by pointing out the idiocy of your assertions. NO! They are flattering you by assuming you have sufficient brain power to understand their answers when all your posts indicate you don’t.
For example, you wrote this at September 27, 2013 at 9:37 pm
CO2 “traps heat”? How does one “trap” a concept; bury it in books?
Atmospheric CO2 absorbs infra red (IR) radiation in the 15 micron and 4 micron spectral bands. Little IR is absorbed in the 4 micron band and the center of the 15 micron band is saturated so the band only absorbs by band broadening: this is why the increase to the absorbtion declines in logarithmic relationship to increase of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The absorbtion raises a CO2 molecule to an excited state by providing it with vibrational or rotational energy. De-excitation is either by collision or discharge of a photon.
I trust that is clear, Grey Oz. If not then get back to me and I will provide more detail. But please do not publish any more of your rubbish that pretends you know what you are talking about when your every statement proclaims that you don’t have a clue.
Oh, and this morning the BBC is reporting about companies having been fined for employing trolls to post to blogs and web sites. Please say if you are employed by one of the fined companies or a different one.
Richard
What am I missing? 3 decades of record warmth, 15 years of pause. Isn’t that the last half of the record warming has done nothing? I hate it when tipping points and talking points collide.
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was
likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}
“What am I missing? ”
A proper timescale?
Over the past 10,000 years the current Holocene epoch has been progressively cooling since the early “climate optimum”. Overall in the 10,000 years the world has cooled gradually by about 1.0 °C. There were however well documented temperature high points during the period, including the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods.
The most recent period of 1000 – 2000 AD is the coolest millennium of the whole epoch
As for this (short) 30-yr period, the Earth experienced it’s 2nd and 3rd strongest solar cycles since 1715, marked the end of the strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years, FIVE El Nino events including the largest Super El Nino ever recorded, a 30-year PDO warming cycle and the start of a 30-yr AMO warming period….
And the CAGW ‘scientists also want us forget that there hasn’t been ANY statistically significant global warming trend since 1995, despite 1/3rd of ALL CO2 emissions since 1750 were made since 1995….
I just read a comment on the SMH website on an article about the SPM. The person claims that warming from CO2 is caused by emissions from developed countries. The person then went on to say that emissions of CO2 from developing countries, such as China and India, haven’t taken effect yet. I nearly chocked on my cranberry juice!
Many of the commenters are reading the announcement and publishing of the SPM as the actual IPCC report.
“bushbunny says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:31 pm”
I think you will find it was stromatolites, about 3.5 billon years ago via photosynthesis that kicked off “oxygenation” of the planet. Which caused the shallow iron rich water they lived in to “rust”, depositing it in the crust eventually forming iron ore.
Anthony,
Matt Ridley responds.
Not a scientist, but definitely a long term observer over my 75 years.
Was at Balmoral Beach on Sydney Harbour this morning. Lovely warm sunny day, water calm and crystal clear. Happy to report that the water level is unchanged since the days of my boyhood.
My take on the IPPC and its reports?
Pfft!
– – – – – – – –
James at 48,
Thank you for looking at the historical perspective on where our culture may be.
If the IPCC’s fate is the litmus test of your thought then I think we will know if you are right within a couple of years.
My ‘glass-is-half-full-view’ is that the last ~4 years it has not been looking good for the anti-science irrationalists of the IPCC Bureau and their ‘pseudo-scientific’processes. So I think science is a still a major player in our culture, but vigilance is needed more than ever to keep it that way.
John
Grey Oz, seems to me you have fallen for the catastrophic climate change driven by emissions of CO2 from human activities (That’s annually estimated, and accepted by the IPCC and scientific community, to be ~3% of 400ppm/v) and ONLY those emissions making life on this rock impossible boondoggle hook, line and sinker. Well, got news for you. The ONLY thing (Excluding asteroids, mega volcanoes etc) in this solar system that has the power to do that is the Sun. By the time the Sun has consumed all it’s fuel, it will have swollen to a red giant and have consumed all or most of he inner planets. Before that however, it would have burnt off ALL life on the ENTIRE surface of this rock effectively returning the Earth to a state similar to a time before an atmosphere formed. Sterile! This is not a question of hypotheses or theories or If’s, it’s a question of when.
In the meantime I suggest you throw another shrimp on the barby and crack open a few tubes of the amber nectar and enjoy your life and what fossil fuels brought you while you can.
Unlikely. See my guest thread here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
That’s a suggesto falsi you’ve been fed. It suggests, falsely, that a further 70% increase would neutralize the oceans. In truth, it would take an over-10,000% increase in acidification measured by that method (number of a certain molecule, IIRC) to neutralize the ocean. The “30%” figure barely moves the needle on the PH scale.
Please don’t scare Grey Oz off. This has been the funniest reading I’ve done for a while. I get all these arguments from my friends who, like Grey Oz, have fallen hook, line and sinker for the alarmist lies. Your succinct answers, I’m filing away to bring out when I next get into an argument with them.
“bushbunny says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Petrol is burned and does not create CO2 it creates poisonous carbon monoxide.”
I think you will find petrol, refined from oil, is a fossil fuel and requires AIR at ~21% O2 to burn oxidising the carbon (Because petrol is a hydrocarbon fossil fuel) forming CO2, as well as, CO and other toxic gases like NOX and SOX.
In any case it is rather sad to learn you lost your son this way.
“Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:37 pm
…(and planes) powered by solar and wind will be eco-friendly.”
How would that work on a commercial scale and at night with solar? I can understand how solar panels can be applied to the air surfaces of an aircraft which many would not be fully exposed to the sun all the time, but not sure how you’d attach a suitably powerful wind turbine given their limited operation capability is high wind speeds. What about storage when there is no sun/wind? What’s the take off speed of a commercial sized aircraft and how would that work with a wind turbine fitted? Remember the Spruce Goose? It’s was a poor design, made of wood, which flew only once and when it did was barely able to manage a few meters (Ignoring some of the useful technology that was installed).
Really turned into an entertaining Saturday night!
Blackbird says:
“All of this evidence points to the continued strong warming of the Earth…”
You are as nuts as Grey Oz:
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
If it was possible for either one of you to think for yourselves, it would be obvious to you that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with current global temperatures. Everything observed now has happened before, repeatedly, and at times when CO2 was much lower. What does that tell you? THINK!!
But you cannot think for yourself. The IPCC is your religion. It fills a hole in your otherwise meaningless lives, so you cling to their pseudo-scientific nonsense like a drowning man clings to a stick. Pathetic.
If you could only think for yourself, the scales would fall from your eyes. But religious Belief is so much easier than thinking…
“Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:05 pm
So, dozens of governments are paying scientists all over the world to falsify results, and scientists are risking their careers to do this?”
Here’s an analogy I like to use to describe Govn’t “scientists” of the climate type.
“Govn’t “scientists” are like consultants. You hire a consultant to tell you the time. They ask to borrow your watch. You hand it over. They read and tell you the time (Accurate? Well you didn’t ask for an ACCURATE time did you?). They keep the watch. A few days later, you receive an invoice for services rendered.”
I am not going to make any more posts in reply to Grey Oz because s/he is just TOO FUNNY! I hope you don’t live anywhere near a library because you will find plenty of books that will deflate/disprove every single one of your points, statements, questions and arguments.
“Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:05 pm
So, dozens of governments are paying scientists all over the world to falsify results, and scientists are risking their careers to do this?”
Unfortunately, scientists who don’t [toe] the line are risking their careers.
Google Lysenko or Lysenkoism.
Peter Ferrara writes in Forbes about the similarities between Lysenkoism and Global Warming.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/
Though those so-called “scientists” who ARE paid by the governments to support global are towing that line as well. Mod]
@Patrick Guinness Yes, the Aussie MSM has been suffering from verbal diarrhea with regards to this latest IPCC SPM. A fact left out is it’s NOT the actual AR5 report. It’s covered by ALL news outlets, it even takes top place in front of AFL grand final coverage.
Correction: 1979-1987. Eight years, darling. It was at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in September 1987 in Denver Colorado where Maurice Strong and Baron Edmund de Rothschild declared we had to overcome the “chilling, doom-laden prognostications of Dr. Irving Mintzer’s greenhouse effect” caused by CO2.
Dr. Mintzer has a BA from Berkeley in Art and Letters (the real title is cornier), a MBA (Berkeley), and a PhD in Energy Resources (Berkeley). He got his PhD in 1983 and by 1985 was working for Rothschild’s World Resources Institute in Washington DC (Rothschild funded it, he didn’t run it, or ‘found’ it officially). Mintzer wrote his “chilling, doom-laden prognostications” in August 1987 in a document I don’t have at hand, meaning it’s not beside me. There were eight or nine scientists, but I think it was eight, who were churning out the ‘CO2 is going to cause the temp to rise to fire alarm levels by 2100 AD’ papers based on models. Stuff straight out of Mother Goose.
At the end of this talk, Rothschild said he was going to get the WWF, Gro Harlem Brundtland, and UNEP (of course, his boys Mr. UNEP Maurice Strong and I. Michael Sweatman, former Chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada, were on stage with him while David Rockefeller was in the audience) to get on it. They called it “Global Climate Change.” Rothschild referred to it as a Second Marshall Plan to implement what he wanted.
– – – – – – –
‘Shoes & Feel’,
I have similar ideas as yours about not discouraging the kind of dialog Grey Oz has politely offered in this venue.
Grey Oz is an asset for this venue because:
1. He/she is going down a list of talking points that looks uncannily like the ones @ Cook’s IPCC centric blog, so he/she gives us a refresher without needing to go to Cookland. And he/she gives us personalized statements of the bureau-speak of the IPCC assessments.
2. His/her participation enhances the public perception that skeptics encourage both debate and an open marketplace for scientific discourse.
3. He/she gives skeptics an opportunity to refine our logic and expand our evidence.
4. We get to know more people in the community of those interested in climate. That is perhaps the most important asset that people like Grey Oz give us at this venue.
Welcome Grey Oz.
John
More hysterical reactions coming in.
“IPCC: 30 years to climate calamity if we carry on blowing the carbon budget”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change
“Climate change? Try catastrophic climate breakdown” [Monbiot]
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-global-warming
The concept “climate change” is a flaw one until unequivocal demonstration that irreversible alterations on climate are scientifically supported. Until, now the only evidence are successive cycles of warming and cooling, and this defines “climate variation”.
Similar variations in climate as we are observing now have occurred in the middle age warming period without any interference of human activity. A present antropogenic effect, if any, is yet to be demonstrated.
[snip. Labeling others as “denialists” violates site Policy. — mod.]
“Black Sheep says:
September 28, 2013 at 5:35 am”
Are you trying to suggest you stand out in a herd? Your posts suggest you are just as “white” as all the other sheeple.
Black Sheep:
In your bloviation at September 28, 2013 at 5:35 am you assert
Really, you know that?
OK. Please state examples – or merely a single example – of climate behaviour which is now occurring and is known to be unprecedented.
We wish to be enlightened by this great and secret knowledge you claim to have. Is it really asking too much for you to share it with us? Or is this secret of unprecedented climate behaviour only available to the High Priests of the cult of AGW and their acolytes?
Oh, and I should add that fact-free pseudo scientific statements like yours don’t fly on this blog so if you want your assertion to take wing here then you need to share the secret.
Richard
Black Sheep says:
September 28, 2013 at 5:35 am
“I would suggest that it is you who needs to learn to think for yourself and try to escape the religious dogma of denialism..”
And you should learn about the Scientific Method. For 16 years there has been no warming. The Null Hypothesis – that the climate is doing exactly what it did all through the milennia – changing by itself – is sufficient to explain that. No CO2AGW hypothesis is needed. Occam’s razor leads us to discarding the CO2AGW theory.
The mispredictions by the climate models furthermore falsify the CO2AGW theory. The warmist scientists have produced 2700 papers about their theory? Too bad – they’re all falsified now it seems to me.
Take your issues of Nature and use them in one of the coming cold winters as heating material. That is their value.
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:37 pm
Burning fossil fuels creates C02. Increasing C02 in an atmosphere traps in heat. No scientists dispute this.
=====
and no scientist disputes as CO2 increases, it has less and less of an effect on temperature
Why is it temperatures went down…at a time when CO2 should have had the greatest effect on temperature?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png
– – – – – – –
I await the actual AR5 WG1 report to see what to make of that statement in the SPM of WG1.
But right now it is worthwhile to consider the general significance of climate sensitivity to the overall IPCC position. The IPCC Bureau’s ‘a priori’ premise of net harm caused by burning fossil fuel is supported by the following claims (or legs like supporting a stool):
1. In the era where atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel has accelerated significantly compared to previous eras, the IPCC says the Earth-Atmosphere System (EAS) has ‘warmed’ at an unprecedented rate and to an unprecedented level.
2. The IPCC claims unprecedented ‘events’ in the EAS are occurring during the era of accelerating atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel.
3. The IPCC claims there is a crisis in the future that needs to be prevented because atmospheric CO2 is the critical determinate of the EAS behavior and state. (this is the climate sensitivity topic).
With or without SR5, their premise (stool) cannot be supported by those 3 claims (legs). That is because none of the 3 can be reasonably and unambiguously claimed. The AR5 does not change that based on the published science or based on the problematically non-epistemic realm of ‘not-yet-but-soon-to-be-conveniently-published’ science.
John
Kinda right. Some in the environmental media to look at the blogs. WUWT got a mention a few days ago on the BBC with a link! Our message only gets out via either sympathetic or honest journalists and even then slowly. Delingpole and co. also pick up on blogs. The GWPF does pick up on blogs and gets far easier access to the media as some of its members are former cabinet ministers.
My final point is what else can we do? We get heard by proxy.
CORRECTION
Some in the environmental media DO look at the blogs
====================
PS our host on WUWT has received more media attention in the last year than in say 2008.
For anyone who believes the UN’s IPCC will get its act together and reform their ways, I have one word for you: Vogons. The IPCC will continue to “study”, pontificate, release bureaucratic edicts, proclaim that they possess scientific truth, as well as consume hundreds of millions of dollars annually in order to “do their job.” They are simply Vogons. They possess the soul of Vogons, and they will always remain Vogons.
The IPCC AR5:
1. deterministic political consensus on society behaviour
2. alleged scientific consensus on AGW without scientific evidence
nothing new….
Grey Oz,
You are correct, I should not insult you direct. So I will not insult you myself.
You do a much better job of insulting yourself. Have at it.
fobdangerclose says:
September 28, 2013 at 6:57 am
Now, now. Be nice. 8<)
I am sure that, any day now, somewhere, in some reply above, I will be able to find ONE sentence that the Oz has written that does NOT contain a lie, an exaggeration, or does not require the painful and slow deaths of millions of people. However, since every paragraph he or she has written has been thoroughly debunked as lies, propaganda or exaggerations already, I will admit that the task of finding that one sentence that is correct may be difficult.
Just a thought: if ‘natural variability’ was allegedly the chief influence of the current 15 year warming ‘pause’, couldn’t ‘natural variability’ have been responsible for the previous warming phase, or at least 15 years of it? Or is that too obvious for them?
As I recall, there is a climate widget, a sea-ice page and many other sources of info that come from other sources than this blog at the top right hand side of every single thread here. For those that might wish to do some learning on their own rather than listen to the MSM.
Cheque it out.
Eugene WR Gallun says: “… Pachauri will soon leave his position as head of the IPCC… he will have to set someone up as his “fall guy”… — John Cook-The-Books of Skeptical Science…”
First name that sprang to mind for me was a certain James Hansen. He’s not employed at the moment as far as I know. Or then again Tim Flannery, he needs a job (lols).
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 9:37 pm
@ Janice Moore: “There is no evidence that fossil fuels per se are causing “damage to the environment.”
“Burning fossil fuels creates C02. Increasing C02 in an atmosphere traps in heat. No scientists dispute this. It is the increasing heat, i.e., temperature, that will make the environment inhospitable to life on Earth.”
Grey Oz, stop posting, You’re an idiot and your posts are just demonstrating this to a wider audience than your usual circle.
We are not at solar minimum, we are at solar maximum and solar activity will decline over the next few years.
Man’s emissions of CO2 inevitably and directly leads to higher temperatures on the Earth overwhelming does it?
Well Einstein explain this……………
Since the start of this century [2000] man has emitted more than 25% of his total emissions since 1750 and the start of the industrial revolution. Since you are a know nothing this should give you a bit of a surprise. Along with this, comparatively, gigantic amount of CO2 emissions the global temperature has reacted how? Ohh………I know by doing nothing, no rise at all, zilch, nada. Indeed, if you were to be precise, temperatures have slightly declined during this time.
The explanation (backed up by facts and figures on the forcings involved) is………………..?
And don’t give me that guff about it hiding in the deep ocean. It has to get down there somehow and the oceans are stratified warm water cannot [sink] and mix. It has to be pulled or pushed down. The oceans thermohaline circulation that can do this, takes hundreds or thousands or years to achieve this.
Wind driven increase in upwellings only happens in a small proportion of the ocean and if there was some huge increase in mixing in some area or other, we would spot it in the SST as they would cool dramatically in those areas. The deep oceans are at 2-3 C average compared to 18C for the surface layer. We don’t see any such effect in SSTs so it ain’t happening fact.
Even if it was shown that there was a big increase in wind driven upwellings in say the Antarctic how would it capture all the increase energy entering the northern ocean?
If this conjecture is true, that the increased energy is going to the deep oceans, it has to be a very quick process or the surface layer would heat up sharply pending getting rid of it and again we know this is not happening.
So it is all bollocks my friend, just hand waving by the desperate alarmists who have to say something to keep the useful idiots like yourself onside.
They know you will accept anything they say and are not intelligent enough to figure out the utter bollocks that it is.
Alan
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130926-ipcc-report-relevance-2013-climate-deadline/
UN Climate Report Relevance Debated Amid Rollout
Can a long-awaited international global warming report keep up with a fast-changing climate?
Surprisingly balanced report, considering NG’s editorial stance.
Don’t we all???
“JP says:
September 28, 2013 at 6:44 am”
That’s IT! My Playtex 24hr girdle CANNOT take this laughter anymore, in fact, my sides HAVE split!
AR5 Report ???
We’ve seen the SPM and the other versions,
but why not the special “Environmentalists” edition ?
…. because at the last minute of the eleventh hour
someone realised it would be dubbed the …..
“AR5E Report”
hahaha
ye must laugh
😀
What the science says:
1. At all relevant timescales, atmospheric CO2 follows temperature as roughly the integral thereof (see Salby lectures)
2. The effect of anthropogenic CO2 is so overwhelmed by natural forces that its contribution to global temperature is lost in the noise, and in any case, diminishes with concentration to the point of unimportance.
3. The theory of CO2AGW has been falsified in every aspect.
What the Warmist (GreyOZ) says:
“CO2 is a blanket. Give us your money.”
The IPCC SPM has become a parody of itself. Widening the estimate of climate sensitivity from the previous 2 – 4.5c range to a much broader 1.5 – 4.5, is sold as an “increase” in certainty. Same goes for the admission that they haven’t a clue how to derive a central best estimate – “increased certainty” again.
How much longer this chimera can continue to plod on is anybodies guess, but the scales are being to drop from more and more eyes. Judith Curry calls the latest SPM position “incomprehensible” while Richard Lindzen is guilty of an unusual display of deference in calling it merely “incoherent.”
Judging by some comments though (not naming names), there are plenty of gullibles around to keep the show on the road for some time to come.
Vince:
Actually it works for me. I have great confidence that the frequency of an oscillation is somewhere in the DC-to-Light bounds.
Getting specific is hard.
@dbstealey says: September 27, 2013 at 3:18 pm
…
Instead of parroting the nonsense you posted, try explaining in rational terms what you believe — and keep in mind that the planet is thoroughly deconstructing every alarmist claim.
Think for yourself for a change.
============
Said the purveyor of the most flagrantly cherry-picked graphics, and disciple of that ultra-scientific “we’re just recovering from the Little Ice Age” crowd … lol
! The Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science ! says:
September 28, 2013 at 8:32 am
___________________________________________
I’m laughing. Actually, I’m ROTFLMAO!!!
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 3:10 pm
==========================================
Seems like someone has bought the super sized bottle of snake oil.. Every single paper listed, blog and proponent has been shown a fraud or debunked as pseudoscience..
This is the same crap the EPA is using as a base for their systematic killing of all things oil or coal based. They have no proof and the pseudo science they do have is crap. Yet they go on with their job killing and economy killing agenda..
The new IPCC report is so veg that it can be shown as a blatant attempt to fear monger without basis in any science.
Just more of the same from the control mongers.. when will people wake up and see they have been duped by these people?
WOW!!! Just read Judith Curry`s latest post where she says, “IPCC must be put down.” Almost like saying a pit bull must be put down when it has gone berserk. This will have major negative consequences for the warming side.
John@EF
You will get much further here in discussion if you state a position and clearly support that position with data / evidence. This is not the Huffington Post.
Most of us here are technically-trained in the hard sciences to one degree or another, as scientists, engineers etc. So, please post, but save the alarmist spam for some other venue.
Julia Gillard is said to be continuing to promote her carbon tax; apparently she likes to blog using the screen name ‘Grey Oz’.
Vince Causey says:
September 28, 2013 at 9:04 am
The IPCC SPM has become a parody of itself. Widening the estimate of climate sensitivity from the previous 2 – 4.5c range to a much broader 1.5 – 4.5, is sold as an “increase” in certainty. Same goes for the admission that they haven’t a clue how to derive a central best estimate – “increased certainty” again.
=================================
Vince they are more certain because they widened where the temp could actually fall.. All i could do is laugh at this deception they are spouting. They also widened the dates back to 1750 as the start of the proposed human induced warming trend.. (funny that 0.8 deg C has already occurred to meet their 1.3 Deg C projection now)
It amounts to playing darts on the side of a barn… Its all red (center of the target) and you cant miss it
Everyone needs to read Judith Curry’s latest.
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:58 pm
“@ Robert of Ottowa: “I’m a delusional liar,” is your case against clean energy? So, anyone who doesn’t agree with the point of view held by most at this site is insulted and dismissed as a liar?”
Grey, I think by now you are gaining some understanding of where you have ill-advisedly strayed. WUWT is not a site for the faint of heart or the thin-skinned. It is not a lazy walk in the park. It is not a Kumbaya-let’s-get-together-and-exchange-our-pleasant-thoughts type of community site. It is a tough, ruthless, hard-hitting scientific site, one, among a few, that have brought the end-of-the-world climate types down halfway back to reality (and has caused IPCC itself to chop climate sensitivity by half [there is still a ways to go], reinstated the embarrassing little ice age, the medieval warm period and natural variability of climate in general, forced consideration of oceanic temperature oscillations, the negative forcings of clouds, the beneficial aspects of moderate warming and higher CO2, plus many other factors). The few have been responsible for trashing the poor science and methodologies of the many using solid science to do so. It has led to retractions of some of the worst scientific articles on climate and forced revisions on others because even acquiescent editors couldn’t ignore the short comings pointed out. Here at WUWT or the likes of Climate Audit, skeptics are not even immune to the withering scrutiny of steely-eyed mathematicians, physicists, chemists, geologists, biologists, astronomers, logicians, economists, etc who root out bad analyses or improper use of statistics to support fairy tale theses. I’ve had my skin burned here a few times. This “Navy-Seal” environment is not for gentler folk like yourself.
Now, also unlike at most blogs on climate, everyone is welcome here and everyone is free to disagree (but I advise that you have scientific support and real data to accompany your contribution). Best of all, there is an enormous free education to be had on a site that brooks no B.S. You obviously have let others do your thinking for you (the large majority of people fit into this category so don’t feel bad about it) as regards windmills and solar for saving the planet, so I would admonish Robert of Ottawa (normally a well mannered, although a little on the acerbic side, and and intelligent contributor) to apologize for calling you a liar. You, yourself, clearly had nothing to do with the opinions you expressed. One should never call a parrot a liar. He should have directed his epithet at the perpetrators of the scam itself.
WUWT SCORES A DIRECT HIT ON THE BBC
Today, in a program where the public are invited to comment on an earlier program called “Question Time”, somebody called Phil (sorry I did not catch he surname) read out Ross McKitrick’s comment from this thread : September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
“SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were
right about the Arctic,
wrong about the Antarctic,
wrong about the tropical troposphere,
wrong about the surface,
wrong about hurricanes,
wrong about the Himalayas,
wrong about sensitivity,
clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends.
And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”
This Phil guy was calm, well informed and dominated the debate for about five minutes, putting across a series of simple reasons why the IPCC report should not be trusted by the public or politicians.
Also on the same program other contributors from the public were allowed to make sensible comments about AR5, and why the case put by the IPCC for AGW should not be trusted.
Interestingly the BBC presenter divided the contributors into being either “believers” or “non- Believers” and showed himself to be well aware that the Sceptics do have strong support from Judith Curry and others for their case that the IPCC is failing to present all sides of the science about recent warming trends.
Of course this wa a small skirmish, but it was historic in the sense that the BBC showed it is at last recognising that the sceptics are not a minority group of outsiders who can simply be insulted and then ignored. This, and the recent Andrew Neil interview some weeks ago, indicate to me that the work of WUWT, Climate Audit, Bishops Hill, Jo Nova and many others is now having a big impact on how the IPCC reports are handled by the media at large – CONGRATULATIONS and THANK YOU.
I’m surprised that the IPPC haven’t got a link to the ‘Flat Earth Society’……both are convincing but effectively, wrong….
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions
ps. I got banned from posting to the BBC years ago!
Billy Liar says:
September 28, 2013 at 10:36 am
Julia Gillard is said to be continuing to promote her carbon tax; apparently she likes to blog using the screen name ‘Grey Oz’.
Ah, that explains a lot; particularly her concern for “ocean assification”.
Phil’s Dad says:
September 27, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Auto says on September 27, 2013 at 8:38 am (in response to my earlier post)
“Where’s the science?”
Just for the avoidance of doubt when I say “read the science” I am not saying read the IPCC report.
richardscourtney says on September 27, 2013 at 8:59 am
“P.S. PHIL’S DAD, ARE YOU HEARING THIS?”
Every word sir, and I find nothing in what you say with which to disagree. I would go further and say the IPCC was set up initially to undermine the coal industry (no pun intended).
=================
Noted & appreciated, and now appreciate you did not really need my emphasis.
All my blessings, & best regards,
Auto..
The Phil in quesion on Any Answers was me as it happens and indeed I hope McKitrick will excuse my use of his excellent summary!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/bbcaq
Picking up our visiting friend:
“Grey OZ” says:
“Sure Richard, you can read the Hansen paper “Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” published by the Royal Society, the Mathematical, Physical Sciences, and Engineering Journal, on the link at my post @ 3:10 the link, look at the “Approaching a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere” ”
Hansen believes earth could become like Venus. Hansen is wrong. Earth WAS like Venus 4.3 billion years ago: >96% CO2, no O2, at 100 bar. Since then CO2 has been drawn down into [limestone], other carbonates, into the biosphere where the C from CO2 was in turn [sequestered] into fossil fuels: gas, oil, coal. During the Cambrian Explosion, CO2 was still around 30%, O2 35%. During the time of the dinosaurs it was still ~ 5% and atmospheric pressure around 3 bar – allowing the pterosaurs to fly. We are now down to CO2 at 0.04% @ 1bar. We are near borderline extinction, such that life on earth will not survive the next big Ice Age as there will be no more CO2 left to sustain life.
[Thank you for your time, your efforts, and your respect. Mod]
I’d like Grey Ooze or anyone at the IPCC to define just what is “Normal” and then explain just how they could possibly know that.
Without defining “Normal” then how can anything Man is doing be disrupting it? How can they tell?
You might notice that the tipping point has now been certified as when 1T tonnes of carbon has been burned, which should be at a concentration of about 519 ppm, which doesn’t seem to have much to do with 350 ppm. That noise you heard was Bill McKibben & tribe being thrown under the bus. I wonder how they feel about that? That should be in 2044, by which time everyone that is extremely confident will be safely retired. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, though.
Another major contradiction is this: the IPCC now limit both natural “forcing” and “variation” to 0.1 degree in half a century – astonishing hubris for them to go on record with this derisory figure. But at the same time they invoke decadal variations to account for the current “Mannopause” of static temperatures.
From this figure:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/bild-923937-548145.html
the divergence between current temperature and the 2007 IPCC projection is already 0.3 degrees!
Did the
2000800 IPCC scientists include anyone with a math major?How can a summary for policymakers text be negotiated by the policymakers if they are scientifically illiterate politicians? How can they be guided by the science? Yes, I know they have advisors, but wouldn’t the advisors have to comb through the thousands of pages, tables, data sets, calculations….There are several contributors on this site that have 1st hand knowledge who could educate us on this process.
minarchist says:
John@EF:
You will get much further here in discussion if you state a position and clearly support that position with data / evidence. This is not the Huffington Post.
Most of us here are technically-trained in the hard sciences to one degree or another, as scientists, engineers etc. So, please post, but save the alarmist spam for some other venue.
Exactly right. Fact-free bluster like ‘JohnEF’s’ is a hallmark of the alarmist crowd. Since they cannot win the debate based on facts, they fall back on the ad hominem fallacy. That may work in their thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs, where everyone is a head-nodder. But it doesn’t work here at the internet’s “Best Science” site, where all points of view are posted, and only those with verifiable facts and evidence remain standing.
JohnEF is way out of his league, and that is not just our opinion. That is what the planet is telling us: there is nothing either unprecedented or unusual happening. It has all happened before — and to a much greater degree. In fact, we have been fortunate to be living in a “Goldilocks” climate. With any luck, that will continue for a while longer.
JohnEF also ridicules the fact of the Little Ice Age. But the LIA is universally recognized by real climate authorities [many more such charts posted upon request].
The alarmist crowd hates the LIA because it destroys their religious belief in the magic “carbon” molecule. But the fact is that the LIA was one of the coldest episodes of the entire 10,700 year Holocene. It cannot be wished away; it happened — and it happened when CO2 was much lower than now.
Just like the Medieval Warm Period and the Minoan Warming, when the planet warmed significantly more than it has currently, and when CO2 was very low. Those facts show conclusively that with a static, low CO2 level, the planet warms and cools naturally — and much more than it has over the past century with high CO2.
The entire AGW scare is based on the demonization of “carbon”. But verifiable, real world facts and evidence show that the alarmist view is completely wrong.
Judith Curry says:
After several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans.
The politically charged rhetoric has contaminated academic climate research and the institutions that support climate research, so that individuals and institutions have become advocates; scientists with a perspective that is not consistent with the consensus are at best marginalized (difficult to obtain funding and get papers published by ‘gatekeeping’ journal editors) or at worst ostracized by labels of ‘denier’ or ‘heretic.’
Decision makers needing regionally specific climate change information are being provided by the climate community with either nothing or potentially misleading predictions from climate models.
Will this be a turning point?
Philip Foster: Earth’s atmosphere my have once been somewhat similar to that of Venus, but not its temperature. Being roughly 26 million miles closer to the sun than Earth tends to make a planet warmer!
Philip Foster (Revd) says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Mesozoic air pressure wasn’t much different from now, according to best available evidence. There was of course a lot more CO2 & somewhat more oxygen in the Cretaceous (third period of the Mesozoic Era) & preceding Late Jurassic.
Pterosaurs didn’t need a three times thicker atmosphere to fly:
http://pterosaur-net.blogspot.com/2012/03/does-air-density-make-difference.html
Jtom;
Yes I agree earth would have been less hot or life could not have started. Also what we don’t know (or at least I don’t know) is whether Venus’ rotation has been like it is now, 243 earth days, which means it rotates slowly backwards adding to the overall cooking from the sun. Did it rotate like earth and Mars at one time and had some glancing bolide encounter which changed its rotation?
milodonharlani
Judging air pressure is more difficult than composition. Pterosaurs doubtless could glide (like fruit bats) in our thinner atmosphere, but could fly better in a thicker one.
One clue much further back about air pressure is, as I understand it, that ancient barytes, dated at ~2.4Ga contain CO3 intrusions which geologists calculate would have required pressures for CO2 in excess of 60 atmospheres.
Slippin’ and a slidin’, peepin’ and a hidin’
Been told a long time ago
Slippin’ and a slidin’, peepin’ and a hidin’
Been told long time ago
I been told, baby, you been bold
I won’t be your fool no more
Oh, big conniver, nothin’ but a jiver
I done got hip to your jive
Oh, big conniver, nothin’ but a jiver
I done got hip to your jive
Slippin’ and a slidin’, peepin’ and a hidin’
Won’t be your fool no more
The claim now is that there is a 95% confidence by the scientists that humans are causing global climate change. However, the IPCCs predictions have never been more misleading when compared to the actual events and recent deveolpments in climate. This means, as far as I can see to this simple conclusion: The IPCCs scientist are 95% confident that the models, which time and time again have been proven wrong, are right. Do we need such scientists?
John Cristy was right, in The Global Warming Swindle: The IPCCs 95% confidentiality boils down to (somewhat adpted): “Our models are correct , it is the real world that seems to get it wrong, and we can’t explain why..”
Fact check: No. The “big oil” and Big Business and Big Energy you so vehemently deny (GE, BP, EXXON, MOBIL, Texaco, Shell, and, by the way, ENRON started the carbon-trading schemes with Al Gore before they folded into corruption, and Duke, Southern Company, etc.) have donated (at last count) billions to the enviro lobby and democrat lobbies paying them off with grants, direct money, sponsorships, and research. At 1/1000 to one, “some” independent oil independent owners (most notably the two (count them!) two Koch Brothers) have spent some 200,000.00 in sponsoring open political forums and meetings for generally conservative groups meeting about all issues relevant to the economy – many of which, concern your CAGW religion.
SHOW US THE MONEY, if you claim otherwise.
Now, then again, after sending their democrat sponsors millions in donations, the “big oil” and “big energy” companies like GE and BP received billions in contracts for wind, solar, research, and new work at a time when the rest of the economy starved to death. But, you claim – falsely -that “big oil” is paying the unpaid! skeptics while ignoring the 100 billion paid directly and deliberately to the government-sponsored, government-selected, government directed, government-controlled, government-paid “academic” researchers working in government labs to produce government research justifying government taxes (1.3 trillion) in new revenue and the ENTIRE democratic energy and social and economic programs?
Be specific now.
How much money does it take to corrupt a “scientist”?
You claim in straight text and bare words that the skeptics are well-funded and therefore are not to be trusted with “any” scientific conclusions.
Fine. We know – because skeptics are NOT funded and ARE demoted and ARE punished for their honesty and integrity that you are lying. Perhaps fooled by deliberate propaganda, but you are lying. As an argument, let us assume that you were right: That money corrupted people and their scientific judgement could be clouded by money, peer recognition, promotions, national prizes, international press, international peace prizes, international travel and meetings with the powers-that-be, numerous TV and sympathetic press releases and press interviews, the “feeling” that they were doing “good” and “were serving a higher purpose” and were “above common prey” of simple day-to-day life and paychecks and budgets. Let us assume that they were not “on a mission” to the world and were not “dedicated to a higher purpose” …. (All true attitudes and attributes within your CAGW religion, by the way, not of skeptics, but mere facts seem also irrelevant to your religion.)
How much money does it take to corrupt a scientist? How do you determine when a scientist is corrupted and his/her word and decisions and judgements are to thrown out?
If the source of money is to serve the interest of the money, then – who do we trust? The government who reject morals and promotes those who demand innocents die? Or a person with morals who can provide life?
Do we trust government “scientists” who were paid hundreds of billions of dollars to create reports and services and laboratories solely to create and service the CAGW industry so the government can collect trillions in controlling taxes?
Lars Tuff, to paraphrase your statement, the IPCCs scientist are 95% confident that the 5% of their models, that not have been proven wrong, are right.
Philip Foster (Revd) says:
September 28, 2013 at 3:11 pm
There is no reason to imagine that air density was much greater in the Mesozoic than now, despite baseless claims you may find on the Net.
As for air pressure billions of years ago, also no dice. Best evidence suggests at most twice as dense as now 2.7 Ba:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22456703
The earth’s first atmosphere could have been & probably was much denser than now, but the H2 escaped to space & CO2 was incorporated into rocks & eventually living things. It might have had twice as much N2 as now, but of course next to no O2.
But please post any evidence you have to the contrary, ie that Precambrian, Paleozoic & Mesozoic atmosphere was many times denser than now.
Largest pterosaurs were capable of powered flight in atmospheric conditions similar to now:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013982
That they did fly is shown by fossils from marine beds. That Cretaceous air pressure was about the same as today is shown by every possible line of evidence. Oxygen & CO2 were higher than now, but not enough greatly to increase density.
Several years ago there was a boomlet in papers arguing that the largest pterosaurs would need 3-5 bar to fly, but they were based upon assumptions since shown false, such as weight & power of Quetzalcoatlus.
If pterosaurs still lived, they could still fly, hampered more by less oxygen than by lighter air.
Philip Foster (Revd) says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm
We are near borderline extinction, such that life on earth will not survive the next big Ice Age as there will be no more CO2 left to sustain life.
================
correct 100%
Would an ice age soak up the remaining CO2?
Latitude says:
September 28, 2013 at 4:52 pm
CO2 levels get close to starvation levels for C3 plants (~150 ppm) during the glacial phases of ice ages, as has happened about every 100,000 years for the past 2.4 million years, but not for C4 & CAM plants, which evolved to deal with the lower CO2 levels of the Cenozoic.
But who knows? The next glaciation could be super bad & drop CO2 below the concentration needed for C3 plants, leaving the earth without trees. Hard to imagine CO2 ever getting below the low, low level needed for C4, however. It might be possible to transplant C4 genes into C3 plants.
“When you still push increasing confidence in predictions while…”
— What are the alternatives that they see? If they say “We are equally confident” then it sounds like the data doesn’t matter to them. And they certainly don’t want to express LESS confidence. A scientist would not be afraid to change his conclusion. Only a politician or someone with an agenda would need to be MORE confident.
The late, great Crichton on past doomsayers pronouncements on unprecedented threats & totalitarian solutions for non-problems:
milodonharlani says:
September 28, 2013 at 5:08 pm
“But who knows? The next glaciation could be super bad & drop CO2 below the concentration needed for C3 plants, leaving the earth without trees. Hard to imagine CO2 ever getting below the low, low level needed for C4, however. It might be possible to transplant C4 genes into C3 plants.”
==============
Yep, my pizza is warmed up now, I think I’ll eat it.
Despite any C4’s, or C3’s.
I’ve looked into the matter at some length and calculated that in fact we could spend the entirety of national savings for the next twenty years and still not produce enough energy from “renewables” to heat, cool and light our homes and businesses reliably. Freeze to death in the dark with no savings to boot.
I’m puzzled. In his 1988 testimony Hansen claimed 99% confidence, but now we are only at 95%. Was there a moderation in confidence that I missed at some point?
u.k.(us) says:
September 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm
Your pizza crust is C3, unless it’s made with corn (maize) instead of wheat, so enjoy it while it lasts.
The C3 plants & I thank you for the extra CO2 from the power to run your microwave, although if you’re in the UK, it might not have been generated by releasing more beneficial CO2.
Given the twin facts that most of the warming can be attributed to the EPA’s Clean Air Act clean up the atmosphere and Svensmark’s proving that supernovas cause long term climate change, whom should we lynch? Gina McCarthy?
with new graph:
28 Sept: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: Met Office proof that global warming is still ‘on pause’ as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising
IPCC report confirms no significant rise in global temperature since 1997
IPCC accused of sinking to ‘hilarious level of incoherence’
But the IPCC insists 2016-2035 will be 0.3-0.7C hotter than 1986-2005
The global warming ‘pause’ has now lasted for almost 17 years and shows no sign of ending – despite the unexplained failure of climate scientists’ computer models to predict it.
The Mail on Sunday has also learnt that because 2013 has been relatively cool, it is very likely that by the end of this year, world average temperatures will have crashed below the ‘90 per cent probability’ range projected by the models…
***The graph above covers the period June 1997 to July 2013. It was drawn using the official Met Office ‘HadCRUT4’ monthly data for world average temperatures, and shows the lack of a warming trend…
A footnote in the new report also confirms there has been no statistically significant increase since 1997.
Last night independent climate scientist Nic Lewis – an accredited IPCC reviewer and co-author of peer-reviewed papers – pointed out that taking start years of 2001, 2002 or 2003 would suggest a cooling trend of 0.02-0.05C per decade, though this would not be statistically significant…
Piers Forster, Leeds University’s Professor of Physical Climate Change, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘If it does get beyond 20 years, that would get very interesting.
‘We would have to revisit the models. As it goes on, it would get more and more peculiar.’
He added: ‘We are right on the edge of the probability distribution now. We have to accept that if we are going to come up with projections, they have to be correct.’…
However, not only does the report deny the importance of the pause, it makes a firm, short-term forecast that it is about to end – claiming that the period 2016-2035 will, on average, be 0.3-0.7C hotter than 1986-2005.
That, said Prof Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is a high-risk strategy: ‘The IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet.’
Should the pause continue, she said, ‘they are toast’.
She was critical about the report’s statement that confidence humans had caused most of the warming of the 20th Century had increased from 90 per cent in the last IPCC report in 2007 to 95 per cent.
‘How they can justify this is beyond me.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html
Gary Dean says: September 27, 2013 at 4:59 am
My reaction is it’s all very depressing. By that I mean mankind’s inability to collectively face such important issues.
I agree Gary. It’s momumentally depressing that a bureaucratic catastrophising collective abuses its position to impose policies leading to servitude and primitivisation on wider humanity in the name of saving us from ourselves. It’s been tried before, it’s being tried now. The tragedy is that modern politicians have failed to learn from the lessons of history.
milodonharlani says:
September 28, 2013 at 6:42 pm
“The C3 plants & I thank you for the extra CO2 from the power to run your microwave, although if you’re in the UK, it might not have been generated by releasing more beneficial CO2.”
==============
Actually it was heated in the oven, and not in the U.K.
No plants (that didn’t need to be) were harmed to sustain my caloric intake.
Those that did, enabled this comment.
It’s proven that 95% of Climate Scientists give the other 5% a bad name.
u.k.(us) says:
September 28, 2013 at 7:43 pm
Those plants probably had it coming, & in any case they were harvested, milled & baked in a good cause, ie enabling you to produce more CO2.
The IPCC appears incapable of admitting that past reports were incorrect. Regardless of the fact that observations and analysis supports lukewarm AGW (around 1C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2) those pushing EAGW continue as if they are playing a game where the objective is at all costs to push their agenda, to win the game. The BCC for example compares the preparation and release of the IPCC AR-5 summary for policy makers to a boxing match and notes their side is going to fight harder to defeat the so called ‘skeptics’.
The IPCC and their supporters have no realistic estimate of the costs to fight the war on ‘climate change’ and the consequences of tripling and quadrupling energy costs. 2 trillion dollars has been spent on green scams. What is the result? How much more is required to be spent to fight the war on weather and natural climate change? $100 trillion? $800 trillion? How will we know when the war on ‘climate change’ has been won?
The fact that there has been no increase in planetary temperature for the last 17 years and the fact that has been almost no warming in the tropics supports the assertion that there is no EAGW problem to solve. The planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback) by increasing or decreasing low level cloud in the tropics rather than amplifies forcing changes (positive feedback). Lindzen and Choi’s two peer reviewed papers supports the assertion the planet resists forcing changes (negative feedback) as does the fact that there has been almost no warming in the last 30 years in tropics and the predicted tropical tropospheric warming – which would occur if there was increased water vapour in tropical troposphere which would in turn if there was no increase in low level clouds cause amplification – warming did not occur. What is missing is the water vapor amplification is predicted to occur immediately, not in 10 or 20 years.
The fact that there was almost no warming in tropics in the last 30 years is only possible if planetary cloud cover increased in the tropics to resist the CO2 forcing. The warming that did occur in the high Arctic and over the Greenland Ice sheet was not predicted (the high northern latitude warming that did occur is significantly greater than the CO2 forcing mechanism is capable of causing) and appears to be caused by a temporary reduction in low level clouds caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
The developing countries have run out of deficit dollars to spend, yet they continue to have increasing lists of entitlements and new programs to spend on. The US accumulated deficit is the highest since the second world war 96.5% of GDP as compared to 46% during Nixon administration. The UK accumulated federal deficit is 91% of GDP. Economists in the past stated that the maximum accumulated debit a country could carry without dire consequences was 60% to 70% of GDP. The policies developed to fight the artificially created climate change crisis is connected to the lack of economic grow and high unemployment. Regardless of the enthusiasm of their supporters the developing countries do not have sufficient funds to fight a war on climate.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
….We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. Cloud feedbacks are still considered to be highly uncertain (IPCC, 2007), but the fact that these feedbacks are strongly positive in most models is considered to be an indication that the result is basically correct. ….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/25/yet-another-study-shows-lower-climate-sensitivity/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/temperature-models-vs-temperature-reality-in-the-lower-troposphere/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TMI-SST-MEI-adj-vs-CMIP5-20N-20S-thru-2015.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/
There is no tropical tropospheric hot spot, Douglas and Christy paper.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver
Those in attendance at the SFP meeting are not primarily politicians, but emissaries of the Environmental departments of their governments. As such, they are full-fledged alarmists. That is why the final SFP is more alarmist than the draft versions, and omits the embarrassing charts in the earlier drafts.
Philip Foster (Revd) says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:03 pm
“We are now down to CO2 at 0.04% @ 1bar. We are near borderline extinction, such that life on earth will not survive the next big Ice Age as there will be no more CO2 left to sustain life.”
—
Possibly, if the likes of molten salt reactors are ever developed that are able reach extremely high temperatures necessary, mankind may be able to revert some of the carbonate rock back into CO2 and ensure man’s life on into the far future. If not, you are spot on in the long run.
Josh should make a Cartoon with the IPCC talking out of both sides of its mouth.
On one side, “We are more certain than ever, 95%!”, and out of the other “Our Models are less certain than Ever! Less than 95%”.
We all seem optimistic and rather wishful that the near future will give us global cooling to finally destroy the IPCC. The Irony is that a cooling planet is our nemesis and has the potential to create the environment for a economic collapse not seen since the 14th century and will with out a doubt eventually swing into a full blown ice age. To me it is obvious that we now need to use the most advanced power systems available to boost our economies to thwart this and this will soon come to be realized by the status quo. I think that Man is about to embark on a new age of progress that will allow the biosphere to no longer adhere to the whims of solar cycles. Maybe this is our purpose for being here, after all we are a product of nature and life on this planet has been constantly improving itself since it began on this planet.
the Australian papers believe http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bondi-under-siege-as-swelling-ocean-seeps-into-suburbs-20130928-2ul6l.html in the IPCC report or fraud.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bondi-under-siege-as-swelling-ocean-seeps-into-suburbs-20130928-2ul6l.html
Bishop Hill had an interesting encounter on Radio Scotland yesterday (Saturday) with the director of FoE Scotland, one Richard Dixon, whose pinnacle of appalling debate, among too many others to quote, was to say to the BIshop: ” I have a PhD in Astrophysics which is better than your chemistry degree. ” This was included among the usual litany of “you are a holocaust denier, chaser of unicorns, flat- earther, sceptics are a tiny minority, ill-informed, the debate is over, the tobacco analogy, only a few scientists in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, discredited, BBC Scotland shouldn’t be putting the other side on the radio when the debate is over .”
The Bishop stoically tried to keep the level of debate civil and suggested a future debate with Dixon-
no reply forthcoming as yet.
Ihttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bq64x
Link to post at 1hr.07mins in.-
Direct link also at Bishop Hill. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/27/ar5-press-cuttings.html
Imagine all the people believing the climate of planet of Earth is not their fault?
bushbunny says:
September 27, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Australian media are saying by 2100 the world will be 2 C warmer than today due to human activity. Well that won’t be too bad, if it gets colder in the mean time.
———————————————————————————————–
To bad bushbunny that they missed out on the decimal point in front of the 2. The media especially the ABC is getting outdated data and alarmist propaganda from the usual suspects here in Oz. Its pathetic !
“tango says:
September 29, 2013 at 12:05 am”
I had to laugh at that. But just two weeks or so ago the SMH published an article that was “puzzling” scientists, including Karoly, where they claim GLOBAL sea levels had fallen due to the big wet in Aus in 2010/2011. This ~3% of ~400ppm/v CO2 is remarkable stuff. What can’t it do? Is it the duct tape of gases?
1850 is used as a datum point. Curiously, it is about 4.8 billion seconds ago, so approx one second for every year in the life of the planet. Not a great length of time to measure the health of the planet, is it? Doctor: “How have you been, Pat?”. Me: “Great for the last 59 seconds, Doc!”
In the Sacramento Bee :
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/28/5776593/poll-voters-turn-against-california.html#storylink=cpy
This isn’t news. In fact Jerry Brown’s bullet train is exactly as unpopular as it was last year.
The interesting thing is this was posted on the day of the AR5 release. A poll sponsored by the Los Angeles Times reported in the Sac Bee, both of which are unapolgetic Democrat mouth organs.
So what does it mean? Jerry Brown can be moved from the bullet train, and by extention his position on global warming is in flux.
That’s what it means.
Pat Condell on left wing students who refuse to accept reality. Also applies to quite a lot of older folks, many of them climate scientists… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85q6BOnwIAQ
“The global average surface temperature trend of late is like a speed bump, and we would expect the rate of temperature increase to speed up again just as most drivers do after clearing the speed bump.” I would like to see the evidence this scientist has to confidentaly state it is a “speed bump.” Alternative hypotheses would be: (1) “It is the start of a long term secular decline in temperature.” or (2) This could be a really long period of level termperatures; or (3) This was a really bad speed bump that took out my shock absorbers and my tranny.
Now that the summery for policy makers has been published, does any one know when the actual report itself will be available.
From the information I’ve seen this weekend the IPCC AR5 report has not yet been published???
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
The button marked Full Report is not responding
@ Messenger September 29, 2013 at 12:07 am
They are right, only a loony would chase a unicorn:
Isidore of Seville [7th century CE] (Etymologies, Book 12, 2:12-13): The Greek word rhinoceros, meaning “with horn in nose,” refers to the same beast as the names monoceros or unicorn [Isidore does not distinguish between them]. This is a four-footed beast that has a single horn on its forehead; it is very strong and pierces anything it attacks. It fights with elephants and kills them by wounding them in the belly. The unicorn is too strong to be caught by hunters, except by a trick: if a virgin girl is placed in front of a unicorn and she bares her breast to it, all of its fierceness will cease and it will lay its head on her bosom, and thus quieted is easily caught.
Just so you know how to counter this charge in future
I agree with Judith Curry, put the IPCC down. And cancel the UN Climate Change Fund, that Oz was giving 660 million a year too. We could do better, reenforcing levies in flood areas, dealing with forest or bush fires, and building more dams to offset drought. And providing solar panels to pensioners free.
Lindzen as usual hits the nail straight on the head:
“They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”
“Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about.”
Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.
Thanks, that sums it up in a sentence.
Bill Illis says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:35 am
…The graphic showing observed change in temperature relative to the climate models shown in earlier drafts is not included in the report anymore.
Hm, wondering if this has anything to do with the fact it is not supporting the affirmations?
Gary Dean says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:59 am
My reaction is it’s all very depressing. By that I mean mankind’s inability to collectively face such important issues.
Right Gary. Even unable to face and clearly state the facts, before getting into action, that is even more depressing.
Stephen Rasey says:
September 27, 2013 at 7:41 am
“Hide the Decline” of the Best Estimate.
Yes, it is how “the science” works … not science.
Every now an then an alarmist appears. Now we have Grey Oz. It is interesting to see that alarmists usually posts by the dozen in one thread and then vanish for ever in the internet nirvana.
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:37 pm
97% of the worlds scientists agree that the world is warming and that mankind is responsible for most of it.
Grey, when parroting something, did it ever occur to you to check what you say? Where the 97% comes from? This might be an easier exercise then talking about science. Just look this time on skeptics sites, or stay here at WUWT. Or if you want come with the alarmist information and have it trashed by us here, as we know the info.
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm
Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2010.
Yes and? It was completely ice free some 6000 years ago and there was no catastrophy related to that. All previous interglacials were warmer than this one and? What does the ice minimum of 2012 prove?
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Each decade is warmer than the last and when the arctic melts, the carbon and methane trapped in ice, permafrost, ground stores… will enter the atmosphere and double the amount of greenhouse gas concentration we currently have.
See my above question. It was warmer before, why did the catastrophy not happen then?
See also Latitude’s question to you:
Latitude says:
September 27, 2013 at 6:12 pm
uh no, can you read a NOAA ice core graph?
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png
Oz, why is it that at the one point that CO2 levels should have had the most effect…
…temperatures went down?
Also db answered above:
dbstealey says:
September 27, 2013 at 8:46 pm
and finally Gary:
Gary Pearse says:
September 28, 2013 at 10:59 am
Grey, I think by now you are gaining some understanding of where you have ill-advisedly strayed.
well potentially that was for our Grey. He either will duck and ran to the alarmist sites or might start to think for himself?
The article about Swift-boating was unintentionally accurate.
Some on the left have tried to push the term to mean inaccurate smearing of a subject, in the original, Kerry, and now, the climate change machine.
However, while there were excesses and mistakes by the Swift boaters in the original, the message was largely accurate, and served to correct a misleading message propagated by the Kerry team. Then, as now, the side desperately trying to maintain a fiction, not just insist that their side is right, but the objections to their side are motivated by hate and partisan rancor rather than facts. They are trying to obscure the message by tying it to another failed campaign, inadvertently missing that the public knows that Swift-boating is the marshaling of facts, not smears.
Watching the MSM coverage on this latest rancid piece of tripe, one has to accept that the “journalists” are past their sell by date.
It seems the only place we can find in depth analysis of this and other issues is online. Time the MSM completed their suicidal excercises and went broke, sparing us the reams of propoganda!
“The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is being released in four parts between September 2013 and November 2014.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml#.UkgRqBRwaM8
A summery for a report that has not been completed yet??????
Lars P says:
September 29, 2013 at 4:58 am
Grey Oz says:
September 27, 2013 at 4:42 pm
“Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2010.”
Yes and? It was completely ice free some 6000 years ago and there was no catastrophy related to that. All previous interglacials were warmer than this one and? What does the ice minimum of 2012 prove?
I’m sure that anyone living on ‘Doggerland’ 6,000 years ago would disagree with you about a catastophy!
http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/archaeology/research/projects/title_89282_en.html
Those living around the Black Sea might well agree with them!
From Bac Pierre
I am neither a sceptic nor a warmist, I just follow what is going on; I am an old physicist with experience in nuclear, particle, condensed matter and astro-physics (I mean I have published >12 papers in each of these fields, >200 all together). I share your criticisms of AR5, I dont share your claims that we shall have global cooling. I do believe (I mean believe, a non-scientific behaviour) that we should be careful not to throw much more CO2 in atmosphere than what there is already, just a precaution in view of the fragility of the equilibrium in which we survive. But we should not panick as IPCC invites us to do (more via those who speak in its name than via what is actually written). Just for you to know that I am not Grey Oz…
But my point is different. I am impressed by the similitude between the public perception of the climate problem and that of the nuclear problem. In both cases irrationality, mythology and emotion have taken over, there is a complete split between advocates and ennemies – including among scientists! – alarmists are overdoing their brain washing up to a point where irreversible bad decisions are being taken: some countries have banned nuclear energy, some people are contemplating spreading the atmosphere with aerosols, the oceans with iron sulfate, not to mention the million square kilometres of space mirrors… Gigantic waste of money in electric cars (the most inefficient use of fossil energy one can dream of), some renewables, etc… It seems to me that there is a 95% probability (to use the jargon now common in climate circles) that we shall end up the same way in climate policy as we did in nuclear policy, a plain irrational disaster. I am curious to know how you react to these thoughts, you seem to never mention this aspect of the question.
BBC Radio 4, Tuesday 1st October 2013 at 15:30 BST
( or in other words 2013-10-01T14:30:00Z )
Costing the Earth 5/11:
“Tom Heap analyses the latest findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, investigating what has changed since the scientific (sic) body’s last report in 2007.”
A real opportunity for the BBC to demonstrate impartiality for 30 minutes. I’m holding my breath…
Addendum;
http://drtimball.com/2013/17-year-warming-hiatus-causes-panic-cover-up-ipcc-duplicity-continues/
If the IPCC were clever they would have admitted the plateau and said that global warming has actually peaked because CO2 has reached it’s saturation point. Then they should have went on to say, from here on increased levels of CO2 will cause global cooling as it replaces other more effective greenhouse gasses such as water vapor and methane.
Why should they have done this?
It is still a crisis, man is still the cause, we still need carbon taxes, we still need funding to study it and we still need a one world government to solve it because global cooling is actually worse than global warming.
Then flip-flop again when the earth starts to heat up again in 30 years.
I find it curious that melting of the arctic ice is causing such fear. Let us grant that it would wipe out the polar bears (I don’t believe it). Other than that, what harm would it cause? All that ice is useless. A warmer arctic region might actually be habitable and useful. There are all sorts of mineral wealth in the arctic: oil, diamonds, gas, metals. Boreal forests might grow better. Horrors! A frozen useless place with little life might become useful? Can’t have that!
If the IPCC were clever they would have admitted the plateau..
exactly…..you have to keep your eye on the ball
They didn’t predict the lull in temps..at the exact same time that CO2 levels should have had the most effect
they didn’t predict the warm hiding in the deep ocean
they didn’t predict Arctic ice and Antarctic ice increasing this year
and they didn’t predict tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods……extreme weather events
…going down at the exact same time CO2 levels should have had the most effect
They have predicted nothing…….
In political terms, AR5 was actually the incoherent and rambling suicide note of the IPCC.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/in-the-aftermath-of-ar5/
Pointman
The Summary for Policy Makers is exemplary in its honesty in labeling products of global warming research as “projections” and “evaluations.” Having done so, it fails to honestly admit that projections and evaluations are of no earthly use to a policy maker in making policy. What a policy maker needs for this purpose are the predictions and validations that are not products of this research. It compounds this error by expressing a high level of statistical confidence in AGW when one can have no statistical confidence at all due to the rampant methodological errors.
Phil. says:
September 29, 2013 at 7:02 am
I’m sure that anyone living on ‘Doggerland’ 6,000 years ago would disagree with you about a catastophy!
http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/archaeology/research/projects/title_89282_en.html
Those living around the Black Sea might well agree with them!
Well Phil, thanks for the answer, interesting points, however the Doggerland and Black Sea events happened before the 6000 years ago timescale.
Doggerland was submerged about 8500 years ago until about 7000 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
Also the Black Sea deluge hypothesis is putting it at about 7500 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
My point was that even with the greenhouse gases increasing in the atmosphere, the thawing of the arctic, with all that CO2 and CH4 released, what happened 6000 years ago was not further increase of the temperature but gradual cooling which led to the formation of the Sahara desert:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data6.html
======================================================================
No. There’s been exaggeration at all points.
============================================================================
It seems they are good at proposing taxes based on hot air.
Should be:
“It seems they are only good at proposing taxes based on hot air.”
Unfortunately, in responding to the fallacies, lies and other garbage in the IPCC report, we are unlikely ever to change minds whose first tenet of belief is to ignore anything that differs from or contradicts their own meme. In other words, nobody’s listening to our objections, because their ideology forbids them to.
Lars P. says:
September 29, 2013 at 10:19 am
Phil. says:
September 29, 2013 at 7:02 am
I’m sure that anyone living on ‘Doggerland’ 6,000 years ago would disagree with you about a catastophy!
http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/archaeology/research/projects/title_89282_en.html
Those living around the Black Sea might well agree with them!
Well Phil, thanks for the answer, interesting points, however the Doggerland and Black Sea events happened before the 6000 years ago timescale.
But so did the melting that led to the ‘Ice free Arctic’ and the corresponding sea level rise which I submit did have catastrophic consequences for the inhabitants of those locations.
Doggerland was submerged about 8500 years ago until about 7000 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
Also the Black Sea deluge hypothesis is putting it at about 7500 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
My point was that even with the greenhouse gases increasing in the atmosphere, the thawing of the arctic, with all that CO2 and CH4 released, what happened 6000 years ago was not further increase of the temperature but gradual cooling which led to the formation of the Sahara desert:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data6.html
OK but those aren’t the only possible catastrophes associated with the ice melt as I’ve shown..
The high traffic gadget blog Gizmodo is parroting the IPCC narrative today:
http://gizmodo.com/how-much-global-warming-will-happen-before-you-kick-the-1421324180
“On Friday the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put its collective foot down about global warming. It’s happening and it’s our fault. But as with any issue that affects all of humanity, the most important question is what’s gonna happen to you? Will you have to give up air conditioning? Will the song “White Christmas” become completely irrelevant? Will you have to feel guilty about how your generation is leaving things for your children’s generation? The Guardian has a way for you to check.”
For an over-the-top emotional reaction to the report Eric Holthaus (meteorologist famous for his WSJ coverage of hurricane Sandy) deserves a prize. His Twitter account tells all: … he broke out in tears, vowed to stop flying, is considering having a vasectomy “… happy to go extinct” … …
One of his fans Tweeted a compliment saying that for his brave stand Holthaus has earned the title “weather hawk”. “Weather loon” would be closer to the mark. I recommended he seek therapy from Anthony Watts.
http://www.businessinsider.com/meterologist-eric-holthaus-quits-air-travel-2013-9
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/28/vegetarian-weatherman-so-devastated-by-climate-change-report-that-he-vows-to-never-travel-by-plane-again-but-that-aint-the-half-of-it/
“… the melting that led to the ‘Ice free Arctic’ and the corresponding sea level rise which I submit did have catastrophic consequences for the inhabitants of those locations.”
Oh, don’t be silly. What happened was a small rise in sea level each year. Over an extended time, the population naturally meandered to higher ground. There was no “catastrophe”, except in the deluded minds of catastrophists.
When the alarmist cult tries to falsely make it appear that the ocean suddenly inundated long established villages, causing a “catastrophe”, we know they are grasping at straws. They make it sound like it happened overnight. All of their other arguments have failed completely, too, so now a perfectly natural — and very slow-moving — event [on human time scales] becomes a “catastrophe”. I suppose a grandfather might have told his grandkids’ that the ocean used to come only to here fifty years ago, but now it’s a foot or two higher. But that is hardly a “catastrophe”, and to label it as such is merely self-serving, dishonest propaganda.
That wild-eyed Chicken Little fright story is based entirely on the fear of losing the easy grant loot, and the all expense paid jaunts to exotic locales for ‘climate conferences’, which are nothing but get-togethers to party on someone else’s dime; and the likelihood of getting passed over for the next promotion if someone actually spoke and wrote as a true scientific skeptic.
The fact is that on net balance, an ice-free Arctic is desirable. It would sharply reduce transit times, and thus reduce fuel use. An ice-free Arctic has happened before, naturally, and without “catastrophic” results, and it will happen again — hopefully soon. Human CO2 emissions have nothing measurable to do with Arctic ice. That is a baseless conflation of two unrelated events, an assertion that is made all the time with no empirical evidence or measurements to support that belief. In fact, real world measurements show the opposite to be the case: as CO2 rises, temperatures decline.
The climate alarmist crowd has lost every argument, and they have been wrong on every prediction they have made. In any other field of physical science, such a record would require the purveyors of the CO2=CAGW conjecture to man up and admit that they were completely wrong.
But in climatism, the Scientific Method does not apply. It is completely ignored, as is the Null Hypothesis, Occam’s Razor, and every other scientific precept that gets in the way of the climate cult’s True Belief.
– – – – – – –
Chad Wozniak,
Yeah, true for those who are the intellectually inert part of the activist community. So it is easy to maneuver intellectually around them.
Their intellectual leadership on the other hand, who I think are less likely to be fervent believers and more likely to be pragmatic, will shift to survive and will try to maintain a simple palatable story change narrative for their intellectually inert followers.
Perhaps the skeptical community need only focus intellectually on the activist intellectual leadership in the IPCC Bureau to be most effective in achieving needed balance and openness in the climate discourse.
John
There was a debate today about the IPCC’s report in the (French language) TV in Belgium (“Mise au Point”, Sunday midday debate at RTBF), including the head of the (French) skeptics in Belgium István Marcó (Chemistry), an academic colleague of Van Ypersele, vice president of the IPCC.
To begin with, Van Ypersele refused to debate with Marcó, prabably because he completely lost the debate on an earlier public confrontation, but was intervieuwed before the public debate started. His main reason to refuse any debate with Marcó was the known excuses like flat earthers, tobacco-cancer deniers, etc… Not the first time that Van Ypersele refused any debate and even used all his (political) power behind the scenes to get no skeptic voice heard in newspapers and on universities. He could prevent an open discussion with Fred Singer and Claes Johnson at the Free University of Brussels last year, which had to move to a private place.
Anyway, the debate was quite balanced with pro’s and con’s of both sides. Only the “background” cartoons, texts and pictures were disturbing and largely negative. No wonder as the RTBF normally is worse than the BBC in the UK about AGW… But the journalist who led the debate was quite good and had done his homework: asking thorny questions to both sides.
There were no similar debates in the Flemish part, where the MSM is even more pro-AGW, while the general public is largely skeptic (especially since it costs them more and more money!). Most of the MSM have shut off any reactions of the public, after floods of skeptic reactions on nonsensic AGW articles. Others rigourisly censor reactions, including mine. And there is no skeptic group in Flanders like there is in the French part of Belgium or in The Netherlands, where the skeptics are very active.
Skeptics in the desert – reactions to IPCC SPM.
Today in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, I was interviewed on radio for a reaction to the IPCC SPM release on Friday (Dubai Eye 103.8 – probably the most listened to current affairs radio channel in Dubai).
FWIW, the brief podcast (< 10 mins) is available here.
https://www.wetransfer.com/downloads/7006caf1a9a4ebc519e11e1683944c5520130929181325/e25ec6ec7fc434e0c3894d6b97a36e8620130929181325/91f232
It was the IPCC AR4 summary for policymakers that corrupted the scientific uncertainty of the complete report into sociological certainty that warming is all caused by humans. So waiting to read the proper report when it comes out later.
dbstealey says:
September 29, 2013 at 12:28 pm
“… the melting that led to the ‘Ice free Arctic’ and the corresponding sea level rise which I submit did have catastrophic consequences for the inhabitants of those locations.”
Oh, don’t be silly. What happened was a small rise in sea level each year. Over an extended time, the population naturally meandered to higher ground. There was no “catastrophe”, except in the deluded minds of catastrophists.
So you say, however Ryan and Pitman’s account is of a much faster inundation of the Black sea than that! Also the replacement of a freshwater lake with a saltwater sea has implications for crops etc. The idea that even in the case of a slow rise that the locals could just pick up and go somewhere else is rather simplistic, the neighbors would likely resist the encroachment.
I suppose a grandfather might have told his grandkids’ that the ocean used to come only to here fifty years ago, but now it’s a foot or two higher. But that is hardly a “catastrophe”, and to label it as such is merely self-serving, dishonest propaganda.
That’s not exactly how Noah and Gilgamesh told their stories though is it?
It is the assumption that there were no catastrophic consequences when the Arctic melted last that is baseless.
In case you have not seen this, the following is the National Geographic pathetic belief in AR5 propaganda: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130927-ipcc-report-released-climate-change-global-warming-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/
Phil. says:
“That’s not exactly how Noah and Gilgamesh told their stories though is it?”
See? It’s religion, all the way down. ☺
29 Sept: Japan Times: Process to assess data on climate change is slow, outdated
IPCC report may be ditched
by Richard Ingham and Anthony Lucas
AFP-JIJI
STOCKHOLM – Top U.N. experts have just delivered the first volume of a massive new climate change report, but already whispers are starting to be heard: Will it be the last such review?…
To supporters, these massive “assessment reports” play a vital role in stoking awareness…
Not only do they condense the findings of thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed journals, in a transparent process in which the text is vetted twice over, they also carry the approval of governments…
This dual-track approach, say supporters, yields a fantastic tool for politicians who want to tackle climate change: they can tell the public that the need for reform is clear as the evidence comes from neutral and impartial sources.
Conversely, if politicians prevaricate on climate change, the public can challenge them on facts that they themselves had endorsed…
Jean Jouzel, a French scientist who is vice chairman of the group that issued Friday’s report, said that though the technical text is authored by scientists “it is the adoption of the summary which gives the IPCC its success, and enables it (the summary) to be used by governments.”
But some critics say these mega-reviews spanning thousands of pages belong to the past…
***“The question of whether the exercise is worthwhile is logical,” said a European delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity, adding that “things have changed substantially since the first report” in 1990…
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/09/29/environment/ipcc-report-may-be-ditched/
*** i swear that is all Anonymous says in this article! what does it mean?
——————————————————————————–
Since the SPM was released Friday I’ve put together three in-depth articles analyzing specific aspects of the 36-page SPM itself. The newest:
“IPCC SPM: Bye to Extreme Weather”
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/ipcc-spm-bye-to-extreme-weather/
You may find this and the others interesting. They dig deeper than most articles.
darriulet pierre. Thank you for your post. Certainly humans in the past 100 years have changed the landscape and the lower atmosphere with pollution. Dangerous smogs in London in 1950s, that killed thousands of people. This let to a smoke free zone, and the air became far better, the Thames welcomed dolphins and whales within 10 years. Cutting down large tracks of rain forest, did shift the precipitation patterns not only locally but up to 200 miles away. The cloud cover was higher because there were no trees transpiring. Now they tend not to remove large tracts of trees, leaving the rain forest intact in areas, and this has partly solved the problem. The damming of the Nile at Aswan, ruined the Delta fishing industry for 30 years, increased malaria, and the parasitic snail that killed people, but they invented a vaccine. The fishing industry eventually recovered. And Asswan hydro station and Lake Nasser provide electricity to people that before had non. Look at Beijing, when people had cycles they had no pollution, now they have as they use motor cars. Surface coal fires that are still burning in Indonesia, China and India, cause more pollution than all the trucks and cars in North America.
But the UN has to appear sympathetic to the third world countries, who blame the industrialised countries for their environmental damage.
In 1969 I lived in Bermuda, and when we were flying either over Tahiti or Fiji, I can’t remember the Captain pointed out an atoll that was sinking into the sea. Atolls do sink as they are generally not high above sea level. Bermuda has not sunk and it is also very low too. But it is a large coral island protected by a surrounding reef, and there is only one break to get near the island. Many ships have floundered there, including the first inhabitants who were on their way to Virginia.
As far as the deluge is concerned, after the melting of the ice a land bridge collapsed from the Black sea and flooded with sea water the area around a fresh water lake. Yes, Noah’s soup is still used in celebration in the area. Archaeological evidence is this happened around 6,500 years ago. The volcanic island of Thera, had a massive explosion, around 3,500 BC. Santorini is still surrounding a volcanic active core. It is believed that it killed thousands of people and was 4 times larger than Krackatoa. We’ve all heard of Vesuvius and Pompeii. But the western end of the med off Italy, is sinking too, and evidence shows it was a holiday spot for Julius Caesar and there are sunken villas and statues still evident. So look at history and prehistory then see we are vulnerable as humans from natural forces we can not control. Forget the term climate change, it is the weather that kills us. Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. Sorry to be so long a post, but pollution can be adjusted, but it won’t change the weather.
bushbunny, thank you very much for this reply, I have no comment on it, it is mostly factual; but I am not clear about the relation with my post: I was making the parallel between public attitude to climate and to nuclear; I was expressing my fear that both lead to irrational and emotional irreversible decisions that, at the end, deserve the cause of those (the environmentalists) who have been pushing toward these decisions.
bushbunny, thank you very much for this reply, I have no comment on it, it is mostly factual; but I am not clear about the relation with my post: I was making the parallel between public attitude to climate and to nuclear; I was expressing my fear that both lead to irrational and emotional irreversible decisions that, at the end, deserve the cause of those (the environmentalists) who have been pushing toward these decisions.
Hi darriulat pierre. I really was not relating to your post I am sorry, but it was refreshing to see your argument taking on a new perspective. James Hansen was pushing for nuclear energy for Australia when he visited here several years ago, stating clean or green energy was no good. We could use sea water (rather than land surface water) to cool the reactors. We have no
specialised nuclear reactor technicians in Australia, and only one reactor near Sydney which sterilizes instruments I believe, I went there years ago. But we could invest in solar thermal?
And really the environmentalists or warmists are arguing about irrational scenarios and to me it has strong ideological and political hidden agendas. And possibly financial gain regarding carbon trading, and clean energy projects that do not cut carbon emissions and push up the price of electricity for those who can’t afford to invest in them.
bushbunny, thank you very much for this information. I am neither pro nor anti nuclear but I understand the issue reasonably well; I gave up more than 20 years ago the hope to see rational decisions be taken on nuclear energy. Unfortunately, I was right, it got worse and worse. My motivation in posting in this blog was to probe your views on how hopeful it is to see the situation improve in the climate sector. The similarity with what happened in the nuclear sector, at twenty years distance, impresses me. Do your people share my pessimism (I do not expect all of you to have a unique view of course!) or do some of you see reasons to hope for an improvement; and if yes, along which path?
Kind regards.
Mindert Eiting, right oh. But only 2% of the models predicted a flattening of the global surface temperature curve as loang as from 1997-2012. From this it can be dervied that 95% of the IPCCs scientists are 2% certain that about 50% of the ‘climate change’ from 1951 to 2012 was man made, and can be predicted by the models produced by the IPCC.
As a consequence, by using the multiplication principle, according to 95% of the IPCCs scientists, the IPCC models can predict man made climate change with about 1% certainty. (2% x 50% = 0.02 x 0.50 = 0.01).
.. for the period 1951-2012. I had imagined that the 5th report would have made the IPCC more moderate, but only 1% probability in the very costly computerized models after all these years and all those billions of dollars?
And since the reverse is true also, we have the same probability for the ability of the models to forecast the natural amount of climate change, namely 1%, This leaves us with this statement: 95% of the IPCCs scientists believe that their climate models had a 98% chance of failing to predict climate change, manmade or other, for the period 1951-2012. I hope they will be able to do better in their 6th report…
Summarizing it all we get this:
In the 6th report from the IPCC, published in late September of 2013, 95% of the scientists claimed that their own climate models had a 1% chance of predicting man-made climate change, a 1% chance of predicting natural cimate change, and a 98% chance of failing to predict climate change, man-made or other, for the period 1951-2012.
That about sums it all up folks.
Sorry. I’ll take that once more…
In the 5th report from the IPCC, published in late September of 2013, 95% of the scientists claimed that their own climate models had a 1% chance of predicting man-made climate change, a 1% chance of predicting natural climate change, and a 98% chance of failing to predict climate change, man-made or other, for the period 1951-2012.
Since these are the probabilities for PAST climate evens, and according to the IPCCs own scientists, how likely is it that the IPCCs models for future climate change, be it for the next 10 or 100 years, actually can predict climate?
Dr. Mann is at it as usual, apparently.
The evidence of the Black Sea inundation is, if I recall correctly, that the water was rising something in the range of 15 cms. per day.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm
Ladies and Gentlemen;
With 95% certainty, the following Conclusions will be the 97% consensus view of competent climate scientists a decade from now.*
Regards to all, Allan 🙂
Abstract/Conclusions:
The evidence from the modern data record AND the ice core record indicates that atmospheric CO2 does not primarily drive Earth’s temperature, and temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2. This does not preclude the Mass Balance Argument being correct, but its relevance to the “environmental catastrophe debate” (catastrophic global warming, etc.) is moot, because increased atmospheric CO2 has NO significant impact on temperature, and is beneficial to both plant and animal life. Claims that increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever source, causes dangerous runaway global warming, wilder weather, increased ocean acidification, and other such alarmist claims are NOT supported by the evidence.
The climate models cited by the IPCC fail because, at a minimum, these models employ a highly exaggerated estimate of climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2. In fact, since Earth’s temperature drives atmospheric CO2 rather than the reverse, which is assumed by the IPCC-cited climate models, these models cannot function correctly. The IPCC-cited climate models also grossly under-estimate the magnitude of natural climate variation.
_______________________________________
Hypothesis:
My January 2008 paper was published at
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
My hypothesis was stated as follows:
“The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data. In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. This UPDATED paper and Excel spreadsheet show that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months. The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming – in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false.
There is strong correlation among three parameters: Surface Temperature (“ST”), Lower Troposphere Temperature (“LT”) and the rate of change with time of atmospheric CO2 (“dCO2/dt”). For the time period of this analysis, variations in ST lead (occur before) variations in both LT and dCO2/dt, by ~1 month. The integral of dCO2/dt is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (“CO2”).”
The paper was published in January 2008 at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
My initial data and analyses were included at the time of publication in January 2008 in Excel at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls
The original critique of my paper occurred in February 2008 at
http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/12/data-smoothing-and-spurious-correlation/
The critique was generally erroneous, but was a necessary and worthwhile process. My thanks to all involved.
My hypothesis was initially rejected, but two factors apparently changed that conclusion.
Statistician William Briggs conducted an independent analysis of my hypo that was generally supportive of my conclusion.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=122
Then it became known that Pieter Tans, unknown to me until months later, had delivered a paper on November 28, 2007 that came to the same conclusion regarding dCO2/dt correlating with temperature. Tans’ slides, which were apparently posted months later, are at
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
Tans’ conclusion on slide 23/23, with which I have no major objection, was:
“2/3 of the interannual variance of the CO2 growth rate is explained by the delayed response of the terrestrial biosphere to interannual variations of temperature and precipitation.”
Tans also concluded on slide 10/23:
“The observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since pre-industrial times is entirely due to human activities.”
This is the “Mass Balance Argument” that has been ably debated, particularly by Ferdinand Engelbeen and Richard Courtney, and may be correct or incorrect.
Suddenly there was a collapse of opposition to my observation that dCO2/dt correlated with T – someone in authority had said so too.
But then if CO2 lagged temperature, how could CO2 drive temperature? Faced with this dilemma, some quickly dismissed this “CO2 lags temperature” observation, calling it a “feedback effect”. This is a Cargo Cult argument, based on the false religious assumption “We KNOW that CO2 drives temperature; therefore it MUST BE a feedback effect.” Then the subject went into limbo until Murry Salby raised it again circa 2011.
Atmospheric CO2 also lags Earth’s temperature by ~800 years in the ice core record, on a much longer time scale.
Atmospheric CO2 lags Earth’s temperature at all measured time scales.
For the record:
I suggest that climate science is poorly defined, and the science has regressed due to the “Great Leap Backward” of CO2 hysteria in recent decades – the attribution of too many alleged and false crises to increased atmospheric CO2.
I have limited confidence in the absolute accuracy of the surface temperature record, which appears to have a significant warming bias. I suggest the satellite temperature record, in existence since 1979, is much more accurate that the surface temperature record.
I suggest that atmospheric CO2 measurements are reasonably accurate since 1958, and relatively but not absolutely accurate before then.
My primary concern at this point is the probability of imminent global cooling, which may or may not be severe. In the longer term over thousands of years, catastrophic natural global cooling is inevitable. I suggest that the primary focus of climate science should not be alleged humanmade global warming and its mitigation; rather it should primarily focus on natural global cooling and its mitigation.
We wrote more than a decade ago:
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
– Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson, Allan M.R. MacRae, P.Eng. (PEGG, November 2002)
Respectfully submitted, Allan MacRae
September 30, 2013
When I was in college in the 90s and I would have told one of my professors that I was 95% certain that my course of treatment would help the patient…
They’d have thrown me out of the building, most likely via the window.
This isn’t science. This isn’t even reading tea leaves anymore. This is a joke. A very sick joke, as the whole “saving the planet” hysteria is endangering billions of people (who are, strangely enough, predominantly not white…….)
Allan MacRae says:
September 30, 2013 at 7:17 am
But then if CO2 lagged temperature, how could CO2 drive temperature?
There is no reason to dismiss that both can happen at the same time, if both are modest drivers of each other: as long as the fortifying factor over both is less than unity, there is no runaway effect. See what happens with a simulation of an increase of temperature and a delayed response of CO2 increase (nofb) + a small influence of CO2 (fb) on temperature:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/feedback.jpg
All what happens is that CO2 and temperature end somewhat higher with a mutual feedback.
Suddenly there was a collapse of opposition to my observation that dCO2/dt correlated with T
I don’t think that anybody ever objected to that (except that dT/dt also fits the correlation). But from that fact jumping to the conclusion that the slope of the dCO2/dt trend also is caused by T is a step too far. With such an assumption some attribute the whole increase in dCO2/dt (factor 3 in the past 50 years!) to temperature only, while dCO2/dt is the result of all factors involved: human emissions as good as temperature.
I have sent a more detailed essay on that point to Anthony, if fit for publication, maybe in a calmer period, we can discuss that out…
Phil. says:
September 29, 2013 at 11:52 am
But so did the melting that led to the ‘Ice free Arctic’ and the corresponding sea level rise which I submit did have catastrophic consequences for the inhabitants of those locations.
Phil, this does not change anything to the fact that it was warmer 6000 years ago and the thawing of the arctic did not led to any catastrophy.
Important to note is that the warming that you talk about before the 6000 years ago timescale, was not due to greenhouse gases but due to other causes, and the variances in greenhouse gases resulted at the arctic thawing have done nothing or nothing measurable.
OK but those aren’t the only possible catastrophes associated with the ice melt as I’ve shown..
Not sure to what other possible catastrophies do you point to? I do not find any other reference under the name Phil in the thread?
– – – – – – –
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
Over the years your commentary primarily focused on the dynamics of the Earth-Atmosphere System’s (EAS) carbon cycle has been prolific.
I really would like to see an essay that integrates what you have been saying updated to current research.
One point I would like to see in your essay is an explicit statement by you on whether your views on the EAS’s carbon cycle contain any significant disagreement with past IPCC ARs or with the current AR5 assessment / treatment of the topic.
Disclaimer => Yes, I have been consistently skeptical over the years of many of your comments, but I am very respectful and admire your benevolent style of civil discourse.
John
This may be impertinent, but in a vestige of the Gore Effect (the state of Washington once being named “the soviet of Washington”), we in the Puget Sound are being subjected to unseasonably early, cold, and intense rains more typical of November than September. Ain’t nobody here worried about global warming, man-made or otherwise.
This is just like climategate. They’ll crawl under a rock for a while, then come out like nothing happened with the usual stuff.
Lars P. says:
September 30, 2013 at 11:13 am
Phil. says:
September 29, 2013 at 11:52 am
But so did the melting that led to the ‘Ice free Arctic’ and the corresponding sea level rise which I submit did have catastrophic consequences for the inhabitants of those locations.”
Phil, this does not change anything to the fact that it was warmer 6000 years ago and the thawing of the arctic did not led to any catastrophy
.Well if you don’t consider the inundation of Doggerland and the Black Sea as catastrophic for the inhabitants back then I beg to differ. Note that we have oral and written accounts which certainly regard it as catastrophic (e.g. the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh).
Important to note is that the warming that you talk about before the 6000 years ago timescale, was not due to greenhouse gases but due to other causes, and the variances in greenhouse gases resulted at the arctic thawing have done nothing or nothing measurable.
Why is the cause important? The point is that the result of such a warming can be catastrophic. Also the feedback of growing CO2 as a result of Milankovic changes would lead to enhanced warming over what would be expected from orbital change alone.
“OK but those aren’t the only possible catastrophes associated with the ice melt as I’ve shown..”
Not sure to what other possible catastrophies do you point to? I do not find any other reference under the name Phil in the thread?
That was in response to your comment that all that happened was the formation of the Sahara as I recall.
John Whitman says:
September 30, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Thanks for the compliment…
My new essay is an addition to the “mass balance” argument, which was challenged by Bart and Salby. There is a pure theoretical possibility that a parallel increase of the natural circulation with the increase of human emissions is the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. But that implies that the natural increase in CO2 exchange rates exactly mimics the human emissions over time. But that violates about all known observations like residence time, d13C ratio, etc…
I haven’t read the latest IPCC report on the carbon cycle, so I hope that there are new developments. The previous estimates were more like “best guesses” with wide error margins…
What is the betting that the “reported” numbers show an increase in land surface temperatures the next few years – whilst we suffer with poor summers and snow in the winters…
beegdawg007 asks: Why is the LOSU not summarized in the Summary Section for Policy Makers? This is clearly an intentional omission since the LOSU is: 1. Critical for all who would like to understand how mature or immature this science of man mad global warming really is. 2. The LOSU for each key forcing category can be summarised in a very few pages – in fact, the past reports used only one table to summarize this information, so to excuse this omission as having been the result of attempting to shorten the executive summary report, simply does not make any sense. I believe this key information was omitted from the executive summary report simply to keep this key information from the eyes of policy makers.,
FYI.. LOSU stands for Level of Scientific Understanding!
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: September 30, 2013 at 11:04 am
Hello Ferdinand,
Some may think we are arguing here, but in fact I agree with your post and I suspect that if you read mine carefully you will agree with it too – our only point of difference is that I am theoretically ~neutral on the “Mass Balance Argument” that you strongly favour. However, while I think the Mass Balance Argument is scientifically very important, I do not think it is essential to resolving the question of whether increased atmospheric CO2 is causing dangerous global warming (to be clear, increased atmospheric CO2 is NOT causing dangerous global warming).
There are many observations that support my position – the Medieval Warm Period, global cooling from ~1940 to ~1975, the current halt in global warming, etc.
However, let us assume for today that the Mass Balance Argument IS correct, and also that increased atmospheric CO2 DOES cause some global warming, as follows:
1. Human activities are (assumed to be according to the Mass Balance Argument) the primary cause of observed increases in atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958.
2. Naturally-caused global warming causes increases in global biological activity and also causes exsolution of CO2 from the oceans, both of which can cause increases in atmospheric CO2.
3. Increased atmospheric CO2 (as assumed per greenhouse gas theory) causes some modest warming.
4. The only signal apparent in the modern data record is that dCO2/dt changes very soon after temperature and CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months.
5. Since point 4 is true, therefore the NET effect of points 2 and 3 is that the effect of point 2 is greater than the effect of point 3.
Repeating from my post of September 30, 2013 at 7:17 am:
“The evidence from the modern data record AND the ice core record indicates that atmospheric CO2 does not primarily drive Earth’s temperature, and temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2. This does not preclude the Mass Balance Argument being correct…”.
Please note: “This does not preclude the Mass Balance Argument being correct…”
I suggest that IF the Mass Balance Argument is CORRECT, then point 2 and point 3 ride atop rising CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels (point 1) and point 2 (temperature drives CO2) is greater than and dominant over point 3 (CO2 drives temperature).
On the other hand, IF the Mass Balance Argument is INCORRECT, then point 2 and point 3 ride atop rising CO2 from some other source (humanmade, natural or both) and point 2 (temperature drives CO2) is STILL greater than and dominant over point 3 (CO2 drives temperature).
Got to run – hope this is clear.
Best personal regards, Allan
Phil. says:
September 30, 2013 at 1:34 pm
.Well if you don’t consider the inundation of Doggerland and the Black Sea as catastrophic for the inhabitants back then I beg to differ. Note that we have oral and written accounts which certainly regard it as catastrophic (e.g. the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh).
….
Why is the cause important? The point is that the result of such a warming can be catastrophic. Also the feedback of growing CO2 as a result of Milankovic changes would lead to enhanced warming over what would be expected from orbital change alone.
Facts: 6000 years ago the Milankovich cycle ensured a warmer Earth. The temperature was warmer then today, the Arctic had less ice then today
CO2 was release by the oceans, CH4 was released by the thawing permafrost.
The result was not further warming, but cooling .
Why? My explanation is that there were other factors more important then the greenhouse gases that caused the cooling. Yours?
And we know, due to the cooling the Sahara desert formed – as posted above.
If the climate would get now as warm as it was 6000 years ago the first result that we would see would be the greening of the Sahara. Hallelujah.
The rising of the sea is happening at mm levels per year, there is need of very special measurements to be able to measure it. It compares to the tectonic plate movements.
It is difficult to distinguish at all a rise:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/681_high.png
Tide gauges give you thousands of locations to look at. In locations you will see sea level sinking due to the slow rising of the land. In other locations sea level rising due to the slow sinking of the land.
Even for the Maldives, there are other problems to tackle before the sea level rise which is indistinguishable:
http://www.marklynas.org/2012/04/where-sea-level-rise-isnt-what-it-seems/
There is no potential for catastrophic melting and deluge a la Gilgamesh, there are no more close basins to be flooded like the Black Sea.
The climate is no longer warming since decades, obviously as the sensitivity to the greenhouse gases has been wrongly assumed to be high, and it is not there. It is not warming. Yes, please note: It is not warming.
6000 years ago the big catastrophe was not further mild warming that should have been created by the greenhouse gases. The catastrophe was Sahara. The cooling that led to it.
And it happened despite the greenhouse gases.
Now you may continue with the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible, (nothing against these, I read both long ago, interesting lecture indeed), but you need to bring some valid arguments if you want to have a credible hypothesis, where and what could cause such. There is no potential for any mythic flood, Phil.
No deluge as mentioned in the Bible was not world wide, but definitely at the end of the last ice age, land bridges between PNG and North Australia, continental Europe and UK, Scotland and Ireland, the Bering and Bass Straits, the Black sea and Argean sea, broke. Sea levels rose, the Mediterranean was part swamp and small lakes, so we have what we have today. The low countries particularly Holland, were endangered from encroaching North Sea, and they built the Zieder Zea, that was in the 1940s. But they are low countries. Great Storms flooded parts of England in the 50s, and they built those great anti flood barriers in the Thames. But the worst tragedies to date are the big volcanic eruptions that caused tidal waves, earthquakes, and even the ancient Chinese mention seven years of drought and freezing weather in summer caused by a volcanic eruption and nuclear winter. Nothing about warming that seems to have benefited man kind or rather PC human kind. The meteor blast over Russia and the Mt.Helena eruption in Washington State. It is known after a bad and violent eruption it reduces sunlight sometimes for many years in parts of the globe. And the Toba eruption 70,000 years ago, that some say wiped out human kind in the region. Accept on the island of Flores, where the small genus ‘The Hobbit’ lived until 18,000 years ago. Now we have the IPCC saying human kind will be wiped out because of a .2C increase in temperature. Sea rises. Well the sea doesn’t rise much depending on the moon and Ebb tides, it has reached its maximum. Atolls sink. Always have. But interestingly Northern Australia was not always Monsoonal, only when the seas rose after the last ice age flooded some land bridges. But the Aborigines adapted well, and survived. Bangledesh, well it depends on its annual floods too, because it is below sea level in parts. So those who believe the 2012 Mayan calender depicts catastrophe well what about the 2000 year bug. People will pray on people’s fears, and not is all good in the world, but most famines are caused by people fleeing political unrest and are displaced from their farmlands. Well – the IPCC is playing its part now and is slowly backing down.
Allan MacRae says:
September 30, 2013 at 3:15 pm
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: September 30, 2013 at 11:04 am
Hello Ferdinand,
Some may think we are arguing here, but in fact I agree with your post and I suspect that if you read mine carefully you will agree with it too – our only point of difference is that I am theoretically ~neutral on the “Mass Balance Argument” that you strongly favour. However, while I think the Mass Balance Argument is scientifically very important,
The Mass Balance principle isn’t up for debate, it’s fundamental. For any component of the atmosphere a mass balance equation can be written:
dx/dt= ∑Sources – ∑Sinks
However, let us assume for today that the Mass Balance Argument IS correct, and also that increased atmospheric CO2 DOES cause some global warming, as follows:
1. Human activities are (assumed to be according to the Mass Balance Argument) the primary cause of observed increases in atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958.
It’s not an assumption, it follows from the balance equation and the numerical values for the sources and sinks.
Phil. says: September 30, 2013 at 9:30 pm
“The Mass Balance principle isn’t up for debate, it’s fundamental.”
Phil, you are actually off-topic. We are discussing the “Mass Balance Argument”, not the Mass Balance principle.
However, thank you because you have caused me to improve its definition in my Point 1, as follows:
“1. Humanity’s combustion of fossil fuels are (assumed to be according to the Mass Balance Argument) the primary cause of observed increases in atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958.
If you have not followed the reasoned arguments regarding the Mass Balance Argument between Richard Courtney and Ferdinand Engelbeen on wattsup and elsewhere (ClimateAudit?) then you can Google them. Richard is neutral whereas Ferdinand is in favour of the Mass Balance Argument.
I will not repeat these arguments here as they are best expressed in their original form.
Phil.:
I agree with Allan MacRae that the ‘mass balance argument’ has been well-rehearsed on WUWT so you can use the Search facility to find it (as a start try searching threads on Salby). Another reprise of that debate here would side-track this thread.
I write in hope of helping your understanding of the issues you find in your search.
At September 30, 2013 at 9:30 pm you correctly write
OK. Now think about the quantification of the “numerical values for the sources and sinks”. Almost all the pertinent data is not adequately quantified: most is not quantified at all. So, by assuming values anyone can get any result depending on the used assumptions. Advocates of the ‘mass balance argument’ often provide a circular argument based on the assumption that the net effect of sources and sinks would be zero in absence of the anthropogenic emission, then they use that assumption to determine that the anthropogenic emission is the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. In other words, they use the assumption of an anthropogenic cause to demonstrate itself.
Please note that I do not know if the anthropogenic emission of CO2 is or is not the cause in part or in whole of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. But I want to know. Perhaps your studies of the subject – as suggested by Allan MacRae – will enable you to tell me what I want to know.
Richard
BBC Radio 4, Tuesday 1st October 2013 at 15:30 BST
( or in other words 2013-10-01T14:30:00Z )
Costing the Earth 5/11:
“Tom Heap analyses the latest findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, investigating what has changed since the scientific (sic) body’s last report in 2007.”
A real opportunity for the BBC to demonstrate impartiality for 30 minutes. I’m holding my breath…
====
I can let my breath out now – it was completely one-sided.
The “panel of top scientists” included Professor Julia Slingo, Sir Mark Walport, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Professor Mike Hulme, Mark Lynas, and Tony Grayling. They ALL swallowed the IPCC creed and the only debate was about tiny details and what we must all do to avert disaster.
Not a single skeptic was heard. It even ended with a bathetic “Won’t somebody please think of the children?!” appeal.