Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

The Week That Was: 2013-09-28 (September 28, 2013) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project


Quote of the Week: If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest. Anonymous [H/t Tim Ball]


Number of the Week: 0.065ºC



By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

IPCC: On Friday, the IPCC released its Summary for Policymakers. The report was not yet complete, it referenced graphs that were not presented and will have to be inserted. Therefore, a side-by-side comparison of the NIPCC and the IPCC reports is premature. However, there are some disturbing omissions. As Roy Spencer points out, estimates of the sensitivity of the climate to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are missing. Yet, this is the entire political issue. Is the climate sensitive to human emissions of CO2 or not? Does an increase in the molecules of CO2 from 3 to 4 per 10,000 parts of air make a difference in climate?

Further, the report glosses over the fact that there has been no statistically significant rise in surface temperatures for over 16 years. Instead, it asserts a greater certainty in its work than prior reports. It reduced the uncertainty from 10% to 5%, with no empirical basis.

Richard Lindzen writes “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.”

Prior to issuance of the approved report, Steve McIntyre presented an overview on how the IPCC put itself in a mess, rather than properly addressing the hiatus in warming and the associated discrepancy between model projections and observations. He writes: “One cannot help but wonder whether WG1 [the physical science section] Chair Thomas Stocker might not have served the policy community better by spending more time ensuring that the discrepancy between models and observations was properly addressed in the IPCC draft reports, perhaps even highlighting research problems while there was time in the process, than figuring out how IPCC could evade FOI [Freedom of Information] requests.

The purpose of a physical science is to describe nature, and to understand how it works. It is becoming increasingly evident that IPCC science does not describe nature. Yet, the IPCC intensifies its certainty in its work? For these and other comments see Climategate Continued, IPCC Report, and http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf


NIPCC: The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was established analyze peer reviewed research on climate change and report the findings as objectively as possible. The latest reports, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science and the Summary for Policymakers are available on the web and the full Physical Science report being printed. They are formatted to match as closely as possible the formatting of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to allow policymakers to make side-by-side comparisons of the reports.

One of the great shortcomings of the IPCC is that it was not set-up to evaluate all the influences on climate, both natural and human. Instead, it was set-up to evaluate only the human influences. This shortcoming should be emphasized in the IPCC reports. However, it is often glossed over.

Often, when exploring business opportunities or new products, private corporations will form two research teams to pursue alternative approaches, say the green team and the red team. The corporations will staff both teams with highly qualified people and give both equal levels of funding. One can think of the IPCC as the green team and the NIPCC as the red team. However, funding levels are vastly different. According to published reports by the US government, the total Federal funding of climate change activities is greater than $150 Billion since Fiscal Year 1993. The small funding of NIPCC is from private contributors who have no influence on the product. The NIPCC reports can be found at: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/


Support EPA? Although a side-by-side comparison of the two summaries will be presented later, one can examine how the two reports support the EPA’s finding that human greenhouse gas emissions, principally CO2, endanger public health and welfare. When announcing its finding on December 7, 2009, the EPA stated that the finding was based on three lines of scientific evidence, which followed the 2007 IPCC report and US government reports:

1. There is a distinct human fingerprint, “hot spot,” of a pronounced warming trend centered about 10 km (33,000 feet) above the tropics. EPA claims this to be the physical evidence that supports the theory than CO2 emissions are causing significant global warming.

2. Indirect evidence – the late 20th century warming was unusual – unprecedented and dangerous.

3. Climate models are reliable for policy analysis. All these models forecast significant future warming.

Based on the EPA’s finding, government agencies have undertaken calculating the future social costs of carbon dioxide emissions, are attempting to control land use by claiming future floods and dramatic sea level rise, and the EPA announced drastic measures for controlling construction of new power plants, which will effectively prohibit the construction of coal-fired power plants without very expensive, untested technology. Thus, it is important to investigate how solid is the EPA science in light of new, comprehensive, scientific reports on climate change.

1. Hot Spot:

IPCC: The IPCC summary does not discuss the “hot spot”, though it discusses atmospheric temperatures. This is a sharp departure from the 2007 report that discussed the hot spot.

NIPCC: The NIPCC summary specifically rejects the “hot spot” because no one can find it. “Observations from both weather balloon radiosonders and satellite MSU sensors show the opposite, with either flat or decreasing warming trends with increasing height in the atmosphere.” (p.7)

2. 20th Century Warming Was Unusual:

IPCC: The last 30 years is “likely to be the warmest 30-year period in Northern Hemisphere in 1400 years (medium confidence) (SPM-3). However, it also states: “Continental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multidecadal periods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur as coherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century (high confidence). {5.5} (SPM-4)” [The late 20th century global warming was not that unusual and largely confined to the Northern Hemisphere.]

NIPCC: “The glaciological and recent geological records contain numerous examples of ancient temperatures up to 3ºC [about 6ºF], or more, warmer than the peak reported at the end of the twentieth century.” (p.8)

3. Climate Models Are Reliable:

IPCC: “The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012). {9.4, Box 9.2}” (SPM-10)

NIPCC: “Climate models project an atmospheric warming of at least 0.3 ºC over the past 15 years; in fact, temperature stasis or slight cooling has occurred.” (p.9)

We conclude that current generation of GCMs [Global Climate Models] are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100 year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value.” (p.7) [boldface in original]


The IPCC Summary fails to support the critical physical evidence the EPA claimed. It weakly supports the other two lines of evidence, ignoring the fact that surface temperatures have not increased in 16 years. The NIPCC Summary rejects all three lines of evidence the EPA offered.

It is sufficient to say that the EPA endangerment finding was premature, at best. At worst, it is completely wrong. The links to the two reports are provide above.


MET Model: Independent scientist Nicolas Lewis and Andrew Montford are questioning a possible strong bias in the global climate model use by the UK MET Office. As described by the IPCC, in the climate models the warming influence of CO2 is off-set, in part, by aerosols, minute particles in the atmosphere, such as sulfur dioxide. Among other things, aerosols promote the formation of clouds. Climate alarmists claim that the failure of the atmosphere to warm with increasing CO2 is due to increases in aerosols. Thus, high climate sensitivity to CO2 is offset by high climate sensitivity to aerosols.

Nicolas Lewis examined the procedures used in running the MET models and concluded that the process does not permit the possibility of a low climate sensitivity to both CO2 and aerosols. The MET office has been alerted about the issue and is under review. If correct, then MET model and procedure have a significant built-in warming bias, which may apply to other climate models as well. Certainly, when comparing runs to observations for the tropics, the climate models greatly overestimate the warming. Please see links under Model Issues


EPA: In Forbes, Larry Bell discusses the recent testimony of EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy before the US House Energy Committee. Repeatedly, she was asked about the 26 objective indicators EPA has on its web site for tracking climate change and how the new regulations on new coal-fired will affect these indicators. She evaded the questions and did not identify any discernible health and welfare benefits from the new regulations. Bell concludes: “the apparent goal of the EPA’s current and proposed greenhouse gas regulations is to persuade the international community, particularly China, India, and other developing nations, to follow the Obama administration’s U.S. leadership over an economic precipice.” See link under EPA and other Regulators on the March


Secret Science: In Forbes, Geoffrey Kabat discusses EPA’s evasion of a House committee subpoena to produce data justifying EPA regulation of minute air particles (PM2.5, 2.5 micrometers). These regulations are based on two studies, the Harvard Six Cities Study (HSCS) and the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II). Citing confidentiality, and other reasons, the EPA has refused to publish or allow public review of these studies. A separate study by Stanley Young and Jesse Xia of the National Institute for Statistical Sciences calls into question the validity of the two secret studies. There is no justification for basing regulations on secret studies, but such is science at the EPA. See links under EPA and other Regulators on the March


Fred Singer: Although he is traveling in Europe promoting the new NIPCC report, two articles appeared featuring SEPP Chairman S. Fred Singer. One is by him on Washington’s war on coal and the absurdity it involves. The second is an interview of him by Larry Bell on simplistic notions behind the claims of unprecedented sea level rise. See Articles # 1 and #2.


Heat Engine: Five-time IPCC expert reviewer has a basic tutorial on the climate system as a heat engine. Energy input is mainly short wave radiation from the sun. Energy output is mainly long wave radiation from every surface on the earth and from every level in the atmosphere, including clouds and aerosols. See link under Challenging the Orthodoxy.


Number of the Week: 0.065ºC. In an amusing display of mathematics, Luboš Motl calculates that if the atmospheric warming is hiding in the ocean in the layer between 0 to 2000 meters (0-6560 feet), then it would have increased temperatures by 0.065ºC (0.12 ºF) since the 1960s. He reports that the Argo web site has an estimate of 0.06 ºC since the 1960s, assuming the instruments can measure that precisely.

Commenting on the calculations, Judith Curry asks: “So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land? Or is sequestering heat in the ocean a fortuitous ‘solution’ to the global (surface) warming problem?” See links under Changing Seas.



For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.

1. Report from the ‘War on Coal’

By S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Sep 23, 2013


2. Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims

By Larry Bell, Forbes, Sep 24, 2013


3. Banning Demon Coal

The EPA wants to eliminate this major source of U.S. electric power.

Editorial, WSJ, Sep 24, 2013


4. It’s a Cooked Book

Global warmism and the antiscientific method.

By James Taranto, WSJ, Sep 24, 2013




Climategate Continued

Two Minutes to Midnight

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Sep 24, 2013


Suppressing Scientific Inquiry

Why We’re Shutting Off Our Comments

Starting today, PopularScience.com will no longer accept comments on new articles. Here’s why.

By Suzanne LaBarre, Popular Science, Sep 24, 2013 [H/t WUWT]


NIPCC Report

Heartland Institute climate change panel reveals science the UN suppresses

By Ron Arnold, Washington Examiner, Sep 27, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Independent scientists would have been a more correct headline.]

Back at Ya, IPCC: ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science’ (Part II)

By Paul Driessen, Master Resource, Sep 24, 2013


IPCC Report

IPCC: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity!”

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Sep 27, 2013


MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report:

By Marc Morano, Climate Depot, Sep 28, 2013


New IPCC Climate Report Already Obsolete

By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger, WUWT, Sep 27, 2013


Thoughts on the SPM

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Sep 27, 2013


Band-aids Can’t Fix the New IPCC Report

By Patrick Michaels and Paul Knappenberger, CATO, Sep 27, 2013


Reactions to IPCC AR5 Summary for Policy Makers

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 27, 2013


AR5 press cuttings

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Sep 27, 2013


Climate panel set to reiterate bleakest of messages

Greenhouse gas emissions steaming ahead at 3 per cent a year

By John Gibbons, Irish Times, Sep 23, 2013 [H/t WUWT]


The Climate-Change Circus

The IPCC’s fifth assessment report is another politico-scientific document.

By Rupert Darwall, National Review Online, Sep 22, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Challenging the Orthodoxy

The Real Climate

By Vincent Gray, SPPI, Sep 25, 2013


ENSO and PDO Explain Tropical Average SSTs during 1950-2013

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Sep 26, 2013


The IPCC’s belief that nature keeps the climate system energy-stabilized to better than 1 part in 1,000 is a matter of faith, not of physical “first principles”.

On Changing ENSO Conditions: The View from SSM/I

By Roy Spencer, His Blog, Sep 24, 2013


Why the IPCC should never be taken seriously

By Des Moore, Quadrant, Sep 28, 2013


When bad news is good

By Rud Istvan, Climate Etc. Sep 24, 2013


Warming Plateau? Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth

Data shows global temperatures aren’t rising the way climate scientists have predicted. Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faces a problem: publicize these findings and encourage skeptics — or hush up the figures.

By Axel Bojanowski, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter, Spiegel, Sep 23, 2013 [H/t GWPF]

Trans: Ella Ornstein


17 Year Warming Hiatus Causes Panic Cover Up. IPCC Duplicity Continues

By Tim Ball, A Different Perspective, Sep 22, 2013


Research by a bureaucrat is almost guaranteed to be political, nowhere is that more evident than in the IPCC failures. It is exposed by the ugly fact that destroyed their hypothesis.

The Obama administration’s unscientific war on carbon

By H. Leighton Stewart, Daily Caller, Sep 24, 2013


Defending the Orthodoxy

German Daily Die Welt: “Bureaucrats Refuse To Give Up Climate Catastrophe”…”Warming Much Less Than Expected”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Sep 26, 2013


IPCC AR5 WG1: preemptive indoctrination

Alarmist journalists already know how everyone will react and should react to an unknown report

By Luboš Motl, Reference Frame, Sep 22, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Exposing the IPCC leaks to media it considers friendly.]

Time to Act on Climate Change

By Gina McCarthy, Huffington Post, Sep 20, 2013


We know that carbon pollution is the most prevalent heat-trapping greenhouse gas, warming our planet and fueling climate change.

[SEPP Comment: By far, water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.]

By Anne M Stark for LLNL News, Livermore CA (SPX), Sep 25, 2013


Access: The “leaked” IPCC AR5 draft Summary for Policymakers

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 23, 2013


Don’t sweat fickleness, it’s sun’s fault or something in the water

Graham Lloyd, Australian, Sep 21, 2013 [H/t Stefan Björklund]


Climate sceptics claim warming pause backs their view

By Matt McGrath, BBC, Sep 25, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Global Warming Slowdown Hinders Climate Treaty Effort

By Alex Morales, Bloomberg, Sep 23, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Why have a treaty?]

Hardly any experts doubt human-caused climate change

By John Cook, Australian, Sep 21, 2013 [H/t Stefan Björklund]


Reforms urged to make UN climate reports shorter, more focused

By Alister Doyle, Reuters, Sep 24, 2013 [H/t Clyde Spencer]


[SEPP Comment: Typical propaganda photo of invisible carbon dioxide darkening the skies.]

We need to cool things down over climate change

It is surely past time to take matters out of the hands of the zealots – on both sides

Editorial, Telegraph, UK, Sep 26, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Questioning the Orthodoxy

The Climate-Industrial Complex

By Norman Rogers, American Thinker, Sep 27, 2013


Obama & Allies Tell UN to Cover for Lack of Global Warming

By Alex Newman, ICECAP, Sep 24, 2013


What was the IPCC AR4 Most Certain About?

By Roger Pielke Jr, His Blog, Sep 23, 2013


[SEPP Comment: A review of “certainty” in the last report.]

Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, Sep 21, 2013


Time for some realism – but IPCC takes baby steps and in the end fails

By Staff Writer, ICECAP, Sep 27, 2013


Desperate times in climate alarmism

By Paul Driessen, WUWT, Sep 26, 2013


The IPCC Political-Suicide Pill

Politicians who legislate based on the IPCC’s increasingly flawed findings lose their jobs.

By Patrick Michaels, National Review, Sep 26, 2013 [H/t Cooler Heads]


Time to end the climate of fear

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun, Sep 27, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Problems in the Orthodoxy

Hans von Storch On Warming Pause: “…Fellow Scientists Are Very Hard-Pressed For An Explanation”

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Sep 24, 2013


[SEPP Comment: An account of a German radio broadcast including Hans von Storch, who is concerned about the failure of the globe to warm, and Environmental Minister Harry Lehmann, who produced a booklet pillorying skeptics.]

Seeking a Common Ground

Time for some realism

By Martin Livermore, Scientific Alliance, Sep 27, 2013


Climatology’s great dilemma

By Andrew Montford, The Spectator, Sep 23, 2013


Five critical questions for the IPCC

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Sep 24, 2013


Pause for Thought

By David Whitehouse, GWPF, Sep 23, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Exposing the inventing of excuses. If the current pause in temperature increases is caused by cyclical changes in natural influences, then would not similar cyclical changes have caused the late 20th century warming? The real failure in communication by the climate alarmists and the general press is the failure to address the lack of warming as it was becoming evident.]

Climate’s big PR problem

By Margaret Wente, Global and Mail, Sep 24, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


BREAKING! IPCC responds – Josh 239

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Sep 26, 2013


[SEPP Comment: A bit of humor emphasizing logical fallacies!]

Lowering Standards

95% (?)

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Sep 27, 2013


The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades’ worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

[SEPP Comment: The once prestigious National Academy of Sciences.]

National Geographic rising sea level prophecy – cause for concern or absurd fairytale?

By Don Easterbrook, WUWT, Sep 25, 2013


Expanding the Orthodoxy

State Should Further Improve Its Reporting on Financial Support to Developing Countries to Meet Future Requirements and Guidelines

By Staff Writers, GAO, Sep 19, 2013 [H/t Timothy Wise]


Link to full report: Climate Change: State Should Further Improve Its Reporting on Financial Support to Developing Countries to Meet Future Requirements and Guidelines

By Staff Writers, GAO, Sep 2013


[SEPP Comment: Total funding from FY 2010 to FY 2012 is $7.457 Billion. 80% ($6.1 Billion) for mitigation activities and 20% ($1.4 Billion) for adaptation activities. Keep spending even though global warming has stopped!]

UN plans summit next year to boost odds of 2015 climate pact

By Ben Geman, The Hill, Sep 24, 2013


Questioning European Green

The Crisis in UK Energy Policy has Arrived

By Peter Atherton and Mulu Sun, Liberum Capital, Sep 25, 2013


Global Warming Alarmism Wrecks European Economy

By Jeffrey Collins, Real Clear Politics, Sep 23, 2013


Energy Companies Call for an End to Green Energy “Stealth Taxes”

By Tim Webb, The Times, Via GWPF, Sep 26, 2013


Germany’s green dream is becoming a nightmare

Berlin urged to revise its energy policies as soaring costs threaten industry

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, London Daily Telegraph, Sep 23, 2013


Greens outraged over Polish ‘clean coal’ push at UN climate summit

By Staff Writers, EurActive, Sep 25, 2013


Green deal is damp squib as only 12 homes take up energy-saving offer

The government’s much-vaunted energy-saving scheme has been criticised as overly complex and expensive

By Harriet Meyer, The Guardian, Sep 21, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


‘The lights will go out over Britain’: Shares in energy firms drop 5% amid warnings of blackouts from Miliband’s plan to freeze bills

Miliband said he would ‘fix power bills until 2017’ if he won next election

But energy industry warns it will lead to gas and electricity shortages

Centrica’s Sir Roger Carr called policy ‘a recipe for economic ruin’

By James Chapman and Matt Chorley, Mail, UK, Sep 25, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Funding Issues

EU admits double-counting climate finance and development aid

By Arthur Neslen, EurActiv, Sep 20, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?

IPCC emergency! Send in the philosophers

By Peter Foster, Financial Post, CA, Sep 25, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Bastardi’s / Jung’s Initial Winter Speculation Morphs Into “A Killer 2014-Winter Forecast” – Fear Spreads Across Europe

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Sep 26, 2013


[SEPP Comment: A statement to the times.]

Communicating Better to the Public – Make things up.

ADMISSION!…German Delegation, Politician Concede: “Climate Policy Needs Element Of Fear” In IPCC Report

By P Gosselin, No Tricks Zone, Sep 23, 2013


Carbon cleanup would save millions of lives: study

By Staff Writers, Paris (AFP), Sept 22, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Before the use of carbon based fuels to provide electricity, the average life span was far less than today!]

“Honey, I shrunk the consensus” — Monckton takes action on Cooks paper

By Jo Nova, Her Blog, Sep 24, 2013


[SEPP Comment: The publication of the Cook et al. paper illustrates the low standards of the publisher!]

IPCC report: Britain could cool if Gulf Stream slows

Britain’s climate could get cooler over the next 80 years, a major UN report on global warming is to suggest.

By Richard Gray, and Nick Collins, Telegraph, UK, Sep 26, 2013


[SEPP Comment: What nonsense!]

World is Heading for a Heart Attack, UN Climate Expert Claims

By Ben Webster, The Times, Via GWPF, Sep 23, 2013


Models v. Observations

Not waving but drowning

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Sep 23, 2013


New Book by Bob Tisdale: “Climate Models Fail”

By Bob Tisdale, WUWT, Sep 25, 2013


Model Issues

Lord Lawson calls for review of UK’s ‘flawed’ climate model

By Priyanka Shrestha, Energy Live, Sep 23, 2013


Link to paper: The Climate Model and the Public Purse

By Andrew Montford, GWPF, No Date [H/t Malcolm Ross]


Nic Lewis vs the UK Met Office

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Sep 25, 2013


Met Office concedes the error

By Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, Sep 25, 2013


Link to the full responst:


Measurement Issues

Urban Heat Island – could it account for much of the century scale warming attributed to AGW?

By Joseph D’Aleo, ICECAP, Sep 27, 2013


If we had continued with USHCN version 1, the 2000s would be the second warmest decade behind the 1930s.

[SEPP Comment: Whether intentional or not, the books have been cooked.]

Unwarranted Temperature Adjustments and Al Gore’s Unwarranted Call for Intellectual Tyranny

By Jim Steele, WUWT, Sep 25, 2013


[SEPP Comment: More evidence of the Urban Heat Island effect and the inappropriate adjustments to the historic temperature record.]

Changing Climate

Ancient Forest Thaws From Melting Glacial Tomb

By Laura Poppick, Live Science, Sep 20, 2013 [H/t Ron Sundelin]


Drought Trends Across Canada

By Staff Writers, SPPI & CO2 Science, Sep 25, 2013


Medieval Warm Period in Australia & New Zealand

By Staff Writers, SPPI & CO2 Science, Sep 25, 2013


Changing Seas

Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible increase

0.065 °C in 45 years

By Luboš Motl, Reference Frame, Sep 25, 2013


The relentless increase of ocean heat

By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Sep 26, 2013


Shell Game

By Rud Istvan, Climate Etc. Sep 26, 2013


Changing Cryosphere – Land / Sea Ice

Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday

By Jason Samenow, Washington Post, Sep 23, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


[SEPP Comment: If it had been reducing the headline would state the lowest every!]

Arctic Ocean Predicted To Be Ice Free By 2013 — Oops!

Editorial, IBD, Sep 24, 2013


Arctic ice melt slows down: NASA

By Staff Writers, Washington (AFP), Sept 21, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Trying to explain why last year’s trend did not continue.]

The ice is not melting, yet still the scaremongers blunder on

The real global warming disaster: green taxes, a suicidal energy policy and wasting billions on useless windmills

By Christopher Booker, Telegraph, UK, Sep 21, 2013


Acidic Waters

IPCC on acid – if they are virtually certain about ocean acidification, why does X-prize offer a reward for designing a proper ocean pH meter?

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 25, 2013


Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC

For a full list of articles see www.NIPCCreport.org

Modeling Temperature, Sea Level Pressure and Precipitation: CMIP5 vs. CMIP3

Reference: Bhend, J. and Whetton, P. 2013. Consistency of simulated and observed regional changes in temperature, sea level pressure and precipitation. Climatic Change 118: 799-810.


Clearly, progress in climate modeling of this nature over the past several years has essentially been no progress at all.

The Outlook for Modeling Clouds (Adequately) … is Still Cloudy

Reference: Lauer, A. and Hamilton, K. 2013. Simulating clouds with global climate models: A comparison of CMIP5 results with CMIP3 and satellite data. Journal of Climate 26: 3823-3845.


Roots of Norway Spruce Trees Growing in CO2-Enriched Air

Reference: Pokorny, R., Tomaskova, I. and Marek, M.V. 2013. Response of Norway spruce root system to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 35: 1807-1816.


As for the significance of their findings, Pokorny et al. write that “the finest roots showed the highest positive growth stimulation under elevated CO2 conditions,” and they note that this phenomenon leads to a “larger root absorbing area per tree,” which in turn leads to “better tree water supply under elevated CO2,” with its attendant “higher chance to survive dry periods.” And, of course, a larger root-absorbing area per tree also results in more nutrients being absorbed by the trees, which enables them to better cope under stressful environmental conditions.

Plastic Responses of a Marine Picoplankton to Ocean Acidification

Reference: Schaum, E., Rost, B., Millar, A.J. and Collins , S. 2013. Variation in plastic responses of a globally distributed picoplankton species to ocean acidification. Nature Climate Change 3: 298-302.


The four scientists conclude their work by stating that “as CO2 levels increase, O. tauri will grow and photosynthesize faster, and have larger cells with a higher C/N ratio than contemporary cells,” with the result that “Ostreococcus, along with other green algae and cyanobacteria, are likely to increase in abundance in high-CO2 conditions” with concomitant benefits for the biosphere.

Litigation Issues

California’s low-carbon fuel standard to stay

By Staff Writers, Sacramento (UPI), Sep 20, 2013


“If no such solution is found, California residents and people worldwide will suffer great harm. We will not at the outset block California from developing this innovative, non-discriminatory regulation to impede global warming,” [Judge] Gould stated.

EPA and other Regulators on the March

What Is Really At Stake In The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subpoena Of EPA Data

By Geoffrey Kabat, Forbes, Sep 23, 2013


Link to paper: Assessing geographic heterogeneity and variable importance in an air pollution data set

By Stanley Young and Jessie Xia, Statistical Analysis and Data Mining


EPA Head Admits Being Clueless About Any Obama Climate Plan Benefits

By Larry Bell, Forbes, Sep 22, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Clueless is an incorrect term. She is very clever and manipulative.]

It’s Only the Beginning

By Donn Dears, Power for USA, Sep 27, 2013


EPA Proposes Revised Carbon Standards for New Power Plants (UPDATED)

By Sonal Patel, Power News, Sep 20, 2013


Former EPA general counsel Martella discusses agency’s legal rationale for new source proposal

Transcript by Staff Writer, EETV, Sep 25, 2013


[SEPP Comment: To the courts, the process is important, not the substance.]

EPA won’t require carbon trapping for existing power plants

By Julian Hattem, The Hill, Sep 23, 2013


[SEPP Comment: We do not know that. Will EPA do the slow kill, and prevent major improvements?]

EPA Foils Clean Fuel

By Howard Richman, Raymond Richman, and Jesse Richman, American Thinker, Sep 23, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Driving up the cost of using compressed natural gas in automobiles.]

Obama Appeals to Trout Fishermen on Power-Plant Pollution

By Mark Drajem, Bloomberg, Sep 25, 2013


Energy Issues – Non-US

Cost of energy hammers EU industry

By Guy Bentley, City AM, Sep 25, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


How Europe’s Economy Is Being Devastated By Global Warming Orthodoxy

By Jim Powell, Forbes, Sep 19, 2013


Energy Issues — US

‘Blowing Smoke’ at Obama CO2 Policy: POWER’s Peltier Retires in High Style

By Robert Peltier, Master Resource, Sep 27, 2013


Carbon Gauntlet Book Description

By Donn Dears, Power for USA, Sep 24, 2013


EIA: Gas-Fired Generation Falls from 2013 Levels But Still High

By Thomas Overton, Power News, Sep 25, 2013


Washington’s Control of Energy

Unwelcome Milestone for Keystone XL

By Jack Gerard, Energy Tribune, Sep 25, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Five years since application for permits.]

Obama vows to protect ‘free flow’ of Middle East oil

By Ben Geman, The Hill, Sep 24, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Why not protect the free flow of oil from Canada, by approving the Keystone pipeline?]

Federal Mandarinate Decrees End to Coal

The mindless EPA has taken us back to 1970.

By William Tucker, American Spectator, Sep 27, 2013


New Rules On Power Plants Will Kill Coal Industry

Editorial, IBD, Sep 20, 2013


Day 7: Obama refuses to follow the law on nuclear waste

By Conn Carroll, Washington Examiner, Sep 24, 2013


Emissions regulations are central battle in Obama climate agenda

By Julian Hattem and Ben Goad, The Hill, Sep 23, 2013


No ‘Incredibly Small’ Wars Against Energy by Obama

By Marita Noon, Townhall, Sep 22, 2013


Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?

Shale pits environmental versus economic interests

By Staff Writers, Paris (AFP), Sept 24, 2013


Return of King Coal?

The United States is a developing nation and coal is its foundational fuel

By Frank Clemente, Energy Facts Weekly, Sep 24, 2013


Nuclear Energy and Fears

End of Atomic Age Seen as Merkel’s Biggest Headache Now

By Stefan Nicola, Bloomberg, Sep 24, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


IAEA Issues Projections for Nuclear Power from 2020 to 2050

By Staff Writers, IAEA, Sep 24, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Slow growth.]

Carbon Schemes

Norway abandons Mongstad carbon capture plans

By Staff Writers, BBC, Sep 20, 2013


[SEPP Comment: So much for EPA’s McCarthy’s claims of a proven technology.]

California Dreaming

Will the U.K. Repeat California’s Energy Disaster?

By Marc Champion, Bloomberg, Sep 24, 2013 [H/t GWPF]


Other Scientific News

Environmental Satellites:

Focused Attention Needed to Improve Mitigation Strategies for Satellite Coverage Gaps

Statement by David Powner, pownerd@gao.gov, GAO, Sep 19, 2013


Full Statement:


[SEPP Comment: High potential gap in timely deployment of satellites, which can endanger public health and safety.]

Geostationary Weather Satellites:

Progress Made, but Weaknesses in Scheduling, Contingency Planning, and Communicating with Users Need to Be Addressed

Contact: David Powner, pownerd@gao.gov, GAO, Sep 9, 2013


Link to Full Report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657516.pdf



Clean energy least costly to power America’s electricity needs

By Staff Writers, Heidelberg, Germany (SPX), Sep 24, 2013


[SEPP Comment: Complete nonsense!]

Study: The Late Cretaceous Period was likely ice-free

By Anthony Watts, WUWT, Sep 26, 2013


[SEPP Comment: The article attempts to make a blame CO2 for the warm period. However, the positioning of the continents makes an analogy impossible.]


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 30, 2013 1:32 am

Judith Curry asks: “So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land? Or is sequestering heat in the ocean a fortuitous ‘solution’ to the global (surface) warming problem?” See links under Changing Seas.
That is my question too, it is harmless. Even if Global warming is happening it is completely harmless, so let them believe their junks science if they want to. There is no reason to fret, any more than if they believed in a spaghetti monster.

Another Ian
September 30, 2013 2:00 am

Quote of the Week: If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest. Anonymous [H/t Tim Ball]
Don’t I recall from Watergate days one of Harry S Truman’s comments along the lines of
“If a person does wrong and knows it, that’s one thing.
If a person does wrong and doesn’t know the difference, that’s entirely something else”

William Astley
September 30, 2013 2:04 am

EPA Policy Impacts
Surprise, surprise, surprise … the EPA’s policies increase the cost of electricity yet have no measurable impact on ‘climate change’. i.e. All pain for no gain. Great deal if US taxpayers (as Obama notes his administration’s policies will result in higher costs for electricity and the higher costs will be passed onto consumers) had surplus funds to spend on scams. Did Obama administration ask the US tax payers if they support paying higher costs for electricity for no reason? …. …..Germany is ahead of the curve pushing this madness. The average cost of electric power in Germany is three times the average cost of electricity in the US and Germany is starting to experience power failures due to the practice. Higher costs for electricity, no effect on climate change, and the opportunity to have brown outs.
“EPA Head Admits Being Clueless About Any Obama Climate Plan Benefits
So there you have it. Regardless of the countless billions of taxpayer and consumer dollars being spent to wage war on natural and inevitable climate change, the EPA head is unable to identify any discernible health and welfare benefits of her agency’s draconian regulatory policies. Instead, the apparent goal of the EPA’s current and proposed greenhouse gas regulations is to persuade the international community, particularly China, India, and other developing nations, to follow the Obama administration’s U.S. leadership over an economic precipice.
Let’s finally get it straight. Carbon dioxide isn’t a dangerous “pollutant”… it’s a natural and essential plant food. The real dangers to public health and welfare are the economic destruction, job elimination and escalating costs of food, energy and other essentials resulting from scientifically-unwarranted policies. The greatest burdens of such sophistry fall upon those who can least afford them.”
….The associated economics (William: green scam) are something akin to the (William: economic) apocalypse.
Spain calls it the “tariff deficit,” a massive debt that accumulated over the past decade as the cost of running the country’s electrical system exceeded the revenues generated by sales of power. … … In May, the tariff deficit reached a whopping $34 billion. …. ….By 2012, a whopping $10.6 billion in subsidies were paid out to the renewable energy industry, rising by about 20% from the previous year, and covering more than one third of all electricity generated in Spain.
As a result of the existing RE build-outs, German household rates increased from 13.94 to 28.50 eurocent/kWh, from 2010 to 2012, a 104.4% increase, and industrial rates increased from 6.05 to 16.10 eurocent/kWh, from 2010 to 2012, a 166% increase. According to a recent study for the federal government, electricity will cost up to 40 eurocents/kWh by 2020, a 40% increase over 2012 prices. … …. Among european nations, German households have the second highest electric rates; 28.5 eurocent/kWh (energy, plus fees, plus taxes), after Denmark (32 eurocent/kWh), courtesy of RE. US low electric rates are the envy of heavy industry elsewhere, including Germany. France’s are among has the lowest.
William: The average cost of power to US consumers is US $0.1057/kw-hr, a third of the cost of electric power in Germany. ($1 US = 0.75 Euro) http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/end_use.cfm
William: It is interesting that the EPA ignored its own technical expert’s report on the technical flaws in the extreme AGW science.
“Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”

September 30, 2013 3:40 am

I hope SEPP holds another press conference to announce an updated CCR that takes on the recently revised SFP and the final WG1 report. And also the WG2 & WG3 reports when they are released.

September 30, 2013 3:42 am

Quote of the Week: If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest and starts demonstrating.
Fixed it!

September 30, 2013 4:47 am

I appreciate doctors Motl and Curry!

September 30, 2013 6:22 am

Impressive list of links, sorry I don’t have the time to read all of them.

September 30, 2013 11:34 am

Everybody hum the “Twilight Zone” theme.

Brian H
September 30, 2013 2:42 pm

Can’t post in Tips & Notes; wassup?

Brian H
September 30, 2013 2:43 pm

The Economist does AR5: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/09/ipcc-climate-change-report
Acknowledges some of the contrafactuals and contradictions, but fudges the conclusions.

September 30, 2013 4:13 pm

I see the Daily Mail continues to comment on AR5, this time it is about comments from Dr. Richard Lindzen. The fact that we are getting articles from the “SCEPTICS” side in MSM is hopeful I guess, that the winds of change are starting to blow. This would be the 4th such article in the last few days.
This is just for those in the rest of the world that don’t follow or know about our newspapers
National Readership Survey daily figures for 2012
The Sun 1st
Print – 7,007,000
Web – 503,000
Combined – 7,385,000
Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday 2nd highest
Print – 4,530,000
Web – 2,786,000
Combined – 6,932,000
The Guardian/The Observer :- Not the 3rd place just entered for comparison
Print – 1,123,000
Web – 1,401,000
Combined – 2,370,000

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights