The group the 'Right Climate Stuff' says there's no need to worry about catastrophic global warming

I like this very much, but can they, or will they, submit to a peer journal?

They will be dealt with.
http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-03-08-41b421f2_large.jpeg

105 models and NONE of them agree ??? What is this….model du jour ? My only concern is where they get the “global” data from over 50 years ago. We didn’t truly get global weather data until the Earth resources satellites were launched in the late 1970’s.

Couldn’t agree more. If models do not reflect reality then they are wrong and either need to be modified or dumped. There can be no excuse for Governments who persist in implementing policy based on models that are shown to be wrong.

The first paragraph has 1.2 percent as the forecast rise in temperature, but later it’s stated as 1.2 degrees. I believe degrees is what is intended.

You need to correct “There” to “There’s” in the heading

garymount says:
March 8, 2014 at 4:13 pm

The article mistakenly says the burning of carbon dioxide

bass ackword?
“ie how much the world will warm as a result of the burning of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel”

Bunch of loony deniers. PLus they’re old. Really, really old.
(sarc)

Now I can see how these NASA old timers could make it to the Moon and back. Current folks there could hardly make it to the mall on the next block with no major accident en route.

My friends brother said that he knows a guy that says the Earths temperature wont rise that much from increased CO2! This is basically what this post is saying, publish or move along.

Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Läs: “It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.
Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism, notably via its resident environmental activist James Hansen.
During his stint as head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Hansen tirelessly promoted Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. He retired last year to spend more time on environmental campaigning and has twice been arrested with former mermaid impersonator Darryl Hannah for his part in protests against surface coal mining and the Keystone XL pipe line. While still head of NASA GISS he once described trains carrying coal as “death trains” “no less gruesome than if they were carrying boxcars headed to crematoria and loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” Many NASA employees and former employees found his views an embarrassment.

As unsurprising for a media source even if one of the better ones, the Breitbart article somewhat misreports this:
“They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the emission of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC, whose reports have suggested it could be as high as 4 degrees C or more.”
Not quite. Rather, they estimated 1.2 degrees Celsius warming beyond present temperatures as an upper limit. If I say I have under a million dollars, it doesn’t mean I have a million dollars. Wording elsewhere, point 5 of their TRCS Conclusions & Recommendations, is an estimate which “bounds the maximum possible global warming that could be caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
That is seen further in the PDF linked. Moreover, the upper limit is what would be so under two implicit assumptions:
Assumption (fallacy) #1: All or the bulk of post Little Ice Age warming was from GHGs (not true).
Assumption (fallacy) #2: HADCRUT4 temperature data, plotted in figure 2 of the PDF, is honest temperature history, e.g. for instance the global cooling scare of the 1960s-1970s happened magically for no actual reason since the revisionist HADCRUT4 has deleted about all the temperature downturn which happened then.
The Right Climate Stuff Research Team shows the picture better in a different PDF of theirs which is not directly linked here on WUWT, including a solar comparison: http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/AGWScienceAssessRpt-1.pdf
Anyway, if both fallacies are avoided, the fuller picture is rather the following, which implies that net warming from human activities was not even half of the 0.6 degrees Celsius temperature rise over the past century (and, if combined with more info about the coming Grand Minimum, a future of cooling):
http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg

They still claim that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming. Is this much settled science? Because I’ve seen references indicating that historical increases of CO2 lagged temperature increases by hundreds of years. I’ve also seen charts indicating that temperatures fell at the end of previous glacial epochs while CO2 levels remained high. I’m not clear on whether we have cause and effect, correlation but not causation, or no correlation at all between temperatures and CO2.

Most read source on climate – cool. Here is a simple theory! Its probably a good idea to stop shitting in our own back yard. Isn’t it time to move away from our dirty reliance on carbon? Everything in moderation and ‘AGW’ is out of the equation. Knew I should have been a rocket scientist. So keep dirtying your backyards, but I know there is a better way. Quit wasting your mental energy. O’Yeah – I invented that by the way!

I shit in my own back yard all of the time. I have a septic tank and tile field. Do you shit in someone else’s back yard?

The Monster (@SumErgoMonstro) said at March 8, 2014 at 4:59 pm:
Check out this computer model:
#include
main() {
printf “Hello, world! ________/”;
}
——— End of Quote ——–
Hmmm, probably won’t compile, try:
#include
main() {
printf(“Hello, world! ________/”);
}
There you go peer reviewed. 🙂

Speed says: March 8, 2014 at 4:00 pm… a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent. What’s that in degrees?
This little joke started a few posts back. Check back regularly to tune into out host’s wonderful ironic sense of humo(u)r.

Those American NASA scientists and engineers did something that can never be replicated ever again.
They landed men on another planetary body, the Moon, for the first time ever in human history and then went on to do it another five times ,.
And brought those 18 astronauts, twelve of whom walked on the Moon’s surface home again to that cradle of mankind, the Earth.
The other moon shot that never made it, Apollo 13, was an incredible example of ingenuity and extraordinary engineering skill when it all went wrong in deep space and the engineers had nothing but their own knowledge and skill to finally bring those three Apollo astronauts home in what should have been by any accepted standards, a fatally stricken space vehicle.
When it went wrong they admitted it and fixed it or people died and those astronauts would have died in the full glare of the world’s peoples.
Climate science with it’s totally unproven, unvalidated and unverified models and the claims that so many catastrophe advocating climate scientists have made of an imminent and impending human created disasters based on nothing more than the output of those unproven climate models is directly responsible for the implementation of highly restrictive energy policies that are aimed at making energy of every type grossly expensive and increasingly unaffordable in an all out effort to force the reduction in energy use to counter those unproven outcomes from those unproven, unvalidated and unverified climate models.
Those same climate modellers and climate advocacy scientists are therefore directly responsible for the totally avoidable deaths of not a possible two or three astronauts as were the NASA engineers but the real deaths of tens of thousands of the elderly and weak and poor due to the grossly increased cost of energy, a cost increase proposed and supported by the radical extremist advocates of climate science and the disgustingly callous green organisations.
It is called “heat or eat” as the poor can no longer afford to do both.
In the UK where the cost of energy has been forced up by the polticals in accordance with the dictates of the climate catastrophe advocating scientists, in 2013 winter deaths rose by 29% over past winters.
In Germany some 600,000 to 800,000 citizens are being cut off from power each year as is also the case in the UK, because they can no longer afford the cost of energy. Plus also the tens of thousands of avoidable deaths from the winter cold due again to the poor and elderly on very limited incomes no longer being able to afford that great and extraordinary development that has given mankind the Industrial Revolution and all the immense good that has entailed for mankind, cheap utterly reliable always available energy, the very foundation on which our civilisation is now based in it’s entirety.
Even in the Lucky Country, Australia, the social service organisations are finding large numbers of the lowest earning are being cut off from power as they also can no longer afford to “heat or eat” thanks to the nefarious advocacy of the climate catastrophe scientists and the stupidity and moral turpitude of the Rudd and Gillard Labor and Green governments of the past.
Those NASA rocket and space scientists and engineers all those 50 years and two generations ago over a period of less than two decades using little more than slide rules, rudimentary computers and good old fashioned brains and intellect not only landed Man on the Moon but they brought their nation, the USA and the world’s peoples together in that moment of time for the celebration for what is one of all of mankind’s truly extraordinary feats.
Fifty years and two generations later Climate scientists using the most powerful computers on Earth and light years ahead in sophistication compared to the NASA engineers computers let alone those slide rules can’t even predict the most important climate affecting phenomena on Earth, the ENSO and it’s phase more than a couple of months ahead.
They, after 30 years and the destruction of a trillion dollars worth of treasure and wealth due entirely to the unfullfilled and plain inept predictions to so called Climate Science can’t even provide an accurate figure by which increased or even decreased CO2 will affect and change global temperatures within a range of some 1.3C to 4.5 C or when this might happen if it does.
In those old NASA engineer’s terms that same level of science applied to the Apollo space craft would have put the astronauts on the one way way trip to eternity and would have done so for every launch that was made.
Today climate science and climate scientists, totally unlike those old NASA scientists and engineers, over the last two decades as well as being totally responsible for those tens of thousands of completely avoidable deaths from energy deprivation, have deeply divided nations and peoples and societies and families.
They have no other currency except “fear: fear of future and fear of events to be as predicted by those climate scientists. Mamy of them have used that public Fear to enforce their own status and position.
And it is all for what?
The advocacy of those fear creating, climate catastrophe advocacy scientists is increasingly being seen as an outright lie, a lie that has no proof, no support, no direct evidence, only a correlation with the rise in CO2 and the increase in global temperatures over a 20 year period now almost matched by an equally long period where the supposed correlation has ben broken.
The climate scientists and climate modellers have failed to provide a single verifiable prediction on the global climate let alone believable predictions for the future climate beyond those that the average witch doctor or shaman would be able to derive from some chickens entrails.
The legacy of climate scientists and climate science will one day be seen through the eyes of the future as the most corrupt and corrupting episodes against humanity that science has ever embarked on in all of human history.

Shame about the errors. In high finance if a report has a comma missing some directors throw the report in the bin even if its right because its like missing a comma in a program.

Climate scientists want to interact more directly with the public
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-climate-scientists-interact.html
they want to unconfuse ‘the public’

It is good to hear of scientists (and related field workers) standing up and telling the world that Hansen is an embarrassment to their professions. A few years ago most scientists were too cowed to make such public statements, and even on WUWT some scientists feel they must hide their identities behind internet identities. The big beasts in climate science have been more expert at intimidation than honest data analysis.
Recovering the reputation of science is every bit as important as recovering climate science for science. Both have to go hand in hand. This sia good news story.

I wish them well in their attempt to convey common sense and scientific truth. Two things sadly lacking in today’s politics.

[my bolding]

New Study; Earth is Safe From ‘Global Warming’ Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon

These people are just like the moon landing deniers and conspiracy theorists. /sarc

If the fear of losing grant money is not a driver, why then is it that RETIRED scientists, engineers, etc. make up a very large percentage of those who come out strongly against CAGW?

Inspired by this article, I’m now busy working on the screenplay for a movie tentatively titled “Attack of the Global Warming Sharks”. I’ve already outlined two of the major protagonists, a James Hansen type character who uses ideological mind control to direct a Daryl Hanna, girl can mutate into mermaid like form, porpoise tale from the waist down (a mutation brought on by AGW). The basic plot has the Hansen protagonist having developed a way to communicate with and control monster man-eating sharks and crocodiles, by modulating the infrasound generated by Industrial Wind Turbines, to do his bidding. The Hanna character then seeks out his sworn enemies, climate skeptics, entices them to admit their skeptical ways with her siren wiles, luring them to their grisly fates in the mouths of the monster selachimorpha and crocodylinae. Could use any ideas offered for character development, plot twists etc.

“a temperature rise of less than 1.2 per cent”
This makes no sense. Are you talking about 1.2% of the absolute temperature scale? Or what?

Their complaint about the IPCC’s models – that they cannot be validated – applies equally to the model of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team (TRCSRT). That a model is susceptible to validatation implies the existence of observed events in the underlying statistical population but this population exists for neither the IPCC’s models nor the TRCSRT’s model.

I agree with all the points except No. 17. Climate sensitivity must be based on atmospheric CO2 level. If you based it on CO2 emission, the sensitivity will be higher since increase in atmospheric CO2 is only half the emission.

Bishop Tutu: If you can’t tell when you are being lied to, please don’t add your voice to the clamour. Carbon cults kill children by diverting funds away from social progress to inane schemes to erect expensive ‘alternative’ energy sources. Don’t borrow money to feed foreign banks.
Two suggestions for South Africa:
1. Build the Umzimkhulu-Tsitsa River hydro-electric scheme which will provide more ‘alternative’ power than the whole ZAR100 billion that is planned for German windmills and Chinese solar panels. If UJ can’t get the thin film solar cell plant running, dump it.
2. Divert the allocated R100 billion ‘renewable’ budget to something useful like job creation in the Eastern Cape which would include a massive afforestation campaign (wood is renewable) and school classroom construction using appropriate construction methods and local contractors.

I have read all of the comments above and have a few responses:
1. Reading at least the Executive Summary (12 pages with no equations) will answer most of the critical comments. I recommend the full 84 page report version for those who want to dig deeper into our methodology and our very accurate (for the last 163 years) one-line of algebra climate model.
2. We have several ladies on The Right Climate Stuff research team who contribute significantly to our research. They are much smarter and prettier than us old men who first put men on the moon.
3. Don’t know where the 1.2 per cent came from. Our numbers are a max possible 1 deg C AGW-related temperature rise above current levels by 2100 and 1.2 deg C temp rise before we exhaust the planet’s economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves.
4. Our report is all about recognizing naturally occurring climate cycles in the data and properly accounting for them in making maximum possible attributions of warming to AGW.
5. Our bounding AGW climate model is:
Delta Temp (year) = TCS*{Log[CO2(year)/284.7]/Log[2]
where we define TCS = Transient Climate Sensitivity that is similar to the IPCC’s Transient Climate Response (TCR) metric, but where TCS can be extracted from climate data and is not dependent on un-validated climate models, as are the IPCC climate sensitivity metrics of ECS and TCR. That the IPCC doesn’t use a climate sensitivity metric that can actually be verified by actual data is very telling about how immature Climate Science is in the annals of good science.
6. Our data analysis methodology is very similar to the method disclosed in “Jeff L’s” article posted at WUWT on Feb 13, 2014. However, our report is very tutorial in explaining why the climate sensitivity metric Jeff L extracted from the data was not ECS as he suggested, but instead what we have defined as Total Radiative Force (TRF) TCS that included effects of CO2, other GHG and solar irradiance changes. We demonstrate how to determine a CO2-only TCS or all-GHG TCS for use in regulatory activity.
7. For those who in their comments criticized our use of EPA and DoE terminology “Social Cost of Carbon (SCC)”, we only did this to be able to officially submit our comments on the method the government uses to compute SCC to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that was accepting public comments on the methodology.
8. For one of the latter comments from Dr. Strangelove that disagreed with our point #17 about the need for the Social Cost of Carbon calculations to be based on climate sensitivity to emissions, rather than climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as measured by ECS, you were on the right track, but got it backwards. If the CO2 concentration rise in the atmosphere each year is only due to half the yearly CO2 emissions, with the other half of emissions ending up in the oceans, then the SENSITIVITY of temperature rise to emissions is only half the sensitivity to CO2 rise in the atmosphere, ie (DeltaT)/(Delta CO2) is smaller if you make the denominator larger. Over time, the ratio of 2:1 is approximately correct. I think AR5 will tell us what that yearly ratio is today.
9. The critical plea I wish to make with all WUWT readers is that we get away from letting climate scientists focus on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) that really has nothing to do with the AGW climate change we could actually experience. The ECS temperature occurs more than 1000 years after CO2 levels are doubled in the atmosphere…a totally unrealistic scenario. The only practical use of the ECS metric is to compare results of the past and current crop of useless climate models. We need to shift the conversation to Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) that is the actual global average surface temperature rise due to slowly increasing CO2 in the atmosphere until it doubles the pre-industrial value of 280 ppm to 560 ppm, in the way it is actually happening. The similar IPCC TCR metric is for an idealized CO2 increase of 1%/yr. The current CO2 rise rate is about 0.5%/yr. TCS is for the actual history of variable CO2 rise rate in the atmosphere since 1850. It is a verifiable metric while ECS and TCR are not. TCS can be extracted from the data trends before the actual 560 ppm doubled value is attained, using our AGW climate model provided in my Comment #5 and the same exact and independently derived climate model Jeff L used. When we correct Jeff L’s “ECS” value for solar irradiance effects and recognize it is a climate sensitivity for all-GHG rise in the atmosphere, then we get the same exact value:
TCS = 1.6 deg C

Re-reading all of the comments again.
Gnomish, Bryan correctly understood the thrust of our arguments and explained them correctly to you in his March 8 6:44pm post.
Larry Geary, We are not claiming CO2 warms the atmosphere any particular amount. We are saying if it does warm the atmosphere, then its effects are bounded at a maximum of 1.6 deg C above 1850 levels for a slowly rising CO2 level when the atmospheric CO2 level reaches a pre-industrial doubled value of 560 ppm. If 1.6 deg C temp rise from 1850 temperatures by 2100 isn’t going to cause a problem (1 deg C above current temp levels), then let’s get real about the AGW issue and be more rational in our response for how to deal with this Potential Problem. Global warming is not a current Problem (defined by a deviation from normal at some particular location on the planet) for which root cause can be determined, as explained in our report..
Some of you with a deeper interest in what we are really saying should read the Executive Summary. If that gives you an idea of what we did and fosters interest in further details, then I recommend the entire 84 page report. In that report, you will find that we also considered the possibility that we are still warming from natural processes since the minimum temps of the LIA. In that case, we find lower CO2 climate sensitivity with TCS = 0.8 deg C. I admit the possibility that TCS = 0 or is negative, but I can’t prove it. However, we can bound it to the high side and we did….and it is not alarming. After studying this AGW issue in depth, I personally believe GHGs probably have a small warming effect, but I am not alarmed by it, and I would judge the warming so far to have been beneficial. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere is a definite benefit. All of this is discussed in much detail with references in our full report. (I also believe atmospheric CO2 levels will lag temps if the earth is warmed by effects other than GHG. That process and the process by which GHG may be warming the planet now, are different processes with different outcomes.)
The Right Climate Stuff Research Team are not in favor of CO2 emissions control regulations and make that point very clear in our report. However, our government is already issuing such regulations based on their terribly flawed Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) calculations. Our report was written to show the government how terribly flawed are those calculations. Our comments about on what science CO2 emissions control regulations should be based were comments meant to show OMB, EPA and DoE and the entire Interagency Working Group that came up with the SCC calculation methodology, how erroneous their calculations really are and why they need to be formally reviewed by an independent and objective team of scientists, many of whom, like us, and some of you WUWT regulars, would not be climate scientists. We already know (we have run the numbers with one of EPAs cost models), and discussed it some in the 84 page report, if SCC were calculated by an accurate process, then within constraints of laws governing the regulatory process, the EPA could not economically justify its current pipeline of CO2 emission control regulations
Terry Oldberg, we will certainly follow up with a study of the document you provided the link for.