IPCC: NGO Climate Alarmism is causing a Credibility Gap
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to IPCC lead author Professor Myles Allen, the strident alarmism of some climate NGOs is “unhelpful” to the cause of convincing the general public that climate change is an issue.
According to the National Post, Prof Myles Allen, one of the lead authors of a major new report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);
“NGOs have at times been alarmist over climate change … but the IPCC has been very clear and measured throughout. I think alarmism on any issue is unhelpful.”
He suggested this had resulted in the general public believing that
“climate change is just all about melting ice caps and the Arctic” even though “the reality is climate change is about the weather changing in many parts of the world including where many people live.”
In my opinion, its difficult to see whether Myles is genuinely worried that NGOs are presenting a significantly more alarming position than the IPCC, or sees an opportunity to claw back some credibility by tossing a few of the sillier NGO groups overboard, in an effort to present his view as the voice of reason. Either way, it is difficult to think of anything any NGO has said which is more absurd than some of the “official” positions taken by the IPCC, which still persists with its nonsensical position that climate sensitivity could be in excess of 3c / doubling of CO2.
The Cretaceous period, which ended 66 million years ago, had an average temperature of 4C higher than current temperatures, and an average CO2 level of 1700ppm, more than 4x today’s level. As we all know, the age of dinosaurs was a difficult time of sparse heat damaged vegetation, dead fish, dangerous acidified oceans, and life clinging onto the fringes of a broken eco-system. All those images we were fed as kids, of luxurious jungles and vast creatures thundering through vibrant varied environments brimming with life are no doubt based on old fashioned science, from back in the days when scientists based their statements on evidence.
” its difficult to see whether Miles is genuinely worried that NGOs are presenting a significantly more alarming position than the IPCC, or sees an opportunity to claw back some credibility by tossing a few of the sillier NGO groups overboard, in an effort to present his view as the voice of reason”
Myles Allen is protecting his own backside and funding. He is a man who has gained hugely from the alarmist meme! I doubt he has given anything much thought!
The Failure of Green Energy Policies
This post has proven very popular this side of the pond:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/low_carbon_percent.png
Eric, you just pre-empted by next article. Back to the drawing board …
Pointman
Eric, do you have sources for Cretaceous 4˚C warmer and 1700 ppm CO2? I have found the following charts on ocean pH to be particularly instructive:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/pH-TCO2.png
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pacific_ocean_pH.png
The globull warming alarmists I know completely ignore all facts and evidence that do not support their views.
The hypocrisy is unbelievable. They will shout “WE MUST ACT NOW!”. Then turn a blind eye to todays new information like it doesn’t exist.
Myles Allen was at one stage suggesting an 11 degree C sensitivity / CO2 doubling.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=70
He went on to defend the 11 degree C number in an interview at the BBC.
And he is now concerned about others being alarmist. Does he think we have short memories?
His actual right on this , but its not an idea we should encourage for the madder they come across to the public the better is for sceptics. That is why Mann is such a gold mine.
As for Allen like most of ‘the Team’ he find it hard to get a job teaching at a third rate high school if ‘the cause ‘ falls so he filling his boots while he can hopping that retirement occurs before this , now that is what we call motivation .
The link in Josh’s picture is unfortunately wrong. This seems to be the correct one: http://stevebrodner.com/2013/06/23/the-mad-men-of-climate-denial/
“climate change is about the weather changing”
Never seen the weather change before! We’re doomed!
Hhh…hmmmm. The National Post is a major CANADIAN newspaper.
National Post, a major British daily Newspape
Not to my knowledge.
[not to ours either, typo removed -mod]
The really sad situation imho, is that nothing will change in so much as these people like Prof Myles Allen, will be considered as having done their best to help change an impure & imperfect World, thus they shouldn’t be named & shamed for their self-enrichment practices at taxpayers expense, but be allowed to quietly take early retirement in a face-saving exercise which we will ALL pay for, one way or another! Really sad, how fortunate they are to be allowed to make pronouncement upon pronouncement time & again, be shown to have been wrong on numerous occasions, & yet not be held accountable for any of it!
Is it me or are many of the AGW liars trying to reposition their doctrine.
First there was the Betts et al tearoom “I”m a nice guy really” then comes Myles “11°C” Allen and then the more recent BBC radio broadcast with ‘sceptics’.
Translation: We need to be careful about how we go about telling the Biggest Lie In Human History. It needs to be crafted carefully, to give it the aura and patina of science so people will be fooled. In short, lying is an art which shouldn’t be left to those with lesser abilities than we “professionals”.
NGO’s are simply translating the supplied science fear-gobbledegook into readable, spoken English.
The ‘Gobbledegookers’ would rather it be left as it is. By using totally nifty scientific terminology (that the average Jo Six-pack can’t decipher), the message is: ‘we know that you can’t understand the reasoning, but we sound so bloody clever that you just need to believe our conclusions.’
Sorry, Miles, but “climate change is about the weather changing in many parts if the world” is the standard phrase of climate alarmism. You don’t seem too different from the other alarmists, broadcasting such a remark.
Climate alarmism is a spent force in Germany.
Global warming is finished but the alarmist hype continues. The gullible are diminishing and the rest of Europe will follow Germany.
Weather change is supposed to frighten us!
Tell us, Miles, what is the latest on climate sensitivity?
The issue with global warming is not a concern about the catastrophes predicted by AGW zealots but the difficulty that even a modest amount of temperature rise could cause fro all of us. Relatively modest rises in sea level could require very expensive adaptations in coastal cities. Relatively modest changes in weather patterns could cause expensive changes in agriculture. We witnessed the Dust Bowl of the 30s. What if that became a common occurrence and what effect would that have on food supplies.
Fortunately recent evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is at the more benign end of the spectrum . However that does not provide a rationale fro complete complacency. We must be vigilant against poor activist-driven science. But equally we must be open to what competent audited science has to tell us.
Eric, you mention that The Cretaceous period, which ended 66 million years ago, had an average temperature of 4C higher than current temperatures, and an average CO2 level of 1700ppm, more than 4x today’s level.
It appears that some game changing studies have past along very silently but currently, this overview suggests that only few estimates exceed 1000 ppm, the average seems to be in the ballpark of 700mm
http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/larsop2/geog101/RadiationBal/CretaceousGreenhouse.jpg
Very interesting is also:
http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Giraffe_Pipe_CO2_AJS.pdf
Scroll down one page to figure one and notice that current CO2 estimates during the warm Paleocene are around 500ppm while it increases to around 1000ppm at the end of the cooling Eocene. I wonder why alarmists never show these figures.
Just a decade or so ago, these guys were telling their friends that they had to remove all doubt from any statements they make to the public and present only the worst case scenarios because they had to build support amongst the public for action.
Now they are saying that being alarmist is counter productive and only unprofessional people would engage in such behavior.
Speaking of the IPCC and its ever-increasing army of UNEP-approved NGOs … did you know that even before the IPCC issued the first iteration of its “climate bible”, in 1989 the Canadian Wildlife Federation (amongst others, no doubt!) was:
Details at (shameless plug alert) Battle for bucks on backs of bears, birds, buffaloes, beavers … & rats
The temperature during the early to middle Cretaceous is largely irrelevant to the debate between alarmists and skeptics. The reason is plate tectonics. During two-thirds of the Cretaceous the Tethys Seaway was still open, which connected the tropical Indian Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean around the latitude of Spain.
To give some perspective, the net energy imbalance estimate by James Hansen was 0.6 Wm-2. This is so little that the uncertainty in the estimate is 28 times greater as you can read here:
http://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/the-emperors-of-climate-alarmism-wear-no-clothes/
Since Stephens et al did the study discussed, Norman Loeb, also of NASA has revised Hansen’s estimate of energy imbalance to 0.5 Wm-2. That makes the uncertainty 34 times the energy imbalance.
More, 0.5 Wm-2 is the estimated energy imbalance compared with 340 Wm-2 total downward energy flux. The imbalance is 0.15% of the total solar energy. That is 15 parts in 10,000.
The size of the uncertainty is so great that scientists cannot be as confident as they claim that the net imbalance is positive. The imbalance might be zero or negative or switch back and forth.
The imbalance is so small that heat sinks might hide the excess kinetic energy in the form of potential energy. Latent energy from increased water vapor; latent energy in the form of increased vegetation, or increased formation of carbonates by foraminifera. .
The temperature during the early to middle Cretaceous is largely irrelevant to the debate between alarmists and skeptics. The reason is plate tectonics. During two-thirds of the Cretaceous the Tethys Seaway was still open, which connected the tropical Indian Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean around the latitude of Spain.
To give some perspective, the net energy imbalance estimate by James Hansen was 0.6 Wm-2. This is so little that the uncertainty in the estimate is 28 times greater.
Graeme L. Stephens et al, An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations. Nature Geoscience Vol. 5 October 2012
Since Stephens et al did their, Norman Loeb, also of NASA has revised Hansen’s estimate of energy imbalance to 0.5 Wm-2. That makes the uncertainty 34 times the energy imbalance.
(Loeb et al, Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty. Nature Geoscience VOL 5 February 2012.
More, 0.5 Wm-2 is the estimated energy imbalance compared with 340 Wm-2 total downward energy flux. The imbalance is 0.15% of the total solar energy. That is 15 parts in 10,000.
The imbalance is so small that heat sinks might hide the excess kinetic energy in the form of potential energy. Latent energy from increased water vapor; latent energy in the form of increased vegetation, or increased formation of carbonates by foraminifera. .
“convincing the general public”
If they haven’t achieved that after 30 years, with a head start of at least 20 years before the science skeptic websites came along, then they never will.
The strategy of using every event or trend as evidence of CAGW has been the downfall of the warmists. While some have been more measured in the significance of extreme weather, most have jumped on the bandwagon to say “See here is AGW before you” . Of course then all one has to do to falsify CAGW is point to the last 20 years of no increase in the rate of sea level rise, or the lack of increase in incidence of tornadoes, or the 3,000 plus days since a Cat 3 hurricane struck the US, or the evidence that this warming is not unusual or many other observational data. A much smarter strategy would have been to simply say that if forecasts for warming etc continue until 2100 then these are the things that will happen. As it is, the day in and day out observational data just destroy their argument that what is going on now is proof of CAGW.
Too late by many years, Myles. From the IPCC down, all the climate weirdos have gone extreme. Best ignore them, I say, and if you meet one, suggest urgent medical attention for obsessional disorders.