My apologies are overdue
I’ve been absent without excuse for just over five weeks—unprecedented in over eight years of climate blogging—and it feels like a lifetime. It is surely rude not to let readers know what I’m up to.
My wife Ann and I are busy readying her late Aunt Rita’s property for sale. It is nearby and completely absorbing. In about another month or so, I’ll be free to spend some time on the Climate Conversation again.
It’s delightful indeed that the conversation continues so well without me. Not because it demonstrates how unimportant I am (since it merely confirms what is redundant, in my view), but rather because it shows the leading role this website plays in an important modern topic. I’m proud to be associated with it and with you, and thank you for your loyalty.
Deeply gratifying
This is a vital moment in the development of our climate knowledge, with the release of AR5 and the associated ridiculosity, on the one hand, of the IPCC and its adherents scorning the honourable practice of science and the strengthening and multiplying voices, on the other hand, of their noble opposition. Yea, even unto the mainstream organs of news and knowledge like the BBC!
Who might have thought it possible just a couple of short years ago that sceptical queries and objections could be expressed in conservative media? The power of your questioning, reasoning, rational speech and gentle persistence may be invincible.
So, I’m sorry for not having been contributing of late, but there is still much to say and I will be back, so (let me pretend I need to say this) please carry on without me! :-\
With affection to all,
Views: 87
Keep calm and carry on!
Precisely.
No rush RT. We’re waiting for the warming to resume anyway.
Was NZ’s warmest winter on record still too cold for you?
I was out skiing today, 23rd day this season.
The “warmest winter on record” was caused by 6 weeks of Northerly airflow that happened to set a new record for warmth. The early winter was very cold with record snow in South Canterbury
Of course, 30 years determines a climate trend, unless you belong to the group of criminals known as “climate change advocates’ in which 6 weeks will do nicely, thanks
Was 15-23 yrs of no warming not enough for you?
Everyone in Auckland that I’ve asked doesn’t seem to think this winter was the warmest they can remember (including those with greenie leanings), in fact they all seem to think it was bloody cold and the difference between this years electricity bill and last years via the heat pump agrees wholeheartedly – approximately twice the price. Maybe it was just the rest of the country that was so warm.
Hope you’re not holding your breath.
Actually we are waiting for Skeptical Science to produce their list of pre-canned responses to criticisms of AR5.
An interesting little diversion for me at local site The Standard, which i mentioned yesterday
http://thestandard.org.nz/ipcc-ar5-thank-the-oceans/#comment-702728
To put this into perspective, I was asked for several references. One was for the 3 degree central estimate that the IPCC used to use (lprent seemd genuinely disbelieving that this existed)
I provided that
The other was for the statement that the IPCC have given up on their central estimate for AR5
There were more accusations of being an idiot, etc.
I provided that link (from the IPCC SPM)
The other was for the calculation that the additional heat in the oceans amounts to 0.065 degrees C since 1960.
I provided that link too, which was at Lubos’ site and contained full workings.
Needless to say, the “conversation” reverted to form and insults were thrown at me, and I get banned for being a “credulous idiot”
I can’t say I am sad that I don’t need to visit the cesspit known as The Standard anymore, but these guys purport to represent The Voice of the NZ Labour Moverment, and David Cunliffe sometimes posts there
God help us if we get a Green/Labour govt if these guys are anything to go by.
Well, you will parrot other sites Andy. Like the IPCC.
That is the problem in a nutshell. If I started burbling on about chemtrails and Agenda 21, they would rally around for a bit of sport.
When I skewer them with their own propaganda, they get very uncomfortable
Thanks for the link. I have no idea who LPRENT is but they did a good potted summary of AR5. I note that Andy’s argument was not with the article itself but with an interview he heard on the BBC.
I provided various links from the IPCC and I was called a credulous idiot for doing so.
I have no time for the parasitic vermin that hover around The Standard and Hot Topic.
Lprent is Lynn Prentice who s the founder of The Standard and the worlds greatest sysop.
Apparently he k is everything about climate science and anyone who disagrees with any aspect whatsoever of the IPCC worldview is a credulous idiot who wil be permanently banned from Tne Boice of The Labour Movement without hesitation.
Unfortunately for the cretinous Prentice, he didn’t know that the IPCC central estimate for ECS used to np e three degrees, he didn’t know It had been dropped in AR5 SPM despite the fact he just reviewed it, and he didn’t think temperature was a relevant metric when discussing global warming, despite the fac tthat every single discussion about Gil al warming talks about temperature.
He also, in a previous encounter, claimed that GWP for methane was 72 when the official figure is 21.
I will repeat this again, for the hard of hearing.
I have nothing but undiliuted contempt for these people.
You’re both correct, just talking at cross-purposes.
The GWP over 20 years of methane is 72.
The GWP over 100 years of methane is 21.
This is true, and I can’t remember the context of the original discussion. My comments have probably been deleted because of “trolling” by quoting the IPCC
Obviously, the IPCC is a “denier site” and only selected politically correct quotes can be taken from it by the uber-menchen
Incidentally, part of this “discussion” on The Standard had a certain commenter posting my full name (against moderation policy) and without my consent.
In a previous thread, this person said he would “smear my name far and wide”, also posting my full name
Marx on Monday
http://bogpaper.com/2013/09/30/marx-on-monday-ipcc/
“we’re confident because we’re confident” – Professor Thomas Stocker, co-chair of WG1.
>”Unless you are a Liberal or a Democrat”
It’s rather more complicated than that and I don’t like the branding, I think it’s miss-applied. I’ve read comments from long time US Liberal Democrat MMCC sceptics, uncomfortable that the latest prevailing liberal concept doesn’t embody their conception (or that it’s been hijacked). From Wiki:
“Classical liberal conceptions of liberty typically consist of the freedom of individuals from outside compulsion or coercion, also known as negative liberty. This conception of liberty, which coincides with the libertarian point-of-view, suggests that people should, must, and ought to behave according to their own free will, and take responsibility for their actions, while in contrast, Social liberal conceptions of (positive liberty) liberty place an emphasis upon social structure and agency and is therefore directed toward ensuring egalitarianism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty
Liberal MMCC sceptics (possibly more aligned to the classical conception – not sure) are experiencing suppression of dissent from socialists and communitarians masquerading under the Social Liberal banner. Or possibly (I’m not sure exactly where those I read stood or even if they were either) the Liberal MMCC skeptics were Social Liberals whose understanding of the concept includes balance between individual liberty and social justice (I think this seems more like the situation):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
In the latter and more probable case I think, Social Liberals’ individual liberties are being attacked by supposedly fellow Liberals whose “we’re right about everything and everyone else is wrong” attitude is anything but liberal.
Once the component of individual liberty and responsibility is lost, there is no longer a liberal consensus and it’s anything-goes in pursuit of a social cause regime. The upshot being a federal system overseen by a supposedly Liberal Progressive but actually Communitarian President, shut down over the issue of social spending at a time when the country is head over heals in debt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
Seems to me that the catch-all “Liberal” US political ideology category cannot be seen as representing actual liberal AND socialist/communitarian (the tail that wags the Democrat dog at the moment) for much longer i.e. polls like this are not representative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ideology-trends.png
41% Conservative
36% Moderate
21% Liberal [by default includes far Left who are not actually liberal]
Obama and the socialist/communitarian Left (liberal in name only) can’t afford to alienate too many real Liberals and Moderates or they risk splitting the Democrats, similar to what happened with the Republicans and the Tea Party.
It would be interesting to poll all the IPCC authors using more representative categories than above. I’m guessing results:
1% Conservative
10% Moderate
20% Liberal
69% Socialist
“we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy” – Ottmar Edenhofer, UN.
‘IPCC: Fixing the Facts’
by Steve McIntyre
Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared.
>>>>>>>>>
http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/
The “revised” graphic is already being shown on the The Guardian by Nutticelli and dutifully regurgitated by The Faithful as gospel
Link here
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate
Thing is, Figure 1.4 is a graph of CMIP3. It is the state-of-the-art, narrower margins, CMIP5 that’s relevant now.
It will be interesting to see what the provenance of the new Figure 1.4 is and the “harmonization” details. SM:
“None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.”
Someone at CA points to a (possibly) contradictory graph in Chapter 11, I think it is. Also questions now over the hindcast prior to the zeroing point. In any event, observed temperatures can stay flat for another 15 years or so and still be within the new Figure 1.4 margin. Some catastrophe using CMIP3.
Hot Topic is full of some rather remarkable drivel at the moment, including Dave Frame trying to defend the 2035 “Himalayagate” issue as a mere typo
but this cracked me up from Thomas
just amazing really.
It gets better
We should make these into Christmas Cracker jokes
The BBC betrayed its values by giving Professor Carter this climate platform
How can letting a geologist appear as a legitimate climate scientist to ridicule the IPCC report be in the public interest?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/bbc-betrayed-values-carter-scorn-ipcc
The comments on the Guardian article are a bit of a laugh
I wonder which “values” at the BBC they are referring to? Perhaps the ones that allowed it to be infiltrated by Green activists, or the ones that allowed a culture of child abuse to continue for decades?
Dave Frame seems to be doing a sterling job defending the IPCC over at Hot Topic
Really? I wish I had more time for this and I wish Renowden would let me in. But then, I feel nauseous when I venture over there, so Gareth is doing me a favour by keeping the door shut.
Some of the stuff Dave is saying is reasonable, like “no one at the IPCC is claiming uncontrollable warming”.
However, he was defending the IPCC 2035 Himalayan melting date as a “typo”.
I think there is a bit more to it than that, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt as not everyone has the time to look into this stuff, and Dave seems one of the more reasonable voices in the NZ climate change establishment
Greenpeace are now “leveraging” the arrested activists in Russia:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/9235049/Greenpeace-disrupt-Champions-League-game-in-Basel
RichardT. as one who has participated in organizing the estate for what we in the USA call Estate Sales both for relatives and strangers, and who has worked many estate sales as a negotiator with potential buyers I will embolden myself to offer you some advice. Your Aunt Rita is a nonagenarian, apparently of some means if her estate has required so much of your time. At first glance some of the items involved may appear to be of little value but are actually of quite a large value. If you have any doubts consult the best available expert even if you have to pay for the advice. I also frequent estate sales as a buyer and collector. Even the “experts” who evaluate the items for sale frequently don’t know what they are doing. If I had the time and energy (I’m 71) to purchase and market the mistakes I could make a good living buying and selling. For example’ as I type these words I am looking at a signed artist proof of a Roger Tory Peterson print of one of his paintings. Roger Tory Peterson illustrated and wrote the original bird guide. The print is archive framed and matted. I know from the kind of research climate alarmists don’t do that I could easily sell it for $1500 (US). I paid $60 (US) for it. If I lived in New Zealand I would come and offer my assistance. Even without the intimate knowledge of New Zealand I possess of the American South I would probably be of help as would be my soul mate, the beloved Libby. I and I’m sure Libby, an expert herself, would advise you to reflect on what your Aunt great interests were when she was accumulating “stuff”. There frequently lies the real monetary value.
Also, I have been checking in here daily looking for new posts. I suspected your absence had something to do with your Aunt’s death. I missed that the discussion was still going on without you. I pledge to participate in that discussion in the future.
Stan, your willingness to give expert help warms my heart. But things are going well and we lack for nothing to do the job. Thanks for your participation.
It’s delightful indeed that the conversation continues so well without me.
RT
Yes, it has been a real hive of activity. Andy kicking metaphorical cans cans around in the dust and RC talking to himself.
“Russians Start Charging Greenpeace Activists With Piracy”
http://toryaardvark.com/2013/10/02/russians-start-charging-greenpeace-activists-with-piracy/
10 Pages of IPCC Science Mistakes?
October 2, 2013 at 1:28 pm
Political manipulation of a scientific document – or pages upon pages of newly-discovered scientific errors? You decide.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/10/02/10-pages-of-ipcc-science-mistakes/
>”In many cases the alterations were so substantial that the IPCC now says the text of nine of its 14 chapters needs to be re-visited”
‘Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency
with the approved Summary for Policymakers’
(Submitted by the Co-Chairs of the IPCC Working Group I)
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/P36Doc4_WGI-12_Changes-Underlying-Assessment.pdf
Thomas Stocker and Qin Dahe are the Co-Chairs of Working Group I.
So the work of all the lead and contributing authors of the respective nine chapters will be overridden by Stocker and Dahe’s changes. Will the author lists of each chapter reflect this and the changes flagged in the text as revision? I bet not.
And the summary determines the wording of the chapter apparently e.g. “Change 1979 to 1951”
The warming in the attribution period actually started 1979, not 1951 i.e. the chapter authors got it right first time. But the summary attribution period of “warming” is 1951 to 2010 even though only 2 of those 6 decades exhibited warming.
Got to get the meme right.
>”…the summary attribution period of “warming” is 1951 to 2010 even though only 2 of those 6 decades exhibited any warming”
As per AR5 SPM Figure 1(a):
http://cdn.thestandard.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/cache/2013/09/IPCC-AR5-Figure-SPM1-a/1137265759.png
Current decade 2011 to 2013 (2 yrs 5 mths) is cooler on average than 2001 to 2010:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Climate-Bet-Graph_Robin-Pittwood.jpg
CRU confirms this on page 1 of ‘Global Temperature Record’ by Phil Jones:
“The first two years of the present decade (2011 and 2012) are cooler than the average for 2001-2010,”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/1295957/Info+sheet+%231.pdf/c612fc7e-babb-463c-b5e3-124ac76680c5
So where next for the IPCC? Looks like the pause is over but no sign of warming resuming. In fact, a bit of cooling. Given their bumbling efforts to explain the pause, this next episode should be a doozy.
>”…the summary attribution period of “warming” is 1951 to 2010 even though only 2 of those 6 decades exhibited any warming”
Yes, they need to take it from further back so they can try to say that it’s a trend of at least a 30 yr period. Whereas the ‘pause’ only lasts from 16-23 yrs in length and is insignificant due to it being less than 30 yrs. If we say there has been no warming for 18 yrs (an average of all the temperature records) then that gives us approximately 15 yrs of warming followed by 18 yrs of no warming, which is a pretty crap track record for AGW theory.
The IPCC are going to expire from their next report, they have no scientific integrity left, and it’s so obvious I doubt even the greenies and their propaganda mouthpieces in the media believe it anymore.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/we-did-it-and-its-going-to-get-worse-but-its-not-yet-too-late-ipcc-ar5-science-report-summary-released/#comment-39061
Time to do something, Gareth, I think…
Who calls the shots around here?
>[Dave Frame] “We’ve long known that the oceans take up heat associated with surface warming”
Heh, but it wasn’t until the start of the pause c. 2000 that something (what was it?) triggered the ocean to suck all the anthropogenic global warming out of the atmosphere according to the speculation Dave? Or, as Jo Nova puts it “What switched the ocean on?”:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/temperature/gistemp-1970-2013-artificial-warming-natural-cooling2.gif
By some undocumented (by the IPCC after 25 years of speculation) process too. So shouldn’t that be “Time to do something, [IPCC], I think…” ?
>”…there’s a real debate where there isn’t”
Actually I’m inclined to agree. We can’t debate – or more importantly, critique the process – if there’s no observed (at the interface) air => sea heat transfer of the magnitude required to account for 1950s – 2000s ocean heat accumulation. Neither is there any paper positing the thermodynamic process at the air/sea interface, whether radiative or sensible heat (the IPCC don’t elaborate, see below).
Dave Frame should read AR5 Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution, 10.4.1 Ocean Temperature and Heat Content, where all he’ll find is (no citation):
“Air-sea fluxes are the primary mechanism by which the oceans are expected to respond to externally forced anthropogenic and natural volcanic influences”
Is that statement even debatable?
Via Junk Science:
‘Let Science Set the Facts’
By THOMAS LOVEJOY
“Does the leveling-off of temperatures mean that the climate models used to track them are seriously flawed? Not really. It is important to remember that models are used so that we can understand where the Earth system is headed.”
Thomas Lovejoy is professor of science and public policy at George Mason University and biodiversity chairman at the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/opinion/let-science-set-the-facts.html?_r=1&
Via GWPF:
‘Scientists to IPCC: YES, solar quiet spells like the one now looming CAN mean ICE AGES’
Pesky boffins just refuse to toe the consensus line
By Lewis Page
[…]
The current 11-year peak in solar action is the weakest seen for a long time, and it may presage a lengthy quiet period. Previously, historical records suggest that such periods have been accompanied by chilly conditions on Earth – perhaps to the point where a coming minimum might counteract or even render irrelevant humanity’s carbon emissions. The “Little Ice Age” seen from the 15th to the 19th centuries is often mentioned in this context.
There are certainly plenty of scientists to say, along with the IPCC, that this isn’t so. For instance climate physicist Joanna Haigh has this to say, in tinned quotes offered alongside the AR5 release by the UK’s Science Media Centre:
“Even if the Sun were to enter a new ‘grand minimum’ state within the next century, [solar variation] would be very unlikely to provide more than a small, temporary, partial compensation for likely anthropogenic warming.”
And yet the Little Ice Age appears to have affected the climate powerfully. IPCC-leaning scientists, however, say that the Little Ice Age couldn’t have been caused by solar variability – not even solar variability combined with sky-darkening volcanic eruptions – as the effects would have been too weak.
That school of science would often suggest that the Little Ice Age was actually caused by a sequence of unusually powerful North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) atmospheric phenomena – or, in other words, that it was just a blip: rather like the current 15-year hiatus in global warming
[…]
A Berne university statement just issued tells us:
“Bernese climate researchers Flavio Lehner, Andreas Born, Christoph Raible and Thomas Stocker reveal that the Little Ice Age was also able to take its course without the influence of the NAO, driven purely by the consequences of strong and frequent volcanic eruptions at the time, a reduced solar radiation, or both together.”
>>>>>>>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/01/scientists_to_ipcc_yes_solar_quiet_spells_like_the_one_now_looming_can_mean_ice_ages/
Co-author Thomas Stocker is also co-chair of IPCC AR5 WGI.
With regard subjective perceptions of last winter, in the north several aquaintances have commented on it being a long cold winter with a warm patch in the middle. Keri Keri recorded its lowest night time temperature since records started.
Re Brian Fallows rave in the Herald yesterday:
“Governments, including ours, have adopted a 2C increase in global mean temperature as the boundary between what is just about tolerable and what is downright dangerous climate change. The IPCC report concludes that to give us a decent (66 per cent) chance of keeping below 2C we need to keep within a budget of 1 trillion tonnes of carbon over the entire industrial era. Put another way, mankind can only dump a cumulative 3670 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the climate system as a result of our activities. It sounds like a lot but since the industrial revolution we have already spent about half of that budget. We are spending the rest at a rate of 48 billion tonnes of CO2 a year and rising. On a business-as-usual track we will have blown the carbon budget within about 30 years.”
The ploy here is to talk in GT’s so that the audience cannot relate to the familiar and far more useful measure of parts per million. By taking this approach the obvious divergence between atmospheric CO2 ppm tends and actual temperature trends can be avoided.
Taking their last number 48 GT CO2 (13GTC).
The annual increase in atmospheric CO2 on the current trend line is about 4GTC pa. Extrapolating the current trend means that CO2 would be about 460 ppm in 30 years. The annual usage of fossil fuels averaged about 8GTC pa over the last ten years.
Their total post industrial budget number is 1000GTC (3670 GT CO2) above.
The current total CO2 in the atmosphere is around 852 GTC (400ppm), and the pre industrial level was around 600GTC (280ppm). It will reach 1133GTC (460ppm) in thirty years on current extrapolation.
Ignoring that in thirty years we will will have only used half their post industrial budget, the whole measure is a load of nonsense.
But we can presumably infer that IPCC are now saying that with another 30 years of status quo, which would take us to 460ppm, will see the tipping point beyond which disaster happens. If that is there position they should state it in terms we can understand – and all have a good laugh.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11133772&ref=rss
It seems odd that they can say that the chance of keeping warming to less than 2 degrees is distant when at the same time the IPCC have reduced the lower bound of ECS to 1.5 degrees and that they no longer have a central estimate
How can they put probability values on any of these acenarios?
Correction 460 PPM equates to 980 GTC in thirty years time
“Climate change and how NZ cities are preparing for it”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=11135901&ref=rss
Why are they rebuilding Christchurch if they are expecting a 50-80cm rise in sea level?
A significant part of the city would be affected.
Why does Auckland think that temps are “likely” to rise between 0.2°C and 2.5°C by 2040 and Christchurch by 2 degrees?
Do these guys actually think at all when writing this drivel?
>”Do these guys actually think at all when writing this drivel?”
No.
The author of the Herald piece is Andy Kenworthy who is some kind of professional activist with a background in raising money for NGOs
http://andykenworthy.com/
So according to Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown: “Cities, rather than countries, are taking the lead on climate change issues”
And from the article:
Auckland Council has set a target to achieve a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, based on 1990 levels.
According to the Plan: “This will require a transformation from a fossil fuel-dependent, high energy-using, high-waste society to an ‘eco – or liveable – city’. This is typified by sustainable resource use, a quality compact form, an eco-economy, and transport and energy systems that are efficient, maximise renewable resources and minimise reliance on fossil-based transport fuels.”
# # #
Wonderful, and starry-eyed. Meanwhile in the rest of the export-driven country, dairy, logs, fruit, steel, and what have you logistics are wholly dependent on fossil-fueled trucking, shipping, and rail (except for a bit of electrified NIMT).
I suspect that just the fruit export sector alone easily generates more CO2 emissions (which occur globally) and uses more CO2 industrially than all the NZ cities combined. None of which however, are anything near comparable to natural emissions anyway or are capable of any climate effect even regionally.
Kenworthy’s uncertainty is laughable: “It is likely that Auckland city could experience [blah blah blah]”
Still, the climate-alarm level has to be raised somehow. It’s been dropping catastrophically, Simon Donner:
‘Has the flood of interest in the IPCC and climate change already dissipated?’
“The release of the IPCC report caused a short surge in public interest about climate change, according the Google Trends search data. Like a river after a flood, the waters have receded. Ten days later, the flood wave has dissipated, and search volume is back to baseline levels for the past year, or what hydrologists would call baseflow levels.”
http://simondonner.blogspot.ca/2013/10/has-flood-of-interest-in-ipcc-and.html?m=1
Richard Lindzen brings the IPCC back down to earth
http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/
Down to earth for sure. Eight succinct and powerful paragraphs that every politician should read.
It’s not as if it would be time consuming – like an IPCC Summary For Policymakers for example.
I thunk one of the more important part of Lindzen’s argument is that the statements that (a) most of the warming of the late 20th C can be attributed to humans and (b) there is no cause for alarm, are consistent
I’d like to see a “robust” rebuttal of these claims
From my point of view, we should focus on the internal inconsistencies within the establishment/IPCC argument, rather than concern about other theories to explain the few fractions of degrees of warming we have experienced. This seems to be Lindzen’s approach and I find it a little hard to fault
In a bumbling, obtuse kind of way, climate science is inching towards the alternative explanations anyway, with a little help from the climate lately. But in doing so the IPCC’s internal inconsistencies are exposed.
Already AR5 is out of date and there’s some rapid progress lately (although the IPCC wont be trumpeting it) on natural variability; the one major item that is creating the inconsistency along with erroneous estimations of external forcing. So not only is pressure on the IPCC coming from considerable understanding outside climate science, now it’s coming from understanding within too. And yes, there’s not really much need to resort to any other avenues although that’s just a natural progression for more inquiring minds I think.
The extreme weather meme hasn’t gained traction with the IPCC but they do appear to be tentatively adopting ocean heat as some sort of contingency. Speculation only so it’ll be interesting to see if they go on with it. I saw at the link below where a ∆E of 20 x 10E22 J (the estimated ocean warming) equates to approximately two hundredths of one percent of estimated total ocean heat.
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/10/07/rapid-increase-in-ocean-heat/
The IPCC can’t keep dining out on their 20th C warming attribution forever if the 21st is not following suit i.e. Lindzen’s a) and b) consistency isn’t that much of an issue IMV because either way, whether human attribution or not, the alarm bells can stop ringing.
‘Understanding multi-decadal climate changes’
by Judith Curry
[…]
JC comments: Well I had a tough time deciding what NOT to include in my excerpts, since all of this is music to my ears. Kudos to the National Taiwan University for hosting this workshop; dare I hope that this topic will be trending for workshops in the U.S. and Europe?
I do disagree with the following statement however:
“Disregarding this dynamically induced component of the 20th century warming leads to around a 10% reduction in the inferred global climate sensitivity.”
I regard this as THE key unknown, and I would not be surprised if it were significantly higher than 10%.
More of this kind of ‘outside that box’ thinking, please.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/08/understanding-multi-decadal-climate-changes/#more-13213
‘Carbon Dioxide and the Ocean’
By Ed Caryl
“There are two possibilities. If CO2 drives temperature, then temperatures should continue to climb. If it doesn’t, then temperatures will fall, then, shortly, CO2 will fall also. Nature is in the process of demonstrating which is which. We can just watch.”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/carbon-dioxide-and-the-ocean-temperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/
“2041: Wellington’s climate departure date”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/9266670/2041-Wellingtons-climate-departure-date
And all I can see out of my window today is snow in them thar hills. Lots of it.
>”The data came from 39 earth system models developed by 21 climate centres in 12 countries, the University of Hawaii said.”
Data?
Thomas Stocker of WG1 is in Wellington, for a stakeholder conference.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/stocker-in-wellington-rsnz-to-stream-ar5-science-workshop/
Why is this man in NZ?
Some background on Stocker
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/17/ipcc-co-chair-thomas-stocker-flunks-major-swiss-interview-ipcc-science-hanging-from-its-last-thread/
First Weltwoche, then Lüning – ouch. Also, the Spokesman-Review reports:
“An old rule says that climate-relevant trends should not be calculated for periods less than around 30 years,” said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the group that wrote the report.
[Huh? There was only 20 years of anthro-attributed warming between 1951 and 2010 but apparently that’s a “climate-relevant trend”]
Many scientists say the purported slowdown reflects random climate fluctuations and an unusually hot year, 1998, picked as a starting point for charting temperatures. Another leading hypothesis is that heat is settling temporarily in the oceans, but that wasn’t included in the summary.
Stocker said there wasn’t enough literature on “this emerging question.”
[Been “emerging” for a while, no literature in the last 2 Assessment Reports though]
http://junkscience.com/2013/09/27/ipcc-report-co-chair-not-enough-literature-on-ocean-ate-my-warming-an-emerging-question/
Never mind, the meeting is for “stakeholders” only, so I am sure questions will be tame and pre-screened, and the lamestream NZ media might timidly ask a question or two of the great man
Asa computer geek, this one from ACM struck a chord
“FAIL: 34 years and billions of dollars… for what? ”
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/10/10/fail-34-years-and-billions-of-dollars-for-what/
Describes the evolution of computer technology of the period of the climate scare, vs what climate science actually achieved over the same period
Not very impressive. Actually, pathetic.
very well put, a good argument. Thanks for the link Andy.
On another topic (yet on topic regards this post), it seems Climate Conversations is now a red dwarf, due to RT’s diminishing involvement, for good reasons.. I have some transformation ideas, but first I seek agreement that RT, having done a marvelous job over the last 6 or 7 years, needs to either shut down the site (because his work is largely done – alarmists are sooo last century) or transform into the next incarnation. I appreciate a community such as this. Any thoughts?
>”alarmists are sooo last century”
Check out the reactions to Prof. Camilo Mora at Climate Depot today:
http://www.climatedepot.com/
My question: why is he smiling?
Re CCG Mike, I think we’re entering an entertaining phase of climate alarmism so a venue like this to enjoy it is much appreciated. Put another way, can anything beat this?
‘The Coming Plague’ — ‘A climate plague affecting every living thing will likely start in 2020 in southern Indonesia, scientists warned Wednesday in the journal Nature’
>”can anything beat this?”
Oh yeah, forgot. Sean Thomas on the future of the British climate:
“Unprecedentedly, I had direct access to the meteorologists concerned, as I was in Exeter in spirit form, and I managed to speak to the principal actors.
First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied,
“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
Startled by this sobering analysis, I moved on to Professor Rowan Sutton, Climate Director of NCAS at the University of Reading…………..”
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/open-threads/climate/regions/uk/
Brilliant – laugh! Had to read it out loud to my wife..
Here is actual live footage of the Sean Thomas and Stephen Belcher meeting. Note the overwhelming evidence for global warming in the background in the form of hellfire smoke, although it might be the computers overheating from the climate models malfunctioning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUM7XHTPe_w
The IPCC need to dump their PR consultants and get this guy.
Wow, you’re on the money, Mike! Impressive.
I thought this morning that your comments are without doubt perspicacious, for my intention is and has been for some time to produce a forum to range over all human affairs. I’ll start a thread for it. Perhaps “A Conversational Climate”? Or “Climate of Conversation”?
>”a forum to range over all human affairs”
The Aussies have to contend with this ABC “dive into the sewer” (via JN):
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_time_for_a_cleansing_of_the_abc/
One hopes that the “Climate of Conversation” on this side of the Tasman remains free of that brand of sordidness. Either that or the forum doesn’t quite range over ALL human affairs perhaps.
On the other hand, but unfortunately, maybe that’s exactly the type of topic on which to converse?
Excellent! I like either title. I like the thought that we can start to discuss the many other aspects of this marvelous planet and the people thereon. Although weather and climate are fascinating, and have fascinated many of us for many years, there are lots of interesting things to converse about. The Fukushima incident, the future of global finances, imperialism and war, people smuggling, history of the Middle East…. I might go on, but I’m sure others have plenty of other interesting topics they might like to list…?
I would have thought that the climate change agenda was just starting to get interesting, personally
It’s always been interesting Andy. Not detracting from it at all, but my attitude to the debate is simply that they’ve had 30 years to convince the world of impending doom, and have clearly failed to do so. Why? Because the evidence is not strong, to be charitable.
So now it’s time to focus on things that actually matter in the world, and tell the warmists to talk to the hand. The hard-core warmist will never be swayed from his zealotry, so debate with him is futile. Absolutely futile. If it has been cooling for 100 years, he will not be swayed.
Anyway, I’m off to mow the lawn – bloody thing has started growing like crazy. Must be all that plant fertiliser floating about.
Mike, the issue I have is that whatever the science says and whatever the climate does, the political machine is still in full “steam ahead” mode
This feature was describes as “regulatory overhang” in Booker and North’s book “Scared to Death”, which I am currently reading, and describes the scare phenomenon – including the big UK scares of Foot and Mouth , Listeria eta. These all got overhyped and cost the country dearly. The same is happening with climate change hysteria
Despite no warming for 15 years, there still seems to be a sense of massive urgency that we need do “do something” to reduce emissions. I was watching the IPCC live stream on Friday from the RSNZ and I got no sense that alarm had diminished. There was talk of tipping points, the IPCC being too conservative, etc etc.
The one sceptical question came from Vince Gray who pointed out the lack of warming for 15 years. This was greeting with chuckles and the usual waffle
There were a few people talking of “the elephant in the room”. I forlornly hoped that the elephant might be the lack of warming and all the recent papers pointing to low climate sensitivity, but no, the elephants were all bigger than that and they were all scary
The problem, I see, is that the powers that be, the political elite or whatever, seem to have adopted this nihilistic view of humanity that will confine us to serfdom and poverty, apparently “for our own good”
This is quite clearly demonstrated in the UK’s sky rocketing electricity prices. Most of this is a direct result of green energy policies
So, the question is much bigger than climate, or weather. It is how do we deal with this modern disease that sees humanity as the enemy of the planet, a form of “disease”.
I personally feel optimistic that human ingenuity can rise to any challenge, but this is not the message we get in our education and political systems.
How do we deal with this, is the “elephant in the room”
The elephant in their room.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/miliband-unveils-first-energy-price-increase-2013101080226
Mike –
brilliant!
Live Stream from Wellington IPCC meeting on now
http://new.livestream.com/i-filmscience/IPCCworkshop
Questions : Vincent Gray. “There has been no warming for 15 years. Surely this means that the models are wrong”.
‘Climate Models’ Tendency to Simulate Too Much Warming and the IPCC’s Attempt to Cover That Up’
By Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels
[…]
By not showing all the data, and instead, only that which best supports the narrative the IPCC wishes to spin—that climate models are reliable tools for projecting future climate changes resulting from human emissions of greenhouse gases—the IPCC misleads the public, government entities that defer to the IPCC (such as the EPA and the Supreme Court), and policymakers.
This has got to stop.
The IPCC has outlived whatever usefulness it may ever have had. It is time to disband this central climate “authority” and disperse the assessment of climate science to a broader, more diverse community.
http://www.cato.org/blog/climate-models-tendency-simulate-too-much-warming-ipccs-attempt-cover
I missed Vincent Gray’s question – what was the answer?
The answer was along the lines that 15 years is a short time over the period of post-industrial warming of 150 years, conveniently side-stepping the issue that the IPCC only attribute CO2 warming to post 1950
Stocker did say that “the pause” was a topic of much research, and Dave Frame worked on the chapter on “the pause”.
Dave Frame also trashed the 350.org campaign during questions, by stating that the 350 figure is based on a CS value of 6 degrees which is not supported by IPCC science
Also conveniently ignores that emissions rise was small over the first 100 years of that 150 years but the rise over the last 15 years has been dramatic:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/global.total.jpg
They have wrapped it up now. Peter Barrett (?) at the end describes the work of the IPCC as one of the greatest intellectual achievements of mankind.
Altogether a wonderful group hug for the warmist community
There were also comments about coal and fracking. William Rolleston (Fed Farmers) made some good points I thought. Rod Oram was being his usual self, that we shouldn’t be exploring for oil because it is unlikely to be economic, and we shouldn’t be fracking. We should be (according to him) burning trees because the ETS (or lack of it) has made forestry not worthwhile
Off topic but … I was looking at the sea level rises in 2 reports from the Aussie govt. One (2011) says that the sea level is rising 7mm/yr (7.6.6 Sea Level, pg. 118):
http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PCCSP_Vol2_Ch7_Marshallislands.pdf
And the other (2010) says that it’s rising 3.8 mm/yr in the executive summary on page 2:
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60025/IDO60025.2010.pdf
Which is correct, the satellite data or the SEAFRAME data?
And then there’s the graph on pg 125 (7.9a) that seems to say that they’re both the same. (edited)
http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PCCSP_Vol2_Ch7_Marshallislands.pdf
Magoo – not sure but Tim Naish said emphatically at the IPCC briefing just now that sea level rise is accelerating
>”Altogether a wonderful group hug for the warmist community”
Yes, group hug was exactly the thought that went through my mind.
Tim Naish also hauled out the old Hockey Stick complete with temp record spliced onto the paleo data. It was just a great nostalgic moment, sort of “The Best of the IPCC – The boxed set”.
>”Which is correct, the satellite data or the SEAFRAME data?”
Magoo, 7.9a on pg 125 (3rd link) does show (by eye) the shorter satellite trend to be much steeper than the 4 non-SEAFRAME tide guages, even over the common period. Also it would appear that 1993 was an unfortunate start date for both the Majuro SEAFRAME tide guage and the satellites going by that graph.
From the pg 2 summary (2nd link):
● A SEAFRAME gauge was installed in Majuro, Marshall Islands, in May 1993. It records sea level, air and water temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed and direction. It is one of an array designed to monitor changes in sea level and climate in the Pacific.
● The sea level trend to date is +4.3 mm/year but the magnitude of the trend continues to vary widely from month to month as the data set grows. Accounting for the precise levelling results and inverted barometric pressure effect, the trend is +3.8 mm/year. Nearby gauges, with longer records but less precision and datum control, show trends of +2.3, +1.3, and +1.7 mm/year.
From 7.6.6 Sea Level, pg. 118 (1st link):
The sea-level rise near the Marshall Islands measured by satellite altimeters (Figure 7.5) since 1993 is about 0.3 inches (7 mm) per year, more than the global average of 0.125 ± 0.015 inches (3.2 ± 0.4 mm) per year. This rise is partly linked to a pattern related to climate variability from year to year and decade to decade (Figure 7.9).
# # #
So,
7.9a is 4 tide guages (not SEAFRAME) going back to 1950.
Pg 2 summary is a SEAFRAME gauge installed in Majuro, Marshall Islands, in 1993 and the trend “continues to vary widely from month to month as the data set grows”.
7.6.6 is satellite altimeter “near” [not “at” note] Marshall Islands since 1993.
In the tropical west Pacific a 7 mm per year trend is not unusual in either tide guages or satellites so neither is correct or wrong i.e. you don’t have to move very far from a specific location to obtain an entirely different trend. However, given the work (precision and datum control) that has gone into the SEAFRAME array then they will be reliable for each specific SEAFRAME location. The satellites are calibrated with surface but not necessarily with Majuro for example.
But all that is the western tropical Pacific. Take a look at Figure 7.5: The regional distribution of the rate of sea-level rise measured by satellite altimeters from January 1993 to December 2010, with the location of the Marshall Islands indicated, on pg 119:
http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PCCSP_Vol2_Ch7_Marshallislands.pdf
Even at 150/160 degrees West (i.e. still western Pacific), the 1993 – 2010 trend is around 0 mm/year. The AVISO Mean Sea Level rise page provides the entire Pacific (and globe):
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
No SLR trend (in fact a fall over vast areas) in the eastern tropical Pacific for the last 21 years i.e. SLR is NOT a global phenomenon. The global metric is skewed by the western tropical Pacific west of Marshall Islands.
Cheers Richard.
Regarding the issue I mentioned about the glaring difference between the sea level trends of the satellite data and SEAFRAME tidal gauges, I came across this interesting titbit from Steve Goddard about how the error margins cancel out the sea level rises in the satellite data and how the error graphs have been hidden:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/shock-news-satellite-sea-level-error-is-100-of-the-trend/
and:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/more-on-the-satellite-sea-level-fraud/
Bit of a chuckle at this from the COP19 blog from Poland, though the orginal seems to have been taken down for offending some people
http://toryaardvark.com/2013/10/11/cop19-hosts-poland-melting-arctic-ice-offers-new-opportunities-for-drilling-chasing-pirates-terrorists-ecologists/
and more on the COP blog
http://www.cop19.gov.pl/cop19-blog
Heh, “…..the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy.”
http://junkscience.com/2013/10/11/lib-tard-cbs-dangerously-dumb-for-reporting-global-warming-stop/
Caps now?
Yes really, this kind of stuff does my head in
I spend my day job kicking tyres and finding problems and resolving them. When I apply the same methodology to “climate change”, i get accused of being a “science denier”
How did we get here?