Dueling Climate Reports: International team of scientists issue new report countering IPCC: ‘UN has hidden research that shows that nature, not humanity, controls the climate’
OTTAWA, Sept. 17, 2013 /CNW/ – “As the science promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) falls into disrepute, reporters face a difficult decision,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “Should they cover IPCC reports, the next of which will be issued on September 27th, as if there were no other reputable points of view? Or should they also seek out climate experts who disagree with the UN’s view that we will soon face a human-induced climate crisis?
Professor Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia, explained, “NIPCC’s CCR-II report uses layman’s language to present solid evidence that today’s climate changes are well within the bounds of natural variability. Real world observations tell us that the IPCC’s speculative computer models do not work, ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is not increasing, and dangerous global warming is not occurring.”
CCR-II Lead Author for the extreme weather chapter, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, agrees, “When the earth was generally cooling between 1945 and 1977, there were as many extreme weather events as there are now, but climate scientists did not attribute this to human activity. The perceived link between global warming and extreme weather is primarily due to greater media attention on violent weather today than in past decades. Earth’s climate is robust and is not being destabilized by human-added CO2.”
Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology and Geochemistry at the University of Oslo, Norway, Dr.Tom V. Segalstad, added, “CO2 is ‘the gas of life’. The more CO2, the more life. More CO2 means we can feed more people on Earth. CO2 is contributing very little to the ‘greenhouse effect’. Clouds have much more influence on temperature.”
Segalstad, a CCR-II Contributing Author, also pointed out, “The ocean has a very large buffer capacity. Hence the pH of the ocean will not be significantly changed from the relatively small contribution of anthropogenic CO2.”
NIPCC Chapter Lead Author, Dr. Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, describes the new report as “the most comprehensive report yet on all the issues surrounding climate and climate change.” Lupo worked on the climate models chapter about which he …
Rajendra Pachauri, Fake Nobel Laureate (Part 2): ‘Why has Yale University promulgated the fiction that the chairman of the IPCC is a Nobel laureate?’
Rajendra Pachauri, Fake Nobel Laureate (Part 2)
Why has Yale University promulgated the fiction that the chairman of the IPCC is a Nobel laureate?…
Rajendra Pachauri, Fake Nobel Laureate (Part 1): ‘Why does the New York Academy of Sciences falsely call the chairman of the IPCC a Nobel laureate?’
Rajendra Pachauri, Fake Nobel Laureate (Part 1)
Why does the New York Academy of Sciences falsely call the chairman of the IPCC a Nobel laureate?Read the rest here.…
A Further Look at the Social Cost of Carbon: ‘It represents a huge, but little-known back door that is silently swinging open for costly government regulation of carbon emissions. Economics and science argue that door should be barred and locked’
A Further Look at the Social Cost of Carbon
Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels
We are in the process of putting the final touches on our Public Comment concerning the Department of Energy’s use of the social cost of carbon in its recent rulemaking regulating the energy efficiency of microwave ovens. (We’ll make our Comment available as soon as we file it.) The social cost of carbon (SCC) is the government’s idea of how much future damage will be caused by each ton of carbon dioxide emitted today.
Our DOE Comment focuses entirely on the new science concerning the equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will increase from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content. We argue that had the new science indicating a lower equilibrium climate sensitivity been properly incorporated into the determination of the SCC used by the DOE, it would have had a significant impact on the cost/benefit analysis used to justify the new regulation. The “benefits” of requiring lower energy consumption from microwave ovens would have been reduced.
But, as we have discussed previously, the new, lower estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity is just one of several key variables to which the SCC is very sensitive.
Another is whether or not the social cost of carbon used in U.S. government cost/benefit analyses of proposed rules and regulations should reflect an estimate of global or domestic costs. Currently, in a departure from its own guidelines, the government uses the global SCC in determining the benefits accrued by reducing domestic carbon dioxide reductions. Unsurprisingly, the global SCC is many times higher than the domestic SCC.
And another variable is the “discount rate” used in the SCC calculation. The discount rate reflects how much we are willing to pay now to reduce the costs of projected carbon-related damages in the future. The lower the discount rate, the more we must pay now and thus the higher the current SCC seems to be. In another departure from its own guidelines, the government’s calculation uses an especially low discount rate, resulting in a high SCC and thus more “benefits” from regulations reducing carbon emissions.
There was an insightful column in the New York Times earlier this week by Eduardo Porter that is one of the clearest explanations we have read on the effects and rationale of the choice of …
Medieval Witchcraft as Congress Seeks to Control the Weather! ‘House Democrats are calling for strong new climate regulations to battle the extreme weather’ — Dem Rep. Henry Waxman: Government can prevent ‘extreme weather’ with new regulations
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.): ”We spend billions of dollars to respond to each disaster and rebuild in the aftermath. Unfortunately many members of Congress continue to deny that climate change is even happening.’…
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Breaks All-Time Record For Ice Growth — ‘Increasing to 19.512 million sq km, and beating last year’s record high of 19.477’
By Paul Homewood
According to NSIDC, Antarctic sea ice extent reached its all time record high on 14th September, increasing to 19.512 million sq km, and beating last year’s record high of 19.477. Records started to be kept in 1979.
This year’s record is 941,000 sq km above the long term mean, and continues an upward trend in recent years.
Extent has declined slightly in the last two days, so it may have now reached its maximum for this year.
Let’s just recall what the IPCC are saying about Antarctic sea ice in the draft of the next report.
‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations… There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
Translation – They were not expecting this and don’t understand why it is happening.
Prof. Ross McKitrick: ‘Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph’
The figure nearby is from the draft version that underwent expert review last winter. It compares climate model simulations of the global average temperature to observations over the post-1990 interval. During this time atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 12%, from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 396 ppm. The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: ‘We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations’
For the last 10-20 years or more, a few of us have been saying that the IPCC has been ignoring the elephant in the room…that the real climate system is simply not as sensitive to CO2 emissions as they claim. Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.
This elephant has had to be ignored at all costs. What, the globe isn’t warming from manmade CO2 as fast as we predicted? Then it must be manmade aerosols cooling things off. Or the warming is causing the deep ocean to heat up by hundredths or thousandths of a degree. Any reason except reduced climate sensitivity, because low climate sensitivity might mean we really don’t have to worry about global warming after all.
And, if that’s the case, the less relevant the IPCC becomes. Not good if your entire professional career has been invested in the IPCC.
Suzanne Goldenberg: Eco Activist Disguised as a Journalist: ‘The Guardian‘s environment correspondent couldn’t be more one-sided if she herself were on the IPCC’s payroll’
Suzanne Goldenberg: Eco Activist Disguised as a Journalist
The Guardian‘s environment correspondent couldn’t be more one-sided if she herself were on the IPCC’s payroll. Read the rest here.…