IPCC report a non-starter for West Virginia politicians
IPCC report a non-starter for West Virginia politicians
http://junkscience.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-report-a-non-starter-for-west-virginia-politicians/
The AP reports: A new international report that says the warming of the planet is “unequivocal” has not swayed many West Virginia political leaders. They still strongly oppose the Obama administration’s plan to cut greenhouse emissions from coal-fired plants. Rep. Nick J. Rahall says the pursuit of those cuts will cost American jobs, while fellow […]
Sent by gReader Pro…
Peter Lilley: The End Is Near For Global Warming Doomsday Cult
Peter Lilley: The End Is Near For Global Warming Doomsday Cult
http://www.thegwpf.org/peter-lilley-global-warming-doomsday-cult/
The global warming doomsday cult is coming to an end.
Belief that the world is doomed, unless we replace coal and gas by renewables costing two or three times as much, is already driving up home energy bills and making manufacturing uncompetitive. But last week both Ed Miliband and a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) signalled – by what they deliberately didn’t say – that global warming alarmism is no longer politically or scientifically sustainable.
Unfortunately, when doomsday forecasts fail, cult supporters don’t immediately give up. A US social scientist infiltrated a cult whose leader predicted the apocalypse would arrive on 21 December, as would a flying saucer to save her followers. When neither came on the appointed day, most of her followers, far from abandoning the cult, accepted their leader’s message that doom had been postponed and became even more fanatical.
So it is with most merchants of global warming doom. Their models forecast that, as carbon dioxide emissions rise, the world’s temperature should accelerate upwards. Over a third of human carbon emissions since the beginning of time have been pumped into the atmosphere since the end of the last century – but the temperature has simultaneously stopped rising. That would give all objective scientists cause to question these models.
But the IPCC bureaucrats simply announced that warming has been deferred: the heat must be temporarily hiding in the deep oceans. And they are now twice as certain that warming (which should be occurring but hasn’t materialised) is caused by mankind’s wicked use of fossil fuels as they were when temperatures were actually rising. They do not feel it necessary to tell us why heat has suddenly hidden in the deeps, nor whether previous warming might have been partly due to heat rising from the depths.
But real scientists have been doing real science – observing facts, measuring real changes and adapting theories to fit facts, not vice versa. All scientists recognise that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The direct effect of doubling the amount in the atmosphere would be to raise the temperature by a harmless, indeed beneficial, 1 degrees Celsius.
The question is whether and how much this is amplified by uncertain feedbacks. Almost all recent studies have concluded that the climate is much less sensitive than previous IPCC reports asserted. …
‘Just as economists can’t tell us how to abolish boom-bust, so scientists don’t yet know how to fix the climate or even if it’s broken’
‘Just as economists can’t tell us how to abolish boom-bust, so scientists don’t yet know how to fix the climate or even if it’s broken’
Dominic Lawson writes in the Sunday Times: Just as economists cannot tell us how to abolish boom and bust, so scientists do not yet know how to fix the climate or even if it’s broken. Read more…
Sent by gReader Pro…
Russia seizes Greenpeace ship for trespass and piracy
Russia seizes Greenpeace ship for trespass and piracy
Russia has seized the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise and towed it into the port of Murmansk after Greenpeace personnel “attacked” Russia’s “Prirazlomnaya” oil platform in the Pechora Sea. Thirty people aboard are being held pending investigation of piracy and other charges.
Sent by gReader Pro…
The warming is hiding in the bottom of the ocean. Someday it will pop out and say BOO!
The warming is hiding in the bottom of the ocean. Someday it will pop out and say BOO!
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-warming-is-hiding-in-bottom-of.html
Discussion between radio 2GB’s Alan Jones and Lord Christopher Monckton.The 2007 IPCC report said that the earth was warming at 0.2ºC per decade, the latest report reduces that figure to 0.12º. We’re contributing $100 billion a year by 2020 to the UN green climate fund, in the three years to June 30 we have contributed $600 million! “and the electorate would not have a clue that we were stumping up this money.Lord Monckton again points out the fraud of theCook et al paper. Fraudster Peter Gleik is on the board of the journal.Ross McKittrick pointed out how much theyhave got wrong in the past.Alan: Carbon dioxide is warming the planet but it won’t be evident in the temperatures, it is hiding somewhere in the bowels of the ocean.LCM: This is the extraordinary thing. They are saying that it somehow managed to go from the atmosphere into the ocean. Not into the bit of the ocean that touches the atmosphere, no it missed that out and it’s gone down and hidden in the bottom of the ocean where we can’t measure it. And one day it’s going to come out and say boo! I mean you couldn’t make it up well, yes you could, because that’s exactly what they’ve done. * * * * * * * * * * * How can people, whether a trained scientist or just an ordinary member of the planet’s population believe this drivel?Hear the conversation:http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/16191#.Ukjp3mT0__8
Sent by gReader Pro…
Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn: UN IPCC report ‘A Cowardly Cover-Up and a disgrace to science’
IPCC report “A Cowardly Cover-Up and a disgrace to science”
http://iceagenow.info/2013/09/ipcc-report-a-cowardly-cover-up-disgrace-science/
“If followed, (it) will lead to malnutrition, starvation and impoverishment of millions as world agriculture and economies are hit by the developing Mini-Ice-Age.
Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist and long-range weather and climate scientist and forecaster, comprehensively, scientifically, demolishes the UN IPCC 5th Report and MetOffice/BBC role in a 12page pdf complete with exciting graphs and dynamic quotes.
“The report is indeed totally laughable but also deadly dangerous,” says Piers.
“It is a cowardly cover-up of climate reality in which the BBC and Met Office play an especially dishonest role and an utter disgrace to science. It is a product of self-interested warmist parasites and Big Oil & energy giants who gain from high energy charges.
“It points the world in the wrong direction and if followed will lead to malnutrition, starvation and impoverishment of millions as world agriculture and economies are hit by the developing Mini-Ice-Age while the UN IPCC and Governments (Australia now excepted) impose green taxes in supposed preparation for warming climate changes which are opposite to what will happen.”
“the UN IPCC, Governments, Met Office and warmist media BBC, New York Times etc….prefer the public to suffer and even die than admit their deluded CO2 theory has failed every objective scientific test and can predict nothing.
See entire pdf:
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews13No39.pdf
Thanks to Argiris Diamantis for this link
Sent by gReader Pro…
WSJ Op-Ed: The U.N. IPCC is unreformable and its latest report should be its last
WSJ Op-Ed: The U.N. IPCC is unreformable and its latest report should be its last
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/wsj-op-ed-un-ipcc-is-unreformable-and.html
The Political Science of Global Warming
The U.N.’s latest climate-change report should be its last.
By
RUPERT DARWALL
WSJ.COM 9/30/13: “Human influence extremely likely to be the dominant cause of observed warming since the middle of the last century,” was the headline from Friday’s release of the first instalment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment report. “Extremely likely”—indicating a 95%-100% likelihood—was ratcheted up one notch from the 2007 fourth assessment report’s “very likely.” Yet compared to 2007, the IPCC widened its estimate of the responsiveness of the climate system to carbon dioxide by reducing the lower band to a 1.5°C increase from 2°C, qualifying the new estimate as only “likely.”
This is a glaring discrepancy. How can the IPCC be more confident that more than half the temperature rise since the mid-20th century is caused by greenhouse-gas emissions when it is less sure of the climatic impact of carbon dioxide? The explanation is that IPCC reports, especially the summaries for policymakers, are primarily designed for political consumption. And as if on cue, British Prime Minister David Cameron commented on the IPCC report, “If someone said there is a 95% chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5% that doesn’t agree with it, you still take out the insurance.”
But poke beneath the surface of the IPCC’s latest offering and the confection is revealed for what it is. The IPCC’s quantification of the separate components of the warming since 1951 (greenhouse gases, cooling from aerosols, internal variability) is deemed only “likely” (66%-100% likelihood). Only at the IPCC could the sum of these components be given a greater likelihood than the individual building blocks. Perhaps the most revealing aspect is that none of the climate scientists involved seems embarrassed at this nonsense or protests at the manipulation of science for political ends.
This time around, the greatest difficulty faced by the IPCC was explaining the ongoing 15-year pause in atmospheric temperature increases. The body estimates that between 2011 and 2005, there has been a 43% rise in human-induced radiative forcing—the difference between solar radiation entering the atmosphere and infrared radiation leaving the atmosphere, whose balance is supposedly greatly disturbed by heat-trapping man-made emissions. But there has been little warming for 15 years.
© Dave Reede/First Light/Corbis
Other …
Does UN IPCC report mean having the Earth put down?
…Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer: The Global Warming They Fear is NOT Based upon Physical First Principles
The Global Warming They Fear is NOT Based upon Physical First Principles
Prof. Lindzen critiques climate model calculations.We are expected to swoon over the fact that climate models, which are run on supercomputers, are state-of-the-art achievements in science. But “state-of-the-art” does not always mean accurate, or even useful, if the art is still in its infancy.
It is sometimes said that climate models are built upon physical first principles, as immutable as the force of gravity or conservation of energy (which are, indeed, included in the models). But this is a half-truth, at best, spoken by people who either don’t know any better or are outright lying.
The most physically sound portion of global warming predictions is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes about a 1% energy imbalance in the system (energy imbalances are what cause temperature to change), and if nothing else but the temperature changes, there would only be about a 1 deg. C warming response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (we aren’t even 50% of the way to doubling).
But this is where the reasonably sound, physical first principles end (if you can even call them that since the 1 deg estimate is a theoretical calculation, anyway).
Most of the model-predicted warming people are worried about is not due to this 1 deg., which would likely be benign or even beneficial. It’s the additional 2 deg. or more of warming many models produce, which originates from highly uncertain positive feedbacks: how clouds, water vapor, and other features of the climate system change with warming, which then further amplify the warming.
Cloud Feedback
These positive feedbacks, if they even exist, are in effect what scare the wits out of people. You could “dial in” positive feedback just by (for example) making the average amount of low cloud in a model decrease slightly as the average temperature warms.
It’s not this simple, of course, but my point is that ‘worrisome warming’ is caused in the models by highly parameterized (i.e. simplified) and uncertain components buried deep amongst the models’ real physical principles. The physics involved in cloud formation are, for the most part, not included in climate models. Even cloud resolving models, which do “grow” clouds, depend upon uncertain parameterizations (e.g. the autoconversion threshhold).
So, what are the feedbacks in the real climate system? Unfortunately, they are notoriously hard to measure.
The main reason, I believe, …
Aussie paper: IPCC report ‘fails to make waves’
Aussie paper: IPCC report ‘fails to make waves’
http://junkscience.com/2013/09/30/aussie-paper-ipcc-report-fails-to-make-waves/
The Canberra Times reports: The IPCC’s decision to release only a 36-page summary of the 2013 report may be the reason the response to Friday has been relatively low-key, and once the full 900-page document is handed down next week, climate sceptics will come forth to find fault with the science and the methodology. Certainly, […]
Sent by gReader Pro…