A New Climategate?! ‘UN IPCC Stands Accused Of Misleading World Leaders & The Public’ — ‘Did The IPCC ‘Fix The Facts’? ‘Discrepancy between climate models & observations was systematically hidden’
Via the Global Warming Policy Foundation
|
For the envelopes from the first three IPCC assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes. You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions. At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this. 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. —Steve McIntyre, How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate
How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/how-climate-models-dismiss-role-of-sun.html
The IPCC attributes 20th century global warming primarily to CO2 on the basis climate models, claiming that the increase in solar activity during the 20th century was insufficient to cause the observed warming. Thus, it is claimed, CO2 is by default the only other possible cause of the warming [they don’t know how to model ocean oscillations, so those are automatically & conveniently excluded as a cause].
However, climate models are programmed with solar forcing that is 5-13 times less than found by state-of-the-art solar activity reconstructions. For example, the NASA-GISS climate model uses the following solar forcing assumption:
which shows solar activity increased during the 20th century by only about 0.3 Watts per meter squared [W/m2]. Contemporary solar activity reconstructions, however, show that solar activity increased during the 20th century by 1.5 – 4 W/m2 or 5 – 13 times more than assumed by the NASA-GISS model.
Reconstructed Total solar irradiance [TSI] shown in upper right graph shows an increase of ~ 4 W/m2 over the 20th century
Solar forcing based on these modern reconstructions is 1 – 2.6 times higher than the alleged forcing from increased greenhouse gases during the 20th century. In addition, climate models do not consider any of the multiple solar amplification mechanisms which have been described in the literature. Thus, the IPCC and others dismiss the role of the Sun in climate by conveniently assuming solar activity changed 5 – 13 times less than the research indicates.
Sent by gReader Pro…
EPA mandates that new coal plants prevent nonexistent climate problem with unavailable solution
EPA mandates that new coal plants prevent nonexistent climate problem with unavailable solution
Carl Erickson writes at Forbes: Am I missing something? Now, as the UN’s IPCC frantically attempts to explain how its alarmist predictions based upon theoretical climate models got it so wrong, the EPA has issued a new regulatory assault on coal to prevent…yup…a climate crisis. And the solution? Well, the problem is, that is if […]
Sent by gReader Pro…
IPCC On Antarctic Sea Ice: The IPCC ‘models forecast less ice, and they cannot explain why there is instead more ice’
IPCC On Antarctic Sea Ice
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-on-antarctic-sea-ice/
By Paul Homewood
The newly released IPCC Fifth Assessment Report has a few things to say about the increasing Antarctic sea ice extent:-
1) Available evidence precludes us from making robust statements about overall changes in Antarctic sea ice and their causes.
2)There has been a small but significant increase in total ice extent of 1.5% per decade between 1979 and 2012, and a greater increase in ice area, indicating an increase in concentration.
3) The observed upward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent is found to be inconsistent with internal variability based on the residuals from a linear trend fitted to the observations, though this approach could underestimate multi-decadal variability.
4) The CMIP5 simulations [i.e climate models] on average simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent though Turner et al. (2013) find that approximately 10% of CMIP5 simulations exhibit an increasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent larger than observed over the 1979-2005 period. However, Antarctic sea ice extent variability appears on average to be too large in the CMIP5 models (Turner et al., 2013; Zunz et al., 2013)
In other words, their models forecast less ice, and they cannot explain why there is instead more ice. The fact that area is increasing even faster would suggest that the increase in extent is not due to winds spreading the ice out.
Perhaps some of the naive SkS denizens might care to take note, before they embarrass themselves again with their wacky theories.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter04.pdf
Sent by gReader Pro…
Study Finds ARGO Buoys Show No Evidence Of Missing Heat
Study Finds ARGO Buoys Show No Evidence Of Missing Heat
By Paul Homewood
Further to recent debate about missing heat disappearing into the oceans, it is worth recalling a study from 2010 by Knox & Douglass.
ABSTRACT
A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2,as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling
rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
Of course, we still have only a very short period of ARGO data, so it is much too early to make any projections either way. Nevertheless, this paper confirms there is absolutely no evidence at all that the missing heat has gone into the oceans.
Sent by gReader Pro…
Physicist explains why increased CO2 has a trivial effect upon climate
Physicist explains why increased CO2 has a trivial effect upon climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/physicist-explains-why-increased-co2.html
Climate science in a Styrofoam cupby Mal Wedd September 30, 2013 Quadrant OnlineWhen I went to university to study physics, serious scientists observed patterns, developed hypotheses to explain them, developed experiments to test the hypotheses, and wrote papers on the experimental data to confirm or deny the hypotheses.In this post-modern world of “science”, if you assert something loudly enough, often enough and with enough passion, you will gain a flock of supporters (aka consensus), your assertion will become fact, and all your dreams comes true. The IPCC’s wish is that carbon dioxide is driving the planet’s climate, and no amount of historic temperature adjustment or uncooperative temperature trends is going to obscure its collective vision of the way things ought to be working.The IPCC has one fundamental problem. While at university, I had the thrilling experience of handling liquid nitrogen. There I was holding in my bare hands, a polystyrene cup filled with liquid nitrogen (quite rightly, not something that would be allowed these days). Despite being at −195.8°C, and only a few millimetres of polystyrene away from my 36°C fingers, I could feel barely a chill. A cold stubby of beer would have me swapping hands in minutes, but something nearly 200 degrees colder needed only millimetres of polystyrene to stop the rapid transfer of heat that is driven by large temperature differences. The cup was so effective, it would have made little difference if I had added another cup to double the thickness.Global warming advocates usually forget that the Earth’s relationship with space is similar. Space is on average -270°C while the Earth is somewhere between 10 and 20°C. Just a thin layer of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere prevents the catastrophic loss of heat that would otherwise radiate out at night. Radiation from the sun, at some 5500°C, replaces the heat lost over night, and the whole system is in near balance. But CO2 absorbs only in a small proportion of the wavelengths at which this heat is trying to escape.Only the green peak (CO2 absorption spectrum) on the right above actually does any work, and much of that overlaps with water vapour (blue line). Furthermore, most of its work is done when the concentration of CO2 is only 10% of what it is today. Thanks to Jo Nova for the chart.
Adding more CO2 …
Insurer: Climate not a main driver of rising losses; ‘Main drivers are increases in population and in wealth’
Insurer: Climate not a main driver of rising losses; ‘Main drivers are increases in population and in wealth’
The Financial Times reports: However, the role of climate change in contributing to the rise in insurance losses remains contentious. Economic growth has played a much more important role, say several scientists and insurance executives. Rising insurance losses driven by development are not necessarily problematic as they should be accompanied by a corresponding increase in […]
Sent by gReader Pro…
Rupert Darwall: ‘The Political Science Of Global Warming: 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’
Rupert Darwall: The Political Science Of Global Warming: ‘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’
http://www.thegwpf.org/rupert-darwall-political-science-global-warming/
The U.N.’s latest climate-change report should be its last.
“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 …
Global Temperature Standstill May Last 30 Years, Climate Scientist Predicts: Prof. Anastasios Tsonis at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee,: ‘I would assume something like another 15 years of leveling off or cooling’
Global Temperature Standstill May Last 30 Years, Climate Scientist Predicts
http://www.thegwpf.org/global-temperature-standstill-30-years-climate-scientist-predicts/
An enormous U.N. report on the scientific data behind global warming was made available Monday, yet it offers little concrete explanation for an earthly oddity: the planet’s climate has hit the pause button.
Since 1997, there has been no significant increase in global average surface temperature, and some areas — notably the Northern Hemisphere — have actually cooled. The 2,200-page new Technical Report attributes that to a combination of several factors, including natural variability, reduced heating from the sun and the ocean acting like a “heat sink” to suck up extra warmth in the atmosphere.
One problem with that conclusion, according to some climate scientists, is that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has limited the hiatus to 10-15 years. Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, believes the pause will last much longer than that. He points to repeated periods of warming and cooling in the 20th century.
“Each one of those regimes lasts about 30 years … I would assume something like another 15 years of leveling off or cooling,” he told Fox News.
That goes well beyond the window the IPCC has acknowledged, which Tsonis and other scientists believe will significantly change the predictions for temperature rise over the next century.
“I know that the models are not adequate,” Tsonis told Fox News. “There are a lot of climate models out there. They don’t agree with each other – and they don’t agree with reality.”
In fact, the IPCC’s massive, complex new report acknowledges that none of the models predicted the hiatus. The authors write that it could be due to climate models over-predicting the response to increasing greenhouse gases, or a failure to account for water vapor in the upper atmosphere.
The bottom line – no one saw it coming.
“Almost all historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus,” the report states.
Full story…
Buggered: Aussie traditional electricity users pay $167 million per year to subsidize solar panel owners
Buggered: Aussie traditional electricity users pay $167 million per year to subsidize solar panel owners
The Daily Telegraph reports: TRADITIONAL electricity users are copping a $167 million-a-year bill to subsidise those with solar panels. The huge cost of recovering payments to householders for feeding power into the network from photovoltaic systems has been revealed in the latest Energex annual report released last week. The scheme will add about $32 to […]
Sent by gReader Pro…