Daily Mail
Not all experts agree with the latest United Nations report on global warming, some are even amused by its findings. A
climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
has come out blasting the report for blaming humans for a global warming
trend that appears to have cooled in recent decades – and then glossing
over the warming slowdown. ‘I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,’ Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot – a site known for questioning the theory of global warming. Dr Linzen’s amusement from the lack of correlation between predictions and actual conditions. ‘They
are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the
discrepancies between their models and observations increase,’ Dr Linzen
continued. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserted in the report that it is 95 per cent sure humans’ use of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.The report also provided what Dr Linzen felt was a shoddy explanation for the lack of warming over the past 17 years. ‘Their
excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the
heat is hiding in the deep ocean,’ the amused scientist said. ‘However,
this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the
exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.’ This slapdash explanation for the
lack of warming, Dr Linzen stressed, is proof the IPCC knows little
about what is actually happening. ‘They now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified,’ said the amused scientist. Dr Linzen’s derision of the IPCC
report comes amid evidence that warming hasn’t occurred over the past 17
years, and that polar ice caps are even expanding. Despite
strong evidence that global warming may be on hold, the IPCC still
insisted that the report’s findings should alarm anyone denying the
theory.
Monday, 30 September 2013
Physicist explains why increased CO2 has a trivial effect upon climate
The Hockey Schtick
"...In fact, the IPCC has numerous fundamental problems. The sun is about 4.5 billion years old and while we have been observing it for thousands of years, we have only in the last few years had the tools available to study it seriously. Now that we have the tools, every few months a new discovery is made and our superficial understanding of the sun takes one baby-step towards maturity. The IPCC may wish upon a star that our nearby star does not contribute significantly to our climate, but that is so fanciful that even Disney would not buy it. "
"...In fact, the IPCC has numerous fundamental problems. The sun is about 4.5 billion years old and while we have been observing it for thousands of years, we have only in the last few years had the tools available to study it seriously. Now that we have the tools, every few months a new discovery is made and our superficial understanding of the sun takes one baby-step towards maturity. The IPCC may wish upon a star that our nearby star does not contribute significantly to our climate, but that is so fanciful that even Disney would not buy it. "
IPCC AR5 full final report released – full access here
WUWT
" From the comments: The IPCC AR5 is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
" From the comments: The IPCC AR5 is pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
IPCC in denial. “Just-so” excuses use ocean heat to hide their failure.
JoNova (Australia)
"In answer to the excuse du jour: “The Ocean ate my Global Warming”. Now that the plateau in temperatures has lasted for 15 years, everyone, even IPCC lead authors, can see the “90% certain” models were 98% wrong. So the IPCC now claims the heat went into the deep abyss, which they didn’t predict, can’t measure accurately, and, even by the best estimates we have, has not been anywhere near enough warming to explain the missing energy. They predicted the surface air temperature would increase, but they didn’t. (The 1990 IPCC predictions about temperatures were so wrong the trends have come in below their lowest possible estimate.) They predicted the oceans would warm more than twice as much as they actually have (as best as we can tell). They did not predict the air temperature would level out for 15 years, and the oceans would suddenly start producing “natural cooling”.
"In answer to the excuse du jour: “The Ocean ate my Global Warming”. Now that the plateau in temperatures has lasted for 15 years, everyone, even IPCC lead authors, can see the “90% certain” models were 98% wrong. So the IPCC now claims the heat went into the deep abyss, which they didn’t predict, can’t measure accurately, and, even by the best estimates we have, has not been anywhere near enough warming to explain the missing energy. They predicted the surface air temperature would increase, but they didn’t. (The 1990 IPCC predictions about temperatures were so wrong the trends have come in below their lowest possible estimate.) They predicted the oceans would warm more than twice as much as they actually have (as best as we can tell). They did not predict the air temperature would level out for 15 years, and the oceans would suddenly start producing “natural cooling”.
Sunday, 29 September 2013
Inconvenient truths quietly brushed aside
Christopher Booker,Telegraph
"When the BBC and Channel 4 News crank their spin machines into action, as they did last week in trying to plug the latest attempt by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to flog the dying horse of the global-warming scare, one wonders: do they actually do any homework, or do they just recycle a pile of old clichés in the hope that their audience will be fooled? In light of the IPCC’s last-minute removal from its new report of any reference to the 15-year “pause” in rising global temperatures, it was nevertheless entertaining to hear that the latest consequence of global warming is that we here in Britain can now expect “cooler” temperatures for years to come."
"When the BBC and Channel 4 News crank their spin machines into action, as they did last week in trying to plug the latest attempt by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to flog the dying horse of the global-warming scare, one wonders: do they actually do any homework, or do they just recycle a pile of old clichés in the hope that their audience will be fooled? In light of the IPCC’s last-minute removal from its new report of any reference to the 15-year “pause” in rising global temperatures, it was nevertheless entertaining to hear that the latest consequence of global warming is that we here in Britain can now expect “cooler” temperatures for years to come."
Analysis: UN IPCC Hides The Decline:
Climate Depot
"‘They are comparing a statistically insignificant amount of warming since 1998, with three decades of cooling. The result is to make this small trend sound much more significant than it is’ – ‘By this dodgy use of statistics and the 1998 red herring, they have also tried to distract attention from the clear fact that temperatures really have flatlined since 2001′
"‘They are comparing a statistically insignificant amount of warming since 1998, with three decades of cooling. The result is to make this small trend sound much more significant than it is’ – ‘By this dodgy use of statistics and the 1998 red herring, they have also tried to distract attention from the clear fact that temperatures really have flatlined since 2001′
Sir David King, the UK's extreme weathervane
Quadrant Online
"King continues to promote the silly notion that we can somehow regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide and control the Earth’s climate by reducing the extremely low levels of carbon dioxide produced by human activity. Was he aware of, or did he choose to ignore, the 97% input of carbon dioxide from natural processes such as ocean venting, decomposition of organic matter and volcanism. Sir David might get a shock if he finds out how much carbon dioxide and methane is produced by termites."
"King continues to promote the silly notion that we can somehow regulate atmospheric carbon dioxide and control the Earth’s climate by reducing the extremely low levels of carbon dioxide produced by human activity. Was he aware of, or did he choose to ignore, the 97% input of carbon dioxide from natural processes such as ocean venting, decomposition of organic matter and volcanism. Sir David might get a shock if he finds out how much carbon dioxide and methane is produced by termites."
Why the IPCC should never be taken seriously
Quadrant Online
"In summary, many uncertainties emerge from a careful assessment of claims that a danger exists of ever increasing temperatures. No substance can be established for that claim because no definitive causal correlation can be established between past changes in temperatures and in atmospheric concentrations of CO2. "
"In summary, many uncertainties emerge from a careful assessment of claims that a danger exists of ever increasing temperatures. No substance can be established for that claim because no definitive causal correlation can be established between past changes in temperatures and in atmospheric concentrations of CO2. "
Just How Incompetent Is NOAA?
Real Science
"NOAA shows that 2012 was the most extreme weather year in US history, despite the fact that there was little extreme weather last year – other than Sandy which isn’t included in the index. According to their fake index, 2012 was almost three times as extreme as the very extreme year of 1936. Their claim is almost entirely based on very mild temperatures during the winter and spring of 2012. which they are trying to pass off as “extreme.”
"NOAA shows that 2012 was the most extreme weather year in US history, despite the fact that there was little extreme weather last year – other than Sandy which isn’t included in the index. According to their fake index, 2012 was almost three times as extreme as the very extreme year of 1936. Their claim is almost entirely based on very mild temperatures during the winter and spring of 2012. which they are trying to pass off as “extreme.”
UN IPCC claim: ‘Since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia’ — Real Science Rebuttal: ‘The IPCC has now abandoned any attempt to base their claims on facts. Historical data shows that the climate has gotten better since the 1950s’
Climate Depot
"US droughts were the worst in the 1950s Violent tornadoes are down since the 1950s Major hurricane landfalls peaked in the 1950s, and are down to historic lows in the current decade Record daily temperatures have declined in the US since Here is what newspapers had to say about the UN IPCC 'normal' weather in 1950: ..."
Real Science
"US droughts were the worst in the 1950s Violent tornadoes are down since the 1950s Major hurricane landfalls peaked in the 1950s, and are down to historic lows in the current decade Record daily temperatures have declined in the US since Here is what newspapers had to say about the UN IPCC 'normal' weather in 1950: ..."
Real Science
Saturday, 28 September 2013
IPCC more sure about less
Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun (Australia)
"On the IPCC report… A significant mistake may have been made. Doug Keenan writes to the Met Office Chief Scientist about this problem: ....and
... Brilliant take, from Professor Ross McKitrick: SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.
"On the IPCC report… A significant mistake may have been made. Doug Keenan writes to the Met Office Chief Scientist about this problem: ....and
... Brilliant take, from Professor Ross McKitrick: SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.
Models Fail: Land versus Sea Surface Warming Rates
WUWT
"In Climate Models Fail, using a number of different datasets, I illustrated how the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report could not simulate climate variables such as surface temperatures (land surface air, sea surface and combined land+sea surface), precipitation and sea ice area. There’s another splendid way to present the model failings (that wasn’t presented in the book): by comparing the warming rates of global land surface air temperatures with the warming rates of global sea surface temperatures. It’s astounding that the models perform so poorly."
"In Climate Models Fail, using a number of different datasets, I illustrated how the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report could not simulate climate variables such as surface temperatures (land surface air, sea surface and combined land+sea surface), precipitation and sea ice area. There’s another splendid way to present the model failings (that wasn’t presented in the book): by comparing the warming rates of global land surface air temperatures with the warming rates of global sea surface temperatures. It’s astounding that the models perform so poorly."
Vahrenholt’s UN IPCC-Science Critical Book ‘The Neglected Sun’ Soars To No. 1 At Amazon UK!
NoTricksZone
"The UN IPCC AR5 completely neglected discussing the reason why we have climate to begin with: THE SUN. There’s a reason why they did."
"The UN IPCC AR5 completely neglected discussing the reason why we have climate to begin with: THE SUN. There’s a reason why they did."
’97% consensus’ apparently doesn’t exist at the IPCC
WUWT
"Consensus? What Consensus? You’d think they’d be able to agree on this most important number. They did for AR4. ....Yet, they are 95% certain."
"Consensus? What Consensus? You’d think they’d be able to agree on this most important number. They did for AR4. ....Yet, they are 95% certain."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)