JoNova also on WUWT
"Yet, the IPCC and today’s climate modelers propose that the “flea” wags “the dog.” The flea, of course, is carbon dioxide, and the dog, is the water cycle. The theory of man-made warming assumes a positive feedback from water vapor, forced by human emissions of greenhouse gases. .......Geologic evidence from past ice ages shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases follow, rather than precede, global temperature increases. As the oceans warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate change is dominated by changes in the water cycle, driven by solar and gravitational forces, and carbon dioxide appears to play only a minor role."
Monday, 7 October 2013
Sunday, 6 October 2013
Climate change 'scientists’ are just another pressure group
Christopher Booker,Telegraph
"Some years back, when I was researching a detailed history of the alarm over global warming, few things surprised me more than to discover just how wildly misleading was the picture given to the world of the IPCC as a genuinely scientific body, dispassionately assessing current knowledge of all the factors shaping our climate. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by a small group of scientists who were already wholly convinced that rising CO2 levels were the prime factor in causing global temperatures to rise. ... Since then the IPCC and its five major reports have essentially been shaped by a surprisingly small, close-knit group of scientists, all similarly dedicated to the cause. They have been determined not just to assemble all the evidence they could find to support their theory, however dubious it might be (as in the case of that notorious “hockey stick” graph); but, as we saw from the Climategate emails, to deride or ignore any that contradicted it. In years to come this will be looked back on as the most astonishing example in history of how the prestige of “science” can be used to promote a particular belief system, in this case with the aid of those skewed computer models that can be seen ever more clearly not to accord with the observed evidence."
"Some years back, when I was researching a detailed history of the alarm over global warming, few things surprised me more than to discover just how wildly misleading was the picture given to the world of the IPCC as a genuinely scientific body, dispassionately assessing current knowledge of all the factors shaping our climate. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by a small group of scientists who were already wholly convinced that rising CO2 levels were the prime factor in causing global temperatures to rise. ... Since then the IPCC and its five major reports have essentially been shaped by a surprisingly small, close-knit group of scientists, all similarly dedicated to the cause. They have been determined not just to assemble all the evidence they could find to support their theory, however dubious it might be (as in the case of that notorious “hockey stick” graph); but, as we saw from the Climategate emails, to deride or ignore any that contradicted it. In years to come this will be looked back on as the most astonishing example in history of how the prestige of “science” can be used to promote a particular belief system, in this case with the aid of those skewed computer models that can be seen ever more clearly not to accord with the observed evidence."
The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it's time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy
Telegraph
"The story so far: with the release of its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it cannot be taken seriously. Here are a few reasons why: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused it of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence." Nigel Lawson has called it "not science but mumbo jumbo". The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC's panel as "evasive and inaccurate" in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated – or both; Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers, the body of the report tells a different story – that almost all the scary scenarios we've been warned about this last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely;" and this latest from the Mighty Booker. And there's plenty more where that came from."
"The story so far: with the release of its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it cannot be taken seriously. Here are a few reasons why: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused it of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence." Nigel Lawson has called it "not science but mumbo jumbo". The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC's panel as "evasive and inaccurate" in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated – or both; Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers, the body of the report tells a different story – that almost all the scary scenarios we've been warned about this last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely;" and this latest from the Mighty Booker. And there's plenty more where that came from."
Saturday, 5 October 2013
Coverage of Extreme Events in the IPCC AR5
Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog
" There is really not much more to be said here -- the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus. Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change -- Zombie science -- but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence."
" There is really not much more to be said here -- the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus. Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change -- Zombie science -- but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence."
IPCC more confident about greater uncertainty
The Hockey Schtick
"According to an article published today in Science, "Last week's fifth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) might appear to suggest that, in spite of decades of intensive study, scientists haven't made one whit of progress on the biggest question in climate: By how much will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels warm the world? But in fact, climate scientists have greatly tightened constraints on their traditional estimate of how sensitive climate may be to added greenhouse gases." In what universe does widening the range of CO2 climate sensitivity from 2-4.5C in the last IPCC report to 1.5-4.5C in the new report constitute "greatly tightened constraints"?
"According to an article published today in Science, "Last week's fifth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) might appear to suggest that, in spite of decades of intensive study, scientists haven't made one whit of progress on the biggest question in climate: By how much will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels warm the world? But in fact, climate scientists have greatly tightened constraints on their traditional estimate of how sensitive climate may be to added greenhouse gases." In what universe does widening the range of CO2 climate sensitivity from 2-4.5C in the last IPCC report to 1.5-4.5C in the new report constitute "greatly tightened constraints"?
Friday, 4 October 2013
IPCC snaps the link between wild weather and global warming
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun (Australia)
"I’ve noted in an earlier post that the latest IPCC report concedes there is little evidence to link global warming to extreme weather events and even admits its past warnings of more droughts were “overstated”. The report is like watching global warming alarmists swallow a chill pill. "
"I’ve noted in an earlier post that the latest IPCC report concedes there is little evidence to link global warming to extreme weather events and even admits its past warnings of more droughts were “overstated”. The report is like watching global warming alarmists swallow a chill pill. "
The climate change fanatics have hijacked the debate
Express
"YOU may not have noticed it (if you’re normal you surely changed channels fast) but last week saw a so-called conference by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Stockholm. I say “so-called” because before it sat a communiqué was issued declaring exactly the conclusion it would come to. This is not science. True science constantly probes, doubts, tests, investigates, examines and welcomes dissent. The IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided obsession. Nasty facts (such as the world ain’t getter warmer after all) were swept into oblivion. Most of the attendees were not scientists at all but fanatics, what dear David likes to call swivel-eyed loons. The chairman Rajenda Pachauri is an Indian railway engineer. Even those with a science degree were mainly not climatologists but from other and irrelevant branches of that vast subject. But career-long students of climatology are the only ones worth listening to on this ultra-vague subject – and they seem to be split down the middle. It used to be that you spent staggering sums of public money when something had been proved beyond a scintilla of doubt. Now these sums are being spent on fashionable theories. What really took the cherry was the bland assertion that although Earth’s surface temperatures were not rising there could well be such dangerous warmings in the deepest parts of the ocean. Where we don’t have any monitors. So that’s all right then. Fat budgets all round and who needs real evidence? Certainly not the IPCC."
"YOU may not have noticed it (if you’re normal you surely changed channels fast) but last week saw a so-called conference by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Stockholm. I say “so-called” because before it sat a communiqué was issued declaring exactly the conclusion it would come to. This is not science. True science constantly probes, doubts, tests, investigates, examines and welcomes dissent. The IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided obsession. Nasty facts (such as the world ain’t getter warmer after all) were swept into oblivion. Most of the attendees were not scientists at all but fanatics, what dear David likes to call swivel-eyed loons. The chairman Rajenda Pachauri is an Indian railway engineer. Even those with a science degree were mainly not climatologists but from other and irrelevant branches of that vast subject. But career-long students of climatology are the only ones worth listening to on this ultra-vague subject – and they seem to be split down the middle. It used to be that you spent staggering sums of public money when something had been proved beyond a scintilla of doubt. Now these sums are being spent on fashionable theories. What really took the cherry was the bland assertion that although Earth’s surface temperatures were not rising there could well be such dangerous warmings in the deepest parts of the ocean. Where we don’t have any monitors. So that’s all right then. Fat budgets all round and who needs real evidence? Certainly not the IPCC."
The IPCC’s Totally Bogus 1871 Adventure
Real Science
"According to the IPCC, temperatures were cold in 1871, sea level was much lower, glaciers were content and the climate was much more stable. All of this utter nonsense – nothing more than well financed superstition. The same mindless superstition which infected academics in 1871."
"According to the IPCC, temperatures were cold in 1871, sea level was much lower, glaciers were content and the climate was much more stable. All of this utter nonsense – nothing more than well financed superstition. The same mindless superstition which infected academics in 1871."
Thursday, 3 October 2013
Latest IPCC trick: widening uncertainty bands to make models look ok
Climate Depot
"'The observations would appear to be well inside the extremely large grey bands which did not appear in the AR4 and which have the rather interesting feature of showing zero uncertainty in 1990. So, the question is: What are those bands?'
"'The observations would appear to be well inside the extremely large grey bands which did not appear in the AR4 and which have the rather interesting feature of showing zero uncertainty in 1990. So, the question is: What are those bands?'
Helping the IPCC with decadal trend graphs
The Hockey Schtick
"The IPCC AR5 has a new "decadal average" graph designed to hide the statistically insignificant global warming over the past 20 years. Since nobody wants to be accused of cherry-picking starting dates and using a decadal average instead of a decadal trend line, let's graph the decadal linear trends for each starting year since 1988. This paints a quite different picture than the IPCC decadal average graph, showing a clear halt in "decadal average" and "decadal trend" global warming starting at the beginning of the 21st century."
"The IPCC AR5 has a new "decadal average" graph designed to hide the statistically insignificant global warming over the past 20 years. Since nobody wants to be accused of cherry-picking starting dates and using a decadal average instead of a decadal trend line, let's graph the decadal linear trends for each starting year since 1988. This paints a quite different picture than the IPCC decadal average graph, showing a clear halt in "decadal average" and "decadal trend" global warming starting at the beginning of the 21st century."
Wednesday, 2 October 2013
Art Horn: IPCC Is Very Confident That They Are Not Sure
GWPF
"What they are saying is that they are 95% sure that humans are the dominant cause of global warming but that they are so unsure of how the climate system reacts to increases in carbon dioxide, they can’t give us an “estimate” of how much global warming it causes. Yea, that inspires confidence for sure. Based on that “high level of confidence” we should abandon what works (fossil fuels) and gamble our future and prosperity on so called “renewables” that can’t survive without massive government support."
"What they are saying is that they are 95% sure that humans are the dominant cause of global warming but that they are so unsure of how the climate system reacts to increases in carbon dioxide, they can’t give us an “estimate” of how much global warming it causes. Yea, that inspires confidence for sure. Based on that “high level of confidence” we should abandon what works (fossil fuels) and gamble our future and prosperity on so called “renewables” that can’t survive without massive government support."
IPCC: Fixing the Facts
Climate Audit
"The new IPCC graphic no longer cites an AR4 figure. Instead of the envelope presented in AR4, they now show a spaghetti graph of CMIP3 runs, .......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."
"The new IPCC graphic no longer cites an AR4 figure. Instead of the envelope presented in AR4, they now show a spaghetti graph of CMIP3 runs, .......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."
Kill the IPCC says Judith Curry. After decades and billions there is nothing to show for it.
JoNova (Australia)
"Kill the IPCC: After decades and billions spent, the climate body still fails to prove humans behind warming .......The IPCC is in a state of permanent paradigm paralysis. It is the problem, not the solution .......In its latest report released Friday, after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans."
"Kill the IPCC: After decades and billions spent, the climate body still fails to prove humans behind warming .......The IPCC is in a state of permanent paradigm paralysis. It is the problem, not the solution .......In its latest report released Friday, after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans."
Tuesday, 1 October 2013
Why Climate Science is Fallible
WUWT
"Peer review is a highly unreliable process that produces nothing but opinion. A study conducted in 2010 concluded that reviewers agree “at a rate barely exceeding what would be expected by chance.” Furthermore, the peer review process may be, and usually is, cynically manipulated. Scientists aggregate in social cliques that facilitate orthodoxy and suppress dissent. When manuscripts are submitted for review authors are commonly asked to suggest reviewers. Invariably these tend to be acquaintances holding the same views. Thus peer review often amounts to pal review. Neither does peer review detect fraud. In 2011, Tilburg University in the Netherlands suspended psychologist Diederik Stapel for publishing at least 55 scientific research papers based on fabricated data."
"Peer review is a highly unreliable process that produces nothing but opinion. A study conducted in 2010 concluded that reviewers agree “at a rate barely exceeding what would be expected by chance.” Furthermore, the peer review process may be, and usually is, cynically manipulated. Scientists aggregate in social cliques that facilitate orthodoxy and suppress dissent. When manuscripts are submitted for review authors are commonly asked to suggest reviewers. Invariably these tend to be acquaintances holding the same views. Thus peer review often amounts to pal review. Neither does peer review detect fraud. In 2011, Tilburg University in the Netherlands suspended psychologist Diederik Stapel for publishing at least 55 scientific research papers based on fabricated data."
EPA mandates that new coal plants prevent nonexistent climate problem with unavailable solution
Junk Science
"And just why did EPA ever think they needed a nonexistent solution in the first place? Very simply, because the IPCC told them so…even though their own internal study on the matter concluded otherwise."
"And just why did EPA ever think they needed a nonexistent solution in the first place? Very simply, because the IPCC told them so…even though their own internal study on the matter concluded otherwise."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)