JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



News from the Non Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

I have great respect for the team that put together the exhaustive, comprehensive NIPCC report. This team is constantly updating their information on the NIPCC site. If you want information on the peer reviewed references related to the climate, it’s a resource par excellence.

Here’s just a sample of new material posted on the NIPCC Web site:

  • The Glaciers of Greenland were smaller 5000 years ago;
  • African savanna trees thrive with increases in CO2;
  • It was hotter in China a thousand years ago, and by a whole degree;
  • Marine-life-with-shells can’t agree on their favourite CO2 level and
  • Temperatures make no difference to the 5000 year record of hurricanes.

Details follow:

The Glaciers of Greenland were smaller 5000 years ago. Some disappeared altogether.

Kelly and Lowell (2009) say that “subsequent to late-glacial or early Holocene time, most local glaciers were smaller than at present or may have disappeared completely during the Holocene Thermal Maximum,”

“In other words, Greenland would likely have experienced the same degree of warming and glacial recession that it experienced over the course of the 20th century even if the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration had remained at the same low value it had maintained throughout most of the Holocene to that point in time.” Read More

Kelly, M.A. and Lowell, T.V. 2009. Fluctuations of local glaciers in Greenland during latest Pleistocene and Holocene time. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 2088-2106.

African savanna trees thrive with increases in CO2

Experiments show some Acacias were growing 2 to 5 times faster in experiments with extra CO2. “…the South African scientists say that “changes in CO2 from pre-industrial times to the present have effectively produced acacia ‘super seedlings’ in relation to their growth potential over the past several million years.”

“…the three researchers write that they “provide experimental support for suggestions and simulation studies predicting that reductions in CO2 alone could have led to loss of tree cover in grassy environments in the last glacial (Bond et al., 2003; Harrison and Prentice, 2003),” and they say that “the large increases in CO2 from industrial emissions over the last century would now favor trees at the expense of grasses,” which conclusion is supported by palaeo-records that indicate that “trees disappeared from current savanna sites in South Africa during the Last Glacial Maximum (Scott, 1999), re-appeared in the Holocene, and have rapidly increased over the last half century,”… Read More

Ciais, P., Piao, S.-L., Cadule, P., Friedlingstein, P. and Chedin, A. 2009. Variability and recent trends in the African terrestrial carbon balance. Biogeosciences 6: 1935-1948.

It was hotter in China a thousand years ago, by a whole degree

Their efforts revealed, first of all, that the MWP had indeed held sway on the Chinese mainland over the period AD 700-1400, peaking at about AD 900. And the eight researchers report that phenological data from east China (Ge et al., 2006) and tree-ring records from west China (Yang et al., 2000) also indicate that “the temperature on the Chinese mainland was distinctly warmer during the MWP.” In fact, they say MWP temperatures were as much as “0.9-1.0°C higher than modern temperatures (Zhang, 1994).” … Read More

Hong, B., Liu, C.-Q., Lin, Q.-H., Yasuyuki, S., Leng, X.-T., Wang, Y., Zhu, Y.-X. and Hong, Y.-T. 2009. Temperature evolution from the δ18O record of Hani peat, Northeast China, in the last 14000 years. Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences 52: 952-964.

Marine-life-with-shells can’t agree on their favourite CO2 level

Using CO2 values of 409, 606, 903 and 2856 ppm, which is equivalent to, current ~2, 3 and 10 times pre-industrial levels of CO2, Ries et al, got very mixed results. They found that 10 out of 18 species suffered, 4 species grew stronger except at the highest CO2 levels, and crabs, lobsters, and shrimps just kept getting thicker shells as the CO2 increased, while blue mussels didn’t give a toss what the CO2 levels were. (At current rates Earth will reach 2856ppm in about 1000 years.)

The three Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (USA) researchers report that “in ten of the 18 species (temperate corals, pencil urchins, hard clams, conchs, serpulid worms, periwinkles, bay scallops, oysters, whelks, soft clams), net calcification decreased with increasing CO2,” and that “in six of the ten negatively impacted species (pencil urchins, hard clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks, soft clams) [they] observed net dissolution of the shell in the highest CO2 treatment.” However, as they continue, “in four of the 18 species (limpets, purple urchins, coralline red algae, calcareous green algae), net calcification increased relative to the control under intermediate CO2 levels (605 and 903 ppm), and then declined at the highest CO2 level (2856 ppm).” Last of all, they say that “in three species (crabs, lobsters, and shrimps), net calcification was greatest under the highest level of CO2 (2856 ppm),” and that “one species, the blue mussel, exhibited no response to elevated CO2. Read More

Ries, J.B., Cohen, A.L. and McCorkle, D.C. 2009. Marine calcifiers exhibit mixed responses to CO2-induced ocean acidification. Geology 37: 1131-1134.

Temperatures make no difference to the 5000 year record of hurricanes

“Based on their analyses, Wallace and Anderson report “there has been no notable variation in intense storm impacts across the northwestern Gulf of Mexico coast during this time interval,” i.e., 5300-900 yr BP, “implying no direct link between changing climate conditions and annual hurricane impact probability.” In addition, they say “there have been no significant differences in the landfall probabilities of storms between the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico during the late Holocene, suggesting that storm steering mechanisms have not varied during this time.”.. Read More

Wallace, D.J. and Anderson, J.B. 2010. Evidence of similar probability of intense hurricane strikes for the Gulf of Mexico over the late Holocene. Geology 38: 511-514.

About NIPCC

NIPCC 2009 Report

“Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.”

“A score of independent scientists from around the world began to share their research and ideas with Dr. Singer, as they continue to do. Some of these scientists have asked not to be named in NIPCC reports for fear of losing research grants and being blacklisted by professional journals.”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
News from the Non Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2bejnk6

35 comments to News from the Non Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  • #
    Martin

    I wonder how they can have a 5000 years record of hurricanes or strong storms.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris C.

    Martin, try reading the summary for which a link is provided (“Read More”) at the end of the paragraph. In short, analysis of core samples in an area that would be targeted by such storms.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    More good news that Warmists will not want to hear!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wendy

    “Martin” ,
    Why don’t you ask yourself how your global warming religion can “know” that man is responsible for so called global warming (even though the world is COOLING)!

    Go back to your green communist friends and ask them!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Jaymez

    In all this debate about climate change I have never heard one scientist state what the ideal global average temperature is for the world. An ideal average global temperature does not appear in any of the IPCC documents. All the alarmists are saying is ‘change is bad’. But to really know that, don’t we first have to know what the Earth’s ideal global average temperature is? How about we make the alarmists commit to stating an ‘ideal’ global average temperature since they seem to know what is bad for us?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    shelly

    Only 10 out 18 species decline. Do you claim this as a positive effect Nova?

    How people think that the decline of more than half the species is a win for the anti-AGW I will never understand.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Shelly,

    A rather apt name for this topic if i do say so.

    Shelly you need to read the whole thing rather than grabbing quotes and using them out of context. I think you will find at the three CO2 levels of 409, 606, 903 there was little if any effect but at the higher level of 2856 some species found it hard to cope.

    Now do you think we will get to this level by burning fossil fuels? If not then how could we possible get there? The bottom line is if you want to test CO2 effects on marine species you need to find a level where they are affected and in this case it is 2856. They are not saying CO2 levels will get this high therefore these species will suffer they are simply saying *IF* Co2 levels get this high some species will suffer.

    Cheers

    Crakar


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wendy

    No doubt “shelly” you want us to feel guilty for every species which has become extinct!

    Learn some basic HIGH SCHOOL science!

    It’s called evolution!

    Species die, new species evolve.

    It’s happened since the creation of the Earth and will continue to happen until the world is destroyed when the sun goes supernova in around 4 billion years!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Shelly @8

    If you had bothered to read the article you could not have missed the following:

    This research thus suggests that those species that responded negatively to the dramatic step increases in the air’s CO2 content employed in Ries et al.’s study will likely be able to gradually adjust to, and successfully cope with, the restrained and slower rate at which the atmospheric CO2 concentration of the real world will rise in the future.

    All the study results implied was that if you take something from it’s existing environment and place it a vastly different environment with no time to adjust harm can be done.

    As all the species tested have survived over long time scales in vastly differing times, both temperature and C02 wise and are all still with us it is self evident given time to adjust they are capable of adapting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    From P Gosselin’s No tricks Zone: German Parliamentarian Under Massive Fire – For Skepticism

    It was bound to happen sooner than later. A high level German politician speaking out against dubious climate science. Marie-Luise Dött, German Parliamentarian and a central figure on Angela Merkel’s environmental committee, expressed scepticism on climate change, the Financial Times Deutschland reports here in an article titled: The Climate Revisionists.

    Now she is at the receiving end of brimstone and hellfire from all sides, including the media.

    She is reported to have called climate protection a replacement religion, and that anyone who dared to express doubt could be branded an outlaw, forced to confess sins, sent to purgatory, or even cast into hell, if being really bad.

    Free scientific thinking is a myth here.

    This lady deserves three cheers and our congratulations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    spangled drongo

    Jo, thanks for those points. This is O/T, please excuse:

    The 7.30 report tonight had a story about a waterfront development approval by the local council at Lakes Entrance being objected to [they weren't game to say who but you can guess] and the objection being approved by the court. So the property owner now can’t build on his very expensive waterfront block [made even more expensive by the considerable legal fees] and he can’t sell it either because no one else can develop it.
    This is based entirely on the “projections” of GCMs, bad CSIRO predictions and general bed-wetting from Tim Flannery, Robyn Williams et al.
    The real evidence doesn’t show anything has changed wrt SLR.
    This is going to develop into a wide ranging and incredibly expensive battle!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Martin

    I’m not a warmist….. but I’m skeptical about the capacity of the sediments to record a the number of storms per years. I like this site i did translated and post some Frank Larsner and Solomond artcles on

    http://www.rechauffementmediatique.org/wordpress/2010/03/16/reinventer-loptimum-medieval-par-martin-gravel/

    But it doesn’t mean i wont question a study if the result are in line with what i think.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    shelly

    @crakar24

    I think you will find at the three CO2 levels of 409, 606, 903 there was little if any effect but at the higher level of 2856 some species found it hard to cope.

    Wrong. The closest they come to saying this is “in four of the 18 species (limpets, purple urchins, coralline red algae, calcareous green algae), net calcification increased relative to the control under intermediate CO2 levels (605 and 903 ppm), and then declined at the highest CO2 level (2856 ppm)”.

    You can read the original paper here http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/12/1131.abstract without nipccreport’s special interpretation.

    @Wendy

    Learn some basic HIGH SCHOOL science!

    It’s called evolution!

    Learn about the difference between evolution and mass extinction.

    @Bob Malloy

    If you had bothered to read the article you could not have missed the following:

    This research thus suggests that those species that responded negatively to the dramatic step increases in the air’s CO2 content employed in Ries et al.’s study will likely be able to gradually adjust to, and successfully cope with, the restrained and slower rate at which the atmospheric CO2 concentration of the real world will rise in the future.

    Actually that’s the word of nipccrepor rather than the report. The report says no such thing. The “This research” nipccrepor mentions is not related to the Ries paper.

    Bothering to look at a couple of the papers nipccrepor mention shows they are even talking about the same species.

    But why would you take the time to do that hey Bob!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Shelly:

    Point taken, however you quote:

    Only 10 out 18 species decline. Do you claim this as a positive effect Nova?

    You take this directly from the report linked by Jo, and then get your knickers in a knot when I include a paragraph taken from the same report. I do however add a piece on Tans (2009).

    The analysis of Tans (2009) shows that the highest atmospheric CO2 concentration likely to occur over the foreseeable future is only 500 ppm, so there is likely to be no significant decline in the calcification status of any of the 18 organisms studied by Ries et al., as suggested by our analysis of the similar findings of Watson et al. (2009).

    In conclusion, therefore, and all things considered, there would appear to be little support for the climate-alarmist claim that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content will have severe negative impacts on the vast majority of the world’s sea

    So once again you like many that post here you seem so willing to put all your money on a worst case scenario. No shades of grey just black or white.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Hugh

    OT, but related. My response to Ziggy S’s pro-nuclear push yesterday in The Australian:

    ****************

    There are considerable upsides to going nuclear.

    The downside is that in moving from coal and other fossil fuels, anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere will diminish.

    CO2 is a great natural plant fertilizer and its atmospheric increase over the last century has enabled the plant kingdom the world over to flourish. (Check out pictures of Arizona deserts 50 years back, and today.)

    Some people today believe that the CO2 increase since the industrial revolution has contributed to recent global warming.

    Unfortunately this doesn’t appear to be the case to a significant extent. If it were, it would be another compelling reason for generating more atmospheric CO2, since, on balance, a warmer earth than we have now would be much more conducive to the flourishing of life in all its forms. Plus: we would have a great safeguard against the undeniably deadly cold of ice ages.

    Who knows? Maybe some nerdy scientist will come up with a way to warm the globe with nuclear energy technology to the degree some now – mistakenly – ascribe to carbon-based energy production.

    He’ll need to get a wriggle on. I understand the next ice age is overdue.

    **************


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wendy

    Hey “shelly”, CONCENTRATE ON THE COOKING, WASHING AND IRONING LOVIE!!!

    Obviously you know absolutely nothing about science.

    Stop wasting our time and demonstrating what a (SNIP) you are!

    I suggest some remedial high school science course at TAFE!

    (I WANT YOU TO STOP MAKING THESE PERSONAL COMMENTS,and get back on topic!) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ian George

    Another scoop.

    Casino’s (NSW, Aust) average maximum temperature drops 0.1C despite AGW (26.8C down to 26.7C).

    Source: BOM (climate statistics)

    We’re doing our bit up here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant

    Wendy @ 18

    I suggest you don’t behave like a warmist. You have just insulted people who have raised valid points, without making any valid, reasoned points yourself. I suspect you are here to try to damage the reputation of those who are seriously skeptical and who can reason and think fr themselves.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    In the latest TIME magazine there is an interesting article about using geothermal based heatin and cooling for buildings and houses. I first saw this recently on a TV show called “Dirty Jobs. What happens is several drill holes are made around a building. They go to a depth that has a static temperature which in ‘Goldilocks’ terms is just right. Liquid is pumped into the holes. Then piping takes air from the holes around the building…usually underneath. Pumps either heat the air in winter or cool it in summer. About 73% less energy is needed c.f. an A/C being used to drop a temperature from say, 38′ to 24′. The upfront cost for an American house is about $7500. Since our $ is almost equal the cost would be similar. Some USA states are subsidising such installations. This seems very competitive with solar power on roof tops and more efficient.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    elsie

    Jaymez: #6
    That’s right. And the alarmists never point out that the best times in human history were times of warmer temperatures. It rained more, harvests were plenty, civilizations grew, etc. Colder times meant the opposite. Yet the alarmists insist the warming will cause a result like a mini ice age. Most must have missed doing geography and history and opted for eco courses.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    shelly

    @Bob Malloy # 16

    You take this directly from the report linked by Jo, and then get your knickers in a knot when I include a paragraph taken from the same report.

    No knickers in a twist. Just point out how rong it is to suggest this study means acidification is not a serious threat to marine life.

    But if this study showing the majority of species studied are affected is the best Nova can come up with, I think the anti-AGWers are in deep trouble.

    Oh, and for the record, I don’t just look at this example, I do read many other studies into ocean acidification. You can find a lot of research here

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?type=news&keyword=acidification&section=earth&filename=&period=730&sort=relevance

    But not that much in the way of good news I’m afraid.

    I do however add a piece on Tans (2009).

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N17/EDIT.php

    A quick glance at the graph you cite shows the projected CO2 levels under a scenario with us limiting Fossil Fuel Emissions – this is the projection IF we take action to limit fossil fuel use.

    Yes I agree, limiting fossil fuel use will reduce atmospheric CO2 levels, that’s the whole point!!

    The IPCC projects a number of scenarios depending on what action the planet take to curb emissions. A BAU projection would have CO2 levels much higher than shown in the Tans graph.

    The analysis of Tans (2009) shows that the highest atmospheric CO2 concentration likely to occur over the foreseeable future is only 500 ppm

    Only if we curb the fossil fuel emissions as the AGW crowd are asking.

    so there is likely to be no significant decline in the calcification status of any of the 18 organisms studied by Ries et al

    Two problems here. Firstly, you’re not using BAU levels of CO2. Secondly, in the Ries study 10 of the 18 organisms declined at higher levels of CO2.

    So once again you like many that post here you seem so willing to put all your money on a worst case scenario. No shades of grey just black or white.

    No there’s plenty of grey. Just look at climate sensitivity. Many different studies trying to narrow down the uncertainty.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

    But it’s the anti-AGW crowd that looks for and relies upon the very low end of the scale.

    Personally I hope they’re right, but I also consider the broader picture and rather than bet on the 5% chance they are right, I also consider the 95% chance that climate sensitivty is somewhat higher.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wendy

    The following provides an analysis of how the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is deliberately mainpulating raw climate data in order to misinform, misdirect and mislead the gullible public that there is some credence to the man made global warming FRAUD….

    The Australian Temperature Record: Part 1- Queensland

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/

    The Australian Temperature Record: Part 2- Northern Territory

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/the-australian-temperature-record-part-2-northern-territory/

    The Australian Temperature Record-Part 3: Western Australia

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/the-australian-temperature-record-part-3-western-australia/

    The Australian Temperature Record- Part 4: South Australia

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/the-australian-temperature-record-part-4-south-australia/

    The Australian Temperature Record- Part 5: Tasmania

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/the-australian-temperature-record-part-5-tasmania/

    The Australian Temperature Record- Part 6: Victoria

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/the-australian-temperature-record-part-6-victoria/

    The Australian Temperature Record – Part 7: New South Wales

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/the-australian-temperature-record-%E2%80%93-part-7-new-south-wales/

    The Australian Temperature Record- Part 8: The Big Picture

    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/the-australian-temperature-record-part-8-the-big-picture/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Shelly in 15,

    Lets agree to disagree with the interpretation of the wording, one thing that is not open to interpretation is the CO2 levels.

    The IPCC baseline year s 1750 and in that year the CO2 levels were apparently 285ppm and we are currently at about 388ppm so that is an increase of 103ppm in 260 years. Currently the CO2 increase is a linear 2ppm per year.

    Now if we look at the numbers the study used they are 409, 606, 903 and 2856 ppm. 409ppm is basically where we are now and this has no effect on marine species. The next level is 606ppm now lets assume if we reach this level it will take us about 100 years to get there, do you think we will still be using fossil fuels as our main source of energy by then.

    The next level is 903ppm on current trends it will take us about 257 years to get there, do you think we will still be using fossil fuels as our main source of energy in 2267?

    Do you see where i am going with this? Just in case you dont, remember this is a study of “what ifs” if it is impossible for us to reach such high co2 levels then why worry about the consequences?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wendy

    “shelly”, mellow and relax!

    Stress will only give you an ulcer!

    Stop worrying about the end of the world…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    shelly:
    September 22nd, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    No there’s plenty of grey. Just look at climate sensitivity. Many different studies trying to narrow down the uncertainty.

    shelly:

    and one of the latest on climate sensitivity would be,

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf

    Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell

    As we show in the new paper, the only clear signal of feedback we ever find in the global average satellite data is strongly negative, around 6 Watts per sq. meter per degree C. If this was the feedback operating on the long-term warming from increasing CO2, it would result in only 0.6 deg. C of warming from 2XCO2. (Since we have already experienced this level of warming, it raises the issue of whether some portion — maybe even a majority — of past warming is from natural, rather than anthropogenic, causes.)

    As Cook, Lambert and others take great joy out of lambasting Spencer I have little hope that you give any credence to this paper either.

    Que sera, sera, I suppose.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Shelley:

    At #23 you assert:

    Just point out how rong it is to suggest this study means acidification is not a serious threat to marine life.

    The oceans are alkaline and may become more neutral, but they cannot become acidic because they are buffered by disolved calcium.

    In other words, “acidification” of the oceans is a physical impossibility and, therefore, it cannot be a “threat to marine life”.

    Importantly, the degree of neutralisation of the oceans from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is too small to be measured. Indeed, if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to quadruple then the change to ocean surface layer pH would be within the existing variations (both spatial and temporal) of ocean pH.

    Simply, the “ocean acidification” scare is a daft fall-back position being adopted by ‘greens’ now the ‘global warming’ scare is ending.

    Richard

    PS
    I am one of the contributors to the NIPCC Report.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    I am a troll

    I hope you all live long enough to see just how wrong you are.

    (I changed your name to one that fit you better) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    Idiot @ 30:

    I plan to put on my sun glasses and enjoy the warmth. I know food will grow, I know there will be plentiful water to drink, I know I’ll have shelter, Love is all that I have to worry about.

    You will die younger because of anxiety, will always be looking for acceptance, you will always be unhappy.

    I don’t think I’d trade with you for a minute….

    Of course you might start to use your mind and then change it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wendy

    Hey “Idiot @ 30″!

    Enjoy the heat and catch up on your suntan!!!

    LOVE THOSE RAYS……..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by chemicallygreen, Robert J and Lyndsay Farlow, Lyndsay Farlow. Lyndsay Farlow said: RT @chemicallygreen: http://bit.ly/dDAhpq Is IPCC changing their stance on #climate change by showing new data?? #globalwarming, #climate change, #climategate [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Suspicions confirmed!


    Report this

    00