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



Draft IPCC report leaked (the evidence is so overwhelming it has to be kept secret!)

UPDATE: IPCC officially confirms that when it says “transparent” it means “secret”.

UPDATE2: Donna La Frambois points out Working Group III documents are still secret. “This is What Transparency Looks Like

What was the point of keeping the IPCC draft secret? The point is so the IPCC can control both the content and the PR. The IPCC wants a free kick, and they get one if the world doesn’t see how they arrive at the conclusion, and if critics can’t specifically point to errors or flaws until weeks after the giant press circus has done its megaphone production.

It’s how the media game works. First they release the “up and coming” scary headline. (Already done for AR5.) Critics can’t criticize what they can’t see.

Then they release the Summary with a three ring display of terrifying headlines. The black box that justifies it is shown off in all its mysterious glory: 4,000 experts labored for 5 years, produced 2,000 papers, 2 million emails, and rigorously, savagely dissected the science to give you this ominous, frightening message. Pay us your tithe! We will stop the Storms! The inner workings of the black box are held in the Sacred Vault. Those who question it are “deniers, nutters, conspiracy theorists, believe the moon landing was faked, are simultaneously paid by Exxon and suffer from ideological mental deficits — they wouldn’t accept any evidence anyway because they are old white male conservatives (that’s why we have to save the world by hiding the science — it simply is not a fair competition: the IPCC only has billions in funding, the support of the UN, most large banks, all western governments, most university money managers, the thought police in the press, the $176b carbon trading market, and the $257b renewables investment scene. Skeptics have wit, evidence, and the world wide web.)

Then finally they release the long paper with a few more headlines, but the circus has moved on. The people “know” the message. The press is bored, and the critics will need weeks to study the massive document in any case.

wattsupwiththat.com: AR5 draft IPCC Report 

Get your copy now :-)

Thanks to Alex Rawls (;-)) and also Skiphil, JJ and of course WUWT

Links

Summary for Policymakers

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface

Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean

Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere

Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives

Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles

Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols

Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing

Chapter 8 Supplement

Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models

Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional

Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability

Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility

Chapter 13: Sea Level Change

Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change

Chapter 14 Supplement

Technical Summary

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (89 votes cast)
Draft IPCC report leaked (the evidence is so overwhelming it has to be kept secret!), 9.2 out of 10 based on 89 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/bslcku3

245 comments to Draft IPCC report leaked (the evidence is so overwhelming it has to be kept secret!)

  • #
    stephen

    After all the huffing and puffing it,s the sun wat did it


    Report this

    272

    • #
      AndyG55

      “After all the huffing and puffing it,s the sun wat did it”

      Gees, I sure as heck hope not……… The darn yellow ball has gone sleepy-bys !!

      The LAST THING the world needs at the moment is a cold period !!!


      Report this

      223

    • #

      Now we will have to produce more CO2 so that we can maintain the perfect temperature. Suddenly the Greenies will be demanding we burn as much fossil fuel as we can find. To save the Planet, of course…


      Report this

      173

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Leaked? No, purposefully leaked to put people’s guard down so that the UN is less of an object of attention than before; another game is in play.


    Report this

    216

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Many may feel disheartened and discouraged that the CO2 based Warming Scam still continues;

    but take heart.

    Many more now are aware of the lies and deceit and the money transfers despite the best efforts of the government media machines worldwide.

    This groundswell of disbelief and sense of oppression will transmit even to the hard core ABC viewers because of one thing: MONEY.

    The rises in power bills are associated with the concept of Global Warming and even the thickest taxpayer will eventually be turned when the constant stream of money to UN agencies continues unabated.

    This doesn’t mean that the tide will turn without concerted effort but most scams are eventually exposed and surely this one will too.

    KK


    Report this

    322

    • #
      MaxL

      Hi KK,
      I think everyone’s busy downloading the Draft report. If they’re not careful, they’ll break the internet.
      Now, if only the rest of the ClimateGate emails could be released before next year.
      :D


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      KK,

      but take heart.

      is a little harder when you watch carbon footprint and climate change invading popular culture and starting to dominate where just a year or two ago it was never heard or seen. Policy making at all levels is now thoroughly in the clutches of this crap and advertizing isn’t far behind.

      It does not bode well for the future. We don’t have much time left in which to get this stuff overthrown.


      Report this

      140

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Roy

        I agree, but Alarmist Comments like your:

        “We don’t have much time left in which to get this stuff overthrown”

        seems to be borrowing from the warmer tool kit.

        Just joking.

        True;
        there has been much damage done to peoples hopes and sense of trust in the institutions we expect to manage our well being.

        True;
        there has been and still continues to be huge transfers of public funds to projects that purport to be “Saving The Planet”.

        True:
        They have gotten away with it and it will continue for some time.

        I have at times been accused of pessimism so in this case I wanted to inject a note of hope, even if the time scale I had in mind was a little longer than most would be happy with.

        In Australia, as an example, we have a government, and I use that term very loosely, that is just clinging to power while it shovels as much money out of the treasury as is possible until it is removed by voter anger next year.

        The fear that we have here is that the new government will take advantage of Inertia to leave some of the more “profitable” scams in place but they have a problem: People like Jo and others whose rage against the abuse of Science will not quit until common sense and decency is restored.

        The only way of ending it fast is to have high courts assess the science and the basis for AGW and to ask whether there has been deliberate lying to gain financial advantage: Then we need public flogging in the town squares; on TV sent world wide.

        We know the answer but in the current Media Driven world judges are unlikely to be able to make head nor tail of the basic science and engineering behind it.

        Its a mad mad world but as long as I know I have family and that there are sensibly people dotted around the world I can live in hope.

        For some reason, while thinking about good people, a memory of one xtraordinary individual came back.

        After the Iraq war an Iraqi man was interviewed on TV and he was one of the most amazing people I have seen.

        He had just lost his daughter to an American bomb, but his approach to that tragic event and his manner was inspiring. I felt that the West needed to take something of what this fellow had and understand it.

        That told me that civilisation may be put down temporarily in places around the world but that it exits in and will continue to flourish.

        It’s all we have.

        Merry Christmas.

        KK :)


        Report this

        140

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I agree, but Alarmist Comments like your:

          “We don’t have much time left in which to get this stuff overthrown”

          seems to be borrowing from the warmer tool kit.

          KK,

          In spite of your “joking” (which I appreciate) I’ll have to admit that you’re right. It is alarm that I feel. We may be winning the science battle but the greater war for the minds and indeed, the very souls of everyday people isn’t going so well. After another couple of generations have graduated from our current school systems I can’t imagine recognizing the world they will go about creating. It will be a place our founders who fought so hard to be liberated from King George and all he stood for, would fear every bit as much as they feared their king.

          If you’ve read up on agenda-21, for instance, you’ll know what it proposes.

          It’s not civilization that will disappear. That will stay. What will disappear is individual freedom. And once lost, how will it come back? The Roman Empire lasted a long time and its eventual decay left nothing resembling the freedom we enjoy now.

          What’s actually under attack today is success. The more I watch the world go by the more convinced I am about it. And to be successful you need individual freedom to pursue whatever you want to do. So they are after your right to live as you choose.

          The roots of this go back a long way. John Muir was a nature photographer. He took pictures in the California Sierra Nevada Mountains that are truly works of art. He brought the beauty of these wonderful mountains to people who could never get there to see them. Yosemite is the most beautiful place I’ve ever been and I can understand his love of the wilderness; but never his attitude. He also founded the Sierra Club, one of the worst of offenders in the current battle. He predates all of this, even the UN (born 21 April, 1838; died 24 December, 1914). I quote him,

          Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.

          This is what we fight. Global warming seems like a side issue any more. I hear now that Bolivia is pushing the UN to grant Mother Earth the same rights as humans.

          Beware, Keith, beware.


          Report this

          51

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Roy,

            Yes, I totally agree with all you have said.

            The background to my “positive” post is that I thought it being Christmas and all that, it might be time for me to look on the bright side for just one post as a bit of therapy.

            The so called environmentalists have made a mess of the environment here in Australia and a classic example is my favourite local piece of bush.

            It is focused on Glenrock Lagoon in Google Earth and it shows up as a coastal strip about four and a half miles long. “glenrock lagoon newcastle nsw”

            Back in 2010 – 2011 I spent about 18 months walking pretty much every trail in the area.

            Since the area was left to its own devices about 40 years ago it has become an impenetrable mess prone to unpredictable bush fires that really are avoidable if back burning is used correctly.

            The greenies have had proper environmental land management thrown out and instead we allow undergrowth to grow unhindered – say prayers that it would not catch fire during summer – and express surprise and outrage when it becomes a raging inferno threatening homes, people and wildlife.

            The local Aborigines knew how to manage the environment and this is outlined in a book that was publicized on this site a few months back:

            The Biggest Estate on Earth
            How Aborigines made Australia
            Bill Gammage

            Apparently greenies think that a “good environment” is one left to grow without human intervention and which you can admire as you drive past. For those of us who are bush lovers and want to explore and absorb nature the result is an unusable disaster.

            As with so much of their religion they are wrong and many have died in bush-fires in Australia over the last few years, victims of political correctness and a theoretical or theological approach to a practical situation.

            The workers recently retrenched from their jobs at the local Aluminium smelter are very aware that they were sacrificed because The Green Mantra required higher power prices.

            They will be thinking very hard before voting at the next election.

            Still it is something, this whole AGW – CO2 mess, that should NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN in a sane world.

            NOW BACK TO TRYING TO BE POSITIVE FOR CHRISTMAS.

            kk :)


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Merry Christmas to you, Keith.


            Report this

            20

  • #

    I took a quick look through the Summary for Policymakers and posted up some initial observations on pages 1 to 9.

    The coded language is is very revealing.

    Major points
    1. No admission of lack of a recent rise in the surface temperature record.
    2. But the lack of recent rise is accounted for by a step change in the warming in the Southern Oceans.
    3. AR4 got it wrong on decreasing precipitation in the tropics (which underlay Africagate), and they got it wrong on increasing hurricanes.
    4. Sea level rise is not accelerating. In fact the recent rise since 1993 is similar to the 1930-1950 period.
    5. Global ice melt is not accelerating. Himalayas do not even get a mention.
    6. AR4 massively overstated aerosols. The implication is that CO2 can no longer be shorthand for anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
    7. Medieval Warm Period gains more recognition than in AR4. However, recent studies will render AR5 out of date before it is even published.

    Others may have a different interpretation.


    Report this

    301

  • #

    When looking at the data, it might be worth remembering the difference between velocity and acceleration.
    Global surface temperature rise has stopped, but the models show an accelerating trend. The new SPM claims the missing heat is in the oceans. This again should show an accelerating trend. However, the differences are very fine, and the readings much sparser. On SPM Page 4 line 36 there is this claim.

    It is very likely that the Southern Ocean has warmed throughout the full ocean depth since the 1990s, at a rate of about 0.03°C per decade.

    If the only, semi-reliable, data is from the Argo bouys going down to 700m and have only been operating since about 2003, how can any scientist such a confident claim about such a trivial trend? It looks like a few thousand thermometers measuring tenths of a degree per decade have been replaced by much less reliable extrapolations from graphs to hundredths of a degree.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      memoryvault

      Hi Manic

      Stopgreensuicide.com has either crashed under the load, or it has been hit with a DNS, or the IPCC has managed to get the plug pulled. Whichever, it isn’t possible to access and download the pdfs.

      Since you obviously have them, any chance of uploading links to them so the rest of us can get them? Maybe get copies to Jo so she can do the same? I’m just twiddling my thumbs at the moment, so if I can download copies I’ll start opening accounts at file sharing sites and re-uploading them.

      The more download sources there are, the more the bandwidth load gets shared around, and the harder we make it for the b#st#rds to prevent it getting out.

      .
      Second Order of Battle – Does anybody know if Donna Laframbrose is planning to reassemble her team of voluntary auditors for this? I’ve been over to No Frakking Consensus, but there’s no mention. If for some reason she’s not, we need somebody to organise it. Jo?

      Nothing destroys these b#st#rds’ credibility more than a healthy dose of ridicule. It would be a major victory if we can start bucketing the sources BEFORE the Reports are even released.


      Report this

      162

      • #

        Alex sent me the new links. I’ve posted them up. :-)
        Jo


        Report this

        165

        • #
          memoryvault

          Thanks Jo.

          Docs downloaded.

          A bit too late to do anything now – too many glasses of Shiraz have crossed the Rubicon – however I will create a series of mirror sites in the morning.


          Report this

          110

        • #

          This lets you download the lot http://www.filedropper.com/wwwstopgreensuicidecom
          I think about 126MB . I was lucky to get it at top speed so only took a few minutes.
          I had a look at Chapter 7. The summary certainly contains nonsense. A quick view at a few points in the chapter shows that editors and contributors do not understand heat & mass transfer (but then none of them have any background/qualifications or experience in this engineering subject). Alec Rawls made comment on this chapter saying they (IPCC editors) have acknowledged the sun and clouds but they need to come to grips with basic engineering science.
          Here is an example assumption 2+2=5 model answer 4*4=25, model works but assumption is wrong. All climate models assume that CO2 is of overwhelming importance. That is why all climate models have failed to project actual changes.


          Report this

          101

      • #

        I have posted the SPM draft up with my own initial thoughts.

        Paul Matthews, an “expert” IPCC reviewer has posted his review comments sent on 30th November in my comments. Like my own comments, it is best read alongside the Draft SPM.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      memoryvault

      It is very likely that the Southern Ocean has warmed throughout the full ocean depth since the 1990s, at a rate of about 0.03°C per decade.

      There is another major flaw with this, Manic.

      Even if the “ocean deeps” were somehow warming, how could it possibly be attributed to CAGW, or even AGW, or even “climate change” for that matter? “Climate change” is something that happens in the atmosphere. The whole claim of CAGW is that Man is “heating” the atmosphere.

      So what (as far as ocean temps go)?

      NET energy transfer is FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere, not the other way around. Evaporation, clouds, and subsequent precipitation are the observable results of the direction of this energy flow.

      If ever the NET energy flow were to reverse FROM the atmosphere TO the oceans (somehow), then there would be no evaporation, no clouds, no precipitation, and we would all be in deep doo-doo.

      .
      The sun heats the oceans, the oceans give up the heat to the atmosphere, and the atmosphere gives up the heat to space. Reversal of any one of these observed steps pretty-much immediately results in a dead planet.

      .
      Ergo, ocean temps have a great deal to do with atmospheric temps, but absolutely NOTHING to do with Man’s activities in the atmosphere.


      Report this

      245

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        I know you Slayers are not keen on the SLoT but around here we very much like our SLoT and we would like to keep it enabled at all times without exception.

        Radiation and conduction are trying to move solar energy downwards in the ocean. Convection is trying to move energy upwards. Somehow these two opposing forces resolve as an equilibrium temperature. The end result is a temperature gradient with depth, and the gradient always has a step in it near the surface where the top warm layer gives way very quickly to the cold water of the “ocean deeps”.

        Enter the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I know you two haven’t seen each other in a long time, you ought to have so many stories to catch up on!

        Via the SLoT, any change in the atmosphere which serves to impede the escape of radiation to space will increase the sea surface equilibrium temperature. An increase in the sea surface temperature, again via the SLoT, will increase the conduction and radiation transport downwards and result in a higher equilibrium temperature at any depth.
        There may be no detectable temperature rise at depth in the short or medium term depending on how long conduction takes to move the heat pulse downwards to reach the new equilibrium at that depth.

        The atmosphere is connected to the deep ocean.
        It is all connected by energy flows. There is your Zen moment of missing heat.


        Report this

        412

        • #
          Mark D.

          Maybe zen alright but you are leaving out that the poles are cold and that cold water HAS to sink and displace anything warmer. I’m pretty sure no one has actually measured the total but I’m gonna stick my neck out and say that the force of displacement is much better at moving heat up than mixing will move it to depth.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Leo G

          “Radiation and conduction are trying to move solar energy downwards in the ocean.” – Andrew McRae (Dec 15 at 12:19 am)

          Solar radiation has virtually no heating effect below the well-mixed layer of the upper oceans. Infra-red is completely absorbed at the surface boundary layer of the ocean.
          The thermal conductivity of water is only about one-third that of insulation materials like porcelain and concrete. Water is an excellent thermal insulator.
          Your concept of how “the atmosphere is connected to the deep ocean” appears unsupportable by the physical science.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            If it’s so unsupportable by physical science, why did you just agree with every part of it?

            No wait, don’t bother answering. Slayers exist mainly due to their ability to hold two contradictory ideas in their head and believe both of them without noticing the contradiction.

            You agreed water is thermally conductive, you agreed radiation puts the energy into the water in the first place, but then you stuffed up the part about infra-red because solar irradiance is mainly in the visible spectrum (to which water is 99% transparent) with only a small percentage in the thermal infra red bands beyond 900nm that H2O absorbs.
            The vertical transfer process in the ocean is so slow that any warming seen in the deep ocean recently can only be due to warming that happened on the surface hundred of years ago… for the reported warming in the Southern Ocean it might even be a trace of the MWP from 1100 AD.

            The temperature of the atmosphere can’t NOT affect the temperature of the deep ocean eventually due to the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics. If you can disprove the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics your Nobel Prize awaits you.
            Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t real.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Leo G

            Andrew, You are just hiding behind a Zeroth Law strawman.
            I stated that water was classed as a thermal insulator, not a conductor. It would take millions of years for thermal conduction to bring the surface waters of the ocean into equilibrium with the ocean depths, and then only in the absence of other oceanic heat exchange processes.
            But other processes, like mass transfer, dominate in the heating the oceans below the well-mixed layer.
            While it is true that insolation at the ocean surface is ‘mainly’ visible radiation (~52%), that does not imply there is no infra-red component- IR is about 46% of the total.
            The minimum spectral absorbance in water is for blue light, and gives an attenuation in seawater of between 2.5% and 12% per metre depth. So, in the most transparent oceanic water, the most penetrating spectral component is attenuated by a factor of 100 at a depth of less than 200 metre.
            BTW, while I am skeptical about the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (and its extraordinary claims) and I don’t regard the Greenhouse Effect as a theory in its own right, I am not a ‘Slayer’, and I have not read Wes Allen’s books.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Wow.
            How on earth (or anywhere else) can the Zeroth Law be a strawman when it applies to any process that occurs anywhere? Especially considering what is in question is whether the temperature of one body can affect the temperature of another body? That is explicitly the purpose of the Zeroth Law.

            The atmosphere is thermally connected to the ocean surface. You admit that.
            The ocean surface is thermally connected to the deep ocean. You admit that.
            By the Zeroth Law the atmosphere is thermally connected to the deep ocean.
            Further, if no other external forcing were to change, then with enough time they would reach equilibrium.

            I have said in two prior comments that the time scales involved may be too long for the connection to have relevance to deep temperatures in the present climatic period (30 years). I have been right all along. It is only others who have manufactured strawmen to be argumentative.

            The statement which started this was:
            Ergo, ocean temps have a great deal to do with atmospheric temps, but absolutely NOTHING to do with Man’s activities in the atmosphere.
            Note this statement carries no qualification about dates or time delays. It argues not that Man’s activities have not heated the ocean yet, but that no such heating is possible ever. That statement either denies the observed measurable radiative properties of CO2, or else it violates both the Zeroth and Second Law of thermodynamics, and is therefore false.

            CO2 absorbs outgoing LWIR radiation, and since no heat engine is 100% efficient (Third Law of Thermodynamics) there cannot be any negative feedback process which offsets the warming effect perfectly, so CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere.

            The temperature of the atmosphere affects the temperature of the deep ocean, and vice versa. To say otherwise is to violate the Zeroth and 2nd Laws. There is no argument which can defeat this. It’s the Law. No deviations of these Laws have been reliably observed, so the Law is still the Law.

            Now if you wish to argue that for a given period of history an event in the air has not propagated to the deep ocean yet, then that is shifting the goal posts to some other proposition which MV did not make and that I may have no objection towards.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Leo G

            Andrew, You misrepresented my statements. You then continued the misrepresentations in your later comment. The intent was transparent- to misrepresent my position to make it appear weaker. You do like to keep that Straw Man close.

            You claimed, and stated that I admitted:-
            “The atmosphere is thermally connected to the ocean surface” and “the ocean surface is thermally connected to the deep ocean”.
            Then you asserted that :
            “By the Zeroth Law the atmosphere is thermally connected to the deep ocean”
            You thereby implied that I stated that: the atmosphere and the ocean surface are in thermal equilibrium; and the ocean surface and the deep ocean are in thermal equilibrium.
            But “thermal equilibrium” is a theoretical construct only. It requires the systems in equilibrium to be completely uniform in temperature and for the temperatures to be time invariant.

            It is obvious that you were distracting attention from the weakness of your own arguments (hiding behind the straw man). For instance:-
            - “…in the visible spectrum … water is 99% transparent” – a scientifically unintelligible statement.
            - “The vertical transfer process in the ocean is so slow that any warming seen in the deep ocean recently can only be due to warming that happened on the surface hundred of years ago”. But thermal conduction is immensely slower. And do you explain hydrothermal vents by mass transfer from the surface?
            - “…these two opposing forces resolve as an equilibrium temperature. The end result is a temperature gradient with depth”. How is there thermal equilibrium in the presence of a temperature gradient?
            - “the gradient always has a step in it near the surface where the top warm layer gives way very quickly to the cold water of the ocean deeps”. The most significant thermocline lies beneath the well-mixed layer, not above it, and that is not necessarily near the surface (unless you regard 200 metre as close to the surface).


            Report this

            01

      • #

        Memoryvault,
        I do not know enough to say whether you views, or Andrew McRae’s are persuasive. What is relevant is whether a view should be the sole one accepted that relies on sparse sampling and minute changes of temperatures, far more accurate than the thermometers. That a lot of dogmatic people with PhD’s accept the same view is as nothing. It is the evidence that counts, and any objective assessment would say the evidence is virtually non-existent and with open to numerous interpretations.
        It is like saying that a person on trial for murder should be convicted because an opinion poll of local police detectives says 97% believe in the their guilt. That is especially true when 3 or 4 others could be equally guilty based on scanty and hearsay evidence.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          memoryvault

          Manic,

          “Views” don’t come into this, only physics.

          Andrew has offered a concise, and correct, if somewhat sarcastic (aimed at me) explanation of how SOLAR energy heats the oceans. This was never in dispute. He has also offered a correct summation of the the different forces generated IN the ocean by this accumulated energy as it strives to reach an equilibrium. Again, no argument there.

          He has then offered a very plausible explanation of how an increase in atmospheric temperature might IMPEDE (slow down) the transfer of heat energy FROM the oceans TO the atmosphere, thereby causing sea surface temps to be maintained at a higher level than might otherwise be the case.

          This explanation could perhaps be debatable, but let’s again accept it as true.
          It STILL doesn’t explain how there can be a NET transfer of energy (heat) FROM the atmosphere TO the oceans, which is NECESSARY for the current version of “global warming” to be valid, which was the whole point of my post.

          .
          Current CAGW, or AGW, or “Climate Change” theory or whatever we are calling it this week, contends that CO2 causes the ATMOSPHERE (NOT the oceans), to “heat up” (accumulate more energy). Ergo, MORE CO2 = MORE atmospheric energy (hotter atmosphere).

          Trouble is, despite CO2 levels continuing to rise, atmospheric temperature has stubbornly refused to follow suit for the last fifteen years or so. Rather than accept there might be something wrong with the original ‘CO2 causes warming’ theory, the climastrologists now argue that the atmospheric warming (energy accumulation) is indeed continuing to happen – they even regularly claim to be detecting “footprints” of this – but that the missing “extra” heat (energy) is being “transmitted” (transferred) into the oceans.

          Make no mistake: we are not talking about a claim (as Andrew has interpreted it) that atmospheric heat energy is somehow preventing, or slowing down, heat transfer out of the oceans thereby causing the oceans to be maintained at higher temperature than would otherwise be the case. The claim is, out of necessity, that there is now a NET energy transfer FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans. And yes, Andrew, this DOES violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

          Dr Karl Braganza, Climate Monitoring Manager of the National Climate Centre (NCC – part of the Bureau of Meteorology), stated in an interview with Sky News back in March:

          We know the extra heat is being TRANSMITTED into the oceans.

          .
          Now, I’ll concede that at a quantum mechanic or molecular level, energy can be transmitted every which way but loose. I wouldn’t know. However, NET transfer of energy can ONLY be one way, and here on earth NET energy transfer is, and remains, FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere.

          NOT because I say it is, NOT because I claim anything else would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but simply because evaporation, clouds and subsequent precipitation are the OBSERVED result of that NET transfer of energy.

          And since it has gone on raining these past fifteen years, the “missing heat” has not been “transmitted into the oceans”. And since there’s nowhere else for it to go, the only logical conclusion is that it never existed in the first place.

          And if the “missing heat” never existed in the first place then CO2 is NOT heating anything, and the whole CAGW “theory” is falsified.


          Report this

          122

          • #
            Nice One

            NET transfer of energy can ONLY be one way, and here on earth NET energy transfer is, and remains, FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere.

            No wonder I can’t get my eggs to boil.

            Oh, hang on, I get it. You’re telling us that the heat must be coming from below. Seems rather odd then that deeper ocean is colder than the upper ocean.

            That naughty ocean is disobeying you!!!


            Report this

            37

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Well I’m sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick in any way, but I believe what started this off was:

            Even if the “ocean deeps” were somehow warming, how could it possibly be attributed to CAGW, or even AGW, or even “climate change” for that matter? “Climate change” is something that happens in the atmosphere.

            Ergo, ocean temps have…absolutely NOTHING to do with Man’s activities in the atmosphere.

            Well in MV’s comment above he has implicitly conceded the greenhouse answer to his own rhetorical question.

            The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, equations for radiation, and conduction all together carry the consequence that the perfect insulator necessarily implied by MV’s ‘No Air-Deep-Ocean Connection‘ hypothesis is impossible. There is however a time lag of probably decades for a surface change to get down that far, so caution should be exercised when interpreting data over climatically short intervals (less than 30 years).

            The claim is, out of necessity, that there is now a NET energy transfer FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans. And yes, Andrew, this DOES violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            Well you have it half right. A NET transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean would (since ocean is warmer) indeed violate the SLoT.
            To allege that this impossible process is actually claimed by the Greenhouse effect or CAGW is a fabrication. MV is quite consistent and unwavering in this point, which I have previously admonished him for in copious verbiage which does not need repetition (especially as it would likely fall on deaf ears). It should suffice to say that oversimplified trite statements by talking heads in press releases should not be interpreted as a technical definition of the greenhouse theory. If greenhouse theory is ever disproved it will not be via that strawman “impossible transfer” argument.

            As MBC says, evidence is what matters. Place a shiny grey metal saucepan lid or sheet of Alfoil on top of a small scaffold such as a tall plastic microwave stand or bent coathanger. Place two cups of boiling water on the table, one open to the air, the other with the saucepan/alfoil suspended a few inches above it. Have a small desk fan blowing across both cups if it reassures that the convection is not greatly different between the two cups. Will one cup of water drop below 30 degrees first, or do they cool at the same rate? I do hope you find the cup whose radiation is partly reflected will be at a higher temperature at a given point in time than the uncovered cup, even though both are cooling.

            You should therefore understand a similar GHG impedance of the ocean-to-atmosphere flux is inevitable as long as CO2 absorbs at any wavelength, which of course it does, and absorbs more strongly in outgoing thermal bands (λ > 2μm) than incoming visible bands (0.7μm > λ > 0.4μm) which further increases its GHG effect. Any floppy molecule (H2O, O3, CH4, CO2, NH4, etc) is a GHG because “GHG” is just plain old photon absorption with a new catchy title, no more no less.

            That is all quite independent of MV’s bottom line statement which I agree with. When the observed OHC is less than GISS predicted OHC, it’s not because the monitoring network is “missing” the heat, it’s because the models are wrong. They are mistakenly exaggerating the influence of CO2 and fraudulently misrepresenting the accuracy of their models.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            memoryvault

            Andrew,

            You make the same mistake as the “nice” village idiot above your comment – who can’t boil his eggs – conflating “heat” with “temperature”. Here is a simple experiment you can both perform in the comfort of your home. You will need a stove, a frypan, a cooking thermometer, a rasher of bacon, and a half-inch thick slice of tomato.

            * – Heat frypan to 180 deg C
            * – Confirm temperature with thermometer.
            * – Place rasher of bacon and slice of tomato into frypan.
            * – Cook bacon and tomato, turning occasionally.
            * – Measure temperature of frypan, bacon and tomato – they will all be around 180 deg C.
            * – Remove bacon from frypan, blow on it twice and pop the lot into your mouth.
            - – - – Result? – Hot, but tasty.
            * – Remove tomato from frypan, blow on it twice and pop the whole lot into your mouth.
            - – - – Result? – Second degree burns to your lips, mouth and tongue.

            If you are still not sure about the difference between “heat” and “temperature”, lick the frypan.

            .
            The difference?
            While the frypan, the bacon, and the tomato are all at the same temperature, there is a hell of a lot more heat (energy) stored in the tomato than the bacon. The burns to your lips, mouth and tongue from the tomato are the result of the transfer of that energy from the tomato to your mouth.

            There is more energy stored in the top three metres of ocean than there is in the whole of the atmosphere. There is probably more energy stored in the bottom half kilometre of ocean, even at only one or two degrees C, than there is in the whole of the atmosphere.

            .
            There can be NO NET transfer of heat (energy) from the atmosphere to the oceans.


            Report this

            52

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Which proves that… the ocean is made of tomatoes and the air is made of bacon and the sun is a frypan.
            Followed by a complete non-sequitur whose consequent nobody has ever disputed, in typical slayer fashion.

            :o

            I won’t be lectured on the difference between temperature and heat by someone who routinely and autistically misunderstands the word “warm” in English, who mistakenly thinks “heat” and “energy” are interchangeable terms in Physics, and who thinks they are fighting anything but a fantasy rebel-without-a-cause straw dragon built from Joe Postma’s chest hair.

            I give up.

            Sir, good day to you.


            Report this

            22

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Good comment MV.

            There is now and always will be ONLY ONE way that energy can move.

            Down the energy gradient.

            Or as I used to say down the temperature gradient.

            Consequently; despite what warmers say, energy cannot be stored permanently in the oceans except under temporary condition of disequilibrium.

            Energy coming in from the sun and energy going out will generally balance with the only possible question being how long it will take to re adjust and find equilibrium again.

            As a matter of interest, at the Earths centre we have molten lava under pressure,

            ie,. it is a bit hot. In deep space we have items that reach there finding equilibrium at about 1.6 C deg above zero absolute.

            Energy will move out but will be replenished by daily doses of Sol.

            KK :)


            Report this

            10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      As to the Southern Ocean specifically, well it does look a bit suss.

      On the one hand, a measurement subject to random noise can have the signal-to-noise ratio boosted by averaging across a large number of measurements. It is possible to determine quantities with greater accuracy than the measurement device. That’s how CERN works at determining masses of subatomic particles when no detector could possibly weigh a single particle in a single event. Enormous numbers of collisions have to be measured to get the accuracy needed, and even then it is probability distribution function, not a definite number.
      On the other hand, there is no guarantee the ocean temperature measurements are subject to unbiased Gaussian noise. If the noise is any other type then averaging doesn’t really help because the noise on the first half of the measurements does not cancel out the noise on the other half.

      I’d guess the influence of the circumpolar current is to promote turbulent vertical mixing, which means equilibrium is reached quicker after any change of power input. The existence of the current makes no difference in the long run as the ZLoT and SLoT do not have Antarctic-specific cases, they are universal.

      The IPCC’s AR5 figure 3.3a has error bars on it big enough to drive an oil tanker through… sideways.
      Nonetheless I find the presence of deep water warming to be generally compatible with the conventional picture of the Thermohaline Circulation. Its unsurprising that there would be a two-humped camel in the vertical warming profile where the rate of the deep water is about the same as the rate for the global ocean surface, since the deep water portion of the Arctic circumpolar current is fed from the surface by a sinking site just off the west Antarctic peninsula. (It’s fed by the AMOC too but that is such a long way the trip time is estimated in the ballpark of 400+ years, not the 100 or less that would be needed for 20th century Atlantic warming to show up in the S.O. already.)

      The CSIRO’s sample diagram of differences between “climatology” (typical average temperature) and “actual” (ie single adjusted dive) Argo measurements shows that the actuals can vary quite a bit from the year-on-year average. Who knows how much energy gets missed/invented in the survey gaps. Still better than the land network I guess.

      The CSIRO will happily admit that the ARGO network was only designed to get good coverage between 60N ad 60S, that the Southern Ocean has a shortage of floats, and by their diagram it seems Antarctica is an ARGO killer. Fifty six are iced over. (Nice interactive data map here.)

      I seem to recall oceans were cooling in 2006 until the GISS guys “found” a systemic bias that required correcting the data upwards. Even after this adjustment they were still left with an unpredicted flat line.

      I see no great problem with 0.003°C/da warming occurring 4.5km down in the deep southern ocean, since this almost non-existent rate of warming has been exceeded by greater rates everywhere else in the world over the last 30 years. They will try to spin this into a big number by dividing the heat capacity of water by it to deduce the amount of mega giga peta kilowatt hours of energy it represents. The biosphere is up here and it cares about degrees, not joules.

      The real questions here for me are:
      - how many depth profiles went into this Southern measurement, how were they spatially distributed w.r.t. to the thermohaline paths, and since (judging by eye) only about 1/14th of the floats are south of 50 degrees at any one time, how do they arrive at their “very likely” certainty?
      - The ARGO floats typically only go down 2km… so where is this 5km depth data coming from??
      - How do we know this trend isn’t caused by iced-over floats not being able to report colder temperatures??
      - How do we know the adjustments applied by GISS/IPCC to ARGO raw data are defensible when significant differences between raw and published charts have been seen before?
      - Warming doesn’t prove it’s man made, so how are they going to find the hotspot, disprove Lindzen and Choi 2011, hindcast the current temperature plateau with correct models, and pin the blame on me?


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Peter Pond

    I heard our own Dr Karl on Australian ABC radio yesterday explaining how the IPCC’s “wimpish” prediction of sea-level rise in this century would certainly be raised in AR5 to a more realistic 5-7 metres.

    However, the draft AR5 appears to indicate a range of up to 0.9 of a metre rise over the century (somewhat less than Dr Karl’s belief). It also notes that the decadal rate of sea level rise was similar in 1930-1950 as it was in the last few decades of last century. It also suggests that sea level could be rising at 8-15mm per year in the last decade of this century.

    [For non-Australians, Dr Karl is an excellent Science communicator on nearly all topics, except .... AGW]


    Report this

    213

    • #
      MaxL

      Hmmm, someone should tell Robyn (100 metres) Williams. He’ll be most distressed.


      Report this

      112

      • #
        Dennis

        And bone man climate change commissioner Flannery who has two homes alongside the Hawkesbury tidal river that he purchased while telling porkies about rising oceans.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Bulldust

      Dr Karl, while brilliant in some ways, clearly suffers from the hubris that he thinks he is an expert in many topics in which he clearly isn’t. He therefore parrots the CAGW ‘experts’ assuming they know what they’re talking about. It would be great if he could take the time to critically analyse the facts. I wager he would be less certain about the CAGW hypothesis if he did.


      Report this

      153

      • #

        Bulldust, I would not call Dr Karl brilliant but he is intelligent as his qualifications show. He gained a Bachelor of Medicine (hence the Dr title),a BSc in physics and a degree in maths (not sure if that is in the science faculty or Arts faculty). I once picked him up about a chapter in one of his books (concerned metallurgy). He thanked me and said he would alter future editions but not sure if he has. His fault is that he picks snippets of science, medicine etc which he thinks have a twist and may interest non-science people but he does not do sufficient research to find the real facts, hence his falling in with the group think at the ABC.


        Report this

        40

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    I think that everyone here has to consider whether they have or have not become a “Good German.” Most of the people here have the knowledge and the evidence to know that this racket is clear science fraud. An open and shut case. More clear then Piltdown Man. This is the reality that we must go forward with. Diplomacy has its place. The place that diplomacy has is somewhere else. This is clear, uncontroversial science fraud.


    Report this

    458

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “When looking at the data, it might be worth remembering the difference between velocity and acceleration.
    Global surface temperature rise has stopped, but the models show an accelerating trend. ”

    So what dummy? Its the models (ie the thesis) that is under disputation. The models have failed. So
    the models are no guide for us. Failed models are no guide to the wise or the less stupid.
    Why are you characterising the matter as a failure to differentiate between velocity and acceleration?
    We are not talking about 9/11 here. We have science fraud. We have failed models.

    There is no-one here that doesn’t understand the difference between velocity and acceleration.

    What people are mind-blocked about is science-fraud and northern hemisphere conspiracy.


    Report this

    175

  • #
    rukidding

    The business as usual scenario what was that would it have been more or less or the same as the 30Gt/Yr that is currently being pumped out.
    In short using the business as usual scenario from 1990 what should our emissions have been this year.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    The business as usual scenario refers to some sort of projected norm of CO2 production. But this is not really relevant is it? Except to remind us of how painfully we Australians are selling our carbon paternity short. Because there is no evidence that CO2 industrial release affects the climate beyond the microscopic, nor any viable apriori theory to give these claims burden-of-proof wings.


    Report this

    182

    • #
      Dennis

      Australia’s national prosperity long term is at risk because the extreme Greens and their Union Labor comrades want to deny Australians the competitive edge provided by relatively cheap electricity supplied using coal that our global economy competitors buy from Australia to fire power stations. Economic vandalism and at the same time they are creating debt that former treasurer Peter Costello has estimated will take about 40 years to repay with interest, assuming that the terms of trade are not worse than during the Howard Costello government period which was lower than it has been since 2007.

      And please remember that our public debt is federal government, hidden NBN Company, state and territory governments and companies they own plus local government. At least $700 billion in total.


      Report this

      31

  • #
    JFC

    Ha! You’ve just scored a massive own goal. Most amusing!


    Report this

    937

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Nobody has any idea what you are on about, with that comment.

      But that is OK, I guess, because nobody is really interested in what you say, anyway.


      Report this

      300

      • #

        Maybe JFC is a bot and the programming went off?


        Report this

        339

      • #
        JFC

        Oh! Well I see Nice One has done the work for me, just read his post at #15. Remember to read it slowly and carefully so that you understand what it actually says rather than what you want it to say. You can read can’t you?


        Report this

        931

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          Oh I see. At 6.21pm your idiot comment was referring to another idiot comment by Nice One, not made until over an hour later at 7.29pm.

          So, amongst your many other talents, you can read the future?

          Perhaps you need another crystal ball.
          The ONLY thing Nice One’s comment at #15 displays is his inability to actually READ the article.

          .
          EPIC FAIL – try again – this time try reading.
          If it helps, you can sound out the words aloud.
          It works for my grandchildren.


          Report this

          187

          • #
            JFC

            Oh dear MV you really do have trouble reading, this time, time stamps! Well I guess numbers and you guys have always been in a troubled relationship. This is hilarious watching you guys turn yourselves into knots over your own stuff-up. The increasing absurdity of your position is getting out of control.


            Report this

            735

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Cut and pasted time and date stamp from JFC’s comment #11

            December 14, 2012 at 6:21 pm

            Cut and pasted time and date stamp from Nice One’s comment #15

            December 14, 2012 at 7:29 pm

            .
            You know JFC, there are people who claim they can help poor souls like you, who appear to have lost touch with reality.

            Could I recommend you get in touch with Professor Lewandowsky of the University of WA.
            He seems to have a special rapport with people trapped in the Twilight Zone.


            Report this

            227

          • #
            JFC

            Err, you might want to look again MV, 8:24pm! Duhhh!! You really shouldn’t make such a goose of yourself.


            Report this

            611

          • #
            MaxL

            Err Jo, could someone please give JFC’s gravatar a pair of glasses?

            JFC, you never made a comment at 8:24pm!

            You made one on December 14, 2012 at 8:54 pm
            But that’s not the one that MV was referring to. If you had bothered to read what MV wrote,

            Cut and pasted time and date stamp from JFC’s comment #11
            December 14, 2012 at 6:21 pm

            Squeeze the trigger after you draw the pistol from the holster, saves you shooting yourself in the foot.
            Oh ………. never mind ………. numbers and words just aren’t your thing.


            Report this

            70

        • #
          AndyG55

          One incapable moron, doing something for another incapable moron.

          Next, the toilet paper. !


          Report this

          73

    • #
      Bite Back

      Ha! You’ve just scored a massive own goal. Most amusing!

      Another one liner, JFC? Is that all you have to offer? At least most of the other fools we see make some attempt at a counter argument. What’s the matter with you?

      I think what’s most amusing is your pretense that you know something. Nothing you’ve ever said is anything but pathetic.


      Report this

      145

    • #
      AndyG55

      The balls in the net behind YOUR goalkeeper..

      and somehow you class this as an own goal against the reality seekers ?

      Seriously ??? !!!!!


      Report this

      72

    • #
      wayne, s. Job

      No Jo he is not a bot, this Jesus EEffing C is a false prophet one would imagine is a government employee that has never contributed to the wealth of our country but only sucked at a teat of government largesse. JFC prove me wrong or shut up, both Gaia and real science are telling me you are a brainwashed fool.


      Report this

      41

      • #
        Dennis

        But public servants pay taxes too they always say. They are not able to work out that they are paid by our government using private sector taxpayer monies collected, public servants, and we do need the ones who have meaningful jobs to perform, do pay taxes but the reality is that unlike private sector taxpayers public servants are returning some of what they are paid to consolidated revenue, it is not new revenue. No fiscal conservative would allow excessive numbers of public servants to burden other taxpayers.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          The real question should be whether a public servant adds to the economic value of a country, or not.

          Some add tremendous value in supporting high level trade negotiations, or in providing emergency services, or in the areas of military and civil security.

          But a large portion of public servants just spend their time counting how many times the productive sector does whatever it does. They spend their whole time looking backwards at what has occurred, and keeping records that will only be seen by other backwards facing public servants. In “interfacing” with the public service, I have even come across an “Office of Forecasting”, which used huge spreadsheets to produce graphs showing the historic performance of various other public service functions.

          Sometimes it is hard to keep a serious expression when people tell me how important it is to have such information available for “policy makers”.


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Now why would you say that hey dummy? Don’t pussy-foot around retard. Be specific.


    Report this

    96

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Damn collateral damage. I guess I’m just going to have to try suicide all over again.


    Report this

    35

  • #
    Doug Cotton

    I quote from this article …

    The court case brought by Dr. Mann against his most outspoken critic, Dr. Timothy Ball, appears to have collapsed. Mann simply failed to provide the data on which his whole hockey stick graph is supposed to rest. As a result, Mann, and potentially others like him, may be facing counter-suits and potentially substantial damage awards, possibly even punitive actions as well. PSU may not be pleased. They could be on the hook for millions. Stay tuned.

    The take-home message here is simple.

    Don’t fall for media hype, awards, or scientific concepts or models with claims like “the majority of scientists believe” as their justification. “Consensus” does not exist in science – but facts do. Computer models can provide great inside knowledge – or can be utterly wrong, the latter for sure if the data behind it are “cooked.”


    Report this

    323

  • #
    Nice One

    Funny how WATT’s headline is “contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing”

    And yet the solar forcing in AR5 is this:

    http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/ScreenShot2012-12-13at43419PM_zps4a925dbf.png

    Whilst the solar forcing of AR4 is this:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-ts-5.jpeg

    Wow, yeah groundbreaking stuff there!! I can see why the “leaker” just had to astonish us with … oh. The sun still isn’t responsible and natural causes do not explain.

    The Attribution of recent warming still sits on our shoulders.

    Still waiting for your calcs Jo!


    Report this

    944

    • #
      Streetcred

      Looks to me like you’re just parroting garbage from the warmista Taliban site, SS ! They need to send somebody that is up to the task, not a child.


      Report this

      247

      • #
        Nice One

        No. I was showing you the chart from the leaked document. The chart that shows the solar effects are not to blame.

        The chart is also only slightly different from the previous IPCC report.

        The leaker seems to have stuffed up and WATTS swallowed it.

        Perhaps it was a clever plot to make WATTs appear stupid.


        Report this

        937

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          No, Nice One (a dubious handle that I very much doubt).

          The whole thrust of the writer’s article was that there were parts of AR5 that totally contradict sections of both AR4 and AR5. And yet these contradictions have been completely overlooked in the Summary.

          You have simply presented an example of those sections where the contradictions have been ignored, and posted links to where AR5 agrees with AR4, DESPITE those acknowledged contradictions in AR5. You have then claimed that somehow this proves the article fallacious, when, in fact, it proves incontrovertibly the argument being made by the writer.

          .
          If this is your idea of logical thinking, then I suggest you learn how to play Tic-Tac-Toe, or Naughts and Crosses as you may know it. Maybe after a decade or so, we can move on to Draughts or Checkers.

          .
          Sadly, you don’t have enough years left for Chess.


          Report this

          346

          • #
            AndyG55

            MV, I think “snap” or marbles may be more appropriate for it.

            Tic-Tac-Toe is most certainly WAY beyond its logical thinking ability !!


            Report this

            166

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            Hi Andy.

            I don’t disagree – I was merely trying to be kind.


            Report this

            135

          • #
            Nice One

            No. The leaker made a leap of logic.

            Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [galactic cosmic rays] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system…The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link

            The forcing from TSI does not account for the GCR and some relationship with the climate.

            That is not the same as saying “The GCR’s can explain the warming”! that’s the mistake the leaker and WATTs made.

            But by all means prove me wrong. Please show us the paper that is now leaked that shows how GCR’s are responsible.


            Report this

            718

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            No, you sad little person.
            Another EPIC FAIL.

            Go back and read what the man actually wrote, rather than what you hoped he wrote.

            Rebutting you people’s straw man arguments has become tedious.
            In future, unless you’re going to actually address the issue, I’m not going to bother.


            Report this

            245

          • #
            Nice One

            @memoryvault, you haven’t explained where i supposedly went wrong. in the interest of proper debate, do explain further.


            Report this

            112

        • #
          Bite Back

          Nice One,

          No matter what, nothing will ever be to blame but CO2. That’s the way it has been dictated by the gods of IPCC. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: CO2 did it.

          Why are you trying to twist this into something it’s not? They contradicted themselves. They got caught. They, not to mention you, will try to defend the mess until it’s even worse. What’s new?

          Supposedly intelligent people aren’t even embarrassed by tying themselves up in knots like this. And nothing changes on your side except the hole you’re in gets deeper.


          Report this

          204

    • #
      • #
        Otter

        Never assume, when dealing with buffoons….


        Report this

        95

      • #
        Nice One

        Your blogger arrives at a conclusion that the authors themselves don’t say.

        For example, the first paper says:

        The 252 boxes obtained over the Northern Hemisphere have an average trend of 0.87Wm−2 per decade. Only 50 boxes were available for Rs data over the Southern Hemisphere and these have a mean trend of zero.

        It’s an acceleration so you need to divide by 2 to get the avereage and divide by two again because the other half of the planet showed NO change (did the sun really affect only half the planet for 26 years?).

        So that gives a value of 0.5655 Wm−2 for the planet.

        Compared to the forcing of CO2 (2.63) it’s not even a quarter of the warming.

        Your web blogger friend doesn’t provide workings so we can’t be sure about the 12.5 times part – it’s certainly not mentioned in the paper they cite. I imagine he’s computing the change in the radiaitve forcing rather than the amount of warming.

        An analogy would be:

        Car 1 (CO2) is moving at 100 km/h and sped up to 101 km/h, a 1% increase.
        In the same time…
        Car 2 (Solar) was moving at 10 km/h and sped up to 15 km/h, a 50% increase.

        The change in Car 2 (50%) is fifty times that of Car 1 (1%), yet Car 1 is still moving faster.

        It’s a little more complicated, because with the focings we’re actually talking about changes in changes, but you (might) get the idea.

        Therein lay the danger of accepting blindly a web-bloggers interpretation of climate science. But don’t worry, you’re not he first to be fooled by some random guy on the internet.


        Report this

        817

        • #
          memoryvault

          Compared to the forcing of CO2 (2.63) it’s not even a quarter of the warming.

          And your measurable, observable, quantifiable justification for this claim is . . . .


          Report this

          195

          • #
          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Nice try, Nice One — hand off the unproven theory as proven science to support yourself. When you come right down to it, the case laid out in The Skeptics Handbook, Volume I, still prevails.

            Where one Earth, in Heaven or in Hell is the evidence that CO2 is actually doing something? We’re all waiting…and waiting… … and waiting… …and… … … :-(

            Your house of cards is not just falling down, it’s on fire.


            Report this

            93

          • #
            Nice One

            Oh right. that would be the handbook that said no warming since 2001.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/trend

            The papers I listed are calculations based on the laws of physics showing CO2 has caused most of the recent warming.

            You can stop waiting and start responding with your own calculations … OH BUT OF COURSE, YOU DON’T HAVE ANYTHING. Just more “it’s not CO2, anything but that!!!” claims.

            Surely if it’s GCR’s you’d be presenting all sorts of papers confirming that it, rather than CO2 is causing the warming.

            But here you sit … waiting.


            Report this

            24

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Oh right. that would be the handbook that said no warming since 2001.

            That would indeed be the one!

            Now, I’m not the slightest bit interested in calculations based on the laws of physics. That’s just playing around with theory. Neither am I interested in proving anything. I have nothing to prove. You, however, do have something to prove. You say something is true and all the skeptics have done is say, “So show me the evidence.”

            That said, what I’m interested in is whether you can show some actual evidence to support your claim. If you can do that then I’ll start believing you may be right. If you can’t do that then I have every intention of dismissing your claims as a fabrication without visible support of any kind.

            From the looks of it you don’t even know what evidence is. You’re just a parrot, repeating what you’ve been told or read without any capacity to understand what you say. Because you are clearly human and have much better analysis powers than a parrot that careless attitude has begun to thoroughly disgust me.

            The facts at the moment are these:

            1. There has been no warming for at least the last 15 years.

            2. In those 15 years there has, in fact, been a cooling trend.

            3. Every last bit of warming we know about has a credible explanation that does not require greenhouse gasses to account for it.

            4. Atmospheric carbon dioxide does not correlate with the current temperature trend.

            5 a. Past carbon dioxide levels lag behind temperature in the ice core record so that CO2 cannot have been the cause of the temperature change. Cause cannot occur after its effect.

            5 b. In the geological record it’s quite clear that CO2 levels were much higher than now when temperatures were lower than now.

            6. There is no empirical evidence linking carbon dioxide with anything happening on this planet. See The Skeptics Handbook and this time, actually read it.

            7. There is an accumulating body of evidence that warming and cooling are regular cyclic events on Planet Earth. The North Pole has been ice free in the past (and within my lifetime too).

            8. You want me to believe that a fairytale disaster movie script is reality. You are a joke.

            Now go away and see if you can find a way to explain all these real facts.


            Report this

            41

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            PS to the annonymous red button clickers: I can always tell when you have no capacity to shoot down what someone has said.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            “Laws of Physics”

            “Laws”?

            Obviously you do not understand the terms hypothesis, theory, observation, proof, and law, as used in real Physics.

            Would you care to share your alternative definitions with the rest of us, for our understanding and enlightenment, of course?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Noxious One,

            You besmirch Jo’s first Skeptic Handbook by implying it says something which is contradicted by satellite evidence, but you either deliberately or accidentally have failed to allow for the fact that The Skeptics Handbook was published in July 2009.
            Here is your graph truncated to the latest evidence available at the time Jo published the handbook.
            Oh! Now based on that evidence would any rational being say it was warming or cooling?
            It shows cooling.

            Jo knew that 8 years of no warming was not enough to prove the case because she immediately followed that sentence with “How many more years of NO global warming will it take?”
            More data has been gathered since 2009. So let us study the data YOU linked to.

            It shows warming.
            It shows warming of 0.04°C per decade.
            That is 8 times SMALLER than the rate of 0.3°C/da predicted by the IPCC in the original 1990 report.
            You link to evidence which shows the first IPCC models were wrong by 700% and you think it helps you.
            Your innumeracy is your worst enemy.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Nice One

            Oh! Now based on that evidence would any rational being say it was warming or cooling?

            I wouldn’t base my judgement on a cherry picked section of the data. That is the problem with Nova’s handbook, she’s cherry picked a start date and ignores all data before it.

            But as the long term trend resumes, she’s left looking rather silly.

            Jo knew that 8 years of no warming was not enough to prove the case …

            And instead of proving her case, the data now confirms that she was wrong to cherry pick.

            You besmirch Jo’s first Skeptic Handbook by implying it says something which is contradicted by satellite evidence, but you either deliberately or accidentally have failed to allow for the fact that The Skeptics Handbook was published in July 2009.

            No I pointed out that the cherry picking Jo does in the handbook is now her undoing.

            What makes things even worse is that s/he are still telling people there’s been no warming in the satellite record.

            http://youtu.be/W2myom3cLI0?t=1h38m32s

            And yet the data says otherwise.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1975/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend


            Report this

            11

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            No I pointed out that the cherry picking Jo does in the handbook is now her undoing.

            No. You did actually judge a july 2009 statement according to a graph that includes information gained after 2009, which is a double standard and says nothing about the original statement – which was a statement of the available observations and NOT a prediction of the future.
            Roy’s broad comment to which you were responding, that “the case laid out in The Skeptics Handbook, Volume I, still prevails”, is NOT contradicted by your appeal to the temperature record since the decadal warming trend of the 1980s and 1990s did NOT continue into the 2000s and, based on Santer’s estimate that 17 years is the shortest interval for statistically significant climate trends, it will be 2018 before the July 2009 statement could be falsified in any significant way.

            What makes things even worse is that s/he are still telling people there’s been no warming in the satellite record.
            http://youtu.be/W2myom3cLI0?t=1h38m32s
            And yet the data says otherwise.
            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1975/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/trend

            Yes, in your linked video David did say “the warming trend stopped in around two thousand and one or two.”
            Yes, your linked data source supports David’s statement.

            Oh.

            And not only did the warming stop, but the trend your linked source showed back in April 2012 when this interview was recorded was in fact a statistically insignificant trend of slight cooling since 2002. The latest data available at the time David made the statement was consistent with his statement.

            Oh.

            The only prediction David made in the video was that during the next decade there will be slight cooling. This cannot be disproven until 2022, since you do not have information from the future.

            To compound your chicanery you do exactly what Anna accused her opponents of doing in the video. You focus on one tiny thing (a statement that warming stopped over an insignificant interval) and ignore a much larger trend (the countless times Anna would ask a question and it would be answered with reference to evidence, and the countless times Anna would be challenged to explain her position and she was left either speechless or grasping at non-sequiturs).

            Due to the logarithmic effect of CO2 concentration on temperature every new ppm has less effect than the one before it, and due to constraints on climate sensitivity implied by satellite observation and recent temperatures and rates of increase still being within the natural historic range, we would have to get to 560ppm before even 1 degree above normal could theoretically be realised.

            We know from ice cores and Rothmann 2002 that CO2 wasn’t a significant driver of climate at 1500 to 2000ppm, if anything it was an innocuous passenger, so why is it a driver of catastrophic climate change at 560ppm?
            Due to the logarithmic response curve we have theoretically already experienced the largest increase in temperature that CO2 could ever have for a 110ppm increase, and the result has been… no significant departure from the natural range. You must understand that you have no facts to support your alarm, you have only computer-based nightmares.


            Report this

            10

    • #
      Catamon

      Yup, the Watt’s headline is to drive up the outrage quotient and get hits. Having a read of the leaked 7.4.5 shows that the headline is bull-butter.

      Watts says:

      The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):

      Which from a read of the actual section just isn’t supportable, unless you are reading it upside waving your left foot in anticlockwise circles with last weeks red underpants over your eyes.

      Or if you are desperate for confirmation of your own brand of fetishism and wilfully put too much emphasis and an extreme interpretation on the phrase ” many empirical relationships . Oh, and leave out the rest that they are “reported” not proven or shown.

      Then there is:

      7.4.5.3 Synthesis

      Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

      Which as the conclusion of that section does go rather a long way to undermining the claim that:

      cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance.

      But i’m sure this report of Watts it will rattle the cage of the faithful and keep the rage on the boil. :)


      Report this

      829

      • #
        memoryvault

        unless you are reading it upside waving your left foot in anticlockwise circles with last weeks red underpants over your eyes.

        But . . . isn’t that how Climate Science is done?

        Perhaps, Cat, you’d like to publish a link to all the scientific, peer reviewed, published in respectable journals, “climate science” papers that have subsequently been found to apply charts, trends and graphs upside down?

        As an adjunct you could include a list of much vaunted, scientific, peer-reviewed “climate science” papers that were found to be fatally flawed BEFORE they even got published.

        I don’t want to steal your thunder, but you could start the first list with Mann et al 2008, and the second with the name Gergis.


        Report this

        245

        • #
          Catamon

          Nah, thats ok Mem. You have been sounding a bit down of late so go ahead and steal all the thunder you you want.

          But . . . isn’t that how Climate Science is done?

          Boom tish!! Glad to see you aren’t feeling so grumpy as not to rise to a giver mate!

          Oh, and just for peoples info, here’s an interview with one of the authors of Chapter 7 that seems to have the skeptic community all aflutter.

          I liked:

          But Professor Sherwood is scornful of the idea that the chapter he helped write confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming.

          STEVE SHERWOOD: Oh that’s completely ridiculous. I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.

          Now, who to believe about what that section meant?? Watts, or a somewhat unequivocal statement from one of the guys who wrote it?? Hmm…..hard one that. :)


          Report this

          719

          • #
            memoryvault

            Oh, and just for peoples info, here’s an interview with one of the authors of Chapter 7 that seems to have the skeptic community all aflutter.

            Great work Cat; let’s let the great man speak for himself (emphasis added):

            STEVE SHERWOOD: We’re getting on in the process. We’re at the stage where we’re trying to get input from as broad a cross-section of the community as possible to make sure that we haven’t left any stone unturned in writing this report, and it’s unfortunate that someone has exploited our effort to do that by splashing it out in the public where people can pick over it.

            So this dickhead wants us to believe they want input from “as broad a section of the community as possible”, and the way to achieve this is by avoiding at all costs “splashing it out in the public where people can pick over it”.

            I think Cat, perhaps you’d better give all us plebs a rundown on the post-modern difference between “community”, “public”, and “people”, because without it the rest of us are in the dark about what this guy – your quoted “hero” – is actually trying to say.


            Report this

            326

          • #
            Catamon

            Ok, Mem and other plebs, lets just for a minute try and look at this in context, ok??

            He’s being interviewed about a document that’s being put together by a group scientists who work in the field of climate science. Do you think, (he,he) that maybe he is using the word “community” in the context of “the group writing the document”??

            You see, if you can just let go of the urge to apply an extreme cynical approach to every utterance that challenges your world-view in any way and to any extent, the things people say will make more sense, and even if you do disagree with them you will waste less of your life being outraged.


            Report this

            818

          • #
            memoryvault

            .
            You know Cat, even for you, that’s lame.

            .
            We are NOT talking about a “document that’s being put together” by a group of scientists or anyone else. We are talking about a document that has been FINALISED, but the publishers don’t want the results known to the public yet. A bit like a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings movie.

            Sherwood knew full full well, as do you, that final submissions on the document closed on November 30. What has been published is exactly what we were intended to get, dribbled out over the next year as sensationalist press releases.

            That process has now been circumvented.

            Learn to live with it.

            .


            Report this

            216

          • #
            Catamon

            [You know Cat, even for you, that’s lame.]

            ok, now i have finished cacking myself at your progressing grumpy unhingiment, i will refer you to the D word in the title of the OP. :)


            Report this

            619

          • #
            cohenite

            Sherwood is an idiot, a dead set alarmist loon.


            Report this

            144

          • #
            memoryvault

            i will refer you to the D word in the title of the OP. :)

            And I will refer you to the “F” word in the name of ALL sixteen pdfs. Sample:

            Ch1-Introduction_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch01_All_Final.pdf

            I’ve bolded it to make it easy for you, Cat.

            .
            The “scientific” formulation of the Reports is over (First Order Review). Input of “science” is over. What you see is what you get – science wise. These documents are now in “Second Order Review”, which is review by GOVERNMENTS so they can have input into what they want toned down or revved up, to make the Reports more salable to their voters.

            Try reading the IPCC’s own press release.


            Report this

            93

          • #
            Catamon

            The “scientific” formulation of the Reports is over (First Order Review). Input of “science” is over. What you see is what you get – science wise. These documents are now in “Second Order Review”, which is review by GOVERNMENTS

            Good to see you admitting that its a draft MV and may be changed before publication. :)

            However, i’ll indulge you for a moment and make the brave assumption that you are right about something.

            Even if the “Input of “science” is over”", how does that relate to the use of the word “community” in context by Steve Sherwood, in any way that anyone not seeking refuge in a truly mind numbing level of pedantry would consider significant?

            Particularly since it doesn’t change the fact that the headline “contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing” is so obviously crap.


            Report this

            211

          • #
            Nice One

            As Catamon notes, on the topic of GCR, Steve Sherwood, co-AUTHOR of the WORDS that Alex Rawls interprets to mean that solar influenceis far greater, says:

            Oh that’s completely ridiculous. I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible.

            You ignored this bit. So instead of being absuive again, take your own advice and refute the argument.


            Report this

            28

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Noxious One,

            It doesn’t matter what the scientists say, what matters is the observational evidence.
            There is overwhelming evidence of cosmic rays modulating cloud cover and rainfall on all time scales from interannual up to centennial, from multiple isotope proxies over millions of years, and from satellites up to and including the last decade.

            Perhaps that is too much text and charts for your soft little natural climate change denier’s brain, so here’s a video. If you don’t have enough time to watch the whole video after getting home from the greenpeace meeting and before having rush off to the next coal train sabotage expedition, you can just fast forward to the 26 minute mark and watch the next 15 minutes.

            Now stop talking nonsense that has been refuted by overwhelming evidence.
            The cosmic-climate link is real, it’s not man-made, and it’s bigger than first thought!


            Report this

            73

          • #
            Nice One

            It doesn’t matter what the scientists say ….

            I disagree. In this case the scientists writing the report says one thing, Alex makes his own interpretation and blogs about it, the original scientist corrects Alex on his mistake. To an outsider it would be stupid to think Alex knows what the author meant, better than the author himself.

            There is overwhelming evidence of cosmic rays modulating cloud cover and rainfall

            The link you post for “overwhelming evidence” says:

            Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms.

            Sorry I was not overwhelmed.


            Report this

            33

        • #
          JFC

          Oh dear MV this is getting embarrassing. Now you finally realise you’ve made a goose of yourself.
          ” Hey look over there…..!”


          Report this

          516

        • #
          cohenite

          The IPCC doesn’t know what it is doing; its figure for climate sensitivity keeps changing; as Jennifer Marohasy notes:

          Dr Arrhenius calculated values for the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric carbon dioxide and speculate that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause a global temperature rise of 5 – 6 °C.

          It wasn’t until 1988 that AGW captured significant political attention. That was when climatologist James Hansen, in his testimony to US congressional committees, claimed a 4.2°C global temperature increase would result from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

          Since then estimates have been continuously adjusted down.

          In the 1995 IPCC report, for example, a doubling of carbon dioxide was predicted to cause a 3.8 °C increase and then in 2001 a 3.5°C increase and in 2007 a 3.26°C increase.

          In 2008, twenty years after his initial influential testimony, Professor Hansen issued a statement to the effect that his central estimate of lambda was now 0.75, requiring a further reduction of the official climate sensitivity estimate by one quarter, to 2.5°C degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide

          Getting back to AR5 and this wretched lie about past predictions being vindicated by observations; how then to explain this.

          AGW is in its death throes and all those fools here and elsewhere are worshippiong a corpse either because they are deluded or they think there is one more buck to be made before the stench from the rotting corpse becomes too much.


          Report this

          213

        • #
          JFC

          Straight from the horses mouth:

          The most interesting aspect of this little event is it reveals how deeply in denial the climate deniers are,” says Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia – one of the lead authors of the chapter in question. “If they can look at a short section of a report and walk away believing it says the opposite of what it actually says, and if this spin can be uncritically echoed by very influential blogs, imagine how wildly they are misinterpreting the scientific evidence.

          Need I say more?


          Report this

          34

      • #
        llew Jones

        Have a look at the hangers on Steve Sherwood spends time with on the Climate Hub and it soon becomes obvious that they all have a vested interest in “Climate Change” one way or another. Whether it’s making a buck out of “clean energy” or being involved in other activities that are only plausible in an AGW world. Thus Sherwood is an enabler for much more than pure science. That touches on the credibility of his opinions on AGW.

        http://www.theclimatehub.com/?author=27

        http://www.theclimatehub.com/who-we-are

        Invariably one finds these IPCC climate scientists have a side line agenda which makes their climate science dogmas, many of which are scientifically debatable, less credible.


        Report this

        142

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Cat,

        You got the underpants wrong. They’re green with yellow polka dots. And that’s about how seriously I can take you. :-(


        Report this

        22

    • #
      cohenite

      Oh look, NO has posted some of his finger paintings. When he grows up he may be able to do some more realistic work.


      Report this

      121

    • #
      wayne, s. Job

      Nice one I would give up the search for logic if I was you it is a foreign concept for a left thinking brain. Original thought and problem solving beyond the confines of what you have been taught to think are totally outside your realm of existence. It is regrettable that I have to inform you that there are many people that have evolved that no longer follow the herd.

      These free thinkers have created the world you live in with all its bells, whistles and Iphones, yet your mind tells you that this must be destroyed to save the world, sadly you are illusioned as it your paradigm that needs destroying if we are to advance those most in need of advancement. Your thoughts sir are the equivalent of a Pol Pot on the poorest of the poor and the way forward for our world is diametrically opposed to your way of thinking.


      Report this

      51

  • #
    Phil Ford

    …the IPCC only has billions in funding, the support of the UN, most large banks, all western governments, most university money managers, the thought police in the press, the $176b carbon trading market, and the $257b renewables investment scene. Skeptics have wit, evidence, and the world wide web.

    This quote should be produced as large format posters and distributed to every mainstream TV news channel, every school, university and government department, etc.


    Report this

    234

  • #
  • #
    Graeme Bird

    But where is this scintilla of evidence that its not Piltdown Man all over again?

    If you HAVE it….. Let us see it.


    Report this

    121

  • #

    [...] Draft IPCC report leaked (the evidence is so overwhelming it has to be kept secret!) « JoNova: Scie… What was the point of keeping the IPCC draft secret? The point is so the IPCC can control both the content and the PR. The IPCC wants a free kick, and they get one if the world doesn’t see how they arrive at the conclusion, and if critics can’t specifically point to errors or flaws until weeks after the giant press circus has done its megaphone production. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jere Krischel

    Magnet link for all the pdfs:

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3f31ecb2a557732ea8d42e14b87aca7efb5dbcc7&dn=IPCCAR5&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.cc.de%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A80

    Attempt at a hot link to the magnet


    Report this

    10

  • #
    john robertson

    What the IPCC did and still attempts to do, is not science.
    Science and the inherent scientific method it requires, are a threat to the “Cause” and in true devious fashion, the power-hungry wrap them selves in the flag.
    This fraud is run by sneaky people, who claim the motives of reasonable people and project their true values upon all who challenge them.
    From the evidence of the IPCC-FAR, Climate-gate 1&2, Copenhagen and Doha its the “Cause”.
    Any scary doomsday story is good as long as it brings the correct people power and money.
    Prior to the CRU emails I would have disputed my current position, well live and learn.
    The rent seekers and regulatory class, have exploded in number these last 2 decades.
    Yet we taxpayers have never been so poorly served by our “protective Agencies”.
    The scam of promoting and profiting from unwarranted hysteria about the weather, will destroy faith in the institutions of civil government and the religion of science from authority.
    CAGW created by govts. Promoted by govt. Rammed down your throat by govt.
    And what parts of govt? Why those very agencies created to avoid the damage waves of public hysteria have caused in our past.
    If you doubt the duplicity of your govt, then you try to access the science claimed to underpin policies already implemented.
    Your opinion of your govt and its minions will never be higher than it is today.


    Report this

    153

    • #
      Doug Cotton

      Good one John.

      Basically I am more interested in demonstrating why carbon dioxide has no warming effect, and I believe I have done that in my new paper in a radically different way that has nothing to do with convection rates or the amount of energy transferred by radiation from the surface. I came to the conclusion for the reasons explained clearly in the paper. There has been one final update to a couple of paragraphs in the last 12 hours, and I am happy now that the argument is cogent.

      I don’t really want to get into discussions about the details of Scafetta’s paper. I’m sure the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics would consider a rebuttal paper from anyone. Personally I had come to the conclusion about two years ago that planetary orbits affect solar radiation in some way, possibly through their magnetic or gravitational fields, and that variations in solar radiation and cosmic rays then somehow affect Earth’s climate.

      I am convinced that the limited absorption and radiation by carbon dioxide in the 15 micron band can have absolutely no net warming effect on Earth’s surface, whilst its absorption in the 2 micron band has a minor cooling effect. If water vapour does anything, it increases the mean specific heat, thus reducing the lapse rate and so also reducing the surface temperature, as you will understand after reading my paper.

      I don’t conduct blog comments on my website which is not set up that way, but you are welcome to email me at the address therein. At this stage I am seeking any valid point by point criticism or correction for my latest paper Planetary Surface Temperatures A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms which is still on the PROM (Peer Review in Open Media) system. So far I have had nothing but good comments about it from those who have emailed me.

      I’m sorry if I have bothered some people who obviously do not wish to have their thoughts on these issues challenged. But my motive in drawing attention to my paper on about a dozen climate blogs such as Jo’s, is a genuine attempt to seek out any valid rebuttal before it goes on the main publications menu at PSI and is more widely promoted. In short, I want to get it right – in the interests of science and humanity.


      Report this

      141

      • #
        JFC

        Doug you might just fit the “nutter” category. I’m sorry but I’m afraid I’ve got to tell it as it is. I suspect a lot of others think that too.


        Report this

        324

        • #
          Brian of Moorabbin

          You’re big on throwing around the ad-hom personal attacks JFC, but very short on actually providing any evidence to support your claims.

          How about you start actually posting some links to back up your point of view, rather than resorting to name-calling and insults?


          Report this

          81

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            How about he actually begins to explain things in his own words so we can see if he understands what he’s talking about? Anyone can provide links.

            What about it JFC? Show us your stuff. Or is it only a song and dance?


            Report this

            30

  • #
    John O'Hagan

    “deniers, nutters, conspiracy theorists, believe the moon landing was faked, are simultaneously paid by Exxon and suffer from ideological mental deficits”

    I like the way you snuck that “paid by Exxon” in with all the other crazy stuff, as if it were crazy too. But what exactly is your relationship with the Heartland Foundation? You certainly stick up for them; have they supported you? They’ve supported a lot of other deniers, haven’t they? They did get a lot of money from Exxon, didn’t they? By the way, how do you feel about their ideas on lung cancer science?

    “Skeptics have wit, evidence, and the world wide web”. Oh, I think you’ve got a little more than that behind you.


    Report this

    430

    • #
      old44

      “They did get a lot of money from Exxon”
      Heartlands total funding is $6 million with a maximum donation from Corporate donors of 5% of their budget, which makes Exxon contribution $300,000 or less.
      Not quite in the same league as the 10′s of billions slung at organisations that justify massive taxes intakes for governments, is it?


      Report this

      190

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Oh, I think you’ve got a little more than that behind you”

      If any, it is infinitely tiny compared to the graft money behind the CAGW scam.

      Much of money behind CAGW is from “Big Oil” and “Big Bank”.


      Report this

      161

    • #
      Catamon

      John, the communications strategy of the “skeptic” blogs is an interesting one and probably worthy of study in terms of political communications theory. Appears to me that different skeptic blogs will take different positions across the spectrum ranging from:

      Talk nice, we only do science here (as much as possible).

      to

      We say we do science :) but frothing abusers of the evil …..yadda…..yaddda..welcome. Oh and while your here donate, buy our heavy duty monogrammed screen wipers and take in the oH so subtle partisan political message. Would you like a link to Menzies House with that?

      They all seem to generally rely though on keeping a core of faithful outraged by frequent OP’s (substantial or recycled or not)that drive and maintain the indignation. That way there is always plenty of juicy action for the lurkers (who theoretically are where your uncommitted people are) to observe.

      On support? Doesn’t really take that much in the greater scheme of things. And there is the side effect that for political tragic’s its remarkably entertaining.


      Report this

      122

      • #
        JFC

        It fascinates me that the faux skeptics use this tactic of quoting an experts opinion about something (like this case or the Monckton/Pinker fiasco)and then the expert who wrote it comes out and clearly rebuts their interpretation. Where is the debate, you quote the expert and then tell us the expert doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Cognitive dissonance anyone?

        In light of this there’s been a few suggestions such as “Reverse-gate” but I particularly like “How to shoot your argument up your own crack gate”.


        Report this

        215

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      “deniers, nutters, conspiracy theorists, believe the moon landing was faked, are simultaneously paid by Exxon and suffer from ideological mental deficits”

      Anyone feel a cold draft? I think the door was left open last night.


      Report this

      20

  • #

    The ABC contradicts itself and seeks comments from a conspiracy theorist cartoonist about ice sheets.
    Here they they misquote skeptics to ask bad questions that result in and answer of

    “Professor Sherwood says research has effectively disproved the idea that sunspots are more responsible for global warming than human activity.”

    From the ABC here.
    What the ABC seems to have ignored though is that this is contradicted on one of their own recent science pages here.

    “It shows sunspots are a symptom not a cause for the solar cycle.”

    This could show that cosmic radiation or some other unknown plays a roll in dictating both sunspots and our climate. Looks like “Professor Steve Sherwood” is defending an out of date and incorrect old theory.


    Report this

    121

  • #

    Chapter 10 of the Draft AR5 states the following (Executive summary lines 50-52) Bolding mine.

    While the trend in global mean temperature since 1998 is not significantly different from zero, it is also consistent with natural variability superposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trends projected by climate models.

    So it’s settled then, (thanks to the IPCC bible) there has been NO TREND IN WARMING SINCE 1998.
    The cherry picked year is not mine, it’s the IPCCs. Therefore, there should be no further argument from our resident warmist trolls on this subject.

    The globe hasn’t warmed for 15 years. If natural COOLING is strong enough to totally erase any expected warming for such a long period of time, then it stands to reason that natural WARMING may have also caused the warming of the previous 15 years, i.e. from 1983 to 1998. The two dates just happen to be the dates of the two super El Ninos of the 2nd half of the 20th century.

    Now that the variation in temperatures from 1983 to 2012 (30 years or a so called climate time frame) has been explained by natural variability, what have the alarmist got? Nothing, zip nada nil zero.

    No proof of AGW direct from the mouths of the alarmists at the IPCC.


    Report this

    312

  • #
    JFC

    There’s an interesting contradiction here that had been raised elsewhere and it goes like this:

    If you guys think the IPCC is hopelessly corrupt and incompetent why would you then jump up and down with excitement when something they say apparently supports your own arguments? Of course it doesn’t but just imagine for the sake of argument it does.

    The world of the fake skeptic is very muddled indeed.


    Report this

    325

    • #

      We are happy that they have been forced to admit some truth. Is that too complicated for you to understand?


      Report this

      210

    • #
      Winston

      It is very simple JFC,

      When someone is an inveterate liar, eventually an unedited phrase or admission will pop out which contradicts their false script they have been strenuously adhering to to avoid being found out. Just as a police officer questioning a suspect looks for inconsistencies in their rehearsed alibi to break down their story to arrive at the truth.

      So, in case you are having trouble following that, skeptics are in the position of inquisitor, while alarmists are the ones sitting in the interview room, spotlight glaring in their faces, beads of sweat on their brow, and waiting to cut a deal with the DA at the first opportunity. Dead to rights is the phrase which springs to mind.


      Report this

      262

    • #
      ColdOldman

      The world of the fake skeptic is very muddled indeed.

      That is a very crass comment. Even an organization such as the IPCC can’t ignore empirical evidence, much though it has tried to in the past.

      To ignore the lack of significant warming, verified by many sources, would undermine its authority even further.

      No doubt they will cast the runes and come up with a plausible reason, but in 2 years time we will be comfortably past Santer’s 17-year itch and then the game will be up.


      Report this

      182

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      There’s an interesting contradiction here that had been raised elsewhere and it goes like this:

      Never ending drivel from JFC, etcetera, etcetera and etcetera.

      I really do wish these people could sing.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    Examination of Roman Port structure in the Mediterranean show a 1-metre sea rise since the first Century AD. How does ‘Our Own Dr Karl’ of ABC radio fame, think that we are going to suddenly see a sea-level rise in this century of ‘a more realistic 5-7 metres’?


    Report this

    190

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      What I want to know, is were are they going to get all the extra water from, to raise the global mean sea level by 5-7 metres? A simultaneous total melting of both ice caps? The math just does not compute.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Lots of trolls in evidence today.

    So the order of the day definitely is: “Defend the indefensible.”

    All the IPCC needed was another 6-9 months to have everything comfortably homogenised/manipulated/tortured to demonstrate ‘the concensus amongst ‘climate scientists”, but someone was a naughty boy and spilled the beans.

    One of my problems is that I can no longer find anyone prepared to defend the concepts of global warming, or that the IPCC has a genuine purpose. So I guess trolls have a purpose after all, someone needs to stand up and show they are proud to defend the indefensible.


    Report this

    242

    • #
      john robertson

      Peter that has been the test since 2009 climate-gate. Those prepared to defend the indefensible are to be encouraged to speak.
      Mikey Manns public pronouncements do more for encouraging scepticism than most reasoned contrary views.
      Contrast the manners of critics and those who claim co2 to be a problem.
      Human nature has not changed.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Athena

    Australian Professor = Lead Author of leaked IPCC Report

    Read our ABC’s Report!

    Listen to interview with Professor Sherwood!

    Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW, was the lead author of the chapter in question.

    He says the idea that the chapter he authored confirms a greater role for solar and other cosmic rays in global warming is “ridiculous”.

    “I’m sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite – that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,” he told PM.

    “What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything.

    “The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one.”

    Professor Sherwood says research has effectively disproved the idea that sunspots are more responsible for global warming than human activity.

    Audio: Mark Colvin speaks to Steve Sherwood and John Cooke (PM)
    “There have been a couple of papers suggesting that solar forcing affects climate through cosmic rays, cloud interactions, but most of the literature on this shows that doesn’t actually work,” he said.

    “Even the sentence doesn’t say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we’re really saying the opposite.”

    Climate communication fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland John Cooke says, if anything, warming is worse than predicted in the last IPCC report.

    “One of the main differences between the previous IPCC report and this one is [that] they’re including the role of ice sheets on sea level rise,” he said.

    “Ice sheet loss has accelerated, and so they’re contributing more and more to sea level rise.

    “Back in the fourth assessment report in 2007, I think [the predicted sea level rise] was around 20 centimetres [by the end of the century]. Now it’s getting up towards one metre.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-14/ipcc-draft-climate-report-leaked/4429036


    Report this

    117

  • #
    JFC

    When the dam wall breaks on this denial stuff it will go with a bang. Is it too early to call? Maybe, but make no mistake it will come, and when it does you guys are gonna be looking very foolish indeed, like the Republican pollsters/pundits who called a Romney win.
    From Think Progress:

    Nearly 4 out of 5 Americans now think temperatures are rising and that global warming will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds. [Associated Press]


    Report this

    427

    • #
      Mark D.

      When the dam breaks? I’m pretty certain that it is gonna break too but what’s behind the dam is a whole lot of reality for you warmists. CO2 has little to do with our climate. When people are freezing to death and starving to death because of your warmist delusions THAT is what will stress the dam to breaking. Unfortunately for you JFC, is you appear to be standing downstream…….


      Report this

      251

    • #
      Brian of Moorabbin

      Link to that article please JFC.

      How many people were surveyed for that result (or is it like the “98% of scientists agree with AGW” claim where it turned out to be only 75 respondants)?


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Otter

        Chances are the questions are very leading, with no room for individual differences.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        It must have been at least five.

        Probably five Freshman Students nabbed as they entered the Cafeteria. They, of course, have been programmed by the school system to parrot whatever they have recently been told. No actual thinking required.

        The results are meaningless in themselves, except that they do serve to demonstrate how the “scientific consensus” was formed and continues to be maintained.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Nearly 4 out of 5 Americans now think temperatures are rising and that global warming will be a serious problem for the United States if nothing is done about it, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds.

      Isn’t it wonderful that the world pays no attention to the opinions of humans?

      I see the mouth open and the tongue wagging but still no singing. I’m getting bored reading the same attack over and over and over again with nothing to back it up.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    AndyG55

    It’s going to be fun watching how they try the justify these reports when the temperature starts to drop over the next several years, due to LACK of solar activity.

    I still haven’t seen any decent explanation for the leveling off of temperatures over the past 12-16 years, despite accelerated world wide CO2 emmissions.

    What could possible be strong enough to counteract this massive CO2 forcing?


    Report this

    182

  • #
    Albert

    Looks like someone put truth drugs in their Christmas drinks


    Report this

    121

  • #
    Athena

    Rawls has completely misrepresented the IPCC report.

    IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun

    Alec Rawls, an occasional guest poster on the climate contrarian blog WattsUpWithThat who signed up to review the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (as anyone can), has “leaked” a draft version of the report and declared that it “contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing.” This assertion was then repeated by James Delingpole at The Telegraph (with some added colorful language), and probably on many other climate contrarian blogs.

    If the IPCC was to report that the sun is a significant player in the current rapid global warming, that would indeed be major news, because the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature and data clearly show that the sun has made little if any contribution to the observed global warming over the past 50+ years (Figure 1)……..

    Quote from the (deceptively-named) site -

    http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html


    Report this

    316

    • #
      Otter

      Mind you, Athena, we are voting SkS down, not you…


      Report this

      43

    • #
      angry

      Athena,
      Your moniker is of Greek origin, and the meaning of Athena is “wise”.

      Quite obviously that does NOT apply to you !!

      You should have used the moniker “Koalemos” …… the god of stupidity !!


      Report this

      01

      • #
        Heywood

        Ease up Angry…..

        I think that Athena is just referring us to the stupidity of SkS.

        The “Quote from the (deceptively-named) site ” kinda indicates that.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Athena

        Bless You Angry. I’m sorry you missed my qualifying comment at the end and are therefore angry at me! “Anger” is a mild word to use when compared to my reaction of utter rage – not a good emotion for someone with exceedingly high blood pressure! Athena, as you may know, is also the Goddess of War. And I have been at war for over 50 years with these “people” (if they can be regarded as human beings?)who are now being exposed in all their hypocrisy and hate of humankind and Freedom, and of their self-seeking lemmings – of which the SCAM of AGW is just another – and latest – manifestation of their Arrogance and Evil.


        Report this

        21

  • #
    llew Jones

    The appealing feature of Roy Spencer is that he realises more than alarmist climate scientists that our knowledge of how Earth’s climate system works is very limited. Here is a relevant discussion in terms of the new IPCC draft report.

    “Our Chaotic Climate System”

    December 14th, 2012

    Over the last quarter century, mainstream climate science has changed dramatically, from a paradigm where climate changes naturally to one where climate forever remains the same unless humans meddle with it.

    The reasons for this paradigm shift are clearly not based on science. Sure, you can always analyze some dataset in such a way that it gives the appearance of climate stasis (e.g. the hockey stick), but there is plenty of published research over the last 50 years supporting the view that climate changes naturally, and on all time scales…decadal, centennial, millennial, etc.

    The claim that the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age were only regional in extent is countered with considerable published evidence to the contrary. Besides…why is it that the pundits who claim these historic events were only regional in extent are the same people who place global significance on a U.S. drought or a heat wave in France? Hmmm?

    No, the reasons for this paradigm shift are mostly political ….”

    More here:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/


    Report this

    170

  • #
    Robber

    Some quotes for the Summary for Policy makers:
    The evidence that formed the basis for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)1 has further strengthened.
    Strong evidence has emerged that the physical and biogeochemical state of the oceans has changed during the past forty years.
    It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the lower stratosphere has cooled
    28 since the mid 20th century.
    Precipitation data indicates little change in the global mean since 1900, which is a revision from previous assessments.
    Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed, but the level of confidence in these changes varies widely depending on type of extreme and regions considered. Overall the most robust global changes are seen in measures of temperature.
    There is low confidence in observed large-scale trends in drought, due to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice, and geographical inconsistencies in the trends.
    Tropical cyclone data provides low confidence that any reported long-term changes are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. This is a revision from previous IPCC
    Assessments Reports, but consistent with the SREX.
    Based on independent observational systems and datasets, and their agreement, it is virtually certain that the upper ocean has warmed since 1971, and that ocean warming dominates the change in the global energy content. Largest warming is found near the sea surface (>0.1°C per decade in the upper 75 m), decreasing to about 0.015°C per decade by 700 m, for the time period 1971 to 2010.
    It is unequivocal that global mean sea level is rising as is evident from tide gauge records and satellite data.
    It is virtually certain that over the 20th century the mean rate of increase was between 1.4 to 2.0 mm
    yr1, and between 2.7 and 3.7 mm yr–1 since 1993. It is likely that rates of increase were similar to the latter between 1930 and 1950.
    Analyses of a number of independent paleoclimatic archives provide a multi-century perspective of Northern Hemisphere temperature and indicate that 1981–2010 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.
    Globally, CO2 is the strongest driver of climate change compared to other changes in the atmospheric
    29 composition, and changes in surface conditions. Its relative contribution has further increased since the 1980s and by far outweighs the contributions from natural drivers.
    Various feedbacks associated with water vapour can now be quantified, and together they are assessed to be very likely positive and therefore to amplify climate changes. The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is likely positive.
    It is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s. There is high confidence that this has caused large-scale changes in the ocean, in the cryosphere, and in sea level in the second half of the 20th century. Some extreme events have changed as a result of anthropogenic influence.
    The global mean surface air temperature change for the period 2016–2035 relative to the reference
    14 period of 1986–2005, will likely be in the range 0.4°C–1.0°C (medium confidence)


    Report this

    51

    • #
      MadJak

      Anything with “Virtual” in front of it means “we would like to believe”.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      ianl8888

      Various feedbacks associated with water vapour can now be quantified, and together they are assessed to be very likely positive and therefore to amplify climate changes

      Not according to this:

      Thomas H. VonderHaar, Janice L. Bytheway and John M. Forsythe. Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L15802, 6 PP., 2012. doi:10.1029/2012GL052094

      Essentially, this paper observes that there is no discernable global trend in water vapour concentration. So the major feedback is stuffed too

      Doubling CO2 concentration adds about 1C to global temperatures (laboratory measurements). As the effect of increasing CO2 concentrations over this is the step-wise equivalent to an inverse log function, Alfred E Neumann’s dictum is apposite: “What – me worry ?”

      Just as well, since the exclusion of nuclear and hydro power supplies has left large cities like Sydney nowhere to go except hydrocarbon use (let alone say, Shangai, New York … etc)

      Come in, spinner …


      Report this

      60

  • #
    c.kracknell

    even title of this thread is wrong it is a DRAFT not final that is why it hadn’t been published it was a secret like you make out wake up FFS


    Report this

    216

  • #

    [...] who are the sceptics and “deniers” now? The draft of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has been leaked – and it dumps many of the alarmist claims once made about the effects of [...]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “and it dumps many of the alarmist claims once made….”

      You can BET many of these WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED in the final report and summary.

      Rather difficult to do that now :-)


      Report this

      40

  • #

    I don’t understand how Marketing Department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation can be abbreviated to IPCC ;-)


    Report this

    40

  • #
    AndyG55

    By even mentioning solar forcing, the IPCC are preparing for the downturn in temperature that will most certainly follow the sun’s currently lazy solar activity.

    It is their only possible escape, a return to scientific realty.

    And now that the draft has been seen to mention it, the final cannot really drop this mention.

    This IPCC draft report also puts a big dampener on ALL claims of extreme climate.. sweeeet !!

    The game has changed.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Doug Cotton

    John O’Sullivan picks apart the contradictions in the leaked IPCC report which can be downloaded at the end of this article.


    Report this

    31

  • #
    Jaymez

    I’m afraid I’m not as excited by the draft AR5 as most seem to be. I have just finished reading Chapters 7 and 8. I admit a fair bit is above my pay grade, but tables 8.6 and 8.7 don’t seem to do anything to reduce the IPCC’s belief in the importance of anthropogenic caused global warming, as also indicated by the extract below.

    That is not to say that in AR5 the IPCC don’t have a better understanding of solar radiation and its impact; and that they now downplay the previously alleged connection between global warming and climate change and extreme weather events which was unproven but claimed in previous assessment reports. But it doesn’t appear to me upon reading chapter 8 anyway that there has been much of a move away from anthropogenic caused global warming. Can anyone else shed a clearer light?

    “Table 8.8 shows anthropogenic and natural RF over some specified time periods and RF values are shown both for exact years and 5-years means. Over the three decades from 1980 to 2010 the total anthropogenic RF has steadily increased to 1.0 W m –2.

    The natural RF agents of solar and volcanic show year to year variation and this is particularly large for volcanic aerosols. Their net effect has been a near zero RF over the past three decades (depending slightly on how RF is calculated since a major volcanic eruption occurred in 1982). Likewise the natural RF has been close to zero since 1950 with an anthropogenic RF of 1.6 W m–2.

    The 2000–2010 natural RF is negative with contributions both from solar and volcanic aerosols, whereas the anthropogenic RF continues to strengthen as in the previous decades. For anthropogenic RF the difference in specific years or 5-years mean is small, whereas for the natural it can make a large difference if major volcanic eruptions are included in the 5-years running mean as for the 1980–2010 and 1990–2010 time periods.

    Table 8.8: Anthropogenic and natural RF (W m–2) given for changes over four time periods (2008 numbers used so far for 2010). Numbers in parenthesis are 5-year means (for 2010 so far 3-year mean).

    Time Period Anthropogenic RF Natural RF
    1950–2010 1.55 (1.55) –0.07 (–0.06)
    1980–2010 0.97 (0.97) –0.04 (0.25)
    1990–2010 0.64 (0.63) 0.00 (0.83)
    2000–2010 0.38 (0.36) –0.15 (–0.12)”

    Not that I take much of the IPCC’s work on face value when after all the years and billions of dollars and thousands of scientists they come up with unscientific gems like this from lines 26 to 31 of the Executive Summary of Chapter 7 Clouds and Aerosols just so they can support their anthropogenic climate change predisposition. (My bold)

    “The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is likely (>66% chance) positive, although a negative feedback (damping global climate changes) is still possible. We assign a very likely range of −0.2 to 1.4 Wm–2 K–1 for the cloud feedback parameter. This conclusion is reached by considering a plausible range for unknown contributions by processes yet to be accounted for, in addition to those occurring in current climate models. The cloud feedback remains the most uncertain radiative feedback in climate models. “

    Couldn’t they just say they have no idea, that they are just guessing and that maybe we shouldn’t be totally restructuring our economies targeting a global average temperature when we don’t know whether we can and we have no global agreement as to what is an ideal global average temperature?


    Report this

    60

    • #
      MadJak

      Jaymez,

      I think at best they can bring themselves to say that they are “virtually we’re confident that we have an idea”.

      As mentioned earlier “Virtually” means “We would like to believe ”

      Search and replace is a wonderful thing.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Jaymez

      I can more readily understand this, and I think this may receive more coverage because without the claimed positive feedback mechanism of water vapour, we all know the warming effect of additional CO2 is exponentially diminishing :

      (By Forrest M. Mims III) “My review mainly concerns the role of water vapor, a key component of global climate models. A special concern is that a new paper on a major global water vapor study (NVAP-M) needs to be cited in the final draft of AR5.

      This study shows no up or down trend in global water vapor, a finding of major significance that differs with studies cited in AR5. Climate modelers assume that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will increase with carbon dioxide, but the NVAP-M study shows this has not occurred. Carbon dioxide has continued to increase, but global water vapor has not. Today (December 14, 2012) I asked a prominent climate scientist if I should release my review early in view of the release of the entire second draft report.

      He suggested that I do so, and links to the official IPCC spreadsheet version and a Word version of my review are now posted near the top of my homepage at http://www.forrestmims.org.

      The official IPCC spreadsheet version of my review is here. A Word version is here.”


      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/


      Report this

      50

      • #
        ianl8888

        See my post above 4:21pm

        The propaganda war has already been won by the greenie alarmists – the MSM will not allow any of this justice now. Censorship rules

        So, my comment “Come in spinner”


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I am sorry Ian, but I beg to differ.

          The critical target for propaganda is to convince 50% of the final 40% of a population, of the faux-reality being portrayed. Once 80% of the population accept the story as reality, then the final 20% go underground, and are effectively neutralised. Sixty percent of a population will accept what they are told by authority, with the message being reinforced by the media. That is easy, and that is what we have observed.

          But beyond that point, the law of diminishing returns becomes significant, and convincing the next 20% will require two to three times more effort, and time, and resources. And those numbers assume that the 20% have no way of fighting back. But they do today, through the Web, and that is why the powers that be want to belatedly find a way to control it.

          The internet has provided the means for the sceptics to outflank the planned propaganda machine, so the propagandists are forced to engage with the sceptics in a series of skirmishes. That is the role that the trolls play on this site – they are skirmishers. While they visit this site and engage (however banal they may be), we know we have not lost, and the more prevalent and persistent they are, then the more we know that we are winning the battle.

          Once the key 20% can demonstrate a clear win, then the 60% will flip back to not believing in what they are told (regarding this story, at least), and will claim that they were always sceptical about the proposition. At that point, they will never go back to believing anything they are told regarding the climate, or the weather forecast for that matter.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            ianl8888

            Wishful thinking, mate

            Most people say they don’t believe what they read in the newspapers or see/hear on TV, but they are lying to themselves

            The true battle is as TonyOz posts show – what to do about “climate change” ? The Achilles Heel of CAGW


            Report this

            11

  • #
    Doug Cotton

    Sixty percent of a population will accept what they are told by authority

    The only trouble is, 60% is enough to win an election. So the Libs in Australia won’t risk an about face on the “consensus” GH view, despite all the evidence it’s wrong. Here’s why.

    Doug Cotton
    Sydney

     


    Report this

    21

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Very true, Doug.

      But as we get the facts out there – and not just the scientific facts, but also what the political future holds for society if this power grab succeeds – then the closer we come to tipping the 60%.

      It doesn’t take much energy at a tipping point, in order to get a significant and dramatic change.

      “They” have spent decades in building this up. It could all collapse in weeks, once the exodus of the lukewarm supporters starts. When it does happen, it will be bigger than the collapse of the Soviet Union was, and that was huge, and still continues to reverberate around the world.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        john robertson

        When the true believers twig, the cr@p hits the fan.
        Nothing unravels a faith faster than when the faithful turn on their leaders.
        Buy Popcorn.
        Most voters have accepted on faith the pronouncements of our leaders and experts, we were busy and its mostly just noise, but the collapse of our communal wealth will cure that.
        The current, blame every weather event on AGW, does more to destroy the meme than rational debate has, everyone understands, wettings ones self about the weather.
        There is a whole mythology built around it. The absurdity of many weather related headlines and expert pronouncements does filter out to the folk who are just trying to raise their kids and make a living.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          ianl8888

          the folk who are just trying to raise their kids and make a living

          That’s the excuse, but the truth is both simpler and quite bitter – a large majority of the populace is both scientifically illiterate and mathematically innumerate; they simply cannot understand or appreciate the arguments

          That’s why the “consensus of scientists” line works


          Report this

          10

          • #
            john robertson

            Ian most people tune out nonessential blather from their lives, its self preservation, scientific literacy and mathematical skills are retained, if learnt, by how we use them.
            But obsessing about every storm and warm day is obvious to the disengaged, its Chicken Little, its the witch doctor and the rain dancers.
            Farmers, fishermen, bushmen and campers all start laughing when they realize the wisdom of the current end of the world/climate meme.
            Is there nothing global warming can’t do? Another 6 inches of global warming fell last night.
            Its become an object of ridicule, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Illiterate response..Huh? Anthropogenic Global Warming, the same. Global Warming? Oh good , where?
            The collapse from there has been rapid, Climate Change? Always did, whats your point?
            And now Extreme Weather?? What the F…? Have these city clowns never been outside?
            Sorry if too long winded but the own goals of Team Glowball Warming are just great.


            Report this

            20

  • #
    John Coochey

    Interestingly “The Conversation” has and article on the leak but has closed comments before a single comment was made! I wonder why?


    Report this

    20

    • #
      john robertson

      Thats an indication the “cause” is collapsing, noticed the same thing on multiple North American media leading up to Doha and to present, Comments now closed on a 2 hr old propaganda piece.
      I expect great entertainment from the state medias as they try to explain their “Balanced coverage”.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Gee Aye

      well it could be sinister or it could be that you are wrong. I was going to point out that it was written by a staffer as a news item and that these are not always open for comment.

      8 comments so far.


      Report this

      02

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Aww come on, Gee Aye, if we didn’t jump the gun we’d have to manufacture our outrage instead of it being genuine.
        You can’t top the real thing.

        This initial comment blackout period is either a very clever move to reduce the number of kneejerk half-baked reactions that get posted, or it’s a way of getting the most number of people to read the article free from any critique that might interfere with The Cause of The Team.

        Since there are plenty of web sites that will give skeptical (or denier) analysis about it, it’s futile to think all critiques can be immediately blocked from the curious. So the more likely explanation is the latter option. The credulous folk who get all their climate information from the warmists won’t see any crack in the facade.

        Smile, you’ve been harmonised.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Gee Aye

      hmmm close to 40 comments now and none from you (using your name at least). C’mon, I am beating you!


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    UKSD

    Congratulations, a report is leaked, man made climate change is real. Get over it. Unless you are quite happy reading the cherry picked extracts designed to be spoonfed to the denial movement.

    UKSD – You need to explain what scientific observation we deny or apologize for baseless names. – Jo


    Report this

    04

  • #
  • #
    angry

    Here is a story that needs to be sent to everybody that you know !!!!!!

    IPCC turns sceptic on cyclones, floods and droughts !!!

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_turns_sceptic_on_cyclones_floods_and_droughts/

    GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION !!

    CARBON DIOXIDE IS PLANT FOOD AND NOT POLLUTION !!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    12

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    Accounting as an art form
    I think the link above shows how we should be reading reports from the IPCC. Instead of being skeptical scientists or “the d word” we should be seen as art critics.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] who are the sceptics and “deniers” now? The draft of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has been leaked – and it dumps many of the alarmist claims once made about the effects of [...]


    Report this

    00