JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

Latest, belated admission the models were “too hot” is all PR and politics, nothing to do with science

Spot the political PR paper pretending to be science: the global carbon budget just got a whopping — four –  times — bigger, but instructions on how to follow the carbon religion are 100% identical.

It’s become too obvious to everyone that the climate models have been complete failures. Thus, the global leeches were facing a crisis as their credibility and motivation drain. So the new paper in Nature Geoscience is just a retweak of the models to produce a number that isn’t so mock-worthy. There is no scientific reason offered, no new understanding of the climate. No one is even pretending that these modelers can explain the way our climate works any better than they did last year when they were utter failures. It’s all a charade. There is no honesty here — if there was, they’d admit the skeptics are years ahead of them.

The new paper is just about “staying the game”, a desperate injection to keep the dying movement alive. All the political messages remain untouched. It’s got everything to do with PR and nothing to do with science.

The numbers change (and nobody ever cared about them anyway) but PR meme is a carbon copy: We can just barely, possibly save the world. (Give us your money.)

To maintain an artificial money pump and a team of volunteer activists, the messaging has to balance on the fine line between being “too hard” and demoralizing the serfs, and being “too soft” and everyone gets complacent. It also obviously has to avoid the “too ludicrous” line and being the butt of jokes. This paper ticks all those boxes. “How convenient”.

The carbon budget was about to burn out too soon

Time for a paper to keep the scam running another 20 years:

The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model.

Time to neutralize the dire threat of Trump pulling out of Paris

In 2015 the Paris deal was set to save life on Earth and before Trump won, he was the Anti-Christ and going to destroy the planet. The problem with the hype is that he won and called their bluff — for the troops it’s a crushing dose of “no hope left”. Enter the PR marketeers with a press release titled: “New hope for limiting warming to 1.5°C”. Et Voila. Add to that the new “insight” that Trump and Paris don’t really matter as reported in the Telegraph:

They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference.

The press release doesn’t even try to look like a scientific advance. The evidence is from “complex Earth System Models” which mean it isn’t evidence and comes from the same models that didn’t work. So they have had a few assumptions tweaked to fit the facts. Whatever.

From the Press release:

Significant emission reductions are required if we are to achieve one of the key goals of the Paris Agreement, and limit the increase in global average temperatures to 1.5°C; a new Oxford University partnership warns.

Published today in the journal Nature Geoscience, the paper concludes that limiting the increase in global average temperatures above pre-industrial levels to 1.5°C, the goal of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, is not yet geophysically impossible, but likely requires more ambitious emission reductions than those pledged so far.

Three approaches were used to evaluate the outstanding ‘carbon budget’ (the total amount of CO2 emissions compatible with a given global average warming) for 1.5°C: re-assessing the evidence provided by complex Earth System Models, new experiments with an intermediate-complexity model, and evaluating the implications of current ranges of uncertainty in climate system properties using a simple model. In all cases the level of emissions and warming to date were taken into account.

‘Previous estimates of the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget based on the IPCC 5th Assessment were around four times lower, so this is very good news for the achievability of the Paris targets,’ notes Professor Pierre Friedlingstein of the University of Exeter, a co-author on this study and a key expert on carbon budgets for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ‘The 5th Assessment did not specifically address the implications of the very ambitious 1.5°C goal using multiple lines of evidence as we do here. The ambition of Paris caught much of the science community by surprise.’

Co-author Professor Michael Grubb of University College London, concludes: ‘This paper shows that the Paris goals are within reach, but clarifies what the commitment to ‘pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C’ really implies.

Pretends to be a science paper but openly dictates energy policy:

‘Starting with the global review due next year, countries have to get out of coal and strengthen their existing targets so as to keep open the window to the Paris goals.

As James Delingpole says:

Note the disingenuousness here.

Grubb is claiming that the facts have changed. Which they haven’t. Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the IPCC climate models have been running “too hot.” Indeed, the Global Warming Policy Foundation produced a paper stating this three years ago. Naturally it was ignored by alarmists who have always sought to marginalize the GWPF as a denialist institution which they claim – erroneously – is in the pay of sinister fossil fuel interests.

Allen’s “so it’s not that surprising” is indeed true if you’re on the skeptical side of the argument. But not if, like Allen, you’re one of those scientists who’ve spent the last 20 years scorning, mocking and vilifying all those skeptics who for years have been arguing the very point which Allen himself is now admitting is correct.

… that word you were looking for to describe the current state of global warming science is: “Sorry.”

ABSTRACT

(Political phrases bolded by moi)

The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5 °C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200 GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6 °C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240 GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0 °C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.

Years from now this paper will be cited as another example of the way Nature sold out and became a mindless political tool.

REFERENCE

Miller, R.J. et al (2017)   Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo3031

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (93 votes cast)
Latest, belated admission the models were "too hot" is all PR and politics, nothing to do with science, 9.6 out of 10 based on 93 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ya799rwh

165 comments to Latest, belated admission the models were “too hot” is all PR and politics, nothing to do with science

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model

    What? Another one?

    Like the 72 previous ones it will also get it wrong.

    Why?

    Because CO2 as the predominant driver of global warming has been found to be wanting as an explanation.

    Some “projections” from this “simple carbon-cycle model” would be nice to see. However, I suppose if you make no forecast of future temperatures from your “simple” model you can never be wrong!

    302

    • #
      James Murphy

      the use of the word “simple” in such a context is of great concern to me. Sure, it may well be simple compared to the real system (what model isn’t?), but it’s not the most scientific of terms.

      You’d think peer review would have picked up on that kind of thing… (sorry, couldn’t resist)

      160

      • #
        Just Thinkin'

        “Came across my desk”, has a certain ring to it.

        It does not mean that I read it.

        OR, even glanced through it…….

        Peer review is a misnomer….I reckon it means “like-minded-person”, not “someone who is going to pick it to pieces”.

        Which it should mean….

        120

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          Peer review If done correctly works fine:
          1. Pal review– co-workers saving you from your own mistooks.
          2. Pubs editors fixing horrible grammar spelling, punctuation. Also helpful in providing boilerplate to help bulk it up.
          3. Management review. Catches mistakes; that make such unpublishable for policy or political reasons; later perhaps. What a learning experience for someone technical!!
          4. Family review. Catches mistreaks, Do you really want to do this? I love you! If you are wrong; all you can do is bend way over and kiss your young a** goodbye!

          I do not know what the academics may use! nor do i wish to! :-)

          11

          • #
            Russ Wood

            Will – there’s always the perfectly valid peer review that is simply IGNORED by the author. Personal experience: One team leader and I swapped almost-completed software projects. After a few weeks of study, I passed along a couple of pages of recommendations and corrections. Years later, I inherited his project for maintenance, and found that all of the mistakes I’d found originally were still there.
            So, there’s no silver bullet for ‘correctness’.

            00

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Good Lord.

      I’ve resurrected.

      (See 27.1)

      10

  • #

    Complex system models…windows to goals…global energy budget…require delivery…challengingly deep…achievability of targets…key this…key that…key, key, key…

    I don’t know which is worse: the smug “I’m-a-Dawkinsian-Darwinian” appeal to authority or the grotesque 1980s management speak. But I guess if you are silly enough to swallow the mechanistic simplifications of the climatariat you will be silly enough to talk like yesteryear’s power-dresser with fat yellow tie and chunky shoulder pads.

    272

    • #
      toorightmate

      Some think models are too thin.
      Others feel that models are too fat.
      Blind Freddy can see that all models are too hot.

      20

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Model fudging to get the desired values is nothing new. This is model fudging to erase the large temperature estimates from too large sensitivity values. Easy just reduce the sensitivity and call it the real truth now as opposed to the old truth in past years.
    These guys are as slippery as the BOM and just as nefarious.

    361

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    There is no basic scientific mechanism incorporated in these so called “models” and the only possible starter in this area that has any credibility is the orbital mechanics of the solar system.

    There is a known periodicity and the experiment has been repeated several times over the past half a million years.

    Major factors have been simply ignored; this is not science but politics.

    Green house gases are irrelevant to this issue.

    Show me the lab data on various concentrations of CO2 vs temperature with a constant IR source?

    None?

    KK

    233

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      What comes to mind is the young kid who grabs the bull by the tail and them discovers its too dangerous to let go lest he be gored ( bad pun ) and trampled….

      121

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      “There is a known periodicity and the experiment has been repeated several times over the past half a million years.”

      Indeed but only “perhaps” relevant. Way long ago Our young God, not yet all knowledgeable, still at the ‘what if stage’ had a whole universe worth of Fe56 sitting next to favorite teddy bear. Then WHAT IF!! Now Usens fantasize that as DA BIG BANG!. 2 + 2 + several very large irrationals = just what? Usens must always fool self with ‘assumptions’.
      Usens cannot “be” even an immature GOD. At best an image of such GOD.
      Image is but a projection of “entity” upon a lesser dimensional manifold. How many lesser dimensions?? Hah! That revelation would be like China allowing Young Fat Kim weapons that may possibly be directed at China.
      We likely have a loving GOD. Time to stop assuming that Usens have a stupid GOD!! Now what?

      60

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        That sounds like a very “spirited” comment Will.

        I still maintain that the Milankovic cycles give the best “model”.

        You can predict what’s going to happen but likely we won’t be around to see the start of the next glaciation.

        Putting words to your spirited comment I would agree that our maker may fool around with the cycles and start up a whole new ballgame. He’s done it before, just look at the cycles over the past few hundred million years: lotsa change.

        KK

        KK

        52

      • #
  • #
    TdeF

    What happened to “The Science”? So the science was right but the facts were wrong?

    What nonsense. They were wrong for thirty years. They are wrong today. They will continue to be wrong tomorrow. The jolly green monster ate our power stations.

    Not a single model presented fits the historical temperature graphs which are well known and now do not even fit the last 30 years which is now science history. Still the demand for the destruction of coal fired power, the power which created the industrial revolution and gave us the highest standard of living since homo sapiens appeared. According to the Greens, it’s still back to the caves for everyone else while they enjoy the standard of living and represent the rich middle class group in society with the highest frequent flyer points. Selfish elites.

    It will continue to collapse as Prof Weiss’s predictions are incredible (13:45 and 15:26), covering the last 2500 years with amazing precision, predicting the short gain, the pause and now the decline.

    Soon lopping off the -0.5C from random Australian weather stations will not be enough. Using the instantaneous peak as the maximum average temperature will not help. We should see 1.0C by 2030, but down, not up. By then all the current carpetbaggers will be retired. It will be left to new graduates to defend a theory which never fitted the facts, despite wonderfully creative data fiddling, editing, elimination, truncation and homogenization.

    Goodbye Global warming. Now the quest will be to blame Global Cooling on coal and Western democracies.

    303

    • #
      TdeF

      Remember about five year ago when Tim Flannery decided that the oceans were 400x bigger than the atmosphere (wow) and might have eaten his warming. Then the seque to warming oceans, not atmosphere, destroying the Great Barrier Reef. The way Barack Obama came to Australia and insulted us with the idea that we and we alone were destroying this natural wonder was appalling. If CO2 was indeed responsible, 99% comes from overseas anyway and there is no explanation for the water being warmer than usual which involves CO2, but still his grandchildren would miss the reef. No polar bears left on the reef either. Our fault.

      I am left to puzzle about who decides all this leftist dogma. Global Warming, Climate Change, the guilt of explorers like Cook and Columbus and even our own John Batman, the guilt of developers like Cecil Rhodes (so how’s third world Zimbabwe these days?). Nothing but praise for Stalin, Fidel Castro and that giant of socialism Hugo Chavez. Is there anything the socialist Climate pushers have right? Or is that the point? It’s all about money and power and profiteering. It was never about the weather. Ask Christiana Figueres, ultimate IPCC political chief. She will deny it is about the Climate. It’s all about destroying democratic Western countries or as she says, changing the economic model. Nice job. Pays well. Great travel.

      332

      • #
        sophocles

        TdeF says:

        It’s all about money and power and profiteering. It was never about the weather.

        That’s right. Coal burning electricity generation is too reliable and too cheap. It’s not “green” because it is not sufficiently profitable for its new private owners.

        Historically, windmills pumped water.

        Now they pump money.

        210

  • #

    There are two reasons why the IPCC scenarios are exaggerated:
    1. The climate sensitivity of temperature to CO2 seems exxagerated
    2 The Possible amount of CO2 seems exaggerated

    By this paper the possible amount of CO2 also seem to be exaggerated: The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: A supply-driven analysis

    From the abstract: «The emission scenarios used by the IPCC and by mainstream climate scientists are largely derived from the predicted demand for fossil fuels, and in our view take insufficient consideration of the constrained emissions that are likely due to the depletion of these fuels. This paper, by contrast, takes a supply-side view of CO2 emission, and generates two supply-driven emission scenarios based on a comprehensive investigation of likely long-term pathways of fossil fuel production drawn from peer-reviewed literature published since 2000. The potential rapid increases in the supply of the non-conventional fossil fuels are also investigated. Climate projections calculated in this paper indicate that the future atmospheric CO2 concentration will not exceed 610 ppm in this century; and that the increase in global surface temperature will be lower than 2.6 DegC compared to pre-industrial level even if there is a significant increase in the production of non-conventional fossil fuels. Our results indicate therefore that the IPCC’s climate projections overestimate the upper-bound of climate change.»

    Take away both exaggerations, and there is nothing left than a intense shame on United Nations climate panel IPCC.

    143

    • #
      TdeF

      As I have written many times and proven with simple physics, you can actually measure the amount of industrial CO2 in the atmosphere. It is under 2%. You would think that would be the end of it but the speculation continues, regardless of provable facts.

      193

      • #
        TdeF

        Also in reading the IPCC reports, the half life of CO2 is 80 years or even ‘thousands’ of years. You would think so many scientists could stop to measure this? After all 98% of CO2 is in the ocean and that is agreed. Even in the 1950s they thought the half life was 5 years. Now we know it is 14 years. There is absolutely no problem, but it continues.

        173

      • #
        sophocles

        TdeF said:

        You would think that would be the end of it but the speculation continues, regardless of provable facts.

        Never let facts get in the way of a good war.
        This is a new way of waging war, where a belief system is promulgated as “science” when it’s nothing but propaganda. Sit back and watch your targets tear themselves apart.

        90

        • #
          TdeF

          Yes, science has trumped religion, starting with Rene Descartes who was the first real mathematically based rational scientist but he was religious, always trying to see God in everything. Amazing man. Anyway as Galileo challenged ideas of the solar system and Copernicus hid his work because he could see the implications, it was clear Science challenged religion in a way never seen before. Facts vs superstition.

          Now we have a new phenomenon. Religion presented as science. Global Supersitition. Sure, we saw Scientology, but this is United Nations religion of Climate Change. It has the answer to every question. It is a belief system. Democracies are polluters and socialists and communists are holy. It makes true believers rich and powerful and even non believers, bankers, merchants, manufacturers can make fortunes from “The Science”. It has gone so far that you do not have to say of what?

          So “The Science” is the new religion. The money flows like a river. Facts are irrelevant. Rational real science has been discarded and its acolytes are ever fudging the data to make it work, hiding the decline, extrapolating without reason or explanation. Few dare challenge it.

          Barack Obama believes the Science. So does banker Malcolm. It gives them political power and wealth. Otherwise, I believe Al Gore does not believe it at all. Nor does Tim Flannery or his Climate Council, but needs must. How many senior Christians believe in God. Better not to ask.

          105

          • #
            sophocles

            “The Science” is the new religion. The money flows like a river. Facts are irrelevant. Rational real science has been discarded and its acolytes are ever fudging the data to make it work, hiding the decline, extrapolating without reason or explanation. Few dare challenge it.

            Indeed.

            War is war and economic warfare is as destructive as mechanical warfare although, given the propaganda, more insidious.

            We should be considering “To what purpose?”.

            Strong, et al, consider the global population ( gt 7.5 billion, maybe lt 8 billion) as gross overpopulation. It’s not. We could bulldoze the northern half of the north island of NZ flat, and build 3.5 billion `apartments’ of 36sqm floor area in that space. That would hold the whole world’s population. In one place. Provisioning that population at that density is a whole huge but separate problem. Acknowledged. But I think, framing it as I have, shows it to be a soluble problem. The UN’s solution is as inequable as their statement of the problem.

            The `footprint’ of mankind is not so bad as has been made out. It’s the distribution of wealth which creates the problems railed against. The forcible and dangerous reorganisation of society and its economy which is being attempted at present, is not the answer. The UN seeks `justice’ but it can’t achieve that by instituting `International Welfare,’ the redistribution of wealth in the way it seeks to achieve it. The economic parasites jostling for position will create an even more damaging world order.

            Socialism of any sort is not the answer. It had over a hundred years to prove itself and it failed.

            But that frames the debate we should be having.

            40

            • #
              KinkyKeith

              Sophocles

              The U.N. justice you speak of is truly disgusting when you think of the millions who have been forced out of their homes or off their land by rampaging bandits dressed as do_gooders.

              All of it left unchecked by the U.N. elites who rampage through the streets of Paris and Rio trying to kill the gas of life, CO2.

              Of course they don’t forget the victims of social disorder completely, while in Paris they do take some time out to arrange for emergency food supplies to be parachuted down to the starving masses.

              If they really truly meant what they say about the dreaded Carbon they would use video conferencing and donate half of their salaries to a charity that does more than the U.N.

              KK

              Real

              31

              • #
                sophocles

                KK said:

                The U.N. justice you speak of is truly disgusting

                Of course it is. It’s not Justice in any true sense of the word, which is why I wrote it as `justice.’ It’s the `justice’ you have when you haven’t any justice.

                It’s `justice’ in the UN Bureauspeak. It’s the protection and, especially, the extension of the advantages of those who are already well advantaged. They (the UN) say they are `changing the economic paradigm’ and try to sell their change as `good’ when reason shows otherwise: it’s a power grab, purely and simply, with the intended entrenchment and expansion of privilege, and the destruction of democracy.

                The UN attempt to change the world’s economies is also a direct assault on democracy. To paraphrase Churchill: “democracy is a terrible form of government, but it’s the best one we’ve got.” And what I am saying is that we are fighting the symptoms in the form of the propaganda, not the cause. Make no mistake: it’s a war.

                If they really truly meant what they say about the dreaded Carbon they would use video conferencing and donate half of their salaries to a charity that does more than the U.N.

                Let’s consider it from the PoV of the UN Bureaucrats, and their ‘Noble Cause’ for a moment.


                Eh?
                What?
                Donate?
                From my salary?
                What planet are you on?

                UN Bureaucrats?
                Use Video Conferencing?
                Why?
                How plebian!

                I know your type: you’re one of those Deniers!
                No! Don’t deny it!

                You’ve obviously no idea at all at just how hard it is to be a UN Diplomat. Wrecking the current world economy every day is tiresome, tiring and tedious work because of all you sceptics. It’s the annual junkets which truly ‘save the planet’ because they refresh and rejuvenate us hard hard workers, are the whole point of the exercise. How else can we be boozed out of our brains for a fortnight on FREE booze, FREE accomodation, FREE food and FREE fares? And FREE booze. Don’t forget the FREE booze, we earned it. Planet Saving™ and Economy Changing© is Great and Noble Work. Besides, the economy wherever the junkets are held most certainly doesn’t suffer. No. Not at all. That’s why you have to pay Carbon Taxes—for all our air travel, accomodation and booze. Get Real.

                Self enrichment? Never comes into it, that’s what families are for.
                </sarc>

                41

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                Self enrichment?

                No, it’s self-righteousness. As are all the Green Blob.

                21

  • #
    pat

    today, some websites have re-posted a story from April, which I missed entirely at the time. it involves Steven Koonin, the Red Team/Blue team guy Scott Pruitt talks about, who was Obama’s Energy Department Undersecretary:

    VIDEO: 3mins41secs: 21 Apr: WSJ: Mary Kissel: Opinion Journal: How Government Twists Climate Statistics
    Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin on how bureaucrats spin scientific data.
    http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-how-government-twists-climate-statistics/80027CBC-2C36-4930-AB0B-9C3344B6E199.html?mod=trending_now_video_3

    Daily Caller had an article at the time:

    24 Apr: Daily Caller: Chris White: Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy
    A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.
    Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.
    “What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

    He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.
    “What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in the decades before that,” he said. The U.N. published reports in 2014 essentially mirroring Koonin’s argument…

    Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.

    Koonin is not the only one claiming wrongdoing. House lawmakers with the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, for instance, recently jumpstarted an investigation into NOAA after a whistleblower said agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.
    Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, will “move forward as soon as possible” in asking NOAA to hand over documents included in a 2015 subpoena on potential climate data tampering.

    Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to “tell it like it is. You’re a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table.”

    NASA and NOAA’s actions, he said, are problematic, because “public opinion is formed by the data that is formed from those organizations and appears in newspapers.”
    Neither agency responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/former-obama-official-says-climate-data-was-often-misleading-and-wrong/

    Wikipedia: Steven E. Koonin
    Steven E. Koonin is a theoretical physicist and Director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. He is also a professor in the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering at NYU’s Tandon School of Engineering…
    Koonin received his Bachelor of Science from Caltech and his Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1975, Koonin joined the faculty of the California Institute of Technology as a Professor of Theoretical Physics, and served as the Institute’s provost from 1995 to 2004…

    In 2009, he was appointed the U.S. Department of Energy’s second Senate-confirmed Under Secretary for Science serving from May 19, 2009 through November 18, 2011…
    In “Climate Science Is Not Settled,” a 2014 essay published in the Wall Street Journal, Koonin wrote that “We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy,” and that “The impact today of human activity [on climate] appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.”

    Koonin criticized the use of results from climate modelling to support the “scientific consensus” (quotes in original) about climate change, noting that, among other problems, “The models differ in their descriptions of the past century’s global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time.” Regarding climate sensitivity, Koonin wrote that “Today’s best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.”…

    In 2017, Koonin urged interested parties to a drill-down debate with an article, “A ‘Red Team’ Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science.” …
    In support of such an approach, he wrote: “The public is largely unaware of the intense debates within climate science. At a recent national laboratory meeting, I observed more than 100 active government and university researchers challenge one another as they strove to separate human impacts from the climate’s natural variability. At issue were not nuances but fundamental aspects of our understanding, such as the apparent—and unexpected—slowing of global sea-level rise over the past two decades.”…

    120

    • #
      pat

      note: the whistleblower mentioned in the Daily Caller article was John Bates, as per the following & other threads at Judith Curry’s blog:

      6 Feb: Judith Curry: Response to critiques: Climate scientists versus climate data
      Not surprisingly, John Bates’ blog post and David Rose’s article in the Mail on Sunday have been receiving some substantial attention.

      Most journalists and people outside of the community of establishment climate scientists ‘get it’ that this is about the process of establishing credibility for climate data sets and how NOAA NCDC/NCEI have failed to follow NOAA’s own policies and guidelines, not to mention the guidelines established by Science for publications.

      In this post, I go through the critiques of Rose/Bates made by NOAA scientists and other scientists working with surface temperature data. They are basically arguing that the NOAA surface temperature data sets are ‘close enough’ to other (sort of) independent analyses of surface temperatures. Well, this is sort of beside the main point that is being made by Bates and Rose, but lets look at these defenses anyways…
      https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/

      81

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    There are a lot of so-called climate “scientists” in the UK who should be spending a lot of time at Her Majesty’s Pleasure.

    192

    • #
      Dennis

      A new prison, and in Oz too, the SP Prison for scientists and politicians.

      And an even more uncomfortable Crony Capitalist prison farm.

      11

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Now wouldn’t that be something. The old penal colony becomes the new penal colony for those in the UK who are irredeemably corrupt they can’t be rehabilitated.

        I vote for a camp just north of Exmouth. It only needs one fence line.

        11

      • #
        Russ Wood

        Sir Terry Pratchett wrote in his ‘a bit australian (sic)’ story “The Last Continent” that the locals always put the newly elected politicians straight into prison, ‘cos it saved time.

        00

  • #
    tom0mason

    There is not an experiment, or observation that shows CO2 can appreciably warm our convecting atmosphere.
    There is however plenty of speculation based on the UN-IPCC much repeated cant and propaganda.

    181

    • #
      AndyG55

      And ask the alarmist yappers for a paper providing empirical proof..

      … and they run, they hide, they slither and slide, drag up strawmen and diversions….

      But remain EMPTY !

      73

      • #
        tom0mason

        Yes, so true.

        Your favorite seb is off getting a reprogrammed (central control robot instructs him to says it’s a vacation ).

        32

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Science has suffered “smartphone syndrome” – everything has to be in bite sized chunks and neatly wrapped up, but science isnt like that…..

    Which is another indicator CAGW is political, not scientific….”the science is settled” is a neat political slogan, not reality.

    101

  • #
  • #
    pat

    when major CAGW insiders move the goal posts…AGAIN…it is BIG news.

    it further undermines the argument that “the science is settled”. this is something that resonates with the public.

    that CAGW-infested NYT, Bloomberg & ABC, plus some other major MSM outlets, have – as far as I can tell – chosen to completely ignore the study/paper/whatever is also telling.

    140

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    In discussions with a project manager at work ( ex engineer) he started to side on the appeal to authority and pushing a move to electric trucks etc / paradigm shift but i said how do you genetate power to charge? Then he went on about making power generation a community thing as long distance power transmussion is too lossy etc etc…..too many shifting arguments and they wouldnt concede the MWP data had been removed from the hockey stick…..i was unimpressed i have to say…..it was like trying to catch a greasy pig…

    100

  • #
    Konrad

    Beyond shameless.
    They actually state the purpose of the paper: “to keep open the window to the Paris goals”.

    And that’s exactly what it’s all about. Trump said no to the Paris Accord. China, Russia and India all offered to do nothing by whenever. So the alarmist’s date to “act now to prevent doooom!” was going pass without any major emitter doing anything. Nothing was going to happen and no one was going to care.

    So now the alarmists find with a sudden tweak, their models show we have 4 times as long to “act now to prevent dooooom!”. But if they couldn’t get anyone on board with “It’s worse than we thought”, how is “It’s not as bad as we thought” going to get those trillions of US dollars flowing into the UN Green Climate fund?

    200

    • #
      Roger

      Hi Konrad,

      “China, Russia and India all offered to do nothing by whenever”

      China agreed to Double its CO2 emissions by 2030
      India agreed to Treble its CO2 emissions by 2030
      Russia agreed to keep its CO2 emissions Below those of the dirty coal, heavy industry communist era – meaning a significant increase over today’s levels.

      These are their INDCs – Independent Nationally Determined Carbon emission targets. Note the Independent, every signatory to Paris is able to determine whether or not they increase of decreas CO2 emissions.

      Taken together these amount to around a a 46% Increase in Global CO2 emissions by 2030.

      That says to me that the IPCC, COP and Paris signatories understand that significantly Increasing CO2 emissions bewteen 2015 and 2030 will have No Effect on global temperatures, in other words that CO2 is a complete red herring.

      180

  • #
    manalive

    The so-called 1.5C limit is a red herring of course.

    Add to that the new “insight” that Trump and Paris don’t really matter as reported in the Telegraph …
    They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference …

    And not only the US they could all withdraw, Bjorn Lomborg has been saying that for some time.
    In fact he proved that, assuming IPCC assumptions are correct, even if all the signatories keep to their 2030 promises and even if all commitments are continued through to 2100 the temperature outcome would be indistinguishable from ‘do nothing’ scenario.

    130

    • #
      Peter C

      The so-called 1.5C limit is a red herring of course.

      Is it 1.5C now? Last time I looked the squealers were raving about a tipping point or threshold at 2 degrees C above pre industrial era temperatures. Not that they ever presented any evidence at all for a Threshold or Tipping Point.

      120

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Apparently they are now acknowledging that we have already risen 0.5C over the last 200 years. So yea, it’s now 1.5C to their “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!” scenario.

        80

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        For a system so close to the brink of destabilisation, it’s surprisingly stable. Surely this would be unusual for a chaotic system?

        20

        • #
          sophocles

          It depends on your bureaucracy. If they’re all on the same page, then it’s horrifying, but if one or two haven’t quote caught up, then it’s a bit discordant and unfortunately stable.

          20

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            I was meaning the weather stable, Not the political climate.

            How the system suddenly begins this runaway greenhouse effect. I don’t think any of them have really considered what they are saying here. And I’d love to hear them truly try to justify this tipping point temperature.

            10

  • #
    pat

    11 Sept: Heartland Institute: Kenneth Artz: EPA Considers ‘Red Team, Blue Team’ Climate Science Examination
    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has floated the idea of using a “Red Team, Blue Team” exercise, a back-and-forth critique by government-recruited experts, to develop a better understanding of the state of climate science…
    In a statement discussing the proposed exercise, Pruitt said, “What the American people deserve, I think, is a true, legitimate, peer-reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO2 [carbon dioxide].”…

    Letting the Public Judge
    William Happer, emeritus Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics and Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, says he strongly supports Pruitt’s proposal for a red team, blue team exercise.
    “For years the climate establishment, and their allies in the mass media, academia, and other segments of society, have promoted the idea increasing carbon dioxide levels from combustion of fossil fuels is an existential threat to humanity,” Happer said. “They have vilified and silenced any scientists brave enough to challenge this highly dubious article of religious faith disguised as science, and they have cynically violated one the most ancient rules of deliberation: audiatur et altera pars, or, ‘Let’s hear the other side.’
    “A competent review of climate science by adversarial red and blue teams will allow the public to judge for itself the truth about climate,” said Happer. “As a lifelong educator, I hope such a review will also encourage much more science literacy so it will be harder to fool people in the future.”…

    Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has several recommendations for the exercises, including who should implement the project and how it should operate.
    “Hire Steve Koonin,” said Ebell. “He has the right credentials to run this sort of thing. He’s a very highly regarded physicist, he served in the Obama administration in the Department of Energy, and he’s actually given some thought about how to do it…

    Patrick J. Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, says if the effort is to be taken seriously, the red team can’t be stacked with people who say the climate isn’t changing or humans cannot affect the climate at all.
    “It is a good idea if the red team takes a ***‘lukewarm’ position,” said Michaels. “If, on the other hand, it argues there is no such thing as climate change or an enhanced greenhouse effect, it will be laughed off the podium.”
    https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/epa-considers-red-team-blue-team-climate-science-examination

    ***what? an entire team of “lukewarmers”? what’s being argued isn’t some warming, it’s MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY INDUSTRIAL CO2 EMISSIONS.

    behind paywall, some may be able to access it:

    20 Apr: WSJ: A ‘Red Team’ Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science
    Put the ‘consensus’ to a test, and improve public understanding, through an open, adversarial process.
    By Steven Koonin
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579

    70

    • #
      pat

      the Heartland/Artz piece is worth reading in full.

      40

    • #
      Konrad

      Patrick J. Michaels has the wrong attitude. Being worried about “being laughed off the podium” is about not challenging pre-existing beliefs, not about getting the science right or wrong. We know climate changes, but there is no empirical evidence to support the conjecture of enhanced radiative greenhouse effect.

      Do the radiative gases like H2O and CO2 in our atmosphere warm by absorbing LWIR? Sure, but they also cool by emitting LWIR. That is no evidence for a radiative GHE.

      What about LWIR being returned to the surface and slowing its cooling rate? Empirical experiment shows that surface incident LWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool. So that’s 71% of the surface of our planet ruled out. In fact, the only observation evidence for this effect slowing the cooling rate of the surface is over land on still overcast nights.

      And what about the foundation claim of the radiative GHE conjecture: “That the surface materials of this planet could only be heated to an average temperature of -18C in the absence of radiative atmosphere”? That claim has no supporting empirical evidence. It was just derived from banging 240 w/m2 into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with emissivity and absorptivity set to unity. But again empirical experiment conclusively shows that the S-B equation cannot be used for solar illumination of the oceans because it yields an 80C error.
      Further to that extraordinary claim of surface Tav of -18C without radiative atmosphere, it would mean that the oceans would be frozen solid if there were no radiative gases in the atmosphere. But the earth is only 150,000,000 Km from the sun. Yet the Snow Line in our solar system is in the outer reaches of the asteroid belt, three times Earth’s distance from the sun. It is only after that line can solar exposed worlds like Ceres and Europa exist with frozen oceans.

      It needs to be understood that Michaels has no empirical evidence to support the radiative GHE conjecture, nor will those who “red thumb” me. Lukewarmers are a major reason sceptics, while managing to trip up the AGW parade, we never managed to slay the beast. Lukewarmers allowed tribal conformity and their fear of approbation override their rational minds. The very forces the scientific method was designed to circumvent.

      So if Michaels gets his wish for a Lukewarmer red team he will fail. All he will do is hold the door open for more AGW nonsense, just like the Nature Geoscience paper is trying to do.

      1611

      • #
        Peter C

        Absolutely agree Konrad.

        I was about to give a kneejerk reaction but your post says it all, and much better.

        1112

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Your description of how these people use the SB equation says everything that needs to be said about them: they are incompetent as scientists and do not, repeat, do not, understand the systems they claim to be describing.

        How can this have gone on for so long unchecked.

        KK

        36

  • #
    RickWill

    This is what the average of the CIMP3 models predicted:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itas_cmip3_ave_mean_sresa1b_0-360E_-90-90N_n_1998:2055_a.png

    This is what the satellites recorded:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/itlt_60_0-360E_-90-90N_n_1998:2050_a.png

    Faced with this comparison, it is no wonder they are back pedalling.

    One point to remember is that Paris Agreement latched onto to temperature rise. It is therefore aligned with warming, not the other Humpty Dumpty climate disruption nonsense that can mean whatever they want it to mean. As the planet cools over the next few years they will appear even more foolish.

    It has been reported that Michael Mann is sceptical of these changed predictions that better align with reality – long live the hockey stick.

    170

    • #
      Peter C

      Rick,

      Some problems there.

      Firstly, what does tasK mean on the vertical axis of your first graph,

      Secondly, The time scales of the two graphs do not overlap sufficiently to make a judgement.

      33

      • #
        RickWill

        The tas [K] is average surface temperature anomaly in degrees Kelvin.

        I selected the abscissa on the basis that the ordinate would have the same or similar range. The KNMI site does no allow the user to select the range of the ordinate. It does allow selection of the time scale but then the abscissa automatically ranges.

        The points to take from this comparison is the models produce a steadily increasing temperature with almost no variation while the actual measured temperature has much larger swings and over the last 20 years there is no obvious trend.

        30

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          “The tas [K] is average surface temperature anomaly in degrees Kelvin.”

          So very much humor:
          1.Temperature is only a ‘measurement’ of sensible heat of fixed mass!
          2.There can be no scientific meaning to temperature averages!
          3.What can possibly be an anomaly to that with no meaning?
          4.Absolute temperature has no degrees only Kelvin (K).
          5.A difference in absolute temperature measurements is kelvins (k)

          Your ‘definition’ of tas[K] is but meaningless propaganda!

          26

          • #
            RickWill

            It is not my definition. It is what KNMI data base produces. All I have done is compare what the models projected and what has been actually measured.

            The reasons for the difference is that the models do not represent reality. One factor is that average temperature, as applied to whole of the earth surface, is a meaningless measurement of energy in the system.

            15

            • #
              Will Janoschka

              “One factor is that average temperature, as applied to whole of the earth surface, is a meaningless measurement of energy in the system.”

              Rick,
              Please please stop confusing folk! A surface has no mass and has no temperature, average or otherwise! Absolute temperature perhaps can be an indication of sensible heat referenced to absolute “zero” but meaningless! Zero K is but an asymptote 1 kelvins less the One Kelvin, but near infinite distance on the absolute temperature scale. One Kelvin is the origin of the logarithmic absolute temperature scale in Kelvin. On this scale 10 kelvin is equidistant from one Kelvin as 0.1 Kelvin, and 1 kiloKelvin is equidistant from 1K as a 1 milliKelvin; et-cetera, et-cetera,et-cetera!
              The ‘standards’ are set to simplify not to confuse! Any reference to linear anything; including distance, area, volume, specific heat, temperature, brightness, radiance, and even perhaps mass; always refer to only a small differential in these properties never to absolute properties.
              The relativistic properties of EMR\mass, is most difficult to even try to write about, mea culpa.

              15

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Will, the term “absolute zero” is of great meaning to those of us with a scientific background.

                To me it indicates the lowest possible energy state of any material that can be experienced.

                As a youngster I was taught that absolute zero was estimated to be minus 273 point something something degrees C.

                Since then the figure I remembered seems to have been revised to minus 273 point something else point something else.

                It’s still bloody cold.

                Most of us are on the same page here and interested to learn and the things you raise are interesting but sometimes they are a bit too “spirited”.

                Merry Christmas

                KK

                14

              • #
                Will Janoschka

                KinkyKeith September 22, 2017 at 5:34 pm

                “Will, the term “absolute zero” is of great meaning to those of us with a scientific background.”

                Keith,
                Zero like infinity remain the exact same mathematical concepts. Infinity is way over yonder from one (1) but physically unreachable. Zero is way over yonder the other way from (1) but still physically unreachable. They are asymptotes and very likely the same asymptote from opposing directions. The only difference is the scale used where linear distance from (1) to x is the the same as linear distance from (1) to 1/x, the reciprocal of any x. A hateful logarithmic scale. BO-HISS! not tolerable ever. Wait-a-minute, has interesting properties for later.

                “To me it indicates the lowest possible energy state of any material that can be experienced.”

                That is still correct but now where is that state? Where is the state of highest possible energy of that same any material? For you to ponder while I get spirited; leaving you with what-if both are the same location?

                “As a youngster I was taught that absolute zero was estimated to be minus 273 point something something degrees C.”

                On an almost linear scale of Centigrade One Kelvin is still -272.15°C, but Absolute Zero is not ‘on’ such linear scale. Later!
                All the best!-will-
                haffy noos yar I tink!

                25

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Will,

                Your last paragraph explains what you were getting at.

                True, you can’t get to absolute zero and I guess that’s always implied the asymptotic arrangement for that last 1 K degree.

                On the main issue, the part played, or not played, by CO2 in “warming” the atmosphere, I am still amazed that non climate scientists have not got any traction in putting out the truth.

                In my understanding, CO2 cannot selectively hold on to energy it may absorb from ground origin IR.

                All gas molecules in the vicinity of an energised CO2 molecule must share that energy.

                There are so many reasons why CAGW is preposterous but why is this not pushed to public awareness, real scientists must be very afraid.

                14

              • #
                Will Janoschka

                KinkyKeith September 22, 2017

                “It’s still bloody cold.”

                That is why ‘you do not touch it’;
                You get little brother to touch it and confirm ‘it is bloody cold’.

                KK,
                You got that zero Kelvin is long long way from one Kelvin as is infinite temperature. You seem to have missed that ‘linear’ when applied to excessive interval, is not good, and oft times ‘stupid’!
                OTOH we are brainwashed into addition, subtraction, which demands ‘linear’. Learning to make change “fora buck” is fine for infants.
                We (US) had stupid presidente that transfered our 1,500,000,000,000 bucks, (not his), to confirmed enemy for platitudes, this is not linear.
                High time to start learning mathematical logarithms where + is ‘multiplication’, of the linear, and – is division of the linear.. MAY or may not help to reduce STUPID! Oh whoa are we!!

                14

  • #
    Idiot_Wind

    Is this new paper not simply the alarmists “getting their revenge in first” before they get a mauling in president Trump’s long overdue due diligence red-v-blue teams assessment of the science. This new paper will allow alarmists to say (i) that they had reduced their temperature rise estimates and thus no new science had been revealed by the red-blue assessment, (ii) carbon dioxide reduction policies should continue as per the Paris agreement. In short, as Jo says, this is all PR and damage limitation by the alarmists.

    141

    • #
      Roger

      Whilst the West, Australia and Canada have agreed to Reduce their CO2 emissions Everyone else is going to increase theirs so that by 2030 Global CO2 emissions will be some 46% Higher than today ! Not that Any press release from Paris was honest enough to admit to that – they simply talked of reductions and saving the world.

      The Reductions by the West, Australia and Canada that are destroying industry, exporting jobs and devastating economies and household budgets are such a tiny amount of the Global emissions that they are irrelevant – and totally meaningless against the massive increases from elsewhere in the world. They are simply virtue-signalling by politicians who have no idea of the damage they are doing to their own nations for the short and long term.

      China agreed to Double its CO2 emissions by 2030
      India agreed to Treble its CO2 emissions by 2030
      Russia agreed to keep its CO2 emissions Below those of the dirty coal, heavy industry communist era – meaning a significant increase over today’s levels.

      These are their INDCs – Independent Nationally Determined Contributions to carbon emission targets. Note the Independent, every signatory to Paris is able to determine for themselves whether or not they increase of decrease CO2 emissions.

      Taken together these increases from China and India alone amount to around a a 46% Increase in Global CO2 emissions by 2030.

      That says to me that the IPCC, COP and Paris signatories understand that significantly Increasing CO2 emissions bewteen 2015 and 2030 will have No Effect on global temperatures, in other words that CO2 is a complete red herring. Paris was simply an exercise in climate propaganda – neither more nor less – “Project Fear – Climate”.

      140

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Jo, you are incredible. When i saw the headline I thought “here we go”, a mea culpa at last. As I read through the first article, and there are many today, I wondered to myself if I was misreading the importance of this. After reading your blog tonight you have clarified it for me. What an absolute farce. What a bunch of w***ers. What perfidy. Thank you, Jo, for shining your light, as usual.

    201

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      There are many words that would describe these people. Perfidy is a nice accurate polite one.

      perfidy
      The state of being deceitful and untrustworthy.
      synonyms: treachery, duplicity, deceit, perfidiousness, deceitfulness, disloyalty, infidelity, faithlessness, unfaithfulness, betrayal, treason, falseness, falsity, double-dealing, dishonesty, two-facedness, untrustworthiness, breach of trust; More

      150

  • #
    Another Ian

    More trouble for models?

    “J Martin says:
    18 September 2017 at 9:13 pm

    Chiefio, you did a post on how Earth’s temperature comes from below with the sun just holding things steady.

    This post on Notrickszone agrees with you, they have a graph with a good match between temps and crustal activity.

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/09/18/new-papers-seismic-activity-flux-explains-1979-2016-temperatures-enso-events-better-than-co2/#sthash.ldxSivjm.dpbs

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2017/09/08/tips-september-2017/#comment-86684

    60

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    How very, very convenient. So just when things aren’t going their way for climate warmist scare plan, their models suddenly discover that warming is actually proceeding at 1/4 of what was previously claimed. More time to milk our economies and enjoy the life on the never-ending gravy train.
    Well done to Jo for bringing this sniveling, and vexatious piece of sh*te, made in the name of science, to our attention.
    The puplic out there will of course swallow the story hook line and sinker – with the aiding and abetting of the MSM.
    More fool them!!
    GeoffW

    100

  • #
    Ruairi

    If skeptical nations sit tight,
    The models’ next P.R. ‘insight’,
    May give lifelong remissions,
    To all ‘carbon’ emissions,
    Showing Trump and the skeptics were right.

    220

  • #
    Mark M

    Great expose’.

    Here is Peter Hannam, fairfax (border mail), MAY 16 2017, which, in hindsight, seems like a prelude: The Difference half a degree will make

    “In some of the first research on the impacts for Australia of the 1.5 degree to 2 degree range agreed at the Paris climate summit in 2015, Melbourne University scientists have found the chances of a repeat of events such as the “Angry Summer” of 2012-13 are significantly reduced at the lower end of the warming scale.

    Meh? Gaia, or some other x-force will have the last laugh.
    (Some folk reading this might say I have missed a greater force but the Pope has said other wise.)

    60

    • #
      Mark M

      Climate scientists have done the maths …

      Homer has also done the maths: Thank God it’s Doomsday.

      41

      • #
        Peter C

        Doomsday could be tomorrow apparently. An arrangement of Sun, Moon and planets in and around the constellation of Virgo matches a prophesy in Revelations 12:
        http://earthsky.org/human-world/biblical-signs-in-the-sky-september-23-2017

        31

        • #
          Annie

          Righto…time to panic, eh? I’ll most probably try to clean the house, neglected since the ‘flu. Maybe I’ll be saved the bother!

          41

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            “Maybe I’ll be saved the bother!”

            Yes waiting is likely wise! Do not put off ’till tomorrow, that better put off ’till the day after. This quickly descends to “Why wipe?”. We are but decedents\caricatures of the original model\prototype as:
            6 toed,
            5 legged,
            2 per mating pair.
            Why else this base 12\60 thing (seconds\minutes\hours); like an atrocious French pedestal table? :-)

            01

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          The quote at the site isn’t complete, but rather, very selective.

          Besides that, this bible prophesy is in regard to the birth of Jesus, not his return or the start of Armageddon.

          The guy who is pushing this particular meme is ignoring the entire book of Revelation, as well as Daniel, Ezekiel, Amos and many others.

          24:6And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 24:7For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 24:8All these are the beginning of sorrows. 24:9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

          Kingdom against Kingdom is obviously WWI and WWII.
          Famines and pestilences, I believe were the Ethiopian famines in the 70′s to 80′s.
          That last part has not yet happened, but there sure is a lot of hatred happening.

          21

          • #
            Peter C

            That last part has not yet happened, but there sure is a lot of hatred happening.

            Yes nearly there. Wait for it.

            10

            • #
              Peter C

              BTW Greg,

              I did like your reference to the Bible books of; “Daniel, Ezekiel and Amos”. Your knowledge of the Bible is than mine.

              10

  • #
    Dennis

    It is now obvious that the climate change politics agenda is collapsing under it’s own deliberately flawed data.

    The “scientists” are seeking refuge from retribution.

    Deciphered: lying to save themselves.

    Wikileaks exposed their scam before the UN IPCC Copenhagen Conference. “Climategate” hacked emails, how to create a warming trend, what would we do if our scam was discovered”.

    Trilllions of dollars squandered, siphoned off by crony capitalists, friends and comrades of UN socialism.

    A revolution is needed, the people standing up to the carpetbaggers.

    112

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      People who intend voting should not forget the great money transfer from Commonwealth Revenue to the recipients that took place in the shadow of the Climate Change scam.

      Remember that fleet of Desalination plants?

      Organized by hard laba to enable the transfer of our cash to their Union supporters via high wages.

      No functioning desalination plants; huge debt still to pay off.

      And the piece de resistance, NO DAMS.

      Subterfuge, and not too subtle.

      KK

      141

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        Excellent point KK , if they had of built a big dam instead of the desal plant they would have had water security and naf all ongoing expenses .
        Possibly even some hydro .

        101

        • #
          Dennis

          In NSW three sites for new dams set aside by the Coaliton Government 1965-1976 were abandoned by Labor and to make certain the sites could not be used they were handed over as national parks.

          In Qld Labor created “wild rivers” that were listed and building dams prohibited, rivers that are in lands the CSIRO identified as perfect irrigation farmland potential, to extend the WA Ord River Irrigation Area across the NT and into Qld. This was an Abbott led Coalition plan or policy and included new dams all around Australia.

          By the way, the Newman led LNP Government in Qld with help from the Abbott Government overturned the wild rivers listing.

          51

    • #
      Chris In Hervey Bay

      Dennis, Wikileaks was late to the party.

      FOI, the leaker, dropped the the file FOIA.zip on a Russian file sharing site, Megadownloads” and then posted the link to the file on another skeptical site “the AirVent” and on “Climate Audit” and all hell broke loose.

      I think I was one of the first here in Australia to get the file, and still have it. I was reading on the AirVent when the FOI posted the link, and went and downloaded the file. A little later, the link went dead.
      IIRC it was on the 18th of November, 2009 USA time, but the 19th here.

      If you go to the archives on Watts Up With That and look through the heading “Climategate”, the full story is there. Start at the bottom.

      .

      81

  • #
    Dennis

    Ignore the Australian major parties, the traditional alternative governments, vote against them next time.

    Force a hung parliament, and hopefully the next government will be a coalition of the willing, patriots, conservatives, determined to save Australia.

    132

  • #
    Dennis

    Forget the EV sales and marketing campaign, ABC spearhead news.

    Ask where the electricity would come from if the Australian fleet was replace any time soon.

    Demand to know the financial position, at what cost to individuals would hire by the hour EV or lease an EV be.

    European Standards – what about Australian New Zealand Standards?

    Our politicians are naive.

    83

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      You’re correct Dennis, this whole idea of EV’s leased out or whatever by 2025 etc is a blatant attempt at brainwashing for the purpose of mass population control! There is, and will never be, enough unreliable/renewables to power these things.
      Here’s one who will not be brainwashed! I love my (petrol driven) car and the independence it allows me.
      Yours still angry GeoffW

      21

      • #
        Dennis

        GeoffW, I recently looked at buying a hybrid that can tow and gave up after studying the specifications and considering the down side including battery pack replacement.

        So I ordered an Isuzu 4WD SUV 3 litre diesel.

        My theory is that a genuine truck engined, under stressed diesel will still have a good resale value by 2025/26.

        20

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Just noticing the lack of trolls on this comment and red thumbs till I got to the bottom , looks like Dennis has a friend though .

    51

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      That’s because it’s after 5:00 pm.

      Bed time.

      71

      • #
        James Murphy

        I was thinking it must be because public servants, NGOs, and university staff finish work stop needing to being present at their place of employment at 5.
        (my apologies to those who do not use these places of employment as sheltered workshops, and are not stricken with terminal cases of handout-itis)

        71

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Another dance of the headless chicken.

    51

  • #
    Chris In Hervey Bay

    Goodness me, in moderation at 24.2. Why, nothing out of the ordinary there.

    21

  • #
    toorightmate

    The Grubbs have to stop believing in the CO2 horsesh*t.

    21

  • #
    pat

    best thing is the alarmists are in defensive mode. read all. each name mentioned in this piece tells a story:

    21 Sept: CarbonBrief: Factcheck: Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming
    by Zeke Hausfather
    In reality, the results obtained from the type of model-observation comparisons performed in the paper depend greatly on the dataset and model outputs used by the authors.
    Much of the media coverage surrounding the paper, Millar et al, has focused on the idea that climate models are overestimating observed temperatures by around 0.3C, or nearly 33% of the observed warming since the late 1800s. For example…

    Additionally, Carbon Brief has asked Prof Piers Forster, one of the authors, to further clarify some of the paper’s findings and methodologies in light of the media coverage…
    “I think some press reporting is misleading as our paper did not assess climate impacts or climate model performance.”…READ ALL
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-climate-models-have-not-exaggerated-global-warming

    just as amusing…nothing partisan political about CAGW!

    19 Sept: UK Independent: Ian Johnston: Have scientists really admitted climate change sceptics are right?
    For a section of the right-wing media, it was too good to miss, an opportunity to cast doubt on one of their favourite bugbears – climate change…

    And the Conservative MP David Davies – not to be confused with Brexit Secretary David Davis – tweeted: “World’s scientists now being forced to admit they were wrong and sceptics like the Global Warming Policy Foundation were right all along.”
    He actually included a link to The Independent’s story, although his remark was very much his own spin on the subject and not reflected in the article…

    Have scientists really admitted sceptics were right about global warming?
    You may be unsurprised to know they have done nothing of the sort…
    Dr Millar told The Independent he had noticed a problem with the media coverage of the research.
    “These headlines had a clear spin in what they were trying to put across, but the articles themselves were less bad,” he said…

    Are climate models always wrong?
    Yes. Climate models incorporate the laws of physics to try to make sense of what is happening, but they will never be 100 per cent accurate.
    “All models are wrong,” goes a saying in science, “but that doesn’t mean they are not useful”.
    As Dr Millar explained: “By definition, a model is not the real world … it’s called a climate model for a reason…READ ALL
    http://www.independent.co.uk/infact/climate-change-sceptics-scientists-admit-wrong-global-warming-carbon-budget-nature-a7955991.html

    30

    • #
      TdeF

      “All models are wrong,” goes a saying in science, “but that doesn’t mean they are not useful”.

      Who writes this stuff? A saying in science? I have never heard it.
      File it with most scientists believe. Or Scientists say.

      Or a blast from the past this morning with picture on Andrew Bolt’s blog Tim Flannery pronouncing Perth
      a ghost town as “Perth will die, says Top Scientist“.
      He should stick to tops.

      72

      • #
        James Murphy

        I have long tried to work out why this saying annoys me so much, but, alas, I am still not really sure. Yes, there is a grain of truth to it, but that’s about all it has going for it. My best guess is that the people who use it the most, are people who have never really had anything to do with science or engineering, or modelling anything except their own clothes in a selfie.

        60

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          That’s why it annoys you.

          It is misused by people who want to give the impression they are competent when they aren’t.

          Used correctly it has a useful meaning: beware of fools using models.

          KK

          20

      • #
        Chris In Hervey Bay

        “All models are wrong,” goes a saying in science, “but that doesn’t mean they are not useful”.

        Like an ash tray on a motorbike !

        10

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        It’s a saying I heard a long time ago from a teacher.

        I took from it that models are only as good as the intelligence, effort and constant checking that goes into them.

        That certainly excludes their use by the Global Warming community who are uneducated dolts.

        10

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          “models are only as good as the intelligence, effort and constant checking that goes into them.”

          That is why we have model shops! Where the most experienced tool makers hang-out while not trying to demonstrate to journeymen machinists how to do the impossible!
          They revel\delight\enjoy in creating the never before created. When these guys finish red-lining your fine set of prints; looks like a used bed for miraculous birth!

          KK, Some sit at the right hand! :-)

          21

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Surely not on the right of “he who cannot be named”?

            10

            • #
              Will Janoschka

              “Surely not on the right of “he who cannot be named”?”

              Perhaps I ‘are’ the cannot be named. As you know; I can quickly flip from “arrogant a** hole”, to “kind compassionate folk”, to totally DRONK. What kind of ‘leader’ is preferred in your upcoming vote? :-)

              01

  • #
    pat

    20 Sept: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: Scientists Go After The Media For Highlighting A Study Showing IPCC Climate Models Were Wrong
    A climate model expert told The Washington Post there would be “extra eyes really scrutinizing” a new study claiming climate models predicted more global warming than has been observed this century.
    And he was right.

    Climate scientists have rushed to criticize a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, which found that less warming in the early 20th Century suggests it’s slightly easier — though still difficult — to meet to goals of the Paris accord.
    One would think climate scientists, especially those alarmed about warming, would see this as positive, but prominent researchers were quick to express their skepticism of results questioning the integrity of climate models.

    Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann told Seeker(LINK) he was “rather skeptical” of the research…

    University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins said media headlines “have misinterpreted” the new study that questioned models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Hawkins contributed to the IPCC’s major 2013 climate report.
    “A recent study by Medhaug et al. analysed the issue of how the models have performed against recent observations at length and largely reconciled the issue,” Hawkins wrote(LINK) in a blog post…

    Berkeley Earth climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said the models matched observed global temperatures “quite well.”…READ ON
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/20/scientists-go-after-the-media-for-highlighting-a-study-showing-ipcc-climate-models-were-wrong/

    this definition should not stand:

    20 Sept: Daily Caller: The UN Climate Panel Cannot Be Trusted
    by Tom Harris & Tim Ball
    The IPCC’s narrow mandate is one of the results of the definition of climate change given by the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Convention asserts:
    “Climate Change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”

    Since the IPCC is required to support the Framework Convention, the IPCC had to adopt the UNFCCC’s political definition of climate change. This results in policy-makers, not scientists, leading the process. Indeed, IPCC vice-chair Thelma Krug admitted as much when, according to the Canadian Press (Sep 6, 2017), she said that scientists are guided by policy-makers in 195 member states. Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorology professor Richard Lindzen was not exaggerating when he said that the supposed scientific consensus was reached before the research had even begun…
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/20/un-climate-panel-cannot-be-trusted/

    51

  • #
    pat

    the paper has brought out the “worst” in the FakeNewsMSM:

    19 Sept: WaPo: So much for the climate change ‘hoax’
    By Stephen Stromberg
    New research out Monday seems to give climate doubters new ammunition in their war against climate science. In fact, it undercuts one of their essential criticisms.

    The peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience released a surprising new paper finding that the world may have a little more room than previously thought to cut greenhouse gas emissions. A group of European scientists — foreigners, no less! — recalculated the Earth’s “carbon budget”…

    The paper unsettled climate circles. Expert critics suggested to Post reporter Chris Mooney that the paper failed to account for atmospheric aerosols and other factors that can confound warming estimates. Scientists will not suddenly adopt the rosier assessment. That will take much more scrutiny, debate and research.

    ***Moreover, even if the paper’s conclusions are correct, it is no excuse for inaction. Human activity would still clearly be warming the planet. People would still have to stop burning fossil fuels, and quickly, to avoid very bad climate outcomes. The real argument to act on climate change never assumed that experts’ most alarming predictions were guaranteed to happen. The experts were never definitive enough to justify that assumption. The real argument rests on the notion that humanity should minimize the risk, precisely because the future is uncertain.

    Yet the fact that a major scientific journal, run by and for the very experts the denier crowd so often attacks, published this and other challenging papers shows that the scientific establishment is not corrupt. The scientific process is working. This is what rigorous disagreement looks like.
    President Donald Trump is only one of the powerful Americans who have called climate change a “hoax.”…

    The organs of the expert climate consensus do not suppress findings that buck previous conclusions. They merely ask that criticisms meet basic standards and survive the same review that all other serious papers must endure. That radical dissenting literature is not published in reputable journals says more about the intellectual rigor of extreme climate doubters than it does about the honesty of those who conduct and publish legitimate scientific research.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/09/19/so-much-for-the-climate-change-hoax/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader

    30

  • #
    pat

    20 Sept: New York Mag: Eric Levitz: The Climate May Be Changing More Slowly Than We’d Thought
    (OBLIGATORY SMOKING CHIMNEY PHOTO)
    Unsurprisingly (and appropriately), the findings are being met with a good deal of skepticism…
    The study’s calculations and methodology will face plenty of scientific scrutiny in the coming months. Meanwhile, fossil-fuel interests are sure to exploit the new findings for their own purposes. But no matter whose math you accept, the prudent course for global policy remains the same: Effect a transition to a less carbon-intensive global economy as fast as practically possible…
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/the-climate-may-be-changing-more-slowly-than-wed-thought.html

    good on you, Cayman Compass:

    19 Sept: CaymanCompass Editorial: Global warming: ‘Unsettling’ the ‘settled science’
    Call it an “inconvenient oops.”
    As it turns out, the sky is not falling, after all — at least not as quickly as global warming alarmists assured us it would…
    The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, is a welcome (if rare) “course correction” in the speculative world of climate change, where activists and politicians weaponize evolving scientific observations in order to push a specific agenda. (“Carbon bad.”)

    The process of scientific inquiry is not simple, especially when it comes to an incredibly complex subject such as the world’s future climate.
    Zeal undaunted, environmentalists are already spinning the findings to conclude it still is possible for governments to reach the arbitrary goal, set out in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, of limiting global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial averages…

    Although scientists generally agree that our climate is changing, historical data and myriad contributing factors make it difficult to determine exactly how much of that change is affected by human activity, or to predict how (or if) it will affect human populations.

    Try telling the above to an ardent group of climate change theory adherents, and chances are you’ll face a rising sea of protest signs and torches. (Thankfully, unlit — we mustn’t forget about minimizing carbon emissions.)

    As we regularly see with hurricane models, even the most sophisticated scientific predictions have their limits — with potential margins of error spiking into “Who knows?” territory over a matter of days … much less years or decades or centuries…

    That of course does not mean that science is “junk” — but it does call for skepticism whenever an interested group tries to parlay a sympathetic theory into public policy. Unfortunately, environmentalists, some politicians and other climate alarmists have turned “skeptic” into a dirty word, comparing anyone who would consume (limited) climate predictions with a grain of salt to “flat-earthers” who deny the globularity of the globe.

    Attempts to demonize dissenters and quash debate are not without consequence. The solutions proffered by the rectors of the climate change congregation oftentimes border on the extreme (“incompatible with democracy”) and have severe practical and economic consequences.

    Here’s the deal: Almost everyone wants to protect the environment — it’s our home. However, considerations of conservation and climate change cannot be the cornerstone of public policy or personal behavior.

    In the Cayman Islands (population 65,000), we would be far wiser to devote our energies to hurricane preparation than to theoretical hurricane mitigation.
    Compared to the planet’s population centers such as the United States, China, India, etc., the contributions to the world’s carbon output by Cayman is for all practical purposes, zero. And that’s exactly how much thought our officials should give it when formulating plans for the country.

    Our territory may play an outsize role in global finance, but we don’t play any role in global warming.
    https://www.caymancompass.com/2017/09/19/editorial-global-warming-unsettling-the-settled-science/

    30

  • #
    Gary Meyers

    What’s not to like about hot models? Just take a look at these beauties!
    https://www.pinterest.com/jctrfitzwater/hot-models/

    20

  • #
    pat

    lol:

    20 Sept: Good.is: A Stunning New Paper Says We Have More Time To Prevent Climate Apocalypse Than We Thought
    by James Gaines
    After a summer full of historic weather events, including multiple “500-year” hurricanes and devastating wildfires, climate activists finally got some good news on Sept. 18…
    The paper is a huge update, and it’s not inconceivable that it may affect climate policy in cities and nations across the globe. But if you don’t have time to sift through the whole thing, here are six quick things you need to know about happened…

    3. Were previous scientists wrong?
    Answer: The numbers did change, but the facts and methods previously used are still valid. This is just how science works — repeating and re-examining our estimates until the most accurate one possible is found. And it’s important to remember this is one study out of a large multitude. The numbers may be revised again once there is more data…

    4. Is climate change still a big deal?
    Answer: Yes, of course…Climate change has been linked to stronger hurricanes, rising sea levels, and the spread of diseases, among other things. So it’s still happening and still a big deal…

    For some ideas about how cities, states, and nations could do so, check out the book ***“Drawdown” by Paul Hawken or visit ***The Solutions Project.
    https://www.good.is/articles/oxford-study-good-news-climate-change

    re the above:

    Wikipedia: GOOD Media
    The website receives about 10.1 MM unique visitors to its website each month…
    GOOD Corps is GOOD Worldwide Inc’s social impact consultancy, specializing in developing initiatives and powerful calls to action…
    GOOD was founded in 2006 by Ben Goldhirsh (son of Inc. magazine founder Bernie Goldhirsh) who wanted to create a “free press for the critical idealist.” Eschewing experienced editors, he hired friends from college and high school, including Al Gore’s son, Al Gore III, to create a media company characterized by “both bold graphic style and an unconventional approach to business.”…

    ***(Paul) Hawken is the Co-founder and Executive Director of Project Drawdown, a non-profit that describes when and how global warming can be reversed…Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution (Little Brown, September 1999), co-authored with Amory Lovins, popularized the now standard idea of natural capital and direct accounting for ecosystem services. It has been read and referred to by several heads of state including President Bill Clinton who called it one of the five most important books in the world today, stating “Natural Capitalism basically proves beyond any argument that there are presently available technologies, and those just on the horizon, which will permit us to get richer by cleaning, not by spoiling, the environment.
    A complete list of Paul Hawken’s published books (includes)
    Drawdown: The most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming / edited by Paul Hawken (2017) – (Wikipedia)

    ***from The Solutions Project homepage: Together, we can make renewable energy a reality for everyone – 100% for 100%.
    Board of Directors: Van Jones, President & Founder, Dream Corps. CNN Political Correspondent.
    Marco Krapels, Vice President, Tesla.
    Mark Jacobson, Director of the Atmosphere and Energy Program, Stanford University.
    Mark Ruffalo, Oscar-nominated actor, renewable energy advocate, and founder of Water Defense…ETC
    FUNDERS
    THE 11TH HOUR PROJECT
    THE COMPTON FOUNDATION
    THE FRANCISCAN SISTERS OF MARY
    JANELIA FOUNDATION
    THE JPB FOUNDATION
    LEAH MISSBACH DAY
    THE KRESGE FOUNDATION
    TIDES FOUNDATION
    COGUT FAMILY
    ELON MUSK FOUNDATION
    RICHARD WANK
    THE LEONARDO DICAPRIO FOUNDATION
    THE PARK FOUNDATION
    THE RAY AND TYE NOORDA FOUNDATION
    ROCKEFELLER FAMILY FUND
    SKOLL GLOBAL THREATS FUND
    WALLACE GLOBAL FUND
    SURDNA FOUNDATION
    BILL NYE
    THE NATHAN CUMMINGS FOUNDATION
    THE SARA AND EV WILLIAMS FOUNDATION

    20

  • #
    Dave in the States

    and warming of about 0.9 °C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade.

    So assuming that 0.9 degree warming is correct and not based on adjustments. And also assuming that it all can be attributed to co2 concentration increase (which of course is not correct). And assuming that none of it is attributed to natural variation (Yeah right). Then this is already most of the warming we will ever see from a doubling of co2 concentration from the estimated pre industrial level, due to the logarithmic manifestation.

    This is an indication, indeed a measurement, that the true equilibrium climate sensitivity to co2, is not significant, and certainly not dangerous. It confirms David Evan’s observation that the ECS to co2 concentration is likely less than 0.25 degrees C and most likely less than 0.5 degrees C.

    70

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    “mock-worthy”.

    Now, there’s a useful contribution to the lexicon!

    50

  • #

    The climate believers have messed up clear and simple.
    If a doubling of CO2 leads to 3.00 °C of warming, then a rise in CO2 levels from 280ppm to 403 ppm gives 1.58 °C of warming. With other GHGs it should be 2 °C in the pipeline yet less than half that has occurred and some of that is natural.
    Of course, there is some lagged effect. But it is a darn funny lag that would result in global temperatures rises slowing down or stopping around the turn of the century when the rate of increase in CO2 levels accelerated. It can only be rationally explained by CO2 having a minor or zero impact on temperatures. (See explanation here)

    101

    • #
      CheshireRed

      Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter)
      September 22, 2017 at 4:43 am

      Lovely post, succinct and to the point, but more than that our Kev has just demonstrated (again) that the CO2 theory is now completely busted.

      Using alarmists OWN FIGURES – central warming estimate, CO2 concentrations and increases, observed increase in temps and the recent slowdown/pause coinciding with accelerating emissions, Kev shows conclusively that climate sensitivity is so low as to be irrelevant (or even absolute zero, which is my view.)

      Game over right there and RIP AGW.

      20

      • #

        I have taken a detailed look at the Nature Geoscience paper. When looking at policy to constrain warming to 1.5°C there are opposite problems. If ECS is too high (e.g. ECS = 3°C) there is already sufficient warming in the pipeline (or hidden in the oceans) to make it inevitable. If it is too low, then it falls below the IPCC’s range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of CO2. The paper thus pushes the variables to the very boundaries of the IPCC’s range.

        Assumed that all the warming since 1870 is caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions when there is not even a valid statistical test that confirms even half the warming was from this source.
        Largely ignored any hidden heat or other long-term response to rises in GHGs. 
        Ignored the divergence between model predictions and actual temperature anomalies since around the turn of the century. This has two consequences. First, the evidence appears to strongly contradict the belief that humans are a major source of global warming and by implication dangerous climate change. Second, if it does not contradict the theory, suggests the amount of warming in the pipeline consequential on human GHG emissions has massively increased. Thus the 1.5°C warming could be breached anyway.
        Made ECS as low as possible in the long-standing 1.5°C to 4.5°C range. Even assuming ECS is at the mid-point of the range for policy (as the IPCC has done in all its reports) means that warming will breach the 1.5°C level without any further emissions. 

        10

  • #
    Mark M

    Climate scientists are so efficient the IPCC has already announced the conclusions of AR6 5 years ahead of schedule.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager/documents/46/220520170356-Doc.%202%20-%20Chair%20Vision%20Paper%20.pdf

    31

  • #

    The Nature article states

    If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC.

    The IPCC AR5 Synthesis Report SPM had a simplified graphic that claimed that up until the end of 2011 human emissions were 1900 GTCO2 and the 2°C barrier would be breached at when the figure reached 2900. A nice round 1000 GTCO2 from 01.01.2012. With just of 50 GTCO2 a year at the end of 2015 the net is down to around 850 GTCO2.
    It should be noted that a tonne of carbon = 3.664 tonnes of CO2. Therefore the experts are now saying that to breach the lower level of warming would require 900 to 2000 GTCO2.That is cumulative emissions of around 3000 to 4000 GTCO2 are sufficient for 1.5°C of warming.
    Ceteris paribus, this means climate sensitivity from 3°C of warming for a doubling of CO2 to 1.5-2.0°C.
    Of course, all other things are not equal. In climate science, all variables and facts are malleable, to fit the higher truths of the climate models. Indeed the key phrase is warming exceeding 1.5°C in 2100. In table 6.3 on page 431 of AR5 WG3 Ch6 it can be clearly seen (if you have good eyesight) on the first line that for a >50% chance of warming not being above 1.5°C in 2100 CO2 equivalent levels might peak at 465 ppm and be down to about 390 ppm in 2100 – the level at around 2000. So warming could still exceed the 2°C level. This is meant to be a tipping point when temperatures could accelerate from natural factors, such as through melting permafrost belching methane and the disappearing sea ice meaning less heat is reflected back into the atmosphere. It will be very interesting to see how the experts reconcile this one. But then reconciliations are something way beyond the competencies of the world’s leading climate scientists. :)

    A poor quality version of table 6.3 is here.

    50

  • #
    AndyG55

    From EOS magazine

    https://eos.org/articles/worlds-heavy-dependence-on-fossil-fuels-projected-to-continue

    The world will remain basically TOTALLY DEPENDENT on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.

    CO2 will continue to climb.

    WAKE UP AUSTRALIA.. we need those coal fired power stations. NOW

    122

  • #
    Another Ian

    More reporting from the msm’s parallel bubble

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/trump-un-speech/

    Note the point that there must have been 2 UN speeches – the one the msm heard and the one Chiefio listened to.

    30

  • #
    john

    Somali Pirates…er, I mean Greenpeace Antifas hijack ship loaded with diesel Volkswagens and makes it turn around before arriving in the UK…

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/greenpeace-volkswagen-diesel-cars-uk-ship-deliver-activists-emissions-scandal-a7958916.html

    Greenpeace caught with pants down. Photo of them filling the Rainbow Warrior with 10’s of thousands of gallons of…Diesel… provided by, BP.

    http://dailybail.com/home/obama-fires-up-his-green-energy-sales-pitch.html
    How can they keep doing what they do and not be sent to Gitmo or other suitable prisons for Hijacking, terrorism and interfering with commerce?

    121

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Good stuff.
      Normally we shouldn’t use ridicule, facts are better.

      In this case I just love the ridicule because it will stop a lot of innocent people from joining or donating to “the cause”.

      KK

      50

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      How can they keep doing what they do and not be sent to Gitmo or other suitable prisons for Hijacking, terrorism and interfering with commerce?

      A very good question; since they photograph their own adventures and publish it in the newspapers.

      20

  • #
    john

    Subside free wind farms risk ruining industry reputation, warn executives

    https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/151021/subside-free-wind-farms-r

    50

    • #
      RickWill

      They are not offering dispatchable electricity so the wind generators get a free ride using the existing assets that have to adjust to the ups and down of wind. That forces the wholesale price up because the dispatchable generators have to make their living out of less market share and they set the price. So their income only reduces by the slight reduction in fuel – almost negligible.

      The proponents of the wind generators are no doubt making projections on how the wholesale price will increase. For example, if wind can take 30% market share then the electricity price will rise by 50% to ensure existing dispatchable generators make their margin. Adding intermittent generation makes the cake bigger. The dispacphable slice stays the same and the intermittents get the rest. Of course the consumer pays more.

      30

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T but still “PR and politics”

    “Leonardo DiCaprio delivered a career-best performance on Tuesday in the role of Whiny, Entitled, Millionaire Movie Star Who Can’t Accept That The President Won’t Take His Views On Climate Change Seriously.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/09/21/delingpole-dicaprio-gives-career-best-performance-whiny-green-activist-spurned-trump/

    70

    • #
      Another Ian

      Delingpole’ conclusion

      “Maybe DiCaprio should consider a career in the movies. This climate nonsense is just a waste of good acting talent – and the scripts are risible.”

      80

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Fantastic stuff.

        At last, reality is being put in front of the public.

        I would hate to live a life like Leonardos where at the end all you achieved is that you had allowed yourself to be manipulated by people smarter yourself.

        KK

        40

    • #
      Alice Thermopolis

      OSCAR SNOW JOB

      Here he was last year:

      https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2016/03/oscar-snow-job/

      “Actors are a peculiar breed. Ask them to play characters of intellectual depth and the more accomplished deliver convincing performances, no problems. As global-warming worrywart Leonardo DiCaprio demonstrated at this week’s Academy Awards, the trouble starts when they write their own lines.”

      20

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    “That climate change causes less than zero rainfall is an interesting but obviously fake hypothesis.”

    More at

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/21/welcome-to-australia-where-its-always-warmer-somewhere/

    40

  • #

    What a very appropriate name Co-author Professor Michael Grubb of University College London has to author this new paper in Nature Geoscience as a propaganda effort.

    10

  • #
    Apoxonbothyourhouses

    Good morning Jo. I thought you might be interested in this extract from a book called “Bad Science” by a Dr Ben Goldacre. The book covers how and why medicine is poorly reported in the press. The comments could equally well apply to coverage of so-called warming.

    “But the greatest opportunity cost comes, of course, in the media, which has failed science so spectacularly, getting stuff wrong, dumbing down. No amount of training will ever improve the wildly inaccurate stories, because newspapers already have health and science correspondents who understand science. Editors will always – cynically – sideline those people, and give stupid stories to generalists, for the simple reason they want stupid stories. Science is beyond their intellectual horizon, so they assume you can just make it up anyway.”

    60

    • #

      It is correct, although I’d like to see a study that assesses this properly, that science reporting is woeful in most mass media but I find the argument you pasted to be flawed. A commercial enterprise wont waste money on entities called science reporters only to sideline them and give them nothing to do. I agree that editors and owners demand that the reporting sells (the “stupid stories”) but my opinion is that the media either employs no science reporter or have someone who is labelled a science reporter who is charged with reporting science to meet the editor/owner’s bias. On that basis I differ from this opinion also

      https://theconversation.com/science-journalism-is-in-australias-interest-but-needs-support-to-thrive-79106

      30

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘….media either employs no science reporter or have someone who is labelled a science reporter who is charged with reporting science to meet the editor/owner’s bias.’

        I’ll buy that, Hannam at the SMH is typical of the genre.

        40

  • #
    Dennis

    Obvious question: How could Australia cope with the EV revolution ABC Radio National discussed yesterday, electricity supply?

    No diesel engines sold from 2025, after that only petrol generators in hybrid electric cars, also can be plugged in to charge.

    And also autonomous vehicles, robot cars that we use like taxis and call for transport as needed. We will also short term hire an EV or lease one. And the cost of leasing would be about 10 per cent of the present total cost of buying and operating a similar fossil fuel engine vehicle. No private ownership, or very few private owners.

    I find the 10 per cent claim doubtful.

    They said babies recently born today will not learn to drive a manual transmission vehicle and many will not learn to drive, particularly if they live in cities.

    Country people will continue to use fossil fuel vehicles into the forceable future, mostly hybrids.

    I cannot see this revolution taking place by 2030, electricity supply will be a major problem in Australia for all the reasons we discuss here, rolling out recharging infrastructure a problem and time factor, convincing people to give up a major investment of their money, their motor vehicle will be another hurdle coupled to the crash in resale or trade in values.

    Interesting times ahead?

    51

  • #
    el gordo

    O/T

    I find it hard to believe that cosmic rays produce low cloud cover, so few bombard earth.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-09-22/high-energy-cosmic-rays-from-beyond-the-milky-way/8957554

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    We are seeing the same violent socialism in the current National postal poll on another issue. The violent left. Shutting down dissent. People called offensive names and fired for just expressing an opinion. Sound familiar?
    Outspoken commentator Sam Newman said what had to be said, that the AFL had no business pushing the opinions of a few.

    We see the same thing with so called Climate Change, another manufactured issue presented as a moral obligation by our former Prime Minister, no less, when it is nothing of the sort. This is the destruction of the social fabric of democratic Western societies, no less than turning off their electricity and sending their money overseas to strangers, to right an imagined wrong. All with the help of very compliant politicians who feel the need to push their personal and opportunistic while claiming mass support, support which is simply not there.

    Do Labor voters really want to shut down our Electricity system and make it the world’s most expensive and unreliable, to do to Australia what Chavez has done to Venezuela or Mugabe to Rhodesia? Do Greens supporters? Do Liberal or National Party supporters?

    This Abbott driven poll is aimed to bypass the otherwise certain vote by the ‘me too’ Parliament who presume to know the mind of the people, but really could not care less. The result will be an indication to politicians, as was Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, that the elites do not speak for their members or employees. Include the American Physical Society, the Australian AMA and now amazingly even the AFL. A football club? The presumption and arrogance of executives is appalling.

    82

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Thank you TdeF for that comment.

      It so clearly portrays the current situation that we must understand and confront if we want to have a workable society.

      Frame it and distribute it widely.

      It was so good to also read here a comment about the public ridiculing of a famous activist movie star. Sad as that tactic is it seems to be the only way to limit the damage he is doing and reduce his power base.

      KK

      51

    • #
      Dennis

      Good comment TdeF, right to the point and accurately.

      Regarding SSM, I warn people not to tick Yes and effectively sign a blank cheque without being given the legislation to read first.

      And what would come next, if the Yes politicians believed anti-villification law was necessary, enacted at the last minute, regardless of existing laws again discrimination, what controlling mechanisms are hidden in a file ready to be implemented?

      Then consider the PC language we would be required to observe, people instead of man or woman, don’t comment on a SSM couples child as in you have a nice baby – that would be an insult to one or both depending on how the baby was created. Etc.

      It is an emphatic NO from me.

      62

  • #
    pat

    clipe at comment #47 links to the most amazing UK TalkRadio interview with Myles Allen.

    everyone should listen. paraphrasing:

    Myles: this particular paper isn’t talking about the warming pause…
    Julia: yes, I understand that, but it was because of the Met Office data released yesterday.

    Julia: the 97% climate scientists believe in CAGW line that Obama etc have quoted has been totally debunked.

    Myles: that argument is about where in the 90 percents it is…
    the 97% figure was interesting, because people were arguing otherwise”…(plus much more)

    Myles: some people don’t like the idea the climate is changing on their without having a say-so… they don’t like losing the climate of their childhood and being given another one, without giving their permission.

    priceless stuff. thanks clipe.

    however, I can’t find the interview with Nigel Lawson on the paper, which Julia says was coming up.

    41

  • #
    pat

    21 Sept: Reason.com: Climate Models Run Too Hot: Settled Science Again
    A Nature Geoscience study finds that humanity has more time to avert dangerous man-made warming.
    by Ronald Bailey
    Of course, this is just one article among many thousands addressing aspects of man-made climate change. While its authors are members in good standing in the climate science establishment, they could be wrong. In fact, on the same day as the Nature Geoscience study was published, the United Kingdom’s Met Office issued a report that says this: “After a period during the early 2000′s when the rise in global mean temperature slowed…the long-term rate of global warming has now returned to the level seen in the second half of the 20th century.”
    The Met Office attributes the temperature slowdown in the early 21st century to natural climate variations…

    But why reuse the models that have already been shown to be off by 30 percent in their projections? Again, the difference between 0.9 C above the preindustrial baseline and the 1.5 C threshold is 0.6 C. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, global average temperature is rising at 0.17 C per decade, suggesting that the 1.5 C temperature threshold might not be passed for 30 years. The satellite temperature measurements find that the globe is warming at the rate of 0.13 C per decade, implying that the 1.5 C threshold might not be passed for 45 years or so.

    These rough temperature increase calculations imply an even larger carbon budget. That might mean that humanity could burn significantly more carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels without necessarily crossing the 2 C above preindustrial average temperature threshold set out in the Paris Agreement.
    (Ronald Bailey is a science correspondent at Reason magazine and author of The End of Doom (LINK) July 2015)
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09/21/climate-models-run-too-hot-settled-scie2

    ***ACCOLADES FOR “THE END OF DOOM”
    “Ronald Bailey sets out factually and simply the unassailable, if inconvenient, truth: that if you care for this planet, technological progress and economic enterprise are the best means of saving it.”
    -Matt Ridley, bestselling author of The Rational Optimist

    20

  • #
    pat

    unattributed:

    21 Sept: TheEconomist: There is still no room for complacency in matters climatic
    New estimates of permissible carbon dioxide emissions notwithstanding
    IN JUNE Christiana Figueres, the UN’s former climate chief who helped broker the Paris agreement in 2015, warned that the world has “three years to safeguard our climate”. It was a hyperbolic claim, even then. New research makes it seem even more of one today…

    Under budget?
    These results are controversial. Those who have been sceptical about the case for strong action on climate change have fallen on them as evidence that models such as those used in CMIP5 have fundamental flaws…
    At the same time, certain climate scientists have raised questions about the Oxford work. Some have doubts about the “resetting” of the CMIP5 results to the measured data for 2015. Another worry is that a number of different data sets claim to trace global temperature from the 1870s to now…

    There are uncertainties, then, in both models and data, and no single study should be expected, of itself, to reset the world’s plans. Even if the Oxford paper’s new budgets were copper-bottomed truths, though, they would hardly provide the respite they might seem to. No one expected the constraints of the previous 1.5°C budget to be met, and meeting the new constraints would still be challenging…

    All this said, big cuts in emissions seem more plausible now than they did in Paris, as the technology of renewable energy improves…
    At a British auction on September 11th offshore-wind power came in at a record low price of £57.50 ($76) per megawatt hour (though it still enjoys a subsidy). China has recently announced that it will stop building petrol-driven cars.
    Solar energy is already competitive with fossil fuels in sunny places and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research reckons it could make up 30-50% of the world’s electricity by 2050, up from 2% now—and do so without government handouts. The recent history of solar power has seen it routinely surpass the estimates of such experts…
    https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21729423-new-estimates-permissible-carbon-dioxide-emissions-notwithstanding-there

    10