Saturday, 21 September 2013

Still no warming.....Except between IPCC and NIPCC!


Professor Ole Humlum's latest Climate4You newsletter is out with global meteorological information updated to August 2013:


This includes the above graph which superimposes all five global monthly temperature estimates.

Meanwhile, what has been happening with the demon Carbon Dioxide?


Notice the Correlation?  Nope!

Meanwhile the atmosphere between realists and alarmists is definitely going to heat up.  

ALARMISTS

The IPCC has released preliminary leaks of its forthcoming Fifth Assessment report. Mind you, this leak was before the many governments have got to it and changed it. And change it they will until it is more alarmist.
The IPCC will consider the Working Group I (WGI) contribution to AR5 covering the physical science basis of climate change in Stockholm, Sweden, 23-26 September 2013. This WGI session will approve the SPM and accept the full report. A brief IPCC Plenary Session will follow to accept the action taken by WGI.
Step 4: Approval/Acceptance of SPMs and Working Group Reports

For each Working Group report, the full reports will be accepted at the Working Group Session and their SPMs approved by IPCC member governments at the Working Group Session and then accepted at a Session of the Panel. These will take place as follows:

WGI      23-26 September 2013, Stockholm, Sweden
WGII     25-29 March 2014, Yokohama, Japan

WGIII    7-11 April 2014, Berlin, Germany (link)
We read that between now and the "official release" Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years. It should be pointed out that the IPCC was set up with the sole purpose of blaming man-made carbon dioxide emissions. From "Taxing Air" by Bob Carter and others.

Contrary to public perception, the IPCC does not examine the full array of influences that affect climate and climate change. Instead, the IPCC’s Charter directs the organisation to assess peer-reviewed research that is ‘relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change’. Thus the primary functions of the IPCC are to assess the role of human-related carbon dioxide emissions in modifying global climate, the likely impact this might have on human society, and what responses society might take to mitigate those impacts. 

REALISTS 

The Heartland Institute, on the other hand, has released Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science which hits global warming alarmists with objective data and peer-reviewed studies the way Mike Tyson hit Michael Spinks with uppercut lefts and overhand rights.

The new report, known as CCR-2, includes more than 1,000 pages documenting the evidence that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are not causing a global warming crisis. The report contains literally thousands of citations to the peer-reviewed literature.
Global warming alarmists often misrepresent the peer-reviewed literature, claiming virtually no peer-reviewed studies call the alarmist narrative into question. However, the alarmists can make such a claim only if they use a deceptive straw-man argument that their “narrative” is merely that global temperatures have warmed during the past century, such that the Earth is no longer in the depths of the extraordinary Little Ice Age. Well heck, everybody knows that.
The (Sydney) Daily Telegraph a few days ago had an opinion piece by Professor Bob Carter:
THE issue under public discussion is that human-related carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or will cause, dangerous global warming.
The issue is not "is climate change happening", for it always is and always has. Nor is it about whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or not, because all scientists agree that it is. 
Rather, the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown. 
Scientists who advise the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) worry that a doubling of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial levels will cause warming of between 3 and 6 deg. Celsius, whereas independent scientists calculate that the warming for a doubling will be much less - somewhere between about 0.3 and 1.2 deg. Celsius. 
Bob then talks of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
In classic Green Team: Red Team tactical management style, the NIPCC has the role of providing an alternative Red Team view of the science of global warming, acting as a sort of "defense counsel" to verify and counter the arguments mounted for climate alarm by the IPCC's Green Team prosecution. 
That report was released this week.
The report summarises many of the thousands of scientific papers that contain evidence conflicting with the idea of dangerous human-caused warming. Considered collectively, the research literature summarised by the NIPCC shows that modern climate is jogging along well within the bounds of previous natural variation. 
Faced with this reality check, it is not surprising that the UN apparently intends to tone down some of its earlier over-alarmist rhetoric. 
Can the Alarmists ever admit that science has shown them to be wrong, that the CAGW hypothesis has been falsified? Or do the grants get in their eyes, does the dosh change their minds?

Scary Quotes from Alarmists explain the "Plan."

Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace:"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."
Quote by Jim Sibbison, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:  "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
Quote by Sir John Houghton, pompous lead editor of first three IPCC reports: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.” 
Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” 

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: "The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government." 
Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister: "A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis."  
Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance: "The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
Quote by René Dubos, French scientist, environmentalist, author of the maxim "Think globally, act locally": "Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature."

Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

Quote by Club of Rome: "The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."


Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

THE CLIMATE PAUSE

NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 316

by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray

21st SEPTEMBER  2013

THE CLIMATE PAUSE

The claim that increase of human-induced “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere would cause “global warming” ran into serious trouble right from the start.

It happens that there is no current technology that is capable of measuring the average surface temperature of the earth. There is no way that temperature sensors could be situated randomly over the whole surface of the earth, including the 71% that is ocean and 10% that is desert, and measure it all instantaneously for sufficient time to find if it is rising.

It is not even possible to measure the temperature reliably in one place. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, who has made a reputation for promoting “global warming”, has an item on his website as follows:



Q. What exactly do you mean by SAT?

A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10ft or 50ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest) the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50ft of air either above ground or on top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been adopted. I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.

Q. What do we mean by daily SAT?

A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every two hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.

Q. What SAT do the local media report?

A. The media report the reading of one particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT we would have to use many 50ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.”


Having stated that there is no agreed way to measure the surface air temperature, he talks about the “true” value which nobody agrees to; Essex et al (2007) argue that “there is no physically meaningful global temperature”. There are theoretical reasons why the average temperature of the earth’s surface cannot be measured. Because of the fact that the sun does not shine for half the time, its variability is non linear. It is impossible to simulate it with any of the mathematical functions used by statisticians and even if this were possible there is a variety of possible averages, such as the arithmetic mean, geometric mean, or the harmonic mean.

Hansen  goes on to say that even when you cannot agree on how to measure SAT you can measure the “anomalies” by using models and guesswork!

He even attempts to “guess” the average temperature of the earth as “anywhere between 55º and 58ºF” (12.8ºC to 14.4ºC) for which he gives an unconvincing “global mean” of “roughly 14ºC”, apparently emanating from models. He has no actual evidence.

In an address to the US Congress on June 23rd 1988, James Hansen suggested a solution to the global average temperature problem which made use of temperature measurements from weather stations. The world would be divided into latitude/longitude squares. The average monthly temperature would be obtained from qualifying stations in each square and compared with the average for a reference period. The difference would be a monthly, and then annual temperature anomaly.

This system is now enshrined in the public media as a legitimate means of measuring global surface temperature, but it is nothing of the kind, and no claim that this is so is made by the IPCC. It is called a measurement of “Global temperature anomaly.”

The Fifth Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is about to be launched on the world.

In the first Chapter is the first graph which compares projections of future temperatures from all of the previous IPCC Reports with measurements from the “Mean Annual Temperature Anomaly Record”, including possible errors.

It will be seen that there has been little or no change in their global temperature anomaly for the past 15 years and that current figures are falling below the lowest of the previous estimates.

So there is a “Climate Pause” and “Global Warming” has stopped. This has horrified the IPCC scientists, but it has not reduced their “confidence” that, following Mr Micawber, It will sooner of later “turn up.”

The next graph is even more convincing. Roy Spencer calculated the “projections” from 38 computer models and compared it with temperature measurements from weather balloons and satellites since 1975, which shows that the global temperature has hardly changed for 38 years.

If anybody still has some regard for IPCC ”projections”, the third graph, also from the 5th IPCC Report, shows their success in predicting the concentration of methane in the atmosphere.



















Vincent Gray

Ice Free Arctic by 2013 - True Deniers claim.

The Denying Alarmists are tripping over themselves. First of all they predicted that the Arctic would be Ice Free by 2013 ie now.



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

Wednesday, 12 December 2007
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. 
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. 
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
This was quoted by Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. 

Even one year ago, the alarmists were predicting meltdown:

Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within four years

As sea ice shrinks to record lows, Prof Peter Wadhams warns a 'global disaster' is now unfolding in northern latitudes
So, what happened? As shown above with NASA's images, the Ice Sheet grew 920,000 square miles in a year.

How have the alarmists treated this news. Well, some have been found to be deniers:

eg Denier Dana Nuccitelli's graph  reproduced by the Guardian and  on Neurologica blog shows no gain at all in 2013:


and yet, as James Taylor points out (with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek): (link)
Of course, the UK Guardian and the New York Times are just two of many publications that warned us about rapidly accelerating Arctic ice loss and an imminent loss of the entire polar ice cap. Er, I mean, the UK Guardian and the New York Times are just two of many publications that we falsely thinkwarned us about rapidly accelerating Arctic ice loss and an imminent loss of the entire polar ice cap. 
These hallucinations are strikingly similar to when we erroneously believe alarmists warned us about less snowfall, more hurricanes, shrinking Antarctic sea ice, the Gulf Stream shutting down, etc. When the earth’s climate reacts exactly in the opposite manner as predicted by global warming alarmists, they pretend they never made such scary predictions in the first place. 
No, alarmists never predicted Arctic sea ice would recede this year. They all predicted record Arctic sea ice growth, instead. Any such memories to the contrary are mere hallucinations. 
Incidentally, Compare the graph above with Professor Ole Humlum's Climate4You graph by courtesy of Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency.