A couple of years after the academic and statistical skullduggery of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other promoters of the global warming scare, and the shabby attempt at a comeback by the eco-centimillionaire, Nobel laureate and Oscar-winner, Al "Settled Science" Gore, it should be possible to develop a consensus for a less hair-raising (and harebrained) notion of climatic developments.
In the first decade of the new millennium, carbon emissions rose by 28.5 per cent without any discernible change in world temperature. The main ingredient in the carbon emission increase was a 47 per cent jump in coal consumption, the chief source for electricity generation in the largest carbon-footprint country of all, China. (This did not deter the Chinese from po-facedly demanding compensation from the advanced countries at the farcical Copenhagen Environment Conference two years ago, as it took the chair of the G-77 of aggrieved developing countries, demanding that the West pay massive Danegeld for the effrontery of their prior economic progress.)
The whole cap-and-trade, tax-and-limit movement has collapsed, just four years after the now thoroughly discredited IPCC announced that "most" of the world's average temperature increase in the last 60 years was "very likely due" to "anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions." The increase in that time is one centigrade degree, and the evidence of the last decade, which is the period when the connection to such emissions has been sought, debunks the notions that there is any increase and that there is any relationship to human-generated carbon emissions.
The incontestable need for increased energy production has overwhelmed the brief and delusional consensus behind the deranged boondoggle of cardigan-clad builders of windmills and solar panels. (Both business administration and psychiatry faculties of the future will want to know what possessed T. Boone Pickens to bet $1 billion on windmills.)
The effort to turn ecological alarms into another club applied to the public policy cranium of the United States, including by such eminences of the Ecopraetorian Guard as Barack Obama and Tom Friedman, has also collapsed. In the past decade, American carbon emissions have declined by 1.7 per cent, (largely because of a heavy American transition from coal to shale-derived natural gas), while Chinese carbon emissions have risen by 123 per cent. The Chinese will be a good deal less indulgent of the eco-flagellators than the U.S. has been. One of the most delicious ironies of this turn of events has been the fact that Europe, despite all its self-regulation and Gadarene charge into the Kyoto environmental fantasy and its obsessive-compulsive fault-finding opposite, supposed American eco-insouciance, have earned substantially larger carbon footprints over the last decade.
The charlatans and zealots who promoted or allowed ecology to become the ultimate broad church gathering together everyone from the bird-watchers and butterfly collectors with their binoculars and nets, to the loopy militants chaining themselves to trees and trying to climb the anchor chains of visiting U.S. Navy vessels, should be allowed to subside without a sadistically prolonged stay in the pillory. (The amiable Tom Friedman can retrofit himself to redoubled agitation for the right of every newborn babe to an iPad.)
We can all agree that pollution is bad and must be curbed, that environmental vigilance is essential and must be made more scientifically rigorous, and that more abundant energy is desirable to create jobs and generalize prosperity and not just mindless consumption. The exposure of the IPCC excesses cannot be allowed to mask complacency, profligacy, and humbug.
In the aftermath of the gigantic meltdown of the international left in the 1990s, the environmental movement suddenly became the great shelter for all who wished to assault the triumphant West, including the domestic carriers of what Malcolm Muggeridge described prophetically as "The Great Liberal Death Wish." The pastoral, the faddish, the iconoclasts, all set up a cry like a mad scrum of fox-hunters, cockahoop. As they disperse, we should be on heightened alert against some new reassembly under new and deceptively false colors. The West should drill for oil, convert to natural gas, (including automobiles), and pursue energy efficiency and cleaner air and water in always that are not neurotic or sociopathic.
David Yarnold: An Open Letter to Secretary Clinton: KO Keystone XL
Geek Farmers Gamble on Global Warming
Global warming case solid but sceptics winning debate
Global Warming Makes Chocolate Dearer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Human activities are influencing climate. As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs.
Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems. Although the details of how the future impacts of climate change will unfold are not as well understood as the basic causes and mechanisms of climate change, we can reasonably expect that the consequences of climate change will be more severe if actions are not taken to limit its magnitude and adapt to its impacts.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
So what sort of scientific background and training do you have that somehow leads you to think that you understand climate science better than the experts at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences?
Knavery.
Connivery.
Livery.
Kidnery.
All those culinary arts.
97% lie
The graphic [directly above] comes via our friends at skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of “climate scientists think that global warming is ‘significantly’ due to human activity,” a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this “consensus” and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.
However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 76 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.
========================================
From the EOS article
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/
97 percent of climate scientists don't even know about it.
http://tinyurl.com/3jlpfuu
Orkney you have been on this mission of assassinatin for over a year now. No one is listening, when are you coming back to reality? It must be costing a lot of energy to maintain your imaginary position, while your message is getting corrected from all sides. You really aren't here for the science are you?
You are part of the professional denier campaign, with the purpose of disrupting and distracting any climate discussions.
IPCC remains a sound and excellent summary of the science of climate change.
How was that liver and chianti, by the way?
People cannot be fooled by lies and coverups forever....
You're full of fiction today!
Too bad also that the portion of anthropogenic CO2 that is absorbed by the oceans is increasing the acidity of the ocean to ecologically harmful levels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
October 12th, 2011 in Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
(PhysOrg.com) -- Today's climate models regard organic aerosols as static carbon-based molecules, but scientists at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine showed that the particles are very dynamic. Exposure to sunlight transforms the aerosol composition drastically. "We found that exposing particles to sunlight makes the particles increasingly more oxidized and acidic, which in turn makes it easier for such particles to nucleate water and make cloud droplets," said Professor Sergey Nizkorodov, a physical chemist at UCI who led the study.
The optical properties of the particles also change. Specifically, the light causes the particles to fade and become less light absorbing. When freshly prepared, particles absorb some light, but as the particles fade, they absorb significantly less. This study further highlights the complexity and dynamic nature of atmospheric particles that may have a significant effect on the environment.
http://www.physorg.com/print237626851.html
See the text by Sienfeld 2011 Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
In other words, stop dumping crap into the air.
Who in their right mind is against clean air?
PS- And if someone responds by saying that jobs are more important than a breathable atmosphere, I shall become seriously angry.
If so I have to agree.
by Chip Knappenberger
March 8, 2010
Another error in the influential reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports has been identified. This one concerns the rate of expansion of sea ice around Antarctica.
While not an issue for estimates of future sea level rise (sea ice is floating ice which does not influence sea level), a significant expansion of Antarctic sea ice runs counter to climate model projections. As the errors in the climate change “assessment” reports from the IPCC mount, its aura of scientific authority erodes, and with it, the justification for using their findings to underpin national and international efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.
Some climate scientists have distanced themselves from the IPCC Working Group II’s (WGII’s) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, prefering instead the stronger hard science in the Working Group I (WGI) Report—The Physical Science Basis. Some folks have even gone as far as saying that no errors have been found in the WGI Report and the process in creating it was exemplary.
Such folks are in denial."
Read the whole essay at the link below.
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/yet-another-incorrect-ipcc-assessment-antarctic-sea-ice-increase/
The Antarctic is losing ice mass: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#landIce
The Antarctic sea ice extent is barely relevant. The total mass is much more important.
This is not important. Neither is the Antarctic sea ice increase, nor the Arctic sea ice decrease for that matter.
NIPCC lead author Bob Carter tried to Hide The Incline in global warming over recent decades, as statistician Tamino demonstrates.*
Careful readers of Orkneygal's post will notice that she has yet again has cited and copy-and-pasted from a non-peer-reviewed blog, and that said blog posting refers to and cites to support its position the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Report.
Bob Carter is a lead author of the NIPCC Report; Orkneygal nonetheless repeatedly refuses to admit or even address Bob Carter's de facto global warming fraud,* claiming that she has "no interest" in even looking at it.
No surprise, given that Orknrygal is here to propagandize and ignore fraud by prominent "skeptics" while also using said fake skeptics' science denier propaganda when it helps her promote her own propaganda.
Hey Orkneygal,
Dr. Bob Carter is also a founding leader of the "skeptical" New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC). You have indicated that you live in New Zealand - what relationship do you have with the NZCSC, if any?
Please finally answer the question instead of continuing to run away from it; thank you.
----------
* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations...
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
"IPCC AR4 GCMs overestimate the warming in the tropics for 1979–2010, which is partly responsible for the larger T24 T2LT trends in GCMs. It is found that the discrepancy between model and observations is also caused by the trend ratio of T24 to T2LT, which is ∼1.2 from models but ∼1.1 from observations. While strong observational evidence indicates that tropical deep‐layer troposphere warms faster than surface, [note we don't name any...] this study suggests that the AR4 GCMs may exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere in the last three decades. In view of the importance of the enhanced tropical upper tropospheric warming to the climate sensitivity and to the change of atmospheric circulations, it is critically important to understand the causes responsible for the discrepancy between the models and observations."
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/this-is-90-certainty-really-yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/#more-17485
You do know what "~" means, don't you? It science it means approximately. So, that suggests that ~1.2 is essentially the same as ~1.1 which in turn suggests quite good agreement between model and observation
Or continue to be lazy and of tiny mind and don't look at the actual analysis at the link provided.
"While satellite MSU/AMSU observations generally support GCM results with tropical deep-layer tropospheric warming faster than surface, it is evident that the AR4 GCMs exaggerate the increase in static stability between tropical middle and upper troposphere during the last three decades."
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048101.shtml
Also, they recognize the error may result from satellite error:
"This indicates possible common errors among GCMs although we cannot exclude the possibility that the discrepancy between models and observations is partly caused by biases in satellite data.”
Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:
That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.
"Are there problems with the models, and areas where they haven't gotten it right yet? Sure there are. The double Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone which shows up in some coupled models, ENSO variability, insufficiently sensitive sea ice, diurnal cycles of moist convection, and the exact response of climate to clouds are all areas of ongoing research. But the models are still the best thing we have for climate prediction under different scenarios, and there is no reason at all to think they're getting the overall picture wrong."
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html
"....in this instance we find that the IPCC has wrongly claimed that in some African countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.
At best, this is a wild exaggeration, unsupported by any scientific research, referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.
Unlike the glacier claim, which was confined to a section of the technical Working Group II report, this "50 percent by 2020" claim forms part of the key Synthesis Report, the production of which was the personal responsibility of the chair of the IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri. It has been repeated by him in many public fora. He, therefore, bears a personal responsibility for the error."
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html
The science of AGW remains sound. The IPCC report remains a good resource.
Orkney remains detached from reality.
Orkneygal unfailingly ignores de facto fraud by one of the most prominent of the relatively very few "skeptical" climate scientists, Bob Carter,* while continuing cut-and-paste from obscure authors of obscure blogs that may or may not have validity to them but promote her anti-climate science viewpoint.
She'll keep doing that too. Orkneygal always refuses to discuss Bob Carter's de facto fraud, which demostrates that she - like her poliical ally Bob Carter - is not a real skeptic but instead a science denier.
-----------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php