Stopped clocks, bad debts and climate sceptics: or why the latest paper on climate sensitivity does not vindicate the sceptics (nor suggests complacency)

clock_broke

For those who pay attention to minutiae of the climate debate, you may have noticed the denial-blog-sphere is all-a-flutter with claims of “Sceptics proven right.”

This source of this self-congratulation among the sceptics is a recently published paper in Nature Geoscience titled Energy budget constraints on climate response by Alexander Otto et al [doi:10.1038/ngeo1836].

I was able to source a copy of the paper and took the time to appraise how it could possibly be the source of so much sceptic excitement.

Let me quote from the paper so that you may judge whether-or-not the sceptics have been vindicated:  

“The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations…”

The paper notes:

“The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C, with a 5–95% confidence interval of 1.2–3.9 °C…”

From this, sceptics have claimed the death knell of climate science. Having read it, the take home points are for me are:

  • the oceans have been sequestering a great deal of heat – much more and much more rapidly than we thought 
  • that will come to an end at some point in the future, with the heat coming back out as the climate system tries to reach a point of equilibrium (note: as the atmosphere and oceans exchange heat)
  • the rate of warming for the last decade has been at the lower end of model projections
  • thus in the short-term the climate may warm 20% more slowly than previously expected (i.e. transient climate response)
  • even though we may not see some of the extremes predicted in earlier models, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration opens the door for an average temperature increase of +/- 4.0C.

Good news story and the death knell of the climate conspiracy?

Hardly.

The research is not that a radical departure from the results of climate science, but consistent with other work within the field.

It is also worth noting the paper does not take into consideration tipping points or other anticipated positive feedback mechanisms such as increased methane emissions – the release of vast quantities of this most potent greenhouse gas from beneath the Arctic tundra due to warming.

A small and maybe irrelevant point? Must likely not.

Indeed there are a quite few nasty surprises like methane out-gassing lurking out there – things known but generally avoided in many models (the planets decreasing albedo effect as the extent of the Arctic ice decreases anyone – anyone?).

It will be worth watching the research on climate sensitivity over the coming years: at least form the perspective of how policy makers, sceptics and the public react to this informaiton.

Just how fast, and how extreme, will the warming be?

A very interesting question indeed.  

Bad “climate” debts accumulating: no time for complacency

A 2.0C-4.0C increase in average temperatures will have a significant impact on large parts of the globe, if not devastating large swathes of it.

As the oceans draw down heat it will fuel their thermal expansion, a major driver of projected sea level rise. Nor will the oceans continue to do humanity a favour by acting as endless sink for the additional heat we’re adding to the climate system.

Crop production around the mid-latitudes is going to be hit hard, which incidentally is where most of humanity resides. Remember the aforementioned sea level rise? Many millions in the mid-latitudes will be forced to relocate.

But hey, wheat production will increasingly shift to Canada and the Arctic circle. You win some, lose some right?

Like avoiding a bad debt by taking out another high interest credit card to cover your repayments, this warming is going to raise its ugly head in the future. One may avoid paying your debts in the short-term, but at some point the Sheriff will come a-knocking and take the keys to your car and what personal property you have.

Likewise, the climate will come and “ask” us for the debt we “owe it”.

Things like coastal cities and productive farmlands will be the collateral confiscated to service the “warming debt” our species is accumulating.

Perhaps we’ve gained a little extra time – a tiny window of opportunity really – to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps we have more time to plan adaptation measures.

Whatever the case, the window for action is still narrow: this research is not cause for complacency.

Sadly I fear laggard policy makers and the mischievous will see it as such, and continue to push the cause of inaction.

Deep time, deep history, climate change and living through interesting times

Let’s also place this “pause in warming” in context.

In geologic terms, the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 and the warming trend is unprecedented in the planet’s history.

It is vital we stop thinking in terms of a climate change as the up-or-down temperature swings of a particular decade. We accuse sceptics of cherry picking; likewise we need to remove our own myopic filters.

We need to pay far closer attention to the paleoclimate record: as James Hansen has recently argued, we cannot fully appreciate the profound changes the planet is undergoing without drawing on the lessons of the geologic past.

Nor should we disregard the warming oceans, the decline of Arctic sea ice and the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere – and the many other metrics – all point to the same conclusion: warming has not stopped.

Perhaps it is the own cognitive limitations and the transient nature of how we experience time that creates such a short-sighted and myopic view of climate change.

I suggest we think in terms of both deep time and deep history.

2.5 billion years from now, should our descendants or a successor species of comparable intelligence dig into the Earth’s crust they’ll find evidence of our civilisation: but not in artifacts or fossils.

Instead they will note the abrupt disappearance of species in the fossil record (evidence of a mass extinction event) and the changed chemical composition of ocean floor and terrestrial sediments.

The evidence will point to a warmer world relative to other periods within geologic history. Billions of years into the future, a faint but still distinguishable trace of humanity’s impact will be evident. 

That’s how profound and long-lasting the changes humanity has wrought are.

We’ve not seen this level of CO2 in the atmosphere in millions of years: most recently during the mid-Pliocene (5.3-2.5 million years ago).

At that point the average temperature was 3.0C-4.0C higher, while sea levels were 25 meters higher.

However, we won’t have the luxury of billions of years of perspective to ponder what happened: we’ll be living through those profound planet-shaping and epoch-defining changes.

Actually, we are living through those planet-shaping and epoch-defining changes.

Of stopped clocks and claims the planet is no longer warming

What also interests me is the sceptic response.

As anticipated, they’ve misinterpreted the paper and claimed it as vindication of their views.

My response to that is even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day.

It’s well understood the rate of temperature change has varied over the last 150 years: to claim such a pause is evidence against warming is to merely be right by chance, and not for the reasons the sceptics likes to claim.

The sceptics are in no way vindicated: a slower rise in land temperatures does not imply climate change has stopped, or was “exaggerated”.

Indeed, lead author of the paper Alexander Otto makes that point in an interview with The Guardian:

“Otto said that this most recent pattern could not be taken as evidence that climate change has stopped. “Given the noise in the climate and temperature system, you would need to see a much longer period of any pause in order to draw the conclusion that global warming was not occurring,” he said. Such a period could be as long as 40 years of the climate record, he said…”

Sage advice the sceptics are won’t to ignore.

Which of course they do…

Perth’s resident climate sceptic and conspiracy theorist Jo Nova is the most self-congratulatory, breathlessly announcing they (sceptics) where right all along:

I think the climate sensitivity figure is still too high but it’s good to see estimates being revised in the right direction. Reality bites back. The deniers were ahead of the climate experts. We said the models were exaggerating and we were right.

Andrew Bolt in his usual fashion is not even close to being wrong claiming “alarmists” have finally admitted defeat:

Sure, warmists exaggerated the temperature rise so far, The Age finally admits. But we still have to believe they’ll be right about the apocalypse to come:

The rate of global warming caused by rising greenhouse gas levels could be slower than previously thought, but will still result in the same eventual higher temperatures as earlier forecast, new research has found.

Note also the story suggests there has been a “rate of global warming” over the past decade, without actually telling you what it is. If the reporter did, he’d have to admit there’s been no warming at all…

Bolt completely misrepresents the results of this paper; his view that there has been no warming is completely contradicted by Otto’s statements – whose work Bolt seeks to misappropriate to support his fallacious argument.

Bolt also gets it spectacularly wrong in his first sentence: no one is revising historical temperature increases down (as his wording implies), they are revising the short-term (i.e. transient) rise in the global temperature average slightly down over the coming decades.

Global warming has not stopped; it just may have hit a very small and minor speed bump. It is virtually certain to pick up speed again. 

Thus it would seem Mr. Bolt is struggling with such basic concepts as the past and future. But, hey like whatever Andrew: us warmists have always got it wrong.

I’m sure he got his “facts” from Watts up with That? or some other climate sceptic blog and they fitted nicely with his prejudices – he tags the post “Dud predictions” without fully appreciating what he is posting.  

Sorry to disappoint Andrew, but we’re still heading towards a much warmer world.

The sceptic response: the enemy of my enemy is the fact we can cherry pick

What’s remarkable here is not the paper itself, but the sceptic response. Indeed, their response is ripe with irony.

For decades sceptics have claimed the models constructed by climate scientists are unreliable and not to be trusted.

And yet, when a model or a piece of research shares the barest hint of concordance with their views they proclaim it as a victory for sceptics.

It seems the old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” applies. 

To paraphrase in sceptic terms, “the enemy of my enemy is the facts I can cherry pick”.

Sceptic victory?

Hardly.

About these ads
Tagged , , , ,

233 thoughts on “Stopped clocks, bad debts and climate sceptics: or why the latest paper on climate sensitivity does not vindicate the sceptics (nor suggests complacency)

  1. john byatt says:

    Mark says:
    May 24, 2013 at 1:49 am
    I wasn’t actually drawing parallels between the two door-stops but to the reactions of the brethren to attacks on or questioning of the contents of their book’s accumulated wisdom.

    denier contradiction number 69

    AGW is a religion

    God won’t let it happen

    • Mark says:

      Very incisive.

      Revealing number you picked out there….you should get together with Nick and his horse.

      • john byatt says:

        Was on purpose, to see how the fundies would take it.

        as you say revealing. hehe

  2. BBD says:

    Hansen et al. (2013) in press develops the analysis of Cenozoic climate change further and finds an ECS of slightly above 3C over the last 65Ma.

    • I expect the honest deniars will celebrate Hansen as much as they do Otto.

      You do see what I did there, don’t you? :-)

    • john byatt says:

      back of envelope calculations by gavin at real climate based on the observations each year and acknowledged as not rigorous give 3.3DegC CS
      lets just keep polluting as see who is correct

      after all it is just the difference between dangerous and catastrophy

    • john byatt says:

      “Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make much of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling
      into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change”

      an advanced civilization choosing in effect to annihilate itself

  3. BBD says:

    Upthread, Worrall outs himself as a physics denier. This is worth noting. Eric clearly believes that there will be no warming in response to future increases in the atmospheric fraction of CO2:

    In a few decades, your successors will be denying there ever was a consensus on global warming, just as they now deny the 1970s consensus on global cooling.

    For good measure, this astonishing statement also includes an endlessly repeated falsehood about the non-existent scientific consensus on cooling in the 1970s. That this is just another denialist lie rebroadcast by Eric can rapidly be established by checking the relevant reference, which is Peterson, Connolley & Fleck (2008) The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus:

    An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

    So, we’ve got a serial misinformer who repeatedly likens climate scientists to Nazi eugenicists and denies the validity of the radiative transfer equations and the physics underpinning them.

    Not a pretty sight, is it?

    • It’s a shame pal review didn’t suppress Otto. Oh, another deniar meme lies broken. If Otto is correct we have another 30 years to fix the problem – see http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/.

      • BBD says:

        The likelihood that Otto is an underestimate is so great it’s hardly worth more discussion. All these attempts to estimate TCR/ECS from short periods of uncertain instrumental data (especially OHC) come up low. There is a disjoint with the paleoclimate-derived estimates and obvious reasons why instrumentally-derived estimates are problematic:

        - the short periods under examination make the result sensitive to natural variability

        - early (index) data are unreliable

        - OHC data are sparse in area and depth sampling prior to 2000 and almost certainly represent an under-sampled under-estimate of OHC.

        - uncertainty over aerosol negative forcing

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        Thanks John – yes, if Otto is correct. And 30 years is a small window – given we have wasted a good 25+ years so far humanity needs to grab that window.

      • Nick says:

        Lake El’gygytgyn speaks louder than Otto e al.

      • BBD says:

        The entire Cenozoic speaks louder than Otto et al.

        Deriving a sensitivity estimate from the instrumental record is tricky. The forced response is only just beginning to emerge from the noise, the instrumental data are not definitive, natural variability is not well constrained and sampling periods are short.

        Paleoclimate behaviour captures the bigger picture where responses are played out in full. Paleoclimate behaviour is strong evidence that the lower bound for ECS/2xCO2 is ~2C. The lower bound.

        Intercomparison of paleoclimate-derived estimates of climate sensitivity by Rohling et al. (2012) suggests a range of 2.2C – 4.8C for ECS/2xCO2.

        (cont…)

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “Paleoclimate behaviour is strong evidence that the lower bound for ECS/2xCO2 is ~2C. The lower bound.”

        Indeed. It’s nice that Otto et al have provided a tighter upper bound on climate sensitivity but it’s done nothing at the lower end compared with what we already know.

      • FrankD says:

        Normally, I find I agree with JHS, but this is well wrong.

        If Otto is right, the problems we will experience will be slightly smaller. We don’t have “another 30 years to fix the problem” because we are already 30 years late.

      • I’ve left the wrong tone. My “30 years” meant we have 30 years longer to reach a still unacceptable state – and very much if Otto is correct. If his is a low-ball, we don’t have that time. And, agreeing with Frank, we’re already late anyway. It just gets worse slightly more slowly. If he’s right.

  4. john byatt says:

    john howard now part of GWPF

    I am an agnostic when it comes to global warming. That is why I had no
    difficulty in proposing in 2007, when I was Prime Minister of Australia, an
    emissions trading system, predicated on the rest of the world acting in a
    similar fashion, and designed to protect Australia’s trade-exposed industries.
    Since then two events have intervened to reinforce the caution which should
    be exercised by my country in this area. The collapse of the Copenhagen
    Summit means that actions by major emitting nations is, to say the least,
    highly unlikely. Moreover, the global financial plunge has highlighted the
    folly of any nation taking action which harms its own comparative economic
    advantage.
    Professor McKitrick’s report focuses on the reporting procedures of the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The intellectual bullying,
    which has been a feature of the behaviour of some global warming zealots,
    makes this report necessary reading if there is to be an objective assessment
    of all of the arguments. The attempt of many to close down the debate is
    disgraceful, and must be resisted.
    Ross McKitrick has written a well-researched and articulate critique of the
    IPCC’s methods. It deserves careful study, especially by those who remain in
    an agnostic state on this issue.
    John Howard

    what does he mean by agnostic, did not have the balls to say sceptic due to their status as crackpots?

    • john byatt says:

      Seems to have a problem with his memory,

      John Howard 2007
      “Australia will continue to lead internationally on climate change, globally and in the Asia-Pacific region,” he told a Liberal Party federal council meeting two days after announcing his ETS blueprint.
      “This will be a world-class emissions trading system more comprehensive, more rigorously grounded in economics, and with better governance than anything in Europe.”
      In an address to the Melbourne Press Club a month later, Mr Howard said: “In the years to come it will provide a model for other nations to follow.
      “Being among the first movers on carbon trading in this region will bring new opportunities and we intend to grasp them.”
      And what about Mr Howard’s response at a news conference in the run up to the 2007 election:
      Journalist: ”Haven’t you locked Australia into an emissions trading scheme in the next term?”
      Howard: ”Yes, I have.”
      Journalist: ”Regardless of what our trading competitors do?”
      Howard: ”Yes, but that is precisely the sort of contribution we should make.”

      Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-dreyfus-files/liberals-carbon-confusion-20110803-1ibbs.html#ixzz2TuE8U7FN

    • Nick says:

      If that’s a transcript of Howard’s words…well,he has contradicted himself…or lied:
      I am an agnostic.. on GW, he begins….then… he ends withIt deserves careful study,especially by those who remain in an agnostic state
      LOL

      Silly old codger has found something by someone who [to his mind] he can plausibly pass off as reputable -the hyper conservative Christian statistical numpty Ross McKittrick,Cornwall Alliance signatory…

      Poor John,the debate has been so closed down…that’s why it goes on constantly in science–how many papers on CS in the last two years alone?– and that’s why the IPCC reporting function is periodic…

      FFS, how do these people dress themselves?

    • Mark says:

      Howard doesn’t need to rely on McKitrick’s “well-researched and articulate critique of the IPCC’s methods”, he could have gone to Donna Laframboise’s
      demolition of the IPCC

      • john byatt says:

        You have missed the point, Howard has contradicted himself, he is a liar
        like yourself

      • Nick says:

        Laframboise’s ‘IPCC demolition’ is actually a self-demolition…it’s hard to imagine a thinner polemic air-swing than that effort. You are enabling her paranoia.

      • Nick says:

        Really, Mark it would not be a good look for a former head of national government to brandish a pamphlet scrawled by a disgruntled [evidence? Her blog] outsider without any policy,economic or science experience. She is a ratbag.

        At least McKittrick is embedded as a minor academic economist with connections to Canadas right-wing government. And the smoky GWPF, a more ‘respectable’ front with some titled upper-class twits involved.

      • Mark says:

        Yeah I figureed a mere mention of her name would result in a foaming-mouthed response.

        It may be true that she’s not credentialled in this area, but she can count and when she counted the number of peer-reviewed sources in AR4 she found that the report was very different to its publicity ie the IPCC claimed to only use peer-reviewed sources but up to 40% of sources weren’t peer-reviewed. Combined with the number of activist authors, the picture was easily established that the IPCC is far from an independent review process. But then we already knew that, didn’t we?

      • john byatt says:

        A3. The expert review process must be as objective, open and transparent as possible, whilst
        still being manageable. WGs I&II have developed a process for the expert review of the SREX
        First Order Draft that effectively allows self-nominations subject to certain criteria, in addition to
        experts nominated by governments, organisations and the Bureau. As well as the general
        review, targeted reviews have been sought from identified experts on specific text, e.g. an
        expert on glaciers was asked to review those sections of all chapters that referred to glaciers.
        A4. Non-published/non-peer-reviewed literature: a guidance note has been prepared by the
        WG TSUs for the ongoing Special Reports (see Annex). This will be developed further by the
        TSUs and the IPCC Secretariat if necessary.

      • Nick says:

        The IPCC never claimed to use only peer-reviewed material. WG2 and 3 explicitly state that ‘grey literature’ could be included. Everything used is referenced. Author affilations are noted,,’Activist authors’? Please look through the support material and note how many contributors work for private industry including fossil fuel companies…

        Claims like yours show why you are such easy meat for operators like Laframboise.

      • Poor Donna. I didn’t think anyone still read her. Good for you, Mark, showing a little compassion to a losing deniar. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Donna_Laframboise

      • Mark says:

        From the IAC IPCC review:

        “An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third
        Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84
        percent of references in Working Group I, but comprised only 59 percent
        of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in
        Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010).”

        OK, “only peer-reviewed” was an overstatement.

        On the other hand….”The IPCC doesn’t do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. So this is really hundreds and thousands of years of research efforts that go into the distinct material that comes into the report.” http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/05inter.htm. But it was wrong of me to take silly old Pachauri as a source.

        They have been allowed to use grey literature but were supposed to fully disclose it. Additionally the grey literature that was thought of then was supposed to be data sets, government reports and the such like. Not polemics from activist organisations.

        It was this type of slackness that allowed PR disasters like ‘glaciergate’.

        It’ll be interesting to see how much of this type of thing goes on in AR5. Surely they know that one of the first things the blogosphere will do will be to start counting.

      • john byatt says:

        What about Arcticgate and Sealevelgate ?

        We need a link to this one
        ” Additionally the grey literature that was thought of then was supposed to be data sets, government reports and the such like.”

        Glaciergate was basically bad proof reading, maybe you thought the glaciers would be all gone by 2035 after you read that,

      • john byatt says:

        WHY the continual lies”

        Mark “the grey literature that was thought of then was supposed to be data sets, government reports and the such like”

        The IPCC Fourth Assessment is intended to be a balanced assessment of current knowledge. Its emphasis is on new knowledge acquired since the IPCC Third Assessment (2001). This required a survey of all published literature, including non-English language and ‘grey’ literature such as government and NGO reports

      • Mark says:

        “Glaciergate was basically bad proof reading”

        seriously? you buy that?

      • Nick says:

        Mark, despite being perhaps better at Laframboise than Laframboise, you are still just crap at reading and comprehending….

        “..on the basis of peer-reviewed literature..” does not mean “…on the use of peer-reviewed literature exclusively !!

        Non-peer reviewed literature used by the IPCC very often sources peer-reviewed literature: reports by other agencies that draw on p-r research,for instance. Sometimes the cite a newspaper article as background for discussion based on p-r literature. Sometimes they cite conference reports,interim reports,informal discussion papers,books…

        Really,this is just pathetic,trying to obliquely support Laframboise on an issue of demarcation uninformed by what actually is being discussed and the actual credibility of each source.. Your view of some material as polemic is subjective,anyway….some people think the whole thing is from the outset a propaganda exercise,backfilled with ‘reputable’ science from the start! How does one satisfy such people? Laframboise is a ratbag,her attack on the IPCC is obvious and amateurish,as is your handwaving about what they were supposed to do.

        Read the reports,understand what is being used for what,and quit the paranoia,please.

        ‘Glaciergate’ was manufactured into a PR disaster,yes….and? A f***ing typo. ‘PR’ takes polishing and repetition,and oh boy,didn’t the shit heads polish and propagate away furiously! You,like Eric, are only attracted to shiny baubles like children.

      • john byatt says:

        and another lie from Mark
        “They have been allowed to use grey literature but were supposed to fully disclose it”.

        Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

      • john byatt says:

        I could see the contradiction but Mark was not eagle- eyed enough or it did not stike him as a contradiction

        Media coverage has focused largely on the lack of scientific support for these claims. But three major errors can be spotted immediately, without consulting the IPCC’s sources:
        1. The first sentence predicts disappearance (a 100 percent loss) by 2035. The next sentence predicts an 80 percent loss. Nonetheless, the first prediction is made using more confident language.
        2. The second sentence begins with “Its,” ungrammatical if it is referring to “glaciers” and unclear otherwise. It’s as if the two sentences were simply copied and pasted from different sources.
        3. The approximate area of the Himalayan glaciers is 33,000 km2, so the 500,000 km2 starting figure in the second sentence is off by a factor of 15, and the decreased area predicted in 2035 – 100,000 km2 – is three times greater than the current Himalayan glacier area.
        David Saltz, an IPCC reviewer, spotted the first two errors before publication (as discussed below), but they were not corrected. The third error has been under-discussed. But where did it come from? Quick source checking reveals that the 500,000 km2 claim does not appear in the WWF report, discussed below, which the IPCC cites. A more elaborate search reveals that the sentence originated in V.M. Kotlyakov’s paper Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale (published in 1996 but apparently written in 1991), which states:
        The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350.

      • Mark says:

        what is your problem.

        I say the grey literature is supposed to be “data sets, government reports and the such like”.

        you then tell me I’m lying because grey literature is things ” such as government and NGO reports”.

      • john byatt says:

        WWF is an NGO

        Non Government Organizations

        Mark “I say the grey literature is supposed to be “data sets, government reports and the such like”.

        you then tell me I’m lying because grey literature is things ” such as government and NGO reports”.

        there is no mention of “data sets” nor “such like” it just states again

        “government and NGO reports”

        then you claim that
        “They have been allowed to use grey literature but were supposed to fully disclose it.

        and the Himalayan errata is disclosed as (WWF 2005}

        you are now pretending to be stupid again to cover a lie

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “Glaciergate was basically bad proof reading”

        “seriously? you buy that?”

        It was part of the conspiracy of course but, like the conspiracy, they got found out.

      • Nick says:

        They fully disclosed it…what is your problem?

        My problem? You cite Laframboise,cheering and linking to what you claimed as her ‘demolition of the IPCC’…then act hurt when people can only laugh.

        You walk back one point…then you try to ‘gotcha’ Pachauri, which fails because you don’t understand plain English: “we only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature”…completely satisfies as a precis of the guidelines.

        Your problem is you have a strong disposition against AGW, are thus compelled to attack the IPCC, which you do using a host of long debunked dishonesties and misinterpretations you found somewhere, you fall for ‘teach the controversy’ media framing every time …all you know about the reports is what you’ve had to scramble to cover your arse with.

        You gravitate to the disaffections of plainly incompetent and pathologically damaged people,rather than read for yourself. Hardly the approach of a real critic.

      • Mark says:

        Wow, you all really do buy the typo story. I guess if you only inhabit the echo chamber and are told there’s nothing to see here and please move on,that’s what you do, especially if that’s what you’re used to doing.

        Here’s the thing. In 1999 a certain Dr Hasnain was interviewed by a minor Indian magazine called “Down to Earth”. As is their wont, he rabbitted on about how the Himalayan glaciers were doomed and, when pressed for a time-frame, basically made up a scary date of 2035. He then repeated the interview a month or two later with New Scientist using the same date.
        Much later the WWF picked up the story and regurgitated it, basically verbatim, from the Down to Earth article. No one ever thought to question the date. Confirmation bias.

        Enter the IPCC who needed to find ways to get India to sign up to their special brand of lunacy. They pick up the WWF story. What better way of scaring India into compliance than to tell them their main fresh water supply is going to disappear within a life-time. Despite being required to thoroughly vet grey literature they just regurgitate the WWF report which was a regurgitation of the Down to Earth report.

        To be sure, some were troubled by the date. Lead author and glaciologist Dr Georg Kaser said the prediction was “so wrong that it is not even worth dismissing”.
        But it was too good to pass up and so made it past review and into TAR, along with a statement that they attached a 90% confidence level to the date.

        When the story started to break, the IPCC tried to tough it out. Pachauri said those questioning the date were involved in “voodoo science”.But , while the IPCC can bluff past most of their errors, this one was too big and they finally had to admit it.

        It was at that point that the alarmist community went into damage control and the typo 2035/2350 story was concocted. But it has no basis.

        But the story has a happy ending. Hasnain ended up getting a job at TERI, working for Pachauri, and TERI in turn received millions in funding to look into the imminent demise of the Himalayan glaciers. So win/win.

        (Nick will now write about conspiracy ideation as though that’s a refutation.)

      • john byatt says:

        “All the glaciers in the middle Himalayas are retreating,” says Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, the chief author of the ICSI report. A typical example is the Gangorti glacier at the head of the River Ganges, which is retreating at a rate of 30 metres per year. Hasnain’s four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline.

        you change ” in the middle Himalayas” to ” the Himalayan glaciers”

        by their citing of 500,000 km2 it is obvious that the 2035 was meant to be a reference to

        V.M. Kotlyakov’s paper Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale (published in 1996 but apparently written in 1991), which states:
        The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350.

        and that is where the typo happens 2035 should have been 2350

        The approximate area of the Himalayan glaciers is 33,000 km2, so the 500,000 km2 starting figure in the second sentence is off by a factor of 15, and the decreased area predicted in 2035 – 100,000 km2 – is three times greater than the current Himalayan glacier area.

        so it could not have come from WWF 2005 because the 500,000 km2 claim does not appear in the WWF report,

      • john byatt says:

        basically it was a fuck up

        to make out that it was orchestrated alarmism is a bit moronic

      • Nick says:

        A Gish Gallop of motive attribution,with lashings of predictable conspiratorial ideation…yep,your are becoming a little more self-aware,Mark! You are barking ! I’m not refuting the presence of the error, or that it should have been noted, but your account is wingnut central! Where’d you lift it from? Laframboise? No…maybe Booker/Delingpole?

        The idea that this really matters is a bit rich. It was a bit rich back when the salivation started. ‘A PR disaster’? Only to snivellers and cranks like yourself. Oh,that was bad PR on my part…

        A re-run of a tale of little consequence,but great importance to rejectionists given their paucity of real material. I understand why this is important to you,but it does not revoke the laws of physics. Do you think anyone in the Indian science community took 2035 seriously? They do know however that glacial retreat in their territory is real and active.

        The date was an error,and it was let through despite some misgivings…Pachauri got shirty,pointed out that the people picking this out were involved in ‘voodoo science’,as indeed they were and still are,and then it is begrudgingly fixed. Meanwhile,Booker’s employer The Telegraph pays out a six figure sum to Pachauri over their serial defamation of ‘the railway engineer’.

        The IPCC fixes an error,while the ragtag ‘skeptic’ rabble admits to none…being too stupid to know when they commit most of them,and too stupid to understand if you demand standards then you have to honor them yourself.. Sigh.

        TERI is in receipt of “millions of dollars to look after the imminent demise of the Himalayan glaciers” precisely because of Hasnain’s ‘strategic’ error?…can you show us the receipt,Mark? Oh,it’s signed by ‘intellectual rape’ victim Delingpole….

        Get a life,funnyman!

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “you all really do buy the typo story.”

        Where did I buy the typo story? I agreed with you:

        “It was part of the conspiracy of course but, like the conspiracy, they got found out.”

      • john byatt says:

        IPCC conspiracy

        A paragraph in the 938-page 2007 Working Group II report (WGII) included a projection that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. This projection was not included in the final summary for policymakers which highlighted the importance of the glaciers for freshwater availability, and stated that “Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130516142547.htm

      • john byatt says:

        stop it, you will go blind

        Mark ” they attached a 90% confidence level to the date.”

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html#table-10-9

      • Mark demonstrates recursive fury to the audience. Well Poe’d.

      • Mark says:

        “The idea that this really matters is a bit rich. ”
        “Mark demonstrates recursive fury”

        Actually, I mentioned glaciergate in passing as just one example of IPCC sloppiness. “It was this type of slackness that allowed PR disasters like ‘glaciergate’.” That was it, and then I moved on.

        It was the AGW daleks who then went into defence mode…”exterminate, exterminate”. Any attack on the IPCC, or even mildly passing criticism is treated as an attack on the swarm and all the learnt stories are dragged out. A typo? Wow.

      • Nick says:

        “I mentioned glaciergate in passing..” [bullshit,you thought you had a point after Laframboise misled you]

        “..as just one example of IPCC sloppiness..” [.alleging the existence of more examples,so what else you got? Stand by for the other fur balls that were flushed so quickly when they were raised]

        Tell you what,Mark,you find an error by yourself…go on lay eyes on the report for once in your transparent life! Don’t bring us any ‘learnt stories’ No rehearsed chum from your peers in the panic room of fake skepticism.

        One of the biggest exercises in international report building,declared an overall success by its most rigorous review, involving one helluva lot of back and forth with time given limited expenses-only, a slim budget administration, and Mark drags up an irrelevant click-bait that professional trolls beat-up three years ago…a great achievement Mark!

        You have been corrected on all the errors and irrelevant Booker smears you thought your story needed….so many examples of your sloppiness. You’ve made more errors in a few entries than ‘auditors’ could find in a massive report!

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “I mentioned glaciergate in passing as just one example”

        of a very few

        “of IPCC sloppiness.”

        Fixed it for you.

        By the way, it’s funny how it went from an opportunity “too good to pass up” to just “sloppiness”.

        This is how Mark operates. He thinks he’s just casually mentioning a “fact” in passing when he’s oblivious that he stated a meme from denialworld.

      • BBD says:

        Oh FFS Mark.

        Always misdirection. Just like Eric and the rest of the fake sceptic claque.

        Never mind the typo, here’s the data (apologies to the Pistols):

        global spatio-temporal mass balance change 1946-2005 (source: World Glacier Monitoring Serivce report 2009):

        Fig. 5.8 a-f Spatio-temporal overview on glacier mass changes. Spatio-temporal overview on glacier mass changes. The average annual mass balance for nine sectors of the globe are shown for the decades (a) 1946–55, (b) 1956–65, (c) 1966–75, (d) 1976–85, (e) 1986–95, and (f) 1996–2005. Sectors with measurements are coloured according to the mean annual specific mass balance in metre w.e. with positive balances in blue, ice losses up to 0.25 m w.e. in orange and above that in red; sectors without data in grey. Average decadal mass balance values based on less than 100 observations (marked in italics) are less representative for the entire sector. For each decade, the global mean (gm) annual mass balance in m w.e. and the number of observations (no) are indicated. Source: Data from WGMS.

      • BBD says:

        Here’s global glacier length change 1845 – 2005. Red indicates recession; blue indicates advance.

      • BBD says:

        The WGMS has since updated its mass balance survey to 2011:

        Preliminary mass balance values for the observation period 2010/11 have been reported now from more than 100 glaciers worldwide. The mass balance statistics (Table 1) are calculated based on all reported values as well as on the data from the 37 reference glaciers in ten mountain ranges (Table 2) with continuous observation series back to 1980.

        The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of one metre water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2011. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at more than 15 m w.e. (see Figures 1 and 2).

        Fig. 1 Mean annual mass balance of reference glaciers 1980 – 2011.

      • john byatt says:

        one mistake may just be an accident, two becomes a problem but three confirm that mark just tells lies and then tries to tough it out

        Or maybe they are Laframboise’s lies which he just parrots without any research.

      • john byatt says:

        and that is why we laugh at you Mark

        ” By the way, it’s funny how it went from an opportunity “too good to pass up” to just “sloppiness”

        in just a few comments you contradict yourself as usual,

      • Mark says:

        Its all rather comical. Even after the IPCC itself is dragged kicking and screaming to admit that it screwed up, the swarm just can’t admit even a mild tear in the fabric of certainty they’ve carefully woven around their fondest held beliefs.

        Its over boys. Its been over for years. They screwed up and didn’t realised they screwed up because the date, unbelievable at even first blush, simply suited the approved story.

        What I find most amusing is that these people who hold themselves out as devotees of pure fact, bought, without a second thought, the typo story they were fed.

      • BBD says:

        Note that Mark completely ignores the data on global glacial recession and continues to iterate nonsense instead.

        See him keep his focus narrowed down to a pinpoint that excludes the truth.

        Another example of extreme intellectual dishonesty, or more charitably, pathological denial.

        Contemptible or pitiful? Dishonest or diseased? It’s very hard to say.

      • BBD says:

        Its over boys. Its been over for years.

        Look at the data on global glacial recession Mark. The data you have just completely ignored. The data that tells us about the reality of AGW, not the misdirection about typos.

        The data that demonstrates the profundity of your denial or intellectual dishonesty, whichever it is.

      • john byatt says:

        Another lie, four today

        your time line is wrong

        It was at that point that the alarmist community went into damage control and the typo 2035/2350 story was concocted. But it has no basis

        Even after the IPCC itself is dragged kicking and screaming to admit that it screwed up,.

        most of us knew about the typo the day the story broke which must have been a week or more before Pachuri , as you was state was dragged kicking and screaming

        lack of cohesion

      • Nick says:

        The IPCC…they…the swarm…these people So very many of them,an army of aliens messing with your head! But you showed ‘em! Beat them,every one.

        They [a few authors and reviewers] screwed up [ one date] and it’s all over [all of it,the whole report has to be pulped] .It was over years ago [years!] But they can’t admit it,and they’ve had to use all their magic powers to keep the lie afloat.

        I blame the skeptics…how can they not take responsibility,they swore themselves to the task?….it took three years for the finest citizen auditors to find one date…if we had better skeptics,the report would be iron-clad. It was imperative that it be the first multi-author,multi-disciplinary international publication without any error whatsoever. You f**ked up, Mark… that three years,we’ll never get it back. Never.

      • I blame the reviewers. Isn’t Weatherboy a reviewer? Gosh, that would explain it.

      • john byatt says:

        It was reported by a reviewer before print but he was not specific and it went unnoticed

      • Instead of Mark’s conspiracy theories how about a reasonable critique of the IPCC report? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

      • john byatt says:

        Mark ” Wiki is run by Big Warm”

        wait for it

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “Its over boys.”

        What’s over? Anything worth thinking about?

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “just can’t admit even a mild tear in the fabric”

        I admit sloppiness in the cited example, just like Mark.

      • Mark says:

        Fundamentalist Christians vehemently oppose any suggestion that there are errors, inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible. For them, the Bible, being the received word of their God, must be true in every respect. If it is wrong in even the minutia, then it may be wrong elsewhere. So they oppose any view that there is the slightest error in their text.

        I’ll leave you to ponder the parallels.

      • Nick says:

        There are no parallels,Mark. Just the superficial noting that,as books, they’re both big enough to keep the door open.

        And no-one disputes that there was an error in the text. The review process turned up many errors,as reviews do.

        The Bible is a much historically modified document of poorly known provenance,consisting of folk stories and fables grafted together without the knowledge or participation of most of the original authors. It does not have bibliography,methodology, or traceable authors with qualifications and affiliations. It is an behavioral guide around which rituals and dogma have been constructed,because it has no other utility. Few of its contentions about events and history can be tested. It cannot be reviewed pre publication except for typos: no one can question the framing or precising of source material that they can’t source. The Bible is pretty much a dead object. It cannot be revised. The only way to defend the bible’s literal truth,if one wants to assert it, is dogmatically

        The IPCC reports are periodic summations and syntheses of science, that give access to thousands of source documents that can be read, whose authors are known,listed and traceable. It is not a bible, it’s a reference and directory,which then uses its reference section to explore future and past scenarios. It is revisable and correctable,and this was always the intention,given it is reviewing active research,and reporting on constant change.

        The are ‘contradictions’ and conflicting views in the IPCC reports. They can be seen in every discussion of the science papers in every chapter.

        Download it today,don’t delay…..

      • Mark says:

        I wasn’t actually drawing parallels between the two door-stops but to the reactions of the brethren to attacks on or questioning of the contents of their book’s accumulated wisdom.

      • Nick says:

        As ever, you claim ignorance of what you’re doing,and try to proscribe responses,Humpty Dumpty.

        And you haven’t acknowledged the failures in the ‘accumulated wisdom’ you’ve deposited in this thread alone. The man who cannot concede error then projects his failures on to others. ‘Attacks’ and questions on IPCC reports are encouraged -the open review process–it is reviewable and revisable- but are not axiomatically all of equal validity. In fact many are transparently bullshit,to put it technically. And very elderly bullshit. Report published 2007, ’2035′ noted and amended in 2010, story dragged up in 2013 for the x-thousandth time. You seem to think this is a valid,current question that illustrates some unresolved flaw that invalidates the report,and that raising it shouldn’t give rational people the shits!

        Either you need a remedial reading course,or you need to start from scratch.

      • Mark says:

        Report published 2007, ’2035′ noted and amended in 2010, story dragged up in 2013 for the x-thousandth time. You seem to think this is a valid,current question that illustrates some unresolved flaw that invalidates the report,and that raising it shouldn’t give rational people the shits!

        No Nick, what I think is that it is an example of the sloppiness of the IPCC processes as revealed in Laframboise’s book. That’s all I meant and that’s all I said.

        But even that mild criticism is unacceptable to the brethren who went into overdrive to defend their text.

        But at least this has done one thing….perhaps some have now learned that it was an error and an example of confirmation bias and not, as their preferred sources had told them, a typo.

      • john byatt says:

        Mark “Enter the IPCC who needed to find ways to get India to sign up to their special brand of lunacy. They pick up the WWF story. What better way of scaring India into compliance than to tell them their main fresh water supply is going to disappear within a life-time.”

        so your time line is that they chose the WWF article to scam India

        The information did not come from WWF2005 though as it claims that the himalayn glaciers cover 500,000Km2 that is not in WWF2005

        The IPCC is run on a shoe string and no one claims that it is perfect, they have even put measures in place to upgrade the process

        but what , a few errors in thousands of pages.

        now you claim “But even that mild criticism is unacceptable”

        Mild? claiming it was a scam?

        you live in lala land

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “So they oppose any view that there is the slightest error in their text.”

        2035 was an error. So what’s your point?

      • Nick says:

        You’re happy to state that you see ‘glaciergate’ as a sloppy piece of reviewing,now? An example of sloppy processes revealed in Laframboise’s book. And that’s it? Even though you discovered that another of Laframboise’s gotchas was in fact an unwitting revelation of her own ignorance of IPCC guidelines,or a deliberate lie that she believed she could get away with,you think Laframboise is reliable? Your touting Laframboise as ‘demolition’ was in fact pointing out a ‘mild criticism’? You use of the Booker smear against Pachauri was ‘gentle guidance’ too I guess.

        . Laframboise is an openly hostile foe of AGW,therefore the IPCC. She is not a critic in the any sense of the term. You should have stuck to discussing the IAC’s report if you wanted to come across as half-sane. Other ‘amazing’ revelations from Laframboise included that some people who worked on the report were young,some were interns and under graduates. Once again Donna revealed she has,or feigns, no clue about the author/review process.

        You started the thread–you did– suggesting that Laframboise had demolished the IPCC. I think the ambition and scale of that assertion is unambiguous — and the utter lack of support for that assertion is unambiguous. But you deny that approach now.

        Your conspiracy theory about scaring India into compliance is a hoot. India of course has no domestic science community,they live in huts and burn poo,after all. India would be so utterly amazed and grateful to be told what its own glaciologists and hydrologists had been monitoring themselves, and in collaboration with the global science community, for years.

        Everything you drag in here is more interesting for its second or third-hand nature,and the fact that there is no actual controversy other than it is a media creation. Their process/operational model of high repetition fabrication barely restrained by a toothless Press Council is now normalised to you as meeting the standards of actual evidence. And Laframboise has an even lower standard.

  5. Mark says:

    Its been pretty obvious for some time now to all but the most committed, that any idea that the world will come together in any coordinated way to reduce or in any way mitigate CO2e emissions was off the table. Emission trading schemes all over the world are either being unwound or no longer promised and although some locales continue to hold out some hope for the true-believers, the idea that the industrial nations will de-carbonise to avoid CAGW is over.

    This latest paper is merely going to intensify that movement. If we indeed get through to 2017 without a break in the current hiatus the rush for the doors will be the only dangerous part of AGW. It will be impossible for the Mann’s and Hansen’s of this world to climb down and they’ll go to their graves still believing that we are this close to a tipping point. But others are now looking for the exit signs and/or (more charitably) are seeing better data and changing their minds.

    Either way,it will be impossible for politicians to go to their electorate and demand great sacrifice to avoid a further 0.7 deg by 2100. The really interesting thing will be to see which major political figure is the first to openly call a stop, and that their country will no longer pay lip-service to mitigation. I had hopes that it might have been Abbott and that might still be the case post 14 Sept., but my guess is that’ll be the next US president.

    Alternatively, the whole scare might just peter out, with the various bodies being defunded into oblivion without any government ever actually saying that they disavow the original predictions.

    • john byatt says:

      john byatt says:
      May 21, 2013 at 5:02 am
      john byatt says:
      May 21, 2013 at 3:32 am
      The patience of a saint

      john byatt says:
      May 20, 2013 at 5:00 am
      so mark believes that less than 50% of warming is due to Human CO2 emissions

      so he must believe that there is some other cause for most of the warming over the past 100 years

      so what is it kemo sabi ?

      come on we all need a good laugh again

    • Nick says:

      “This latest paper will only intensify that movement” Because? Why do you think this paper will do it? It’s not a rejection of climate change,it’s yet another confirmation that it will continue. Or are you accepting that you chaps only invest symbolic power in ,and draw rhetorical ‘knowledge’ from science?

      Science is always looking for better data. Always.

      But,go ahead,cut the funding. Just to be sure.

      • Mark says:

        1. Nick, just a heads-up. You misquoted me there. I didn’t say ‘only intensify’, I said ‘merely intensify’. Now I’m sure you are aware this site is populated by a self-appointed quote-police who stand ready to leap on any quote errors even when the error is merely (that word again) to truncate the quote to its relevant parts. So any moment now, the quote-police are gunna pounce and excoriate for your quoting misdemeanours. Any minute now…..because they wouldn’t just be using it as a gutless way to attack views they don’t like, would they?

        2. I wasn’t suggesting government will defund science. I was suggesting, based on actual events, that government will cease to push for useless emission mitigation schemes and will start to withdraw subsidies for things like renewables and carbon capture. I’d doubt, for example, that things like the ethanol subsidies will survive the next round of elections.

      • john byatt says:

        your assumptions about the paper are wrong to begin with, so your claim

        “the idea that the industrial nations will de-carbonise to avoid CAGW is over.

        This latest paper is merely going to intensify that movement”.

        is drivel

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/alex-otto-article

      • Nick says:

        1. Interesting distinction,Mark!…

        ‘”Merely going to intensify” is actually interchangeable with “will only intensify”..You are arguing that the paper,which could have a number of effects, will merely/only have the effect of intensifying the movement against decarbonization…’merely’,or ‘only’ are interchangable in that context. The ‘sole’ effect, in your opinion, will be to encourage/intensify further inaction…I get ya!

        2. Your second point,I agree I took an unfairly broad view of the implications of your suggestion. On second reading,yes,it’s clear you are talking about defunding bodies and processes set up to act on the science…thus severing the link between knowledge and action. What a wonderful prospect!

        Ethanol subsidies are attractive to COALition supporters and donors,after all John Howard introduced them for his mate Dick Hohnen,also slapping a tariff on Brazilian imports at the time .I don’t know whether they are likely to be withdrawn,but they have no support from the Greens or from the Right..

        In the US,such subsidies are also locked in to heartland farmer groups…hard to retreat from them.And how long will the gas bubble last?

      • Mark says:

        “but they have no support from the Greens or from the Right..”

        That’s true – they have no support from the greens. But initially that wasn’t the case and they only got up because of big-Green was in agreement with big-Farm. To be fair, environmental groups quite quickly worked out they’d been played, but by then the damage was done.

        “.And how long will the gas bubble last?”
        Well I had Mexican for lunch, so quite a while I expect.

      • john byatt says:

        Big GREEN?

        Green policy
        Restricting the sources of biofuels to genuine waste.
        Banning the importation or domestic production of biofuel sources such as palm oil that compromise recovery of endangered species, biodiversity and sustainable land use management.
        Ensuring that crops grown for biofuel production are based on ecologically sustainable practices such as zero land and soil degradation, optimal conservation of water and protection of the river systems
        A moratorium on the cultivation of GEOs for any part of the biofuel production process.
        Prioritisation of research and development into second and third generation biofuels including algae to biodiesel and cellulosic fuels over the extension of the ethanol excise rebate.
        Amending environment and planning laws to provide targeted environmental assessment of biofuel production including soil impacts, invasive species impact and water use impacts.
        Cancellation of the ethanol excise rebate and a diversion of this government expenditure into development of non-fossil fuel based transport and second generation biofuels production.

    • zoot says:

      Its been pretty obvious for some time now to all but the most committed, that any idea that the world will come together in any coordinated way to reduce or in any way mitigate CO2e emissions was off the table.

      Mark confirms my oft repeated opinion that the human race is too f#cking stupid to save itself.

      • john byatt says:

        and then we have their famous “if the science is settled why do they need more funding for more science”

  6. john byatt says:

    great analogy, thought I would share

    • john byatt says:

      the claim

      DocMartyn says:
      26 Apr 2013 at 8:07 PM
      This is a blow-up of the changes in the heat content of the top 300 meters and then from 300 to 700 meters. The heat contentof the lower, colder body of water is proposed to have been heated by the upper level, even though the heat increase in the lower level is greater than the top.

      http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/deepoceanJPEG_zpsc6585990.jpg

      Thermodynamically incontinent

      • john byatt says:

        The reply

        John E. Pearson says:
        17 May 2013 at 9:05 AM
        In 21 DocMartyn jabbered: “Thermodynamically incontinent.”

        Let me read to you from a recently purchased book, “Bioluminsecence” (revised edition, 2012) by O.Shimomura. Page 380 where he discusses Knowledge and it’s application towards understanding a new Bioluminescent mechanism: “Accurate and undistorted knowledge is more important. It will be disastrous if one’s mind is preoccupied with incorrect or distorted preconceptions. The fundamental laws of science and chemistry are absolute and fully trustable. However, various theories, rules and hypotheses made on experiential bases are not laws; these should be trusted only with reservations, especially when studying an unusual phenomena like … ”

        Now imagine I have a big red hot brick in my 3rd floor living room. I carry the brick out onto my 3rd floor deck and drop it into my backyard and then run down and carry the brick into the basement. The basement starts warming. The intervening space does not. Thermodynamic incontinence? I can see how your confusion arises. I too detect incontinence but I’m afraid it’s origins are not thermodynamic.

  7. Dr No says:

    It is interesting to see the armchair scientists, ideologues and downright scoundrels cheering from the sidelines as if the potential downgrading of the most likely warming by the end of the century is some form of victory.

    Sorry guys, you will get no brownie points for backing a winning horse based purely on gut feeling. Only good science counts – and you have zip to date.

    Behaving like rabid football supporters confirms our perceptions of your intelligence.

    • Nick says:

      Dr. No, they haven’t got a ‘winning horse’ .They may -may- have a slightly slower race, but the climate horse still ‘wins’

  8. john byatt says:

    While many Americans were tuned into news coverage of the massive damage from tornadoes ravaging the state of Oklahoma, Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse took to the Senate floor to rail against his Republican colleagues for denying the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

    Whitehouse spent 15 minutes chastising GOP senators and justified his remarks by alluding to states that seek federal assistance in the wake of natural disasters.

    “So, you may have a question for me,” Whitehouse said. “Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace ourselves? I’ll tell you why. We’re stuck in this together. We are stuck in this together. When cyclones tear up Oklahoma and hurricanes swamp Alabama and wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for billions of dollars to recover. And the damage that your polluters and deniers are doing doesn’t just hit Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas. It hits Rhode Island with floods and storms. It hits Oregon with acidified seas, it hits Montana with dying forests. So, like it or not, we’re in this together.”

    Whitehouse went on to condemn the current Republican position on global warming, citing economic, environmental and diplomatic damages.

    “You drag America with you to your fate,” he continued. “So, I want this future: I want a Republican Party that has returned to its senses and is strong and a worthy adversary in a strong America that has done right by its people and the world. That’s what I want. I don’t want this future. I don’t want a Republican Party disgraced, that let its extremists run off the cliff, and an America suffering from grave economic and environmental and diplomatic damage because we failed, because we didn’t wake up and do our duty to our people, and because we didn’t lead the world. I do not want that future. But that’s where we’re headed. So I will keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful that you will wake up before it is too late.”

    • Nick says:

      Eloquent! But will be ignored. Republican red mist is intoxicating.

      I watched Fox yesterday for five minutes. Three well-groomed liars were mugging away,locking onto camera with widened eyes, insisting that the IRS issue went ‘all the way to the top’ despite admitting to having no evidence. The Truth is being manufactured at Santa Murdoch’s Workshop,watch our artisans at work…

      • zoot says:

        News Limited = The Ministry of Truth

      • Mark says:

        ” The Truth is being manufactured at Santa Murdoch’s Workshop”

        Conspiracy ideation?

      • Nick says:

        Chuckles,Mark…no,you can watch Fox do it ‘live’ if you have payTV. So it’s real -time truth manufacturing,perception management…lying.

        Next channel is CNN,where real journalists were questioning real White House people about the same issue. Sorry,but I found the discussion involved plausible concepts explaining the independence of IRS decision making from the executive.

      • Mark says:

        Yeah, I figured that in your mind conspiracy ideation is something only the right does while, when the left says there’s a coordinated campaign, they are merely tell it as it is.

      • Nick says:

        I agree conspiratorial ideation is a blight of left and right. Unfortunately,Fox does practise it, and that was what I witnessed on the idiot box.

        Of course,Fox will introduce resident shrink Krauthammer with ‘wise counsel’ to cool down the inferno that they themselves lit..LOL That’s ‘balance’!

  9. john byatt says:

    Lies from eric today now stand at three

    ” just as they now deny the 1970s consensus on global cooling.”

    • Nick says:

      It’s extraordinary,isn’t it? They whinge and whine,make a strident assertion which in itself is an interesting question ,T or F?….and get everything they should want! Someone takes pity on them,does a literature search and settles the question of what the scientific community really were saying in the 1970s
      There was no ‘cooling consensus’…

      After all,their inquiring minds are wishing to ‘advance the debate’…are they not? Well,depends on which of the inner voices is in control for that fleeting moment…then the ‘we are powerful and will block you’ one comes back.

  10. zoot says:

    This memorial to Duane Gish was presented by Eric Worrall. If you’ve enjoyed it, please stay tuned. There’ll be another one very soon.

  11. Rachel says:

    I read the paper too and I couldn’t see anything in it that warranted the orgasmic response from deniers. Quite a bit of the media reporting it misrepresented some of the details too I thought.

    The Conversation did a good job – https://theconversation.com/long-term-warming-short-term-variability-why-climate-change-is-still-an-issue-14476

    • Eric Worrall says:

      The hilarity is your slow, grudging climbdown from lunacy. Will Trenberth now feel able to repeat his assertion that climate sensitivity is actually 4 – 6c / doubling?

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/08/trenberth-dials-up-the-warming-predictions/

      Or will we see a growing body of papers probing the lower bounds of politically acceptable climate sensitivity estimates?

      Alarmism will end not with a bang but a whimper. As you gradually dial down the climate sensitivity estimates, noone will be able to point to the moment you admitted you were wrong.

      In a few decades, your successors will be denying there ever was a consensus on global warming, just as they now deny the 1970s consensus on global cooling.

      • john byatt says:

        So you are now telling lies like Mark?

        here is the paper’s conclusion
        n short, while FS12 does not provide a specific measurement of climate sensitivity, it does suggest that the climate models with lower sensitivity (and ‘low’ here refers to approximately 2 to 3°C surface warming in response to doubled CO2, not the ridiculously low estimates of 1°C or less proposed by contrarians like Lindzen) are not accurately representing changes in cloud cover, and are therefore biased. Climate models with higher sensitivity – in the 3 to 4.4°C ECS range for doubled CO2 – more accurately simulate the observational RH data and thus the response of subtropical clouds to climate change.

        A climate sensitivity on the higher end of the likely range obviously does not bode well for the future of the climate. As Fasullo told The Guardian, “our findings indicate that warming is likely to be on the high side of current projections.”

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The IPCC suggests there is a 10% possibility of climate sensitivities less than 1.5c, according to the Wikipedia article, so suggesting a climate sensitivity estimate less than 1.5c is unscientific is a little strong.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

        From memory DS said the bottom edge of the IPCC 95% confidence band was 1.1c / doubling, which intersects the top end of Lindzen’s estimate.

        If the IPCC moves its median estimate down a little, but keeps the current error bars, as seems likely, at what point do you guys apologise to Lindzen for calling him a “denier”?

      • john byatt says:

        Still telling half truths eric, did mark teach you that ?

        2-4.5 °C is “likely”, = greater than 66% chance of being correct
        less than 1.5 °C is “very unlikely” = less than 10% ” ” “

      • No, you said that. I linked to the report and said “The lower bound of the Charney sensitivity has been 1.5C since 1979.”

      • john byatt says:

        correction , still telling lies eric ?
        eric The IPCC suggests there is a 10% possibility

        no

        the IPCC suggest a less than 10% possibility

        Now if you wish to debate here, lies are a no no , if you cannot be honest then leave

        this is your second lie today

      • Rachel says:

        Peter Hadfield reveals the truth about the so-called 1970s global cooling consensus – http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EU_AtHkB4Ms – and it’s bullshit. A true skeptic would check his facts first.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “If the IPCC moves its median estimate down a little, but keeps the current error bars”

        The big IF. Part of the never-ending supply of wishful thinking from Eric.

    • Mark says:

      “In a few decades, your successors will be denying there ever was a consensus on global warming, just as they now deny the 1970s consensus on global cooling.”

      There was no consensus back then, Eric. After all, they’ve done a lot of checking of the papers back then and assured us that our clear recollection that the coming Ice Age was part of the general consciousness is entirely faulty. Apparently, when media like the BBC and Newsweek sought to warn that scientists were warning of a new Ice Age they were completely out-of-order. We can rest assured that scientists tried valiantly to set the record straight and the fact that we can’t find much evidence of that is merely an unfortunate oversight.

      I feel sure that we will indeed be told in a few decades that there wasn’t a consensus. In fact I reckon I can write the article now…

      “There was no consensus that CO2 was going to cause the world to warm dangerously. Indeed in 2013, a paper by Cook looked at over 12000 contemporary science papers and found that only a very small percentage specifically supported the idea that CO2 was causing more than 50% of the small amount of warming that had occurred up to that time”

      • john byatt says:

        john byatt says:
        May 21, 2013 at 3:32 am
        The patience of a saint

        john byatt says:
        May 20, 2013 at 5:00 am
        so mark believes that less than 50% of warming is due to Human CO2 emissions

        so he must believe that there is some other cause for most of the warming over the past 100 years

        so what is it kemo sabi ?

        come on we all need a good laugh again

      • Nick says:

        I’m moved,greatly moved, by this heartbreak and anguish…

        Poor Mark,you have been betrayed by science and scientists for forty years,it seems… despite getting everything you knew about climate and weather via the media,you are so certain that only scientists bear the responsibility for redacting and correcting media reports,and for your faded recollection…if indeed you have any from the 1970s. I’d guess you were born in the 1970s,maybe even the 1980s

        If ,OTH,’in a few decades’ we are told there was no consensus in the first decade of the 21st century…..well,we won’t be,because a much larger more advanced body of science speaks plainly to the reality that there is a consensus. Indeed, an absurd post from you, Mark…now casting your conspiratorial ideation well into the future.

        Get a grip,funnyman.

      • Rachel says:

        Mark, scientists have been warning of global warming since before the 1970s. This is what was shown to school children in the 1950s – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

        It is part of a documentary made in 1958 and echoes the same sentiments being expressed by scientists today (Frank Capra’s Wonders of Life http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157135/)

      • Mark says:

        Well I guess all those news stories from around the mid 70′s, the most famous of which were the Newsweek cover story and the BBC doco, were just made up out of whole clothe. No scientific basis to it at all.

        On the other hand, its really quite simple to create and/or deny a consensus, especially from a distance. As I said, Cook, currently used to prove a consensus, could just as easily be used to disprove a consensus, if that was the agenda.

      • john byatt says:

        the Australian, only last week had a headline “experts warn of ice age”

        does that make it a 2013 scientific consensus just because it is a newspaper article?

        get real, the consensus then and now is that humans are causing global warming

      • Rachel says:

        Mark,

        The Newsweek article got it wrong and they’re not the first of the popular media to get it wrong. A paper published in the journal of the American Meterological Society counted the number of scientific papers from the 1970s that predicted cooling. There were just 7 papers that predicted cooling versus 48 papers that predicted warming. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

        A report prepared for the National Science Board in 1972, “Patterns and perspectives in environmental science” has also been misquoted a number of times. If you read the book (it’s free online), they say:

        “Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increase the earth’s reflectivity. At the same time, increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the earth’s surface.” This is a straight copy from 55 of this book.

        How can you call yourself skeptical while simultaneously believing something written in Newsweek without verifying its accuracy?

      • Rachel says:

        If you want to be a true skeptic, and verify the information for yourself, the National Science Board report is available for all to read here: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7246578M/Patterns_and_perspectives_in_environmental_science

      • john byatt says:

        Mark still believes that the consensus comes from a show of hands rather then from the literature,

        this is not surprising as the propaganda claiming that it is just a show of hands has been drummed into them by the likes of Nova

      • Nick says:

        Yes,Mark read the effing studies before digging a bigger hole for yourself. The distinction between the media coverage and actual scientific discussion has been made often,and the real question at the heart of the allegation has been addressed…I alluded to it, Rachel has been kind enough to do the work for you.

        If you ignore it, I suggest you sod off.

        Cook could not be used for the purposes you suggest. Can you not figure that out? Oh,of course you haven’t actually given it a look through yet,as topical as it is…

      • john byatt says:

        Nova

        when the ocean shows cooling Nova upholds ARGO
        when the ocean shows warming then Nova dismisses ARGO

        http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/novas-ocean-of-doubt/

      • Nick says:

        Mark,Eric, are you reading? If you want a simple clear way to scrape the Nova muck out of your brain, check out ‘itsnotnova’…leave the idiot to confuse herself,you deserve better.

      • Mark says:

        Yes yes Rachel, I’m aware of the recent studies that determined that there was no consensus, which is why I mentioned them above.

        This is hardly a particularly vital issue but just for the sake of accuracy there is a couple of things that can be said about the Peterson study:

        1. Most of the papers that fall into the ‘warming’ category are at the back end. I don’t think there’s much dispute that things changed dramatically post ’75 when the climate switched from cooling to warming.
        2. As with Cook, there is a fair degree of leeway about how things get categorised and if there is an agenda then it can result in questionable categorisation. I’d have to go back over the whole issue again to show all the examples of this but one I remember was the Mitchell(72) paper which basically predicted a cooling after 2000 but a possible warming up to then. This ended up categorised as a warming paper but, with a different agenda, could have ended up in a cooling category. As I recall there were quite a number of similar issues.

        Categorisation is in the eye of the beholder as we are now finding with Cook. Determining a consensus is likewise a value judgement. As I said earlier, with a different agenda, Cook’s results could just as easily be used to disprove a current consensus.

      • Nick says:

        Sorry,but your claim that “Cook’s results could be just as easily be used to disprove a current consensus” is just pure handwaving. Mechanistically that is impossible,unless you redesign the methodology. READ THE METHODOLOGY SECTION. for the umpteenth time!

      • john byatt says:

        but one I remember was the Mitchell(72) paper which basically predicted a cooling after 2000 but a possible warming up to then

        either your memory is crap or you are again telling fibs ?

        J. Murray Mitchell still viewed humans as “innocent bystanders” in the cooling from the 1940s to 1970, but in 1971 his calculations suggested that rising emissions could cause significant cooling after 2000, though he also argued that emissions could cause warming depending on circumstances. Calculations were too basic at this time to be trusted to give reliable results.[20][21]

        you cannot be trusted to post fact

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “the Newsweek cover story and the BBC doco”

        You might be able to get some of the truth out of newspapers but you’ll be lucky to get the whole truth. Schneider warned that IF we keep putting more and more non-transparent crap in the atmosphere THEN it could produce global cooling. Of course the brakes were put on the amount of non-tranparent crap going into the atmosphere so Schneider’s condition no longer applied.

        “How can you call yourself skeptical while”

        That’s easy. Mark’s a hypocritical liar.

      • Rachel says:

        I’ve found Mitchell 1972 – http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0033589472900695

        Last sentence of the abstract reads:
        “It is concluded that the net impact of human activities on the climate of future decades and centuries is quite likely to be one of warming, and therefore favorable to the perpetuation of the present interglacial.”

        Looks like a warming paper to me.

        The people who object to Cook and his findings have a very clear and transparent way of objecting: they can conduct their own investigation, trawl through 12,000 papers and write up their conclusions in a scientific journal. Has anyone in the denial camp thought to do this?

  12. Moth says:

    I saw this yesterday and had a feeling deniers would wax lyrical on this.

    I’m not surprised that they have done so; thousands of papers illustrate their position is wrong and yet they pompously tell us they’re “sceptical” of this science and one paper starts that the short-term warming might be slower than previously assumed and they hold it up proudly, as though they have been vindicated.

    Just shows the level of critical scepticism they genuinely have. They are no different to the anti-vax, anti-fluoridation, anti-wind farmers or creationists with their selective interest in evidence.

    They are a crack-pot minority and tedious company.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Yet somehow we are still obstructing vital changes to the global economy to save us from climate catastrophe. Emissions are still rising. So we might be a “crack-pot minority”, but we’re obviously not without some influence.

      • Moth says:

        Wow – look the delusion of grandeur! I bet your apps are the powerhouse, huh?

      • john byatt says:

        “So we might be a “crack-pot minority”

        first comment today that makes sense

      • Nick says:

        Obstructing? Influencing? Or just rewriting your histrory from the passive to the active?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Whats your explanation for why Australia has not committed to 100% renewables, and banned coal exports?

      • Nick says:

        The answers to that just prove my point about your passivity,and our collective impotence. Getting to vote for one of two parties once every four years,and ranting on a blog…only by going off grid in good numbers will Australians exert leverage [price signals] on energy policy,and it will still be conditional on the new lines of dependence vis those new technologies.

        Seriously,is it hard to figure out? Our industrial course is directed by incumbency built on resource and infrastructure ownership,and its inertia,ties,social connections,dependencies and privileges.

        Science,across the park, tells us we have a problem. The incumbent business model demands a defensive strategy, and that is to marginalise the science as much as possible for as long as possible. It is a wide-ranging strategy involving the spectrum from real politik to distortion and lies. They have been doing this for years.

      • john byatt says:

        We are really leaving ourselves open Jan 2013

        But China is more ambitious back home than it appears in international scenes.

        It has pledged to cut back emissions intensity (emissions per unit of GDP) by 40-45%, relative to 2005 by 2020. Short-term goals include reduction in energy intensity by 16% and carbon intensity by 17%, for the period from 2011 through 2015. The most prominent plan is to run a national emission trading scheme (ETS), ahead of the US and along with Australia. It is destined to be the world’s second-largest emissions market.

      • john byatt says:

        When Abbott removes the Carbon price and subsequent ETS it will be just as China starts their ETS.

        without an Australian ETS China will be within their rights to tax imports from Australia.

        Countries with their own ETS would be exempt under international agreements

      • Moth says:

        Do you really think it’s trolls like yourself, the grey-haired army with their little protests and the Nova’s, Watts and Bolts of the world that have actually done a great deal to “obstruct” action on climate change, or were you just trolling?

        This is entirely political / industrial action / inaction choices. At best, the loud, albeit minority groups opposed to action on climate change within the community simply assist with making such actions seem better merited. But they would exist regardless.

  13. Eric Worrall says:

    More evidence of the approaching cold – the Nenana Ice Classic has broken its all time record for late ice breakup on Alaskan rivers. It hasn’t finished yet – the ice still hasn’t broken.

    The Nenana Ice Classic is a betting pool, based on predicting when a large steel tripod will break through the river ice.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/nenana-ice-classic-sets-new-record-for-latest-ice-out-and-the-record-is-still-growing/

    Rather embarrassing for alarmist Martin Jeffries, who recently said the following in a WSJ interview:-

    The Ice Classic has given them a rare, reliable climate history that has documented to the minute the onset of the annual thaw as it shifted across 91 years. By this measure, spring comes to central Alaska 10 days earlier than in 1960, said geophysicist Martin Jeffries at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks — and that trend is accelerating. “The Nenana Ice Classic is a pretty good proxy for climate change in the 20th century,” Dr. Jeffries said.

    I’m sure longer, colder Alaskan winters were predicted by some model…

    • Chris O'Neill says:

      “the approaching cold”

      Eric is a global warming denialist.

      • john byatt says:

        maybe he will say something of substance maybe not.

        so far just drivel as usual

      • john byatt says:

        speaking of drivel where is kemo sabi ?

        “so many lies to tell , so little time” Mark

      • Eric Worrall says:

        It wasn’t me who spouted nonsense about the Nenana Ice Classic being a proxy for 20th century warming, it was Dr. Martin Jeffries.

        We’re just pointing and laughing.

      • john byatt says:

        Re
        my comment

        surface warming
        last decade trend GISS = 0.15Degc
        previous decades GISS = 0.17DegC

        that was Hadcrut4 not GISS which is slightly higher than that

        apologies hehe

      • john byatt says:

        It has finished as a tie

        long term trend
        http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/climate-watchers-place-own-big-bet-on-alaskas-thaw

        wondered why they were jumping up and down

        reason ?
        Every winter since 1917, people in Nenana, a village 55 miles southwest of Fairbanks, have wagered on the exact moment that the ice breaks up on the nearby Tanana River. For the 450 townsfolk, the annual Alaska ice lottery, called the Nenana Ice Classic, is a financial lifeline that offers some their year’s only employment. Winners last year shared a jackpot of $303,272.

        But for many geophysicists, the contest itself is something more valuable than any monetary prize.

        The Ice Classic has given them a rare, reliable climate history that has documented to the minute the onset of the annual thaw as it shifted across 91 years. By this measure, spring comes to central Alaska 10 days earlier than in 1960, said geophysicist Martin Jeffries at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks — and that trend is accelerating. “The Nenana Ice Classic is a pretty good proxy for climate change in the 20th century,” Dr. Jeffries said.

        The local ice lottery is further evidence of a long warming trend affecting lakes and rivers throughout the Northern Hemisphere, reported by University of Wisconsin researchers who analyzed newspaper archives, transport ledgers and religious records dating back to the 16th century. Seventeen lakes in Europe, Asia and the U.S. with records going back 150 years are thawing, on average, 13 days earlier now than when first recorded, said Wisconsin lake scientist Barbara Benson.

    • Nick says:

      Jeffries has based his statement on 90+years of data, You,Eric,have seized on just one winter…didn’t you notice what you did there?

      Likewise,ice out days on North Americam lakes and rivers shows winters getting shorter,but some clown will put up a video of this week’s lake ice in Minnesota

    • In one post Eric acknowledges the continued rise in temperatures. In another he maintains “the approaching cold”. An advantage deniars hold is that they needn’t maintain any consistency. Just yell “No! Squirrel!” and their job is done.

  14. john byatt says:

    this is a bit of a red flag

    ““The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously.”

    see Marotzke below

    Dr Alexander Otto, from the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, said: ‘Recent observations suggest the expected rate of warming in response to rising greenhouse gas levels, or ‘Transient Climate Response,’ is likely to lie within the range of current climate models, but not at the high end of this range. However, with current emissions trends, this would lead to very high temperatures to the end of the 21st century.

    “The eventual long-term warming after stabilization remains rather uncertain, but for most policy decisions, the transient response over the next 50-100 years is what matters.”

    Professor Reto Knutti of ETH Zurich said: “Clearly, new data helping to rule out more extreme scenarios for near-term rates of warming is welcome news, but even if the response is at the low end of the current range of uncertainty, we are still looking at warming well over the two degree goal that countries have agreed upon if current emission trends continue.”

    Professor Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg said: “It is important not to over-interpret a single decade, given what we know, and don’t know, about natural climate variability. Over the past decade, the world as a whole has continued to warm, but the warming is mostly in the subsurface oceans rather than at the surface.”

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Given that fossil fuel technology is likely to be substantially displaced by cheaper Thorium nuclear energy in the near future (as in the next couple of decades), the difference between ECS and TCS, and the equilibrium period, is critical to the debate of what the policy response should be.

      http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/1786372/comment-china-lead-in-thorium-research-may-bag-it-prize-for-clean-cheap-safe-nuclear-power

      • john byatt says:

        No eric , the take away message is ” will the mainly neutral and La nina ENSO conditions dominate over coming decades.

        The warming has accelerated over the past decade with most of the energy going into the ocean

        surface warming
        last decade trend GISS = 0.15Degc
        previous decades GISS = 0.17DegC

        I do not know the answer but all the sceptics who only yesterday were claiming that there was no consensus that humans were causing most of the warming are now debating from a position of accepting that consensus to claim lower sensitivity

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Given Hansen’s antics, none of us take GISS seriously – we can point to too many instances of them fiddling the data (links available on request).

        Hadsst2 shows a flatline since 1997, similar to the land surface temperatures, or combined land / sea surface temperatures.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend

        The only “evidence” you have for the oceans accumulating heat is the ARGO series, which shows a flatline within the limits of measurement, and some dodgy reconstructions based on ad-hoc ship based measurements.

        And of course the curious way flatlines in temperature match negative phases of PDO – for 30 years or so. As we’re just entering the negative phase, we may have a long wait before the world starts warming again.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “none of us take GISS seriously”

        We can’t take you seriously, so we cant take your not taking GISS seriously seriously.

      • john byatt says:

        back to the conspiracy

        ” dodgy reconstructions”

        basically you can never be right because their mindset is that whatever information they cannot handle must be dodgy

    • john byatt says:

      Steven Sherwood, also of UNSW, said the lower warming estimates were based on findings that the oceans were sequestering heat more rapidly than expected. “However, this recent storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse,” Professor Sherwood said.

      “The conclusions need to be taken with a large grain of salt until we see what happens to the oceans over the coming years.”

      The study team included an oceanographer from CSIRO’s marine and atmospheric research division in Hobart.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        “However, this recent storage may be part of a natural cycle that will eventually reverse,” Professor Sherwood said.

        Pretty vague statement for someone explaining the predictions of “settled science”.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “settled science”

        So the greater the uncertainty, the more we should take the risk?

        It’s clear you are a risk taker.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Every action or inaction potentially has consequences.

        Spending all our spare capital on climate emission reduction measures is an awful lot of school books you can’t afford to buy, or hospitals you can’t afford to build.

        Who knows – after the 470 kiloton meteor explosion over Russia a few months ago, perhaps we should be devoting just a tinsy bit more than $5 million alltime total expenditure to mapping dangerous Asteroids.

        http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/26feb_russianmeteor/

        They’re rare, but not that rare. In 2002, a 27 Kiloton explosion occurred over the Mediterranean.

        And of course, we have the record of the Tunguska Explosion, which levelled everything for 20 miles from the epicentre.

        Its only a matter of time before a meteor levels a major city, or worse – if the 2002 East Mediterranean event had struck a few hours earlier, it might have exploded somewhere over India or Pakistan, at a time of heightened tension – it could have triggered a nuclear war.

        Even a little warning could prevent some of the worst consequences – give people a chance to evacuate, or at least a reduction of the risk that a natural meteor impact would be misinterpreted as a nuclear first strike.

        Compared to the risk of having to abandon a few seaside villas, meteors seem to be a much more tangible threat.

      • Nick says:

        Except that costings of mitigation proposals do not demand “spending all our spare capital”… oh,look,an asteroid! Shaped like a squirrel!

  15. BBD says:

    The usual noise from the usual quarters.

    When paleoclimate-derived estimates are included, ECS looks to be in the range 2.5C – 3C. All these attempts to coax an ECS/TCR out of short periods of non-definitive instrumental data produce under-estimates. Probably because they are heavily influenced by OHC reconstructions which are themselves under-sampled under-estimates of true OHC.

    It reminds me of the way LGM/Holocene transition estimates come out low when they use under-estimated values for tropical SSTs (eg MARGO).

    Get it right and ECS always goes back to 2.5C – 3C.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      The paleo estimates are driven by the assumption that CO2 drives climate. Given that the paleo record shows CO2 lagging climate change, it seems much more likely that climate drives CO2.

      Even SkS admits CO2 changes lag behind climate changes of the paleo record, though they suggest CO2 substantially amplified the underlying natural changes.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “Given that the paleo record shows CO2 lagging climate change”

        CO2 lagged one fifth or less of climate change. Ignoring that fact is intellectually dishonest.

      • So is ignoring the end-Permian, the PETM, and the thawing of Snowball Earth.

        I give up. These “conversations” are so depressingly futile…

      • Rachel says:

        It’s my limited understanding that CO2 both lags and leads temperature. A good explanation of this from Peter Hadfield – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL18_kiDUck

      • Nick says:

        Walks,cannot chew gum…talks,cannot think… CO2 cannot lead and lag,or lag and lead…climate systems are handicapped by one individual’s cognitive blind-spots….we understand you, Eric ;)

      • john byatt says:

        Your understanding is way ahead of erics Rachel

      • john byatt says:

        eric’s contradictions

        “CO2 lags temperature”

        “temperature has been at a standstill since 1996″

      • BBD says:

        Eric Worrall

        Rubbish, even by your standards. I was about to link to Shakun et al. (2012) and yet again repeat the explanation of deglacial mechanisms when I realised that the SkS link you provided already does so.

        Please read your own links and stop regurgitating old, debunked denialist tripe about paleoclimate behaviour.

        CO2 is a feedback to orbital forcing and a forcing in post-industrial climate. It’s not hard to get this straight, so get it straight.

        Otherwise you will be taken for an ignorant buffoon or intellectually dishonest or both.

      • BBD says:

        Once again, Eric finds time to post a dozen or so comments elsewhere and fails to acknowledge his serial misrepresentation of the basics.

        Rebroadcasting thoroughly debunked denialist rubbish is intellectual dishonesty.

        Eric all through.

  16. Eric Worrall says:

    My first thought – someone tell DS that its no longer rude to talk about a “pause” in global warming :-)

    But seriously, don’t expect this to be taken as anything other than the beginning of a climbdown. You guys might try to spin it the “slowdown” as a transient event which is meaningless in the long term, and spin theories of imminent methane apocalypse or whatever, but people are getting bored with climate alarmism. Most people can only stay frightened for so long, without actually seeing evidence of something to be frightened of – and you’ve reached that limit.

    As Richard Müller said, in an interview in 2012,

    When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. You have to respect the public. You have to give them the honest truth and not the exaggerated truth. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/

  17. Sou says:

    Good article, WTD. This is but one of many such studies. I don’t know that it is any more ‘correct’ than any of the others, but it seems to me on the low side. I’m comparing it to paleo climates.

    I reckon it’s worse to be too low than too high because it will lead people to slack off and give them an excuse to delay efforts. (On the other hand, for those who thought it was already ‘too late’ it might lend hope and give an impetus.)

    Also, I don’t understand their low end to the transient response of 0.9 degrees. I thought it was already 0.8 degrees up. I’m probably comparing apples to oranges. Maybe someone more familiar with climate sensitivity will be able to explain this.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I reckon it’s worse to be too low than too high because it will lead people to slack off and give them an excuse to delay efforts.

      Thats alarmism in a nutshell. We “deniers” keep hoping we’ll actually hit one of these tipping points you guys keep touting, so we wont have to endure more earbashing about approaching an irreversible tipping point.

      Sadly they disappear like mirages before we actually reach them.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/22/newsbytes-the-4-year-doom-cycle-gets-rebooted/

      • Nick says:

        A link to Watts! Eric,you continue to surprise…

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Are you denying Hansen regularly updates his tipping points?

      • Sou says:

        And when the temperature shoots up, when droughts and floods get worse and even more common, who will the Eric’s of the world blame? They won’t blame deniers and delayers, nor the media for misreporting. They’ll blame scientists for not ‘warning’ them – and governments for not doing anything to stop it.

      • Nick says:

        Why would I deny that Hansen explored CS for decades? That was one of his professional interests.

        Watts? He doesn’t do anything_at_all,except perform some bizarre shielding function for dependent personalities like you.

        Hansen hoped Obama would do something in his first term,not presuming a second. Obama did nothing much.

        Obama won a second term,Hansen hopes this time…he is optimistic.
        If Romney had won,Hansen may not have bothered hoping at all. He still would have retired and stuck it up him. That’s what his intellect and knowledge demands of him. It’s easy for you to be mystified by his motivation in your ignorance.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        And when the temperature shoots up, when droughts and floods get worse and even more common, who will the Eric’s of the world blame? They won’t blame deniers and delayers, nor the media for misreporting. They’ll blame scientists for not ‘warning’ them – and governments for not doing anything to stop it.

        Reminds me of one of the more entertaining climate scare campaigns, the angry kid campaign – thankfully one of the campaigns which didn’t feature drowning puppies or exploding “denier” schoolkids.

        You should turn it into a movie script. I enjoyed “The Day After Tomorrow” – I’m always happy to be entertained by a good piece of dramatic fiction.

  18. Chris O'Neill says:

    This paper is just one method of estimating climate sensitivity AND it still has an upper confidence limit of 3.9 deg C for ECS. It’s only likely impact will be to reduce the IPCC’s 4.5 deg C upper confidence limit (which we’ve all been praying was higher than reality anyway).

    Best just to wait until the IPCC tells us its view in AR5, some of the authors of which are also some of the authors of this paper.

    • Indeed, good points thanks Chris – there a great deal of literature on climate sensitivity. Trying to pull it all that together for a blog post, well… where to start?

      But yes – AR5 be interesting to say the least, and I think this paper foreshadows some of the conclusions.

    • john byatt says:

      You nailed it

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I see it as more of a slow climbdown. The high end, until recently promoted by Travesty Trenberth, is becoming utterly untenable, but at the same time a fast climbdown would mean admitting the “deniers” were right all along. So a slow climbdown, to allow prominent alarmists to retire undefeated, seems the order of the day.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        the “deniers”

        Which of the “deniers” would these be? The ones who say “there is no warming”, the ones who say “there is no CO2 radiation forcing”, the ones who say “there is no feedback”?

        C’mon Eric, enquiring minds want to know.

      • Nick says:

        High end..promoted until recently by..Trenberth?

        Fasullo and Trenberth only produced that study last year. Its methodology is unique and interesting….and they have not resiled from it so WTF is it with the ‘until recently’????

        And ’4-6C’ is not a reasonable characterisation of their ECS position. They don’t actually state one in the paper! The method favors ECS around 4C.

        Eric will ‘climbdown’ …any time now.

  19. Nick says:

    Excellent post! Covers everything well…and indeed of great interest is the part of the story that gets cobbled on by rejectionists,from dealing themselves into the action like Nova,to just lying their arses off like Bolt, who’s slipping further into a public insanity every week closer to the election.

    The short paper is available with registration from Nature, Watch as every caveat and nuance is ignored by our ‘sceptic’ friends

    BBD pointed out elsewhere that a central ECS of a ‘global’ mean 2C for doubled CO2 is only of comfort to those who ignore the reality of what is already observed latitudinally and regionally. IOW no comfort at all.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      2c / doubling is perilously close to “not very alarming at all”. It certainly makes a joke out of the 4 – 6c Travesty Trenberth was touting recently. https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/8264/future-warming-likely-be-high-side-climate-projections-analysis-finds

      • Nick says:

        2C/doubling ECS at populated higher northern latitudes is alarming,cupcake. Only your insurmountable ignorance protects you from having a real conversation about it!

      • Eric Worrall says:

        2c / doubling ECS means we have to reach 560ppm for a sustained period to see a 2c rise.

        At the current rate of CO2 accumulation of appox. 2ppm / year, it will take 80 years to reach 560ppm (2 x pre-industrial 280ppm). The 560ppm would then have to be sustained or exceeded for a significant period to see the full 2c rise.

        Have we even got enough fossil fuels to burn to achieve this? I know I’m optimistic in the short to medium term, but 80 years worth of fossil fuels, at current rates of combustion? Sure there is a lot of coal in the ground, but will no low carbon form of energy become economically competitive in 80 years of R&D?

        And if the 560ppm is not at least sustained, we will not see the full 2c rise, even if ECS is 2c / doubling.

        And of course, if ECS is lower, say 1.5c / doubling, the need for alarm is even less.

      • Nick says:

        I do know you are preconditioned to choose the lowest figure you think you can rationalise. It ain’t a pretty spectacle.

        You might consider that a lot rides on terrestrial and carbon sinks behaving as they have so far. Presumptions about linear reactions in feedbacks.

        “..will no low carbon form of energy become competitive in 80 years of R&D?” It won’t if the FF lobby keeps calling the shots. Maybe we should remove their subsidies and rationally account for their waste NOW?

        An ECS of 1.5 is ruled out by palaeoclimate evidence.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I do know you are preconditioned to choose the lowest figure you think you can rationalise. It ain’t a pretty spectacle.

        You might consider that a lot rides on terrestrial and carbon sinks behaving as they have so far. Presumptions about linear reactions in feedbacks.

        Nothing unusual has occurred to date. Given that even Marcott thinks some of the Holocene was warmer than today, we have a fair bit of safety margin on this front.

        “..will no low carbon form of energy become competitive in 80 years of R&D?” It won’t if the FF lobby keeps calling the shots. Maybe we should remove their subsidies and rationally account for their waste NOW?

        Middle Eastern FF interests helped fund the Matt Damon film “Promised Land”, either because they love cinematic art, or because they were hoping to retard inroads into their traditional energy markets from US shale gas. Either way, the effect on the rise of US shale gas has been negligible.

        Not even big oil can prevent the rise of a cheaper form of energy. Only regulatory hostility can do this – witness how Europe, having blocked development of her own shale gas reserves, is now having to turn to coal to stay competitive.

        An ECS of 1.5 is ruled out by palaeoclimate evidence.

        Nonsense, you’re confusing the cart for the horse.

      • Sou says:

        Eric, your calculations assume too much. Firstly, the rate of growth is still accelerating. Secondly, there is no guarantee that the oceans will continue to absorb the same proportion of emissions.

        As far as ‘sustained period’ goes, the only way CO2 could drop would be if human-generated emissions dropped to zero. That’s probably not going to happen. The aim is to get to a stage where emissions just balance out so that radiation out = radiation in and things stabilise. It’ll be hotter than now whatever happens.

        Here’s an explanation – “constant concentrations of CO2 imply a change in emissions – specifically an immediate cut of around 60 to 70% globally and continued further cuts over time. “:

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/climate-change-commitments/langswitch_lang/en/

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The only way you’re going to achieve a 60 – 70% reduction in CO2 emissions in the near to medium term is a large investment in nuclear power. We can and will continue to block meaningful commitment to renewables at the ballot box. Nuclear power is something Watts and Nova support – so by not wholeheartedly pushing for nuclear power, you guys are missing an opportunity to save the world ;-).

      • Nick says:

        Eric,you do nothing but try to parade your passivity as some kind of deliberate and active strategy. Your personal support for NP,and your touting of Watts and Nova’s ‘endorsement’ as some kind of offer or bargaining tool,is empty. Your acceptance,or ‘endorsement’ or active support for FF power is equally hollow…it’s simply acquiescence. You take what you’re given. Get off the grid,or at least feed into the grid,and you’ll get another perspective of what can be achieved.

        Current roll-out and integration of renewables suites,combined with real energy conservation is already making big changes to power demand and CO2 output,and there is amazing room for more. The current gas bubble is sending aging nukes into retirement,,,when the bubble bursts,how many will be able to be redeployed? Watch passively as the FF power play makes your posturing obvious. Get off the grid and get part of some real leveraging.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “a joke out of the 4 – 6c”

        And where, pray tell, did Trenberth say anything about 6C in that citation? You’re not making it up again, Eric, surely? Say it isn’t so.

      • Nick says:

        Eric: “Nothing unusual has occurred to date”

        The Arctic has in 150 years returned to and passed Holocene Optimum conditions.

        Effects on Northern American weather gradients is nothing unusual. Nope.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 767 other followers

%d bloggers like this: