Uncertainty is not our friend: leaked IPCC report confirms climate change still dangerous

gamble

There has been a rash of articles of late claiming the next IPCC report (AR5) will revise the temperature response to increased levels of atmospheric CO2 downwards. Turns out this is not the case, but more on that soon.

This is what I like to call “The Great Climate Sensitivity Debate of 2013″ in which we all rushed out to understand what this once obscure branch of science was about.

The message from the deniers and some sections of the media was that the silly scientists had gotten it wrong, and that the consensus was shifting towards “Things aren’t as bad as we once thought.”

Perhaps the most notorious example of this “bright siding” was this article from the The Economist

Silly, silly scientists!

Panicking us for 30 years only to say “Oops sorry guys we waz wrong! So sorry – our bad!”

Seems this whole flap over climate sensitivity was a pointless distraction, as New Scientist notes:

Can we all stop worrying about global warming? According to a recent rash of stories in the media, the “climate sensitivity” – the extent to which temperatures respond to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – is lower than expected, and thus that the world won’t get as hot as predicted. One story, in The Economist, based on leaked information from a draft of the next assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claims the IPCC will revise its sensitivity estimate downwards when they release their official report this September.

Turns out climate change is still dangerous and something we may wish to prevent:

The bottom line is that there is no new consensus that climate sensitivity is lower than previously thought, says Knutti. The observed trend points to lower values because of the recent slowdown, but other evidence continues to support higher values.

The last IPCC report stated that equilibrium climate sensitivity was between 2 and 4.5 °C, mostly likely 3 °C. The Economist claims the IPCC’s next report will give a figure between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, with no most likely value. The IPCC won’t confirm or deny it, but it’s not a huge change if it is true.

“What matters for avoiding dangerous climate change is the upper end, and that hasn’t changed,” says Knutti. Ward makes the same point. “We can’t afford to gamble on sensitivity definitely being low,” he says.

But will it all be a huge waste if sensitivity does turn out to be low? Far from it. If we don’t cut emissions, Knutti points out, all low sensitivity means is that it will take a decade or two longer for the planet to warm as much as it would if sensitivity was high. “It doesn’t get away from the fact that emissions have to be reduced,” he says.

About these ads
Tagged ,

176 thoughts on “Uncertainty is not our friend: leaked IPCC report confirms climate change still dangerous

  1. […] 2013/07/30: WtD: Uncertainty is not our friend: leaked IPCC report confirms climate change still dan… […]

  2. Did anyone notice the revised AGU statement, http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pdf/position_statements/AGU_Climate_Statement_new.pdf

    Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.

    Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
    “Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
    concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

    Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These
    observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and
    atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers,
    snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with longunderstood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with
    explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

    Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

    Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

    In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year
    to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of
    weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways — some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced
    climate change. Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels. While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

    Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems
    include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts
    Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change,
    working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding
    clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.

  3. Dr No says:

    test only – am missing a comment

    • john byatt says:

      only one link per comment dr and i have lost a few, some links seem to register as spam

      ,

  4. john byatt says:

    the mods at Nova

    Brian G Valentine
    August 3, 2013 at 6:00 am
    you would have made an excellent Nazi and would have enjoyed every minute of Nazi life

    blackadderthe4th
    August 3, 2013 at 6:05 am
    ‘an excellent Nazi’ when you come out with a statement like that, I can only assume you have nothing worthwhile to say! You’ve ran up a dead end and FAILED!

    [you are now entering the snip zone. That is where we moderators remove useless, offensive, antagonistic, snide, vile, stupid, boring, rude, or otherwise not conforming to our rigid set of rules. Back off or you'll start to feel the scissors.] ED

  5. Bill Jamison says:

    Anyone notice (or care) that the Antarctic sea ice anomaly is now greater than 2 STD above average?

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

    • True.

      But global sea ice is at a low.

      The Antarctic growth is far from compensating from the Arctic shrinkage. Mind you, once the Arctic ceases shrinking, if the Antarctic continues to grow, teh Goddard will talk of recovery.

      Also the Antarctic land mass is diminishing.

      • Ok, spot the obvious error. :-) Antarctic’s land mass is not diminishing – but the ice on it is – the land ice.

        The cherry picking is crazy. Take all the ice in the world. Sum it up. It is decreasing.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It was a simple question: Anyone notice (or care) that the Antarctic sea ice anomaly is now greater than 2 STD above average? Nothing else was said nothing implied nothing cherry picked nothing compared to the arctic.

        • john byatt says:

          Makes you wonder what they read into it john (sea ice antarctica expansion)

          now if you ask me if I care about this then yes I do care and we should all be concerned

          http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801142329.htm

        • And my response was a similarly simple.

          In my business background I’d often hear “sales are up in Ohio!” But I’d have to point out to the sales manager that, somehow, he’d glossed over that, overall, his numbers were down.

          Apologies if that sounds harsh.

          I saw similar on other boards yesterday. Coincidentally Willard Tony was running a couple of ice articles then.

        • john byatt says:

          The main problem is that they come here from watts misinformation blog and think they are posting gotchas,
          I think that the first papers on the expansion of antarcica sea ice with global warming go back to 1992,

          but here is one from 1997 anyway

          http://www.sciencemag.org/content/278/5340/1104.short

        • Bill Jamison says:

          There’s no gotcha john. It’s interesting and statistically significant that the sea ice extent for the SH is now greater than 2 STD above normal. That’s it. It’s interesting in context but no one here, and specifically not me, tried to make more out of it than it is. It’s interesting. It’s statistically significant. It’s not a statement about climate change. It’s not a statement about global sea ice. It’s simply a fact, a stat, a snapshot of what’s going on this winter in the SH. Nothing more, nothing less.

          Seems you guys are a little paranoid and defensive.

        • john byatt says:

          This retard at wuwt oblivious to his own ignorance

          “Today, 02 August 2013, the actual area of Antarctic Sea Ice is 1,041 Kkm2 MORE than the year-to-year average of 13,836 Kkm2 at this date. The total of 14,877 Kkm2 of antarctic sea ice is (today) at Lat 62.5 South. Center of today’s “actual” extra sea ice? Lat 62.7.

          Projected area into the sun of this real-life, actually present “new” Antarctic Sea Ice that NO ONE expected nor predicted anywhere in ANY CAGW-theory?
          477 Kkm2″

          watts continues with this crap every year,

          I researched it over five years ago, yet every year they trot it out and say what?

          NO ONE expected nor predicted anywhere in ANY CAGW-theory?

          FFS

        • Did anyone notice the heat record in Greenland?

          Greenland – 80% of which is ice – experienced its highest temperature since records began on Wednesday.

          The new record, 25.9C (78.6F), was measured at Maniitoq Mittarfia near Baffin Bay on the west coast. The previous high was 25.5C (77.9F) at Kangerlussuaq in July 1990, with records dating back to 1958.

        • Let’s test that out.

          Did anyone notice the heat record in Greenland?

          Greenland – 80% of which is ice – experienced its highest temperature since records began on Wednesday.

          The new record, 25.9C (78.6F), was measured at Maniitoq Mittarfia near Baffin Bay on the west coast. The previous high was 25.5C (77.9F) at Kangerlussuaq in July 1990, with records dating back to 1958.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Yes I noticed that record was set in Greenland.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Here’s the data for the last 7 data for that station in Greenland. It’s cooled off quite a bit since the record was set from the high 70’s to the mid 50’s.

          http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxobservations.pl?site=BGMQ&days=7

      • Did anyone notice the lower troposphere is the warmest it has been in five years?

    • Dr No says:

      Anyone notice (or care) that:

      Canberra is headed for its warmest winter on record http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/canberras-warmest-july-on-record-20130801-2r1cv.html
      ·
      Tasmania’s is experiencing a winter heatwave
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-01/tasmanian-winter-heatwave-breaks-records/4860040?section=tas
      ·
      Climate change is occurring 10 times faster than at any time in the past 65 million years
      http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-08/su-cco073113.php
      ·
      Arctic sea-ice loss is having widespread effects on wildlife http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-08/ps-asl072613.php

      Heat-related deaths in Australia are set to quadruple http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/01/2390701/heat-deaths-australia-global-heat-waves/

      These are simply facts, statistics, a snapshot of what’s going on. Nothing more, nothing less.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Australia is “set” to quadruple? No, that’s just a prediction of what could happen.

        “Australia’s major cities could see four times the number of heat-related deaths by 2050, according to a new report commissioned by the Australian federal government.”

        How many deaths from cold will be prevented? Did you know there are significantly more deaths in winter than in summer?

        • Hmm, in the US there are many more heat deaths than cold deaths.http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats.shtml

          Where do you get your data from?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Those are deaths specifically attributed to heat and cold and don’t take into account that MANY more people die during the winter. It’s not just the cold it’s diseases, heart attacks, etc. That’s true for every developed country from what I can find. My claim comes from the Australian government. The good news is that that excess winter mortality has dropped in the last decade – due to warming? The thing I find most interesting is that more people used to die in summer 150 years ago.

          http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442453159

        • So it’s not really all that relevant to manmade global warming then. The winter also includes shorter days, which have nothing to do with warming. A century ago fewer people had air conditioning, or antibiotics.

          If you can find a paper claiming global warming will save lives do cite it.

        • john byatt says:

          The simple fact is that you can be as warm as toast all winter and still get the flu or have a heart attack.

          sheesh

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john byatt you so often don’t grasp the simplest things. Like in this case: more people die in the winter than the summer. That includes heart attacks. Yes you can have a fatal heart attack any time of the year but the fact is that MORE people die of heart attacks and other causes during the WINTER. Yes the days will always be shorter but unless you can come up with some reason why people die because the days are shorter then that point is irrelevant.

          Just Google “excess winter mortality” and you’ll find plenty of evidence that significantly more people die during winter months than summer months.

          JHS it’s interesting to read that Australia has 500 heat related deaths and yet the US only has an average of 117 even though our population is 15 times that of Australia. That’s particularly interesting since we have millions of people living in areas where the summer temperature often reach 115F or more (44C). If the death toll from heat related caused quadruples in the US by 2050 it would still be less than what Australia experiences now. Fascinating.

        • john byatt says:

          really, we are comparing deaths purely due to the cold as opposed to deaths purely due to heat,

          adding in deaths due to influenza and heart attacks is idiotic

          interesting research for you, where in australia do these cold related heart attacks mostly occur and what is the reason?

        • john byatt says:

          the surge in flu deaths in the northern territory are in april and march,

          it ain’t winter and it ain’t cold

          http://www.health.nt.gov.au/Flu/

        • john byatt says:

          correction surge in flu cases

        • john byatt says:

          heart attacks kill nearly three times as many people (per capita) living in new guinea than new zealand, you cold/ heart attack link is stupidity

          http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/8112131ec008.pdf?expires=1375840103&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=0B238BE99B1EB3BBE2E79E8D7CDECACB

        • john byatt says:

          “Study objective: To investigate the association between cold periods and coronary events, and the extent to which climate, sex, age, and previous cardiac history increase risk during cold weather.

          Design: A hierarchical analyses of populations from the World Health Organisation’s MONICA project.

          Setting: Twenty four populations from the WHO’s MONICA project, a 21 country register made between 1980 and 1995.

          Patients: People aged 35–64 years who had a coronary event.

          Main results: Daily rates of coronary events were correlated with the average temperature over the current and previous three days. In cold periods, coronary event rates increased more in populations living in warm climates than in populations living in cold climates, where the increases were slight. The increase was greater in women than in men, especially in warm climates. On average, the odds for women having an event in the cold periods were 1.07 higher than the odds for men (95% posterior interval: 1.03 to 1.11). The effects of cold periods were similar in those with and without a history of a previous myocardial infarction.

          Conclusions: Rates of coronary events increased during comparatively cold periods, especially in warm climates. The smaller increases in colder climates suggest that some events in warmer climates are preventable. It is suggested that people living in warm climates, particularly women, should keep warm on cold days”.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Hey JHS see if you can spot the reason why that article mistakenly claimed that heat related deaths would quadruple by 2050. Here’s the source report:

          https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/mcu/soac/files/2013_08_INFRA1782_MCU_SOAC_CHAPTER_4_WEB_FA.pdf

          One stat I think you should note: Since 1890 there’s been a total of 2,887 deaths from heatwaves in Australia. Obviously that statistic didn’t fit well with the claim in the article you linked that says:

          “The State of Australian Cities, which was released Tuesday, predicts the number of heat-related fatalities in Australia’s cities will rise to 2000 by mid-centry, compared to the approximately 500 recorded in 2011.”

          I’ll help you with the math – Australia has averaged just under 24 heatwave related deaths annually since 1890.

        • john byatt says:

          bills claim that cold causes heart attacks is nonsense, it is the change of temperature and thermoregulation

          heart attacks increase in heat waves as well

          http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/storynew?id=120081&page=1

          most hot weather heart attacks go unreported as due to heat

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john byatt I mentioned heart attacks as just one way people die in winter. Here in the US it’s not at all uncommon for people to die of heart attacks during the winter when they try to shovel snow. That’s ONE example. The stats are clear: more people die in the winter than summer. Stopping try to focus on just one thing that can kill people. We all know the basic causes for people to die in the winter. You can’t refute the fact that significantly more people die in the winter than summer.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Even the Australian Climate Commission talks about winter related deaths:

          “…if winters in some temperate countries become milder, then the usual seasonal excess of winter-time deaths from heart attacks and stroke should decrease. ”

          Keep trying to deny the link jb

        • john byatt says:

          do they also state that heart attacks from summer heat waves will also decrease,

          now you want to add exertion to the winter deaths.

          any chance we can add summer drownings?

          change of temps cause heart attacks and there are less cold weather heart attacks per capita in cold climates than in warm climates,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          jb the issue isn’t just heart attacks, why can’t you get that? Heart attacks and strokes are just examples of ways people die more frequently in winter. The issue is that more people die during the winter. A warming climate may reduce those excess deaths – just like the Australian Climate Commission stated. They understand it why can’t you???

          I can’t help but notice you’re completely ignoring the false claim that deaths will quadruple to 2000 per year in 2050.

        • john byatt says:

          You made it an issue

          it ain’t the cold and it ain’t shovelling snow

          http://www.nbcnews.com/health/heart-attacks-more-deadly-winter-its-not-cold-1C6895167

        • john byatt says:

          NEWS FLASH

          we will still have a winter season in 2100

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Hey jb did you read this?

          “Conclusions: Rates of coronary events increased during comparatively cold periods, especially in warm climates.”

          Not sure why you want to shift the focus from the fact that more people die during the winter (“excess winter deaths”) than in the summer. That’s the issue here. Warmer winters may reduce the number of deaths yet the only thing people focus on is predictions of more heat related deaths. The question is when (really IF) the number of heat related deaths ever evens out the death rate on a monthly basis.

          JHS linked to an article that erroneously made the claim that heat related deaths would quadruple to 2,000 annually in Australia yet there have only been 2,887 heat related deaths in 123 years!

          Amazing how some people can’t spot the obvious error or if they do they don’t mention it. Typical alarmist crap.

        • john byatt says:

          yes and sudden heat waves have the same effect thermoregulation

          from the report fig 4.1

          2050 heat related deaths australian cities

          brisbane nearly 800
          perth nearly 800
          sydney 250
          adelaid 250
          act 180
          melb/tas 40

          so the projection of 2000 is conservative but allows for increase in population

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Well jb you proved you can’t read that chart any better than the person that wrote the article for thinkprogress!

          Try reading the TEXT to help you understand the chart. BTW they used the WRONG type of chart to convey the information which is unfortunate so I can understand why someone like you would misinterpret it. Maybe they wanted people to misinterpret it?

          Of course you can’t take one data point – deaths from a heatwave in 2011 – and then extrapolate out how many might die annually in 2050. As I’ve already stated there have only been 2,878 total heat related deaths in Australia since 1890. That’s an average of 24 per year.

        • john byatt says:

          nearly half of them perished in just three events, your average is stupidity

          Major heatwaves are Australia’s deadliest natural hazards, particularly for cities. Major
          heatwaves have caused more deaths since 1890 than bushfires, cyclones, earthquakes,
          floods and severe storms combined (Table 4-1). As discussed in State of Australian Cities
          2011, the 2009 heatwave endured by south east Australia caused over 400 deaths in
          Melbourne and Adelaide alone and more than 400 people perished in each of the 1939 and
          1895 heatwaves.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Averages are stupid? Why jb, because they’re inconvenient in this case?

          You nailed it though with your quote: “the 2009 heatwave endured by south east Australia caused over 400 deaths in Melbourne and Adelaide alone and more than 400 people perished in each of the 1939 and 1895 heatwaves.”

          So there’s only been one extremely deadly heatwave in Australia in the last 70 years. Knowing that you still think that somehow it will jump to 2,000 killed every year? Really?

          Did you read the text to see your mistake jb??? It’s right there, all you have to do is read it then you’ll understand how you misinterpreted the chart.

        • john byatt says:

          yer really

          Various climate change scenarios for Australia show that heatwaves are predicted to
          increase in frequency, geographic spread and duration. Pricewaterhouse Coopers undertook
          a study in collaboration with the Australian Government using excess heat factor (EHF) to
          forecast heatwave impacts. The results are summarised in Figure 4-1, which shows that
          heatwave-related deaths (from major heatwave events) in Australia’s cities are predicted to
          more than double in the next 40 years as a result of climate change, population growth and
          an ageing population (Pricewaterhouse Coopers 2011).
          Studies have found that those at high risk from heatwaves include the elderly (Hansen et
          al. 2011), people who live alone (Zhang et al. 2013), the socially disadvantaged such as
          those on lower incomes or the homeless (CSIRO 2011) and those with underlying medical
          conditions (Nitschke et al. 2011). With our ageing population, heat vulnerability will increase:
          Chapter 5 of this report notes that by 2056 most capital cities, with the exception of Darwin,
          are estimated to have at least 19 per cent of their populations aged over 65.• 190 •
          Department of Infrastructure and Transport • Major Cities Unit
          People living in cities, particularly those in Australia’s inland cities, can be more susceptible
          than non-urban dwellers to the effects of heatwaves as a result of the urban heat island
          (UHI) effect. This is caused by the prevalence in cities of heat-absorbing materials such as
          dark coloured pavements and roofs, concrete, urban canyons trapping hot air, and a lack
          of shade and green space in dense urban environments. It can result in substantially higher
          average temperatures (particularly overnight) than surrounding non-urban areas (VCOSS
          2013). Heatwaves also affect cities by causing blackouts and accelerating the ageing of
          infrastructure (CSIRO 2011).
          Figure 4-1 Estimated annual average number of heat-related deaths, selected
          capital cities and States/Territories, 2011–2050

          the more than double is for capital cities only

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Okay nice job jb you quoted the correct part. But did you SEE the important quote? Since you didn’t mention it or bold it I’m guessing you missed it completely and still don’t understand what is wrong with the graphic in figure 4.1. That’s a shame, I assumed you had better critical thinking skills than you apparently do.

          Just ask if you can’t figure it out for yourself. Of course that’s just ONE problem with the claim.

        • john byatt says:

          you cannot be this stupid

          “Of course you can’t take one data point – deaths from a heatwave in 2011 – and then extrapolate out how many might die annually in 2050.”

          who said they did ?

          and then he says
          that you can extrapolate if you look at the past?

          “So there’s only been one extremely deadly heatwave in Australia in the last 70 years.

          ignores the temperature trend and the projected increases in in extreme heat events,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          hehe still can’t figure out your mistake huh jb??? Seriously, just ask and I’ll tell you.

          So you think “averages are stupid” but you think it’s okay to take one heatwave in the last 70 years and assume things will get 4 times worse than that? Did you even bother to figure out how much the per capita death rate would have to increase?

          Consider this: The United States has right about 15 times the population of Australia (14.36 to be exact). Based on the chart that you and JHS so kindly linked you can see that about 120 people per year die due to heat related causes. For Australia to have 2,000 heat related deaths per year in 2050 the per capita death rate would have to be about 15 to 20 times that of the US.

          Here’s the math: Current US deaths due to heat = ~120/yr out of total population of 311 million = one out of every 2.59 million people.

          Australia projected population in 2050 is ~35 million (middle projection). 2,000 deaths due to heat annually works out to one in every 175,000 people.

          That works out to a rate 14.8 times higher than the current rate in the US.

          Australia’s current annual death due to heat per capita is one in 960,000 based on current population of 22 million and annual average of 24.

          You also seemed to ignore the fact that significantly more people were killed per capita in the previous two heatwaves than the current one since Australia’s population was obviously significantly lower in 1939 and younger too.

          If 2,000 people per year are dying from heat related causes in 2050 in Australia then the annual average will have increased by 5,000% and the per capita rate will have increase by 640%.

          C’mon jb try some critical thinking here and see why these claims are so ridiculous.

        • john byatt says:

          You seriously proposing to compare australian heat wave projected deaths in 2050 with current deaths in the US?

          just looking at forty US cities

          http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/killer-heat/files/killer-summer-heat-report.pdf

          This report analyzes the results of independent peer-reviewed scientific papers and presents the findings of
          increasing heat-related mortality due to global warming for the 40 largest U.S. cities. The conclusions were
          reached by determining the sensitivity of the populations of each city to extreme heat events and then applying
          that sensitivity to a projection for midcentury and end-of-century climate conditions.
          Our findings indicate that rising temperatures driven by unabated climate change will increase the number of
          life-threatening excessive heat events, resulting in thousands of additional heat-related premature deaths each
          year, with a cumulative toll of approximately 33,000 additional heat-related deaths by midcentury in these cities,
          and more than 150,000 additional heat-related deaths by the century’s end.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Yes jb I’m comparing actual data. Projections are just that. They aren’t real. Especially projections from an advocacy group like NRDC. Of course they want to project the worst case scenario. Is that peer-reviewed? No I didn’t think so.

          Still haven’t figured out your mistake jb? C’mon man I’ve given you plenty of time. It’s not that hard. As I said the key is right there in the text you cut and paste, all you have to do is READ.

        • john byatt says:

          and if you think that it is only happening in australia then read this

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-07/climate-report-warns-extreme-weather-events-are-now-norm/4869646

          you can tell them were they got it wrong twit,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          BTW jb that NRDC analysis you linked proves my point. The key in the quote you included is “cumulative”. It’s not 33,000 per year that’s the projected cumulative increase by mid-century. Their projected annual increase is 2,648 (make sure you look at the “mortality per summer” column). I’m not sure what the total population for those 40 cities is but it’s obviously several times that of Australia and with future growth it would possibly be more like 100 million.

          So they’re projecting about a 20 times per capita increase in the US which is still significantly less than the 50 times you’re thinking the Australian report projects.

          If that’s the case why aren’t we seeing that now? Why aren’t we already seeing a substantial annual increase? Why only one deadly heatwave in the last 70 years in Australia?

        • As earlier, If you can find a paper claiming global warming will save lives do cite it.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          The data in that NRDC report seems suspect to say the least haha. Look at Louisville, Ky: Current EHE days:8 projected change: -3 Projected EHE days by mid-century: 5

          So they’re projecting that there will be 3 fewer Excessive Heat Event days per year. Sounds good right? Now look at the projected deaths:

          Louisville, Ky historical average: 39 projected by mid-century: 218 projected by end of century: 257

          HUH??? 3 fewer EHE days will lead to more than 5 times as many deaths??? That error accounts for more than 10% of the total increase they project!

          Shoddy work to say the least.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Have YOU figured out the mistake in the thinkprogress story you linked JHS??? Hopefully you can figure it out before jb does. He seems incapable of critical thinking and recognizing what’s right in front of him (especially considering he actually copied and pasted the pertinent sentence).

        • Or…the so-called sceptic might just be wrong. Shoddy scepticism is worse than none at all.

        • john byatt says:

          we know it is culmulative, it says so and it is only forty cities, how hard is this?

          there are a large number of US cities with populations over 100,000

          http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108676.html

          and if you make claims provide links,

          what is it with the repeating everything back ?

        • john byatt says:

          why do i get the feeling that bill is just going to repeat something that i have already said?

        • john byatt says:

          “BTW jb that NRDC analysis you linked proves my point.”

          then he claims the NRDC report is dodgy”3 fewer EHE days will lead to more than 5 times as many deaths”

          might be because the heat wave days will be much hotter?,

          1/10 for critical thinking

        • Bill Jamison says:

          jb my point is that the NDRC report shows far fewer deaths per capita than what you’re claiming is projected for Australia. Of course that report also claims the annual average for those 40 cities is already 1,332 which is about 10 times higher than the official total for the entire US. They claim the total will double which means the per capita rate won’t double since the population of those cities is projected to increase about 50%. You do the math. It’s something like a per capita increase from one in 36,000 to one in 24,000. That’s an increase of about 150% per capita.

        • john byatt says:

          everyone is wrong according to Bill, the aust government, price waterhouse and NRDC,

          not to mention JHS and climate progress

          bill , you are the one who is wrong.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          “might be because the heat wave days will be much hotter?”

          Really? Is that your excuse? Louisville currently averages 5 deaths per EHE and you think it’s going to go up 10 times that to 50 per EHE because it’s a degree or two hotter? Yet no other city in the US shows that magnitude of increase? I suppose Louisville is just special huh jb?

          Wow you really don’t have critical thinking skills or even basic logic.

        • john byatt says:

          bill you are trying to compare cities that will have different projected outcomes from global warming, some more prone others with more older inhabitants etc.

          what are the projections for 2050 anomaly Australia versus USA for instance, and then for each city

          the global outcomes will not be the same effect everywhere

          your claims are nonsense unless like NRDC, the aust gov and price waterhouse you take all things into consideration

          do your paper and put it in for review.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Are you and JHS and thinkprogress wrong? Absolutely!

          Don’t believe me? I didn’t think you would. Here’s the proof. The chart from the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report showing projected annual heat related deaths:

          http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1965/p5ma.jpg

          Not even close.

          Text from the report:

          “Our model indicates that, based on the 2011 population,
          there are an average of approximately 80 excess deaths
          associated with heat events each year across the major
          capital cities.4 Taking into account changes in population
          size and demographic composition, we estimate this
          annual average number of heat-related deaths will
          increase to between 120 and 130 in 2030, and to
          between 170 and 200 in 2050
          . As Figure 3 illustrates,
          we estimate Brisbane and Melbourne will account for
          the majority of heat-related deaths in 2030 and 2050.”

          Current is about 80 and projected for 2050 is between 170 and 200. That’s the “more than double” in the text that jb quoted:

          “The results are summarised in Figure 4-1, which shows that heatwave-related deaths (from major heatwave events) in Australia’s cities are predicted to more than double in the next 40 years as a result of climate change, population growth and an ageing population (Pricewaterhouse Coopers 2011).”

          Except Figure 4-1 is wrong. It doesn’t match the chart from the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report:

          http://www.pwc.com.au/industry/government/assets/extreme-heat-events-nov11.pdf

          The caption for Figure 4-1 is “Estimated annual average number of heat-related deaths, selected capital cities and States/Territories, 2011–2050″ but that’s wrong. What it attempts to show is projected deaths from extreme heat events – heatwaves. Not annual heat related deaths. But they didn’t even get that right. So the chart is wrong and the caption is wrong.

          If any of you guys from from Australia you might want to bring it to someone’s attention.

        • john byatt says:

          lets us know when you work out your balls up

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I should have included this paragraph from the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report:

          “Population growth alone suggests that deaths associated with top heat events are likely to more than double by 2050 if we do not improve the way we handle these events (Figure 1).”

          While jb termed my use of average annual heat related deaths as “stupidity”, Pricewaterhouse Coopers explained as follows:

          “The average captures years that may have only minor heat events, as well as years like 2009, which experience extreme heat events with significant levels of associated mortality.”

          Anyway there’s a lot of data in there you can analyze for yourself. When you factor in population growth and ageing population it’s not surprising, in fact it’s expected, that the number of heat related deaths would increase over time. The whole issue is how much more will it increase due to more extreme heat events.

          Personally I find the Pricewaterhouse Coopers projections to be meaningless since they don’t give a range of projections and don’t state what model scenario was used for future warming. Obviously a 1C increase by 2050 would give a different result than a 2C or 3C increase.

        • john byatt says:

          it is too long for me to download but does look like bill’s figures are correct

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Thank you for acknowledging that john!

          The report from the Australian Department of Infrastructure needs to be corrected IMO. Both the chart in Figure 4-1 and the caption are incorrect.

        • john byatt says:

          then again PWC

          During the 2009 Victorian bushfires, 173 people perished as a direct result of the bushfires, however 374 people lost their lives to extreme heat during the same week.

          PwC Principal Roger Beale AO says, “Deaths associated with heat events are likely to double by 2050 if we don’t change the way these events are handled as the population grows and ages.”

          Climate projections show heat events are expected to occur more often and with greater intensity in the future.

          In Melbourne, for instance, the number of heatwave days could more than triple by 2050 and the overall heat effect of these events could increase by a factor of 5, having even more devastating impacts than those heat events previously experienced.

        • john byatt says:

          During the 2009 Victorian bushfires, 173 people perished as a direct result of the bushfires, however 374 people lost their lives to extreme heat during the same week.

          to say that the culmulative total by 2050 would only be 2000 is claiming only six such events in the next 37 years non more sever than the 2009 event

          and that has to cover all capital cities

        • Bill Jamison says:

          jb the 2000 figure wasn’t cumulative.

          “The State of Australian Cities, which was released Tuesday, predicts the number of heat-related fatalities in Australia’s cities will rise to 2000 by mid-centry, compared to the approximately 500 recorded in 2011.”

          I think they got the 2,000 figure by adding up all of the values in Figure 4-1. In the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report they specifically mention that you shouldn’t add the values since extreme heat events don’t impact the entire country at once.

        • john byatt says:

          there is no rule which prevents more than one heatwave per year, it is quite common for both adelaide and melbourne to experience heatwaves in the same year and they will increase over next decades.

          as i said i cannot down load report, too slow at moment

          http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/heatwaves-australias-big-killer-report/story-e6frfku9-1226688348204

          price waterhouse does not seem to have corrected anything to date from the news reports.

          nothing to correct?

        • john byatt says:

          managed to download pwc report this morning and can see what bill is saying from fig3, but it does state that these figures of annual averages may mask the true effect

          “Working with support from the Commonwealth Government and the Bureau of Meteorology,
          PwC has demonstrated that heatwaves have led to considerable excess deaths in Melbourne,
          Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Perth over the past 50 years. These deaths are likely to
          increase with population growth, ageing and climate change. By 2050 an extreme heat event in
          Melbourne alone could typically kill over one thousand people in a few days if we don’t improve
          the way we forecast, prepare for and manage these events. It is likely that Brisbane would face
          a similar death toll, with Adelaide, Sydney and Perth also increasingly impacted. To put this in
          perspective 173 people died in the Black Saturday fires in Victoria in 2009 and 35 in the floods
          in Queensland in 2010-11. However more than 370 people died from extreme heat in Victoria
          in the same week as the Black Saturday fires. The morbidity impacts from future extreme heat
          events are likely to also be very large. Those who are affected come disproportionally from the
          vulnerable groups in our community

          comparing averages to possible extreme events?

        • Bill Jamison says:

          When you’re talking about “xxx number of people killed annually” then of course you’re talking averages. Just like in 2009 and also in 1939, extreme events will kill substantially more people. I think I read somewhere – not sure if it was in the PWC report or the Australia Dept of Infrastructure report – that an extreme heat event could kill over 1,000 in Melbourne or Brisbane in 2050. That makes sense considering the projected population increase and ageing population. Even if the climate in 2050 wasn’t warmer than it is today then you’ll have significantly more people killed by the same magnitude heat event as 2009.

          Anyway the point is that Figure 4-1 and the caption for that figure are WRONG. This has resulted in people erroneously reporting that projected annual heat related deaths in Australia in 2050 will be 2,000. That’s about 10 times the actual projection of annual heat related deaths.

  6. john byatt says:

    test

  7. john byatt says:

    not just wrong but it looks fraudulent

    watts as usual

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/observe-closely/

  8. john byatt says:

    Climate Change Occurring Ten Times Faster Than at Any Time in Past 65 Million Years
    Aug. 1, 2013 — The planet is undergoing one of the largest changes in climate since the dinosaurs went extinct. But what might be even more troubling for humans, plants and animals is the speed of the change. Stanford climate scientists warn that the likely rate of change over the next century will be at least 10 times quicker than any climate shift in the past 65 million years.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801142420.htm

    • Bill Jamison says:

      That’s an interesting report. I know Greenland ice cores show dramatic and sudden climatic changes in a period of only a decade or two so it’s surprising they would make that claim:

      As seen in Figure 1, the ice core record showed frequent sudden warmings and coolings of 15°F (8°C) or more. Many of these changes happened in less than 10 years. In one case 11,600 years ago, when Earth emerged from the final phase of the most recent ice age (an event called the Younger Dryas), the Greenland ice core data showed that a 15°F (8°C) warming occurred in less than a decade, accompanied by a doubling of snow accumulation in 3 years. Most of this doubling occurred in a single year.
      http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp

      Imagine if that happened today!

      • john byatt says:

        you may be confusing Greenland changes with global changes

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I had no idea that Greenland ice cores could tell us so much about GLOBAL changes. Did you know that changes in methane in Greenland ice cores indicate changes in wetlands across the globe? Or that dust in ice cores tells scientists about drought conditions in Asia? Of course scientists also match up ice cores from Greenland with those from Antarctica and other locations where possible to provide a better picture of abrupt climate changes that were global.

          Fascinating!

        • john byatt says:

          yes it is but you are looking at the 10 year changes in Greenland,

          my science daily link is global

          the paper wunderground indicates that other places experienced change at similar times but the paper does not claim that they were also over one decade periods,

          As you know your Quote only applies to Greenland ,

          read a few of the papers cited, some places seem to have missed out on some of those changes

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john you don’t think the Younger Dryas was global??? You might want to read up on it en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

          There’s even some new research out that indicates it may have been Greenland melting that trigger the abrupt cooling:

          http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/greenland-icebergs-global-cooling-130801.htm

        • john byatt says:

          quote me to back that claim

        • The latest is that the YD was due to an impact. The NH cooled. The SH stayed about the same. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23536567

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john I was discussing abrupt climate change and mentioned the indications that Greenland cooled dramatically in a decade or less. You then tried to claim those changes were – which happen to be associated with the Younger Dryas – “looking at the 10 year changes in Greenland”. The Greenland ice cores indicate more than just the temperature and precipitation in Greenland. Dust from Asia indicates drought and heatwaves in Asia for example. Increased methane levels indicate increasing wetlands in tropical areas. The Greenland ice cores tell scientists more than just regional temperature changes. In addition, other proxy records show that the Younger Dryas was a global feature and not isolated to Greenland.

          Proxy records such as the Greenland and Antarctica ice cores indicate previous times of abrupt climate change. I’m not sure why this new article you linked would claim that current changes are happening faster than any time in the last 65 million years when we have evidence of dramatic and abrupt climate change as recently as 13,000 years ago.

        • john byatt says:

          put all your evidence for non cataclysmic global climate changes over the past 65 million years and compare

          abstract

          Terrestrial ecosystems have encountered substantial warming over the past century, with temperatures increasing about twice as rapidly over land as over the oceans. Here, we review the likelihood of continued changes in terrestrial climate, including analyses of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project global climate model ensemble. Inertia toward continued emissions creates potential 21st-century global warming that is comparable in magnitude to that of the largest global changes in the past 65 million years but is orders of magnitude more rapid. The rate of warming implies a velocity of climate change and required range shifts of up to several kilometers per year, raising the prospect of daunting challenges for ecosystems, especially in the context of extensive land use and degradation, changes in frequency and severity of extreme events, and interactions with other stresses

          please, we want papers that support any claims

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Why do you put the qualifier “non cataclysmic”? The issue is about abrupt climate change regardless of the cause.

        • john byatt says:

          well if you wish to include meteor strikes and volcanic upheavals do so , we will just ignore you

        • All this sounds reminds me of conversations with teenage drivers a generation ago. Wearing a seatbelt isn’t going to help me if I drive off a cliff. Avoiding the avoidable whilst acknowledging the unavoidable seems common sense to me.

          We might not be able to avoid an asteroid strike, We can avoid heating our own planet.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          It must be incredibly frustrating for you guys that believe the earth is going to undergo massive changes that will have catastrophic impacts on man and the biosphere. I mean I don’t see you guys actually doing much about it but you sure do stress about what *might* happen.

        • It’s happening now. NOAA’s CEI tracks upwards. Weather related insurance claims track upwards. CO2 is having an effect now.

          What I get from the escapists is “look at the Younger Dryas, that was more dramatic” – as if one event disproves another. It’s the escapists who use the possibility of another YD, an event that might happen, as in some way negating a man made process that is clearly happening.

        • john byatt says:

          They simply ignore the real possibility that past dramatic changes may have been thousands of years in the making and what they are seeing are the results of tipping points being reached, quite a few papers as evidence for that,

          paleoclimate tipping points

        • Bill Jamison says:

          You obviously didn’t understand the claim made. The new paper makes the claim that the climate is changing faster than any time in the last 65 million years. I have strong doubts that is true and the Younger Dryas is just one example. It’s not a comment on climate change in general – it’s specific to the claim made in the new paper.

        • It must be incredibly frustrating to find the evidence against denial mounting. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-far-can-climate-change-go

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Not quite sure why you would call that article “evidence against denial”. Did you notice the claim that the earth could warm by 5C by 2100? Well sure it COULD warm by that much. But why wouldn’t the author use a value that’s in the range predicted by the latest IPCC report where they claim ” the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C”. Yes 5C is within the range of possible outcomes but why mention an increase that’s higher that the best estimate???

          http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-5.html

          Seems to me that statement alone shows the author’s bias.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Not at all john. Unfortunately most places around the world don’t have the same type of proxy records to indicate how quickly the climate has changed in the past. That’s why ice cores are so interesting.

  9. john byatt says:

    BREAKING NEWS: Greenland has just measured its hottest temperature on record July 30th with a reading of 25.9°C (78.6°F) at Maniitoq Mittarfia during a foehn event. The previous Greenland record was 25.5°C (77.9°F) at Kangerlussuaq on July 27, 1990.

    Christopher C. Burt
    Weather Historian

    • Meanwhile the nothingupmysleevepromiseguvzone is trumpeting falling Arctic surface temperatures. Nero would buy them a new fiddle. The penny has not dropped as to what happens to the surface when ice is melting. Maybe they should take an ice cube tray out and put their hand just over it.

      Seriously. Clock http://notrickszone.com/2013/07/28/cooling-poles-top-3-coldest-arctic-summers-will-have-all-occurred-in-past-5-years/

    • Bill Jamison says:

      If the thread on Melbourne’s record warm July Chris stated that records that only go back 70 years don’t count or at least aren’t significant. Only records that go back for 150 years like Melbourne’s count apparently. So that’s means this record in Greenland should count.

      Right?

      • john byatt says:

        If you are going to state something that someone else has said, especially on a different thread then it would be polite to quote it in full and link to it,

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Should I just copy and paste the entire thread for you john? After all that’s what you would do – and you wouldn’t provide a link.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Seems that a new record high temperature record WASN’T set in Greenland after all. First, the 25.9C reading for Maniitoq has been changed. The reading from the nearby town is the official temperature for the day.

      In addition it turns out that a reading of 30C was recorded long before that in Ivigtut:

      http://pendientedemigracion.ucm.es/info/cif/station/gr-ivigt.htm

      See the 30 value in the column M’i on the Climatic Data screen or select ‘Temperature Diagram’ and look at the light green light indicating record high temperature by month.

      From what I can find that record was supposedly set on June 23th,1915 but I can’t confirm that. The record of 30.1C is also shown here:

      http://www.meteorologyclimate.com/extreme-temperature-records.htm

      Google “Ivigtut 30.1″ and you find several sources that claim that is the record for highest temperature ever recorded in Greenland.

      So it seems we have another hyped non-event.

      • john byatt says:

        thanks bill

        anyone find this interesting?

        Ivigtut data ended in 1966

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=431042610010&dt=1&ds=14

        • john byatt says:

          record high temperatures are becoming normal events and not attracting much news attention any longer

          at neven Arctic sea ice blog

          We started building our house on the day the thermometer went over the all-time record for Austria, which had been broken last week. From 39.7° C in July 1983, to 39.9° C last week, to 40.6° C the day before yesterday.

          It was good to be away from the computer for two days, but it takes me a while to catch up. I’ll publish a new blog post tonight or tomorrow.

          Posted by: Neven | August 10, 2013 at 12:45

  10. john byatt says:

    bill “The new lower sensitivity estimates and tighter constraints would mean that projections of more than 6C warming are not realistic. That should be easy enough for even you to understand.”

    Uncertainty in temperature projections reduced using carbon cycle and climate observations

    Roger W. Bodman, Peter J. Rayner & David J. Karoly
    AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
    Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1903
    Received 19 June 2012 Accepted 15 April 2013 Published online 26 May 2013
    Article tools
    Citation
    Reprints
    Rights & permissions
    Article metrics
    The future behaviour of the carbon cycle is a major contributor to uncertainty in temperature projections for the twenty-first century1, 2. Using a simplified climate model3, we show that, for a given emission scenario, it is the second most important contributor to this uncertainty after climate sensitivity, followed by aerosol impacts. Historical measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations4 have been used along with global temperature observations5 to help reduce this uncertainty. This results in an increased probability of exceeding a 2 °C global–mean temperature increase by 2100 while reducing the probability of surpassing a 6 °C threshold for non-mitigation scenarios such as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A1B and A1FI scenarios6, as compared with projections from the Fourth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate sensitivity, the response of the carbon cycle and aerosol effects remain highly uncertain but historical observations of temperature and carbon dioxide imply a trade–off between them so that temperature projections are more certain than they would be considering each factor in isolation. As well as pointing out the promise from the formal use of observational constraints in climate projection, this also highlights the need for an holistic view of uncertainty.

    “the response of the carbon cycle and aerosol effects remain highly uncertain but historical observations of temperature and carbon dioxide imply a trade–off between them so that temperature projections are more certain than they would be considering each factor in isolation”

    the study is not about sensitivity you retard

    • john byatt says:

      sorry, you are referring to the two papers,

      so what have you got

      1 an extra 15 years to reach the same temperature

      2 a paper that reinforces the IPCC SREX certainty level that temperature will not exceed 6DegC by 2100 on the two emission scenarios,

      you missed one of the authors comments on that 2nd paper

      Professor Karoly said the study reinforced the importance of strong action on climate change.

      “Our results reconfirm the need for urgent and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if the world is to avoid exceeding the global warming target of 2 degrees needed to minimise dangerous climate change,” he said.

      neither paper discounts a future temperature rise of 6DegC

    • Bill Jamison says:

      john go back and read my statement:

      “The latest research is in good agreement that the extreme high temperature estimates of previous IPCC reports is very likely implausible. That’s definitely good news.”

      Can you find any recent research to contradict that claim? Of course you can’t. Stop being stupid. If I said the sky is blue you would argue and then call me names. What a jerk.

      • john byatt says:

        So it is all about IPCC bashing is it,

        “This results in an increased probability of exceeding a 2 °C global–mean temperature increase by 2100 while reducing the probability of surpassing a 6 °C threshold for non-mitigation scenarios such as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A1B and A1FI scenarios6, as compared with projections from the Fourth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

        and you read it as “the extreme high temperature estimates of previous IPCC reports is very likely implausible.

        the IPCC AR4 has 4DegC as the 2100 temperature

        the Special report

        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/carousel/nclimate1903-f1.jpg

        also has 4DegC

        The blue shadings are confidence levels that temperatures will not be below or above 4DegC

        the bloody paper backs these confidence levels

        • john byatt says:

          bottom line is that the new estimates are 2 to 6 degrees by 2100
          which is why one of the authors

          Professor Karoly said the study reinforced the importance of strong action on climate change.

          “Our results reconfirm the need for urgent and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if the world is to avoid exceeding the global warming target of 2 degrees needed to minimise dangerous climate change,” .

          don’t believe anything that willard tells you, the danger level is not above six degrees , it is above 2 degrees

  11. john byatt says:

    We published a paper in Nature Geoscience on Sunday giving a new best-estimate of 1.3°C for the Transient Climate Response, or the warming expected at the time carbon dioxide reaches double its pre-industrial concentration, using data from the most recent climate observations.This best-estimate is lower than the HadGEM2 TCR value of 2.5°C and it is also 30% lower than the multi-model average of 1.8°C of the CMIP5 models used in the current IPCC assessment. Does this mean that the Met Office’s advice to government is based on a flawed model? Certainly not.

    It is well acknowledged by all that the HadGEM2 model is at the top end of the range of TCR values in CMIP5, but we need a diverse range of TCR values to represent the uncertainties in our understanding of climate system processes. And the Met Office’s advice to government, like any solid policy advice, is based on the range of results from different models, not just their own.

    Our study implies a 5-95% confidence interval for the transient climate response of 0.9-2°C compared to the range of 1-2.5°C represented by the CMIP5 models. Acknowledging these uncertainties makes the differences look a bit less game-changing: results from the most recent decade appear to exclude the top 1/3rd of the CMIP5 range, but the TCR range estimated from the 1970-2009 period as a whole (0.7-2.5°C) does not, and we should always be careful not to over-interpret a single decade. The CMIP5 multi-model mean of 1.8°C is well within our confidence interval, and only models with very high TCR values look potentially inconsistent with the most recent data, a conclusion consistent with e.g. Stott et al. (2013).

    What are the implications of a TCR of 1.3°C rather than 1.8°C? The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC’s models between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead (assuming future warming rates simply scale with TCR). To put this result in perspective, internal climate variability and uncertainties in future forcing could well have more impact on the global temperature trajectory on this timescale.

    And is there no news for climate sensitivity?

    First, I would always argue that for all practical, policy-relevant questions it is the transient climate response we should be interested in, but historically and academically the equilibrium response is still of high interest, so does our study tell us anything new about ECS?

    Our best estimate for climate sensitivity from the last decade of data alone is 2°C, which is lower than the AR4 best-estimate of 3°C, but in the range of other recent estimates using 20th century data (Aldrin et al, 2012; Libardoni and Forest, 2013; Lewis, 2013), so the fact that we get a strongly skewed distribution with a best-fit around 2-2.5°C is not really news.

    Using only the data from the decade from 2000-2009 we find a 5-95% confidence interval for equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.2-3.9°C. We compare the range to the range of the CMIP5 models of 2.2-4.7°C saying that the range overlaps but is slightly moved to lower values. If we use the data from 1970-2009, also including the last decade, instead we find a 5-95% confidence interval of 0.9-5°C for equilibrium climate sensitivity.

    Comparing these ranges directly to the IPCC’s range for climate sensitivity from AR4 is difficult. For one, the IPCC didn’t directly give a 5-95% confidence interval (i.e. no upper 95% limit), and secondly, the IPCC range is not derived formally from an analysis of data, but is a consensus expert assessment of all the different lines of evidence underlying the IPCC report. Hence the IPCC’s likely range of 2.0-4.5°C is not directly comparable to a 17-83% confidence interval derived from our study. IPCC typically down-grades confidence levels from those reported in individual studies to account for “unknown unknowns”.

    For all investigated periods apart from the last decade alone our derived confidence intervals fully include the 2-4.5°C range. They do extend below it, but that is not an inconsistency – which is why we conclude that, given all the uncertainties, our results are consistent with previous estimates for ECS.

    So where does this leave us?

    The ‘warming pause’ over the recent decade does not show that climate change is not happening. And it certainly does not mean that climate scientists are “backing away” from our fundamental understanding. Every new decade of data brings new information that helps reduce uncertainties in climate forecasts. In some ways, the picture changes surprisingly slowly for such an intensely scrutinised problem: our new results may help rule out some of the highest-response models, but they are still consistent with the multi-model average, and our uncertainty range encompasses the bulk of the old range. It would certainly also help to test the physically based global circulation models against more than their transient climate response and climate sensitivity. Knowing how they perform in representing regional climate variables like air pressure at sea level (PMSL) or moisture variables is important and might lead to a narrowing of uncertainty eventually, and confidence in how they perform in projecting regional impact relevant quantities. This study highlights the importance of continued careful monitoring of the climate system, and also the dangers of over-interpreting any single decade’s worth of data.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Why would you possibly need to copy and paste an entire post when I’ve already provided the link? Have you head of copyright infringement? It’s also rather rude IMO to paste an entire article and not provide a cite or reference to the source.

      Are you a newbie or something?

      • john byatt says:

        it is open access , worked out the difference between climate sensitivity and 2100 projections yet , it is boring when you do not even know the difference.

        deny it but your stupid reference to six degrees sensitivity confirms your stupidity

        so now a bit of look squirrel to cover up eh?

      • Bill Jamison says:

        john are you too dumb to understand that future projections of warming are based on sensitivity??? Seriously you can’t possibly be that dumb can you? The new lower sensitivity estimates and tighter constraints would mean that projections of more than 6C warming are not realistic. That should be easy enough for even you to understand.

        I mentioned this new paper above and their conclusion “This results in an increased probability of exceeding a 2 °C global–mean temperature increase by 2100 while reducing the probability of surpassing a 6 °C threshold for non-mitigation scenarios such as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A1B and A1FI scenarios6, as compared with projections from the Fourth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1903.html

        Notice that they are specifically talking about a mean temperature increase. That’s what I commented on.

        Past models have indicated climate sensitivity could be quite high even 10C: “Individual studies have put climate sensitivity from a doubling of CO2 at anywhere between 0.5°C and 10°C; however, as a consequence of increasingly better data, it appears that the extreme higher and lower values are very unlikely. ”
        -SkS

        As I’ve said, newer research indicates that climate sensitivity is likely lower which would eliminate the chance that catastrophic warming would occur. Lower sensitivity also means that warming would be slower which gives us more time to act and time to develop technology to affordably replace fossil fuels.

        No I’m not confusing climate sensitivity and projections of temperature in 2100. The two are intrinsically related. Lower sensitivity estimates result in lower projected temperature in 2100. Even you should be able to understand that john.

  12. Bill Jamison says:

    I think Otto did a decent job of explaining the impact of lower sensitivty:

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

    The latest research is in good agreement that the extreme high temperature estimates of previous IPCC reports is very likely implausible. That’s definitely good news.

    • john byatt says:

      I think that you have misread it or have little understanding of the difference between TCS…. ECS… and ESS.

      15 years extra to reach same temperature is hardly good news

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Of course it’s good news john. How can it NOT be good news to know we likely have more time to reduce emissions and prevent future warming???

        But that’s not what I commented on. I commented on forecasts of extremely high warming that would be catastrophic ie. >6C. In the link I provided they briefly mention it: “only models with very high TCR values look potentially inconsistent with the most recent data, a conclusion consistent with e.g. Stott et al. (2013)”. Stott el al says in their abstract “Our results indicate that for each RCP the upper end of the range of CMIP5 climate model projections is inconsistent with past warming.”.

        Even your buddies at SkS say “There is a relatively small chance that the sensitivity could be lower than 2°C or higher than 4.5°C“.
        http://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html

        “Uncertainty in temperature projections reduced using carbon cycle and climate observations” Bodman et al 2013, Nature Climate Change also indicates the risk of catastrophic warming of more than 6C is significantly less than indicated in the last IPCC report.

        That’s what I commented on.

        • john byatt says:

          Bill “But that’s not what I commented on. I commented on forecasts of extremely high warming that would be catastrophic ie. >6C”

          are you now confusing TCR and 2100 temperature projections?

          there is nothing in the paper which would discount a global temperature rise of six degrees in the future

      • Bill Jamison says:

        James Annan, a member of The Team, also agrees: “It’s increasingly difficult to reconcile a high climate sensitivity (say over 4C) with the observational evidence for the planetary energy balance over the industrial era.”

        http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html

        But then he was arguing for lower climate sensitivity before the last IPCC report.

        • john byatt says:

          , we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.

          IPCC AR4 WG1 6.9.4

    • As Richard Alley noted in his keynote address at the AGU, the State of Climate Science (available on YouTube), he had to spend two days on the phone when Otto published his paper indicating a lower sensitivity. No one called him when the next paper mooted a higher sensitivity.

      I’ll wait for the final report.

  13. […] Leaked IPCC report doesn't let us off the hook – environment – 26 July 2013 – New Scientist Uncertainty is not our friend: leaked IPCC report confirms climate change still dangerous | Watching… Sign in or Register Now to […]

  14. Moth says:

    It’s funny how quickly deniers will jump behind anything that they remotely sense supports their faith. The IPCC reports disagree with them; it’s all BS. The IPCC report suggests lower sensitivity (or so the denier thinks) – instant confidence in the IPCC claim, to be trumpeted to whomever will listen.

    There’s nothing but conflict in what a denier will base their evidence base upon, nothing but certainty that anthropogenic climate change must be wrong and selected evidence to bolster such hopes.

  15. john byatt says:

    Greenland

  16. Dan Pangburn says:

    CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by 25.16 ppmv (an amount equal to 28.1% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; June, 2013, 396.29 ppmv).

    The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat.

    That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 25.16 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

    I wonder how much wider the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising average global temperature will need to get for some people to recognize that the AGW theory was a mistake and that their lack of broad scientific knowledge has made them gullible.

    GW ended before 2001. http://endofgw.blogspot.com/

    AGW never was. http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html

    • john byatt says:

      As soon as it gets beyond the range of natural variability give us a call.

      or go and do a bit of research, your comment just displays a lack of understanding
      Dan

    • That’s interesting, Dan. But tell me – Why aren’t the members of the scientific community who actively research climate change telling us that we no longer need worry about AGW? If CO2 is no longer driving climate change, as you seem to be suggesting, why is every scientific academy in every developed nation still telling us we need to drastically reduce our emissions? Have you considered the possibility that “endofgw.blogspot.com” isn’t quite the authority on climate science that you would like to believe? Why should I believe “climatechange90.blogspot.com” and not the thousands of experts publishing their work in peer-reviewed academic journals? How is the work of 97% of the relevant experts trumped by the casual observations and back-of-envelope calculations conducted by non-experts found on various blogs throughout the interwebs?

      • Dan Pangburn says:

        I don’t speak for the other members of the technological community. Some of the mistakes made by the IPCC and the Consensus are revealed at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/ .

        As the CO2 level continues to go up and agt doesn’t, the lack of a catastrophe will become evident to more and more people. Apparently, the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising agt will need to get much wider for the AGW mistake to become evident to the deniers of natural climate change.

        It is already evident to most scientists (and at least one engineer) whose technological knowledge extends beyond meteorology (and who are not corrupt, i. e. not motivated by
        funding) that have actually examined the issue. The ‘97%’ paper has been severely discredited.

        It’s not just a suggestion. Change to the amount of atmospheric CO2 doesn’t, never did, and never will have a significant influence on climate.

        Average global temperature actually has little to do with meteorology so the wrong experts have been trying to figure it out. Along with other mistakes, they get mired in the minutia of weather.

        It is more correctly understood as a problem in radiation heat transfer, and a fairly simple one at that (or at least simple for a licensed mechanical engineer like me with 9 units of post graduate thermodynamics). It consists of only average surface temperature and effective surface emissivity and average cloud altitude (temperature) and average effective cloud emissivity or of slight change in average cloud area.

        As shown at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/ sustained increase in average cloud altitude of less than 200 meters (and thus reduction in average cloud temperature and reduction of energy radiated to space) or a sustained decrease of albedo (or reflectivity which is a bit more than albedo) from 0.3 to the slightly lower value of 0.2928 would account for all of the 0.74 °C average global temperature increase of the 20th century.

        As to ‘peer review’ there is this quote, available in Wikipedia, by Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet “But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

        • Paul H says:

          So to back up your claims you’re linking to … your own blog(s)? How very scientific of you…

        • Moth says:

          Paul – I get the impression this chap thinks his blog is equivalent to peer-review, without all the burdensome effort. Here he resorts to no less than the champion of quality information, Wikipedia, to support this avoidance; the “truth” is being ignored because the science method is wrong.

          How can one provide empirical evidence to someone who blatantly rejects the method? It’s a worthless war of words with someone clearly uninterested in evidence, but rather his faith in an assertion that science deems wrong.

          The “flat-line” hypothesis is about as sound as attempting to measure the volume of a pool by only measuring the depth at the shallow end – it ignores a lot of what’s going on. Another way to compare it is to look at a kettle boiling. Dan would have you believe that it’s no longer hot because the temperature raised to 100°C and “stopped” which clearly ignores the fact that the additional energy input is being spent on a physical state change in the water from a liquid to vapour. A lot more than just the global temperature anomaly is changing, but of course, peer-review is wrong, experts are foolish and something is dubious in the data… or needs to be to maintain such a faith-based anti-science argument.

          I’ve asked Dan to send me a link when he gets his flat-line hypothesis into a rigorous scientific journal, but instead I got a reply, warring over semantics, a repetition of his bogus claim and faceless claim of his professional background.

          Unless you like the sport or troll dancing, it’s really a pointless venture arguing with someone who rejects the critical methodology behind all the advancements of the past 300+ yrs.

        • Dan,
          You have largely ignored my questions, and spent most of your reply reasserting that CO2 isn’t driving climate change and referring me to more of your single-post ‘Climate Change Scam Revealed!’ blogspots. You do, however, try to avoid the question of consensus by suggesting there is none:

          The ‘97%’ paper has been severely discredited.

          Putting aside the fact that “the 97% paper” doesn’t exist in a vacuum and is one of several analyses of scientific opinion on climate change, you are simply wrong. The study has not been “severely discredited”. I suspect that upon the study’s release, you hurried to your nearest denialist outlet for your ‘debunking talking points’.
          “Phew! Watts says it’s a fraud, so I can still live in the comfort of denying that I’m at odds with the vast majority of scientific opinion.”
          You also try the “In it for the money” gambit:

          It is already evident to most scientists (and at least one engineer) whose technological knowledge extends beyond meteorology (and who are not corrupt, i. e. not motivated by funding) that have actually examined the issue.

          What evidence can you provide to back-up you allegations of corruption? Think carefully about what you are alleging: Thousands of scientific experts all over the world turn up to work every day to lie and deceive for a paycheque. As they go about their business, analysing data and reviewing the latest research of others, they actively conspire to suppress the truth in the interest of lining their pockets. Remarkably, despite thousands of experts being involved in this elaborate scam, nobody has come forward and said “I confess – all of my work is fraudulent. I only published that research to keep the dollars rolling in.” You casually endorse a conspiracy on a scale never seen before in the history of science, not because you sincerely believe it’s true, but because it’s a handy throw-away line you can deploy to avoid the requirement to explain your contrarian position.
          Finally, no academic conspiracy theory would be complete without the “peer review is broken” meme:

          As to ‘peer review’ there is this quote, available in Wikipedia, by Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet “But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

          Nobody would suggest that peer-review is flawless. Nobody would suggest peer-review guarantees that only the best research is published. It is, however, the best system we have to improve the quality of scientific publication. What would you propose instead? Editors should just publish anything they receive? “Public-Review?” A peer-reviewed paper has merely gone through an initial round of assessment. Upon publication it is exposed to a much larger audience of experts, who scrutinise the work. It is not uncommon for flaws to be found in papers at this stage, and rebuttals will be published, or the paper may be retracted entirely. If you think this is the wrong way to for scientists to communicate their research, what would you propose in its place?

        • Woah! Massive formatting fail. Mike, is there a way we can edit or delete our comments (perhaps within a short time window) after we hit ‘Post’?

        • Repost of comment above, hopefully with better formatting this time…

          Dan,

          You have largely ignored my questions, and spent most of your reply reasserting that CO2 isn’t driving climate change and referring me to more of your single-post ‘Climate Change Scam Revealed!’ blogspots. You do, however, try to avoid the question of consensus by suggesting there is none:

          The ‘97%’ paper has been severely discredited.

          Putting aside the fact that “the 97% paper” doesn’t exist in a vacuum and is one of several analyses of scientific opinion on climate change, you are simply wrong. The study has not been “severely discredited”. I suspect that upon the study’s release, you hurried to your nearest denialist outlet for your ‘debunking talking points’.
          “Phew! Watts says it’s a fraud, so I can still live in the comfort of denying that I’m at odds with the vast majority of scientific opinion.”
          You also try the “In it for the money” gambit:

          It is already evident to most scientists (and at least one engineer) whose technological knowledge extends beyond meteorology (and who are not corrupt, i. e. not motivated by funding) that have actually examined the issue.

          What evidence can you provide to back-up you allegations of corruption? Think carefully about what you are alleging: Thousands of scientific experts all over the world turn up to work every day to lie and deceive for a paycheque. As they go about their business, analysing data and reviewing the latest research of others, they actively conspire to suppress the truth in the interest of lining their pockets. Remarkably, despite thousands of experts being involved in this elaborate scam, nobody has come forward and said “I confess – all of my work is fraudulent. I only published that research to keep the dollars rolling in.” You casually endorse a conspiracy on a scale never seen before in the history of science, not because you sincerely believe it’s true, but because it’s a handy throw-away line you can deploy to avoid the requirement to explain your contrarian position.
          Finally, no academic conspiracy theory would be complete without the “peer review is broken” meme:

          As to ‘peer review’ there is this quote, available in Wikipedia, by Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet “But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”

          Nobody would suggest that peer-review is flawless. Nobody would suggest peer-review guarantees that only the best research is published. It is, however, the best system we have to improve the quality of scientific publication. What would you propose instead? Editors should just publish anything they receive? “Public-Review?” A peer-reviewed paper has merely gone through an initial round of assessment. Upon publication it is exposed to a much larger audience of experts, who scrutinise the work. It is not uncommon for flaws to be found in papers at this stage, and rebuttals will be published, or the paper may be retracted entirely. If you think this is the wrong way to for scientists to communicate their research, what would you propose in its place?

        • Gregory T says:

          From the web page of Reed Elsevier the owner of the Lancet;

          “Stringently edited and peer-reviewed to ensure its diverse content has scientific merit and clinical relevance”.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      It was amazing how many places ran with that story without bothering to fact check it. And of course the uninformed readers ate it up believing the north pole had melted. Some sites still haven’t corrected their stories.

      • john byatt says:

        fact checking, if only

        “Members quitting the American Meteorological Society over stance on climate“ (2013-06-21). “This can’t be good” says Anthony Watts. Everyone’s quitting the American Meteorological Society because it’s an oppressive, dogma driven, anti-science organization! Global Warming is over!

        So, how many gullible meteorologists are left in that decrepit society? Three down, 13,997 to go. This is what Anthony wants us to think is denialist momentum?

        • Like with the scientific literature: A handful of papers sympathetic to the denialist stance against thousands which aren’t proves there is a “robust debate within the scientific community over climate change”.

        • Willard T also keeps putting his sub at the North Pole when it wasn’t at the North Pole, He apologised last time he did it. But he’s done it again anyway.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        look, squirrel

        • john byatt says:

          Mark” something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models”

          http://www.realclimate.org/images/model122.jpg

          so where is the error Mark?

          What is your point in claiming that the models are wrong if you cannot show me where that occurs?

        • john byatt says:

          oops wrong comment

          for bill,

          no not look squirrel, look hypocrite. WUWT

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john you made a comment about the “lake at the north pole” and I responded discussing that specific topic. Instead of disagreeing with my post you simply tried to divert attention to Anthony Watts for some reason. Why is that? Why did you try to change the subject when I was simply responding on topic to what you posted?

          “look, squirrel” is certainly apt because that’s what you were doing – trying to divert people’s attention from the subject at hand.

        • john byatt says:

          Bill, for me the subject at hand was old news,

          your complaint was fact checking

          “It was amazing how many places ran with that story without bothering to fact check it. And of course the uninformed readers ate it up believing the north pole had melted. Some sites still haven’t corrected their stories”

          my reply was that .

          “Members quitting the American Meteorological Society over stance on climate“ (2013-06-21). “This can’t be good” says Anthony Watts. Everyone’s quitting the American Meteorological Society because it’s an oppressive, dogma driven, anti-science organization! Global Warming is over!

          So, how many gullible meteorologists are left in that decrepit society? Three down, 13,997 to go. This is what Anthony wants us to think is denialist momentum?

          A worthy reply from you would have been, yes i agree, fact checking is important as shown by both the melt pond and watts using the words “everyone’s quitting”

          I actually think that you are not beyond the acceptance of AGW if you can just get over your unsupported nonsense that temperature rise from enhanced greenhouse has a natural ability to reset itself, wherein adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is offset by feedbacks returning the temperature to the value prior to enhancement.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          No john my comment wasn’t about fact checking in general. You just tried to change the subject. You provided a link about the “north pole lake melting” and I commented “It was amazing how many places ran with [b]that story[/b] without bothering to fact check it.”

          I was specifically referring to the fact that this story about the “north pole lake melting” with out fact checking it. I didn’t comment about fact checking in general. This is a current story that is WRONG and yet some sites haven’t corrected it. Livescence posted a follow-up story and still refers to it as the “north pole lake” even though in the 9th paragraph they mention it was more than 350 miles south of the north pole.

          Now would you like to try to stay on topic???

        • john byatt says:

          Shorter bill ” no it was not about fact checking , it was about fact checking”

  17. john byatt says:

    GRL

    Alexey Portnov1,3,*, Andrew J. Smith1,3, Jürgen Mienert1,3, Georgy
    Cherkashov2,3, Pavel Rekant2,3, Peter Semenov2,3, Pavel Serov2,3,
    Boris Vanshtein2,3
    DOI: 10.1002/grl.50735

    Abstract

    [1] Since the Last Glacial Maximum (~19 ka), coastal inundation from
    sea-level rise has been thawing thick subsea permafrost across the
    Arctic. Although subsea permafrost has been mapped on several Arctic continental shelves, permafrost distribution in the South Kara Sea and the extent to which it is acting as an impermeable seal to seabed methane escape remains poorly understood.

    Here we use >1300 km of high-resolution seismic (HRS) data to map hydroacoustic anomalies, interpreted to record seabed gas release, on the West Yamal shelf.

    Gas flares are widespread over an area of at least 7,500 km2 in water depths >20 m. We propose that continuous subsea permafrost extends to water depths of ~20 m offshore and creates a seal through which gas cannot migrate. This Arctic shelf region where seafloor gas release is widespread suggests that permafrost has degraded more significantly than previously thought.

  18. john byatt says:

    first US climate change refugees?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23346370

    • BBD says:

      Looks that way. Although we could instead pretend that Arctic melt is all or mostly part of a natural cycle. Especially if it suited us to do so for other reasons and we took the view that little people are just little people.

    • john byatt says:

      Was on channel seven news this morning

    • Bill Jamison says:

      There are some errors and omissions in that article. For example, the article claims that “Temperature records show the Arctic region of Alaska is warming twice as fast as the rest of the United States” yet that is no longer true. It changed when the PDO shifted to the cold phase ~2000:

      This just in: 2012 was the coldest year of the new century in Fairbanks, and the second coldest here in the last 40 years.

      Fairbanks isn’t the only chilly place in Alaska. Average temperatures at 19 of 20 long-term National Weather Service stations displayed cooling trend from 2000 to 2010, according a recent study written up by Gerd Wendler, Blake Moore and Lian Chen of the Alaska Climate Research Center.
      http://www.gi.alaska.edu/AlaskaScienceForum/article/alaska-bucks-global-temperature-trend

      The article fails to mention that the village was relocated to it’s current position on the tip of a barrier island about 50 years ago from its previous location on the north end of the lagoon. Sea ice in that area was at record levels the last couple of years. If you read the June 4, 2013 update from nsidc you can see that the sea ice in that area of the Bering Sea was above average again this year.

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/06/un-baked-alaska/

      Maybe the shift in the PDO will mean that village will survive longer than predicted.

  19. dave says:

    SE Australia (VIC) has just experienced record warmest ever July. That’s coming after records broken in February, March, April… Last summer was our hottest in more than 100 years and some days hottest since records have been kept! Meanwhile our fossil fuel industries seem hell bent on extracting every last drop of oil, gas and coal that they can, and stuff the consequences.

    All climate change deniers don’t not believe in climate change. They just don’t care as long as it’s lucrative.

  20. BBD says:

    There’s no stopping the deniers. Either they imagine a very speculative reduction in the best estimate of S means that all CC just vanishes, or they imagine that “because TCR” CC just vanishes, or they imagine all forcing will magically cease at the stroke of midnight 2100, or they imagine that CO2 will magically stabilise (without policy intervention, natch) at ~550ppmv.

    Whatever combination of teddy bears they clutch, it always boils down to the same thing: humanity must not prevent corporations from maximising profits. Ever.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: