Christopher Monckton calculates below that even if we assume the IPCC and mainstream estimates are right, the warming from here to 2100 is likely to be a minor half a degree. (He doesn’t even bother to argue about whether this would be beneficial or not). Monckton just makes the point that for all the scare campaign about preventing a “two degree” apocalypse, what we are really talking about is a half degree in the next ninety years with some theoretical further warming in the centuries after that. The “two degrees” of fear is measured from the bottom of the Little Ice Age, as if that was the ideal “pre industrial” climate that we somehow want to return to.
As usual, everything about the Great Global Warming Scare falls apart under the most cursory glance, yet the billion dollar PR truck rolls on. The climate sensitivity of the IPCC dropped in Assessment Report 5 to about 2.2 C as it slowly is dragged toward a more realistic number. The data coming in tells us that the climate feedback factors are likely net negative, so climate sensitivity is below 1°C. Hence even a “half a degree” due to CO2 is an overestimate.
— Jo
—————————————————–
Guest Post by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
2 C° or not 2 C°?
In 2009 the Copenhagen climate summit asserted, on little evidence, that global warming of 2 C° compared with pre-industrial temperature [equivalent to 1.1 C° above today] would be dangerous. The UK Climate Change Committee said in 2015: “If we make no efforts to cut global use of fossil fuels, global warming is likely to reach between 2-7°C this century with further warming beyond.” A Science editorial in July 2015 said: “Let’s act now, to save the next generations from the consequences of the beyond-two-degree inferno.”
Equilibrium climate sensitivity ΔT to a CO2 doubling is given by
ΔT = λ0 ΔF (1 – λ0 f ) –1
where the Planck sensitivity parameter λ0 = 0.3125 K W–1 m2 (IPCC AR4, p. 631 fn.); the CO2 forcing ΔF is generally taken as 5.35 ln 2 W m–2 (Myhre et al, 1998; IPCC TAR); and uncertainty in constraining ΔT arises chiefly from the feedback sum f, for which IPCC’s estimates (best estimates are in bold face) were cut from 1.95 [1.55, 2.35] W m–2 K–1 in AR4 to 1.55 [1.00, 2.25] Wm–2 K–1 in AR5 (Fig. 9.43(a), detail): The mainstream climate sensitivity estimates to a CO2 doubling, at 1-8 below, reveal a monotonic decline from SAR to AR5, which readopts the interval in FAR (cf. Charney (1979, p. 4), though AR5 states no central estimate, which should, however, have been given as 2.2 K where f = 1.55 Wm–2 K–1 (8 below).
| Est. | Source / basis | Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1995 IPCC SAR (17 models: AR4, p. 798, box 10.2) | 3.8 [3.0, 4.6] K |
| 2 | 2001 IPCC TAR (15 models: AR4, p. 798, box 10.2) | 3.5 [2.6, 4.4] K |
| 3 | 2007 IPCC AR4 (18 models: AR4, p. 798, box 10.2) | 3.3 [2.6, 4.0] K |
| 4 | IPCC AR4 stated interval | 3.0 [2.0, 4.5] K |
| 5 | IPCC AR4 implicit interval from (1), where f falls on 1.95[1.55, 2.35] | 3.0 [2.2, 4.4] K |
| 6 | IPCC FAR stated interval (cf. Charney, 1979, p. 4) | 3.0 [1.5, 4.5] K |
| 7 | 2013 IPCC AR5 stated interval | [1.5, 4.5] K |
| 8 | IPCC AR5 implicit interval from (1), where f falls on 1.55[1.00, 2.25] | 2.2 [1.7, 3.9] K |
| Warming to 2100 | ||
| 9 | Only half of equilibrium warming will arise in the century after a forcing | 1.1 [0.9, 2.0] K |
| 10 | Forcings rise linearly so that ~50% of warming will occur by 2100 | 0.6 [0.4, 1.0] K |
IPCC 21st-century warming estimates indicate that it assumes, in line with Roe (2009), that only half of equilibrium warming will occur in the first 100 years after a forcing (9 above). Furthermore, forcing does not arrive as a single pulse but increases over the century, halving the in-century warming (10) and putting the remainder in the following century, by which time fossil fuels will approach exhaustion. Remaining warming to equilibrium at 2.2 K above today would be spread over the subsequent 1000-3000 years (Solomon et al., 2009), allowing plenty of time for adaptation.
Conclusion:
No warming has yet arisen this century. Warming may be 0.6 K by 2100, could be as low as 0.4° K and will not exceed 1° K. Allowing for negative aerosol forcings in SAR to AR5, or for net-negative temperature feedbacks (Lindzen & Choi, 2011; Spencer & Braswell, 2011; Monckton of Brenchley, 2015), warming may well not reach these values, but is most unlikely to exceed them.
REFERENCES
IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. [PDF]
Lindzen, R. & Yong-Sang Choi, Y, (2011) On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 [PDF]
Mhyre et al (1998) New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases, GRL, DOI: 10.1029/98GL01908
Spencer, R. W.; Braswell, W.D. (2011) On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613. [PDF]
Solomon et al (2009) Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0812721106
It doesn’t matter how correct he is, or how minimal any rise and its effects may be, the results will be derided and the author vilified (as usual).
390
It took only 2 hours and 1 minute for your prediction to be manifested by BilB.
90
Agree.
Monkton has been so completely taken apart by the MSM and alarmist spokes-people, his posts are almost counter productive now.
118
That will happen to anybody who stands up against the AGW agenda. It happens to you and I to a lesser degree. That is why they use the D term. The fact that it happens to Lord Monckton with such severity is a testament to how effective and scientifically correct he is.
20
Luckily the internet exists then, with the growing suspicion for the MSM people will turn to social media and the net for answers, the question has to be important enough to waste their precious time for a search and what better motive than losing ones money, that is a key motivator right there.
Given an open public platform Monckton is devastating, I’ve seen him live twice with a takedown of a local warmist that resonated with everyone there, I overheard someone ask the Fairfax journalist there if they will question his facts they replied “No way, this guy knows his stuff”, we shouldn’t dismiss something we don’t know how to use.
152
Yonnie you know I agree.
But the Ad Hom in the MSM has Monkton in the “crackpot” bucket now along with the likes of David Bellamy, Richard Lindzen, Ian Plimer etc etc.
Their reputations have been so effectively trashed among the gen pop I have people laughing at me when I quote Monkton these days.
I think we need to really stick very close to the “sources” in these times. More from John Christy, Roy Spencer, Murray Salby and the like. This in my opinion is particularly potent when you have people like John Cook posting quotes from The Pope on Skeptical Science.
I love Monkton’s work and his points regarding the over estimation of forcings have been well made for probably over 20 years. But hes just too easy to shoot down with a single Ad Hom or reference to his Lord status etc etc. The debate immediately goes off the rails just because of who he is.
I guess Im trying to make the same point I made about Matt Ridley’s article. The further you reach into the world of either the fantastic (the world of Cook and Mann) or the deeply scientific (high math etc) the more you open yourself to nonsense and unrelated arguments by those seeking to distract and discredit. This is why I have been so completely taken by Murray Salby’s work. It is both easy to understand and addresses the fundamental flaws in CO2 worship doctrine. By comparison Monkton often plays into the hands of warmists without even trying with arguments like this. If your not great at math, this could be true or false, you still end up seeking your verification from authority. If your authority is Flannery and Cook, well…. you know the rest.
100
Half a degree warmer, more food from CO2 fertilisation. More greenery, more rain as microclimates evolve and evaporation increases… what’s not to like? OOPs, oh yeah I forgot the one legitimate problem of manmade CO2. I get to mow the lawn more often, damn, let’s ruin the economy and keep a few billion people in poverty totally dependent on UN welfare to stop the lawnmowers.
Lord Monckton.
Please add to your repertoire of arguments the fact that we are actually totally incapable of turning back to lower CO2 because it also implies *especially by IPCC numbers* that the world would be colder and less bountiful. For each 2PPM change in CO2 there is about a 1% change in plant productivity, such that a fall to preindustrial CO2 entails about a 50% decline in crop yields. In preindustrial times there were 1.8 Billion people to feed, now there are 7 Billion. You do the math, how low can one go on CO2 in a world of 7 odd billion people and avoid famine?
In fact in a world with an increasing population it seems that it is pretty much essential that CO2 keeps rising otherwise feeding ourselves may become increasingly difficult. Obama’s war on coal is attempting in it’s very nature to cause starvation of his population and potentially make Alaska Uninhabitable from cold (Should he succeed and assuming IPCC numbers are right – which of course are the assumptions he is using). There has to be something unconstitutional or at least impeachable about attempting to do that to the population, maybe also actionable in the UK.
Not only is the prospect of warming completely non threatening, the application of those very same IPCC numbers to CO2 REDUCTION reveals a nightmare scenario should the push to lower CO2 succeed. Showing the outcome of the warmist’s success is a strikingly good argument.
374
It never was based on sound methods or processes of analysis…It never had a leg to stand on when it began. This whole movement relies on the premise that the public is stupid and they know better. Its pretty clear they have mis-calculated and underestimated the public. Some of us don’t spend 4 yrs of our lives, attending university and attaining sleepless nights for nothing!
Many have vested interest in continuing this activism or taxpayer funded subsidies.
ie 1: When they cannot argue its merits scientifically, and they resort to “Global Equality” between Developing and Developed nations, then you know this is activism. Hard science isn’t typically the forte of your modern day activist. Chanting and arguing with emotion is. (Unfortunately for them, the public recognises this.) …Also recognise that you are bound to find taxpayer’s money was used to fund Climate Change activism.
eg: I recall that the Climate Fund during the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years had one entry that spent AUD$1 million on a website on climate change. (Taxpayer funded online activism was allowed under previous Govt! It was set up to try to counter sites like JoNova. I think it ceased to exist when LNP was voted back into power. They let the domain name expire when funding was cut.)
ie 2: Many “Green Energy” companies will collapse if the taxpayer trough is taken away from their snouts.
(It irks me that some companies can get private funding on their own, but they still apply for taxpayer subsidies! I recall an Australian company working on bio-fuel from algae. They were interviewed by 2GB radio and couldn’t give a straight answer as to why they got Govt money even when they successfully acquired funding from commercial/investment sources.)
ie 3: Can you say lobby or interest groups whispering sweet eco-nonsense into the ears of politicians in Canberra and other institutions of power?
(I don’t think there would be any Direct Action nonsense if there was no interest group lobbying to do something about Climate Change.)
What the Climate Change movement has shown us, its really a Global Activist Movement that has really sunk its tentacles into our institutions of power, culture, education, etc. United Nations, Canberra, Washington, London, various weather bureaus around the world, etc. What they cannot do is use violent force to impose their will. They talk about it indirectly by referencing Communist China. But they know if they do, they will have the public turn on them. They need the public. So they take this subtle “boil the frog” approach. (They aren’t going to give up. Don’t be surprise they’ll bring up something else to push the same basic agenda. Mainly because its become their livelihood!)
Forget this century…There is no warming in Sydney for the last 48 hours! Its FREEZING!
(Even my sister’s Canadian friends are complaining that its cold! …Bare in mind, they fell for the Aussie Tourism ads regarding summer weather. So they’ve had to spend $$$ on winter gear!)
273
i respondend to Monckton with “90 trillion reasons why the CAGW mob aren’t even asking the question”:
2 pages: 8 June: MarketWatch: Paul B. Farrell: Opinion: World Bank forecasts ***$90 trillion new low-carbon stock opportunity
But the reality is, fossil fuels are being pushed aside by a new Age of Sustainable Energy, which is becoming a jackpot of investments in renewable energies, sustainable developments and high-tech opportunities in the rapidly emerging low-carbon world…
But soon, the old fossil industry will be pressured by their own investors — pension funds, bank and trust companies and insurance firms — to jump on the bandwagon and radically depart from old ways that started in Pennsylvania over 150 years ago…
On the other hand, Big Banks don’t share Big Oil’s irrational handicap, an obsession with climate-science denial. As a result, global banks can take a growing lead in allocating the estimated ***$90 trillion being invested in “building this new low-carbon world” by 2035…
Bottom line: The global financial system has a total of ***$300 trillion sloshing across 200 sovereign nations worldwide…
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/big-energy-is-dying-as-90-trillion-low-carbon-world-emerges-2015-06-05
the writer has been a Behavioral Economics Columnist for Dow Jones Marketwatch since 1997, & was with Morgan Stanley prior to that from 1973-1978.
the public will decide in the long run:
4 July: UK Telegraph: Tim Ross: Green energy subsidies spiral out of control
George Osborne to abolish coalition’s green tax target as customers face paying £1.5billion more through their bills to subsidise wind farms, solar panels and biomas plants
The cost of subsidising new wind farms is spiralling out of control, government sources have privately warned.
Officials admitted that so-called “green” energy schemes will require a staggering £9 billion a year in subsidies – paid for by customers – by 2020. This is £1.5 billion more than the maximum limit the coalition had originally planned.
The mounting costs will mean every household in the country is forced to pay an estimated £170 a year by the end of the decade to support the renewable electricity schemes that were promoted by the coalition…
The Chancellor believes the figures demonstrate the need to rein in the cost of policies to tackle climate change.
As a first step, he will use this week’s summer Budget to announce that he is abandoning targets set under the coalition to increase the level of environmental taxes in a move he hopes will save customers and businesses billions of pounds…
Government sources say there is little that Mr Osborne can do because the subsidies have already been agreed under long-term contracts signed by DECC while Liberal Democrat ministers were in charge.
However, the Chancellor will review the system to see whether further steps can be taken to cut the cost of climate change schemes such as the subsidies, sources said…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11718594/Green-energy-subsidies-spiral-out-of-control.html
142
Pat,
Osborne does have a means of removing the subsidies on all things green that the LibDems managed to get for their palls – tax the subsidies at 110%. That way the troughers also payback some of their ill gotten gains from the past.
70
Unfortunately ,taxing subsidies at 110% would of course mean that the companies receiving them would refuse them.
It would also mean massive bankruptcies in the alternative energy commercial sector. This is of course not new, Solar panel installation companies have been around for a long time now , more than 30 years ? and they come into the market , sell their products to the mugs , give a 10 year guarantee and generally go bust around about year 6.
The buyers of said products ,pay for the product and the installation = the capital cost ,on the expectation that reduced electricity bills will more than cover their capital cost over a period of time leading to a ….profit!!
So its a great selling feature , help the planet and make a profit , the only problem is ,your solar panel is broken , the company you bought it from are bust, the manufacturers no longer make that model or support it and they could also be bust.= massive loss on investment.
However , there is still hope, since all the companies that made, erected and installed wind turbines and solar panels are now bust ,a secondary market is created clearing up the mess and the restoring ugly habitats to their former natural beauty. This will of course attract Government grants and subsidies and will keep the green monster fed for another generation until the next snake oil salesman comes up with another great idea to rob the public blind whilst being paid by the government to do so.
10
The CMIP 5 model runs suggest we should get 2 degrees C warming this century, yet Christopher Monckton shows that using their own data, the math suggests a figure much smaller. This analysis suggests that the models are not in agreement with the IPCC climate sensitivity estimates.
203
But the Global Temperature rise, in UN-IPCC parlance (aka alarmance), would still be lots and lots of parts per million (ppm) since Feb 23, 1780 -/+ 249days, 97% confidence factor (UN-IPCC date for the ‘official’ start of ECOWI(Evil Capitalists Oppression of Workers by Industrialization)).
🙂
73
Here is another way of looking at it, all together.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
I am looking for a similar presentation graphing Christopher Monkton’s claims over time. I expect that to put his credibility were it belongs, out with the trash.
733
Graphs and credibility.What is truth? Keep on believing the great lie BilB.
193
Absolute nonsense and debunked repeatedly. Hansen and GSS have been consistently shown to be full of bovine excrement, with their (proven) false numbers. Try using real science for a change.
113
Bilb,
Nice graph, but greenhouse gas increase, temperature not increase, green house gas not problem.
Same as nice CO2 base models predict temperature rise with CO2 increase, but not happen.
Hmmm, maybe CO2 and green house gas not make temperature go up.
Maybe think you got problem there, Kimosabe.
204
Bilb.
The key omitted metric
Now, it struck me that running the same graphic and using ‘biomass’ as a metric, one result would be to engender the same desired sense of association, only this time the target is what passes for a brain in the Green-dead.
Predicted in 2013 in one bulwark of climate correctness, The Guardian warned that a Green stampede to biomass would mindlessly destroy forests. It is coming to pass. A fulsome explication may be read in The Green Lie. It highlights the fallacy of wood based bioenergy…all recommended reading.
Now experience the Orwellian sense of yes is no when reading this:
It rather presents a compelling argument for coal, a far greater energetic bang for your buck with efficient combustion and generation technologies to boot. Here the trees win too, and so do the folk. The Green-dead wouldn’t like that would they?
Is this then why Green policies are ravaging and destroying the woods and forests with no benefit to the environment and no benefit to people, because there is an association between the expanding resource of biomass and CO2?
/sarc
83
Yes BilB
Keep drinking the kool-aid…
70
It is a good graph, very effective presentation for the ill informed.
The European heatwave has the warmists excited, ‘unprecedented’ has been used a few times but generally the organs have toned it down. The Chinese mouthpieces are referring to it as ‘unusual’.
The heatwave of 1540 AD was more ferocious and possibly a sign of things to come.
70
By that I mean at the end of the Renaissance it was all down hill.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/de/temps-ar1.jpg
50
The Bloomberg graph is shown to be the junk it is here.
60
You’re using Monckton as a source? the most thoroughly debunked denialist on the planet? What’is name Watts just took a credibility hit as well putting, fictional material on his site.
I publish this boring hate-mail just to show how vacuous his arguments are. Straight ad homs, fueled by hate. No need for anyone to bother responding. — Jo
211
What you got against fictional material, Bilb, you refer to it all the time.
50
You are right Jo, I have absolutely no good thoughts for Monckton what so ever.
06
… or good thoughts at all.
81
OK, you forced me to drag myself through the Monckton mire. The key paper in there, the Myhre paper is a in 1997 study on aerosol forcings. To begin with an early study. I had a look at what the authors of that paper are doing today. Eleanor J Highwood’s more recent work with an impressively large team of scientists observed in 2012
“Here we present results from a multi-thousand-member perturbed-physics ensemble of transient coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model simulations. We find that model versions that reproduce observed surface temperature changes over the past 50 years show global-mean temperature increases of 1.4–3 K by 2050, relative to 1961–1990, under a mid-range forcing scenario. This range of warming is broadly consistent with the expert assessment provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report10, but extends towards larger warming than observed in ensembles-of-opportunity5 typically used for climate impact assessments. From our simulations, we conclude that warming by the middle of the twenty-first century that is stronger than earlier estimates is consistent with recent observed temperature changes and a mid-range ‘no mitigation’ scenario for greenhouse-gas emissions”
Scientists 1.4 to 3 deg K by mid century versus hereditary peer,…with an impressive rap sheet
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
scroll down to abusing equations to see where the problem lays with this thread.
08
And the estimate of further warming as per the IPCC climate sensitivity point AR5 still stands. And you hate Monckton, but can’t explain why, except when pushed, you cite a page from 2010.
As for one author on the Myhre paper having a newer paper. Why does that matter? The IPCC report post dates that anyhow?
70
According to that font of all CAGW wisdom, Skeptical Science, the modern consensus of the Medieval Warm Period’s causes are higher than average solar activity, decreased volcanic activity and changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation.
However, the Bloomberg graph clearly shows that natural causes have not contributed to the current warming. Logically then, we need to question whether natural causes did in fact drive that earlier warming because if it has no effect now, how could it have had so great an impact during those earlier warm periods?
Using Bloomberg’s logic, we must therefore assume that man was responsible for the increase in temperature in both the Medieval and Roman warm periods. Not sure how man managed to release sufficient CO2 into the atmosphere back then, but, using Bloomberg logic, it must be so.
82
What, does Skeptical Science now admit there WAS a medieval warm period, [and a Roman ,and a Minoan WP as well}?? I must be behind the times.
90
Whoever gave me the thumbs down, why? Grateful for your reasoning!
41
Another Gavin Schmidt graph….
The same Mathematician/Activist who stated that 2014 was the warmest year on record, but forgot to tell everyone it had a 34% confidence level.
Nice graph though … very “slick”
90
my apologies that should have read
…. 38% confidence level
50
Billb, your first graph, if it is to be believed, shows warming pre and post WW11 at the same rates. The first with low CO2 emissions the latter with slightly higher ones. This shows no correlation between emissions and supposed temperatures let alone causation. It shows the fraud of CAGW conclusively. Give up !
72
And all the subsequent graphs show what failed models “reckon”. The models still don’t include solar magnetic, solar wind, lunar cycle effects, cosmic rays…
80
Did that not work for you@home there, maybe this might strike and accord.
http://cdn.bgr.com/2015/01/t1kpxh3abj4xfczcodvy.gif?w=624
or maybe this one if you have a yen for seeing things going down
https://youtu.be/GetB-xs9D_A
06
Gee thanks a wriggly worm – now that is impressive.
10
What is the difference between measured and “observed” temperature? Homogenation? Or is homogenation what other people mean by imagination?
50
ivan –
hope he finds a way.
btw i can hardly believe the following is an editorial in the Australian Financial Review!
5 July: AFR Editorial: Carbon concern is not moral
Should churches be saving souls or saving the planet? Perhaps Australia’s churches would argue they’re doing both. Unfortunately, those pushing fossil fuel divestment campaigns are doing neither…
Last week it emerged that Sydney’s Anglican Church’s investment arm, the $262 million Glebe Administration Board, was considering how it might reduce exposure of fossil fuels. Although its strategy has yet to be decided on or approved it does beg the question: what has got into the churches? The Anglicans are not alone, of course. Pope Francis’ new encyclical Laudato Si’ had a stern word or two to say about fossil fuels and also climate change. The Uniting church never seems to miss a good climate change rally…
In fact, it is easy to get the feeling that some churches have given up on Christ altogether, eschewing the difficult and sometimes unpopular business of morality for politically correct inclusiveness and Q&A-style leftism.
This tendency undermines their standing as serious institutions in Australian society…
At the root of the problem is a fundamental ignorance of economics among much of the clergy. Many bishops and church leaders are all too ready to engage in “lapel-pin political slogans”, crying “neo-liberalism”, or “fossil fuels”, but without considering that without them all people, particularly the poor and downtrodden for whom the church claims particular concern, would be worse off.
Real concern for the poor would result in an embrace of cheap energy, including fossil fuels, which, along with market capitalism and the rule of law, has been responsible for dragging more people out of the poverty and democratising luxury than any number of sympathic prayers.
Australia’s various church leaders should consider this fact before jumping aboard fashionable and so-called “ethical” campaigns, and seeing more people slide out of the pews.
http://www.afr.com/opinion/editorials/carbon-concern-is-not-moral-20150705-gi5iej
132
is the media turning?
5 July: NZ Herald: Paul Little: It’s stunt season for show ponies
Friends don’t let friends work for Greenpeace. When one of my friends told me he was thinking of getting a job with them, I suggested he apply to a different circus.
He’s a smart and tough guy, hard-headed and practical but with a crusading streak that probably clouded his judgment in this instance. Because if you want to make the world a better place, isn’t Greenpeace the last outfit you’d hook up with?
The fiasco that saw a clutch of its members climb on top of Parliament and wave some signs around for a few hours recently can best be seen as the beginning of 2015’s stunt season…
One of its participants, purportedly an adult, described himself as “an undercover ninja”. A real ninja wouldn’t be seen dead working with Greenpeace. In fact, a real ninja wouldn’t be seen at all.
And for all their daring and clever slogans, the Greenpeace roof climbers would not have changed one individual’s thinking about the problem of climate change.
Left-wing social media bunched its panties even more tightly than usual to decry the general media’s response to the act. They could not understand that the news media focused their attention on the news component of the stunt, the security breach at Parliament, rather than the issue of climate change. Didn’t the media understand what Greenpeace wanted them to do?…
I’m not sure how much useful information about climate change was to be gleaned by looking at the ecowarriors standing on a roof practically giggling with delight at their own naughtiness. If there was some sort of metaphor about climate change, it went over my head, just like the protesters went over the heads of parliamentary security…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11475886
most commenting seem to agree.
173
4 July: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: Why are greens so keen to destroy the world’s wildlife?
This pursuit of the dream of “carbon-free energy” is creating an ecological catastrophe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11718550/Why-are-greens-so-keen-to-destroy-the-worlds-wildlife.html
following is also behind paywall at Orlando Sentinel today:
30 June: News-Press, Gannett: Dr. Charles Steele Jr: Higher energy costs put burden on Florida families
(Dr. Charles Steele Jr. is president and CEO of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights organization co-founded by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)
As the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, I frequently travel throughout the U.S. And in my journeys, I’m quite often struck by the fact that so many families are struggling to find financial security. I find it troubling that hard-working Americans are often eking out a living, barely making it from paycheck to paycheck.
I often wonder how these families are managing to keep food on their table…
I raise this point because I’m particularly concerned by new regulations that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing. As a step toward addressing climate change, the EPA wants to greatly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants, and wants governors across the country to close the coal-fired plants in their states.
Such a move could hit Florida hard since coal-fired power plants provide roughly 22 percent of the state’s electricity. Many other states also depend heavily on coal, which means that the affordability of electricity for millions of Americans is at stake.
The problem with the EPA’s plan is that the power plants in question often provide the largest portion of our electricity, and usually at the most affordable rates…
So let’s focus for a moment on those families who are struggling to make ends meet. What will higher monthly utility bills mean for them? Paying for electricity is not a discretionary expense. The poor and the elderly on fixed incomes already pay an outsized portion of their limited budget in order to have heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer. And they already have fewer dollars to pay for these necessities.
I understand the intended reasoning of the EPA plan, namely to cut carbon dioxide emissions. But we already have it within our power to move toward a cleaner environment without causing harm to lower-income Americans. We have clean coal, and advanced technologies are already helping us achieve lower emissions. And U.S. power plants are already far cleaner than factories and power plants in Asia.
We can get to a cleaner environment without victimizing those who are already struggling financially. And so, before the EPA adopts these measures, it should think twice about pursuing extreme rules that will have a negligible environmental impact, but could bring great pain to hard-working everyday Americans.
http://www.news-press.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/06/30/epa-climate-change-emissions-florida-energy-cost-electricity/29519749/
93
compare Dr. Steele’s concern for people with the antics of the jetset elitists congregating in Candada:
4 July: Toronto Star: Christopher Reynolds: Jane Fonda sounds climate change alarm in Toronto
Actor-activist loves Toronto, Naomi Klein and the environment — but not the Blue Jays.
PHOTO CAPTION: Greenpeace campaigner Melina Laboucan-Massimo and actress Jane Fonda pose at the Sheraton Centre hotels hours before they planned to join a climate change march Sunday.
The 77-year-old actor and activist comes with a solar-fuelled fire in her belly.
“The climate change problem is the issue of our civilization. It will affect everything about our lives if we don’t do something about it,” she says.
Touching down Friday night from Los Angeles, the two-time Oscar winner is part of a parade of celebrities and distinguished guests who are putting foot to pavement in Sunday’s March for Jobs, Justice and the Climate.
The demonstration, organized by environmental group 350.org two days before Toronto hosts the Climate Summit of the Americas, has wrangled participants from more than 100 organizations, from Greenpeace to Unifor, a union representing 40,000 oil and gas workers among its 300,000 members.
“I’m really amped up about the participation of the unions, because it’s a false choice that either you stay with the fossil fuel economy or you lose jobs,” Fonda says, her voice firm…
David Suzuki, Stephen Lewis, musician Joel Plaskett and First Nations advocate Ellen Gabriel are part of the ensemble set to stride in the march, expected to attract thousands…
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/07/04/jane-fonda-sounds-climate-change-alarm-in-toronto.html
63
She’s certainly right about that but for the wrong reason. We’re shutting down modern technology, little by little and will soon be regretting every step ever taken against climate change if we don’t manage to stop this constant march toward failure of civilization. The damage already done is huge, billions wasted, policies that leave people unable to heat their homes in the winter, policies that haven’t achieved a single measurable difference in Earth’s temperature.
Jane Fonda is a good actress and I’ll give her credit where it’s due. But she’s been a big part of so many problems it’s hard to count them. She didn’t earn herself the nickname, Hanoi Jane, for being a good patriotic citizen. And she understands climate change no better than she understood the war between North and South Vietnam or our involvement in it. She wasn’t the only one by any means but she was the worst by far. And still is.
I know this may be a controversial comment so if you want to, fire away at me. You’re entitled to you opinion. But so am I.
130
BB: Well said and completely correct on every count. I would also add that in order to support the greenies desires (i.e. solar & wind etc) we NEED hi-tek industries and such awfull (acording to them) areas such as mining and petroleum based power. These actor-activists (attention [snip] by any other name) have no idea of what they prattle on about.
[I understand you about the activist mindset. But try to keep the discussion at a little higher level. Thanks.] AZ
70
the term you object to is clear english and accurate. Did i bruise someone’s feeling?
[Actually yes — Joanne Nova’s commenting standards for her blog. Each case is a judgment call for the moderator and the question is, will the meaning still be the same without the questionable word. And the answer is yes in this case. I hope that clarifies things for you. :-)] AZ
10
Regretting will be made illegal, punishable by several years in re-education camps in Alaska.
70
Ummm. A ‘good actress’ you say. How best to put this then?
I do wish she’d stuck to her knitting.
50
“good actress”??? mediocre at best
30
Manfred, Jane fonda’s moral standards aren’t exactly what either of us would like to see. But she did a very good job in several of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen. One of them seems to have dropped off the radar as they say. It was entitled, Fun With Dick and Jane. So I think good is very much in the eye of the beholder.
I would point out that many actors began their careers in very forgettable roles in very forgettable movies. And I know Fonda didn’t start out with Barbarella. It was her famous father that got her in the door.
Steve McQueen was first noticed for his part in a monstrosity called, The Blob, possibly one of the worst science fiction movies ever made. But he went on to give some of the most intense performances I’ve ever seen.
Barbara Streisand has one of the best singing voices around. She’s also done an admirable job in numerous acting roles, even with her left leaning viewpoint. But if you knew how she began her acting career you would call Barbarella a children’s birthday party by comparison.
And now I’ve violated a principle I set for myself when I first commented and responded to a critic. Shows you that nothing is exactly cast in concrete.
02
Nope. You were spot on dude. Hanoi Jane is a disgrace. It was disgusting what she did to those American POW’s.
To this day I have no idea why some Vietnam vet didn’t go ventilate her skull…. Obviously they are better people than I.
Anyway she is a hypocrite of the highest order, she doesn’t live by her words. She backed Communists, but lived a Capitalist lifestyle… She spouts Ecofascist austerity and misanthropy, but lives a consumer rich, energy intensive lifestyle jetsetting around the world.
She IS the evil, she professes to combat.
[Editorializing isn’t my job as moderator. But I think I should point out that some of the accusations against Jane Fonda and what she did to certain POWs are proven false by the testimony of some of those same POWs. Like all subjects, you cannot accept everything you read about Hanoi Jane as truth. It’s very tempting to hate her, she certainly earned it. But accuracy still counts, even with Jane Fonda.] AZ
50
Fonda’s “opinion” (what somebody told her to think) matters slightly less than Bardot’s choice to go hug a baby harp seal; not at all to the real world.
00
It’s always time to panic.
We’re doomed, I tell you. Doomed!
70
That’s the thing; you won’t get out of life alive.
30
Monckton says:
Even if the equation is correct and I am happy to assume it is, there are terms for which the values are unknown (deltaF and f). Only estimates are available for those values and those estimates are likely wrong since T is not increasing.
45
The equation for CO2 radiative forcing that Monckton uses originates from the HITRAN computer-code model rather than from actual measurements. When actual measurements of CO2’s radiative forcing are made the effect from CO2 is barely statistically significant, as was pointed by John Daly when he posted about Harries 2001 some years ago. Measurements of CO2’s total emissivity also contradict the computer models. Nasif Nahle has compiled a number of measurements from many different researchers showing that the total emissivity of CO2 at 400ppmv is lower than 0.002. Anyone want to convert that into a temperature increase at the surface with the S-B law? The warming comes out at less than 0.05C. Thus the warming from human CO2 would not even be detectable by modern temperature equipment and would be completely lost in the noise of the inaccuracies of the measurements. This to me makes more sense when one considers that CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere.
61
Typo alert: “yet the billion dollar PR truck rolls on” should read “yet the trillion dollar PR truck rolls on”.
160
[…] Jo Nova wonders if there should be panic over IPCC global warming numbers […]
30
An increase of several degrees,
Is threatened by U.N. decrees,
Which is far far too many,
Or we may not get any,
If this century ends in a freeze.
151
IPCC climate change criteria: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC FAQ – “What is radiative forcing”).
0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2).
1.5+ W.m-2 CO2 “forcing” (IPCC Table of Forcings).
Game over. CO2 “forcing” is more than double the TOA imbalance, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing.
0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc
Sfc imbalance is ocean heat accumulation. Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.
No need to invoke CO2 “forcing”.
Game over.
71
Christopher Monckton is excellent. His science is impeccable and his writing is thoroughly entertaining and enlightening.
His critics can only ad hom’ his looks and manner, but never seriously contest his work. He must drive them absolutely nuts. 😉
174
“No warming has yet arisen this century.”
Well, the surface temperature datasets disagree with this claim.
The IPCC AR5 report gives a climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5K. The most likely figure is 3K.
311
Harry, really,
“Well, the surface temperature datasets disagree with this claim.
The IPCC AR5 report gives a climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5K. The most likely figure is 3K.”
All your climate sensitivity reports from the IPCC and all your ‘hottest evvvvaaa’ years have consecutively trumped each previous ‘hottest evvvaaaa’ yearly record by a statistically generated margin of five thousandth of a degree Celsius based on a confection of corrupted, homogenised data.
.005 degrees C cannot even be measured – geez you really got serious issues, dude.
93
James Bradley.
Ahhhhh insults just makes one feel so superior over another. The forum commenting guide says ad hominems are a no-no, I just thought I would point that out to you.
I do not know about your straw man argument, it could be in the guide as well.
Plus you have a habit of straying from the topic of the post.
39
You avoided the issue, Harry, by diverting to a reference about a non ad hom.
If you feel strongly that my reference to your issues was an ad hom – press the ‘report this’ button and let’s get it sorted.
Geez, Harry, a bit thin skinned, you really got issues, dude.
71
Harry we’ll need to settle the homogenization problem, to everyone’s satisfaction, before we can even begin to have a serious discussion on sensitivity.
93
El Gordo.
Well you thinking homogenization is a problem is your personal opinion, and a wrong opinion at that.
410
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/weekend-unthreaded-82/
30
This is the comment intended
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/weekend-unthreaded-82/#comment-1724278
70
KinkyKeith.
What is the link supposed to mean?
29
Harry,
When your done there try this out http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/03/a-key-admission-regarding-climate-memes/
That is unless you feel violated in some way being confronted with the ugly truth.
Issues…
102
Close your lips and let your tongue protrude.
Now blow out and try to get your tongue to vibrate; feels funny.
It’s called a raspberry and is sometimes used as a mild form of insult.
In your case it is about your demonstrated lack of education in all areas, but particularly in Science.
KK
91
Harry Twinotter,
If you’d read the comments, you’d know.
Clueless as usual.
Abe
30
KinkyKeith.
If you wanted a raspberry, it would have been easier typing it out instead of an ambiguous link.
Either way, it is childish.
16
Ad homs, ad homs…
41
Thank you. At my age being called childish is a compliment.
Ooops. Sorry.
Forgot the sign up there; Do Not Feed the Animal.
KK
ps.
Since “homogenisation” started this all; homogenisation is NOT an accepted method of data treatment for any statistical analysis system which intends being taken seriously.
Making that statement is not childish it is True Science.
61
KinkyKeith.
“homogenisation is NOT an accepted method of data treatment for any statistical analysis system which intends being taken seriously.”
Citation in the peer-reviewed scientific literature for this claim? Or your own calculations if you are a statistician?
Otherwise I will assume it is a continuation of your personal opinion your expressed earlier.
16
Harry T
In your last post:
I have done and passed two advanced Statistics subjects at the local Uni and could never entertain the idea of doing to data under the name of Homogenization what is currently being done to data by Climate Scientists(tm).
Real scientists would plot ALL data and explain the specific idiosyncrasies of all data plotted clearly in print.
I understand homogenisation of milk but from what we have found out about temperature Records and Homogenisation all we can say is that the homogenisation process is ill defined, variable and liable to be altered to suit the homogeniser.
Not Good Harry, not good.
KK
51
Nice diversion, Harry,
Now back to:
All your climate sensitivity reports from the IPCC and all your ‘hottest evvvvaaa’ years have consecutively trumped each previous ‘hottest evvvaaaa’ yearly record by a statistically generated margin of five thousandth of a degree Celsius based on a confection of corrupted, homogenised data.
.005 degrees C cannot even be measured – and if it can’t be measured why do you rely on it as a fact.
Geez you really got statistical issues, dude.
52
Harry Twinotter,
Although I accept and respect K K’s explanation on why homogenization is wrong, I would like to point out that if you look at this comment to Tristan back in April, you too will understand why homogenization is wrong and unacceptable.
The conversation, if you can call it that, begins here.
The bottom line, for those not inclined to go back and read ten or twelve comments, is this:
The same rationale applies to all uses of homogenization, not only to those to which the Law Of Large Numbers is desireable from the point of view of the ‘data manipulators’.
To wit:
If you leave the outliers in, there’s no sensible way to produce a ‘time-series’ from one or more adjacent thermometers to compare and adjust the current thermometer. This is why, as stated by the WMO, homogenization is necessary in the first place. i.e. in order to ‘produce’ a comparable data set for ‘all’ weather monitoring stations.
Without homogenization, there is no comparable data set because of the many outliers in each individual station’s data. Not to mention that the outliers appear on different days and at different times (max or min or mean).
I will repeat, wheather data is chaotic. It follows basic cycles but because of the harmonics between the different cycles and other natural factors, no two locations can have similar patterns. Homogenization ‘creates’ similar patterns at the expense of accuracy.
Harry. I point you to the original conversation because of your insistence on ‘links to sources’. The links I provided to Tristan should be enough to satisfy even your deep thirst for knowledge.
Abe
41
KinkyKeith,
If you put a space after a word and then put the tm within the brackets, you get a really cool tm like this: ™
Tip: hit preview before you post to see if it worked. 😉
And my appologies for butting in. Bad habit, I’m afraid.
Abe
20
KinkyKeith.
Citations please.
Again all you have done is express a personal opinion on homogenisation.
[Please let this be enough. The content of most of this conversation is personal and therefore off topic. Thanks.] AZ
24
It seems to me that we need USA style Racketeering Laws to test the “interpretations”.
10
I have often wondered how the IPCC manages to come up with their “95% certainty” as a percentage. How do you mathematically resolve a feeling, an idea, or an opinion, to an actual number, in this case, an actual percentage value?
Out of interest, I downloaded all 20 PDF documents that comprise the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report and ran an advanced search over all of the documents. The word “uncertainty” appears no less than 1,191 times!
So my question is this: how much uncertainty do you require in order to be less than 95% certain?
100
I have wondered that, myself, for YEARS.
60
Ray Derrick.
In the IPCC AR5 reports they say how they calculate their confidence levels.
26
Harry, they do indeed.
However, they state confidence as “low”, “medium”, “high” and “very high” – I’m sure you will agree that these terms are neither numerical nor a percentage value.
In fact, there are 353 instances of “low confidence” or “confidence is low”, 557 instances of “medium confidence” or “confidence is medium”, 618 instances of “high confidence” or “confidence is high” and 101 instances of “very high confidence” or “confidence is very high”.
Now this based simply on a phrase search and is by no means comprehensive, as confidence is not always expressed precisely in those phrases, but it is a pretty good indicator nonetheless.
So that’s 910 instances of low to medium confidence vs 719 instances of high to very high confidence. Convert that to percentages and you have 55.8% low to medium confidence vs 44.1% high to very high confidence.
So how exactly do they arrive at “95% certain”? Wouldn’t is be closer to the truth to say they are <50% certain?
51
Ray Derrick,
The IPCC does indeed correlate the ‘verbal’ qualifiers with percentages. Can’t remember exactly where in their reports they provide these correlations but they are there. So Harry is factually correct but . . .
. . . because of the analysis that you’ve presented, he’s also wrong and got a thumbs down anyway. Not because the correlation isn’t there, but because the correlation has no meaning, and is therefore worthless.
I’ll explain.
First of all, they give one qualifier to a range of values. For example:
%90 to %95 confidence = very high.
This may be fine if you’re grading test papers or homework. When it comes to allocating billions of dollars on an ongoing basis and with no end in sight, you sure as hell better give me something better than a range of probabilities.
Second of all, if you’re going to allocate billions of dollars on an ongoing basis and with no end in sight, you sure as hell better be able to prove beyond any doubt that what you intend to do with that money will have the desired effect.
On both of these counts, no-one, including the IPCC have been forthcoming nor do they intend to be. Their inapropriate use of the precautionary principle guarantees this.
Third of all, I too noticed the varying degrees of ‘confidence’ but not from the same point of view that you have. Kudos, by-the-way for taking the time and expending the energy to do the analysis. 😉
What I noticed was that when arriving at a particular ‘high confidence’ estimate, some/many of the underlying confidence estimates, those that were used to arrive at that ‘high’ level of confidence for that particular item, were significantly lower than ‘high’. How the heck does that work? 😮
I was under the mistaken belief that this was only done for some items. Your thorough accounting shows that overall, the whole thing is done the same way.
Less Is More? !#&(
Abe
11
Ray Derrick.
I suspect you have not read the report. The IPCC do give numerical ratings to those words in the AR5 reports.
23
Richard @July 6-you are exactly right.Roy Clark comes to a similar conclusion in his book:The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect.CO2 has no discernible effect whatsoever.
31
Interesting book Bud. Hadn’t heard of it. Amazon has this:
‘The Dynamic Greenhouse Effect and the Climate Averaging Paradox’ Kindle Edition
by Roy Clark (Author)
[Since the use of “fraudulently” that follows is a quote of the author, Roy Clark, I can allow the word. But fraud or fraudulently will always get you into moderation. So please keep that in mind. Thanks.] AZ
This book will completely change the way we think about the greenhouse effect. There is no carbon dioxide induced global warming. The energy transfer processes that determine the Earth’s climate are dynamic, not static. There is no climate equilibrium on any time scale. Once this is understood, the whole pseudoscientific façade of forcings and feedbacks and climate sensitivity factors collapses. A doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration has no effect on the Earth’s climate. The large scale equilibrium climate models have been fraudulently hard wired to produce global warming. The dynamic greenhouse effect also leads to a climate averaging paradox. Climate must be calculated as it is measured, as a long term average of short term variations. There is no shortcut equilibrium calculation that can be substituted for the real long term average. Over a trillion dollars has been wasted on research to save the planet from a non-existent problem.
http://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Greenhouse-Climate-Averaging-Paradox-ebook/dp/B005WLEN8W
I agree that a supposed ideal equilibrium at the TOA is a myth if that what he means by “climate equilibrium”. TOA is where the IPCC determines climate forcing. However my calculated reasoning is just applied thermodynamics. The TOA imbalance occurs NOT in atmospheric LW radiation (speed of light) but in accumulated solar energy, heat, BELOW the ocean Sfc (decades).
The 0.6 W.m-2 Sfc imbalance is global average but ocean accumulation in the tropics is far greater because the sun heats the ocean in the tropics, Accumulation there is in the order of 24 W.m-2 (Fairall et al (1996). This is dissipated elsewhere, towards the poles.
The TOA imbalance has already been brought about below Sfc by ocean heat accumulation and thermal lag (horizontal ocean heat transport). CO2 adds nothing, and can add nothing, to this.
Once the solar recession kicks in the heat accumulation will unwind. If deep enough TOA imbalance will be deficit. It’s just a fluctuation about equilibrium.
Meanwhile at The Hockey Schtick:
‘New paper finds increased CO2 or methane will have ‘essentially no effect’ upon global temperature or climate’
A new paper by USC Professor Emeritus of Geology, Dr. George Chilingar (with three co-authors), finds that increasing levels of the greenhouse gases CO2 & methane will have “essentially no effect” upon global temperatures or climate.
The authors utilize a one-dimensional adiabatic model of climate to demonstrate that the entire tropospheric temperature profile of the atmosphere on both Earth and Venus may be mathematically derived solely on the basis of atmospheric pressure/mass and solar activity, confirmed by observations on both planets, despite vast differences in atmospheric composition and mass/pressure on Earth and Venus. The paper corroborates the 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot greenhouse theory and thereby excludes the alternative 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory.
Excerpts:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2015/07/new-paper-finds-increased-co2-or.html
BYW, Roy Clark is not Dr Roy Clark who submitted ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’ to the US Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW)Subcommittee in their EPA CO2 “pollutant” deliberations (along with about 30,000 others).
That submission is here:
‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
And here:
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.21.4.171
Abstract
Energy transfer at the Earth’s surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The surface temperature changes produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.
# # #
Basically, LWIR is not an ocean heating agent.
10