Climate Goundhog Day

I posted something like this over at my other blog but I suppose I should post it here as well.  Folks ask me why I have not been blogging much here on climate, and the reason is that is has just gotten too repetitive.  It is like the movie Groundhog Day, with the same flawed studies being refuted in the same ways.  Or, if you want another burrowing mammal analogy, being a climate skeptic has become a giant game of Wack-a-Mole, with each day bringing a new flawed argument from alarmist that must be refuted.  But we never accumulate any score — skeptics have pretty much killed Gore’s ice core analysis, the hockey stick, the myth that CO2 is reducing snows on Kilamanjaro, Gore’s 20- feet of sea rise — the list goes on an on.  But we get no credit — we are still the ones who are supposedly anti-science.

This is a hobby, and not even my main hobby, so I have decided to focus on what I enjoy best about the climate debate, and that is making live presentations.  To this end, you will continue to see posts here with updated presentations and videos, and possibly a new analysis or two as I find better ways to present the material (by the way, if you have a large group, I am happy to come speak — I do not charge a speaker fee and can often pay for the travel myself).

However, while we are on the subject of climate Groundhog Day (where every day repeats itself over and over), let me tell you in advance what stories skeptic sites like WUWT and Bishop Hill and Climate Depot will be running in the coming months on the IPCC.  I can predict these with absolute certainty because they are the same stories run on the last IPCC report, and I don’t expect those folks at the IPCC to change their stripes.  So here are your future skeptic site headlines:

  1. Science sections of recent IPCC report were forced to change to fit the executive summary written by political appointees
  2. The recent IPCC report contains a substantial number of references to non-peer reviewed gray literature
  3. In the IPCC report, a couple of studies that fend off key skeptic attacks either have not yet even been published or were included despite being released after the cut off date set for studies to be included in the report
  4. In several sections of the recent IPCC report, the lead author ignored most other studies and evidence on the matter at hand and based their chapter mostly on their own research
  5. In its conclusions, the IPCC expresses absolute confidence in a statement about anthropogenic warming so vague that most skeptics might agree with the proposition.  Media then reported this as 97% confidence in 5 degrees of warming per century and 20 feet of sea rise
  6. The hockey stick has been reworked and is still totally flawed
  7. Non-Co2 causes of weather and weather related effects (e.g the sun or anthropocentric contributions like soot) are downplayed or ignored in the most recent IPCC report
  8. The words “urban heat island” appear nowhere in the IPCC report.  There is no consideration of the quality of the surface temperature record, its measurement, or the manual adjustments made to it.
  9. Most of the key studies in the IPCC report have not archived their data and refuse to release their data or software code to any skeptic for replication

Oh, I suppose it will not be all Groundhog Day.  I will predict a new one.  The old headlines were “IPCC ignores ocean cycles as partial cause for 1978-1998 warming”.  This report will be different.  Now stories will read for the new report, “IPCC blames warming hiatus on cooling from ocean cycles, but says ocean cycles have nothing to do with earlier warming”.

  • Not a Hobby!

    The most important goal of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to synthesize the state of climate change science in a way that adheres to the highest standards of scientific credibility. The IPCC aims for consensus among its members about its key findings as well as those areas that require further research. There are two instances in which consensus is being sought.

    Scientific Consensus

    The first type of consensus is sought among the scientists writing the report. In this case, consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with every single aspect of the report — a clearly unrealistic aim. It is well understood that science is not something to be decided by voting, but by logical reasoning. The core, then, of scientific consensus among IPCC scientists is that they agree that the report is of the highest scientific integrity and reflects the state of knowledge fairly and adequately. Points of dispute in the science of climate change are usually resolved either by developing appropriate intervals of uncertainty around certain projections or by crafting language that reflects the different viewpoints of experts within the scientific community and the reasons that the differences exist.

    Governmental Consensus

    The second type of consensus is sought among the governmental representatives who need to sign off on the report’s Summaries for Policymakers (SPM). In the final stages of preparing the assessment report, these governmental representatives meet in plenary and seek unanimity on the exact wording of the SPM. The scientific experts serving as lead authors of the underlying technical report are at hand to ensure scientific integrity and to resolve questions. It is particularly impressive that full consensus has been achieved in the final “sign-off” of all IPCC documents. Such consensus is not required — countries are allowed to formally register their dissents; in all cases to date, however, unanimous agreement has been reached.

  • The IPCC publishes some of the world’s most authoritative reports on climate change, which are written and reviewed by thousands of scientists, and approved by governments around the world. http://clmtr.lt/cb/wyq0crA

  • Morph

    @Gary Lawson – maybe google “science is not consensus” and then come back.

  • Otter

    Bunkus.

  • TinyCO2

    Synthesis, the combination of two or more parts, whether by design or by natural processes. Furthermore, it may imply being prepared or made artificially, in contrast to naturally. Yep, the IPCC report is clearly synthetic.

  • Lance

    Hi Warren,

    I totally understand your “hiatus” on climate blogging. But you should know that many people read your blog posts and appreciate your efforts. If you choose to focus on live presentations that’s great, but don’t forget the impact that your blog has on the debate.

    The fact that folks like Gary Lawson feel the need to comment in defense of the IPCC shows that your blog has influence.

  • Jeff Guinn

    Whatever you do, if you don’t want to risk blowing an aneurysm, do NOT read the latest issue National Geographic.

  • renewableguy

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/biblical-1000-year-deluge-strikes-colorado-did-global-warming-play-a-role-16474
    Climate change is alive and well. Now how is it that co2 doesn’t effect our weather?

  • renewableguy

    http://stopgreensuicide.com/

    chapter 11

    Sea Level Observations 13

    14

    Paleo sea level records from warm periods during the last 3 million years provide medium-to-high 15

    confidence that global mean sea level was more than 6 m higher than present when global temperature 16

    was 2°C–3°C warmer than present.

    #############

    5. In its conclusions, the IPCC expresses absolute confidence in a statement about anthropogenic warming so vague that most skeptics might agree with the proposition. Media then reported this as 97% confidence in 5 degrees of warming per century and 20 feet of sea rise
    ######################
    This could be 2 to 3 meters of sea level rise per degree If you really don’t believe warming takes place from increased ghg’s, then this would not be valid to a doubter.
    When you have the consensus of highly skilled people in their fields from all over the world, and you doubt that, then how can you show them there is a better explanation?

  • renewableguy

    http://stopgreensuicide.com/ Chapter 11

    It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has increased during the last two centuries. 24

    Paleo sea level data from many locations around the globe indicate low rates of sea level change during the 25

    late Holocene (order tenths of mm yr–1) and modern rates (order mm yr–1) during the 20th century. It is very 26

    likely that global mean sea level has risen ~1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 during the 20th century, and between 2.8 27

    and 3.6 mm yr–1 since 1993. It is likely that global mean sea level has accelerated since the early 1900s, with 28

    estimates ranging from 0.000 to 0.013 [–0.002 to 0.019] mm yr–2. [Chapter 3, Chapter 5, 13.2.1–2, Figure 29

    13.3].
    #########
    So why did sea level rise? The explanation would be increase of ghg’s. Is there a better one out there?

  • renewableguy

    2. The recent IPCC report contains a substantial number of references to non-peer reviewed gray literature

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1812

    In her release of the draft IPCC documents, Laframboise’s sole complaint was that the IPCC is still referencing “gray literature” (non peer-reviewed documents like technical reports and working papers) written by scientists from groups like the World Wildlife Fund. While citing gray literature without first checking it thoroughly did lead to one or two relatively minor mistakes in the last IPCC report, a review of IPCC procedures determined that gray literature contains very useful and important information, and that the IPCC has guidelines in place to ensure that the information is accurate before its inclusion in the IPCC report.

    “Although some respondents to the Committee’s questionnaire have recommended that only peer-reviewed literature be used in IPCC assessments, this would require the IPCC to ignore some valuable information….”

    “The current IPCC procedure requires authors to critically assess unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources, reviewing their quality and validity before incorporating them…Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed….”

    Recommendation
    ► The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, including providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such information, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.”
    ######################
    The gray literature will be used and reviewed. Something about peer reviewed. So many doubters don’t trust peer reviewed. Can you have it both ways?

  • renewableguy

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

    Climate scientists, especially in the US, have reported official and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their work and hide scientific data, with directives not to discuss the subject in public communications. Legal cases regarding global warming, its effects, and measures to reduce it, have reached American courts. The fossil fuels lobby and free market think tanks have often been accused of overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine or discredit the scientific consensus on global warming

  • Joe_Da

    “It is very likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has increased during the last two centuries. Paleo sea level data from many locations around the globe indicate low rates of sea level change during the late Holocene (order tenths of mm yr–1) and modern rates (order mm yr–1) during the 20th century. It is very likely that global mean sea level has risen ~1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 during the 20th century, and between 2.8 and 3.6 mm yr–1 since 1993. It is likely that global mean sea level has accelerated since the early 1900s, with estimates ranging from 0.000 to 0.013 [–0.002 to 0.019] mm yr–2. [Chapter 3, Chapter 5, 13.2.1–2, Figure

    So why did sea level rise? The explanation would be increase of ghg’s. Is there a better one out there?”

    Mr renewableguy
    1) work on your cutting and pasting
    2) Try to use non advocacy websites other than skeptical science and climate central.
    3) The increase in rate of sea level rise coincides the ending of the little ice age. Please explain why you would not expect an increase in the rate of sea level rise at the end of the little ice age.
    4) please explain how an increase of 2-3ppm of co2 circa 1750 was powerful enough to stop the long term cooling trend and started this warming trend that has been going on for 250 years.
    5) if something other than ghc caused the end of the little ice age, then explain how the current warming, is caused by ghc but the first 150-200 years of warming was caused by something else especially when the rate of warming has been reasonably consistent since circa 1750

  • renewableguy

    1) work on your cutting and pasting

    ###################

    What work does my cutting and pasting need?

    #######################

    2) Try to use non advocacy websites other than skeptical science and climate central.

    #####################

    In this example I used IPCC AR5. So I assume this one isn’t on your black list. I will continue to use the sites that you have mentioned. You can tell me why their science is wrong.
    3) The increase in rate of sea level rise coincides the ending of the little ice age. Please explain why you would not expect an increase in the rate of sea level rise at the end of the little ice age.

    ####################

    Do you know even why the little ice age occurred? The climatologists list the mechanisms that they think took place at the that time and plug them into their models and compare it to the evidence that we can gather during that period. Can you list any of the mechanisms that took place during the little ice age?

    ################

    4) please explain how an increase of 2-3ppm of co2 circa 1750 was powerful enough to stop the long term cooling trend and started this warming trend that has been going on for 250 years.

    #########################

    In 1750 we were 280ppm co2 and today we are approaching 400ppm. CO2 is a very well known mechanism for the warming or cooling of the earth. CO2 can be a feedback or the cause of warming. Approaching 120ppm difference stimulates other positive feedbacks on earth to give us several degrees increase over the next several hundred years.

    #####################
    5) if something other than ghc caused the end of the little ice age, then explain how the current warming, is caused by ghc but the first 150-200 years of warming was caused by something else especially when the rate of warming has been reasonably consistent since circa 1750

    #######################
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
    Climate sensitivity is a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing of the system.

    CO2 and other ghg’s are known mechanisms for changing radiative forcing of our climate. (my comment)

    The climate sensitivity specifically due to CO2 is often expressed as the temperature change in °C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. (back to wiki)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2

    CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from feedbacks, positive and negative. “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback”;[8] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).
    TO emphasize doubled co2 with feedbacks is approximately 3*C plus/minus 1.5*C. We are not even half way to doubled co2 and there is lag in the warming due to the thermal mass of the oceans. (my comment)

  • Joe_Da

    4) please explain how an increase of 2-3ppm of co2 circa 1750 was powerful enough to stop the long term cooling trend and started this warming trend that has been going on for 250 years.

    #########################

    In 1750 we were 280ppm co2 and today we are approaching 400ppm. CO2 is a very well known mechanism for the warming or cooling of the earth. CO2 can be a feedback or the cause of warming. Approaching 120ppm difference stimulates other positive feedbacks on earth to give us several degrees increase over the next several hundred years.

    Your response does not explain how co2 was so powerful that it not only stopped the long term cooling trend and started the warming trend. There currently is not a good scientific explanation how 2-3ppm of co2 was powerful enough stop the cooling trend, cause nearly as much warming as an increase in 120ppm causes today. When the scientists can explain the warming circa 1750, then they become more credible on the current warming.

  • netdr

    Total warming has been 8/10 K / 300 K [approx] or 26/100 of 1 % and is not statistically significant. Pure chance is enough to explain it and CO2 is not needed.

  • renewableguy

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases
    The highest radiative forcing of the ghg’s the ipcc keeps track of is co2. 1.66watts/meter*2
    This is the equivalent of 400,000 hiroschima bombs per day over the whole earth.

    Joe, there is one thing you are missing in your understanding in knowledge of climate. There are positive feedbacks to co2. Would you happen to the know the strongest one?

  • Guest

    qqq

  • Joe_Da

    “In 1750 we were 280ppm co2 and today we are approaching 400ppm. CO2 is a very well known mechanism for the warming or cooling of the earth. CO2 can be a feedback or the cause of warming. Approaching 120ppm difference stimulates other positive feedbacks on earth to give us several degrees increase over the next several hundred years.”

    Your response doesnt address how 2-3ppm increase in co2 was powerful enough to not only stop the long term cooling trend but started the warming trend. You are basically making the argument that the 400ppm of co2 today is responsible for the warming that occurred circa 1750.

  • Joe_Da

    positive feedbacks – the absolute weakest part of the agw theory. there is virtually no empirical evidence that positive feedbacks have ever kicked in during any prior warming period, yet somehow those positive feedbacks have a mechanism to know they are only allowed to kick in when the warming is due to human caused co2 build up.

  • renewableguy

    Are you kidding?????????
    The cornerstone and bullet proof part AGW theory is water vapor feedback. The earth’s surface is 70% water. Sorry.
    Doubter arguments in this area will never survive the light of day.

  • Joe_Da

    Positive feedbacks – the cornerstone and bullet proof part of the AGW theory. Seriously, your showing signs of paying homage to the high priests of climate science instead of using any critical thinking skills. The failure to even acknowledge one of the basic unknowns of climate science.

  • renewableguy

    This is science which is reality that you may never choose to absorb. What is true for weather is also true for climate.
    Climate science is approaching 200 years and the water vapor-co2 connection is 50 years old. No secret here.
    70% water surface 30% land

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Water_vapor_feedback

    If the atmospheres are warmed, the saturation vapor pressure increases, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the increase in water vapor content makes the atmosphere warm further; this warming causes the atmosphere to hold still more water vapor (a positive feedback), and so on until other processes stop the feedback loop. The result is a much larger greenhouse effect than that due to CO2 alone. Although this feedback process causes an increase in the absolute moisture content of the air, the relative humidity stays nearly constant or even decreases slightly because the air is warmer.[45] Climate models incorporate this feedback. Water vapor feedback is strongly positive, with most evidence supporting a magnitude of 1.5 to 2.0 W/m2/K, sufficient to roughly double the warming that would otherwise occur.[59] Considered a faster feedback mechanism.[49]

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

    1963
    Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level. =>Radiation math

  • netdr

    Consensus is politics and politics has no place in science !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • renewableguy

    Can scientists come to a consensus based in science? Yes
    Can they agree on what the data indicates. Yes
    About what percentage do scientists agree that global warming is human caused. 97%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

  • Climate change is real. Just ask 97% of the top climate scientists or any national science academy in the world.

    Within the scientific community, there’s overwhelming consensus that man-made global warming is happening. According to a recent survey, 97 percent of top climate scientists (those with Ph.D.s who regularly publish the results of their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals) agree with that statement. And every major National Academy of Science in the world agrees that man-made climate change is happening and poses real threats. If 97 percent of doctors diagnosed you with a serious illness, would you ask the remaining 3 percent for their opinion before starting treatment? Of course not.

  • Larry Schneiderwind

    Even I believe slight beneficial warming has happened. Catastrophic AGW has never happened and never will happen !!

  • renewableguy

    Is what you believe reality?

  • Orson OLSON

    Our host says the debate has devolved into ‘whack-a-mole.’ And, Lord-Be-Praised, a mole shows up! Even in skeptics groups (TM), the will-to-believe in catastrophe and sin is stronger than science knowledge and methods. How sad.