Oxford says rate of warming has slowed

May 20th, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

James Ihaka at NZ Herald reports:

New research from Oxford University shows the rate of global warming has been lower over the past decade than it was previously.

The paper, “Energy budget constraints on climate response”, to be published online by Nature Geoscience, shows the estimated average climate sensitivity – or how much the globe will warm if carbon dioxide concentrations are doubled – is almost the same as the estimates based on data up to the year 2000.

The two estimates of the average are only 0.1C different.

The study, which uses data from the past decade, also shows the most extreme rates of warming simulated by climate models over 50- to 100-year timescales are looking less likely.

The Financial Times has more info:

The most recent global assessment of scientific understanding on the topic of climate sensitivity was carried out by the UN body charged with producing regular evaluations of the state of climate knowledge, the Intergovernmental Panel on , in 2007.

It estimated then that if carbon dioxide concentrations eventually doubled from their pre-industrial levels of around 280 ppm to 560 ppm, the long-term temperature rise, hundreds of years in the future, was likely to be between 2°C and 4.5°C, with a best estimate of about 3°C.

In the short term, over the next 50 to 100 years, it suggested likely rises within a range of 1°C and 3°C.

Dr Otto and his colleagues have come up with similar estimates to the IPCC’s long-term projections, but their short-term figures (for what is technically known as the transient climate response) suggest temperatures might only rise by between 0.9 °C and 2°C in coming decades.

So the worst case scenario is now deemed unlikely. Why?

The difference comes about because the researchers have taken account of the most recent decade of flatter temperature rises – which many scientists believe are due to the oceans’ absorption of heat – and other factors.

This makes sense. Despite what some say, there is no scientific doubt that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have a warming effect as they keep heat in.

But what we have an imprecise knowledge of is how the rest of the climate ecosystem reacts to the warming generated by greenhouse gases. That is why there is legitimate debate about the extent of any warming (but not over the fact there is warming over the long-term).

The uncertainty makes policy responses more difficult, especially the key issue of whether money is better spent on mitigation or adaptation. The key policy challenge with mitigation is getting the big three emitters to agree. Any mitigation efforts that do not include them are useless in an environmental sense (but may have some use in a political sense).

Tags:

61 Responses to “Oxford says rate of warming has slowed”

  1. queenstfarmer (696 comments) says:

    So the worst case scenario is now deemed unlikely.

    Which in turn, is the worst case scenario for the alarmists :-)

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (6,733 comments) says:

    No warming for the past 16 years.

    There’s no way any of the “scientific” predictions were ever going to be accurate as they weren’t scientific.

    They were political and designed to create more taxes,more subsidies,more govt control ,less freedom.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming–deniers-now.html

    Even the railroad engineer who the UN use to front it’s climate scam has admitted as much.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    I am growing worried about Griff. Should we send him some flowers or something ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RightNow (6,350 comments) says:

    I’d go with an ounce of “or something” Kea.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (12,643 comments) says:

    Remind me: what are paying the ETS tax for?
    It’s time to end this farce, but hey, Labour Lite loves our tax money!

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. wiseowl (578 comments) says:

    Humans can do nothing about it.
    Climate will change. Fact.

    There is no point having policies of any sort.What will happen, will happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. flipper (3,274 comments) says:

    Quote from DPF:

    “… This makes sense. Despite what some say, there is no scientific doubt that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have a warming effect as they keep heat in.”

    Questions:
    1. Show us the evidence to support that statement.
    2. Show us evidence that any increase of the worst case postulated would cause any damage to life as “we know it”.
    There is NONE! and

    3. Please define “greenhouse” gases, and %s thereof

    Almost everyone outside the warmist cult accepts that CO2 does increase atmospheric temperatures.
    But by how much, and due to what?

    No one, I repeat, no one has yet established either the “what” or the “how much”.

    And, to repeat, no one has shown whether any increase, if established, is injurious.

    One further point. Oxford is a respected institution. But on this subject it is far from the gold standard. Look to Linzden, Christy, Ball, Evans, (not to mention Christopher Monckton) et al, for a more accurate guide… and they will say much the same as I have commented above.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. mandk (711 comments) says:

    DPF says: “… there is no scientific doubt that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have a warming effect …”

    And I thought you didn’t practise a faith David :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Matthew Hooton (114 comments) says:

    “Despite what some say, there is no scientific doubt that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have a warming effect as they keep heat in.”

    Are you sure that there is absolutely no scientific doubt about that?

    Usually, you notice a correlation first (like people who smoke tend to get lung cancer) and once that is established you look for causation (the chemicals in smokes cause lung cancer) and show how.

    In this case, no one appears able to prove even correlation, because temperatures over the last 1000 years have been higher when carbon in the atmosphere has been lower. And now carbon in the atmosphere has reached a record, temperatures have stopped rising.

    Without being able to show even correlation, it seems extraordinary for anyone to say “there is no scientific doubt” there is causation.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. flipper (3,274 comments) says:

    Matthew Hooton (90) Says: ….

    Yep, see my questions above.
    F

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. MT_Tinman (2,795 comments) says:

    mandk, flipper, I think DPF is correct. Misguided but correct.

    The questions that need answering are;

    Do we want warming? (I all for it.)

    Is man responsible for the warming? (Not significantly.)

    Are we prepared to let the communists achieve their aim by the back door method of AGW panic?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    I think it is entirely possible mans activities contribute in some small way to the worlds climate. The debate is around the scale of that change. I have seen no evidence that convinces me that mans influence is the deciding factor and even less that mans influence will result in the sorts of drastic changes suggested by the alarmist industry.

    CO2 may be a greenhouse gas and may be increasing. That still does not prove AGW alarmist theory.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    Despite what some say, there is no scientific doubt that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have a warming effect as they keep heat in.

    Nobody says otherwise – this is a non sequitur raised by political hacks to mislead as they sell us rubbish like the ETS to increase their grubby little tax take.

    Without the warming effect of “greenhouse gases” the Earth would be uninhabitable, the most important “greenhouse gas” being of course water vapour, CO2′s effect is trivial when compared to this

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Ross12 (931 comments) says:

    This is just a continuation of the slow but inevitable collapse of the “cult’. It started in the MSM with an article in the Economist ( although Der Speigel did well before them) and others like the above have slowly been joining in. As a result carbon permit markets are stuffed. Only the Aussies have got themselves hung up on stupid price levels.
    Countries like the UK have let their energy policies get completely out of hand and now many are starting to wake up to the major problems heading down the road towards them.
    In the meantime the warmists are getting more outlandish in their claims. Dr James Hansen is now running around making claims that completely contradict the data set he spent his career creating ( and manipulating) .

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Don the Kiwi (1,341 comments) says:

    It was stated several years ago by a scientist – from University of Oregon I think – that even though initial increases in CO 2 levels did increase temperatures, it was exponentially negative – not positive.

    In other words, as our temperatures increased by X for the first 100 ppm. increase of CO2, heating did not increase at the same rate for 200 ppm., but the increases dropped dramatically as further ppm. of CO 2 increased, to a point where there was no increase in temperature at all, irrespective of further increases in levels of CO 2.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. scrubone (2,971 comments) says:

    The problem isn’t fossil fuels, it’s desertification.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

    And the answer is to ignore the greenies and run more livestock.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    As a result carbon permit markets are stuffed.

    I wonder if it was the other way around. Perhaps the carbon market was not the money spinner it was hoped to be, so they instructed people to start telling the truth ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. NK (919 comments) says:

    Four words: The science is settled.

    Two more words: Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. coge (160 comments) says:

    You always have to leave them a way out. The next revision will bring the pecentage down to the margin of error.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Flippy
    you take the cake for total confusion
    one study does not change the fact
    we are heating the planet
    the ipcc got two things wrong
    ice is melting faster
    sea level is rising faster

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    one study does not change the fact
    we are heating the planet

    Sure we are. But not enough to detect it. Natural variation overwhelms mans tiny contribution.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RightNow (6,350 comments) says:

    “sea level is rising faster”

    Faster than what? At the end of the 19th Century it was rising at 2.3 mm/year. Since 1900 it’s averaged 1.9mm/year.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind-the-warming-went-into-the-deep-end/

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Jimbob (639 comments) says:

    In summary, the climate change alarmists’ have no idea.
    The World wants us to pay a tax on something that they have no idea about.
    Charming.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Short and interesting presentation

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. David Farrar (1,812 comments) says:

    For those who doubt greenhouse gases trap heat, the science behind this is very basic and really is not contested by anyone at all with a science background. This has been demonstrated in labs, and arguing against that is like arguing against gravity.

    What is not certain is how the rest of a very complex eco-system responds to the warming effect of greenhouse gases. The ultimate impact of greenhouse gases may be smaller than other factors which work in the other direction. But that is not to say they do not have an impact.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    …arguing against that is like arguing against gravity.

    Or arguing that the sun does not warm earth, as the alarmists do.

    The warming effect of some gases is accepted. That does nothing to support anthropogenic global warming. Most CO2 is produced by nature. Mans contribution is very small and well within the natural and normal variations. The idea that the anthropogenic contribution is just enough to push things over the edge, and break the camels back, is flawed. This would only apply if there was a magic limit set (by God ?) and our tiny little contribution was enough to push it over the edge. But informed rational people do not claim that.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wat dabney (3,466 comments) says:

    one study does not change the fact we are heating the planet

    Er, even the alarmists’ own records show zero warming over the last decade. Arch-warmist James Hansen is reduced to publicly lying about his own dataset:

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/17/hansens-scandalous-interview.html

    ice is melting faster

    Arctic ice is competely normal, and Antarctic ice is growing:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/arctic-closing-in-on-an-ice-free-state/
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/antarctic-sea-ice-to-cover-the-planet-by-november-3054/

    Poor Griff.

    His heart’s just not it in any more is it.

    Just a few tired lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Ross12 (931 comments) says:

    David

    The biggest greenhouse gas by a very large margin is water vapour. The reason people get wound up about the theory is because of the huge amounts of money going to wasted. Policies like the crops being turned into biofuels is leading to massive food shortages etc etc.
    I see it very simply –if the theory was right then the continued increase in CO2 levels in the last 15 years should have seen a significant temperature increase. It has not happened and doesn’t look like it will happen ( despite the desperate manipulation of the data sets). Theory fails ,so lets stop wasting money and get energy policies back in the right direction.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. UrbanNeocolonialist (136 comments) says:

    The dodgy part is that they are now claiming that the deep ocean is heating at an increased rate, so desperate are they for heating – but there has been essentially no useful data on this until about 2003 (ARGO buoys) so claiming that they know its rate of temperature change before then (and we are talking about a total change of less than 0.1 degree) is extremely misleading as the real error bounds (not their fabrication) swamp the signal by a huge margin. Even in the entire 10 year long and far more accurate Argo era that change is only about 0.01°C, which is only just in the realms of possibility for them to measure.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/levitus_et_al_ohc.jpg

    Also very telling is that the rate has miraculously slowed since the Argo buoys came online. How convenient to the story that there was all this rapid past heating, even if it has magically slowed since Argo came into being.

    Other issues with it; how does this magic process manage to get heat through to lower ocean without heating the upper ocean?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract
    The telling phrase in the abstract is “bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases”. In other words they fucked with the data until they got the answer they wanted.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. flipper (3,274 comments) says:

    David…
    Just answer the questions posed above.

    Provide the data (not links) and I undertake to have it reviewed by folk who know their stuff and to make it available to you (Kiwiblog) for posting – unaltered.

    Defence of a misguided policy (albeit it seemed ok to JK et al in 2007/8) is one thing.

    Eating a dead rat like the ETS, Griff and ‘its” friends in 2013 is something else. :)

    Cheers, my friend.
    (To be continued at the MB function on June 10 ?)
    “F”

    [DPF: I'm not going to try and convince you of fifth form physics. If you can find even one scientist who says that greenhouse gases do not have an impact on temperature, I'll be amazed. You do yourself a disservice by looking so foolish. This is like asking someone to prove gravity.

    The debate is about the extent of warming, not that there is a link between greenhouse gases and warming]

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Ross12 (931 comments) says:

    David

    In answer to your challenge to flipper , here is one very senior scientist who thinks the physics of the greenhouse theory needs some rethinking.

    http://kirkmyers.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/miskolczi-destroys-greenhouse-theory/

    [DPF:Upon reading it, he doesn't dispute that greenhouse gases have a warming effect, he just says that the effect is countered by other factors]

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Ross12 (931 comments) says:

    David

    From the last sentence of his letter ” …..warming is totally wrong, and the physics of the greenhouse effect requires serious revisions.”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Ancient Dan (39 comments) says:

    David
    Like he IPCC models you are ignoring the sun.
    It is actually the biggest driver of climate
    bigger than 399 parts in a million of a beneficial gas
    of which those 399 parts in the million
    humans are only responsible for 10 %
    the avrage of the 32 models used by the IPCC
    predicted a rise in the last 15 years
    it has not risen
    temperature has flattened therefore the IPCC models are wrong
    they are only models
    the real data shows the theory of CO2 causing temperature rise
    is a very very small factor
    its the sun david

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. hj (5,708 comments) says:

    This post kinda goes with nationals libertarian lurch over town planning doesn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. hj (5,708 comments) says:

    So the worst case scenario is now deemed unlikely.
    ………………………
    That’s misleading as surely “the worst case scenario” is time dependant and they aren’t saying the temperature will stop trending upwards. The logical (and moral) conclusion is that we do something for the state of the planet (as head species) and for the sake of generations yet to be born.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23565-a-second-chance-to-save-the-climate.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    hj, why do we need to do anything if the planet is not warming ?

    It is not a “second chance” it is a failed theory that was never right in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hj (5,708 comments) says:

    The uncertainty makes policy responses more difficult, especially the key issue of whether money is better spent on mitigation or adaptation. The key policy challenge with mitigation is getting the big three emitters to agree. Any mitigation efforts that do not include them are useless in an environmental sense (but may have some use in a political sense).
    ……………………
    No that is bullshit. our response should be to get our own house in order. That’s why we need (for example) proper urban planning and regulations and standards as to how houses are built so they are truly energy efficient.
    http://math.350.org/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. axeman (250 comments) says:

    Hopefully the CAGW scam will be dealt a final blow soon. One great milestone would be abolishing all the EU climate change legislation.

    There is already a movement to diminished importance of climate change at the EU Commission as there will apparently not be a separate Climate Change Commissioner in the next cabinet. It will be put under the Commissioner for Energy. A positive step for fading out the bullshit…..

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/29/german-economics-magazine-trust-in-climate-science-has-been-shaken-scientists-have-embarrassed-themselves/

    “…there is no doubt about the greenhouse effect, but even so this warming pause is remarkable because the climate scientists with all their models did not expect this.”

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/05/baffled-german-government-concedes-global-warming-has-stopped-warming-pause-is-remarkable-unexpected/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. southtop (257 comments) says:

    Axeman – no chance
    Central govt politicians are cornered and need to find a way to back out to save pride and not have to pay back STOLEN monies.
    Local govt has used the scam to grow their size, power and intrusiveness – like a starving dog with a bone, they won’t give their bone up easily.
    Media has been selectively reporting and won’t want to back down
    Notice I haven’t even mentioned the Luddite melons like the Green Party, the billions of dollars at risk in the UN and the teachers corrupting children’s minds…… Won’t go away easily this one

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. flipper (3,274 comments) says:

    Hello DPF…

    This is rather late since one cannot devote all of one’s life to this excellent blog.

    Your reference to 5th Form (I’m glad that you talk in real, as opposed to “new”, educational terms) physics and a “disservice”, suggests to me that I touched a nerve that you have been scratching for some time, and that I should therefore reply, albeit some 12 hours later. Perhaps this exercise will bring you out, and finally convince you that you have eaten a dead rat. :)

    It will therefore belong long, and will include a paper by my colleague Rupert Wyndham (edited to exclude irrelevant matters), that I have previously sent in full to you on behalf of The Outside The Beltway Group.

    For the first, second and third times , I did not deny (repeat, deny) a link between “greenhouse gases” and atmospheric temperature.

    I remind you of the what I stated at the beginning of this discussion, namely (among the questions I posed):

    **** Almost everyone outside the warmist cult accepts that CO2 does increase atmospheric temperatures.
    But by how much, and due to what?

    No one, I repeat, no one has yet established either the “what” or the “how much”.

    And, to repeat, no one has shown whether any increase, if established, is injurious. ****

    Your comment was therefore based upon a misapprehension on your part.

    Now to the paper mention. This was delivered early last month to the UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee. Climate: Public Understanding and Policy Implications

    **** R C E Wyndham stated …..
    2. Declaration of interests
    In conspicuous contrast to numbers of MPs, I have no financial or reputational interests whatsoever in the subject of alleged man-made climate change. Neither have I ever had.

    3. Public perception of climate change
    The public, rightly, increasingly perceives alleged anthropogenic global warming as a scam designed to:

    • extract stealth taxes;
    • reward rich third parties often, or even usually, family, personal friends or political allies of legislators;
    ….
    Why?

    3.1 Science – overview. AGW ‘science’ has been fraudulent from inception. Since it always lacked authentic
    scientific underpinning, it was obliged to have recourse to chicanery – contrived claims of a scientific
    consensus, refusal to observe protocols of scientific method (verification and replication),
    subversion of peer review, avoidance of debate, denial of contra-indications, concoction of data,
    misrepresentation, misinformation, disinformation. …….
    3.2 Is there any aspect in which AGW ‘science’ is plausible?

    No, quite simply impossible. The orthodoxy posits that fundamental and potentially dangerous alterations
    to the Earth’s climate may be wrought by minute changes in the atmospheric concentration of a single
    component, a trace gas amounting in total to less than 1/25th part of a single percentage point. By any
    standard, this constitutes an hypothesis that can only be regarded as facile and unlikely, if not positively
    flaky, the more so when taking into account that:

    • CO2 is the sine qua non of all life on Earth;

    • the geological record discloses numerous precedents for CO2 atmospheric concentrations many times greater than those prevailing today, during which there was no “runaway greenhouse effect” – another delusional concept. In fact, the interfaces between the Ordovician & Silurian epochs (4000ppmv) and the Jurassic & Cretaceous (2000ppmv) were periods of planetary glaciation, totally destroying the linkage between CO2 concentration and global mean temperature. CO2 atmospheric concentration currently stands at around 390ppmv.

    An implausible hypothesis requires exceptionally strong proof.

    Has there been any evidence to support of the AGW hypothesis? Not one example has yet been
    put forward drawn from observation in the real world.

    Nevertheless, this still does not represent the flaw au fond in the AGW edifice. That, ironically, is provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself, of which more in due course. Pro tempore, it is sufficient to note that, writing for once truthfully and accurately, in its First Assessment Report (AR1), it made the entirely correct (though obvious!) declaration that the atmosphere/climate is a vast, chaotic, non-linear system, not susceptible to prediction. In consequence, the IPCC added that it would/could deal only with ‘scenarios’.

    By the advent of AR2, however, it was clear that it had every intention of promoting not only prediction but catastrophism also. And the supposed scientific justification for such predictions? Why, to be sure, they were to be attributed to minute alterations in a single variable, namely CO2. For members of this Committee and others:

    N.B. By virtue of underlying realities, the acknowledgement on the one hand that prediction is impossible
    and on the other an appeal to predictive determinism represents the juxtaposition of mutually
    exclusive propositions!

    4. Credibility of cited authorities

    4.1 IPCC
    Cataclysmic climate change propagandists frequently seek to dismiss questioning of their orthodoxy by reference to the alleged absence of specialist expertise possessed by dissenters. In spite of this, the public is not so dense that it cannot see the clash between this proposition and the appointment of a railway engineer to head up what is, supposedly, the world’s primary authority on proclaimed climate change. Moreover, as propaganda from the IPCC and pseudo-environmentalists has grown increasingly shrill, so too have investigations multiplied both of their claims and of their basic integrity. It did not take long for a string of outright falsehoods to be exposed:

    • shrinking Himalayan glaciers;
    • 100% peer reviewed research materials (more than 30% found to be the work of eco-extremists and even students);
    • rising sea levels;
    • rising global temperatures;

    to name but a few. Neither did it escape public attention that Rajendra Pachauri had substantial conflicts of
    interest between his official role and his business activities, nor that these were both insolent and brazen -
    (“They’re of interest to me so are not conflicting.”). ……..

    …….

    That source is, in fact, within the public domain. It is vested, courtesy of the Tyndall Centre, in ‘Working Paper No. 58′ – The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change – Dennis Bray & Simon Shackley, Sept. 2004) [My underlining]

    “Only the perception of positive anomalies will be registered as an indication of change, if the issue is framed as global warming.

    Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as an indication of change, if the issue is framed as ‘climate change’.

    We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.”

    In plain English, too hot and it’s CO2. Too cold and it’s CO2. No change and it’s CO2. What is clear is that Messrs. Bray and Shackley knew well that they were selling a pup; the ethics of the second hand car dealership or, perhaps more immediately, the solar panel salesman, are normative throughout the climate change industry.

    Hypotheses that, at least in principle, are not capable of being disproved are not science; they are merely manifestations of cultist dogmatism and demagoguery.

    ………

    4.5 The Royal Society
    Under the stewardships of its last three Presidents, from being a national treasure, the Royal Society has become a propagandist for the human induced climate change paradigm. It is fair to state that over the course of the past decade, the RS has exercised all its authority and prestige in advancing the orthodoxy by lending to it a spurious veneer of scientific/intellectual respectability. It has gone to inordinate lengths to encourage acceptance of the proclaimed consensus and to discourage all debate. With respect to the latter, I am able to speak from experience. More to the point, even significant numbers of its own Fellows have expressed disquiet at the public stance of the Society. This too is in the public domain, and the public at large is increasingly aware that the alleged consensus is not even remotely as monolithic as is claimed by pseudo-environmental jihadists.

    4.6 Academia
    Mutatis mutandis, much of the foregoing relating to the RS may be transposed to academia at large, especially scientific academia.

    4.7 The print media
    Except amongst AGW cult fundamentalists, the reputations of The Guardian and The Independent have been increasingly under attack for their unshakeable left wing cultist prejudice. The Daily Telegraph has gained credibility, because it has consistently over a long period entertained both sides of the debate. A sea change, however, has occurred within the daily tabloids. Two years ago sceptical articles were rare to the point of extinction. They can now be described almost as the default position for both copy and editorial comment.

    ……

    4.11 The blogosphere
    Since officially sponsored information cannot be trusted, the internet is now the predominant source of dispassionate and reliable information on putative climate change. Numerous highly regarded blogs exist, which cover all aspects of the subject by recourse to data not unsubstantiated assertion, with many being run by, or closely associated with, scientists of immense prestige, who are dismissive of the orthodoxy.

    5. Summary
    This submission can be distilled as follows:

    • The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is a fraudulent chimera.
    • Its adoption by Parliament has resulted in baleful and cripplingly expensive consequences for the country.
    • Amongst these have been

    – corruption of politics, both at national and local level;
    – corruption of national institutions – the Royal Society and the BBC, most conspicuously;
    – subversion of the integrity of the scientific enterprise and the education of the young;
    – despoliation of the natural environment;
    – immense pollution and habitat expropriation, albeit not necessarily on these shores;
    – diversion of financial resources on a blanching scale into worthless palliatives to non-existent problems;
    – impoverishment of populations, both at home and abroad, to no good end,which has been the subject of
    repeated critical comment, as has been, in parallel, the self-enrichment of key players.
    …..
    7. Postscript
    Anthropogenic Global Warming, speciously morphed to ‘Climate Change’, is not a scientific issue at all. The science is clear. There is no demonstrable causal linkage between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and global mean temperature. Neither is there any evidence that modest rises in global mean temperature would be anything other than beneficial.

    Rather, because it represents a full frontal assault on the very notion of open and objective debate and evidence led scientific investigation, it constitutes a fundamental ethical issue of unique significance. ******

    Enough, or should I produce more, and arrange for some anonymous (real peer reviews are anonymous)scientific giants to review your data????
    PS
    You really should have stood up your client launch and met with Christopher Monckton when he was in Wellington recently.

    Please David, do not take this as personal. It is strictly “business”, so to speak.

    :) :) :))

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. David Farrar (1,812 comments) says:

    I’m pleased Flipper you do not deny a link between “greenhouse gases” and atmospheric temperature. It is akin to denying gravity.

    I have always maintained a position that the magnitude of any link is debatable. However it is not zero.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Good post Flipper. At times like this I wish Griff could read a little better.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Flippy why not discuss the actual green house gases and co3 effect as measured
    these things have been established for a century.
    Water the major component is dependant on temperature.
    Co2 is around 12% and we will have doubled it by 2030
    As to the effects geology tells us that past climate change events have lead to mass extinction events.
    As pointed out to you alarmists make up the entire scientific community
    except for a few wing nuts on blogs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    As to the effects geology tells us that past climate change events have lead to mass extinction events.

    Which only proves that drastic climatic changes are normal and not dependant on human influence. These things happened before BIG OIL and your fictional “Carbon Industry” were invented.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    New study rates 97% of papers that mention agw/cc soport the position it is happening and are responsible

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. flipper (3,274 comments) says:

    God this becomes boring when idiots like Griff believe in their dead rats. So let me try again:

    **** Is there any aspect in which AGW ‘science’ is plausible?

    No, quite simply impossible. The orthodoxy posits that fundamental and potentially dangerous alterations
    to the Earth’s climate may be wrought by minute changes in the atmospheric concentration of a single
    component, a trace gas amounting in total to less than 1/25th part of a single percentage point. By any
    standard, this constitutes an hypothesis that can only be regarded as facile and unlikely, if not positively
    flaky, the more so when taking into account that:

    • CO2 is the sine qua non of all life on Earth;
    and

    **** What are the greenhouse gases?
    There are several, water vapour being by far the most significant – responsible for 95% of the GHE. Why? Because H2O absorbs radiation over almost the entire IR spectrum. CO2 is only a secondary ghg, exists in minute overall concentrations (0.0385% of the atmosphere as a whole), and absorbs over only two narrow bandwidths, most usually quoted the 15 micron band. Consequently, the radiative potential of CO2 quickly becomes saturated. Other GHGs are occasionally mentioned, and include methane and nitrous oxide.
    and
    **** Do CO2 concentrations explain recent climatic variation – last 150 years, say, but especially since late 70s?
    No. Even CO2 protagonists acknowledge that CO2 of itself explains nothing. The first 20 ppm of atmospheric CO2 give rise to roughly 1½ºC of warming. The next 1½ºC requires a further 400 ppm, and the next 1ºC calls for a further 1000 ppm. We are currently standing at about 385 ppm. In short, the forcing relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is logarithmic not linear, for which reason alone its effects are self-limiting. It requires a feedback mechanism, for which H2O has been enlisted as the agent, ie more CO2 means more warming, which means more water vapour, which means more warming. However, and rarely if ever mentioned by AGW proponents, H2O also produces cooling by virtue of two mechanisms – evaporation and cloud formation. 70% of the earth’s surface comprises ocean and much of the land surface also transpires, so evaporative cooling is significant. Clouds directly radiate heat back into space. Overall, it now seems that H2O has a negative feedback greater than any positive feedback. Though they have consistently denied its importance, CO2 protagonists have never understood the influence of clouds as well as several other natural variables (eg so called aerosols – mostly pollutants, such as SO2, oxides of nitrogen, etc often blown off by volcanoes but occasionally attributed to power stations, when facts inconveniently fail to support theory). They have never successfully integrated them into their models.
    and
    **** Is there any evidence for the operation of this mechanism?
    None. The AGW hypothesis is the product of computer models. The real world contains none of the signatures that the theory demands – for example and very importantly, greater warming of the tropical troposphere as against near surface temperatures. Two datasets (satellite and weather balloon) show almost complete stability of tropospheric temperatures over the relevant periods, ie since these two methodologies were available – say the last 50 years for radiosond (balloon) readings, a bit less for satellite.
    and
    ****With regard to increases in CO2 concentrations, do humans contribute significantly?
    No – about 4% of any annual increase, and that’s now, not 100 years ago, when temperature rises overall were greater. Vastly greater GHG increases, including those of CO2, spring from natural processes (see above plus volcanism and the planet’s biota).
    and
    ****Couldn’t that extra 4% be doing all the damage?
    What damage? And, anyway, CO2 proponents would still have to come up with a plausible mechanism to show how the additional 4% effects its supposedly malign and cataclysmic influence. CO2 concentrations in the past have been much higher than they are today. Ice ages came and went. Climate change remained a constant of planetary existence. And, as has already been stated, there is no empirical observational evidence. ****

    The above extracts are by/from R C E Wyndham –
    1. Presentation to UK House of Commons, April 2013
    and
    2. A Layman’s Guide to Climate Change issues (RCEW. revised Jan 2012)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. flipper (3,274 comments) says:

    One final comment (ignoring my previous promise):

    Griff following the rubbish of your 97% (actually, you fool, 97% of what?) claim, you are most certainly one or more of the following:

    a. A serial liar
    b. Blind
    c. Illiterate
    d. Dumb
    e. An escapee from the Mason Clinic.
    f. Entertaining, absent anything better
    g. All of the above

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Flippy having another flip Are we:-)
    Unfortionatly for Mr no exist
    his letter is bullshit

    wingnut theory of a massive hoax by scientists to get funding
    makes you just a gullible idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RightNow (6,350 comments) says:

    “New study rates 97% of papers that mention agw/cc soport the position it is happening and are responsible”

    The study actually finds less than 1% of 12,000+ papers support the position that human GHG emissions are primarily responsible for warming.

    65 out of 12,000+ papers

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RightNow (6,350 comments) says:

    Here’s the breakdown:

    Category 1: 65
    Category 2: 934
    Category 3: 2933
    Category 4: 8261
    Category 5: 53
    Category 6: 15
    Category 7: 10
    Total: 12271

    Category 1 description:
    1. Explicit Endorsement of AGW with quantification
    1.1 Mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%).
    1.2 Endorsing the IPCC without explicitly quantifying doesnt count as explicit endorsement – that would be implicit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. flipper (3,274 comments) says:

    I cannot not resist quoting from Whale this morning, just to piss off the idiot melons:

    ” **** All over for the Greens?

    by Whaleoil on May 21, 2013

    The Green party in NZ put all their eggs in the AGW basket and have no position to retreat to from it.

    They are also the enemies of the environment as the anti AGW policies they have advocated are creating massive harm – economically and environmentally – especially for the poor who – highly paradoxically – they claim to stand for in New Zealand.

    The other aspect they have no morals on is the negative influence on, and exploitive use of, young people through the needless panic and worry they create .

    Dr Matt Ridley says in the Times:

    The latest science suggests that our policy on global warming is hopelessly misguided

    There is little doubt that the damage being done by climate-change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change, and will for several decades yet. Hunger, rainforest destruction, excess cold-weather deaths and reduced economic growth are all exacerbated by the rush to biomass and wind. These dwarf any possible effects of worse weather, for which there is still no actual evidence anyway: recent droughts, floods and storms are within historic variability.

    The harm done by policy falls disproportionately on the poor. Climate worriers claim that at some point this will reverse and the disease will become worse than the cure. An acceleration in temperature rise, they say, is overdue. The snag is, the best science now says otherwise. Whereas the politicians, activists and businessmen who make the most noise about — and money from — this issue are sticking to their guns, key scientists are backing away from predictions of rapid warming.

    Yesterday saw the publication of a paper in a prestigious journal,Nature Geoscience, from a high-profile international team led by Oxford scientists. The contributors include 14 lead authors of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific report; two are lead authors of the crucial chapter 10: professors Myles Allen and Gabriele Hegerl.

    So this study is about as authoritative as you can get. It uses the most robust method, of analysing the Earth’s heat budget over the past hundred years or so, to estimate a “transient climate response” — the amount of warming that, with rising emissions, the world is likely to experience by the time carbon dioxide levels have doubled since pre-industrial times.

    The most likely estimate is 1.3C. Even if we reach doubled carbon dioxide in just 50 years, we can expect the world to be about two-thirds of a degree warmer than it is now, maybe a bit more if other greenhouse gases increase too….

    It is true that the “transient climate response” is not the end of the story and that the gradual warming of the oceans means that there would be more warming in the pipeline even if we stopped increasing carbon dioxide levels after doubling them. But given the advance of nuclear and solar technology, there is now a good chance we will have decarbonised the economy before any net harm has been done.

    Any chance the Greens will simply admit they are/were wrong and simply leave for the good of the nation? ****”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Matt ridly
    on risk
    :lol:
    Google his record as a banker
    wingnut Flippy
    you delight in the most pathetic sources
    lord in breed
    Mr no exist
    and now a failed banker
    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Hay Griff look on the bright side. If AGW is real and leads to mass extinctions and global floods, it will help make new fossil fuels for future generations.

    It is win/win the way I see it. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. hj (5,708 comments) says:

    A monstrous tornado up to 1.6 kilometres wide has roared through the Oklahoma City suburbs, killing 51, flattening entire neighbourhoods, setting buildings on fire and landing a direct blow on a primary school.
    ……..
    so it’s only 1.6 wide whereas the IPCC’s models suggested 2.5km wide?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. hj (5,708 comments) says:

    This picture says it all
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/image.cfm?c_id=2&gal_cid=2&gallery_id=132987#11282923

    and this:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/image.cfm?c_id=2&gal_cid=2&gallery_id=132987#11284223

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    hj that is WEATHER not climate, as the alarmists are quick to claim when faced with successive record freezing winters in the North.

    The “scientists” supporting AGW are like the “scientists” supporting creation. At least the creation scientists have a physical universe as proof, unlike the warmist scientists who have no warmth.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. hj (5,708 comments) says:

    Weather or not Kea scientists are saying we will get more extreme weather events and while we have had all sorts of extremes in the past it shouldn’t be hard to prove that the frequency and intensity is increasing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. hj (5,708 comments) says:

    queenstfarmer (410) Says:
    …..
    isn’t that an oxymoron?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RightNow (6,350 comments) says:

    Yet currently all the proof shows extreme weather events are decreasing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    hj, maybe, but that is not evidence of AGW anymore than it is evidence of sky demons punnishing man for his sins against Gaia. There is no link there.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. RightNow (6,350 comments) says:

    Hahaha griff, Cook’s “97%” work of fiction gets even more pathetic.

    some of the papers Cook claims endorse global warming theory do not.

    Says who? Say the scientists who wrote them:

    I emailed a sample of scientists who’s papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists’ papers as “endorsing AGW”…

    Craig D. Idso, Ph.D. Geography; Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

    Dr. Idso, your paper ‘Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?’ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it”.

    Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

    Idso: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

    Nicola Scafetta, Ph.D. Physics; Research Scientist, ACRIM Science Team

    Dr. Scafetta, your paper ‘Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming’ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%”

    Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
    Scafetta: “Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

    What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun….

    Please note that it is very important to clarify that the AGW advocated by the IPCC has always claimed that 90-100% of the warming observed since 1900 is due to anthropogenic emissions. While critics like me have always claimed that the data would approximately indicate a 50-50 natural-anthropogenic contribution at most.

    What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. Instead of apologizing and honestly acknowledging that the AGW theory as advocated by the IPCC is wrong because based on climate models that poorly reconstruct the solar signature and do not reproduce the natural oscillations of the climate (AMO, PDO, NAO etc.) and honestly acknowledging that the truth, as it is emerging, is closer to what claimed by IPCC critics like me since 2005, these people are trying to get the credit…”

    Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysics; Associate Professor, Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

    Dr. Shaviv, your paper ‘On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget’ is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; “Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise”

    Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
    Shaviv: “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitiviity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).

    I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper….

    Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren’t necessarily correct. Moreover, as you can see from the above example, the analysis itself is faulty, namely, it doesn’t even quantify correctly the number of scientists or the number of papers which endorse or diminish the importance of AGW.”

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.