The IPCC AR5 WGII Report

The IPCC AR5 report from the second working group(WGII) will be released at the end of March 2014. The summary for policy makers is going to sound the alarm on climate change again.

Richard Tol a lead author for the section on the economics of climate change has asked for his name to be removed from the document because it is being changed from a commonsensical view of adaptation to climate change to an alarmist position.

"The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together."

"This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity."

We are back to the “5 minutes to midnight’” scenario of Dr. Pachauri, boss of the IPCC.

And yet within the AR5 WGII Summary we find these walk backs from previous alarmist positions of earlier IPCC reports.

The economic costs of 'global warming' have been grossly overestimated, a leaked report - shortly to be published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - has admitted.

Costs of climate change are estimated to be between .2 and 2 per cent of the world’s GDP rather than the previously estimated range of 5 to 20 per cent.

And further in the report: The UN IPCC admits: ‘There is very little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk accurately’ This is an admission that they didn’t have a handle on how biodiversity would be affected by climate change but now realize that they were overly pessimistic.

The IPCC has also done a walk back on their support for biofuels.

Scientific Consensus Was Wrong, UN IPCC Admits In Biofuels U-Turn – ‘Growing crops to make ‘green’ biofuel harms the environment and drives up food prices’

Skeptics have been pointing out these flaws for years. Finally, reality is beginning to breach the beachhead where alarmists have had their heads buried in the sand.

Things are NOT ‘worse than we thought’! And the ‘scary’ temperature rise has continued to stall.

Has the apocalypse been averted? Was there ever a climate apocalypse to be averted? Let us rejoice at the good news.

The Debate is Over and the Alarmists Know It

Ducking Debate: Warmist Dan Weiss Pulls Out of TV Debate With Morano at Last Minute! Warmits refuse to debate global warming ‘skeptics’ in the media        

This commenter over at WUWT captured the situation about the ‘debate ducks’ among the alarmaholics perfectly.

They are like a soccer team playing an imaginary opponent, while losing horribly.

As early as 2007 ,the year of the Oscar for Gore’s AIT, the cracks in the CAGW case began to widen and the so sure of themselves alarmists began to feel the heat from skeptics who were unafraid to hold warmist feet to the fire. Warmists have retreated behind the ‘science is settled, let’s not give skeptics a forum for their views through public debate’ excuse to avoid on air confrontations with man made global warming skeptics.

They like to reserve the pitch to themselves and agree among themselves that they are the victor without actually playing the game. They believe they are so invincible that they couldn’t possibly lose so why engage an opponent. Graciously, they are saving the opponent from embarrassment.

The reality is, of course, that they are saving themselves from embarrassment and they know it while pretending the opposite. The models and consensus on which their predictions rely are bogus and they know they will be called on it. People paying the bills may not like to be informed of this truth and the alarmists know it. They will not sign their own pink slips though perhaps they feel the end is near but wish to ride the gravy train to the last molecule of innocent CO2.

If your case is strong would you not want to confront those who disagree to demonstrate both to them and the public that your view is correct? If your case is strong should that not be a walk in the park? If the public perceives your case to be suspect you will be seen as scared and weak not as the defender of science but as the defender of authority.

The practice of avoiding debate so as not to give skeptics a public forum began with some prominent defenders of evolution who denigrate the creationists among us. Correctly, evolution has nothing to fear from its detractors, so why avoid a public discussion with those who present a different look at the world. Point out the flaws in their arguments and be done with it.

Whenever skeptics and GW alarmists meet it becomes obvious who has the facts and who doesn’t. Alarmaholics fear the exposure of their cherished theory to the light of skeptical inquiry. Other alarmists talk a good game but then refuse to back it up. This does not enhance their case but presents the picture of people who are afraid to be challenged. The avoidance weakens their case but they don’t care because then at least they can continue to hide behind the ‘science is settled, there is a consensus, the debate is over’ tri-chimera. This is better than being exposed for the impostors that they are. Should they be arrested for impersonating a scientist?

It is open season on debate ducks and the skeptics wait patiently in the blind.

The Unsettled Science of CLimatology

There are those who believe that human emissions of CO2 are the main driver of contemporary climate change and that a warm future will produce roast human.

2036 is the new 2012?! Michael Mann starts his own Mayan Calendar deadline: ‘Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036′

On the other hand there are those who see the sun as the main driver of climate change on Earth and who are advising readiness for a colder future.

Solar expert Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov of Russia's Pulkovo Observatory near St. Petersburg explained, "from approximately 2014, we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cycle of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055 plus or minus 11 years."

Which way will it go?

Given the inability of massive emissions of CO2 to scare away the polar vortex the latter scenario is the frontrunner IMHO.

Implications of the Missing Heat

For over 15+ years Mother Nature has refused to raise the Global Mean Temperature(GMT). This fact has grudgingly been acknowledged by global warming alarmists. This was not supposed to happen according to the consensus of the settled science. The debate was over. All the CO2 based Global Climate Models(GCMs) show a rising temperature as long as CO2 continues to accumulate unabated in the atmosphere. Both skeptics and warmists agree that CO2 has done just that over the period of temperature stasis.

But none of the models foresaw the curve that Mother Nature inserted into the runway and the models fell off lying in tears at the tears in their computer code.

Several explanations have been offered for the hiatus. There are at least ten floating around the blogosphere all of which are reactive and not proactive. One of these postulates that the missing heat has gone into the ocean since it is such a huge heat sink. The minute any explanation, let alone ten, is offered, acknowledgement of the problem is implied and the science is once again unsettled and the previous consensus has been shown to be wrong. And with ten explanations on the table - so far - the debate continues. When this happens and we hate it when it does science says: modify or abandon the theory.

SO we now have no consensus, no settled science and the debate is on. What a change a pause makes.

The heat into the ocean explanation is a modification of the theory while attempting to leave CO2 as the star of the climate drama. Fine. The GCMs must now be reworked to duplicate the hiatus at precisely the time Mother Nature decided to take a break from raising the GMT. The new theory as expressed in the revised GCMs, as a test of its validity, must now predict if and when the ocean heat will make its triumphant return to the atmosphere  at which point we can expect the previous global warming to resume its upward path.

It is now up to the climatologists to explain the decision process that CO2 employs to make the transition from trapping heat in the atmosphere to stuffing it into the ocean. Until that theory is presented, the GCMs reworked to incorporate it and a correct prediction for the return of the heat to the atmosphere to validate it, cli sci can be said to be in a state of chaos much like the atmosphere it seeks to explain. Mother Nature has elevated her finger in the pompous face of the mythical consensus and reasserted her control over the climate.

Apparently CO2 is bi-polar: sometimes trapping heat in the atmosphere and sometimes trapping it in the ocean. What sets it off? Or CO2 is plant food and has little or nothing to do with atmospheric temperature and something else is going on. Around which of the ten explanations will a new consensus rally?  

Politicians and environmental activists will prefer a POGO cause. If you can be convinced that the planet is in peril and that humans are at fault you will be easier to manipulate and more accepting of solutions offered.

Confronted with this inconvenient truth alarmist activists will not want to be distracted from their goal of guiding the world toward global governance. To divert attention from the failure of the consensus theory an emphasis on extreme weather has crept onto the stage of the Drama Greens. Now, whatever the weather CO2 is the cause of it. CO2 has morphed into a magic gas with superpowers right for any occasion. It’s hot - CO2 trapped heat. It’s cold - CO2 trapped heat which evaporated more water which caused more snow in winter. This conveniently overlooks an explanation of where the cold came from to make the snow. There is a fire - CO2 traps heat causing drought so more fires start. There is a flood - CO2 trapped heat which evaporated more water into the atmosphere which then came back down in record quantities to make a flood. There is a hurricane - CO2 traps more heat which means there is more energy in the system to produce more hurricanes or tornadoes. CO2 what can’t you do?

The only trouble with that theory is that as CO2 has increased severe weather has decreased.

Alarmaholics just can’t catch a break with their apocalyptic utterances. A reduction in extreme weather events is actually supposed to happen in a world where the poles are warming, whatever the cause, thus decreasing the temperature difference between tropics and polar regions. It is temperature differences between air masses where severe weather develops. The bigger the difference the more severe the weather. But you can’t scare anybody by telling them the weather will get better as temperatures increase so the correct but inconvenient theory in this case is ignored and a major alchemy is performed to assert more severe weather will appear as temperatures rise due to more energy in the system. And CO2 gets the blame for that. This is a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. But Mother Nature didn’t get the memo and has lowered her delivery of severe weather as the world has warmed.

It doesn’t matter how many humans believe something to be true if Mother Nature is not on their side they are lost. In the case of climate change neither temperatures nor extreme weather is outside the bounds of natural variability. Mother Nature has revealed herself to be a CAGW denier.

I have met POGO and he is not us.

Let the Arctic be frank with Francis

http://periscopepost.com/science-27/experts-quiet-climate-change-skeptics-warming-leads-to-longer-cold-snaps-7030.html

So the warmer than normal Arctic air pushed down the colder than normal Arctic air to create a colder than normal Northern Hemisphere winter while all the heat trapping CO2 from the NH went to the southern hemisphere to warm up Oz leaving the NH without its blankie. Is that right? CO2, you dirty rat! Doesn’t the cold winter call into question the heat trapping superpowers of CO2? Aren’t the winters supposed to be getting warmer not colder? The lack of retention doesn’t get my attention.

The trouble for Jennifer Francis is that the Arctic is now getting colder in spite of the buildup of CO2 in our air. The top 3 coldest summers have all occurred in the last five years. Last summer(2013) was the coldest in the last 50 years North of 80N according to the DMI. The cold played havoc with the thrill seekers who wanted to traverse the NWP and found it blocked by ice.

And then we have the news that Greenland has been cooling for the last 70 years. And that the 2013 winter ice up is the highest in a decade. And Jennifer studies the Arctic?

The Notcredibiles

‘Harry Reid: Climate Deniers ‘Becoming Less Credible’ With Bad Weather – ‘These deniers are, as each day as the weather gets worse, are becoming less credible’

These deniers are, as each day as the weather gets worse, are becoming less credible’; that was incredible Harry; did we cause bad weather in the 1800s?  No, then what?

The Incredibles are not fictional characters after all. They live and breathe as DEMS in the US Senate and not in a good way..

Harry and some of his DEM Senators held an all night vigil beginning on Mon. Mar. 10, 2014. denouncing those who do not believe in man made global warming aka man made climate change.

Harry wants us to believe that we are responsible for every instance of bad weather on the planet because we burn fossil fuels and that if we don’t stop it will become a ’question of our own survival.’

When people, be it Harry Reid or Harold Camping(is this a Harry thing?), make apocalyptic claims my internal skeptical radar immediately turns on and begins beeping wildly. People like to joke that it is always wise to doubt apocalyptic predictions because you will only be wrong once and when you are wrong there won’t be anyone left to remind you of your error. So far my record is unblemished and I expect to go to my grave with an unblemished record of denying the latest arrival of the apocalypse. The doomsters have yet to score.

Despite the xx billion tons of CO2 that we terribly ignorant and careless humans have put into the air the global mean temperature has barely moved over the last 17 years. That is a disconnect between the CO2 based theory of man made global warming climate change and reality. You are free to choose whom to believe.

In 1886 the US mainland was hit by a record 7 hurricanes. How come with the xx billion tons of CO2 that we terribly ignorant and careless humans have put into the air that that record still stands? We are told that our supercharged overheated CO2 laden atmosphere is on steroids. Ever wonder what the atmosphere was ‘on’ back in the day when that record was set?

The world record high T was set in 1913. How come with the xx billion tons of CO2 that we terribly ignorant and careless humans have put into the air that that record still stands? Ever wonder what the atmosphere was ‘on’ back in the day when that record was set?

Can we be excused for doubting the heat trapping superpowers of CO2 to affect the weather/climate?

Harry and his band of merry DEM Sens are truly The Notcredibles. It is incredible that anyone would believe their nonsense about the latest instance of bad weather.

Sen Boxer thinks the ‘deniers’ are losing ground but it seems the DEM Sen alarmists are losing the public.

Apparently, Americans aren’t as stupid as DEM Sens would like to believe as the latest Gallup poll suggests. The Europeans aren’t buying the nonsense either..Voters in Florida District 13 have also spoken to sink Sink. The Republicans are Jolly.

Chill, Harry. We have seen it all before.

AGW: Experiment in Realtime

The experiment is being run as we speak and the results are coming in realtime.

CO2 is being emitted by humans via the burning of fossil fuels.

The man made theory of global warming/climate change expects the global mean temperature (GMT) to rise as CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere.

This experiment is being conducted in real time by humans together with Mother Nature.

Humans involved in climate science have created global climate models(GCMs) as their best guesses to try to anticipate the actions of Mother Nature.

For the last 15-17 years, depending on which temperature dataset you use, there has been no warming. Mother Nature has slipped a curve into the path which the models have failed to negotiate and they have fallen off the runway.  

The results of the experiment have invalidated the GCMs and therefore also the theory underlying the models. CO2 has been absolved of the culpability for the late 20th century warming which we experienced.

Is it time to audition new models?