Twenty year hiatus in warming


Burn the heretics

Burn the heretics

Throw another heretic on the fire. Graham Lloyd explores the view, becoming more accepted by the day, that global warming has slowed or plateaued over the past 15 or so years.

It follows on from the Economist article which has caused quite a stir (see ACM here). Cue headbangers whining that even considering hypotheses that contradict the incessant alarmism of the AGW religion is part of a ‘war on science’, or some other such BS.

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded. Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for S

pace Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it’s good news that probably won’t last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted. Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

“The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,” he says. Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.

Lew & Cook: economical with the truth


Climate clowns.

Lew & Cook: climate clowns.

A retarded amoeba with a half-a-dozen neurons for a brain could see that the Lew & Cook conspiracy papers are a transparent attack on heretics of their AGW religion, and that they give junk science a bad name.

As a result of information obtained from FOI requests that ACM put in last year, Steve McIntyre posts a withering attack on their integrity:

Last fall, Geoff Chambers and Barry Woods established beyond a shadow of a doubt that no blog post linking to the Lewandowsky survey had ever been published at the Skeptical Science (SKS) blog. Chambers reasonably suggested at the time that the authors correct the claim in the article to reflect the lack of any link at the SKS blog. I reviewed the then available information on this incident in September 2012 here.

Since then, information obtained through FOI has shown that responses by both Lewandowsky and Cook to questions from Chambers and Woods were untrue. Actually, “untrue” does not really do justice to the measure of untruthfulness, as the FOI correspondence shows that the untruthful answers were given deliberately and intentionally. Chambers, in a post entitled Lewandowsky the Liar, minced no words in calling Lewandowsky “a liar, a fool, a charlatan and a fraud.”

Even though the untruthfulness of Lewandowsky and Cook’s stories had been clearly demonstrated by Geoff Chambers in a series of blog articles (e.g. here), in the published version of the Hoax paper, instead of correcting prior untrue claims about SKS, Lewandowsky doubled down, repeating and substantially amplifying the untrue claim.

I’m getting a little weary of giving this pair of clowns any more air time, but McIntyre’s (and others’) work exposing them is worth repeating.

Apocalypse delayed?


© The Economist

Times are changing…

The Economist tackles the issue to which many are intentionally blind, including the usual headbangers, our own Climate Commission, the IPCC and the majority of Western governments, namely, why have global temperatures levelled off despite ever increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?

In an editorial, it writes:

IT MAY come as a surprise to a walrus wondering where all the Arctic’s summer sea ice has gone. It could be news to a Staten Islander still coming to terms with what he lost to Hurricane Sandy. But some scientists are arguing that man-made climate change is not quite so bad a threat as it appeared to be a few years ago. They point to various reasons for thinking that the planet’s “climate sensitivity”—the amount of warming that can be expected for a doubling in the carbon-dioxide level—may not be as high as was previously thought. The most obvious reason is that, despite a marked warming over the course of the 20th century, temperatures have not really risen over the past ten years.

And it dares to question the drive for alternative energy without regard to consequences:

Bad climate policies, such as backing renewable energy with no thought for the cost, or insisting on biofuels despite the damage they do, are bad whatever the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases.

In an accompanying article it deals with the science in some detail:

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

Temperatures fluctuate over short periods, but this lack of new warming is a surprise. Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, in Britain, points out that surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models (see chart 1). If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.

The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy.

It is a very encouraging sign that finally some in the mainstream media are beginning to acknowledge the divergence between models and observations, and are starting to ask questions. I encourage you to read it all.

(And wait for the inevitable headbanger backlash at Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, amongst other places, where they are always desperate to defend their religion at any cost. UPDATE: As predicted, here it is.)

Amazing slow motion video


100,000 fps!

100,000 fps!

And some science as well! Something a little different today – an exploration of Prince Rupert’s Drop – formed when molten glass is dropped into cold water. This video uses ultra-high-speed cameras to investigate these strange objects. Amazing! Enjoy.

Gillard, Labor, CO2 tax: all likely gone in six months


Why are you all smiling, you bunch of utter incompetents? You should be hanging your heads in abject shame.

Why are you all smiling, you bunch of utter incompetents? You should be hanging your heads in abject shame.

The Labor ‘government’ of Julia Gillard (in quotes because it isn’t really a government any more, it’s just a rabble) is in terminal decline after last week’s chaotic leadership non-contest. Newspoll puts Labor at 42% and the Coalition on 58% in the two party preferred, meaning Labor would be annihilated.

Half of her most experienced ministers have either resigned or been sacked, leaving the PM scraping the bottom of the cockatoo cage to fill the Cabinet. Craig Emerson [shudder] has been appointed minister for just about everything, including the kitchen sink, and the other spaces have been filled by political nobodies.

So one thing we can be sure of is that the ‘government’ of this country will be even worse than it was before (if that is physically possible).

The Australian reports:

JULIA Gillard’s personal standing has crashed to a 19-month low and Tony Abbott is clearly back in front as the nation’s preferred prime minister after Labor’s “appalling” two weeks of political and policy failure.

Labor’s primary vote has slumped five points to a disastrous 30 per cent after a fortnight ending with an aborted leadership spill and mass cabinet resignations, with one in two voters now siding with the Coalition.

The collapse in the Labor vote has completely wiped out the party’s recovery in the second half of last year, which was built on the back of the carbon tax compensation, and has entrenched the prospect of a landslide vote against the ALP in the election scheduled for September 14. After taking into account preference flows, federal Labor’s support is eight percentage points below its level at the 2010 election, at 42 per cent – a swing that if replicated in September would remove about 30 Labor MPs and could even put Kevin Rudd’s Queensland seat of Griffith at risk.

The Prime Minister said yesterday she was appalled at Labor’s “self-indulgence” during last week’s leadership bid, which was brought on after the party’s proposed media laws collapsed. She declared she wanted to show “self-belief” and that Labor’s “eyes” would be on the “Australian people”. But the latest Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian on the weekend, shows voter satisfaction with Ms Gillard down six percentage points to 26 per cent in the past two weeks.

Dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister rose eight points to 65 per cent, her worst personal ratings since September 2011 when she hit a record low satisfaction level of 23 per cent. There is now more than twice the number of voters dissatisfied with the way Ms Gillard is doing her job as Prime Minister than satisfied after a steady 12-point fall in satisfaction since January and a sharper rise of 16 points in dissatisfaction during the same period.

On the question of who would make the better prime minister, Ms Gillard’s support dropped seven percentage points to 35 per cent, its lowest since October 2011, while Mr Abbott’s support jumped five points to 43 per cent, his highest since September 2011.

Which means, of course, that when the election comes, the disastrous policies of this bunch of losers can be reversed and Australia may, MAY I add, be able to climb out of this enormous hole it’s in.

And we will almost certainly wave goodbye to the mining tax and the carbon tax. All we need is for the independents to do what they should have done months ago and put this government down.

UK: Chief Scientist exits in a blaze of hysteria


Head scratch moment?

Head scratch moment?

Sir John Beddington is the outgoing Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK government, and, like our own Sir Ian Chubb, appears to take leave of his senses when it comes to climate.

In a final whirlwind of alarmism, Beddington exits stage left, hopefully never to be seen or heard of again. As the Telegraph breathlessly reports:

The world faces decades of turbulent weather even if it takes drastic action to tackle climate change, the Government’s chief scientific adviser said today in a final stark warning as he prepares to step down.

Professor Sir John Beddington said that time lags in the climate system meant that accumulations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now will determine the weather we experience for the next 25 years.

Climate change is already manifesting itself in huge variations in the weather, clearly illustrated by the way Britain experienced both drought and extreme rainfall last year, he said.

The scientist said that the international community’s failure to agree binding targets for cutting carbon emissions meant problems were being stored up for the future.

“They may reach agreement, and they may start to reduce greenhouse gases in the next five years, or it may be a little longer,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“But they are still climbing, and when that increase is reversed, we will be left with the weather and the climate for the next 25 years from whenever that happens.”

What’s missing from this picture? Any acknowledgement that there has been a pause in warming which was not expected or predicted by the climate models, despite the headbangers claiming that warming is accelerating.*

Sir Ian Chubb falls into the same trap as Beddington – toeing a politically-correct line rather than responding to the evidence in an impartial, free-thinking manner.

More reaction here:

*They do this by suddenly ignoring global temperatures and, like street magicians, using diversionary techniques to shift focus on to something else

Live blogroll returns… (kind of)


Blog Roll Returns!

Blog Roll Returns!

I have restored 90% of the functionality of the Live Blog Roll by adding RSS feeds for a dozen or so of the most popular blogs the sidebar on the right. If you hover over the post title, you will get the first few lines of the post. They are in no particular order, apart from the granddaddy of them all, WUWT, being at the top. Unfortunately they won’t be sorted by recency of post as they were on the old blog, but I hope it’s better than nothing.

If anyone can suggest a better option using the WordPress.com platform, please let me know!

Bloggies: ACM wins best Australian & New Zealand Blog!


bloggies_2013

ACM – Best Aussie or NZ Blog!

UPDATE: Watts Up wins best Sci/Tech and Weblog of the Year, Small Dead Animals wins best Canadian Blog, and James Delingpole wins Best Political Blog. Also, Michael Smith won Best-Kept Secret Blog for Michael Smith News. Congratulations all! Commiserations to Jo Nova in Sci/Tech, but with Watts Up out of the picture having now won it three times, maybe next year!

Thank you to my many supporters who voted for ACM in the Bloggies. Having been runner up to Jo Nova last year, her elevation to the Best Science Blog category saw me in with a chance.

It is funny to watch the climate alarmists squirm as sceptical blogs take out many categories. Why don’t they just mobilise their supporters to vote for them, rather than complaining about how the competition is run? Or flouncing off…

Anyway, thanks again!

Simon, ACM

ACM cancels out Earth Hour


ACM Towers' display for Power Hour

ACM Towers’ display for Power Hour

Once again, congratulations to all of you who turned off your electric lights last night and sat around in the dark for an hour with a few candles burning. When I say ‘congratulations’ I actually mean ‘tough luck, suckers’ because you have actually increased the carbon dioxide emissions of the planet by doing so. Well done.

Bjørn Lomborg explains:

Hypothetically, switching off the lights for an hour would cut CO2 emissions from power plants across the world. But even if everyone in the world cut all residential lighting, and this translated entirely into CO2 reduction, it would be the equivalent of China pausing its CO2 emissions for less than four minutes. In fact, Earth Hour will cause emissions to increase.

As Britain’s National Grid operators have found, a small decline in electricity consumption does not translate into less energy being pumped into the grid, and therefore will not reduce emissions. Moreover, during Earth Hour any significant drop in electricity demand will entail a reduction in CO2 emissions during the hour, but it will be offset by the surge from firing up coal or gas stations to restore electricity supplies afterwards.

And the cosy candles that many participants will light, which seem so natural and environmentally friendly, are still fossil fuels and almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs. Using one candle for each switched-off bulb cancels out even the theoretical CO2 reduction; using two candles means that you emit more CO2. (source)

And in any event, ACM ensured that the efforts of New South Wales environmentalists (with the emphasis on ‘mentalists’) were negated by the annual Power Hour display at ACM Towers (photo).

Cook & Lew label senior Met Office climatologist a ‘conspiracy theorist’


Cook and Lew - twisted reality

Cook and Lew – twisted reality

UPDATE: Cook and Lew tie themselves in syntactical and grammatical knots  over at Un-Sk Ps-S trying to explain that they weren’t really calling Betts a conspiracy theorist…

In John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky’s twisted version of reality, anyone who disagrees with them is a conspiracy theorist.

So obsessed have they become with this piece of cheap psychobabble that they have written two papers about it, the second claiming that there was conspiracy theorising from sceptics in the responses to the first paper, which also accused sceptics of conspiracy theorising about climate change. Following me so far? [No – Ed]

In the Supplementary Information for the second paper (a PDF here – make sure you know where the zoom button is), Cook and Lew quote from a guy called Richard Betts, who left a comment at Bishop Hill, as follows:

The thing I don’t understand is, why didn’t they just make a post on sceptic blogs themselves, rather than approaching blog owners. They could have posted as a Discussion topic here at Bishop Hill without even asking the host, and I very much doubt that the Bish would have removed it. Climate Audit also has very light-touch moderation and I doubt whether Steve McIntyre would have removed such an unsolicited post. Same probably goes for many of the sceptic blogs, in my experience. So it does appear to that they didn’t try very hard to solicit views from the climate sceptic community. 

This is labelled  by the learned Professor and his Eureka-Prize-winning sidekick as an “excerpt espousing conspiracy theory” under the category of “Didn’t email deniers”.

So who is Richard Betts? I’ll give you a clue. He leads the “Climate Impacts area, specialising in ecosystem-hydrology-climate interactions but also overseeing work on urban, health, industry and finance” at the UK Met Office…!

Current activities

Richard is Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area, which includes climate impacts research and also the climate change consultancy unit.

The Met Office’s main role in climate impacts research is to facilitate a more integrated approach to the assessment of climate change impacts, in collaboration with specialists across the wider academic community. A large part of our impacts research, therefore, involves examining the interactions between different impacts areas, such as agriculture, natural ecosystems, water resources, glaciers, urban areas and human health.

Richard leads the impacts theme of the JULES community land surface modelling programme. This collaborative project forms part of UK-wide efforts to assess impacts in an internally-consistent manner. (full bio here)

He is also a Lead Author for IPCC AR4 WG1 and a Contributing Author for IPCC AR4 WG2… and Cook and Lew think he’s a climate conspiracy theorist. Bahahahahaha! Epic fail!

UPDATE: Thanks to Barry Woods for Richard’s Twitter response:

Lewandowsky et al clearly deluded!

More laughs to be had at the following sites:

Background to the Lew Papers is here.