It's all over but for the sweating?

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Who's laughing? Certainly not at tasteless jokes...

You do not find humor in getting a degree in women's studies in an equal rights world (US)? You think that teaching people they are victims and not a part of the whole isn't hilarious? And you can get a degree in it? LOL

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You seem to think that science is a petty club of sycophants.

This is about the IPCC cherry picking reports, not "Science". It is about politics and beliefs, and you seem to think THAT qualifies as science.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It is about all of us gaining a better understanding of reality.

There are realities you are ignoring here.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by P-hack

lol, from the IPCC who only listens to scientists who support their position.

Why would they listen to anyone so disconnected from reality as to deny the fundamental truth of what is occurring?

[P-hack]

I see it is a religion to you, unquestionable. All dissenting scientists were rightly ignored because the dogmatic conclusion precedes the research.

[Arragonis]

Why would they listen to anyone so disconnected from reality as to deny the fundamental truth of what is occurring?

Seems like most of the world isn't really listening to the IPCC any more - the wheels have come off that bandwagon - no more trips to Bali or Cancun for them. They will have to rack up the air miles on their own expense from now on.

The comments under that "listen to me I'm a 'scientist'" video are mostly negative too, some quite nasty IMHO but the internets is not nice sometimes.

This is becoming more common now, the skeptical bit.

The only homes for full on catastrophy worship are sites like Desmogblog, SkS, Climate Progress and the Guardian. Apart from the Graun traffic on the other sites is slowly sinking.

Other newspapers are also more openly skeptical.

Climate change 'scientists’ are just another pressure group - Telegraph

The IPCC was set up in 1988 by a small group of scientists who were already wholly convinced that rising CO2 levels were the prime factor in causing global temperatures to rise. They were led by Prof Bert Bolin, appointed as the IPCC’s first chairman, and Dr John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office, who, for 14 years, remained head of its key Working Group 1, responsible for reporting on climate science.

Since then the IPCC and its five major reports have essentially been shaped by a surprisingly small, close-knit group of scientists, all similarly dedicated to the cause. They have been determined not just to assemble all the evidence they could find to support their theory, however dubious it might be (as in the case of that notorious “hockey stick” graph); but, as we saw from the Climategate emails, to deride or ignore any that contradicted it.

In years to come this will be looked back on as the most astonishing example in history of how the prestige of “science” can be used to promote a particular belief system, in this case with the aid of those skewed computer models that can be seen ever more clearly not to accord with the observed evidence.

All this would not be so serious if the IPCC had not been so successfully sold to the world as an objective scientific body rather than as just a political pressure group, because this has taken in no one more damagingly than all those credulous politicians who use the IPCC’s bogus prestige to justify landing us with some of the most disastrously misconceived policies the world has ever seen.

We've even had a debate in the UK Parliament about repealing the Climate Change Act something unheard of a few years ago.

The uk government is starting to backtrack on the cost of it all.

The BBC is openly allowing skeptical voices on the air, sometimes without calling them names. This annoys the Guardian, good.

But back to the science, reactions to AR5 are coming in, and some are not fans :

More seriously, let me put this in perspective with the most boring graph I have ever plotted in my life. Below is the likely range of climate sensitivity as a function of time. As you can see, with the exception of AR4 with its slightly smaller range mentioned above, the likely range of climate sensitivity did not change since the Charney report in 1979. In other words, after perhaps billions of dollars invested in climate research over more than three decades, our ability to answer the most important question in climate has not improved a single bit!



One reason for the lack of improved understanding could be incompetence of the people in the field. That is, all the billions of dollars invested in climate research were not or could not be used to answer the most important question in climate, one which will allow predicting the 21st century climate change. I doubt however that this is the real reason. Among the thousands working in climate research, surely there are at least a few who are competent, if not more.

I think the real reason why there is no improvement in the understanding of climate sensitivity is the following. If you have a theory which is correct, then as progressively more data comes in, the agreement becomes better. Sure, occasionally some tweaks have to be made, but overall there is an improved agreement. However, if the basic premises of a theory are wrong, then there is no improved agreement as more data is collected. In fact, it is usually the opposite that takes place, the disagreement increases. In other words, the above behavior reflects the fact that the IPCC and alike are captives of a wrong conception.

He's a scientist too.

How about another scientist with a description of extreme weather coverage in AR5 ?

“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
"There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

In other words nothing much to see here, move along.

And what about all that reviewing - here is a graph of review comments by page :



Note how the review comments drop off after the first chapter pages - boredom setting in perhaps ?

The IPCC is done.

[radioranger]

Great summary and should be widely published.

[suspectnumber961]

People alive today will experience this....your kids and grandkids....enjoy...you deserve it???

* Posted in the spirit of the group fantasy called Christmas. Maybe Santa will bring us a REALLY BIG air conditioner?


Tomgram: Dahr Jamail, The Climate Change Scorecard | TomDispatch

Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire

Consider this timeline:

* Late 2007: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announces that the planet will see a one degree Celsius temperature increase due to climate change by 2100.

* Late 2008: The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research predicts a 2C increase by 2100.

* Mid-2009: The U.N. Environment Programme predicts a 3.5C increase by 2100. Such an increase would remove habitat for human beings on this planet, as nearly all the plankton in the oceans would be destroyed, and associated temperature swings would kill off many land plants. Humans have never lived on a planet at 3.5C above baseline.

* October 2009: The Hadley Centre for Meteorological Research releases an updated prediction, suggesting a 4C temperature increase by 2060.

* November 2009: The Global Carbon Project, which monitors the global carbon cycle, and the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a climate science report, predict 6C and 7C temperature increases, respectively, by 2100.

* December 2010: The U.N. Environment Programme predicts up to a 5C increase by 2050.

* 2012: The conservative International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook report for that year states that we are on track to reach a 2C increase by 2017.

* November 2013: The International Energy Agency predicts a 3.5C increase by 2035.

A briefing provided to the failed U.N. Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen in 2009 provided this summary: “The long-term sea level that corresponds to current CO2 concentration is about 23 meters above today’s levels, and the temperatures will be 6 degrees C or more higher. These estimates are based on real long-term climate records, not on models.”

On December 3rd, a study by 18 eminent scientists, including the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, showed that the long-held, internationally agreed upon target to limit rises in global average temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius was in error and far above the 1C threshold that would need to be maintained in order to avoid the effects of catastrophic climate change.

And keep in mind that the various major assessments of future global temperatures seldom assume the worst about possible self-reinforcing climate feedback loops like the methane one.

[TheEnemy]

Global Analysis - November 2013 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

•The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was record highest for the 134-year period of record, at 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (55.2°F).
•The global land surface temperature was 1.43°C (2.57°F) above the 20th century average of 5.9°C (42.6°F), the second highest for November on record, behind 2010. For the global oceans, the November average sea surface temperature was 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F), tying with 2009 as the third highest for November.
•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the September–November period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F), the second warmest such period on record, behind only 2005.
•The September–November worldwide land surface temperature was 1.08°C (1.94°F) above the 20th century average, the third warmest such period on record. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average, tying with 2009 and 2012 as the fourth warmest September–November on record.
•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date (January–November) was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.2°F), tying with 2002 as the fourth warmest such period on record.




I have been reading articles about the low sunspot activity, many are saying that that is indicating a lower TSI output, but the sunspot count is only a proxy, the real TSI was higher than the previous sunspot cycle, due to the lower sun spot count.

However the SOURCE satellite failed several months ago so we no longer have a direct measurement to go by.

SORCE » Total Solar Irradiance Data

The TIM, along with all other SORCE instruments, has been powered off since a battery cell failure on 30 July 2013. The spacecraft operations team is pursuing ways of operating the instrument to acquire more TSI measurements in the current low-power mode. Future TSI measurements are expected to be intermittent and of degraded quality due to thermal and pointing limitations caused by the spacecraft battery issues.

[freebeard]

Sunspots, flares and coronal mass ejections are more involved with the magnetics and solar wind. The increased temps are possibly related to the weakening Solar and Earth magnetics allowing more galactic radiation to impinge on our planetary surface.

There's an huge sunspot rotating in on the Eastern limb today.

[NeilBlanchard]

Australia just recorded their hottest year ever, since records have been kept, which is 1910, I think?

Increased sunspots means more heat from the sun. We have just come through a period of *very* low sun spot activity.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

...
Increased sunspots means more heat from the sun. We have just come through a period of *very* low sun spot activity.

That isn't what is being said here, and is such an oversimplification that it probably shouldn't be repeated without being validated. There are a LOT of half-baked activists out there that are pretty clueless about the science as well.

Originally Posted by freebeard

Sunspots, flares and coronal mass ejections are more involved with the magnetics and solar wind.

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

...
I have been reading articles about the low sunspot activity, many are saying that that is indicating a lower TSI output, but the sunspot count is only a proxy, the real TSI was higher than the previous sunspot cycle, due to the lower sun spot count...

I don't see a correlation: