IPCC: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity!”

September 27th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

stinking-climate-sensitivitty

IPCC Chairman Pachauri: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity.”

The newly-released Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the AR5 report reveals a dogged attempt to salvage the IPCC’s credibility amidst mounting evidence that it has gone overboard in its attempts to scare the global public over the last quarter century.

The recent ~15 year lull in warming is hardly mentioned at all (nothing to see here, move along).

A best estimate for climate sensitivity — unarguably THE most important climate change variable — is no longer provided, due to mounting contradictory evidence on whether the climate system really cares very much about whether there are 2, or 3, or 4, parts of CO2 per 10,000 parts atmosphere.

YET…the IPCC claims their confidence has DOUBLED (uncertainty reduced from 10% that 5%) regarding their claim that humans are most of the cause behind the warming trend in the last 50 years or so:

It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.

Let’s examine that last claim for a minute. For the sake of argument, let’s say that 60% of the surface warming (and increase in ocean heat content, as revealed by supposed warming of hundredths of a degree) is indeed due to increased CO2. What would that say about the sensitivity of the climate system?

One would think that this question would be addressed by the IPCC, since it doesn’t require a full-blown 3D climate model to answer.

But I suspect that they know the answer is: “very low climate sensitivity” (we will reveal more on this issue in a few weeks). Even if humans are responsible for 60% of the ocean heating in the last 60 years, it suggests a level of future warming well below what this report implies will happen.

I say “implies” because the new report is worded in such a way that the IPCC can be technically correct, and still convey a maximum amount of alarm (which has been the IPCC’s modus operandi for the last 20+ years). They still leave the door open to a climate sensitivity below 1 deg. C, since they could claim “we didn’t say we were 100% certain…only 95%”.

And probably the biggest omission of the report continues to be the almost total neglect of natural forcing mechanisms of climate change. The climate system is likely at least a little chaotic, with natural variations due to inherent system nonlinearities and time lags (courtesy of the ocean). As I keep harping on, the observed increase in ocean heat content over the last 60 years (if we can believe hundredths of a degree warming is accurate) equates to a global energy imbalance of only 1 part in 1,000. To believe that Mother Nature is incapable of causing such small imbalances, as the IPCC implicitly believes, is not based upon observations but upon assumptions.

What this means is that, without knowing just how much of recent warming is natural, there is no way to know how much is anthropogenic *nor* how sensitive the climate system is. This is a glaring source of uncertainty that the IPCC continues to gloss over, sweep under the rug, …pick your metaphor.


103 Responses to “IPCC: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity!””

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. ren says:

    Extremely strong and long-lasting blockade of the Antarctic, promises extraordinary winter in the north. I regret that I am a raven, but I feel it in my bones. Is a sign of global warming?
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/70mb6525.gif

  2. OssQss says:

    If sensitivity cannot be determined, everything else does not even matter.

    This report has turned into an inverted pyramid of assumption cloaked as science. The opposite of the scientific method in the end from my shoes. What a sad product for all those billions (trillions over time) poured into it.

    What has the world come to when scientist’s become politician’s!

    • Stan says:

      So do you think that CO2 does not absorb IR, or that the Earth does not emit it?

      • Dave says:

        Yes CO2 (and water vapor and every other gas in the atmosphere) emit(s) infrared radiation as what we might term a spectral emitter (only emits and absorbs in specific portions of the spectrum). Yes the earth (and vegetation and clouds) emit as graybody radiators (emissivities of 80% to 99% at all wavelengths). The devil is in the details of where each atmospheric molecular emitter is sensitive.

  3. Hops says:

    Just think, your pension fund managers and/or investment advisors, have far less certainty and have to deal with a system that is even noisier than climate. Yet they do offer advice and make decisions. If you are lucky, they are right more often than wrong.

    So what decision do we make? Do we try to reduce CO2, in the same sense that an investment advisor might suggest saving more, or hedging a risky position?

    A couple years ago, financial news reportng was full of the observation that the stock market had gone nowhere for a decade. I don’t hear that anymore. Someday I will probably no longer hear about a pause in global warming because it will revert to trend, just like the stock market has.

    • Rhys Jaggar says:

      Actually, the long term trend, as opposed to the trend for the past 200 years, is one of cyclical oscillation around a mean which has been dropping very, very slowly for the best part of 8000 years.

      The trend would probably be that we are in for a period of cooling every bit as long as the current period of warming since the little Ice Age.

      Exactly when that trend starts to manifest itself is something perhaps Professor Spencer is better qualified to judge.

      In the near term, however, the multidecadal oscillations of PDO and AMO, allied to the solar physicists’ predictions of a quiet solar 25 to make solar cycle 24 seem quite exuberant, may well point to a 25 – 40 year period of significant global cooling.

      Of course, if the doomsday solar theorists are correct about an impending Maunder Minimum rather than a Daltonesque one, then the cooling period may be 200 years rather than 25. I don’t think anyone has any scientific theories strong enough to address such a question yet, but again my knowledge may not be sufficient to judge that accurately.

      My advice to you would be to expect your agricultural hardiness zone to move south for 30 years and to take whatever action you might consider appropriate in view of that.

      I would also suggest to you that you sell your stocks and shares, as that is what some of the richest billionaires are doing right now.

      • Hops says:

        Well, we agree about the market.

        When uncertain, I hedge. I don’t like to trade a lot, so I have moved cash into an ultra short ETF (SDS) to be equity neutral. I cannot predict what the politicians will do in the near term, but in the long run the stock market will be okay. So rather than incur the trouble and expense of selling a lot of positions, I just buy one ultra (2X) short position, which I can do even in an IRA or 401K.

        I take the same attitude toward climate change. Given uncertainty, we should look for low-cost ways to hedge until we get better clarity. Energy efficiency is a good one. And if the YTD performance of the solar ETF (TAN) is any indication, solar power is coming no matter what.

        A pastor at church I once attended liked to say some people were ABC — anything but Christianity. Here it’s anything but CO2…

        • Barry K says:

          I have been reading Dr. Spencer’s post for a long time and I think he does believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas… he just claims that it’s influence on the earth is much smaller than claimed by the IPCC. Hopefully he is right because the global CO2 level is going to increase for a long time. Even if we (USA) were to completely eliminate our CO2 emissions, China alone would replace that annual amount within about 10 years given they currently emit 2x what we do and their CO2 emission growth rate is about 5-10% per year. And if we make significant efforts to reduce our emissions, likely this means electricity will cost more, resulting in higher emissions in China (and elsewhere) due to more factories leaving here.

          • Dave says:

            The point about atmospheric gases is that they all absorb/emit energy at specific wavelengths. Each of these points in the spectrum is termed a “line”. But each line looks like a very narrow “bell curve” like we see in classroom score distributions. The peak of the line is centered at the most sensitive wavelength. The sensitivity then drops off relatively quickly as one moves in frequency (wavelength) of radiation away from this center.

            This decrease, like the bell curve, is slow at first, and then becomes very rapidly diminishing at a rate that is much faster than linear. Because of this behavior, nearly ALL! radiation in the atmosphere AT the wavelength of the line gets absorbed over very short distances, even for low amounts of the gas. But as you move off the line, you need more and more of the absorbing gas to produce a noticeable effect. That’s why adding just a little more CO2 is not going to have a major effect.

            This same logic is true for Ocean Acidification (a misnomer if I’ve ever heard one), since the pH system is rated on a LOG scale.

          • M Hastings says:

            How can such a small tail (CO2) wag such a big dog?

            That one question has kept me skeptical.

      • TonyB says:

        “Of course, if the doomsday solar theorists are correct about an impending Maunder Minimum rather than a Daltonesque one, then the cooling period may be 200 years rather than 25. I dont think anyone has any scientific theories strong enough to address such a question yet, but again my knowledge may not be sufficient to judge that accurately.”

        I fear the ameliorating effect on AGW will be small ….
        from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042710/abstract
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042710/abstract

        “The Maunder minimum is connected to the Little Ice Age, a time of markedly lower temperatures, in particular in the Northern hemisphere. Here we use a coupled climate model to explore the effect of a 21st-century grand minimum on future global temperatures, finding a moderate temperature offset of no more than −0.3C in the year 2100 relative to a scenario with solar activity similar to recent decades. This temperature decrease is much smaller than the warming expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.”

    • Cwon14 says:

      Now we compare climate science to stock market advisers? How about fortune tellers next?

      This isn’t the comparison most people take away from the scientific method is it? Maybe if the IPCC had stuck to pre-normal science they would have had a better outcome from post-normal Soviet styled science.

      • torontoann says:

        We don’t have a choice as to the amount of extra CO2
        released into the atmosphere over the next twenty years.
        That is all down to the Chinese and the Indians, etc.
        Nobody of importance in the developing world buys our
        warmist schtick, for a second. They regard it as a ridiculous neo-colonialist trick, intended to keep them poor.

        For better or for worse, the DIE IS CAST.

        • nigel says:

          I have put this elsewhere, but I will put it here as well – although the likelihood of anybody reading it is slight.

          A little statistic:

          In the year 2012, compared to 2011, the USA burned 40 million tons of coal less, while China burned 67 million more.

          So, indeed, it would seem the die is cast.

    • Dr. elliott Althouse says:

      Sorry, bad analogy. More correct is that is prudent to save more, but the investment advisor will collect a 100.00 fee for every additional dollar of saving/investment. Of course there is a disclaimer that the advisor bears no legal responsibility for adverse results.

    • Kohl Piersen says:

      Fund managers have “far less certainty”? Than climate scientists? Really?
      I think that’s simply wrong.

  4. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how bad they (the IPCC) has predicted the climate going forward.

    If the prolonged solar minimum holds up which it should, the temperature trend will be in a definitive down trend.

    Sustained solar parameter averages needed.
    solar wind 350 km/sec or less
    solar flux sub 90 or less
    cosmic ray count north of 6500 per minute
    solar irradiance off .015% or more
    euv light at the e10.7 flux sub 100 units
    ap index 5.0 or lower 98+% of the time.

    IF THE ABOVE SOLAR PARAMETER AVERAGES ARE MET THE TEMPERATURE TREND WILL BE DOWN.

    The IPCC does not know what it is talking about. They are clueless or liars or both.

    • Rhys Jaggar says:

      The IPCC are diplomats, functionaries, politicians, call them what you will.

      They have a political agenda, not a scientific one.

      • Cwon14 says:

        Why don’t more serious science people call for the end of the IPCC on this basis?

        • Darren says:

          When you are a climate scientist it is good for your personal bottom line to have an impending global catastrophe driving your grant dollars.

          Climate research is now its own sustaining cabal between politicians hungry for power and scientists hungry for grant money.

          The same phenomenon drives Astrophysicists to help produce Discovery channel shows about Asteroids hitting earth and wiping us out that way.

          Sure it could happen……but really should we be spending limited resources on these remote possibilities when disease and poverty actually are killing millions now?

          My answer to that is definitively NO.

          • Hops says:

            My understanding is that a lot of the members of the IPCC actually make sacrifices to participate.

          • goethean says:

            When you are a climate scientist it is good for your personal bottom line to have an impending global catastrophe driving your grant dollars.

            I just love this climate-scientists-as-profiteers conspiracy bullshit. It’s even better than the crop circles or chemtrails.

        • Bart says:

          Some of the climate brigades are undoubtedly in it for the money – those in supervisory positions who can make big money for themselves and/or their institutions. And, rank-and-file investigators can make what may seem like peanuts to some, but which is a lot more than they would be making if their discipline were not currently in the limelight.

          However, standard cash money is probably not the prime motivator for most. But, they are no less greedy, because they place higher priority on an entirely different currency – that being the sense of self-importance and moral and intellectual superiority they gain from the adoring throngs.

          This is what motivates true scientists – we aspire to be Albert Einstein, not Bill Gates. Those on the side of AGW advocacy have allowed their aspirations to cloud their judgments.

    • TonyB says:

      Salvatore…..

      So My above linked paper is rubbish then?

      • richardcfromnz says:

        >”So My above linked paper is rubbish then?”

        Must be. Fuelner and Rahmstorf (2010) is not cited in AR5 SOD Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. Actually just out of date and superseded by Jones, Lockwood and Stott (2012) which is cited in AR5. So lets look at that:

        1) JL&S use a simpler version of models that have failed to mimic 21st Century climate so far, therefore any projections they make with it are rubbish.

        2) JL&S cite Shapiro et al (2013) then dismiss it, preferring least-case solar scenarios instead. Why? Because Shapiro et al found a 6 W.m2 TSI difference between the Maunder Minimum and modern Grand Maximum. That is simply untenable for IPCC purposes (see 3). Meanwhile, SC 24 is some 0.3 – 0.5 W.m2 less than the comparable starts of SC 23 and 22 i.e. the modern Grand Maximum (1950 – 2009) is now over and is showing up significantly in just the very first 11 year cycle following it, let alone the successive effect the decreasing bicentennial component (line tracing minima of SCs) will have over the next several decades when 0.3/0.5 W.m2 turns into anything up to an extreme energy output reduction of 6 W.m2 (or whatever the 1600s MM TSI actually was) by the mid 2030s. The other milder scenario being conditions similar to the Dalton Minimum of around 1800 (De Jager and Duhau 2009, and others).

        The 2nd decade of the 21st Century is tracking on average cooler than the 1st, so clearly, CO2 forcing is more than offset by a combination of natural variation (ocean cycles) and solar forcing contrary to the model findings of F&R followed by JL&S.

        3) JL&S are cited in Chapter 8, however the authors are coordinating lead (Stott) and contributing (Jones, Lockwood) authors of Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution, which relies on the conclusions of Chapter 8, which in turn relies on the conclusions of JL&S (2012).

        And round and round it (the circular reasoning) goes.

  5. Bri says:

    If the sign above the door says Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change where you work.
    You are going to find some climate change, after all the kids need braces.
    ri

  6. Arfur Bryant says:

    I repeat, the very idea of a ‘Climate Sensitivity’ (Transient or Equilibrium) is a theoretical construct with absolutely NO evidence to support it. It is loosely based on an assumption that Arrhenius was correct. It is no more than window dressing – a fabricated piece of pseudoscience wielded by pro-cAGW advocates to bludgeon their particular brand of dogma onto welcoming politicians who have an entirely different agenda.

    It has no meaning in the real world. When confronted with real-world data, pro-cAGW commenters compound their mistake by inventing other illusionist assertions such as ‘thermal inertia lag’ and magical heat transfer from atmospheric CO2 to the deep ocean without leaving any evidential trail to identify its passing en-route.

    Pathetic.

    • Kohl Piersen says:

      No matter what the faults of the IPCC, and whether or not they have addressed the question, there will be a value for climate sensitivity which, theoretically at least, can be determined by experiment and calculation. Just because the value is not known does not mean that it cannot be known.

      • Arfur Bryant says:

        Kohl,

        Climate Sensitivity can only be “determined by experiment and calculation” if the initial theory is correct. The fact that CS hasn’t been so determined so far (by people who are desperate for it to be demonstrated) indicates that it remains a purely theoretical construct.

        There is no evidence that CO2 makes ANY contribution to the GHE – in the real world.

  7. J Williams says:

    Did the IPCC Chairman actually say or write, “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity”? If not, then your photo caption is incredibly dishonest and should be removed. My comment has nothing to do with the substance of this post or of the IPCC document…it’s in the interest of intellectual discourse.

    • Steve Koch says:

      The We dont need no stinking climate sensitivity quote was an obvious joke. Your first clue should have been the picture of the bandito at the top of the post.

    • Kohl Piersen says:

      C’mon precious, it is very clearly satirical, poking fun and not intended as a quote!

    • W Tireman says:

      I took it as a satirical cartoon much like the ones you find a the daily newspaper. You really need to step back and laugh once and awhile.

  8. D'Avila Tarcisio says:

    Dr. Roy say:
    This is a glaring source of uncertainty that the IPCC continues to gloss over, sweep under the rug, pick your metaphor.

    While the weather can not explain the greenhouse effect, this situation should persist.

    For too long we’ve been trying to create a discussion here on this blog, but it seems that there is no interest of the participants because I do not have “pedigree”.

    1 – No gas emits infra red. What has been observed is the radiation of liquid water (aerosol) that accompanies any gas under test. In each in greater quantity, in others almost inesistente.

    2 – radiation from the atmosphere due to the content of water and / or ice down the air.
    For a radiating element to be effective it must have a tire size equivalent to 1/2 wavelength.

    3 – IR radiation in the atmosphere has its maximum at approximately 2000 meters from the surface and precesses ing upward as going down from layer to layer being absorbed and re-radiated according to the temperatur of said layer. This is why the 350 w / m ^ 2 versus 240 w / m ^ 2 checked.

    • TonyB says:

      “No gas emits infra red. What has been observed is the radiation of liquid water (aerosol) that accompanies any gas under test. In each in greater quantity, in others almost inesistente.”

      Complete rubbish. I’m supposed to think that scientists over this last ~150 years who have performed GHE tests on gases have failed to fulfill one basic requirement – removal of all other gases including WV. I prefer to think it is you that is stupid.

      • D'Avila Tarcisio says:

        “I prefer to think it is you that is stupid. TonysB”

        Thanks, but Manabe in preparing its “ModTrans” used data from the IUPAC developed only for chemical analysis. Someone discussed this?

        • Kohl Piersen says:

          I’m with Tony B – and remember, if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, waddles like a duck…..must be a bloody duck!

        • TonyB says:

          I prefer to think it is you that is stupid. TonysB

          Of course you do.

          But I note that I convey the opinion of 150 years of science.

          It therefore is blindingly obvious, by the balance of probabilities who is correct. And it ain’t you.

          The story of the naked Emperor is just that you know – and you are not the one who gets to live it reality.

  9. Stan says:

    It’s very easy to blog; but why haven’t you ever served with the IPCC, and express your POV where it counts?

    • Kohl Piersen says:

      Stan,
      It may surprise you to learn that there are millions of us out here who are critical of the IPCC but who are never likely to become a part of it. So what?

      • Stan says:

        The point is that unless you fight for your point of view in the arenas when the contests are taking place, it will never be accepted. That is not how science has ever worked.

        The opposing side is that you will always be able to hold on to the belief you are right.

        • W Tireman says:

          The IPCC doesn’t take applications or requests to be reviewer unless you already agree with their core values. This is not a truly peer chosen committee. Hence it’s central core problem isn’t even climate sensitivity but rather its core members.

  10. John Owens says:

    Roy, you have a good article on al.com. It is interesting to read the comments, no one is censoring them and some parts of the public are waking up to there is another side to the AGW debate.
    The IPCC is between a rock and a hard place so to speak. There are enough honest scientists that will not lie, even though they believe in global warming, that are verifying the pause in the warming and the problem with the models to cause the IPCC to have problems with it’s credibility. If the IPCC endorses the lack of warming, it loses it’s political support; but, if they come down hard saying there will be strong warming in the near future, they may be in worse trouble as no one knows what the weather or climate will do. It appears that we are in for additional cooling, possibly even this winter. If it is bad enough, it could make the IPCC a laughing stock.

  11. asherpat says:

    What no one seems to see is that IPCC dropped the CO2 as the culprit – last time (2007), it was 90% certainty “due to CO2 emissions”, but this time, it’s “human” influence, not CO2.

    This in my opinion is a desperate trick but it pulls the rug from underneath the fake environmentalists (they are really neo-communists) that wish to control (and severly limit) the use of affordable energy to the world, thereby destroying human prosperity.

    This point shud be trumpeted by realists.

    • alphagruis says:

      This is indeed a remarkable point in my opinion too.

      Funny backpedaling of the AGW alarmists, more or less of the famous Pauli’s “not even wrong” kind. Barely falsifiable;

      Well it’s indeed not unlikely that human activities in general already had, still have and might well have in future some influence on climate. We just cannot yet seriouly predict it and most likely control it in any decent way.

      So once it will finally be unescapable that the IPCC predictions up to now focused on the influence of human CO2 emissions cannot be taken seriously and relevant CO2 sensitivity is in fact utterly wrong various other culprits may be invoked so that IPCC business and funding of pretentious climate model computer geeks can quietly continue as well as the relevant agendas of a bunch of politics.

      Most likely the IPCC people are finally going to find out after a lot of funding and research that the best way to get rid of any human influence on climate is simply to wipe out our own species. lol.

    • Arfur Bryant says:

      Yes asherpat’, spot on.

      The alacrity with which the IPCC and its supporters are willing to move the goalposts was obvious from the moment they stopped calling the problem ‘Global Warming’ and started calling it ‘Climate Change’.

      It merely shows that they are more interested in perpetuating their particular dogma than they are in the ‘actual’ science.

      There is an opportunity now (as the mainstream media are beginning to notice the fallacy) for genuine scientists to step up to the mark and start calling the IPCC to task. Only two types of people can turn this around – the journalists and the scientists. I would have added politicians but I fear they are too far down the road to purgatory.

      The radiative theory of CO2 = cAGW is dead. In reality, it was never alive…

      • TonyB says:

        “There is an opportunity now (as the mainstream media are beginning to notice the fallacy) for genuine scientists to step up to the mark and start calling the IPCC to task. Only two types of people can turn this around the journalists and the scientists. I would have added politicians but I fear they are too far down the road to purgatory”

        What complete drivel.

        Would you like to contact the scientsts in the following list and tell them personally the above (call them to task). You labour under the delusion that what you read on denialist blogs is the truth and omit illogically the consensus science done by the hundreds who have compiled AR5. On what premis? You know the science better than them or more likley you don’t like “socialist” agendas? In a sane world it is you who need to get real and although certainly journalists can and do talk equal rubbish to their right-wing readers the scientists who you rely on to do it for you are few in number.

        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

        Also – you raise a hoary old myth. Here an explanation ( hint it involves several people/media and evolution ). Not deliberate obfuscation. Below a scientific/factual account…

        “Hansen’s testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term GLOBAL WARMING exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media.

        But temperature change itself isn’t the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So “global CLIMATE CHANGE” is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we’ve chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.” (MY CAPITALS)

        From:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

        • Arfur Bryant says:

          TonyB,

          There is so much wrong with your comment it will be difficult to keep this short.

          Thanks for proving my point about the media…

          If you don’t believe me, search for the phrase ‘Global Warming’ in the FAR and then the AR5, and compare how many times it is used in both. FAR = lots of times. AR5 = none that I have seen yet. Then, to prove my point further, search for the phrase ‘Global Warming’ in the media. You just don’t get it. do you? It is the media that affects public opinion, not scientists or the IPCC. It was the media that adopted the phrase global warming from the IPCC and, as much as the IPCC and people like you want to change it, the phrase has stuck with Joe Public. The fact that the IPCC has dropped the phrase is irrelevant. The entire fallacy of CO2 = cAGW was sold on ‘global warming’ with the support of the IPCC. That it is now an embarrassment is just tough luck for them.

          That your belief shrouds any sense of objectivity you may have once possessed is manifest in your pathetic attempt to deflect away from discussing actual science and make the focus my assumed lack of credibility. You want to make this personal, I want to make it about the science. You think I can’t hack it, I think I can. Why don’t we try it? Why don’t you use your self-imposed scientific superiority and discuss the basic science behind the IPCC facade? I would love to discuss the basic science with the IPCC authors but, for the same reason you are now arguing against me the person not what I say, they wouldn’t even respond. Which is why I stated that it is time for genuine scientists to take them to task. y the way, every time I have tried to engage the IPCC authors, they have run away.

          ["You labour under the delusion that what you read on denialist blogs is the truth and omit illogically the consensus science done by the hundreds who have compiled AR5."]

          Denialist blogs? Illogically omitting consensus science? You’re joking, right? The very fact you use the label ‘Denialist’ immediately confirms you are running scared. The very fact that you use the terms ‘consensus science’ shows you have no idea that the two words are anathema. The very fact that you claim that me omitting ‘consensus science’ is illogical proves you have formulated your opinions on the unscientific nonsense you have swallowed from the IPCC. If your consensus science was solid, you wouldn’t need to stoop to calling blogs ‘denialist’. You could just provide the evidence to support the IPCC view and that would be it. But you can’t. We’ve had this out before. You cannot provide any supporting evidence other than that from models. There is NO real-world evidence to support the CO2 = cAGW argument. It doesn’t stop the IPCC from assuming it, and it doesn’t stop the ‘consensus scientists’ from assuming it. But it could stop genuine scientists from assuming it. Genuine scientists would follow the scientific method. They wouldn’t blindly accept the theory without seeking falsifying evidence. THe fact that there is no verifying evidence at least indicates that the theory is wrong so far.

          You want to debate the science? Fine.

          Show me the real-world evidence that 0.04% of the atmosphere can have a significant effect on global surface temperature or even that 0.028% had a significant effect in 1850. Not models. Real evidence.
          Explain how the ‘enhanced GHE’ after over 160 years of anthropogenic influence is only 0.8 deg C when, according to the IPCC, CO2 is responsible for 26% of the GHE. How much of the GHE was contributed to by CO2 in 1850? How much is contributed now? How can an increase of 40% of such a major radiative player not be reflected in the surface temperature? Exactly how much of the 0.8C is due to CO2? How can the so-called heat from CO2 be stored in the deep ocean in such a short time without any corresponding rise in SST? How can the rate of sea level rise not be accelerating when, according to the IPCC, it really should be. How come all the temperature datasets indicate the globe is cooler than it was in 1998, when Mann tried to scare the world, in spite of continuing anthropogenic emissions? Even more basically, how can radiation from a cooler object (atmospheric CO2) be absorbed for net energy gain by the very object (the planet) it received its original increase in energy?

          Come on, Mr ‘Appeal to Authority’. These are easy questions for ‘consensus scientists’, aren’t they? You should have the answers at your fingertips. After all, the authors of the IPCC know all this stuff, right? Wrong. The IPCC is a political body posing under a scientific umbrella whose very aim is to provide an indication of the severity of human-caused climate change. Of course it is going to come to the conclusions it does, otherwise it would not have a raison d’tre. Jeesh.

          Debate the science, not the people. I’m ready when you are.

        • Chris says:

          TonyB,

          It might take a genius to develop a theory and billions of dollars, but it only takes an idiot to find a counter example to prove a theory wrong.

          Temperatures have not gone up, and at least here in Australia the predictions regarding rainfall have been spectacularly incorrect.

          The current models are simply wrong and should not be used for making policy.

        • Bart says:

          “The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet” – Damon Runyan

          That little quote basically encapsulates the argument behind the “consensus” meme. It is widely thought that, if you place your bets with the greater faction, you are more likely to be proved correct.

          However, in science, this is not generally true. Scientific progress is marked by paradigm shifts, in which the reigning explanation for a particular phenomenon is suddenly toppled by an accumulating mass of contradictory evidence. It is actually expected that the great majority of researchers will be invested in that particular paradigm immediately prior to the crash, and they will be found to have been utterly wrong.

          Far from supporting the AGW advocates’ position, the “consensus” argument, according to normal patterns of scientific progress, actually suggests that a paradigm shift may well be imminent.

    • D'Avila Tarcisio says:

      “last time (2007), it was 90% certainty due to CO2 emissions, but this time, its human influence, not CO2.”

      Yes, but the IPCC is not wrong because climate change is caused by an imbalance in the water cycle, caused by man himself.
      The use of ammonium fertilizers in agriculture and asphalt and cement in cities make the soil impermeable reducing evaporation.
      Visited the site of the SSM/I and saw that measures vapor in the atmosphere are taken only over the oceans since the meters in microwave has much noise when spotting of the continent and are discarded. So we do not have data available. Only trough of radios polls.

      • Cybersailor says:

        “The use of ammonium fertilizers in agriculture and asphalt and cement in cities make the soil impermeable reducing evaporation.”

        Good point D’Avila!

        Therefore the solution is we should stop worrying about CO2, deal with the real problem by ending big agriculture, tear down the big cites, move back to the country and grow our own food?

    • stephen says:

      It is funny how the terminology gradually changes. First it was “global warming”. Then it was “climate change”. And now it is “climate disruption”. What will be next when the lack of warming continues?

      • TonyB says:

        Stephen;

        You do understand the concept of a “system” do you?
        As in a land/sea/ocean interaction.
        You are aware that water has 4x the heat capacity of air?
        You are aware that the top 2.5m of the Oceans contains as much energy as the whole of the atmosphere?
        That the Oceans are Kilometres deep?
        That the deep Oceans are warming?
        http://phys.org/news/2013-09-long-term-reveals-deep-greenland-sea.html
        That overlying cycles (cool ENSO) can mask warming.
        http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/04/1967withlines.pdf
        You are aware that the ENSO cycle is “averaged out” in climate models?
        And therefore cannot predict short term fluctuations of it?
        You are aware that if these short-term variations are removed the IPCC models are doing just fine?
        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

        In short – do try to wake up to the science.

        Also see above for a rebuttal of the resurfaced myth of “Global warming” vs “Climate change”.

        • Kohl Piersen says:

          The IPCC models are not “doing just fine”. That’s just wishful thinking. The examination(s) of models vs observations at ‘The Blackboard’ and ‘Climate Audit’ are conclusive on that point. (There are many others and there are papers in the peer reviewed literature which draw essentially similar conclusions)
          Extrapolating to the ‘deep ocean’ from the paper(s) on warming of the Greenland Sea is a little premature – there is far too little data to draw such conclusions.
          So, taking existing observations at face value:
          1. There is insufficient data to link such heating with CO2 emissions (nor for that matter with other human activity);
          2. The 0.3C warming observed in the Greenland Sea is hardly the catastrophic occurrence required to support the expenditure of billions upon billions in ‘combatting climate change’;
          3. And in any event it is reasonable to posit that further research may well discover that here is one mechanism which might act to moderate temperature in the manner of a thermostat. (Note, I didn’t say that it was such a thermostat – I have no idea. But it is just as consistent with the evidence so far as the worries about global warming etc)

          • TonyB says:

            Kohl Piersen;

            First I do not consider “The Blackboard” or “ClimateAudit” as reliable, unbiased reporters of Climate scince. I will only consider peer-reviewed papers asn stand alone.

            Also I refute your refutation is si there in the paper I linked.

            I repeat..
            Overlying cycles (cool ENSO) can mask warming.
            http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2012/04/1967withlines.pdf

            The above shows the cooling that the atmosphere would experience in a shift from Nino’s to Nina’s (around 0.2C).

            The ENSO cycle is averaged out in climate models?
            And therefore cannot predict short term fluctuations of it.
            When short-term variations are removed the IPCC models are indeed doing just fine?
            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

            You have looked at this paper?

            What is you don’t know about modeling and the impossibility of incorporating short-term climate cycles into a long-term model (which therefore means that said short-term fuctuations are not depicted).

            And that the Oceans are where 90% of the Earth’s energy budget is stored.

        • Bart says:

          “That the deep Oceans are warming?”

          Ah, once again, the Immaculate Convection argument rears its head. The notion that the deep oceans could have been heated within a scant few decades, whilst showing no discernible path for the heat transfer to have progressed through the upper layers, is a monumental flail.

          This is not science. It is religion.

          • TonyB says:

            “This is not science. It is religion.”

            The world is a sane one sunshine and you do not trump consensus science by waving your hand and saying the above. Unless you are preaching to your converted. I’ve got the sense and expertise to trump you (though not of course in your own mind – I have been talking to your type for long enough to know that NOTHING will change your mind).

            It’s you that holds the “religion” – as a “retired” Meteorologist I simply look at and *crucially* understand the science (peer-reviewed and not obtained from the Blogosphere).

            Your ignorance is astounding – but then again this is a *Contrarian” Blog.
            I’d tell you to look it up and/or link some education for you – but I’ve learned it’s a waste of time.

            Other than…http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

          • Bart says:

            Blah, blah, blah. Just an attempt to evade the question on your part. How did CO2 in the atmosphere heat the 2000-700m range of the oceans without heating up the intervening layers over a timespan of just a few decades? I want a detailed, step by step explanation without any gaps or evasions. Let’s see you do it. Here is an outline:

            1) How did the retention of IR in the atmosphere heat the water when IR does not penetrate seawater beyond a few mm?

            2) How did the heat sink, when the buoyancy of warm water causes it to rise, not sink?

            3) How did the heat leave no evidence of its passing through the upper layers?

            4) If you invoke the THC, how did the flow emerge within a couple of decades when normal overturning takes centuries?

            5) What mechanism switched the gears such that former heating of the atmosphere halted and all the heat instantaneously started going into the depths?

            This is absurd and idiotic. Short of a Star Trek teleporter beaming the heat to the depths, you haven’t a leg to stand on and you know it, so you offer empty puffery instead. It is contemptible.

    • Stan says:

      There are more human influences on climate than CO2 emissions, and lately another big one (aerosols) may be contributing to holding down surface temperatures.

      • stephen says:

        Wait, I thought it was heat going into the oceans that was “holding down” temperatures???

        Did you see where in the IPCC’s report that the lower bound for their warming predictions is ZERO WARMING for the next 85 years?

        • Stan says:

          Why do you think there is one and only one reason for the hiatus? That seems very unlikely, from a physics point of view.

          • Jim Clarke says:

            That’s funny. Why don’t you ask the IPCC the same question about the warming of the late 20th Century? They give one and only one reason for it, and I agree…that seems very unlikely from a physics point of view.

          • Bart says:

            Jim Clarke +1 :-)

        • Stan says:

          Did you see where in the IPCCs report that the lower bound for their warming predictions is ZERO WARMING for the next 85 years?

          No. Where does it say that?

          What is the upper bound?

  12. stephen says:

    I don’t see any mention here about the fact that the low end of the IPCC’s warming predictions for the rest of the 21st century is for NO WARMING AT ALL! The report seems to be acknowledging the possibility that we will go 100 years with no net warming. This seems like a big deal, but it’s being downplayed.

    Also, in 1990 the average prediction was 0.3C warming per decade. Then more recently it was 0.2C per decade. Now, if I’m reading the latest report correctly, it seems to be roughly 0.17C per decade. This seems to be acknolwedgement of lower climate sensitivity, isn’t it?

    Also, the report does address climate sensitivity, but it gives a very wide range. So basically, they are saying they’re really not sure how sensitive the climate is. Again, this seems to be an important concession on their part.

  13. Chimel says:

    I would love to see the new blogs on climate sensitivity. I think the University of Alabama should fire you so you can focus full time on these stupidities and not at the tax payer’s cost.

    When scientists who are by definition the most skeptic population there is say that more than 60% of the warming is caused by humans, you can confidently assume that it’s actually more than 80% and closer to 100%. When I look at the downward temperature trend since year 1000 until 1800 and I see we are already way above that year 1000 and still climbing up at rates that look more like a square angle shoot than a hockey stick, I think it’s more like 120% of the warming is caused by humans…

    But at least all is not negative: your poor scientific competencies and horrible sense of humor are compensated by the high sense of racism displayed in that picture of a Mexican with the photoshopped head of a scientist of Indian origins.

    I thin they ought to take back your PhD as well as your job. How you can still be working in education is a mystery to me.

    • ren says:

      The competence of talk in January. It will be more reliable.

    • stephen says:

      Chimel, since you understand all this so well, can you explain why all the climate models have been so wrong? So much for your theory that they are being conservative. Actual warming hasn’t even hit the lower bound of the amount of warming they have predicted.

      And can you explain why the IPCC is gradually reducing their predictions about how much the climate will warm over the next 85 years?

      You say you have faith that they are conservative, but evidence says otherwise.

      • Stan says:

        Define “so wrong.”

        • stephen says:

          They have had a nearly 100% rate of over-predicting the rate at which the earth is warming. And if you look at the warming predictions over the past 20+ years, you’ll see that they’ve been gradually reducing their warming forecasts.

          Of course, now they’ve lowered the lowest forecast to show the possibility of ZERO WARMING over the next 85 years so that they can be fairly certain they won’t look so much like fools this time around.

          Hurricane forecasters have a better record, and that’s not saying much.

          • Stan says:

            Where does this “100%” number come from?

            Over what time period? For which metrics?

          • stephen says:

            Global land/sea temperature anomaly. Or lower troposphere. Take your pick. Since 1990, it has warmed something like 0.1C per decade. The forecast was 0.3C per decade. Even more recent predictions of 0.2C have been epic failures.

            Dr. Spencer has shown model predictions compared to reality. The only ones that came close were the ones that assumed low climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration.

            The IPCC has already acknowledged that warming was well below what was predicted. Deal with it.

            What’s ironic is that all the people who are worried about the climate should be thrilled that warming was less than expected. Instead they are mad and defensive. Shows a significant bias.

      • Stan says:

        P.S.- How good is your climate model?

    • CaseyA says:

      “Chimel” who do you think you are? Seriously, who? You spew forth pre-published drivel that you try to convince others is your own drivel, and then you call for a real scientist’s degree to be taken? Fired even?

      This is why people believe warmers’ end goal is some form of authoritarianism. I’m convinced.

      Perhaps if the IPCC were a scientific organization as opposed to a political organization, I would take their opinions seriously. As it stands, the IPCC has as much credibility with me as the DNC–not much.

      • Stan says:

        Actually, the authoritarianism many are worried about is there where today’s energy users impose their climate-changing choices on the poor and on the next few thousand generations of mankind.

        • stephen says:

          LOL. Ironic statement considering that the push for alternative energy, cap and trade, etc does nothing but raise prices of energy and energy-consuming devices.

          • Stan says:

            Good — it’s about time energy prices reflected their true cost, and not their subsidized cost.

          • stephen says:

            The only energy that is subsidized to a significant extent is “green” energy. And with all the new sources of oil throughout the world, the Middle East is becoming less and less important, reducing the need for significant military expenditures.

            Meanwhile, to build wind or solar, you still have to build a natural gas turbine to back it up. Green energy is already expensive, but having to build 2kW of generation for every 0.3-0.5kW of actual electricity produced makes it even more costly.

            Don’t twist the facts. It’s a sign that you don’t have much confidence in your beliefs.

        • Bart says:

          “…energy users impose their climate-changing choices on the poor…”

          Translation: I am better than you, because I care about the poor.

          “Good its about time energy prices reflected their true cost, and not their subsidized cost.”

          Translation: Screw the poor!

    • Ronald says:

      Why do you call for firing or removal of a PhD because one points out the errors in the science and over assertion by a political body masked as science?

      So lets break down the logic.
      One the earth is warming, two man is causing it, three the warming is faster than man and nature can adapt so it is catastrophic. Few people have issues with one. Two is suspect and three has been overstated regardless of source.

      So what is the ideal human temperature? Do not know. Is the majority of human warming from burning of fossil fuel or from water vapor due to agriculture and impounding water such as dams? Do not know. Is this part of a 1000 year cycle based upon the Medieval warm period and the roman warm period? Do not know. What actual percentage of warming is natural vs. man induced? Do not know.

      What we do know is the models and predictions have been completely out of bounds. We do know the UN uses global warming as a reason to transfer wealth from rich to poor countries (which oddly enough means democracies to tyrannies or highly corrupt systems). We do know that the vast majority of green energy is simply not economical without the fear of global warming. We do know the energy, agriculture and water is the biggest reason for quality of life improvements and these are under attack by climate hysteria. We do know there is monetary incentive to continue the global warming hysteria.

      Believe what you want, but do not masquerade poor science as definitive or absolute.

    • Kohl Piersen says:

      “When scientists who are by definition the most skeptic population there is say that more than 60% of the warming is caused by humans, you can confidently assume that its actually more than 80% and closer to 100%.”
      Really? Why? Have you talked to them? Did you record the numbers who think 100% but say 60%? And does that give you much confidence that other things they say might not be what they really think?
      You seem to be putting words in the mouths of your skeptical scientists but you are also ignoring the many, many scientists who do not support the IPCC’s version of what is happening. I agree with you that scientists are (should be) skeptical. But that means that there will be a range of opinion on global warming/climate change/unsettled weather.. or whatever you want to call it. All the way from those who consider that most of the warming in the latter half of last century is down to human activity to those who think that only a very tiny proportion is due to human activity.
      And one fundamental issue in the consideration of the role of humans (via the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere) is the measurement of climate sensitivity. The latest from the IPCC seems to leave that out! BUT without it makes little sense to make bold statements about how much warming is caused by humans.

  14. Stevek says:

    The funny thing is , as others hv pointed out, is that if the climate is not very sensitive to c02 then because c02 is good for plants c02 is a net plus for the environment.

    Ohhhhhh the irony.

    • Stan says:

      Yes — plants are doing great on Venus.

    • TonyB says:

      “The funny thing is , as others hv pointed out, is that if the climate is not very sensitive to c02 then because c02 is good for plants c02 is a net plus for the environment”

      Another myth gathering ground in the “denialosphere”

      Err… Fertilizer isn’t much use without water. AGW science expects a much weaker Polar jet-stream and more WV condensing in a warmer atmosphere – unfortunately this means that there will be more rain but that it will fall increasingly in fewer places with droughts elsewhere. So if you consider floods “good for the environment” then you are correct. And of course rising sea-levels and increasing acidity of Oceans is obviously good isn’t it? Give me strength.

      • Stan says:

        Not to mention, if crops “do great” under a CO2-enhanced world (even with higher temperatures, precipitation changes, drier soils, etc), THEN SO WILL WEEDS.

        (Also, the Earth’s albedo will change. It already is.)

      • Chris says:

        TonyB,

        In Australia Tim Flannery made a similar statement many years ago, and so we spent $10 billion on desalination plants.

        Since then the drought has broken and the desalination plants have mostly been mothballed. The rains came and the rivers flowed in exactly the way we were told it would never happen again.

        A total waste of $10 billion dollars. Can I send you the bill?

        This is why we must not make policy decisions based on our current understanding, because our understanding is not at a level to be useful.

        Perhaps in the future we will understand it better, but it seems we are still a long way off.

        Are you arguing the computer models are accurate and the ciimate has got it wrong?

  15. TonyB says:

    “Extrapolating to the deep ocean from the paper(s) on warming of the Greenland Sea is a little premature there is far too little data to draw such conclusions.”

    I beg to differ?

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    ” The 0.3C warming observed in the Greenland Sea is hardly the catastrophic occurrence required to support the expenditure of billions upon billions in combatting climate change;”

    Err…. Basic thermodynamics:
    You do appreciate what 0.3C of heat would do if transferred to the atmosphere?

    Given that a 0.3C rise in the top 10ft of the Ocean would heat the whole atmosphere by 1.2C !

    • TonyB says:

      BTW: I’m not saying it will – just that that is the measure of the energy stored “IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM” (as an example only).

    • Bart says:

      “Given that a 0.3C rise in the top 10ft of the Ocean would heat the whole atmosphere by 1.2C !”

      Exactly how do you propose to instantaneously transfer the heat there and keep it there? There’s a 4pi steradian heat sink surrounding us known as “outer space”!

  16. gordie says:

    Once extra heat penetrates below the
    topmost layer of the Ocean, below the
    thermocline, it is no longer “IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM”.
    Its ultimate fate is to find its way to the bottom
    through normal turbulent mixing; where the bottom
    layers can absorb it without any harmful, or
    even noticeable effect, on anything.

    Given enough time of the present (postulated)
    heat-flow imbalance, viz. tens of thousands of years,
    we might return to the pleasant conditions for
    life of the Cretaceous, when the Ocean was 15 C.
    all the way down. But there is likely to be a new
    Ice-Age long before that.

  17. Hide in the bottom of the oceans is better than ‘Sweep under the rug’, for the IPCC.
    The NIPCC got out a much more complete climate report, see http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ (17 September 2013) starting with the NIPCC CCR-II, Summary for Policymakers.

  18. Tonyb says:

    I just wanted to point out that the ‘tonyb’ posting here is not me, who widely posts on such blogs as climate ec, wuwt and bishop hill and has written climate related articles under that name for some five years.

    Having read his comments I disagree with much of what the other tonyb has written and wish to differentiate myself from hs comments.

    To avoid confusion perhaps the other tony b might find it useful to slightly amend hs name?

    Tonyb