by Anthony Watts, Sep. 6, 2019 in WUWT
London, 6 September: The General-Secretary of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticised the news media for provoking unjustified anxiety.
Speaking to Finland’s financial newspaper Talouselämä (“The Journal”) on 6 September 2019, Petteri Taalas called for cooler heads to prevail, saying that he does not accept arguments of climate alarmists that the end of the world is at hand.
Dr Taalas also spoke of the dangers of green extremism:
“While climate sceptisism has become less of an issue, now we are being challenged from the other side. Climate experts have been attacked by these people and they claim that we should be much more radical. They are doomsters and extremists; they make threats.”
And he called for the media both to challenge experts and allow a broader range of opinions to be heard.
by Bud Bromley, August 30, 2019 in PrincipiaScientificInternational
by Dr Roy Spencer, August 25, 2019 in GlobalWarming
An old mantra of the news business is, “if it bleeds, it leads”. If someone was murdered, it is news. That virtually no one gets murdered is not news. That, by itself, should tell you that the mainstream media cannot be relied upon as an unbiased source of climate change information.
There are lots of self-proclaimed climate experts now. They don’t need a degree in physics or atmospheric science. For credentials, they only need to care and tell others they care. They believe the Earth is being murdered by humans and want the media to spread the word.
Most people do not have the time or educational background to understand the global warming debate, and so defer to the consensus of experts on the subject. The trouble is that no one ever says exactly what the experts agree upon.
When you dig into the details, what the experts agree upon in their official pronouncements is rather unremarkable. The Earth has warmed a little since the 1950s, a date chosen because before that humans had not produced enough CO2 to really matter. Not enough warming for most people to actually feel, but enough for thermometers to pick up the signal buried in the noise of natural weather swings of many tens of degrees and spurious warming from urbanization effects. The UN consensus is that most of that warming is probably due to increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel use (but we really don’t know for sure).
For now, I tend to agree with this consensus.
And still I am widely considered a climate denier.
Why? Because I am not willing to exaggerate and make claims that cannot be supported by data.
The widely reported Greenland surface melt event around 1 August 2019 (green oval) was then followed by a recovery to normal in the following weeks (purple oval), which was not reported by the media.
by Paul Driessen, August 25, 2019
UN and other scientists recently sent out news releases claiming July 2019 was the “hottest month ever recorded on Earth” – nearly about 1.2 degrees C (2.2 degrees F) “above pre-industrial levels.” That era happens to coincide with the world’s emergence from the 500-year Little Ice Age. And “ever recorded” simply means measured; it does not include multiple earlier eras when Earth was much warmer than now.
Indeed, it is simply baseless to suppose that another few tenths of a degree (to 1.5 C above post-Little Ice Age levels) would somehow bring catastrophe to people, wildlife, agriculture and planet. It is equally ridiculous to assume all recent warming has been human-caused, with none of it natural or cyclical.
Moreover, as University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has noted, this past July was most likely not the warmest. The claim, he notes, is based on “a limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends.”
by P. Homewood, August 26, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.
What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.
by Sanjeev Sabhlok, August 22, 2019 in TheTimesofIndia
We know there is simply no basis for climate alarm. All “scientific” predictions have failed, life has survived happily with much higher CO2 in the past, the medieval warming period a thousand years ago was much warmer than today, the small temperature variations of the 20th century are easily explained by natural causes, and the IPCC reports confirm that there is no increase in extreme weather events and no economic harm from CO2.
And yet the hysteria is increasing by the day. The “remedies” being suggested are becoming more extreme: it is no longer just about making energy so expensive that the poor can’t afford it, it is now about removing meat from their diet as well.
by R. Murphy, July 20, 2019 in FoundationEconomicEducation
An Earth scientist’s recent article making the rounds on social media highlights a terrifying conversation he had with “a very senior member” of the IPCC, which is the UN’s body devoted to studying climate science. The upshot of their conversation was that millions of people will die from climate change, a conclusion that leads the author to lament that humans have created a consumption-driven civilization that is “hell-bent on destroying itself.”
As with most such alarmist rhetoric, there is little to document these sweeping claims—even if we restrict ourselves to “official” sources of information, including the IPCC reports themselves. The historical record does not justify panic, but instead should lead us to expect continued progress for humanity, so long as the normal operation of voluntary market interactions continues without significant political interference to sabotage it.
Here is the opening hook from James Dyke’s article, in which he grabs the reader with an apocalyptic conversation:
by J.C. Maurin, 19 juillet 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie
Effet Bombe et Modèles du GIEC
Les prévisions du climat sont générées par des modèles informatiques. Leurs concepteurs pensent pouvoir décrire l’état moyen de l’atmosphère en 2100, en prenant comme principale donnée d’entrée, le taux futur de CO2 qui constituerait donc le ‘bouton de commande’ du climat.
Il y a deux étages de modélisation : on commence par prévoir le taux de CO2 en 2100 avec des modèles sélectionnés par le GIEC (ces modèles « IRF » du GIEC sont l’objet de l’article).
Cette prévision constitue ensuite l’entrée du second étage, à savoir les modèles types « échanges radiatifs » ou « effet de serre » qui ne sont pas traités ici (mais on peut consulter ceci).
Le présent article ( qui est la suite de deux autres ici et ici) compare la réponse impulsionnelle théorique de ces modèles « IRF » avec la réponse impulsionnelle observée du 14CO2(effet Bombe).
by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, July 13, 2019 in Physics.gen-ph
Abstract. In this paper we wil lprove that GCM-models used inI IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.
The climate sensitivity has an extremely large uncertainty in the scientific lit- erature. The smallest values estimated are very close to zero while the highest ones are even 9 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2. The majority of the papers are using theoretical general circulation models (GCM) for the estimation. These models give very big sensitivities with a very large uncertainty range. Typically sensitivity values are between 2–5 degrees. IPCC uses these papers to estimate the global temperature anomalies and the climate sensitivity. However, there are a lot of papers, where sensitivities lower than one degree are estimated without using GCM. The basic problem is still a missing experimental evidence of the cli- mate sensitivity. One of the authors (JK) worked as an expert reviewer of IPCC AR5 report. One of his comments concerned the missing experimental evidence for the very large sensitivity presented in the report . As a response to the com- ment IPCC claims that an observational evidence exists for example in Technical Summary of the report. In this paper we will study the case carefully.
2. Low cloud cover controls practically the global temperature
by Edwin X Berry , June, 2019 in JAtmOceanSciences
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2. To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level. The Physics Model exactly replicates the 14C data from 1970 to 2014 with only two physical parameters: balance level and e-time. The 14C data trace how CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. The Physics Model shows the 14 CO2 e-time is a constant 16.5 years. Other data show e-time for 12CO2 is about 4 to 5 years. IPCC claims human CO2 reduces ocean buffer capacity. But that would increase e-time. The constant e-time proves IPCC’s claim is false. IPCC argues that the human-caused reduction of 14C and 13C in the atmosphere prove human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. However, numbers show these isotope data support the Physics Model and reject the IPCC model. The Physics Model shows how inflows of human and natural CO2 into the atmosphere set balance levels proportional to their inflows. Each balance level remains constant if its inflow remains constant. Continued constant CO2 emissions do not add more CO2 to the atmosphere. No CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2inflow produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
by P. Homewood, June 25, 2019 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
As far as climate change is concerned, Sky News have now abandoned all pretensions to factual accuracy, in favour of blatant propaganda.
They have a new 12-minute special report, to set off a week of special reports, but if this trailer is anything to go by it’s going to be the same old garbage the BBC have served up for years:
The use of the word “storms” in the link title, along with the phrase “climate crisis” gives a good idea of the junk that is to follow.
Let’s go through the trailer’s claims and statements:
by Judith Curry, June 22, 2019 in WUWT
How valid conclusions often lay hidden within research reports, masked by plausible but unjustified conclusions reached in those reports. And how the IPCC institutionalizes such masking errors in climate science.
In the previous post, we discussed the motivated biases of individual climate researchers, stimulated by the paper by Lee Jussim, Joe Duarte and others entitled Interpretations and methods: Towards a more self-correcting social psychology
The Jussim et al. paper provides additional insights that are relevant to the motivated biases in climate change, which become particularly serious and problematic once these biases are institutionalized. Here are additional excerpts from Jussim et al. for the topic I would like to discuss in this post:
“In this paper, we consider how valid conclusions often lay hidden within research reports, masked by plausible but unjustified conclusions reached in those reports. These conclusions do not necessarily involve the use of questionable research practices. Invalid conclusions may be reached based, not on failing to report dropped conditions, failed studies, or nonsignificant analyses, but on selective interpretations of data that highlight researchers’ preferred conclusions while masking more valid ones.”
JC comment: This is basically the problem that I have with the IPCC assessment reports. Deep in the chapters, there is much good information that is reliable, although the reports relatively ignore some topics. The problem is with the conclusions that are reached (particularly in the Summary for Policy Makers), and inflated levels of confidence that are ascribed to these conclusions.
by J.C. Maurin, 13 juin 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie
Une croissance du CO2 atmosphérique qui serait exclusivement anthropique est contradictoire avec les observations du carbone 13 dans l’atmosphère (ici). Cet article en 2 parties va montrer qu’il existe également des contradictions avec les observations du carbone 14. Celui-ci est utilisé à des fins de datation jusqu’à 50 000 ans BP (Before Present)et on dispose de nombreuses études (pour calibration) sur son évolution dans l’atmosphère.
La première partie s’intéresse, non pas aux datations, mais à la dilution du carbone 14 que provoque l’ajout de CO2 anthropique (effet SUESS) avant les essais thermonucléaires de 1952-1963.
Dans la seconde partie nous verrons que l’évolution du carbone 14 après 1963 est aussi en contradiction avec une croissance du CO2 exclusivement anthropique.
1. Le carbone dans l’atmosphère  
Le carbone existe habituellement sous 3 formes isotopiques : 12C pour ≈ 98.9% , 13C pour ≈ 1.1 % et 14C à l’état de traces (Fig. 1a).
Figure 1a. La seule différence entre CO2 anthropique et CO2 atmosphérique réside dans les proportions du mélange des isotopes: le CO2 anthropique est appauvri en 13C et 14C. L’ajout de CO2 anthropique va modifier, au fil des années, les proportions du mélange isotopique dans l’atmosphère.
by Prof. dr. H.J. Lüdecke, May 26 2019 in
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)
Was it sloppiness or intent? In the IPCC Summary Report for Policymakers published by the Federal Government in German, the most important statement of the original English report was falsified.
IPCC reports are available as comprehensive status reports and get strongly condensed as reports for policymakers. The latter are not to be taken as IPCC-authorized extracts as the governments concerned are allowed contribute in the writing. As a result, information or formulations from the English IPCC original which do not agree with German politics are often omitted in the German IPCC reports for policymakers. This is popularly called censorship. As a result of such falsifications, the status reports and the corresponding reports for policymakers are often contradiction.
Key finding deleted from Summary for Policymakers
One example in the past was the famous Chapter 2.6 of the AR5 Report, in which the IPCC explained in detail that no increase in extreme weather events could be found in climate periods (about 30 years) from 1950 onwards (beginning of more extensive measurements and statistics). EIKE reported on this. But in the accompanying German IPCC report for policymakers, this IPCC finding, which is hardly trivial, was nowhere to be seen.
by Dr. Benny Peiser, May 23, 2019 in GWPF
A leading climatologist has said that the computer simulations that are used to predict global warming are failing on a key measure of the climate today and cannot be trusted.
Speaking to a meeting in the Palace of Westminster in London, Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville told MPs and peers that almost all climate models have predicted rapid warming at high altitudes in the tropics:
A paper outlining Dr. Christy’s key findings is published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.