Climate Departure and Cities to be Hit First

reply to post by Phage

Have you read the IPCC report? It might help your understanding, both of what they are actually saying and the science behind it.

The IPCC has ignored clouds. They can not model them. The IPCC has ignored ENSO. The IPCC has ignored the sun....
The IPCC uses 'Grey Literature' that is articles from Greenpeace and WWF while ignoring papers they do not like. On top of that POLITICIANS get to do the final editing of the report. THEY ARE A JOKE!!!

If they did not have politicians, bankers and energy companies as well as the banker owned news media behind them they would be a laughing stock. They will go down in history as a worse hoax than Piltdown Man.

Believe as you will Nature will do as she pleases and the IPCC will slink off in disgrace.

reply to post by crimvelvet

Except the temperature has not changed in 17 years. According to some data sets it is 22 years.

Which datasets?

reply to post by crimvelvet

The IPCC has ignored clouds. They can not model them. The IPCC has ignored ENSO. The IPCC has ignored the sun.... The IPCC uses 'Grey Literature' that is articles from Greenpeace and WWF while ignoring papers they do not like.

So the answer is no. You haven't read the report. You got it all completely wrong.

reply to post by Phage


Nice try. But even the retired head of the IPCC, Pachauri and the UK MET office has finally agreed there has been no warming for seventeen years.

(For all those busy staring Phage, you might want to ask yourself WHY he just attacks me but never provides PROOF.)

....In Melbourne for a 24-hour visit to deliver a lecture for Deakin University, Dr Pachauri said that people had the right to question the science, whatever their motivations.

"People have to question these things and science only thrives on the basis of questioning," Dr Pachauri said....

Dr Pachauri’s views contrast with arguments in Australia that views outside the orthodox position of approved climate scientists should be left unreported.

“Unlike in Britain, there has been little publicity in Australia given to recent acknowledgment by peak climate-science bodies in Britain and the US of what has been a 17-year pause in global warming. Britain’s Met Office has revised down its forecast for a global temperature rise, predicting no further increase to 2017, which would extend the pause to 21 years.”
www.theaustralian.com.au...

New paper just out by IPCC lead Author on Solar, Judith Lean.

The Impact of Different Absolute Solar Irradiance Values on Current Climate Model Simulations

ABSTRACT
Simulations of the pre-industrial and doubled CO2 climates are made with the GISS GCMAM using two different estimates of the absolute solar irradiance value, a higher value measured by solar radiometers in the 1990s and the lower value measured recently by SORCE. Each of the model simulations is adjusted to achieve global energy balance; without this adjustment the difference in irradiance produces a global temperature change of 0.4°C, comparable to the cooling estimated for the Maunder Minimum. The results indicate that by altering cloud cover the model properly compensates for the different absolute solar irradiance values on a global level when simulating both the pre-industrial and doubled CO2 climates. On a regional level, the pre-industrial climate simulations and the patterns of change with doubled CO2 concentrations are again remarkably similar, but there are some differences. Using a higher absolute solar irradiance value and the requisite cloud cover affects the model’s depictions of high latitude surface air temperature, sea level pressure, and stratospheric ozone, as well as tropical precipitation. In the climate change experiments it leads to an underestimation of North Atlantic warming, reduced precipitation in the tropical Western Pacific, and smaller total ozone growth at high northern latitudes. Although significant, these differences are typically modest compared with the magnitude of the regional changes expected for doubled greenhouse gas concentrations. Nevertheless, the model simulations demonstrate that achieving the highest possible fidelity when simulating regional climate change requires that climate models use as input the most accurate (lower) solar irradiance value.

This is interesting in that they had to use a lower solar irradiance value to get the models to work. (If you lower the solar irradiance then you can up the CO2 contribution by a corresponding amount in your play station models.)

Government scientists are busy re-writing all the solar historical information to LOWER the value, just as they rewrite temperature data to INCREASE the 'Global WARMING'

If they were working in my Lab, I would FIRE their A$$e$! You DO NOT change the raw data!

reply to post by crimvelvet


Phage has it backwards. It is up to the IPCC to show the CO2 from humans is causing a climate catastrophe. So far the CO2 has continued to increase but the temperature has not. There is no tropical Hot Spot. The Arctic is not Ice Free and MAY be recovering. Northern Hemisphere Fall Snow Cover is increasing. October Graph and November Graph and December Graph.


And just in case you were wondering, Record Cold beat 'Global Warming' for mid-summer (July) in the USA. GRAPH

This graphic shows carbon dioxide’s contribution is LOGRITHMIC! LINK This is a close-up: LINK

This is a bar chart converting 'Forcing' into temperature response to make the concept easier to understand for the layman. LINK

Most of the effect of CO2 is in the first 20PPM, by 400PPM CO2 has shot its wad and is no longer a "Big Player" in climate.
..........


Let me restate the actual situation.


1. The scientific Null Hypothesis is natural factors have caused earth's climate to change for billions of years and those same natural factor's are still at work.

You do not have to prove this null hypothesis nor do you have to quantify and identify all those factors although some (very slow) progress is being made.

2. All energy on earth comes from the sun with the minor exception of that from the hot interior of the earth.

3. The IPCC has proposed a second hypothesis. Human released CO2 will cause Catastrophic Warming.
This is the IPCC MANDATE:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation. www.ipcc-wg2.gov...

From a former IPCC scientist. An explanation of what is happening.

Mann, Jones et al, in a nutshell. From Judith Curry:
judithcurry.com...

Once the UNFCCC treaty was a done deal, the IPCC and its scientific conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.

Were [these] just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers? Well, many of them were. However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

GRAPH: RSS Flat For 200 Months
RSS is a satellite temperature data set but not the UAH dataset from Dr. Roy Spencer and John Christy.

This GRAPH of temperature vs CO2 is interesting because it shows how uniform the temperature is during our present interglacial, the holocene despite changes in CO2 levels. It also shows the current temperature is not following CO2. Also note at ~ year 150,000 that CO2 increased while temperature continued to decrease. There are other such reverses if you look.