Veiling an inconvenient truth

Because of the IPCC’s assinine restrictions against early disclosure, this climate scientist cannot be identified.

I’m reviewing the 5AR WG I contribution.

The only thing that should scare the wits out of anyone is how blinkered and defensive the IPCC is.

Something is very seriously wrong when it’s not until Chapter 10 – which means about 600 or more pages into the finished report – that we find the comment that there’s been no significant warming since 1998.

(Actually that’s wrong. It’s easy to show that the trend in HadCRUT3 monthly data from January 1997 to July 2012 is flat.)

I saw no mention of this astonishing admission in

    (a) the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM).
    (b) Chapter 1, which summarises the science.
    (c) Chapter 2, which deals with the atmosphere and surface temperatures.

Why is this stunning refutation of previous IPCC forecasts of strong warming driven by rising levels of CO2 hidden away in Chapter 10?

It really is shocking how far the IPCC will go to show warming where none exists.

Views: 403

15 Thoughts on “Veiling an inconvenient truth

  1. Peter Fraser on 12/11/2012 at 6:40 pm said:

    Does this mean AGW is a flatliner? to use the paramedics term Unfortunately I think not. Even thirty years of flat lining will not convince the more rabid warmists, ten years of decline may go some way to quietening them Here is hoping.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 13/11/2012 at 8:34 am said:

    >”Why is this stunning refutation of previous IPCC forecasts of strong warming driven by rising levels of CO2 hidden away in Chapter 10?”

    At least we know to go straight to Chapter 10. That will be the useful and oft quoted section in response to “scare the pants off” rhetoric.

    • Andy on 13/11/2012 at 8:37 am said:

      Yes, the IPCC will be a more useful sound bite than the Daily Mail

      No doubt the IPCC will be labelled as a Denier Site in due course

  3. Alexander K on 13/11/2012 at 10:11 am said:

    It’s really odd how the decline in church-going equates to a rise in religious-seeming superstition that has every appearance of the thought processes of the Medieval era, when the average citizen was steeped in arcane ‘God stuff’ that had no basis in validated observations.
    Theologians have argued that ‘if God didn’t exist, Man would have a need to invent Him and the current trend in hysterical belief as opposed to observation seems to bear out the theologians’ reasoning.
    When I was a kid walking to the Satdee arvo movies with our gang, we were careful not to ‘step on a crack in case we would (eventually) marry a rat’. Humans don’t seem to have progressed much in their maturity of reasoning in my lifetime!

  4. Alexander K on 14/11/2012 at 8:10 am said:

    I know this item is wildly OT, but for brilliantly clear evidence that those in power misuse that power to cover their tracks, have a look at a very current thread on WUWT, Bishop Hill and Omnologos.
    To recap, the BBC Trust used a tranche of lawyers to fend off an FOI request from Tony Newberry, who blogs as Harmless Sky. The lawyers convinced an obviously-biased judge that the BBC (which is financed by the Breitish public through compulsory licence fees) is a ‘private organisation’ and can reject FOI requests! The information Newberry asked for under FOI was already in the public domain on a website and was found by Omnologos through the use of the Wayback Machine.
    Those of us who have suffered the BBC’s incredible bias in various matters are thoroughly enjoying the unfolding saga and, as they say, sending out for more beer and popcorn!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/11/2012 at 8:33 am said:

      “Breitish”? I thought the phonetics was “Blittish” now.

  5. Alexander K on 14/11/2012 at 8:34 am said:

    I should have included Tallbloke and Jo Nova to the short list of bloggers covering the above item. Both of these two offer very relevant insightful comment also.

    • Andy on 14/11/2012 at 9:40 am said:

      I have added some links to the UK thread on 28gate, as it is now being called

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 15/11/2012 at 8:18 am said:

    From THS:-

    A new paper published in Environmental Research Letters examines satellite data over Eurasia to find that total cloud cover acts as a net negative feedback to cool the climate.

    Qiuhong Tang and Guoyong Leng 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 014004 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014004

    Damped summer warming accompanied with cloud cover increase over Eurasia from 1982 to 2009

    The relationship between summer temperature, total cloud cover and precipitation over Eurasia was investigated using observation-based products of temperature and precipitation, and satellite-derived cloud cover and radiation products. We used a partial least squares regression approach to separate the local influences of cloud cover and precipitation on temperature variations. Our results suggest that the variance of summer temperature is partly explained by changes in summer cloudiness. The summer temperature dependence on cloud cover is strong at the high latitudes and in the middle latitude semi-humid area, while the dependence on precipitation is strong in the Central Asia arid area and the southern Asia humid area. During the period 1982–2009, the damped warming in extended West Siberia was accompanied with increases in cloud cover, and the pronounced warming in Europe and Mongolia was associated with a decrease in cloud cover and precipitation. Our results suggest that cloud cover may be the important local factor influencing the summer temperature variation in Eurasia while precipitation plays an important role at the middle latitudes.

    Skeptical Science: What is the net feedback from clouds?

    What the science says…

    Evidence is building that net cloud feedback is likely positive and unlikely to be strongly negative.

    I’ll keep an eye out for Tang and Leng 2012 in Ari Jokimäki’s next ‘New research from last week’ post at SkS.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on 16/11/2012 at 7:15 am said:

    Little change in global drought over the past 60 years

    * Justin Sheffield,
    * Eric F. Wood
    * & Michael L. Roderick

    Nature, Published online 14 November 2012

    Drought is expected to increase in frequency and severity in the future as a result of climate change, mainly as a consequence of decreases in regional precipitation but also because of increasing evaporation driven by global warming1, 2, 3. Previous assessments of historic changes in drought over the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries indicate that this may already be happening globally. In particular, calculations of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) show a decrease in moisture globally since the 1970s with a commensurate increase in the area in drought that is attributed, in part, to global warming4, 5. The simplicity of the PDSI, which is calculated from a simple water-balance model forced by monthly precipitation and temperature data, makes it an attractive tool in large-scale drought assessments, but may give biased results in the context of climate change6. Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation7 that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles8 that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years. The results have implications for how we interpret the impact of global warming on the hydrological cycle and its extremes, and may help to explain why palaeoclimate drought reconstructions based on tree-ring data diverge from the PDSI-based drought record in recent years9, 10.

    • Alexander K on 16/11/2012 at 2:50 pm said:

      Every day seems to throw up yet another thoughtful and amply-validated paper that tells the world that… nothing much is changing. But Alarmism dies hard and the MSM would rather avert its collective gaze from this undramatic news. Oh well…

  8. Australis on 19/11/2012 at 1:16 pm said:

    The period that led to the mid-70s media frenzy regarding global cooling ran for 30 years, being 1945-75.

    The period creating Hansen’s 1988 warming alarm, given as evidence to Congress, ran for 10 years, being 1977-87.

    The “second half of the 20th century” warming found by the IPCC to have been “very likely anthropogenic” was confined to 20 years, being 1979-98.

    Now, there has been no statistically significant warming for 15 years, being 1996-2011.

    NOAA say, however, that 0.03°C/decade warming is the most likely measure for 1996-2011 (although the signal is lost in noise during such a short period).

    The signal in the past decade, being 2002-12, is also overcome by noise, but the most likely measure is cooling of 0.02/decade.

    What would an objective analyst make of all these patterns? I suspect a purist would say we just don’t know what has happened during the past 15 years, but a plateau seems to be the best estimate. So, in the most recent half-century we had three different more-or-less equal movements – down, then up, then sideways.

    How does one answer people who ask – “do you sceptics at least agree that the world is warming?”

  9. John Robertson on 23/11/2012 at 1:37 pm said:

    I am surprised the IPCC let that into the report at all. What happened to their normal methods, bugger the facts , adjust the temps to fit the meme? Is this why Travesty Trenberth was complaining about the IPCC earlier this year? This social justice nonsense has had its day, I’m for retributive justice, let the govt science/policy advisors, all the advocates, p[oliticians and useful idiots make up the energy we lost thro their lies/stupidity. Imagine these saviours of the human race, running on hamster wheels to run your lights when the wind is too little/too much and the sun don’t shine. Throw in granny with a 12 gauge and you get the picture. There you have it, no more brown outs from bad planning and I have found a use the regulating class .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation