Climate Coalition conversations

Heating the ocean with a hair dryer

Not a conversation this time, just a snippet — an important one to me, because it’s further confirmation of my layman opinion that man-made emissions cannot significantly heat the ocean, and important for all climate sceptics, since it adds to arguments refuting the climate scare. Note that this scientist’s view applies to greenhouse gases in general, whereas the DAGW scare relies only on mankind’s emissions, which are a tiny fraction of atmospheric carbon dioxide — less than 10% of all CO2, or about 0.004% of the atmosphere. Continue Reading →

Hits: 144

“Human influence” is unquantifiable

Weather with sublime sunburst. Human influence still undetectable.

Three of the world’s most distinguished scientists, Professors Happer, Koonin and Lindzen, recently offered as evidence in a Californian court a “Climate science overview”. It begins:

Our overview of climate science is framed through four statements:

  1. The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena.
  2. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows.
  3. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences.
  4. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient climate variables and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain.

The third statement is crucial to the Paris Agreement. Continue Reading →

Hits: 690

McLean reveals IPCC confessions

John McLean is a PhD candidate, climate researcher, computer scientist and IPCC reviewer and lives in Melbourne. He has long made thoughtful and informed contributions to the debate on dangerous man-made global warming (DAGW). Two weeks ago I received a copy of a letter he had sent to the Dominion Post in Wellington concerning the spat between Carter and Leyland, Hot Topic and Wratt, Reisinger and Renwick (WRR). The letter contained startling revelations from the latest IPCC Assessment Report, AR5, and John kindly agreed I could publish them, though they’re new only to me. As far as we know the letter was not published. His letter takes its facts from an article he wrote for Quadrant Online last year. – RT

Oddly, NIWA scientists conceal them

UPDATE 1: 28 Mar 1300 NZDT, see below.

John’s letter refers to the WRR article Human role in climate change is clear. The following are excerpts from the AR5 then the WRR article (emphasis added). Notice the stinging observation that WRR failed to disclose what was inconvenient for the IPCC to say, because it contradicted the alarming sounds of doom. Continue Reading →

Hits: 160

Graham rises to snarl at Hide, induces somnolence

Kennedy Graham, Greens MP

Kennedy Graham, another Greens MP who distorts environmental facts despite his immaculate steel-grey coiffure, says in the NBR that Rodney Hide’s depiction of the Greens (‘Zombie Greens chant false science mantra’) makes selective use of facts and conclusions. He should know, he’s an expert at it—for 16 years he was one of our diplomats. Continue Reading →

Hits: 151

Will release of AR5 draft help IPCC make good?

Let us hope so

From Judith Curry comes a remark of such simple goodness I pause in admiration and slowly nod my agreement. Of course there’s hope for the IPCC!

In a learned comment on Matt Ridley’s analysis of the draft AR5 discussion of climate sensitivity, including aerosols, clouds and water vapour, Professor Curry concludes:

JC summary: The leak of the SOD was a good thing; the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job, and the wider discussion in the blogosphere and even the mainstream media places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues; they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.

via Climate sensitivity in the AR5 SOD | Climate Etc..

There’s nothing difficult in that statement; it’s quite ordinary, really. So it would be easy to overlook the obstacles to making it. Like the instinct for revenge against the IPCC for making so much of a non-existent climate problem to so many for so long. Continue Reading →

Hits: 363

What drives climate change?

Actually, what IS climate change, again?

From page 7 of the leaked Summary for Policymakers from the IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report comes this statement about CO2 “driving” climate change (emphasis added):

Natural and anthropogenic drivers cause imbalances in the Earth’s energy budget. The strongest anthropogenic drivers are changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and aerosols. These can now be quantified in more detail, but the uncertainties of the forcing associated with aerosols remain high.

Globally, CO2 is the strongest driver of climate change compared to other changes in the atmospheric composition, and changes in surface conditions. Its relative contribution has further increased since the 1980s and by far outweighs the contributions from natural drivers. CO2 concentrations and rates of increase are unprecedented in the last 800,000 years and at least 20,000 years, respectively. Other drivers also influence climate on global and particularly regional scales.

It’s a mere fragment of grit from a mountain of a report, but still curious enough because it raises the definition of the problem, and statements about climate change have no clearer meaning just because we stopped questioning it. Continue Reading →

Hits: 419

Recruiting AR5 reviewers on ‘spoofed’ IPCC website

I’ve been sent some emails from people connected with the IPCC review process. The First Order Draft of the WGI contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis is available for Expert Review from 16 December 2011 to 10 February 2012.

The WGI Bureau invites all experts with expertise and/or publications in the specific areas covered by the WGI Report to assist in the IPCC assessment process by registering to review here.

I have to say that it’s strange that the web site for this professional organisation, which is meant to be secured by encryption certificates, isn’t set up correctly and makes Firefox think the site is being spoofed. It appears quite amateurish. Continue Reading →

Hits: 39