Hearing What You Want to Hear from the Climate Report

After over 15 years of no warming, which the IPCC still cannot explain, and with climate sensitivity numbers dropping so much in recent studies that the IPCC left climate sensitivity estimates out of their summary report rather than address the drop, the Weather Channel is running this headline on their site:

weatherch

 

The IPCC does claim more confidence that warming over the past 60 years is partly or mostly due to man (I have not yet seen the exact wording they landed on), from 90% to 95%.  But this is odd given that the warming all came from 1978 to 1998 (see for yourself in temperature data about halfway through this post).  Temperatures are flat or cooling for the other 40 years of the period.  The IPCC cannot explain these 40 years of no warming in the context of high temperature sensitivities to CO2.  And, they can't explain why they can be 95% confident of what drove temperatures in the 20 year period of 1978-1998 but simultaneously have no clue what drove temperatures in the other years.

At some point I will read the thing and comment further.

 

  • Mole1

    The media report I read said there was 95% confidence that half of the observed warming was due to anthropogenic CO2.

  • Matthew Slyfield

    There is a 95% chance that the IPCC is over confident.

  • Harry

    The Weather Channel supports the IPCC? Well, that's it, Coyote. End of argument.

  • Gil
  • marque2

    They are now 95% certain, they have no idea what they are talking about.

  • marque2

    This stuff your posting is lame. You think this presents an strong argument? And the first article it starts off with a lie, The world has been cooling the last ten years, not increasing slowly.

    I guess these articles are good demonstration of how the Alarmists, use peoples fears and lack of science knowledge to try to scare them into providing more money to the alarmists, so alarmist lifestyles get better.

  • marque2

    Actually, if that is what the IPCC said, then this is not far from the truth. I would imagine that about 0.4 degrees is currently attributable to global warming and in 200 years it will go up to 1.5 degrees,and that will be the end of it, since you get diminishing returns from adding more CO2 in the air.

    What makes them evil is their outrageous forward projections with increases going up exponentially,

  • H. M. Stuart

    Coyote, we'd like to invite you to become one of our Authors in Alexandria.
    In addition to posting on anything you wish, as you desire, you may of course mirror posts you've already written from here or elsewhere to gain a different or additional audience or for any other reason that appeals to you.

    If you think you might be interested, contact me through Alexandria or by return email via this comment and I'll forward our formal invitations for you to look over and return if you decide to proceed.

    Come contribute your perspectives and opinions to the ongoing conversations there or, even better, start some new - and different - ones of your own.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    H. M. Stuart
    Alexandria

  • Gil

    People such as you should with for the tobacco companies to remove all prohibitions on smoking so people can smoke where they want and can buy cigarettes cheap. I'm sure the tobacco companies would reward you handsomely. After all, scientists say smoking is harmful but then the government paid them to say that.

  • Zachriel

    Coyote: But this is odd given that the warming all came from 1978 to 1998 (see for yourself in temperature data about halfway through this post).

    Why would that be odd? Your graph shows an increase modulated by a longer cyclical pattern, but it still hows an increase.

    Coyote: And, they can't explain why they can be 95% confident of what drove temperatures in the 20 year period of 1978-1998 but simultaneously have no clue what drove temperatures in the other years.

    Not sure why you think every detail has to be understood. The Earth is likely absorbing more heat than it re-radiates. How that heat moves through the atmosphere and oceans doesn't change this.

  • marque2

    You remind me of the pot heads I knew on college who claimed illegal pot was all a tobacco company conspiracy - cuz if pot were legal folks wouldn't buy cigarettes. But wait you ask the pothead - wouldn't they just package pot cigs? Oh no because the farmers who grow tobacco would get upset - but couldn't they grow pot instead ....

    Just rounds and rounds of illogic and when they could defend their argument anymore they would call you names and claim you were a stooge of the corpratists - cuz they had nothing else.

    Didn't realize you were a pothead until now.

  • marque2

    Right - but the world has on average been increasing in temperature for 18000 years now. There was a small break of some 400 years called the little ice age and since 1900 we have been coming out of that. A 0.8 degree rise in 100 years is to be expected.

    Not sure why you think temps should never go up - just down. For some perspective - we aren't even as warm today as 800 years ago when Greenland was not covered in ice. Grapes grew in England - and we are now finding more temporary forests uncovered by melting ice showing Alaska was much warmer than today as well.

    These alarmists have highjacked a normal process and claimed it as a disease.

  • Zachriel

    marque2: we aren't even as warm today as 800 years ago

    That is probably not correct. See 2k Consortium, Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, Nature Geoscience 2013. In any case, current warming isn't the problem, but projected warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

    marque2: when Greenland was not covered in ice.

    Greenland's ice sheets are millions of years old, however, coastal regions can vary considerably in climate due to small fluctuations in temperature and ocean currents.

    marque2: Grapes grew in England

    Grapes grow in England.
    http://www.visitengland.com/ee/English-vineyards-and-wine-tasting/

    We're not the one relying on simple correlation; that was Coyote. Climate science is based on mechanistic theory. There are lots of causes of climate change, but natural effects are being swamped by anthropogenic effects.

  • Zachriel

    Probably should have written "referring to simple correlation". Certainly, Coyote does more than rely on correlation, but that was the issue being addressed.

  • marque2

    Hart to discuss with someone who has taken the coolaid as hard as you - showing fellow coolaid drinkers who still write based on the old gospel that has been discredited years ago.

  • Zachriel

    marque2: Hart to discuss with someone who has taken the coolaid as hard as you

    We cited a very recent study published in Nature Geoscience; pointed out that Greenland's ice cap is millions of years old; mentioned that grapes do grow in England today; and noted that modern climate science is based on mechanistic theories, not simple correlation.

    In reply, all we see is handwaving.

  • marque2

    Is it. Yeah a few grapes are grown in The southern most part, but not very successfully, and no longer do they grow the robust wine grapes like they did 800 years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom

    And you are right, some parts of the Greenland ice are pretty impervious to change, just as well still have glaciers in North America even though the temps have gone up.

    But interesting - here is a scare story from Nature that points out that it was 14 degrees hotter, 115,000 years ago and hilariously in the same article 1998 was the hottest year ever - don't get it, but I am not a scientist. Anyway, it shows that the icy part of Greenland came and went, and actually melted and refrose and this is one of your alarmist articles.

    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-deep-ice-cores-greenland-period.html

    You know you can false claims, and post stupid articles all you want and then rag on the rest of us who are just fed up with same old stupid discredited claims recycled over and over. The quality of your reports just isn't there.

  • Zachriel

    marque2: The quality of your reports just isn't there.

    You made a claim. We responded by posting to a recent peer review study that calls your claim into question. In response, you merely wave your hands.

    Furthermore, it isn't current warming that is the concern, but projected warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

  • Zachriel

    For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm

  • marque2

    We responded? Is that so (plural) you could show consensus?

    And what evidence of this projected warming? Was that in the bogus alleged studies (plural) you responded with? Jeese we just had a giant IPCC report published where they were having trouble with the future warning, but (plural) you know.

    Your response was a link on the pitiful grape farms they are trying to grow in England for goodness sakes and a personal statement all-ya-all came up with out of thin air "see consortium 2"

    And I am the bad guy.

  • Zachriel

    marque2: And what evidence of this projected warming?

    The instrumental record shows significant warming since 1950.

    marque2: Was that in the bogus alleged studies (plural) you responded with?

    The 2k study concerned historical climate, which you should have known if you had bothered to read it.

    marque2: Jeese we just had a giant IPCC report published where they were having trouble with the future warning, but (plural) you know.

    According to the IPCC report, anthropogenic greenhouse gases are extremely likely to be causing global warming.

    marque2: And I am the bad guy.

    No, not a bad guy. just not offering any substantive reply.

  • marque2

    "No, not a bad guy. just not offering any substantive reply."

    But then neither have you.

  • Gil

    Likewise hailstorms can't happen in summer therefore cannot be caused by heat.

  • Gil

    Why not? You think people are making up global warming for the laughs. On the other hand, where's the proof that smoking is harmful? Correlation but not causation? I guess you can't prove anything then.

  • Gil

    Bullcrap, the Medieval Climate Optimum was warmer for its period but nowhere near as warm as the 20th century has been let alone the 21st century.

  • Joe_Da

    MWP cooler than today?. That is still open to legitimate debate. Mann says definitely warmer today, The atlantic oscillation running on approx 60 y cycles is said to have run on 300y cycle during the mwp. How likely is that.
    Receding ice in greenland exposing farm buildings dating from the mwp, yet Mann, the NOAA all say that greenland is warmer today, Same with the GISS2 ice core.

    4 of 8 ice cores from antarctica showing warming mwp including the law dome, trees dating from the mwp being exposed from the retreating glacier in Chilean andes, same with trees carbon dated from the mwp being exposed in the columbia ice fields, and the mendenhal glacier, written records of citrus fruit cultivation in china 300 miles north of their current day range during the mwp.

    How many proxies from the SH prior to 1400ad did Mann actually use in his hockey stick temp reconstruction?

    Yes, the mwp may have been warm, yet not as warm today, Yes, the MWP may have been only regional. Yet there is too much conflicting information for a skeptic to agree that there is a definitive conclusion. Quite frankly, there is too much conflicting information for a worshiper of the the climate science to blindly believe the high priests.

    Notice that not once did i claim that the earth is not warming. Nor did I claim that CO2 does not have the capacity to contribute to some of the warming.

  • Zachriel

    Sure we have. For instance, in response to your claim about it being warmer 800 years ago than today, we cited a recent study published in Nature Geoscience.

  • Zachriel

    Heh.