Global Warming

[Rorschach]

Remember the Hockeystick graph worshipped by the Greens and Thermageddonists.

Well we have an update finally... you know how it unfortunately takes time for proof that people will believe these days.

The IPCC adopted the hockeystick for their logo shortly after Mann produced it, but long since dropped it. Where was the all-marvelous, hallowed, IPCC “expert” review?

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/hockey ... collapses/

[IQS.RLOW]

too funny.

At the up and coming Lima carbon conference

For electricity, the talks are relying exclusively on diesel generators.

Organizers had planned to draw power from Peru’s grid, which is about 52 percent fed by non-polluting hydroelectric power. “We worked to upgrade transformers and generators but for some reason it didn’t work,” said Alvarez.

The irony is delicious.

[Super Nova]

too funny.

At the up and coming Lima carbon conference

For electricity, the talks are relying exclusively on diesel generators.

Organizers had planned to draw power from Peru’s grid, which is about 52 percent fed by non-polluting hydroelectric power. “We worked to upgrade transformers and generators but for some reason it didn’t work,” said Alvarez.

The irony is delicious.

I too think that is ironic. Shame on them...

I will think of them while I fly to India moving CO2 and other pollutants high in the atmosphere to cause maximum effect because it doesn't matter... does it because it is insignificant on it' own.

[AiA in Atlanta]

"Well…" Big, exasperated sigh. "Look, uh…" Sad face. Big Pause. "You know…" he went on.

Abbotts's face, priceless:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/ ... fund-video

[Rorschach]

Abbott Abbott Abbott.... really... he does nothing... criticism, he does something... criticism.
Haters gotta hate

[Super Nova]

Piss poor effort and is not going to make a difference.

However, the final text noted with “grave concern the significant gap” between existing pledges to cut emissions and the reduction needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

The deal said countries “may” announce detailed new emissions targets next year. An earlier draft had said all countries “shall” announce such targets but many developing nations objected to this, saying it was unfair to ask them to make commitments which could hamper their economic growth.

Big difference legal between "shall" and "may". May means SFA. No commitment really. It's just a joke. and a failure of the world uniting to addres this issue.



Last-minute deal on UN climate change scorned as half-baked

More than 190 countries agreed a deal today paving the way for a global treaty to tackle climate change.

The deal was watered down in a tense final 40 hours of negotiations in Lima after many developing countries refused to sign earlier drafts. A loophole was inserted which countries could exploit to avoid following Britain by adopting tough, economy-wide emissions targets.

The deal sets the framework for a treaty due to be signed in Paris next December which is meant to limit global warming to 2C above preindustrial times.

However, the final text noted with “grave concern the significant gap” between existing pledges to cut emissions and the reduction needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

The deal said countries “may” announce detailed new emissions targets next year. An earlier draft had said all countries “shall” announce such targets but many developing nations objected to this, saying it was unfair to ask them to make commitments which could hamper their economic growth.

A proposal to allow countries to review each other’s targets was also scrapped after China objected to being scrutinised. This means there will be no official assessment of whether the targets are fair and comparable before the treaty is due to be signed.

Key issues remain unresolved and were deferred until the summit in Paris, including how responsibility for reducing emissions by the required amount should be divided between developed and developing countries

Ed Davey, the energy and climate change secretary, said the deal “unlocked the door to the world’s first global climate deal in Paris next year”.

He played down the significance of the loophole, saying all large countries “will have to [adopt targets] because they will be exposed if they don’t. It’s about political pressure.”

He admitted that the national targets, which countries are due to submit to the UN by June next year, were unlikely to add up to enough of a reduction to meet the 2C target.

“Paris is going to have to have a review mechanism for ratcheting up ambition,” he said.

Alden Meyer, policy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a US lobby group, said: “It’s definitely watered down from what we expected. It’s now totally voluntary whether countries choose to provide information [about their emissions targets]. Any comparison is left to outside bodies, such as think tanks, weakening the ability of countries to scrutinise each other.”

The final text restored a reference to “loss and damage”, which poor countries, including small island states, hope will allow them to claim compensation from rich countries for damaging impacts such as rising sea levels.

However, the wording is vague and several delegates from rich countries said compensation would never be paid.

Lord Stern of Brentford, author of the influential review of the economics of climate change, said: “It is vital that countries put forward before the Paris summit [pledges] that are both ambitious and credible. However, it is already clear that the scale of action to control and reduce annual emissions of greenhouse gases will collectively not be consistent with a pathway that will mean a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous global warming.”

Asad Rehman, Friends of the Earth’s international climate campaigner, said: “Once again poorer nations have been bullied by the industrialised world into accepting an outcome which leaves many of their citizens facing the grim prospect of catastrophic climate change.”

Jonathan Grant, director of climate change at PwC, said: “Brinkmanship is normal in these negotiations, but there’s concern that the talks will fall off the cliff in Paris, like they did in Copenhagen [in 2009].”

The UN has begun discussions over halving the frequency of its climate conferences to once every two years. The conferences, which have been held annually for 20 years, have been criticised for achieving little but having a large carbon footprint, with more than 10,000 people flying to each one.

Mr Davey, who led a British delegation to Lima of about 40, said: “If Paris is successful we may not need such frequent conferences.”

Lord Lawson, the former chancellor and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Forum, a climate sceptic think tank, said the weakness of the deal meant Britain should rescind a law binding itself to cut emissions.

“The UK’s unilateral Climate Change Act is forcing British industry and British households to suffer an excessively high cost of electricity to no purpose,” he said. “Following Lima, it is clearer than ever that the Act should be suspended until such time as a binding global agreement has been secured.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environme ... 296885.ece

[Super Nova]

Let's see how thee year ends shall we.

Warm oceans keep world on course for hottest year

Ongoing record warmth in the world's oceans has increased the likelihood that 2014 will be declared the hottest year since reliable data began more than a century ago, US and Japanese agencies say.

The warmth comes as conditions in the Pacific remain conducive to an El Nino event forming in coming months, Australia's Bureau of Meteorology said.

Surface temperatures have exceeded El Nino threshold levels for several weeks, and the bureau estimates there is a greater than 70 per cent chance of such an event soon.



The first 11 months of the year were the warmest on record, with combined global land and sea-surface temperatures running 1.22 degrees above the 20th-century average, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.


This year will be the hottest on record – eclipsing 2005 and 2010 – provided December is at least 0.76 degrees above average, NOAA said.

While land temperatures were less anomalously warm last month – coming in at the 13 hottest – the fact that the oceans remain exceptionally warm suggests a sudden cooling is unlikely.

How December would have to cool off markedly for 2014 not to be hottest calendar year.


The combined land and sea temperatures made last month the seventh warmest November, NOAA and the Japan Meteorological Agency said.

The eastern Pacific is among the ocean regions reporting record warmth, a sign often associated with an El Nino.

NOAA said there remained a two-in-three chance that an El Nino event will be present during the southern summer and will last into the autumn.

Any El Nino event, which typically brings drier and hotter than normal weather to most of Australia, is likely to be a relatively moderate one, the bureau said.

Last month was Australia's warmest November for a second year in a row, countering cooler-than-usual conditions over most of North America.

After the first 11 months of this year, Australia's mean temperatures were vying with those of 1998 as the third warmest year in records going back to 1910.

Last year was easily Australia's warmest calendar year, with 2005 in second place, the Bureau of Meteorology said.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cl ... 287l2.html

[IQS.RLOW]

You need to read this...and get yourself a script of Prozac and a box of tissues.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/12/16/55806/#more-55806" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IPA has just published Climate Change: the Facts 2014, which I edited and wrote a chapter, Costing climate change, one of 22. The following is my introduction:

Prompted by successive reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the issue of human induced climate change has become a dominant theme of world politics. This is especially so in Australia where it was famously called the greatest moral challenge of our time by Kevin Rudd. The issue was pivotal to Mr Rudd’s replacement in 2010 as prime minister by Julia Gillard, his subsequent restoration to that position and his loss to Tony Abbott in the election of 2013.

The book is divided into three parts. Part one examines the science of climate change.

Ian Plimer examines the politics behind the pseudo-science. He notes that many Western governments have a politically popular ideol­ogy involving human emission increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) bring­ing warming, possible catastrophic ‘tipping points’ and a need to phase out fossil fuels as the only means of stopping this. He dismisses the possibility of the catastrophic consequences, drawing from geological history and points to the adverse economic outcomes of attempts to drastically reduce fossil fuel based energy usage.

Patrick Michaels examines the contrast between the predictions of the IPCC and outcomes. And he details and demolishes the manifold excuses for this put forward by Obama adviser, formerly a Club of Rome alarmist, John Holdren, and other IPCC faithful.

Richard Lindzen demonstrates that the climate is relatively insensi­tive to increases in greenhouse gases, and that in any event a warmer world would have a similar variability in weather to that we have always seen.

Part two develops these themes and the chapters explore the poli­tics and economics of climate change.

Nigel Lawson notes that UK Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey and Prince Charles were among those who vilify their opponents with the ‘denier’ label (and recently the UK prime minister sacked cli­mate change sceptic Owen Paterson as secretary for the environment). Lawson explores the dire economic implications of trying to cease the use of fossil fuels. He also demonstrates the trivial effects of the warming that is predicted and discounts their claimed negative effects, noting that sci­entific developments mean we are far less hostage to climate shifts than in previous eras.

My own chapter (Alan Moran) sets the context of the debate by examining the costs of taking action (which are considerable and massively understated by the IPCC) and any benefits of doing so (which are slender and overstated by the IPCC). And the chapter notes that any gains rely on the unlikely event of a comprehensive international agreement.

James Delingpole notes how the climate believers so often accuse sceptics of lack of credentials. He delves into the qualifications of the major promoters of the climate scare in the UK and Australia and finds wall-to-wall English Literature graduates. When confronted by genuine scientists who dissent from their own view, they invariably suggest the dissenting opinions are dictated by bribes from Big Oil. And yet it is so often vested interests, like Munich Re, that promote the notion of dan­gerous climate change. The BBC’s denial of platforms to sceptical scientists and the hounding of the eminent Professor Bengtsson from Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Foundation illustrate the lengths the establishment will go to close down debate.

Garth Paltridge recaps the issues confronting meteorologists in 1970 when they first contemplated climate forecasting: clouds, solar balance, oceanic behaviour. He notes we have hardly advanced but that the IPCC tables inaccurate reports which receive little questioning from scientists even though scepticism is supposedly central to science raising any objections. And, as Climategate showed, some sci­entists have crossed the boundary into ‘post modern science’. He sees considerable backlash on the credibility of all scientists should global warming fail to eventuate.

Jo Nova points out that, globally, renewables investment reached $359 billion annually while the EU says it will allocate twenty per cent of its budget to climate related spending. All this is based on a naive modelling of the atmosphere that employs amplifications of water vapour’s influence by enhanced levels of carbon dioxide. She estimates money dedicated to promoting the global warming scare is maybe one hundred fold the funding to sceptics. She shows how the purveyors of human-induced global warming use their funding to denigrate opponents and to hide contrary evidence.

Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong test the predictive validity of the global warming hypothesis and find it wanting. They point out that many other alarms have been raised over the past 200 years, none of which have proved to have substance. Most of the alarms that led governments into taking ac­tions actually created harm and none provided benefits.

Part three explores the climate change movement, and the devel­opment of the international institutional framework and the growing disconnect from science and scientific observation that characterises the public debate.

Rupert Darwall reviews the farce of the 2009 Copenhagen confer­ence and the subsequent mini-conferences. He notes the veto imposed on costly actions by the increasingly important third world nations, con­trasting this with the revolutionary outcome that the IPCC operatives are planning to emerge from Paris in 2015.

Ross McKitrick addresses the trials he and Steve McIntyre went through in puncturing the newly coined late twentieth century myth that temperatures are now higher than at any time in the past millen­nium. Having been pilloried for bucking the establishment and under­mining the IPCC poster-child ‘hockey stick’ graph, the accuracy of their analysis has finally prevailed.

Donna Laframboise notes the scandalous attribution of Nobel Prize status to all involved in the IPCC. She traces qualifications of senior and lead authors and finds them often to be activists with no significant credentials.

Mark Steyn’s essay ‘Ship of Fools’ demonstrates how environmen­tal activist, Professor Chris Turney inadvertently parodied Douglas Mawson’s Antarctic expedition. Turney had expected to see a path to the Pole cleared for his ship by global warming. After all, Al Gore had predicted an ice free Arctic by now. Instead, Turney’s Guardian backed expedition had to be rescued from expanding ice. A genuine scientist, as Turney claims to be, should have realised that Antarctic ice is expanding not increasing.

Christopher Essex points to the complexity of the scientific analysis of the climate, which has led to exaggerated claims by pseudo-experts. He suggests a need to whittle down the numbers and listen only to those with demonstrable qualifications but does not underestimate the difficulties of determining who these are.

Bernie Lewin traces the antecedentaries of the current IPCC and how scientists, many of them genuinely seeking to uncover man’s impact on climate, were hijacked by developing country interests and activists into becoming frontmen for a politicised UN agency.

Drawing heavily upon Karl Popper’s theories that scientific mate­rial should be subject to constant examination and should be falsifiable, Stewart Franks points to the many phenomena of climate change that the increase in greenhouse gases both failed to predict and fail to explain.

Anthony Watts illustrates the trivial level of temperature rise that has occurred over the past century (with no increase in the past eighteen years). He notes the change in language by alarmists from ‘warming’ to ‘climate change’ in an attempt to substitute extreme climate events for the now non-existent warming trend. His examination of these extreme events— snow, storms, rainfall—shows an absence of evidence to indicate marked change over recent decades.

Andrew Bolt disinters the graveyards of failed forecasts by climate doomers. These include the spectacular forecasts by Tim Flannery that Australian cities would run out of fresh water, by Professor Hough- Guldberg that the Barrier Reef would die, by Professor Karoly that the Murray Darling would see increasing drought, by the UK Met Office that warming would resume, and by Ross Garnaut and Al Gore that hur­ricanes would increase. He considers the warmistas’ monumental failures are finally denting the faith in them by the commentariat and politicians.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Not so long ago I mentioned that the GW/CC deniers never have a consistent argument or theory disputing GW, but continually bounce from one moonbat theory to another ad infintium.

Their latest argument regarding GW affecting or intensifying drought conditions states that OZ's worst drough in recorded history was in the 1940s. Which is quite correct.
Then they pose the question "How or why the worst drought period on record would happen in the absence of vast quantities of GHGs?" like much more recent decades,
as if WW2 never happened, or alternately, that billions of mega-tonnes of explosive ordinance/ammo and fuels combusted within a 5 year time frame was hydrocarbon free.

Then they have the hyde to complain that those comprehending climate science insinuate that sceptics/deniers are idiots.

[IQS.RLOW]

Not so long ago I mentioned that the GW/CC deniers never have a consistent argument or theory disputing GW, but continually bounce from one moonbat theory to another ad infintium.

Their latest argument regarding GW affecting or intensifying drought conditions states that OZ's worst drough in recorded history was in the 1940s. Which is quite correct.
Then they pose the question "How or why the worst drought period on record would happen in the absence of vast quantities of GHGs?" like much more recent decades,
as if WW2 never happened, or alternately, that billions of mega-tonnes of explosive ordinance/ammo and fuels combusted within a 5 year time frame was hydrocarbon free.

Then they have the hyde to complain that those comprehending climate science insinuate that sceptics/deniers are idiots.

That is the most pitiful built strawman I have ever seen.
You should be ashamed of yourself for that pathetic effort.