Response to the IPCC report from Mike Haseler Chairman of the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum.
The IPCC now admit that their temperature forecast was wrong. They predicted it would warm during the last 15 years and it has not. Their climate models are now highly suspect, as are their assertions that human activity is causing climate change.
But their latest report says that they are more confident than ever of manmade global warming. Why? Because it would be inconceivable to have three hot decades in a row by pure chance. Really?
The climate varies naturally: it always has done and always will.
Natural variation comes in many forms and climate & weather varies also vary naturally. We are familiar with the day-to-day variation of weather, but the climate also varies naturally over longer periods. For example we all know of the long periods of cold called ice-ages where the climate remained cold for millennia. But there have also been shorter periods like the medieval warm period and little ice age where for a few decades or centuries the climate is generally warmer or cooler.
Whether it is the way a high pressure gives us a few days of sunshine or the longer periods, natural climatic variation is rather like a natural landscape. Where we are on a high bit of ground, we expect the ground around us to be high and similarly if we are in a valley, the land around us will be low. Whilst sudden dramatic changes over short periods (as the IPCC suggest should have occurred) can happen, they are extremely rare and a gradual upward or downward slope is more likely.
The IPCC are trying to suggest that because because we have seen about three decades in a row that are high that somehow this is significant and demonstrates that we must be on a "man-made" hill. This is quite indefensible and is akin to claiming that any hill in the countryside must be man-made because no natural process would possibly produce a location with an area of high ground (commonly called a hill).
Indeed, such trends and periods of warmth are common even within the last 150 years of accurate temperature records. Between 1910 and 1940 we saw precisely the same scale of warming as we saw in the period between 1970 and 2000. The IPCC cite this latter period as "unprecedented" and attribute it to rising levels of CO2. But sequences of warming or cooling extending over several decades are perfectly normal for the climate. The IPCC is simply wrong to say it must be man-made.
Again this article isn't worth reading.
We all know the formula. Something has changed. A very tenuous connection is found to climate. QED it's all going to be Armageddon because of global warming.
This time, the "link" is a fungus which has been attacking coffee plants which some idiot somewhere says could be due to global warming.
No facts or figures on this supposed link. They don't even give the name of the fungus or the idiot who made the link to global warming.
Link is here -> .
From JoNova: After the leadership farce last week and the resignations of the more-sensible Labor ministers, Gillard has reshuffled again and the DCC (Department of Climate Change) is disappearing into a “super ministry”. It is a sign of the times.
The P.M. has bundled the Department of Climate Change into a nightmare acronynm:
The Prime Minister used her sixth ministerial reshuffle to merge the Department of Climate Change with the Department of Industry, creating a new Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
This is the classic way politicians kick into the long grass issues too contentious to drop altogether. One can imagine the first meeting: "welcome to the new department ... a bit smaller after the necessary restructuring ... but don't worry, all those remaining can be assured of work in the department ... but I you need to be flexibility in your work as there is a lot to do on other issues other than the climate."
An interesting op-ed has been published in the New York Times called: Cooling on Warming.
Is spring actually here? We are definitely getting tired of snow stories. It’s time for some sun. And then the drought stories! At which point we will ask ourselves: What ever happened to worrying about global warming?
There was a time, children, when the Republican Party was a hotbed of environmental worrywarts. The last big clean air act of the Bush I administration passed the House 401 to 21. But no more, no more.
OK, this is in the New York Times which is not exactly sceptic, but otherwise so what? Well let's read what she says in her recent book "How Texas Goes":
“Texans also led the way in the destruction of all major legislation aimed at global warming, even as their home state was alternately being drowned by hurricanes and dried to a crisp with droughts.” So overwhelming is its pernicious influence, she argues, that “if Texas goes south, it’s taking us along.”
So, this is not some fence-sitter who fell off which the blizzard hit her. She's gone from leading the charge on global warming to "cooling on warming" in just a few years.
I'm lost for words.
Should I congratulate her? Welcome her with open arms? or just ignore another twat who's trying to redeem themselves after taking far more time than they should to come to their senses?
The lack of warming in recent years is starting to have its toll on British Butterflies according to a charity. In particular the relentless rain and cold of 2012 meant that summer species struggled to find food, shelter and mating opportunities.
The black hairstreak, one of the UK's rarest butterflies, did badly. It saw its population fall by 98% compared to 2011. The green hairstreak was down by 68% and the white-letter hairstreak down 71%.
The critically-endangered high brown fritillary saw numbers fall by 46% compared with 2011, and the endangered heath fritillary saw numbers halve.
More widespread butterflies also suffered - common blue numbers fell by 60% and cabbage whites fell by half, said the charity.
In all some fifty-two species saw their populations decline since 2011 with 12 experience their worst year in records dating back to 1976.
Only four species saw their populations increase. The grass-feeding Meadow Brown was up 21% and the Scotch Argus, which thrives in damp conditions, rose by 55%.