IPCC Report Highlights - Summary for Policymakers

The first of the long awaited IPCC's Fifth Assessment Reports (AR5) has been released today.  It's from the IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) and focuses on the scientific basis of climate change and contains 14 chapters plus a lot of supplementary material.

In this post I will reprint highlights from the IPCC Working Group 1 report 
"Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis"

Heartland Institute's NIPCC Report, peer reviewed?

What to make of the new Heartland Institute's NIPCC Report?  
They say a thousand pages of "peer-reviewed" science?

Climate Change Deniers Owe Us A (scientific) Explanation - a "REPOST"

This morning I came across this article by Graham Wayne, hot off the press as they say.  
To me it seems speak directly to the obstacles being erected between the public and grasping the important scientific issues of the Global Warming argument.  

It's ironic coming on the heals of my delving into the contrast between Professor Tsonis's public utterances and the substance of his scientific work (the two are definitely not the same) - also, considering that it revolves around the Dana Nuccitelli article I added to my previous post I've decided to reprint Wayne's entire essay under the permission of Graham Wayne's website's Creative Commons license and with special thanks to Graham Wayne.  {I have added some highlights}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A BLOG BY GRAHAM WAYNE  

Why climate change deniers owe us a (scientific) explanation

SEPTEMBER 24, 2013

Prof. Anastasios Tsonis: The Art Of Misdirection (open letter 2)

Last week I wrote an open letter to Professor Tsonis, where he replied with the following

"I am not really sure who you are and what is your profession but it seems you have much more time in your hands to deal with all these issues than I do. You wrote to me and asked me questions. I answered them but obviously you did not understand my replies and asked more questions. I replied to your new request that I cannot continue an exchange of answers and questions for ever. I am dealing with a lot of people and I have a job to attend to. Now if you see this as an evasive action then you need to set back and relax.
All the best
Professor Anastasios Tsonis

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In reply I would say,

Professor Tsonis, it doesn't matter who I am, nor how much or little time I have at my disposal.

Furthermore professor, you most certainly did not answer my questions - instead you repeated the same old evasions and misdirection.

Thing is, a google search shows that you have been very active in trying to present a science fiction story that Earth as a planet has entered a cooling phase.

Your message flies in the face of known geophysical facts regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming.  It is in fact nothing more that a politically motivated attack on science and attempt to misinform and dumb down the public, when solid information is what they/we need the most. 

And it is about time you are taken to task for your misrepresentations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After my post a Steven B came to your defense in a sort of backhanded way, he wrote:

"It would be informative for you to have a look at Tsonis' own research (with various colleagues) pertinent to the discussion. He argues that he has identified a long-term cycle in the climate system (basically a periodic synching and unsynching of known shorter-term ocean cycles like ENSO) that would mean that we're in a hiatus that will last several decades.  

After that, there will be a price to pay as the warm part of the cycle combines with the inexorably increasing radiative imbalance to create a sharp warming spike. Then lather, rinse, repeat. ..."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

OK, so Steven does make a good suggestion and we should look at some of your papers.

My complaint with you is that your often repeated public pronouncements (as opposed to your studies) are taken to mean that society doesn't have to worry about AGW and that our leaders and public should instead continue on with a business as usual attitude as though we don't have a critical situation demanding our immediate attention and action. 

Following your papers and my comments.   
I am including a 'Repost' of SkepticalScience.com's recent article:

Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

 http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2013-akasofu-debunked.html

Admittedly, Akasofu's paper takes a different tack - Akasofu uses fancy statistical gamesmanship to rationalize that the current warming is merely a remnant of our planet "recovering" from the Little Ice Age.  But, it is also another example of creative science in a vacuum, where a limited number of considerations allow a disingenuous presenter to make unsupportable claims about the state of our climate.

The reason I'm reposting the Nuccitelli et al. (2013) article is because it spells out scientific clarifications that have a direct bearing on the issues you have learned to distortion and evade so well.

Open letter to Professor Anastasios Tsonis: Are you serious?

{I'm just a working guy and writing is a hobby so to speak, so please excuse the rough edges. 
But some of these issues and deceptive practices need to be exposed.
As for the writing I hope this evening's edits have helped a bit.   9/20/2013}
Also see  Prof. Anastasios Tsonis: The Art Of Misdirection (open letter 2)
Professor Anastasios Tsonis replies plus comments (open letter 3)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I would like to share the following open letter.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis,

We have exchanged a few emails and I must say I am very disappointed by your evasion.  A couple fundamental questions regarding the general scientific understanding of Earth's geophysical processes and you turn silent as a salt pillar.  

While our email exchange has taught me nothing about global warming, it has given me another insight into the perplexing mind of your typical denialist type.

It all started with a pal waiving a quote of yours in my face: "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped."

When I investigated I discovered that you were considered a distinguished professor in your field.  That's when I decided to write you and ask about the statement.  In truth, I was expecting a bit of explanation that would reveal that your words were taken out of context and that they did not actually mean you believed our planet's warming trend had reversed itself.

Just in case I was wrong, I included these questions:

          "Weren't the 2000s the warmest decade on record?"

          "Where does that claim leave the matter of 'greenhouse gases' and the imbalance in Earth's radiative budget?"

          "What about the heat that is being absorbed by the oceans?"
~ ~ ~ 

To my surprise you acknowledged the quote and it's implication that greenhouse gas driven global warming had actually stopped and reversed itself.

To my first question, you suggested the top of the mountain is always the highest point and that it means nothing, since we are now going down the other side.  - Sort of weird logic... if the warming of the 80s, 90s stopped - how can the 2000s be warmer than the "top of the mountain" 90s?  {Sounds like a variation on that denier's optical illusion know as the "global temperature escalator" }

You altogether ignored the question regarding our planet's radiation budget imbalance: "I don't have a comment on this. It's an open question"

To the third question, about the increasing heat being stored in the oceans, you reply "it is another argument without solid proof."  

I guess here we can go into a philosophical discussion regarding "solid proof".  I mean, it can be argued that there is no "solid proof" the sun will rise tomorrow morning, either.  

In my email, I politely asked for a more detailed response, you said you were too busy to answer any such questions.  But, that doesn't seem to be stopping you from going around making claims that can only be interpreted as denying the basics of well known GHG geophysical facts!  You compound the impression of deceit by denying ARGO deep ocean observations.  Not to mention that you are ignoring our planet's cryosphere observations.

HOW can you justify ignoring such huge chunks of fundamental evidence and understanding?

David Rose's latest myths courtesy of UK's "Mail"

I made a mistake in labeling Rupert Murdoch as owner of the Daily Mail and Sunday Mail.  It is the Rothermere clan that owns the Mail.  Although, their pedigree is as frightening as it gets - and it's no wonder they feel so comfortable misrepresenting serious science:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

It appears David Rose is at it again.  Here Peter Hadfield summarizes  the latest in a four minute video.  Following that I link to a few articles that detail the reporter's many recent deceptions.  It goes back to something I was complaining about in my previous post - the more overwhelmingly clear the science and Earth observations get, the more extreme and outlandish denialists claims are becoming.

David Rose's latest myth from the Mail on Sunday: Arctic ice has returned

Published by potholer54 on Sep 13, 2013 

Australian MP Dennis Jensen trusts Lord Monckton. Why would that be?

I came across the following article from the Australian news source
"The Age - Federal Politics"

"Climate sceptic MP Dennis Jensen wants to be science minister"

by Jonathan Swan  -  9/12/2013

Coalition MP Dennis Jensen, who is a vocal climate science sceptic, has called on Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott to appoint him as science minister... 

{...} 

"In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all," Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday... 

{In truth, it's down to Earth evidence that's driving the scientific understanding.} 

{...} 

The colourful Englishman, Lord Christopher Monckton, who toured Australia to debunk the "bogus science" of global warming, was closer to the mark, Dr Jensen suggested.
"Most of the stuff [Lord Monckton] says is entirely reasonable," Dr Jensen said.
"Some of it I don't agree with but on the whole a lot of what he says is in my view correct." 

{...}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

What I find amazing is that MP Dennis Jensen has no problem with the fact that Lord Monckton is a confirmed serial liar.  Now admittedly Monckton is a first class political performer, but his scientific understanding is superficial and his claims are calculated to mislead.  The Lord's many claims are easily exposed - as has been done by many people, many times over. 

To be clear, Monckton's claims hold no weight in the serious world of grown-up professional climatologists and other Earth scientists.  Why should they hold weight with the leaders of nations?