CO2 is the driver of the current warming we are seeing. Only hardcore deniers of climate science these days dispute that fact. It's all a moot point anyhow because in two weeks time we will all be paying a tax on CO2. I think that it is a great leveler in that despite what those deniers of climate science think they too will be paying a tax on CO2.

Your claim that the IPCC has no credibility is false.

Governments around the world have used the IPCC reports in their decision making therefore the IPCC is very credible.

Emissions trading schemes are expected to be operational in 33 countries from 2013

From 2015, 35 countries are expected to have national emissions trading schemes, including the Republic of Korea and China while a further 11 sub-national jurisdictions in the US and Canada are also supposed to join.

This would cover a total population of around 2 billion and account for about 45 per cent of global gross domestic product.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national...x-1226389526347

How is it credible when all the climate models are wrong? Not just one, all 23 models are way off.

So , Co2 has driven the fall in temps since 1998?

Temps have risen since 1998. 2010 was hotter than 1998. Last month was hotter than any month in 1998.

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F).

This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880, behind only 2010.

The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above average.

The globally-averaged land surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above average.

That chart only has the direct forcings.

After that, are the feedbacks of water vapour, clouds and Albedo which are supposed to amplify the direct forcings by 3 times total.

What are the feedbacks doing. This is how Trenberth modifies the chart above to include the feedbacks. A mysterious negative "radiative feedback" has the total forcing down to less than 1 W/m2.

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/8098/trenberthnetradiation.jpg

And here is what water vapour is really doing.

The IPCC AR5 forecasts have the water vapour anomaly rising to +1.4 mm/m2 or kg/m2 right now (+6%) but what is water vapour actually doing?

Nada

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/2881/ensotcwv48may12.png

I dispute your claim that all 23 models are way off.

Please list all 23 models and provide evidence to support your claim.

Here's one model from the IPCC that shows your claim is not true.

I'll post some more models that will also show your claim is not true but before I do that I'd like to see your evidence.



Climate Models and Their Evaluation

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

The IPCC model simulation archive

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php

CMIP3 Climate Model Documentation, References, and Links

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation.php

Bill has already posted the photo which shows all the models are now well off.

And 2010 was hotter than 1998 in your dreams only, use UAH or RSS and tell me where the warming is. Again, you are using data sets that are corrupted. You need to throw these in the bin. They make no sense.



Divergence much? Which is what you expect when you extrapolate temps. No matter the theory, its still a made up temperature dataset.

PML...yeah cause when you want honesty and trustworthiness look no further than your nearest politician. Yeah? You believe that governments are always right and we should all just shut our mouths and do as they say? Count me out because that's not science that's authoritarianism!!!


I had a talk with a Greenpeace guy yesterday, here’s how the conversation went…

I told him that humans didn’t have the scientific knowledge to describe the atmosphere and all its processes adequately enough to be able to conclusively answer the carbon question which is based on a valid scientific hypothesis but it’s sampling and data volumes are too small and too short for us to be able to move forward with the theory, instead we shouldn't be so focused on one possibility and instead be looking at all possibilities while trying to colate a larger more adequate data set and belief in the matter of AGW led by carbon alone is treating science as religion... not good!

He hit me with Occam's razor... so I told him his pen repelled crocodiles, don’t see any crocodiles in the shopping centre today? No? Specious reasoning not Occam's razor!
The theory the pen repels crocs is valid until proven otherwise either by experimentation or through already collected data, the problem was the data set, namely today in the shopping centre is inadequate and our knowledge of what repels crocs is incomplete so therefore you don’t demand that every person in the country should carry a blue Bic brand pen to prevent crocodile attacks do you? No... but to give an Occam's razor answer to climate change... that would be the SUN!
Like a good little patsy he gave up and began harassing the next passerby….

http://news.yahoo.com/huge-ancient-civilization-collapse-explained-123449804.html

Figure 1: Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. The various scenarios are 1.5% CO 2 increase (blue), constant increase in CO 2 emissions (green) and stagnant CO 2 emissions (red). In reality, the increase in CO 2 emissions by as much as 2.5%, which would correspond to the scenario above the blue curve. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong. Figure supplemented by Hansen et al. (1988) .

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/ja...ong/#more-65704

Here is a better one BD...Hansens forecats used by the IPCC.

Using GISS, which is heavily skewed up, we are still WELL below scenario C, which is the scenario that in the year 2000 we all died and became extinct...



Models only output what those with the agenda want it to show, in truth they are so far off the mark and the AGW crowd know it and are getting very desperate, as the more time goes the further away they diverge.

When asked to front up with the 23 IPCC models that you claim are way off all you can find is one model from way back in 1988 that isn't even used by the IPCC!

Here's further evidence that your claim is not correct.



CMIP3 Climate Model Documentation, References, and Links

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/model_documentation/ipcc_model_documentation.php

CeeBee you just don't get it do you? Not one IPCC model can hindcast and if they do such a bad job at hindcasting then they can't forecast and again you are missing the whole point of a model. It isn't a magical predictive machine, it provides a simulation of what may happen with a limited amount of data inputs.

In old computer programming slang it's called GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out. If the basic imputs (program) are flawed any results will also be flawed meaning that if the logical basis for the model is to predict temprature increases by proving that CO2 increases cause them then you right out of luck. Every forecast has provided huge temprature increases which don't just happen in real life.

Oh and since when did a 'credible' organisation like IPCC demand that they are given impunity (1,2) from prosecution in the future? Now colour me a complete cynic but if what you are again basing the entire finacial future of the planet of 'settled' science why the hell would you ever bother contemplating a time when you may be sued for providing dodgy science and advice? Sounds pretty suss to me and anyone else in the world who thinks about it.

(1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/un...o20/#more-65540

(2) http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/12/...s#ixzz1xaeHBzTK

Why post graphs ending at 2000?!...and, obviously hansen and ipcc are way out...anyone can see that from the evidence presented on the web and articles!

The articles you linked to are to do with the UNFCCC, not the IPCC.

Your claims about the IPCC are misleading and completely incorrect.

Here's an interesting image of the evolution of climate models. The technology back in 1988 was rather primitive compared to today so it's all the more impressive that the models back then were so accurate!




These diagrams depict the evolution of climate models, and the features included in them, over the years. Early models (in the 1970s) were relatively simple; they used just a few key features (incoming sunlight, rainfall, and CO2 concentration) to represent Earth's climate system. Models grew more sophisticated over time, incorporating clouds, land surface features, ice, and other elements into their calculations. Simple oceans were included in models beginning around the time of the IPCC's First Assessment Report (FAR) in the early 1990s; later models include more complex representations of oceans. Current climate models include clouds, a broader range of atmospheric constituents (sulphates, aerosols, etc.) and atmospheric chemistry, vegetation that exchanges gases with the atmosphere, and other features. The FAR, SAR, TAR, and AR4 labels on the diagrams indicate the models in use at the times of each of the four IPCC Assessment Reports.

Credits: Images courtesy of the IPCC (AR4 WG 1 Chapter 1 page 99 Fig. 1.2).

There you go CeeBee, is this ok for you? Bill has posted this before, you may have missed it due to ignorance.

Hadcrut is now WELL under all 23 models used by the IPCC, never mind UAH or RSS.

Hadcrut3 has been superseded by Hadcrut4 so no, that is not a true representation. I'd like to see the graphic done again using Hadcrut4.

Also, 11 years is not a long enough period of time in order to see the trend.

The UN defines “climate change” as being man-made: Orwell could not have done it better

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/the-un-...done-it-better/

Sloppy language works for cheats and charlatans. In the search for the truth only accurate language will do. Orwell understood the power of language to change the way we think, indeed to fence off some possible options completely.

Roger Pielke Snr put out a call today asking for precise definitions and protesting about the misuse of the term “climate change”. But when did this nonsensical term start? Where else, but with the UN.

All the way back on May 9th 1992, UN defined “climate change” as man-made. See The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (paragraph 6):

“Climate change is defined by the Convention as “change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (article 1 (2)).”

In other words, there is no “climate change” without humans because there cannot be, and by extension, the climate did not change, could not have, for the 4.5 billion years before 1880 when the first coal powered electricity station was fired up.

Such nonsense is what international treaties are made of. Only millions of taxpayer dollars could have propagated an inanity so profoundly inane, and so abjectly silly. No mere student report could have swept around the world destroying sensible conversation for two decades (and taking the entire field of paleoclimate as collateral damage too).

By misusing “climate change” so audaciously (and getting away with it), the UN ensured that an army of distracted or not-too-sharp supporters would adopt it, and it would reduce conversations about the role of man-made emissions down to a caricature. “Do you believe in climate change” — ask the thought police, it’s a loaded question that invites any sane person to say “Yes” — because who believes in climate-sameness?

The term “climate denier” springs from this sick well — as if, somewhere on the planet, in asylums or day care centers, there might be someone who denies we have a climate. Bystanders watching a debate at this nonsensical level don’t accidentally step into the dissenter camp — by default, they are “with the UN”.

The answer to stopping this is to turn the nonsense against those who issue it, and not fall for the tactic and join the perversion.

So when the journalists / pollsters inanely repeat the litany — there are lots of options.

“Do you believe in Climate Change”:

1. What are the alternatives? (I mean, does anyone believe in climate unchange?)

2. Do you mean “climate change” as used in the English language or climate change as the UN defines it. (I need to I know what you are really asking?)

3. Have you heard of an ice age?

So yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Roger Pielke, but we need to do more than just expect science journals to be scientific, we must demand that journalists and pollsters use English.

And people wonder why I disagree with IPCC/CRU etc.