Tag Archives: CO2

The IPCC’s Dilemma In 1 Chart

18 Sep

Cross-posted from the Financial Post (my bold added):

In the next five years, the global warming paradigm may fall apart if the models prove worthless

There has been a lot of talk lately about the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, and whether it will take into account the lack of warming since the 1990s. Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.

The above graphic is Figure 1.4 from Chapter 1 of a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The initials at the top represent the First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, the Second (SAR) in 1995. Shaded banks show range of predictions from each of the four climate models used for all four reports since 1990. That last report, AR4, was issued in 2007. Model runs after 1992 were tuned to track temporary cooling due to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in The Philippines. The black squares, show with uncertainty bars, measure the observed average surface temperatures over the same interval. The range of model runs is syndicated by the vertical bars. The light grey area above and below is not part of the model prediction range. The final version of the new IPCC report, AR5, will be issued later this month.

The above graphic is Figure 1.4 from Chapter 1 of a draft of the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The initials at the top represent the First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990, the Second (SAR) in 1995. Shaded banks show range of predictions from each of the four climate models used for all four reports since 1990. That last report, AR4, was issued in 2007. Model runs after 1992 were tuned to track temporary cooling due to the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in The Philippines. The black squares, show with uncertainty bars, measure the observed average surface temperatures over the same interval. The range of model runs is syndicated by the vertical bars. The light grey area above and below is not part of the model prediction range. The final version of the new IPCC report, AR5, will be issued later this month.

The figure nearby is from the draft version that underwent expert review last winter. It compares climate model simulations of the global average temperature to observations over the post-1990 interval. During this time atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 12%, from 355 parts per million (ppm) to 396 ppm. The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.

Chapter 9 of the IPCC draft also shows that overestimation of warming was observed on even longer time scales in data collected by weather satellites and weather balloons over the tropics. Because of its dominant role in planetary energy and precipitation patterns, models have to get the tropical region right if they are credibly to simulate the global climate system. Based on all climate models used by the IPCC, this region of the atmosphere (specifically the tropical mid-troposphere) should exhibit the most rapid greenhouse warming anywhere. Yet most data sets show virtually no temperature change for over 30 years.

The IPCC’s view of the science, consistently held since the 1990s, is that CO2 is the key driver of modern climate change, and that natural variability is too small to count in comparison. This is the “mainstream” view of climate science, and it is what is programmed into all modern climate models. Outputs from the models, in turn, have driven the extraordinarily costly global climate agenda of recent decades. But it is now becoming clear that the models have sharply over predicted warming, and therein lies a problem.

As the gap between models and reality has grown wider, so has the number of mainstream scientists gingerly raising the possibility that climate models may soon need a bit of a re-think. A recent study by some well-known German climate modelers put the probability that models can currently be reconciled with observations at less than 2%, and they said that if we see another five years without a large warming, the probability will drop to zero.

“The IPCC must take everybody for fools”

What’s more, the U.K.’s main climate modeling lab just this summer revised its long-term weather forecasts to show it now expects there to be no warming for at least another five years. Ironically, if its model is right, it will have proven itself and all others like it to be fundamentally wrong.

To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.

It is the job of the giant UN IPCC panel to inform world leaders of up-to-the-minute developments in the field. With its report due out within days, you would think it would be jumping at the chance to report on these amazing developments, wouldn’t you? Well, guess again.

Judging by the drafts circulated this year, it is in full denial mode. Its own figure reveals a discrepancy between models and observations, yet its discussion says something entirely different. On page 9 of Chapter 1 it explains where the numbers come from, it talks about the various challenges faced by models, and then it sums up the graph as follows: “In summary, the globally-averaged surface temperatures are well within the uncertainty range of all previous IPCC projections, and generally are in the middle of the scenario ranges.” Later, in Chapter 9, it states with “very high confidence” that models can correctly simulate global surface temperature trends.

The IPCC must take everybody for fools. Its own graph shows that observed temperatures are not within the uncertainty range of projections; they have fallen below the bottom of the entire span. Nor do models simulate surface warming trends accurately; instead they grossly exaggerate them. (Nor do they match them on regional scales, where the fit is typically no better than random numbers.)

“This is no time for costly and permanent climate policy commitments”

In the section of the report where it discusses the model-observation mismatch in the tropics, it admits (with “high confidence”) that models overestimate warming in the tropics. Then it says with a shrug that the cause of this bias is “elusive” and promptly drops the subject. What about the implications of this bias? The IPCC not only falls conspicuously silent on that point, it goes on to conclude, despite all evidence to the contrary, that it has “very high confidence” that climate models correctly represent the atmospheric effects of changing CO2 levels.

There are five key points to take away from this situation.

First, something big is about to happen. Models predict one thing and the data show another. The various attempts in recent years to patch over the difference are disintegrating. Over the next few years, either there is going to be a sudden, rapid warming that shoots temperatures up to where the models say they should be, or the mainstream climate modeling paradigm is going to fall apart.

Second, since we are on the verge of seeing the emergence of data that could rock the foundations of mainstream climatology, this is obviously no time for entering into costly and permanent climate policy commitments based on failed model forecasts. The real message of the science is: Hold on a bit longer, information is coming soon that could radically change our understanding of this issue.

Third, what is commonly called the “mainstream” view of climate science is contained in the spread of results from computer models. What is commonly dismissed as the “skeptical” or “denier” view coincides with the real-world observations. Now you know how to interpret those terms when you hear them.

Fourth, we often hear (from no less an authority than Obama himself, among many others) slogans to the effect that 97% of climate experts, 97% of published climate science papers, and all the world’s leading scientific societies agree with the mainstream science as encoded in climate models. But the models don’t match reality. The climate science community has picked a terrible time to brag about the uniformity of groupthink in its ranks.

Finally, the IPCC has proven, yet again, that it is incapable of being objective. Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise has meticulously documented the extent to which the IPCC has been colonized by environmental activists over the years, and we now see the result. As the model-versus-reality discrepancy plays out, the last place you will learn about it will be in IPCC reports.

Barnaby’s “Blunder”

18 Jun

Ok, fine.  Maybe it’s just me.

But I find this positively hilarious.

Here is Climate Change Minister Greg Combet’s oh-so-obviously fallacious attempt at sledging Barnaby’s economic nous on June 2, 2011 (or, see it here on the ALP’s own website):

“Barnaby blunders as economicsts (sic) back carbon price”

Ok, ok, maybe I’m just a spelling nazi.  I still think it’s hilarious … and somewhat of a Freudian slip.

Notice too, that the apparently illiterate Combet loudly and proudly bangs on about “13 of Australia’s most prominent economists” who had written an Open Letter in support of a carbon (dioxide) price.

Funny how he neglected to mention that at least 7 of those 13 “economicsts” (sic) are employed by banks.  And, that at least another 3 were previously employed by banks.

Yes, that’s right.  At least 77% of those Open Letter “economicsts” (sic) were and/or still are employed by the very same parasites who are pressing the hardest for carbon dioxide “pricing” as the basis for their new global casino.

Do you think that little nugget of truth might just have some influence on their “support” for it?

Oh yes. One other thing.

Did you know that one of those “13 most prominent” “economicsts” – Mr Saul Eslake – had himself a little dummy spit right here on this lowly blog, because he didn’t like his little group of rent-seeking parasites being referred to as “The Banksters’ Glee Club”?

Yes indeed. Mr Eslake threw his rattle right out of the cot.  See for yourself.

And a good thing it is too.

Because thanks to his little tantrums – yes, more than one – we have now seen a further glimpse of both the heights of vanity, and the depths of deception, that these “economicsts”, banksters, and their dyslexic political lackeys like Combet et al will go to, in order to get the legislation needed to implement their megalithic new derivatives trading casino scam passed through our Parliament.

Behold … “By Saul’s Own Words They Stand Condemned”.

Seriously – would you trust an ocean-front dwelling former union hack who can’t even spell the word “economist” to successfully implement a multi-billion dollar, economy-altering energy taxation scheme?

It’s A Big Tax!

22 May

“Com-plete-ly daft!”

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/turnbull-accused-of-deceiving-directors/2007/10/17/1192300858897.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/turnbull-done-with-hih/story-e6frg8zx-1111117505383

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hih-score-settled-for-malcolm/story-e6frg6no-1111119117953

“Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull looks set to emerge from his long court case over HIH Insurance with his former employer, the Goldman Sachs merchant bank, making a confidential settlement on his behalf.”

http://www.businesspundit.com/matt-taibbis-the-great-american-bubble-machine-demystifies-goldman-sachs/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100003851/here-comes-the-next-bubble-carbon-trading/

http://www.smh.com.au/national/turnbull-to-quit-politics-20100406-rnt5.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/malcolm-turnbull-may-stay-to-fight/story-e6frf7l6-1225857846973

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/turnbull-to-recontest-wentworth-20100501-tzod.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

“From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they’re about to do it again”

“The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.”

“The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets. There’s also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in green-tech … the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energy futures market?

“Oh, it’ll dwarf it,” says a former staffer on the House energy committee.

Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won’t we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe — but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it’s even collected.

Cap-and-trade is going to happen. Or, if it doesn’t, something like it will. The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees — while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.

UPDATE:

Article on Malcolm Turnbull / HIH / Goldman Sachs, CO2-traders’ infiltration of our own government here.

UPDATE 2:

From SmartCompany.com.au –

Turnbull also has a good track record as an investor in early stage companies.

In 1999 he made just under $60 million from the sale of pioneering internet service provider OzEmail, two years after selling his boutique investment bank Turnbull and Partners to Goldman Sachs.

Compassion For Malcolm: He Just Wants His Balls Back

19 May

Malcolm Turnbull has again managed to anger his colleagues, thanks to his comments on the Coalition’s Direct Action climate policy on Lateline this week.

I for one think that we could all show a little more compassion for Malcolm’s eunuchly uncomfortable position.

You see, there is plenty of evidence to strongly suggest the – somewhat embarrassing – true reason why Malcolm Turnbull so fervently believes that an emissions trading scheme is the best way to address global warming.

Simply take the time to review the history of the HIH collapse in March 2001.

Consider the highly questionable role that Goldman Sachs Australia – of whom Malcolm Turnbull was chairman at the time – had to play in this, the biggest corporate failure in Australian history:

SMH, Oct 18 2007

Turnbull Accused Of Deceiving Directors

Consider the subsequent $450+ million lawsuit brought against the key players in the HIH collapse… including named defendant, Malcolm Turnbull:

Wall Street Journal (via The Australian), Sep 17, 2008

One time banker done with HIH, but scandal isn’t done with him

The Australian, Sep 19 2008

Malcolm Turnbull has one less immediate distraction, after a Supreme Court judge yesterday acknowledged that a big civil court case in which the new federal Liberal leader is an individually named defendant could be settled by early December.

Consider only a few years after the collapse of HIH, even as those legal proceedings were being prepared, Malcolm Turnbull’s (again, questionable) takeover from Peter King as the Liberal candidate for the seat of Wentworth gave him a ready-made entrance into Parliament in 2004.

Consider his rapid elevation to the key role of … Environment Minister. Followed by the big push for the Howard Government to adopt an ETS.

Consider the revelation only a short time later that then Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull was to be spared from appearing in court as a defendant in that $450+ million lawsuit.  Why?

Because his former employer Goldman Sachs had made a “confidential” settlement on his behalf:

The Australian, March 13 2009

HIH score settled for Malcolm

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull looks set to emerge from his long court case over HIH Insurance with his former employer, the Goldman Sachs merchant bank, making a confidential settlement on his behalf.

Most importantly, consider which massive international banking power has been behind all the great market bubbles in modern history – and is again behind the global drive for a new derivatives-based trading bubble, the likes of which the world has never seen:

Business Pundit, June 25 2009

Matt Taibbi’s latest Rolling Stone article, “The Great American Bubble Machine,” undresses Goldman Sachs – and finds a “giant vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.” Not only do former Goldmanites essentially run the world, they help manufacture and burst economic bubbles, harvesting mean profits the entire time. Taibbi details how the bank manipulated investors, starting during the Great Depression.

Rolling Stone, July 9 2009 print edition

The Great American Bubble Machine

From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression — and they’re about to do it again.

The Telegraph UK, Feb 19 2010

Here comes the next bubble – carbon trading

Forget CDOs and other inventions of the great credit bubble. That’s all old hat. Investment bankers are moving on to an area of securities trading that is potentially even more lucrative, and what’s more, even has a social value – saving the planet. Or supposedly so, anyway.

Finally, consider that less than a month (less than 9 days*, in fact) after announcing his intention to retire from politics …

SMH April 16 2010

Turnbull quits politics

…  Malcolm suddenly changed his mind:

SMH, May 1, 2010

Former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull has made a dramatic return to politics, sparking a rethink on leadership and climate change within his party.

Or should that be, had it changed for him?

Herald Sun, April 25* 2010

Former Liberals leader Malcolm Turnbull is seriously reconsidering his decision to quit politics.

Although Mr Turnbull is overseas

Goldman Sachs is based in New York, with “tentacles” all over the world.

It hardly takes a rocket scientist to put two + two together.

Malcolm Turnbull, the former Goldman Sachs Australia chairman, named co-defendant in a $450+ million lawsuit, and beneficiary of a “confidential” settlement made on his behalf by his former employer, believes so strongly in Australia having an emissions trading scheme for a very good reason indeed.

But I personally harbour the gravest of doubts that “saving the planet” has anything whatsoever to do with it…

The Testicle Cookbook - By Goldman Sachs



*This is an updated reprise of my April 28, 2010 article (“Rudd Destroys His Ministers Beliefs“)

UPDATE:

22 May 2011:

From SmartCompany.com.au –

Turnbull also has a good track record as an investor in early stage companies.

In 1999 he made just under $60 million from the sale of pioneering internet service provider OzEmail, two years after selling his boutique investment bank Turnbull and Partners to Goldman Sachs.

Warren Truss Unplugged: “You All Know That The PM LIED To You”

16 May

Brilliant off-the-cuff speech by Mr Warren Truss MP, leader of The Nationals, in Port Macquarie yesterday.

The man is a class act.

A true elder statesman. Speaking from the heart to several thousand fellow Australian elder statesmen and -women.

My opinion – Warren for PM.

Plug him.

Enjoy (apologies for occasional autofocus problems):

“The Prime Minister hasn’t been dishonest with you once, she’s been dishonest with you time and time and time again!”

The Natives Are Restless

15 May

Some public comments on the carbon dioxide tax, from Port Macquarie in the heart of Rob Oakeshott’s electorate of Lyne.

Video to follow.

Feel the love, Rob.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Brandished by a very polite and proper, well-dressed, respectable-looking female senior citizen

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Not to be left out of this big group-hug:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Grey power meekly bows to the insults of politicians:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

About that scientific “consensus”.  Seems many were familiar with Nobel prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman’s wise maxim –

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

And a few other thoughts:

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

UPDATE:

The Port Macquarie News photo gallery here.

Julia, Things Have Changed

27 Apr

UPDATE:

Essential Research’s latest polling confirms it.  We used to care.  But things have changed.

Via Crikey’s Poll Bludger

Seventy two per cent of voters believe “will promise to do anything to win votes” applies to Labor, up nine points since March last year, while 66% believe “divided” applies — a massive 30-point increase since last year. “Out of touch” has increased 13 points to 61%, and “moderate” has dropped 12 points to 51%. Even otherwise uncharacteristic descriptions such as “extreme” now garner significant support, up 12 points to 38%. And whereas even last year 52% of voters thought Labor had a good team of leaders, only 34% now feel that way.

For the Liberals, however, it’s all positive: a drop in the number of voters who think they’ll promise to do anything to win votes — down from 72% to 65%; a rise in “moderate” perceptions by five points to 55%; “out of touch” down to 54%, “divided” down from 66% to 49%. There was also a big improvement on “good team of leaders”, but off rather a low base, up nine points to 40%. The Liberals lead Labor on nearly every positive indicator and trail on nearly every negative indicator. Labor still has a one-point lead on “looks after the interests of working people.”

Full report here.

%d bloggers like this: