IPCC Climate Report

There is no stopping them now!

It would be interesting to see a funnel plot. i.e. plot the statistical power of papers against the change in the climate. So low powered studies are to the left with the funnel on its side, mouth to the left.

If there have been no or few studies of low power which show little climate change (or even cooling) the scientific literature has been censored. i.e. the scatter plot should be throughout the funnel. That may be self-censorship or editorial censorship.

Good to hear from you again Roger. I have missed your input on this nonsense.

An article in the magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science was published during late July which suggested that the warnings of future high temperatures are implausible, based on flawed modelling. In advance of the release of yesterday’s deliberately emotive and alarming ‘CodeRed’ report, the writer is, basically, trashing the science. A bit, at least.

I am far more concerned about is what is really likely to happen as a result of the Code Red full-on panic paper. Announce a possibility of toilet roll shortages and people will flock to the supermarkets to create a toilet roll shortage. Announce a climate emergency and watch as humanity does its absolute best to make damned sure it comes about.

Not being able to buy your favourite pesto because of ‘bloody Brexit’ is one thing. Being denied the use of your actual country because of an overwhelming deluge of climate refugees is, I might suggest, a calamity on a slightly more serious level. Tell the teeming masses of the medieval continents that they will suffer drought, floods and starvation because of the industrial actions of the West and you can pretty much see what comes next. (See also, slavery…)

Forget your electric cars and your hydrogen boilers; no amount of technology is going to crack this nut. In order to make their point the IPCC report has gone full apocalypse and all but admitted that nothing can really be done, even if all the world’s governments sign up and then actually keep their promises (and this is far from likely). So what? Not reaching unreachable targets isn’t a big stretch for the imagination. But introducing measures which restrict people’s access to resources is like inviting them to raid the stores before the shelves are empty.

“If we don’t act now, it could become irreversible” is an invitation for all to conclude that it is just too late. They may as well have yelled “Last orders!” in a crowded English pub. Meanwhile, those who are really affected by climate change (clue; it is not the developed west) will seek to abandon their desiccated land and head for greener pastures, just as those who tend the pastures are crippling themselves with debt.

The big deal is not whether or not we can arrest or even reverse climate change – a great many in the know think we can’t, or that it will be too little, too late – the big deal is how we cope with what’s to come. Were it just Little Britain we could probably manage fine, but just watch as the trickle of climate refugees becomes a flood and it floods our way. Sod your electric cars, go and buy weapons; in a few years it will be every man for himself

I picked up a response to a post elsewhere which I reproduce here for those interested.

There are ancient fossil forests, and coal deposits in the Antarctic, with all this implies. Is subsequent continental drift of Antarctica sufficient to explain it? Moot point. Probably not. It has happened before. It could mean very big trouble for us indeed in the long term, and we are too many, and make way too much mess, and are wreaking havoc. And something desperately needs to happen about that. But whatever we do, could we stop THIS? Not a chance. 

Re Antarctica...

"In fact, the area was dominated by evergreen species and had a temperate rainforest at about 75°S, while today this latitude is cold and frozen. 100 million years ago, despite a winter that witnessed around 70 days of darkness, the forests were thriving in much warmer conditions.." 

More here: oceanwide-expeditions.com/.../the-ancient-fossil-forests-of-antarctica

An interesting paper looking at the influence of the sun on global temperatures. Using different, but equally valid, datasets to the IPCC most of the observed variations can be attributed to the sun rather than man.

“Most of the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from the Sun. It has long been recognized that changes in the so-called “total solar irradiance” (TSI), i.e., the amount of energy emitted by the Sun, over the last few centuries, could have contributed substantially to recent climate change. However, this new study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considered a small subset of the published TSI datasets when they were assessing the role of the Sun in climate change and that this subset only included “low solar variability” datasets. As a result, the IPCC was premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent climate change.”

A comment on the fallacy of ‘consensus’ science. Anyone who says ‘the science is settled’ doesn’t understand what science is.

“The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.”

Solar influence 4920-20836-1-PB.pdf