Thursday, December 20, 2012

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds IPCC climate models substantially exaggerate wind speeds
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research compares observations of wind speeds over China from 1971-2005 to the results from 9 IPCC AR5 climate models for the same period and finds that all 9 models show a "substantial positive bias," i.e. a substantial exaggeration, of wind speeds. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that IPCC climate models greatly exaggerate extreme weather, cyclone activity, wind storms, droughts, and floods.
The Enduring Uncertainty Beyond the Climate Basics -
[Revkin, Nov 2012] the most consequential aspects of human-driven climate change remain the least certain
Twitter / JamesDelingpole: Climate troll and banned ...
Climate troll and banned Wikipedia tinkerer William Connolley bursts a sphincter at Worstall's place
One of my favorite parts in Connolley's string of angry, generally stupid comments is this one, where he trashes the IPCC
[Connolley comment] Anyone saying “trust me, I’m an IPCC expert reviewer” is a cretin. *Anyone* can be an “expert reviewer” just by asking to see the draft. It doesn’t mean the IPCC have vetted you in any way.
Is climate change really a damp squib?
[Matt Ridley's sane, measured response] ...I have since gradually come to the view that the extra feedback necessary to make CO2 warming dangerous is increasingly implausible, though still possible, and that the measures we are taking to cut carbon emissions are doing and will do more harm especially to poor people than warming itself. I may be wrong in this, but it’s not unreasonable to debate this possibility — and nor is it outside the scientific consensus, by the way.

I bring to the subject the same technique that I bring to all the topics I cover as a journalist. (Only on climate (and religion) am I told that my credentials disallow me from even having a view.) I read both sides of the question, I challenge assumptions and I listen to arguments. In this case reputable climate scientists like Judith Curry and Richard Betts agree that Nic Lewis has made a good case and deserves to be considered and debated. Would that Dr Connolley would show the same open-mindedness.

No comments: