"Assessing over 30,000 Scientific Papers"

It's worth reminding the ignorant denier tosspots about the sheer magnitude of scientific literature behind the IPCC's recent Synthesis Report.

Over 30,000 Scientific Papers.

G'head, my little confused denier wingnut friends, have a watch and a tantrum; it's another video from your favorite org in the whole world. Did I mention yer all ignorant tosspots?

"30,000 Studies Were Analyzed"

Michio Kaku was on CBS This Morning a few days ago talking about the latest IPCC Synthesis Report (emphasis in the quote below is mine).

"First of all, it's based on the largest analysis of data. Thirty thousand studies were analyzed. And, as you mention, for the first time in clear words [the IPCC] says there's a point of no return."

But...but...Michio, didn't they look at snow cover in...uh, just 2 months out of the year for...uh...only the northern hemisphere? I mean, 30,000 studies, who cares? They need to put on blinders, and cherry-pick only the stuff that agrees with their mindlessly moronic scientific ignorance. That's how Steven Goddard, Lord of Cherry-Pickers, does it.

Oh, brother.

While I don't always agree with Kaku on matters of frontier research, unlike Goddard and many other harebrained climate deniers, he recognizes scientific consensus and established facts when he sees them. Have a watch.

"Even the IPCC Says..."

The IPCC recently released its latest Synthesis Report, so you can expect those in the deniosphere will be falling over themselves to win awards for making the most paranoid and ignorant remarks about it (because obviously the best way to rig elections is to produce climate assessments, dontchyaknow, or so says my giant tin foil hat, and flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health, violent conflicts, etc., are all ever so dull and boring anymore...just ask those whose lives are negatively impacted). That kinda brute force denier stupidity is just a given at this point, but there's a more insidious and underhanded approach they employ every now and then which involves trying to make it look like the IPCC itself refutes man-made global warming. It usually starts with the following four words or something similar...

"Even the IPCC says..."

Allow me to translate what starting a statement this way really means.



To give you an idea what I mean here, I'm gonna make some predictions based on previous personal observations about how deniers will misrepresent the report's findings. Here goes...

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'It is virtually certain that globally the lower stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.'"

What the report actually says:

It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the lower stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'It is very likely that the annual mean Antarctic sea ice extent increased in the range of 1.2% to 1.8% per decade (range of 0.13 to 0.20 million km^2 per decade) between 1979 and 2012.'"

What the report actually says:

For the [Arctic] summer sea ice minimum, the decrease was very likely in the range of 9.4% to 13.6% per decade (range of 0.73 to 1.07 million km^2 per decade) (see Figure 1.1). It is very likely that the annual mean Antarctic sea ice extent increased in the range of 1.2% to 1.8% per decade (range of 0.13 to 0.20 million km^2 per decade) between 1979 and 2012. However, there is high confidence that there are strong regional differences in Antarctica, with extent increasing in some regions and decreasing in others.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'Since 1993, [rates of sea-level rise] for much of the Eastern Pacific are near zero or negative.'"

What the report actually says:

Rates of sea-level rise over broad regions can be several times larger or smaller than the global mean sea-level rise for periods of several decades, due to fluctuations in ocean circulation. Since 1993, the regional rates for the Western Pacific are up to three times larger than the global mean, while those for much of the Eastern Pacific are near zero or negative.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations.'"

What the report actually says:

For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (compare Box 1.1 Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations show a smaller warming trend than observed). Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. For the longer period from 1951 to 2012, simulated surface warming trends are consistent with the observed trend.

The denier version of the report:

"Even the IPCC says, 'Due to a low level of scientific understanding, there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades.'"

What the report actually says:

Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979. Anthropogenic influences likely contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1993. Due to a low level of scientific understanding, however, there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades.

In the upcoming days and weeks, keep your eyes peeled for deceptive denier cherry-picking along these lines, because I can nearly guarantee it's on the way.

When Pro-AGW Studies Disagree on Timing and Methodology

Two recent studies are at odds over when human-altered climate will emerge from historic variation, Mora et al, and Hawkins et al.

A few essential diagrams from the studies (apologies for the rough fit within my blog's layout, but further minimization would have resulted in text that's impossible to read)...

Mora et al, Figure 1:


Mora et al, Figure 2:


Hawkins et al, Figure 1:


These images pack a lot of info into a small area, not unlike the studies themselves, so let me briefly summarize.

Maybe I should first explain some abbreviations. RCP45 is one Representative Concentration Pathway, or greenhouse gas prediction, used in the latest IPCC Assessment Report (AR5). Here's an image which might better elaborate.



Both papers use the RCP45 projection in their research.

Hawkins et al lists the specific climate models used in abbreviated form (CSIRO Mk3.6 GCM, HadGEM2-ES, NorESM1-M, etc.) in the upper right of Fig. 1a, whereas Mora et al mentions the general use of CMIP5 models, while only singling out GFDL-ESM2G, as far as I can tell.

The authors of Hawkins et al believe the methodology of Mora et al is flawed, leading to an early man-made signal emergence from natural variability. Seems like a damning accusation, right? Something deniers could howl and rage over, and use as evidence that climate modeling is bogus or useless, or both, one might assume. But it's not the case, really, when you step back and look at the larger picture and how they both agree. Notice that each paper clearly agrees that climate will eventually emerge from background thanks to human emissions, and that it will happen on average soonest in the tropics, but have the greatest temperature anomaly at the poles. In other words, the papers agree to a large degree on several aspects of climate change, and with IPCC AR5 findings.

They merely disagree over timing of the emergence. It's a classic case of scientists arguing amongst themselves in order to expand the limits and specifics of our knowledge, and, while this frontier debate will continue and may have serious implications for policy and adaptation, it has little or no impact on the viability of climate models or the well-established reality of man-made climate change in general. Claiming otherwise is standard denier ignorance and tosh.

Thanks to contributor tokodave over at Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog for bringing these interesting studies to my attention.

Happy to Be at Your Aggravating Service, Deniers

Every second of the IPCC video below pisses you off, doesn't it, you science-challenged screwballs? The slick editing, the artful camera work, the sweeping pans, the epic scenery, the money that went into such an informative production, the classically-inspired electronic score—lilting and ethereal one moment, deep, jarring, and dramatic the next—the international accents, the eloquent narration, the well-researched facts, the academic settings, the scholarly language, and even the professorial attire...it all just irritates the living shit out of ignorant tosspots like you, I'm sure.

And, LOL, they disabled comments, so you can't spew your witless vitriol under such a well-made video. That's gotta hurt the most. Aaaaaaahhhh, poor wittle cwybabies got a big, fat cork stuck in their misinformed blowholes before they could start wailing, and moaning, and carrying on about how wet and icky their diapers are. G'head and let it all out below, you piddling infants. My comment section is here for ya. And so am I. Can't wait to escalate your frustration and blood pressure by humiliating you with peer-reviewed evidence you're too stupid to understand.

I'm like that, ya know?