COP21 website sets out to disprove sceptical arguments

Posted: November 15, 2015 by tallbloke in alarmism, climate
Tags:

Here’s an amusing page from the French government’s COP21 website. I’ve added comments in bold italics. These people need to answer the the Paris Climate Challenge to support their own position, rather than create strawman arguments put into the mouths of sceptics.

Climate-change sceptics’ main arguments disproved point by point.
faux

Global warming stopped in 1998 – since then, temperatures have barely risen.

vrai

This claim is based on the Hadley Center report which showed a rise in average temperature of 0.02°C per decade between 1998 and 2008. It has since been widely publicized by climate-change sceptics and wrongly interpreted as a sign that global warming has stopped. But this set of statistics did not include the Arctic, where temperatures have risen significantly in recent years.

This is incorrect, summer minimum has been stable for the last decade on average.

The 21st century has seen the largest number of temperature records broken: 2014 is the hottest year to date since 1850, soon to be overtaken by 2015.

This is simply a non-sequiteur. Yes, we’re on a plateau at the top of the warming, but that’s not answering the issue of the pause

EN SAVOIR PLUS

faux

Global warming can be explained by variation in solar activity.

vrai

Temperature fluctuations from one year to the next may be linked to changes in solar activity, which varies following a cycle of around eleven years.

However, the amount of solar energy released varies by no more than 0.1%. As Jean Jouzel, Vice-Chair of the IPCC Working Group I, explains, “If the sun governed global warming, the entire atmospheric column would be affected. Yet we are experiencing a warming of the lower layers and a cooling of the stratosphere. This clearly indicates the role played by the worsening greenhouse effect.”

This is blatantly misleading. The sun increased in strength markedly to the peak in the 1950’s and stayed very active until 2003. The cyclic variation is not relevant to this longer term secular rise in activity, now ended.

faux

There is a major element of uncertainty in the calculations that are used to demonstrate global warming / Climate models are not sufficiently accurate.

vrai

Climate models are predictions and as such cannot be perfect. Nevertheless, over the years, scientists have fine-tuned them to gain a fairly accurate picture.
The relevance of these models has also been tested on past climate patterns. For if they are borne out by past events, then they are the right way to predict future climate patterns.

The models are useless at hindcasting more than a few decades, even after the aerosol fudging has been introduced.

As a result, the models used are largely reliable, with a slight discrepancy between predictions and observations . The uncertainty in these models is linked to unpredictable events such as volcanic eruptions or solar activity. But in spite of these intermittent events, long-term climate developments closely match the predictions made using climate models.

A “slight discrepancy”? They’re having a laugh. See plot below.

ChristyMT_GL_102_Models

EN SAVOIR PLUS

faux

The IPCC scientists are paid by governments, which leads to a conflict of interests.

vrai

In reality, the IPCC co-authors are not paid at all. The organization has only 30 permanent staff, compared with 831 voluntary authors (selected from among 3000 candidates). These volunteers must devote the equivalent of four to five months of work to the report, in addition to their own research.

It is therefore work that relies on the goodwill of the scientific community. Moreover, the authors come from all over the world and are often replaced (69% turnover of authors from the 4th to the 5th report) to promote the exchange of opinions and new ideas.

Misdirection. All these scientists receive their research funding through organisations and institutions which have entrenched positions on climate change.

faux

Many eminent scientists are climate-change sceptics; the existence of global warming is therefore a subject of debate within the scientific community.

vrai

There is no longer a debate on the existence of global warming, at least not in the scientific community.

Misdirection. The issue is not whether there has been warming, but whether it is human caused and to what degree.

There is a broad consensus among professionals: 90% consider that the rise in global temperatures is an alarming, proven fact, while 82% agree that global warming is strongly linked to human activity.

The word ‘alarming’ has no provenance here. It is not used in IPCC reports. Again, the issue is not warming, or some degree of human influence, but the magnitude.

faux

Global warming is a natural phenomenon that has already taken place.

vrai

The climate is a complex model and varies due to many different parameters. Solar activity, eruptions and sea currents have major impacts in the short term, and even in the medium and long term.

However, today human activity is the prevailing force in global warming, which was never previously the case.

Asserting things in bold typeface does not elevate these assertions to the status of ‘disproving’ sceptical arguments.

faux

Global warming also has positive aspects (warmer winters, etc.).

vrai

It is true that a milder winter has short-term benefits, such as lower energy consumption.

However, in the long term, there are many negative aspects to this phenomenon. A succession of mild winters would lastingly affect the quality of cropland by lowering the water tables that supply it, for example. Warmer winters may also disrupt whole ecosystems or foster the spread of diseases (as the cold kills more insects, which are disease vectors).

Where were these people in 2010? or in the Eastern US last winter? Warmer is generally wetter in any case.

Comments
  1. jdmcl says:

    Point 1 is hypocrisy. The Arctic region covers about 10% of the Earth’s surface. Prior to about 1950 coverage was less than FIFTY PERCENT of the Earth’s surface and yet the warmists like to quote the temperature change since 1850.

    Point 2 is misdirection. There’s more to solar activity than the Total Solar Irradiance. There’s particle flow and solar irradiance at difference bandwidths to name just two.

    Point 3 is laughable. The latest IPCC report said in the WGI SPM that 111 of 114 climate model runs falsely predicted warming from 1998 to 2012 (I.e. the 15 years prior to the report’s drafting) and admitted (text box 9.2, chap 9, WGI, I think) that the models could be wrong for a number of basis reasons, including that they “overestimate” (read “exaggerate”) the influence of greenhouse gases.

    Point 4 requires no addition to what you’ve said but point 5’s comments about “no longer a debate” is lacking basic integrity. There NEVER has been a debate; the warmists have always been too scared, preferring to hide behind media statements that gullible journalists and editors never question.

    Point 6 is another joke. There is ZERO evidence that the warming – which is only the 21 years 1977 to 1997 of the last 65 – is due to human activity. The IPCC showed no evidence per se, nor has the UNFCCC ever shown evidence.

    Point 7 is another misdirection. Pointing out that there might be downsides to warming (if it ever happened) is NOT the same as saying that there would be no benefits.

    Liars, con-artists and frauds … that’s who and what COP21 is based on.

  2. Bob Weber says:

    The sun caused global warming.

    Sunspot activity was 65% more active for the 70 years of the modern solar maximum from 1935.5-2004.5, when the annual average SSN was 108.5, than it was during the previous 70 years from 1865.5-1934.5, when it averaged 65.8, using http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt.

    TSI, which tracks sunspot number, was also clearly higher during the modern maximum period:

    It is with some relief to know that Roger, Piers, Christopher, and many others will be there to stand in the gap for the rest of us. Thanks to all who are making that possible.

  3. Bob Weber says:

    I should point out that the v1 SIDC SSNs were 89% higher during the modern maximum, vs 65% for v2. The TSI graphic is based on v1, http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/ARCHIVE/V1.0/yearssn.dat, AFAIK. The versions do differ but the modern maximum readily stands out in both.

  4. stewgreen says:

    A debunk of this UN COP21 page has also been done by STOP Climate Lies on Their FB page

  5. “The sun increased in strength markedly to the peak in the 1950’s and stayed very active until 2003.”

    I agree that the warmist argument is misleading. The oceans have been used as a calorimeter, which seems reasonable in the face of the relative heat capacity of oceans compared with atmosphere, land and cryosphere.

    This implies that the relevant metric for relating solar activity to climate is not a function of solar activity during a single solar cycle, but instead some function of cumulative solar activity over several cycles (Gleissberg, de Vries/Suess).

    I have graphed this as best I could using the revised Group Sunspot Number, which illustrates the point as well as did the series before revision.

    https://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/the-gleissberg-cycle-part-2/

    I welcome comments on how to proceed with the next steps in my research.

  6. Bob Weber says:

    Frederick, welcome to the solar accumulation paradigm. You are correct that the solar deposit of energy in the ocean over one solar cycle does not disappear before the next cycle starts. The energy, heat, either accumulates or depletes depending on the relative duration & level of solar activity over many cycles. I’ve done that research and it’s not that hard or fancy, if you think about it😉

    The modern maximum is the last distinct section of your nice graphic:

  7. Bob, thanks for this. Any of your work online?

  8. Eilert says:

    ‘Where were these people in 2010? or in the Eastern US last winter? Warmer is generally wetter in any case.’

    This may be true in some temperate regions, but is definitely not true in regions were you have wet and dry cycles, eg Australia, Southern Africa. Wet cycles generally have cooler temperatures and droughts usually bring very hot temperatures.

  9. tallbloke says:

    I first created a cumulative SSN count in a graphic I put on an image hosting site in 2009. I posted this article in 2010 using that graphic:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/

    This method of integrating solar data as a proxy for cloud amplification and ocean heat content is valid as an estimate, but a lot more empirical work needs doing to refine this technique.

  10. ren says:

    Tallbloke winter soon will attack in Europe.

  11. ren says:

    “The first derivation of angular momentum sum only little matches the sun-spot cycle, but the high-peak at 1990 could be correlated with a drop of solar-flare activity at the middle of preceeding sun-spot cycle 22. …

    The “wave” of approximate period of 854 years, which could be anti-correlated with Sun spin rate, seems to match the climatologic events of Medieval optimum and Global warming, and also the Little Ice age of Maunder minimum, and similar periods in earlier ages…
    If this is the case, now the Solar activity could drop a little, but will approach a larger maximum arround year 2050, not disturbed by the peak anomally, and then drop to a next little-ice-age arround 2400 AD.
    The time-lag between the spin rate change and activity change is still uncertain…”

    http://semi.gurroa.cz/Orbital/AngMoment.html

  12. oldbrew says:

    Everyone knows IPCC-supporting climate scientists ‘dislike’ the Medieval (and any other) Warm Periods, and try to make out they were regional, unimportant or even non-existent.

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/dealing-a-mortal-blow-to-the-mwp/

    The phrase ‘inconvenient truth’ springs to mind.

  13. oldbrew says:

    ‘This clearly indicates the role played by the worsening greenhouse effect’

    They should get a dictionary and look up ’cause’ and ‘effect’. In any case a direct correlation between CO2 and temperatures is not backed up by observations (as opposed to computer-generated results).

  14. “However, in the long term, there are many negative aspects to this phenomenon.”

    Where is the evidence for this? All warm periods of the past resulted in prosperity that led to cultural flowering.

    This was apparently worldwide during the Medieval Warm Period. This is attested by the fact that the great building programme in Cambodia at Angkor was contemporaneous with that in Europe. Vast agricultural surpluses were needed in order to release workers for construction projects.

    By contrast the cold periods led to hardship, disease and depopulation.

    The hypsithermal 5000 to 6000 years ago is not called the Holocene Climate Optimum without good reason. It was so warm then that sea level was about 2 meters (6.5 feet higher than now. And herders of cattle inhabited parts of the Sahara Desert that have been uninhabitable for millennia.

    Show me a benefit-cost analysis for climate change and I will point out to you where the analyst has ignored the benefits of climate change.

  15. ColA says:

    I got a bit peaved at the site (http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/getting-rid-of-received-ideas/) so I wrote them a little note!

    Your claims are bogus and there is no way to rebut them;

    Claim 1;
    Sceptics look at the satellite records because they can not be “corrected/homogenised” and they have not shown any statistically significant change in OVER 18 YEARS!
    Artic sea ice is increasing and temperatures are dropping – Oh and while you are at it if you look at one then you MUST also look at the other.
    SO …. Antarctic temperatures HAVE NOT CHANGED since satellite records started in 1979!!
    AND
    Antarctic ice has been on the increase for the last 15? years …. I think, hmmm …. not sure! So why don’t YOU look it up and find out for yourself??

    Claim 2;
    If you do not understand history you are bound to show yourself to be ignorant.
    The world temperatures have been varying naturally for millions of years MUCH more so than current changes. IT wasn’t CO2 that did that was it? NO, it was the only thing that supplies earth with ALL of its energy!
    The climate models are floored and have no skill, NONE of them predicted the 18 year pause in temperature while 1/3 of the increase in CO2 happened! WHO would be stupid enough to believe their wacky projections in 2020? 2030? let alone 2100?

    Claim 3;
    ‘In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled-nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2, page 774 Hmmm did the IPCC just say “NOT POSSIBLE” ????

    Claim 4;
    Please publish a detailed resume of each of the contributors – you will find there are plenty with experience “SOMEWHAT LACKING”
    Fortunately that is corrected by the politicians who review and dictate the words in the Summary!!

    Claim 5;
    WRONG, there is a significant debate in the scientific community, how dare you lie about that, did you mention the 10,000 climate scientists and the additional 20,000 university educated people who have signed a petition denouncing the CAGW hokum??

    Claim 6;
    “However, today human activity is the prevailing force in global warming, which was never previously the case.” This has NEVER been accepted because it has NEVER BEEN PROVEN CONCLUSELELY!
    CAGW is NOT a theorem it is a hypothesis and a very poor one at that.

    Claim 7;
    What a load of unsubstantiated scare mongraling (yes, I spelt it that way) and bull shitzer, not worth any effort to dismiss!
    All I would say is “REALLY?” – “You should be ashamed of yourselves!”

    Please, I do so look forward to your response supported by peer reviewed documented proof which has not been significantly challenged.

    Col Andrews

  16. oldbrew says:

    Col Andrews – good points.

    In climate scareworld, modelling+assertion = fact, in their summary reports and in the media.

    When real observations don’t agree, they like to ignore or alter them – then call it science. Dismal stuff😦

  17. stewgreen says:

    Wow @ColA thinks that sending French people such a shouty complicated rant will inspire them to listen ?
    ..or put up their shutters against skeptical views ?

  18. ColA says:

    Thanks Oldbrew, Stew I had had a few brews and I suppose it did turn into a bit of a rant, they do get you very frustrated and being a little ‘lubricated’ gets the fingers overexcited!!
    That being said I did get what I assume was an automated reply; i.e.

    Bonjour Colin,

    Nous avons bien reçu ta question et nous te répondons très vite !

    A bientôt,

    ——
    L’équipe de La Grande Conversation
    http://www.grandeconversation.com

    So being the courteous type of bloke I am, I thought I would say thanks, looking forward to your reply, and perhaps while you are at it you would like to explain this – and throw in Roy Spencers graph of satellite temps and the models, just for luck!

  19. ColA says:

    And here bit is!

    Thanks for the reply mate,

    It’s nice to know someone reads and answers our concerns and I do look forward to your reply.

    While you are looking into my concerns perhaps you would be good enough to explain this graph from Roy Spencer, a very well known and highly accredited Climate Scientist.

    Good onya mate, catch up soon,

    Col

    Sent with Roy Spencers Graph here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

  20. ren says:

    November 23 will be the polar vortex over Europe.

  21. ren says:

    Very low temperatures in the lower stratosphere over the northern polar circle.

  22. Brett Keane says:

    Ren, might this be an exploder of tree trunks in Europe, from freezing?

  23. Will Janoschka says:

    ren says: November 18, 2015 at 11:27 am

    “Very low temperatures in the lower stratosphere over the northern polar circle.”

    Ren,
    Stratospheric temperatures have little or no meaning for surface/tropospheric temperature. There simply is not enough mass, sensible heat to matter. How the very high winds go, steering everything below, seems to matter a lot.
    All the best!-will-

  24. Will Janoschka says:

    Bob Weber says: November 16, 2015 at 3:53 am

    “The sun caused global warming. ”

    The Sun so far, has done nothing that local atmospheric H2O, cannot easily compensate for!
    What is it that controls atmospheric column water? When earthlings can answer this, with physical demonstration,we have a start! All the CAGW is but a statistical ratio of floaters/sinkers in all of the Clueless Arrogant Climate Academic Clowns; ™CACAC™ (kaka) toilets!

  25. ren says:

    Czy Janoschka
    They are important because tropopause lowers in winter.

    A strong polar vortex sucks the air from the surface.

  26. ren says:

    Will Janoschka
    Above the Arctic Circle is practically continuity between the troposphere and the stratosphere.

  27. ren says:

    The strength of the wind in the polar vortex will increase with decreasing temperature in the stratosphere.

  28. ren says:

    It will be an early onset of winter in Europe due to the behavior of the northern polar vortex.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s