Reader Phil Primeau (Defend Canada) has read the IPCC report so you don’t have to. His summary;

1. Using Data and Observations since 1970, we have witnessed evidence of a warming trend. We are between 90% and 95% certain that in the last 37 years there has been a warming trend that has caused changes such as early blossoming, changed behavior in native species etc.
2. Based on this warming trend, we are 66% confident that this is caused by man. In that 66% confidence level, we believe that if it is caused by man, we are 90% certain it is due to the rises in manmade CO2 since 1950. This is based on “models” that look at natural or external impacts and internal impacts – and the combination of both best fit what we would expect the result to be. That being said, “Limitations and gaps prevent more complete attribution of the causes of observed system responses to anthropogenic warming … the available analyses are limited in the number of systems and locations considered …. natural temperature variability is larger at the regional than the global scale, thus affecting identification of changes due to external forcing”. (In other words, we are flying by the seat of our pants on this conclusion)
3. “Nevertheless, the consistency between observed and modelled changes in several studies and the spatial agreement between significant regional warming and consistent impacts at the global scale is sufficient to conclude with high confidence that anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems.” (Despite the shortcomings in our model, and the fact we could only get 300 scientists to agree to a 66% certainty, we the editors of said document think our models are accurate, and that being said, we are going to say we are 95% confident that global warming is manmade anyways, despite lack of concensus.)
4. Other effects of regional climate changes on natural and human environments are emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers. We are 50% sure that northern crops benefit an early spring, 50% sure that forests are more likely to be affected by wildfire and pests. We are 50% sure that heat related diseases (i.e. transferred by mosquitos) are more prevalent, and 50% sure that there are more allergens. We are alos 50% sure that warming is having a negative impact on winter sports. (Only 50% sure….really?)
5. Recent climate changes and climate variations are beginning to have effects on many other natural and human systems. However, based on the published literature, the impacts have not yet become established trends. Despite uncertainty, there may be a trend of glacial melting causing flood, there may be a trend to longer dry seasons in Africa, and there may be a trend of Coastal flooding. (all completely uncertain, because of lack of data)
6. Based on current trends, (which lack confidence and enough data to judge anything properly by our own admission) (i equate this to making a future stock price prediction based on looking at 3 months of the stock price) these are our predictions:
a) By 2050, Wet areas will get wetter by 10% – 40%. Dry areas will get drier by 10% – 30%.
b) By 2050, 20% – 30% of species will go extinct (if they don’t adapt as they have for the past billion years)
c) by 2050, 1-3 degree increase which will affect dry regions negatively and wet regions positively
d) by 2080 coast will be at risk (but we are not saying to what degree they might be affected)
e) Rich areas will get richer, poor areas poorer – mostly based on existing geo-economic situations.
It goes on….but all of the predictions are based on self admitted lack of evidence…

At Prometheus, attention is drawn to a chart correlating “weather related catastrophes compared with global temperatures”;

The Figure below is found in the IPCC WG II report, Chapter 7, supplementary material (p. 3 here in PDF). I am shocked to see such a figure in the IPCC of all places, purporting to show something meaningful and scientifically vetted. Sorry to be harsh, but this figure is neither.

I am amazed that this figure made it past review of any sort, but especially given what the broader literature on this subject actually says. I have generally been a supporter of the IPCC, but I do have to admit that if it is this sloppy and irresponsible in an area of climate change where I have expertise, why should I have confidence in the areas where I am not an expert?

Jim Manzi;

Not surprisingly, competent analysts have considered these issues in detail. [….] once you normalize for population, wealth and inflation at the national level, there is a weak upward trend in normalized weather-related disaster losses only if you include the 2004 / 2005 hurricane season. The authors are explicit that that US losses dominate these numbers and that a shift in US population into more vulnerable areas in Florida probably accounts for any trend.
It took me 15 minutes on Google to find the relevant research, and maybe two hours to assimilate it. Apparently this was too much work for 2,500 scientists.

Related – The Great Global Warming Swindle is now available on DVD via Amazon(UK).

Lorne Gunter employs something seldom seen in mainstream coverage of global warming – math;

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water — 2,400 litres in all.
According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun’s reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.
But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case — just 24 bottles out of 2,400 — would contain greenhouse gases.
Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.
Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don’t know.)
The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Previous – Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, speaks of this;

If there is not even a rudimentary theory of the Polar Vortex, much less an established relation between rising greenhouse gas concentrations and systematic changes in the Arctic Oscillation, one cannot possibly make inferences about changes in precipitation patterns. We do not know, and for the time being cannot know anything about changing patterns of clouds, storms and rain. Holland’s national weather service KNMI circumvented this impasse last year by issuing climate change scenarios with and without changes in the position of the North Atlantic storm track. It did not occur to the KNMI spokesmen that they should have been forthright about their lack of knowledge. They should have said: we know nothing of possible changes in the storm track, so we cannot say anything about precipitation. But it is entirely consistent with the IPCC tradition to weasel around such issues.

(And lighter fare – this smackdown in the comments. Funny things happen when commentors share their “expertise” – one never can guess who else is reading.)
Update – Be sure to read this comment, and the one that follows.

1860

The Pony Express begins its first run from Saint Joseph, Missouri to Sacramento, California.

John Hanning Speke and James Grant leave to search for source of the Nile.

Abraham Lincoln is selected as the U.S. presidential candidate for the Republican party.

The year upon which “accurate” measurements of global temperature increase are based.

h/t.

Bob Krumm;

If the forecasts are right, Nashville will tie the record from 1916 for the coldest high temperature on this date in recorded history. (We’re still five degrees short of the predicted high, and it’s almost 2:00.) Tomorrow the predicted temperature would shatter the 85-year old daily record low by four degrees and would also tie the record for the coldest April temperature ever.
Hopefully, Al is leaving soon.

“As the former vice-president said as he accepted his Academy Award, climate change is moral issue, not just a political issue,” – Lorne Calvert

Tim Thorstenson, North Dakota State University;

As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global warming crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I am a scientist, I also find it insulting. Everyone should find it very disturbing.
I am referring to the fact that the global warming issue is now regarded as a “moral” matter by its advocates.
[…]
The message of these pseudo-moralists is that “good” people must start by accepting the pre-ordained orthodox conclusion and then work backwards through the claimed facts, making not an intellectual assessment of whether they are indeed true, but rather a “moral” assessment of whether or not they agree with the conclusion. Things claimed as facts which are “good” (in this moral sense) should be embraced and those which are “bad” (in this same moral sense) should be discarded, not because they are factually false, but because they are “immoral”.
In all honesty, this should scare the heck out of everyone. This is an atmosphere in which scientific inquiry is steered not by factual truth, but by a pre-ordained “moral” position. What is at work here is exactly what the liberals have always claimed to condemn. How is this any different from the decree of a radical theocratic dictator who will allow only those scientific conclusions which are approved by his church?

From a Government of Saskatchewan press release that quotes Premier Lorne Calvert.

“I am very pleased that former vice-president Gore is coming to Saskatchewan the day after Earth Day,”

(In a nod to famed prairie populist Tommy Douglas, April 23rd is also known as the “day after Lenin’s birthday“).

“Throughout his career he has championed the environment. Al Gore has always been a person ahead of his time and Saskatchewan is honoured to welcome a leader of such stature and accomplishment to our province to discuss the climate crisis we are facing.” […] “As the former vice-president said as he accepted his Academy Award, climate change is moral issue, not just a political issue,” Calvert added.

And all this time we thought it was a scientific issue!
Big Al’s fee is a cool $125K US. The major sponsor? SaskTel. Costs for the venue and advertising will bring the total to around $200K – a “break even” prospect only if all tickets sell.
Which makes the announcement by the premier a little odd – as a crown, the day-to-day operations of SaskTel are supposedly out of scope of politicians.
Of course, it helps if another member of the Saskatchewan Family Of Crown Corporations helps prop up ticket sales;

SaskEnergy is sponsoring 250 tickets enabling Saskatchewan high school and university students to attend as part of their ongoing commitment to supporting environmental education. Teachers interested in sending a team from their school can find registration information online at SaskEnergy’s web site at http://www.saskenergy.com/. All participating student teams will receive a complimentary DVD copy of “An Inconvenient Truth” so they can organize an educational event in their school or community.

That had to hurt. SaskPower is the nation’s number three C02 emitter.
This won’t be Gore’s first Canadian appearance. At Concordia…

The former U.S. vice-president’s speech was effectively his Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth with updated statistics, and presented by an angrier, fist-shaking Gore.
His presentation was halted at least twice as opponents to his agenda began to shout out.
They called him a liar and a villain, and screamed, “What about your swimming pools?” in regards to recent allegations that the monthly electricity bill of Gore’s estate rivalled a year’s bill for the average American home.

But, none of that interests me a whole lot.
What really interests me is knowing whether Mr. Gore is flying into Regina on the pride of the Air Canada Jazz fleet.

Because when it comes to carbon footprints – size matters!
So here’s the deal: I have $50 for the best original, unretouched photo of Al Gore’s plane at Regina airport.
$25 if you can catch him near a limo.
Travellers Advisory: Environment Canada has issued a travel advisory, as the well documented Gore Effect has the potential to push unseasonably cold temperatures the province is currently experiencing to dangeorus lows.

Motorists planning to travel to the event are urged to have an emergency survival kit on board.

Reader “ural” picked up on something in the comments;

“I just stuck the list [of contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report] into a spreadsheet to see who the 2500+ consensus scientists were … See what happens when I sort the names… We’re down to 605 consensus scientists”

Indeed. It’s an exaggeration that’s been previous noted. Roger Pielke Sr.;

The media is in error when it states that, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –made up of thousands of scientists from around the world — reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels….” (see)
Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists.
[…]
This candid report confirms that the Statement For Policymakers was actually written with a small number of climate scientists. That such a small number of scientists are actually involved in the writing may make sense from the perspective of efficiency, but it also is guaranteed to result in a report that emphasizes the particular perspectives of the small group of scientists who wrote it. The biases that result would have been balanced if other climate scientists were able to write alternative perspectives, but this was not done. A “unanimous consensus” is hardly how science should be presented by a subset of the climate science community.
The use of the term “lead authors” is also misleading as most are co-authors with one lead author per chapter. The contributing authors provide material and comment, but, based on my experience in the 1995 IPCC report process, do not function as true co-authors. Thus the actually number of true lead authors actually corresponds to just the first author on each chapter.

The list still includes the name of leading hurricane expert, Chris Landsea, who publicly withdrew in 2005, citing IPPC misrepresentation of the research ;

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.

So, ural, that should be 604.

Heh.

For the low, low price of $30 US, you can get yours today!

We report GLOBAL WARMING and other ENVIRONMENTAL RISK INFORMATION mapped to any address!
Get a report in seconds – including top Scientist commentary.

Roger Pielke Jr;

At least one IPCC lead author appears to be trying to cash in on concern over climate change. With the help of several University of Arizona faculty members, including
one prominent IPCC contributor, a company called Climate Appraisal, LLC is selling address specific climate predictions looking out as far as the next 100 years. Call me a skeptic or a cynic but I’m pretty sure that the science of climate change hasn’t advanced to the point of providing such place-specific information. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that if such information were credible and available, it’d already be in the IPCC. The path from global consensus to snake oil seems pretty short.

h/t Planet Gore.

---

algor

algor                N      3 1 NOM S M
algor                N      3 1 VOC S M
algor, algoris  N (3rd) M   [XXXCO]
cold, coldness; chilliness; a fit of shivering; cold weather (pl.);

---

Translate English to Latin

h/t

Sometimes the most fascinating little pieces show up buried deep in the comments section of a blog. Here’s a little snippet from Steve McIntyre’s, where he mentions in passing his experience in producing one of those holy consensus reports:

I was an IPCC 4AR reviewer and requested data from two then unpublished papers – Hegerl et al 2007 and D’Arrigo et al 2006, Rob is a coauthor of the latter. IPCC refused to provide it and referred me to the authors. The authors complained and IPCC told me that, if I requested data for any of other unpublished papers submitted to IPCC for use in AR4, I would be expelled as a reviewer.

(Scroll down to comment 76 if the link doesn’t take you there directly).

Where art thou, climate change champions of the mainstream media?
You missed a story.
“Expect smaller brains with Global Warming”

It seems that colder climates created bigger brains that adapted to cope with cold, but some scientists now fear that global warming trends could be reversing this evolution. Who’d have thought smaller human brains would be a result of warmer climates?

And tragically, there are Canadians out there in touques who are completely unaware of the danger.
So, we add “our brains will shrink” to a growing list that includes precariously heated pre-schoolers, methane fireballs tearing across the sky, and my personal favourite – 4.5 billion dead by 2012.
You’d think we’d have heard more about that one by now.
It helps to illustrate how our betters in Canadian news circles keep their audiences so well informed on some stories and personalities from the global warming beat – and so well insulated from others;

Tory MP Tim Yeo has surely been the victim of a cruel practical joke. Yeo, a former environment minister, is well known for his campaign against climate change. He wants domestic flights to be scrapped and his website boasts of his commitment to the planet. Yet what do we find in the latest Bentley magazine?
Somebody calling themselves Tim Yeo, MP for South Suffolk, has been test driving the Bentley Continental Flying Spur. He sinks into the warm embrace of its leather seats and takes it on a golfing jolly. The Bentley does about 16mpg and has carbon emissions that rival those of a jumbo jet.

More: eco-phobia absurdity down under.

Are we close to a global warming “jump the shark” moment? I don’t know, but when national newspapers devote their pages to polar bear photo copyright controversies, I’d say the time is approaching…

“My father once met an early ecofreak in New England somewhere, who had hooked up his IBM Selectric to a power-generating windmill. The man was very proud of his little accomplishment, which allowed him to tap out his Whole Earth hippie blather without burning any fossil fuels. Papa’s confidential comment was, “Why doesn’t he use a [deleted] manual typewriter?”

Update: Big Al’s ” Thermopylae moment.”

We’ve all heard about them – “cat people” who lose control. It begins innocently enough with one or two purring “furbabies” – but then a third orphan kitten needs a good home. Then, a fourth.
As the months pass into years, cats collect in the home until the floor coverings disappear, stuff begins to break and friends stop dropping by. Then the day arrives that the unfortunate owner passes away, a neighbor reports the smell, the humane society and then the local tv cameras show up and their funeral announcement makes it to the Drudge Report.
It’s a burden of stereotype that all multiple cat owners are forced to bear.
“Cat lady”.
But today, there’s another. Today’s responsible cat owners are being faced with the fact that society is growing increasingly aware that cats are bad for the environment.
They eat songbirds.
So, it’s hard to be a cat person these days.

Well, this is where I come in. Everyone knows that the antidote to cat is “dog”. And I have dogs. In fact, I have quite a number of dogs – invested in for reasons that have little to do with cats, but that’s not the point. Beginning April 1, 2007, I will begin doing my part for the environment, with the release of the first-ever offering of “Cat Ownership Offsets”

If you are a cat owner who wants to acquire more cats than is environmentally sustainable in today’s ecologically sensitive world, each purchase of a “cat offset” will come with the comforting knowledge that the funds will be going directly towards sustaining the lifestyle of one of my dogs for a year’s time.
You will also receive a certificate suitable for framing, and a tasteful plaque to display in your home.

Offsets may be purchased on a per dog basis, or at special “litter rates”. Email for details.
(“It’s like planting your own rain forest!”)
update – An opportunity to get in on the ground foor of an exciting new technology: Cat Sequestration.
UPDATE II – A songbird-depletion denier challenges the scientific concensus. (Catprint in the Mash? Obviously in the pockets of Big Cat Food.)

From 18 Doughty Street.

“I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei of Florence, being 70 years old… swear that I have always believed, believe now and, with God’s help, will in the future believe all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach and teach. But since, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the Universe and immovable, and that the Earth is not the center of the same and that it moves. That I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatsoever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine. After having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I wrote and published a book in which I treat this condemned doctrine and bring forward very persuasive arguments in its favor without answering them. I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is of having held and believed that the Sun is at the center of the Universe and immovable, and that the Earth is not at the center and that it moves. Therefore, wishing to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith these errors and heresies. I curse and detest them as well as any other error, heresy or sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. And I swear that for the future I shall neither say nor assert orally or in writing such things as may bring upon me similar suspicions. And if I know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or Ordinary of the place in which I may be.” – Galileo Galilei (recanting his scientific beliefs before the Inquistion,1633)

More…

The March 26th issue of Business Week investigates the carbon offset trade;

Hollywood celebrated environmental activism at this year’s Academy Awards, and not just by giving an Oscar to the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences promoted the show itself having “gone green,” by means of a variety of initiatives. One element: Each performer and presenter received a glass statue representing the elimination of the amount of greenhouse gas associated with a celebrity lifestyle over the course of a year. The offsets were issued by TerraPass Inc., a two-year-old for-profit company in San Francisco that identifies climate-protection efforts and, for a fee, gives its customers the opportunity to buy a piece of the environmental action. Each Oscar favor represented 100,000 pounds of emission reductions drawn from TerraPass’ portfolio of offset projects.
One of the largest in its portfolio is a sprawling garbage dump outside of Springdale, Ark., from which TerraPass has purchased thousands of tons of gas reductions. The vast sloping mound of the Tontitown landfill rises near stands of bare-limbed hickory and oak trees, with the blue Ozark foothills in the background. The decomposing trash generates methane, a gas 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere, melting glaciers and raising ocean levels. Waste Management Inc., (WMI ) the huge garbage processor that operates the facility, tends nearly 90 wells dotting the trash mountain, each giving off a barely audible hiss as it sucks methane from the depths of the landfill and delivers the gas to a single towering flare. Once torched, the gas is released into the atmosphere as less-damaging co2. But company officials and Arkansas environmental regulators say Waste Management began to burn methane, and continues to do so, for reasons having nothing to do with TerraPass’ offsets.
Concerned that methane might be contaminating groundwater beneath the landfill, Waste Management first floated the idea for a gas-collection system in early 1999. Arkansas regulators urged the company to pursue this remedy. In 2001 the state increased its pressure by imposing a requirement for “corrective action” at the Tontitown facility.
[…]
Regardless of who deserves credit for taking the initiative, one thing is clear: The methane system was launched long before any promise of carbon-offset sales. In other words, it appears that the main effects of the TerraPass offsets in this instance are to salve guilty celebrity consciences and provide Waste Management, a $13 billion company based in Houston, with some extra revenue.

A different example considers dairy farmers who invested years ago in technology that captures methane from cow manure and turns it into electricity – projects never initiated for the purpose of greenhouse gas reduction. Yet, these old, unintended reductions qualify as tradable credits today.
Why would a scheme purported to spur investment in future GHG reduction technologies place a monetary value on existing, incidental reductions achieved and already factored into greenhouse gas baselines? The reductions represent the status quo – selling them today as “offsets” is the equivalent of counting them twice.
Well, as it turns out, they are good for something.

TerraPass typically sells offsets for about $9 per ton of carbon dioxide, or the corresponding amount of methane. The company takes a cut of that $9, but won’t say what the percentage is. A broker that introduced TerraPass to the dairy farmers also took a cut. In the end, the farmers say they each received less than $2 a ton out of the original $9.

Via American Thinker.

Bloomberg

The smartest money in global warming stocks may be scurrying to the exit just when the enthusiasm for alternative-energy companies is at an all-time high.
While SunPower Corp. and Theolia SA are among more than 180 companies whose shares have surged as much as 240 percent this year — buoyed by efforts to curtail the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans –the market’s nimblest investors already are hedging their bets.
D.E. Shaw & Co., Tudor Investment Corp., Citadel Investment Group LLC, Caxton Associates LLC, SAC Capital Advisors LLC and Pequot Capital Management Inc. reduced their stakes in solar- power and ethanol producers in the fourth quarter, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The hedge funds manage about $86 billion.
“As an investment play,” global warming is “a bubble” and “social short-term craze,” said Ken Fisher, who oversees $35 billion as chairman of Fisher Investments Inc. in Woodside, California.
Anyone looking for corroboration of that assessment may find it in the so-called short selling of U.S. alternative-energy stocks last month, which climbed 45 times faster than the average for Standard & Poor’s 500 Index members.
By itself, I don’t know that global warming is a viable investment theme,” said Malcolm Polley, who oversees $1 billion at Stewart Capital Advisors LLC in Indiana, Pennsylvania. “It’s largely Wall Street’s answer of trying to create something where there really isn’t anything that exists.

(h/t B. Hoax Aware in the comments)