The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks

Did I really write that headline above? I'm quoting Crikey "IPCC chief calls for ‘sane voices’ in local climate debate". Can I take it that other climate scientists are less influential, perhaps even less qualified than Rajendra "in 35 years" Pachauri? I should point out here that no climate scientist is less qualified than R35P, I'm certainly not less qualified than R35P, even Barack Obama isn't less qualified on climate than R35P. The latter (I prefer to call him that), is, or rather was, a railway engineer, and he's been active in derailing climate science since he sold his tools on eBay. He might have a view on climate, or sea-level, or why NY subway managers decided to park most of their trains on low-lying land close to the wet stuff just before Sandy did what storms do best. BUT he's not the one to consult on climate, or sea-level, and most certainly not on glaciers. I was going to include Crikey's charming pic of the "world’s most influential climate scientist" but just couldn't force myself to upload it to Picasa. Crikey says

As The Australian claims sea level rise is not linked to global warming, the world’s most influential climate scientist has called on “sane and rational voices” to speak out and correct the record.

More than 250 scientists have gathered in Hobart today for a summit of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s climate science body. The Oz marked the summit’s opening with a front-page “exclusive” story which claimed there was “no link” between sea level rises and global warming.

I used to have a (relatively) high opinion of John Church, despite his employment by Australia's CSIRO but now he's gone full denial on his co-authored paper I quoted from recently.

The Australian has long run a sceptical line on climate change, particularly in its opinion pages. Today’s story, written by environment editor Graham Lloyd, relied on a paper co-authored by Australian scientist Dr John Church. The paper apparently “said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea level rises in the 20th century”.

But Church, a sea level expert with the CSIRO, told a media conference today that was not an accurate description of the paper.

“So sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases, and that’s actually in the paper which was quoted by The Australian. So the quote is, I’m sorry, inaccurate,” said Church, a co-ordinating lead author with the IPCC.

(Sigh) I just have to quote the last sentence from the paper's abstract again. This is getting tedious.

Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.

There's more -

While The Australian claimed the paper had found no increase in the rate of sea level rise, Church said the paper showed the rate of sea level rise had increased between the 18th and 19th centuries, and research showed a further acceleration of the rate during the 20th century.

OTOH, the abstract plainly states

The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing.

So we now have "further acceleration" meaning "greater than that in the 18th and 19th centuries", and "small or no acceleration" to reconcile also.

If Church is to be believed, he is therefore co-author of a paper, the abstract of which is at odds with the content on two key findings. Perhaps the abstract (summary) was written well before the paper (IPCC-style). Perhaps the author of the abstract wasn't present at team meetings (IPCC-style). Perhaps the journal editor is a closet sceptic, altered the abstract, and is now gleefully rubbing his hands as he plans his next derailment. Perhaps someone is being economical with the truth.

Climate Science Rapid Response Team can't tell the truth on sea level paper

Climate Science Watch posted on 17th. Dec. 2012; Sea level rise study misrepresented; humans still raising sea level

There is a new paper out in the Journal of Climate which some have hailed as proof that the global mean sea level is not influenced by human activity. However, this is exactly the opposite of what the study authors explain are the real results.

The following guest post is a briefing note by the Climate Science Rapid Response Team:

The study finds sea level rise is still continuing at a steady rate. Study author Dr. John Church has stated via email correspondence, “I would argue that there is an unhealthy focus on one single statistic -- an acceleration number -- and insufficient focus on the temporal history of sea level change.” 

........................ 

With a complete reading of the paper, it becomes apparent that acceleration is only one part of the larger picture. The planet is rapidly warming and the seas are rising. These researchers are refining our understanding of which factors are driving that rise, and in what proportions.

The study Twentieth-century global-mean sea-level rise: is the whole greater than the sum of the parts? indeed finds that "sea level rise is still continuing at a steady rate".

Abstract

Confidence in projections of global-mean sea-level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the 20th century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction and reservoir impoundment. We have made progress towards solving the “enigma” of 20th-century GMSLR—that is, the observed GMSLR has been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades. We propose that: thermal expansion simulated by climate models may previously have been underestimated owing to their not including volcanic forcing in their control state; the rate of glacier mass loss was larger than previously estimated, and was not smaller in the first than in the second half of the century; the Greenland ice-sheet could have made a positive contribution throughout the century; groundwater depletion and reservoir impoundment, which are of opposite sign, may have been approximately equal in magnitude. We show that it is possible to reconstruct the timeseries of GMSLR from the quantified contributions, apart from a constant residual term which is small enough to be explained as a long-term contribution from the Antarctic ice-sheet. The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.

Note that last sentence and read the distorted logic and back-pedalling in the comments. One of the "Rapid response Team (RRT)" (equipped with hockey-stick maybe?), Dr. John Abraham ends his comment

In short, saying that the relationship between global climate change and sea level rise is weak is not the same as saying “climate change has nothing to do with sea level rise."

Well, no - the abstract says "weak or absent". Apparently "absent" is absent from Dr. Abraham's vocabulary. John Church, co-author of many sea-level papers cited in many reports including IPCC assessment reports and a co-author on this particular paper says

I basically agree with what John Abraham has written.

Sea level is more complex then just a simple linear relationship to surface temperatures. The physics is more complex than this and there are multiple time scales for each of the components contributing to sea level change. Glaciers are a good example. As temperatures continue to rise their contribution cannot continue to rise indefinitely because over time there will be a smaller glacier volume to contribute to sea level rise

I see a "straw man" surfacing from the rising waters - who on the CSW page or elsewhere mentioned "a simple linear relationship to surface temperatures"? No -one, though perhaps Abraham would say "it's not the same as saying there aren't any such statements".

Fundamentally, the "rapid-response team" is saying that "Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century" doesn't mean what it so clearly does say. Even one of the co-authors "basically agree[s] with what John Abraham has written". Is he telling us that the abstract is in error? If so why hasn't it been corrected?

I, as a sceptical observer, would observe that if the correlation between climate change and sea-level rise in the 20th. century is "weak or absent", and that if climate change over that period is hypothesised to be driven by human activities, then the claimed correlation between those activities and sea-level rise is also "weak or absent". But then, I'm not a scientist, and not qualified to comment on a statement in a research paper which one of the authors agrees doesn't say what it clearly does say.

The RRT also says "this is exactly the opposite of what the study authors explain are the real results". How many authors explained "the real results"? Just the one, apparently. Big numbers are clearly not the RRT's strongest suit.

But what about the RRT statement "The planet is rapidly warming" and the comment from co-author John Church "As temperatures continue to rise"? - IPCC AR5 and any temperature dataset refute both of those claims (I'm being tactful using the word). Perhaps they'd both say that a chart which shows stasis or a slight fall in temperature during the 21st century "is not the same as saying there's no global warming" over the same period. "Post-normal science" is all around us, and rising rapidly.

IPCC AR5 - is the truth finally slipping out?

WG1 chapter 1 contains the following graphic (click to enlarge)

Figure 1.11: Estimated changes in the observed global annual sea level since 1990. Estimated changes in global annual sea level anomalies from tide gauge data (Church and White, 2011; available at http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_data_cmar.html) (black error bars showing 1s uncertainty) and based on annual averages from TOPEX and Jason satellites (Nerem et al., 2010; available at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php) (blue dots) starting in 1992 (the values have been aligned to fit the 1993 value of the tide gauge data). The shading shows the largest model projected range of global annual sea level rise from 1990 to 2015 for FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c and IS92e), TAR (A2 and A1FI) and for Church et al. (2011) based on the CMIP3 model results available at the time of AR4 using the SRES A1B scenario.

A couple of things immediately struck me; first that the blue dots (annual average from TOPEX and JASON) show a tailing-off on the right (2011) to almost exactly 5cm above the 1993 value of a smidgen (that's a technical term used by us statistical experts [ha! - ed.] for a very small quantity) above zero. That gives 5/19 = 0.263 or 2.63 mm/year, rather less than the 3.2 mm/year over the satellite era (since the beginning of 1993) we've been fed to date. In order to get that 3.2 rate, the 2011 value would have to be 6cm above that for 1993 which clearly it's not. I think they've got a cheek assigning a zero value to 1992; observations didn't start until well into the latter half of that year.

Small potatoes maybe but is the truth (or something approaching the truth) finally slipping out?

'Extreme climate may wipe out mammals from Earth' - or maybe not

The Business Standard intones dramatically

Mammals could be at greater risk of extinction due to a higher frequency of extreme conditions such as cyclones and droughts spurred by climate change, scientists have warned.

Researchers from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) have mapped out land mammal populations, and overlapped this with information of where droughts and cyclones are most likely to occur. This allowed them to identify species at high risk of exposure to extreme weather.

The study describes the results of assessing almost six thousand species of land mammals in this way.

Bear in mind that land mammals have been exposed over millions of years, to more than one ice age with "extreme weather" (of the cold-induced variety) and at least one interglacial period during which temperatures were several degrees above those of today with "extreme weather" (of the heat-induced variety).

"Approximately a third of the species assessed have at least a quarter of their range exposed to cyclones, droughts or a combination of both," lead author of research, Eric Ameca y Juarez said.

"If these species are found to be highly susceptible to these conditions, it will lead to a substantial increase in the number of mammals classified as threatened by the IUCN under the category 'climate change and severe weather'," said Juarez in a statement.

In particular, primates - already among the most endangered mammals in the world - are highlighted as being especially at risk.

Just a minute though - "If these species are found to be highly susceptible to these conditions" implies, nay states, that the zoologists haven't actually assessed the vulnerability of land mammals to "extreme weather". Neither it seems, have they assessed the actual probability of the extremes they "predict", nor the extent or intensity of the extremes, nor specified the timescales over which those extremes might occur.

"This is the first study of its kind to look at which species are at risk from extreme climatic events. There are a number of factors which influence how an animal copes with exposure to natural disasters.

"It is essential we identify species at greatest risk so that we can better inform conservation management in the face of global environmental change," ZSL's research fellow Dr Nathalie Pettorelli said.

What does AR5 draft have to say about cyclones? Ch2 FAQ 2.2 says

Considering other extremes, such as tropical cyclones, the latest assessments show low confidence that any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. There is some evidence, however, of an intensification of the most extreme storms, but records are currently very short.  

Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered. Little evidence exists of any longer-term trend in other ocean basins.

So much for the "increase in hurricanes/cyclones" meme touted as fact lately. What about droughts? Section 2.6.2.2 Floods, Droughts and Severe Local Weather Events:

On the whole the annual maximum number of consecutive dry days appears to be declining in most regions since the 1950s (Figure 2.33b). Using a measure which combines both dry spell length and precipitation intensity Giorgi et al. (2011) indicate that ‘hydroclimatic intensity’ (Chapter 7) has increased over the latter part of the 20th Century in response to a warming climate. They show that positive trends are most marked in Europe, India, parts of South America and East Asia although trends appear to have decreased in Australia and northern South America (Figure 2.33c). Data availability, quality and length of record remain issues in drawing conclusions on a global scale, however.

So where there are trends in tropical cyclones (includes hurricanes) they show decreased frequency - something many sceptics have been saying for years - based on the data. With regards to drought, "On the whole the annual maximum number of consecutive dry days appears to be declining in most regions since the 1950s".

Every so often, more often year on year it seems, I read of some "research" or other that produces an immediate reaction of "what a load of crap". This study is one such.

Permafrost - the bottom line

In a recent post UNEP Report - Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost I identified a major contradiction therein, and debunked claimed "increases" in CO2 and methane over permafrost areas. I've been digesting parts of the leaked IPCC AR5 draft report, and found this in WG1 chapter 6:

6.3.3.2 Emissions 

.................. 

Over the past decades, however, there is no evidence for significant emission of CH4 from permafrost and hydrates (Dlugokencky et al., 2009). 

.... from the horse's mouth.

And a little further on this section:

6.4.3.4 Permafrost Carbon

Current estimates of permafrost soil carbon stocks are 1670 PgC (Tarnocai et al., 2009), the single largest component of the terrestrial carbon pool and higher than previously thought. Terrestrial carbon models show a land CO2 sink with warming at high northern latitudes, however none of the models participating in C4MIP or CMIP5 included explicit representation of permafrost soil carbon decomposition, which at a minimum requires sufficient vertical resolution in modelled soil carbon distribution and processes to separate surface pools from very old (Pleistocene) permafrost carbon pools. Including permafrost carbon processes into an ESM can change the sign of this C response to warming from a sink to a source in northern high latitudes (Koven et al., 2011). The magnitude of this source of CO2 to the atmosphere from decomposition of permafrost carbon varies widely by 2100 according to different model estimates: process-model estimates include 7–17 Pg (Zhuang et al., 2006), 55–69 Pg (Koven et al., 2011), and 126–254 Pg (Schaefer et al., 2011); estimates of uncertainty ranges suggest the source could range from 33 to 114 Pg C (68% range) under RCP8.5 warming (von Deimling et al., 2012), or 50–270 PgC (5th–95th percentile range; Burke et al., subm.). Combining observed vertical soil C profiles with modelled thaw rates estimate that the total quantity of newly-thawed soil C by 2100 will be 246 Pg for RCP4.5 and 436 Pg for RCP8.5 (Harden et al., 2012 in press). Sources of uncertainty for the permafrost C feedback include the physical thawing rates, the fraction of C that is release after being thawed and the timescales of release, possible mitigating nutrient feedbacks, and the role of fine-scale processes in determining the terrestrial response. 

Note the model results for emissions from permafrost to 2100: 7–17 Pg (petagrams), 55–69 Pg, 126–254 Pg, and the consequent estimated uncertainty range of 33 to 114 Pg C or 50–270 Pg C at the 5th–95th percentile range. What does this all mean?

They don't know.

IPCC AR5 draft report release - the bottom line

An expert reviewer of IPCC AR5 (Assessment Report 5) has released the entire draft on the internet. it contains a graphic showing the global temperature "projections" from climate model runs from the previous four reports. Put simply, the graphic destroys any claims of continuous warming of the global climate since the publication of the FAR (First Assessment Report) in 1990. it destroys the claim made in a recent paper that the global temperature trend since then has vindicated the accuracy of projections from that FAR. It supports the observation of sceptics (and some enlightened and open-minded climate scientists) that global temperature has not increased this century, and that actual temperature data shows a trend well below IPCC projections. It is clearly the "elephant in the room" for proponents of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) and warmists and doomsayers in general.

Source: WUWT

The vertical black bars indicate the possible range of error in observations (square black dots) from the GISS temperature dataset; it's quite clear that there's been no increase in global temperature since 1998 and that temperatures are trending below the model projections from all four reports (the coloured bands). It should be obvious to anyone that climate models don't model the global climate; in principle they can't - the climate is a chaotic stochastic system that doesn't lend itself to modelling as stated in an early iPCC report, but that didn't stop climate modellers applying their magic computer code to predicting the unpredictable. It should be clear to anyone who studies the science in any detail that while there is an anthropogenic effect, it's quite small, and is highly unlikely to lead to any substantial warming of the global climate. It should also be clear that while CO2 is, and must be, a climate driver its effect is relatively small, and it's predicted effect on climate vastly overblown. Whatever the conclusions are in the published AR5, due next year, mankind is having no great influence on global climate.

The king is dead, and good riddance.

FAR out - have "climate change projections come true"?

Have they? Is what The Conversation claims that "20 years on, climate change projections have come true" correct?

Climate change predictions made 20 years ago have so far proved accurate, suggesting that the world is indeed on track to a radical climate shift, according to a new paper published today.

In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — a group of the world’s top climate scientists — released its First Assessment Report, predicting global warming of about 1.1 degrees celsius between 1990 and 2030.

In today’s edition of Nature Climate Change, climate scientists David Frame and Dáithí A. Stone argue that, halfway through that projection period, the predictions made in 1990 are proving mostly accurate.

The 1990 report’s “best estimate” was that the world would warm by about 1.1 degrees celsius between 1990 and 2030, meaning that the halfway prediction would be about 0.55 degrees celsius by 2010.

In fact, the world has now warmed by about 0.39 degrees celsius, coming very close to the prediction despite several unforeseen historical events, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption and the rise of China.

If I wanted to quibble (and of course I do) then firstly 1990 isn't quite "20 years ago", unless this article has been in the pending tray for a couple of years. I can do big sums like 2012-1990 = 22. Secondly, and more importantly, I've read the relevant bits of the iPCC First Assessment Report (FAR - in the post title, it's a pun - see?) and the figure 1.1 and the year 2030 don't ring a bell. The Overview for the FAR states

1.0.3 Based on current model results, we predict:

An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2—0.5°C per decade) assuming the IPCC Scenario A (Business-as-Usual) emissions of greenhouse gases; this is a more rapid increase than seen over the past 10,000 years.

This will result in a likely increase in the global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 (about 2°C above that in the pre-industrial period), and 3°C above today's value before the end of the next century (about 4°C above pre-industrial). The rise will not be steady because of other factors.

The Policymakers Summary for WGIII states in the Executive Summary

Based on current model results, we predict under the IPCC "Business-as-Usual" emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade), greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under the same scenario, we also predict an average rate of global mean sea level rise of about 6 cm per decade over the next century (with an uncertainty range of 3-10 cm per decade).

So the FAR actually effectively predicted 0.6°C by 2010, not 0.55°C, yet even if it was as claimed 0.55°C then an actual rise of 0.39°C is just 70% of the prediction, which is therefore 41% above actual. That result is called "accurate"?

“As is always the case in science, we cannot know for certain that the 1990 prediction was accurate for the right reasons but, given the apparent absence of any credible alternative theories and the robustness of the prediction, this evaluation strongly supports the contention that the climate is responding to enhanced levels of GHGs (greenhouse gases) in accordance with historical expectations,” the authors wrote.

Low marks for accuracy, but an "A" in chutzpah, I'd say.

Penny Whetton, Senior Principal Research Scientist at the CSIRO and a lead author for the Third Assessment Report of the (IPCC), said the paper confirmed that “projections that climate scientists have been making have been accurate.”

“There are implications for the wider community for how they accept the IPCC conclusions. This is good evidence to show that what the IPCC has been saying for a while is coming true,” she said, adding that the discrepancy between the 0.55 degree projected rise and the 0.39 actual rise was explained by variability in estimates due to natural fluctuations.

“Once you allow for that, this paper demonstrates that the warming we are seeing is consistent with the projections made by the IPCC,” said Dr Whetton.

Err no, dear (I can be very condescending when the moment arrives) - estimates aren't subject to "natural fluctuations", it's reality that's subject to that. Once estimates are made, they're set in stone, see? Those who made them are stuck with them for ever more, except one Paul Ehrlich, of course - he just forgets he made 'em and carries on as if nothing different had happened. Oh - and Tim Flannery, of course who just claims he never said what he's recorded as saying on TV, radio and in newspapers, magazines, internet articles, blogs and St. Peter's great book of everything, for all I know. Then there's James Hansen who still stands by his prediction that the "Big Apple" would be 80 feet underwater by now (or next year, or something). He must have had his fingers crossed when Sandy's storm surge swept through Manhattan.

But I digress (cut me some slack, it's one of my few sources of amusement during these dark days of Armageddon predictions) - if a 30% error, on their own figures is considered accurate and "consistent with projections", where does that leave "Post-normal science"? If I'm given 39p change when I'm expecting 55p, am I justified in complaining, or do i have to accept it's "consistent with projections"?

Steve Sherwood, Co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales said the paper showed “that if you take natural year-to-year variability into account in any reasonable way, the predictions are as close as one could reasonably expect.”

“Those who have been claiming ad nauseum that the climate models have been proved wrong, should read this paper, even though for most of us it is not very surprising,” said Dr Sherwood, who was not involved in the Nature Climate Change paper.

“Though there is no contrarian analogue to the IPCC, individual contrarians have made predictions over a similar time frame that the warming would stop or reverse. The data since then have probably falsified many of those predictions (which the deniers continue to make today).”

I don't need to "read this paper", I just need to read a global temperature dataset - any dataset, GISS included. Obviously, people like Sherwood don't need to do that, they just announce that the Emperor's New Clothes are a remarkable fit, despite the fact that the proles are giggling and pointing at his projections.

Shoot an arrow in the air, and where it lands call that the target, and announce it's "accurate" - it'll do for the proles and politicians.

The Emperor's New Clothes - "-19°C at a height of 5km"?

The Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect - Do you understand it?

The question might be expanded to ask "does anyone"? I ask it because it's taken me about 8 years to get my head around all (or at least most of) the subtleties of detail, and while I've been doing that, my realisation has grown that many, including scientists, technical authors, and well-respected bloggers, do not understand some of the basics, or at least give that impression in what they say and write. Even the authors of IPCC AR3 seem somewhat confused. Pure arrogance on my part you might think, but hear me out before you write me off or label me in some way I'd rather not know.

There's one concept expressed in many descriptions of the greenhouse theory; pet theories, objections and rebuttals are based on it, calculations of parameters are formulated using it. The concept is formed using mere words, but some people's minds have been so seduced by those words that they believe, are convinced even, that the concept in some way reflects physical reality. It does not; it's a chimera, the "Emperor's New Clothes".

The concept is this: the "effective emission temperature" of the combined Earth/atmosphere system. It leads to a major misunderstanding in the claimed magnitude of the greenhouse effect (GHE), that the Earth is some 33°C warmer as a result of the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. To understand how the misunderstanding arose, it's worth quoting IPCC AR3 WG1, 1.2 Natural Climate Variations 1.2.1 Natural Forcing of the Climate System

For a stable climate, a balance is required between incoming solar radiation and the outgoing radiation emitted by the climate system. Therefore the climate system itself must radiate on average 235 W/m² back into space. Details of this energy balance can be seen in Figure 1.2, which shows on the left hand side what happens with the incoming solar radiation, and on the right hand side how the atmosphere emits the outgoing infrared radiation. Any physical object radiates energy of an amount and at wavelengths typical for the temperature of the object: at higher temperatures more energy is radiated at shorter wavelengths. For the Earth to radiate 235 W/m², it should radiate at an effective emission temperature of -19°C with typical wavelengths in the infrared part of the spectrum. This is 33°C lower than the average temperature of 14°C at the Earth's surface. To understand why this is so, one must take into account the radiative properties of the atmosphere in the infrared part of the spectrum. Of the incoming solar radiation, 49% (168 W/m²) is absorbed by the surface. That heat is returned to the atmosphere as sensible heat, as evapotranspiration (latent heat) and as thermal infrared radiation. Most of this radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, which in turn emits radiation both up and down. The radiation lost to space comes from cloud tops and atmospheric regions much colder than the surface. This causes a greenhouse effect. Source: Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997: Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78, 197-208.

Figure 1.2: The Earth's annual and global mean energy balance.

The key sentence is this

For the Earth to radiate 235 W/m², it should radiate at an effective emission temperature of -19°C with typical wavelengths in the infrared part of the spectrum. This is 33°C lower than the average temperature of 14°C at the Earth's surface.

... and the key word is effective, because the radiation to space is not emitted at an emission temperature of -19°C. Longwave IR radiation to space comes from three sources; from the "cloud tops and atmospheric regions" mentioned above (which are at different temperatures), and also the surface (implied but not explicit in the excerpt), which is at a very different temperature. There are thus three sources, all at different temperatures, radiating different amounts. For the quoted 235 W/m² outgoing flux to be input to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to derive an emission temperature, it would have to be emitted by a single source, and would have to conform to the envelope of a Planck curve. It is not, and it does not. The "effective emission temperature" has no basis in reality, neither has anything based on it.

Here's a satellite view of longwave IR emitted to space over the western tropical Pacific. The surface at around 22°C or so is a little warmer than the 14 or 15°C (287 or 288°K) taken to be the global average surface temperature, but it illustrates the point well. The dashed lines represent Planck curves for their labelled temperatures in degrees Kelvin. The portion between 25µm and 17µm is emission from water vapour, from 17µm to just over 13µm from carbon dioxide, 13µm to 8µm from the surface (with a "bite" from ozone centred on 9-10µm), and the rest to the right from water vapour. The tiny downward spike over wavenumber 1300 represents methane. Note where a 254°K (-19°C) Planck curve would lie, just below the marked 260°K curve.

From G.W.Petty "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation"

Worse, many (including IPCC authors) assume that 235 W/m² is what the Earth would radiate in the absence of either greenhouse gases (GHGs) or the entire atmosphere, and conclude that the resulting temperature would be the -19°C "effective emission temperature" (or -18°C calculated by some). That assumption and conclusion are not valid. If radiation to space is from three sources; GHGs, cloud tops, and surface, then removing two of those sources from the system leaves just one, the surface. It's an unjustified leap of logic to assume that the remaining source, on its own, would radiate what all three together did.

In the absence of an atmosphere there'd be no clouds to reflect incoming solar radiation, no water vapour to absorb much of the solar short-wave infrared, no ozone to absorb ultra-violet. All incident solar radiation (342 W/m² in Figure 1) would reach the surface. If we assume for this thought experiment that the surface would be as it is now (ocean/desert/rock/vegetation/ice), then some of it would be reflected, in the same proportion as shown in the diagram, that is 30/198 x 342 = 52 W/m², leaving 290 W/m² to be absorbed, and therefore to be emitted as radiation to restore the radiative balance. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to calculate the emission temperature, assuming perfect emissivity and that the temperature of space is 2.7°K, results in a surface temperature of -5.5°C, not the -18°C or -19°C almost universally quoted.

Working out what the resulting surface temperature would be if the green house effect were simply "turned off", that is all elements of Earth and atmosphere are present, but GHGs wouldn't absorb or radiate longwave IR, is rather more complicated, and best left for another post, as is a critique of the Kiehl and Trenberth "energy budget" diagram shown in Figure 1.

The 5km mentioned in the title is derived from the adiabatic lapse rate (rate of cooling with height) using the fictional --19°C "effective emission temperature", so it too is a fiction, a fiction created entirely by IPCC authors in AR3 WG1 chapter 1.2:

The natural greenhouse effect

The atmosphere contains several trace gases which absorb and emit infrared radiation. These so-called greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, emitted by the Earth's surface, the atmosphere and clouds, except in a transparent part of the spectrum called the "atmospheric window", as shown in Figure 1.2. They emit in turn infrared radiation in all directions including downward to the Earth's surface. Thus greenhouse gases trap heat within the atmosphere. This mechanism is called the natural greenhouse effect. The net result is an upward transfer of infrared radiation from warmer levels near the Earth's surface to colder levels at higher altitudes. The infrared radiation is effectively radiated back into space from an altitude with a temperature of, on average, -19°C, in balance with the incoming radiation, whereas the Earth's surface is kept at a much higher temperature of on average 14°C. This effective emission temperature of -19°C corresponds in mid-latitudes with a height of approximately 5 km. Note that it is essential for the greenhouse effect that the temperature of the lower atmosphere is not constant (isothermal) but decreases with height. The natural greenhouse effect is part of the energy balance of the Earth, as can be seen schematically in Figure 1.2.

A fiction built upon a fiction, the "Emperor's New Clothes" are the wrong colour, and the wrong length. Don't get caught admiring them.

All of a Flutter in the Tropics

"Global warming threatens tropical birds" says Bob Berwyn, who's editor and apparently the only "journalist" on the Summit County Voice.

Global warming is likely to drive hundreds of bird species to extinction in coming decades, as more intense and frequent extreme weather events destroy habitat and make foraging impossible.

“Birds are perfect canaries in the coal mine – it’s hard to avoid that metaphor – for showing the effects of global change on the world’s ecosystems and the people who depend on those ecosystems,” said Çağan Şekercioğlu , an assistant professor of biology at the University of Utah.

Other sites used identical wording, with more or less detail, suggesting a press release, which none cited, or the version on EurekAlert, which is the most detailed:

Scenarios for Extinction

A 2008 study by Şekercioğlu and late climatologist Stephen Schneider calculated 60 scenarios of how tropical land bird extinction rates will be affected by various possible combinations of three variables: climate change, habitat loss and how easily birds can shift their range, meaning move to new habitat. Citing those estimates, the new review paper says that "depending on the amount of habitat loss, each degree of surface warming can lead to approximately 100 to 500 additional bird extinctions."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius (2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) of global warming of the Earth's surface by the year 2100, which Şekercioğlu's study converted into a best case of about 100 land bird extinctions and a worst case of 2,500.

He says the most likely case now is considered to be 3.5 C (6.3 F) warming by 2100, resulting in about 600 to 900 land bird species going extinct. These estimates are conservative because they exclude water birds, which are 14 percent of all bird species.

Because they don't travel far, "sedentary" birds "are five times more likely to go extinct in the 21st century than are long-distance migratory birds," says Şekercioğlu.

My first observation is that the cited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also predicted that warming would be less in the tropics, so any climate modelling based on the tropics should take that into account. Apparently this modelling exercise (for that, of course, is what it is) did not, a significant error. I suggest you read the EurekAlert article, if you're interested in doom and gloom. My second observation is that these and many other articles equate "global warming" and "climate change", and use them interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Climate consists of a lot more than temperature.

I responded to Mr. Berwyn's article before I'd spotted the error with "projected" temperature increases, quoting and commenting on the article thus:

"Climate change already has caused some low-elevation birds to shift their ranges, either poleward or to higher elevations, causing problems for other species"

Wouldn't the "other species" have moved "either poleward or to higher elevations" also? Birds and other species have been moving poleward and to higher elevations since the end of the last ice age.

"Birds with slower metabolisms often live in cooler tropical environments with relatively little temperature variation. They can withstand a narrower range of temperature and are more vulnerable to climate change"

So? This paper says explicitly that birds relocate to suit the conditions. There's nothing to suggest the "cooler tropical environments" wouldn't move poleward somewhat and the birds with them, nor that the "little temperature variation" would alter.

"Tropical mountain birds are among the most vulnerable to climate change. Warmer temperatures at lower elevations force them to higher elevations where there is less or no habitat, so some highland species may go extinct"

We're frequently told that plants, including trees, are moving higher with increasing temperatures. I would equate "plants, including trees" and suitable temperatures with habitat.

"Climate change and accompanying sea-level rise pose problems for birds in tropical coastal and island ecosystems, “which are disappearing at a rapid rate,” Şekercioğlu and colleagues write"

What rapid rate? What island ecosystems?

"Birds in extensive lowland forests with few mountains – areas such as the Amazon and Congo basins – may have trouble relocating far or high enough to survive"

Birds worldwide migrate thousands of miles each year but can't manage to move their nesting sites a few miles a decade?

"Rising sea levels will threaten aquatic birds such as waders, ducks and geese, yet they often are hemmed in by cities and farms with no place to go for new habitat"

Most aquatic birds nest and feed far away from cities and farms. There aren't many of either on estuary mudflats. cliffs and rocky islands.

"Tropical birds in arid zones are assumed to be resilient to hot, dry conditions, yet climate change may test their resilience by drying out oases on which they depend"

May.

Australia's CSIRO - The Truth, (but not) The Whole Truth, and nothing but Cherry Picking

Bruce Mapstone, chief, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania (note Hobart, there's more) wrote to The Australian "Sea-level observations". February 9th, 2012

BOB Carter's references to sea level ("Scientific research drowning in a sea of alarmism", 7/2) require clarification.

Sea level observations come from measurement by satellites and, as Carter notes, a network of tide gauges around the Australian coastline operated by the Bureau of Meteorology and similar gauges internationally.

These observations show that rates of sea-level rise around Australia range from 2.6mm a year to 9.5mm a year since the early 1990s, compared with the global average rate over a similar period of about 3.2mm a year.

Variation in sea levels from region to region is to be expected, as Carter also notes, but continuing analysis indicates the dominant trend around Australia for the past 20 years is upward and above the global average.

The global average of observations is near the high end of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change model projections over the same period, indicating that the range of model projections encompass changes that have occurred, and indeed that the models may be underestimating observed changes.

Lets' jump right in and have a look at the Hobart tide gauge data - right on Bruce's doorstep at CSIRO Mansions on Castray Esplanade, overlooking the harbour, and probably within sight of the gauge -


View Larger Map

(click charts to enlarge)

Hobart, Tasmania - Sea Level 1987-2010

Oh dear, things are not looking too good for Bruce's "clarification", the rate from 1987 is -0.438 mm/year (0.67 from 1962). The odd 1987 start date is due to the fact that there are large gaps and anomalous readings prior to then. The gauge was displaced several times by ship's masters who couldn't park neatly, and had to be replaced (the gauge, not the masters, but who knows?).

He was referring to an opinion piece by Bob Carter two days previously, in which he attacked a "a science-fiction prediction of a 91cm rise in sea level in the district by 2100". Carter ridiculed Lake Macquarie City Council's new coastal planning regulations, which control new developments around the lake, mandating higher floor levels to "account for sea level rise and wave action". Yet the NSW Department of Planning has said there's "uncertainty surrounding the manner in which sea level will rise", which means whatever floor levels they enforce are likely to be either inadequate or excessive. The "91" figure (notice it's not a round 90 or "almost a metre") implies an estimate accuracy of +/- 1cm. The range is given as LOW: 18 cm. MEDIUM: 55 cm. HIGH: 91 cm. So the overall spread is 1:5, yet the figures are quoted to a single cm accuracy? Over a period of 90 years? That really is "science fiction". I could stick my neck out and say 50 +/-50 centimetres, which should cover most eventualities. Of course, I could be wrong. In fact I know I'll be wrong, which is why my neck will stay in.

The regulations are based on that 91cm maximum predicted rise by 2100, and Carter says

This prediction comes from the NSW government, which in turn sourced it from a UN political body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As with its unnecessarily alarmist projections of global warming, the IPCC's estimate of future sea-level rise derives from speculative computer models.

He also lists what he terms "four facts"

First, that rates of sea-level change vary around the Australian coast. This means any new coastal planning regulations (if and where they are needed) should be based on the appropriate local sea-level measurements rather than a hypothetical global average.

Second, the longest east coast tide-gauge record, from Fort Denison (Sydney), records an average rate of rise over the past 100 years of about 1mm a year (10cm a century).

Third, that other tide gauges, scattered around Australia as part of the national tidal network, mostly record rates of long-term rise between about 0.5mm and 2.5mm a year with no change in behaviour in the late 20th century that might reflect a human (global warming) influence.

And, fourth, that the Sydney tide gauge, as well as other long tidal records from nearby (Fremantle, Auckland) and overseas, exhibits a slowing rate of sea-level rise over the past 40 years.

How do Carter's "facts" stack up? His first is common sense. A health service bases its policies on local , not world, nor even regional demographic statistics and forecasts. It's logical to expect local and state authorities to do the equivalent as regards local planning.

His second is indisputable (except by Bruce Mapstone and others, who just ignore it. "Post-normal" science doesn't need facts).

His third is correct if you accept his qualification of mostly, and I accept it, having analysed data from most of the 95 National Tidal Centre tide gauges (plus two privately owned) around Australia. How does it square with what Bruce Mapstone says? First note that Brucie (I feel I know him well already) doesn't actually refute what Carter wrote. In short, he can't - it's fact. Note also what Mapstone actually said - "from 2.6mm a year to 9.5mm a year since the early 1990s". "Early 1990s" is a bit vague, isn't it? Well no, it isn't, because the CSIRO have chosen to use a subset of 14 of those 97 gauges, installed and monitored by the ABSLMP project at the National Tidal Centre of the Bureau of Meteorology. In other words, they've chosen to use just one seventh of the data available to them. Cherry anyone?

The fourth is indeed fact. Data from most of the long-term records show a slowing rather than an acceleration, and most sites show a flat or declining trend since 1999. I've posted on the CSIRO's data selection bias and more recent, lower rates here.

Back to Bruce's last paragraph

The global average of observations is near the high end of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change model projections over the same period, indicating that the range of model projections encompass changes that have occurred, and indeed that the models may be underestimating observed changes.

Beat that for gobbledygook - if the model "projections" didn't "encompass changes that have occurred" then they can't be much use. If the models may be underestimating "observed changes" it doesn't automatically follow that they are also underestimating future "projections". I don't know, and he doesn't know what assumptions are made in those models.

Then there's a (partial but flawed) rebuttal of Mapstone's "non-rebuttal" the following day. "Levels all at sea" from one William Kininmonth:

THE clarification on Australian sea-level observations by Bruce Mapstone (Letters, 9/2) fails to reveal all of the uncertainties relating to the data.

Australian tide gauges accurately measure the relative movements of sea level with respect to the gauges. However, the vertical movement of individual tide gauges is uncertain.

The vertical movement isn't uncertain, at least not for some of the gauges. A global network of Continuous Global Positioning System (CGPS) stations is already established, designed to monitor land movement and/or gauge movement. There are 12 around Australia, near the ABSLMP stations. Here's the current plot for Sydney - appropriately the station's in Macquarie Park!

Latest ULR GPS position time series for Sydney

A note for those who've heard of the CGPS stations used by the NTC - the stations are remote from the gauges (up to several km inland), they monitor land movement, and do not "automatically adjust" the vertical position of the gauge. That's both impractical (the gauges are of necessity firmly fixed to their supports), and undesirable. It's not only the sea that rises and falls with the pull of the sun and moon, but the Earth's crust too (crustal tide), up to about 10cm range, depending on latitude, greatest near the point nearest to the sun and/or moon. If the gauge position was kept constant relative to the GPS satellites, the gauge would be dropping relative to the land as the tide and land rose, and would register a higher reading than it should, and a lower reading as tide and land fell.

And for the last word, from a body which even Bruce might take note of, The Tasmanian Planning Commission, in its sober but a trifle "consensus science" "State of the Environment (SoE) Tasmania 2009" report is precise and factual (my bold):

Sea-level rise for Australia is only slightly less than the global average (NTC 2007; Church and White 2006) and coastal observations confirm that sea-levels have been rising since at least 1920 by approximately 1.2 mm/yr (Church et al. 2006; IPCC 2001; see also Pittock and Wratt 2001; Lambeck 2002). A common feature in many model projections is a higher than the global average sea-level rise off the southeast coast of Australia and in a band stretching across the Indian and southern Pacific oceans at about 30°–45°S (CSIRO 2009). Sea-level rise is greatest (about 3 mm/yr) in the eastern equatorial Pacific and western equatorial Indian Ocean. Observed rates of rise are smallest (about 1 mm/yr) in the western equatorial Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean, particularly the northwest coast of Australia. Two of the longest continuous Australian tide gauge records are from Fremantle in Western Australia (92 years) and Fort Denison in New South Wales (83 years) indicate that the observed rate of sea-level rise relative to the land has been 1.38 mm/yr and 0.86 mm/yr respectively (DPIWE 2004). Regional variations in the rate of sea-level rise are weaker for much of the rest of the global oceans (AGO 2003). 

They haven't got the last word, though, I have. If the CSIRO chooses to use the state-of-the-art NTC SEAFRAME gauge data for (some of) Australia, why didn't they use data from similar NTC gauges across the Pacific islands for their "Climate Change in the Pacific" reports instead of spatially coarse satellite data? Why did they choose to use (coarse) gridded HADSST2 sea surface temperature data rather than localised in-situ measurements recorded by those same gauges? You answer the question, I already know the answer.

The Guardian shows its naked bias

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows

"Meltwater from Asia's peaks is much less then previously estimated, but lead scientist says the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern"

The Grauniad (an affectionate, or otherwise, nickname for the Guardian, which in the days of movable type was prone to side-splitting typos) may sometimes display an apparent lack of bias in its reporting of environmental and climate science, but a sceptical eye can often spot the face behind the mask. It's so with the above article. Those worried or even alarmed about apparent (I choose the word with care) ice-loss worldwide should rejoice in the news about Himalayan ice. I see no rejoicing here; indeed there's a whiff of disappointment throughout.

There's an obligatory picture of a an (apparently) melting glacier with this caption:

Hopar glacier in Pakistan. Melting ice outside the two largest caps - Greenland and Antarctica - is much less then previously estimated, the study has found.

That only interpretation I can put on that is that ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is not "much less then previously estimated", but must be the same or more than previously estimated. However, the article, by omission, implies that the study didn't cover Greenland and Antarctica. The Grauniad agonises over melting icecaps, so why didn't they mention that the study was global? Perhaps it's that the study also revised estimates for Greenland and Antarctica - downwards from IPCC estimates, but similar to more recent estimates. Was the Grauniad disappointed?

Here's where their bias is revealed. We have what is being widely acknowledged as the most reliable estimates to date for the Himalayas

However, the scientist who led the new work is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asia's highest mountains, the melting of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.

Are they really saying that the study reveals "greater uncertainty"? Check it out -

Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise
Thomas Jacob John Wahr W. Tad Pfeffer Sean Swenson
Nature (2012)

Here's the abstract:

Glaciers and ice caps (GICs) are important contributors to present-day global mean sea level rise. Most previous global mass balance estimates for GICs rely on extrapolation of sparse mass balance measurements representing only a small fraction of the GIC area, leaving their overall contribution to sea level rise unclear. Here we show that GICs, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs, lost mass at a rate of 148±30 Gt/yr from January 2003 to December 2010, contributing 0.41±0.08 mm/yr to sea level rise. Our results are based on a global, simultaneous inversion of monthly GRACE-derived satellite gravity fields, from which we calculate the mass change over all ice-covered regions greater in area than 100 km2. The GIC rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period. The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4±20 Gt/yr for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt/yr in previously published estimates. For completeness, we also estimate that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, including their peripheral GICs, contributed 1.06±0.19 mm/yr to sea level rise over the same time period. The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48±0.26 mm/yr, which agrees well with independent estimates of sea level rise originating from land ice loss and other terrestrial sources.

"Most previous global mass balance estimates for GICs rely on extrapolation of sparse mass balance measurements representing only a small fraction of the GIC area, leaving their overall contribution to sea level rise unclear" - that's where the uncertainty was. I hope the Guardian writers' disappointment doesn't last - there's bound to be some natural disaster or extreme weather event soon soon to give an opportunity to wheel out and polish their now time-worn and expected phrase "while it's not possible to ascribe any particular event to [global warming|climate change|rising sea levels] (choose one)" ..... and go on to effectively do just that. Good old Grauniad - at least they're predictable, unlike climate or weather.

So predictable, in fact, that they have to wheel out a Bristol University glaciologist, Prof Jonathan Bamber:

"I believe this data is the most reliable estimate of global glacier mass balance that has been produced to date," said Bamber. He noted that 1.4 billion people depend on the rivers that flow from the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau: "That is a compelling reason to try to understand what is happening there better."

He added: "The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth's ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction."

Notice that? He says that "the most reliable estimate of global glacier mass balance that has been produced to date" means that "there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought". Silly me thought that reliable estimates reduced uncertainty. It just proves that I'm not cut out to be a glaciologist, especially one who clearly thinks that the "rivers that flow from the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau" rely almost exclusively on glacier melt. See the end of my post A Cool Look at Glaciers for a published refutation of that myth.

The study clearly supports what many have been saying for years - that studies of (at most) a few hundred of the estimated 150,000 glaciers worldwide are almost worthless, like attempting to assess population health by visiting hospitals. Few glaciologists (at least the vocal kind) seem to be interested in other than "sick" glaciers. That's what's wrong with so-called "mainstream" environmental and climate science (and reporting) - accentuate the unusual and ignore the normal.

The truth may be only a click away ....

When you read a blog or forum post, or an article on a website do you click on supporting links provided by the author? I usually do, unless I trust the author or site and the article seems comprehensive. When I do check sources, I sometimes find that the author has misrepresented what the sources say, or has left out something that's "inconvenient" for his argument. Sometimes the linked source doesn't even mention what is claimed or says exactly the opposite. I gave an example in an earlier post Clutching at Straws, or "Scraping the Barrel" where a linked post didn't discuss what was claimed at all.

While re-organising my bookmarks, I came across this post titled intriguingly "Solar Ovens Prove Greenhouse Gas Theory is cooked", from "Dragon Slayer" author John O'Sullivan. The article jumps right in and says:

Colorado State University and Brigham Young University's (BYU) Professor Steven E. Jones of the Department of Physics and Astronomy and his student, Jenni Christensen Currit, have conducted experiments that prove that solar ovens are not just a cheap and reliable way of ‘free energy’ cooking but are also useful tools for disputing theories that the planet is in danger of any runaway catastrophic warming due to fossil fuel emissions. 

BYU's study entitled, ‘Solar Cookers for Developing Countries’ shows that the predicted harmful back radiation effect defined by the greenhouse gas theory (GHG), whereby carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is supposedly responsible for re-radiating heat energy (repeatedly up and down as if under a blanket) doesn’t exist in the real world.

The finding challenges the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and certain world governments who have premised trillion-dollar cap-and-trade tax policies on fears that catastrophic global warming may ensue if levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide continue to rise.

So let's click on that link and see what it says. It's indeed a report, but the abstract says:

The developing world suffers from a variety of problems including lack of food, fuel shortage, environmental abuses, and unemployment. Many non-profit organizations work to alleviate these problems, but often find that a coordination between scientists and developers is difficult yet necessary to make effective improvements. This project is an attempt to bridge the gap between technological development and international development. Dr. Steven Jones of Brigham Young University, has been developing solar oven technology for several years. I joined the project after much progress had been made. My project had two phases. The first phase was spent developing solar oven designs that would be both effective and practical in developing countries where money and materials are hard to obtain. The second phase was an effort to take the technology to non-governmental organizations currently doing work in developing countries in an educational approach that would allow them to have a flexible approach to implementing valuable technology for those with the most urgent need. This paper includes the findings and accomplishments of both phases. The educational materials distributed to the organizations are also included as well as a list of groups who have received this information in hopes that future interest will rise and the materials will be made available to an even wider audience. 

Not exactly what we were led to expect, is it? BYU's "study" is not a study at all, but a project, and the only "radiation" mentioned is from the sun, as one would expect in a project to develop and promote solar cookers. However, don't take my word for it - click on the link and see for yourself. There's no "finding" that disputes anything, let alone the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Linking to and totally misrepresenting a report which has nothing whatsoever to do with your claim is deception, pure and simple.

O'Sullivan's post continues:

Cooling or Warming: Ovens Satisfy Laws of Thermodynamics

Remarkably, the researchers doing a similar experiment at Colorado State University tested solar ovens not just as cookers but also for their potential to cool food and water both day and night. All solar cookers tested proved highly successful at cooling both day and night as long as they were carefully aimed.

Remarkable indeed, as the only "experimenting" the aforementioned BYU pair did was in

developing and modifying the design of the funnel cooker and to work on developing other designs. My contribution was mainly focused on researching heat-resistant plastic and alternatives to plastic, in addition to testing the funnel cooker and making a new type of box cooker.

Incidentally, the link to the "experiment at Colorado State University" pdf doesn't work in the original post; I've corrected it in the quote. Par for the course it seems. Did the "researchers" at CYU "test ovens not just as cookers"? Not exactly - they describe how to build a "solar fridge". Another non-experiment it seems. O'Sullivan goes on to say

It is proof of a cooling effect that appears to contradict the so-called re-radiation properties of carbon dioxide; if CO2 does cause warming it isn't showing up in these tests. This is because if back radiation was actually reaching the Earth, solar ovens would produce heating at night. But clearly they are not. The findings are set to become a hot topic in the ongoing global warming debate. 

Really? So what does the (incorrectly) linked construction project (which is what it actually is) say on this subject?

An object on the ground “sees” the earth below and the sky above. The sky is cool, the earth is (relatively) warm. The object will cool, because it will emit more than it receives—only half of what it “sees” gives significant infrared back. But an object in the “space refrigerator” doesn't “see” anything warm. The solar oven collects radiation from above—but above is the sky , and the sky is cool. So the object in the box gives off as much energy as an object on the ground, but it gets much less back.

Gets much less back - says it all really. A fine piece of work - citing and misrepresenting one article which is totally irrelevant, and another which actually refutes what's claimed as "evidence" . So we have even more "clutching at straws" except that in this case they're not even straws.

A Cool Look at Glaciers

Glaciers are the poster child of those who would have us believe that unstoppable global warming is in progress. We've been told that melting is accelerating just about everywhere, and that hundreds of millions will be affected in the future if glaciers continue to melt and reduce the boost they give to river flow in the dry season in areas like south-east Asia.

Glaciers hit the headlines in a big way in December 2009, when reports of a flawed prediction about Himalayan glaciers began to circulate on the internet. They quoted a statement in the IPCC 2007 AR4 report:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 

IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch10, p. 493