New climate consensus: GCMs are lousy

The models are lousy and probably wrong. In which direction they are wrong is not clear at all, yet.

Eduardo Zorita's comments on climate models are interesting. Given the strong evidence that the models run too warm, I think he is being far too even handed, but perhaps more interesting is the way his words echo the terminology used by the UK's top climate modeller Brian Hoskins.

Interviewer: Tell us the war story. How bad were the climate models when you started out?

Brian Hoskins: Ah, they were pretty lousy, and they're still pretty lousy, really. They were terrible.

I think we could say that there is a consensus here, but rest assured that it a bad case of climate denial to suggest that GCMs are not suitable tools for policymakers.

Update on Nov 10, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Interesting to compare these comments to Keith Shine's description of the climate models to parliamentarians.

...state-of-the-art climate models, which are our embodiment of the laws of physics as applied to the atmosphere...

I was roundly criticised by some for suggesting that Shine's words were misleading.

Hayhoe's temperature reconstruction

Tom Nelson pointed out this interesting temperature reconstruction, sourced from Katharine Hayhoe's new book. I thought it might be the Marcott paper, but a direct comparison suggests not. I wonder where it comes from?

Irreversible - Josh 301

Click image for a larger version

Following the IPCC Synthesis Report we have had many catastrophists describing the impacts of climate change as 'Irreversible' and using the phrase 'Immorality of inaction' - I can certainly think of some irreversible impacts that require more immediate action.

Cartoons by Josh

Ouch

Chris Rapley has turned his hand to stagecraft, penning a new play about - you guessed it - climate change, which is being staged at London's Royal Court Theatre. Not bad for a first-time author! Here's the first review, from What's on Stage:

Had it been more interestingly presented, it could have amounted to the starkest message on a stick ever mounted at the Royal Court. Instead, it's probably the worst play ever seen on that hallowed stage, convincing you that the world can't end quickly enough if this is all we can expect from the so-called home of new writing.

Ouch.

The cost of public policy

Updated on Nov 7, 2014 by Bishop Hill

The government released a report yesterday explaining the impact of public policy on domestic energy bills. It's a bit of a mystery in places. Look at the alleged savings that energy policy is currently making for us:

Blue: wholesale, red, network; green, other supplier costsI'm struggling with the idea that wholesale prices (in dark blue) are lower than they would otherwise have been because energy companies are forced to buy renewable energy. Similarly, how can network costs (green) and other supplier costs (red) be lower than they would have been?

I smell a rat.

Click to read more ...

Ridley's response to Lynas

This is a guest post by Matt Ridley and is a response to this post by Mark Lynas.

As far as I know Mark Lynas is an honourable man. He changed his mind on the benefits of genetically modified crops, going against the views of nearly all environmental campaign groups and bravely putting up with much criticism for doing so. I know how he feels, because I have done the same – changing my mind about the dangers of climate change, going against the views of nearly all environmental campaign groups and putting up with much criticism for doing so.

That Mark does not agree with my change of mind on climate (which happened gradually but was cemented by the way the green and scientific establishments reacted to the Climategate controversy) is fair enough. I don’t, however, understand why he chooses to take the low road in his attacks on me. His latest blog post is entitled “On Matt Ridley’s latest attempt at climate change denial”. He knows full well that I have never advocated climate change “denial” and that that very phrase was invented as a way smear sceptics who think the dangers of climate change are being exaggerated by associating them with holocaust denial. Yuk.

Click to read more ...

DECC doesn't know the cost of carbon

A clearer admission that that DECC doesn't know its derriere from its demand side balancing reserve is hard to imagine. Junior minister Amber Rudd has ducked a simple request from Graham Stringer MP for the value of the cost of carbon emissions that it uses in formulating policy.

Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what the social cost per tonne of emitted carbon his Department uses to judge the cost benefit of energy policies.

Amber Rudd (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State) The Department for Energy and Climate Change has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.

The cost of carbon emissions is supposed to be the figure by which everything that happens within DECC is judged. That they don't even know it shows clearly that the department is completely rudderless.

But we knew that.

Maslin's morass

Professor Mark Maslin, a climatologist from University College London, has written an article for The Conversation to mark the publication of the Synthesis Report of AR5. In it he makes some remarkable claims, for example:

We have tracked significant increase in global temperatures of 0.85°C and sea level rise of 20cm over the past century.

(Don't think so)

Changes in precipitation are also expected to vary from place to place. In the high-latitude regions (central and northern regions of Europe, Asia and North America) the year-round average precipitation is projected to increase, while in most sub-tropical land regions it is projected to decrease by as much as 20%, increasing the risk of drought.

(Don't think so)

I wonder if he is going to try to make a defence of his article. If you head over to the Conversation, do stay polite and on topic. Several BH regulars are already there.

The green blob and shale

The Lords' Economic Affairs Committee report on shale gas was published some months ago, but there was a "motion to take note" of it yesterday. The transcript is here. There is much of interest, not least the fact that nobody now seems to be taking a stand against shale - even Bryony Worthington.

So where do we stand then? Lord Hollick explains:

What, then, stands in the way of rapid development of this promising natural resource? In a word, it is bureaucracy. The regulatory regime is complex, unwieldy and slow with many government agencies sharing responsibility for approving fracking applications. The process is bedevilled by complexity; it lacks transparency, accountability and consistency. Cuadrilla, one of the companies seeking to drill for shale gas, estimated that it could take up to 16 months to navigate the process of obtaining permission to start drilling. We were told that local authorities were not adequately resourced to deal expeditiously with the approval process. Will the Government take steps to ensure that local authorities have the necessary resources?

We recommended that the Government appoint a lead regulator to address these shortcomings. To get an overall grip and provide authoritative leadership of this important opportunity, we also recommended that the Chancellor chairs a sub-committee of the Cabinet to turn the Government’s enthusiasm into action. The Department of Energy and Climate Change’s frankly flaccid, complacent response to our report provides ample evidence of why that leadership is so badly needed.

I would have thought that closing DECC completely might be the way forward.

Joel Barnett

It's sometimes said that climate change scepticism is a right-wing thing and that everyone who opposes the global warming movement prays to Margaret Thatcher each night.

Joel Barnett, who passed away recently, was one man who gave the lie to that absurd conspiracy theory. Better known as the author of the "Barnett formula" by which public spending is apportioned between the different parts of the UK, he was a lifelong Labour supporter and latterly a trustee of the GWPF.

Lord Donoughue, a colleague in the Labour Party and at GWPF, has written an obituary here.

They didn't audit the model

The National Audit Office has just issued a report into the UK's flood defences and declares that the country is not doing enough. Helpfully, the auditors report on the "risks to future sustainability", the first of which is as follows:

The projected impact of climate change on flood risk
2.16 The 2012 Climate Change Risk Assessment outlined that rising sea levels and increased rainfall will have a significant impact on flood risk. It noted that Northern Europe has had more frequent spells of very wet weather over the previous 40 years; that future winters will become wetter; and that rainfall will increase across all UK regions. Similarly, sea levels are expected to continue to rise and the rate of this rise is also expected to increase. The impact of climate change is one of 10 top issues the Department’s Chief Scientist recently raised concerning research and development issues facing the Department.

Click to read more ...

Barton Moss comes up trumps

IGas has just told investors about the results of its exploratory drilling at Barton Moss outside Manchester and it looks like excellent news:

The key results from the Barton Moss well cores...are as follows:

• Total Organic Carbon ("TOC") analysis indicates values of up to  5.72% with an average of ca. 1.9%
• The thermal maturity measurements of the shale places the shale in the gas generating window as per the basin model predictions

Click to read more ...

Snow longer a thing of the past

Snow in Scotland was at one time said, somewhat notoriously, to be a thing of the past. What then to make of Helen Rennie, who has apparently skied in the Cairngorms in 61 consecutive months?

RT @theiaincameron: Today, Helen Rennie skied on last season's snow at Ciste Mhearad, Cairn Gorm. That's month 61. pic.twitter.com/t2YgzqGZSD

— MCofS (@MCofS) November 4, 2014

Stratospheric persistence

Climatologists are nothing if not persistent. A new paper by a large team of climate scientists, among them Susan Solomon and Ben Santer, reckons it has found the reason for the model-observations divergence. I think this brings the tally of explanations to over 40 now. The correct answer, it seems, is that aerosol cooling, in particular that due to volcanoes, has been severely underestimated:

Understanding the cooling effect of recent volcanoes is of particular interest in the context of the post-2000 slowing of the rate of global warming. Satellite observations of aerosol optical depth (AOD) above 15 km have demonstrated that small-magnitude volcanic eruptions substantially perturb incoming solar radiation. Here we use lidar, AERONET and balloon-borne observations to provide evidence that currently available satellite databases neglect substantial amounts of volcanic aerosol between the tropopause and 15 km at mid to high latitudes, and therefore underestimate total radiative forcing resulting from the recent eruptions. Incorporating these estimates into a simple climate model, we determine the global volcanic aerosol forcing since 2000 to be −0.19 ± 0.09 Wm⁻². This translates into an estimated global cooling of 0.05 to 0.12 °C. We conclude that recent volcanic events are responsible for more post-2000 cooling than is implied by satellite databases that neglect volcanic aerosol effects below 15 km.

I'm not sure what they've actually done, since the paper is paywalled. No doubt the credibility of their claims will be examined over the next couple of days.

Diary date, Westminster edition

This Wednesday lunchtime, there's an event at Westminster that may well be of interest to readers:

#RepealClimateAct

Speakers include Roger Helmer UKIP MEP: A practical UK energy policy - explaining what is needed and how the EU is driving the UK's energy crisis.

More details here.