http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/global-warming-is-no-longer-a-planetary-emergency/
Kano: No, what they say is not correct. The globe has warmed. The warming has occurred primarily due to increases in greenhouse gases. You mentioned before that you believe that the slowdown in warming over the past decade means that climate sensitivity due to increases in CO2 is less than what they say. This is not true. Climate sensitivity deals with the the amount of energy input compared to the amount of energy output. The measurements I showed you before deal with the amount of energy already being retained. There is no question as to the amount of energy being retained by increasing amounts of CO2. Climate sensitivity, currently, deals with how the water cycle will respond in a warming atmosphere. More clouds = less energy in (Dependent on cloud type), more atmospheric water vapour = more energy retained. Water vapour concentration will increase in a warming atmosphere regardless of the source of the warming.
The IPCC has a section concerning the physical processes involved in climate sensitivity (1). The first one is lapse rate, the current thinking of which may or may not be called into question dependent on the presence of the tropical hot spot. The presence of the tropical hot spot depends on what data set you look at. Therefor to state there is definitely one or there is definitely not one is false. The second is the presence of clouds which, as I posted in another thread, have been rather steady with a slight decline of 0.4% per decade.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1...
Changes in albedo is another aspect dealing with climate sensitivity.
Monckton is a known charlatan. Plenty of sites and sources he claims to be a member of have had to post responses on their sites concerning claims he has made. The UK parliament has sent numerous letters to him denouncing his claims that he is a member of the House of Lords.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2...
Furthermore, dealing with Monckton's claim to have written a peer reviewed paper, the APS has gone and had to put a statement on their site denouncing his claim.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters...
Of course him and his cohorts have gone on and said it is all part of the conspiracy. He has also claimed to have invented a way to cure HIV, malaria and Grave's disease.
http://vimeo.com/45097141
Why anyone continues to give him any attention at all is silly. Yet he is a regular contributor in WUWT. Tells you something about the blog doesn't it?
His previous antics include him claiming to be the scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher, he was not, and being evicted from a UN climate conference for impersonating a delegate. He's even trying to get 'birther' support.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/lord-m...
Edit: If you would like to check out actual sources for ice I would recommend here: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
If you prefer somewhere with a greater amount of community I recommend this forum: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.ph... as they post daily updates. Also curious on how you can come to the conclusion that it is very slight and very slow giving that the brightness temperature due to CO2 along over the past 10 years has increased by 0.6K while other greenhouse gases increase that amount by quite a bit.
Wow, I work in science and I've never heard of them and a quick ask around my office (8 climate scientists) and they have never heard of this organisation either.
Of course your link comes from watts supplied to him by lord mockingtone, so no real surprise there I guess.
So a quick look at the very first name supplied by watts for members of this group
Christopher Essex - he seems linked to many institutes well known for their denier propaganda, Cato, Fraser and Heartland, why am I not surprised.
http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-es...
I guess I am surprised that deniers are still trying to play this same lame tactic of pretending these are real organisations
The next two are not scientists at all Pietro Grasso, Vaclav Klaus are respectively a judge and a politician - a politician well known for pushing the denier line. Although if he grows his hair out Vaclav Klaus could have a career as a David Letterman impersonator.
The last Antonino Zichichi is a particle physicists notice the lack of a single climate or climate related scientist, in fact this organisation that claims 10,000 members has made Essex (mathematician) "chairman of the Federation’s permanent monitoring panel on climate" so they more or less admit they have not one climate scientist in their ranks, this is looking like a weaker and shorter lasting fiction than the rather sad OISM petition.
I start to wonder if watts is really a denier at all, given he just keeps posting this stuff that is easily debunked and which clearly damages the denier cause.
Interesting, even you admit they are
"frivolous and shallow" and "I don't care about Monckton or Watts"
Then why do you keep posting them, I note not even an attempt to defend the organisation of the 'so called' ten thousand, that is unable to get one climate scientist into the lead of the group reporting on the problem of climate change.
You also talk of eschenbach and svaalgaard and their good papers again interesting given eschenbach's qualifications, http://www.desmogblog.com/willis-eschenb...
So denier experts now need a Massage Certificate and B.A., Psychology, interesting
svalgaard is a solar scientist, deniers push his theories, but don't seem to understand them, he predicted a new maunder minimum, I'm sorry but how does that change the characteristics of Co2 in our atmosphere, if we did have one the Co2 is still there, a change in an outside forcing does not change the problem here, the LIA (which is linked to the maunder minimum) is thought to have been affected by several major volcanic eruptions as well that added to the cooling. Svaalgaard also seems to overlook the small fact that warming caused so far is already a match for the drop seen in the global average seen during the LIA and by the end of the century it will be well above the effect of the LIA, so at best a new maunder minimum would ease the problem (for a while) and would then be followed by a fairly rapid rise when the (predicted event) finishes, how does this in any way discount the theory of AGW.
get real. WUWT and the 'Lord of Benchley"?
a real skeptic would check who's behind 'The World Federation of Scientists'
Here is what desmogblog discovered about three of you new heroes, each of these being associated with heartland Institute which makes them unreliable and they are diehard deniers
http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-es...
http://www.desmogblog.com/vaclav-klaus
http://www.desmogblog.com/antonino-zichi...
Considering your source we can safely ignore you
The World Federation of Scientists says so.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/global-warming-is-no-longer-a-planetary-emergency/
