IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers

[hands4]

The IPCC argument is that there is 'no other explanation' but CO2 for the warming. They make this claim despite the fact that they cannot reproduce the 70 year quasi-periodic ESNO signal in GMST without resorting fudge factors with aerosols. That is not science. That is speculation. The fact is ocean currents transport a lot of energy around the globe and the take centuries to do it. We don't have the data that would allow us to determine what scale of heat transfer is going on. That said, ocean currents are just one potential internal source of energy that is being ignored. Clouds are another. Roy Spencer has developed a simple model that shows that random changes in cloud cover can persist for decades and can cause climate to change without any external forcing.

Help me out here. What "70 year quasi-periodic ESNO signal"?

You can download the data and graph it yourself from the climate model from the climate explorer.

The graph is correct. And Gavin from RC has acknowledged that the climate models do produce different GMSTs, however, he thinks it is not important. I disagree because the climate modellers claim that the models actually represent the physics of climate. This cannot possibly be true if they cannot agree on the current temperature of the earth.

Ignoring my obvious question, let me ask you if you know why anomalies, rather than actual temperature are used?

Svalgaard is much less tentative in statements he makes in other forums. He has stated explicitly that his reconstruction has been accepted by the solar science community and that is sufficient to cast a lot of doubt on any climate models that require older reconstruction to reproduce past temperatures.

OK. You mention Spencer with no link to his paper. You mention comment by Svalgaard with no links to his comments. You mention a 70 year cycle with nothing I can review. It would help this discussion if you posted something for me to read instead of having to guess what you're referencing.

[Riverwind]

Help me out here. What "70 year quasi-periodic ESNO signal"?

I simply assumed that anyone familiar with the topic would be aware of it since there is a lot of support for literature. Here is one paper.

Ignoring my obvious question, let me ask you if you know why anomalies, rather than actual temperature are used?

Anomolies factor out the seasonal cycle and make it easier to compare Dec temps to July temps. However, the earth's energy balance is a function of the absolute temperature - not anomalies. It is the energy balance that determines how much warming we experience. The fact that the models cannot agree on the where we are now does not give us much confidence in their predictions of where we are going.

OK. You mention Spencer with no link to his paper. You mention comment by Svalgaard with no links to his comments.

Try here for Spencer.

You would have to read Svalgaard's comments at Climate Audit to see what he thinks when he is not writing diplomatic scientific prose.

[hands4]

I simply assumed that anyone familiar with the topic would be aware of it since there is a lot of support for literature. Here is one paper.

Anomolies factor out the seasonal cycle and make it easier to compare Dec temps to July temps. However, the earth's energy balance is a function of the absolute temperature - not anomalies. It is the energy balance that determines how much warming we experience. The fact that the models cannot agree on the where we are now does not give us much confidence in their predictions of where we are going.

Try here for Spencer.

You would have to read Svalgaard's comments at Climate Audit to see what he thinks when he is not writing diplomatic scientific prose.

Thanks for the links. I'll return once I've read them.

[hands4]

Try here for Spencer.

A quick read of this paper and I find some problems.

Fig. 1. Projected warming (assumed here to occur by 2100) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the IPCC climate models versus from various observational indicators.

8 years of observations??

In effect, I asked the model to show me what combinations of those model parameters yielded a temperature history approximately like that seen during 1900-2000. And here’s an average of all of the simulations that came close to the observed temperature record:

Weren't you the person complaining about curve fitting in a previous post?

Fig. 4. A simple energy balance model driven by cloud changes associated with the PDO can explain most of the major features of global-average temperature fluctuations during the 20th Century. The best model fits had assumed ocean mixing depths around 800 meters, and feedback parameters of around 3 Watts per square meter per degree C.

"ocean mixing depths around 800 meters"??

Mixed-layer: definition.

the mixed-layer is the layer between the ocean surface and a depth usually ranging between 25 and 200m

source

Sorry. Dr. Spencer is not on my "credible" list.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The only credible source is the accuwindow forecast.

[Riverwind]

Weren't you the person complaining about curve fitting in a previous post?

Yep it is an exercise in curve fitting like the IPCC climate models. However, in this case, it happens to show that phenomena other than CO2 can explain the warming. It is sufficient to refute the IPCC claim that the warming cannot be explained without the effect of CO2 even if it is not sufficient to prove that it is the correct explaination. Edited November 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[hands4]

Yep it is an exercise in curve fitting like the IPCC climate models. However, in this case, it happens to show that phenomena other than CO2 can explain the warming. It is sufficient to refute the IPCC claim that the warming cannot be explained without the effect of CO2 even if it is not sufficient to prove that it is the correct explaination.

All it shows is that Spencer can get the graph he wants by using bad data, you know GIGO.

[Riverwind]

All it shows is that Spencer can get the graph he wants by using bad data, you know GIGO.

No different from the IPCC with its climate models. Note how the sulfate forcings conveniently cancel out the GHG forcings until 1980 in the models used by the IPCC. It is no coincidence. The modellers simply picked the values for sulfate forcings they needed in order to get the results they wanted. They can get away with it because there is no reliable data for these forcings - perfect example of GIGO. Edited November 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Weren't you the person complaining about curve fitting in a previous post?

Yep it is an exercise in curve fitting like the IPCC climate models. However, in this case, it happens to show that phenomena other than CO2 can explain the warming. It is sufficient to refute the IPCC claim that the warming cannot be explained without the effect of CO2 even if it is not sufficient to prove that it is the correct explaination.

Apparently, you have no qualms in accepting back-cast curve fitting when it suits your selective intent... yet, it was something you previously used to cast doubt on modeling, in general... and the IPCC models, in particular.

Frankly, I can't decipher this, your latest reply - do you seriously entertain Spencer's position, or are you offering it simply because it's something (anything) that suggests Global Warming is not caused by mankind?

There's certainly no shortage of substantive information to soundly refute Spencer... that should be enough on it's own. However, Spencer's other positions against mainstream science have bearing on his legitimacy (and motivations) - and I could care less if anyone might consider speaking to Spencer's other positions as ad hominem... particularly in this climate change discussion, Spencer's other positions are not irrelevant, most significantly his advocacy for Intelligent Design (Creationism). Obviously, rejecting science is not a religious requirement; however, if one's religious views cause a rejection of science, one's objectivity towards science becomes a legitimate and relevant issue.

[sunsettommy]

It has since then been shown that a large part of the 2007 IPCC report are either not peer reviewed,or published papers or even some are from environmentalists organizations.

Yet the Chairman of the IPCC keeps telling us that it is based on peer reviewed science.

Edited April 7, 2011 by sunsettommy