Jump to content

IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers


Recommended Posts

can you offer any models that speak to your "plenty of explanations"... that can attribute warming to your "plenty of explanations"... while discounting the significance of human induced CO2 increase?

The IPCC is the only organization that has access to the milions upon millions of dollars (subsidies) that are required to develop models that can try mimic all the forces of nature. To think that the IPCC knows every single component of the Climate System and knows what contribution each makes to Climate Change is dubious. What other scientists can do - and have been doing - is to properly analyse individual pieces of the Climate System. Here is only one of several peer-reviewed studies that seems to be broadly accepted.....but I sincerely doubt that it will find its way into the IPCC models even though the IPCC says:

"The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature.".

I'm sure that there will be plenty of "peer-reviewed" papers coming from the alarmist community to refute Dr. Schwartz' position or minimize it's relevance.....but the fact remains - there is still much that is not understood and we should embrace new findings within this relatively new field of science.

We should never lose track of the fact that IPCC's mandate is:

"The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.".

As such, one could easily conclude that they are naturally biased towards human-induced influences - CO2 being the most obvious. Models were developed with a specific intent to show that. With a biased mandate, it's not surprising that they would have tunnel vision. I find it very troubling that there are so many "true believers" that in spite of the obvious bias of the IPCC, these true believers (Waldo, Wyly)will continue to blindly accept whatever the IPCC says. Sceptics believe in the role of science - create theories, challenge them, test them, change them, or discard them.

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)

“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.

Climate fears reduced to ‘children’s games’

Other scientists are echoing Wilson’s analysis. Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.”

“Recall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,” Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to,” Motl explained.

“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity,” Motl concluded.

Link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was invited to join this forum by a member and have been following this discussion. I'm with wyly and waldo here, a "warmist". No one has addressed this post so I'll give it a shot.

The 'cause' can be internal to the system. i.e. oceans can release heat that was sequestered thousands of years ago causing the air to warm. From our perspective such changes would have no identifiable cause because we cannot measure the net exchange of energy between the oceans and air.

If you disagree then please explain the 'cause' of the warming from 1910 to 1940. You will find that there is no known cause. It just 'happened' according to the IPCC.

Heat just doesn't suddenly decide it needs to be released. You still need a reason for the heat to released. So unless you have a cause for your sudden release of heat, your have nothing but speculation and speculation is not science.

IPCC suggests that the warming of the early 20th century was due to solar forcing and GHGs.

Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Niño, can cause variations in global mean temperature for relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors. Brief periods of global cooling have followed major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In the early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity. During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet. The eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 also put large quantities of reflective dust into the upper atmosphere. The rapid warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other factors.
mine

Understanding and Attributing Climate Change IPCC

I get my climate info from peer-reviewed papers found with Google scholar, RealClimate, Skepticalscience, Science Daily, NOAA, GISS, etc for the "pro-AGW" information and Wattsupwiththat, climate audit and Daily Tech for the "anti-AGW" information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heat just doesn't suddenly decide it needs to be released. You still need a reason for the heat to released. So unless you have a cause for your sudden release of heat, your have nothing but speculation and speculation is not science.
The ocean is constantly moving water and heat around the globe. Sometimes it absorbs heat from the atmosphere. Other times it releases heat. The quasi-periodic El Nino/La Nina phenomena is a short term example of this process, however, the climate models used for the IPCC projections do not reproduce this phenomena. That fact alone is enough to demonstrate that the models do not model the real climate and therefore cannot be considered to be evidence of the effect of CO2.
IPCC suggests that the warming of the early 20th century was due to solar forcing and GHGs.
The IPCC models are based on out of date solar reconstructions. The most recent reconstructions show that there was no change in solar forcing over that period which means it cannot be used to explain the warming (see http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf). GHGs forcing were also too small to explain the rise. The lack of volcanos is also not a compelling explaination since we have had no major volcanos for 17 years yet temperatures are stable for the last 10 years.

In fact, if you look at the model hind casts in the IPCC AR4 report you will see that climate models cannot reproduce the rise either. They hide this by hindcasting higher than actual temps in the 1910s and lower temps than actual temps in the 1940s (see Figure 9.5 in the PDF you linked to).

Ultimately, hindcasts are never evidence that a model is useful. They only allow one to identify which models *might* be useful. The only way to determine whether a climate model is useful is to see if it can predict the future. At this time it is clear that the IPCC climate models predict more warming than is actually occurring and we cannot have any confidence in their worth. Things could change in 5-10 years if the current temperature trends reverse but until then the stupidiest thing we could do is make major economic decisions based on the assumption that the models are likely to be correct.

Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you win the absurd logic of the week award... :lol:

cause and effect CO2 is a GHG which accumulates faster than it cycles out of the atmosphere, the greater the accumulation, the greater the effect...it is changing the ratio of a gas mixture therefore the atmosphere MUST change it's properties it is impossible to do anything else IMPOSSIBLE!...to deny it is scientific ignorance, or a denier...

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that light is blocked by CO2 the same as it is blocked by particulates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it very troubling that there are so many "true believers" that in spite of the obvious bias of the IPCC, these true believers (Waldo, Wyly)will continue to blindly accept whatever the IPCC says. Sceptics believe in the role of science - create theories, challenge them, test them, change them, or discard them.

More of the same ole, same ole... the fact you continue to posture as a self-avowed "skeptic" while at the same time posting the kinds of information/links you do, clearly shows you are in denial... denial of your denial position - a double D'er (DD)... have you no shame linking to anything from Inhofe/Morano while claiming a "skeptic" position? With the link/comment you provided, you are clearly lazy and can't be bothered to actually challenge yourself in checking the veracity of that Schwartz paper. When does a self-proclaimed skeptic accept his laziness/denial, move away from his DD position and formally announce his denial?

To you, someone who challenges your denial position is a "true believer" blindly accepting... that's easier for you to state than to accept that perhaps any degree of skepticism held by protagonists has either already been dispatched through individual analysis or is continually being countered by repeated debunking of denier's offerings/claims.

In regards your quoted material and peer-review comment, you clearly don't understand the peer-review process, as it includes the equally significant feedback mechanism... peer-response. There are a significant number of published papers that should not have been. For assorted reasons a percentage of these don't get the required scrutiny; however, they are invariably "caught" in the follow-up after publishing that, if a challenge is significant enough, it results in the publishing of counter comments/papers. In this same context, your challenge to the IPCC position (re: the bias you proclaim), is, in itself, countered by the actual peer-review/response process. While you're busy posting parts of "Principles Governing IPCC Work", within those principles the IPCC acknowledges peer-review in it's role; specifically:

Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.

Skeptics/Deniers have been a part of the actual IPCC working groups... clearly, their views had "degrees of influence" in the published reports outcome. Certainly, and equally, skeptics/deniers have had full participation in attempting to counter the actual IPCC position/reports. Clearly, the IPCC position/reports are holding their weight/substance in terms of the science - thank you very much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that there will be plenty of "peer-reviewed" papers coming from the alarmist community to refute Dr. Schwartz' position or minimize it's relevance.....but the fact remains - there is still much that is not understood and we should embrace new findings within this relatively new field of science.

Link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=

Yes, you are lazy! You don't need countering peer-reviewed papers from "any community", although they certainly exist. If nothing else, you could expend a 2-minute search to actually find Dr. Schwartz's own acknowledgment to his mistakes.

Recently I have introduced an alternative empirical approach to determining Earth's climate sensitivity by means of a single-component energy balance model. The basis of the approach is the recognition, within such a model, that the climate sensitivity S is related to the time constant for Earth's climate system to respond to a perturbation τ and the effective heat capacity of the climate system C as S = τ/C. When I present this work in a lecture I observe that this is one equation in three unknowns! What I proceeded to do in my study was first to determine the effective heat capacity of the climate system as the ratio of the slopes with time t over the instrumental record of global heat content H, which is dominated by ocean heat content, and global mean surface temperature T, C = (dH/dt)/(dT/dt). I then determined the time constant of the climate system from the decorrelation time of fluctuations of global mean surface temperature, a relation that goes back to Einstein's fluctuation-dissipation theorem. In my initial paper (Schwartz, 2007) I obtained a time constant 5 ± 1 yr, that was somewhat too low, because, as was pointed out in an about to be published (summer, 2008) Comment on my paper, there is a second, much shorter time constant, about 0.4 yr, that confounds the analysis. My revised analysis, about to be published (summer, 2008), yields a time constant of 8.5 ± 2.5 yr. This in turn results in a climate sensitivity of 0.51 ± 0.26 K/(W m-2), corresponding to an equilibrium temperature increase
for doubled CO2 of 1.9 ± 1.0 K
, somewhat lower than the central estimate of the sensitivity given in the 2007 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but consistent within the uncertainties of both estimates. The relatively short time constant of the climate system means that the departure of the current increase in GMST from that which would be expected if the system were at equilibrium is quite small.
This study is quite controversial and has drawn three about to be published Comments as well as much discussion on the Web. It also drew considerable media attention. I believe much of the attention resulted from the quite low climate sensitivity in the initial paper. I am hopeful that the work I have presented will stimulate further research along these lines to better circumscribe the limits to this approach and perhaps to more tightly constrain climate sensitivity than I have been able to do thus far.

Yes, that Schwartz paper was much hyped by the denialsphere... and continues to be as evidenced by this lazy Keepitsimple parroting. In the above quote I provided, Schwartz speaks to intending to publish a revised follow-up... if it exists, I didn't find it in a brief search. In any case, even accepting to his stated revised numbers, that revision falls in line with the lower end of the IPCC estimates for temperature increase relative to equilibrium climate sensitivity:

...as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C.

In any case, the approach Schwartz follows in attempting to derive climate sensitivity/temperature increase has been soundly refuted, many times over... through published material and "other". Only a lazy DD'r would bother with it anymore :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you are lazy! You don't need countering peer-reviewed papers from "any community", although they certainly exist. If nothing else, you could expend a 2-minute search to actually find Dr. Schwartz's own acknowledgment to his mistakes.

Waldo.....how did you know I was lazy? You have such clever insight. My point has always been that the science is not settled and that Schwartz' paper is further proof that there is still much to be discovered and quantified in Climate Science. You still don't understand how a so-called sceptic approaches these issues - it's not that I don't believe that CO2 plays a role and by extension, arthropogenic factors are present - it's that there are many uncertainties, if not unknowns. Don't be duped by the IPCC - keep an open mind. If you believe that the IPCC is completely unbiased, you won't be an effective advocate for anything but blind allegiance. As their mandate says, they don't do science - they review peer-reviewed papers and draw conclusions....but they all reside in a framework of estimates and likelihoods. I'll quote from your own follow-up article from Schwartz as an example:

This in turn results in a climate sensitivity of 0.51 ± 0.26 K/(W m-2), corresponding to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.9 ± 1.0 K, somewhat lower than the central estimate of the sensitivity given in the 2007 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but consistent within the uncertainties of both estimates.
Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So? Ever heard of curve fitting? That is where one creates a model that match the existing data perfectly by picking the right parameters. That is all the IPCC models do. People have done the same with simple models and shown that that natural variations can explain the warming fine. The trouble is you cannot get $billions in funding for supercomputers if all you want to show is that climate is changing and there is nothing governments can do about it.

huh? Near perfect backcasting is the norm with any models/modeling... does your criticism extend to the predictive capabilities of climate models? Are you suggesting there are no climate models with demonstrated predictive result... exactly how is your apparent selectivity being applied in evaluating the accuracy/relevance of climate models?
Ultimately, hindcasts are never evidence that a model is useful. They only allow one to identify which models *might* be useful. The only way to determine whether a climate model is useful is to see if it can predict the future. At this time it is clear that the IPCC climate models predict more warming than is actually occurring and we cannot have any confidence in their worth. Things could change in 5-10 years if the current temperature trends reverse but until then the stupidiest thing we could do is make major economic decisions based on the assumption that the models are likely to be correct

My initial question to you had a general focus on climate models, at large... do you not acknowledge any climate models as showing correlated predictive capability? Are you able to cite anything to substantiate your claim on the IPCC model predictive capabilities? I expect you'll focus on the shorter period from AR4, rather than TAR - will I be surprised if you come up with something from Tierney/Pielke Jr. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo.....how did you know I was lazy? You have such clever insight. My point has always been that the science is not settled and that Schwartz' paper is further proof that there is still much to be discovered and quantified in Climate Science. You still don't understand how a so-called sceptic approaches these issues - it's not that I don't believe that CO2 plays a role and by extension, arthropogenic factors are present - it's that there are many uncertainties, if not unknowns. Don't be duped by the IPCC - keep an open mind. If you believe that the IPCC is completely unbiased, you won't be an effective advocate for anything but blind allegiance. As their mandate says, they don't do science - they review peer-reviewed papers and draw conclusions....but they all reside in a framework of estimates and likelihoods. I'll quote from your own follow-up article from Schwartz as an example:

Schwartz's (2007) paper has no veracity by his own acknowledgment... the very nature of his process/methodology holds no foundation/weight within accepted circles. That you are clearly lazy is on exhibit continually, post after post. If you want to continue your charade with this specific example, find his purported (as stated, revision "intended") 2008 study, if it actually exists, see where it sits within the scientific community, speak to his approach and draw an inference. Or... you could continue to blindly - yes, blindly - parrot from the likes of Senator Inhofe/Morano.

As I said, there's no shortage of published paper/blog information to counter the very position/results Schwartz himself backs away from... this, from RC, is probably one of the more respective one's out there. If you bother to read it, you'll note the RC authors offer acknowledgment to Schwartz's "highly respected researcher status"... in his area of expertise... and then they proceed to dismantle his approach/method within that paper (you blindly linked to in your lazy approach).

If you're expecting absolute proof/certainty... guarantees... you don't know anything about science. Science does not deal in proof - if you want absolute proof, look within mathematics. Science deals in theory, couched in estimates and likelihoods. If you don't even understand this fundamental precept, you're worse than lazy in the DD'r position you hold within this AGW/global warming/climate change debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're expecting absolute proof/certainty... guarantees... you don't know anything about science. Science does not deal in proof - if you want absolute proof, look within mathematics. Science deals in theory, couched in estimates and likelihoods. If you don't even understand this fundamental precept, you're worse than lazy in the DD'r position you hold within this AGW/global warming/climate change debate.

Funny how I presented Schwartz' "peer-reviewed" paper as an example and you discredit his findings......yet you seem to put blind faith in anything the IPCC claims is peer-reviewed - quite a double-standard. FYI....I had personally looked at the RC site regarding his publication....it's always a good place to get a reading on how much of an impact an article has within the alarmist community because of its biased agenda. The article clearly struck a nerve - that's why I used it as an example.

By the way Waldo - you repeatedly called me lazy.....and while I really don't take offence, I believe that gives me the right to make an observation about your character. Putting aside the religious zeolotry, your responses to everyone are dripping with arrogance and self importance. It's not a pretty picture.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science deals in theory, couched in estimates and likelihoods.
And government policy is determined by balancing the inherent uncertainty vs. the cost of action. i.e. the less certain the science the harder it is to justify radical policy changes. More imporantly, it is up to the politicians and the people who elect them - NOT scientists - to decide whether a particular policy is justified after taking into account the cost of implementing the policy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how I presented Schwartz' "peer-reviewed" paper as an example and you discredit his findings......yet you seem to put blind faith in anything the IPCC claims is peer-reviewed - quite a double-standard. FYI....I had personally looked at the RC site regarding his publication....it's always a good place to get a reading on how much of an impact an article has within the alarmist community because of its biased agenda. The article clearly struck a nerve - that's why I used it as an example.

you can't even be topical/timely with your parroting... when that 2007 Schwartz paper first came out it generated a ton of hype from the "ta da" denier types... and correspondingly a huge very successful debunking effort to the point the only play that paper and it's approach/methodology gets (anymore) is if some lazy DD'r trots it out thinking it has any kind of real relevance. It hasn't - none... simply read Schwartz's own words in acknowledging his mistakes (per the link I provided to his own web-site). It's not me discrediting his findings... it's the peer-response that flooded in. C'mon - take up the challenge... find something else out there with substance/credence that accepts Schwartz's process/methodology - past or present... presuming you're not too lazy to actually do a bit of checking. You checked RC - ha, that's a laugh... as for your personal thoughts, I could give a rats ass what you have to say as you're simply a lazy huckster posturing like you actually know what you're talking about... you're not even in the game, buddy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... as for your personal thoughts, I could give a rats ass what you have to say as you're simply a lazy huckster posturing like you actually know what you're talking about... you're not even in the game, buddy!

Thank you for confirming your arrogance and self-importance. Contrary to all the models, I'll just watch the temperature getting colder for the next 20 years....just as it's stayed pretty neutral for the last 10 - maybe cooled a tad. 2009 in Canada had a spring season that was #42 on the warm list since 1948. Summer was #27 on the warm list. We're in for a chilly year. All of the IPCC components that you spew are embedded in models that never foresaw what we are observing right now.....until of course it happens, then they have all sorts of explanations. It's tiresome.....and so are you. Ho-hum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ocean is constantly moving water and heat around the globe. Sometimes it absorbs heat from the atmosphere. Other times it releases heat. The quasi-periodic El Nino/La Nina phenomena is a short term example of this process, however, the climate models used for the IPCC projections do not reproduce this phenomena. That fact alone is enough to demonstrate that the models do not model the real climate and therefore cannot be considered to be evidence of the effect of CO2.

What evidence do you have that the ocean has been releasing it's heat since the 1970s? Oceans have been warming as evidenced by the rising sea levels.

Incorrect. IPCC models do indeed simulate aspects of ENSO.

• Progress in the simulation of important modes of climate

variability has increased the overall confidence in the models’ representation of important climate processes.

As a result of steady progress, some AOGCMs can now simulate important aspects of the El Niño-Southern

Oscillation (ENSO). Simulation of the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) remains unsatisfactory.

WG1 ch 4

The IPCC models are based on out of date solar reconstructions. The most recent reconstructions show that there was no change in solar forcing over that period which means it cannot be used to explain the warming (see http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf). GHGs forcing were also too small to explain the rise. The lack of volcanos is also not a compelling explaination since we have had no major volcanos for 17 years yet temperatures are stable for the last 10 years.

But the claim was that IPCC had no cause for the early 20th century cooling, not that the IPCC was wrong. One paper is not enough to overturn mainstream thinking. Even Svalgaard admits more research is needed. So looks like you and I agree. IPCC did have a cause for early 20th century cooling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What evidence do you have that the ocean has been releasing it's heat since the 1970s? Oceans have been warming as evidenced by the rising sea levels.
The oceans have been rising for the last 10,000 years and will continue to rise no matter what humans do. We also have no data on deep ocean heat content so we have no way to know if heat sequested in the deep ocean is heating the ocean surface as well as the air.
Incorrect. IPCC models do indeed simulate aspects of ENSO.
Some do but not the models used to make predictions for the future which are the only models we care about because those are the models being used to justify major government policies. Perhaps the best illustration of why we cannot trust the models can be found in this graph.

That graph shows the absolute temperature of the earth produced by the models instead of using differences from some baseline. You can see that the IPCC models think the real earth temperature is anything from 13degC to 16degC - an error that is larger than the amount of future warming predicted by the IPCC. This large range of error also illustrates that the climate models do not model the physics of climate correctly. If they did they would be able to agree on what the current earth temperature is.

But the claim was that IPCC had no cause for the early 20th century cooling, not that the IPCC was wrong. One paper is not enough to overturn mainstream thinking.
One paper is more than enough to overturn mainstream thinking. In this case, the Svalgaard position is more or less accepted as the best representation of reality among solar scientists. The only people clinging to old reconstructions are climate scientist on both sides of the debate who need a large solar effect to justify their positions.

But the more important message is this: the IPCC model hindcasts were likely invalidated by new research before the ink was dry on AR4. This demonstrates that the science is far from settled and the IPCC is grossly exagrerrating the reliability of the models and we should not be making major policy decisions based on the assumption that these models have any connection to reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for confirming your arrogance and self-importance. Contrary to all the models, I'll just watch the temperature getting colder for the next 20 years....just as it's stayed pretty neutral for the last 10 - maybe cooled a tad. 2009 in Canada had a spring season that was #42 on the warm list since 1948. Summer was #27 on the warm list. We're in for a chilly year. All of the IPCC components that you spew are embedded in models that never foresaw what we are observing right now.....until of course it happens, then they have all sorts of explanations. It's tiresome.....and so are you. Ho-hum.

Perfect – you’re demonstrating your complete lack of understanding… even the basics… by speaking to regional variations of seasonal temperatures… “anecdotally averaged”… from a single year, 2009… and from that… you’d like to infer something about climate… about climate change… and about global climate change. Your further suggestion that the last decade has “stayed pretty neutral” is false – global warming has continued during the past decade.

Your demonstrated prowess shows you don’t acknowledge/understand one of the most fundamental tools/processes within climate science… within science in general… using trend analysis to discover trends across longer-term data sets. How do presume to challenge AGW when you don’t even understand what it is, or one of the aspects of how it is observed/demonstrated... when you don’t even recognize the distinction between short-term natural variability and long-term increases in globally and seasonally averaged surface temperatures?

Climate change modelling has most certainly recognized, acknowledged and accounted for everything you’ve just, as you stated, “spewed”.

Ho-hum… indeed! Please continue highlighting your lazy prowess :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your further suggestion that the last decade has stayed pretty neutral is false global warming has continued during the past decade.

Show me your proof - using RSS and UAH temperatures - that warming has continued for the last 10 years. Surface temperature "monitoring stations" are a joke. I'm sure there is a graph around somewhere that interprets slight cooling into continuous warming....but I'm willing to look at what you have to offer. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why IPCC theory says that tropospheric temperatures should be 1.2 times that of surfact temperatures.....but the models show that UAH and RSS temperatures are in fact less - by a significant margin. My money's on the surface stations' temperature being inflated due to the urban heat islands and a refusal to just use rural stations to get clean readings.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me your proof - using RSS and UAH temperatures - that warming has continued for the last 10 years. Surface temperature "monitoring stations" are a joke. I'm sure there is a graph around somewhere that interprets slight cooling into continuous warming....but I'm willing to look at what you have to offer. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why IPCC theory says that tropospheric temperatures should be 1.2 times that of surfact temperatures.....but the models show that UAH and RSS temperatures are in fact less - by a significant margin. My money's on the surface stations' temperature being inflated due to the urban heat islands and a refusal to just use rural stations to get clean readings.

RRS and UAH report that September 2009 was 2nd only to 1998 the super el nino year for hottest on record by only .01...

UAH RRS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards R. Essenhigh’s principal assertion concerning CO2 residence times, he addresses the simple molecule focused residence time of CO2 and completely discounts the much longer effective residence time relative to the near equilibrium between ocean/atmosphere and atmosphere/biosphere. The following paper from David Archer, one of the world’s pre-eminent climatologists, soundly refutes any of R. Essenhigh’s claims concerning CO2 residence times: ...

David Archer does not account for certain extra mechanisms that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which results in the so-called “missing carbon sink”. These extra mechanisms, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, need to be adequately explained and understood if the extent of human impact on the global carbon cycle is to be acceptably assessed and reliably predicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oceans have been rising for the last 10,000 years and will continue to rise no matter what humans do. We also have no data on deep ocean heat content so we have no way to know if heat sequested in the deep ocean is heating the ocean surface as well as the air.

You still need a cause and evidence for the sudden release of heat from the ocean. Without a way to check and confirm, your conjecture is nothing but speculation. And once again, speculation is not science.

Some do but not the models used to make predictions for the future which are the only models we care about because those are the models being used to justify major government policies. Perhaps the best illustration of why we cannot trust the models can be found in this graph.

That graph shows the absolute temperature of the earth produced by the models instead of using differences from some baseline. You can see that the IPCC models think the real earth temperature is anything from 13degC to 16degC - an error that is larger than the amount of future warming predicted by the IPCC. This large range of error also illustrates that the climate models do not model the physics of climate correctly. If they did they would be able to agree on what the current earth temperature is.

I tracked down your last image, but I'm not going to track down every claim you link to. I'm too familiar with blogs making incorrect statements to accept everything that is stated. If you have a IPCC source for the linked graph, I need to see it before I respond. Otherwise, I'll just view your link as another unreferenced blog with no credibility.

One paper is more than enough to overturn mainstream thinking. In this case, the Svalgaard position is more or less accepted as the best representation of reality among solar scientists. The only people clinging to old reconstructions are climate scientist on both sides of the debate who need a large solar effect to justify their positions.

How can you state that this paper is enough to overturn mainstream thinking when Svalgaard himself writes:
But to be proactive y'all might at least contemplate what your stance about climate change would be, should I turn out to be correct that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago.
mine bold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RRS and UAH report that September 2009 was 2nd only to 1998 the super el nino year for hottest on record by only .01...

UAH RRS

Here's all the RSS monthly anomoly data......the far right column is Global.....they average out all the individual months and then show how much above or below the average each month is......certainly you're right that September was an odd month.....the hottest individual month for some time.....but if you'll notice feb/mar/apr/may for 2008....that looks like the coldest period that RSS has ever measured. I really am trying to be objective but in looking at the numbers, it really does look like nothing much has happened since 1998. It's actually quite interesting to look at the raw numbers - instead of a scaled graph.

Link: http://www.remss.com/data/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_2.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......certainly you're right that September was an odd month.....the hottest individual month for some time.....

as was June and nearly every other month....
but if you'll notice feb/mar/apr/may for 2008....that looks like the coldest period that RSS has ever measured. I really am trying to be objective but in looking at the numbers, it really does look like nothing much has happened since 1998. It's actually quite interesting to look at the raw numbers - instead of a scaled graph.
2008 was La Nina year and it still placed in the top ten warmest years recorded...here we are in the beginning of a weak el Nino and temps are nearing those set in the strong el nino year of '98...ocean temps are up for the entire summer...and all this while we are in the lowest solar minimum in a century... Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still need a cause and evidence for the sudden release of heat from the ocean. Without a way to check and confirm, your conjecture is nothing but speculation. And once again, speculation is not science.
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.
I tracked down your last image, but I'm not going to track down every claim you link to. I'm too familiar with blogs making incorrect statements to accept everything that is stated. If you have a IPCC source for the linked graph
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.

How can you state that this paper is enough to overturn mainstream thinking when Svalgaard himself writes:mine bold
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

hmmm oceans are heating the global but they're getting warmer/expanding...that doesn't work for me, if the oceans are losing heat they should be cooling...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your further suggestion that the last decade has “stayed pretty neutral” is false – global warming has continued during the past decade.
Show me your proof - using RSS and UAH temperatures - that warming has continued for the last 10 years. Surface temperature "monitoring stations" are a joke. I'm sure there is a graph around somewhere that interprets slight cooling into continuous warming....but I'm willing to look at what you have to offer. While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why IPCC theory says that tropospheric temperatures should be 1.2 times that of surfact temperatures.....but the models show that UAH and RSS temperatures are in fact less - by a significant margin. My money's on the surface stations' temperature being inflated due to the urban heat islands and a refusal to just use rural stations to get clean readings.

... as wyly has you covered in regards RSS/UAH temperatures, I'll respond specifically to your "surface stations/urban heat islands" challenge - again, another example of a piece of purposeful (continued) obfuscation from the denier camp. I expect you picked it up from the former TV weatherman Anthony Watts' blog and his related surfacestations.org project.

At least 3 years before Watts got started on this "crock" challenging the reliability of U.S. temperature record, a peer-reviewed paper was published by T. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center - May,2002 - Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found... abstract highlighting the compensatory adjustment measures that are applied to the temperature data to account for possibilities of "urban heat island" influence:

All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions.
To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date.
Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom,
no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures
. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.

In direct response to the Watts initiative started in 2006, T. Peterson issued another peer-reviewed paper: T. Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center - April,2006 - EXAMINATION OF POTENTIAL BIASES IN AIR TEMPERATURE CAUSED BY POOR STATION LOCATIONS

The results presented here clearly support the theory that, if poor siting causes a bias, homogeneity adjustments account for the biases and contradict the hypothesis that poor current siting causes a warm bias or even any bias in the homogeneity-adjusted U.S. temperature change record.

Given the continued/growing denier hype surrounding the Watt's initiative and its direct integrity challenge, NOAA responded with a "talking points memo" that among other points included 2 time-series analysis of data from both the complete 1218 U.S. weather stations and the select 70 U.S. weather stations that Watts' initiative claimed met appropriate standards/criteria (to exclude the impacts of any "urban heat island" influence). The results analysis show no significant differences between the data from the complete 1218 weather stations network as compared to the 70 weather stations selected/preferred by the Watt's initiative.

...given it exists, a

covering this denier crock related to the Watts initiative and challenge to the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...