A new paper by Demetris Koutsoyiannis et al has been published, which demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value. The full paper entitled, ‘On the Credibility of Climate Predictions’ is published in the Journal of Hydrological Sciences, and is available for free download. 18 years of climate model predictions for temperature and precipitation at 8 locations worldwide were evaluated.
The Abstract states:
Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.
Hat tip to Climate Audit
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Have a look at the talk that I gave at the Lavoisier Sociey AGM in Melbourne Australia on the 11th of July.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
This may change your mind about the causes of climate change.
Ninderthana; very interesting; maybe we can send Rudd, Gore et al to the sun with a big stop and a big go sign which they can use depending on what conditions we want to have on Earth; they can go at night so they won’t get burnt; the expedition should cost less than the AGW proposals.
Yo Jennifer, the following just crossed my mind;
Are you, or any associated entity of yourself funded by any coal or gas interests, or any entity funded by them? Or also any entities which benefit from irrigation on the Murray.
Whats your answer here?
Yo Jennifer, the following just crossed my mind;
What stopped it?
On a more salient point; this paper by Koutsoyiannis looks to be a polished up version of this one which surfaced in May;
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850
I have been banging on about it for some time, and it doesn’t seem to have got much reaction at the usual AGW websites.
cohenite,
Serious contradictory evidence is usually met with silence at the usual AGW sites for a simple reason – if it isn’t discussed, it cannot therefore exist.
And it seems Glen the troll is being ignored – I had a letter published in The Age a couple of years ago and was subsequently labelled as being in the pay of the coal and oil companies.
I wish.
Here’s a headline for you:
“New Ice Shelf Breakaway Demonstrates Lack of Credibility of Anti-AGW Advocates”
Bloody reality – always interferes at inconvenient moments.
The cheek of it!
Glen is obviously bitter about having defend junk science paid for by governments and environmental groups. Thankfully, the process of sorting out reality does not rely on who pays the bills (regardless of how loud Glen screams).
Having said that, anybody know how I can some of this “oil and coal” funding?
Russ” “Having said that, anybody know how I can some of this “oil and coal” funding?”
Become an AGW advocate.
Grendel says:
“New Ice Shelf Breakaway Demonstrates Lack of Credibility of Anti-AGW Advocates”
Did you bother to check the age of ice shelf? If you did you would find out that it formed a mere 3000 years ago after one of the periodic warm cycles in the arctic ended. In fact, every one of these collapsing ice shelves can be traced back to a period of cooling which suggusts that the collapse of ice shelves is a normal and repeating cycle of nature.
Grendel says:
“New Ice Shelf Breakaway Demonstrates Lack of Credibility of Anti-AGW Advocates”
depends where you source the story from.
http://www.wikio.com/news/Derek+Mueller
(Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Ice shelf breaking off?
That means a massive ice making machine – ice shelfs don’t break off from warming, they quietly melt and recede.
The same misinterpretation is applied to Antarctic glacial calving, you know those images of ice bergs crashing into the ocean? Well the Grendels here think this is also melting due to warming.
Another case of climate scientists with little or no training in geoscience misinterpreting physical reality.
Louis,
Here is a link to the story:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/30/canada.arctic.ice.ap/index.html
According to the article:
“At 170 square miles and 130 feet thick, the Ward Hunt shelf is the largest of those remnants. Mueller said it has been steadily declining since the 1930s.”
This appears to be consistent with your claim that “ice shelfs don’t break off from warming, they quietly melt and recede”. No?
MOPPING UP THE LAST CRUMBS OF AN ANTIQUATED PARADIGM – THE TRUTH PROTECTED BY A BODYGUARD OF LIES – CLIMATE NO CHANGE AND SEX TOYS –
The science of future climate is in its infancy and is multi-disciplinary, no one branch knows the whole story. The truth is – climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable and modellers don’t expect to do well. We are being asked to take irreversible actions today, to produce un-testable postulates for tomorrow, based on computer simulated predictions in excess of 100 years. Very iffy stuff! When the Western world became increasingly pessimistic about Man’s carbon footprint, science was hijacked to decode nature’s message. The more scientists research global climate, the more we learn how much they don’t know. The more alarmists talk, the more we realize they know even less.
We live on a majestically dynamic planet with intertwining complexes. Scenarios for future climate involve natural equations of infinite variables. Fluctuation in the Sun’s intensity is arguably the controlling factor in Earth’s climate. To assume human induced carbon emissions alone will significantly alter predictions is pretentious pseudo-science. Advocating carbon change will change the way you live, but will not change future climate. It’s a blatant tax on breathing. To accept the mantra of evil carbon is to invite the death of nationalism to dinner.
The western world is not going to cripple itself to iron-out injustice. The moral or philosophical question here is, does the end justify the means or the start of a slippery slope? The real question is, what will they pick on next using “science” to substantiate their stance?
//////////////////////////////
GLOBAL WARMING – SEX TOYS
CARBON EMISSIONS TRADING is like scratching your back with a dildo –
SOMEHOW it just doesn’t feel right. Blind Freddy can see the sums just don’t add up!
Last month “the world’s best thinkers” at the Copenhagen Consensus reported on a PRIORITISED list of solutions to combat the biggest challenges facing the planet.
Their findings included, research showing that even the most extreme carbon emission reductions would have an undetectable effect on warming.
The truth is… the damage cost of carbon in about $2 per Tonne – not $20 to $50 as reported by media. This uncertainty will impact on business confidence for years to come – it’s folly!
SAVE YOUR BILLIONS – direct it to where it will do the most good today rather than tilting at windmills for tomorrow. For example – address malnutrition and malaria cheaply today and save millions from death. The brain dead dilemma is; – wasting trillions for naught effect with carbon trading or spend two bob today to iron-in doable good.
Carbon cap and trade is extremely costly and will have negligible effect on future climate.
The net effect of emissions trading will have the worst impacts on the poorest people.
WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED IS SMARTER TECHNOLOGY.
On the subject of modelling, I had some fun prodding around a web-site giving a glossary of finance and investment. I didn’t have a lot of time, but had a good laugh at the entries under BANDWAGON EFFECT, GOODHART LAW, GROUPTHINK, GULLIBILITY and GURU. Also interesting were HUBRIS and HYSTERIA. Then again, maybe MAGICAL THINKING and QUANT may interest readers.
The site is at http://pagesperso-orange.fr/pgreenfinch/bfglo/bfglo.gh.htm
sjk
“Mueller said it has been steadily declining since the 1930s.”
A wishy washy generalised statement with no specifics and no specific explanation of what was declining, and therefore impossible to reconcile with the physics of a receding ice sheet.
I suppose any meaning could be attributed to such a statement, depending on how one interpreted the meaning of the white spaces between the words.
Oh, shock and surprise!!! Study shows that nothing, not even expensive computer models, can predict the future!
If these guys were selling stock selection software, they would have been arrested. However, as it’s farcically branded “science”, they’re feted and showered with money and praise. How silly can people be?
Louis,
Here is Mueller’s supervisor regarding the Ward Hunt shelf:
“In just the last century, scientists have discovered dramatic changes in the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf. Changes became apparent in the 1950s when ice-shelf investigators examined early 20th-century records of Arctic explorer Robert Peary. “It was already clear there was a vast region — much greater than today — of thick, ancient ice floating on the ocean. We estimate that this ice has now retreated by about 90 percent relative to Peary’s observations,” said Vincent.”
– http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/wardhunt/
Does that provide you with enough information to confirm that warming is a possible cause as per your original statement?
Later in the piece Mueller and others are reported as saying their observations are consistent with the warming hypothesis.
sjk
Several points here.
1. Ice has been receding since the last ice age.
2. Just about everyone concedes there has been some warming particulairly in the northern polar region.
3. The overall argument is wether co2 is to blame for that warming or wether it is natural as most people accept natural climate variations happen.
4. Ocean currents are nore important to ice in the region than air temperature, and they are shown to be quite erratic and no one can predict the temperature of the waters from year to year – they fluctuate.
sjk,
Warming or anthropogenic global warming?
As a professional (as oppposed to academic) geologist I have no problem with thermal fluctuations from geophysical causes but have enormous problems with the unscientific belief that CO2 heats things up.
The earth’s thermal mass dwarfs anything that might occur in the atmosphere, and dominates the earth system. Localised warming in arctic regions could be due to many causes – why it was only recently that submarine arctic volcanic activity was discovered, and attributable to a crustal thermal surge circa 1997-1999.
It is likely that a similar process might be operating in the Ward Hunt Ice shelf region.
But to blame it on humans oxidising carbon, (which is what we do when we breathe, among other natural activities) is quite absurd.
And if the Ming Dynasty Chinese maps are any indication, that area was probably ice free during the 15th as well. In fact if must have been for Greenland to have been called Greenland.
Heya Jennifer, are you or an associated entity funded directly or indirectly by oil,coal gas or irrigation interests ?
Lol
Looks like someone is on to Jens evil Haliburtonbu$hitlercaltex cabal membership and can bring our entire conspiracy crashing down.
sjk
Here is a better explanation:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-trackback.php?p=3362
SJT,
not to be too picky, but, it doesn’t appear that statements like
“It was already clear there was a vast region — much greater than today — of thick, ancient ice floating on the ocean. We estimate that this ice has now retreated by about 90 percent relative to Peary’s observations,…”
involve a lot of hard data. You know, like advanced dating techniques. Physical measurements etc.
I rank this right up there with the Canadian Gubmint Ship sailing the Northwest Passage in 1944. Great anecdote, but, doesn’t really say much about conditions in other areas of the arctic, or, for that matter, the actual conditions during the passage.
Got any real data??
“Unprecedented since 2005”
Just terrific; now who are these people with these oil questions?
Here’s one especially for you Louis.
Forgive me if I have to just slide it quickly out from under “….the stinky levels of PhD smoke” (hehe 😉
http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=2008GL034639
Cough, cough….it’s all those hot (Not!) downward winds from the stratosphere blowing those “stinky levels of PhD smoke” back in my face:
http://www.agu.org/journals/scripts/highlight.php?pid=2008GL033573
Steve,
Magnificent – and if you include Bruce Leybourne’s work on the surge tectonics, the GCM’s would have to be considered, er, incomplete?
And even more incomplete if the electrodynamics of the atmosphere are considered as a source of energy/heat.
(wonders where LRON is as well – very quiet)
Oh he’s doing another one of his usual ‘Feast of the Bottom Feeders’ bit right at the end of the Bob Carter/Green Paper thread.
You know, his ‘I’m Dr. Jackal and I’m here to support me vicious little mate Mr. Hide’ routine.
Since when was “oil” a dirty word?
Only in the world where politicians are noble.
Energy companies, (touted as Big rich oil) are in the strategic and financial position to be the first in the rrace for efficiency. If we believe what the “big oil” callers say regarding buying people off, paying scientists to talk nonsense and generally holding back science, we have to look at the logic and sense of that argument.
They have the best scientists, the most money and the power to be in no position to worry if AGW were true. The notion that “big oil” has turned nasty on us and will try and destroy us all for their own ends is simply not logical. Neither are attempts to compare tobacco exec’s to “big oil”. In the former example there were no alternatives. In the latter “big oil” example there would be multiple options for diversification including: continuing to use fossel fuels, nuclear,solar/wind/hydro, new sources not yet invented and for poorer countries, burning wood.
: wherever the new and old energy comes from you can rest assured that the energy companies will be involved at the pointy end! They have always been in the best place to make strides in science. If you disbelieve that then you have lost faith in mankind and it’s achievements so far…in which case go and take a happy pill.
While you’re about it take a reality pill as well, Greed is a fact of life, not the meaning.
Picked this up – thought it would help the debate:
New data shows that Bangladesh’s landmass is increasing, contradicting forecasts that the South Asian nation will be under the waves by the end of the century, experts say.
Scientists from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) have studied 32 years of satellite images and say Bangladesh’s landmass has increased by 20 square kilometres (eight square miles) annually.
Maminul Haque Sarker, head of the department at the government-owned centre that looks at boundary changes, told AFP sediment which travelled down the big Himalayan rivers — the Ganges and the Brahmaputra — had caused the landmass to increase.
The rivers, which meet in the centre of Bangladesh, carry more than a billion tonnes of sediment every year and most of it comes to rest on the southern coastline of the country in the Bay of Bengal where new territory is forming, he said in an interview on Tuesday.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted that impoverished Bangladesh, criss-crossed by a network of more than 200 rivers, will lose 17 percent of its land by 2050 because of rising sea levels due to global warming.
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning panel says 20 million Bangladeshis will become environmental refugees by 2050 and the country will lose some 30 percent of its food production.
Director of the US-based NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, professor James Hansen, paints an even grimmer picture, predicting the entire country could be under water by the end of the century.
But Sarker said that while rising sea levels and river erosion were both claiming land in Bangladesh, many climate experts had failed to take into account new land being formed from the river sediment.
“Satellite images dating back to 1973 and old maps earlier than that show some 1,000 square kilometres of land have risen from the sea,” Sarker said.
“A rise in sea level will offset this and slow the gains made by new territories, but there will still be an increase in land. We think that in the next 50 years we may get another 1,000 square kilometres of land.”
Mahfuzur Rahman, head of Bangladesh Water Development Board’s Coastal Study and Survey Department, has also been analysing the buildup of land on the coast.
He told AFP findings by the IPCC and other climate change scientists were too general and did not explore the benefits of land accretion.
“For almost a decade we have heard experts saying Bangladesh will be under water, but so far our data has shown nothing like this,” he said.
“Natural accretion has been going on here for hundreds of years along the estuaries and all our models show it will go on for decades or centuries into the future.”
Dams built along the country’s southern coast in the 1950s and 1960s had helped reclaim a lot of land and he believed with the use of new technology, Bangladesh could speed up the accretion process, he said.
“The land Bangladesh has lost so far has been caused by river erosion, which has always happened in this country. Natural accretion due to sedimentation and dams have more than compensated this loss,” Rahman said.
Bangladesh, a country of 140 million people, has built a series of dykes to prevent flooding.
“If we build more dams using superior technology, we may be able to reclaim 4,000 to 5,000 square kilometres in the near future,” Rahman said.
I skimmed through the paper cited in this post, and it is a very complicated issue involving some serious statistical analysis. I don’t think it fair to say that the paper ‘demonstrates the lack of credibility’ of the GCMs. It purports to show that a few of the GCMs it uses don’t fit the data that it relies upon, but a light reading quickly revealed that the authors used only a few of the GCMs currently in use (2 out of 6? I couldn’t be certain). So the paper does not deal with all GCMs, just some GCMs, and hence it is not justified to interpret it to mean that all GCMs are invalidated by the paper. Moreover, there are a number of aspects of the methodology that left me confused. For example, I could not determine how the authors applied the GCMs for retrodiction what year they chose as the starting point.
Of course, some of this is surely due to my own confusion; this is, after all, a very dense paper and I am quite certain that I grasped only the simpler parts of it. But I would suggest that we wait for critical commentary on this paper before drawing any firm conclusions. The publication of a paper does not mean that it’s right; it means only that it has passed some basic tests (through the refereeing process) of soundness. The next step is to give the scientific community some time to evaluate and respond to the paper. It could well be that within five years the paper will have been trashed and forgotten. It could also well be that within five years the paper will be seen as a landmark paper. Let’s see what the literature turns up in response to this paper. In the meantime, if anybody here has any comments on the paper, I’m curious as to their interpretation of its methodology.
Oh, yes, and on the Bangladesh thing: the IPCC never predicted land loss, at least not in AR4. They predicted increased casualties due to flooding. The growth of river deltas is a well-recognized phenomenon, and that article had no surprises in it.
Chri:
if you want a more in depth discussion of the paper go to climate Audit as linked by one of the posters above. Of course you can also go to Real Climate where you will hear the paper trashed. Haven’t been there, don’t need to go, know their response before I see it. Bets anyone?
Joy, thanks for the suggestion. I have already read the piece at ClimateAudit; they all approve of the paper. You suggest that they’ll trash it, and perhaps they will, but their previous interactions with Mr. Koutsoyiannis appear to have been constructive. In any event, I suggest that we evaluate the content of the criticism rather than taking a political stance towards whatever they produce. Perhaps they’re taking their time on the paper because they want to evaluate it carefully. Let’s wait and see and not prejudge them.
Oops, I meant to write:
“You suggest that the people at RealClimate will trash it…”
Sorry.
Louis,
I take it you acknowledge that the recession of the shelf supports the warming theory.
In addition the evidence is not inconsistent with the theory of man-made climate change though in and of itself does not prove the theory.
KuhnKat,
First SJT is someone else.
I am not a scientist – why would I have the data? However, if you are saying that Mueller et al are mistaken about the recession of the shelf, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence.
I am just pointing out that Louis originally said that, “ice shelfs don’t break off from warming, they quietly melt and recede.” I’ve quoted people who have studied this particular shelf and they say it has “retreated”, therefore, using Louis’ formulation, the evidence supports the warming theory.
SJK…. I think that Ice shelf is a detached shelf, it has been melting for the last 3000 years or something…. It is no longer connected to any glacier…. I noted this somewhere in my readings and wanderings, but can’t remember where now. Might pay to check it out.
However I don’t consider it, or any ice melting to be pertinent to Proving the AGW hypothesis valid….
The signature should be in the atmosphere, not in the ice…. if there is one.
The reason no signature can be found…. Is the that the Hypothesis is flawed. Re no tropical troposphere warming as per the AGW predictions.
Also check out AIRS and their work on CO2 mixing…. Not looking good for the AGW hypothesis either…. Watts up with that has an interesting article on that.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/a-encouraging-response-on-satellite-co2-measurement-from-the-airs-team/#more-1951
Koutsoyiannis is simply pointing out the limits to modeling–an elementary though vital point to make in these early days of climate investigations. Satellites have only been around a few decades, and good ocean and solar measuring satellites only a decade or so. It’s early in the game, folks. Al Gore and his pals jumped the gun on the evidence, and will have to pay for their greed.
J.Hansford writes:
“However I don’t consider it, or any ice melting to be pertinent to Proving the AGW hypothesis valid….”
Ice melts when its temperature rises. Therefore, ice melting indicates rising temperatures — which is the basic claim of AGW.
“The signature should be in the atmosphere, not in the ice…. if there is one.”
The atmosphere and the ice are in thermal contact; one affects the other. Cumulative changes in overall atmospheric temperatures are difficult to measure because they’re spread over both location and time. But ice melt is a clear indicator of cumulative changes.
“The reason no signature can be found…. Is the that the Hypothesis is flawed. Re no tropical troposphere warming as per the AGW predictions.”
Actually, AGW predicts the biggest changes at the poles, and small changes in the tropics, where water vapor dominates. Ergo, tropical temperatures are the last place to look for evidence in favor of or against AGW, and the poles should be the first place to look.
sjk
No I do not accept that the melting of the shelf supports the warming theory – the warming theory in the first instant is not a scientific theory – its premise has never been verified by experiment.
One could equally argue that rising diurnal atmospheric temperature causes the sun to rise above the horizon at dawn.
Louis Hissink writes:
” the warming theory in the first instant is not a scientific theory – its premise has never been verified by experiment.”
You don’t test the premise of an hypothesis, you test the predictions of the hypothesis. Therefore, your criticism is misplaced.
Chris Crawford – the premise of AGW is that doubling CO2 causes a specific rise in atmospheric temperature – the climate sensitivity – and this assumption has not been verified experimentally.
Arrhenius proposed it in 1906 and challenged others to refute it.
So my criticism is spot on.
Louis, you have misstated the AGW hypothesis. There are lots of variations. The most common simplified statement is that CO2 emitted by human activities will lead to an increase in global temperatures. The increase in CO2 has been observed and the increase in temperatures has been observed. The basic AGW hypothesis has been demonstrated to be correct. The arguments concern such factors as its magnitude, rate of development and — above all — the strength of various feedback mechanisms.
Chris
“The most common simplified statement is that CO2 emitted by human activities will lead to an increase in global temperatures.”
1. This is a belief not an observed fact which required a theory. It was an extrapolation from Arrhenius’ initial hypothesis that ice ages were caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2. That hyopthesis was never proved and Arrhenius inverted the burden of proof.
2. Climate sensititity has always been “guessed” to be .8 to 3 Kelvin for a doubling of CO2, or whatever the numbers are these days. Lindzen states that theoretically it is 1 Kelvin.
3. Climate sensitivity has never been experimentally verifed.
So the AGW statement remains a statement not based on a previous observation, but from an exrapolation from an unproved hypothesis. In other words it is a belief.
In addition as CO2 is a radiative gas, it will actually lose thermal energy faster than non-radiative gases such as N2 and O2. So increasing CO2 should cause cooling.
Now who pointed out that Ice ages seem to be associated with elevated atmospheric CO2?
Chris
“The most common simplified statement is that CO2 emitted by human activities will lead to an increase in global temperatures.”
1. This is a belief not an observed fact which required a theory. It was an extrapolation from Arrhenius’ initial hypothesis that ice ages were caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2. That hyopthesis was never proved and Arrhenius inverted the burden of proof.
2. Climate sensititity has always been “guessed” to be .8 to 3 Kelvin for a doubling of CO2, or whatever the numbers are these days. Lindzen states that theoretically it is 1 Kelvin.
3. Climate sensitivity has never been experimentally verifed.
So the AGW statement remains a statement not based on a previous observation, but from an extrapolation from an unproved hypothesis. In other words it is a belief.
In addition as CO2 is a radiative gas, it will actually lose thermal energy faster than non-radiative gases such as N2 and O2. So increasing CO2 should cause cooling.
Now who pointed out that Ice ages seem to be associated with elevated atmospheric CO2?
Louis, AGW *is* a hypothesis. You are using exactly the same arguments that creationists use against evolution.
Chris Crawford
What has been proven repeatedly is that if you raise the temperature of water containing CO2 with an atmosphere above it at STP, and if in equilibrium, it will increase the CO2 content in the air column. It is the IPCC that has claimed that the CO2 was in balance (therefore equilibrium, it is a trivial exercise that if not in equilibrium, then all the claims about all the recent increases being manmade would be false), and therefore with the increased temperatures, CO2 had to go up no matter what the cause of the heat increase. Also, note that the IPCC does not agree that AGW is a hypothesis, their claim is that it is a fact within 99% of knowledge.
Yet for their claim of CO2 in equilibrium prior to man changing the balance, that CO2 increases with temperature and the effect of “it is in pipeline” indicates why Lucia’s work http://rankexploits.com/musings/ and falsifying the .2C/decade claim of the iPCC so important. It also, through the physics described above, as in, the heat from CO2 ioncrease from the increase of CO2 after the LIA, why the claim that Lucia’s working on will indicate either IPCC is falsified, or their claims of the carbon, CO2 balance will be invalidated. Either of which will invalidate the AGW hypothesis. No matter that IPCC and others have been so busy trying to prevent falsification disscussions, much less findings. The point is that whether you use the LIA, or CO2 emission by man, name your “climate” assumption…30, 20, 40, 50 years, does not matter 80% of the warming that is described by “in the pipeline” has been explained. OR, the whole contention by IPCC and modellers that the CO2(AGW) signal has been positively identified is falsified.
SO, take your pick, if the temperatures continue, the IPCC’s predictions have been falsified, and how much CO2 effects the temperature has been falsified and therfore the science; or the ability to detect the signal has been falsified by either it is in the pipeline is too long for the signal to be detected, or by the CO2-CO2xH2O relationship, falsifiying IPCC’s claims. Either way hypothesis falsified.
Interesting times indeed…
John, you write:
“Also, note that the IPCC does not agree that AGW is a hypothesis, their claim is that it is a fact within 99% of knowledge.”
I ask you to provide a quote from IPCC substantiating that assertion, as I know it to be at variance with what I have read in IPCC AR4.
The phenomenon you describe at length is well known by climatologists, and is one of the most important positive feedbacks in this field. Anthopogenic CO2 emissions increase global temperatures; those increasing temperatures lead to release of additional CO2 from the oceans, which add to the heating process. All of this is thoroughly documented in IPCC AR4.
Lastly, the conspiracy theory stuff you include only discredits you in my eyes.
I said they were
“busy trying to prevent falsification disscussions, much less findings”.
How else would you discuss the following at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
“Rajendra Pachauri isn’t nearly as famous as Al Gore, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with an international panel on climate change that Pachauri, an Indian scientist and economist, has led since 2002. But as chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Pachauri has an urgent message for world leaders about the perils of global warming. He talked to the Tribune recently while he was in town to meet with Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago civic leaders. An edited transcript follows.
Excerpts:
Q: What do you think about the small but vocal group of doubters still out there?
Pachauri Answer: There is, even today, a Flat Earth Society that meets every year to say the Earth is flat. The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point.”
The head of the IPCC stifling discussion. Credit him, don’t discredit me.
Here is what the IPCC said “There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.6 {2.2} Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the\ observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. 7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}”
You are correct that is not 99% based on knowledge it is “very high confidence”, and “very likely”. IIRC that means 9 of 10, not 99%.
You said “The phenomenon you describe at length is well known by climatologists, and is one of the most important positive feedbacks in this field. Anthopogenic CO2 emissions increase global temperatures; those increasing temperatures lead to release of additional CO2 from the oceans, which add to the heating process. All of this is thoroughly documented in IPCC AR4.”
I agree that is why if the temperature trends continue it will falsify the projections first, and secondly falsify, or severely reduce the k for the feedbacks. At present, it is cooling for year 2008.
Please note that it is human induced climate change implied in Pachauri’s, else not much we humans could or should be doing about it.
I said they were
“busy trying to prevent falsification disscussions, much less findings”.
How else would you discuss the following at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
“Rajendra Pachauri isn’t nearly as famous as Al Gore, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with an international panel on climate change that Pachauri, an Indian scientist and economist, has led since 2002. But as chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Pachauri has an urgent message for world leaders about the perils of global warming. He talked to the Tribune recently while he was in town to meet with Mayor Richard Daley and Chicago civic leaders. An edited transcript follows.
Excerpts:
Q: What do you think about the small but vocal group of doubters still out there?
Pachauri Answer: There is, even today, a Flat Earth Society that meets every year to say the Earth is flat. The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point.”
The head of the IPCC stifling discussion. Credit him, don’t discredit me.
Here is what the IPCC said “There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.6 {2.2} Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the\ observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. 7 It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}”
You are correct that is not 99% based on knowledge it is “very high confidence”, and “very likely”. IIRC that means 9 of 10, not 99%.
You said “The phenomenon you describe at length is well known by climatologists, and is one of the most important positive feedbacks in this field. Anthopogenic CO2 emissions increase global temperatures; those increasing temperatures lead to release of additional CO2 from the oceans, which add to the heating process. All of this is thoroughly documented in IPCC AR4.”
I agree that is why if the temperature trends continue it will falsify the projections first, and secondly falsify, or severely reduce the k for the feedbacks. At present, it is cooling for year 2008.
Please note that it is human induced climate change implied in Pachauri’s, else not much we humans could or should be doing about it.
Regarding Mr. Pachauri’s words: you misinterpret them when you declare that they stifle discussion. I too believe that there is no doubt that human activities since 1750 have had the net effect of warming the planet. Yet here I am, discussing it with you. I’m not trying to shut you up, not trying to suppress your ideas. Do you not believe firmly that your point of view is correct? And does that mean that you are stifling discussion?
I’m glad that we’ve gotten more precision on what the IPCC actually claims regarding the confidence of its various statements. They’re pretty careful about that.
“if the temperature trends continue it will falsify the projections first, and secondly falsify, or severely reduce the k for the feedbacks.”
I assume that by “temperature trends” you mean the fact that temperatures today are lower than they were in 1998. If my assumption be correct, I must remind you that weather is not climate.
You said “Regarding Mr. Pachauri’s words: you misinterpret them when you declare that they stifle discussion.”
I posted this comment by Pachauri “There is, even today, a Flat Earth Society that meets every year to say the Earth is flat. The science about climate change is very clear. There really is no room for doubt at this point.” The first point is the comparison of doubters to Flat earthers. The last point is that there is no room for doubt. This is a pre-emptive polemic to stifle and marginalize a position. You are incorrect that I misinterpreted the nature of the statement, by no less, the head of the IPCC.
You said “I assume that by temperature trends” you mean the fact that temperatures today are lower than they were in 1998. If my assumption be correct, I must remind you that weather is not climate.” The first part, yes, I agree that the fall especially the last 2 years, but does extend to 1998. The second part, I must remind you of what I posted. “I agree that is why if the temperature trends continue it will falsify the projections first, and secondly falsify, or severely reduce the k for the feedbacks.” “And SO, take your pick, if the temperatures continue, the IPCC’s predictions have been falsified, and how much CO2 effects the temperature has been falsified and therfore the science; or the ability to detect the signal has been falsified by either it is in the pipeline is too long for the signal to be detected, or by the CO2-CO2xH2O relationship, falsifiying IPCC’s claims. Either way hypothesis falsified.”
The point is that I specifically stated “name your “climate” assumption…30, 20, 40, 50 years, does not matter 80% of the warming that is described by “in the pipeline” has been explained.”
This is what makes the current temperature decline interesting, it is approaching the regime of climate as this point states.
You asked “Do you not believe firmly that your point of view is correct? And does that mean that you are stifling discussion?” What does it matter to the discussion what I firmly believe? The next statement is a logical non-sequitor using the “And”. I did not say that you were stifling. I pointed out that my use of Pachauri was in reply to your incorrect assertation when you posted “the conspiracy theory stuff you include…” I doubt that correctly quoting the head of the IPCC is about a conspiracy, it is his statement of the IPCC position “There is not room for doubt.”
I must protest at the vilification of the Flat Earth Society. It is well known that the earth is a flat disc. Over the past hundred years or so, the edges have curled upwards, under the weight of motor cars, power stations etc. in the middle.
This curling has trapped CO2, which used to spill over the edge. There is growing evidence that this dish shape also traps extra heat from the sun, which orbits around the earth’s rim.
Thousands of scientists support this consensus view, it is opposed only by a handful of denialists. All cars should be parked around the perimeter of the disc, so straightening it out again. We have a mathematical model which proves this would work.
We demand immediate government action, and the signing of a Motor Protocol. A press release will follow.
вагонка ждем
Spasiba tavarishch