http://www.google.com/
Why bother to pretend they are doing science?
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
IPCC Draws Conclusions First, Then Gets WWF To Back Them Up
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
I think we can pretty much count on that!
😎
I heard they actually mention Trump, Palin, and Bachmann by name this time……….
Steve, I think you meant the next meeting in Durban??? South Africa
ooops, just looked at the date, Nov. 2010, so Cancun was right.
The IPCC report will be worse! Do they mean it will be of even lower quality?
97% of scientists agree that it will be lower quality.
75 of 77 climate scientists believe it will be either of lower or higher quality, but either way that CO2 caused it.
It will have more pal reviewed, and grey “literature” references!
As remarkable as it seems, it is clear that AR5 will be much worse than AR4-
1. Conflict of interest policies do not apply to AR5 contributors.
2. Grey literature will not only be allowed, but encouraged.
3. The most atrocious, CACC-supportive buddy-reviewed papers are rolling out just before the AR5 cutoff date to create an artificial consensus.
4. Enviro-whacko Trenberth has inverted the null hypothesis by royal proclamation, obviating the necessary step of demonstrating the existence of anthro-fingerprints in weather events.
5. UNEP admits the IPCC and its climate arguments are secondary to the main goal.
6. Climate model predictions will broaden to be more catastrophic-er.
7. AR5 lead authors do not require scientific credentials, as long as messaging works.
Of course that the main results are always predecided and of course that it will be even more catastrophic than previously thought. This is a trend coming from the fact that environmentalism and its most radical version, the global warming alarmism, is regaining its status of a fringe movement pushed by hacks.
Much like the IPCC report will be thriller than ever before, it will be more irrelevant than ever before. Lots of psychiatrists will be needed for the IPCC people.
It is less and less about science and more about politics.
The IPCC still exist and plows along with another coming report soon.Shows it is not about the science.But about rationalizing why they should pass a bunch of stupid laws.For the purpose of building control over the ignorant masses.
The IPCC has been exposed as being a non science body with a veneer of science as the skin.Hiding the political beast on the inside.
Will this report include gargoyles and other assorted demons?
They are going to a place that serves lots of alcohol and hookers…again.
IPCC 5AR leaders and reviewers have been meeting and working for about 2 years now. I’m sure they have some sense of how the review is shaping up and how the report will look. Anyone who pays attention to the science since the 4AR will not find it surprising that the 5AR will conclude that the world’s climate situation is worse than that presented in the 4AR.
As evidenced by the fact that GISS is below scenario C, Envisat shows no sea level rise, record snow, and no hurricane strikes in the US for three years.
David, there’s only one thing that could possibly be considered worse….
…but that requires a belief
CO2 levels are the only thing that could be considered worse
As far as “the world’s climate situation”, everything else is the same or has improved.
No, as evidenced by the observed long-term changes in temperatures, sea-levels, arctic ice, glacial mass, precipitation and other observables.
This isn’t about the last 3 years of hurricane strikes or a brief pause in sea-level rise or the projections of a 23-yr old model. You’re smart enough to know that, but for some reason like to pretend otherwise.
The long-term change in temperatures is below scenario C. Is that somehow confusing?
Is it? So what? That model is 23 yrs old. It was a projection, not a prediction. Its deviation from reality is an opportunity to learn, about climate sensitivity (Hansen’s was a little too high) and other factors (model resolution has improved considerably since them).
CO2 is still a greenhouse gas.
David:
Models are all projections and those used for Climate are based on wild a$$ guesses. The models falsify each other if they are considered predictions but as they are possible scenarios and are all over the possible futures they have no meaning. Every possible scenario is covered from dramatic cooling to dramatic warming and none of them do regional at all. Climate is the study of long term weather variations and not what your climatologist buddies are trying to pass off as science. The closest relation is Pathological Science but Fairy Tales comes to mind when hearing the so called climate experts that create the IPCC reports.
The COP meetings bring up the old Dog and Pony extravaganzas or the circus side show. David Copperfield has more realistic illusions!
GG: Of course models are projections. There is no other possibility, since no one knows the exact socioeconomic parameters of the future.
Models are not “guesses.” They are numerical solutions to the PDEs describing the physics of climate.
“a brief pause in sea-level rise”
That is a statement of belief, not fact.
You are either absolutely clueless or plain dumb.
Have you forgotten all those hysterical claims of increasing hurricanes after the the 2005 hurricane season? There were a number of science papers published claiming this is evidence of AGW picking up steam and that we can expect more of the same sizzling high number of Hurricanes.
James Hansen has not updated or retracted that 23 year old paper.He and especially his lemming supporters are defending that failed paper in a number of places.
That is a statement of belief, not fact.
Yes, you’re right. So let’s meet back here in 10 years and compare notes.
Sure thing 😉
This was a much simpler world when all we had to do was throw a virgin in a volcano……
It’s been the end of the world and sacrifices since the beginning of time…..
world ends at 10, film at 11
Do we breed them? genetics? environmental?
We’re talking 1/2 a degree…………..get a grip
Latitude wrote:
We’re talking 1/2 a degree…………..get a grip
This is a common misunderstanding, but it is NOT what all the concern about manmade climate change is about.
It is about the future, not today. About the next several decades, the rest of this century, and the ones after that. CO2 has a long residence time and it will influence our climate for a long, lone time, especially at current emission rates,which are only increasing. It’s about the inertia of the climate system and socioeconomics, and the kind of world we leave to our children and grandchildren.
David, the people in charge of our government and economy followed trend lines….
…and look where we are
You sound like some witch doctor………LOL
I have no idea what your last comment is supposed to mean. Do you?
David:
I understand his comment and agree that your rant comes right out of the Chicken Little Doctrine. Pure Bull Fantasies that have nothing to do with the real world.
Here you can get some more practice and make more realistic claims:
They are not fantasies — they are what the science says.
“CO2 has a long residence time”
Read p. 82-83 of the book, “The Deniers” by Lawrence Solomon (who is, by the way, a staunch environmentalist). There are over 3 dozen studies that show the residence time of CO2 to be 5-10 years. The IPCC estimate is 50-200 years, and is based on computer models.
I’ve read some of Solomon’s column in the National Post. He swallows claims without analyzing them or seeking a spectrum of opinions, such as the role of solar insolation, warming on Mars, that warming is only beneficial, and more. He does not do in-depth analysis and from what I’ve seen he does not understand science and he is not a deep, critical thinker. I do not believe anything he writes and I certainly do not believe that Solomon is right about CO2 residence time and that noted scientists are wrong.
” I do not believe anything he writes and I certainly do not believe that Solomon is right about CO2 residence time and that noted scientists are wrong.”
There is that word again … believe. So what you are saying is that, without even reading the section which references over 3 dozen published scientific papers which all put the residence time of CO2 at approx. 5-10 years, you choose to BELIEVE that those scientists are wrong? Why? Is it because it is so much easier to just dismiss those scientists with a wave of your hand, rather than acknowledge that you may actually be wrong? I used to believe in AGW, as did many others on this site . But ultimately, I chose to let the facts decide for me, not what I believed.
CO2 residence time – studies vs IPCC
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi
Hey David,
I think you would be more credible if you actually knew what you were talking about. You might firstly get the gender of Solomon correct (ie: Female, as in Susan). Further, SHE has claimed that residence time (in an utter nonsensical, so-called, “study”) that residence time was 1000 years, to which even the most brutal of alarmists have bashed HER.
David, as your mother would tell you, “do your homework before coming out to play”….
Erik says:
CO2 residence time – studies vs IPCC
Most of those papers are decades old, and prior to the satellite era. The science has progressed enormously since then.
@David:
1) Those papers are old because once something in science is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, scientists no longer bother to research it any further as there is little point in doing so.
2) Why are you talking about satelites? The IPCC estimate of 50-200 years is not based on satelites, but computer models.
The IPCC doesn’t even bother to try and refute those old papers becuase they know they cannot do so. They simply assert that the resisdence time is much longer becuase without a long residence time, there is no case for AGW whatsoever.
Regarding Erik’s link, I now see what the problem is: although individual CO2 molecules stay in the atmosphere for about 5 yrs (hence the earlier papers), that does NOT imply that net CO2 atmospheric buildup declines in the same amount of time.
That’s because, of course, CO2 is exchanged between the atmosphere and oceans, in both directions. What matters as far as AGW is concerned is (of course) the global warming potential, not the lifetime of an individual molecule in the atmosphere.
This illustrates an error often made by middling skeptics — a failure to consider the details, to accept whatever claims that bolster their position, and to believe that climate scientists aren’t smart, educated, professional people who thought about all this in great detail long ago.
P.J. says:
The IPCC doesn’t even bother to try and refute those old papers becuase they know they cannot do so. They simply assert….
They do not “assert.” They do science in a detailed and professional way.
You’re completely, absolutely wrong on this issue of residence time. Now let’s see you (1) study the actual science (2) admit you are wrong, and (3) apologize for your unfounded accusations of IPCC scientists.
@David:
1) “They (IPCC) do not “assert.” They do science in a detailed and professional way. ”
You are kidding, right? Glaciergate? The recent Greenpeace scandal? Where the hell do I start? If you think they do science in a detailed and professional way, we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I would be clearly wasting my time with you.
2) “You’re completely, absolutely wrong on this issue of residence time. Now let’s see you (1) study the actual science (2) admit you are wrong, and (3) apologize for your unfounded accusations of IPCC scientists.”
I’m completely wrong on residence time? Several people here have provided links … you have provided nothing but, “you are wrong”. How do you argue with that? Where are your links? Facts? Give me something to work with or get lost.
Admit that I am wrong? Why? If you can’t prove me wrong, then what is your point?
Apologize for my unfounded accusations of IPCC scientists? Wow … that is rich. David, you are seriously blind. Most of those involved with the IPCC are not scientists, but bureaucrats and activists. Many of the scientists only contribute to one part of the IPCC report, and many are skeptics. Have you not read about why Dr. Christopher Landsea resigned from the IPCC regarding hurricnaes? If you haven’t, look it up. It is a prime example of their “detailed and professional” science.
David, you said in another post that you were a reporter. I thought reporters were supposed to be open minded and objective. You are neither.
P.S. Don’t bother replying … I’m done with you.
Still swallowing the long CO2 residence times propaganda I see.
What about a couple dozen published science papers that attest to much shorter residence times?
Here is a handy chart I found that show the absurdity of the IPCC residence time claims.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-3118.html#pid3118
Why don’t you do the analysis yourself David Appell. Go and get some data from Mauna Loa. All you have to do is match rate at which the curve falls against a simple exponent model. Depending on which year you use you’ll get a time constant of 5 – 10 years. I’ve done it. There is no way it 200 years. But if you still believe the IPCC claim, I’ve got perpetual motion machine for sale… Do you want to buy it?
Harpo wrote:
All you have to do is match rate at which the curve falls against a simple exponent model.
That is not “all” you have to do. You have to account for exchanges with the oceans, and with land.
No David:
Climatology is not based on real science.
P.J.:
Chicken Little was not an activist either, Just subject to fantasies about the end of the world!
Climatology is not based on real science.
This paints you as an unserious person.
No your love of climate models and their modeled temperature projections/predictions far into the future.Make YOU anti science.
From this link:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_About.htm
Science and the Scientific Method
Science: study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment (Dictionary)
Scientific Method: The scientific method involves four steps geared towards finding truth:
Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena – usually in the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
Use of the hypothesis to quantitatively predict the results of new observations (or the existence of other related phenomena).
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
In the case of global warming science, political ideology has now overcome the scientific method — steps 3 and 4 have been thwarted by those with too much to gain from the scare stories. We are stuck with step two: 1: warming has been observed; 2: CO2 has been hypothesized as the cause. Many scientists are currently involved in steps 3 and 4, but they are called “deniers” because they won’t go along with the political bandwagon without scientific justification.
There are two basic types of scientific endeavor:
Theoretical science – in which models are created based on the theory underlying the phenomenon (in modern times these are created as computer models to generate predictions). Knowledge of the underlying phenomenon is required.
Empirical science – in which data observations are analyzed to create prediction models. Knowledge of data analysis and statistics is required.
In both cases, this represents step 2 of the scientific method and the science is not complete until proceeding through step 4.
Climate science as promoted by the IPCC is based on computerized theoretical climate models and running “scenarios” to predict the future. When the observations from the empirical side don’t match the models, they change the data. This is not real science.
According to the IPCC, the climate change until 1970 can be explained by the theoretical computer climate models based on natural climate forcings; after 1970 the models can only explain the warming based on anthropogenic CO2. This web site documents the science providing ample evidence that supports the rejection of the CO2 hypothesis.
Steve, you should feel a sense of accomplishment that David Appell spends time posting comments here. Keep up the great work!
Adopting David’s ironic prose describing Solomon’s articles-
I’ve read some of David Appell’s articles. He swallows claims without analyzing them or seeking a spectrum of opinions, such as the dominant role of CO2 on Earth’s climate, that warming is only disastrous, that CO2 increases are only disastrous, that renewable energy is cost-effective, that the UN has any integrity, and more. He does not do in-depth analysis and from what I’ve seen he is not a deep, critical thinker. I have adopted the null hypothesis that anything David Appell claims is wrong until proven otherwise. I certainly do not believe that Appell is right about multi-centennial CO2 residence time and his inference that many papers from the 1960’s and 1970’s on low CO2 residence time are wrong.
On the other hand, the most recent modeled claim of a millenial long CO2 residence time requires repeated recycling CO2 through the biosphere. Since this adopted definition of ‘residence time’ applies to all substances, it forces one to conclude that the residence time of dihydrogen monoxide necessarily skyrockets from a few days to essentially infinite. An infinite residence time of a potent greenhouse gas that is emitted in copious amounts by humans demands immediate action to curb emissions, right?
David Appell again- “Is it? So what? That model is 23 yrs old. It was a projection, not a prediction. Its deviation from reality is an opportunity to learn, about climate sensitivity (Hansen’s was a little too high) and other factors (model resolution has improved considerably since them).”
A few questions for you.
1. What’s the point of multi-decadal predictions if they are thrown in the garbage can before they can be verified? Lacking verification, they should all be ignored, and certainly not be relied on to guide any policy decisions.
2. Why is Hansen so determined to demonstrate that his 1988 projections accurately *predicted* the temperature rise since 1988?
There are steaming piles of adjusted and assumed parameters involved in calculations of future climate states, because the physics behind some important feedback processes like clouds are still not understood, climate models do not have sufficient spatial-temporal resolution to resolve small weather events like hurricanes (!), there is insufficient temporal-spatial resolution in the observational database to even do adequate hind-casting with climate models, ocean data and models are even worse than atmospheric data and models, etc, etc, etc. AR4 admits all of this. You should appreciate all of this, having done graduate work in computational physics.
I conclude that you think the execrable precautionary principle has merit, and you have a cultish obsession with CACC. This affliction is known as climo-coprophagia.
No David, this paints Grumpy Grampy as someone with some intelligence and can think for himself. Someone who is not so easily fooled as you.
We are stuck with step two: 1: warming has been observed; 2: CO2 has been hypothesized as the cause.
Baloney. The CO2 hypothesis has been proven. Either you have not studied the evidence or you do not understand it — perhaps both.Remain ignorant if you prefer.
Chris y wrote:
There are steaming piles of adjusted and assumed parameters involved in calculations of future climate states
Most models no longer have flux adjustment factors (see IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch8, Exec Summary, Bullet Item 5): “Most AOGCMs no longer use flux adjustments, which were previously required to maintain a stable climate. At the same time, there have been improvements in the simulation of many aspects of present climate. The uncertainty associated with the use of flux adjustments has therefore decreased, although biases and long-term trends remain in AOGCM control simulations.”
Even so, they are not a reason to discard models, but to keep making better models. All of physics has simplifications and makes assumptions about complex systems for the sake of calculating answers. The test is in the agreement with observations, not in minute descriptions of “reality.” All of science is a model.
If you have a way to calculate future climate without a model, the world is waiting to hear from you.
Climate models have hundreds of empirically derived parameter files
The CO2 hypothesis/guess/theory whatever you want to call it, has not been proven…
It can not be proven
Chris y wrote:
What’s the point of multi-decadal predictions if they are thrown in the garbage can before they can be verified? Lacking verification, they should all be ignored, and certainly not be relied on to guide any policy decisions.
Because models are currently the only way anyone has of calculating future climate. But even paleoclimate data implies a climate sensitivity of about 3 °C.
The models are verified, and their uncertainties are stated. The IPCC 4AR has a whole section on it (WG1 Ch8)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8.html
No calculation, model, or argument has ever shown that CO2 does not warm a planet, and many arguments give a climate sensitivity of 2-5 C. Given this, it would be amazing if more CO2 DID NOT lead to warming.
stevengoddard wrote:
Climate models have hundreds of empirically derived parameter files
All physics calculations use empirically derived quantities. No one has yet found a way to calculate the mass of an electron, the speed of light, or Planck’s constant from first principles.
Chris y wrote:
On the other hand, the most recent modeled claim of a millenial long CO2 residence time requires repeated recycling CO2 through the biosphere.
“Requires?” Molecules *do* cycle through the biosphere. Atoms cycle through the Universe. So what? The relevant question as far as future climate is concerned is the global warming potential of the atmosphere, not the fate of any particular molecule.
David Appell says
“Molecules *do* cycle through the biosphere. Atoms cycle through the Universe. So what?”
The measured residence time of CO2 is <10 years. The only way to create a CO2 residence time of centuries is to fold in the cycling as part of the residence time. Yet this definition of residence time is not applied to H2O. Its bogus reasoning. That's what.
David Appell says- “The models are verified.”
Quoting from the IPCC does not help your case.
The only way to verify a model is to make a prediction for which you do not yet have the data. Hindcasting only verifies that you found a happy combination of adjustable parameters. Hansen’s predictions from 1988 are the only ones old enough to be compared against climate-relevant time-spans of 15 – 30 years.
David Appell says- “But even paleoclimate data implies a climate sensitivity of about 3 °C.”
The paleoclimate data says that CO2 lags temperature rise, with no discernable rate of change as CO2 follows T rise by some 100’s of years. Now, a hypothesis that the initial forcing that caused the temperature rise is known, and that the resulting CO2 rise causes a positive feedback, can give a 3 C sensitivity when the right WAGs are made, is to what you refer. That’s not paleoclimate data. Its a guess that supports a pre-ordained conclusion.
David Appell says-
“Most AOGCMs no longer use flux adjustments, which were previously required to maintain a stable climate.”
Well, that’s pathetic. But we were supposedly going to base economy-wrenching policy decisions on the old models that were numerically unstable without fudge factors…
Still, that’s one set of fudge factors down, a few hundred left to work through. Once those are sorted out, then maybe the models will converge. Once the models converge, then you have a prediction rather than scenarios that demonstrate the ignorance of Earth’s climate. Then wait 15 – 30 years, one climate timespan, to see if the prediction was accurate.
Then we’ll know if the climate modelers should be taken seriously.
Then we can start to talk about policy choices, and cost-benefit analyses.
In the meantime, the rest of the blather about extreme weather, tipping points, sea ice, blah blah blah is just that- specious drivel.
Based on radioactive signatures from above ground testing the residence time of CO2 is closer to 5 years but varies a bit depending on weather patterns. Of course that was real world observations as opposed to climate models.
See my comment above about individual molecules vs global warming potential. What you’re trying to imply is simply false.
Better yet.How about addressing a few dozen PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED science papers over a 35 year period.That CO2 has short residence times?
You and many other warmist bullshitters keep avoiding them.I can understand why.
Let’s face it the last one was pretty bad – Africagate, Glaciergate, Amazongate etc.
So AR5 must really be crap!
Worse? Are they saying that the Himalayan glaciers will all melt BEFORE 2035?
I am a jackass that believes everything I’m told except for science that disproves the CO2 hypothesis.
“I am a jackass”
No, but you are a typical warmist … full of contempt for those who disagree with you.
David:
Your CO2 “Hypothesis” can not be tested so it is not a Hypothesis yet. A hypothesis is testable and predictable. We only have scenarios from an Intergovernmental Agency and people who claim to be “Climatologists”. There are no predictions so no Hypothesis.
If the models can not replicate long term weather patterns that climate scientists are supposed to study then the models are worthless waste of money. Chicken Little does not care about reality only about people listening to a scary story. Fools and children believe the sky is falling.
Remember the IPCC does not do Science by their own admission and their goal was to provide evidence humans might contribute to global warming. AGW is a fact because of the proper adjustments applied to historic and current records we are told the globe has warmed. It is entirely possible the warming actually stopped in the 30s and most likely the globe has been on a cooling trend for over five thousand years. This little blip of warm weather we have experienced during the last 30 or 40 years should have been a welcome change from what was experienced before and will be experienced again. The evidence is in the biological history not a wild a$$ guess about some fantasy future. Weather varies over many periods in time on a regional basis. Smoothing out the regional weather patterns removes the signal and leaves meaningless “effluent”.
Golly gee, Beaver, I wonder what “David Appell” has a degree in. Maybe it’s a physics degree, or even a double secret turbo degree in nuclear chicken frying. Either way, he knows Science® when he sees it.
It is telling that you continue to ignore the dozens of published science papers from the late 1950’s to the 1990’s.Attesting that CO2 has short residence times in the atmosphere.
I posted the chart showing the residence time range of many published science papers.They are 99% of the time less than 15 years.
Actually David:
I think you are worse than the scum of the earth because you promote the fantasy as a “Free Lance” reporter. You qualify to stand besides Brother Al and the rest of the Chicken Little Brigade who are in it for the money.
Here is how the IPCC does science:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/greenpeace-gate-breaks-and-the-ipcc-is-busted-the-shock-could-they-really-be-this-dumb/#more-15420
David Appell,
Here is a long list of peer reviewed science papers that shows the strong evidence of short residence time for CO2:
9. Problems for the dogma – CO2 residence time
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Some of the names are,
Bolin
Keeler,
Revelle,
Seuss
Broecker
and more.