IPCC vs Reality

[IntLibber]

Every time IPCC comes out with a new report, they've had to adjust their models downward to match with real data that hasn't been conforming to their warmist agenda. Calling them on it leads to a great amount of fuming and frothing to and fro.

So lets take a look at the current state of IPCC divergences from reality.


larger image http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-cont ... rch-25.jpg



So the IPCC is repeatedly wrong but can't admit it.

Then the NSIDC does the same thing with their failing SSM/I ice sensor, rather than admit their apocalyptic predictions of imminent melting of the ice cap were wrong, they have pulled out of plotting out the satellite data, which is supposed to be their main forte, specifically because the public would see from the easy to read charts that these guys claims are bogus.

More and more AGW scientists are now stonewalling heavily on releasing data and methods. NOAA snarkily is dealing with being forced to disclose their data by presenting it in binary code so the general public can't easily read it without some computer coding expertise. HadCrut's Dr. Jones is violating Britains FOI laws, Steig is refusing to disclose his antarctic data or methods.

I can put it plainly: ANY person refusing to disclose their data on climate change isn't to be considered a scientist, their work is not science and should not be used to drive public policy. Period.

[MSimon]

Let us look at some very rough numbers for the sea surface height satellite altimeters.

Assumptions:

Earth circumference: 24,000 miles
Earth radius: 4,000 miles
Altimeter beam: covers a 300 mi diameter.

So how many degrees is that: (300 *360)/24000 = 4.5 degrees. That is a lot. So what about the earths curvature in 4.5 degrees?

We can set it up as a right triangle problem. (4,000)^2 = (150)^2 + h^2

Solve for h and we can get a rough number for edge to center height difference. That is about 2.8 miles difference. about 4,500 meters. Or about 450,000 cm. And out of this noisy average (where the closer areas contribute more than those farther away) they can actually detect changes of 5 cm?

I dunno. Maybe it can be done if you have identical sea states over the 300 mi. dia circle and every time you recheck an area the sea states are close enough over the circle so that the edges don't contribute more or less to the final number.

All this complicated by the tides. The wind. The fact that we get a sequence of measurements (rather than simultaneous) meaning you have to make assumptions about flows - if the ocean is so high here how low is it there?

To get the beam to the point where the middle to edge difference was 6" it would need to be about .3 mi across. About .0045 deg on the earth's surface. If we get down to about .6" (about 1.5 cm) the beam has to be about .1 mi across. Roughly 500 ft. Clearly laser beam territory. Except for the clouds.

[PolyGirl]

I was going to post this in Dim Sun Anyone?, but this new forum seems to be a good place as any.

Several people maybe aware of the followingNIPCC report. It was stated somewhere that this is the report that the IPCC should have written.

Along with the following links:

• Bob Carter on CO2
  Michael Cricthon on State of Fear
  Surface Station Project

There are others to numerous to mention, and as others have said before and will say again, "Science slowly grinds on" and "the tide has turned".

Regards
Polygirl

[MSimon]

Experimental evidence on IR reflection greenhouse and other interesting stuff:

http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf

[tomclarke]

I know there are some people with decent science education on this forum. So why Simon do you post stuff like:

http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf

The argument is clearly bogus. It IS correct that greenhouse effect is a stupid name, the heating is not quite the same principle as a greenhouse. But that is as far as it goes.

If you read simplified versions of the (physical) atmosphere radiative transport models that you claim to despise, you would see where this argument is bogus.

Let me put it simply. You know that light can be scattered (e.g. by clouds) After the scattering the incident light is emitted equally on all directions. Similarly with IR scattered by CO2. When the IR is scattered 50% goes upwards, but 50% back down to the surface of the earth. And while it is being scattered multiple times (some times with small incident angles) it will not just hit CO2, it can hit other stuff and locally heat up the atmosphere. Effectively the path length, and therefore absorption, has increased. But this is secondary to the fact that half goes downwards anyway.

You will now argue that half of incoming light (modulo absorption) is relected. That is true but the energy budget means that incoming radiation in infra-red is less than outgoing, because the outgoing IR is larger in amplitude than the incoming IR... (That bit is like a greenhouse).

Now, Simon, how does it advance the (possible) case against AGW to post such irrelevant arguments? They would be thrown out immediately by anyone looking at the problem. I suppose they may help to convince people not thinking for themselves and wanting to find holes in AGW hypothesis? But on this forum you know your audience are more sophisticated.

Tom

[tomclarke]

Polygirl (good user name) -

Well we may argue here about whether IPCC is politically biassed and propagandist, but the evidence for this in the case of NIPCC is extreme:

For example: http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientist ... -institute

[MSimon]

Polygirl (good user name) -

Well we may argue here about whether IPCC is politically biassed and propagandist, but the evidence for this in the case of NIPCC is extreme:

For example: http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientist ... -institute

It is pretty extreme for the IPCC.

So let us say it is a wash. Now about the evidence. Why are so many in the IPCC hiding their method and data? Any one doing that may participating in a commercial venture. But they are not participating in science.

Too bad. Because their evidence IF VERIFIED might prove very useful to the hot warmists. But sadly we will have to write them off until they publish their data and code. You know. The way McIntyre does it.

Simon

[PolyGirl]

Well we may argue here about whether IPCC is politically biassed and propagandist,

Yes we can discuss and argue on the facts, figures and information provided. But being politically biased, spewing propagandist statements and scare mongering will not and I repeat “will not” help people in society.

but the evidence for this in the case of NIPCC is extreme:

No you are wrong, that is your opinion. The NIPCC is a document that has been published and presented. It is up to the “scientific skeptics” to provide a rebuttal to the document. This is what the "scientific skeptics" have doing all along with the IPCC reports.

Joseph Blast on the youtube video publication of Climate Change Reconsidered states around 5:45 to 6:00 minutes. “Whatever errors are in this, whatever omissions are in here we hope to be able to correct them in future years as new editions of this book are put forward”. I let this statement speak for itself.

For example: http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientist ... -institute

This article (which seems to be no longer available) was pulled to pieces and rightly so. However, the underlying premise for it is sound, which is to collect all the papers written on the “climate warming” issue and determine according to a set of conditions, whether a paper and its author’s is for or against climate warming.

Regards
Polygirl

[IntLibber]

Polygirl (good user name) -

Well we may argue here about whether IPCC is politically biassed and propagandist, but the evidence for this in the case of NIPCC is extreme:

For example: http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientist ... -institute

How is it 'scientific' to attack the people and not the idea? Shows that AGW is not a scientific argument, but a political one, and its proponents are political advocates engaged in a political campaign posing fraudulently as scientific, claiming fraudulent data as scientific when they refuse to release the raw data or methods to the scientific community for auditing and thorough peer review (not the moments glancing that passes for peer review at climatology journals).

Meanwhile the folks at Climate Progress blog are making death threats to AGW skeptics.

dhogaza (11:20:44) :

[snip]

Given the personal attacks you have made about me and others over at Climate Progress, and your apparent endorsement of comments advocating violence as well as the term “denier” in the offensive context of “holocaust denier”, after 66 comments over several weeks, your commentary as “dhogaza” is no longer welcome here.

That being said, you are welcome to post all the insults, commentary, or personal attacks you wish using your real name. Be a man, instead of a phantom, and stand behind your words.

If you truly are a man of your word, fully believing what you say, it shouldn’t be a problem.

- Anthony Watts

(dhogaza also posts on WUWT, Real Climate, and Climate Progress as John Boy, Boy of John, Dill Weed, Ubuntu, and Darth to make it appear that a lot more people agree with him)

Anthony Wattsto Says:
June 5th, 2009 at 10:51 pm

Thanks for fixing the typo Joe, it is important to spell your insults correctly, or nobody will take them seriously.

But more troubling than insults is the angry and threatening comments you allow, such as this one from “Creative Greenius”.

“It is not my wrath you need fear when there’s an entire generation that will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds.”

Since it has been up for several hours now, it would seem that you agree then. Should I be “strangled in my sleep” for expressing my opinions on WUWT?

Anthony

[MSimon]

The Iris Effect data:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY

You can access the videos in order here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... grace.html

Or you can noodle around the youtube link.

[TallDave]

For example: http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientist ... -institute

Much ado about nothing. Or does anyone think this is the first time a scientific paper was used to advance an argument the author of the paper did not intend or support? In any case, based on that article it appears 450 (90%) of them did not raise objections so I'm not sure why we're supposed to be outraged.

I also wonder how many of them are just doing CYA so as not to jeopardize their jobs or reputations by sailing against the politicial winds.

BTW, the RSS data just came in at +0.09 over the average. We're getting farther and farther off the AGW trendline every month. It's going to take a gigantic spike to get us back near the GCM projections.

[tomclarke]

However, the underlying premise for it is sound, which is to collect all the papers written on the “climate warming” issue and determine according to a set of conditions, whether a paper and its author’s is for or against climate warming.

I think this approach makes an unwarranted assumption, that there is a aristotelian proposition "GW is true" which will polarize scientists. Admittedly the public debate takes this form, but the scientific debate is (and should be) much more nuanced. For example a scientist may feel that likely AGW is lower than the IPCC "typical" value but still think AGW is hapenning.

Individual papers are even more difficult to categorize, and may contribubute to knowledge without clearly either being for or against. Generally, if authors of a paper are clearly for or against it is something to be skeptical about. A good scientist will let the facts speak for themselves.

On the other hand even if the authors are clearly prejudiced, a well-written scientific paper will stand on its own two feet, it can be checked and debated without fear or favour. So each paper can be evaluated on its merits, regardless of morals and politics of author. If the paper just contains opinions or arguments given without references to substantiate assumptions or without proper consideration of all the issues then it is not worth much.

That is why peer-reviewed papers are better - the process is not perfect but they are more likely to be well written without obvious errors and holes. However on this forum there is a general opinion that the scientific consensus (and therefore also peer-review process) is broken so we have to consider anything written. We have the difficult job of trying to find holes in papers ourselves (difficult since we have probably not done a really careful LS).

My opinion is that the consensus may not be perfect but is Ok. Bad holes will be identified and the state of the art will progress. And so peer-reviewed papers, though of variable quality, are still useful.

Best wishes, Tom

[MSimon]

Tom,

As far as I can tell there is no serious argument that says CO2 caused GW is not happening. What is in doubt?

1. Is it a good thing?
2. What is the magnitude
3. Is the feedback from WV/clouds overall positive or negative?
4. Is man mainly responsible for the increase in CO2 concentration?

I will leave aside #1 for now.

As to #2 it is very widely accepted that a doubling of CO2 will cause a 1 deg C increase in planetary temp absent feedback. That is uncontroversial.

Which leads us to #3. The hot warmists believe that overall the feedback is positive (because that is what their models show) and will give a total climate response of 1.5 deg to 4.5 deg C to doubling of CO2.

Measurements show that the overall feedback is negative leading to a warming of .4 to .6 deg C from a CO2 doubling.

And then we have #4. The recent economic down turn has caused a decrease in man made emissions and yet the rate of CO2 rise remains unchanged. This would tend to indicate that the CO2 is coming from the lagged warming of the oceans as has happened in every other warming period. This is not surprising as the oceans contain 50X as much CO2 as the atmosphere.

====

In any case CO2 has gone up every year and yet temps are falling. So you will then invoke internal variability. Fine. That same internal variability has not been corrected for in the historical record when the relationship of CO2 evolution to temperatures was "determined". Which says that the parameters used in the computer models are too high in relation to CO2 feedback. i.e. the warming from internal variability was aliased as a CO2/WV signal. AFAIK that has never been corrected. What has happened is that the overall CO2/WV numbers are kept the same and the internal variability is merely used to explain a temporary cooling and the prediction is that once the cooling is over the warming will return to the previously determined trend line "with a vengeance".

====

At the very least we are now at the point where the science is "unsettled".

EXCELLENT

[vankirkc]

Tom,

As far as I can tell there is no serious argument that says CO2 caused GW is not happening. What is in doubt?

1. Is it a good thing?
2. What is the magnitude
3. Is the feedback from WV/clouds overall positive or negative?
4. Is man mainly responsible for the increase in CO2 concentration?

I will leave aside #1 for now.

As to #2 it is very widely accepted that a doubling of CO2 will cause a 1 deg C increase in planetary temp absent feedback. That is uncontroversial.

Which leads us to #3. The hot warmists believe that overall the feedback is positive (because that is what their models show) and will give a total climate response of 1.5 deg to 4.5 deg C to doubling of CO2.

Measurements show that the overall feedback is negative leading to a warming of .4 to .6 deg C from a CO2 doubling.

And then we have #4. The recent economic down turn has caused a decrease in man made emissions and yet the rate of CO2 rise remains unchanged. This would tend to indicate that the CO2 is coming from the lagged warming of the oceans as has happened in every other warming period. This is not surprising as the oceans contain 50X as much CO2 as the atmosphere.

====

In any case CO2 has gone up every year and yet temps are falling. So you will then invoke internal variability. Fine. That same internal variability has not been corrected for in the historical record when the relationship of CO2 evolution to temperatures was "determined". Which says that the parameters used in the computer models are too high in relation to CO2 feedback. i.e. the warming from internal variability was aliased as a CO2/WV signal. AFAIK that has never been corrected. What has happened is that the overall CO2/WV numbers are kept the same and the internal variability is merely used to explain a temporary cooling and the prediction is that once the cooling is over the warming will return to the previously determined trend line "with a vengeance".

====

At the very least we are now at the point where the science is "unsettled".

EXCELLENT

The more I read about the AGW counter arguments, the more they strike me as similar in approach to the arguments of the opponents of teaching of evolution in public schools, in the sense that the presence of revisions to the science are used to justify throwing out all of the conclusions.

[MSimon]

The more I read about the AGW counter arguments, the more they strike me as similar in approach to the arguments of the opponents of teaching of evolution in public schools, in the sense that the presence of revisions to the science are used to justify throwing out all of the conclusions.

In science such is the way of getting closer to the truth. Phlogiston died hard. It was still wrong.

When data and theory do not match (CO2 is THE major climate driver in the 21st Century) it is time for a new theory (CO2 is a minor driver of climate in the 20th century - as it was in the 20th, the 19th, the 18th, the 17th, etc.).