IPCC Scientist - Half the Warming Is Natural

[MSimon]

*

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... oling.html

*

He actually says maybe half. And guess what believers - he says the PDO and other ocean cycles have been aliased for CO2. Something I have been saying here for rather a long time.

This is just too delicious for words.

I guess they could no longer Hide The Decline.

The science is definitely UNSETTLED.

[mvanwink5]

The other half is UHI bias in the data. Where does that leave CO2?

[mvanwink5]

In 9th grade earth science class we made a three dimensional isothermal map of our class room using 20 lab calibrated thermometers. So, the notion that anybody knows what the temperature is of the planet earth is, to my mind, from my 9th grade science experience, is just BS. The number tracked to 0.1 degree is absurd. Last year, once the ice was scraped off the road black top, steam was rising from the road in 26 degree temperature. This year the road guys haven't been able to get the ice off yet. Maybe this week they will and then the UPS guy can start delivering again, that is one meaningful measurement of temperature. Another meaningful measurement of temperature is what percentage of Florida citrus was damaged by the arctic cold. If these bozos really knew temperature they would make a killing on the futures market.

[Josh Cryer]

You are misstating what Mojib Latif said, which is just like what happened when he predicted the cooling trends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8

He did not say "50% of all measured warming is due to natural variation." He said "A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to these cycles - as much as 50 per cent."

A significant distinction.

Hah, he actually has a problem with that very article you posted MSimon: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ojib-latif

[MSimon]

From the Guardian - A British Communist (the euphemism is socialist or progressive) Paper.

"There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases."

A rather unexceptional statement. I do not take exception to it.

I question the magnitude and the ordering of the causes.

I also liked:

"They are not related at all," he said. "What we are experiencing now is a weather phenomenon, while we talked about the mean temperature over the next 10 years. You can't compare the two."

Neglecting to mention no rise over the last 10 years. Sneaky.

In a cyclic phenomenon approximating a sine wave you would expect a flattening at the peak.

Now is all the rise due to the ocean cycles? Of course not. Some is due to a longer cycle representing a rebound from the Little Ice Age.

And he can spin all he wants in favor of his CO2. But if ocean cycles are causing the current decline (overshadowing CO2) the cycles also contributed to the rise which was aliased for CO2.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... OLING.html

'A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to these cycles - as much as 50 per cent.

says Latif. Which means since the CO2 effect was calibrated in the 1980 to 2000 period its effect is exaggerated by as much 50% from the noted cycles he is referring to.

The Guardian:

"The natural variation occurs side by side with the manmade warming. Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it."

Now if you calibrate the effect of CO2 during an acceleration phase you are going to overestimate its effect. Esp given that the ocean current thing was not nailed down until 1997.

[MSimon]

Now if CO2 is half as effective as claimed the targets for CO2 reduction need to be doubled to get the desired effect. A mere 50% reduction by 2050 will not be enough. 100% will be required.

And if other as yet unknown factors reduce the effectiveness of CO2 to 1/3rd the warming CO2 will have to be cut by 150%. I.e. we will need a non-CO2 producing source of energy that can be used to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

[Josh Cryer]

Which means since the CO2 effect was calibrated in the 1980 to 2000 period its effect is exaggerated by as much 50% from the noted cycles he is referring to.

Now if you calibrate the effect of CO2 during an acceleration phase you are going to overestimate its effect. Esp given that the ocean current thing was not nailed down until 1997.

Latif does not disagree with the IPCC assessment, what it means is that there will be cooling, but there will be rapid warming after that cooling phase. Latif even says his model doesn't reliably go past 2015, and that the rapid warming could in fact begin before then.

Oh and climate sensitivity was not "calibrated during an acceleration phase." It is based on the whole of observations that we have gathered throughout the past century.

[MSimon]

Which means since the CO2 effect was calibrated in the 1980 to 2000 period its effect is exaggerated by as much 50% from the noted cycles he is referring to.

Now if you calibrate the effect of CO2 during an acceleration phase you are going to overestimate its effect. Esp given that the ocean current thing was not nailed down until 1997.

Latif does not disagree with the IPCC assessment, what it means is that there will be cooling, but there will be rapid warming after that cooling phase. Latif even says his model doesn't reliably go past 2015, and that the rapid warming could in fact begin before then.

Oh and climate sensitivity was not "calibrated during an acceleration phase." It is based on the whole of observations that we have gathered throughout the past century.

Latif was particular candid when he debunked his own prediction of cooling.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... -good.html

Dr. Latif told me “we don’t trust our forecast beyond 2015″

I think he got that one right. So how in the heck can he be confident of 2100? Maybe there are other cycles (like the 300 year cycle which switched sign around 1850) that he hasn't taken into account? Half of 300 is 150. 1850 + 150.... well I leave the math as an exercise for the student.

And Josh,

No one in the IPCC predicted the flatlining of temperatures in 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. Even while it was happening. What they did try to do was Hide The Decline. And when it became impossible to Hide the Decline? There is a new story.

It was always going to be hottest year ever. Well they were right. Temps at a peak will be hot. And now it is falling away from the peak and you know what? It is getting cooler.

And no one from the IPCC before Dr. Latif had anything to say about natural forces overcoming the heat from the inexorable rise of CO2.

Something is overforcing the CO2.

Why not? According to Dr. Latif maybe only 1/2 the heating ascribed to CO2 is actually from CO2. The other 1/2 is ocean cycles. The calibration went wrong some where.

It doesn't matter. Open Source is working on the problem and we will have answers in time. Open code and open data. I look forward to it. Unlike the secrecy and "losing the data" of the CRU "scientists".

But I'll think he got the 2015 date wrong. A 30 year half cycle plus 2000. Another exercise for the student. And if we count from the official sign switch year of 2005? You can do the math.

And Josh, If the period you claim was actually used for the calibration why were their predictions so wrong? After all the ocean cycles have been known since 1997. It is not like Dr. Latif found them.

As an IPCC guy Dr. Latif has to hedge his bets. Otherwise the gravy train stops. He won't get invited to meetings. Funny thing is. The good doctor's research has been out since 2008 and only when it became a public issue did he change his tune. Where is his peer reviewed paper debunking his own research? Certainly being a member in good standing of the IPCC means it should have been whizzed through peer review.

[MSimon]

But the very best part of Dr. Latif's work? His implicit statement:

You can't trust my work.

And here I thought he was a respected member of the IPCC.

I expect things to get more convoluted as time goes on. From the IPCC folks.

And once the open source folks start to get results it should get really interesting.

Good times. Other than folks freezing to death.