There is apparently a consensus amongst scientist, at least, that's what we are all told in the media; but, how true is this so-called "consensus". This question is presented as a means test or survey.
Ken and others
When you know better than a plethora of climatologists then show where the SCIENTIFIC IPCC A5 report including its technical summary is wrong.
For a belief you rather turn to a church-community not to a serious scientific forum like ResearchGate
Dear Luisiana Cundin
There is no doubt that climate is warming, generally, globally, since Little Ice Age. Many data indicate this fact - from historical sources, through glacial retreat, to biological proxies. I think that nobody can deny this fact, with that all what is known now.
It may be and is at least in part natural tendency. The question is how much human enhance this warming. While large areas were deforested, diverse forms of carbon compounds and gases (we of course may discuss how much they cause greenhouse effect) are emitted to the air a.s.o., it would be strange if we wouldn't influence it at all... Do you agree with me?
It is a case of scale of course
Mateusz
I refer you to the brand new IPCC report 5 for the latest on climate change. Beats all personal thoughts
And I refer to the full scientific report to be found here
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UrdfW_TuJr0
I am aware of the popular reports on global warming... After analyzing the paleoclimatic data, I find the data more indicative of random data.
I ask for what may be your belief, because there is little evidence for warming, moreover, even less for anthropogenic warming. It appears more a belief than a Science.
@Kenneth
Hear, hear! I absolutely agree. This is the reason I proposed the question, for I do not believe a supposed consensus on global warming is any proof of the matter at all!
I would like to hear from scientist as to what their thoughts are, whether or not a consensus is sufficient enough for them and if they do 'believe', to explain why they do so...
.
The discussion of climate variability has several points that does not allow a binary response and discrete yes or no, right or wrong.
.
First: The series of instrumental temperature measurements are very small compared to the scales of various climatic cycles, it is ridiculous to speak of global temperature in the nineteenth century, when the southern hemisphere had less than a dozen points of temperature measurements, or is, precise measurements have less than 50 years (satellites).
.
Second: The climate has always varied, more and less. For example, for paleoclimate data we know that the oceans have been 150m below the current level and 4 m above, then any value between these two limits are within a "normal range".
.
Third: The multiple scales of variation, lets not define clearly what we can say is that noise or what is as natural variability or anthropogenic influences.
.
Fourth: The Accuracy and precision of paleoclimate, or even worse information filtering of paleoclimate data for problems of spatial and temporal accuracy, lets not state with certainty the global extreme or time. Being a true fallacy to say that it never or never that.
.
Fifth, climate data are continuous and not discrete, so it is impossible to define clearly when in a short time we had with variabilities of what is called natural variability.
.
Sixth: The discussion on climate is polluted by political, economic interests and would even religious (both sides), turning scientists into believers!
.
Seventh: Some sets of parameters used to define its influence on climate, have extremely short periods of measures (and low accuracy), such as Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). Who wants to get a sense of the difficulty of obtaining this parameter with high precision and accuracy higt just read the works of Dr. Claus Fröhlich which are available in ReseachGate, although the most interesting of his works "Total Solar Irradiance Variations: The construction of the composite and its Comparison with Models 1997, "is not here yet in your list.
.
Well, so far, I'm finding more of you feel contrary to the supposed "consensus" touted by the media. It appears - as I suspected - that more of us, scientist, adepts, have great reservations regarding the claim that climatologists have solved the climate problem and are some how able to model the Earth's climate, not just decades in advance, nay, but centuries! All this when the local weatherman cannot even get the tomorrow's prediction right!
So, it is reassuring to me to hear all the dissenting views...
@Kenneth...
the paper, "Global Warming as a Manifestation of a Random Walk", is absolutely great. Thanks a bunch... just what I needed. I found the paleoclimatic data to be purely random and no correlation amongst the Volstok data for temperature and carbon dioxide levels, so, it is nive to have confirmation outside of myself of this fact.
Luisiana.
.
For over ten years I devote much of my free time to read articles in peer review journals on climate, especially in the part of paleoclimatology time. I am not an expert on the subject, but I'm not a neophyte. Every article I read and compare with others on the same subsection sees clearly two things:
.
First: That the degree of uncertainty is more evident.
.
Second: That increasingly often items that although the authors do real "acts of faith" pro AGW data and conclusions seem to say exactly the opposite.
.
This last item is interesting, it seems there is a sort of ashamed to say that their findings contradict the "strong consensus".
.
Very interesting. Guess there is more or less a concensus on global warming. But Kenneth will be best person to shed light on that.
However there is another intresting reading The Heated debate Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate reality "Hot or Not". I have several disagreements with the author and his hypothesis but it gives an insight to a very different view.
Ken and others
When you know better than a plethora of climatologists then show where the SCIENTIFIC IPCC A5 report including its technical summary is wrong.
Well, most of the predictions reported in the IPCC report are cherry-picked and also are retrospective in nature, that is to say, after the fact, they fit the model to what really happen. Most all the predictions made by the climate models well overshoot the actual temperature rise, plus, what rise has occurred is well within statistical expectations, based on the historical records.
What I really love about the climate debate is the apparent religious quality imbued within it! They have all the tenants needed: original sin, piety and the 'day of judgment'.
Then inform me! I'm listening! That's the point, cause I'm not convinced.
Read the IPCC report on the climate models: do I have to sort out for you where to find the information when you are so sure that they do not work?
Well, what's the point of discussing anything? Obviously the IPCC report has clinched the entire matter! The whole thing is sewed up and buttoned up!
I say Poppycock!
Here's the story... the IPCCD has done a very poor job of predicting future warming on this planet. Now, certainly, one may claim that the Earth's climate is far too complex to model; but, deeper issue is whether or not the climate is beyond modeling numerically. In other words, the climatologists haven;t a clue to what and why the Earth's climate does what it does. Now, looking at the plaeoclimatic data, which is what the climatologists of the IPCC base their dire predictions upon and base their very belief upon for global warming, these datasets show prove to be random in nature; thus, it is obvious that the climate does not portend imminent doom.
Also, I am a seasoned modeler, both numeric and theoretic. I'm not interested in the models or discussing their validity - frankly, they are all garbage.
It's more important to me to hear why one either believes or disbelieves in the global warming conjecture.
L
When you know it is poppycock then what is your serious interest in the belief of others?
Ken
Are you quoting the non-scientific SPM, again?
And yes the report has not yet been fully edited so that is why it should not be cited YET. There is nothing mysterious or a conspiracy in that. As you know this is normal for any scientific manuscript of a publication
Fair enough, Kenneth. It is not so far-fetched to think man has an impact on his surroundings, in fact, it is self-evident, by simply looking around. I also champion the reserve nature with which you speak of the matter, global warming, for it demands such; moreover, I too am eagerly awaiting for the numbers to come in as well.
Many argue we are close to the precipice, where we will warm beyond anything imaginable... maybe so, but for the amount of CO2 dumped into atmosphere already, we may already be committed to such a fate, regardless of opinion. In this sense, we are studying something that has already occurred and are awaiting for the full effects. Of course, many will argue it is time to scale back our fossil fuel use... I say good luck with that one! Fertilizers - oil based - constitute for about a 200% increase in agricultural output and the world would definitely - the people - suffer without it. Never mind the plethora of other products we hold dear and, thanks to fossil fuels, we enjoy everyday.
I think the following article speaks nicely enough the panic many are feeling about this subject and this is what I truly dislike regarding the global warming debate, where it is a scientific question and should not be a political polemic, at least, not as of yet.
As shown well by Rogerio Maestri, a lot of factors may influence on climate, among which the solar activity impact has been widely discussed.
Many researchers believe that along with the enhanced concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, solar activity is another factor that may cause the observed global warming on Earth. However, the superposition of solar activity cycles on different time scales and their violations (as in the Maunder minimum) demonstrate the complexity and ambiguity of this mechanism.
Figure attached shows the secular cycles of solar activity in 1700-2001.
As is seen, it is the 20th cycle since the current secular cycle began to decline; at present, we are either at its minimum or approaching it. If this minimum will be prolonged, e.g. due to solar dynamo weak operation, we may wait a cooling of the Earth. However, figure shows that the change between two adjacent secular cycles occurs each time at a higher solar activity level (see the regression line). This implies that we are on a decline phase of the secular cycle and, at the same time, on the ascent of a longer cycle (of 400 or 600 years) that may be related to the warming. The near future will show whether or not this warming tendency can compete with the cooling while solar activity cycles are stochastically switched off (or attenuated).
Hello Ustinova:
Solar cycles are frequently mentioned by the climatologists; but, the fluctuations in temperature may not be associated with this cycles. Of course, the obvious reproach to this argument is simple, "The sun forces all temperature on the planet." Admittedly so, but the Earth's climate may not have the sensitivity to these fluctuations and simply responds in bulk or grossly to the sun's impulse.
In other words, if the Earth's climate be so sensitive, then why the apparent disjoint between sun cycles and past temperatures? If it is true now, then it is so in the past. No one is able to explain the high temperatures during the Roman period nor the Medieval period, moreover, no one can explain the little ice age nor the reason for the steady increase in temperatures from then on. We have the data; but, the reason escapes us.
What is most important, at least for me, is to realize that if Earth's climate be random in nature, then it is spurious to assume any correlation, no matter the apparent strength, for one could do the same with tossing several coins. Thus, regardless of the sun's forcing, that is to say, apparent forcing, the fluctuations we see in the data may not truly correlate with the sun's cycles.
Regardless of the issue of the sun's cycles... thank you for the comment G. Ustinova.
You are most likely, right, Luisiana. Stochastic nature of climate is the most evident, e.g., due to a lot of influence factors, and the statistical methods of its study is the most correct ones. Thank you.
@Rogerio Maestri
Interesting comment, I had to read it twice to fully get your point. This is a thorny issue for the global warmists: the apparent contradictions within their own presentation, either predictions or explanations for past events. This conundrum is comical to see, but I do not think the vast majority of the public can understand the underlying problems climatologists face nor the enormous claim some of them make, at least imply, and that is that they can recreate the Earth's climate in a numerical model.
I do not want to get stuck in discussing the numerical models; but, briefly, if Lorenz showed we cannot accurately predict the weather more than 5 to 7 days, pray tell, how are we ever to predict years, decades or centuries in advance? Quite a feat, eh?
Anyway, the fact that the general public hears, “We are all gonna die!”, and not the cool, somber voice of science saying, “we may have evidence for this here and a little there, etc...” In other words, the poor sods are being whipped up into a frenzy.
Just look at the title of this article: “Are We Falling Off the Climate Precipice? Scientists Consider Extinction”, link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37194.htm
Quite a read, this poor man believes the 'End of Days' is upon us all! What is worse is that the politicians have noticed the fervor this topic incites within the soul of various members of the general public and have decidedly seized the opportunity to manipulate the public sentiment and drive legislation. To what end is this legislation pointed, one might ask, well, I cannot say just yet; but, obviously, if the conjecture for global warming be wrong, then all legislation based upon this false conjecture will prove disastrous, in the least, disastrous to our wallet. The worse... hm, no telling, but possibly a jackboot and restrictions for access to energy.
@G. Ustinova
Thank you, you have brought me back to the main point I wanted to stress... that is: after analyzing the paleoclimatic data, I find the data to be indicative of purely random data. Now, as with any normally distributed set, there is absolutely nothing more to be said of that set. So it would seem for Earth's climate.
Now, with regard to prediction. Just as with a coin toss, the most I can say is, "On average, the mean outcome will be 50:50". Done. Same with the climate, the most we can say is that the average temperature anomaly for the last thousand years is somewhere in the neighborhood of -0.5 degree Celsius; therefore, we expect the mean temp. anomaly to be -0.5 degree Celsius for the future...
In other words, we shouldn't watch the average global temperatures with baited breath, because it will fluctuate about, randomly, and in time, the average or mean will fall in line with what is seen in the past.
If anyone agrees with the last point made, then you will agree with the following: "Why in hell is money spent on the IPCC and climate models?"
Kenneth, I'm reading all of your comments under the question titled:
Do you think the climate change has only to do with human society or is it also occuring "naturally"?
Rogerio Maestri, yours as well...
It appears many think that the rise in CO2 levels portends catastrophic consequences. Recently, scientist at NASA and IPCC have admitted they only thought of the heat absorbing qualities of CO2 and not the thermal conductivity properties; hence, they ignored the fact that an increase in CO2 would equal greater thermal radiation to outer space.
Here's a subset question: "If you believe CO2 and temperature are correlated, then why hasn't the temp. on Earth not risen exponentially, i.e. why hasn't it correlated with CO2?"
L
Your description of climate models shows that you do not know how they are formulated. Still you comment on these as if you do
L
There is no exponential relation of CO2 and temperature. This is a log function at its simplest.
Http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-to-rise-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/
Simply cannot have it both ways, i.e. "CO2 levels drive temperatures" AND "Temperature sensitivity to CO2 is very low to negligible." It's Either/Or.
Kenneth, I respect the comment; but, looking at the Volstok data, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. If temperature is random, it cannot be correlated to anything.
Ken
The 68 consensus remarks: in all of the 10 chapters combined?
And then what is so bad about it, anyway. You can also appreciate the report as a critical analysis of the recent literature on climate/environmental change and FOR FREE, written by experts in their respective field. You seem to forget that every single chapter has dozens of contributors and many more reviewers all working for free. And as I asked you several times before show me where the scientific report is wrong and where it is politically biased.
Mind you: the climate sensitivity has been lowered in the recent AR5. That does not seem biased
Yes the report: it is NOT OFFICIAL yet, a pity when you want to cite it. for us here at RG it is good enough it is out.
L
This is a scientific forum: why do you refer to a leaflet page on CO2 for support of your question?!
L
When I look back over your own contributions here I notice quite a lack of scientific basis or even interest in the subject of Climate Change.
You for instance confuse weather prediction with climate modeling.
L--James taylor and the Heartland institute "think tank" (where he works) are paid money by fossil fuel interests to try to write confusing and patently false columns about climate change. Heartland is well-know for getting funding from Tabocco companies to raise doubt about whether smoking is bad for health. They still get money from tabacco companies but few now believe statements that "nicotine is not addictive" or that the link between smoking and cancer is "just an unproven correlation". As a scientist, I can tell you that almost everything that James Taylor writes is misleading or false. The practise that members of the Heartland institute gained to casting doubt on health concerns about smoking is now being put to practise in trying to cast doubt on climate science.
I hear ya... Everyone thinks they have the answer! I've looked over the so-called evidence and am not convinced. As far as agendas, everyone got one, including the IPCC. They, of course, they want to secure a funding line and to maintain a reason to exist. I think the politicians seek to gain another layer of control... C'est la vie
L
You have no idea how "IPCC" works. you make it sound as a conspiracy in the dark and again my question: did you read ANY part of the scientific report? Comment on the experts and reviewers involved. Trace them via google or any other means and find their affiliations and publications and read those.
ReseachGate is a scientific forum with serious scientists
Harry, calm down already! We are all due our opinion, also, none of us are gonna convince any of the others on anything... it's a conversation.
Also, I've been in R&D long enough to know the corrupting influence of moneyed interest. If you try to convince me otherwise... Anyway, I do see this topic has having a political agenda...
L---I've never read a scientific paper with a political agenda. After acting as a peer-reviewer or editor for over 1200 manuscripts in my career, I've never seen a single manuscript with a political agenda. There is a clear reason for this. Scientific articles are evaluated on the basis of how data and analysis support scientific conclusions. Putting politics into science is a sure way to get a manuscript rejected. One really gets the impression that you have never read a climate change peer-reviewed article.
Well, I think the truth has come out for all to see! We all know of the false reports from medical sciences to behavioral sciences. Cancer researchers cannot reproduce any of the claimed results and the public is reeling from the constant ebb and flow of Science-influenced-by-moneyed-interest. Journals like Nature, Cell, etc... all show the influence.
And so it is claimed: "Scientific articles are evaluated on the basis of how data and analysis support scientific conclusions." Really!!! Most of what is being published is either downright wrong or patently skewed... and we all know the reason for it - money, further funding, future funding. All scientist today owe their skin to some master... and they all serve their master eagerly.
Also, if Al Gore's involvement in the whole debate isn't proof of this global warming debate being politically charged, then I don't what would.
We all know the story. As far as reviewing, that's one thing, one has the luxury of suspended belief. I've seen the political influence at work within R&D, burying meaningful results, because those results were far too controversial for a business or policy or whatever.
I would find any scientist who believes Science is free of corruption to be naive. Long gone are the days when Science could be trusted, believed and the motives of the scientists honestly considered to be altruistic. Capital influence has corrupted all Science and what we are left with is simply a “A crisis in Authenticity”. Today, one must not only review the work of the scientists, but also question their motives.
As for the ad hominen, the lowest form of debate or rhetoric...
So it goes, Paul created the Holy Lie and the whole world fell down to its knees and worshiped. Now, the new Holy Lie, for a new generation, behold "Global Warming". Upon its alter and cross, may all humanity crucify itself, in some self-serving, pathetic martyrdom. These little monkeys just love self-pity! So with Christianity, we all awaited for the End Times. It was always "just around the corner". Now, with Global Warming, we all have something to look forward to once again! Once again, the same, the world will end!
All the while, the Charlatans chide and assuage their respective Princes for additional funds; because, the celebrated work is almost, just almost, done...
P.S. I really love the following "...a climate change peer-reviewed article." What's not politically charged about "climate change"!
Dear Louisiana.
.
There is always some science researchers that despite they know they are wrong, by economic interests following repeating lies, but I believe that 99% of those who believe in CO2 as the main driver of climate does not belong to this group. I will give some examples that seem to illustrate my point.
.
I can say that it is difficult to find the errors of those who support the theory of AGW, but it is possible. To combat such a culture entrenched in the scientific theory of the present day it takes much more difficult than many people think. I for one, am interested by paleoclimate reconstitutions and the assessment work TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). To make a critique of the data is necessary to look at the germinal work that often biased by assumptions (under the technical point of view) distort all subsequent conclusions.
.
Created a culture of research only on recent data and consider the information already provided more time to correct. There is work to reconstitute the climate that are true icons of modern science that present basic assumptions that should be discussed.
.
Do not repeat the usual criticism that is made to the work of Michael Mann, in my view, are intensely combated and have experienced genuine devassas as almost a trial of the infamous Inquisition, making its obvious your bugs. I am here defending someone who is demonized by many, as this type of personal attack does not contribute to science. I think the Dendroclimatology the hardest proxie to be operated, and as they say in Brazil Mann "made a limon lemonade " (for some, too sweet or other little cold). Do not believe in reconstitutions of Mann, but not I also believe that it woke up one morning and said, I'll get this data and make a farce!
.
If we look carefully ice core or of reconstituting variability of TSI works from various equipments, some truly debatable assumptions are noted, but to criticize these two items the knowledge of several steps until the final data is needed. Ie, almost everyone runs from this analysis.
.
But back to the main subject, was constructed from hundreds of small contributions a mesh of arguments that seem difficult to dispute. When you write an article cites dozens, and you go back a little longer these quotes in the hundreds. If at the beginning you entered a tendency in a certain direction, that every tree is compromised, and this tree is called CONSENSUS!
.
There may be given scientific arguments in for and against, but to me it is not question of believing it is question of experiencing and acting and that too fast. Yes I am experiencing heat of the global warming over the years in my part of the world.
Hello Mohammad
I too use to claim the same, but when analyzing the data, it isn't true. I live on the Gulf Coast, New Orleans and thereabouts, where the strength and frequency of hurricanes are often a point of contention. Simply put, the frequency of such storms are at an all time low and the strength of storms are not correlated in anyway.
Weather is chaotic and not predictable, hence, it is foolhardy to wake up every morning and attempt to divine what is the 'cause' for the hot day, cold day or whatever the weather may be.
It is this infinite ambiguity of weather that I think the climatologists are betting on, they will forever be able to 'blame the weather', no matter what the weather turns out to be, no matter what their predictions were; moreover, they will always be able to pilfer more money for research, because the work will never be done. This is akin to a scientist bilking some poor gambler with the hope of being able to predict the next roll of the die or the outcome of the next coin toss, etc...
Rogerio,
I haven't succumb to criticizing Michael Mann or anything of the sort. We could get into the weeds of proxy data, the reconstruction and the basis for such reconstructions; but, virilly, no matter the reconstruction, the weather proves random in nature, hence, how is anyone to claim a deterministic quality to this massive complex stochastic process?
L
Again you do it: you confuse weather with climate. Mind you climate is the AVERAGE weather over a sufficiently long period so that YOUR variability is small compared to a change over a similar period in the past. I again suggest you read the relevant literature and we are now in an age that this is freely available on the web when you take the effort to look for it.
Well, how many times has a severe storm or typhoon occurred and the global warmists chime up with, "you see, we told you so..." You cannot have it both ways, where climate is not weather but it also is weather, drought, storms, whatever.
An AVERAGE weather is comprised of the spatial-temporal average of weather, hence, in your own statement, you admit climate is weather.
Now, the issue of averaging over a sufficiently long enough time span to form an expectation for future temperatures, etc... If the process is random, the best one can do is average all the random occurrences, up to date. How could this be accomplished? One could develop a climate model and 'there they go, off and running." Or one could look in the past for evidence of the average behavior exhibited in the past. If you look to the past, the average global temp. anomaly is well below today, hence, all one can say is that "in a long enough timeframe, the global temperature will average to be what it was in the past." With that said, we may experience today certain anomalies - I'll be kind and refer to them as anomalies - but, in time, the temperatures will average to that of the past.
So, the real question is, "Is there Global Warming?" The evidence shows we have warmed since the 1950's; but, there are equally, times in the past, where the Earth's global temperature rose, inexplicably, to temperatures similar to today, even hotter still that today. What of the past events? Were they anthropogenic? We can only claim the recent event to be "caused" by us, because of the advent of fossil fuels. The past events are then what? If the Earth's global temperatures rose to present temperatures, without the aid of man, then what drove them? Why haven't we all been burnt to cinders.
What I find is that those persons who believe in Global Warming, they simply believe it! Of course, they'll claim that they are “scientifically assessing the situation”; yet, the evidence is lacking. The whole belief is truly based upon an axiom, a presupposition, quite possibly, a want. Who knows.
As far as reading the articles on climate change, I've read many, also, the IPCC reports, etc... Let me just say, I too once believed, but now have seen the light!
L
You write much more than you ought to read the SCIIENTIFIC literature. A real scientists refers to the publications and all you do is referring to "global warmists". Again. This here is a scientific site and it requires science to combat each other's view.
In your case it is absolutely unclear where your opinions come from apart form a one-page leaflet here and there that suits you.
For all those who continue to tell me to read the IPCC report, I have a book for you, "Global Warming - Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology", By Marcel Leroux. He does a very good job of wading through the seemingly endless diatribe regarding CO2 and temperature, the past records and the present evidence regarding global warming. It is one of many such reports...
I would say, "It appears the tide is turning and the Global Warming debate has failed to achieve its goals and desires." We shall see an age, the next decade or two, where the debate will turn on its head, the cry will be be for an end to the politicization of this fallacy! Especially when the carbon taxes hit people's wallets.
You at least have one nay vote for your original question. Still we asked you to pinpoint for us the, in your opinion blatant, errors in the SCIENTIFIC IPCC report. You are only mentioning a "book" that you apparently have for us. Well then attach it
Luisiana---for anyone who reads the scientific literature, it's clear that the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change is strngthening month by month. As a scientist, I try to read alternative views on scientific issues. It's not clear why you only seem to read books and articles by oponents of the main stream scientific evidence.
William, let's just say, I am a venerable American, I always root for the underdog! It appears the wave of 'believers' to be some kind of inundation, which smells fishy to me. It is so rare for people to agree on anything and to have some much agreement regarding this issue, especially the pack of any evidence, spells real trouble and a real need to push back.
As for reading the IPCC report.... here's a quote for you:
"Mark Twain popularized the saying “There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians.” After reading the recently-released [IPCC AR5] report, we can now add, ‘there are liars, damn liars, and IPCC.” When compared to the also recently published NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) 1000+-page volume of data on climate change with thousands of peer-reviewed references, the inescapable conclusion is that the IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published. As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen stated, “The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to the level of hilarious incoherence—it is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”
source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/the-2013-ipcc-ar5-report-facts-vs-fictions/
And yet here's more dissenting comments from top tier scientist in climatology:
"The latest climate document claimed that despite more than 16 years of essentially no increase in global temperatures in defiance of UN theories and predictions, politically selected IPCC experts were more certain than ever that humans were to blame for global warming — 95 percent sure, to be precise. While it is not entirely clear how the IPCC calculated the “percent” certainty, the claim has confused some of the world’s most respected climate scientists. “How they can justify this is beyond me,” noted Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
“It makes no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased,” Dr. Curry was also quoted as saying in news reports. “This is incomprehensible to me; the IPCC projections are overconfident, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt. The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favor of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against — which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.”
source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16643-top-scientists-slam-and-ridicule-un-ipcc-climate-report
You might, Harry, want to advise me NOT to read the IPCC report, because it appears to be the laughing stock of the scientific world!!!!
Yet more still... "But the IPCC's core mission is now under challenge from the very scientists who compiled those reports, as well as some governments."
source: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/ipcc-scientists-overhaul-climate-reports
It appears even the very scientists involved in the IPCC report are calling for an overhaul to the agenda and its presentation to the public - the thing is so laughable, not even the dumbest of out general public is willing to 'believe' in such nonsense!
Virilly, to present the Global Warming debate as "all sewed up" is either disingenuous or ignorant of the present ongoing kerfuffle between governments, scientists and the general public regarding the validity of this conjecture! To just claim: "read the IPCC report" is poor debating, at best!
So, Dear Harry, the very scientists compiling the laughable IPCC report are themselves non-believers! What say you?
You have love this quote:
"“The Humpty Dumpty-esque report once claiming to represent the ‘consensus of scientists’ has fallen from its exalted wall and cracked to pieces under the burdensome weight of its own cumbersome and self-serving processes, which is why all the governments’ scientists and all the governments’ men cannot put the IPCC report together again,” they wrote, saying the IPCC’s climate models needed fixing as evidenced by the fact that the UN could not even track the Earth’s average temperature for the last 10 to 20 years. The IPCC report, the two experts continued, was not only “obsolete on its release, but completely useless as a basis to form opinions (or policy) related to human energy choices and their influence on the climate.”
source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16643-top-scientists-slam-and-ridicule-un-ipcc-climate-report
As for the models and predictions: "[sic.] ...could not even track the Earth’s average temperature for the last 10 to 20 years."
Truly pathetic!!! Are we to trust their predicitions for the next century!!? Really!
So, you guys need to up your game! I hear "We are serious scientists", "We have read important climatology articles", "We have "Science" on our side." Well, it really looks like there is no evidence for anthropogenic warming of the Earth. Because the zealous predictions, the alarmists predictions, that were made in the past, the entire conjecture has lost all credibility.
It is simply not enough, anymore, to say, “read the IPCC report”, or “read all the climatology articles”... The debate is now shifting to more of a hard-line criticism and investigation of the science of climatology and the scientists involved. The question is, “Can they be trusted?”
So, it appears the real 'consensus' is embodied in the willful ignorance of any distension or, at least, for a healthy admission of a dissenting view! I find it hilarious that the two most popular answers, voted up the most by viewers, are those by Harry ten Brink.
Here's a recap of the two most voted answers:
1] "Luisiana
You seem not to understand climate models"
2] "Ken and others
When you know better than a plethora of climatologists then show where the SCIENTIFIC IPCC A5 report including its technical summary is wrong."
So, I don't understand the climate models that the very same climatologists responsible for those climate models admit that these models are wrong and demand an immediate overhaul! Wow, I must be terribly wrong not to "believe" in the holy utterances of the new Pope! Infallible as he must be!!!
On the second point, number 2, the very scientist that compiled the bloody IPCC report are actually quoted as saying the report is WRONG! Christ! What more must one say or do?
Lastly, I do believe the integrity of the Global Warming debate has descended to an all time low, mainly, because people are not willing to admit the failures on the past predictions. So, we dissenters hear, “You don't know anything”, “It's obvious you never read the articles or reports”, “You don't understand the issue”, etc... and all this vitriol is due to the fact the debate is being lost and the tide is turning.
How scientific is this debate, over global warming, if strong-arm tactics are used in place of quiet, insightful scientific facts?!
An honest scientists would look at the facts and admit at least this: "The models have failed miserably in predicting the future global temperatures." Therefore, maybe the assumptions made about Earth's climate are wrong.
L
SCIENCE not blab: show where the SCIENTIFIC part of the IPCC report is scientifically wrong
I think the onus is on the Global Warmists, they have shot themselves in the foot and lost all credibility. Sorry 'Ole Harry, you and your compadres have to regain lost ground!
L
ResearchGate is a serious scientific forum and we had several long discussions before your query. Now you come and ask us all a question of which you have already have given your very extensively long own answers without any science in it. What then is the purpose of your question in a scientific forum?
Hm. Here we go. I have placed extensive posts, with links and sources! I mean, what?!
Man alive! Harry, where is your 'Scientific' references? And don't say IPCC report! I've given a lot of references above that show the very scientists involved in compiling the latest report are extrememly unhappy with the claims and the scientific integrity.
Dear sirs.
.
It bothers me quite the way the discussion of anthropogenic influence on climate is conducted. The discussion is conducted to look like one side are scientists and researchers and the other side are the propagandists against science paid by "Big Oil".
.
Because I have a very different view on the subject. My opinion not based on bombastic reports both on one side as the other, I follow rigorously analyzing scientific articles in international journals with "peer review" and even reading this literature by many is considered only in favor of the AGW hypothesis.
.
Could demonstrate that each of the cornerstones of AGW has huge failures, but when taking a piecemeal fashion each parameter such failures are not shown because there is an intricate process that accumulate reference that prevents the demonstration of their errors, but there are some things which are easily demonstrable.
.
First of all is the unprecedented nature of the increase in temperature before other eras, this is perhaps the biggest mistake that propagates to the four winds with doctoral authority. Claims about the current maximum temperature not find answer in some real data.
.
I begin to refute the argument exemplifying the case of my region, which is geologically extremely stable, the rocks were formed from the Archean to Cambrian, after this period no new formations occurred. The rock masses do not present after the Mesozoic tectonic uplift or subsidence to explain the variability of sea level.
.
The present coastline is shaped from a series of marine transgressions that have created immense sedimentary deposits. Over the past 400,000 years (since the quaternary) was 4 transgressions being the first one that the sea level was at a 4 to 5 feet above the current level. That is, since the average Pleistocene (a few minutes in terms of geological age) occurs in both Termination V (marine isotope stage MIS 5) and at termination II are increased in sea level which exceeds the current level. Several works Paleclimatology or Paleoceonography detect rapid changes in the level rising 70 meters below the current level to 4 to 5 feet shorter periods than 4-1Kyears.
.
These variations may have occurred in shorter periods of time, but the time resolution proxies was not sufficiently refined to set shorter periods. Note that in more recent events of climate change when it gets more accurate temporal resolution, as the events of Dansgard-Oescher showing variations of 8 º C over a period of 40 years during glacial periods. On the other hand there may be the Bond events interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard-Oeschger events, these periods with 1470 + -500 years.
.
In conclusion, one can say that the temperatures of the present day are equivalent in past times and also the gradients of variation can also equate or even surpass the current variations.
.
These statements are known by geologists, glaciologists and climatologists published in technical journals 'peer review', but are ignored by the alarmists. The IPCC AR5 tries to limit these events to the northern hemisphere while abundant literature in recent years correlates with Asian and American tropics, Antarctica, Indo-Pacific Warm Pool and Australasian monsoon, showing that rapid temperature changes in the past were beaten and GLOBAL.
.
Rogerio,
Finally! A discussion!
Your points are well taken and these points are exactly what concern me over the AGW conjecture. The Earth has experienced warming periods in the past, without the aid of man, and the reason for those periods of warming have not been adequately answered by the scientists. In fact, we have been warming since the last little Ice Age.
The fluctuation in sea level has also fluctuated, naturaly, and it shouldn't be of any concern that it is presently rising. In other words, if the AGW conjecture did not exist and a scientist studying the Earth's past discovered the sea levels fluctuated dramatically, then there would be no surprise or reason for concern that it is doing so right now.
Your last statement, "[sic.] ... temperatures of the present day are equivalent in past times..." is exactly my opinion. Since the past exhibited rises in temperature, to temperatures even higher than today, then there is absolutely no need for alarm.
So, what is the issue regarding fossil fuel burning? I think it to determine what effect this is having upon our present environment, but I beleive the scientist have not adequately determined what exactly that effect is, as of yet.
Rogerio
The issue of Dansgaard-O and Bond events are discussed in the IPCC report, as you might know. Else I refer you to chapter 5. That is all natural forcing of climate
At issue here and now is the very rapid increase in CO2 in the last decades, which is unprecedented. That is the human influence on climate.
L
The IPCC report is based on thousands of peer-reviewed publications, while you give us a few non-reviewed writings.
FYI I have a very competent skeptical scientist Clive Best who's work I did study (also):
http://clivebest.com/blog/
He is well-aware that increasing CO2 means increasing global temp; however he argues about the extra increase (feedback) of the water-cycle. This means a difference of a factor of 2-2.5 with "IPCC".
I also have for you criticism on IPCC in the "warmist" site RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/a-failure-in-communicating-the-impact-of-new-findings/#more-16476
By the way what makes you think that I would fully follow IPCC? You apparently did not take the effort to read the discussions here at the topic of Climate Change
Harry, "[sic.] ...increasing CO2 means increasing global temp..." Not the case! Scientist so often misunderstand that a larger heat capacity also means a larger thermal conductivity; hence, the heat is being dissipated to outer space at a faster rate. It is not necessarily so that an increase in CO2 equals a rise in temperature, it might mean a reduction in temperature.
Luisiana
CO2 has nothing to do with heat capacity / conductivity. Where did you get that idea from?
Read the blog of Clive Best! He explains the role of CO2 without being a warmist at all. That is the reason I referred you to his blog and his explanation of the NATURAL greenhouse effect by CO2 in the first place.
Or go to the site of the (in)famous anti Roy Spencer. He also explains the greenhouse effect while being an outspoken anti-warmist.
Katharina
I read the abstract but am not convinced at all. The cloud-feedback is the key in the "climate sensitivity" and still very little understood.
Also the timing of the abstract is somewhat awkward so shortly after the AR5 of IPCC.
And is there a real publication behind this abstract?
Luisiana
You apparently need a lecture on the greenhouse effect: via private mail?
I'm not sure what to say at this point in the discussion!? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, because it preferentially absorbs electromagnetic energy and through molecular relaxation processes, manifests that absorbed energy in the form of heat. That is elementary and it is the very reason that Arrhenius originally proposed that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to an increase in global temperatures. He demonstrated as much by increasing the molar concentration of CO2 in a box, exposed to sunlight, and measured the increase in temperature. This property is called heat capacity...
O.K. I feel like I have to give a third grade lesson in order to defend myself on the simplest of axioms!
Anyway, Arrhenius' suggestion went mostly unheard, but over time, many scientist began to reconsider the idea, especially with all the fossil fuel being burned, etc... He made this prediction in 1896. So, people have been thinking about global warming for a long time....
The basic axiom of Arrhenius is reasonable enough... But, many do not consider the thermal properties that are associated with heat capacity. One such property is thermal conductivity. So, NASA scientist are admiting, recently, that they are measuring an increase in radiative heat from the atmosphere to the surrounding space. This would be expected if you gave any thought to the thermodynamic properties of CO2.
Obviously, climatologists are struggling to estimate the cloud coverage in the future, also, the humidity... because water has such a high heat capacity, that it would retain the heat CO2 would lend to it. Of course, the oceans are also important in this regard, as well.
Unfortunately, Arrhenius' conjecture has failed to materialize, at least, to any great degree. We have experienced an exponential rise in CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere, but the temperature hasn't moved in kind. It is certainly not a one-to-one relation, if there be really any true relationship of CO2 concentration to global temperature.
The paleoclimatic records actually show an inverted relationship of CO2 to temp. The phase goes, temp then CO2, not the other way around. Oh, and Harry, this is reported in your celebrated IPCC report!
So, CO2, it would seem, is not a very good parameter to gauge the global temperature of the planet. The axiom is reasonable enough, but the evidence proves counterintuitive.
With all that said, I hope the conversation will move from, “read the IPCC report”, “you need a lesson”, and other assorted brow beats!
Bottom-line, the evidence is mounting that climatologists cannot, as of yet, accurately model Earth's climate; therefore, this indicates that climatologists, as of yet, do not understand how the climate operates. With that said, it is obvious that any claim of global warming is premature, also, it is preposterous for scientist to claim perfect knowledge of how the Earth's climate will react to rising CO2 levels.
Now, one can certainly claim that they “believe” increasing CO2 will increase the temperature; but, at this point in the game, it is nothing more than a belief or conjecture. I think it would be honest and genuine for a scientist, who does believe we are changing the climate, to admit that the scientific evidence is not quite there, up to speed, etc...
What is so dangerous about the AGW zealots is that Group Think, that is to say, Herd Mentality sets in and blinds these scientists to any other conclusion. This is called bias and if you look for an answer, an answer you a priori have decided, trust me, you will find that answer! Science demands a sober, temperate spirit to approach problems and formulate a conjecture, then test, over and over, until enough evidence mounts that one may call it a theory. We are far from a theory with this Global Warming business.
Katharina.
.
The article is a proposal to better express the mechanisms of convective clouds, something that numerical models are so extremely fault, however it seems that the item goes to the opposite of the observations in recent years and even contradicts itself the AR5 IPCC report forecasts .
.
But best of all is a simple graphic that someone put on the Internet contrasting the result of climate sensitivity proposed by the article with the last years of observation temperature.
.
The chart has a bit of malice in their manufacture, using only the data of the hiatus, but the values are correct.
.
Later note (03/01): I put this chart without scientific goal, more like a joke. Thus do not require scoring or disqualify this item is a gadged.
Hello and welcome Katharina.
So, what is Man's contribution to the recent changes? I think the jury is still out on this one... We have dumped tonnes of CO2 for well over a century into the atmosphere; but, the changes experienced are nothing more than slight, at best, and well within natural variations experienced in the past, in fact, the changes experienced today are quite moderate compared to our past, which I think you could attest to with greater authority than me, being a paleontologist.
The cloud mystery is just one of many for the climatologists, really, there models are heuristic, at best, and they are - either wittingly or unwittingly - attempting to force reality to match their prognostications.
As a modeler myself, I have seen many scientist make this fundamental mistake – they assume their model trumps reality and if experiment does not match their prediction, they find someone to blame, or make excuses or claim the resolution of the model isn't quite up to snuff, ergo, they need more money, larger computers, and so on... I've seen this story over and over...
Modeling is an art, truly, but it is certainly not an Oracle or the 'voice of God'. One need be careful with models, especially when one considers that the mathematical models we have in hand to describe the world are poor at best! So, one must first go for the Pareto effect, that's 80% fidelity, then one hammers out the decimal dust at a later point in time. Also, with models, the problem of error propagation is immense, amongst a slew of other issues; moreover, these problems usually destroy any ability to project in time, for the errors erupt and destroy any reasonable solution.
Assuming the Arrhenius' conjecture regarding CO2 and temperature, any back-of-the-envelope calculation would yield predictions for temperatures far higher than they are today; hence, the Pareto effect fails to be attained. Also, this is exactly what climatologists have predicted, they have predicted temperatures far higher than what was experienced. This is the first problem that screams for a reconsideration of the whole AGW conjecture.
Now Katharina, here's the real clincher: climatologists admit that the climate is a chaotic system. Chaotic systems are extremely sensitive to small variations in the parameters involved in the model, any slight change in the initial conditions results in dramatically different predictions. The IPCC and other 'believers' really need to admit to themselves that a chaotic system prevents adequately modeling the system, especially in units of decades and centuries. At best, when it comes to the climate, one may project about seven days into the future.
Harry.
.
He had read what the IPCC wrote Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) about Bond and events, however the comments of the AR5 report, are quite limited.
.
They conclude with high confidence that these events are governed by the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) but hide the AMOC is simply a part of the Global Ocean Conveyor Belt, which even today is monitored throughout its length by NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/atlantic20100325.html). Elsewhere they associate events with variations in the monsoon system in a generic way the DO events. The most interesting thing is that the report cited 14 articles which expressly speak at these events and NOT USING TEXT IN the conclusions thereof. Seem theses of students grouped references to number, but do not use it for anything. It seems to me that much of the literature cited in AR5 is put to say that the report is unbiased, but is largely unused.
.
I am giving importance to the fact, as mentioned in the bibliography itself by IPCC report identifies the cycle 1470 years (Solar forced Dansgaard-Oeschger events and Their phase relation with solar proxies. Braun, H .. Ditlevsen, P and Chialvo, D. R. literature cited in the report) and in the text there is no reference to the article.
.
It is also important to associate the DO events to Global Ocean Conveyor Belt and not a part of it (AMOC), shows that the origin of these depends on a GLOBAL phenomenon and not just to the melting of Greenland, it seems that the AR5 deglaciation of Greenland is the cause of the ruptures of AMOC, while associating the DO events Global Ocean Conveyor Belt pass these events, as well as the melting of Greenland as an effect and not the cause, it seems subtle, but important.
.
Katharina, here's an article discussing NASA's struggle to understand what exactly an increase in CO2 would mean. The title of the article is "NASA – New study shows that CO2 COOLS atmosphere"
Link: http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/nasa-study-shows-co2-cools-atmosphere/
Ah, Rogerio, you are a Gentleman, indeed. Nice graphic to explain the disconnect between prediction and reality! Now that's Science!
Luisiana
Your link again is a mere pamphlet and the link there to the study gives an error?!
Also, there is no linear relation between T and CO2. It is logarithmic at best because the absorption bands saturate. Again, take the effort to read one of the blogs on the NATURAL greenhouse effect. I gave you 2 AGW-skeptics but better is the neutral site
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change