The Climate Change Debate Thread

[EarlyBird]

ETS Forum - The models are wrong

by William Kininmonth

August 8, 2009

In computer models we trust!

The coming Senate vote on the badly misnamed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is the culmination of intense propaganda spanning more than three decades. The Senate Bill aims at restricting emissions of carbon dioxide, a colourless, odourless gas essential to life, and has nought to do with smokestack carbon particles and other pollutants that have been regulated since the 1950s. The basis of the Bill is an unsustainable hypothesis that dangerous global warming will be an outcome of continued burning of fossil fuels and the rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It is nearly 20 years since the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) in 1990 gave its first assessment of the likelihood and potential magnitude of human-caused global warming. In their first report in 1990 they confirmed that humans would have an impact on global temperatures as carbon dioxide levels increased. Importantly, the magnitudes of impacts were considered conjectural and subject to large uncertainty, because computer models of the time were rudimentary in their ability to represent the complex processes in the climate system.

The IPCC’s second report in 1995 was more confident, saying that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence on global climate. By the time of the 2001 third report the IPCC was concluding that the ability of computer models to project future climate had increased and ‘the warming over the past 100 years is very unlikely to be due to internal variability alone, as estimated by current [computer] models’.

In its most recent 2007 report the IPCC has gone so far as to claim that most of the warming of the last half century was very likely due to human activities, especially the emissions of carbon dioxide. Moreover it was claimed that unconstrained emissions of carbon dioxide would lead to a dangerous global temperature rise of between 2oC and 6oC by the end of the century.

Unfortunately the more recent pattern of global temperature does not fit the IPCC scenario. Carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise but global temperatures have flat-lined since 1997.

In light of the recent global temperature record it is appropriate to ask the government – as indeed, Senator Fielding has - why 1998 remains the warmest year in the record and why global average temperatures have persisted at about the same value (0.4oC above the 1961-1990 average) since 1997. After all, given the carbon dioxide emissions that have occurred, even the most conservative IPCC predictions are that the temperature should have risen by at least 0.2oC over the decade, and up to 0.6oC rise could have been expected.

The recent temperature record exposes the logical inconsistency within the IPCC argument for ‘dangerous’ human-caused global warming.

If there is only limited internal variability in the climate system, as IPCC claimed in its 2001 assessment, then global temperature should respond to the increasing levels of carbon dioxide according to the computer model predictions. As the global temperature is not following the trend of increasing carbon dioxide levels, then we must conclude that IPCC and its computer models have got it wrong. Carbon dioxide is clearly not the climate bogey that it has been made out to be.

Those who have an understanding of the climate system recognise the reality of the last decade. Internal variability of the climate system gives rise to important fluctuations, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation. Subtle changes in the surface layer circulation of the equatorial Pacific Ocean have global impact on climate, including Australian rainfall.

There are other well-known multi-decadal variations in the ocean circulation that also impact on the global climate. These include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

The Rudd government plans to implement its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) on the basis that reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will avert dangerous climate change. Legislation giving effect to cap and trade permits is awaiting consideration by the Senate. Implementation of the scheme will impact on every Australian; the greater the government commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, so the greater that impact will be.

It is clear that complex computer modelling of the climate and economic systems, both based on questionable assumptions, are respectively the reason and the justification for the cap and trade legislation. For most of us, computer models are synonymous with the magician’s smoke and mirrors; in the experts we trust. Until recently there was no simple benchmark against which to assess the veracity of either the climate or economic computer projections.

Full;

Quadrant Online - ETS Forum - The models are wrong

[Destiny's Soldier]

See following pdf report:

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/P...cgtsealevl.pdf

Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data ... suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible..... Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. ..Modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe". - New paper by Cliff Ollier, University of Western Australia.

If our TDs sign Kyoto II they will be nothing but sheep with no brain or no spine.

[youngdan]

Remarks to the Global Environment Forum


They have given a timetable. 4 months.

Ibis will be here then saying the sea did rise, only the land rose too and had this not happened he would have been right.


I can't believe these Global warming threads are still going

[Jethro]

This is one of the best articles I have read on Global Warming

Global warming: why cut one 3,000th of a degree? | Bjørn Lomborg - Times Online

What is good about the article is that the facts and figures quoted are not, in the mainstream, disputed.

For example, Lomborg cites a UK plan to save 1 billion tons of CO2 between now and 2030 at a cost of £100bn by building 3500 offshore wind tubines. To avoid complications from things like 'carbon leakage', if this plan were replicated around the world it would cost £5000bn. It's effect would be to reduce temperatures in 2100 by 1/60th of 1 degree. That's not a lot of bang for your buck.

Post 2050, because of economic progress, drastically cutting emissions will be much cheaper. By then we likely have more fuel options, just as we have today versus 1960. Today, as the article states, we should concentrate more on 3rd world development. It will leave future generations far better off and that is surely everyone's goal (or is it?). Because for every £ spent on 3rd world development we get back about £10. This specific proposal above would give us a return of 4p per £ spent.

And remember that Global warming is projected to be costing us just 3% of GDP by 2100 (Nordhaus, Tol) . This is less than 2 years of growth. Even Lord Stern put it at only 5%.

The key point however is this:

'Of course, these numbers are way too precise: different models and assumptions would give somewhat different results. Yet because we are talking about relative change, the absolute climate sensitivity of the particular model matters very little. Thus the order of magnitude is robust and indicates an astonishingly small effect for a very large cost. '

So even allowing for a huge margin of error, it would still be a bad investment to help the welfare of our great grandchildren.

Man made global warming is most likely a reality but we are doing to much too soon.

To finish, here is another article I posted elsewhere on P.ie. which is specific to Ireland. Both incidentally are short and easy to read.

Why Worry About Climate Change? A Research Agenda

[wombat]

A very interesting article by Ray Bates in SBP today, well worth reading.

[Noelene]

Well, speaking as a student of chemistry, I think the issue's pretty clear-cut. 'Climate-change' was a phrase invented by an American ad-man for the needs of US politicians, because he realised that the accurate phrase: 'global warming' might scare people. the climate is changing because the globe is warming. Its an effect, not the definition of the problem. I can understand people distrusting politicians, and even scientists, who would argue still about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. But if you want cold, hard facts... go to the Insurance companies. Events such as hurricanes per year; disasterous floods and storms in areas that have never had any; 'wild-fires' and melting of the polar caps. All these things had statistical odds. In the past ten years those events have gone from '1 per 100 years or less' to 'one every sixty years' likelihood to 'god - who knows how often..' And, as I say, the chemistry of it is unarguable.

[fiannafailure]

Well, speaking as a student of chemistry, I think the issue's pretty clear-cut. 'Climate-change' was a phrase invented by an American ad-man for the needs of US politicians, because he realised that the accurate phrase: 'global warming' might scare people. the climate is changing because the globe is warming. Its an effect, not the definition of the problem. I can understand people distrusting politicians, and even scientists, who would argue still about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. But if you want cold, hard facts... go to the Insurance companies. Events such as hurricanes per year; disasterous floods and storms in areas that have never had any; 'wild-fires' and melting of the polar caps. All these things had statistical odds. In the past ten years those events have gone from '1 per 100 years or less' to 'one every sixty years' likelihood to 'god - who knows how often..' And, as I say, the chemistry of it is unarguable.

Noelene,
welcome to the forum, I challenge you and your student peers to become part of the solution rather than simply a commentator, we as a species have demonstrated the ability to find solutions for every challenge we have faced, and there are solutions to this problem as there have been for all of the others lets go do it.

[Destiny's Soldier]

Well, speaking as a student of chemistry, I think the issue's pretty clear-cut. 'Climate-change' was a phrase invented by an American ad-man for the needs of US politicians, because he realised that the accurate phrase: 'global warming' might scare people. the climate is changing because the globe is warming. Its an effect, not the definition of the problem. I can understand people distrusting politicians, and even scientists, who would argue still about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. But if you want cold, hard facts... go to the Insurance companies. Events such as hurricanes per year; disasterous floods and storms in areas that have never had any; 'wild-fires' and melting of the polar caps. All these things had statistical odds. In the past ten years those events have gone from '1 per 100 years or less' to 'one every sixty years' likelihood to 'god - who knows how often..' And, as I say, the chemistry of it is unarguable.

God Nolene, as a student of Chemistry, I think you have a lot to learn.

Maybe you should spend more time looking at the specs when you run a backround on the FTIR in the lab. But if you're like most Chemistry graduates I dealt with in Pharma, you wont have a clue how an FTIR works.

Maybe when you've finished your degree you might have learned that of all the IR energy reflected from the surface of the Earth, only 8% of that energy will be absorbed by CO2.

And the globe is not warming. Please stop telling untruths. Show me a graph from any source for the past 10 years proving that the globe is warming? Satellite data would be a start.

[PigPus the Truthteller]

such as hurricanes per year;

When can we expect the hurricanes, it is the calmest season on record

[fiannafailure]

God Nolene, as a student of Chemistry, I think you have a lot to learn.

Maybe you should spend more time looking at the specs when you run a backround on the FTIR in the lab. But if you're like most Chemistry graduates I dealt with in Pharma, you wont have a clue how an FTIR works.

Maybe when you've finished your degree you might have learned that of all the IR energy reflected from the surface of the Earth, only 8% of that energy will be absorbed by CO2.

And the globe is not warming. Please stop telling untruths. Show me a graph from any source for the past 10 years proving that the globe is warming? Satellite data would be a start.

However IF there is climate change because of human activity, we may not simply be dealing with infra red, the other wavelenghts of light are more energetic.
I believe the wisest route is a precautionary one, all of the remedial steps needed to combat climate change, confer enough benefits to make them worth doing for their own sake anyway