Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[AUinWV 0]

Don't let logic mess with your theory...

Argument from authority. And a poor one at that. "Lord" Monckton is a well known crank and nuts to boot. His arguments have been widely refuted.

Yet he gives his arguments to refute, and gives scientific sense not to, while you harp on things you know nothing of... oh.. to be lord mon... wtf ever. Argue with evidence instead of slander.

[AUDub 11,176]

Don't let logic mess with your theory...

Argument from authority. And a poor one at that. "Lord" Monckton is a well known crank and nuts to boot. His arguments have been widely refuted.

Yet he gives his arguments to refute, and gives scientific sense not to, while you harp on things you know nothing of... oh.. to be lord mon... wtf ever. Argue with evidence instead of slander.

Very well. If you want refutation of each of his arguments, I'll do so. Give me time to watch his video carefully.

And I don't doubt your ASVAB scores or your intelligence, but you really did present a goofball argument for one who supposedly understands such things. "7/9 planets" lol.

[AUinWV 0]

If only 1/4 of our planets were heating up, it'd indicate the sun. Unfortunately its a lot more..

*in the time we've been studying it, on it's over 10, 000 year cycle, we know very little about the sun.

[AUDub 11,176]

If only 1/4 of our planets were heating up, it'd indicate the sun. Unfortunately its a lot more..

Explain in detail. I'm sure your argument is riveting. ;-)

[AUinWV 0]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

[AUinWV 0]

Detailed enough? Or need we go on...

*or maybe Forbes isn't a real magazine...?

[AUDub 11,176]

Detailed enough? Or need we go on...

*or maybe Forbes isn't a real magazine...?

I'm still watching "Lord" Monckton's lecture. Could have told me to skip the first 45 minutes to get to the substantive arguments.

[AUinWV 0]

Detailed enough? Or need we go on...

*or maybe Forbes isn't a real magazine...?

I'm still watching "Lord" Monckton's lecture. Could have told me to skip the first 45 minutes to get to the substantive arguments.

lol... My apologies.... but with what he's saying he is leading>>> global warming. Gotta understand how silly math works first! :)/> WDE

[AUinWV 0]

And now, for your feature presentation, crickets...

*****

***** *****

[AUDub 11,176]

And now, for your feature presentation, crickets...

*****

***** *****

As I said, we have all day. You give me a one hour and forty-five minute lecture to dissect and expect an answer in ten? Go watch football while I parse this nonsense into a cohesive rebuttal.

[AUinWV 0]

And now, for your feature presentation, crickets...

*****

***** *****

As I said, we have all day. You give me a one hour and forty-five minute lecture to dissect and expect an answer in ten? Go watch football while I parse this nonsense into a cohesive rebuttal.

Love you too bro.

[AUinWV 0]

And now, for your feature presentation, crickets...

*****

***** *****

As I said, we have all day. You give me a one hour and forty-five minute lecture to dissect and expect an answer in ten? Go watch football while I parse this nonsense into a cohesive rebuttal.

Love you too bro.

Its ok... I've been wrong countless times... really appreciate the debate. I've learned much, and suspect you've done the same?

Were all in this together... WDE

[AUDub 11,176]

And now, for your feature presentation, crickets...

*****

***** *****

As I said, we have all day. You give me a one hour and forty-five minute lecture to dissect and expect an answer in ten? Go watch football while I parse this nonsense into a cohesive rebuttal.

Love you too bro.

Its ok... I've been wrong countless times... really appreciate the debate. I've learned much, and suspect you've done the same?

Were all in this together... WDE

I've been wrong in the past, of course. When I am I admit it. There are parts of this presentation that I do agree with and "Lord" Monckton is certainly a very effective speaker. But he is mistaken on many of his conclusions. I am quite serious when I say a rebuttal is on the way. Believe it or not, I have more than a rudimentary understanding of the math involved in this debate. It is a very tedious lecture.

Just to hold you over until I'm done: http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf

[AUinWV 0]

Don't let logic mess with your theory...

Argument from authority. And a poor one at that. "Lord" Monckton is a well known crank and nuts to boot. His arguments have been widely refuted.

Yet he gives his arguments to refute, and gives scientific sense not to, while you harp on things you know nothing of... oh.. to be lord mon... wtf ever. Argue with evidence instead of slander.

Very well. If you want refutation of each of his arguments, I'll do so. Give me time to watch his video carefully.

And I don't doubt your ASVAB scores or your intelligence, but you really did present a goofball argument for one who supposedly understands such things. "7/9 planets" lol.

Perhaps, but 6/8 would have been more silly? If it were wrong, it'd really be 3/4, as 6/8 is an improper fraction and 7/9 is not. Small rebuttal. I know. Just an idea....

[AUinWV 0]

It's a good video, full of unheard facts...

[AUDub 11,176]

A few things on "Lord" Monckton's lecture. Maybe a few things an engineer round here could clarify for me, as well.

1. I have a good understanding of electronics. Monckton is explaining feedback in ways I understand. The issue is the methods he's using are methods I've seen before. Methods that deal with electronic circuits. How are these applicable to climatology?

2. His climate sensitivity equation I'm having an even more difficult time parsing. Where is he getting the 3.26K Ts value? Looking at the IPCC projections, the only one that projects above 3 is scenario A2 on this graph:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-5.html

3. Dealing with the same equation as above, I have reservations about the equation as a whole. Something about it doesn't jibe. Another question maybe an engineer or mathematician could clarify if we have one present.

May have found my answer here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming-advanced.htm

4. He's cited Lindzen, another whose assertions have been widely questioned by the climatology community at large. In particular the arguments concerning the sun.

5. Climate is chaotic. Sort of an irreducible complexity for climate science argument:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted-intermediate.htm

6. Don't know what he's getting at with the sinusoidal wave overlay. That's a specious argument. I could have made that look like any rising (or falling) trend.

7. Surface temperature graph overlay. He's cherry picking.

8. Oh Lordy the Medieval Warm Period:

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/17/1943/

http://theconversation.com/hear-ye-hear-ye-moncktons-medieval-warming-tale-is-climate-heresy-2326

9. I can tell he dislikes Michael Mann. Guess they have a history.

10. The graph comparison 1895-1945 and 1957-2008. Huh, not sure about that one either. I'd like to know the source for the graphs. IPCC, I assume.

11. Sea levels aren't rising. Now that is ridiculous. He once again presents a flawed graph.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Myth-8-Rising-sea-levels.html

12. Arctic sea ice is recovering? That's a new one on me.

13. I partially agree on his argument on Australia's CO2 tax and long term economic effectiveness of any changes we make. Though I wonder where he gets his numbers. Any mitigating measures we take now are hard to weigh.

I'll get to his Q/A period later. He's hard to hear away from the podium.

Reply to it as you see fit. I have some things that I'll need to refine and I'll add more later.

[homersapien 11,428]

1) First, provide some attribution for your chart. I am very interested in where this "data" came from (since year "zero" no less!)

Who is Dr Roy Spencer? http://www.drroyspen...mate-confusion/

Warning this is very technical and may make your lil GW-Nazi Head explode. http://www.drroyspencer.com/

First, I will point out that this is the first (supposed) attribution to your chart, so thank you. But after a quick look at the site, it looks like I will have to dig into it a little to actually find this chart and explanation.

But that's OK. It this is "very technical" as you say, I will relish the effort. I am as comfortable with technical arguments as B'rer rabbit is with the briar patch.

Likewise, making sophomoric snarky comments such as "may make your lil GW-Nazi Head explode" :-\ is obviously your forte.

I am short on time now, so be patient. It may take a few days.

Meanwhile, knock yourself out with more insults if you feel it makes you look good. It certainly won't bother me.

As promised, here is my response regarding Mr. Roy Spencer. Sorry it took so long, especially since I found everything needed quite quickly once I got to it. Apparently, Mr. Spencer is quite "notorious" in the field. I will start with his technical argument, since that is all that really matters but I feel like I should also include some of his other "scientific" interests which will further define his motivations. I will do that in a follow-up post.

Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer

BY JOE ROMM ON JULY 29, 2011

http://thinkprogress...er-roy-spencer/

Long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer has published another deeply flawed article. That ain’t news. What is news is that the deniers have a couple of new tricks up their sleeves.

First, the disinformers have figured out they should focus on journals that don’t seem to have a very deep understanding of climate science. In May, it was a paper in a statistics journal, which was ultimately withdrawn because of “evidence of plagiarism and complaints about the peer-review process.” This time it’s an article in the open-access Remote Sensing co-authored by Spencer.

(Article: On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603 )

It bears repeating that Spencer committed one of the most egregious blunders in the history of remote sensing — committing multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and creating one of the enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.

It also bears repeating that Spencer wrote this month, “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”

That doesn’t mean Spencer’s new paper on remote sensing is wrong, but it means his work on the subject does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, as most climate journals would know. And it means we should pay attention to serious climate scientists when they explain how Spencer is, once again, pushing denier bunk.

As the famous critique goes, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good”:

• “He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.
  
  
• “It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.
  
  
• NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth in an email: “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”
  
  
• Trenberth and John Fasullo at RealClimate: “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.”
  

As for the second denier trick, well, they got Yahoo News to host a “news story” on the article — written by James Taylor. Not the brilliant singer song-writer who wrote, “I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain, I’ve seen sunny days that I thought would never end.” No, the uber-denier James Taylor whose Heartland Institute wants to bring to America’s heartland too much fire and too much rain — and heat waves that you thought would never end. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

And so Yahoo enables this headline of denier bunk — “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism” — to spread through the web like so much kudzu. LiveScience noted in its debunking post:

The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it “extremely important.”

In fact, as Dessler emailed me, Spencer’s “paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times).” Here are his full comments:

To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, this leads to additional warming.

The canonical way to think about clouds is that they are a feedback—as the climate warms, clouds will change in response and either amplify, (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change.

What this new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument. Spencer’s 2010 JGR, paper as well as the new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper both make this argument.

Overall, the argument made in all of these papers to support the conjecture that clouds are forcing the climate (rather than a feedback) is extremely weak.

What they do is show some data, then they show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right. However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between the model and data proves nothing.

I am working on a paper that will show that, if you look carefully at the magnitudes of the individual terms of their model, the model is obviously wrong. In fact, if Spencer were right, then clouds would be a major cause of El Niño cycles—which we know is not correct. Talk to any ENSO expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh, at you.

Finally, the best way to put Roy’s paper into context it is to recognize how Roy views his job: “I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism.

I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” (he

wrote that

on his blog).

Thus, his paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.

NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt said of the paper’s findings:

“If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime,” Schmidt said. “Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record.”

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of man made global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a “gray science.”

That would be funny if it weren’t tragic. So the vast paleoclimate literature is “gray science.” What disclaimer would one stick in front of Spencer’s “science” in the area of remote sensing? How about “anti-”? As RealClimate explained:

We now know, of course, that the satellite data set

confirms that the climate is warming

, and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and

left it to others

to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

So after that history, we’re supposed to savor all Roy’s new cookery?

That’s an awful lot to swallow.

Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But it remains hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Spencer lovingly, but to this day dismiss real science no matter how much it has been vindicated and verified by subsequent independent research.

UPDATE: Trenberth and John Fasullo have a post at RealClimate debunking the piece, which I reprint below:

The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.

The basic observational result seems to be similar to what we can produce but use of slightly different datasets, such as the EBAF CERES dataset, changes the results to be somewhat less in magnitude. And some parts of the results do appear to be significant. So are they replicated in climate models? Spencer and Braswell say no, but this is where attempts to replicate their results require clarification. In contrast, some model results do appear to fall well within the range of uncertainties of the observations. How can that be? For one, the observations cover a 10 year period. The models cover a hundred year period for the 20th century. The latter were detrended by Spencer but for the 20th century that should not be necessary. One could and perhaps should treat the 100 years as 10 sets of 10 years and see whether the observations match any of the ten year periods, but instead what appears to have been done is to use only the one hundred year set by itself.

We have done exactly this and the result is in the Figure. What this figure shows is the results for the observations, as in Spencer and Braswell, but with the EBAF dataset in black. Then we show results from 2 different models, one which does not replicate ENSO well (top) and one which does (second panel). Here we give the average result (red curve) for all 10 decades, plus the range of results that reflects the variations from one decade to the next. The MPI-Echam5 model replicates the observations very well. When all model results from CMIP3 are included, the bottom panel results, showing the red curve not too dis-similar from Spencer and Braswell, but with a huge range, due both to the spread among models, and also the spread due to decadal variability.

Consequently, our results suggest that there are good models and some not so good, but rather than stratifying them by climate sensitivity, one should, in this case, stratify them by ability to simulate ENSO. In the Figure, the model that replicates the observations better has high sensitivity while the other has low sensitivity. The net result is that the models agree within reasonable bounds with the observations.

To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple (see for instance this post by Barry Bickmore). The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave.

Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round [see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong, 2010:

Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.] During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. The ocean cools as the atmosphere responds with characteristic El Niño weather patterns forced from the region that influence weather patterns world wide. Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model.

Even so, the Spencer interpretation has no merit. The interannual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity. Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.

The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).

[homersapien 11,428]

Mr. Spencer's political/religious motivations:

Intelligent Design: While Spencer has become an ID PRATT machine (PRATT= "point refuted a thousand times"), he hasn't contributed any new cards to the creationists' deck. He mostly just parrots the greatest hits like "no transitional fossils" and "microevolution not macroevolution." He also flogs the "secular religion" trope even harder when it comes to evolution than he does for global warming.

Spencer is affiliated with a number of astroturf (fake "grass roots" movements) and Christian fundamentalist organizations. He is a member of the George C. Marshall Institute, which was founded by expert for hire Frederick Seitz and is a think tank and front group for various corporate interests including oil companies. He also makes the rounds at the Heartland Institute's denialist conferences.

The fundamentalist organizations he has worked with include the Cornwall Alliance and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA), which reorganized into the Cornwall Alliance in 2006. The organization promotes "Bible-based environmental stewardship," which translates to "a bunch of cranks denying science." He helped the ISA author their "Call to Truth," a denialist manifesto for evangelicals. http://rationalwiki....iki/Roy_Spencer

Bottom line, Mr. Spencer is considered by serious scientists as a "crank":

Crank is a pejorative term applied to someone who holds extremely unorthodox views on a subject and is often very vocal about these opinions. A crank will usually maintain their viewpoint despite, or perhaps because of, evidence to the contrary. The crank is usually an amateur in the field they are arguing against, but sometimes individuals with expertise in that field will become a 'crank' (which can lead directly to pathological science); sometimes for personal gain, which is ironic because cranks often accuse rational people of being driven by personal gain.

Cranks emerge in all fields of study and hold a wide variety of inaccurate or unorthodox views, from being able to square the circlewith a pencil and a compass, to Biblical literalists in the creationism movement.

Synonyms include kook, contrarian, and crackpot (the latter of which has led to the creation of the term "psychoceramics" as the name for the study of such people). Cranks who believe a lot of nutty things at once are sometimes said to suffer from crank magnetism.

q=ID+PRATT&rlz=1C1AFAB_enUS460US468&oq=ID+PRATT&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.3486j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=%22ID+PRATT%22

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

More indications that warming is less than scientists/experts/computer models (take your choice) have been predicting. The very realistic fact is that the US can spend a large amount of money on warming without hardly making a dent. Until the industrial giants like China and India reduce their enormous emissions. Until then people like Al Gore will make money spreading their exaggerations of the problem we have in the U.S. and the environmental lobby will extract a ton of taxpayer money.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/global-warming-report-could-backfire-on-environmentalists/article/2535889

[AFTiger 282]

Who made the determination that to be a legitimate scientist, one had to be an atheist? Albert Einstein would not agree.

Can't break the argument? Attack the man.

[homersapien 11,428]

Who made the determination that to be a legitimate scientist, one had to be an atheist? Albert Einstein would not agree.

Can't break the argument? Attack the man.

I don't know. You tell me.

Perhaps it was the same person who said "to be a legitimate Christian, you can't accept the theory of evolution".

While it is quite possible for a scientist to be a Christian, it is impossible to reject a scientifically valid theory on the basis of a religious belief and still be a scientist.

And I "attacked" his argument in a completely separate thread precisely to keep that rebuttal separate from his religious beliefs. That doesn't mean his religious beliefs are irrelevant. But they do demonstrate a likely motivative which helps to explain the bias and/or incompetency expressed in his work.

[AFTiger 282]

Have you examined the flaws in Michael Mann's work?

By the way:

A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate.

The report, to be published later this month, is a six year assessment which is seen as the gospel of climate science and is cited to justify fuel taxes and subsidies for renewable energy.

The “summary for policymakers” of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday, states that the world is warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007.

Other admission in the latest document include that forecast computers may not have taken enough notice of natural variability in the climate, therefore exaggerating the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures.

One of the central issues is believed to be why the IPCC failed to account for the “pause” in global warming, which they admit that they did not predict in their computer models. Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase.

The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.

Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “'Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”

The 2007 report included predictions of a decline in Antarctic sea ice, but the latest document does not explain why this year it is at a record high.

The 2013 report states: “'Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations ...

“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.'

The 2007 forecast for more intense hurricanes has also been ignored in the new document after this year was one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history.

One of the report's authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University's Climate Research Network, has said that people should not look to the IPCC for a “bible” on climate change.

Professor Allen, who admits “we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future”, said that he could not comment on the report as it was still considered to be in its draft stages.

However, he added: “It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science works.

“It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works - the critics of the IPCC and the environmentalists who credit the IPCC as if it is the gospel."

Scientist were constantly revising their research to account for new data, he said.

Despite the uncertainties and contradictions, the IPCC insists that it is more confident than ever – 95 per cent certain - that global warming is mainly human’s fault.

Next week 40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report and representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC will hold a meeting in Stockholm to discuss the finding to discuss any issues ahead of the publication. The body has insisted that this is not a crisis meeting but a pre-planned discussion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

[AUcivE09 582]

The biggest problem with all of this - and from both sides - is the willingness to turn every debate into a question of credit. We all have our own motivations. We cannot (and I stress the word CANNOT) prove either way if CO2 really affects the earth's atmosphere. What we do know is that NOx, CO, and particulate matter (PM) are all very real problems and contribute to the increased surface temperatures. Aside from the "concrete jungle" effect that most large cities have you also end up with a regional haze that forms from the pollutants mentioned above. Aside from ruining the view, this PM finds its way to our lungs (PM2.5 as it is referred to). Freight trucks are a major concern and the increased traffic all contribute to this greatly. Just from my perspective - I am willing to agree with a chart showing an increase in "surface temperatures". However, these are averages over time. Nothing seems to account from hotbed areas like LA, Bham, ATL, etc. I am certain areas like this show an increase in surface temp. I would argue that Obama did something right. He mandated better efficiency from cars. I believe it got a bit out of control and destroying all of the cars was a dumb idea, but IMO more good than bad. We should work towards solving the problems we already know we have. These pollutants are orders of magnitude more harmful towards us and our environment. Plant life loves CO2 - we breathe in more CO2 than O2 - it is the building block of life. Lets work on the problems we have only half fixed. California emission controls for all highway legal vehicles wouldn't be a bad idea. Youre not supposed to be racing out there anyway. PM filters for freight trucks is another good idea. More than any of this - we would have to get China and India to buy in as well. The problems in other parts of the world outweigh the overall good we can do here. Many people just do not understand how good we really have it over here - no matter who is in charge. Keep in mind that we already track all CO2 emissions from facilities across the nation. We have to take into account CO2 emissions when a facility applies for a modification or constructs a new facility. The only reason we are not charging for these emissions is because of one little hold up ------- we haven't proven global warming or climate change (take your pick). This is a very large money making tool for the government. Make of it what you will. I believe washington is currently chasing the money more than truly looking out for the environment without bias.

[homersapien 11,428]

Have you examined the flaws in Michael Mann's work?

By the way:

A leaked draft of a report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is understood to concede that the computer predictions for global warming and the effects of carbon emissions have been proved to be inaccurate.

The report, to be published later this month, is a six year assessment which is seen as the gospel of climate science and is cited to justify fuel taxes and subsidies for renewable energy.

The “summary for policymakers” of the report, seen by the Mail on Sunday, states that the world is warming at a rate of 0.12C per decade since 1951, compared to a prediction of 0.13C per decade in their last assessment published in 2007.

Other admission in the latest document include that forecast computers may not have taken enough notice of natural variability in the climate, therefore exaggerating the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures.

One of the central issues is believed to be why the IPCC failed to account for the “pause” in global warming, which they admit that they did not predict in their computer models. Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase.

The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.

Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “'Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”

The 2007 report included predictions of a decline in Antarctic sea ice, but the latest document does not explain why this year it is at a record high.

The 2013 report states: “'Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations ...

“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.'

The 2007 forecast for more intense hurricanes has also been ignored in the new document after this year was one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history.

One of the report's authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University's Climate Research Network, has said that people should not look to the IPCC for a “bible” on climate change.

Professor Allen, who admits “we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future”, said that he could not comment on the report as it was still considered to be in its draft stages.

However, he added: “It is a complete fantasy to think that you can compile an infallible or approximately infallible report, that is just not how science works.

“It is not a bible, it is a scientific review, an assessment of the literature. Frankly both sides are seriously confused on how science works - the critics of the IPCC and the environmentalists who credit the IPCC as if it is the gospel."

Scientist were constantly revising their research to account for new data, he said.

Despite the uncertainties and contradictions, the IPCC insists that it is more confident than ever – 95 per cent certain - that global warming is mainly human’s fault.

Next week 40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report and representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC will hold a meeting in Stockholm to discuss the finding to discuss any issues ahead of the publication. The body has insisted that this is not a crisis meeting but a pre-planned discussion.

http://www.telegraph...were-wrong.html

By the way......? :-\

Well how about picking out a specific, substantive sentence - or even a paragraph - worthy of response?

Maybe a couple of bullet points?

Why should I do all the work?

[AUcivE09 582]

$10 Homer does not even understand that long copy/paste post on the previous page. Even if you spell it out for this guy he will just go to google and paste a page he thinks debunks whatever you said - and agree with whatever the author of the day said. You cant argue with a last word slut in the age of the internet. Ive said my piece and those who blindly follow their group will not change their mind. Even when someone who has an actual understanding and works in the field can show solid cause of why this witch hunt against CO2 is beyond bogus (at least at this point).

What you do is not work Homer. More like political postering. Lets say CO2 is the devil - what is your solution for this without killing our economy, Homer? I am just curious if you see beyond the end of your nose......now go google something.