EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:31 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 522 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 35  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 6:58 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Where was the indignation of those like Milton when this was being discussed?

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100309/ ... 4149a.html

Arriving at work on 5 March, Stanford University ecologist Paul Ehrlich found a rambling and highly profane voice message from someone identifying himself as John Q Public. In one of his more lucid moments, the caller labelled Ehrlich and his colleagues in the climate-science community as "progressive communists attempting to destroy America".

<snip>

Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University in California who is on Inhofe's list and participated in the National Academy discussion, says he is urging colleagues to calm down and stick to the science. And he hopes that the Inhofe report — which says the scientists "violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, may have violated federal laws" — will spark a backlash. "If we don't have civil discourse, where reality rather than spin is the basis of decisions, how are we going to function as a society?" Schneider asks.

Yet Schneider himself compares Inhofe to the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy, who led the discredited campaign against communists during the 1950s

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 7:23 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
Quote:
Once again fence sitters if the Cultists know in their hearts and mind they are right why do they behave this way?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/a ... 091344.ece

Quote:
Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.


Quote:
The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’


Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/t ... 091200.ece

Quote:
This bullying of climate-science sceptics must end

When did demonising your opponents become so acceptable?

Lennart Bengtsson is about as distinguished as climate scientists get. His decision two weeks ago to join the academic advisory board (on which I also sit, unremunerated) of Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation was greeted with fury by many fellow climate scientists. Now in a McCarthyite move — his analogy — they have bullied him


Corruption admitted in the peer review process. Openly admitted and research refused because it doesn't fit the preconceived notion. Scientists who tow the line for access to the gravy train exclude others and refuse to work with those who don't comply with the consensus. Why is this necessary fence sitters? Why do these people feel the need to lie, cheat, conceal, and repress research? This behavior is becoming more and more common and conducted out in the open. They are becoming desperate fence sitters. Their house of cards is falling fence sitters. Why do some here defend this behavior without question? Sad really.

This is not science. This is politics. Like I've always said. No doubt about it.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Last edited by Milton Banana on Fri May 16, 2014 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 8:52 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
Another installment.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Lond ... ndal-grows

Quote:
In truth, to anyone familiar with the Climategate emails there will be nothing surprising or unusual in this incident or this claim. As the emails leaked in 2009 made abundantly clear, the organised suppression of sceptical papers in learned journals by the alarmist establishment has long been rife within the field of climate science.


Quote:
The reason, quite simply, is that it shows the climate change establishment in such an appalling light. These people have long traded on the public's acceptance that they are the "experts", the guys we can trust. Yet here they are shown behaving not like loftily-minded seekers-after-truth but simple playground bullies. One German physicist is said hysterically to have compared Bengtsson's decision to join the Global Warming Policy Foundation (a politically neutral think tank) to joining the Ku Klux Klan. Another warmist scientist - an American one this time - petulantly refused to be named as co-author on any of Bengtsson's papers, a form of professional assassination.


And it gets better.

Quote:
John Cook is an Australian alarmist who a year ago produced a paper purporting to show that 97 per cent of studies supported the "consensus" on man-made global warming. It was eagerly seized on by the left-wing activists who run President Obama's Twitter account, who gleefully tweeted under the name @barackobama "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" - with a link to the paper.

But the paper, in fact, showed nothing of the kind. Recently a researcher named Brandon Shollenberger gained access to some of the data used in Cook's paper and found the statistical methodology to be fatally flawed. However, when he raised these points with Cook's employer the University of Queensland he received a stiff lawyer's letter forbidding him from contacting Cook or even making any mention that he had been sent the letter.

Given how often the "97 per cent" consensus figure is quoted by politicians and scientists alike to justify the extreme measures being adopted to "combat climate change", you can well understand why the alarmist establishment is so eager to suppress this inconvenient truth.

Their ability to do so for much longer, however, looks increasingly doubtful. The word is out: establishment climate science is little more than pseudo-science, propped up by bullying political activists, but unsupported by real-world data.


[size=150]Pseudo-science, propped up by bullying political activists, but unsupported by real-world data.[/size]

Yup, sums it up beautifully. Politics fence sitters. Follow the money fence sitters.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 10:24 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Trying to learn about science from ignorant people writing political blogs seems par for course for some of the posters giving us less than good information.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 11:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
Fence sitters the plot thickens. More scientists speaking out.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/16/a ... e-science/

Quote:
A reader/professor has sent me an internal memo he recently obtained from a meteorologist and member of the Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft [German Meteorological Society], abbreviated as DMG. Clearly grave concern is emerging over a large swath of the broader German meteorological-climatological community in the wake of the Lennart Bengtsson witchhunt.



The memo was authored by a group of dissenting DMG-member meteorologists and intended to be published in the DMG reports, but never saw the light of day.

It reveals a growing and widespread worry over the suppression of scientific views among German Meteorological Society members. One of the authors of the memorandum wrote an e-mail to the reader who provided the copy to me. He writes:


A circle of mostly older colleagues of the Free University of Berlin, who very much reject the tone one finds in today’s field of climatology, has asked me to draft a memorandum on the subject and to publish it in the Reports of the German Meteorological Society. Shortened by a half and totally watered down, the memorandum appeared in the last issue. I now take the liberty to bring the original version to your attention.

Greetings and cordial asscoication yours, ************”



…certain developments are becoming cemented into their scientific fields (foremost climatology) which from a scientific point of view simply cannot be accepted and do not comply to their professional ethics.

I’ve deleted the name to protect the source. What follows is the original, un-watered down version of the memorandum – translated in English:


http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/16/leak ... elopments/

Quote:
Memorandum

On the situation in the field of meteorology-climatology

Based on observations made for quite some time, and due to the current occasion (IPCC 5), colleagues in the meteorological circles have been witnessing with worry how certain developments are becoming cemented into their scientific fields (foremost climatology) which from a scientific point of view simply cannot be accepted and do not comply to their professional ethics.

These developments involve first of all something in the lines of a democratization of science: Everyone is allowed and should have a say in it. In meteorology-climatology every one includes a highly visible army of organized, little known persons; in Germany this is almost the entire public! The changes that have taken place in science as a result have in our opinion (and that of others) led to very negative impacts on the quality standards of science. For example expressed and disseminated meteorological flaws can hardly be contained and cannot be corrected publicly at all. Yet our meteorological scientists do not speak up.

And it is hardly perceived that behind these developments – admittedly – there is also a political objective for the transformation of society, whether one wants it or not. Currently global sustainable change is the same thing.

Meteorology-climatology is playing a decisive role this political action. The – alleged – CO2 consensus here is serving as a lever within the group that consists of known colleagues who deal with climate, but also consists of a large number of climate bureaucrats coming from every imaginable social field. Together both groups consensually have introduced a binding dogma into this science (which is something that is totally alien to the notion of science).

This is not the first time such a thing has happened in the history of science. Here although this dogma came about through democratic paths (through consensus vote?), in the end it is almost dictatorial. Doubting the dogma is de facto forbidden and is punished? In climatology the doubt is about datasets or results taken over from hardly verifiable model simulations from other parties. Until recently this kind of science was considered conquered – thanks to our much celebrated liberty/democratic foundation!

The constant claim of consensus among so-called climatologists, who relentlessly claim man-made climate change has been established, attempts to impose by authority an end to the debate on fundamental questions. Thus a large number of scientist colleagues end up being ostracized, and thus could lead to the prompting of actions that would have considerable burdens on the well-intended society. Such a regulation and the resulting incalculable consequence it would have for all people would in our view – and that of many meteorological specialists we know - be irresponsible with respect to our real level of knowledge in this field.

We must desire in general, and also in our scientific field, a return to an international scientific practice that is free of pre-conceptions and cemented biased opinions. This must include the freedom of presenting (naturally well-founded) scientific results, even when these do not correspond to the mainstream (e.g. the IPCC requirements).

Account of the opinion of a group of responsible minded members of the ZV Berlin -Brandenburg of the German Meteorological Society

On the behalf of others, Prof. Dr. **************, Professor of Theoretical Meteorology of the Free University of Berlin). 28 December 2013


Fence sitters it is becoming increasingly obvious that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Climate science is corrupt. Pure and simple and it must be cleaned up before any public policy can be based upon that scientific discipline. It is completely obvious that to many climate scientists have been feeding at the government trough for far too long. Scientific merit and truth no longer matters to them. 6 figure salaries that's what matters most and they will say or do anything to protect that. Like finding a NASA Jet Propulsion scientist to lead a climate paper. That's like getting an ASW pilot to skipper a Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine. They're both in the Navy but there is no way that can really happen that is going to end well. Follow the money fence sitters. Follow the money.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2014 9:51 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
And, the plot really thickens.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/15/u ... -rebuttal/

Quote:
University of Queensland threatens lawsuit over use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal


Wow, just wow. Not only have they just invoked the Streisand effect, they threw some gasoline on it to boot. It’s all part of the Climate McCarthyism on display this week –

Dear readers, I wanted to do something special for my hundredth post at this site. I picked out a great topic for discussion. I wrote a post with clever prose, jokes that’d make your stomach ache from laughter and even some insightful commentary. Unfortunately, I can’t post it because I’d get sued.

You see, I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has threatened to sue me if I do.

I understand that may be difficult to believe. I’d like to provide you proof of what I say. I’m afraid I can’t do that either though. If I do, the University of Queensland will sue me. As they explained in their letter threatening me:



Quote:
This fascinates me. I corresponded with John Cook to try to get him to assert any claims of confidentiality he might have regarding the data I now possess. I sent him multiple e-mails telling him if he felt the data was confidential, he should request I not disclose it. I said if people’s privacy needed to be protected, he should say so.

He refused. Repeatedly.

Apparently I badgered Cook too much. I tried too hard to get him to do his duty and try to protect his subjects’ privacy. The University of Queensland needs me to stop. If I don’t, they’ll sue me.


So yeah, sorry guys. I wanted my hundredth post to be interesting, but I guess it won’t be. Anything interesting I might have to say will get me sued. And maybe not just sued. The University of Queensland apparently wants me arrested too:


Lets not defend our science in the scientific community like everybody else. No. Let's be a bunch of bitchy, whiney, babies and go to court like a bunch of good little leftist Cultists. Have a questionable study lets behave like Dr. Mann and threaten court action if you do not tow the line. You must hide, stretch, lie, threaten, and sue to protect the questionable study that supports your side. Do you want to defend this Cultists? How about you fence sitters do you support this? They can't defend themselves in the scientific realm anymore so they need help from the courts. Its all about politics. Its all about money. Its all about we can't get anyone to believe us so we're going to bully you into believing. Pure and simple.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2014 4:56 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-conde ... te-change/

Quote:
Climate scientists who vilified a colleague for advising a think-tank are “blind to their own biases”, according to a former senior member of the UN’s climate change advisory body.

Mike Hulme, professor of climate and culture at King’s College London, condemned fellow scientists for “harassing” Lennart Bengtsson, and gave warning that climate science had become too political.

Professor Bengtsson resigned this week from the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think-tank, after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics.

Professor Hulme, who helped to lead the team that produced the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2001 report, last night broke ranks within the climate science community to defend Professor Bengtsson.

He condemned climate scientists who “believe it’s their role to pass public judgment on whether a scientific colleague should offer advice to political, public or a campaigning organisations and to harass that scientist until they ‘fall into line’.”

He added that the episode said much about how politicised climate science had become and “how some scientists remain blind to their own biases”.


Like I have always said fence sitters. Politics and money. These climate bullies are protecting their politics and their place at the government trough. And now scientists are starting to say it as well.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2014 7:03 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
Here you go fence sitters.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/05/thos ... tures.html

Quote:
NOAA Confirms: CO2 Having No Warming Impact On U.S. 21st Century Temperatures, Instead Cooling



NOAA US temperatures cooling 21st century co2 those stubborn facts april2014 051614
(click on chart to enlarge)

Recently, the White House released their U.S. climate assessment report that was shockingly deceptive - contrary to NOAA's own empirical climate evidence that is widely available.

Many of the mainstream press outlets, acting as this administration's propaganda instruments, reported the deceptions as is, even sometimes enhanced with their own climate-doomsday embellishments.

The major deception of the climate report is the falsehood that accelerating U.S. and global warming is taking place due to human CO2 emissions.

It is important to note that the science journals, and even some mainstream media outlets, are actually reporting the facts that the globe's predicted, unequivocal warming has stalled for over 15+ years.

This is also true for the continental U.S. temperatures during the 21st century, though, with an obvious difference. As the adjacent chart reveals, the U.S. temperatures exhibit an actual cooling trend - actually opposite of the rapid, dangerous, "scorching" climate that the White House and some propagandists liars journalists report.

Based on moving 5-year averages of U.S. monthly temperature anomalies, America's continental climate is currently cooling at a minus 1.2°F per century rate.

It's just another case of 'those stubborn facts' being mighty inconvenient.


NOAA CONFIRMS NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE FOR THE 21 CENTURY!!!!

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 8:06 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Here you go fence sitters.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/05/thos ... tures.html

Quote:
NOAA Confirms: CO2 Having No Warming Impact On U.S. 21st Century Temperatures, Instead Cooling



NOAA US temperatures cooling 21st century co2 those stubborn facts april2014 051614
(click on chart to enlarge)

Recently, the White House released their U.S. climate assessment report that was shockingly deceptive - contrary to NOAA's own empirical climate evidence that is widely available.

Many of the mainstream press outlets, acting as this administration's propaganda instruments, reported the deceptions as is, even sometimes enhanced with their own climate-doomsday embellishments.

The major deception of the climate report is the falsehood that accelerating U.S. and global warming is taking place due to human CO2 emissions.

It is important to note that the science journals, and even some mainstream media outlets, are actually reporting the facts that the globe's predicted, unequivocal warming has stalled for over 15+ years.

This is also true for the continental U.S. temperatures during the 21st century, though, with an obvious difference. As the adjacent chart reveals, the U.S. temperatures exhibit an actual cooling trend - actually opposite of the rapid, dangerous, "scorching" climate that the White House and some propagandists liars journalists report.

Based on moving 5-year averages of U.S. monthly temperature anomalies, America's continental climate is currently cooling at a minus 1.2°F per century rate.

It's just another case of 'those stubborn facts' being mighty inconvenient.


NOAA CONFIRMS NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE FOR THE 21 CENTURY!!!!


You forgot the small portions of the statement to make it truthful .... ONLY IN THE US and THERE HAS BEEN A PLATEAU

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 8:14 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
The portion of the science of climate change which seems to confuse the armcahir experts such as Milton, is the effect is a retention of energy. If the energy input were stable the tempertature increase would also be more stable in its rise. However, the solar output is not stable so the net effect is more energy retained than would have been without the additional GHGs. This does not mean there is some evidence of flawed science if the temperature does not track as they wish, but tracks with the solar output and retains more of that output over time. I know it is difficult for Milton to understand, but it may be of interest to anyone really trying to make a decision.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 9:46 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
Here we go fence sitters another IPCC scientist jumps ship.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/20/ ... armed-for/

Quote:
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol admits no global warming for 17 years – Rips bias in IPCC – UN’s ‘inbuilt alarmism made me step down’ – ‘By the time the report was finished, however, it hadn’t warmed for 17 years’

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 9:55 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Here we go fence sitters another IPCC scientist jumps ship.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/20/ ... armed-for/

Quote:
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol admits no global warming for 17 years – Rips bias in IPCC – UN’s ‘inbuilt alarmism made me step down’ – ‘By the time the report was finished, however, it hadn’t warmed for 17 years’


Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 9:27 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
Fence sitters we can thank Wayne for pointing out this guy is an economist. What does that suggest about the IPCC? Employing an economist to be a lead author in a IPCC Report. If the climatologists can't convince an economist what does that suggest? :-

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:09 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20579
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters we can thank Wayne for pointing out this guy is an economist. What does that suggest about the IPCC? Employing an economist to be a lead author in a IPCC Report. If the climatologists can't convince an economist what does that suggest? :-


It means his area of expertise is not in climate change, but possibly the costs associated with the attempts to mitigate the effects. There is a lot more to the IPCC report than just the data on how the cliamte is changing, but to know that you actually have to read the report.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2014 11:17 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 373
Okay fence sitters its time for another installment of let's look to the seedy underbelly of climate science as conducted by agenda driven Cultists.

Quote:
4.
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Mike Hulme wrote:

> Tom,> > Thanks for clarifying your thinking on this.> > I still have a problem with HadCM2 forcing and making sense of what Hadley> have published, esp. the numbers in the Feb. 1997 J.Climate paper by> Mitchell and Johns. There, they make it clear that the model was presented> with CO2-equiv. rising from 473ppmv in 1990 to 1414ppmv in 2100, i.e., a 1%> p.a. increase. This *seems* precise and unambiguous, so I don't think they> do adjust the CO2-equiv. growth ratio (C2100/C1990) to 3.127 (i.e., about> 1.05% p.a.) as you suggest.> > This concentration scenario yielded a 1990-2100 model forcing of 6.5Wm-2> (sic), "close to that reported by Mitchell and Gregory in 1992" [Mitchell> and Johns, 1997] using STUGE (my estimate for that is about 6.2Wm-2). Both> of these are quite a bit higher than the 5.8Wm-2 forcing in IPCC SAR for> IS92a. With this (apparently) higher forcing, I reasoned that all else> being equal, the actual CO2 concentrations that are consistent with HadCM2> should also be *higher* that those cited in IPCC SAR and hence we could not> just use the CO2 concentrations from MAGICC (or the Bern model). Hence my> somewhat higher CO2 estimates of 790ppmv by 2100 were arrived at by using:> > pCO2 = 279ppmv * (exp(F/(3.47/ln(2))))) where F is the proportion in> MAGICC of total forcing due to CO2 alone for IS92a.> > The Mitchell/Johns J.Climate paper is confusing, however, because it also> presents results in their Table 1 which shows a 1990-2100 HadCM2 forcing of> only 5.5Wm-2 (sic), a value that relates to their text-cited value of> 6.5Wm-2 only by using DQ of 5.05Wm-2 (i.e., the sensitivity of HadCM2)> rather than DQ = 6.3Wm-2. Yet the text of the paper continues to imply the> HadCM2 forcing is '12% higher' than Kattenburg, rather than 5% lower.> > The bottom line ... the IS92a SAR forcing of 5.758Wm-2 and DQ of 6.3Wm-2> only yields a CO2-equiv. growth rate of just over 0.8% p.a., rising to> nearly 0.9% p.a. if the HadCM2 DQ of 5.05Wm-2 is used. These are still> some way short of 1% p.a.> > Regards,> > Mike> > p.s. this is now more a matter for my own curiousity since I agree that for> most assessment purposes the Wigley/Joos numbers are the best to use.> > At 15:36 18/05/99 -0600, you wrote:> >Dear all,> >> >I've just read the emails of May 14 onwards regarding CO2. I must say> >that I am stunned by the confusion that surrounds this issue. > >Basically, I and MacCracken are *right* and Felzer, Schimel and (to a> >lesser extent) Hulme are *wrong*. There is absolutely, categorically no> >doubt about this. Let me explain.> > > >(1) The Hadley Centre run is meant to simulate the climate change> >consequences of the full IS92a emissions scenario.> >> >(2) In this scenario, there are the following concentration and forcing> >changes over 1990-2100:> > Item C(2100) DQ(1990-2100)> > CO2 708 4.350> > CH4 3470 0.574 > > N2O 414 0.368> > Halos 0.315> > TropO3 0.151> > -----------------------------> > GHGs 5.758> > SO4 (dir) -0.284> > SO4 (indir) -0.370> > -----------------------------> > TOTAL 5.104> >> >These are the numbers I used in Ch. 6 of the SAR. They do not agree> >precisely with numbers in Ch. 2, because I used the models and formulae> >embedded in MAGICC. The differences between Ch. 2 and Ch. 6 are> >irrelevant to the present issue.> >> >(3) How does one simulate the combined effects of all the GHGs in a> >climate model that only has CO2? The standard way is to take the GHG> >radiative forcing (ending in 5.758W/m**2 in 2100 in this case) and> >convert this to *equivalent* CO2 concentration changes. If one uses> >the old (IPCC90) forcing formula for CO2 (which is what was used in the> >SAR), viz DQ=6.3 ln(C/C0), then C(2100)/C(1990) is 2.494. Note that the> >1% compounded change would be C(2100)/C(1990)=(1.01)**110=2.988. Thus,> >1% compounded CO2 gives roughly the correct *forcing*.> >> >NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL CO2 CHANGES ARE *NOT* THE CO2 CHANGES USED IN THE> >MODEL. THE MODEL USES ARTIFICIAL CO2 CHANGES, SCALED UP TO ACCOUNT FOR> >FORCING FROM OTHER GHGs.> >> >NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL CO2 CHANGE IS FROM 354ppmv IN 1990 to> >708ppmv IN 2100. THIS IS *NOT* A 1% COMPOUNDED INCREASE. > > > >NOTE, FURTHER, THAT WHAT MIKE HULME SUGGESTS IN HIS POINT 8 IS ALSO> >WRONG. IT IS WRONG TO *BACK OUT* THE CO2 FROM FORCINGS. THE CO2 WAS> >SPECIFIED A PRIORI.> >> >NOTE FINALLY THAT MIKE *DOES* GIVE THE 708ppmv VALUE IN HIS POINT 9.> >USING THIS WOULD BE OK, BUT I RECOMMEND USING THE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT> >BERN MODEL RESULTS (SEE BELOW).> > > >(4) Now, some minor wrinkles. In the Hadley Centre model for CO2,> >DQ=5.05 ln (C/C0). Hence, to get a forcing of 5.758W/m**2, they need to> >use C(2100/C1990)=3.127. Note that this is a little closer to the 1%> >compounded result than my above calculation. The Hadley Centre may well> >have used a slightly different total 1990-2100 GHG forcing than mine, so> >they may have backed out a compounded CO2 increase rate even closer to> >1% than the above. In any event, if they decided to go with 1%, then> >this was a perfectly reasonable choice in order to capture the total GHG> >forcing.> >> >(5) The 708ppmv C(2100) value is what comes out of my carbon cycle> >model. In the SAR, in Ch. 2, we considered results from three different> >carbon cycle models; mine, the Bern (Joos) model, and Atul Jain's> >model. For illustrations in the SAR, we used the Bern model. The> >mid-2100 value with this model, for IS92a, was 711.7ppmv. A later> >version of this model, used in IPCC TP4, gives 711.5ppmv. Jain's model> >gave 712.3ppmv.> >> >(6) The bottom line here is that, for a consistent pairing of Hadley> >Centre climate and CO2, one MUST use the ACTUAL CO2 numbers that went> >into calculating the radiative forcing, NOT the equivalent CO2 numbers. > >The climate response reflects all GHGs, whereas the plants are> >responding only to CO2.> >> >(7) I am attaching the Joos CO2 time series. I recommend using the> >actual values rather than trying to fit a compound CO2 increase to> >them---which, in any event, should not be done using just the end point> >values. This, however, is your choice. Differences will be negligible> >in terms of plant response.> >> >I hope this clarifies things. It has always seemed pretty obvious and> >clear cut to me. I hope it will now to all of you.> >> >Cheers,> >Tom> >> >> > **********************************************************> > *Tom M.L. Wigley *> > *Senior Scientist *> > *National Center for Atmospheric Research *> > *P.O. Box 3000 *> > *Boulder, CO 80307-3000 * > > *USA *> > *Phone: 303-497-2690 *> > *Fax: 303-497-2699 *> > *E-mail: wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx *> > **********************************************************> >Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachIs95a.dat"> >>


" I still have a problem with HadCM2 forcing and making sense of what Hadley> have published, esp. the numbers in the Feb. 1997 J.Climate paper by> Mitchell and Johns."

I thought all climate scientists were conducting themselves on the same page offered by scientific technique. Apparently, there is a lot of debate going on over "scientific technique" among climate scientists.

"This concentration scenario yielded a 1990-2100 model forcing of 6.5Wm-2> (sic), "close to that reported by Mitchell and Gregory in 1992" [Mitchell> and Johns, 1997] using STUGE (my estimate for that is about 6.2Wm-2). Both> of these are quite a bit higher than the 5.8Wm-2 forcing in IPCC SAR for> IS92a. With this (apparently) higher forcing, I reasoned that all else> being equal, the actual CO2 concentrations that are consistent with HadCM2> should also be *higher* that those cited in IPCC SAR and hence we could not> just use the CO2 concentrations from MAGICC (or the Bern model). Hence my> somewhat higher CO2 estimates of 790ppmv by 2100 were arrived at by using:>"

Concentration scenarios? My estimate? With this apparently? Should be higher? Yup sounds like state of the art climate science to me.

"> The Mitchell/Johns J.Climate paper is confusing, however, because it also> presents results in their Table 1 which shows a 1990-2100 HadCM2 forcing of> only 5.5Wm-2 (sic), a value that relates to their text-cited value of> 6.5Wm-2 only by using DQ of 5.05Wm-2 (i.e., the sensitivity of HadCM2)> rather than DQ = 6.3Wm-2. Yet the text of the paper continues to imply the> HadCM2 forcing is '12% higher' than Kattenburg, rather than 5% lower.> > The bottom line ... the IS92a SAR forcing of 5.758Wm-2 and DQ of 6.3Wm-2> only yields a CO2-equiv. growth rate of just over 0.8% p.a., rising to> nearly 0.9% p.a. if the HadCM2 DQ of 5.05Wm-2 is used. These are still> some way short of 1% p.a.> > Regards,> > Mike> > p.s. this is now more a matter for my own curiousity since I agree that for> most assessment purposes the Wigley/Joos numbers are the best to use.> > At 15:36 18/05/99 -0600, you wrote:>"

Paper is confusing? Paper continues to imply? These are still some way short? But, with all these questions the Wigley/Joos numbers are the best to use? For what? This also confirms that climate scientists themselves see big differences in research going on within their own field. This is a huge admission. There are many different methods, numbers, theories, and data sets all kicking around out there. And, they all use whatever they choose, but they all arrive at the same conclusion. In the scientific community this is just simply not possible. Privately they question the hell out of one another, but publically you never hear about this aspect. This is one of the most eye opening moments in all of these emails fence sitters.

"A later> >version of this model, used in IPCC TP4, gives 711.5ppmv. Jain's model> >gave 712.3ppmv.> >> >(6) The bottom line here is that, for a consistent pairing of Hadley> >Centre climate and CO2, one MUST use the ACTUAL CO2 numbers that went> >into calculating the radiative forcing, NOT the equivalent CO2 numbers. >"

Here the researcher is confirming that two sets of numbers are used. One is good, and another is bad. How do we know which researcher used which set of numbers?

Over 15,000 hits. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 522 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 35  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group