Chris Monckton as reported by R. Ferguson at the Science and Public Policy website:
Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –
* The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
* CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
* The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
* The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
* “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
***
Dr. Armstrong and economist K. Green as reported by J. Marohasy at her website:1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate.
2. Improper peer review process.
3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting.
4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change.
5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.
6. To justify using a climate forecasting model, one would need to test it against a relevant naïve model.
7. The climate system is stable.
8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle.
***
K. Green reporting at his website:Forecasting for public policy: Forecasts of global warming and of the extinction of polar bears are not derived from scientific forecasting methods and are not credible.
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts.
We have shown that failure occurs with the first forecasting problem: predicting
temperature over the long term. Specifically, we have been unable to find a scientific
forecast to support the currently widespread belief in “global warming.”
Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making
Global mean temperatures were found to be remarkably stable over policy-relevant horizons. The benchmark forecast is that the global mean temperature for each year for the rest of this century will be within 0.5°C of the 2008 figure.
Governments and Climate Change Issues The case for rethinking
Governments, and in particular the governments of the OECD member countries, are mishandling climate change issues. Both the basis and the content of official policies are open to serious question. Too much reliance is placed on the established process of review and inquiry which is conducted through the agency of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This process, which is wrongly taken to be objective and authoritative, has been made the point of departure for over-presumptive conclusions which are biased towards alarm, in the mistaken belief that ‘the science’ is ‘settled’. Rather than pursuing as a matter of urgency ambitious and costly targets for drastic further curbing of CO2 emissions, governments should take prompt steps to ensure that they and their citizens are more fully and more objectively informed and advised. This implies both improving the IPCC process and going beyond it. As to the content of policy, it is not the case that the choice now lies between two extremes, of no action and the immediate adoption of much stronger measures to curb emissions. The orientation of policies should be made more evolutionary and less presumptive, with actual policy measures focusing more on carbon taxes rather than the present and prospective array of costly and intrusive regulatory initiatives
***
From the 2008 Clare Distinguished Lecture transcript:By Professor Mohan Munasinghe Economic Progress and Climate Change Issues: A Dissenting Viewpoint
Critics of the IPCC process have drawn attention, in my opinion with good reason, to flaws which include:
* Weaknesses in the treatment of some economic issues.I believe that currently received opinion on climate change issues, official and unofficial, embodies over-presumptive conclusions which are biased towards alarm. These take as their point of departure the results of a flawed process, and they represent a dubious extension of those results.
* Over-reliance on peer review procedures which do not serve as a guarantee of quality and do not ensure due disclosure.
* Serious failures of disclosure in relation to studies which the IPCC has drawn on.
* Basic errors in the handling of data, allied to failure to consult or involve trained statisticians.
* Failure to ensure an adequate range of views and expertise.
* Failure to take due note of critics in the preparation of the Assessment Reports.
* Failure on the part of the Panel and the IPCC directing circle to recognise and deal with the above deficiencies.
***
By Roger A. Pielke, Sr. Scientific Errors With the IPCC Statement for Policymakers.
The errors include:
The errors include:
* Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system.By Roger A. Pielke, Sr. The 2007 IPCC Assessment Process - Its Obvious Conflict of Interest
* … snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.
* Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system.
* The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.
*Mid-latitude westerly winds have strengthened in both hemispheres since the 1960s.
*Total Net Anthropogenic” global average radiative forcing for 2005 of +1.6 [0.6 to 2.4] Watts per meter squared. When one converts the units, this means that the Earth’s climate system should be accumulating Joules at a rate of 2.61*10**22 Joules per year [0.98*10**22 Joules to 3.91*10*22 Joules per year] in 2005.
The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.
***
By D. Hoyt A Critical Examination of Climate ChangeProblems with the greenhouse warming theory:
1. The IPCC theory has a roughly 3.5 W/m2 decrease in outgoing thermal radiation from a doubling of carbon dioxide. The number is based upon an instantaneous doubling of carbon dioxide and assumes no change in the continuum radiation. This topic is discussed further here.Summary: Based upon the first three points above, the upper limit on warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide is 0.7 C and it is probably much less. The high numbers used by the IPCC are not supported by measurements.
2. The sensitivity of climate without any feedbacks is (33 C / 148 W/m2) or 0.22 C/W/m2, so the basic change in climate is 0.22 * 3.5 C or 0.7 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide. Recently Schwartz has deduced empirically that the climate sensitivity is approximately 0.25 C/W/m2, and equilibrium time is 2-3 years (Requirements for empirical determination of Earth's climate sensitivity by S. E. Schwartz at the AAAS Annual Meeting, Denver CO, February 14-18, 2003 http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/abstracts/Empirical.html). Most empirical determinations of climate sensitivity place it somewhere between 0.07 and 0.26 C/W/m2.
In contrast, the IPCC says a doubling of carbon dioxide will cause a warming of 1.5 to 4.5 C and have a climate sensitivity between 0.43 and 1.29 C/W/m2. They get these high numbers by assuming a number of positive feedbacks exist including changes in water vapor, cloud cover, and snow and ice cover. The water vapor feedback is incorrect and is discussed here.
3. The sum total of all feedbacks is assumed to be positive. Recent published work shows they are negative and these results are reviewed here.
4. IPCC economic models overestimate the rate at which carbon dioxide will enter the atmosphere over the next century. It leads to farfetched warming numbers such as 5.8 C. A critique is offered here.
5. Some easily modeled effects such as an increase in depolarization factor of air with more carbon dioxide are totally neglected in the climate models. Further discussion here.
Greenhouse Warming Scorecard
***
zzzzz.
No comments:
Post a Comment