I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Peter Bernard Ladkin: 
 

 

Summary: emissions are roaring away in 2021 as though nothing has happened. 

 

Indeed nothing has happened to the average global temperature for the past 6 and a half years!

(so my handlers tell me)

A report on the Global Carbon Budget 2021 is available as preprint and has been submitted to ESSD. https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2021-386/ 

Summary: emissions are roaring away in 2021 as though nothing has happened. A good synopsis of the results is that by Damian Carrington in The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/04/reality-check-global-co2-emissions-shooting-back-to-record-levels Much of it seems to be driven by China. 

Roger Bryant:
Where have I called you and most climate scientists liars? If you read the thread I have challenged the lies and hype from climate activists which bears no resemblance to the science in the IPCC reports, for example using RPC8.5 as the norm.

That caught my eye in today's mailbox and inspired sharing some relevant information in another posting. Obviously someone has made rather illogical accusations; hopefully the climate inquisition is still at bay ;)

An interesting article was recently published in Nature that may provide some colour to the "99% CAGW consensus":

Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations will rein in global warming
"Nature conducted an anonymous survey of the 233 living IPCC authors last month and received responses from 92 scientists — about 40% of the group. 
Most of the survey’s respondents — 88% — said they think global warming constitutes a ‘crisis’, and nearly as many said they expect to see catastrophic impacts of climate change in their lifetimes."

www.nature.com/.../d41586-021-02990-w

Perhaps we can conclude from the above:

1. Only 88% out of 92 IPCC scientists who cared to respond think global warming constitutes a ‘crisis’, 81 individuals. Such result seems to be quite different from alleged 99% consensus on CAGW emergency, even surprising, considering the company where one would expect a 100% consensus.

2. Hypothetically, the scientists who responded may likely be the ones interested in actively pushing the IPCC agenda and leaning towards supporting the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. In such case, consensus among IPCC scientists regarding CAGW could be within the range 35% to 88%.

Although these thoughts are certainly not a scientific analysis, perhaps they can calm those who believe that all IPCC scientists stand behind the ‘climate crisis’ propaganda.

Peter,

Once again no answers, just repeating the same stuff. Arrhenius’s work may well stand, but it is not the climate system, note ‘system’.

If you care to read Judith Curry’s commentary on AR6 WG1 you will find many other things with varying uncertainties affect the climate system. 

https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/06/ipcc-ar6-breaking-the-hegemony-of-global-climate-models/

Basing climate change forecasting on simplistic CO2 based models is not very helpful and results in the ridiculous hype that the world will burn up in 30 years’ time that prompted this thread.

‘Furthermore, you called people such as myself and the majority of climate scientists liars, in your title to this thread. I think that is morally reprehensible. I am rather surprised you haven't been sanctioned by the IET for such comments.’

Where have I called you and most climate scientists liars? If you read the thread I have challenged the lies and hype from climate activists which bears no resemblance to the science in the IPCC reports, for example using RPC8.5 as the norm. I have also qualified this by noting it only applies if the BBC article itself is correct.

Actually thinking is necessary. Watch here:

Roger Bryant: 
 

Peter,

Do you merely spout dogma or do you actually think?

Normally, I wouldn't reply to such a piece of abuse. I don't correspond with people who are abusive.

However, it seems worthwhile for me to say where I think the discussion is at.

I previously asked a number of questions, you don’t appear to have answered any of them:

You can ask me a hundred questions, or a million questions, about climate science. So what? 

There was a discussion of Karoly and Stott's paper on the warming showing on the CET. They described the CET data. You described the CET data in a manner which seems to be incompatible. I suggested that needed explanation, since you are looking at the exact same data set.

I have already responded with my ‘technical’ reasons as to why I disagree with Stott’s result.

First, it's not the result that came in question. It is the description of the data. Your comments explaining why you disagree with Karol and Stott's observations about the data made no sense to me. They still don't. I don't see you engaging with that work in any way which is likely to lead to a resolution. 

The issue is this. 

1. 1.Human activity is putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate of some 50+ bn CO2 equivalent tonnes per year.

• 2.The greenhouse effect has been known and understood for some 200 years.
• 3.The result of the greenhouse effect is tropospheric warming.
• 4. So how big is the warming associated with the greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?

Your answer to #4 seems to be that it is negligible. There is a 120 year old result that, very far from being negligible, it is a few degrees C°. This has been considerably refined, largely since the 1960's, but has been confirmed as generally accurate. Two climate physicists have just been awarded the Nobel Prize for their contributions to this effort. The Nobel committee considers global warming due to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions as “prove[n].” 

In various interchanges you have been unable to come up with any story of your own which contradicts the judgement of the Nobel committee as well as the overwhelming majority of (seriou) climate scientists as to why you think the answer to #4 is negligible. I don't feel inclined to carry on playing forum ring-a-ring-a-roses on this. Either you can come up with such a story or you can't. Given the history so far, I think probably you can't. 

So I don't see the discussion with you progressing. 

Furthermore, you called people such as myself and the majority of climate scientists liars, in your title to this thread. I think that is morally reprehensible. I am rather surprised you haven't been sanctioned by the IET for such comments.

Peter,

Do you merely spout dogma or do you actually think?

I previously asked a number of questions, you don’t appear to have answered any of them:

If, as you propose, AGW is a northern hemisphere phenomena why are the [CO2] levels higher in the south than the north?

If CO2 is the driver why are we not seeing the same phenomena globally?

Do you accept that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age existed and were of sufficient magnitude to be recorded?

If CO2/Greenhouse Gasses were the cause [of the MWP], where did they come from?

I have already responded with my ‘technical’ reasons as to why I disagree with Stott’s result.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you agree or disagree with Peter Stott's result, which I cited, of how much the rise in CET since 1950 is due to anthropogenic warming? If you disagree with it, what is your basis?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that your question may be a little simplistic. As the CET dropped around 0.5°C from 1950 to 1970 the natural forcing effects must be significantly stronger than any ‘man made’ effect. If the effects were equal the temperature would have been flat, not dropping.  The maximum anthropogenic effect here must therefore be rather less than 50%, 25%???. I don’t therefore consider it to be significant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can expand this with some numbers taken from the CET graphic.

Between 1950 and 1970 the temperature dropped at a rate of -0.3°C Decade.

Between 1975 and 2000 the temperature rose at a rate of 0.5°C Decade.

If we assume that the temperature rise between 1975 and 2000 was entirely anthropogenic, so 0.5°C per decade the natural cooling effect to cause the drop between 1950 and 1970 must be -0.8°C decade which is greater than the anthropogenic warming.

If we make another assumption that only half the temperature rise was anthropogenic, 0.25°C per decade the natural cooling effect must be -0.55°C per decade which is again significantly greater than the warming effect.

Do you accept this or will you just use your normal response of telling me to get it published?

I also posted excerpts and a link to a piece by Judith Curry analysing the increased uncertainty in the technical details of AR6.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I’ve been reading the fine print of the IPCC AR6 WG1 Report. The authors are to be congratulated for preparing a document that is vastly more intellectually sophisticated than its recent predecessors. Topics like ‘deep uncertainty,’ model ‘fitness-for-purpose’ (common topics at Climate Etc.) actually get significant mention in the AR6. Further, natural internal variability receives a lot of attention, volcanoes a fair amount of attention (solar not so much).

“No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”

More specifically, observationally-based estimates of ECS were substantially lower than the climate model values.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

judithcurry.com/.../

Do you accept her commentary? 

She also gave an interesting presentation to the New Jersey Conference on Energy and Decarbonization.

https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/22/challenges-of-the-clean-energy-transition/

This follows my views quite closely in that we have a climate problem, not a climate emergency, and that our actions need to be carefully considered not to create further damage to the environment.

Aivar Usk: 
 "memorized IPCC dogma rather than developed a healthy ability to think critically about the staggeringly large uncertainties in our understanding of the way the Earth system operates".

This is a highly misleading framing of the situation.

The IPCC working groups get together every few years to discuss what has happened recently in climate science. They review the reputable literature. All of it. And attempt to summarise. That is what leads to the enormous WG Technical Summaries (many hundreds of megabytes). Then there is the Synthesis Report, which is where all the arguing amongst the delegates from 100 or so countries comes in. 

The Technical Summaries are a review of the literature as it is. If Bill says “here is my proof of anthropocentric global warming in the last 100 years” and Fred says “here is what is wrong with Bill's argument”, and these are both published in reputable journals, then WG1 will in general consider both Bill's contribution and Fred's contribution.

I say “in general” because, having worked on numerous program committees and standardisation committees, I am well aware of the things which don't go right. Any time you have more than about three people working on something like this, there are going to be disagreements and things not going optimally. 

Let's consider two examples of matters which have come up here. First, Lindzen's assertion that there haven't been more, or more extreme, extreme-weather events recently. That is so obviously wrong that there is no way a reviewer for a reputable journal could leave it in a paper accepted for publication. So it won't get in the literature and thus won't be considered for AR7. Second, McKitrick's assertion that the Allen-Stett method leads to wrong results. He said it in a blog post, but he didn't say it in the paper. What was claimed in the paper is that the method is incomplete and leaves out some necessary checks. That is now in the literature. AR7 WG1 might well consider it. 

The TS's, then, are not “dogma”; they are attempted summaries of the science as it has appeared in the literature, the “mainstream” as well as the “contrarian”.

Now let us consider how this misframing has actually been (mis)used in the discussion. Earlier on this page, AU quoted an assertion in climate science, and asked me if I agreed. I said no, and quoted Houghton's textbook Fifth Edition, Figure 4.4 as a reason. AU didn't attempt to say that Figure 4.4 was wrong; or indeed anything else about what Figure 4.4 says. He deflected, by finding a book review of Houghton, and then writing

[AU] Need we say more - no wonder students cultivated on such fertilizer develop a lifelong IPCC-worship.

Yes, we need say more.

The way this figure came about is likely

• it was published somewhere in a reputable journal;
• IPCC WG1 (for either AR4 or AR5, I think) reviewed it, and considered it significant;
• it got in their TS;
• Houghton then used it in Houghton Fifth (or it may already be in Houghton Fourth, which I haven't seen).

Another possibility is

• the components were published separately in papers in various reputable journals;
• IPCC WG1 liked all of them and put the results together in one graphic;
• which then got in their TS;
• Houghton then used it.

Another possibility is

• the components were published separately in papers in various reputable journals;
• IPCC WG1 like all of them;
• which they then put in their TS:
• Houghton put the graphics together into one Figure in his book

(I did not find the original in the graphics for either AR4 or AR5. I didn't look too hard; I may have missed them.) 

In all of these cases, where the science came from has nothing to do with IPCC, “fertiliser” or “worship”, in fact it likely has little to do with IPCC at at (although it may well have been that at least one of the authors has been on some IPCC committee - many climate scientists have, at some point, including Lindzen).

The intellectual vapidity of AU's response now becomes clear. He can't criticise figure 4.4 on any technical basis. He just disparages a particular book where it appeared. Simon Barker was quite right to characterise this kind of argument as ad hominem.  It has been pervasive in this discussion. It's vapid.

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
You have said repeatedly that you are unable to judge the scientific evidence.

That is your wording. We seem to disagree on what qualifies as scientific evidence. Instead of GIGO models, I prefer evidence like this one on extreme wether by the US NOAA:

"So why would the record for named storms be broken in 2020, while the overall activity as measured by ACE is not even be close to setting a record?                               
The answer is very likely technology change, rather than climate change."

You say “I'm not a climate scientist” and decline to answer questions about specific claims in climate science.

I can understand your frustration but indeed I had no intention to start discussing details here. The climate science is rather complex and even if I would be able to spend more weeks to wrestle with similar non-specialists, it would do little to change the opinions of the ones who have "memorized IPCC dogma rather than developed a healthy ability to think critically about the staggeringly large uncertainties in our understanding of the way the Earth system operates".

Some answers can be found in an interview with Dr. William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus at Princeton University, a long-time member of JASON, a group of scientists which provides independent advice to the U.S. government. He was among those who initated AGW related research but realised soon that the hypothesis of CO2 driving dangerous warming was wrong.

A reasonable person takes that as a good reason you should shut up.

I shall follow your advice here - with "who else human is following this any longer", there is no point to continue indeed. It seems to me that we could respectfully agree to disagree on the existence of anthropogenic climate crisis and wait to see what the future shall bring.

In case that any human audience has cared to read the thread up to this point, I sincerely thank you all for not excercising the opportunity to throw any stones at me, hoping that my input extended the horizons somewhat ;) I am sure that regardless of the position in climate debate, any responsible engineer is appling all the necessary efforts to design and manufacture products and systems that are both energy and resource efficient.

Signing out with kindest regards,

Aivar