Saturday, September 28, 2013
A Fountain of Misinformation
The polar icecaps are melting faster than we thought they would; seas are rising faster than we thought they would; extreme weather events are increasing. Have a nice day! That’s a less than scientifically rigorous summary of the findings of the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released this morning in Stockholm.
The Arctic Ice cap is shrinking (although the period of knowledge about extent of the sea ice--since 1979--is too short for us to tell if it's a natural cycle or not) but the Antarctic sea ice is expanding. So his use of the plural is a lie, a knowing untruth.
Sea level rise, which always happens during an interglacial, has not accelerated. Another knowing untruth.
Extreme weather events are not increasing, many are in decline just now. A third knowing untruth in the first paragraph. Can he top that? Let's see.
Appearing exhausted after a nearly two sleepless days fine-tuning the language of the report, co-chair Thomas Stocker called climate change “the greatest challenge of our time," adding that “each of the last three decades has been successively warmer than the past,” and that this trend is likely to continue into the foreseeable future.
2 was at its Pleistocene low of 280 ppmv. Furthermore, the likely prognostication is for colder still in the coming three decades at least.
Pledging further action to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said, "This isn’t a run of the mill report to be dumped in a filing cabinet. This isn’t a political document produced by politicians... It’s science."Completely corrupt, argumentum ad populum, GIGO model science, bitches. I'll skip ahead a bit.
It is now 95 percent likely that human spewed heat-trapping gases — rather than natural variability — are the main cause of climate change, according to today’s report. In 2007 the IPCC’s confidence level was 90 percent, and in 2001 it was 66 percent, and just over 50 percent in 1995.
So let me get this straight. As the models the IPCC writers totally rely on for their apocalyptic predictions become ever more wrong, the scientists become ever more sure? Is that sound scientific method? We're spewing only one gas worth talking about (although absolutely trivial methane is bound to get mentioned here), CO2, and if there is anything clear from the ice core record of this beneficial trace gas and heat in the atmosphere for the last 600,000 years is that CO2 follows heating, it doesn't cause it.
Mann cites the decline of Arctic sea ice to explain : “Given the current trajectory, we're on track for ice-free summer conditions in the Arctic in a matter of a decade or two... There is a similar story with the continental ice sheets, which are losing ice — and contributing to sea level rise — at a faster rate than the [earlier IPCC] models had predicted.”
Fraudster Mann (go ahead and sue me, ya' pussy) is correct that there has been a decline in Arctic sea ice over the last 33 years, but there is no reason, other than his near religious belief in CO2 having properties it doesn't, to believe that trend will continue for another 20. I have $10,000 I am willing to bet that on September 20, 2033 the ice extent (15% or greater) will be above 4 Million square kilometers. No one ever takes my bet.
There is also uncertainty about an apparent slowdown over the last decade in the rate of air temperature increase. While some critics claim that global warming has “stalled,” others point out that, when rising ocean temperatures are factored in, the Earth is actually gaining heat faster than previously anticipated.The so-called missing heat in the deep ocean is in reality 1/16th of a degree C in 50 years. That tiny, immeasurable amount of added heat does not begin to answer the question why have all the models over stated the lower troposphere warming? Unmentioned in all of this duplicitous article on a largely worthless consensus report (AR5) is that the new IPCC report scales back its guess about the range of sensitivity of the atmosphere from a doubling of CO2, from this in the 2007 report: "2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded" to this now: "[Average temperature from a doubling] is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit)." That's a clear retreat from the 2007 statements about sensitivity. Color me skeptical of an article that won't tell you one of the most important revisions to the report since its inception. Oh and the link in the above paragraph leads you to a Nature paper which talks about "successful retrospective prediction." Think about that phrase for a second. I have one: Unsuccessful future history.
“Temperatures measured over the short term are just one parameter,” said Dr Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in an interview. “There are far more critical things going on; the acidification of the ocean is happening a lot faster than anybody thought that it would, it’s sucking up more CO2, plankton, the basic food chain of the planet, are dying, it’s such a hugely important signal. Why aren’t people using that as a measure of what is going on?”How many times are they going to misrepresent what is actually happening to the ph of the ocean. The sea, basic at 8.14, is getting less basic with the infusion of additional CO2 but is still very much above 7, the dividing line between acidic and basic. It is not getting more acidic; it is getting more neutral. This change in ph is having no identifiable effect. The basic food chain of the planet is certainly not dying (although we probably are over fishing the top of the sea food chain). There are plankton blooms visible in the oceans all over the world, all the time. To answer his question, people aren't using ph as a measure of catastrophic man caused global warming, because that measure is the opposite of what they say it is and some people, at least, don't relish lying.
For most climate experts, however, the battle is long over — at least when it comes to the science. What remains in dispute is not whether climate change is happening, but how fast things are going to get worse.
No one with an IQ over 70 denies that the climate, like the weather, changes over time (usually in a sine wave pattern of varying amplitudes). The gist of the skeptical dissent to the supposed consensus concerns the value judgement "worse" and the idea that the climate is changing too fast, that it is a crisis. These last two are what we denialist say the catastrophic global warming believers have wrong. The climate change we are seeing is largely natural, not at all scary and will actually do most people good, especially in the largest nations.
There are some possibilities that are deliberately left out of the IPCC projections, because we simply don’t have enough data yet to model them. Jason Box, a visiting scholar at the Byrd Polar Research Center told me in an email interview that: “The scary elephant in the closet is terrestrial and oceanic methane release triggered by warming.” The IPCC projections don’t include the possibility — some scientists say likelihood — that huge quantities of methane (a greenhouse gas thirty times as potent as CO2) will eventually be released from thawing permafrost and undersea methane hydrate reserves. Box said that the threshhold “when humans lose control of potential management of the problem, may be sooner than expected.”
I told you they'd get around to methane (now 680 ppbv, parts per Billion and steady). There is no greater evidence of utter negligibility than to be measured by parts per billion. However, methane has been in higher concentrations in the atmosphere 3 times in the last 400,000 years, presumably before the pervasive effects of mankind were made manifest. This paragraph is also a lie by omission. Methane is not the only thing the models can't handle. The list of what the models don't account for is very long and the left out parts are only part of what's making the models so unreliable as to be worthless. Finally, is there greater evidence of hubris than saying humans have the current ability to "manage" the climate? Yeah, were like Gods. Only if you actually believe we can have a substantial effect on climate can you think that we can effect substantial management of it--or worse, do have the ability now substantially to manage it but are in the process of losing that supposed ability because of other human endeavors. There is no chance, no political possibility, we are going to mitigate CO2 production worldwide until we don't have any fossil fuels left, which is many centuries away. So to overcome this political inertia, the catastrophic global warming true believers are compelled to overstate their case in the hope of getting governments to do something useful (in their eyes) and to justify their own existence. The problem is that the overstatement becomes ever more apparent as the models' predictions get ever more out of phase with reality. They lose credibility and have to overstate further and just about now the true believers come off sounding like apocalyptic kooks, which they kind of are.
Box, whose work has been instrumental in documenting the rapid deterioration of the Greenland ice sheet, also believes that the latest IPCC predictions (of a maximum just under three foot ocean rise by the end of the century) may turn out to be wildly optimistic, if the Greenland ice sheet breaks up. “We are heading into uncharted territory” he said. “We are creating a different climate than the Earth has ever seen.”
ended. No explanation asked for or given, I guess. The Earth has in the distant past had CO2 levels at 7000 ppmv (currently we are just under 400 ppmv at Mauna Loa) and has been both much hotter, on average, at 4000 ppmv, 10 times what is is now and the same as now at 1200 ppmv, 3 times what it is now. How could the model predicted climate be other than like one from the past? This is a stupid lie, made by desperate liars. Big ending.
The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, speaks for the scientific consensus when he says that time is fast running out to avoid the catastrophic collapse of the natural systems on which human life depends. What he recently told a group of climate scientist could be the most chilling headline of all for the U.N. report:
"We have five minutes before midnight."
"Scientific consensus" is a term that should cause everyone to stop and be very skeptical. Science doesn't work by consensus. It works by constantly evaluating the theory against the data to see if the theory survives. Real scientists never stop testing their theories, because a million successful experiments do not prove the correctness of the theory when the very next experiment can destroy it. No real scientist says the science is settled. None.
And look at the alarmism: "catastrophic collapse" "chilling headline" "five minutes to midnight". You don't get funded for saying the climate is changing within the historically natural range of change. Which it probably is.
OK, given that models are not evidence, what actual data are your proof that the change we are seeing is alarming?