Another Reason Why IPCC Predictions (Projections) Fail. AR5 Continues to Let The End Justify the Unscrupulous Means

IPCC_progressionsNoble cause corruption in the process.

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Someone said economists try to predict the tide by measuring one wave. The IPCC essentially try to predict (project) the global temperature by measuring one variable. The IPCC compound their problems by projecting the temperature variable with the influence of the economic variable.

Use of circular arguments is standard operating procedures for the IPCC. For example, they assume a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. They then create a model with that assumption and when the model output shows a temperature increase with a CO2 increase they claim it proves their assumption.

They double down on this by combining an economic model that projects a CO2 increase with their climate model projection. To make it look more accurate and reasonable they create scenarios based on their estimates of future developments. It creates what they want, namely that CO2 will increase and temperature will increase catastrophically unless we shut down fossil fuel based economies very quickly.

All their projections failed, even the lowest as, according to them, atmospheric CO2 continued to rise and global temperatures declined. As usual, instead of admitting their work and assumptions were wrong, they scramble to blur, obfuscate and counterattack.

One part of the obfuscation is to keep the focus on climate science. Most think the IPCC is purely about climate science, they don’t know about the economics connection. They don’t know that the IPCC projects CO2 increase on economic models that presume to know the future. Chances of knowing that are virtually zero as history shows.

On September 1, 2014 we will recognize the 75th anniversary of the declaration of war against Germany. I am not aware of anybody who predicted what happened in that 75 years, or even came close. I am sure people will find someone who foresaw one or two of the events, but not the entire social, economic, technological and political changes. A brief list illustrates the challenge.

  • The Cold War
  • The Korean War
  • The Vietnamese War
  • Global Terrorism
  • The collapse of communism
  • China and India as world powers
  • The Internet
  • Moon and Mars Landings
  • Silicon Chips
  • Space vehicle leaving the Solar System
  • Space Satellites
  • Hubble telescope
  • Fracking

The IPCC claim 95 percent certainty about their climate science and presumably about their predictions. The problem is all were wrong from the start. As early as the 1995 Report they had switched to projections. They gave a range of projections or scenarios from low to high, but even the lowest was incorrect. Roger Pielke Jr et al explained the assumptions for the scenarios were unrealistic, especially about technological progress in energy use and supply.

Most people assume the projections are solely a function of the climate science and climate models, but that is not the case. The climate science is wrong and that contributes to the failed projections because it is the basic assumption of the AGW hypothesis that an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase. However, the three projections also vary from high to low because of different assumptions about the future society and economy. These estimates of the future primarily determine the amount of CO2 increase that will occur under different economic scenarios. As Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of meteorology said in an interview with James Glassman that the 2001 IPCC Report “was very much a children’s exercise of what might possibly happen” prepared by a “peculiar group” with “no technical competence.” Maybe, but it achieved their political objective of isolating and demonizing CO2.

After release of the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) two papers by Ian Castles and David Henderson (C&H) were published drawing attention to the problems with the emission scenarios used to produce the three projections.[1] Castles explained the concerns as follows;

“During the past three years I and a co-author (David Henderson, former Head of the Department of Economics and Statistics at OECD) have criticised the IPCC’s treatment of economic issues.

Our main single criticism has been the Panel’s use of exchange rate converters to put the GDPs of different countries onto a common basis for purposes of estimating and projecting output, income, energy intensity, etc. This is not permissible under the internationally-agreed System of National Accounts which was unanimously approved by the UN Statistical Commission in 1993, and published later that year by the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, the OECD and the Commission of the European Communities, under cover of a Foreword which was personally signed by the Heads of the five organisations.”

As one commentator noted,

“These two economists have shown that the calculations carried out by the IPCC concerning per capita income, economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions in different regions are fundamentally flawed, and substantially overstate the likely growth in developing countries. The results are therefore unsuitable as a starting point for the next IPCC assessment report, which is due to be published in 2007. Unfortunately, this is precisely how the IPCC now intends to use it submissions projections.”

The IPCC response was typical of the arrogant superiority and belief in their unassailability that pervades most of their dealings.

“On December 8, 2003 at the Milan COP9 Dr. Pachauri released a press statement which criticized the arguments which Castles in Henderson have been making in this debate.”

Pachauri’s charges against C&H, especially Castle’s, were false personal attacks.

Richard Tol commented on C&H and the IPCC response.

“Castles and Henderson…. criticized the IPCC for using market exchange rates in the economic accounting used as a basis for its SRES scenarios. This started as a technical dispute. However, the initial IPCC response – which can be characterized as “We are the IPCC. We do not make mistakes. Please go away.” – raised the stakes and turned the debate into one about the credibility of the entire IPCC, a debate that now includes politicians and the public. Howard Herzog of MIT recently summarized this as the “IPCC is a four letter word.”

The UNFCCC predetermined the results of the IPCC work by directing them to study only human causes of climate change. The IPCC then narrowed the focus to human produced CO2 as the cause of warming. They directed their efforts to proving rather than disproving their hypothesis. Central to this objective was the need to have atmospheric CO2 levels rise constantly because of a constant rise in human production of CO2.

The IPCC controlled results of rising atmospheric levels with data from warming advocate Charles Keeling’s, and later his son Roger’s, measurements at Mauna Loa. There is fascinating, but disturbing correspondence on this issue between Ernst Georg Beck and Roger Keeling. Beck had to be dismissed because his work showed that 19th century levels of atmospheric CO2 were much higher than used by the IPCC and created by Guy Callendar and Tom Wigley. The IPCC controlled the annual increase in human production of CO2 by producing it themselves.

In their 2001 Report the IPCC note the increase of CO2 from 6.5 GtC (gigatons of carbon) human sources to 7.5 GtC in the 2007 report. In the FAQ section they answer the question “How does the IPCC produce its Inventory Guidelines?” as follows.

“Utilizing IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC.”

In a 2008 article Castles notes about the 2007 Report,

“Unfortunately, the assumptions it uses overstate potential manmade global warming by a large measure.

In 2001 IPCC based its predictions of substantially warming temperatures during the next century largely on forecasts of explosive growth in Third World economies–and hence emissions–during the twenty-first century. The panel actually predicted Third World nations would grow so fast they would surpass the economies of wealthy Western nations.”

Economists pointed out the unrealistic assumptions, but in the six years since these IPCC gaffes, little appears to have changed.”

Richard Tol commented on the changes for AR5.

“IPCC AR5 of Working Group 1 will therefore be based on scenarios-formerly-known-as-SRES. They’re now called RCP.”

A presentation on Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) by Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Vice Chair of the IPCC, lays out the challenge.

clip_image002

In a classic bureaucrat flow chart he shows a change in process that among other things appears to make the role of economic development unclear.

clip_image004

William Kininmonth, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and their delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology and author of the insightful book “Climate Change: A Natural Hazard” wrote the following in an email on the ClimateSceptics group page.

I was at first confused to see the RCP concept emerge in AR5. I have come to the conclusion that RCP is no more than a sleight of hand to confuse readers and hide absurdities in the previous approach.

You will recall that the previous carbon emission scenarios were supposed to be based on solid economic models. However this basis was challenged by reputable economists and the IPCC economic modelling was left rather ragged and a huge question mark hanging over it.

I sense the RCP approach is to bypass the fraught economic modelling: prescribed radiation forcing pathways are fed into the climate models to give future temperature rise – if the radiation forcing plateaus at 8.5W/m2 sometime after 2100 then the global temperature rise will be 3C. But what does 8.5 W/m2 mean? Previously it was suggested that a doubling of CO2 would give a radiation forcing of 3.7 W/m2. To reach a radiation forcing of 7.4 W/m2 would thus require a doubling again – 4 times CO2 concentration. Thus to follow RCP8.5 it is necessary for the atmospheric CO2 concentration equivalent to exceed 1120ppm after 2100.

We are left questioning the realism of a RCP 8.5 scenario. Is there any likelihood of the atmospheric CO2 reaching about 1120   ppm by 2100? IPCC has raised a straw man scenario to give a ‘dangerous’ global temperature rise of about 3C early in the 22nd century knowing full well that such a concentration has an extremely low probability of being achieved. But, of course, this is not explained to the politicians and policymakers. They are told of the dangerous outcome if the RCP8.5 is followed without being told of the low probability of it occurring.

One absurdity is replaced by another! Or have I missed something fundamental?

I don’t think he has. In reality, it doesn’t matter whether it changes anything because the underpinning of the climate science and the economics depends on accurate data and knowledge of mechanisms.

We know there was insufficient weather data on which to construct climate models and the situation deteriorated as they eliminated weather stations and ‘adjusted’ then cherry-picked data. We know knowledge of mechanisms are inadequate because the IPCC WGI Science Report says so.

Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes (see Supplementary Material, Figure S8.14) are not well observed.”

or

“For models to simulate accurately the seasonally varying pattern of precipitation, they must correctly simulate a number of processes (e.g., evapotranspiration, condensation, transport) that are difficult to evaluate at a global scale.”

In a perverse way the IPCC acknowledge this with their attempt to claim the “pause” in temperatures of the last 15 years was due to some “deep ocean” process. Again Kininmonth acutely observes the comment in the SPM that,

“There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).” [My emphasis]

With the inability to explain with confidence the 15 year temperature pause this is rather damning. (Two potential explanations are given for the pause, one with low confidence and the other with only medium confidence – i.e., guesswork.) It is difficult for the acolytes to now shout us down with “The science is settled”!

Economic projections are even more difficult because of lack of data, an inability to anticipate public feedback and political reaction, but primarily the impossibility of anticipating technology and innovation. That is the critical part of the list of events in the last 75 years that completely changed the direction of history. It guaranteed that any predictions or projections would be wrong – the IPCC projections will be wrong for the same reason, but with the added problem of bad science. They must know this, so it only underscores the political nature of their work.

They’ve already shown that being wrong or being caught doesn’t matter because the objective of the scary headline is achieved by the complete disconnect between their Science Reports and the Summary for Policymakers. It is also no coincidence that the SPM is released before national politicians meet to set their budgets for climate change and the IPCC. As Saul Alinsky insisted in rules for radicals, the end justifies the means.


REFERENCES:

[1] Ian Castles and David Henderson (2003) Economics, emissions scenarios and the work of the IPCC, Energy & Environment, vol. 14, no. 4.

Ian Castles and David Henderson (2003) The IPCC emission scenarios: An economic-statistical critique, Energy & Environment, vol. 14: nos.2-3.

About these ads

34 thoughts on “Another Reason Why IPCC Predictions (Projections) Fail. AR5 Continues to Let The End Justify the Unscrupulous Means

  1. I would say that this illustrates 2 well known rules about bureaucracy:

    1) Bureaucrats are never wrong.

    2) When confronted with an example of their galactic stupidity, they will spend 100 times more energy in explaining why they are right than correcting the error.

  2. Off-topic for the moment, but I thought you should know that there was a shocking breakdown of adult supervision at accuweather.com this morning – which was disappointing because accuweather has generally tended to be very professional and very good. Someone put up a front-page cult-chant piece including the use of the d-word right in the subtitle below the link and which just parroted all the IPCC-and-company propaganda explicitly (it was pure mannian in its content and attitude). It’s vanished now, so hopefully the adults came in and retook the castle from the children.

    It was extremely disappointing to see that sort of behavior on what is generally an excellent source of weather information.

  3. Would I love to be a fly on the wall during the discussion of how to model increasing anthropogenic CO2. I imagine it would go something like this:

    Q: How will we model human CO2 this go around and what will be our politically relevant “solution”?

    A: We have to continue coming up with an ever more complicated economic model to hide the fact that basically we believe that exhaled CO2 from increasing population is the real source of anthropogenic CO2, and because of that we want most of humanity to STOP breathing, and concentration camps are…well…you know…(insert awkward silent knowing glances).

  4. The reason this is allowed to continue is that politicians the world over need to capitalize on this issue. A government is like any other business – it must have funds to operate and as it expands (which it shouldn’t, but…) it must find ways to increase funding. Unfortunately for governments, the public will not tolerate any new taxes, so governments everywhere are constantly looking for ways to raise new money without raising personal taxes directly on voters. Otherwise they get voted out of office – period.

    We all know that the UN wants to form a ‘World Government’ and is using this latest environmental scare in an attempt to leverage that nightmare (this is not the first environmental scare it has used to try the same thing). Our governments are all for it because they are playing a balancing game whereby they use the scare story to increase taxes on “polluters” allowing them to pass the costs on to consumers (voters) without levying personal taxes, while not making commitments which will result in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    That is ALL there is to this. EVERYONE who is “in the know” also knows that the science is not science and all the political wrangling is just that – political maneuvering to generate $$$$$$$. Why else would governments invest (not spend) $Billions if they did not expect a return?

    We need to stop thinking of the IPCC and it deputated ‘scientists’ as a group which is simply trying to keep the gravy train rolling. This is a gravy train which is being vigorously stoked from outside the U.N., but encouraged to do so by the U.N., and there are two political goals –

    - world governance on the part of the U.N. which is attempting to leverage the BIG economies into “selling out the farm”

    and

    - a continuous and rising revenue stream for governments which are trying to exploit the U.N.- sponsored scare to become solvent with no political fall out from voters while still maintaining national sovereignties.

    Hate your politicians for BEING politicians: don’t hate them for being stupid because they are not that. They are cagey and are playing the public very well.

  5. “Now faith is [the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1 (Darby)

    “When you believe in things that you don’t understand, then you suffer.” -Stevie Wonder

    This is a “money” post, Dr. Ball. Thank you.

  6. @Pamela:
    I remember coming across a calculation as to the amount of exhaled CO2 produced by 7 billion humans in a year. It was about 2 gigatons, which means, approximately, if humans did stop breathing, there would be little to no excess C02 “problem.”

  7. JimS says:
    October 14, 2013 at 9:22 am

    It’s a little more complicated than that. Humans, our livestock & industry do add a measurable amount of GHGs to the air, but our crops & tree farms also absorb a lot of CO2. Rapidly growing crops & young trees probably draw down more CO2 than would natural grasslands & mature, climax forests, although I’ve run no numbers. Would a world without humans have more or less CO2 in its air? Hard to say, but in any case the difference would probably not be climatically significant.

  8. ‘ However, the three projections also vary from high to low because of different assumptions about the future society and economy. These estimates of the future primarily determine the amount of CO2 increase that will occur under different economic scenarios.”

    Wrong again

    in AR5 a different scenario development process was used. in Ar4 the emission scenarios ( SRES) where tied to various economic, demographic, and technology pathways. bottoms up estimation.

    in AR5 the emission pathways are not tightly coupled to assumptions about economics, demographics or technology. The process was top down.

    We clearly dont know what emissions will look like so various pathways are defined

    in Ar5 folks used RCPs instead of SRES.

    whats the difference? In SRES assumptions about economics, population and technology drive the emissions. Bottoms up. In an RCP the process is top down. The total forcing is defined without coupling it to any specific economic or technology assumptions.

    lets take RCP 4.5 for example. This pathway assumes that the total forcing by 2100 will be 4.5 extra Watts. There is no specific assumption in how we get there, since there are many ways to get there.
    There are many economic and policy scenarios that are compatible with 4.5, but the estimation process is not bottoms up, rather it is top down.

    So, we dont know what the emissions will be. The answer is to do sensitivity studies
    what if? what if 4.5? what if 6? what if 8? This is a totally normal engineering exercise.
    when you dont know you explore the sensitivity to various assumptions.

  9. Steven Mosher says:
    October 14, 2013 at 9:58 am

    There is no way to get to ECS of 4.5 K for CO2 doubling from 280 ppm, let alone pie in the sky 6.0 or 8.0. That would require making assumptions about feedback effects that not only are not in evidence, but which all the actual observations in the world show to be false.

    Increasing CO2 above a low level has a negligible direct effect on global temperature, & net feedbacks may be about even, or slightly positive or negative, however not enough to make a meaningful difference. Factoring in other human effects, the net result of our activities may well be to cool the planet, & in any case, adding more CO2 is beneficial.

  10. So, AR5 is even more unhinged from reality than prior piles of dung beetle excrement from the UN’s fantasist rent-seeking ideologue bandits.

  11. Regarding the prediction (projection….) of CO2 levels of 1,120ppm by 2100, an obvious flaw is the development of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRS), which will produce almost all the world’s electrical needs by around 2040~50.

    China’s first LFTR is projected to go on line by 2020, which will force other countries to quickly develop/adopt LFTRs or risk losing what’s left of their industrial sectors to China. LFTRs will be by far the cheapest form of energy with virtually limitless/cheap Known Thorium reserves.

    Since LFTRs produce zero CO2 emissions, and coal/natural gas will soon become obsolete, IPCC’s projections are absurd. Moreover, battery technology is advancing quickly so electric cars will replace combustion engines in about 20 yrs. Just these two events will reduce current CO2 emissions by over 60% from current levels.

    The true irony of the CAGW scam is that the $trillions wasted on CO2 taxes, inefficient alternative energy subsidies, CO2 emission compliance costs, etc., misallocates limited resources and funds and delays the implementation of market-based solutions such as LFTRs, which makes the CAGW scam moot.

    This is why governments shouldn’t get involved in science. They just intentionally or unintentionally make life miserable from their unintended consequences of flawed agendas and misguided policies.

  12. Rest assured, if the democrats remain in power, the economic output projected by the IPCC (thus CO2) will be way overstated.

  13. So basically the IPCC did this, assuming all other factors such as cloud cover, sunspots etc stay the same.:
    Fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause atmospheric warming.
    Fact: CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing.
    Model: An increase of x parts per million will cause y+/- degrees of temperature increase.
    Model: Therefore an increase of 2x ppm will cause z +/- degrees of temperature increase.

    I hate to break this to the IPCC but only the first two on the list have anything to do with science, the third item on the list is conjecture, the fourth is conjecture based on conjecture. The 17 year pause in GW MUST mean that their conjectures are wrong! I cannot think of anything that would cause GW to stall unless there were other factors at work in the weather, the IPCC have implicitly denied the existence of other factors and come up with the glib statement that the heat has disappeared into the oceans, which goes against any laws of physics as I understand them.

  14. Mosher, not exactly correct. I just went and read the IPCC TS from the 19-21 sept 2007 RCP meeting, plus the peer reviewed overview by van Vuuren et. al. in Climate Change 109: 5-31 (2011). See figure 1.
    What was done was to make the economic coupling implicit rather than explicit, because that was botched in SRES. As Dr. Ball pointed out using IPCC graphics, the implicit coupling was botched also since a number of the relationships are illogical or improbable, as others have commented on. And RCP8.5 was apparently mostly for scare value (take all the scariest published projections and bung them together) so the IPCC can ‘honestly’ say it was all was covered in the literature– ignoring plausibility and probability.
    TS table 1 says RCP6 is about 850 ppm CO2 by 2100, so is worse than A2 (uncontrained fossil fuelmgrowth, little nuclear growth), which was higher than the A1B ‘business as usual’ energy mix that included continued growth of nuclear. RCP4.5 is the closest to A1B, so is, using IPCC’s own written SRES and RCP information, most likely business as usual. And RCP4.5 is very specific about the constituents of the forcing, including global detail for 3GHGs (CO2, CH4, NOx) and land use (deforestation). See either of the two provided references above.

  15. Rud Istvan says:
    October 14, 2013 at 10:53 am
    Mosher, not exactly correct. I just went and read the IPCC TS from the 19-21 sept 2007 RCP meeting, plus the peer reviewed overview by van Vuuren et. al. in Climate Change 109: 5-31 (2011). See figure 1.
    What was done was to make the economic coupling implicit rather than explicit, because that was botched in SRES.

    #########
    Rud. my claim was not explicit versus implicit. Since the RCPS are taken from the literature of various scenarios the coupling is implicit. However, as I said the process was top down versus bottoms up. in a bottoms up process the connection is explicit and it drives the final scenario. in a top down approach the economic asssumptions are underdetermined.

    basic logic Rud. You’ve done revenue forecasts. you understand the difference between a bottoms up and a top down. dont pretend to be stupid

  16. andrewmharding says:
    October 14, 2013 at 10:27 am

    Another salient fact is that the warming effect from CO2 is logarithmic. In Dr. Lindzen’s apt analogy, most of the effect of painting a wall white is achieved with the first coat. Adding additional coats has an ever-decreasing effect on apparent whiteness.

    In the case of CO2, the majority of the potential warming effect from 560 ppm (doubling of “pre-industrial” level) occurs in the first 20 ppm:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    So there is no single ECS. It depends upon the starting concentration. Climate sensitivity is theoretically great going from 10 to 20 ppm, but negligible from 280 to 560 ppm & even more trivial (perhaps not even measurable) from 560 to 1120. This is why CACA advocates need to assume positive feedback loops not in evidence, indeed shown false by all actual observation.

    In the humid tropics, adding more CO2 to hundreds already in the air can even lead to net cooling under some circumstances.

  17. milodonharlani. I agree with you and the analogy of painting a wall is a good one, hopefully the members of the IPCC will become decorators by profession instead of “scientists”, which will benefit humanity (provided their decorating skills vastly exceed their scientific ones)!
    On the serious side, does the addition of CO2 to warm, humid air mean that the air will hold less water, meaning it’s specific heat capacity is lowered?

  18. Steve Mosher, please don’t stop your efforts to defend the IPCC. Your comments just keep getting funnier and funnier, as your desperation increases. The “bottoms up, top down” stuff was hilarious.

  19. andrewmharding says:
    October 14, 2013 at 11:41 am

    A study in a post on this blog showed that at higher temperatures in the tropics, the effect of CO2 can go negative, ie lower air T. IIRC the switchover point was around 30 degrees C, but don’t trust my fading & faulty memory. The precise proposed mechanism I don’t recall, but along the lines you surmise, or diluting a more effective GHG with a less potent one. In any case, the potential effect of 400 ppmv CO2 in dry air is swamped out by water vapor in humid air, up to 40,000 ppm in the tropics.

  20. milodonharlani Thanks for the prompt reply, so to continue this discussion further, the IPCC know or should know this but don’t, or if they do are denying it, so they are guilty of either incompetence or lying!
    I wondered, when a geological epoch (I cannot remember which one), had CO2 levels of 6000ppm, why the world did not go into a CGW state, which would have meant life would have ended permanently on Earth?
    Also the oft quoted planet Venus as an example of global warming due to CO2, must be nothing of the kind. The density of the atmosphere (same as the pressure in an ocean at 10 miles deep) must have a huge specific heat capacity which is hot purely because of its mass and proximity to the Sun, with nothing at all due to the greenhouse gas properties of CO2?

  21. andrewmharding says:
    October 14, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    You’re welcome. Sorry no link on the tropical CO2 study.

    The best guess for Cambrian Period (~541 to 485 Ma) CO2 concentration is 7000 ppm. CACA advocates claim that lower solar radiation then accounts for no runaway catastrophic effects, but the sun was less than 5% less powerful then than now.

    There are plenty of reasons why Hansen, ex of GISS, is lunatic to compare Earth’s climate system to that of Venus. The point in its atmosphere with comparable pressure to Earth’s surface enjoys a similarly cool T, despite being mostly CO2.

  22. Who could have predicted that the home of the brave would be on the brink of dictatorship ?

    George Orwells 1984 is here

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMgp9b_u8Qo
    Weekend Vigilante Sheila Zilinsky and cohost Dr. Tim Ball joined by Dr.of Digital Privacy Katherine Albrect giving us pertinent facts on the RFID. Haggman and Haggman weigh in on the Orwellian nightmare unfolding before us.

  23. Steven Mosher says:
    October 14, 2013 at 9:58 am
    This is a totally normal engineering exercise.when you dont know you explore the sensitivity to various assumptions.
    ==============
    No. Totally normal engineering exercise is to do the sensitivity analysis as part of the model testing, to determine if the models are fit for purpose.

    For example, we know the models are highly sensitive to initial state. This is the famous “spaghetti graph”. Different runs of the models deliver much different results, with very small changes in the inputs.

    What this tells us is that if the models are correct, then natural variability is high. The differences between the top and bottom of the spaghetti is what the models predict for natural variability.

  24. “On September 1, 2014 we will recognize the 75th anniversary of the declaration of war against Germany.”

    Actually that is September 3 assuming that the declarations of England and France are being referenced.

  25. @Pamela Gray and JimS -
    I calculate the human and animal respiration contribution to atmospheric CO2 as follows:
    HUMAN -
    15 breaths/min = 900/hr =21,600/day
    750 ml/breath, 0.045 CO2 = 33.75ml CO2 /breath @ 1.96g/liter = 66mg CO2/breath x 21,600 breaths/day = 1,426 g/day (about 3 lb) =~1,150 lb/yr x 7 billion people = 3, 520,000,000 metric tons or almost 4 billion short tons.
    ANIMAL -
    Assume man is 1% of animal biomass on Earth (conservative – likely much less)
    Assume man’s CO2 emissions/lb of body weight is average (very conservative since insects which constitute 1/2 of the animal biomass have far higher per-lb emissions than man – so do most mammals, and even reptiles when active)
    100 (=1 /(1% = 0.01) x 3.52 billion mt =352 billion mt.
    Therefore – animal respiration alone dwarfs industrial and vehicular gross emissions by at least 10:1, and net residual emissions by at least 30:l. Q.E.D.

  26. No warming for 15 years….but CO2 increases……end WW2 similar situation, industrial output up CO2 up…..but temp declines. Overall temps have declined since the peak of our Holocene 10,000 years ago. Therefore we have been cooling for 10,000 years. With the previous four Holocene’s all warmer than today there is absolutely no case for any concern over current temps and with CO2′s ability to create heat being logarithmic it beggars belief we have allowed this nonsense to get this far. The fact that the IPCC morons have screwed up and got away with it is down to a compliant and unprofessional media who have betrayed us and as the death toll mounts from fuel poverty they will have been party to corporate manslaughter.
    In the UK the awful truth is dawning on PM Cameron and Opposition Leader Milliband, that they will be held as responsible as the “scientists”, hence reality setting in.
    Both are seeking to limit the high bills they are responsible for…blaming the energy companies is just the start of it. Lack of investment into the UK due to our energy policy is already beginning to bite plus some factories are shutting and relocating overseas.
    It will soon be stick or twist time.

  27. Hey guys:

    “The best guess for Cambrian Period (~541 to 485 Ma) CO2 concentration is 7000 ppm. CACA advocates claim that lower solar radiation then accounts for no runaway catastrophic effects, but the sun was less than 5% less powerful then than now”

    That might be true, but as there were about 400+ days per year then, planetary angular momentum was higher than now and the continental land mass was far less, there was less daylight per day, more atmospheric circulation and less land area so large hot air masses could not build up. So… there could be no runaway thermal affect.

    You see, if you try hard enough you can come up with any kind of B.S. to fit any agenda. If we all contribute to the above spot of nonsense, we could come up with our own ‘theory’ and start modeling it. I think building tall skyscrapers is decreasing the angular momentum of the Earth which will increase solar residence time and create local, then regional and then global heat engines on the continents which will accelerate everything else bad…..

    Sorry. Couldn’t resist being just a little sophomoric.

  28. James Griffin:

    “In the UK the awful truth is dawning on PM Cameron and Opposition Leader Milliband, that they will be held as responsible as the “scientists”, hence reality setting in.”

    Thought you might like this one:

    http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/

    Cheers

  29. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D. [October 14, 2013 at 8:59 am] says:

    Off-topic for the moment, but I thought you should know that there was a shocking breakdown of adult supervision at accuweather.com this morning – which was disappointing because accuweather has generally tended to be very professional and very good. Someone put up a front-page cult-chant piece including the use of the d-word right in the subtitle below the link and which just parroted all the IPCC-and-company propaganda explicitly (it was pure mannian in its content and attitude). It’s vanished now, so hopefully the adults came in and retook the castle from the children.

    It was extremely disappointing to see that sort of behavior on what is generally an excellent source of weather information.

    I noticed someone there going waaaay out on a limb recently …

    Winter forecast: East to start mild but end snowy, cold – USA Today

    Snow lovers in the eastern U.S. may have to wait until February to see much of the white stuff, according to the 2013-14 winter forecast released today by private forecasting firm AccuWeather.

    At the same time, most of the West will see the opposite weather pattern: A cold and snowy start — which could be good news for drought-plagued California — followed by a warmer end to the winter. Meanwhile, the north-central states should slog through a typically cold and stormy season.

    After a couple of shots of chilly air in November, “we should see temperatures in December some 3-4 degrees above average in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic,” AccuWeather meteorologist Jack Boston said.

    Most of January should also be a bit warmer than average, he said, before the weather turns frigid and snowy in February. Boston predicted that February will be favorable for big snowstorms and nor’easters along the East Coast.

    We have to give him credit for courage though because that is an unambiguous forecast which is highly falsifiable !

  30. Thanks, Dr Ball, for reminding us of Castles (a great Australian, RIP) and Henderson’s work on exposing the balderdash that underpinned the IPCC’s earlier predictions about the economic consequences of climate change.

    Mosher, it’s not about “bottom up” vs “top down” economic models. It is about the fact that, as C&H pointed out, the IPCC was using a model which was in conflict with the UN’s own agreed methodology – and no-one, either in the IPCC or the UN, said boo. As C&H demonstrated, using the UN-approved methodology would have produced very different (and embarrassing) results.

    In a typical bit of slippery practice, the IPCC has now come up with a new model, without mentioning the failings of the old one. I wish that Castles was still around to have a look at it, but maybe Henderson or someone else will have a go. In any event, it is still not the same as the standard which is endorsed by the UN, for reasons we can only speculate about.

  31. Ian Castles also explained how the scientists frequently mess up the emissions scenarios in other ways. For example, Dr Raupach frequently takes averages of emissions scenarios, even though the IPCC has said no probability is assigned to them. Raupach takes that me mean they are equally likely and thus can be averaged, when this is not the case.

Comments are closed.