This is a bullet point collection of reactions as they come in, it will be updated throughout the day by adding new items to the list. It is also a sticky post – new stories will appear below this one.
My first reaction was: That IPCC had a golden opportunity, and blew it due to being unable to adapt to reality.
My second reaction was due to a tweet from the vice chair of the IPCC, who was so tired, he couldn’t even get the website right:
There’s nothing like sleep deprived group think under deadline pressure to instill confidence, right?
My third reaction after reading the SPM is this: Looking at claims, it strikes me that the damaged credibility of the IPCC remains intact.
When you still push increasing confidence in predictions while the IPCC referenced models fail to model reality, and this has been pointed out worldwide in media, it becomes a “jump the shark” moment where the advocacy speaks far louder than the science.
Here are other reactions:
================================================================
Marcel Crok: AR5 gives no best estimate for climate sensitivity; breaks with a long tradition; good news is hidden from policy makers
One of the most surprising things in the just released SPM is the absence of a best estimate for climate sensitivity. The SPM now says this:
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}
16 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.
So from a footnote we have to learn that no best estimate “can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”. How strange this is. Climate sensitivity is one of the most important parameters. It determines largely how much warming we can expect. If there is lack of agreement between different methods/studies, we want to know all about it. However, apart from this footnote, the SPM is silent about it. Hopefully the full report, which will be released on Monday, will give all the details.
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/09/27/ar5-gives-no-best-estimate-for-climate-sensitivity-breaks-with-a-long-tradition-good-news-is-hidden-from-policy-makers/
=============================================================
Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill:
Ducking, diving, bobbing and weaving are the general themes of the Summary for Policymakers, just released this morning.
You would imagine that the document would review what was said last time round and how things have changed since that time, but you’d be wrong. This is, after all, the bureaucracy at work: difficulties have to be brushed under carpets and stones left unturned.
…The general theme of obscurantism runs across the document. Whereas in previous years the temperature records have been shown unadulterated, now we have presentation of a single figure for each decade; surely an attempt to mislead rather than inform. And the pause is only addressed with handwaving arguments and vague allusions to ocean heat.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/27/thoughts-on-the-spm.html
=============================================================
Donna Laframboise:
9,000 Nobel Pretenders | NoFrakkingConsensus
The unadorned truth was door number one. Cringe-worthy exaggeration was door number two. The IPCC made the wrong call.
=============================================================
Bob Tisdale at WUWT:
Regarding the cause of the warming, still living in fantasy world, they write:
Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}
They’re still misleading the public. Everyone knows (well, many of us know) their models can’t simulate the natural processes that cause surface temperatures to warm over multidecadal timeframes, yet they insist on continuing this myth.
Sorry IPCC – How You Portrayed the Global Temperature Plateau is Comical at Best
=============================================================
Apart from the usual climate-fixated organs of the MSM, it’s being barely reported. Looks like a dead cat bounce to me …
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/armageddon-report-no-5/
==============================================================
Jimbo says:
We can’t explain the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent. We have improved models that predict a decrease in extent. We don’t really know why but we will simulate it and create a scary scenario anyway.
D.1 Evaluation of Climate Models
Climate models have improved since the AR4…………..
Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations……
—–
There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of internal variability in that region
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf
Let’s all hope this is the last IPCC report. There is nothing useful here.
==============================================================
Dr. Judith Curry:
The IPCC has officially (and anti-climactically) issued the AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers. I haven’t had time to go through the report in detail, I mainly looked for these two statements. Note the changes in these two statements from the final draft discussed last week:
“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951−2010.”
These changes as a result of the ‘conclave’ this week totally dissonates my cognitives. Well, IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet – if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast. Even though they still use the word ‘most’ in the attribution statement, they go all out and pretty much say it is all AGW: ”The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
In case you haven’t been paying attention, ‘extremely likely‘ in the attribution statement implies 95% confidence. Exactly what does 95% confidence mean in this context?
=============================================================
Douglas Fischer – The Daily Climate What we’re seeing now: Climate scientists get Swift-boated
Six years after the IPCC’s massive Fourth Assessment Report was excoriated for a handful of errors, four years after the uproar over leaked emails put scientists on the defensive, the climate denial camp still controls the message.
http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/09/swiftboating-climate-scientists
=============================================================
Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger – Band-aids Can’t Fix the New IPCC Report
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today released the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the physical science volume of its Fifth Assessment Report. The SPM is the most widely-read section of the IPCC reports and purports to summarize and highlight the contents of the thousand-odd pages of the full report. The SPM is agreed to word by word by the international attendees of the IPCC’s final editorial meeting which concluded as the SPM was released.
The Humpty Dumpty-esque report once claiming to represent the “consensus of scientists” has fallen from its exalted wall and cracked to pieces under the burdensome weight of its own cumbersome and self-serving processes, which is why all the governments’ scientists and all the governments’ men cannot put the IPCC report together again.
http://www.cato.org/blog/band-aids-cant-fix-new-ipcc-report
==============================================================
Climate panel: warming ‘extremely likely’ man-made
By KARL RITTER
Associated Press
STOCKHOLM (AP) — Scientists now believe it’s “extremely likely” that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming, a long-term trend that is clear despite a recent plateau in the temperatures, an international climate panel said Friday.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used its strongest language yet in a report on the causes of climate change, prompting calls for global action to control emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
“If this isn’t an alarm bell, then I don’t know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it,” said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_CLIMATE_CHANGE?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
===============================================================
Models of misinformation — climate reports melt under scrutiny
A last-ditch effort to refute climate “skeptics”—people unconvinced that we need to spend trillions to reshape our economies to halt or slow “climate change”– has failed.
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a study by 13 prestigious atmospheric scientists that supposedly provides “clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/26/dont-be-fooled-latest-attempt-to-discredit-climate-skeptics-flops/
===============================================================
Stefan Rahmstorf – Man’s role in global warming is rock solid, and natural variability’s role is close to nil.
“Natural internal variability and natural external forcings (eg the sun) have contributed virtually nothing to the warming since 1950″
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/
================================================================
Simon Donner
“It is probably the largest, most comprehensive scientific assessment in history. Not just of climate change, but of any scientific subject”
http://simondonner.blogspot.ca/2013/09/the-pause-in-public-understanding-of.html
================================================================
Brenda Ekwurzel, UCS
Warming has slowed in the last 15 years, but not stopped. (If the slow down in warming persists, it would suggest a problem with the models.)
“The global average surface temperature trend of late is like a speed bump, and we would expect the rate of temperature increase to speed up again just as most drivers do after clearing the speed bump.”
(Kenji asks: so, when then?)
http://blog.ucsusa.org/hot-topics-for-ipcc-release-surface-temperature-speed-bump-and-the-latest-on-extreme-events-253
=================================================================
Dr. Roy Spencer: IPCC: “We don’t need no stinking climate sensitivity!”
The newly-released Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the AR5 report reveals a dogged attempt to salvage the IPCC’s credibility amidst mounting evidence that it has gone overboard in its attempts to scare the global public over the last quarter century.
The recent ~15 year lull in warming is hardly mentioned at all (nothing to see here, move along).
================================================================
It’s been six long years of relentless torment inflicted by Neanderthal skeptics. Worse, the public was even starting to become hopeful about the future once again, and were becoming less afraid of climate. For the climate catastrophe everything had been looking so bleak as the pesky real observations kept glaringly contradicting the modeled catastrophes 15 years long.
But happy days are back again – the catastrophe is coming, the UN reassures the world. The 15 years of model failure are not significant after all. In fact the UN now says the models are better than ever and the climate scientists are now 95% confident that the climate catastrophe is coming and that our living standards are responsible for it. Never before have scientists been more confident.
================================================================
Climate skeptics have seized on the fact that the rate of warming over the past decade or so has been less than climate scientists predicted given the continued increase in carbon emissions. The IPCC report address the warming “hiatus,” as it’s been called, raising a number of possible explanations—the ocean absorbing the warmth, changes in the solar cycle, volcanic eruptions that cause cooling—without pointing the finger at a single one. Which just underscores how complex the climate system remains, even as we keep experimenting on it. The scientists will keep working on those questions and others…
Climate Scientists Issue Their Report. Now It’s Our Turn | TIME.com
======================================================
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report:
‘The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence’ — ‘It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going’
Updates will follow, readers are welcome to point out other reactions in comments.
Sorry. I’ll take that once more…
In the 5th report from the IPCC, published in late September of 2013, 95% of the scientists claimed that their own climate models had a 1% chance of predicting man-made climate change, a 1% chance of predicting natural climate change, and a 98% chance of failing to predict climate change, man-made or other, for the period 1951-2012.
Since these are the probabilities for PAST climate evens, and according to the IPCCs own scientists, how likely is it that the IPCCs models for future climate change, be it for the next 10 or 100 years, actually can predict climate?
Dr. Mann is at it as usual, apparently.
The evidence of the Black Sea inundation is, if I recall correctly, that the water was rising something in the range of 15 cms. per day.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm
Ladies and Gentlemen;
With 95% certainty, the following Conclusions will be the 97% consensus view of competent climate scientists a decade from now.*
Regards to all, Allan 🙂
Abstract/Conclusions:
The evidence from the modern data record AND the ice core record indicates that atmospheric CO2 does not primarily drive Earth’s temperature, and temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2. This does not preclude the Mass Balance Argument being correct, but its relevance to the “environmental catastrophe debate” (catastrophic global warming, etc.) is moot, because increased atmospheric CO2 has NO significant impact on temperature, and is beneficial to both plant and animal life. Claims that increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever source, causes dangerous runaway global warming, wilder weather, increased ocean acidification, and other such alarmist claims are NOT supported by the evidence.
The climate models cited by the IPCC fail because, at a minimum, these models employ a highly exaggerated estimate of climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2. In fact, since Earth’s temperature drives atmospheric CO2 rather than the reverse, which is assumed by the IPCC-cited climate models, these models cannot function correctly. The IPCC-cited climate models also grossly under-estimate the magnitude of natural climate variation.
_______________________________________
Hypothesis:
My January 2008 paper was published at
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
My hypothesis was stated as follows:
“The IPCC’s position that increased CO2 is the primary cause of global warming is not supported by the temperature data. In fact, strong evidence exists that disproves the IPCC’s scientific position. This UPDATED paper and Excel spreadsheet show that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lag (occur after) variations in Earth’s Surface Temperature by ~9 months. The IPCC states that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary cause of global warming – in effect, the IPCC states that the future is causing the past. The IPCC’s core scientific conclusion is illogical and false.
There is strong correlation among three parameters: Surface Temperature (“ST”), Lower Troposphere Temperature (“LT”) and the rate of change with time of atmospheric CO2 (“dCO2/dt”). For the time period of this analysis, variations in ST lead (occur before) variations in both LT and dCO2/dt, by ~1 month. The integral of dCO2/dt is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (“CO2”).”
The paper was published in January 2008 at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
My initial data and analyses were included at the time of publication in January 2008 in Excel at
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRaeFig5b.xls
The original critique of my paper occurred in February 2008 at
http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/12/data-smoothing-and-spurious-correlation/
The critique was generally erroneous, but was a necessary and worthwhile process. My thanks to all involved.
My hypothesis was initially rejected, but two factors apparently changed that conclusion.
Statistician William Briggs conducted an independent analysis of my hypo that was generally supportive of my conclusion.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=122
Then it became known that Pieter Tans, unknown to me until months later, had delivered a paper on November 28, 2007 that came to the same conclusion regarding dCO2/dt correlating with temperature. Tans’ slides, which were apparently posted months later, are at
http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/tans.pdf
Tans’ conclusion on slide 23/23, with which I have no major objection, was:
“2/3 of the interannual variance of the CO2 growth rate is explained by the delayed response of the terrestrial biosphere to interannual variations of temperature and precipitation.”
Tans also concluded on slide 10/23:
“The observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since pre-industrial times is entirely due to human activities.”
This is the “Mass Balance Argument” that has been ably debated, particularly by Ferdinand Engelbeen and Richard Courtney, and may be correct or incorrect.
Suddenly there was a collapse of opposition to my observation that dCO2/dt correlated with T – someone in authority had said so too.
But then if CO2 lagged temperature, how could CO2 drive temperature? Faced with this dilemma, some quickly dismissed this “CO2 lags temperature” observation, calling it a “feedback effect”. This is a Cargo Cult argument, based on the false religious assumption “We KNOW that CO2 drives temperature; therefore it MUST BE a feedback effect.” Then the subject went into limbo until Murry Salby raised it again circa 2011.
Atmospheric CO2 also lags Earth’s temperature by ~800 years in the ice core record, on a much longer time scale.
Atmospheric CO2 lags Earth’s temperature at all measured time scales.
For the record:
I suggest that climate science is poorly defined, and the science has regressed due to the “Great Leap Backward” of CO2 hysteria in recent decades – the attribution of too many alleged and false crises to increased atmospheric CO2.
I have limited confidence in the absolute accuracy of the surface temperature record, which appears to have a significant warming bias. I suggest the satellite temperature record, in existence since 1979, is much more accurate that the surface temperature record.
I suggest that atmospheric CO2 measurements are reasonably accurate since 1958, and relatively but not absolutely accurate before then.
My primary concern at this point is the probability of imminent global cooling, which may or may not be severe. In the longer term over thousands of years, catastrophic natural global cooling is inevitable. I suggest that the primary focus of climate science should not be alleged humanmade global warming and its mitigation; rather it should primarily focus on natural global cooling and its mitigation.
We wrote more than a decade ago:
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
– Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson, Allan M.R. MacRae, P.Eng. (PEGG, November 2002)
Respectfully submitted, Allan MacRae
September 30, 2013
When I was in college in the 90s and I would have told one of my professors that I was 95% certain that my course of treatment would help the patient…
They’d have thrown me out of the building, most likely via the window.
This isn’t science. This isn’t even reading tea leaves anymore. This is a joke. A very sick joke, as the whole “saving the planet” hysteria is endangering billions of people (who are, strangely enough, predominantly not white…….)
Allan MacRae says:
September 30, 2013 at 7:17 am
But then if CO2 lagged temperature, how could CO2 drive temperature?
There is no reason to dismiss that both can happen at the same time, if both are modest drivers of each other: as long as the fortifying factor over both is less than unity, there is no runaway effect. See what happens with a simulation of an increase of temperature and a delayed response of CO2 increase (nofb) + a small influence of CO2 (fb) on temperature:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/feedback.jpg
All what happens is that CO2 and temperature end somewhat higher with a mutual feedback.
Suddenly there was a collapse of opposition to my observation that dCO2/dt correlated with T
I don’t think that anybody ever objected to that (except that dT/dt also fits the correlation). But from that fact jumping to the conclusion that the slope of the dCO2/dt trend also is caused by T is a step too far. With such an assumption some attribute the whole increase in dCO2/dt (factor 3 in the past 50 years!) to temperature only, while dCO2/dt is the result of all factors involved: human emissions as good as temperature.
I have sent a more detailed essay on that point to Anthony, if fit for publication, maybe in a calmer period, we can discuss that out…
Phil. says:
September 29, 2013 at 11:52 am
But so did the melting that led to the ‘Ice free Arctic’ and the corresponding sea level rise which I submit did have catastrophic consequences for the inhabitants of those locations.
Phil, this does not change anything to the fact that it was warmer 6000 years ago and the thawing of the arctic did not led to any catastrophy.
Important to note is that the warming that you talk about before the 6000 years ago timescale, was not due to greenhouse gases but due to other causes, and the variances in greenhouse gases resulted at the arctic thawing have done nothing or nothing measurable.
OK but those aren’t the only possible catastrophes associated with the ice melt as I’ve shown..
Not sure to what other possible catastrophies do you point to? I do not find any other reference under the name Phil in the thread?
– – – – – – –
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
Over the years your commentary primarily focused on the dynamics of the Earth-Atmosphere System’s (EAS) carbon cycle has been prolific.
I really would like to see an essay that integrates what you have been saying updated to current research.
One point I would like to see in your essay is an explicit statement by you on whether your views on the EAS’s carbon cycle contain any significant disagreement with past IPCC ARs or with the current AR5 assessment / treatment of the topic.
Disclaimer => Yes, I have been consistently skeptical over the years of many of your comments, but I am very respectful and admire your benevolent style of civil discourse.
John
This may be impertinent, but in a vestige of the Gore Effect (the state of Washington once being named “the soviet of Washington”), we in the Puget Sound are being subjected to unseasonably early, cold, and intense rains more typical of November than September. Ain’t nobody here worried about global warming, man-made or otherwise.
This is just like climategate. They’ll crawl under a rock for a while, then come out like nothing happened with the usual stuff.
Lars P. says:
September 30, 2013 at 11:13 am
Phil. says:
September 29, 2013 at 11:52 am
But so did the melting that led to the ‘Ice free Arctic’ and the corresponding sea level rise which I submit did have catastrophic consequences for the inhabitants of those locations.”
Phil, this does not change anything to the fact that it was warmer 6000 years ago and the thawing of the arctic did not led to any catastrophy
.Well if you don’t consider the inundation of Doggerland and the Black Sea as catastrophic for the inhabitants back then I beg to differ. Note that we have oral and written accounts which certainly regard it as catastrophic (e.g. the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh).
Important to note is that the warming that you talk about before the 6000 years ago timescale, was not due to greenhouse gases but due to other causes, and the variances in greenhouse gases resulted at the arctic thawing have done nothing or nothing measurable.
Why is the cause important? The point is that the result of such a warming can be catastrophic. Also the feedback of growing CO2 as a result of Milankovic changes would lead to enhanced warming over what would be expected from orbital change alone.
“OK but those aren’t the only possible catastrophes associated with the ice melt as I’ve shown..”
Not sure to what other possible catastrophies do you point to? I do not find any other reference under the name Phil in the thread?
That was in response to your comment that all that happened was the formation of the Sahara as I recall.
John Whitman says:
September 30, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Thanks for the compliment…
My new essay is an addition to the “mass balance” argument, which was challenged by Bart and Salby. There is a pure theoretical possibility that a parallel increase of the natural circulation with the increase of human emissions is the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. But that implies that the natural increase in CO2 exchange rates exactly mimics the human emissions over time. But that violates about all known observations like residence time, d13C ratio, etc…
I haven’t read the latest IPCC report on the carbon cycle, so I hope that there are new developments. The previous estimates were more like “best guesses” with wide error margins…
What is the betting that the “reported” numbers show an increase in land surface temperatures the next few years – whilst we suffer with poor summers and snow in the winters…
beegdawg007 asks: Why is the LOSU not summarized in the Summary Section for Policy Makers? This is clearly an intentional omission since the LOSU is: 1. Critical for all who would like to understand how mature or immature this science of man mad global warming really is. 2. The LOSU for each key forcing category can be summarised in a very few pages – in fact, the past reports used only one table to summarize this information, so to excuse this omission as having been the result of attempting to shorten the executive summary report, simply does not make any sense. I believe this key information was omitted from the executive summary report simply to keep this key information from the eyes of policy makers.,
FYI.. LOSU stands for Level of Scientific Understanding!
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: September 30, 2013 at 11:04 am
Hello Ferdinand,
Some may think we are arguing here, but in fact I agree with your post and I suspect that if you read mine carefully you will agree with it too – our only point of difference is that I am theoretically ~neutral on the “Mass Balance Argument” that you strongly favour. However, while I think the Mass Balance Argument is scientifically very important, I do not think it is essential to resolving the question of whether increased atmospheric CO2 is causing dangerous global warming (to be clear, increased atmospheric CO2 is NOT causing dangerous global warming).
There are many observations that support my position – the Medieval Warm Period, global cooling from ~1940 to ~1975, the current halt in global warming, etc.
However, let us assume for today that the Mass Balance Argument IS correct, and also that increased atmospheric CO2 DOES cause some global warming, as follows:
1. Human activities are (assumed to be according to the Mass Balance Argument) the primary cause of observed increases in atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958.
2. Naturally-caused global warming causes increases in global biological activity and also causes exsolution of CO2 from the oceans, both of which can cause increases in atmospheric CO2.
3. Increased atmospheric CO2 (as assumed per greenhouse gas theory) causes some modest warming.
4. The only signal apparent in the modern data record is that dCO2/dt changes very soon after temperature and CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months.
5. Since point 4 is true, therefore the NET effect of points 2 and 3 is that the effect of point 2 is greater than the effect of point 3.
Repeating from my post of September 30, 2013 at 7:17 am:
“The evidence from the modern data record AND the ice core record indicates that atmospheric CO2 does not primarily drive Earth’s temperature, and temperature primarily drives atmospheric CO2. This does not preclude the Mass Balance Argument being correct…”.
Please note: “This does not preclude the Mass Balance Argument being correct…”
I suggest that IF the Mass Balance Argument is CORRECT, then point 2 and point 3 ride atop rising CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels (point 1) and point 2 (temperature drives CO2) is greater than and dominant over point 3 (CO2 drives temperature).
On the other hand, IF the Mass Balance Argument is INCORRECT, then point 2 and point 3 ride atop rising CO2 from some other source (humanmade, natural or both) and point 2 (temperature drives CO2) is STILL greater than and dominant over point 3 (CO2 drives temperature).
Got to run – hope this is clear.
Best personal regards, Allan
Phil. says:
September 30, 2013 at 1:34 pm
.Well if you don’t consider the inundation of Doggerland and the Black Sea as catastrophic for the inhabitants back then I beg to differ. Note that we have oral and written accounts which certainly regard it as catastrophic (e.g. the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh).
….
Why is the cause important? The point is that the result of such a warming can be catastrophic. Also the feedback of growing CO2 as a result of Milankovic changes would lead to enhanced warming over what would be expected from orbital change alone.
Facts: 6000 years ago the Milankovich cycle ensured a warmer Earth. The temperature was warmer then today, the Arctic had less ice then today
CO2 was release by the oceans, CH4 was released by the thawing permafrost.
The result was not further warming, but cooling .
Why? My explanation is that there were other factors more important then the greenhouse gases that caused the cooling. Yours?
And we know, due to the cooling the Sahara desert formed – as posted above.
If the climate would get now as warm as it was 6000 years ago the first result that we would see would be the greening of the Sahara. Hallelujah.
The rising of the sea is happening at mm levels per year, there is need of very special measurements to be able to measure it. It compares to the tectonic plate movements.
It is difficult to distinguish at all a rise:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/681_high.png
Tide gauges give you thousands of locations to look at. In locations you will see sea level sinking due to the slow rising of the land. In other locations sea level rising due to the slow sinking of the land.
Even for the Maldives, there are other problems to tackle before the sea level rise which is indistinguishable:
http://www.marklynas.org/2012/04/where-sea-level-rise-isnt-what-it-seems/
There is no potential for catastrophic melting and deluge a la Gilgamesh, there are no more close basins to be flooded like the Black Sea.
The climate is no longer warming since decades, obviously as the sensitivity to the greenhouse gases has been wrongly assumed to be high, and it is not there. It is not warming. Yes, please note: It is not warming.
6000 years ago the big catastrophe was not further mild warming that should have been created by the greenhouse gases. The catastrophe was Sahara. The cooling that led to it.
And it happened despite the greenhouse gases.
Now you may continue with the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible, (nothing against these, I read both long ago, interesting lecture indeed), but you need to bring some valid arguments if you want to have a credible hypothesis, where and what could cause such. There is no potential for any mythic flood, Phil.
No deluge as mentioned in the Bible was not world wide, but definitely at the end of the last ice age, land bridges between PNG and North Australia, continental Europe and UK, Scotland and Ireland, the Bering and Bass Straits, the Black sea and Argean sea, broke. Sea levels rose, the Mediterranean was part swamp and small lakes, so we have what we have today. The low countries particularly Holland, were endangered from encroaching North Sea, and they built the Zieder Zea, that was in the 1940s. But they are low countries. Great Storms flooded parts of England in the 50s, and they built those great anti flood barriers in the Thames. But the worst tragedies to date are the big volcanic eruptions that caused tidal waves, earthquakes, and even the ancient Chinese mention seven years of drought and freezing weather in summer caused by a volcanic eruption and nuclear winter. Nothing about warming that seems to have benefited man kind or rather PC human kind. The meteor blast over Russia and the Mt.Helena eruption in Washington State. It is known after a bad and violent eruption it reduces sunlight sometimes for many years in parts of the globe. And the Toba eruption 70,000 years ago, that some say wiped out human kind in the region. Accept on the island of Flores, where the small genus ‘The Hobbit’ lived until 18,000 years ago. Now we have the IPCC saying human kind will be wiped out because of a .2C increase in temperature. Sea rises. Well the sea doesn’t rise much depending on the moon and Ebb tides, it has reached its maximum. Atolls sink. Always have. But interestingly Northern Australia was not always Monsoonal, only when the seas rose after the last ice age flooded some land bridges. But the Aborigines adapted well, and survived. Bangledesh, well it depends on its annual floods too, because it is below sea level in parts. So those who believe the 2012 Mayan calender depicts catastrophe well what about the 2000 year bug. People will pray on people’s fears, and not is all good in the world, but most famines are caused by people fleeing political unrest and are displaced from their farmlands. Well – the IPCC is playing its part now and is slowly backing down.
Allan MacRae says:
September 30, 2013 at 3:15 pm
Ferdinand Engelbeen says: September 30, 2013 at 11:04 am
Hello Ferdinand,
Some may think we are arguing here, but in fact I agree with your post and I suspect that if you read mine carefully you will agree with it too – our only point of difference is that I am theoretically ~neutral on the “Mass Balance Argument” that you strongly favour. However, while I think the Mass Balance Argument is scientifically very important,
The Mass Balance principle isn’t up for debate, it’s fundamental. For any component of the atmosphere a mass balance equation can be written:
dx/dt= ∑Sources – ∑Sinks
However, let us assume for today that the Mass Balance Argument IS correct, and also that increased atmospheric CO2 DOES cause some global warming, as follows:
1. Human activities are (assumed to be according to the Mass Balance Argument) the primary cause of observed increases in atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958.
It’s not an assumption, it follows from the balance equation and the numerical values for the sources and sinks.
Phil. says: September 30, 2013 at 9:30 pm
“The Mass Balance principle isn’t up for debate, it’s fundamental.”
Phil, you are actually off-topic. We are discussing the “Mass Balance Argument”, not the Mass Balance principle.
However, thank you because you have caused me to improve its definition in my Point 1, as follows:
“1. Humanity’s combustion of fossil fuels are (assumed to be according to the Mass Balance Argument) the primary cause of observed increases in atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958.
If you have not followed the reasoned arguments regarding the Mass Balance Argument between Richard Courtney and Ferdinand Engelbeen on wattsup and elsewhere (ClimateAudit?) then you can Google them. Richard is neutral whereas Ferdinand is in favour of the Mass Balance Argument.
I will not repeat these arguments here as they are best expressed in their original form.
Phil.:
I agree with Allan MacRae that the ‘mass balance argument’ has been well-rehearsed on WUWT so you can use the Search facility to find it (as a start try searching threads on Salby). Another reprise of that debate here would side-track this thread.
I write in hope of helping your understanding of the issues you find in your search.
At September 30, 2013 at 9:30 pm you correctly write
OK. Now think about the quantification of the “numerical values for the sources and sinks”. Almost all the pertinent data is not adequately quantified: most is not quantified at all. So, by assuming values anyone can get any result depending on the used assumptions. Advocates of the ‘mass balance argument’ often provide a circular argument based on the assumption that the net effect of sources and sinks would be zero in absence of the anthropogenic emission, then they use that assumption to determine that the anthropogenic emission is the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. In other words, they use the assumption of an anthropogenic cause to demonstrate itself.
Please note that I do not know if the anthropogenic emission of CO2 is or is not the cause in part or in whole of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. But I want to know. Perhaps your studies of the subject – as suggested by Allan MacRae – will enable you to tell me what I want to know.
Richard
BBC Radio 4, Tuesday 1st October 2013 at 15:30 BST
( or in other words 2013-10-01T14:30:00Z )
Costing the Earth 5/11:
“Tom Heap analyses the latest findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, investigating what has changed since the scientific (sic) body’s last report in 2007.”
A real opportunity for the BBC to demonstrate impartiality for 30 minutes. I’m holding my breath…
====
I can let my breath out now – it was completely one-sided.
The “panel of top scientists” included Professor Julia Slingo, Sir Mark Walport, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Professor Mike Hulme, Mark Lynas, and Tony Grayling. They ALL swallowed the IPCC creed and the only debate was about tiny details and what we must all do to avert disaster.
Not a single skeptic was heard. It even ended with a bathetic “Won’t somebody please think of the children?!” appeal.