The Friends of Science 11th annual luncheon was on May 13, 2014, featuring Dr. Ross McKitrick, at the Metropolitan Conference Centre, Calgary, Alberta. In it he says:
“Climate models appear to overstate the effects of greenhouse gases. This presentation will explain the problem and show why it undermines the assumptions behind carbon dioxide emission policies”.
Video follows along with a link to the PowerPoint.
The presentation in PDF format is here:
Click to access McKitrick2014_ThePause.pdf
See more about FOS and the luncheon here: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=750
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
sorry FOS threw me for a second…………..
http://www.ecnmag.com/news/2014/05/how-obamas-power-plant-emission-rules-will-work
It will raise electricity prices. Driving jobs from America.
My home town
An excellent presentation – but perhaps more importantly, one that even all the warmists and alarmists must agree with the concluding remark. Everyone, including the warmists knows full well that making a bum policy decision is not wanted. But making a ‘doubly’ bum policy decision in terms of committing to the ‘wrong’ path when it would be easy to wait for just a few years longer, is BY FAR the most sensible option.
Of course, it should also be noted that these ‘facts’ presented by Ross are well known and have been carefully glossed over by the AGWers to ensure continued alarm and avoid real pragmatic analysis. IMHO, any warmist that does not agree with this stance is most likely just worried about their place at the trough, rather than the possible waste of human resources and/or the waste of human lives affected by enforced fuel poverty, etc.
If I had to guess at this point, I’d suggest the culprit is back radiation, the assumption and application of it when it doesn’t exist.
“Everyone, including the warmists knows full well that making a bum policy decision is not wanted.”
I wouldn’t be so sure.
If I had to guess at this point, I’d suggest the culprit is back radiation, the assumption and application of it when it doesn’t exist.
Radiation is known to go in one direction only and the direction is determined by gravity.
/sarc
An excellent presentation and a must see for anyone interested in Climate Science.
Excellent! In the powerpoint .pdf, Ross says:
This is the real issue:
• At the point when the modelers could no longer peek at the answer, they started getting it wrong
Bingo! Hence we get “heat hiding in the abyss” and other fairy nonsense.
Ross provided a sorely needed healthy sense of perspective recently on the Bishop Hill blog:
“If the GWPF put their reports through the same kind of peer review as the IPCC reports go through, it would look like this: Show it to lots of people and get them to submit comments. Make a great deal of noise about how many reviewers were involved, their expertise, their range of views, etc. Then let the author(s) throw out any and all review comments they either disagree with or can’t rebut. And, once the review process is over, let the authors do a complete rewrite without showing any of those changes to the reviewers, even if it involves reversing changes made earlier in response to the review round. Then upon publication, make a great deal more noise about how many reviewers were involved, their expertise, their range of views, etc.
And if someone writes a report documenting the flaws in the review process, dismiss it for not having gone through the same type of review process as the one being criticised.”
May 27, 2014 at 5:09 PM | Ross McKitrick
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/5/27/allen-atale.html
“Of course, it should also be noted that these ‘facts’ presented by Ross are well known and have been carefully glossed over by the AGWers to ensure continued alarm and avoid real pragmatic analysis.”
Part of the problem is that skeptics have played a role in diverting attention from these facts.
1. When you spend time discussing the colors of charts, that is time not spent on these facts
2. when you spend time discussing “gravity theories’ that is time not spent on these facts
3. when you discuss the 97%
4. when you focus on antarctic ice
5. when you accuse NOAA of fraud in the temperature record
6. even when you attack mann..
any time you discuss something other than the facts that Ross focuses on you divert attention
from the real issue, from the only important issue..
focus focus focus
Thanks, this is good news, and good science.
From the clip:
“[The] models are so deeply flawed as to be close to useless as tools for policy analysis. Worse yet, their use suggests a level of knowledge and precision that is simply illusory, and can be highly misleading.”
Says everything you need to know about modeling a vast chaotic system with many unknowns.
“If the GWPF put their reports through the same kind of peer review as the IPCC reports go through, it would look like this: Show it to lots of people……”“If the GWPF put their reports through the same kind of peer review as the IPCC reports go through, it would look like this: Show it to lots of people………”
Best description of the IPCC peer review process ever.
That was awesome!
Has President Obama seen it? 🙂
@Steven Mosher:
There is so much observations from a given period of time, so there is a limit for direct climate facts. It’s natural skeptics sometimes talk about other things, all discussions which can appreciate facts, after all, other issues shouldn’t be ignored.
BTW, great presentation.
Steven Mosher says:
May 30, 2014 at 2:53 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good comments. Now if only the MSM and POTUS would buy in …
Seriously. Good post wrt science. But as you know, it is no longer about the science.
Thanks.
Mosher exclaimed: “any time you discuss something other than the facts that Ross focuses on you divert attention
from the real issue, from the only important issue.. focus focus focus”
What issue?
Well done!
Some should book mark this one……..
Do all of these Climate disputes revolve around numbers, algorithms, and essentially personal interpretations of such? Think about it.
No really,,,,, think about it….
With the algorithm used by the record keepers keeps changing older data constantly, and the flurry of fiddles by GISS ~1998 to get rid of the 1937 record high in CONUS temps is what is being used, the climate models and the real temps are diverging even faster. Even if the changes to the series have some merit, you can be sure that, with the leeway that they are presented with, they would opt for the warmest temps that are decently marketable. This is precisely what fuels the models. I refuse to believe that the modelers and those who employ them do not have scruples about the divergence from observations and that they know they have to trim sensitivities substantially. Indeed the evidence suggests chopping off the top; 2/3 of the sensitivity range put out by the IPCC and you would have encapsulated the true figure. I’m convinced (if they are not evil folks) modelers have secretly tested the lower sensitivity case by trimming the forcings until they have a sensitivity of 1.3 and see what happens. No, what they do is inflate affects beyond decency for such as aerosols to hang on the CAGW holy grail sensitivity (dishonest, self-serving but I suppose evil would be too strong).
Cal65 says:
May 30, 2014 at 12:52 pm
If I had to guess at this point, I’d suggest the culprit is back radiation, the assumption and application of it when it doesn’t exist.
If I point a laser beam at a mirror obviously there is back radiation, therefor if i point an infrared beam at a cloud it must mean “back radiation” but does the reflective properties over power the energy of the beam? I think not! Reflective properties do not contribute to the source of energy.
One of Calgary’s alarmists wrote in to smear Ross.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Compare+data/9869291/story.html
“Ross McKitrick conflates religion and science. He is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states: “We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geological history.”
It is his views that are faith based.
Canadians Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way have shown that Had-CRUT data (compiled by the Hadley Centre of the U.K. Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia), which cover only 84 per cent of the planet, underestimate Arctic warming by a substantial amount.
Using UAH (University of Alabama-Huntsville) satellite data (98 per cent global coverage) for two decades from fellow Cornwall Alliance signatories, Roy Spencer and John Christy, shows continued warming.
Jack Dale
Calgary”
@Steven Mosher says:May 30, 2014 at 2:53 pm
Mosher focus a little harder, name the issue you are referring to or are you just hand waving ?
Ross McKitrick’s presentation address’s 5 issues, as page 2 of the presentation outlines.
Copy edits for the slides:
#20–“one another” is preferable to “each other” here (more than two)
#22–Change Han to Hans
#43–Append periods (as done in other slides)
Translation of newfangled hockey stick opportunist Steven Mosher’s misdirective postmodern missive:
Items 1-6: Stick only to “facts” that rely on a call to authority for their validity, and keep your nose to the grindstone instead of being outspoken real world activists with a healthy sense of perspective, willing to tell a stories of personalized corruption.
Oh, no, no, no, never feel good about revealing climate “science” scams, like mathematician Mann’s dogged support for the latest bladeless “super hockey stick”:
http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
Yeah, Steven and other apologists for neo-Marxism think we’re so gullible that he’s our King now, our efficiency manager and our public relations guru, this spawn of French philosophy.