By Larry Kummer,
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Summary: Scientists and journalists bombard us with news about the coming climate catastrophe, described as certain unless we drastically change our economy. This has plunged many into despair. The hidden key to these forecasts is RCP8.5, the worst case scenario of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report — often erroneously described as the “business as usual” scenario. Understanding this misuse of science reveals the weak basis of the most dire warnings (which set the mood at the Paris Conference), and helps explain why the US public assigns a low priority to fighting climate change despite the intense decades-long publicity campaign.
“We’re going to become extinct. Whatever we do now is too late.”
— Frank Fenner (Prof emeritus in microbiology at the Australian National U); Wikipedia describes his great accomplishments), an interview in The Australian, 10 June 2010.
In the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report four scenarios describe future emissions, concentrations, and land-use. They are Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), the inputs to climate models that generate the IPCC’s projections. Strong mitigation policies lead to a low forcing level of 2.6 W/m2 by 2100 (RCP2.6). Two medium stabilization scenarios lead to intermediate outcomes in RCP4.5 and RCP6.0.
RCP8.5 gets the most attention, with its bold and dark assumptions. It is a useful and important scenario, a warning of what might happen if the 21st century goes badly. RCP8.5 is a useful and important scenario, a warning of what might happen if the 21st century goes badly. It should spur us to act. Unfortunately from its creation RCP8.5 has often been misrepresented as the “business as usual” scenario — and so became the basis for hundreds or thousands of predictions about our certain doom from climate change.
The result of this (part of a decade-long campaign) is widespread despair among climate scientists and more broadly, among Leftists. This misuse of RCP8.5 is a triumph of propaganda, but polls show its ineffectiveness (with climate change ranking at or near the bottom of public policy concerns). Yet each month brings more of the same.
What future does RCP8.5 describe?
“In 2002, as I edited a book about global climate change, I concluded we had set events in motion that would cause our own extinction, probably by 2030. I mourned for months …”
— “Apocalypse or extinction?” by Guy McPherson (Prof Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology, U AZ), Oct 2009.
The papers describing the RCP’s clearly state their assumptions, unlike most of those that follow them. RCP8.5 describes a bleak scenario, a hot and dark world in 2100 (since it’s powered by coal, perhaps literally dark) — even before considering the effects of climate change. Below are the key points, with graphs from “The representative concentration pathways: an overview” by Detlef P. van Vuuren et al in Climatic Change, Nov 2011. See this post for a more detailed look.
Rapid population growth and slow economic growth in RCP8.5
RCP8.5 assumes a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion by 2100, which is the high end of the current UN forecast. The UN gives a purely probabilistic forecast, not considering if the numbers are realistic. For example, this assumes the population of Africa grows from one billion to 5 billion, giving it a density roughly equal to that of China today (which requires a highly ordered society to survive). Nigeria’s population would rise from today’s 160 million to almost one billion in 2100. Possible, but hardly “business as usual”.
While population skyrockets, GDP would drastically slow — producing a massive increase in world poverty (reversing the trend of the past several decades).
Slow tech growth in RCP8.5 takes us back to a 19thC world
RCP8.5 assumes a slowing of technological innovation, most clearly seen in energy use. By 2100 energy efficiency has improved only slightly (reversing the current decades-long trend), so that despite GDP being one-third lower than under RCP2.6, energy consumption is over twice as large. Worse, we will have gone back to a 19th C-like future where the world in 2100 is powered by coal. This is possible, but not a “business as usual” scenario.
How did RCP8.5 come to describe a “business as usual” future?
“With business as usual life on earth is largely doomed.”
— John Davies (geophysicist, senior research at the Cold Climate Housing Research Center), 22 February 2014.
This useful scenario was hijacked to serve the apocalyptic visions of activists. Did this happen from scientists’ deliberate misrepresentation (a noble lie?) or carelessness? Who can say? Here are some examples of climate scientists misrepresenting RCP8.5.
- Wrong from the beginning: “Compared to the scenario literature RCP8.5 depicts thus a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest improvements in energy intensity.” From “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011.
- “RCP8.5 assumes a ‘business-as-usual’ approach.” From a guide to AR5 WG1 by Carolyn Symon (PhD, environmental science), by Cambridge U (Sept 2013).
- “The scenario with the most warming is the ‘business-as-usual’ RCP8.5, in which global mean temperature could be 4°C or more above pre-industrial times.” By Matt Collins (Prof, Climate Systems at Exeter U) at Climatica, Dec 2013.
- “Under a business as usual trajectory, the IPCC is saying 3.7 to 4.8 degrees by the end of this century“, said by Lesley Hughes (Prof Biology at Marcqarie U, lead author of WG2 in AR4 & AR5), March 2014.
- Ottmar Edenhofer (Prof at the Potsdam Inst, Co-Chair of WG3 for AR5) describes RCP8.5 as the “business as usual” scenario at the IPCC AR5 WGIII press conference, 13 April 2014.
- “What we see so far is that the only business-as-usual scenario among the RCPs is RCP8.5, a high-end business-as-usual scenario.” Said by John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State Climatologist, Prof Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M), August 2014.
- “for business-as-usual greenhouse gases (RCP8.5 scenario) …” — Said by James Hansen (climate scientists, Columbia Earth institute), July 2015.
- “RCP8.5 is a scenario with unmitigated rise in greenhouse gas emissions.” — Said by Stefan Rahmstorf (Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam U) at RealClimate (Aug 2015). That’s true, but misleading by not mentioning the other assumptions.
Similar misrepresentations are commonplace by journalists and activists, such as these…
- “The awful truth about climate change no one wants to admit” by David Roberts (writer) at VOX, 15 May 2015. He describes RCP8.5 as “The red line is the status quo — a projection of where emissions will go if no new substantial policy is passed to restrain greenhouse gas emissions.”
- “The scenario with the most warming is the ‘business-as-usual’ RCP8.5” — in an article at Climatica (“You & the experts exploring climate science”).
Tales of nightmares based on RCP8.5
“Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred apocalyptic visions contend.”
— What Mao might say if he were a climate activist.
RCP8.5 became the basis for scores of studies describing horrific futures that appear almost inevitable (since large global public policy changes seem unlikely). But they seldom mention RCP8.5’s extreme assumptions. The following articles are examples of this year’s crop: most are from the past 3 months — part of the campaign to build hysteria for the Paris conference.
These misrepresentations of climate science are examples of the poor conduct by scientists that has characterized the public policy campaign about climate change, and which I believe caused the campaign to fail. That doesn’t mean that climate change will not have awful consequences. Merely that we’ll be unprepared for them.
- Draft summary of the sea level rise section of regulations for New York’s Community Risk and Resiliency Act: “RCP 8.5 … is generally considered to be the “business as usual” scenario.”
- “Ocean acidification in the surface waters of the Pacific-Arctic boundary regions“, Jeremy T. Mathis et al, Oceanography, 2015 #2 — “The continental shelves of the Pacific-Arctic Region (PAR) are especially vulnerable to the effects of ocean acidification (OA) … As aragonite in these shelf seas slips below the present-day range of large seasonal variability by mid-century, the diverse ecosystems that support some of the largest commercial and subsistence fisheries in the world may be under tremendous pressure. …The future simulation followed the high-emissions representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5 atmospheric CO2 scenario.”
- “End-of-century Manhattan climate index to resemble Oklahoma City today” says the hysterical press release by the Carnegie Institute about a study in Scientific Reports by Yana Petri & Ken Caldeira (Petri is a high school student), 4 August 2015. Based, of course on RCP 8.5.
- “Surge In ‘Danger Days’ Just Around The Corner” by Brian Kahn at ClimateCentral, 12 August 2015 — They describe RCP8.5 as “assuming current greenhouse gas emissions trends continue unabated”, but don’t mention the other assumptions.
- “If nations continue emitting at current levels, most land areas on the planet will be more than 5°C hotter than now by 2100.” Said by Christopher Field, an ecologist at the Carnegie Institution for Science. He was co-chairman of WG2 of AR5, and is the U.S. nominee to lead the IPCC. (13 August 2015 interview.)
- “It showed that if greenhouse gas emissions continued at their present rate, the Antarctic ice shelves would be in danger of collapse by the century’s end.” From “Antarctic ice is melting so fast the whole continent may be at risk by 2100” in The Guardian (Oct 2015). The underlying study used, of course, RCP 8.5 as its high-end scenario.
- “Interacting effects of climate change and habitat fragmentation on drought-sensitive butterflies” Tom Oliver et al, Nature Climate Change, October 2015 — “Under RCP8.5, which is associated with ‘business as usual’ emissions…”.
- “Increasing water cycle extremes in California and in relation to ENSO cycle under global warming“, Jin-Ho Yoon et al, Nature Communications, October 2015. “Both intense drought and excessive flooding are projected to increase by at least 50% towards the end of the twenty-first century…” It uses RCP 8.5 without any description or context, not even the usual mention of “business as usual”.
- “Climate change map shows Boston is an Atlantis in waiting” at the Boston Globe’s website, and the “Surging Sea Ice” interactive graphic at ClimateCentral — which describes RCP8.5 as the “unchecked pollution” scenario (no mention of rapid population growth or the tech slowdown). Both are based on “Carbon choices determine US cities committed to futures below sea level” by Benjamin H. Strauss et al, PNAS, Nov 2015 — which describes RCP8.5 as the “business as usual scenario”.
- “Future temperature in southwest Asia projected to exceed a threshold for human adaptability” by Jeremy S. Pal & Elfatih A. B. Eltahir, Nature Climate Change, in press (gated) — Describes RCP8.5 as a “business as usual scenario”. Reported in Time as “These Cities May Soon Be Uninhabitable Thanks to Climate Change“.
It’s not too late to restart the debate
Every day we begin anew. The public policy debate about climate change can restart if we can get climate scientists to test the models from the first three Assessment Reports. The results from the past quarter-century will give us valuable data about their reliability, and perhaps break the current deadlock.
“Test the models”? Isn’t that what they’ve been doing unsuccessfully for 20 years?
Scott,
“Isn’t that what they’ve been doing unsuccessfully for 20 years?”
That’s a great question! Most “tests” have been hindcasts, which cannot produce definitive results. As Karl Popper said (more or less), predictions are the gold standard of science.
Let’s run the models from the first 3 Assessment Reports as they were at publication — using actual data from their future, not the predictions (i.e., scenarios, in AR5 called RCPs). That would give us the multi-decadal test scientists say is necessary for useful validation, without the possibility of tuning (i.e., avoiding that futile debate).
There have been a few such tests (see the cites in this proposal) — but only with some combination of old data, short test periods, and limited documentation. Let’s do it on a large scale, with peer-review, to give a clear test acceptable to almost everybody in the public policy debate.
No one test can provide all answers, but this would tell us much.
The cost would be small compared to the cost of the three decade long festival that so far has produced only gridlock. The cost would probably be less than that of the Paris Conference, and yet produce so much more (not matter what the result).
Details here: http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/09/24/scientists-restart-climate-change-debate-89635/
The butterfly effect proves that these models are worthless in any time length longer than 10 days. Lorenz wrote extensively on this. So, computer simulations serve only one function, and that involves propaganda.
Imagine how many starving children’s lives in the world could have been saved with the money wasted on these ” conferences ” !!
The Tsetse fly will stop Africa’s population from reaching a billion persons.
Either from human diseases, or prevention of domestic animal husbandry. Not a good choice either way.
Over 40 years ago, I heard a Stanford Economics Professor declare that you can bankrupt the whole world, and still never solve the problems of Africa. And he wasn’t suggesting it was just the people’s fault. It’s a very difficult place to keep habitable by many people.
g
“””””….. explain why the US public assigns a low priority to fighting climate change despite the intense decades-long publicity campaign. …..”””””
Because most people in the USA are smart enough to know that the daily range of Temperature extremes over the globe on any Northern midsummer day , is well over 100 times the total amount that the global Temperature anomaly is purported to have increased over the last 150 years of the industrial revolution.
They also know, that there isn’t enough available energy on earth (and accessable) to make ANY noticeable change to the climate.
So just where would YOU set the thermostat; and why ??
Much of what passes for ” climate science ” isn’t ” science ” at all, and doesn’t have anything to do with science.
“””””….. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: …..””””
That is the OED definition of Science.
To emphasize ” through observation and experiment: ”
And I’ll add one of the missives of Ernest Lord Rutherford.
” If you have to use statistics, you should have done a better experiment. ”
So most of what passes for ” climate science ” is NOT observation and experiment, but is mostly statistics, and computer simulations of a physical model that is representative of no observable object in the known universe; let alone this planet Earth.
Kevin Trenberth et al’s cartoon drawing of ” Earth’s energy (radiation) budget ” is of a 288K isothermal non rotating flat planet, having infinite surface lateral thermal conductivity that is illuminated constantly by a sun that is directly overhead at 186 million miles distant, that produces 432 W/m^2 total irradiance all over the earth continuously.
The only thing that the Temperature in any location is related to is the ” average ” Temperature over some arbitrary 30 year base line period for that very spot.
So if the wind ever blows, nobody knows in what direction, because nobody ever compares the Temperature of one spot, with the concurrent simultaneous Temperature of neighboring spots, to see which way the energy is flowing.
So his energy / radiation budget, which is actually a power density budget, does not allow for lateral movement of energy from one location to another. Well why would it since the whole planet is isothermal at 59 deg. F, or 15 deg. C or 288 K.
And none of that planet, or anything else in the universe pays any attention to statistics, which is 100% pure fiction; it’s numerical origami that just follows a defined algorithm to produce an exact result from any finite data set of real exact numbers, which is valid, no matter the origin or relationship of those numbers (if any at all).
The result carries NO uncertainty of any kind, it is unique for that algorithm, operating on that finite data set. It adds NO information that is not present in the data set itself, and it certainly conveys NO information about ANY real number that is not a member of that data set.
So in that sense, it predicts exactly nothing about any possible future number at all.
So predictive it is not. It has NO inherent meaning, only that which practitioners of the art (not scientists) chsoe to ascribe to that result.
Mother Gaia, has no knowledge of statistical mathematics; she deals in the real universe, and the here and now ONLY !
A bleak world. Population growth death spiral and all that jazz. Malthusians are the best predictors this world has ever seen. Now back to reality.
Projection lower than the UN’s. World population stabilisation at around 2050.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537
“george e. smith
November 5, 2015 at 11:53 am
Over 40 years ago, I heard a Stanford Economics Professor declare…”
Clearly he had no idea what he was talking about with regards to Africa. One of the biggest issues in Africa *IS* money, predominantly from the west. There’s plenty of it, just not going where it was intended (Meaning making very rich people in Africa richer while most go hungry).
I’d like to know what predictions (aside from those concerning research grants) the Warmist scientists have got right. As far as I can tell, they every substantial prediction they have made, and nearly all the off-the-cuff horror predictions, have been thoroughly falsified.
Such a perfect score seems improbable. Surely they have got something right, just by accident.
So Patrick, what is it about your scenario, which you assert is the case, that conflicts with what that Economics professor stated ??
We are after all proposing to bankrupt the West, but yet Africa’s problems are still there.
Rhodesia, was once the breadbasket of Africa. Now it is simply a basket case, as a result of the “solutions” that have been applied.
I still remember when the Mau mau terrorists slaughtered both black and white farmers and ranchers, in places like Kenya, and Tanzania and destroyed their farms. I believe that President Obama’s paternal grandfather, was one of those “liberators”.
That’s why he threw the bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office.
I see very little progress since I heard that lecture. Which is not to say NO progress.
But they can’t just kill each other on their way to prosperity.
g
“george e. smith
November 6, 2015 at 12:47 pm”
I said *ONE* of the biggest problems in Africa is money, predominantly from the west. There is so much of it there, in the hands of so few. The *OTHER* problem is people, the few, in Africa in control of that money. I know people who worked for UN orgs in Ethiopia who could show that 99.9% of the money the org received simply vanished on whiskey and smokes. She left that org in disgust (It was a UN org, don’t recall which).
Obama’s father is Kenyan, I am not sure what tribe. I very much doubt it to be Kikuyu, the main tribe that, fundamentally, liberated Kenya from the British.
Tribal and religious issues, being funded by the west and probably armed by the Russians (Cold war over remember).
Now, to Zimbabwe. It is a basket case BECAUSE of Mugabe *AND* money from the west after independence.
I personally know Ethiopians (I was married to one), Kenyans and Zimbabweans.
Plenty of documented cases where people are captured, released with UN funding, only to be captured and released again, with UN funding.
So, your Prof. had no idea what he is talking about, 40 years ago. Money is a problem because many people in Africa don’t see enough for even one meal per day. The west will go bankrupt because that money simply goes to the very rich and then disappears. The west is also, with cooperation from corrupt Govn’ts, evicting people from their native lands for CO2 sequestration projects and “food for fuel” projects.
Not sure if that last post by me read right…haven’t slept well. But I think you get my gist…
No, that’s what we, the sober public, have been doing successfully every single day for the past 2 decades by waking up and stepping outside. So far, the vast majority of us have been grading the models “F” continuously.
Rhee,
A public policy debate is not resolved by one side adamant in their beliefs — or with regard to climate change, both sides being adamant. Rather, it just runs on — gridlock, consuming valuable resources and public attention, with both sides screaming at each other.
Let’s have test, learn something, and move on.
Are you suggesting we capitulate or they capitulate? Help me out here, Editor.
sysiphus,
“Are you suggesting we capitulate or they capitulate?”
Neither. You’re kidding, right?
“you’re kidding, right? is an attempt to marginalize.
I expect you to explain what you mean by “let’s have test(sic), learn something, and move on”.
A little clarity, please and thank you.
Sysiphus,
“Are you suggesting we capitulate or they capitulate?”
To propose a test is to do neither. it’s a conflict resolution tactic, a tool that might break the deadlock. We’ve tried letting both sides scream at each other for 2 decades. As we see in thsi thread, with so many people stating with certainty that they KNOW THE ANSWER — as if that contributes anything to the debate.
Meanwhile we cannot, as Steven Mosher notes, prepare for the almost-certain repeat of past extreme weather.
The test will show that the models of the first 3 ARs made very successful predictions, or made moderately so predictions, or made poor ones. The case for large-scale public policy action rests on their reliability. So whatever the outcome, we’ll know more than we do now.
Also, successful tests usually point to opportunities for further research.
The alternative appears to be wait for the weather to do so. The result might be painful.
We are way past the “how well did the models do?” stage. We are in disagreement about that, apparently.
You seem to be unwilling to accept that model parameterization is wrong. They have had little to no predictive value, ie. wrong. The predictions of catastrophe, tipping points, sea level rise, etc., was hammered home incessantly. As you say, two decades. More than that for some skeptics.
The predictions of doom and gloom are shrill. Can you not hear them? I do not think it is skeptics that need to be willing to communicate or listen. We are more than willing. It was Gavin Schmidt who stood up and walked away from the table. Al Gore is not willing to debate.
The alternative appears to be wait for the weather to do so.
Why would anyone think that is the only alternative?
Sysiphus,
“You seem to be unwilling to accept that model parameterization is wrong.”
Publish your paper. Once it is widely accepted, I suspect there is a Nobel in your future. But until then the public policy debate will continue. This thread is filled with such pronouncements. Do they expect the climate science and activist communities to accept their diktats?
“Why would anyone think that is the only alternative?”
What do you consider as a likely alternative resolution to the public policy debate about climate change, if not weather casting the decisive vote?
We already know that the models are worse than worthless, except to show that CO2 obviously is not the control knob on climate, as assumed by the GIGO models.
“””””…..
Patrick
November 6, 2015 at 9:31 pm
Not sure if that last post by me read right…haven’t slept well. But I think you get my gist… ….””””
I think I said it was Obama’s paternal grandfather that was involved in the Mau mau terrorism; not his father.
Well maybe Africa would have been better off, if it had never experienced ANY colonial influences. Then the people would have ben able to live their lives as they wanted to.
I personally have had no control over what anybody in Africa has done or how or why they might have done it. I simply reported what I heard in a global economics lecture.
Nothing much has happened in the 40 years since that lecture to change the Professors assertion.
But I’m quite happy that my ancestors got up and left there, eons ago.
And I too know a lot of Africans, from Eritreans, to Sudanese; and none of them are behaving like you say.
g
More “Si ma tante en avait” for the upcoming conference in Paris.
Walt,
That’s an apt expression! New to me, but I’ll be using it in the future.
For my fellow parochial Americans: I looked it up. It’s part of “Si ma tante en avait on l’appellerait mon oncle”. If you suppose many things, all may be possible.
In other words….dreaming ???
The more complete translation is “If my aunt had them, she would be my uncle.” It’s up to you to infer what the “them” is talking about.
English variants of this abound, such as “If a pig had wings it would be a pigeon.”
My own, used for many years: “Start with ‘if’ and you can end anywhere you like.”
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
In other words, the ” shot gun ” approach “; shoot first, and see if you hit anything.
I like to ask people whose approach is to send five ships to sea, for a load of goods that only requires one ship.
What is your plan B if all five of your ships come home ??
Marcus November 5, 2015 at 11:14 am
In other words….dreaming ???
Yes Marcus “dreaming”. But it has to be a dream not a nightmare, powered flight, walking on the moon. Things that show the magnificence of humanity, to call upon us to do great and vast things, not wring our hands in in despair and run from our destiny
michael
I suppose there might be something to that … if given a little adjustment.
Actual population is skidding along the low limits of the envelope of projected outcomes. It is no surprise, fecundity has already crashed in the 1st world, is crashing in the 2nd world and is starting to crash in the 3rd world. Add to this the impacts of the general economic malaise of the past 8 years.
I wonder how it’s trending in the 4th world, where things are really tough.
I did not distinguish a separate 4th world from the 3rd world. In the case of the most underdeveloped countries baseline populations are relatively low and death rates remain high – their contributions to global numbers are not large. Even those worst-off countries are expected to fall below replacement by the 2020s. Stewart Brand (yes, THAT Steward Brand) went on record some years ago with a prediction of a global peak by the 2040s.
The global population group that is not undergoing the sort of demographic transition which occurred in the First World, ie having at most just two kids because they’re liable to survive, is Islam. Until Muslim women enjoy the same freedom as Western women, that’s not likely to change.
Even the Hindu population is stabilizing, regrettably in part because of preferential abortion of female fetuses and the murder of unwanted wives in “kitchen fires”. Pakistan denies it, but there are probably now more Muslims in India than its neighbor.
Wasn’t so long ago (after I arrived in the USA), that half of ALL of the people who had ever lived on the North American Continent, were still alive !!
And 5% of ALL of homo sapiens sapiens, were still alive.
A recent ‘news’ bulletin declared that the first person to live to 150 years old, was already 50 years old. And the first person to live to be 1,000 years old (excluding Methusalah), has already been born.
Happily I’ll be gone by then.
g
We’ll miss you, George. : > )
I’ll miss you too Amigo !
G
Sure, he can live to be 1000 George, but at what price sir?
At what price?
http://www.51allout.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Futurama-Richard-Nixon.jpg
As we move towards the middle of this century the so called elephant in the room will shift away from ‘overpopulation’ to ageing population. See China’s recent decision on the one child policy.
Gloateus, regarding Muslim women. I took a brief look at a few countries.
In Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran the fertility rate has been PLUNGING in all 3 countries! From an average of about 7 kids in 1960 to about 2.5 per woman.
Iran = 1.92
Saudi Arabia = 2.65
Pakistan = 3.19
I decided to look at the largest Muslim population in a country is in Indonesia. PLUNGING to 2.34.
Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where fertility is higher than the world average, it has been falling since the 1960s.
Let us all join hands and stop the population panic. I stopped years ago. In 2100 there may be another kind of panic – it’s already started and will be unprecedented! Just ask Italy (devout) and Spain or Japan…………..
Afghan women fertility to PLUNGE after 2000. There you do have a point, the Taliban got a rough ride during the US invasion. It is one of the few countries in the world where the fertility rate stayed flat since 1960, increased slightly in 1990 then plunged from 2000.
Jimbo,
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not, but fertility plunging from 7 to 3 is still way ahead of the groups which have indeed undergone demographic transition, such as most of the developed world, where fertility is below replacement.
I am not being sarcastic. I can’t see where I said words to the effect of ‘fertility plunging from 7 to 3’. Here is what I said:
As you may well have noticed, or not, 2.5 is getting uncomfortably close to the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. I also pointed out “the largest Muslim population in a country is in Indonesia. PLUNGING to 2.34.”
You could say that they are simply playing catch-up. You cannot claim.
IT IS CHANGING! Address Indonesia then? The country with the world’s LARGEST Muslim population plunged to 2.34.
Then there is fundamentalist Iran, run by a strict religious police.
Sorry matey but Muslim countries should not be generalized about. YOU made me look, since I am a sceptic. Now you can get sceptical about my claims!
Jimbo,
I rounded up to 3.0 to go with 7.0, as that’s closer to the world average.
I didn’t say that every Muslim majority country (87% for Indonesia) or population was reproducing at well above replacement. However the Muslim population of India is growing at about half again the rate of its Hindus, based upon the 2001 and 2011 censuses (16.8% Hindu growth v. 24.6% Muslim).
Arab majority Muslim states are burgeoning. The largest, Egypt (94.7% Muslim in 2010, gaining on its oppressed Coptic Christians), “has been growing at unsustainable rates for decades” and recent years continue to set records:
http://timep.org/commentary/population-growth-egypt-people-problems/
Gloateus,
My issue was specific with your following quote and specific in bold.
So all I have to do is find ONE or more examples that counters that claim. I point you to Iran. Do you agree that they do not – “enjoy the same freedom as Western women“? If yes, then read this please:
Someone once said on WUWT words to the effect that high economic growth only comes when a country has democratic freedoms, freedom of the press etc. just like USA and Western Europe. A few of us pointed that person to China and other examples that countered that claim. It seems you have made the same kind of claim.
Now let me add something important. Muslim women can suffer from the pressure of strict religious views. What affects their fertility are a number of factors:
• Education, particularly of girls
• Increase in standards of living
Over 60% of university students in Iran are women. They reached TFR despite attempts to ban them from many university courses. They certainly to not enjoy the same freedoms as Western women in many aspects. Now with the possible lifting of sanctions against Iran, things may soon become unprecedented! Again!
Iran, as of 2013, has a TFR of 1.92, below their staggering low level of the year 2000.
World Bank et al
It is remarkable that 99.9% of the effects due to an alleged global temperature rise of 0.0085C per year*
are negative:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
*if one discount the 19 year or so pause
This is the “underwear gnome” school of climate related research:
1. Assume AGW
2. . . . ?
3. Publish wholly spurious, statistically weak, correlation between some phenomenon and AGW.
The only “business as usual” assumption that has shown itself to be true is that people will muddle through. How many people floss 3 times a day, get 8 hours sleep, exercise 15 minutes, give up meat, alcohol and sex, and don’t speed on the highways? Oh, and avoid stress and save energy and recycle and compost.
Aren’t we told repeatedly that “something horrible” will happen if we don’t do all the above religiously. We are told we will die.
News flash, no matter what you do you are going to die. As per Catch 22, a boring, miserable life of “sacrifice” and “doing without” only makes it seem like you are living forever.
Give up meat, alcohol, and sex, EVERYBODY – and all problems are solved.
The usual leaders should lead.
Then die of boredom ??
and camembert !!
FB,
I have proof all that crap is a load of hooey.
The proof has a name, too:
Keith Richards
http://steelborn-force.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Keith-Richards.jpg
Lets try that again:
http://www.mendaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Keith-Richards-Smoking.jpg
Thank you. I had no idea the assumption set was this bad and irresponsible. This looks like “out-of-the-box” assumption sets that some “think tanks” are know to arbitrarily spout, even when there is no reasonable basis or experience for doing so. Looking different attracts attention I suppose. Climate science seems to dwell in this outlier land most of the time.
Resource Guy,
I have a more charitable interpretation of RCP8.5. A series of scenarios should have one in each tail of outcome distribution: wonderful and horrific. The four RCP’s do that well, with RCP2.6 and RCP8.5.
I suspect their mistake (everybody makes mistakes) resulted from their methodology: it appears that they specified the forcings, and created scenarios that generated them.
In hindsight, a “business as usual” scenario was needed: taking current trends, extrapolating them to 2100, and calculating the resulting forcing. Failure to do this left this box open. Activist-scientists filled it with RCP8.5, no other scientists called them on this, and the rest is history.
I hope that AR6 will do better.
I cant really go along with your lets test them and move on – testing the climate is not possible except in hindsight.
I personally believe that policy makers should be producing policy for multiple outcomes not just one. In just about all other walks of life many outcome scenarios are planned for by policy makers so that there is less surprise when the unexpected happens – hopefully the strategists will have thought of that particular outcome. The whole concept of global warming assumes that the present increase is damaging without ever having discussed exactly what the ideal climate/ temperature is. At no point do they see a levelling off because they dont believe in the earths ability to stabilise nor do they ever consider the truly catastrophic possibility of cooling.
The IPCC is supposed to be for policy makers except only one policy will do – thats just not good enough. We the general public deserve considerably better from our politicians and policy makers and until there is more even handed debate and proper science this topic will not move on from its current deadlock.
For me to accept the models would need those models to prove themselves by looking in to the future – looking in hindsight is pointless, and in to the future impossible. What is left is healthy conjecture. Moving on in one direction with blinkers on to all other eventualities is utter madness and has by far the greatest chance of catastrophe, but that is what we are expected to accept. Well not me.
Fabius, it is impossible that they did not know that a business as usual scenario was the most demanded one. That they did not make one and instead fabricated a RCP8.5 horror was clearly deliberate, as it was, what? the fourth time they made scenarios?
RCP8.5 is a dystopian scenario that ignores that this planet has limits, and that fossil fuels have limits. They may as well have made a scenario in which we have run out of fossil fuels and are burning a prodigious amount of biomass triggering a massive CO2 spike not seen since the PETM.
But the thing is to this day most people (including most scientists) still think that RCP8.5 constitutes a BAU scenario, so that is not the cause of the low acceptance of CAGW by the general public.
The problem is at the same time simpler and more difficult to solve for the alarmists. The villagers tend to not believe in the wolf if they don’t see one. No amount of propaganda can change the perception that global warming has been beneficial and mankind is doing better on average.
Javier,
Your point is quite reasonable about the intentions of the creators of the RCP’s and authors of AR5’s WGI , unfortunately. Probably more so than my charitable interpretation. It’s a dark insight, confirmed by the general nature of my conversations with climate scientists during the past three years (with some bright exceptions).
“so that {misuse of RCP8,5) is not the cause of the low acceptance of CAGW by the general public.”
Another hit! My phrasing about that in this post was sloppy. I intended to say (but didn’t) that the campaign since (arbitrary start) 1989 — using methods such as this misuse of RCP8.5 — has proven ineffective.
“The villagers tend to not believe in the wolf if they don’t see one.”
Well said! Hence the great effort to attribute almost every extreme weather event to climate change (and by inference, to increasing CO2). If there isn’t a “wolf”, they’ll point to shapes and noises in the night and say it’s out there.
He is correct about a climatic catastrophe. But it will be due to the lack of CO2 in the air to enable crops to grow. If the CO2 level in the air were to be 4 times what it is now we could get double the yield of plant food and solve third world hunger. If the level is halved there will be massive famine as crops are unable to grow. Mick G From: Watts Up With That? To: mickgreenhough@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2015, 18:22 Subject: [New post] Manufacturing nightmares: an example of misusing climate science #yiv9154243203 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv9154243203 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv9154243203 a.yiv9154243203primaryactionlink:link, #yiv9154243203 a.yiv9154243203primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv9154243203 a.yiv9154243203primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv9154243203 a.yiv9154243203primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv9154243203 WordPress.com | Anthony Watts posted: “By Larry Kummer,Editor of the Fabius Maximus websiteSummary: Scientists and journalists bombard us with news about the coming climate catastrophe, described as certain unless we drastically change our economy. This has plunged many into despai” | |
+ 1,000
“mickgreenhough
November 5, 2015 at 10:57 am
If the CO2 level in the air were to be 4 times what it is now we could get double the yield of plant food and solve third world hunger.”
3rd world hunger has nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with getting stuff where it is best grown to where it is needed.
“We’re going to become extinct. Whatever we do now is too late.”
— Frank Fenner (Prof emeritus in microbiology at the Australian National U)
Time to party I think, no point moping at a time like this when it’s out of our control. Paris will be such a blast. No need to worry, lots of wine and good food, other people’s money to spend as they won’t be needing it; so no guilt trip this time for the eco warriors.
Son of Mulder,
That’s imaginative empathy, and a powerful contender for “Best of Thread”!
Indeed.
As the old saying goes:
If there’s no solution, there’s no problem.
Well, Prof. Fenner is 100% right. Every species on Earth becomes extinct in due time. Average duration is about 2 million years, although highly variable. And there is nothing a species can do to prevent its own extinction. So yes, we’re going to become extinct. And no, there is nothing we can do to prevent it.
But first each of us has to face his own mortality, and that is a lot more worrisome.
Estimates compiled by Lawton and May (Extinction Rates, 1995) for species’ “lifespans” ranged from one million years for mammals to 13 million years for dinoflagellates.
On human extinction it all depends on ‘business as usual’ or not. Below is an article. They may be right, they may be wrong, I have no idea. What I want to know is this: why aren’t the alarmist greens et all screaming that we must act now? They like alarmism don’t they?
Jimbo,
I suggest that they might not be “screaming” to act now because a falling population is wonderful, for many reasons. It will help prepare for the next industrial revolution (the “robot revolution), now starting — because we will not need so many workers (or have jobs for them). And the benefits on the environment will be fantastic.
For details see http://fabiusmaximus.com/2013/11/25/immigration-japan-58908/
Never seen a wind/solar powered terminator when there was no wind/solar.
John Davies (geophysicist, senior research at the Cold Climate Housing Research Center), 22 February 2014.
Why would a guy who’s sure the planet is going to get too hot to live on be wasting his time researching cold climate dwellings?
Dawtgtomis,
Many of us do things in our professional capacity that conflicts to some degree with our personal views and values. Everybody has to earn a living.
So what is stopping them from earning a living, rather than sponging on everybody else ??
True. Just seems quite ironic. Like a mennonite owned car dealership.
Dawtgtomic,
“So what is stopping them from earning a living, rather than sponging on everybody else ??”
Researching ways to improve housing in cold climates is the opposite of “sponging”. Many people live in cold climates, often in poverty and suffer from the cold.
That was MY comment, not that of Dawgtomis.
And if you have spent the last 55 years ” Actually improving conditions for everybody everywhere; NOT just researching it. ” while earning a living (for many people) doing it; then do come back and tell us about it.
g
So what IS the business-as-usual scenario? None of the above?
If RCP8.5 is business as usual, what is business-as-unusually-bad? Didn’t they make a scenario for that? Missed a good scare!
Maybe I’m missing something.
More CO2 = more plant food = more crops = more food for starving people…
Less CO2 = less plant food = less crops = MORE starving people ??
Conclusion = Greenies want more people to die !!
Oh wait, now I understand . The Agenda 21 thing !!
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner folks. Give that man a prize!
If it’s a United Nations Nobel Peace Prize , you can keep it, it’s worthless !! LOL
Climatology is IMO far too young a field for climate modeling. Science needs to know a lot more than it does about climate before it can even begin to think about modeling the complex phenomenon.
Fabius Maximus: One HUGE problem with RCP 8.5 is that it presupposes that more coal is burnt, than exists in reserves.
Doing the calculation on RCP8.5 shows burning more coal than there is reserves, by 2100.
Coal Reserves are 860 Gt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
The paper that shows the amount of coal burned in exaJoules. (10^18 joules) Fig 5 (need to estimate from graph. I get 40000 EJ over the century)
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/700/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10584-011-0149-y.pdf?auth66=1411082238_6e5e56fcca0686fcc271b84fd0868908&ext=.pdf
The energy in coal is 7.2 GJ for 1 tonne to make electricity this gives 6.19E^21 J total energy in 860 GT reserves.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/LunChen.shtml
Total reserves vs amount burned in this scenario is about 15.5%, or 6.5 times more coal than in reserves. In other words, not possible. If you increase the energy in coal from 7.2 GJ/tonne to about 20, then total burned in RCP8.5 is only about twice reserves. Which is still impossible. There can be up to 30 GJ/tonne energy in coal. Even at the upper end, there is still more coal burned than there is reserves.
i am not the only one to do this calculation.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/22/coal-and-the-ipcc/#more-15332
Les Johnson:
If there is demand for the coal then the price will rise to provide the needed reserves.
The coal resources are sufficient for at least 500 years supply.
If this is not self-evident then the following explanation should suffice.
1. Reserves and resources
A reserve of a mineral (e.g. stone, metal ore, coal, crude oil, etc.) is the known amount of the mineral which can be obtained at economic cost using existing technology.
A resource of a mineral is the estimated amount of the mineral which can be obtained using existing or imagined technology.
Reserves usually INCREASE as resources are depleted.
This is because the value of a mineral is affected by its availability.
To understand this, please consider the simplified case of 3 men who each own a field which contains diamonds.
Man A has one diamond on the surface of his field.
Man B has 10 diamonds 10 meters below the surface of his field.
Man C has 100 diamonds 100 meters below the surface of his field.
The resource is 111 diamonds (i.e. 1+10+100 diamonds) but the reserve is only one diamond.
Man A can find and obtain his diamond at much cheaper cost than Man B and Man C can find and obtain theirs. So, Man A can undercut the price for a diamond demanded by the others.
Then Man A sells his diamond.
The reserve then increases to 10 diamonds because Man B can now undercut the price for diamonds demanded by Man C, but the resource reduces to 110 diamonds. Also, the cost and the price of diamonds increases.
Then Man B sells his diamonds.
The reserve then increases to 100 diamonds but the resource reduces to 100 diamonds.
This, of course, assumes the need for diamonds is such that there is no alternative to paying the cost of Man C to obtain his diamonds. Diamonds from somewhere else or an alternative to diamonds may be cheaper, and – in that case – the alternatives become the reserves.
This principle applies to all minerals.
Richard
Yes it does apply. The famous bet between Ehrlich and Simon is a good case in point. What also applies is no country has ever FINISHED those coal reserves.
That said, if one tried to sell stocks based on reserves that are not proved, one would go to jail.
Les and Richard,
You are both right, sort of.
Les is correct that there is much evidence that estimates of coal reserves are overstated. Here are the first three reports showing this; several later studies have repeated these conclusions. These suggest that there is insufficient coal to provide the necessary cheap fuel to power the 21stC, as assumed in RCP8.5.
The first major study questioning the actual extent of coal reserves: “The Peak in U.S. Coal Production“, Gregson Vaux (NREL), 27 May 2004
“COAL OF THE FUTURE (SUPPLY PROSPECTS FOR THERMAL COAL BY 2030-2050)“, Energy Edge Limited, Prepared for the European Commission – DG Joint Research Centre Institute for Energy (JRC IFE), February 2007
“Coal: Resources and Future Production“, Energy Watch Group, March 2007 (47 pages,)
Richard: “If there is demand for the coal then the price will rise to provide the needed reserves.”
That’s an oversimplification. The price rise might bring forth additional supply, but it might also destroy demand. We’ve seen this with oil prices as demand drops at prices over $100/barrel. If coal becomes too expensive, it becomes uneconomic for people to pay for the coal-generated electricity.
The price-supply relationship is more precisely stated as that there is an inverse relationship between ore quality and quantity (i.e., there is more low quality ore than high quality). As prices rise, lower quality ore can be economically mined. Hence supply increases with price, and we don’t “run out” of anything. This relationship is mediated by technology, whose improvement over time allows exploiting lower quality ore at the same or even lower cost.
For more about this see Recovering lost knowledge about exhaustion of the Earth’s resources (such as Peak Oil).
Les Johnson:
Your post in reply to my explanation says in total
You admit my explanation of the principle that “If there is demand for the coal then the price will rise to provide the needed reserves”.
You then add a completely irrelevant legal point.
My explanation was a refutation of your assertion that there is a “huge problem”; you said
You have admitted that I have explained why your assertion is wrong; viz.
the size of existing reserves is of no practical and/or legal concern because proven reserves will increase to become sufficient as needed.
Your legal point is irrelevant.
Richard
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website :
You say to me
My explanation is a simplification: I made a blog post and did not write a book.
But my explanation is NOT an oversimplification. It covered your point in two ways.
Firstly, the statement you quoted says there will be a price rise IF there is demand for the coal, and lack of ability to afford the price is a self-evident constraint on demand.
Secondly, my explanation said (emphasis added)
Richard
The Cullinan Diamond was found just sticking out of the wall of an already existing diamond mine tunnel, just 18 feet (maybe metres) below the surface. Man A (Mr Cullinan I presume) was very lucky. So was QE-II. And it might have been only half of what was a much larger stone.
g
Richard:
The argument does not apply to oil for the following reason.
Let’s say that we have a very simple model – we use the oil pumped out of the ground the run a diesel engine that operates the pump.
Sooner or later, you will reach a point where you are burning more oil in the diesel engine than is being pumped out of the ground. It does not matter whether oil is $10,000 a barrel.
Richard: wow. OK, let me put this into investment terms. If an oil company said they had X reserves, but that their REVENUE depends on 6X reserves, with ZERO evidence, then yes there would be legal issues.
If someone wants me to invest 40 trillion dollars to mitigate warming, they better have real numbers to back that up. Right now, those numbers are at least 6 times higher than the reality.
While I agree there are several hundred years of coal reserves, that is at current burn rates. RCP 8.5 assumes a much higher, and totally unrealistic, burn rate.
You don’t like that I brought up legal issues? How about a folksy latin saying? Caveat Emptor.
Anyone that thinks we need to mitigate based on unproven numbers needs to do their due diligence. In other words, let the buyer beware.
Until someone shows me there is enough coal to reach RCP 8.5, I am not investing.
The way I used to teach this to university students was that an orebody can appear and disappear almost overnight. It all depends upon the price of the underlying commodity. At too low a price the orebody is not exploitable. At a high enough price, it is.
The simple point your missing is that coal will be needed in 20 or so years due to new technologies !!
OOPS ! ….Will not be needed
Marcus,
“The simple point your missing is that coal will not be needed in 20 or so years due to new technologies!!”
That is almost certainly an big exaggeration. Or perhaps quite false.
First, reliably predicting the development of new tech over decades is almost impossible. Perhaps current trends will continue. Or perhaps coal will get what natural gas got from fracking and horizontal drilling (in 2005 there were common predictions of a “cliff event” in US nat gas production). For example, a cheap way of clean burning coal (there are lots of ideas being tested).
Second, even if today we had a full replacement for coal that worked in the lab (which I don’t believe we do), the development process from lab to pilot plant to commercialization takes many years.
Third, new power generation methods take decades to fully roll-out. The equipment has long service lives, is expensive, and must be reliable; the power companies are conservative both financially and technologically.
Les Johnson, george e. smith, Walt D., jsuther2013, and Marcus:
I provide this single response to all of your points put to me for simplicity and not to demean anybody.
Les Johnson,
you claimed there is a “HUGE problem” in that existing reserves are not sufficient to fulfill future demand. I explained why the magnitude of present reserves presents no problem, and you agreed my explanation is true. But you added a legal point. I pointed out that your legal point is irrelevant and is covered by my explanation.
You now assert that I don’t like your legal point. Not so. What I do or don’t like is also irrelevant because – as I explained – your legal point is irrelevant and was covered by my explanation.
I now add that another reason why your legal issue is irrelevant is that corporate laws differ between countries, they can be changed, and they would be changed if they were inhibiting exports of coal exporting countries.
george e. smith,
thankyou for your amusing anecdote which adds interest to my technical explanation.
Walt D.,
my explanation applies to all minerals including oil. It covered your point when it said ,
“This, of course, assumes the need for diamonds is such that there is no alternative to paying the cost of Man C to obtain his diamonds. Diamonds from somewhere else or an alternative to diamonds may be cheaper, and – in that case – the alternatives become the reserves.”
Many alternative sources of crude oil have been found. These include opening of new oil fields by use of new technologies (e.g. to obtain oil from beneath sea bed) and synthesising crude oil from other substances (e.g. tar sands, natural gas and coal). Indeed, since 1994 it has been possible to provide synthetic crude oil from coal at competitive cost with natural crude oil and this constrains the maximum true cost of crude. (This surprising economic fact of synthetic crude oil – syncrude – is provided by the LSE process which we developed then proved both technically and economically with a demonstration plant at Point of Ayr in Nortrh Wales).
Anyway, energy return on investment (EORI) is also economic nonsense. For example, power stations put out much less energy (i.e. as electricity) than they take in (i.e. as fuel). But people buy the electricity.
jsuther2013,
thankyou for your excellent summation of the issue. I copy it here to draw attention to it because it may be more clear than my explanation for some people.
Marcus,
your point is mistaken. Although your point was clearly addressed at me, it obtained this excellent refutation from Editor of the Fabius Maximus website and my response consists of drawing your attention to his refutation. I add that I have an ‘alphabet’ of the clean coal technologies he mentions; i.e. AFBC, CFBC, PFBC, IGCC, ABGC, etc..
Richard
With all of the doomsaying and apocalypse mongering one would think that those who “know” the end is coming would live their lives like there really is no tomorrow.
Are they doing the “right” thing and not having kids? Surely all of this “mourning” should have an impact on them personally!
If I “knew” that by 2030 the planet would end, I wouldn’t bring another life into this world to experience that.
We should soon see many less births BECAUSE the alarmists believe their own bile.
This variant on “do as I say and not as I do” is worth looking into. What do these people do in their ordinary lives these days? My hunch is that they are just getting carried away by their own rhetoric or posing for the cameras, as it were.
We need a climate blog from Putin.
No, they don’t get a do-over. Nuts to that. As for re-starting the debate? Please. When skeptics wanted a debate, they refused, or in the rare case they accepted they were used as floor mops. Then there’s Climategate, and any number of climate shenanegans, all designed to keep the Climate/Global Warming gravy train rolling along. It’s done.
A useful survey of current climate hysteria. Appreciated.
This whole discussion reminds of going to an after Friday prayer discussion at my mosque when I was growing up. The mullah (islamic priest) would divide us into two groups. One group had to think of all the things one could do that would send them to hell. More importantly, this group had to think of all the awful things that would happen in hell. The other group had to come up with all the things (pray 5 times a day, perform pilgrimage to Mecca, be nice to your parents, etc) that would get you to heaven, and all the nice things you would enjoy once in heaven. Sadly, one of the things that got you to heaven was martyrdom in the name of Allah. I see that type of thinking permeating in the debate over global warming. True believers are convinced that we must destroy the capitalist system, which has lifted billions of people out of poverty, to save the earth. Unfortunately, as illustrated with many religious beliefs, no amount of contrary evidence will persuade the “true believers” to change their mind.
Manufacturing Nightmares..
Well it fits right in with manufacturing evidence(data) to suit your policy requirements.
The Team IPCC ™ are a creation of bureaucrats, attempting to stampede the mob to their advantage.
Manufacturing mass hysteria, nightmares as you call them, is all they have.
There is no empirical measured data to support the hypothesis of the magic gas.
There is however the entire UN IPCC bureaucracy, which cloaks its political aims in the illusion of science.
Heh, they would have used religion but none were as powerful as the Cult of Calamitous Climate.
” land use”
“Food prices have hit an all-time low after 7 years, as reported by theFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
The drop in prices was first reported in August with the index averaging 155.7 points, down to 5.2 percent from July. FAO said that it was the deepest decline since December 2008, with virtually all of the major food commodities registering steep drops. They attributed the decline to falling wheat and maize prices and also to the increased production prospects”
good agricultural output, always the sign of a benign climate.
As Michael Crichton said in one of his speeches about climate change, it is crazy to even try to imagine what the world will look like a hundred years from now. He cited France now getting about 80% of its energy from nuclear. That would have been impossible to even conceive of 100 years earlier. Then he went on a rant about the inventions and discoveries of the 20th century that people in the year 1900 could not have even imagined:
“They also didn’t know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS. None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900.”
The point is we will innovate and adapt. If sea levels start to rise, we’ll migrate inland or build higher seawalls and levees. My own simplistic view as a non-scientist is that if we have high confidence that the Roman and Medieval Warm periods happened on a global scale, and the current warming is still within those bounds, then I just can’t help but think that the risks are being grossly exaggerated intentionally for political reasons.
Pardon my pedantry, but radio could be imagined in 1900, since in effect it existed then, although just barely. Wireless telegraphy was well established by 1900, but Fessenden didn’t send the first wireless telephonic message until December of that year. Having a wireless receiver in your home, ie a radio, might however have been hard for most people to imagine then, as per Dr. Crichton.
In my teaching days, I used an example of the cognoscenti of the mid 1800’s speculating about the growing prosperity and the need for more and more horses. They extrapolated to 2015 and decided that we would, by then, almost certainly be floundering neck-deep in horse poop. They then decided that they would spend a fortune to solve this noysome problem for us, not realizing that the auto was just on the horizon, and oil, and de-watering mines, and steamships, and on and on.
Fortunately, they were not that stupid. They let the world develop as it would, and solved their own problems of that time, and not those they envisaged in the far future, and that might never happen.
floundering neck-deep in horse poop.
===========
according to the upcoming Paris Climate Conference, the solution would be to tax hay. that would have ended the 18th centuries addiction to horses.
think about it. a tax on carbon is no different than a tax on hay back in the horse and buggy era, as a way of getting rid of horse poop. when all that was really required was someone with a shovel.
Fred – love your hay tax analogy!
Might as well blame it all on pimples…..
What I hate is everything has a global warming spin on it……which is no solution
…and real problems with real solutions are being ignored
It may be time to start thinking about how to deal with all these alarmists after the AGW hysteria has collapsed. Maybe we will need an organization like Alcoholics Anonymous, it could be called Assholes Anonymous, with a chapter in every major city at least. Somewhere where people can go once a week and talk out their absurd obsessions without doing further harm to anyone else.
Agreed. The AGW alarmists at some point in the near future will require some sort of detoxification therapy. Perhaps a fitting solution would be to strand the so called “97% consensus” on a deserted island with a piece a string, a match, and a nail.
I’m not sure we should trust them with a match, Stark.
Canada will very generously donate Coates Island as the rehabilitation zone.
Banishment is necessary to prevent any further contagion of young minds.
And the unthinking righteous savagery of the Cult of Calamitous Climate has been hard to take so far and has the potential to reach the unforgivable level.
The collapse of cult phase can be very vicious.
I see this essay like previous contributions from the “Editor of the Fabius Maximus website” as a form of grey or black propaganda i.e. while ostensibly deconstructing IPCC ‘science’ actually attempting to add credibility to it.
None of the IPCC ‘scenarios’ have any credibility because they are all based on the false assumption of strong positive feedbacks in the climate system.
We are doomed, just not in the way they predict:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tm33tTS2iZc/RizPy2CJfjI/AAAAAAAAADY/A1bBqSYdgbE/s400/global_temp2.jpg
Doomed to ice. It is after all an ice world.
NY attorney general investigating Exxon over climate statements
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/05/us-exxon-mobil-climatechange-i…
The New York attorney general has launched an investigation into whether Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) misled the public about the risks of climate change or its investors about how those risks may hurt the company’s oil business.
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman subpoenaed the company on Wednesday evening, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents, the attorney general’s spokesman Stephen Barton told Reuters.
The New York Times first reported the news earlier on Thursday. (nyti.ms/1HuEJC8)
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in late October had said she believed the U.S. Justice Department should investigate Exxon for failing to disclose data related to climate change.
Oooh. Our lawyer once warned us that when you sue, the counter suit can be an order of magnitude greater. So suing a company that has more revenue than a lot of countries should carry some risk. Given some of the analysis on WUWT, New York could find itself on the wrong side of a “settlement” issue if Exxon were to choose to get miffed about being targeted. With appropriate gunslingers on both sides, an investigation or lawsuit could bring the whole CAGW house of cards down. (The C is important as I wouldn’t bother to dispute some AGW but I might argue benefits and not Catastrophic as compared to the so called remedies.)
I agree. An evaluation of global warming would be normal concern for any energy company. It would have been irresponsible for Exxon Mobil to ignore the associated issues because they impact forward planning and investment decisions. I fail to understand why it would have been under any obligation to reveal its internal deliberations to the public.
Wait a minute… isn’t global warming supposed to decrease the human fertility rate?
Shhhh….you’re not allowed to compare contradictory claims as long as the “Cause”…er…cause is the same.
Yup. Global warming is also attributed to lower libidos, too. The list is endless of cause and effect continues….
I have no doubt whatsoever that global warming also causes hang nails. Mine are simply atrocious!
My bald spot is getting bigger and bigger ! Darn Glo.Bull Warming !!
The only significant feedbacks are reinforcing.
The only significant feedbacks are reinforcing.
The only significant feedbacks are reinforcing.
The only significant feedback is a positive.
Why would anyone want to discuss a negative feedback.
So why do all this cr*p to speed it along?
Agenda 21
The entire planet, and all life on it, has a shelf-life determined by that big yellow ball in the sky. It’s not a question of *IF*, but *WHEN*!. Fortunately my (I suffer from haemochromatosis so maybe one day I’ll be a bag of nails…certainly have a face that looks like one anyway) body will be long gone.
I enjoy watching those who think they can actually make the weather do what they want
Ohmmmmmmmmmm……………
Partly ignorance (some of which stems from over-specialization of researchers), partly herd mentality (yes, it exists in academia), but, not to get too “conspiratorial”, some of it suggests a deliberate agenda to delude the populace: bread, circuses and terror.
Gil Gil Gil . . How many times do the TV talking heads have to roll their eyes in unison at the mention of conspiracy, before you get the message? Humans can’t conspire. If any try, their tongue cleaves to the roof of their mouth, and a big red light flashes at NSA headquarters, till the suspect is apprehended and sent to some hell hole for torturing . . So relax, quit talking about about conspiracy, it can’t happen.
Please pardon my emotional outburst… OMG!!! China has under reported their fossil fuel consumption by ALMOST 20 % for a decade!!! This means that there is even more hidden heat that is bound to come into the atmosphere before 2100 AD. So much more CO2 than the scientists at the IPCC could have guessed. This means, at least, 5 degrees of global warming and the polar bears will die and the oceans will flood the land!
…on the other hand it could mean that the ECS used is much too high and RCP8.5 is nonsense.
Does this increase show up in the Mauna Loa data?
A continues need to lie in such way is of course has good an indicator, as with the industrial scale use of smoke and mirrors, has you can get how much this is really is ‘settled sciences.
That it is proving effective , but in the opposite way than intended , show these people have simply not taken on the message behind the ‘boy who cried wolf ‘ story .
It is actually heartening they manner in which they continue to dance around unable to understand why shooting themselves in the foot is bad idea , instead preferring to shoot themselves in the other foot .
Year from now the smarter ones may well ask themselves where did it all go wrong, they got so close to being ‘king of the hill ‘ only to end up in the gutter .
Well guys you forgot , that ‘you can fool some of the people all the time , or all of the people some of the time , put you cannot foll all of the people all of the time’ Especially when your salesman are fools like ‘Mann’ , ‘Lew paper ‘ etc whose contact with reality was remote at best due to their galaxy sized egos , in contrast to their atom sized scientific ability and standards ,
Double sentence: “RCP8.5 gets the most attention, with its bold and dark assumptions. It is a useful and important scenario, a warning of what might happen if the 21st century goes badly. RCP8.5 is a useful and important scenario, a warning of what might happen if the 21st century goes badly.”
Sam,
Thanks for catching that! I’ve fixed the original post on the FM website.
There are multiple reasons RCP 8.5 cannot happen. IMO, the switch in AR5 was because the AR4 Ax Bx scenarios were too falsifiable as reality conflicted with model predictions. Careful study of both suggests that IPCC BAU is something like halfway between RCP 4.5 and RCP 6, and roughly equivalent to previous A1b or A2. Essay Hiding the Hiatus has details.
United Nations is out of line with its charter which states:
By its charter United Nations is supposed to:
– To maintain international peace and security…
– To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples …
– To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
– To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
Here are the priorities of the worlds population (Among those able to vote, aware of the query and inclined to vote). Action taken on climate change was dead last:
http://data.myworld2015.org
United Nations IPCC has itself become an international problem of an economical and cultural character.
The economic problem is evident from the vast amount of resources which are allocated to the climate scare – thereby restricting available resources for relief of human suffering by known and real causes within the charters of United Nations.
The cultural problem is evident from the unscientific principles governing IPCC. IPCC is an undemocratic body based on unscientific principles. A body on which they have imposed a mission and a principle to strive for consensus.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
United Nations has created a body, which by its unique position, by the resources allocated to it and by being uncontested by political counterparts must be regarded as a kind of authority body. Hence – on might start to wonder if United Nations is also out of line with human rights.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng
The human rights states that:
“Article 21
3 The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”
http://www.kdun.org/faq/in-what-way-is-the-un-undemocratic/
There seems to be something magical about the year 2050 according to the models because there seems to be an inflection point on all of the graphs under most scenarios. Must be the same magic used to show that the more natural resources that are used the lower GDP growth is.
sea level rise long before there were cars or fossil fuel burning
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/1280_720/images/live/p0/36/ys/p036ys5s.jpg
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20151102-when-cities-rise-from-the-depths
Ferd, And long before there were buildings like this one. Your example is of land subsidence. You are inadvertently doing a Suzuki.
fuel is not fossil !
Coal is. Plenty of examples of plant matter, fossilised in coal rocks.
Telling tales of doom and scrying the future from the intestines of small furry animals are time honoured trades of the charlatan and witch doctor.
As old as language, living more easily at the expense of the gullible.
I just hate being amongst the gullible , involuntarily by force of government, my taxes are increased and then wasted on bureaucrats and their scam by committee.
The UN is the enemy of every citizen.
Most of our governments have expanded beyond all function or reason, evolving into perpetual bureaucracies, which openly steal from us.
Kleptocracy no less.
CAGW is just the logical conclusion of corrupt bureaus, orchestrated by an international cartel of bureaucrats.
Every freeloaders wet dream, absolute power, with zero accountability.
The beauty of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming overreach, is that it forces us to acknowledge just how corrupt our agents have become.
Everything they touch is corrupted.
Climate Science is a shining example of good enough for government.
All of the above was predicted by president Eisenhower ….Well stated !
Fabius, I think you’re missing the key element regarding RCPs. They started with the end amount of forcing as a given. They didn’t start looking at emissions and consumption and end up at RCP 8.5. Each RCP team was given the forcing at 2100 and asked to develop intermediate inputs for climate models at different times during the 21st Century. Then they were asked to develop a plausible real world explanation of how this could occur. From the abstract of the overview you cite above, “Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), a set of four new pathways developed for the climate modeling community as a basis for long-term and near-term modeling experiments. The four RCPs together span the range of year 2100 radiative forcing values found in the open literature, i.e. from 2.6 to 8.5 W/m2. ”
In every paper written by RCP team members they explicitly state that the RCPs are not predictions and are not projections. Their statements seem to be ignored.
Tom,
“I think you’re missing the key element regarding RCPs.”
I don’t understand. What do you say I am missing?
“They started with the end amount of forcing as a given.”
I agree, and I discussed that aspect of their methodology in a comment this morning: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/05/manufacturing-nightmares-an-example-of-misusing-climate-science/#comment-2064530
“In every paper written by RCP team members they explicitly state that the RCPs are not predictions and are not projections.”
RCPs are scenarios, used as an ensemble input to the models. In that sense each RCP is not a prediction. But they can be appropriately used as predictions by saying, for example, that RCP8.5 is likely if current trends continue (aka it is the “business as usual”). As several designers of the RCP’s (in a broad sense) said:
“Compared to the scenario literature RCP8.5 depicts thus a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest improvements in energy intensity.”
— From “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011.
Please help. A little off topic, but is the following statement true?
It is highly likely the net consumption of CO2 through the process of photosynthesis is understated because the IPCC simply assumes all atmospheric CO2 remains in the atmosphere. That totally unscientific assumption ignores the effect of water vapor on atmospheric CO2, and also ignores the response to plant life to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2.
fuel origin :
* * *
Anisimov, V. V., V. G. Vasilyev, et al. (1959). “Berezov gas-prone district, and perspectives of its development.” Geology of Oil and Gas 9: 1-6.
Boiko, G. E. (1968). The Transformation of deep Petroleum under the Conditions of the Earth’s Crust. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Campbell, C. J. (1991). The golden century of oil: 1950-2050. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic.
Campbell, C. J. (1994). “The imminent end of cheap oil-based energy.” SunWorld 18(4, Dec 1994).
Campbell, C. J. (1995). “The imminent end of cheap oil-based energy.” SunWorld 19(1, March 1995).
Chekaliuk, E. B. (1967). Oil in the Earth’s Upper Mantle. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Chekaliuk, E. B. (1971). The Thermodynamic Basis for theTheory of the Abiotic Genesis of Petroleum. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Chekaliuk, E. B. and J. F. Kenney (1991). “The stability of hydrocarbons in the thermodynamic conditions of the Earth.” Proc. Am. Phys. Soc. 36(3): 347.
Dolenko, G. E. (1968). “The origin of oil and gas deposits in the crust of the Earth.” Geol. Zh. 2: 67.
Dolenko, G. N. (1971). On the origin of petroleum deposits. The Origin of Petroleum and Natural Gas and the Formation of the Commercial Deposits. Kiev, Naukova Dumka: 3.
Fuller, J. G. C. (1993). The oil industry today. The British Association Lectures 1993. London, The Geological Society. 53.
Kenney, J. F. (1995). The spontaneous high-pressure generation and stability of hydrocarbons: the generation of n-alkanes, benzene, toluene & xylene at multi-kilobar pressures. Joint XV AIR/APT International Conference on High-Pressure Physics and Technology, Warsaw.
Krayushkin, V. A. (1965). Theoretical Problems of Migration and Accumulation of Oil and Natural Gas. Synopsis of theses for degree of Doctor of Science. Moscow, I. M. Gubkin Institute of the Oil-Chemical, and Gas Industry: 36.
Krayushkin, V. A. (1984). The Abiotic, Mantle Origin of Petroleum. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Krayushkin, V. A., T. I. Tchebanenko, V. P. Klochko, Ye. S. Dvoryanin, J. F. Kenney (1994). Recent applications of the modern theory of abiogenic hydrocarbon origins: Drilling and development of oil & gas fields in the Dneiper-Donets Basin. VIIth International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust through Drilling, Santa Fe, NM, DOSECC: 21-24..
Kropotkin, P. N., Ed. (1956). Origin of hydrocarbons of the Earth’s crust. Proceedings of Discussion on the Problem of Origin and Migration of Oil. Kiev, Academy of Sciences Press, the Ukrainian SSR.
Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1951). “On the problem of petroleum genesis and the formation of oil deposits.” Neft. Kh-vo. 9: 17-29.
Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1959). Oil, Gas, and Solid Bitumens in Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks. Leningrad, State Fuel Technical Press.
Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1963). Deep Faults and Oil Deposits. Leningrad, Gostoptekhizdat.
Letnikov, F. A., I. K. Karpov, et al. (1977). The Fluid Regime of Earth Crust and Upper Mantle. Moscow, Nauka Press.
Linetskii, V. F. (1974). The Migration of Oil and Gas at Great Depths. Kiev, Naukova Dumka.
Mahfoud, R. F. and J. N. Beck (1995). “Why the Middle East fields may produce oil forever.” Offshore April 1995: 58-64, 106.
Markevich, B. P. (1966). The History of Geological Evolution, and Petroleum-Content of the West Siberian Lowland. Moscow, Nauka Press.
Odell, P. R. (1984). “World oil resources, reserves, and production.” The Energy Journal 15(Special Issue): 89-114.
Odell, P. R. (1991). “Global and regional energy supplies: Recent fictions and fallacies revisited.” Energy Exploration & Exploitation 9(5): 237-258.
Odell, P. R. (1994). “Global energy market: Future supply potentials.” Energy Exploration & Exploitation 12(1): 59-72.
Porfir’yev, V. B. (1959). The Problem of the Migration of Petroleum and the Formation of Accumulations of Oil and Gas. Moscow, Gostoptekhizdat.
Porfir’yev, V. B. and V. P. Klochko (1981). Oil-content problem of basement of the Siberia. Geological and Geochemical Principles of Prospect for Oil and Gas. Kiev, Naukova Dumka Press: 36-101.
Raznitsyn, V. A. (1963). “Perspectives of petroleum-content of the Timan-Pechera Region.” Petroleum Geology and Geophysics 10: 27-31.
Simakov, S. N. (1986). Forcasting and Estimation of the Petroleum-bearing Subsurface at Great Depths. Leningrad, Nedra.
Published in, “Special Edition on The Future of Petroleum” in Energy World, British Institute of Petroleum, London, June 1996.
Republished by Russian Academy of Sciences, Kazan, 1997.
I must confess that I am at a loss to understand the general premise that we should do re-run of the earlier models to see how they fair.
As I understand matters SAR and TAR set out model projections. So we know what those model projections are. We also know that as from SAR, CO2 emissions have been unabated and have risen at or above the BAU rate. So it is easy to carry out the review that the Editor of the Fabius Maximus website suggests should be done.
we already know that all the model runs in SAR and TAR are far too warm and not one of them projected the current ‘pause’
In fact we know that the more recent crop of models are also running way to warm. The much vaunted plot by Dr Spence of the 90 or so climate models plotted against UAH running through to 2013 shows that only 2 models are running cooling than UAH, and only a handful are broadly in line with UAH. That plot consists of models whose runs commenced in 2006. Prior to 2006 the reasonably close model output and reality is a hindcast. The future projections are from 2006 and almost immediately nearly all the models go off target tracking warm.
Unless this current El Nino produces a step change in temperature, none of the 90 or so models will be within the 95% confidence bound by 2019, since the two models which are reasonably closely tracking UAH project rapid warming in 2018!
We have already seen the test. The result is in. The models fail, and fail terribly at that. And we know the reason why, namely none of the models projected the current ‘pause’ and the impact of the ‘pause’ is that real world Climate Sensitivity to CO2 (if any at all) is far lower than set out in the models. the underlying assumptions upon which the models is run.
Richard,
The point of a test is to get results that both sides accept. You have your opinion of the models, but most climate scientists and (probably) every activist disagrees. We’ve spent the last 2 decades listening to both sides declare themselves to be correct. Let’s try something else.
“So it is easy to carry out the review that the Editor of the Fabius Maximus website suggests should be done.”
Good. Then why don’t you support it?
“not one of them projected the current ‘pause’”
Richard, I suspect you have read (or at least read about) the many studies explaining why that is either not accurate or not dispositive. If not, you’ll find them here (with links & abstracts): http://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/01/17/climate-change-global-warming-62141/
“In fact we know that the more recent crop of models are also running way to warm. The much vaunted plot by Dr Spencer … ”
First, “way too warm” is an exaggeration. Second, many scientists consider his analysis flawed. For one example see: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta
Third, his analysis is not peer-reviewed. There are many articles by scientists on the web showing the opposite — plus peer-reviewed research doing so (see section e at the end of this for cites with links: http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/09/24/scientists-restart-climate-change-debate-89635/).
“The models fail, and fail terribly at that.”
Comparing hindcasts and predictions using assumed emissions does not produce clear results. Accusations of tuning, bickering about visual interpretation of spaghetti graphs (most of which employs no statistical analysis), valid concerns about the often short periods considered, etc — it’s a long list of reasons why these have not produced clear results.
Instead of tests whose results both side can accept we have a gridlocked public policy debate with people on both side proclaiming their views as if each is the Pope of Science (in fact, even “the” Pope has taken to doing so).
Perhaps you’ve heard of the AA adage: “insanity is repeating one’s actions, hoping for a different result.”
Thanks your further comments.
I would have thought that the starting point of your article would have been to set out the model projections used in FAR, SAR and TAR and to see what they were say for the period 1995 to say 2025. My understanding is that they produced runs out to 2100.
Since there has been no significant change to the rate of CO2 emissions and to the rate of manmade aerosol emissions there is no new data to input into the models on that account. We have insufficient data on the other parameters to adjust what was set in the initialisation of the models when they were run for FAR, SAR and TAR.
Of course, those model runs did not know about volcano eruptions but it appears that these only depress temperatures for a few years, at most, and the temperature quickly rebounds (perhaps in as short a period as 18 months) and the last major eruption is so long ago that volcano eruptions can be ignored when looking at say their performance between 2004 to date.
So what new data would you propose inputting into the models?
To what extent those model projections have been disconfirmed depends upon whether one compares them with GISS, or HADCRUT 3 or 4, CRUTEM 3 or 4, HADSST 2 or 3, BEST, UAH or RSS. There will always be debate as to which is the most appropriate data set to use, when making a comparison, but since the models output airtemps, there is a strong case to use one of the satellite data sets, especially since they have the best global coverage and are not unduly impacted by UHI. But I accept that there will always be debate on that issue, and, if one makes comparison with one of the land based thermometer records and one of the satellite data sets, the reader can make up their own mind as to which comparator.is most suitable.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website:
You say
Please state in clear and unequivocal terms any “tests” whose results you think can be and would be accepted by “both side”.
I cannot imagine any such test.
Indeed, if there were such a test then it would not be needed because – as Richard Verney says – the models are known to fail and, therefore, they would be being rejected now.
Evidence for the models’ inadequacy is irrefuteable and I again explain why.
None of the models – not one of them – could match the change in mean global temperature over the past century if it did not utilise a unique value of assumed cooling from aerosols. So, inputting actual values of the cooling effect (such as the determination by Penner et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/07/25/1018526108.full.pdf?with-ds=yes )
would make every climate model provide a mismatch of the global warming it hindcasts and the observed global warming for the twentieth century.
This mismatch would occur because all the global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on
1.
the assumed degree of forcings resulting from human activity that produce warming
and
2.
the assumed degree of anthropogenic aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
Nearly two decades ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
The input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling is needed because the model ‘ran hot’; i.e. it showed an amount and a rate of global warming which were greater than observed over the twentieth century. This failure of the model was compensated by the input of assumed anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GRL vol.. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model he assessed used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model. This is because they all ‘run hot’ but they each ‘run hot’ to a different degree.
He says in his paper:
And, importantly, Kiehl’s paper says:
And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
Kiehl’s Figure 2 can be seen here.
Please note that the Figure is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models, and its title is:
It shows that
(a) each model uses a different value for “Total anthropogenic forcing” that is in the range 0.80 W/m^2 to 2.02 W/m^2
but
(b) each model is forced to agree with the rate of past warming by using a different value for “Aerosol forcing” that is in the range -1.42 W/m^2 to -0.60 W/m^2.
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
Richard
Richard Courteny,
“Please state in clear and unequivocal terms any “tests” whose results you think can be and would be accepted by “both side”.”
I describe my proposed test here (I consulted with two climate scientists when writing this; both wisely preferred to stay on the sidelines rather then enter the debate): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/24/climate-scientists-can-restart-the-climate-change-debate-win-test-the-models/
Would it help break the gridlock if done? There’s no way to know, but I don’t see other likely alternatives.
“the models are known to fail and, therefore, they would be being rejected now.”
Nice to know that your opinion outweighs that of all those climate scientists. How strange it is that the scientific and public policy debates still continue despite your verdict. /sarc
I can’t imagine why you and those on the other side (who speaking quite like you) believe this debate will come to any useful end. It’s run since 1989, The only trends I see are…
(a) Both sides are in effect SPEAKING LOUDER in the hope that those with different views will be impressed, and
(b) the public policy debate has to a large extent degenerated into a poo-throwing context.
Meanwhile the US public appears to have largely signed out, and we remain unprepared for the almost inevitable repeat of past weather (let alone climate change, when and if). But at least the partisans appear to be having fun. Party On!
My guess is that the weather will decide. Let’s hope the bill is not very large.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
November 6, 2015 at 12:05 pm
The fact is that now observations are below even the error bars of all but one or two model runs.
How anyone can possibly claim that the models are not epic failures is beyond me. Rerun them with actual data if you want, but the results will be the same. They assumed what has in fact happened, ie steadily increasing CO2, but the world has not responded as the models predicted.
They are thus worse than worthless, except to show their assumptions faulty, such as net positive feedback from water vapor and other factors, and that they ignored or downplayed more important factors.
Richard Verney,
“I would have thought that the starting point of your article would have been to set out the model projections used in FAR, SAR and TAR …”
Why is that relevant to this post? If you are referring to my post proposing a test …
(a) It gives the projections of those models in the graph at the top., and
(b) it has links to a score of articles examining those projections…
Here is the WUWT post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/24/climate-scientists-can-restart-the-climate-change-debate-win-test-the-models/
The version at the FM website has an updated list of studies at the end: http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/09/24/scientists-restart-climate-change-debate-89635/
“Since there has been no significant change to the rate of CO2 emissions and to the rate of manmade aerosol emissions there is no new data to input into the models on that account. We have insufficient data on the other parameters to adjust what was set in the initialisation of the models when they were run for FAR, SAR and TAR. Of course, those model runs did not know about volcano eruptions but it appears that … So what new data would you propose inputting into the models?”
Too much of this debate is bold talk. As in your previous comment, with all its “we know” statements. Oddly, there are dozens of contradictory “we know” assertions in the debate, all stated confidently.
Run the models with actual data, see the results, and move on. it’s not science if you just claim that you know the results, but don’t actually run the experiment.
A friend mentioned that people now react at parties to mention of climate like they do of religion (“Have you thought of your personal savior”), offers of wealth (“Everyone in my Amway/Mary Kay group is rich”), or life insurance — keep your hands visible, nod while slowly backing away towards the nearest door.
We can do better.
Editor of the Fabius Maximus website:
I wrote
I then justified that statement by providing clear evidence and argument including references to and explanations of two papers one published by me and and the other by Kiehl.
Your response says
In addition to being gratuitously offensive and an example of the logical fallacy of Argument From Authority, your response demonstrates your inability to dispute my clear evidence and argument.
Hence, I take it that there no “tests” whose results you think can be and would be accepted by “both side” whatever you may have suggested.
Richard
richardscourtney
November 6, 2015 at 12:40 pm
Yes, those on the alarmist gravy train would raise the same specious defenses to reruns of models with actual data as they have to those based upon assumptions.
Editor…,
“Instead of tests whose results both side can accept we have a gridlocked public policy debate”
This talk kinda bugs me . I don’t see why someone against taking radical action to combat global warming would not want there to be what you call “gridlock”, which is to say not acting as the alarmist side demands. In that sense, there is not enough “gridlock” for my liking, as actions continue to be taken in various ways . . I want more gridlock ; )
1. From 1850 to 2015 global temperatures have risen 0.7 +/- 0.1 degrees (for the nitpickers, this includes the high-end 0.8 degrees quoted by some). 2. During this same time period, CO2 increased from 280 to 400 ppmv (parts per million by volume). 3. Assuming a linear relation, then doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv should produce (0.7 +/- 0.1)(280/120) = 1.63 +/- 0.23 degrees warming. This is only 54% of the IPCC’s “best value” of 3 degrees! [A recent downshifting to 2 degrees as “dangerous” might reflect consciousness of this “inconvenient truth” – why have the skeptics not jumped all over this decrease by 33%?] 4. But even the IPCC assumes that the relation is not linear, but logarithmic. This means there are “diminishing returns” as CO2 increase: an increase by 100 ppmv produces less and less warming, the higher the initial CO2 level. “Climate sensitivity” applies to a doubling from 300 to 600 ppmv, or from 600 to 1200 ppmv, or from 1200 to 2400 ppmv, or from 280 to 560 ppmv. 5. An increase from 280 to 400 ppmv amounts to 0.515 doublings [The mathematical question is “What is x, if 2^x = 400/280?”Taking logs of both sides gives x.log2 = log(400/280), so x = [log(400/280)]/log2 = 0.515.] 6. Therefore one doubling would produce (0.7 +/- 0.1)/0.515 = 1.36 +/- 0.19 = 1.4 +/- 0.2 degrees warming, assuming that all the historical warming was due only to CO2 and related feedbacks. This is only 45% of the IPCC’s “best value” of 3 degrees, which must be at least a factor of 2 too large. 7. An increase in CO2 from 300 to 400 ppmv amounts to 0.415 doublings [If 2^x = 400/300, then x = [log(400/300)]/log2 = 0.415], which would produce 0.415(1.4 +/- 0.2) = 0.58 +/- 0.08 degrees warming which has already occurred as part of the historical record. Thus if climate sensitivity is 1.4 degrees, we expect another 1.4 – 0.58 = 0.8 degrees warming as CO2 increases from 400 to 600 ppmv. On the other hand, the IPCC’s “best value” of 3 degrees predicts another 3 – 0.58 = 2.4 degrees warming, which is at least a factor of 3 too large!!! 8. It should have been obvious that “3 degrees” is way too high, because 0.515(3) = 1.54 degrees. This would be, on the basis of a logarithmic relation, the predicted temperature rise in the historical record. But we already know this is at most 0.8 degrees [see Point 1 above], a factor of 2 smaller. Because of diminishing returns due to saturation of CO2 absorption lines, the error increases to a factor of 3 by the time 600 ppmv is reached. Note that you don’t need complicated computer calculations to understand this; in fact, the computer projections of future warming must be wrong, at least a factor of 3 too high. 9. And if only part of the historical warming of 0.7 +/- 0.1 degrees was due to CO2 and related feedbacks, the IPCC prediction of future warming will be even greater in error. The recent 18-year hiatus in warming, even as CO2 continued to increase dramatically, strongly suggests that natural processes other than CO2 must be involved. 10. From the MODTRAN spectrum shown at Radiative forcing – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , I have calculated that climate sensitivity on doubling CO2 is only 0.52 +/- 0.06 degrees; this includes water vapour and cloud feedbacks. This means that only 0.22 +/- 0.02 degrees of the historical record can be attributed to CO2 and feedbacks, with another 0.30 +/- 0.04 degrees further warming expected as CO2 increases from 400 to 600 ppmv. Since the IPCC “best value” of 3 degrees still predicts another 3-0.6 = 2.4 degrees warming, it is too large by a factor of 2.4/0.30 = 8. I can send details of my calculations if you contact me at rtaguchi@rogers.com .
[trimmed cut-and-paste remnants. .mod]
The world has actually warmed less than that, and there has been little warming since CO2 zoomed upwards 70 years ago.
In 1995, the warming since 1860 was estimated to be 0.55 degree C (already too high, but upward adjustments have accelerated in the past 20 years). Since there has been effectively no statistically significant warming since then, the extra 0.15 degree C has been invented by “climate scientists”, not produced by Planet Earth or GHGs in its air.
Not sure I understand the point of Larry Kummer’s post. He seems to be suggesting that we go back and see how well the early models did at climate forecasting. But we’ve already done that; see Monckton’s monthly posts on the ‘Pause’. The models have all, to varying degrees, utterly failed to predict global temperatures over the post two decades, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. So they have been falsified. End of story.
The apocalyptic fear-mongering prelude to Paris has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with an agenda for ‘global governance’. The American Congress should prohibit the Administration from spending any money to send a delegation to this farrago. Unfortunately, the Puppet President will probably lead it.
/Mr Lynn
L. E. Joiner,
There is a close parallelism between both sides of the climate change debate, with people on both sides proclaiming that their side has clearly won — and that the other side is wrong. After a quarter century of this we have gridlocked public policy, with no resolution in sight.
This gridlocked debate is not only consuming scarce public resources and even scarcer attention (“mindspace” in Silicon Valley-speak), but prevents us from even preparing for the repeat of past weather — as we saw from Katrina and Sandy, and see today in the Southwest.
Let’s try something else. Just for variety.
I do not consider that the scientists on either side proclaim that they have won.
It is the activists that have won (and so proclaim, ie shout that the science is settled and the debate is over) since they have managed to get MSM and the Politicians on their side, even though the science is so obviously not settled, and even though there is no hard evidence that there would be any serious net harm should temperatures rise by 2 or 3 degree C. Further, they have managed to hide from the public the cost consequence of the green folly both financially, economically and socially, and have managed to keep from the debate the obvious benefits of a higher CO2 atmosphere.
It is all political, and political nonsense at that, and has almost nothing to do with the science that has been successfully misrepresented.
Richard Verney,
“I do not consider that the scientists on either side proclaim that they have won.”
Perhaps we have different interpretations of “won” (it’s vague in this context). There are hundreds or thousands of comments like McNutt’s, showing scientists that believe their view about climate change is proven to be so (i.e., that they have won the science debate about climate change).
“The time for debate has ended”
— Marcia McNutt in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, editorial in Science, 3 July 2015. She is an oceanographer and geophysicist. She is Editor-in-Chief of Science, will be the next President of the NAS.
No real dispute here: Richard Verney is right. Marcia McNutt is clearly an activist. Anyone who says “The time for debate has ended,” when the Alarmist claims have been completely debunked, is an ideologue, not a scientist. Shades of Lysenko!
/Mr Lynn
L. E. Joiner,
“Scientist” and “ideologue” are not exclusive categories. Scientists, like other people, often have extreme views about politics — as they and other people often have about religion, and other subjects.