“We Exaggerated” – IPCC

1 Oct

From the UN IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (released in full last night), Working Group I Contribution To The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis – Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Basis, Chapter 9, Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years, page 31, (bold emphasis added):

(c) Model Response Error

The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998–2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations… This finding provides evidence that some CMIP5 models show a larger response to greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic factors (dominated by the effects of aerosols) than the real world (medium confidence). As a consequence, it is argued in Chapter 11 that near-term model projections of GMST increase should be scaled down by about 10% (Section 11.3.6.3). This downward scaling is, however, not sufficient to explain the model-mean overestimate of GMST trend over the hiatus period.

Another possible source of model error is the poor representation of water vapour in the upper atmosphere… However, this effect is assessed here to be small, because there was a recovery in stratospheric water vapour after 2005…

In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.

Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus.

 

Advertisements

12 Responses to ““We Exaggerated” – IPCC”

  1. Oliver K. Manuel October 1, 2013 at 9:47 am #

    UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

    The combined research careers of my mentor – the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda – and me showed the real dangers of government-funded consensus models after the tragic events of August 1945:

    FEAR separated humans from the reality of mankind’s connection with his Creator via invisible force fields emanating from the Sun’s pulsar core.

    See middle paragraph of this one page synopsis:

    http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Synopsis.pdf

    It is now abundantly clear:

    1. Humans did not cause global warming. and

    2. AGW policies increased our vulnerability to natural, solar-induced global cooling.

    With kind regards, Oliver K. Manuel Former NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  2. Kevin Moore October 1, 2013 at 10:51 am #

    I cannot understand the statement above –
    .
    “….Another possible source of model error is the poor representation of water vapour in the upper atmosphere… However, this effect is assessed here to be small, because there was a recovery in “stratospheric” water vapour after 2005…”
    .
    The stratosphere, extends from the tropopause to a height of about 154,000 feet (31 miles or 48 km). No weather occurs in the stratosphere. Temperature reaches a maximum of 7C (45F) at the top of the layer.
    .
    The warmer the air, the more water vapor it can hold. The maximum amount of water vapor the air can hold is 4 percent by volume.
    .
    http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Transfer.html
    .
    “…….Water absorbs the incoming solar Infrared Radiation because the frequency of the internal vibration of the water molecules is the same frequency of the waves of the solar Infrared Radiation. This form of Radiative Heat transfer is known as Resonance Absorption.
    .
    We humans feel the heat radiated by the Sun and other systems with a higher temperature because our bodies contain 55-75% of water. The radiative energy inciding on our skin is absorbed by the molecules of water in our bodies by Resonance Absorption. Just then, the Infrared Radiation absorbed by our bodies leads to a more intense internal vibration of the water molecules in our bodies and our bodies get warmer. However, in general, living beings possess thermoregulatory systems that permit us to eliminate the excess of heat from our bodies, maintaining a quasi-stable internal temperature (it is one of the homeostatic processes of biosystems).
    .
    If the Earth did not have water, nights would be extremely cold…………
    .
    …………………..Many authors say that “Greenhouse” gases act as a “blanket” which reflects the heat back to Earth -i.e. “Some re-radiated heat reflected back to Earth” (Ultimate Visual Dictionary – The Atmosphere. DK publishing, Inc. p. 301. 1998) and “The reason is that the atmosphere functions like the crystals of a glasshouse. This is, the properties of absorption and conduction of glass are similar to those of the atmospheric greenhouse gases …” (Wilson, Jerry D. College Physics-2nd Edition; p. 382. Prentice Hall Inc. 1994).
    .
    There are other authors who discuss thermal events similarly as the writers I have quoted in the previous paragraph; I have found the same mistakes written on reports from NASA, NOA, EPA, etc. Those unintentional faults have been inflated by some pseudo-environmentalists and politicians that enforce the erroneous concept of “Greenhouse Gases”, “Anthropogenic Global Warming” and “Manmade Climate Change”, closing their eyes to the Laws of Thermodynamics, Heat Transfer, Thermal Expansion, Physics Laws, etc.
    .
    The atmosphere is not a “glass”, nor acts like a glass. It either is a blanket that “reradiates” heat to the surface, or that obstructs convection. Far from impeding convective heat transfer, gases allow convection.
    .
    CO2 is able to absorb the energy emitted by the ground and the oceans and transforms it into kinetic and potential energy. By these transformations from one class of energy into another, the CO2 emits radiant energy (energy in transit or heat), which is transferred by convection to the upper atmosphere layers. After it has been transferred to the upper layers of the atmosphere, the heat is released to the outer space (Heat Sink). However, we have understood that the current concentration of Carbon Dioxide cannot be a source of “Global Warming”. We would need about 560 ppmv for increasing the Earth’s surface temperature up to 0.7 °C.
    .
    The terrestrial atmosphere is a stratum composed by a mixture of gases (air) that wraps the Earth and is retained by Earth’s gravity…………………………..”

    • bushbunny October 1, 2013 at 1:49 pm #

      Well listen to Oliver, he and I have been actively argueing about the IPCC and what variables are involved in climate change, an eroneous description involving the principal driver, AGW. This planet isn’t static in space we are hurtling through it at thousands of miles per second around our sun. We are subject to subatomic particles all the time, that solar activity sometimes deflect from our planet. These sub atomic particles or when they meld with moisture or water particles help form clouds. Lucky these particles are not gamma rays or we would all die. But clouds keep us cool in summer and warmer in winter. An overcast sky means frost will not form. Why do you think deserts have a great fluctuation in day time and night time temperatures, no clouds. I just think that people don’t realise the Urban Heat Island that increases temps in large urban cities. All the concrete and glass hold heat and the wind factor is changed by tall buildings. Go 10 kms away or less and the temperatures are cooler, depending on elevation. And of course the Northern Hemisphere seasons are opposite to ours. Even islands off North Scotland are in the Arctic circle and are part of the lands of the midnight sun, like Norway. They capitalise on this in summer with long 22 hour days for tourists. I bet solar doesn’t work well, but geo thermal does in Iceland. They tried geo thermal in Cornwall, and it didn’t work as gravity closed the rocks. Richard Cortney knows about this too. So there is only so much we can adapt too and it is weather, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, disease and famine (large scale) that kill us. Pollution can be prevented but – unless we ban people, and motor cars etc., planes, from urban areas, we can only hope some genius we give us a band aid to stop it. Carbon tax will only enrich the clean energy projects, if there are any reliable, and in Europe, they are building new coal fired generators burning black coal rather than brown. So – enough said, eh. As Prof Judith Curry said, the IPCC should be put down, like a rabid dog.

  3. Kevin Moore October 2, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

    Some may find this interesting –

    http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/services/environment-and-planning/sustainability/climate-change/Pages/default.aspx
    .
    The City of London considers climate change to be the most serious threat facing the world’s environment, with significant impacts on the world’s social and economic well-being.
    .
    Our work in this field focuses on three areas:
    We are working to ensure the City will adapt to climate change
    We are working to reduce emissions
    We support emissions trading and carbon finance
    If you are interested in finding out more about climate change you can find some useful information at these websites:
    http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change
    http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change
    The City of London Corporation is not responsible for the content of these websites.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus October 2, 2013 at 4:13 pm #

      “We support emissions trading and carbon finance”

      I’m shocked. SHOCKED, I tells ya! 😉

      • bushbunny October 6, 2013 at 1:30 pm #

        The thing is emissions trading has been for years absolutely years under scrutiny regarding its effectiveness in cutting down carbon emissions. You buy carbon credits so you can still go on polluting. I don’t know why people in the know haven’t mentioned carbon emissions have not reduced in the EU and their price is so low.

  4. Kevin Moore November 8, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

    The ABC reported today that scientists are predicting a world temperature rise of between 4 to 6 degrees. As the world average temperature is 15 degrees that would represent a world temperature rise of 27 to 40% . So if a local temperature is around 30 degrees now it could be up around 53 degrees or higher with a 4-6% rise according to my rusty way of working things out.

    • bushbunny November 9, 2013 at 10:21 am #

      The claims have been well disputed, they are liars, this is just the start.

  5. Kevin Moore November 10, 2013 at 5:16 am #

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488426/Global-warming-lead-snakes-long-BUSES-horses-shrinking-size-CATS-scientists-warn.html?ico=sciencetechheadlines
    .
    “…..Now scientists are warning massive reptiles and shrinking mammals could be found on our planet again if global warming takes hold.
    .
    Jonathan Bloch, a paleontologist at the Florida Museum of Natural History, last week told a conference in Gainesville that there is a clear link between global warming and unusual animal fossils.
    .
    Dr Bloch has been looking at a period known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum which occurred around 55 million years ago.
    .
    At this time global temperatures rose by about 6 °C over a period of 200,000 years……..”

    • Kevin Moore November 10, 2013 at 1:02 pm #

      So what is meant by a 6 degree C temperature rise?
      .
      The ABC reported on the 8th Nov. that scientists are predicting a world temperature rise of between 4 to 6 degrees C.
      .
      The worlds average temperature is 15 degrees, so that would represent a world temperature rise of 27 to 40% . If a local temperature is around 30 degrees now, temperatures could with a 33% rise be up around 53 degrees and higher with the occurence of a 6% rise in the worlds average temperature. But then again the driving force is the Sun, so what is happening with it?
      .
      http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/good-news-australians-not-partying-in-poland-chopping-committees-at-home-instead-axing-the-tax/#comment-1338087
      .
      “Sorry Lennox, it doesn’t work like that. If you are talking percentages you need to use degrees Kelvin, which means adding 273 to the figure in degrees Celsius. Therefore they are talking about a 2% rise, which is still nonsense.”

  6. Kevin Moore November 15, 2013 at 10:30 am #

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/tide-shifts-canada-comes-out-and-applauds-australian-pm-for-repeal-bill-of-carbon-tax/#comments
    .
    A display of the tunnel visioned – irrational mindset of the Green/labour/Socialists, 35:1
    TonyfromOz
    .
    November 14, 2013 at 8:19 pm · Reply
    .
    Yanks! Always want the biggest.
    .
    This Ivanpah solar plant will actually be utilising the new and big (and enormously expensive) Siemens SST-900 steam turbine, actually capable of driving a 125MW generator, providing they can make enough steam, that steam assisted by Natural Gas to heat it until the solar factor can take over, with natural gas auxilliary drive for when the Sun doesn’t shine for extended periods so the steam won’t cool by too much.
    .
    So, here we will have three of these large solar complexes, covering 3500 Acres, umm, 5.5 square miles.
    .
    The plant will have a maximum Nameplate of 375MW.
    .
    It will supply 1,079GWH of power for (subsidised) consumption. That gives the plant a Capacity Factor of (a still theoretical) 31%, with most existing plants of similar nature delivering around 24 to 27% CF, and keep in mind there is no heat storage so that 31% CF equates to around seven and a half hours a day on average of power.
    .
    The total power generated for consumption by this solar plant each year, that figure of 1079GWH is supplied by Bayswater in 23 days of normal operation.
    .
    This solar plant has a projected life span of 25 years. The total power supplied over those 25 years will be supplied by Bayswater in one year and 7 Months.
    .
    This solar plant has a construction cost alone of $2.2 Billion.
    .
    Just to equal the Nameplate Capacity alone of Bayswater, you will need 7 of these plants at $2.2 Billion for a total of $15.2 Billion, and you only get one third of the power on a limited time basis, for only half the life span.
    .
    THIS is what the GREENS are actually proposing for the future of electrical power generation.
    .
    Clueless, absolutely clueless.
    .
    Tony

  7. bushbunny November 18, 2013 at 3:08 pm #

    Cop 19 is going too well in Warsaw. (Tory Aardvark blog) Japan is pulling out, Australia will not provide any more funds to the UNCCF And Poland with its large coal resources looks like it will withdraw too from the EU carbon emissions scheme. (Great the 660 million offered by the ALP) can go on better things like flood levies, better Bush fire management, earthquake and tsunami warnings, etc., and improving our soil fertility and water conservation! Our needs not some tin pot corrupt nation that can’t control its own landscape management and blames us!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: