The Arctic ice cap grows by 60% in a year.

There was a time when a majority of scientists believed the earth was flat too.

Oops.

 

you have no science showing man made co2 is causing warming.
even you argument is stupid. it caused for few years... but then when we doubled the co2 the warming stopped for some reason.
But we still know man made co2 causes warming.

you are just and ignorant drone fool -
citing stale and fraudulent stats and charts.

 

Shrug. Let's grant again, for the sake of argument, that warming has stopped. Is this a permanent stop, or is it a "stop" like those which occurred in the past 100+ years? On the chance it's the latter, should we continue blithely pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

 

Scientists are saying it, therefore "science" is saying it. There is no science without humans (so far as we know).

 

now we are getting somewhere.

No we should not blithely pumping out any pollutants.
And yes... I do not know if we are experiencing solely natural variability...

I do suspect 6 billion people have an influence on the planet.
I doubt cutting down rain forests and polluting the oceans are good for us long term.

I suspect man made co2 research should be much lower down on the science funding list.

I will reconsider as facts change.

There is currently no science showing man made co2 is have any impact on the earths climate because co2 may help greenhouse gases act as a thermostat.

If I were truly concerned about greenhouses gases the first thing I would do is stop driving around installing air conditioning units like futurecurrents. Change begins with you fc.

 

agw scientists without science are like cheerleaders without skirts.

 

Best we can do as mortals. Their proof is a high probability. That's really about as good as it gets in science. No one is saying "irrefutable".

But you are a non-scientist without proof.

 

But the reality is they have no data to state any probability that man made co2 is causing warming. So they are not being scientific. They can have no expertise in the area. They should say they are guessing.

Appealing to them on a subject for which they have no data... is a fallacy.



note...

The new IPCC paper will be released shortly.
It has been leaked....



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ence-fluxed-up/

As for the state of climate science, this summary by Rose of the IPCC situation is worth sharing:

‘A REFLECTION OF EVIDENCE FROM NEW STUDIES’… THE IPCC CHANGES ITS STORY

What they say: ‘The rate of warming since 1951 [has been] 0.12C per decade.’

What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. Here they admit there has been a massive cut in the speed of global warming – although it’s buried in a section on the recent warming ‘pause’. The true figure, it now turns out, is not only just over half what they thought – it’s below their lowest previous estimate.

What they say: ‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’

What this means: As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ – long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil fuel burning – is a concession that its earlier statement is highly questionable.

What they say: ‘Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 – 15 years.’

What this means: The ‘models’ are computer forecasts, which the IPCC admits failed to ‘see… a reduction in the warming trend’. In fact, there has been no statistically significant warming at all for almost 17 years – as first reported by this newspaper last October, when the Met Office tried to deny this ‘pause’ existed.In its 2012 draft, the IPCC didn’t mention it either. Now it not only accepts it is real, it admits that its climate models totally failed to predict it.

What they say: ‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’

What this means: The IPCC knows the pause is real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.

What they say: ‘Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.’

What this means: Its models don’t accurately forecast the impact of fundamental aspects of the atmosphere – clouds, smoke and dust.

What they say: ‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations… There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’

What this means: The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.

What they say: ‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C… The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’

What this means: ECS – ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – is an estimate of how much the world will warm every time carbon dioxide levels double. A high value means we’re heading for disaster. Many recent studies say that previous IPCC claims, derived from the computer models, have been way too high. It looks as if they’re starting to take notice, and so are scaling down their estimate for the first time.

Rose also mentions the new paper from Nic Lewis taking the Met office climate model to task for having an ECS of 4.6C, which is greater than even the IPCC is claiming:

Lewis’s paper is scathing about the ‘future warming’ document issued by the Met Office in July, which purported to explain why the current 16-year global warming ‘pause’ is unimportant, and does not mean the ECS is lower than previously thought.

Lewis says the document made misleading claims about other scientists’ work – for example, misrepresenting important details of a study by a team that included Lewis and 14 other IPCC experts. The team’s paper, published in the prestigious journal Nature Geoscience in May, said the best estimate of the ECS was 2C or less – well under half the Met Office estimate.

He also gives evidence that another key Met Office model is inherently skewed. The result is that it will always produce high values for CO2-induced warming, no matter how its control knobs are tweaked, because its computation of the cooling effect of smoke and dust pollution – what scientists call ‘aerosol forcing’ – is simply incompatible with the real world.

This has serious implications, because the Met Office’s HadCM3 model is used to determine the Government’s climate projections, which influence policy.

Mr Lewis concludes that the Met Office modelling is ‘fundamentally unsatisfactory, because it effectively rules out from the start the possibility that both aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity are modest’. Yet this, he writes, ‘is the combination that recent observations support’.

We live in interesting times.
Read Rose’s article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l#ixzz2exAZ99b9

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/15/one-step-forward-two-steps-back/

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Posted on September 15, 2013 by Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

David Rose has posted this , from the unreleased IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5):

‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C… The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’ SOURCE

I cracked up when I read that … despite the IPCC’s claim of even greater certainty, it’s a step backwards.

ipcc logo

You see, back around 1980, about 33 years ago, we got the first estimate from the computer models of the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS). This is the estimate of how much the world will warm if CO2 doubles. At that time, the range was said to be from 1.5° to 4.5°.

However, that was reduced in the Fourth Assessment Report, to a narrower, presumably more accurate range of from 2°C to 4.5°C. Now, however, they’ve backed away from that, and retreated to their previous estimate.

Now consider: the first estimate was done in 1980, using a simple computer and a simple model. Since then, there has been a huge, almost unimaginable increase in computer power. There has been a correspondingly huge increase in computer speed. The number of gridcells in the models has gone up by a couple orders of magnitude. Separate ocean and atmosphere models have been combined into one to reduce errors. And the size of the models has gone from a few thousand lines of code to millions of lines of code.

And the estimates of climate sensitivity have not gotten even the slightest bit more accurate.

Can anyone name any other scientific field that has made so little progress in the last third of a century? Anyone? Because I can’t.

So … what is the most plausible explanation for this ludicrous, abysmal failure to improve a simple estimate in a third of a century?

I can give you my answer. The models are on the wrong path. And when you’re on the wrong path, it doesn’t matter how big you are or how complex you are or how fast you are—you won’t get the right answer.

And what is the wrong path?

The wrong path is the ludicrous idea that the change in global temperature is a simple function of the change in the “forcings”, which is climatespeak for the amount of downward radiation at the top of the atmosphere. The canonical (incorrect) equation is:

∆T = lambda ∆F

where T is temperature, F is forcing, lambda is the climate sensitivity, and ∆ means “the change in”.

I have shown, in a variety of posts, that the temperature of the earth is not a function of the change in forcings. Instead, the climate is a governed system. As an example of another governed system, consider a car. In general, other things being equal, we can say that the change in speed of a car is a linear function of the change in the amount of gas. Mathematically, this would be:

∆S = lambda ∆G

where S is speed, G is gas, and lambda is the coefficient relating the two.

But suppose we turn on the governor, which in a car is called the cruise control. At that point, the relationship between speed and gas consumption disappears entirely—gas consumption goes up and down, but the speed basically doesn’t change.

Note that this is NOT a feedback, which would just change the coefficient “lambda” giving the linear relationship between the change in speed ∆S and the change in gas ∆G. The addition of a governor completely wipes out that linear relationship, de-coupling the changes in gas consumption from the speed changes entirely.

The exact same thing is going on with the climate. It is governed by a variety of emergent climate phenomena such as thunderstorms, the El Nino/La Nina warm water pump, and the PDO. And as a result, the change in global temperature is totally decoupled from the changes in forcings. This is why it is so hard to find traces of e.g. solar and volcano forcings in the temperature record. We know that both of those change the forcings … but the temperatures do not change correspondingly.

To me, that’s the Occam’s Razor explanation of why, after thirty years, millions of dollars, millions of man-hours, and millions of lines of code, the computer models have not improved the estimation of “climate sensitivity” in the slightest. They do not contain or model any of the emergent phenomena that govern the climate, the phenomena that decouple the temperature from the forcing and render the entire idea of “climate sensitivity” meaningless.

w.

PS—I have also shown that despite their huge complexity, the global temperature output of the models can be emulated to a 98% accuracy by a simple one-line equation. This means that their estimate of the “climate sensitivity” is entirely a function of their choice of forcings … meaning, of course, that even on a good day with a following wind they can tell us nothing about the climate sensitivity.

 

I kind of like cheerleaders without their skirts. Usually after I serve them 5 or 6 drinks they lose the skirts.