UK energy future

[pjclarke]

In their own words:

Not impartial, focussed on forcing the acceptance of "human induced climate change" on the world

Oh, you are sooo far behind the curve. Totally impartial. Before one can 'understand the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change', you must first do an attribution study or two. These we have coming out of our ears, going back decades. Of course the IPPC uses exhaustive assessments of both natural and man-made climate forcings.





This is uncontroversial science.

[pjclarke]

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Your confirmation bias is showing. Poptart found a grand total of five scientists and one economist who disagree with the way their paper abstracts were categorised with respect to endorsing AGW. Whoop-di-do. The study (Cook 2012) used ratings of 2142 papers by the authors themselves. Do the maths.



Secondly Poptart highlights Richard Tol's criticisms of the study. But Tol does not dispute the conclusions, indeed he prefaced his commentary with these words:

There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.

And elsewhere Tol wrote

The consensus is of course in the high nineties. No one ever said it was not. We don’t need Cook’s survey to tell us that.

With friends like Tol, I'm not sure Poptech has much need of enemies.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Oh, you are sooo far behind the curve. Totally impartial. Before one can 'understand the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change', you must first do an attribution study or two. These we have coming out of our ears, going back decades. Of course the IPPC uses exhaustive assessments of both natural and man-made climate forcings.





This is uncontroversial science.

If it's uncontroversial then why do they have to guestimate and tweak all the feedbacks in their various models in order to arrive at particular results? Couldn't they just put in the correct values?

To me it indicates that the feedbacks make it incredibly complicated to the point where they have models, rather than scientific evidence, which surely means that it's an incredibly complicated and uncertain task to assign blame to human activity?

[pjclarke]

To me it indicates that the feedbacks make it incredibly complicated to the point where they have models, rather than scientific evidence, which surely means that it's an incredibly complicated and uncertain task to assign blame to human activity?

There is also scientific evidence. The forcings are uncontroversial, to within +/- 10% in the case of CO2. The feedbacks are indeed complex, however the physics on which they,a dn therefore the models, are based is not, especially.

The largest single feedback is water vapour, the models predict a rise in atmospheric humidity as the temperature rises, again fairly solid science (the Clausius–Clapeyron relation). Water Vapour is a powerful GHG so increasing it is a posiitve feedback.

This is not just modelled projections, observations confirm the models, the cooling of the atmosphere following the Mt Pinatubo eruption was associated with a reduction in water vaper and the measured feedback from increased humidity from the warming so far confirms the models.

Refs: Soden et al 2002

We use the global cooling and drying of the atmosphere that was observed after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo to test model predictions of the climate feedback from water vapor. Here, we first highlight the success of the model in reproducing the observed drying after the volcanic eruption. Then, by comparing model simulations with and without water vapor feedback, we demonstrate the importance of the atmospheric drying in amplifying the temperature change and show that, without the strong positive feedback from water vapor, the model is unable to reproduce the observed cooling. These results provide quantitative evidence of the reliability of water vapor feedback in current climate models, which is crucial to their use for global warming projections.

Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor

Dessler et al 2008

*The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of*λq*= 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models.

[…] The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.

Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008 - Dessler - 2008 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library (my bold)

[LucidDementia]

What a waste of time this is. Again you bend numbers to suit your agenda.

Contacting 5 authors and getting their feedback is not the same as positive feedback from the other 2000 odd.

Every sentence issued by your IPCC buddies is word-smithed by a room full of spin doctors and politicians. It's garbage and I quietly think you know it.

Endless codswallop, not one coherent quantifiable theory which can be tested. And there never will be.

I find it hilarious really. Big pharma, big tobacco, big oil and big finance consistently are shown to be as corrupt as ****. Big climate? Oh they're 100% supported and honest.

[LucidDementia]

Totally impartial.

Miles beyond deluded.

I'll be ignoring your posts from here on in; your constant stream of endless peer-reviewed science is just too much for me to take.
I'm off to buy a Prius.

[pjclarke]

The usual.

Every sentence issued by your IPCC buddies is word-smithed by a room full of spin doctors and politicians

Unusually, there's a grain of truth in that one. The wording of the Policymaker Summaries have to be agreed by participating governments, which usually mean they are diluted versions of what the scientists concluded. Here's a discussion of what happened in 2007 :

Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything which threatens their interests. While the US government has traditionally been the scientists’ chief opponent, this time the assault was led by Saudi Arabia, supported by China and Russia(1,2).

The scientists fight back, but they always have to make some concessions. The report released on Friday, for example, was shorn of the warning that “North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events”(3). David Wasdell, an accredited reviewer for the panel, claims that the summary of the science the IPCC published in February was purged of most of its references to “positive feedbacks”: climate change accelerating itself(4)

.

The Real Climate Censorship | George Monbiot

Endless codswallop, not one coherent quantifiable theory which can be tested. And there never will be.

Here are just a few :-

*The globe would warm, and about how fast
*The troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
*Nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
*Winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
* Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
*The Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
*The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
*The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
*The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
*The expansion of the Hadley cells.
*The poleward movement of storm tracks.
*The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
*The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
*The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.


Many of these strongly imply warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect. Doubtless your Morton's Demon will take care of them for you.

[LucidDementia]

You win. You're right. We're causing it all.
Happy?

[pjclarke]

[pjclarke]

You win. You're right. We're causing it all.

Not good enough. 110% is manmade.