Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

252
UN IPCC Contributing Author Dr. Aynsley Kellow is a former professor of Social Sciences of the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University who has presented papers to the Australian Academy of Science and co-authored the book International Environmental Policy: Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Process. Kellow, who was a referee for Chapter 19 in the IPCC's fourth assessment report which covered "Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment," questioned the premise of the IPCC's gloomy future predictions. “They [IPCC] really do emphasize the bad news. They’re looking for bad news in all of this,” Kellow said according to an April 23, 2007 article in Spiked-Online. "The IPCC is assuming rates of economic growth that dwarf the nineteenth-century success of the USA, the twentieth century in Japan and so on. The USA experienced, I think, a nine fold increase in GDP per capita; these are making assumptions about 30-fold increases. So you can question their credibility. But if you do that, you're questioning the emissions scenarios that are driving the climate models," Kellow said. “I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: There is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be,” Kellow said. “The scientists are in there but it is, after all, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientists are there at the nomination of governments. Governments fund the exercise and sign-off on it ultimately,” Kellow said, noting the politicization of the process. Kellow also asserted that the whole Kyoto Protocol approach to greenhouse gas emissions does not favor developing nations. “The emphasis on CO2 suits largely post-1990 decarbonized European economies worried about justifying high levels of taxation, energy security policies and so on. It doesn’t suit those with ample coal supplies at a quarter of the cost of producing coal in Europe " which includes India and China. There’s a very European slant to Kyoto,” Kellow concluded. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK)

Believe all you want that we're all doomed if CO2 levels continue to increase, Parados. But you have presented zilch in evidence that is anywhere near as compelling as of which the skeptics have compiled.

Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus".

You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.

You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research".

Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
July 9, 2007 - 13:53 ET

With each passing day, more and more current and former members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are stepping out of the shadows to suggest that this group’s alarmist conclusions concerning global warming are more based in myth than science.

Another member of this growing list of skeptics is Tom V. Segalstad who was an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC’s third assessment report.

As published in Canada’s National Post Saturday, conveniently coincident with Al Gore’s Live Earth concerts (emphasis added throughout):

We are doomed, say climate change scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that is organizing most of the climate change research occurring in the world today. Carbon dioxide from man-made sources rises to the atmosphere and then stays there for 50, 100, or even 200 years. This unprecedented buildup of CO2 then traps heat that would otherwise escape our atmosphere, threatening us all.

“This is nonsense," says Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the same IPCC. He laments the paucity of geologic knowledge among IPCC scientists -- a knowledge that is central to understanding climate change, in his view, since geologic processes ultimately determine the level of atmospheric CO2.

"The IPCC needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental mistakes," he says. "Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know that the IPCC's view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible." . . . .

. . . . .the IPCC has basically created computer models to predict an end result it wanted while totally ignoring current and past scientific observations regarding CO2’s expected life in the atmosphere:

[W]ith the advent of IPCC-influenced science, the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere became controversial. Climate change scientists began creating carbon cycle models to explain what they thought must be an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These computer models calculated a long life for carbon dioxide.

Amazingly, the hypothetical results from climate models have trumped the real world measurements of carbon dioxide's longevity in the atmosphere. Those who claim that CO2 lasts decades or centuries have no such measurements or other physical evidence to support their claims.

Neither can they demonstrate that the various forms of measurement are erroneous.

"They don't even try," says Prof. Segalstad. "They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process.". . . .

MORE HERE:
http://newsbusters.org/node/13971

Kevin Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory high priests of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A New Zealander by birth, Trenberth has had a distinguished career as a climate scientist with interests in the use of computer General Circulation Models (GCMs), the basis for most of the public alarm about dangerous global warming. When such a person gives an opinion about the scientific value of GCMs as predictive tools, it is obviously wise to pay attention.

In a remarkable contribution to Nature magazine's Climate Feedback blog, Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. This might be news to some people.

Among other things, Trenberth asserts "... there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been". Instead, there are only "what if" projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.

According to Trenberth, GCMs "... do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents".

"None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.

"The state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

"There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond ... the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors" and "regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialised". . . .
MORE HERE:
http://www.aefweb.info/articles59.html

Consensus does imply "most" however, and so far the AGW religionists have not convinced me that they have anywhere near a consensus among scientists qualified to evaluate either the research or the models.

When have you seen an IPPC report that provided any alternate opinion other than the pro-AGW position?

It doesn't bother you that those with a different point of view are being shut out of the process entirely? The IPPC is not presenting their opinions at all?

As one who values science, how do you reconcile that?

In order for your "skeptics" to have some validity Fox, they must take certain scientific facts into account and explain them for their opinions to become actual science.
1. What is happening to the CO2 that humans are putting in the atmosphere? If the increase is NOT the result of human produced Co2 then they need to present a clear model that shows why human CO2 is not retained but atmospheric CO2 is increasing.
2. It is a fact that Co2 absorbs infrared radiation and can be demonstrated in laboratory experiments by HS students. Explain why this simple fact is not relevant to the increase in temperature since increasing CO2 in lab concentrations increases IR absorption. Present a clear model that shows changes in atmospheric CO2 do not change temperature.
3. They have to account for all the observed facts that appear to show winters are getting shorter in the Northern Hemisphere i.e. ice is going out faster on lakes, birds are returning sooner etc. A recent HS student in Wisconson just did a study on 150 years of ice in Lake Superior and found that the ice season has shrunk dramatically.
4. They have to use actual physics in factoring the sun's energy input.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

253
Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, co-author of the book "The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection" (LINK),and chief science advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute, authored a comprehensive November 2007 study that was published in the peer-reviewed journal Physical Geography. The study concluded: "[L]ong-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes, from both orbital variations and intrinsic solar magnetic and luminosity variations... There is no quantitative evidence that varying levels of minor greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 have accounted for even as much as half of the reconstructed glacial-interglacial temperature changes or, more importantly, for the large variations in global ice volume on both land and sea over the past 650 thousand years. ... [C]hanges in solar insolation at climatically sensitive latitudes and zones exceed the global radiative forcings of CO2 and CH4 by several-fold, and ... [therefore] regional responses to solar insolation forcing will decide the primary climatic feedbacks and changes." (LINK) Soon also co-authored a November 2007 study that found mankind's emissions are not harming the atmosphere. The paper, co-authored with Dr. Art Robinson and Noah Robinson, was published in journal of American physicians and Surgeons and was titled, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The study reported: "A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that in creases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly in creased plant growth." The study also found, "There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape." (LINK)

(1) Credible evidence has been provided that human produced CO2 is probably contributing to the increasing density of CO2 in the atmosphere.

(2) Credible evidence has not been provided that the increased absorbtion of infrared by the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has probably contributed more than a very minor amount to the increased AAGT (i.e., Average Annual Global Temperature). One reason for my skepticism that CO2 has more than a very minor effect on AAGT is the fact that CAD (i.e., Carbon Atmospheric Density) has been steadily increasing over the last 100 years, but SI (i.e., Solar Iraddiation) and AAGT have been increasing and decreasing over the same time period. That fact implies that SI has a very major effect on AAGT.

(3) If AAGT is actually increasing, one would naturally expect that winters would be getting shorter all over the world. But winters are apparently not getting shorter in the southern hemisphere.

(4) It has been alleged by a many scientists that SI variations probably contribute significantly to AAGT variations. Some of these scientist have also alleged that other natural phenomena have probably contributed more to the increased AAGT over the last 100 years than has the increasing CAD.

HERE'S WHAT I THINK
(1) CAD has been increasing over the last 100 years.

(2) The increasing CAD over the last 100 years has not contributed more than a minor amount to increased AAGT.

(3) AASHT (i.e., Average Annual Southern Hemisphere Temperature) has not been increasing as much as AANHT (i.e., Average Annual Northern Hemisphere Temperature) over the last 100 years.

(4) The amount of increase in AAGT over the last 100 years has been less than 0.4% and is therefore not cause for any alarm. In fact, AAGT has been decreasing lately--over the last 11 years--more than 0.07%, while SI has decreased over that same time period more than 0.1%, and CAD has increased more than 5%.

thus only a very small fraction of the original CO2 would ever be given back to the atmosphere where it originally was.

To a very minor extent, humans (mostly rich Americans) burn coal and oil which returns some Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere ... but this is insignificant compared to what has been removed."