Politics > Politics-USA > Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends?
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
11 May 2007 09:39:42 AM |
| Object: |
Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends? |
May 10, 2007
Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present The
Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends?
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/05/10/does-the-ipcc-statement-for-policymakers-accurately-present-the-observations-of-recent-global-temperature-trends/
Filed under: Climate Change Metrics, Climate Change Forcings and
Feedbacks — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am
The 2007 IPCC Statement for Policymakers (SPM) makes the following
finding,
“Eleven of the last twelve years (1995 -2006) rank among the 12
warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature
(since 1850)” [based on “The average of near surface air temperature
over land, and sea surface temperature.”].
and
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from
observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures…”
This claim, which is repeated throughout the media reports on the IPCC
report, however, is disingenuous. Other analyses of global heat system
changes do not support the claim of continued warming of the climate
system.
Climate Science has discussed ocean heat content changes (e.g. see)
and has reported on the recent correction which concluded that the
upper ocean did not cool during this time period (see), although the
upper ocean has not warmed either which is at variance to what is
expected from the IPCC Statement of Policymakers.
In this weblog, we report on data that was conveniently ignored in the
2007 IPCC SPM in their report on whether or not the climate system is
continuing to warm. The data are the global average temperatures for
different layers in the atmosphere from satellite measurements of the
Earth’s microwave emissions by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
This data can be used to assess whether the warming trends reported in
the 2007 IPCC SPM have continued in recent years. As shown clearly in
Figure 7 on the RSS website>, the following conclusions can be made:
1. Since about 2002 there has been NO statistically significant global
average warming in the lower and middle troposphere,
and
2. Since about 1995 there has been NO statistically significant
cooling in the stratosphere.
The IPCC SPM conclusion that “warming of the climate system is
unequivocal” is wrong as it ignores the lack of such warming in recent
years by these other metrics of climate system heat changes [there is
also an informative comment #11 on this issue under the weblog
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/15/the-correction-to-the-lyman-et-al-2006-paper-is-available/#comment-167200].
Their focus on the global average near surface temperature trends
neglects to report that there are major issues with the robustness of
this climate metric of global warming as reported in the papers cited
in
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K.
Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K.
Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007:
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land
surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. in press,
many of which were available to the writers of the IPCC SPM but
conveniently ignored. At the very least, the lack of recent
tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the RSS data and the
warming claimed for the near surface air temperatures conflicts with
the multi-decadal global climate models in terms of how these
temperatures are predicted to change.
Perhaps global warming will begin again. However, the neglect to
include the recent lack of tropospheric warming and stratospheric
cooling (both of which are predicted to continue quasi-linearly for
the coming decades by the multi-decadal global climate models, except
for major volcanic eruptions) results in a seriously biased report by
the IPCC. It has been disappointing that the media so far has chosen
to parrot the statements in the IPCC SPMs rather than do investigative
reporting on these issues.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends? |
12 May 2007 02:44:22 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:8nv8435jd8ucidj3vv1c3dbrn2vg4b9tpm@4ax.com...
May 10, 2007
Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present The
Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends?
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/05/10/does-the-ipcc-statement-for-policymakers-accurately-present-the-observations-of-recent-global-temperature-trends/
Filed under: Climate Change Metrics, Climate Change Forcings and
Feedbacks - Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke
Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes
taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces. He has said:
the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is
incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council
report and in our research papers (e.g. see
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf).
The 2007 IPCC Statement for Policymakers (SPM) makes the following
finding,
"Eleven of the last twelve years (1995 -2006) rank among the 12
warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature
(since 1850)" [based on "The average of near surface air temperature
over land, and sea surface temperature."].
and
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from
observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures."
This claim, which is repeated throughout the media reports on the IPCC
report, however, is disingenuous. Other analyses of global heat system
changes do not support the claim of continued warming of the climate
system.
Climate Science has discussed ocean heat content changes (e.g. see)
and has reported on the recent correction which concluded that the
upper ocean did not cool during this time period (see), although the
upper ocean has not warmed either which is at variance to what is
expected from the IPCC Statement of Policymakers.
In this weblog, we report on data that was conveniently ignored in the
2007 IPCC SPM in their report on whether or not the climate system is
continuing to warm. The data are the global average temperatures for
different layers in the atmosphere from satellite measurements of the
Earth's microwave emissions by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
This data can be used to assess whether the warming trends reported in
the 2007 IPCC SPM have continued in recent years. As shown clearly in
Figure 7 on the RSS website>, the following conclusions can be made:
1. Since about 2002 there has been NO statistically significant global
average warming in the lower and middle troposphere,
and
2. Since about 1995 there has been NO statistically significant
cooling in the stratosphere.
The IPCC SPM conclusion that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal" is wrong as it ignores the lack of such warming in recent
years by these other metrics of climate system heat changes [there is
also an informative comment #11 on this issue under the weblog
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/04/15/the-correction-to-the-lyman-et-al-2006-paper-is-available/#comment-167200].
Their focus on the global average near surface temperature trends
neglects to report that there are major issues with the robustness of
this climate metric of global warming as reported in the papers cited
in
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K.
Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K.
Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007:
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land
surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. in press,
many of which were available to the writers of the IPCC SPM but
conveniently ignored. At the very least, the lack of recent
tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the RSS data and the
warming claimed for the near surface air temperatures conflicts with
the multi-decadal global climate models in terms of how these
temperatures are predicted to change.
Perhaps global warming will begin again. However, the neglect to
include the recent lack of tropospheric warming and stratospheric
cooling (both of which are predicted to continue quasi-linearly for
the coming decades by the multi-decadal global climate models, except
for major volcanic eruptions) results in a seriously biased report by
the IPCC. It has been disappointing that the media so far has chosen
to parrot the statements in the IPCC SPMs rather than do investigative
reporting on these issues.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present TheObservations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends? |
12 May 2007 10:27:34 AM |
|
|
Roger wrote:
"Cranial Impaction" <daranc@charter.net> quoted from:
May 10, 2007
Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present The
Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends?
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/05/10/does-the-ipcc-statement-for-policymakers-accurately-present-the-observations-of-recent-global-temperature-trends/
Filed under: Climate Change Metrics, Climate Change Forcings and
Feedbacks - Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke
Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change,
Which must baffle the narrow-mind right-wing shills..
which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he
explicitly renounces. He has said:
the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is
incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council
report and in our research papers (e.g. see
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf).
--SImply amazing the pathological denial of the right-wingers..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends.. |
11 May 2007 10:11:28 AM |
|
|
Crappin' Compaction <daranc@charter.net> wrote rhetorically:
Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present
The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends?
Yes..
--It's a "scientific consensus" thing, you wouldn't understand..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frito Bandito" |
|
| Title: Re: The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends.. |
11 May 2007 06:49:04 PM |
|
|
" Kurt Lochner" <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
Crappin' Compaction <daranc@charter.net> wrote rhetorically:
Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present
The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends?
Yes..
--It's a "scientific consensus" thing, you wouldn't understand..
This summer's trend. It will get warmer during the summer months.
I want EVERY climatologist polled on this issue.
-
Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant
is like calling a burglar an uninvited house guest.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neolibertarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends.. |
11 May 2007 02:35:45 PM |
|
|
In article <464487A0.B6AA0476@hotmail.com>,
" Kurt Lochner" <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
Crappin' Compaction <daranc@charter.net> wrote rhetorically:
Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present
The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends?
Yes..
--It's a "scientific consensus" thing, you wouldn't understand..
==begin quote==
We often look to science, scientific theories and scientists as being
nearly infallible. As such some theories such as the theory of evolution
can be considered above question. However, below are just a few examples
of when science got it wrong in the past. These illustrate that science
is not infallible, and it is good to remember this when considering
theories like the theory of evolution. Below was written by Diane Eager
with the exception of the evolution of evolution section which was
written by Dr Mark Toleman.
Plant growth from water alone?
In the early 1600s a Flemish nobleman named Jean Baptiste van Helmont
(1579-1644) carried out an experiment to find out where plants derived
their substance from. He carefully weighed out 200 pounds of dried soil
and placed it in a pot. He then planted a small willow sapling weighing
5 pounds into the soil and for the next five years he regularly watered
the plant with rainwater or distilled water. He then dried the soil and
weighed it and the plant. The plant now weighed 169 pounds, but the soil
had lost only a few ounces in weight. Van Helmont concluded that 164
pounds of Wood, Barks, and Roots, arose out of water only. We now know
that plants derive much of their mass from carbon dioxide in the air,
and ironically van Helmont knew about carbon dioxide, although he did
not give it this name. He called it gas sylvestre and described how it
was generated burning charcoal - a plant derivative. He also did many
other experiments involving the production of gases but did not make any
connection between air and plant growth. To top
Phlogiston-oxygen
Over a century after van Helmonts death Joseph Priestley showed that
plants absorbed carbon dioxide and released oxygen. At that time oxygen
was equally misunderstood and was known as dephlogisticated air. This
ponderous name refers to a theoretical substance known as phlogiston
which was believed to be released into air by combustion.
Eighteenth-century scientists had worked out that combustion,
respiration and rusting of metals seemed to involve the same processes
and phlogiston was seen as a unifying explanation for these. The theory
was proposed by Johan Becher (1625-1682) and Georg Stahl (1660-1734) who
claimed that air had a limited capacity for absorbing phlogiston and
when it became saturated with it combustion would stop and animals would
suffocate unless they were exposed to air that had the phlogiston
removed, i.e. de-phlogisticated. Plants were believed to absorb
phlogiston from the air. This could be shown experimentally by first
burning a candle inside a concealed container until it went out, i.e.
the air was saturated with phlogiston. If a mouse were placed in this
air it would die, but if a plant were placed in the container, after a
while the air would become fit to breathe again.
We now know that all these observations can be explained by the fact
that combustion, respiration and rusting of metals involve reactions
with oxygen and plants give off oxygen as a result of photosynthesis.
Oxygen was discovered by Joseph Priestley, but he persisted in calling
it de-phlogisticated air and he continued to believe in phlogiston for
the rest of his life. The name oxygen was given by Antoine-Laurent
Lavoisier who repeated Priestleys experiments and used them along with
others to disprove phlogiston theory. To top
Facts can lead to different conclusions
Here (see above) we have a good example of how the same experimental
facts can be interpreted by two different theoretical frameworks to
produce totally different conclusions. We also see that the science of
biology progressed because Priestley was prepared to ask was van Helmont
right? and the science of chemistry progressed because Lavoisier was
prepared to ask was Priestley right?
==end quote==
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/oldscience.htm
--
NeoLibertarian
"The nine most terrifying words in the
English language are, 'I'm from the government
and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends.. |
12 May 2007 02:46:04 AM |
|
|
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-A2E323.14354511052007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
In article <464487A0.B6AA0476@hotmail.com>,
" Kurt Lochner" <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
Crappin' Compaction <daranc@charter.net> wrote rhetorically:
Does The 2007 IPCC Statement For Policymakers Accurately Present
The Observations Of Recent Global Temperature Trends?
Yes..
--It's a "scientific consensus" thing, you wouldn't understand..
==begin quote==
We often look to science, scientific theories and scientists as being
nearly infallible. As such some theories such as the theory of evolution
can be considered above question. However, below are just a few examples
of when science got it wrong in the past. These illustrate that science
is not infallible, and it is good to remember this when considering
theories like the theory of evolution. Below was written by Diane Eager
with the exception of the evolution of evolution section which was
written by Dr Mark Toleman.
Plant growth from water alone?
In the early 1600s a Flemish nobleman named Jean Baptiste van Helmont
(1579-1644) carried out an experiment to find out where plants derived
You're a screaming stupid person.
You're quoting a FOUR HUNDRED YEAR OLD MISTAKE as evididence that global
climate change isn't happening?
Wow.
How do you breath? Someone tells you when?
their substance from. He carefully weighed out 200 pounds of dried soil
and placed it in a pot. He then planted a small willow sapling weighing
5 pounds into the soil and for the next five years he regularly watered
the plant with rainwater or distilled water. He then dried the soil and
weighed it and the plant. The plant now weighed 169 pounds, but the soil
had lost only a few ounces in weight. Van Helmont concluded that 164
pounds of Wood, Barks, and Roots, arose out of water only. We now know
that plants derive much of their mass from carbon dioxide in the air,
and ironically van Helmont knew about carbon dioxide, although he did
not give it this name. He called it gas sylvestre and described how it
was generated burning charcoal - a plant derivative. He also did many
other experiments involving the production of gases but did not make any
connection between air and plant growth. To top
Phlogiston-oxygen
Over a century after van Helmonts death Joseph Priestley showed that
plants absorbed carbon dioxide and released oxygen. At that time oxygen
was equally misunderstood and was known as dephlogisticated air. This
ponderous name refers to a theoretical substance known as phlogiston
which was believed to be released into air by combustion.
Eighteenth-century scientists had worked out that combustion,
respiration and rusting of metals seemed to involve the same processes
and phlogiston was seen as a unifying explanation for these. The theory
was proposed by Johan Becher (1625-1682) and Georg Stahl (1660-1734) who
claimed that air had a limited capacity for absorbing phlogiston and
when it became saturated with it combustion would stop and animals would
suffocate unless they were exposed to air that had the phlogiston
removed, i.e. de-phlogisticated. Plants were believed to absorb
phlogiston from the air. This could be shown experimentally by first
burning a candle inside a concealed container until it went out, i.e.
the air was saturated with phlogiston. If a mouse were placed in this
air it would die, but if a plant were placed in the container, after a
while the air would become fit to breathe again.
We now know that all these observations can be explained by the fact
that combustion, respiration and rusting of metals involve reactions
with oxygen and plants give off oxygen as a result of photosynthesis.
Oxygen was discovered by Joseph Priestley, but he persisted in calling
it de-phlogisticated air and he continued to believe in phlogiston for
the rest of his life. The name oxygen was given by Antoine-Laurent
Lavoisier who repeated Priestleys experiments and used them along with
others to disprove phlogiston theory. To top
Facts can lead to different conclusions
Here (see above) we have a good example of how the same experimental
facts can be interpreted by two different theoretical frameworks to
produce totally different conclusions. We also see that the science of
biology progressed because Priestley was prepared to ask was van Helmont
right? and the science of chemistry progressed because Lavoisier was
prepared to ask was Priestley right?
==end quote==
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/oldscience.htm
--
NeoLibertarian
"The nine most terrifying words in the
English language are, 'I'm from the government
and I'm here to help.'"
---Ronald Reagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|