Cont’d

Mark

You say “the reason it has not been updated ...is that the result would be to lower expected increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Large, well funded and professionally angry groups don't want to hear about concentrations being far less than expected.”

Another one of your conspiracy theories?

>> on present trends there is no way CO2 concentrations will double by 2100 <<

Is that your assertion? If not, I would like to check your source, can you provide a link please?

_______

GrahamY

>> the failure of CO2 to meet projections <<

See my response to Mark.

There are some ‘alarmists’ out there Graham, the overwhelming majority are not. Hansen is obviously very concerned about IF we pass certain tipping points, and in this regard, people should not dismiss him out-of-hand. Have you read his one and only?

Personally, I am more concerned about the planet’s “squealing” – a precursor to the tipping points that worries Hansen so much. Put another way, it would be too late to deal with tipping points once they are reached, nothing we could do will reverse them.

>> There are very few people in the world who have a sufficient grasp of the whole to be taken seriously <<

That is why most research and published papers on ‘climate science’ are conducted by teams of scientists, often from differing areas of expertise and often from different parts of the globe.

Dang-de-dang.

"One and only book", that is.

qanda, I was hoping for a conversation on this, not some spin about how none of this affects the climate models. If their inputs are wrong then their outputs are garbage. Or are you telling me that the GCMs depend on a constant level of CO2?

So let's talk about why the CO2 concentrations are lower than predicted, and what that says about the modelled scenarios. One thing that some googling has turned up is that apparently soil microbes are not behaving as predicted. Something I hadn't thought of.

BTW, anyone who talks about tipping points is likely to be an "alarmist". There is absolutely no evidence of runaway global warming in the history of the earth, which is what a tipping point would have to refer to if it were to have any meaning. So no reason to think there are any to be reached at the current time.

I'm probably being too light on Hansen calling him an alarmist. I think his calls for people who question the IPCC consensus to be prosecuted is actually hysterical.

I'd also be interested in some examples of these multi-disciplinary teams of authors that you claim exist in climate science because of its complexity. Can't think of any. (And I don't count being from a different part of the globe as having any bearing on diversity of expertise!)

Graham

No Graham, I am not telling you that GCMs depend on a constant level of CO2.

If you want to have a conversation, fine – just please stop the ploy of putting your words into my mouth.

So, to help dispel any confusion about the SRES models and the various GCMs, and while we’re waiting for Mark –

Would you identify the SRES model or the particular GCM that has got the projections of CO2 concentrations so wrong as to be outside the expected range of uncertainty? Then perhaps we can talk.

BTW, I did not say Jim Hansen was not an “alarmist” – although from the tone of your response you think, I think, he’s not. No my dearest, Hansen is an alarmist. And you do know my thoughts about alarmists, on both sides – Monckton is hysterical too.

Aside: I would be interested, do you think the planet is “squealing” – put that in your google if you’re not sure what it means.

Graham, re:

>> I'd also be interested in some examples of these multi-disciplinary teams of authors that you claim exist in climate science because of its complexity. Can't think of any. (And I don't count being from a different part of the globe as having any bearing on diversity of expertise!) <<

Sure, how about:

“Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/abs/nature06937.html

You should note that these people cover a diverse range of sciences, from biologists to population ecologists, from mathematicians to meteorologists.

You might also note that they are situated across the globe! I can use exclamations too.

This is not so unusual, Graham - particularly in ‘climate science’. You will often get atmospheric physicists working with oceanographers, for example. And unsurprisingly, you don't always get them from the one institution ... or country, especially if they have very particular expertise.

Oh yeah, I think an Australian IT guy (no PhD btw), a meteorologist from New Zealand, and a roving Aussie geologist has put something together for the “sceptics” recently – didn’t go down too well I believe.

qanda - I've asked this before with no responses from anyone - how much research is done on CAUSES of Climate Change as opposed to papers using Climate Change as a leg up to get funding?

It is urban legend now that in any science if you add "..and the effects of climate change" or similar, you'll get funding as it is rumored that if you don't you will get bumped by someone who has - hence why many people see the whole climate science now as a bubble, in the sense of South Sea or Tulipmania bubble (ETS/CPRS IPCC blessed schemes)- people back then knew it was based falsely, but .. there was so much money to be made they kept going against their own good sense. Human nature does not change much does it?

So your example, of Climate Science "“Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change” I suspect is not into the causes of Climate Change, but piggybacking on it - would that be correct?

Actually Graham, before we start wandering off on flights of fancy about how all the input data is garbage and the models wrong etc.,
why don't we talk about how the projections are actually pretty bloody close?
When Mark says that the projections are "hopelessly wrong", he is himself hopelessly wrong.

IPCC projections in 2001
Methane for 2010, 1816ppb-1964ppb, depending on the model used
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/532.htm

CO2, 388-393ppm depending on the model used
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/531.htm

Recent gas concentrations (Dec 2009)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Methane: 1865 ppb measured in Ireland/ 1741ppb if measured in Tasmania (but I bet we only want to use the Tassie data don't we?)
C02: 384.8ppm averaged globally for 2009(NOAA)

Mauna Loa CO2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Current (March 2010) average 391.06ppm
2009 average 387.35ppm

These currently measured concentrations look pretty close compared to the projected concentrations. Looking at the trends, I'd be willing to bet that the projections will be even closer once 2010 has been averaged properly.

You guys really don't make it easy to check your references do you?
Put in the website references (links) next time and you might have some credibility, for about 10 seconds, the length of time it would take someone to check.