Comments on: Why can’t scientists agree on Global Warming?

By: Richard C

Richard C — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:42:40 +0000

Here’s the game-changer that the IPCC will have to address.

On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence
of unknown radiative forcing
Roy W. Spencer1 and William D. Braswell1
Received 12 October 2009; revised 29 March 2010; accepted 12 April 2010; published 24 August 2010.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/

Spencer: “this paper puts meat on the central claim of my most recent book: that climate researchers have mixed up cause and effect when observing cloud and temperature changes. As a result, the climate system has given the illusion of positive cloud feedback.”

How will Kurt Lambeck bat this one away? Into the sight-screen? Hook it out of the park? Or will he be caught at slips by Nova, making a rash shot? (mental images of Lambeck flailing wildly)

By: Richard C

Richard C — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:59:40 +0000

Re: Prof Kurt Lambeck, the President of the Australian Academy of Science, on “The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers”

Joanne Nova has a post in response to this and will do an extensive follow-up soon.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/head-of-australian-science-academy-issues-decree-from-pagan-chieftans-of-science/

The AAS handout is a desperate attempt to perpetuate the “consensus” but it highlights the deficiencies of the IPCC case more than anything (except for the unwitting) e.g:-

* The IPCC’s grossly inflated Climate Sensitivity (CS) estimates in response to CO2 levels.

* The bizarre omission of natural cloud cover from the IPCC Global Climate Models (GCM’s).

* The un-physical nature of radiative forcing methodology in climate simulation.

* The IPCC’s assignment of a positive cloud feedback in the GCM’s when the introduction of a natural cloud cover parameter would result in a negative feedback. There is an interesting development here see:

http://climateaudit.org/2009/06/11/cloud-super-parameterization-and-low-climate-sensitivity/

* The IPCC’s warming scenario is hanging by an unraveling thread.

The good news is that Kurt concedes that scientists are still arguing about the complex Earth systems feedback mechanisms, such as the possible cooling effect of clouds – this will be very tricky for ar5 to deal with but I’m sure they will manage to make go away.

See also We Have Been Conned – An independent review of the IPCC

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/we_have_been_conned.html

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:28:10 +0000

Judging by your well-written review of the meeting, Mr. Muir, it doesn’t sound like they addressed the topic at all. I mean, I thought “the science was settled”. You mean to say there is disagreement?

Sounds like they just threw hackneyed, disproven (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/17/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/) hockey sticks all over the place in order to rhetorically say “Why can’t scientists agree on Global Warming?”

Or am I wrong and they actually did address the topic? Would be interested in their answer. No, wait – I can’t be bothered in their politically driven ecospeak.

By: Flipper

Flipper — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:06:36 +0000

Are all those people paid by the taxpayer or by taxpayer funded sources?

I doubt Mr Salinger, for one, will be quite so confident in the High Court when facing an expertly briefed QC.

The High Court case will be important because it will unquestionably influence the membership and terms of reference of the ETS 2011 Review Group. That aspect MUST NOT be over-looked.