Although the IPCC 'Summary for Policymakers' now calls it “very likely” that most of the warming since the mid-20th century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions [on which see Dr Vincent Gray's comments here], some of the assertions in the Summary are remarkable in their lack of alarm.You don't need to look far for that. Anyway, here's the second piece of commentary, some of which is repeating what's already been reported here and elsewhere:True, there is a good deal of overly alarmist garbage in the Summary, but some of the information I just cited will drive alarmists into frothing-at-the-mouth fits of denial.
- For example, on page 11 of the Summary, 3 of the 6 climate scenarios predict less than 2.5 degrees C of warming in the 21st century. 4 of the 6 predict less 2.8 C or less.
- Also on page 11, projected sea level rise during the 21st century is likely to be merely 1 foot or so in 4 of the 6 scenarios. All 6 scenarios anticipate a sea level rise of less than 1 ½ feet.
- On page 13, the Summary projects that there will be no net loss of Antarctic ice mass during the entire 21st century.
- On page 20, projected precipitation in North America is likely to remain stable in summer months, and become more prevalent in winter months.
Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the first volume ("The Physical Science Basis") of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4 - also known as "Climate Change 2007").It's a legitimate question, isn't it? They've had five years to pull this all together, and since they're all supposed to be in agreement -- they've all reached 'consensus' -- you'd think the science and the summary could conceivably be released together, wouldn't you?
Tonight, I'm confident it will lead every network newscast and it will be headline news in all the newspapers and magazines around the world over the next few months. One thing that will be missing from virtually all of the news reports that I'd like to make you all aware of. That is, the actual report itself is NOT available and will not be available until May. The FULL AR4 consists of 3 "volumes" produced by 3 Working Groups (Working Group I, II, and III). The full Working Group I report (Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis) will NOT be the subject of the news accounts. I'm confident the full report IS scientifically produced and represents good science, as were the prior three assessment reports.
What the news reports will use as their "source" is the Summary for Policymakers released today...
The question I have to ask is this: Why is the Summary for Policymakers available BEFORE the content that it claims to summarize?
Isn't it just a bit odd to see the Readers Digest version of a book before the book itself is even finished? This makes it impossible for legitimate inquiry to occur at all, since the basis of the summary is not available to read and study. For more than 3 months, the ONLY data available will be the policymaker's summary, NOT the scientific content.
Yet this will lead the news and be the basis of debate and, potentially, action. By the time anyone can raise legitimate questions about the underlying science, public opinion will have already been shaped.
In the meantime, Junk Science has broken embargo and posted the draft scientific reports.
Under the circumstances we feel we have no choice but to publicly release the second-order draft report documents so that everyone has at least the chance to compare the summary statements with the underlying documentation. It should not be necessary for us to break embargo and post raw drafts for you to verify a summary of publicly funded documentation (tax payers around the world have paid billions of dollars for this effort -- you own it and you should be able to access it).
Reluctantly then, here is the link to our archive copy of the second-order draft of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The second-order draft was distributed in 2006, 5 years into what has so far been a 6 year process and these copies were archived last May.
LINKS: "New report says global warming is negligible, short-lived, and now ended" - Dr Vincent Gray - Not PC
IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. - Junk Science
RELATED: Global Warming, Science, Politics-World
4 comments:
quote:
Ian Sample, Guardian
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
(2 Feb 2007)
While not necessarily disagreeing with you you have to admit no one (including you)is objective about this. Everyone has an axe to grind and seeking truth does not come into it.
Well, at least the changed predicted are less than what was expected a few decades back. Maybe the environmental movement is starting to lose it's credibility? Wouldn't surprise me.
It would be very interesting to put to the test the faith of those warmist scientists in their mathematical computer model who are giving the world alarming view about doom effect of climate change.
Econo-Physics researchers (a branch of science that marries physics & economic) at OCCF (Oxford Center for Computational Finance) had claimed in a paper (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0105/0105258.pdf) that they published which is summarize in a magazine article below for the general public (see link below), about modeling non-linear dynamical economic system such as stock market. The type of modeling algorithm described is the same modeling technique applied in climate research. Two different disciplines but however, they are common in applying the same foundations of modeling. Market & Climate are both 'Complex Systems'.
I am not sure if warmists could be persuaded to invest their money for prediction made by the algorithms proposed by those Oxford Econo-Physicists. If warmist authors from IPCC are confident in their mathematical model and it is the same mathematical modeling technique applied to the stock-market by Oxford Econo-Physicists, then one can deduce they would have no problem in gambling their millions in following the advice of the Oxford Econo-Physicists algorithm. I have noted that the Oxford team is still guarding the detail of their algorithm in which no doubt they will go commercial at some stage. They only publish their paper describing the general methods and not the detail.
"Unusual calms tell of coming storms"
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2001/082201/Unusual_calms_tell_of_coming_storms_082201.html
"When markets go mad"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000BBA57-1A97-1CD4-B4A8809EC588EEDF&catID=2
The Oxford model prediction has already been available for 2 or more years, but I am not sure whether it had been deployed commercially or not.
I would like to ask warmist scientists to take their faith in the IPCC report and applied it to investing or paying (it would cost millions for such service) the OCCF for advise using their 'self-organized economic dynamical systems modeling'. It is just the same mathematical technique foundation as in the IPCC report but different domain of application.
I have noted that the Oxford team is still guarding the detail of their algorithm in which no doubt they will go commercial at some stage.
The author of the paper, I quoted in my previous post:
"Predictability of large future changes in a competitive evolving population"
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0105/0105258.pdf
Professor Sam Howison, in which I actually had a chance to chat with him here during the week long MISG workshop (Mathematics-in-Industry Study Group) held at Auckland University on 1 February 2005. I was interested in talking to him about the OCCF (Oxford Center for Computational Finance) research work since it is one of the site that I frequented to download their research papers which are freely available. We didn't talk climate change, but I did ask him if he would like to put a huge amount of his retirement savings in betting the market movement using his algorithms. His answer was a straight NO. I then asked him why not (to make a bet), and he said that mathematical modeling of complex systems such as financial markets does not necessary reflects reality of economics causes & effects. It points you out to a likely strategy for trading but gives no guarantee at all to the accuracy of the prediction.
I wondered if Professor Sam Howison had been a climate scientist, he would also not bet his retirement savings on IPCC prediction.
Post a Comment