Bishop Hill Five degrees
Aug 24, 2012 Climate: WG2 Climate: WG3 Economics So much reading to do and so little time to do it.
Bob Watson interview with Pallab Ghosh yesterday was interesting on many levels, not least the fact that the BBC put the great man up against their science journalist rather than the usual greens. Not that it appears to have made very much difference.
Watson is retiring soon, although I don't doubt that he will continue to make his voice heard. The BBC interview seems to be his parting shot, and of course it is on climate change. When your legacy is the industrialisation of the British countryside, I guess you would want to get some justification on the table.
Professor Sir Robert Watson said that the hope of restricting the average temperature rise to 2C was "out the window".
He said that the rise could be as high as 5C - with dire conseqences.
Professor Watson added the Chancellor, George Osborne, should back efforts to cut the UK's CO2 emissions.
Interestingly, there now seem to be some differences of opinion over the issue of just what the consequences of a warming on this scale would be. For instance, Richard Tol tweeted yesterday:
...In this paper, I argue that 4 deg or so is optimal: http://ideas.repec.org/p/sus/susewp/3712.html …
Meanwhile Chris Hope (who did the economic model behind the Stern report) says that 2-4 degrees is non-disastrous.
It may be that these predictions are not all using the same baseline (I think Tol has used degrees above the present day in some of his work). But it does rather look as if we have many decades until we get into disaster territory. I wonder how many decades?
Reader Comments (35)
`says that 2-4 degrees is non-disastrous.`
Yes, but they said Five degrees *wink*
Which means that we all died during the Holocene Climate Optimum. But, eh.
I had this chat on twitter yesterday.
What is irritating, is that there is no timescale mentioned. 2C, 3C, 5C from when, to when?
What many people think (public) is that this is from now, when in fact it is from pre-industrial times (say 1880) therefore we allready have about 0.75C, of the 2C, 3C or 5C
so is 2C really that scary, as we've allready had about half of that rise, and nothing much has happened, arguably extreme events have gone down, life expectancy has gone up, hundreds of millions of people are less poor.
the other irritating factor, is the 'by when' is not mentioned, typically this would seem to be by 2100.
which makes Watson's claim of 5C just look silly..
ie we've had 0.7, therefore (4.3C /88 yrs) x10 = 0.48C / decade average rate of rise retired from now!
[No radiative physics on this thread please]
The BBC article is remarkably vague and content-free.
As Barry pointed out yesterday, there is no mention of either the start time or the end time of the 2 or 5 degree figures.
As with the misleading NERC press release analysed recently by Bish and Tony, there is again the emphasis on the high end of the projections - "Could be as high as 5C", leading to, ahem, misleading headlines.
And there is no indication of what, if any, science supports these claims.
Meanwhile, if you look at recent projections they show a warming for the UK of between 0 and 2 degrees over the next 50 yrs.
Channel 4 news now (irresponsible alarmism? thanks to Watson)
http://www.channel4.com/news/defra-scientists-grim-warning-on-climate-change
"The planet could be facing a catastropic 5 degree temperature rise, and we are losing time to address the threat of climate change, one of the government's leading scientists tells Channel 4 News."
(at least channel 4, say since pre-industrial times, but do not say exactly when, or mention, we've had 0.&C, allready, to no ill effect)
There is now little doubt that the alarmists are making a last ditch attempt to scare the population into accepting their pseudo-science. It reminds me of the battle between proponents and opponents of the Phlogiston theory. The former had the support of the Great and Good because they explained Phlogiston was like a 5th Greek humour, something the scientifically-ignorant aristocracy could understand and support, a bit like the 'Sky Dragon' nowadays.
The opponents on the other hand, laboured away at devising the correct science. Antoine Lavoisier's supreme practical ability at making the first really accurate chemical balance showed that when you heated a metal in air, it gained in mass. But even then, the proponents hit back, claiming this was perfectly consistent with Phlogiston having negative mass! I do not joke.
If the supporters of the 'modern Phlogiston' had any honour they would quietly leave, carefully shutting to door behind them.
Watson turned up as a supposed 'expert' at the Guardian's Climategate meeting a few years back.
He admitted that he had not read the e-mails concerned. A voice from the audience 'do you often forget to do your homework'
All credibility debunked in a nanosecond.
Nothing he has said since has changed my view that he's nobbut a pontificating alarmist windbag. As such he as ideal qualifications to be a Chairman of the IPCC..
Oh wait......
I remeber that, lots of laughter from the audience...
From the link provided by Paul Mathews:
It has always bugged me that even though there is a probability of temperature decline for regions, here in particular, within the near future you don't get the risk scenario or impact assessment. If the blue line scenario were to be played out and the present energy policy is still active in 2025 then there will be a lot of wood burning going on.
Where is this warming to come from? Largest 30 year warming trend (WMO 30 years = Climate) ended DEC 2003 at approx 2deg C per century. Now circa 1.7deg C per century and 12 to 15 years of no rise in the pipeline which can only reduce the rate further.
As the "carrying capability" of CO2 is logarithmic have we not seen more than 50% of the capability of a doubling since the 280 ppm pre industrial (ideal?) level?
Just what are they not telling us?
You only need to look at the recent past to see that 5C rise is not catastrophic at all. The Roman Warm Period, with the Roman army marching round the UK, produced temperatures that enabled the Romans to grow grape vines north of York (UK). The same varieties now grow some 300 miles to the south. The MWP was also warmer than today. there were no ''tipping points'' then neither will there be today. These alarmist claims are based on model output that rely on a theory that has no basis, the GHG theory. All its claims have been refuted by observation, the basis of science.
When the Caolition came to power I wrote to Caroline Spelman politely asking her to get rid of serial alarmist Watson as chief scientific advisor to Defra and appoint someone who had actually prectised science within the last 100 years (or words to that effect). Unsurprisingly I got no response - another waste of my time, a sheet of paper, some ink, an envelope and a stamp, I concluded.
John Marshall and Green Sand: the key part of the scam is the assumption that the Earth emits IR as a black body in a vacuum. No process-trained engineer accepts this is true but far too many scientists accepted it without question. If you really think through the problem, the truth is very different.
Now let me see. The last 4 interglacials were between 2°C & 3°C warmer than today. The sea levels rose & they fell. We are still here. There was no catastrophic warming of the past to our knowledge today, there was no runaway greenhouse effect! The atmosphere has had many times more CO2 in it in the past, yet still there was no catastrophic global warming, when the Earther was many times warmer than today, life went on! The MWP was warmer than today, the RWP was warmer than today, the Bronze Age WP was warmer than today. What gives? The last Interglacial started in ernest 11,000 years ago or so. Interglacials last for between 10,000 & 20,000 years. The evidence suggests that we are living on borrowed time & that within a thousand yeasr we could be slipping into a new ice age! As Doug Hoffman would say, "Enjoy the Interglacial while it lasts"!
"But it does rather look as if we have many decades until we get into disaster territory. I wonder how many decades?"
Even if that was going to happen then we will probably never get into disaster territory due to technology and adaption.
AlecM
"If you really think through the problem, the truth is very different."
Yup, got that and understand. However over the years I have witnessed untold hours of debate about climate theories and they always end in preconceived entrenchment. What I am trying to do is get past the theoretical arguments and get people to look at their own actual observational data against their own metrics.
At present I can see no real world metrics that substantiate Watson's claims. Unless of course he is withholding data from the public?
[No radiative physics on this thread please]
We are quite obviously already in disaster territory, but it is a disaster of general scientific incompetence and the subornation of all of our institutions and "leaders'" minds to the cult of global warming. There is no looming climate disaster, because there is no greenhouse effect working to produce it, and the real-world data denies there is any sustained global warming at all, beyond a nominal 0.5°C per century recovery from the so-called Little Ice Age, well explained by the multidecadal ocean temperatures oscillations (ENSO et al.), not due to anthropogenic "greenhouse gases" at all. The whole IPCC charade depends upon fitting the short, 1975 - 1998, temperature rise to the continuing increase in CO2 (primarily in "developing" countries, mostly China), and ignoring everything else. If war comes of this, the promulgators of the greenhouse effect and the global warming scare (including "journalists" and "defenders of science" who have dedicated themselves to it, as well as the "lukewarm" scientists) should all be immediately and summarily executed as traitors to the peace and general welfare.
Before we get carried away with facts that no one believes or is interested in (i.e. warmer in the past, more CO2 in the past, civilization flourishing in warm periods, ice-age are really bad e.t.c.). I think we should remind ourselves that economic models based on climate models are nothing more than an abstract academic exercise, whose sole connection with reality is not tomorrow's weather and economy, but today's taxation and control.
The link provided by Mr. Mattews clearly demonstrates that climate models are nothing more than a forcing plus chaos. Can we be sure that economic models aren't just a similarly expensive way of confirming a prejudice?
11:21 AM | Phillip Bratby
Possibly Mzz Spellperson was too busy supervising her illegal-immigrant nanny (paid on her parliamentary expenses).
On another subject, why do these people like Watson always look the same - beards, disshevelled hair, I couldn't see the sandals, but the chip on the shoulder was plain to see.
[No radiative physics on this thread please]
Why not do it the other way round. Assume, for the moment, that we could reduce "carbon", ha ha, and it may change the climate.......BUT How, by how much and in which direction? It is too complex a system, in my opinion, to work out with any certainty what will happen in any circumstances. And then there is the law of unintended consequences. Can anyone prove that the change will be for better or worse?
[No radiative physics on this thread please]
Yes and No, Latimer. "credibility debunked" only, for example, for some kind of researchers. Other "sides" may call it pia fraus.
Your Grace wrote:
When your legacy is the industrialisation of the British countryside, I guess you would want to get some justification on the table.
With all due respect that is only part of the legacy. You have forgotten about the balancing part, namely the de-industrialisation of urban areas thanks to artificially high energy costs that have been, and still are being, inflated by "green" taxes.
[No radiative physics on this thread please]
Auctioneer: "Ladies and Gentlemen, today's auction is for Catastrophic Global Warming. This exceedingly fine end-of-the-world catastrophe has been thoroughly vetted by the IPCC. Do we have an opening bid?"
"3 degrees!"
"3½ degrees"
"4 degrees"
...
Auctioneer: "4 degrees ... 4 degrees ... going once ..."
"4½ degrees!"
"5 degrees"
...
Auctioneer: "5 degrees ... 5 degrees ... going once ... going twice ..."
"5½ degrees!"
"6 degrees"
"6½ degrees"
"7 degrees"
...
Auctioneer: "7 degrees ... 7 degrees ... going once ... going twice ... SOLD!!! Catastrophic Global Warming sells for SEVEN DEGREES!"
Person in audience: "I thought that Myles Allen said it should sell for eleven degrees...?"
[No radiative physics on this thread please]
[No radiative physics on this thread please]
[No radiative physics on this thread please]
At the London debate attended by Sir Latimer and Sir Barry, Bob Watson also stated that "if you add CO2 to the atmosphere it must warm, its simpul fyzics". 15 years of non warming does not seem to have impinged on his awareness as yet.
Over on WUWT there is a post by Pat Frank about the climate models to be used in AR5. in AR4 the model used was CMIP3 and apparently it contained an error of 10.1% in cloud cover predictions (compared to actual). This error was large enough to swallow the whole of the supposed effect of human CO2.
In AR5 they will use CMIP5 so Pat tested it with the same data as used in AR4 and er...well....the error has improved to 12.4%.
Here is a graph of HADCRUT3 plus a point marking Bob Watson's 5 degrees - assuming he means 5 degrees from now by the end of the century. [If he means from 1900 or some other time, he should have said so, in which case the point moves down a bit.]
Paul - joining the dots... it would be a hockey stick ;-)
If by 2020, temps have only risen by + or -0.1C I wonder if people will quietly forget about it all... ?
One cannot envy the Bish at having to leave his editorial score at:
Phlogiston 1
Physics 0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6fVDAjs9f0
Hes gone from two to five degrees
Where did he get the extra Three Degree from
"when will i see you again da da da da ohhh when will we share precious moments"
"Are we in love or just friends pause is there a beginning or just the end ohhhhh"