NCEE weerspreekt Global warming

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 10:56 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
Krijgen we nou geen hittegolf deze zomer?

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 11:00 schreef DrDarwin het volgende:

[..]

Nee, maar wel een griepgolf na de zomer.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 11:03 schreef jogy het volgende:

[..]

Alweer niet.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 11:03 schreef Kind_aan_huis het volgende:

[..]

Mexicaanse griep, iedereen gaat dood

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 11:03 schreef Kind_aan_huis het volgende:

[..]

Mexicaanse griep, iedereen gaat dood

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 10:53 schreef jogy het volgende:
samenvatting van de executive summary in het begin:

Globale temperaturen zijn de afgelopen 11 jaar gedaald terwijl er wel meer C02 in de atmosfeer is gekomen.

De consensus van orkaangedrag in Antartica is veranderd. Eerst werd aangenomen dat het meer voor zou komen, nu niet meer

De theorie dat IJsland zijn ijskappen zal verliezen is teruggedraaaid omdat er geen bewijs is oor die theorie

quote:

Some parts of the blogosphere, headed up by CEI (”CO2: They call it pollution, we call it life!“), are all a-twitter over an apparently “suppressed” document that supposedly undermines the EPA Endangerment finding about human emissions of carbon dioxide and a basket of other greenhouse gases. Well a draft of this “suppressed” document has been released and we can now all read this allegedly devastating critique of the EPA science. Let’s take a look…

First off the authors of the submission; Alan Carlin is an economist and John Davidson is an ex-member of the Carter administration Council of Environmental Quality. Neither are climate scientists. That’s not necessarily a problem - perhaps they have mastered multiple fields? - but it is likely an indication that the analysis is not going to be very technical (and so it will prove). Curiously, while the authors work for the NCEE (National Center for Environmental Economics), part of the EPA, they appear to have rather closely collaborated with one Ken Gregory (his inline comments appear at multiple points in the draft). Ken Gregory if you don’t know is a leading light of the Friends of Science - a astroturf anti-climate science lobbying group based in Alberta. Indeed, parts of the Carlin and Davidson report appear to be lifted directly from Ken’s rambling magnum opus on the FoS site. However, despite this odd pedigree, the scientific points could still be valid.

Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West’s statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this “evidence”, they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling.

Devastating eh?

One can see a number of basic flaws here; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

But it gets worse, what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we’ve discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I’m not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports….

They don’t even notice the contradictions in their own cites. For instance, they show a figure that demonstrates that galactic cosmic ray and solar trends are non-existent from 1957 on, and yet cheerfully quote Scafetta and West who claim that almost all of the recent trend is solar driven! They claim that climate sensitivity is very small while failing to realise that this implies that solar variability can’t have any effect either. They claim that GCM simulations produced trends over the twentieth century of 1.6 to 3.74ºC - which is simply (and bizarrely) wrong (though with all due respect, that one seems to come directly from Mr. Gregory). Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo-engineering, but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling. A sine qua non of geo-engineering is that we need models to be able to predict what is likely to happen, and if you think they are all wrong, how could you have any faith that you could effectively manage a geo-engineering approach?

Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that’s the best they can do, the EPA’s ruling is on pretty safe ground.

If I were the authors, I’d suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail….

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 12:30 schreef Salvad0R het volgende:
Dus als die smerige figuren in Den Haag ons belasten op CO2-uitstoot, wat doen we dan?

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 12:32 schreef Adelante het volgende:

[..]

Betalen als makke schappen

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 13:14 schreef Ared het volgende:
ah, ik zie dat Real Climate weer een goede post geschreven heeft met veel aanvallen op basis van reputatie (zie ik Hitler daar tussen staan?) en geen woord over de peer reviewed studies over orkanen, Groenlands ijs, het feit dat de trend in de 21e eeuw tnt niet klopt met de voorspelde trend, het feit dat de heat content van oceanen sinds de introductie van Argos niet klopt met voorspellingen en dergelijke. Lekker schieten op de makkelijke doelen, en hopen dat mensen niet door hebben dat er nog meer tussen stond.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 12:11 schreef Zith het volgende:
Vreemde conclusie dat de temperatuur de laatste 12 jaar gedaald is? Zelfs satelliet beelden met thermo-apperatuur lieten de laatste paar jaar wat anders zien. Ik zie in het raport dat de bron ervan van het Harvey Center komt. Hetzelfde Harvey Center gelooft dat de temperatuur in 2100 8 graden hoger zal zijn. Grappig trouwens dat de 'global annual temperature' chart op pagina 64 wel een stijging laat zien (vreemd genoeg willen ze nu bewijzen dat crops het niet slechter deden ook al steeg de temperatuur)

En op http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record genoeg linkjes naar andere onderzoeken van verschillende organizaties.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 juli 2009 10:53 schreef jogy het volgende:

Globale temperaturen zijn de afgelopen 11 jaar gedaald terwijl er wel meer C02 in de atmosfeer is gekomen.