From The IPCC

The IPCC has some interesting things to say about water vapor and clouds:

Recent studies reaffirm that the spread of climate sensitivity estimates among models arises primarily from inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks. The shortwave impact of changes in boundary-layer clouds, and to a lesser extent midlevel clouds, constitutes the largest contributor to inter-model differences in global cloud feedbacks. The relatively poor simulation of these clouds in the present climate is a reason for some concern. The response to global warming of deep convective clouds is also a substantial source of uncertainty in projections since current models predict different responses of these clouds. Observationally based evaluation of cloud feedbacks indicates that climate models exhibit different strengths and weaknesses, and it is not yet possible to determine which estimates of the climate change cloud feedbacks are the most reliable.

The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change.

Many of the important processes that determine a model's response to changes in radiative forcing are not resolved by the model's grid. Instead, sub-grid scale parametrizations are used to parametrize the unresolved processes, such as cloud formation and the mixing due to oceanic eddies.

Cloud parametrizations are based on physical theories that aim to describe the statistics of the cloud field (e.g., the fractional cloudiness or the area averaged precipitation rate) without describing the individual cloud elements. In an increasing number of climate models, microphysical parametrizations that represent such processes as cloud particle and raindrop formation are used to predict the distributions of liquid and ice clouds.

I'm not going to go into all the problems that are indicated by this IPCC explanation.

But let me take up two. First: Electric motors are well understood. There are not 15 models of electric motors. There are not even two. There is one.

Second: The estimate of energy "forcing" from CO2 is 1.6W/m2. The estimate for cloud "forcing" is 30W/m2. An error of just 5% in how clouds are modeled will equal the CO2 "forcing". An error of 10% in the cloud models will dwarf any "forcing" from CO2. But of course given this uncertainty the politicians believe the modelers can tell us what the climate will be like in 100 years?

And don't forget the errors can accumulate. Especially if the feedback is assumed positive (as the models do). There is not (according to the modelers) any feedback that will tend to return the models to a given condition. The models show that deviations are increased and not reduced. So - off 5% for the first year could increase to 10%+ the second year and so on. Suppose the error is only 1%. It could lead to 100% or more errors 100 years out.

Why do I say could? Because the climate is a dynamic non-linear chaotic feedback system. What that means in practice is that a small error in the models could propagate or a large error could be damped out. And we can't predict in advance which is which. Nor can we tell (without comparing the results to reality) which is which.

So how do the results compare to reality? No model that I am aware of predicted in 2000 the flat lining of global temperature that has taken place since then. Have the models improved since then? To be sure. We should collect the latest predictions and see in ten years if they are reasonably correct. No way we should be committing ourselves to hundreds of trillions of expenditures globally until we know for sure we have something that reasonably compares to reality. And even then we can't be sure because climate is a dynamic non-linear chaotic feedback system.

Some people will bring up the precautionary principle: what if something goes wrong? Well what if. If it gets too hot we can cope. After all we already have crops that grow in hot climates. We just change where they are planted. However, as far as I can tell we do not have any crops adapted to grow under ice. And the last ice age lasted 100,000 years with huge glaciers covering North America significantly south of Chicago. (Yup. The glaciers are melting.) So how long do interglacials (like the one we are living in now) typically last? About 10,000 years. And how long has this one lasted? About 10,000 years. We are due.

So if you want to take precautions I'd say prepare for an ice age. In fact thinking about what we can do geoengineering wise to keep the planet warmer would be time well spent. The tipping point we have to worry about is the return of an ice age.

As snow and ice covers more of the land it reflects more energy into space cooling the planet which gives rise to more snow and ice further cooling the planet. And so on until the glaciers again cover much of the Earth.

Now I greatly admire Sarah Palin but there is no way I want to live in a Northern Illinois that resembles Alaska.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 12.30.09 at 12:34 PM


And the feedbacks are NOT positive as per Richard Lindzen

Portland's Info 101
Portland Civil Rights Examiner
Add to favorites Examiner Bio
Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist
August 18, 7:39 AMPortland Civil Rights ExaminerDianna Cotter
Previous Next
37 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Portland Civil Rights Examiner. Read's terms of use.
Email Address

Include other special offers from
Terms of Use
In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.
The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.
- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.
Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.
Graph A

Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.
Graph B

As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pièce de résistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.
The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.
The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.
Graph C

Observed reality vs. erroneous computer predictions:

The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen & Choi (2009).

For the sake of making the above graphs clear in their meanings, the term ?SST stands for Change in Sea Surface Temperature measured in Kelvin (A unit of temperature like to Celsius and Fahrenheit), and is a measurement of change in sea temperatures. A -1.0 number would indicate cooling, a zero reflects no temperature change, and a +1.0 would indicate an increase in temperature.
?Flux, The Vertical line in these graphs, measures the change in the amount of radiation released by the planet in the infra-red spectrum, heat in other words. From zero to +6 shows more heat radiated out into space. From zero to -6 shows less heat being radiated into space.
0 change in ?SST equals 0 change in ?Flux or no change. Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate. Heat is radiated out into space as seas warm, and this overall maintains a climate equilibrium, This is proven by the ERBE graph in Graph C above as well as the other graphs presented in this article, which are based on observed data, not computer models.
Graph D

The 3300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world’s oceans since late in 2003 have shown a slight cooling of the oceans over the past five years, directly contrary to the official theory that any “global warming” not showing in the atmosphere would definitely show up in the first 400 fathoms of the world’s oceans, where at least 80% of any surplus heat would be stored. Source: ARGO project, June 2009.

All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable. The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.
What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data. The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong.
The UN/IPCC have been using models that give a result that allow them to tell Nation States they must reduce and cap Carbon Emissions or the earth’s climate will warm by a devastating 6 degrees F. When in reality, more heat is simply radiated out into space as the ERBE OBSERVED DATA (Not a computer model) PROVES.
The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.
There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.
Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there (Taxing Carbon designed to fail.), all with little or no effect on emissions globally.
Perhaps this will finally end the attempt by the Obama Administration as well as congress to tax a substance that trees need to survive, the very air we exhale thousands of times a day.
Thank you Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Dr. Miklós Zágoni, Dr. Mike Fox here in Oregon, and a great many other Scientists the world over, who decided to look at facts, instead of playing with models. Science is based on data, facts not theories. They took the facts, and let the theory write itself. The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that.
Public policies should also be based on facts, not on unproven and in the end disproven theories. The United States and indeed the world is in the debt of these and other scientists, who relied on data and facts to describe our world and its climate! We are in their debt!
For more info: Science and Public Policy Institute, Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong. Climate change? Not so fast say Scientists, Have it your way - Global warming is baloney, Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 1), Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 2), Oregon legislature plays Cap-n-Trade shell game, Democrats say Cap and Trade is a big tax, Taxing Carbon designed to fail
Updated to clarify sourcing. All information in this article is directly from SPPI June Report. as is stated in the beginning of article. 8-18-2009 2:02pm Pacific

kzgoblu   ·  December 30, 2009 1:53 PM

Odd as it seems, Alaska was much more temperate during the last Ice Age. It's what allowed folks to walk across from Asia enticed by the grasslands and the herd animals present in the Alaskan valleys.

Even now. when it gets really, really cold in the Missouri and Mississippi Valleys, it's often warmer in Anchorage.

joated   ·  December 30, 2009 7:23 PM

Classical Values is a blog I check almost every single day. Thank you for producing it.

Although I basically agree with what you posted above, I have a small quibble for accuracy. There are many types of AC electric motors, and even more types of DC electric motors. They may all be based, more or less, on Faraday's law, but how it is applied varies quite a bit among types.

CBI   ·  December 31, 2009 12:17 AM


You are correct. I probably should have been clearer on that. For a given type of motor there is one model.

At the very least we do not have a wide range of values for the cross product of a current carrying wire in a magnetic field. And the value for that cross product is the same for all motors.

I try to limit the technical details to the matter directly at hand so our non-engineering readers can keep up.

In any case thanks for the correction.

M. Simon   ·  December 31, 2009 9:15 AM

Second: The estimate of energy "forcing" from CO2 is 1.6W/m2. The estimate for cloud "forcing" is 30W/m2. An error of just 5% in how clouds are modeled will equal the CO2 "forcing". An error of 10% in the cloud models will dwarf any "forcing" from CO2

This is very damning. It's exactly what skeptics mean when we say AGW predictions have very low reliability.

TallDave   ·  December 31, 2009 10:09 AM

You are correct. I probably should have been clearer on that. For a given type of motor there is one model.

Fortunately, we only have one Earth.

TallDave   ·  December 31, 2009 10:11 AM
M. Simon   ·  December 31, 2009 11:15 AM
M. Simon   ·  December 31, 2009 11:25 AM

I also liked this:

The answer lay in the complex science of Radiative Transfer. To clarify this complex science, I contacted Dr. Miklos Zagoni. He is a physicist and science historian at Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, and is now a governmental adviser in his native country of Hungary. Dr Zagoni was once a solid supporter of Anthropogenic Global Warming – Man Made Global Warming. That is until Dr. Miskolczi corrected the math. He now works closely with Dr. Miskolczi, and other scientists who are mathematically describing reality as it is, not as the political establishment wants it to be.

M. Simon   ·  December 31, 2009 11:34 AM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits