Kyoto Debunked

[a_unique_person]

For anyone interested, here is a link to Richard Lindzen's testimony. It's a good read.

PDF format
Richard Lindzen senate testimony

It is what? For a start, he takes on the statements of non-scientists. Shooting fish in a barrel, lets see him take on fellow scientists.

In fact their models can only account for the current warming, which is occurring at an abnormal rate, that can only be accounted for by anthropogenic causes. If it were not for anthropogenic inputs, the temperature would not be changing as much as it is.

But basically, he is making guesses. None of his scientific arguments in this area can stand up to a scientific review.

His basic obtuseness and deviousness is demonstrated by his attack on Kyoto. He attacks the common straw man that it will not, of itself, achieve anything. Too bad the scientists don't believe it will either. All they are after is a framework that will allow a protocol to be implemented as a basis for further work.

 

[Brian the Snail]

I find it quite interresting that this link of yours does not come from the CSIRO.

Why are you trying to use a NASA link to show that the models the CSIRO runs don't assume global warming?

They say their models assume global warming and I happen to believe them.

To quote AUP: Do you think they are idiots?

If anyones reading anything into what they say its the person who doesnt take what they said at face value.

Okay, I did a bit more searching, and found this:

The CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model

Page 81, section 23

Transient model response to global atmospheric change

In this section we examine the transient behaviour of the Mk3 coupled model under an IPCC scenario of atmospheric composition change, and compare the response in key climate variables to corresponding periods from the control experiment. In the transient experiment, the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (expressed as an equivalent CO2 concentration) and stratospheric ozone, and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols, are varied according to the A2 SRES scenario (see Fig. 5(b), Climate Change 2001), starting 1961 and ending at 2100 (see Fig. 21). The climate change experiment commenced at the end of year 120 of the control integration. Computational time constraints meant that our initial climate change experiment was not able to be integrated from pre-industrial conditions, and therefore a cold-start problem occurs, where the integrated effect of varying atmospheric conditions prior to 1961 is not included in the thermal response. Our most recent transient experiment (to be reported elsewhere) starts from 1871, thereby circumventing the cold start problem.

Figure 22 shows the monthly globally averaged (over all surface types including vegetated land, ocean and ice) surface screen temperature anomalies for both the control and transient experiment. First note that although a calendar year time-axis has been attached to the control experiment results, it is only for the convenience of comparison with results from the transient experiment. In all monthly anomalies present in this section, we have used a base climate generated from years 1981-2020 of the control integration (i.e., model years 141-180). In all, the control experiment has been run for 260 years. By the year 2100 of the transient experiment the warming is about 2.8°C. The control integration exhibits a 0.25°C cooling drift from 1961-2100, so, allowing for this, the effective warming of the transient integration to 2100 is a little over 3°C. The extent of this warming lies within the range of the IPCC A2 ensemble of model results, though is modestly less than the ensemble mean of about 3.8°C (see Fig. 5(d), IPCC SPM 2001). However, note that there is substantial interannual variability exhibited by this model about the long-term warming trend.

Here global warming is a response to atmospheric changes. So, the model cannot be assuming global warming from the outset.

Perhaps in some cases they might start with a certain higher temperature and keep forcing fixed, which as I said before might be useful in predicting impacts of climate change rather than the climate change itself. However, this is more a question of initial conditions than of model assumptions.

 

[a_unique_person]

Okay, I did a bit more searching, and found this:

The CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model

Page 81, section 23



Here global warming is a response to atmospheric changes. So, the model cannot be assuming global warming from the outset.

Perhaps in some cases they might start with a certain higher temperature and keep forcing fixed, which as I said before might be useful in predicting impacts of climate change rather than the climate change itself. However, this is more a question of initial conditions than of model assumptions.

Thanks for that. These descriptions of the models are way out of my depth, but they appear to be done by people with half a brain.

 

[a_unique_person]

revised link http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/ganopolski98.pdf

 

[rockoon]

Okay, I did a bit more searching, and found this:

The CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model

Page 81, section 23

In this section we examine the transient behaviour of the Mk3 coupled model under an IPCC scenario of atmospheric composition change, and compare the response in key climate variables to corresponding periods from the control experiment. In the transient experiment, the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (expressed as an equivalent CO2 concentration) and stratospheric ozone, and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols, are varied according to the A2 SRES scenario (see Fig. 5(b), Climate Change 2001), starting 1961 and ending at 2100 (see Fig. 21).

Here global warming is a response to atmospheric changes. So, the model cannot be assuming global warming from the outset.

A funny conclusion you have made since this scenario is based on extreme atmospheric changes imposed on the system by extreme economic assumptions selected specifically because they are extreme:

SRES A2 scenario

A future world of very rapid economic growth, low population growth and rapid introduction of new and more efficient technology. Major underlying themes are economic and cultural convergence and capacity building, with a substantial reduction in regional differences in per capita income. In this world, people pursue personal wealth rather than environmental quality

 

[BobK]

It is what? For a start, he takes on the statements of non-scientists. Shooting fish in a barrel, lets see him take on fellow scientists.

ROTFLMAO

Read your own last paragraph in this post.


In fact their models can only account for the current warming, which is occurring at an abnormal rate, that can only be accounted for by anthropogenic causes. If it were not for anthropogenic inputs, the temperature would not be changing as much as it is.

Relying on the models again? Since the models deal strictly with numbers, there must be a precise figure available for our share, and some one model that is correct. Since models disagree, will you tell us which model is correct and what precise figure it gives for our contribution to warming?

Anyway, I believe New Zealand is going to try to regulate flatulence in livestock to help take care of the problem. How ridiculous can things get?

But basically, he is making guesses. None of his scientific arguments in this area can stand up to a scientific review.

Strictly an assertion without rational basis.

His basic obtuseness and deviousness is demonstrated by his attack on Kyoto. He attacks the common straw man that it will not, of itself, achieve anything. Too bad the scientists don't believe it will either. All they are after is a framework that will allow a protocol to be implemented as a basis for further work.

Here you start with a personal attack on Lindzen. Then you say scientists agree with him that it won't make any difference, but you still want to spend 100's of trillions of dollars, so they'll have further work.

I'm glad we finally at least agree that Kyoto is simply a way for gov. to take money from some and put it in the pocket of others, doing little and costing much.

Why your still in favor of it I don't know. But then I never have understood blind faith.

 

[BobK]

Thanks for that. These descriptions of the models are way out of my depth, but they appear to be done by people with half a brain.

LMAO

Now you're saying the modelers have 1/2 a brain?

What? They've all been lobotomized?

You still rely on them?

The increasing incoherence of your posts leads me to the conclusion there is not much sense in attempting to continue a dialog with you.

 

[a_unique_person]

LMAO

Now you're saying the modelers have 1/2 a brain?

What? They've all been lobotomized?

You still rely on them?

The increasing incoherence of your posts leads me to the conclusion there is not much sense in attempting to continue a dialog with you.

Why are you picking on a turn of phrase that I have used? It has nothing to do with the debate.

 

[a_unique_person]

ROTFLMAO

Read your own last paragraph in this post.

[/quote]

I don't get your point

In fact their models can only account for the current warming, which is occurring at an abnormal rate, that can only be accounted for by anthropogenic causes. If it were not for anthropogenic inputs, the temperature would not be changing as much as it is.

Relying on the models again? Since the models deal strictly with numbers, there must be a precise figure available for our share, and some one model that is correct. Since models disagree, will you tell us which model is correct and what precise figure it gives for our contribution to warming?

There is not a precise figure. There is a stated margin of error. The models are not exactly the same, they all agree that GW is happening.

Anyway, I believe New Zealand is going to try to regulate flatulence in livestock to help take care of the problem. How ridiculous can things get?

That's an argument?

Strictly an assertion without rational basis.

No, I was told this by a scientist who works for CSIRO DAR. He has a lot of respect for this guy in his other areas of work, but not in this one. Why? Because in this area, he cannot get published. There are two possibilities for this,

1) A conspiracy of scientists to not let this man publish his papers in this area, and the secret hasn't got out yet.

2) His work does not stand up to peer review for basic scientific methods and integrity.

Here you start with a personal attack on Lindzen. Then you say scientists agree with him that it won't make any difference, but you still want to spend 100's of trillions of dollars, so they'll have further work.

I'm glad we finally at least agree that Kyoto is simply a way for gov. to take money from some and put it in the pocket of others, doing little and costing much.

I did not agree on that at all. You are still willfully misrepresenting the stance of those who have created the Kyoto protocol and the reason for it. I will state it again, in case you missed the point.

It is supposed to establish a protocol, or means, of organising the countries of the world to reduce GW gasses. Once this first step has been achieved, we can move on to the next step.

Once again, you see a conspiracy at work for which you have provided absolutley no evidence. You accuse me of blind faith. You appear to be subscribing to totally unfounded conspiracy theories.

Why your still in favor of it I don't know. But then I never have understood blind faith.

Neither have I, that is why I rely on a scientific method to ensure that research is based on integrity and established principles. I am not a scientist who works in this area.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Brian the Snail: Here global warming is a response to atmospheric changes. So, the model cannot be assuming global warming from the outset.

rockoon: A funny conclusion you have made since this scenario is based on extreme atmospheric changes imposed on the system by extreme economic assumptions selected specifically because they are extreme:

Here was your original post that I responded too:

posted at 5:11am 23/3/2004 by rockoon:

" Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming."

This says it all. They program global warming into the model and then watch the model warm up. Big suprise that it warms up, right? Read it slowly -- they set up the model so that global warming exists and then they let it run.

What conclusions can be derived from such a model? Certainly not the conclusion that global warming is real or that man is causing it.

[SARCASM]
Quick!! before its too late! Our model shows that if global warming is real, then global warming is real!
[/SARCASM]

I then responded to this post, saying that in fact the models do not have global warming programmed into them, but have various forcing factors entered as inputs and the global warming seen in the results is a response to these forcings. You disagreed, saying that the sentence you quoted supported your point of view that the CSIRO model assumes global warming. I then went and found the paper that describes in detail the model, and pointed out that the model finds global warming based on the changes in atmospheric compostion. In short, the global warming is a response to the forcings, just like I said, not an assumption programmed from the beginning, like you said.

Now, I don't dispute that different scenarios will find different temperature changes, and that the temperature change found by the CSIRO model will change if a different scenario is used. However, I didn't quote the paper because of the value it gave for the temperature change, but to show that it works in much the same way as I said, as I discuss above.

By the way, if you're interested in the model projections of the temperature for the other scenarios, here is a graph from the IPCC:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-22.htm

As you can see, all of the scenarios give warming.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm glad we finally at least agree that Kyoto is simply a way for gov. to take money from some and put it in the pocket of others, doing little and costing much.

Why your still in favor of it I don't know. But then I never have understood blind faith.

I am trusting people to use the scientific method correctly. It appears they are doint that. You, on the other hand, are using blind faith in a baseless conspiracy theory.

 

[rockoon]

I then went and found the paper that describes in detail the model, and pointed out that the model finds global warming based on the changes in atmospheric compostion.

Not the model.. but a model. Twisting and turning the words you may.. but behind the scenes the assumptions of what you say.. is is the truth. The cold hard truth. The FAQ AUP posted a link to was talking about a model that does infact assume global warming.

See, AUP thought he was a wise person who found a great link with all sorts of 'facts' to back him up. But the 'facts' that backed him up were based on a model that assumed global warming.

You are completely missing the point and want to justify climate modelling - thats fine - but dont do it in the defense of AUP's tactics. AUP made some statements of fact. When asked to back up those statements, AUP seemed to think that googling for a sentence or two and then posting a link to it without ever actualy reading the material within was enough to put the bandaid on his foot-in-mouth disease. It is unfortunate for him that he so often finds links that do not back up his priori, knee-jerk statements.

The FAQ in question was describing a model that assumed global warming and all the conclusions within are subject to that contraint. It says so right in the FAQ. I repeat.. it says so in the FAQ. This point completely invalidated what AUP was trying to use the FAQ for.

 

[a_unique_person]

Not the model.. but a model. Twisting and turning the words you may.. but behind the scenes the assumptions of what you say.. is is the truth. The cold hard truth. The FAQ AUP posted a link to was talking about a model that does infact assume global warming.

See, AUP thought he was a wise person who found a great link with all sorts of 'facts' to back him up. But the 'facts' that backed him up were based on a model that assumed global warming.

You are completely missing the point and want to justify climate modelling - thats fine - but dont do it in the defense of AUP's tactics. AUP made some statements of fact. When asked to back up those statements, AUP seemed to think that googling for a sentence or two and then posting a link to it without ever actualy reading the material within was enough to put the bandaid on his foot-in-mouth disease. It is unfortunate for him that he so often finds links that do not back up his priori, knee-jerk statements.

The FAQ in question was describing a model that assumed global warming and all the conclusions within are subject to that contraint. It says so right in the FAQ. I repeat.. it says so in the FAQ. This point completely invalidated what AUP was trying to use the FAQ for.

The FAQ is written on the basis that GW is proven to be true. As far as the scientists are concerned, the issue is proven. It is reflecting their research. Now, if you want to criticise their methods, etc, go for it. I do not have the expertise to criticse their model.

That is, the FAQ is not a scientific presentation. It is a presentation of the findings. Don't criticise it as if it was a scientific paper.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Not the model.. but a model. Twisting and turning the words you may.. but behind the scenes the assumptions of what you say.. is is the truth. The cold hard truth. The FAQ AUP posted a link to was talking about a model that does infact assume global warming.

See, AUP thought he was a wise person who found a great link with all sorts of 'facts' to back him up. But the 'facts' that backed him up were based on a model that assumed global warming.

You are completely missing the point and want to justify climate modelling - thats fine - but dont do it in the defense of AUP's tactics. AUP made some statements of fact. When asked to back up those statements, AUP seemed to think that googling for a sentence or two and then posting a link to it without ever actualy reading the material within was enough to put the bandaid on his foot-in-mouth disease. It is unfortunate for him that he so often finds links that do not back up his priori, knee-jerk statements.

The FAQ in question was describing a model that assumed global warming and all the conclusions within are subject to that contraint. It says so right in the FAQ. I repeat.. it says so in the FAQ. This point completely invalidated what AUP was trying to use the FAQ for.

Okay, I'm not trying to defend anybody's tactics here, and I'm not going to play referee in any kind of dispute between you two. However, I think your criticisms of AUP in this case are unfair. To show this, I will just go back to AUP's post which started all this. It is the first post on page 5, where he quoted something from the FAQs of CSIRO. Here it is:

Scientists use sophisticated computer models of the world's atmosphere, surface and oceans to examine likely future changes to climate due to global warming.

Climate models are complex, lengthy computer programs based upon the physical laws and equations of motion that govern the Earth’s climate system. The models work by mimicking (or reproducing) the way in which the Earth's climate behaves from day to day, and from season to season. They do this for all parts of the globe: the surface, throughout the atmosphere, and for the depths of the oceans.

Climate models are good at simulating the broad features of our present climate. Simulated distribution of surface temperatures, winds and precipitation over the seasons are very similar to what is observed. This gives us confidence that the models adequately represent the important physical and dynamic processes of climate.

Using these climate models, scientists can simulate present climatic conditions (‘control’ runs). They can also simulate anticipated future conditions, such as increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, changes to aerosol levels or different ozone levels (‘climate prediction’ runs). By comparing results from the two (or more) simulations allows scientists to assess likely future climate changes.

Scientists also study changes that have happened throughout history on geological timescales when greenhouse gas concentrations were higher than today to learn about what may happen in future.

Okay, I think a few things stand out for me here:

1) The section, taken as a whole, is quite obviously talking about climate models in general, not a particular climate model used at CSIRO or anywhere else. If it was talking about their work, they would say so. In fact, in the section after the one AUP quoted, it does go on to talk about the research done at CSIRO. It seems that they do a variety of things- and it says nothing about the assumptions used in their climate models.

2) The models work in much the same way as I said- the input forcings produce the particular result, global warming isn't assumed from the outset.

3) It says that the models accurately reproduce features of the climate, which would seem to support AUPs assertion that the models are correct- by this, I'm guessing that he didn't mean that they are perfect, but that the "models adequately represent the important physical and dynamic processes of climate" as it says in the FAQ, and therefore we can place some confidence in their predictions for the future.

4) In the next post, you quoted the first sentence of this section, and took it to mean that it only applies to the model at CSIRO, and that the model assumes global warming at the outset. Based on reading the quote in context, I would strongly disagree with this interpretation.