# From Pooh’s first Assessment Report on Climate Change

1. Oct 5, 2005

### Andre

Summary for Intellectuals

It’s a dedicated duty for mankind to preserve the habitability of the Earth for future generations. Earth- and environmental scienctists are the observers and analysts for policymakers to decide the best course of action. But the mysteries of Earth are exceptional and the more discoveries are done, the less we seem to understand. Nevertheless, once a certain idea has been established that responds to the urge to act and to do something useful, it seems counter intuitive to challenge the established policy. Yet it is paramount that we do the right things and prioritize using basic economic principles about assets, effectiveness and efficiency. So we need to reflect and evaluate our course of action continuously. Unfortunately this process has been misinterpreted as a battle between environmental activists and skeptics with an agenda.

So the current issue at hand is global warming or understated as “climate change”. The ideas about this phenomenon accumulated in the 1980ies. Using the scientific method, the global warming idea is based on the principles of greenhouse gas forcing, increased CO2 levels and empiric observations. Apparently sound enough. However science progresses and ideas need to be readjusted whenever the “facts” change. Nevertheless, the global warming theory seems to be unchangeable and thus casting doubt on the integrity of the science. What follows is a summary of the discussions in general.

The world is warming

So it seems indeed. We accept that fact, which includes melting glaciers, changing biotopes and receding arctic ice. This actually makes a jay – nay discussion in this area less relevant. The discussion should be about the possible causes of those changes.

There is also the secret Urban Heat Island correction for the temperature record of Jones et al that many like to see transparent. There are some alternative ideas that would result in a more moderate rate of warming. Moreover, the stream of all too enthusiastic “slippery slope” claims of activists and scaremongers needs to be moderated constantly. The ice caps are not melting completely. The glaciers will not disappear, Sea levels will not surge. Palaeo climatic evidence reveals that the Earth has warmed many times before to values well above the current and it has always cooled after that.

There is broad consensus that the warming is caused by greenhouse gasses

Obviously the bandwagon fallacy. It’s ever so easy to proclaim this as a scientist. It ensures that one is appreciated as standing for a good cause. Although there is probably no deliberate cheating going on, it’s more about generating a selective set of acceptance standards. Either raising the standards for evidence against AGW (or ignore it) whilst lowering standards for anything that supports global warming (this is how the flawed hockey stick could make it to poster child of the IPCC and to “figure one” of the Summary for Policy makers). And no doubt one can convince oneself this way that AGW is very very true and must be countered immediately.

Moreover, consensus is not a part of the scientific method and no guarantee whatsoever that this makes it true. How many Afreds Wegeners were needed for instance to
point out the plate tectonics? and how many Galileo’s..etc.

Finally there are several dozens of climatologists in a secret hide out who keep wondering bewilderedly how consensus could have been proclaimed without them.

There is a body of evidence to support the cause of the warming to be anthropogenic;

Note that such a claim is not backed up lately with reference to publications that unambiguously proof it indeed.

In the older papers you’d get ice core temperature reconstructions here but since it was obvious that the “temperature rise” preceded the increase of CO2, it’s evidence value had been reduced. Moreover, some 80 ppm change in CO2 seemed to be related to 10-15 degrees Celsius temperature changes whilst nowadays we are already on 100 ppm chance since 1850 with only about 0,6 degrees Celsius temperature change, which makes the ice age evidence rather awkward. You could point to strong positive feedback factors, but why are those feedback factors not doing the same today? So the hockey stick was quite welcome to replace the ice age evidence in 1998 and could be regarded as the key evidence, if it had not been refuted by Hans Von Storch et al and McIntyre & McIttrick explicitly and the several other climatologic constructions like Moberg (2005) implicitly, suggesting that the main driver for climate is not CO2.

So what is the current evidence? Are the ice age ideas being revisited and renewed as evidence for instance?

All climate models invariably show a continuous warming trend

Yes of course they do. What is a model? A mathematical simulation of a physical reality? It relies not only on the mathematics but also on the data. The sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing is one of them; feedback factors are as well. So check the TAR IPCC and you’ll find something like say 2-3 degrees for doubling CO2. It’s well known and fully reproducable that the basic mathematics (Arrhenius, Stefan Boltzman laws) produces only a value of about 0,7 degrees for a black body as I have shown somewhere. So why 2-3 degrees instead? Because we think that we have empirical evidence for that from the ice cores of the poles, the hockeystick, the Pinatubo eruption etc that there is a strong positive feedback factor mostly generated by water vapor. However, no matter how sophisticated, garbage in is garbage out.

However there is also statistical evidence (Kärner 2002, 2005) that a single dimensional random walk of the Lower Troposphere temperatures show a stable pattern (Hearst exponent < 0.5). We will go into detail about the ice ages later, showing a much stronger stability of temperatures than assumed. Consequently, the essential thing here the model input of the greenhouse warming factor for doubling CO2 and it’s feedback. Nobody feeds the models with in 0,7 degrees per doubling and a negative feedback. This would give completely different results, probably multiple warming and cooling cycles with a slight overall warming trend of less than 0,5 degrees per century.

So with little sensitivity of climate to CO2 it is also clear that mankind’s ability correcting climate changes are meager if not non-existent.

Moreover, the role of simulation models in the scientific methods is verifying hypotheses to see if these can be substantiated. They simply cannot be used for predicting the future. and giving the result of the models a true predicting status, climate science departs the established “modus operandi”.

In the near future we may encounter a tipping point after which climate will not recover and positive feedback factors may even induce a thermal runaway condition.

These speculations are both based on the thermal conditions on planet Venus, attributed to extreme greenhouse gas effect and on the unexplained isotope spikes in the ice cores that are thought to be rapid temperature changes. However a certain bear of little brain has demonstrated that other mechanisms could explain the conditions of Venus better. He is now finalizing a comprehensive assessment of the true nature of the isotope spikes in the ice cores. This would further vindicate the futility of controlling emission for the sake of climate preservation.

There is a shrinking number of skeptics –enemies of the environment- who are bribed by the oil companies.

Poisoning the well fallacy and no doubt the worlds most common and effective ad hominem ever, even used by Tony Blair in his environment speech albeit without the oil companies.

Actually it’s true. The number of evil climate hoodlums is likely to approach zero quite rapidly if not already. The oil companies have recognized some decade ago that a countering AGW policy would put them out of business very quickly. But the myth lingers on, fueled unchallenged by activists because it’s all so obvious.

Instead of those villains there is a growing body of sincere objective independent intellectuals who recognize the flawed science of global warming and who have sincere reservations for the consequences of the draconic drivel deeds in the battle against a imaginary enemy. Unfortunately, they have to choose between either keeping low profile, preserving position, budgets and careers or speak up, risking tar & feathers.

Conclusion

As it appears that the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gas forcing is highly exaggerated and pending the further refinements of pooh’s palaeo-climate research it is advisable to divert assets to alternative problem areas. Preserving biotopes biomass and biodiversity but also the gradual conversion of fossil fuel use to true and reliable renewables for the sake of sustainability and preserve the habitability of the Earth for future generations

Discussion?

Last edited: Oct 5, 2005
2. Oct 5, 2005

### Andre

Now, in order to assess if the writing bear knows what he is talking about I include the summary of chapter 4 of the FAR, The message of the ice cores, in which it will be shown how the isotopes can fool the glaciologists.

Remember when the ice cores were interpreted it was well known that changes in (oxygen) isotope ratios (d18O) said something about temperature changes.

So what happened when these results became available?: http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/gisp-compare.GIF [Broken] Sorry the host has still not enabled the feature here and I’m not uploading this to maintain control of the graphs.

Indeed, we see the red isotope ratios in the top graph jump up and down like crazy and so does the precipitation and so does the methane (CH4) concentration. So, isn’t obvious? Methane (greenhouse gas) goes up, so the temperature (isotopes) goes up, when it’s warmer there is more moisture, and hence also more water vapour so more greenhouse effect and.. Bingo it’s all there. The start of the greenhouse hype, complete with water vapour feedback. This scared the h... out of the first observers and red alert sounded.

However,

Lets zoom in on monthly behaviour of d18O isotope ratios, in relation to monthly precipitation and temperatures of a high arctic station measured over several years.
It's clear that temperature and isotopes are related whilst the correlation with precipitation is less. There are clear seasonal variations with generally more precipitation in the summer.

As the average d18O in the ice cores is a function of both the average monthly precipitation and its 18O content, it's very easy to model this and calculate the average yearly isotope ratio.

Introduce a big summer drought in that model, reducing the contribution of the heavier isotopes and the average isotope ratio drops several mils without changing the temperature. Increase the summer precipitation and hence the contribution of the heavy isotopes and the average increases with several mils, again without changing the temperature.

And we do see that in the first graph, that the snowfall is there indeed and the immediate reaction of the isotopes on the precipitation, not on the temperature.

So it’s just what you do want to see. And as the isotopes and greenhouse gas seemed to confirm what you wanted to confirm, what else do you need? Would you reconsider if you had that second graph of monthly values available? Isn't it all about selective standards and a little wishful thinking?

Now what does the CH4 tell us? The reason of the sudden precipitation changes? Read the mammoth massacring thread. Twas the Clathrate gun.

Non Calor Sed Umor

And bye to the ice age greenhouse gas with water vapour feedback idea.

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
3. Oct 6, 2005

### Mk

What do the three lines mean? Which color to what?

4. Oct 6, 2005

### Andre

Well, I guess my rambling was too quick with the steps too big. I assume your question pertains the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/precip-v-isotopes.GIF [Broken]. it represents monthly averages of a certain location (Mould Bay), 1 = Jan, 12 = Dec). The values are averaged over several years.

The top light blue represents monthly precipitation measured in mm on the Y=axis, hence it's zero or more. The middle red one the temperature in Celsius -40C = -40F and 0C = 32F. it's a cold place. And the bottom black one is the relative heavy 18O isotope variation compared to a certain standard, the VSMOW (Vienna standard mean ocean water) which shows some correlation with the temperature. This is one of the best. However if you look at the complete isotope database, there is a lot of variation with latitude. The unit is dimensionless of course in thousands or mils. It's just a coincidence that the order of magnitude of all fit on the same scale.

But again, if you assume for a high arctic station a high correlation between both isotopes, precipitation with the seasonal temperatures you can build a little model to see what happens with a dramatic increase of precipitation as we see in the ice cores.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/YD-simulator.GIF [Broken] where we simulate the seasonal fluctuations of d18O with the accumulation due to precipitation.

Left: every blue spike, represents a single year of seasonal isotope variation due to the temperature. Low in the winter high in the summer, We keep the amplitude constant which suggest constant seasonal temperature throughout the whole exercise.

The X-axis represents the accumulated precipitation in mm. This is how the ideal physical isotope distribution would look like in an ice core. At the far left the first years have about the same very low winter and summer precipitation rate. It’s very arid as supposed to be in the ice age, accumulating only about 60mm yearly. Next, we increase the summer precipitation (for the winter it’s too cold to snow) in four steps to a quadruple value, some 240mm per years. See in red, the yearly average d18O value go up, due to the increased contribution of heavy isotopes in the summer time. Black is the running average and this could represent the most likely distribution when taking random samples for measuring the d18O. The right side shows how this could have been displayed in the ice core graphs and we see quite a familiar step with about the same values as http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/gisp-compare.GIF [Broken]. Fluctuations around -35 to -40 mil with precipitation changes of about a factor four. But I did not change the temperature at all, just the precipitation.

Non calor sed umor.

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
5. Oct 8, 2005

### Andre

Interesting devellopments on consensus, that I would have used in the summary for interlectuals, if I had had it:

The Wall Street Journal, 4 October 2005:

6. Oct 8, 2005

### Andre

Another assessment report on climate change:

http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/climate_change_global_warming.php [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
7. Oct 15, 2005

### Andre

Moderators, please, if feasible, do not remove Jimmies excellent summary for Non-interlectuals. I could not have hoped for a better demonstration of the standard ad hominem practice of the alarmists and a better support for my:

Perhaps also take not of the
statement of Lord Nigel Lawson House of Lords, United Kingdom for the US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works: who is a bit more balanced:

I may quote him again sometimes on the methods of the IPCC.

8. Oct 17, 2005

### Mk

What causes the d180 to rise with the temperture?

The y-axis is temperture?
Why does the d180 levels take longer to go up and down the more precipitation there is? Is this denoting how far down the ice core you're going thus how far back in time?

I'm a bit confused about all this.

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
9. Oct 17, 2005

### Andre

The Y -axis is the momentary d18O the difference in ratio between heavy 18O and 16O compared to a certain standard (Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water - VSMOW) simulating it's monthly variation. But the X-axis is not time but accumulation (ice buildup). You are not looking at a time scale thing but how the d18O would actually be in length measurements in a simulated ice core.

It's not time but accumulation rate. Every spike down is the next december month.

Sort of. I intend to simulate how a few meters of ice in the ice core would look like in terms of local d18O values, at the onset of the Younger Dryas some 1782 meters down the GISP-2 ice core. But this time it's not by changing temperatures (and hence different yearly maximum and minimum d18O values) but only by changing the precipitation rate and hence the same max an mins but shorter and longer yearly accumulation rates.
So can be proven that the observed changes can be obtained at a completely different way than the ice core investigators interpret themselfs.

The statement the temperature changed hence the isotope ratio changed
is correct but:
The isotope ration changed hence the temperature changed,
is not correct. It's the same as:
If it rains, the streets are wet. The streets are wet. hence it rains.

This is the so called affirming the consequent fallacy.

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
10. Oct 17, 2005

### Andre

I see that it has happened, which is OK. After all, PF has to guarantee a certain standard.

11. Oct 17, 2005

### Mk

So how does the isotope ratio follow the temperature?

12. Oct 18, 2005

### Andre

13. Nov 17, 2005

### Andre

I think that this is an excellent example of the perception of climate sceptism, consensus and "group-think"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/17/EDGODFP0BQ1.DTL

14. Nov 19, 2005

### Andre

For those who still think that climatology is merely science, following the scientific method and adhering to Poppers falsifiability principles, etc.

Let's see what the practical course of action is.

- We have all read the http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf [Broken] of the Third assessment report of the IPCC.

- We have all seen fig 1 (The hockeystick) and fig 2 the CO2 and from the perfect match we are now sure of catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

- We need to save the world now.

- Anybody who opposes saving the world cannot be but the lowest life form on Earth.

Although, now five years later both the MBH temperature hockeystick and the CO2 hockeystick are falsified, Popper does not prevail but the witch hunt does:

It's the blackest day of my life to discover that worlds leading (real) scientific publishers (and their peer reviewers) have actually taken the lead in the witch hunt.

Global Environmental Change Part A
Volume 15, Issue 4 , December 2005, Pages 338-352

(an Elsevier Reed publication)

The beginning of the introduction:

(Note: Oreskes googled for scientific papers supporting global warming versus opposing global warming. This was refuted by Benny Peiser showing that you need to know how to google but there is also the (proved) suggestion of selctive acceptance)

But the message is clear, no longer is sceptism part of the scientific method, it's a nuisance that resists saving the world.

The more interesting subject would be to compare this witch hunt with others in the past.

Another witch hunter:

http://risingtide.org.uk/pages/voices/hall_shame.htm [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
15. Nov 20, 2005

### Andre

By the way, the article has not gone unobserved in the sceptic environment. I think this commentary is very worth while:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/11/elsevier-science-and-crackpots.html

16. Nov 22, 2005

### Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Climate Change

http://www.gs.com/our_firm/our_cult...ironmental_policy_framework_051116102805.html

Goldman Sachs is so concerned that they are investing $billions in alternative energy sources (e.g. wind, and possibly solar) and implementing corporate 'green' policies design to conserve energy and resources - which incidentally save the company$ (makes economic sense).

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
17. Nov 22, 2005

### Andre

There is a rewarding market for things that most people believe in.

18. Nov 24, 2005

### BobK

I'm curious as to where in the article GS mentions where and how much they are investing.
Seems to me, they wanted to talk about environmental issues, with out taking an actual position.

I've found that usually when at the beginning of a paragraph I find a phrase like "we acknowledge" or "we recognise", they're not going to take an actual position on anything of consequence.

The only position I actually saw them take was that the gov. should subsidize alternative energy sources. The gov. already does that.
The article itself seems intended to leave the reader with a good feeling about GS, without saying anything of much substance. Kinda like a commercial.

It's interesting how different people can read the same article and draw varying conclusions about it.

Frankly, I don't mind the gov. subsidizing new tech. for a few years. But at what point do they stop the subsidies and let them fend for themselves. Support shouldn't go on forever.

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
19. Nov 25, 2005

### Astronuc

Staff Emeritus

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
20. Nov 25, 2005

### BobK

The alternative sources such as wind and solar have a couple severe drawbacks such as excessive land use and intermitent availability. Thus they will always be only a supplemental source of power.

My personal opinion is that nuclear is the only viable option to oil, gas or coal fired plants even if co2 eventually turns out to be an actual problem.

I'm not convinced there is a co2 problem at this point.