jump to navigation

Opening closed minds October 8, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,
trackback

Opening closed minds

by Des Moore
Quadrant Online, October 7, 2010

The end of scientific consensus

The Royal Society, which is Britain’s top dog in science (indeed many scientists would say the world), has just published a report signalling the end of claims of a consensus by some climate scientists and some governments that the world faces dangerous warming unless governments act quickly to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The report, Climate Change: a summary of the science, points out that climate change “continues to be the subject of intensive scientific research and public debate” and divides the existing state of knowledge into three categories – science that is well established, where there is wide consensus but continuing debate, and where there remains substantial uncertainty.

In the latter category, for example, the acknowledgment that the uptake of CO2 by the land and oceans is “very poorly understood” is tantamount to saying that it is not possible to predict with any confidence the future concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It certainly leaves open the possibility that the uptake of CO2 by land and oceans will be considerably higher than the extreme 25% rate projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (it is currently 50%). If that happened it would mean that concentrations of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) would reach supposedly dangerous levels at a significantly later date than the alarmists are predicting – and temperatures would rise less.

Further, while claiming “strong evidence” exists that warming has been caused “largely by human activity”, it acknowledges that the size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change are “still subject to uncertainty” and that the attribution of forced climate change to particular causes is “not straight forward”. Remarkably, the report also accepts that since 1910 increases in temperature have occurred in only two periods – from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to around 2000 – that is, for only about half of the last century. Although the usual scientific explanation of the warming thesis is that temperature increases are caused by increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Royal Society report provides no explanation of why the increase in CO2 concentrations during most of the century did not result in continuing temperature increases.

However, perhaps the most devastating statement for alarmists is that “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future”. This leaves in doubt what policy should be adopted, and when, to reduce emissions. The report’s acceptance that uncertainty exists about the effect clouds have on temperatures is one important reason for delaying action. Another is the acknowledgement of poor scientific understanding in various other areas, such as the likely extent of reductions in ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica from any further temperature increases. Yet another is the admission that “there is little confidence” in projections by models of climate change in regions, including Western Europe. This also suggests that predictions of worsening drought conditions in the Murray Darling Basin have no scientific basis.

Read the rest here

About these ads

Comments»

1. Oliver K. Manuel - October 8, 2010

Thank you for keeping us informed as the previously impenetrable stonewall of consensus crumbles!

Over on the Physics World news site, cosmology professor Dr. Joseph Silk is on the verge of admitting that neutron stars are not dead nuclear embers:

“The neutron star is metastable, like someone on a mountain ledge,” explains Joseph Silk of the University of Oxford . . .

“Just as a little kick can push that person off the ledge and send them to the bottom of the mountain, so a little energy is enough to transform a neutron star into a strange star.”

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43970

Neutron repulsion is the energy source that powers Earth’s heat source -the Sun [Energy and Environment 20, 131-144 (2009)]
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

Oliver K. Manuel

2. Dale - October 8, 2010

Consider also in your thinking the possibility of a Dalton Minimum. We are just beginning to understand the sun, but we do have historical evidence for sunspot cycles and the cooling that ensues when sunspots are reduced. Google “Dalton Minimum”
Dale

3. Oliver K. Manuel - October 8, 2010

Physics World keeps removing comments that mention neutron repulsion.

Thanks to the Climategate scandal, the public is finally beginning to grasp how widespread is the corrupting influence of an international alliance that has been using science as a tool of propaganda.

Climategate was just the tip of the iceberg. Out of sight is the template of deception that has been used in other major fields of science: Astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, nuclear physics, particle physics, solar physics . . .

The ship of consensus science is sinking rapidly nevertheless, and major research journals and scientific organizations will go down with it if they fail to clean house.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com

4. serioussam - October 17, 2010

“However, perhaps the most devastating statement for alarmists is that “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future”. This leaves in doubt what policy should be adopted, and when, to reduce emissions”

Not really. Afterall all the IPCC reports have given ranges for future climate change, not precise values so the statement simply reflects that.

And of course uncertainty cuts both ways so:

“It certainly leaves open the possibility that the uptake of CO2 by land and oceans will be considerably higher than the extreme 25% rate projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

It also leaves open the possibility that the uptake will be considerably lower…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: