The Rate Debate Slowing
Download 0.98 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: IPCC Indict
Idsos ProdictThe Idsos use peer review and have done extensive research D'Aleo 10 (Joseph D’Aleo, Director of Icecap.us, former Prof Meteorology and Climatology, first director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel, Fellow at the American Meteorology Society, 2-14-2010, “Climategate: What Did Phil Jones Actually Admit? Was He Correct?”) The Idsos at CO2 Science have done a very thorough job documenting, using the peer review literature, the existence of a global MWP. They have found data published by 804 individual scientists from 476 separate research institutions in 43 different countries supporting the global Medieval Warm Period. The Idsos are qualified and not paid off Idso 7 (Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Position Papers on Funding, 2007, “What Motivates the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change?”) Clearly, one should not believe what we at CO2 Science or anyone else says about carbon dioxide and global change without carefully examining the reasoning behind, and the evidence for, our and their declarations, which makes questions about funding rather moot. It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue. Nevertheless, questions about funding persist, and they are clearly of great interest to many people, as evidenced by the spate of publicity aroused by the 4 Sep 2006 letter of Bob Ward (Senior Manager for Policy Communication of the UK's Royal Society) to Nick Thomas (Esso UK Limited's Director of Corporate Affairs), as well his criticism of us in his BBC Today Programe interview of 21 Sep 2006 with Sarah Montague, where he pointedly described our Center as being one of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil that "misrepresent the science of climate change." That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that. So what do we generally find in this never-ending endeavor? We find enough good material to produce weekly reviews of five different peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not follow the multiple doom-and-gloom storylines of the IPCC. In addition, we often review articles that do follow the IPCC's lead; and in these cases we take issue with them for what we feel are valid defensible reasons. Why do we do this? We do it because we feel that many people on the other side of the debate - but by no means all or even the majority of them - are the ones that "misrepresent the science of climate change." Just as beauty resides in the eye of the beholder, however, so too does the misrepresentation of climate change science live there; and with people on both sides of the debate often saying the same negative things about those on the other side, it behooves the rational person seeking to know the truth to carefully evaluate the things each side says about more substantial matters. Are they based on real-world data? Do the analyses employed seem appropriate? Do the researchers rely more on data and logic to make their points, or do they rely more on appeals to authority and claims of consensus? Funding also enters the picture; but one must determine if it is given to influence how scientists interpret their findings or to encourage them to maintain their intellectual integrity and report only what they believe to be the truth. In this regard, as I mentioned earlier, there are many scientists on both sides of the climate change debate who receive funds from people that admire their work and who continue to maintain their intellectual and moral integrity. Likewise, there are probably some on both sides of the controversy who do otherwise. So how does one differentiate between them? Clearly, each researcher's case is unique. In my case, I feel that a significant indication of what motivates me to do what I do can be gleaned from my publication record, which demonstrates that I studied and wrote about many of the topics we currently address on our website a full quarter-century ago in a host of different peer-reviewed scientific journals - as well as in a couple of books (Idso, 1982, 1989) that I self-published and for which I personally paid the publication costs - all of which happened well before I, or probably anyone else, had ever even contemplated doing what we now do and actually receiving funds to sustain the effort. What is more, many of these things occurred well before there was any significant controversy over the climate change issue, which largely began with the publication of one of my early contributions to the topic (Idso, 1980). Hence, it should be readily evident that my views about the potential impacts of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration from that time until now have never been influenced in even the slightest degree by anything other than what has appeared in the scientific literature. And my sons are in their father's image. AT: IPCC IndictEven if they win this - substantial evidence independent from the IPCC proves our impact Huber and Knutti 11 (Markus Huber is a doctoral student at and Reto Knutti is a Professor at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science of the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich 12/4/11, “Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance” Nature Geoscience) The Earth’s energy balance is key to understanding climate and climate variations that are caused by natural and anthropogenic changes in the atmospheric composition. Despite abundant observational evidence for changes in the energy balance over the past decades1, 2, 3, the formal detection of climate warming and its attribution to human influence has so far relied mostly on the difference between spatio-temporal warming patterns of natural and anthropogenic origin4, 5, 6. Here we present an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy, without assumptions about spatial warming patterns. Based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming. We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85 °C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1 °C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56 °C. The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it. Our method is complementary to optimal fingerprinting attribution and produces fully consistent results, thus suggesting an even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming. These account for natural forcings Huber and Knutti 11 (Markus Huber is a doctoral student at and Reto Knutti is a Professor at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science of the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich 12/4/11, “Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance” Nature Geoscience) Here we have shown that for global temperature the fundamental principle of conservation of energy, combined with knowledge about the evolution of radiative forcing, provides a complementary approach to attribution. Our results are strongly constrained by global observations and are robust when considering uncertainties in radiative forcing, the observed warming and in climate feedbacks. Each of the thousands of model simulations is a consistent realization of the ocean atmosphere energy balance. The resulting distribution of climate sensitivity (1.7–6.5 °C, 5–95%, mean 3.6 °C) is also consistent with independent evidence derived from palaeoclimate archives11. Using a more informative prior assumption does not significantly alter the conclusions (see Supplementary Information). Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90–116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing. The discrepancy between the total and the sum of the two contributions (14% on average) arises because the total ocean heat uptake is different from the sum of the responses to the individual forcings. Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07 °C (0.03–0.13 °C) to the warming since 1950 (see Fig. 3c). The combination of those results with attribution studies based on optimal fingerprinting, with independent constraints on the magnitude of climate feedbacks, with process understanding, as well as palaeoclimate evidence leads to an even higher confidence about human influence dominating the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.98 Mb. Share with your friends:
|