All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Saturday, 23 March 2013

Global Temperatures according to Mr Peter A. Stott

A man feeds the birds in a snow covered
Pavilion Gardens in Buxton
 Photo: ANDREW YATES/AFP/Getty Images
According to Wikipedia, (link)

Peter A. Stott is a climate scientist who leads the Climate Monitoring and Attribution team of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the Met Office in Exeter, UK. He is an expert on anthropogenic and natural causes of climate change.
He was a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I report, chapter 9, for the AR4 released in 2007 and is an editor of the Journal of Climate.

You could say that Mr Stott is embedded in the ClimateGate CRU.

In 2010, Roger Pielke Sr. critiqued a paper (link) by Peter Stott and Peter Thorne:

Erroneous Statement by Peter A. Stott and Peter W. Thorne In Nature titled “How Best To Log Local Temperatures?”
Mr Pielke summarized his critique by closing:
Peter Stott and Peter Thorne have deliberately misled the readership of Nature in order to give the impression that three data analyses corroborate their analyzed trends, while in reality the three surface temperature data sets are closely related.
Mr Stott is the lead author of a paper recently published in Environmental Research Letters (link) 
Peter Stott et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 014024 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014024

The upper end of climate model temperature projections is inconsistent with past warming

Climate models predict a large range of possible future temperatures for a particular scenario of future emissions of greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings of climate. Given that further warming in coming decades could threaten increasing risks of climatic disruption, it is important to determine whether model projections are consistent with temperature changes already observed. This can be achieved by quantifying the extent to which increases in well mixed greenhouse gases and changes in other anthropogenic and natural forcings have already altered temperature patterns around the globe. Here, for the first time, we combine multiple climate models into a single synthesized estimate of future warming rates consistent with past temperature changes. We show that the observed evolution of near-surface temperatures appears to indicate lower ranges (5–95%) for warming (0.35–0.82 K and 0.45–0.93 K by the 2020s (2020–9) relative to 1986–2005 under the RCP4.5 and 8.5 scenarios respectively) than the equivalent ranges projected by the CMIP5 climate models (0.48–1.00 K and 0.51–1.16 K respectively). Our results indicate that for each RCP the upper end of the range of CMIP5 climate model projections is inconsistent with past warming.

Is Mr Stott coming in from the cold or in fact starting to turn his back on Global Warming Alarmism?

No comments:

Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!