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:

Monday, 18 August 2014

IPCC Wrong (yet again) - Professor Fred Singer

Fred Singer, American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, has written a piece for American Thinker with the title:

Climate Science Does Not Support IPCC Conclusions

where he addresses the two main science issues of general concern:

  1. future temperatures
  2. future sea level rise (SLR)
Global average surface temperature (GAST)
....the concern seems to be to remain below 2 deg. It should be recognized that this limit is entirely arbitrary. There is no established scientific basis for assigning special significance to it; it just happens to be the “Goldilocks” number. Here is what I mean: If one were to choose 0.5 deg, people will say “we’ve already seen that and nothing has happened.”  However, if we were to choose 5 deg, people will say, “we’ll never see that much warming -- hence of no significance.” That is why 2 deg may have become the alarmists’ choice. 
After discussing Climate Sensitivity (CS) and how,  according to the IPCC CS dropped from 4.5 to about 2.5 deg,  Professor Singer arrives at the conclusion:

In my view, CS may actually be close to zero. This means CO2 has very little influence on climate change -- probably because of negative feedback.
 It is rather amusing that the Summaries talk about increasing
certainty for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) --
while at the same time modeled temperatures increasingly
diverge from those actually observed
I don't know why Prof Singer bothered, but during his discussion,  he (re) addresses the disgraced MBH98 hockey stick.

Sea Level Rise (SLR)

His opening remark:

SLR (sea level rise) shows no acceleration in 20th century 

OK! Say no more!

But no! If one of the Global Warming Nazis had made such a statement, we Realists would ask for some explanation, some justification. So.....
AR4 [2007] still produces reasonable values for SLR.  But by the time AR5 came around, we can see a rough doubling of the lowest and highest estimates – as shown (in black) in S-7.  
We now look at the summary result (from chapter 13 of AR5) in some detail in S-8 – and pose the crucial question:  Is there reliable evidence for acceleration in SLR associated with temp rise and CO2 increase during the 20th century?  As we shall see, the answer is NO.
Prof Singer's conclusion
My best estimate for the year 2100 is a further SL rise of about 15cm [see S-7] and continued rise thereafter of about the same value (18cm/cy) -- independent of any short term temp fluctuations. In my opinion, there is nothing we can do about this natural rise, which will continue until the next Ice Age -- when sea level will drop as ice accumulates in the Polar Regions and on glaciers. Meanwhile, we should follow the Dutch example: relax and build dikes. 
Read More at American Thinker (LINK

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!