This document which casts doubts on the amount of certainty the IPCC has attached to anthropogenic climate change has generated little media attention. This is interesting since one would think people would care about what the smartest people think about the most important issue of the day. Media coverage was scant except from
Physicist Steve Koonin impeaches scientists’ climate consensus
It is important to read the 14 page article for yourself.
American Physical Society Climate Change Statement Review Workshop Framing Document
Climate Change Statement Review Subcommittee , December 20, 2013
suggests that the stasis can be attributed in part to “internal variability.” Yet climate models imply that a 15-year stasis is very rare (von Storch et al., 2013, available at http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming ) and models cannot reproduce the observed GMST even with the observed radiative forcing [See figure immediately below from the AR5 WG1 report]. • Some have suggested (e.g., Meehl et al., Nature Climate Change 1, 360 (2011)] that the “missing heat”o Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this hypothesis quantitatively? o Why would the heat sequestration have “turned on” at the turn of this century? o What could make it “turn off” and when might that occur? o Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear in the atmosphere? 8 is going into the deep ocean, causing mK temperature rises. [IPCC quoted above notes “…a possible redistribution of heat within the ocean.”]
Oceans have approximately 1000 times the thermal capacity of the atmosphere and are well coupled to the atmosphere through sensible and latent heat transfer. • Is it correct that ocean surface temperature changes have the potential to drive significant changes in GMST? If yes, then we note that Section 126.96.36.199 of the AR5 WG1 report states: The overall uncertainty of the annually averaged global ocean mean [heat flux] for each term is expected to be in the range 10–20%. In the case of the latent heat flux term, this corresponds to an uncertainty of up to 20 W m–2. In comparison, changes in global mean values of individual heat flux components expected as a result of anthropogenic climate change since 1900 are at the level of <2 W m–2. • With uncertainty in ocean data being ten times larger than the total magnitude of the warming attributed to anthropogenic sources, and combined with the IPCC’s conclusion than it has less than 10% confidence that it can separate long-term trends from regular variability, why is it reasonable to conclude that increases in GMST are attributable to radiative forcing rather than to ocean variability?
Jason Thompson received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Law & Society from Winona State University where he studied U.S.-Mongolian Foreign Relations 1860-1920. He also attended programs at Hennepin Technical College in Minnesota, Soonchunhyang University in the Republic of Korea and at the University for Peace in Costa Rica. He has a Master of Arts degree from University of Nevada, Las Vegas where he focused on climate control and high-energy x-ray applications. Jason has wrote for Diesel Power and The Costa Rica News.
Support Niflheim Media:
About Niflheim Media:
Niflheim Media Places Your Idea, Product or Policy in the News: