Re: [asa] Probability of Anthropic cause for Global Climate Warming

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Sat Mar 24 2007 - 10:59:24 EDT

At 05:19 PM 3/23/2007, Dave Wallace wrote:

>Janice: For the purpose of this discussion eliminate any none human
>causes of global warming/cooling eg wobble in earths orbit,
>variation of the sun's activity, huge volcanoes and so on.
>IPCC "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
>Summary for Policymakers" Figure SPM-5, shows temperature rise
>given different scenarios with no effects from efforts like Kyoto to
>reduce the release of green house gases. I would certainly agree
>that the Kyoto protocols seem highly politicized and somewhat less
>than wise. Which scenario to choose also would appear to be subject
>to some discussion. However, lets assume that scenario B1 is what
>occurs between now and 2100 ie that greenhouse gas rises as per that
>scenario. What probability would you assign that the model and the
>physics yield correct predictions and that by 2100 global mean
>temperature would rise by 1.8degree C (ie 3.2F), plus or minus the
>(appx .4C) error bands shown on the graph? ~ Dave W

@ As I have said before, I have no confidence in the IPCC. It
represents the worst elements of incestuous relationships between
politicians, and the scientists that they seduce, as far as I'm
concerned That graph is entirely based upon the premise that CO2 is
overwhelmingly the dominant driver of climate. Each line in the graph
is therefore moot and invalid, in my opinion. CO2 may be a
contributing factor, but I suspect it is nearly negligible.

Climate science is in its infancy, and we have many decades before we
will understand all of the causes and effects sufficiently to predict
climate more than a few weeks in advance. FACT: Climate is a coupled
non-linear chaotic system and therefore long term prediction of
climate states is not possible. Even the best computer models are GIGO.

As I have posted here before (see threads on "global dinmming",
etc.), recent studies seem to indicate a much stronger Urban Heat
Island effect than admitted to by the IPCC. Their estimated of a
0.05C contribution per century is almost laughable. Some of these new
studies say that UHI could almost account for most of the alleged
rise over the past 3 decades.

I suspect that whatever warming is occurring (if any), that it is
driven by solar-related causes, some of which we have yet to begin to
understand. (See what I posted here regarding the new data just out
about new understanding of the sun's magnetic field activity revealed
by a new X-Ray telescope and the promising research in Galactic
Cosmic Ray flux (GCR Flux). No one really knows what changes are in
store from the sun. Solar activity changes can occur in cycles that
are much more likely fits to what we are seeing.

Only a fool would bet against the sun, as far as I'm concerned.

If you're interested, the Climate Science blog of Dr. Roger Pielke,
Sr. is the best place to follow
this debate because the best minds in the climate science industry post there.

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 24 11:00:13 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 24 2007 - 11:00:15 EDT