Mr. Peterman's Jan. 31 opinion piece on Mr. Pandelidis' guest column (Dec. 29) is interesting and deserves some analysis. He takes Mr. Pandelidis to task regarding the IPCC composition (politicians and bureaucrats vs. scientists). The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not the Interscientific Panel on Climate Change. Although the Working Groups are composed and led by scientists, their final product is shaped by government apparatchiks. Considering how many column-inches newspapers devote to this topic, it is clear climate change moved a long time ago from scientific debate in peer-reviewed publications to political debate with strident voices.But let’s back up a bit. The IPCC’s charter from the outset has been ”to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.” The IPCC (more accurately: the research community) is not looking significantly at natural variability causes, and given the full-court research press on human-induced factors, research monies are wanting in that area. The climate has always changed, and it has been both hotter and cooler in the past before the rise of mankind’s industry. It would be good to know why. Considering we are exiting from the Little Ice Age, it is not surprising things are warming.
The debate is the degree to which anthropogenic forces stack up against natural forces. That debate is far from settled. The significant slowdown over the last 18 years in global average temperature increases, despite over one-fifth of all human CO2 ever emitted going into the atmosphere, is fostering increasing doubt on the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used to underpin the IPCC conclusions.
This was noted in the final draft of the most recent Assessment Report (AR5) Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the IPCC: “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years.” Unfortunately, when government representatives (vs. the scientists) released the final SPM, this language was removed. And Mr. Peterman wonders about Mr. Pandelidis’ skepticism?
Mr. Peterman goes on about the hypothesis of climate change (I would suggest the evidence is too weak to term it a theory) and Arrhenius. While the basic physics of the greenhouse effect are well understood, the modeled effect on the climate requires the introduction of feedback loops and amplification, notably water vapor. Some of these feedbacks are poorly understood. Consider the language by Working Group 1 of AR5: ”The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations. ”
Translation: despite significant expenditure of resources, we cannot further narrow climate sensitivities (that is, the change in temperature in response to various forcing factors) and still don’t understand clouds. In fact, scientists are unsure on whether the feedback from clouds is positive or negative.
The climate models are increasingly diverging from the observed temperature record; they fail the engineering test of usability through a lack of validation and verification. From an engineering perspective, models behaving this way would be in the dustbin. Instead, we have zealots that want to reshape the regulatory state and energy economy on the basis of such shabby models. Unbelievable.
The debate is the degree to which anthropogenic forces stack up against natural forces. That debate is far from settled. The significant slowdown over the last 18 years in global average temperature increases, despite over one-fifth of all human CO2 ever emitted going into the atmosphere, is fostering increasing doubt on the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used to underpin the IPCC conclusions.
This was noted in the final draft of the most recent Assessment Report (AR5) Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the IPCC: “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years.” Unfortunately, when government representatives (vs. the scientists) released the final SPM, this language was removed. And Mr. Peterman wonders about Mr. Pandelidis’ skepticism?
Mr. Peterman goes on about the hypothesis of climate change (I would suggest the evidence is too weak to term it a theory) and Arrhenius. While the basic physics of the greenhouse effect are well understood, the modeled effect on the climate requires the introduction of feedback loops and amplification, notably water vapor. Some of these feedbacks are poorly understood. Consider the language by Working Group 1 of AR5: ”The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations. ”
Translation: despite significant expenditure of resources, we cannot further narrow climate sensitivities (that is, the change in temperature in response to various forcing factors) and still don’t understand clouds. In fact, scientists are unsure on whether the feedback from clouds is positive or negative.
The climate models are increasingly diverging from the observed temperature record; they fail the engineering test of usability through a lack of validation and verification. From an engineering perspective, models behaving this way would be in the dustbin. Instead, we have zealots that want to reshape the regulatory state and energy economy on the basis of such shabby models. Unbelievable.
