Science and Technology verdict

[marchesarosa]

From Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) has published a briefing paper on weather and climate. I've had a quick glance, and this caught my attention.

Natural forms of climate variability are likely to be the main influence on the UK’s climate over the next few decades.

Who knew?

more here bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/3/note-it-post.html

[marchesarosa]

Also from POST,

"Natural forms of climate variability are likely temporarily to enhance or to mask the gradual global warming this century."

More "hidden heat" that may go missing in time.

[marchesarosa]

From lapogus


It really is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, not to conclude that 97% of climate scientists and modellers are just making it all up as they go along.

[marchesarosa]

Feb 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM | Robin Guenier


Perhaps someone can help me. Here's an extract from the POST note:

... the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased from 280 parts per million (ppm) in 1850 to 390 ppm in 2011 ... GHGs trap energy that would otherwise escape into space and so increase the amount of energy in the climate system. They are very likely to have caused much of the observed increase, of around 0.5°C, in globally averaged surface temperature over the last 50 years.

Well, "the last 50 years" were 1962-2011 and, during that period, (according to HadCRUT data) global temperature increased by 0.39 deg C and (according to NOAA data) atmospheric CO2 by 74 ppm. So, at first sight, the note’s "very likely" seems at least plausible. But the record for the previous 50 years appears to undermine that: for 1912-1961, the same sources indicate a temperature increase of 0.52 deg C (significantly greater than for 1962-2011) and a CO2 increase of only 18 ppm (considerably less).

That suggests to me that increased CO2, far from being “very likely” the cause of increased temperature, in reality has little to do with it.

Am I missing something?

(Incidentally, these data also indicate that the common claim that global temperatures are accelerating is wrong.)

[marchesarosa]

The money shot highlighted on page 2 of the paper:

Predictions of regional climate change for the next few decades are characterised by high uncertainty, but this uncertainty is potentially reducible through investments in climate science.

I'll translate. We have no idea what's going on but give us more money and we'll spend it but it's very likely we won't be any the wiser after we've spent it.

Feb 3, 2012 at 8:07 PM | Billy Liar