Lockforward’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sea Level and Temp

  Thanks for your reply, Andrew.

  On closer examination, I think you are right about temp, but not sea level. Look at chart 5d on p.14 in the TAR. The outer perimeters of each seem to be the extreme ends of the models, and thus a closer statistical match to range and not the best estimate numbers in the 2007  report.

  Likewise, 5e, dealing with sea level, is in the same format, and yields the 8 to 99 cm. range. As you note, the 2007 IPCC gives no best estimate of the models, only their range, and thus the 2007 18-59cm range seems to be the statistical twin of the 2001 8-99 cm range. That a "best estimate" range would take that upper end even lower than 59 cm is even more encouraging, though such a range would not be   comparable to the 2001 range.

  So, while I'm encouraged by the lowering of the best estimate range for temps, your point is well taken. It does appear, however, that a substantial downward revision has occured for projected sea level increases.

  What do you think?

  Regards,

  BillOn Just as misleading as the old round posted 2 years, 9 months ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Weekly Standard and the IPCC

  The following was omitted from the 4th para regarding "Temperature Increase" at the place where an ellipsis appears.

  2007 IPCC - 1.8 C - 4.0 C

  http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf On Just as misleading as the old round posted 2 years, 9 months ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Weekly Standard and the IPCC

  The following was omitted from the 2nd para regarding "Sea Level" at the place where an ellipsis appears.

   In 2007, the range has been tightened to 18 to 59 cm (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) (see p. 13)On Just as misleading as the old round posted 2 years, 9 months ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Weekly Standard and the 2007 IPCC

  Only The Weekly Standard knows for certain what it was referring to, but I imagine it went well beyond the particular point you made about radiative forcing.Much more significant were abandonment of the "hockey stick", and  the substantial downward revisions in estimate ranges for sea level and temperature increases over the 21st century.

  Sea Level

  In the 2001 IPCC, the range given for the projected sea-level rise was 8 to 99 cm ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf) (see p. 16). In ... (see p. 13) . As I'm sure you know, 59 cm =23.2 in., less than two feet, and not even 10% of the 20 ft. scare tactic Mr. Gore employed in "An Inconvenient Truth". Following the release of the report, the relevant government agencies in Netherlands, along with the Maldives the lowest - lying nation on earth, have concluded that the country can accomodate not only the upper end of the IPCC sea level range, but also an increase of 1 meter per century with the nation's "existing techniques and the current level of expenditure on coastal protection".

  http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id= ...

  Incidentally, the sea level rose about 20 cm in the 1900s, and a much less technologically advanced human society than the one we will see in the 21st century handled that increase pretty much without skipping a beat.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#_note-0

  Temperature Increase

  The 2007 IPCC's sharply revised downward its range for the projected rise in temperature by 2100. Note the contrast between the downward revision to the upper end of the estimate range (1.8 C) and the upward revision to the lower end of the range (.4 C).

  2001 IPCC- 1.4 C - 5.8 C

  http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf(see p. 13)

  200 ...  (see. p. 13, Table SPM-3)

  Now, though it won't pass the giggle test, you may argue that the IPCC was unduly influenced by the oil cabal, but then that would be you attacking the IPCC, not the Weekly Standard, right?

  Mr. Dressler, there is no debate that we are in a warming trend, and there is a diminishing debate, it would appear, about the role of human influence on the warming trend. But there is an enormous debate on the actual scope of the problem, what could realistically be done to influence it, and where we should prioritize it relative to the host of other problems we face. Do we, as Mr. Gore recommends, essentially shut down industrial society by prematurely forcing the abandonment of the internal combustion engine, at the expense of the world's economy and the resources and wealth it would otherwise generate to address issues of poverty, hunger, disease, and perhaps even more pressing environmental problems which have the added dimension of being provably real? Or do we take rational and sufficient steps to make adjustments suggested by a calm and objective appraisal of the best scientific thinking on climate change? Contrary to the liturgy of the moment, that debate is far from "over", and it is one well worth having without resorting to personal disparagement of those with differing opinions. On Just as misleading as the old round posted 2 years, 9 months ago 15 Responses