[ RadSafe ] Global Warming

Doug Aitken JAitken at slb.com
Mon May 26 13:19:26 CDT 2014

For those puzzling on the differences between the Executive Summary and body of the report, please grab a copy of the issue dated May 10th and review the article in the Science and Technology section. You may be able to access it also at http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21601813-scientists-versus-diplomats-intergovernmental-panel-climate (or just register and you will gain access....)

A few small quotes:
"..... most of the controversy is generated at the last minute, when the authors (scientists and academics) meet government officials to produce a summary of 30 or so pages. Consider the recent report, published in Berlin on April 13th, on efforts to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions......
The process was described by one participant as "exceptionally frustrating" and by another "one of the most extraordinary experiences of my academic life". It works as follows. The authors write a draft summary. Each sentence of the draft is projected onto a big screen in a giant hall. Officials then propose changes to the text; authors decide whether the changes are justified according to the full thousand-page report. Eventually a consensus is supposed to be reached, the sentence is approved or rejected, the chairman bangs a gavel and moves on to the next sentence."

" Robert Stavins, a professor at Harvard University and a lead author on the chapter in the main report dealing with international co-operation, wrote to the report's chairman "to express my disappointment and frustration". As he pointed out, most of the delegates to the IPCC are in the middle of negotiating a treaty, intended to be signed in Paris in 2015, limiting greenhouse-gas emissions. As Dr Stavins says, "any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable." It was not necessary that they should all find something objectionable. The requirement of unanimity meant one country was enough. Three-quarters of his original draft was rejected and what remains is a list of disconnected facts, not a guide to the state of knowledge."

So, the politicians got what they wanted to forward their agenda, while the scientists were effectively "muzzled"....
The only way to glean any real understanding is to wade through the full report...

Doug Aitken
QHSE Advisor, D&M Operations Support, Schlumberger Technology Corp.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Bradt, Clayton (HEALTH)
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:16 PM
To: slgawarecki at gmail.com; RADSAFE
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Global Warming

I have spent time with the publications of the IPCC, Susan. I simply don't find them that compelling. I do find that the scientific chapters tend to be a lot more tentative in their assertions than the summaries for policy makers.  The fact that the summaries are always published before the scientific chapters makes it pretty clear that there is more going on than the honest communication of the results of scientific research.

Now, computer models are central (essential) to support the hypothesis of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Without them there are only time series of proxy temperature data which show trends, or not, depending on the choice of endpoints. The proposed physical mechanism causing the warming can only be 'tested' on the computer.  In order to believe the computer models  one must believe that the physics of the earth-atmosphere-ocean system are thoroughly understood and quantitated correctly in the code. One misunderstood or missing relationship between input variables could render the programs' output meaningless. And the modelers' efforts to adjust their codes to produce results matching the data is fraught with potential bias.

But even if the computer models' predictions are generally correct (i.e. most warming in colder-drier regions like Siberia, little warming in warm-humid regions like Amazonia), they still only predict one climate parameter: temperature.  The models say nothing about precipitation, clouds, pressure, winds, etc. Yet this has not stopped the global warming enthusiast from predicting that every possible calamity known to humanity: drought, floods, hurricanes, plagues, mass extinctions, blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah, will follow ineluctably from a warmer climate. Nobody - NOBODY - predicts anything good happening because of climate change, anywhere!  I find that very hard to believe.

Even if we accept that the CO2/warming connection, and I happen to think that it is certainly plausible, it doesn't mean that the case for a pending climate catastrophe hasn't been way over-sold. I think it has, and I'm not amused by that.

Clayton Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health
clayton.bradt at health.ny.gov<mailto:clayton.bradt at health.ny.gov>

Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:39:48 -0400

From: S L Gawarecki <slgawarecki at gmail.com<mailto:slgawarecki at gmail.com>>

Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming

To: RadSafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>>


          <CABtrgkWuyT6unNSbB-RN9R1x-Pris3HwTQwmJ+UBB8YeNXwcZQ at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CABtrgkWuyT6unNSbB-RN9R1x-Pris3HwTQwmJ+UBB8YeNXwcZQ at mail.gmail.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I continue to be amused by the opinions on climate change by scientists who are not climate scientists or even earth scientists.  To understand the SCIENCE behind the conclusions about global warming, spend some time with the publications by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at http://www.ipcc.ch/ .  The Summary for Policy Makers of the 2013 report is a good place to start at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf .

More information about the RadSafe mailing list