Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You ignored that your precious scientific body on global warming the IPCC was just proven WRONG. So wrong in fact that their promotion of the concept that hurricanes were being directly effected by global warming is what caused resignations from the IPCC.
You support them like you support a political ideology but you don't understand the science, thats obvious. As of right now the score is dentist 1 IPCC and political operative who only posts in political thread on TFP 0 when it comes to supposed effect of global warming (did I hurt anyones feelings by not saying climate change?).
|
Ustwo....are you open to other analyses of the recent Knutson study or are you so set in your political ideology that you wont even consider such possibilities.
Quote:
Of most fundamental significance to assessing the reliability of these current projections, in our view, is the "junk in/junk out" factor. The detailed projections made using either the RCM approach of Knutson et al or the 'random seeding' approach of Emanuel et al, can only be as good as the large-scale scenarios used to drive them. And since key aspects of those large-scale scenarios as far as Atlantic TC activity is concerned (i.e. what really happens to the ENSO mean state and amplitude of variability) are currently not confidently known, neither can we be confident using the model projections to say what will happen to Atlantic TC activity in the future.
....we have to consider the entirety of currently available evidence that can inform our assessment of climate change impacts on Atlantic TCs. We know, for example, from the work of Santer et al. that the warming trend in the tropical Atlantic cannot be explained without anthropogenic impacts on the climate. Knutson et al. do not contest this. Furthermore, they do not dispute that the late 20th century increase in Atlantic TC frequency is tied to large-scale SST trends (though they argue that the influence may be non-local rather than local). So we know that (i) the warming is likely in large part anthropogenic, and (ii) that the recent increases in TC frequency are related to that warming.] It hardly seems a leap of faith to put two-and-two together and conclude that there is likely a relationship between anthropogenic warming and increased Atlantic TC activity.
What Knutson et al are asking us to do in essence is to put all that aside (because, they argue–in short–that its not the warming but the pattern of warming that matters here) and instead take on faith the perhaps not-much-more-than 50/50 proposition that the mean changes in ENSO state and variability projected by the IPCC multimodel ensemble (which are a key determinant in the projected future Atlantic TC activity) should be trusted.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...nes-yet-again/
|
I dont claim to have expertise. What I do have is a capacity to read various analyses and assess their objectivity to the best of my ability.
You find one study that you agree with and immediately determine that the
IPCC HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG. Sorry, that approach doesnt work for me.
You're the expert...so what do you find to be invalid with this Real Climate analysis of Knutson? Particularly this statement:
We know, for example, from the work of Santer et al. that the warming trend in the tropical Atlantic cannot be explained without anthropogenic impacts on the climate. Knutson et al. do not contest this. Furthermore, they do not dispute that the late 20th century increase in Atlantic TC (tropical cyclone) frequency is tied to large-scale SST (sea surface temperatures) trends (though they argue that the influence may be non-local rather than local). So we know that (i) the warming is likely in large part anthropogenic, and (ii) that the recent increases in TC frequency are related to that warming.
Doc...Are you one of the 31,000 "scientists" who signed the OISM petition? It certainly is impossible to tell since their list of signators only has names...no titles, no organization/university affiliation, no contact info....in fact, no way to verify.