An informed analysis of IPCC errors

So how do we know that water vapor isnt the main feedback factor when it hasnt been a part of Ally's model?
The feedback may not have anything to do with CO2.
Ally says it must be CO2 because theres no other explanation.
But he hasnt considered what he doesnt know.

Water vapour caused one-third of global warming in 1990s, study reveals | Environment | The Guardian

 

I am sure the experts in the field have taken water vapor and all possible factors we can think of in their estimates.

Any number of factors that may influence temperature can be proposed instead of CO2. However, you still have to take into acct the CO2 that has been measured to be there and shown to be necessary and sufficient for the observed effect.

 

For everyone to enjoy. The latest Point of Inquiry's guest is none other than Michael Mann!

http://bit.ly/c281Up

 

The latest total atmos water vapor paper known to me (although there are others on stratospheric water vapor):

Santer et al 2007 "Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content"

doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702872104

Opening paragraph
"Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m^2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated ‘‘fingerprint’’ pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint ‘‘match’’ is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere."

It would be wrong to say that climate energy-balance models ignore effects of water vapor, but disagreement remains as to whether those effects are handled correctly. One issue is Lindzen's proposed "iris effect", which you can read about here (or many other places):​

Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog : Feature Articles​

 

I would be skeptical of any conclusions reached by Santer. He is clearly part of the Hockey Team and not above reproach. He refuses to disclose data and methodology along with the rest of the team. Indeed, they practice the science of 'we have done this work and arrived at these conclusions. The conclusions are without fault; your requests for data and method are a nuisance. How could you presume to check the validity of our work, you unworthy *%$&#!?' :

Santer Refuses Data Request Climate Audit

This ClimateAudit post refers to a different paper, of course, but the pattern is the same.

 

Back to the IPCC and the related investigation of UEA and CRU. The Institute of Physics has submitted a memorandum.

Uncorrected Evidence 39

One of the points ~

The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

 

This link doesn't work...at least for me.

 

Another try at santer et al. link:

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content ? PNAS

I see it is open access so you won't need to PM me to read it.

The atmos water measures were from satellites, and Santer et al. got it from the data processor (RSS). Maybe they had to pay for it? Maybe we'd have to do the same. I really don't know.

I certainly don't presume to tell others here whom they should or should not trust. But I must tell you, I would be more compelled by climate audit if they took one of the many data sets that are publicly available, re-analyzed it (transparently of course) and came up with a contrary conclusion.

I looked for papers published since that have cited Santer et al. here's how you do that:

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content - Google Scholar

and the first hit says cited by 26 (today) and click that link. I was looking to see whether the study has been updated (apparently not) but there is at least one citing paper that may be of interest to readers here.

SpringerLink - Journal Article

You have to cliquez to read the title etc. Unless your computer is friendly with springer, you probably won't get past the paywall. But that's why I'm here

 

This will be rejected by most here for the simple reason that it is produced by an energy company:

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Petition to the EPA: Your Agency Has No Legal Option But to Re-examine Its Endangerment Finding

It is long (200 + pages) but if one wishes to know the full extent of the lengths that the Hockey Team (or the Group or whatever one wishes to call them) went to to ensure only THEIR view was available, much of it is included here. There are plenty of footnotes and links for those interested in looking at more than one side of this issue. Nothing in this report is fabricated, it is based on solid ground.

It is abundantly clear that Santer and his cronies have an attitude that has no respect for the scientific method. It is inescapable that they are advocates rather than dispassionate seekers of truth - willing to subvert the peer-review process both in preventing the publication of contrary papers and in the promotion of inferior papers supporting their views.

While this petition is directed to the EPA, it is a powerful indictment of the IPCC, CRU, and all the players on the (hockey) team. To dismiss it out of hand is to disrespect yourself. Don't you want to know what others find so disturbing? All of this is undergoing a whitewash in certain venues. You should know the truth. Respect yourselves and your integrity. Read it all.

Tochatihu, in its pages you will find that the data you suggest is so readily available to McIntyre and others who requested it continued to be hidden and the suggestions that it was readily available were disingenuous.

 

Ben Santer - finding discernable fingerprints of anthropogenic influence and perverting science for decades:

...the biggest scandal in the IPCC’s closet remains its 1995 claim to finding a “discernible human influence” on the earth’s changing climate. Lead author Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore government laboratory inserted those words—after the IPCC’s consulting scientists had signed off on a draft that specifically said no such “human fingerprint” had been found!
Santer deliberately reversed the meaning of the whole IPCC 1995 report—and the trajectory of every IPCC document since. He claimed the rewrite was justified by two of his own studies. However, Santer’s papers “cherry-picked” the earth’s temperature record from 1963–1987, ignoring the earlier and later temperatures that didn’t confirm the Greenhouse theory! Thus the IPCC’s whole claim of a “discernible human influence” remains without scientific support to this day...

IPCC Science scandals aren’t new

A well-known ideological advocate of AGW for some time now, even when the evidence is lacking. It is, of course, not surprising that he is STILL justifying his belief.How many times will he cry 'wolf' before the real scientists catch on?