AGW feedback loop “weaker than thought”
So, some climate scientists have published a study showing that the feared feedback loop whereby rising CO2 levels would raise temperatures which would raise CO2 levels, ad infinitum, is not as pronounced as previously believed or modeled.
It is interesting though that the scientists are very quick to discount their own research:
The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises.
Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high.
Huh? Why would that be? Let’s look at another statement they make:
The report’s lead author, David Frank from the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, told BBC News that many of the calculations for the IPCC assessment report did not include an integrated carbon cycle.
He said that if the results his paper were widely accepted, the overall effect on climate projections would be neutral.
“It might lead to a downward mean revision of those (climate) models which already include the carbon cycle, but an upward revision in those which do not include the carbon cycle.
“That’ll probably even itself out to signify no real change in the temperature projections overall,” he said.
Wait – so you are telling me that the climate models used by the IPCC don’t consider the carbon cycle? But since we know there is a carbon cycle, isn’t ignoring it questionable? Based on what Frank is saying, including the carbon cycle decreases the warming… Unless of course you wanted to amplify the warming effect for reasons other than scientific inquiry…
Since the models should incorporate the carbon cycle, it should have a downward revision of projected temperatures. But that wouldn’t get you more research money from the IPCC supporting governments now would it?
And the same reason is likely behind their “concern” remaining high… Concern for their grant money, not the climate itself.
3 Comments
This entry is filed under Climate change, Science.
You can also follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Or perhaps you're just looking for the trackback and/or the permalink.

What I find more troubling about the IPCC’s model not including the carbon cycle is that we didn’t know the IPCC’s model didn’t include a carbon cycle. Why not? In their methodology so opaque that we only know its failings when they tell us about them?
Imagine if we graded kids in school like that. “Hey, Johnny, you get an A unless you make a point of telling me that you didn’t learn anything, okay?”
So try this one.
CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our time
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf
Garbage In Garbage Out – further magnified by Garbage modeling..
You just cannot cherry pick which major climatic and environmental systems you want to model – this is ignoring the process that generated all the oil carbon we are burning now. very weird.
BTW for blow by blow coverage of climategate and my conclusions on this follow my weblink.