Comments to "Prometheus" on the IPCC TAR

On the "Prometheus" weblog, I criticized the IPCC Third Assessment Report as being "pseudoscience."

A fellow named "Kevin" responded:

"Mark - in your short (first) comment above you either have a problem with the science itself or the people (i.e. enviros) that are using science incorrectly."

No, it's neither.  I have a problem with people who call themselves "scientists," publishing pseudoscientific rubbish (intended to scare the public) in the name of science.

"...in which case you need to back up your claims of 'pseudoscience' with solid science research of your own...."

I have done solid scientific research of my own.  In my own spare time, over a mere couple hundred hours (and without any supercomputers or international conferences), I've developed ***probabilistic*** projections for future atmospheric methane concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases, that are FAR SUPERIOR to what the IPCC managed to do in their Third Assessment Report (TAR)...which involved nearly a decade of research and probably more than $100 million of taxpayer money.

The IPCC TAR laughably has "scenarios" ("stories") that have "projections" of temperature increases of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius increase from 1990 to 2100.  But they explicitly do NOT assign any probabilities to any of their scenarios, and explicitly disavow that anyone should even *try* to assign probabilities to any of their "projections."  In other words, their "projections" are as scientific as an astrology column.

Well, my research leads me to predict that, absent any further government intervention, there is a 50% chance that lower troposphere from 1990 to 2100 will be below 1.2 degrees Celsius, and that there is a 90 percent chance that the warming in the lower troposphere will be between 0 and 2.5 degrees Celsius.  In other words, I predict there is a 50/50 chance that, absent any further government intervention, warming will be less than the LOWEST value projected in the IPCC TAR.

Further, I've challenged ANY IPCC TAR author to bet me that their projections are better than my projections:

Longbets bet #181

I've also offered to pay two climate change scientists (James Annan and William Connolley) $8 for every IPCC TAR author they can even get to VOTE on the bet (the votes are free):

Money offer to James Annan and William Connolley

So far, not even a single IPCC TAR author *vote.*    

But of course, it was already clear the IPCC TAR authors wouldn't stand behind their work, because they didn't have any estimated probabilities for their "stories."  It's much better to pretend that there's a reasonable chance that the world will warm by "up to 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100."

Pseudoscientific rubbish.

Comments

[mary]

It was a great pleasure for me to visit and enjoy you site. Keep it running!| | Feels very much relieved after going through this site as it has all the material which anyone would enjoy

[Mark Bahner]

Hi Murray,

You write, "I found your website by accident a few days ago, and read all the material. I have done some similar amalysis myself and come up with rather similar conclusions. My problem is that I can't seem to find it again, and your hyperlinks lead to this blog."

Yes, I don't publicize my website very much because it's so crude. I never got around to finishing it. Also, I definitely want to take it off its current hosting site, which is a free hosting service. The problem with the free hosting service is that they make their money with popup ads. So if you don't have a popup blocker, it's a disaster. (One commenter even said that the site tried to sneak spyware onto his computer, which is awful.)

Anyway, this is the website:

http://markbahner.50g.com

I did the website several years ago. I've since updated my projections, most importantly with regard to temperature. Work by James Hansen and others has convinced (well, maybe that's too strong) me that there's probably about 0.5 degree Celsius warming in the oceans right now, which will happen no matter what. So I boosted my projected "50/50 probability" warming from 0.7 degrees Celsius, which is on my website, to 1.2 degrees Celsius, which you'll see on this weblog.

Best wishes,
Mark

[Murray Duffin]

Mark, I agree with you re IPCC pseudo science, especially their SRES. I found your website by accident a few days ago, and read all the material. I have done some similar amalysis myself and come up with rather similar conclusions. My problem is that I can't seem to find it again, and your hyperlinks lead to this blog. Two questions: what is the url for your website, what is the irl for the Wigley paper you extracted the probability projections from.
I have just done a lot of non scientific digging into another aspect of the IPCC work. Results follow. Use this material if and how you wish.
these are pretty close to "random thoughts" too.
1) http://public.ornl.gov/ameriflux/about-history.shtml
Just to set the stage:
snip"Yet, for many reasons our understanding of the global carbon
budget is incomplete. At present, 40 to 60% of the anthropogenically-
released CO2 remains in the atmosphere. We do not know, with
confidence, whether the missing half of emitted CO2 is being
sequestered in the deep oceans, in soils or in plant biomass.
Uncertainties about flows of carbon into and out of major reservoirs
also result in an inability to simulate year to year variations of
the annual increment of CO2". Snip This from a government site.
Clearly the uncertainties in GCMs are much larger than the degree of
certitude expressed by AGW advocates would suggest. We are not
dealing with linear rates of change, and the results of analyses can
change dramatically depending on the rate sensitivity of the factor
being analyzed and the time period used.

2) http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
CO2 delta in the atmosphere from 1970 through 2004 averaged 1.5
ppm/yr. From 1958 to 1974 it averaged 0.9 ppm/yr. From 1994 through
2004 it has averaged 1.8 ppm/yr. Snip "On the basis of flask
samples collected at La Jolla Pier, and analyzed by SIO, the annual-
fitted average concentration of CO2 rose from 326.86 ppmv in 1970 to
377.83 ppmv in 2004. This represents an average annual growth rate
of 1.5 ppmv per year in the fitted values at La Jolla. " snip.
That's the one site that can be seriously affected by nearby
emissions. All eight regularly measured sites track precisely. The
major measuring sites are widely spread from north to south, and the
uniform measurement results indicate that CO2 emissions are quickly
and well mixed in the atmosphere.

3) http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2002.ems
From tables accessible at 2) and 3) we can do some decadal average
annual analysis as:
Decade 1 2 3 4 5
Years '54-63 '64-'73 '74-'83 '84-'93 '94-`03
Ave,annual fuel emissions (Gt/yr) 2.4 3.4 5.0 6.0 6.7
Percent change decade to decade 42 47 20 12
Ave.annual atmos. onc'n delta (ppm/yr) 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.8
Atmos. conc'n delta per Gt emission (ppB) 333 324 280 250 270
Implied atmospheric retention (Gt) 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.1 3.7
Airborne fraction (%) 71 68 58 52 55
Ocean uptake from fuel (Gt) 0.7 1.1 2.1 2.9 3.0
Deforestation factor (%) guestimate* 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.15
Total emissions (Gt) 2.5 3.6 5.5 6.7 7.7
Airborne fraction of total (%) 68 64 53 46 48
Ocean uptake total (Gt) 0.8 1.3 2.6 3.6 4.0
*The above fuel emissions from 3) do not include any factor for
deforestation/land use. Recent total emissions have been estimated
by AGW advocates as slightly less than 8 Gt/yr total, giving about
an additional 15% for deforestation/land use. As deforestation is to
a degree linked to third world population, we can assume that factor
was sequentially lower going back to prior decades. Using a higher
factor for prior decades won't change anything much. Column 3 fuel
emissions data corresponds almost exactly with IPCC SAR figures.

While total average annual emissions have gone up by a factor of 3,
ocean uptake has gone up by a factor of 5. That is hardly consistent
with slow mixing or near saturation of surface waters. What seems to
be happening is that increasing atmospheric partial pressure is
increasing the rate of ocean uptake with the rate of increase slowed
by surface warming/acidification. We can expect a large emissions
increase for the next decade, with corresponding relatively large
increase in partial pressure. It remains to be seen how much of that
will be offset.
The decade to decade rate of increase in fuel emissions has declined
very rapidly, from mid 40s% to about 12%. Based on the last couple
of years, one could expect the decade '04-'13 to have total average
annual emissions in the order of 9.0 Gt, with total fuel emissions
near 7.6 Gt, (a decadal increase of 13%) and with an airborne
fraction near 45%. After that, with declining petroleum, CO2
sequestration for tertiary petroleum recovery, and rising fuel
prices driving major accelerations of efficiency, nuclear and
renewables, the annual emissions to the atmosphere are likely to
begin declining, and to reach a very low level by 2060 or so. The
IPCC 50% probability estimate (Wigley et al) is very close to 7.5 Gt
near 2010, but goes to 15 Gt by 2060, requiring a compound growth
rate of 15% per decade, which isn't going to happen.

4) http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html snip Q. How long does it
take for the oceans and terrestrial biosphere to take up carbon
after it is burned?
A. For a single molecule of CO2 released from the burning of a pound
of carbon, say from burning coal, the time required is 3-4 years.
This estimate is based on the carbon mass in the atmosphere and up
take rates for the oceans and terrestrial biosphere. Model estimates
for the atmospheric lifetime of a large pulse of CO2 has been
estimated to be 50-200 years (i.e., the time required for a large
injection to be completely dampened from the atmosphere). Snip
This range seems to be an actual range depending on time frame,
rather than the uncertainty among models. [See (5) below].

5) http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a2398.htm
For the above decades 1 through 5, we have now had 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0
half lives respectively. From 3) and 5) and using an average half
life of 11 years, (based on real 14C measurement) we get a total
remaining injection in 2004 from the prior 5 decades of 139 Gt,
which equates to an increase in atmospheric concentration of 66 ppm.
The actual increase from 1954 to 2004 was very near 63 ppm. This
result lends some credibility to the 50 year atmospheric residence
time estimate. [See (9) below]. A 200 year residence time gives an
81 ppm delta since 1954, which is much too high.
Surprisingly, if we go all the way back to 1750 and compute the
residence time using fuel emissions only we get a value very close
to 200 years. (A 40 year ½ life gives a ppm delta of 99 vs an actual
of 96 using 280 ppm as the correct value in 1750). If we assume that
terrestrial uptake closely matches land use emissions, (this is
essentially the IPCC assumption), and we know that the airborne
fraction from 1964 through 2003 had a weighted average of 58%, to
shift to a long term 40 year ½ life from a near term 11 year ½ life,
we would have to have prior 40 year period weighted average airborne
fractions like 80% for '24-'63, and 90%-100% before that. Since
emissions in the last 40 years have been 3 times higher than in the
period from 1924 to 1963 and 30 times higher than 1844 to 1883 it is
not too hard to believe that the rapid growth in atmospheric partial
pressure has forced such a change in airborne fraction.
With rising SSTs we can expect the partial pressure forced rate of
ocean uptake to be offset to a growing degree. As emission rates
decline in the future, and with the delayed impact of ocean warming
the half life can be expected to begin growing again but it seems
very unlikely that the residence time for a pulse of CO2 would get
back to 200 years.

6) http://www.hamburger-bildungsserver.de/welcome.phtml?
unten=/klima/klimawandel/treibhausgase/carbondioxid/surfaceocean.html
Here we find a nice description of atmosphere/ocean interchange
mechanisms, with the major fault that it gives the impression that
the exchange magnitudes are well known. While this was published
sometime after 2001, the net ocean uptake from the atmosphere shown
would be roughly correct for about the mid `70s, and has since well
more than doubled, (see above) despite surface warming. This would
suggest that a near surface increase in ocean carbon concentration
considerably upsets the exchange between the surface and deeper
ocean waters. It seems possible that carbon fertilization plus
warming considerably accelerate growth of ocean biota. The IPCC
downplay this possibility, but do not outright deny it, which
suggests a fairly high degree of probability to me.

7) http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/105.htm
From the IPCC TAR we read snip In principle, there is sufficient
uptake capacity (see Box 3.3) in the ocean to incorporate 70 to 80%
of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, even when total
emissions of up to 4,500 PgC (4500 Gt) are considered (Archer et
al., 1997).snip. That's a 3400 Gt sink capacity, and we are talking
about sinking less than another 1000 Gt at a rate of about 4 Gt/yr
peak, for a very few years at peak rate. However, the 3400 Gt
additional capacity, which would add less than 10% to the ocean
inventory seems like a very low value for 3 reasons. First the
equilibrium concentration [see 8) below] is more than 3x the present
concentration. Second, atmospheric concentrations were at least 5
times higher 100 million years ago, so seawater concentrations can
be that much higher also. Third, experiments to test CO2 clathrate
hydrate formation see formation at dissolved CO2 concentrations two
orders of magnitude higher than the present concentration.
Since 1900 total anthropogenic carbon emission has been about 300
Gt, (about 83% since 1945) of which about 170 are still in the
atmosphere. In the next century, net emissions to the atmosphere may
be no more than another 400 Gt., which would likely add less than
another 90 ppm of atmospheric concentration. The idea that we are
saturating the ocean sink is not even remotely consistent with
available numbers.
The IPCC goes on to say snip The finite rate of ocean mixing,
however, means that it takes several hundred years to access this
capacity (Maier-Reimer and Hasselmann, 1987; Enting et al., 1994;
Archer et al., 1997). Chemical neutralisation of added CO2 through
reaction with CaCO3 contained in deep ocean sediments could
potentially absorb a further 9 to 15% of the total emitted amount,
reducing the airborne fraction of cumulative emissions by about a
factor of 2; however the response time of deep ocean sediments is in
the order of 5,000 years (Archer et al., 1997) snip. They then show
a CO2 system diagram with sediment take up of 0.2 Gt/yr. The present
airborne fraction of 170 Gt would be taken up by the total system
in only 800 years at that rate.
The SAR shows a net sink from atmosphere to ocean of about 2.2
Gt/yr. The problem here is that the level of uncertainty in the rate
of ocean mixing, and in how that rate might change, is greater than
the rate at which we are injecting carbon. [See 1) above]. The IPCC
doesn't discuss uncertainty. The increase we have already seen in
the rate of ocean uptake [3) above] is 2x this number, but the
difference is only 1% of the estimated round trip exchange.
For reference, also from the IPCC SAR we can find the following
carbon inventory and exchange estimates. These were finalized in
1994, but some data may be base on mid `70s estimates.
a) Inventory
Intermediate and Deep ocean – 38,100 Gt; terrestrial soil, biota and
detritus – 2190 Gt; surface ocean (down to about 400 m max) 1020 Gt;
atmosphere – 750 Gt; ocean sediments – 150 Gt; marine biomass – 3
Gt. That's a total of 42,213 Gt, excluding carbonaceous rock. I find
the level of precision amusing.
b) Annual Exchanges
Anthropogenic emissions to atmosphere - 5.5 Gt.
Atmosphere to surface ocean – 92Gt, surface ocean to atmosphere - 90
Gt, net to ocean – 2 Gt.
Surface ocean to marine biota - 50 Gt, reverse – 40 Gt; marine biota
to deep ocean - 9 Gt; marine biota to DOC -1 Gt
Surface ocean to deep ocean - 92 Gt; reverse – 100 Gt; deep ocean to
sediments 0.2 Gt; net ocean uptake 2.2 Gt.

8) http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/oceans/ndp_065/appendix065.html
There is a huge volume of data about the concentration of CO2 in
seawater, including variability with both depth and latitude. The
above reference is for the south Pacific. Data for the south
Atlantic showing variability with depth, but not with latitude is
also available. The present concentration is about 25 mg/kg (2100
umol/kg). The variation in concentration, by both depth and latitude
is similar in both bodies, varying about +-7% around the mean, with
localized excursions up to +-13%. Since atmospheric concentration
has increased about 32% in the last 150 years, and about 25% in the
last 50 years, one would expect much greater variation in oceanic
concentration if the take-up by the deep ocean is slow. CO2
concentration varies directly with salinity, and inversely with
temperature. Greatest concentrations are at depth (1500 to 2500 m),
and at higher latitudes. The equatorial regions are spoken of as a
source for CO2, which must be a function of temperature as is the
slightly lower surface concentrations. Heavy rainfall in the tropics
may also contribute to reduced concentration. High latitudes are
spoken of in the TAR as having "CO2 rich upwellings", which is
consistent with the observed data, but not consistent with the claim
of slow mixing between surface and deep water. In deep, dark, cold
waters, one would expect very slow local oxidation, so the likely
source of deep water concentration would seem to be rapid transport
from the surface, by the likes of the Atlantic Conveyer.
Concentration would increase with both increasing salinity and
decreasing temperature as the conveyer moves north.
There is essentially no variation with longitude except for the
depth of the isolines in deeper waters. Curiously the partial
pressure reaches a maximum at mid depths. Are currents near the
bottom carrying mixed relatively younger surface water with the
lower partial pressures?

9)
http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/02SprgClass/geo117/lectures/Lect18.ht
ml
Atmospheric gases in sea water
-- saturation = equilibrium
Molecule Percent in atmosphere Equilibrium concentration in seawater (mg per kg seawater)
N2 78% 12.5
O2 21% 7
Ar 1% 0.4
CO2 0.03% 90
In surface sea water, atmospheric gases are close to
their "saturation" concentration (or equilibrium concentration). But
note that CO2 has a much higher solubility (equilibrium
concentration) than the other gases.

10) http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/paleo/ocean/node37.html -
snip Thermocline - Specifically the depth at which the temperature
gradient is a maximum. Generally a layer of water with a more
intensive vertical gradient in temperature than in the layers either
above or below it. When measurements do not allow a specific depth
to be pinpointed as a thermocline a depth range is specified and
referred to as the thermocline zone. The depth and thickness of
these layers vary with season, latitude and longitude, and local
environmental conditions. In the midlatitude ocean there is a
permanent thermocline residing between 150-900 meters below the
surface, a seasonal thermocline that varies with the seasons
(developing in spring, becoming stronger in summer, and disappearing
in fall and winter), and a diurnal thermocline that forms very near
the surface during the day and disappears at night. There is no
permanent thermocline present in polar waters, although a seasonal
thermocline can usually be identified. The basic dynamic balance
that maintains the permanent thermocline is thought to be one
between the downward diffusive transport of heat and the upward
convective transport of cold water from great depths. Snip There is
a lot of variability evident in that quote, that makes giving firm
single figure values pretty questionable.
The mid latitude permanent thermocline has a maximum extent from
about 40 degrees north to 40 degrees south. At latitudes above about
60 degrees there is usually no thermocline. The depth of the top of
the thermocline can be from about 20 meters to about 400 meters, and
the thickness can vary from less than 100 meters to about 400
meters. The depth of the bottom of the thermocline varies from less
than 100 meters to about 900-1000 meters. The IPCC gives an average
depth of the thermocline of 400 meters, but do not define whether
they are considering top, middle or bottom. They seem to be taking
the average depth of the top as 200 meters and the thickness as 400
meters average , but these would be very rough estimates at best,
and could hardly justify the 3 significant digits they use.
Depth and thickness vary quite rapidly with both areal location and
time, with time generally from hours to seasons, or in the case of
ENSO to years. In a given location the thermocline depth can move up
and down by 10s of meters diurnally and 100s of meters in a season,
or, as noted above, can disappear altogether. Also in the near
equatorial Pacific, where the thermocline is normally well
established, there is also the well established "equatorial cold
tongue", a huge upwelling of cold water far from the high latitudes.
The average depth of the oceans is generally taken as 4000 meters.
The IPCC estimates the upper mixed layer as holding 2.6% of the
total ocean CO2, (1020 of 39,120 Gt) which implies near 2.6% of the
water or an average depth of 200 meters if it is taken to exist
under 50% of the ocean surface. They refer to the water above the
thermocline as the "mixed layer" and consider the thermocline as a
barrier that severely limits mixing between the intermediate and
deep ocean. The intermediate layer is the thermocline zone. The deep
ocean contains 90% of the total water, so the intermediate zone must
be assumed to hold about 2.5% also where it exists. The other 5% of
the water is in the upper 10% of the depth, where there is no
thermocline.
There are major mixing mechanisms between surface and deep ocean
other than diffusion through the thermocline. These include wave
motion in the "furious fifties and screaming sixties" of the
southern oceans, the giant delayed oscillator of the equatorial
pacific, major sinks and upwellings, the Atlantic conveyer and the
Antarctic Circumpolar Current. The surge at depth from passing
swells can be felt clearly at a depth where the swell causes a 10%
depth change, and can be detected at 5%. In the screaming 60s, where
winter can find 1000 mile wavetrains of 20 meter waves, mixing can
be expected to 400 meters. [This is consistent with Fig 4 in 11)
below]. The ACC alone moves water at the rate of 130 million cubic
meters per second, which is enough to exchange the entire Atlantic
ocean in about 100 years. The IPCC says the thermocline is the cause
of slow mixing between surface and deep waters. With it's degree of
variability in depth, extent and time it is more likely a mechanism
of fairly rapid mixing.
The total surface layer to about 200 meters depth, must hold near
5% of the total CO2 vs the 2.6% represented by the IPCC, and near
half of the 5% must mix much more rapidly than the estimate used by
the IPCC for the 2.6% they consider. Their exchange rate of about
100 Gt/yr between surface and intermediate/deep ocean is probably
underestimated by a min. factor of 2 and maybe as much as 4 or 5.
The differential between up and down transfer can easily be
understated by an even larger factor. This would account for the
observed ocean uptake rate of CO2 from the atmosphere, which is
already 2x the IPCC estimate.

Wherever there is a great range of uncertainty in estimates, the
IPCC seems to choose the extreme that will paint the most perilous
picture. AGW advocates seem prone to this selective behaviour.

11) http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-8/captions/p30cap4.html See
fig. 4
The first thing to note about Fig. 4 is that there is no evidence at
all of a thermocline barrier at near 200 m depth. At 30 degrees S in
the Pacific the 50 umol/kg concentration extends to beyond 400 m and
at about 20 degrees N in the N Pacific the 40 umol/kg concentration
gets to 400 m. The mid latitude Pacific is relatively warm, has
relatively low saline concentration and can therefore be expected to
have relatively low total CO2 concentration. Forty umol/ kg would be
about 2% anthropogenic CO2. The surface share of anthropogenic CO2
is about 2.5% in this region. Even though this is the zone that
should have the strongest permanent thermocline, the anthropogenic
concentration is well mixed way below the expected thermocline
depth. In the colder and saltier N Atlantic, in the region which
should at least have seasonal thermoclines, (30 to 60 degrees N), we
find the anthropogenic share at 1.7% (65% of surface share) at a
depth of 1200 m.
We didn't get to an ocean uptake equal to 10% of the last decade
until about 1900, and yet we find the anthropogenic share equal to
10% of the surface share at a depth of >5000 m in the N. Atlantic.
The Atlantic conveyer is certainly sinking surface anthropogenic CO2
emissions to the ocean bottom in less than a century.
Since we have no longitudinal distribution, it may seem questionable
to try and estimate the total Gt of anthropogenic CO2 in the oceans
from Fig 4. However we know that there is little longitudinal
variation in the Pacific, and probably the S. Atlantic is similar.
In the N. Atlantic the share would be lower than shown to the west,
but given that the N. Atlantic is much more saline than the N.
Pacific, still higher than the N. Pacific. A rough estimate would be
120-140 Gt. Since we have emitted about 310 Gt since 1750, and about
>170 Gt is still in the atmosphere, the total ocean uptake is about
130-140 Gt, so this figure looks pretty realistic.
If we accept Fig 4., which is based on measurement, then we have to
conclude that the ICPP contention of slow mixing to the deep ocean
because of the thermocline barrier is simply wrong.

[Mark Bahner]

I noted that the IPCC TAR stated:

"The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100."

I then asked 9 questions about the various probabilities that could be determined from that statement and the IPCC TAR, e.g.:

7) Does the IPCC think there is more than a 99 percent chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 degrees Celsius, or

8) Does the IPCC think there is more than a 99 percent chance that the warming will be more than 5.8 degrees Celsius?

On his blog, Kevin Vranes replied:

http://www.nosenada.org/cblog/index.php?/archives/19-screaming-about-nothing.html#comments

"The questions you ask just aren't interesting to me, nor is the debate you're fishing for. Truthfully, I think your questions are irrelevant."

Well, I've read some pretty remarkable things in my evaluations of climate change. But that's probably the most remarkable thing I've ever read! (Especially considering it comes from someone with a PhD in climatology.)

You think it's *irrelevant* whether there's virtually 100 percent chance that the warming will be LESS than 1.4 degrees Celsius, or virtually 100 percent chance that the warming will be MORE than 5.8 degrees Celsius?(!!!)

How can that possibly be?

[Mark Bahner]

Kevin (Vranes) writes, "Please explain in detail for me and your audience…"

"1) all the people you are referring to 'who call themselves 'scientists,''"

I'm referring to everyone who was involved in the IPCC Third Assessment Report’s (TAR’s) projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resulting temperature increases, who have not denounced those projections as rubbish. Start with the head of the IPCC at the time, Robert Watson, and work on down.

"2) exactly which peer-reviewed papers fall under your category of 'publishing pseudoscientific rubbish'"

The published IPCC TAR projections are pseudoscientific rubbish:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm

"3) specifically which passages in those peer-reviewed papers or reports are '(intended to scare the public)'"

See scenarios A1F1, A2, A1B.

Also see this sentence: "The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/008.htm

[Mark Bahner]

Kevin Vranes writes, "So you came up with some probabilities and the TAR didn't. Congratulations!"

That's an astoundingly cavalier attitude. It is especially astounding as I understand you have a PhD in physical oceanography and climatology!

http://www2.umt.edu/Geology/faculty/vranes/vranes_bio.html

Here is a statement from the IPCC TAR:

"The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100."

Given that statement, ****and all the other material you can find in the TAR,**** please answer the following questions as "True," "False," or "Don't Know":

1) The IPCC thinks that there is an approximately 50/50 chance that the warming will be less than 3.6 degrees Celsius.

2) The IPCC thinks that there is an approximately 50/50 chance that the warming will be less than 3.1 degrees Celsius.

3) The IPCC thinks that there is less than a 10 percent chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 degrees Celsius.

4) The IPCC thinks that there is less than a 10 percent chance that the warming will be more than 5.8 degrees Celsius.

5) The IPCC thinks that there is more than a 50/50 chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 degrees Celsius,

6) The IPCC thinks that there is more than a 50/50 chance that the warming will be more than 5.8 degrees Celsius.

7) The IPCC thinks that there is more than a 99 percent chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 degrees Celsius.

8) The IPCC thinks that there is more than a 99 percent chance that the warming will be more than 5.8 degrees Celsius.

Finally, a short answer (or essay!) question: What is the IPCC TAR's estimate of the most probable value for warming from 1990 to 2100, in degrees Celsius?

[Mark Bahner]

Kevin writes, "dats(sic) funny, "Mark". it's not like i(sic) was hiding -- i(sic) am the only Kevin that(sic) ever comments on Prometheus"

I have no idea how many Kevins comment on Prometheus. That's part of why I put "Kevin" in quotation marks.

"...and I'm a regular author (as in "K. Vranes" on the authors sidebar)..."

Well, if you'd comment as "K. Vranes," I might know that you are "K. Vranes". Or if your signature as "Kevin" linked to your webpage as an author on Prometheus, I'd know that you are an author on Prometheus. As it is, your signature links to “nosenada.org,” rather than anything on Prometheus.

Frankly, I'm surprised to find you're an author on Prometheus. My only previous experience with authors on Prometheus was with Roger Pielke, Jr. His manner is unfailingly polite, and "all business." He's a real class act.

["kevin"]

dats funny, "Mark". it's not like i was hiding -- i am the only Kevin that ever comments on Prometheus and I'm a regular author (as in "K. Vranes" on the authors sidebar) there with a brief bio, a link to my UMT website which links to my blog.

You haven't done anything to explain further your use of the "pseudo" label. So you came up with some probabilities and the TAR didn't. Congratulations! Does that make all of climatology "pseudoscience?" Please explain in detail for me and your audience:

1) all the people you are referring to "who call themselves 'scientists,'"

2) exactly which peer-reviewed papers fall under your category of "publishing pseudoscientific rubbish"

3) specifically which passages in those peer-reviewed papers or reports are "(intended to scare the public)"