10 thoughts on “Ex-IPCC Head: Prepare for 5°C Warmer World”
“The University of East Anglia has appointed Dr Bob Watson, environment advisor to the World Bank, as a new research professor from 1 August 2007 on an open appointment. Professor Watson will move full-time to the UK and one of his primary roles at UEA will be to help the strategic development of the Centre into the period beyond 2009.” (UEA Press Release at the time)
CV from World Bank, (no longer on-line):
“Dr. Robert T. Watson is the Chief Scientist and Director for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (ESSD) at the World Bank.
Prior to joining the World Bank, Dr. Watson was Associate Director for Environment in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President in the White House, (Clinton-Gore). Prior to joining the White House, Dr. Watson was Director of the Science Division and Chief Scientist for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).” (I think the title says it all…)
He is one of Al Gore’s favourite scientists, (after Hansen of course). He was appointed to his current job after the sudden announcement that founding Tyndall Director, Mike Hulme, was leaving for ” a year’s sabbatical”. (He had been going off message for some time). Co-incidentally Al Gore had been in the UK not long before Watson’s appointment.
In October 2007, Watson was praising Gore: “We need an advocate such as Al Gore to help present the work of scientists across the world,” said Bob Watson, former chairman of the IPCC and a top federal climate science adviser to the Clinton-Gore Administration.
Jack Gibbons, Watson’s former boss at the White House, read aloud a letter written to Watson by Al Gore. In this letter, Gore calls Watson his “hero of the planet,” commends him on his incredible career and contributions, and congratulates him on his new jobs. Gibbons also spoke about the challenges facing scientists whose scientific evidence is often viewed not as strict science but as efforts to steer policy.
So he left the World Bank and the UK got him as Chief Scientific Advisor to DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and Director of (Propaganda) Strategy at Tyndall.
David, not so simple. Doing that assumes that there are no effects other than CO2 and its feedbacks. That’s not only a bad assumption, but almost certainly wrong. Probably on the high side since we are recovering from the Little Ice Age.
However, since you insist
Log2(360 ppm/260 ppm) *1.2C = 0.56C Raw Temperature rise due to CO2
Real Temperature Rise = 0.7 C
Feedback = 1.2
Again, this is almost certainly a significant overestimate.
Look, the actual science of CAGW is the Stefan-Boltzmann 1.2 degrees C warming from doubling CO2 levels …… plus feedbacks. So unless there’s some challenge to SB, the question is “what are the feedbacks — in fact?” Now we’ve had warming periods recently (like 1984-2004) during periods where we have the ability to accurately measure and indeed the actual measurements of these alleged feedbacks. So has there been research on this? … and if so, what’s the result?… and if not, why not?
I am aware of several studies that indicate that surface warming does NOT create concomitant humidity increase. IF these studies are correct, doesn’t most of the alleged climate disaster evaporate, science-wise?
Technically, he can’t rule out 5 degrees colder or 20 degreees warmer and then 25 degrees colder either. Someday … you can’t rule out that Bob will grow up to be Chicken Big.
Bob Watson was booted from the IPCC because he was making it a political body. Obviously he’s still at it, regardless of not being there.
50% chance of 3°C rise or 5°C in some undefined future time. Another we can control the climate speech telling us that we know how to make climate static and we are neither smart nor adaptable enough to deal with any change.
I wouldn’t stop buying parkas just yet.
Upon what evidence does this FW base his claims. At the end of the day he is just another exhibitionist trying anything for a share of the limelight – what a loser – I’d suggest he got a life but the world would be a better place if he didn’t
This hangup about 2 degrees, Sir Watson should know:
The story of the two-degree target began in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Administration politicians had asked the council for climate protection guidelines, and the scientists under Schellnhuber’s leadership came up with a strikingly simple idea. “We looked at the history of the climate since the rise of homo sapiens,” Schellnhuber recalls. “This showed us that average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution. To be on the safe side, we came up with a rule of thumb stating that it would be better not to depart from this field of experience in human evolution. Otherwise we would be treading on terra incognita.”
As tempting as it sounds, on closer inspection this approach proves to be nothing but a sleight of hand. That’s because humans are children of an ice age. For many thousands of years, they struggled to survive in a climate that was as least four degrees colder than it is today, and at times even more than eight degrees colder.
This means that, on balance, mankind has already survived far more severe temperature fluctuations than two degrees. And the cold periods were always the worst periods. Besides, modern civilizations have far more technical means of adapting to climate change than earlier societies had.
In what universe have any of the climate models predicted the temperature changes accurately?
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
“The University of East Anglia has appointed Dr Bob Watson, environment advisor to the World Bank, as a new research professor from 1 August 2007 on an open appointment. Professor Watson will move full-time to the UK and one of his primary roles at UEA will be to help the strategic development of the Centre into the period beyond 2009.” (UEA Press Release at the time)
CV from World Bank, (no longer on-line):
“Dr. Robert T. Watson is the Chief Scientist and Director for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (ESSD) at the World Bank.
Prior to joining the World Bank, Dr. Watson was Associate Director for Environment in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President in the White House, (Clinton-Gore). Prior to joining the White House, Dr. Watson was Director of the Science Division and Chief Scientist for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).” (I think the title says it all…)
He is one of Al Gore’s favourite scientists, (after Hansen of course). He was appointed to his current job after the sudden announcement that founding Tyndall Director, Mike Hulme, was leaving for ” a year’s sabbatical”. (He had been going off message for some time). Co-incidentally Al Gore had been in the UK not long before Watson’s appointment.
In October 2007, Watson was praising Gore: “We need an advocate such as Al Gore to help present the work of scientists across the world,” said Bob Watson, former chairman of the IPCC and a top federal climate science adviser to the Clinton-Gore Administration.
When Watson left the World Bank, they gave him a leaving party:
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/BSPAN/PresentationView.asp?PID=2129&EID=963
Jack Gibbons, Watson’s former boss at the White House, read aloud a letter written to Watson by Al Gore. In this letter, Gore calls Watson his “hero of the planet,” commends him on his incredible career and contributions, and congratulates him on his new jobs. Gibbons also spoke about the challenges facing scientists whose scientific evidence is often viewed not as strict science but as efforts to steer policy.
So he left the World Bank and the UK got him as Chief Scientific Advisor to DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and Director of (Propaganda) Strategy at Tyndall.
David, not so simple. Doing that assumes that there are no effects other than CO2 and its feedbacks. That’s not only a bad assumption, but almost certainly wrong. Probably on the high side since we are recovering from the Little Ice Age.
However, since you insist
Log2(360 ppm/260 ppm) *1.2C = 0.56C Raw Temperature rise due to CO2
Real Temperature Rise = 0.7 C
Feedback = 1.2
Again, this is almost certainly a significant overestimate.
Look, the actual science of CAGW is the Stefan-Boltzmann 1.2 degrees C warming from doubling CO2 levels …… plus feedbacks. So unless there’s some challenge to SB, the question is “what are the feedbacks — in fact?” Now we’ve had warming periods recently (like 1984-2004) during periods where we have the ability to accurately measure and indeed the actual measurements of these alleged feedbacks. So has there been research on this? … and if so, what’s the result?… and if not, why not?
I am aware of several studies that indicate that surface warming does NOT create concomitant humidity increase. IF these studies are correct, doesn’t most of the alleged climate disaster evaporate, science-wise?
Technically, he can’t rule out 5 degrees colder or 20 degreees warmer and then 25 degrees colder either. Someday … you can’t rule out that Bob will grow up to be Chicken Big.
Bob Watson was booted from the IPCC because he was making it a political body. Obviously he’s still at it, regardless of not being there.
50% chance of 3°C rise or 5°C in some undefined future time. Another we can control the climate speech telling us that we know how to make climate static and we are neither smart nor adaptable enough to deal with any change.
I wouldn’t stop buying parkas just yet.
Upon what evidence does this FW base his claims. At the end of the day he is just another exhibitionist trying anything for a share of the limelight – what a loser – I’d suggest he got a life but the world would be a better place if he didn’t
This hangup about 2 degrees, Sir Watson should know:
The story of the two-degree target began in the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). Administration politicians had asked the council for climate protection guidelines, and the scientists under Schellnhuber’s leadership came up with a strikingly simple idea. “We looked at the history of the climate since the rise of homo sapiens,” Schellnhuber recalls. “This showed us that average global temperatures in the last 130,000 years were no more than two degrees higher than before the beginning of the industrial revolution. To be on the safe side, we came up with a rule of thumb stating that it would be better not to depart from this field of experience in human evolution. Otherwise we would be treading on terra incognita.”
As tempting as it sounds, on closer inspection this approach proves to be nothing but a sleight of hand. That’s because humans are children of an ice age. For many thousands of years, they struggled to survive in a climate that was as least four degrees colder than it is today, and at times even more than eight degrees colder.
This means that, on balance, mankind has already survived far more severe temperature fluctuations than two degrees. And the cold periods were always the worst periods. Besides, modern civilizations have far more technical means of adapting to climate change than earlier societies had.
In what universe have any of the climate models predicted the temperature changes accurately?