REFORM CLIMATE: Is there any need for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to continue its work of assessing the global environmental threat?
Image: NASA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Himalayan glaciers to disappear by 2035. Nuclear power plants cheaper than fossil fuel–fired ones. A chairman who might have financial conflicts of interest (and an interest in penning a racy, loosely autobiographical romance novel). These are some of the mistakes currently argued to have been made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a panel of more than 2,500 volunteer scientists and other experts from 154 countries tasked with assessing climate change.
So the question is: Is it time to reform the IPCC, despite its Nobel Peace Prize–winning stature?
As it currently stands the IPCC produces vast reports roughly every six years, the fourth and most recent review in 2007, with another due in 2014. The idea is to synthesize all the latest peer-reviewed literature on climate change to present an authoritative and comprehensive report on the physical science of climate change and the issues it entails: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability as well as mitigation. The IPCC also occasionally produces reports on specific technologies or policies such as carbon capture and storage, with upcoming reports set to address renewable sources of energy and managing the risk of extreme weather events.
The main IPCC report from 2007, particularly the section dealing with the physical science of climate change, is perhaps the most exhaustively reviewed 3,000-page scientific document on the planet. Governments and reviewers submitted some 90,000 comments on the draft text, which then had to be addressed by the expert authors. And the final "summary for policymakers" (a condensed version of the full text) was reviewed word by word by government officials with guidance from the scientists.
Yet, errors still made it through this rigorous process, including the seeming transposition of Himalayan glaciers melting by 2350 to 2035—a physical impossibility as well as a statement apparently based on one scientist's opinion. The IPCC went so far as to issue a retraction of the statement and express "regret" for that error, among others.
Of course, retractions are a big part of self-correction in science—and responsible for much of the robustness of the scientific method in general. And none of these errors detract from the central theory of climate change: Rising CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere from human activity are "very likely" responsible for the observed temperature change over the industrial era, as the IPCC puts it.
A more robust way to expose such errors and correct them more quickly is proposed by former IPCC lead author and atmospheric scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Writing in the February 11 edition of Nature, Christy called for a "living, 'Wikipedia-IPCC.'" (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) After all, as he noted: "Voluminous printed reports issued every six years by government-nominated authors cannot accommodate the rapid and chaotic development of scientific information today." Lead IPCC author and director of climate change and adaptation at the environmental group World Wildlife Fund, Jeff Price similarly argued in the same issue for producing more reports faster.
Yet, it is just such government approval and multiple layers of review that help give the IPCC process its authority. And such a process requires one thing: time, argues physicist Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the physical sciences group for the 2014 report. "Faster turnover would jeopardize the multistage review and thus compromise authority and comprehensiveness," he wrote in the same issue, while also arguing that the IPCC must be rigorous in its pursuit of assessments that are "policy relevant but never policy prescriptive."
To enhance that relevance, contributing IPCC author and paleoclimatologist Eduardo Zorita of the GKSS Research Center in Germany calls for the creation of an international climate agency, along the lines of the International Atomic Energy Agency or the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, that would continue to deliver assessments but with a permanent staff, rather than relying on the voluntary contributions of thousands of scientists. "Climate assessment is too important to be left in the hands of advocates," he concluded in the same issue.
And IPCC lead author and environmental scientist Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia in England, an institution that has come under fire after e-mails were released purporting to show deception among climate scientists, urged the replacement of the IPCC with three independent panels to deliver respectively: scientific syntheses, regional assessments and policy analyses, thereby splitting the functions that have caused potential problems with the IPCC process. "The IPCC is no longer fit for purpose," Hulme wrote. "It is not feasible for one panel under sole ownership—that of the world's governments, but operating under the delegated management of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization—to deliver an exhaustive 'integrated' assessment of all relevant climate change knowledge."
Ultimately, the uncovered errors in the most recent IPCC report prove the difficulty of its task as well as highlight the process's fundamental openness and self-correction. "There should be an open dialogue where anybody's views should be heard and considered," noted lead U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern during public remarks at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C.–based think tank, on February 9. But, he added: "The mounting evidence on the ground of what's actually happening and the growing sophistication of the modeling goes way beyond any particular set of data or any particular problems that occurred with respect to the University of East Anglia or IPCC mistakes."
After all, the IPCC has judged the evidence for human-caused climate change to be "unequivocal" and it is 90 percent certain that the "net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming." The IPCC further warned in its 2007 report that "warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."
In fact, thanks to the long timelines of IPCC reports, its 2007 summary contained no scientific information published or collected after 2005; meanwhile, reports from the field in recent years have measured conditions that are even worse than those predicted by climate models. A 2009 update from several IPCC authors noted that even with the less than 1 degree Celsius of warming that has already occurred there have been catastrophic heat waves, a precipitous meltdown of polar ice, and other more extreme impacts, which will only get worse as warming continues due to the rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
That is an intensifying risk that Stern, for one, judged as worthy of taking out an insurance policy: "People would not dream of failing to insure their homes or cars for risks to those things that are 50 times lower than the risks we face from climate change and its effects. It's nothing short of crazy to be putting our heads in the sand and failing to take action. And doubly crazy to risk losing out on the next great game of energy in the 21st century."
See what we're tweeting about
182 Comments
Add CommentCome Senators, congressmen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease heed the call.
Don't stand in the doorway,
don't block up the hall.
For he that gets hurt
will be he who has stalled.
There's a battle outside
and its ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows,
and rattle your walls.
For the times they are a-changin'.
The problem with the argument that 2035 was a typo of 2350 is that one wonders how come none of the environmental scientists noted this error? Imagine quoting the fine structure coefficient in physics literature as 137. That would generate so much noise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be better not to advertise this as a typo as it suggests that no one in the community has as yet developed an intuition for the subject.
No, the problem is that the raw temperature data isn't available to the public.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that the climate model conclusions can't be duplicated by outside groups, or in fact, by the IPCC itself.
It's not just that the IPCC brought ridicule upon itself for using non-scientific sources such as unpublished student reports and advocacy group propaganda, it's that the IPCC claims a "consensus" when there is:
#1: no place for "consensus" in Science, and
#2: no "consensus" in the first place.
Dr. John Christy is correct to suggest that moving to a live Wikipedia format will improve the process, but this will only be possible if:
#1: the raw temperature data is published online first, and by raw, I mean the actual 1's and 0's coming from sondes, temperature stations, ice cores, stalagtites, etc, and
#2: skeptical views are allowed to published simultaneously without the ad hominem attacks and behind-the-scenes bullying that has characterized the AGW crusade to date.
This organization caused $85 Billion in funds to be diverted based on bad research. This organization also helped launch the scam of carbon credits. This organization help push developed nations to turn over billions to underdevelopment nations. I strongly suggest that many of these people need to go to jail and then think about reforming a dishonest organization. Start with cutting the head of the snake first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFLASH!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap and Tax Scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... it's that the IPCC claims a 'consensus' when there is:
#1: no place for 'consensus' in Science, and
#2: no 'consensus' in the first place."
#1: Don’t be absurd. The dominant scientific paradigm in any/every scientific discipline is a consensus. Please don't tell me you haven’t read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas Kuhn (1962). It is starting to sound as if you don't know what you're talking about.
#2: What evidence can you provide to substantiate your claim that there is no consensus?
tomkent,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This organization caused $85 Billion in funds to be diverted based on bad research."
Evidence please, or acknowledge that the claim is unwarranted.
Actually, the environmental scientists *did* catch the error, yet the correction was never made, highlighting a breakdown in the vaunted IPCC process. Regardless, it's more like a typo in a 3,000 page physics textbook to continue your example BornToCompute. I imagine there have been a few compilers who have made exactly the error you suggest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... #2: skeptical views are allowed to published simultaneously without the ad hominem attacks and behind-the-scenes bullying that has characterized the AGW crusade to date."
Ah, so this very much more objective format will intentionally exclude a certain group of people: those who don't agree with the "skeptics". A Major Improvement for those who will be the privileged few.
"#1: Don’t be absurd. The dominant scientific paradigm in any/every scientific discipline is a consensus." Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClaiming that the Sun revolved around the Earth was once a consensus...there is no place for such dogmatism in Science. In contrast, it was the challenge to that consensus that advanced Science.
"#2: What evidence can you provide to substantiate your claim that there is no consensus?" Chryses
The most glaring evidence of a lack of consensus is that proponents of AGW have not released the raw temperature data. This implies that those fans feel there is another side of the story.
More directly, in “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),” coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer, Dr. Craig Idso, and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
CNunneley ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Claiming that the Sun revolved around the Earth was once a consensus...there is no place for such dogmatism in Science. In contrast, it was the challenge to that consensus that advanced Science."
I take it that this is your admission that you have not read "Structure". Before you make an even bigger embarrassment of yourself, please read at least a summary. Its publication was a landmark event in the sociology of scientific knowledge.
This provides a decent gloss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
Further, the fact that AGW is the current consensus among climate scientists indicates a considerable degree of satisfaction with it by most of those who do know what they're talking about.
Finally, just because the "skeptics" challenge the AGW consensus does not mean they are correct. There is this niggling little thing called evidence that has heretofore been absent. Are you aware of any yet?
"The most glaring evidence of a lack of consensus is that proponents of AGW have not released the raw temperature data."
That is a non sequitur.
Replacing the IPCC is a good idea only if it is replaced by something better. Do you have a worthwhile suggestion, or are you one of those who want only to destroy?
Feast on all the raw climate data you heart desires here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Enjoy!
The suggestion that there should be some means of making after the fact corrections or additions to the IPCC reports is a good one IMO. although mostly unnecessary from a policy perspective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople make mistakes, and lets face it, there is absolutely zero cost to correct them in the computer era.
If the errors are trivial, fix them. If they are substantial and alter policy then review them and fix them.
I fail to see a downside provided that Denialist Liars and Tards are screened out of the process.
The IPCC as mentioned is already working on the next report. The process is continual. Simply identify in what chapter the error can be found, go to the group currently working on that chapter for the new revision and ask them to correct the error. Update the on line resource accordingly.
Major updates can still occur every 6 or 7 years is now done.
No downside. Slight Upside. And it removes one less complaint from the lips of the Lying Deniliast Tards.
"No, the problem is that the raw temperature data isn't available to the public." - CNunneley
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are either lying or have been lied to Mr Nunneley.
Which is it?
I can't believe Sci Am is still running articles on GW. I cancelled my subscription several years ago because of an article that was basically a regurgitation of Al Gore's movie. There are plenty of legitimate challenges to man-made GW that are deserving of publication in Sci Am. If Sci is truly "scientific" they will fess up that the science is not settled and publish scientific challenge--not political blather.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGISS and IPCC Caught Modifying Raw Climate Temperature Data: http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data#more-3821
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVendicar, you state that I am either lying or that I have been lied to. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Here's one of my sources which cites the Russian Scientific complaint of the East Anglia CRU's "raw data" not being released after 3 years worth of Freedom of Information Act requests for the data in question: http://www.climategate.com/russian-scientists-analysis-of-climategate-show-russia-data-was-rigged
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Your Comment Here. Can someone please explain the following, often quoted, statement, "...and it is 90 percent certain that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming." Does this mean 90% of the signers agreed to the statement? If it is supposed to imply a statistical measure, then my question is, 'what is the probability density function, and how was it derived? Obviously, I think this is one of the worst statements a scientific body could issue. It is more aligned with a PR department. Perhaps I have missed something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, now CNunnerley, who's scamming who here? The link you put shows temp. records for Darwin Airport going back to 1880.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think there was an airport there in 1880...
Looks like a typo! I'd suspect that "Darwin Airport" in the picture should instead match up with "Darwin Territory" in the text.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice catch, but not material.
The devil is in the detail, which often shows carelessness or worse. There is no such place as "Darwin Territory" either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo there.
Reform the lying panel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfund them. Soon. Mann and Hansen, too.
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCongratulations on canceling your subscription. It is good to know that you have sent SciAm a signal.
"There are plenty of legitimate challenges to man-made GW that are deserving of publication in Sci Am."
Please list these challenges, and provide some evidence to support your claim that they are legitimate.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"GISS and IPCC Caught Modifying Raw Climate Temperature Data: http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data#more-3821"
When you read the article, you will discover that your claim is false.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Looks like a typo! I'd suspect that "Darwin Airport" in the picture should instead match up with "Darwin Territory" in the text. ..."
I searched the text you referred to, and was unable to find the text "Darwin Territory." Could you help me out with this problem please?
"... Nice catch, but not material."
Is it possible that others could also have a typographical error in their text without malicious intent?
Is it true that only "skeptics" make innocent mistakes, and everyone with whom they disagree with are wicked, evil people, whose errors are always attempts to mislead?
Just asking.
thanks Chryses, this CNunneley and others who subscibe to Climategate...well, it's a perfect example of clutching at straws I reckon. The science is 90% settled. Somebody asked if this meant that 10% of scientists were adainst AGW. The answer is no, 100% of reputable climate scientists are 90% sure that GW is caused by A.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSheesh!
Vendicar?
JOliver,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that the source of the text to which you refer is
"There is very high confidence that the global average net
effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming,
with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/m2"
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
The text is on page 37.
The term 'confidence' is defined in that report on page 27.
"Where uncertainty is assessed more quantitatively using expert judgement of the correctness of underlying data, models or analyses, then
the following scale of confidence levels is used to express the assessed chance of a finding being correct: very high confidence at least 9 out
of 10; high confidence about 8 out of 10; medium confidence about 5 out of 10; low confidence about 2 out of 10; and very low confidence less
than 1 out of 10.
Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations
or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%;
extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very
unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%."
I hope this helps.
Re: "This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap and Tax Scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4 "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter I did some examination on how Monckton cherry-picks his statistics, I wouldn't trust _anything_ he says - on global warming or otherwise.
http://jhubert.livejournal.com/181274.html
Jürgen Hubert ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs CBlaster at 06:11 PM on 02/10/10 referring to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley?
"GISS and IPCC Caught Modifying Raw Climate Temperature Data" - CNunneley
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is really Odd Mr. Nunneley because although the title claims that data was illicitly modified, the article doesn't actually provide any evidence that data was illicitly modified.
Doesn't that make the author of that article a Nutter?
Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote: "What evidence can you provide to substantiate your claim that there is no consensus? (regarding AGW)
You have it exactly backward regarding the requirement to establish whether or not a consensus position has been established. A consensus is:
"Does this mean 90% of the signers agreed to the statement? If it is supposed to imply a statistical measure, then my question is, 'what is the probability density function, and how was it derived?" - JOliver
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat statement can be found in the IPCC report to policy makers not in the scientific meta analysis.
Policy makers and other laymen will not comprehend statements such as, "There is a 12% chance of a temperature excursions beyond two standard deviations from the projected ensemble for emissions scenario B"
So those kind of comments need to be simplified to something that the grunting apes can understand.
Do you understand now?
"Unfund them. Soon. Mann and Hansen, too." - Eskimo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerican Conservatives are just frothing at the teeth at the idea of bringing the world to a new Christian Fascist dark era.
It reminds me of Jerry Fallwell's call to defund scientific research into Aids.
Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy earlier message got cut off, but regarding a consensus having been established, the requirement to demonstrate that a consensus has been established is on those supporting a theory. Many in the scientific community are still unsure of the degree of impact that human caused carbon being released into the atmosphere has had upon the earth's climate.
(as an example http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/)
Those supporting the AGW theory claimed there was a consensus when there was/is still significant doubt about the accuracy of the theories and the models associated with the theory. Proponents of the theory wrongly labelled those disagreeing with it as "idiots" or "religious deniers". While either of those labels might have occasionally been accurate, there is disagreement in the scientific community regarding the degree of impact that human released carbon has had on climate......therefore by definition......a consensus has not been established.
Which again brings me to my favorite question: what would you like the US government to do in the next 5 years regarding this issue?
"Proponents of the theory wrongly labelled those disagreeing with it as "idiots" or "religious deniers". Sysko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed, Sysko. It illustrates the weakness of an argument when its adherents must resort to such non-scientific, personal attacks.
"Is CBlaster at 06:11 PM on 02/10/10 referring to Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you know any other Monckton mouthing off about global warming?
Jürgen Hubert,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL! 'Nuff said.
Chryses--so in response to my question asking you what specific actions you want the US government to take in the next 5 years......your response is ?????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no proof humans are causing global warming. If one looks at a first-order curve of global temperatures since the end of the mini ice age, it is obvious to even a 6th grade science student that global warming is taking place. When we start looking at third and fourth-order curves, there is a correlation between global warming and man-made emissions of CO2. But that's all it is, a correlation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI work with models often and we have a humorous reply when someone asks us to predict what the results of the model might be: What do you want the results to be. The calculations can be performed on the data in such a ways as to produce pretty much any results you want. And anyone who works with models knows this is a fact. Models in the 1990's clearly predicted an on-going increase in temperatures, however, there has been a slight decrease in global temperatures from 2000-2008. Clearly the models need refining. There are several models for hurricane path prediction and most are generally accurate, but none are even close to perfect, despite the fact that we enormous volumes of real-time data to feed into them.
I personally think at this point that the verdict is still out and it is a lack of integrity for scientist to come out and conclude that they know for sure what is going to happen.
To be certain, we need to have two earths. One as a control where no man-made emissions are permitted and the other for the experiment. We are running an experiment, and it's on the only lab model we have.
I've been a loyal subscriber to Scientific American for 40 years, and over that time I've seen it ride lots of political bandwagons as they come and go. In the case of global warming, SciAm has long pretended that the scientific debate is closed, and has refused to present both sides of the ongoing debate. Caught up in advocacy, SciAm will end up with egg on its face once again, just like the IPCC and other organizations whose devotion to politics over science is beginning to be exposed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitics and Science don't mix! The former is for personal power and profit, the latter is for knowledge! Let the raw data speak for itself and the Governments decide for themselves as to which path to take!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiff
Are you suggesting that our scientists are so perceptive that they can be expected to catch a typo as it is being committed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs unbelievable as it seems even mistakes in the math are sometimes made when transposing from the sheets of equations and calculations to a printed page.
dbiello...thanks for the link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sparcboy, "To be certain, we need to have two earths. One as a control where no man-made emissions are permitted and the other for the experiment." Man, that is a stupid thing to say! Talk about showing a lack of integrity. What is it to speak with absolute authority about something you apparently know nothing about? So, according to you, since we can't prove we are destroying our environment until we have actually done it, we should just sit back and continue with business as usually, despite the "correlation". And down the line when we have proven that we are dooming ourselves&because we have doomed ourselves, what should we do then? Perhaps we can retroactively change our policies. Maybe we can ask god for a do-over&in that case I sure hope he exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI seriously doubt you work on models (unless we are talking about race car kits) as you really don't seem to understand how they work or what they are used for. Back to the sixth grade with you!
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Chryses--so in response to my question asking you what specific actions you want the US government to take in the next 5 years......your response is ?????"
Patience is, we are told, a virtue. I have enjoyed the dubious honor of the last two snowstorms (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8511526.stm) to have visited Charm City, and have had to do a certain amount of digging out today in preparation of returning to work tomorrow. :(
Before responding to your question, permit me to comment on your position questioning the notion that a consensus among climatologists exists, and that the consensus is that AGW is the current paradigm. The dominant scientific paradigm in any/every scientific discipline is a consensus.
Unlike some, I suspect that you have read, or are at least familiar with "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas Kuhn. Perhaps you have also heard of his Polish predecessor, Ludwik Fleck, who independently also argued that scientific reasoning is a social phenomenon, not an individual phenomenon. Neither I, nor I think anyone else who is reasonable, is suggesting that all practicing climatologists agree that AGW is the best way of explaining the observables. Some do not. However, most do. In 2004, Naomi Oreskes (http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/profile.html) performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the proposition that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#)
Respectfully, there is a consensus among climatologists, and it is that AGW is the current paradigm.
Before you and I (and no doubt others) begin discussing what policies should or should not be pursued by the US government in the next 5 years in response to this issue, do you not agree that this issue should be resolved, at least in this forum, and at least for the sake of the argument?
I believe that the reform or replacement of the IPCC is not the issue you have in mind.
Am I correct?
sparcboy, do you know the correlation (R^2) of atmospheric CO2 and global temp. in the last century? I did the math myself using NOAA and NASA data. It's 0.65. That's a correlation but not a very good one. 0.8 or higher would be a pretty good correlation. A fourth-degree polynomial would look like a wave and even if you get a good curve fit, you have to ask why global temp. is fluctuating when CO2 is steadily rising. A good curve fit does not imply causation. Correlation is not causation. And in the case of CO2 and temp., even the correlation is not good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMathematical modeling is a playground for mathematicians. John von Neumann once said, if you allow me four free parameters I can build a model that can do anything an elephant can do; if you allow me a fifth parameter the model will forecast the elephant will fly.
Just for fun. Try correlating atmospheric CO2 with the US inflation (change in consumer price index). You will discover that CO2 has a better correlation with inflation than with global temp. 0.95 vs. 0.65. Another parlor trick. Try to fit a random walk function with global temp. data. You will discover that a random walk also has better correlation with global temp. than with CO2. 0.89 vs. 0.65. (random walk is produced by chance like flipping a coin)
Finally, the statistical error in temp. data 1900-1990 is greater than or equal to the observed temp. change for the same period. It means the observed temp. change, whether warming or cooling, is within the margin of error and therefore moot and inconclusive. So much for the 90% certainty of IPCC. They must be referring to how well the forecasts of the different climate models fit one another. That reminds me of John von Neumann.
Peer Review Process To Be Reformed Due To ClimateGate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climate-emails-pr-disaster-peer-review
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to point out a few details regarding this issue that haven't been pointed out yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) It was conclusively proven around 1859 that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas.
2) It was predicted around 1890 that if humans burned fossil fuels too much it could result in a temperature increase of 2-4 degrees Celsius, similar to what scientists are now predicting.
Now my question is: why do people think that AGW is a hoax? It is a demonstrable fact that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared radiation, this can and has been laboratory tested, and it is also a fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up by about 100 ppm, a 34.8% increase over pre-industrial levels. Logically, that should cause the temperature to rise, and so far the data indicates that it has indeed risen. As far as a slight decrease in temperatures in the 2000s, that is actually a myth that has been debunked. Sometime in the last year, the temperature data was given to at least four independent statisticians, who were not told what the data was, and asked if there was a correlation. They found no downward trend (I confess I don't know if they found an upward trend either, but it definitely wasn't downward), the temperature is on average at least as high as it was in 1998. Hopefully these random facts will assist any further debates on this page.
@ vendicar9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you; "American Conservatives are just frothing at the teeth at the idea of bringing the world to a new Christian Fascist dark era."
You become an assumptable ass.
I'm not affiliated with anyone beyond a good college education.
Real science (as opposed to AGW alchemy) is not done in the dark. Deleting data, avoiding FOIA requests, blocking publication of opposing presentations, and outright lies goes beyond "science."
You sir, need to get a grip.
These AGW Greenies want $9 Trillion. Control over its spending or direct cash. That level of cash turnover DEMANDS we be skeptical. It DEMANDS that they prove their data.
I'm not an iconoclast. Troglodyte, moron or other epithet you care to hurl.
I DO DEMAND honesty. East Anglia's CRU isn't it.
Random data, created out thin air, put into Mann's FORTRAN program will create *surprise* his assumed "hockey stick."
Computer "simulations" (I've done a few) typically result in the authors assumptions. SURPRISE.
Now, let's get some science done. There are decades of data MISSING. There are thousands of reporting stations being ignored.
I may not know what's going on, but I do know it ain't science.
Nothing particularly Conservative or Liberal about wanting the truth.
Okay, your turn to tell more lies about me, whom you do not even know.
Scientists doing laboratory experiments on CO2 absorption spectroscopy are not convinced of IPCC’s numbers. See link:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Physicists who studied the original works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861) and Arrhenius (1896) on atmospheric greenhouse effect concluded it is fictitious. See link:
http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf
This does not mean AGW is fictitious. But in science, the burden of proof falls on those making a positive claim. That the global temp. rose in the past and will rise in the future due to human activities is a positive claim. A plead to ignorance - I don't know what's causing climate change, it may be man-made or natural - does not require proof. Those who say “the skeptics should disprove AGW, otherwise it is real” is not doing science but advocacy, which is a good thing, but let's not confuse it with science.
"2) It was predicted around 1890 that if humans burned fossil fuels too much it could result in a temperature increase of 2-4 degrees Celsius, similar to what scientists are now predicting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow my question is: why do people think that AGW is a hoax?" fisixfun
Posting an internet hoax claim about fossil fuels (not the primary fuel source in 1890) is roughly the level of "science" that got the IPCC busted in their recent UN report (they cited various urban legends being espoused by environmental advocacy groups such as rain forest deforestation claims).
So, what you are doing is reminding the Public that Global Warmists aren't using science, but psuedo-science.
Others are using name-calling and on-line bullying tactics.
In short, you are commiting the very sins that when you were younger, you once railed against.
What mental giant would think that would be the path to winning hearts and minds to your way of thinking?
By the way, there is correlation between CO2 and temp. Just as there is correlation between CO2 and inflation, and correlation between random walk and global temp. Correlation does not establish causation. Random walk functions also exhibit trend lines and you can actually do technical analysis of these trend lines and make predictions. That's how stock analysts forecast stock prices. Whether the forecast will come true is another thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimatology and the other natural sciences are significantly more sound sciences than stock market analyses. The standards for proof are a lot higher.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Posting an internet hoax claim about fossil fuels (not the primary fuel source in 1890)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEr what? What do you think the primary fuel source in 1890 _was_ if it wasn't coal?
Re data it's available: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as to Singer and his likes, as long as they don't publish in scientific journals and submit their ideas to open review, their talk is null and void
Forecasts of global temp. are a product of climate models. The margins of error of general circulation models (GCMs) are plus or minus 2000% to 4000%. See link:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01resources/climate_of_belief.pdf
Is that a higher standard of proof than technical analysis of stock prices? Why do global temp. data have higher correlation with a random walk function than with atmospheric CO2? Perhaps some unpredictable variables have greater influence on global temp. than CO2. That's what a random walk represents – inherent variability.
Dr. Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Those who say “the skeptics should disprove AGW, otherwise it is real” is not doing science but advocacy ..."
That is true, but I know of no practicing climatologist who has said that. Do you? Would you please provide a list of scientists who have done so, and a link to the referenced quote by each?
Until you do, this will remain yet another unwarranted claim made to misdirect attention from the scientific consensus about one of the reasons behind the recorded warming trend.
Thank you.
Dr. Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Perhaps some unpredictable variables have greater influence on global temp. than CO2. "
Evidence please, or acknowledge that you can provide no plausible alternative to the scientific consensus.
Jürgen Hubert,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Er what? What do you think the primary fuel source in 1890 _was_ if it wasn't coal?
Remember, this is the contributor who posted records for Darwin Airport going back to 1880.
LOL!
Dr. Strangelove - I said there was only a correlation, not a good one. Your information drives home our concept that correlation is not causation and that there is no proof of AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also re-emphasized the weakness of models.
Overall, you presentation was much better and had you posted first, I wouldn't have bothered.
Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll respond to your points.
You wrote: Neither I, nor I think anyone else who is reasonable, is suggesting that all practicing climatologists agree that AGW is the best way of explaining the observables. Some do not. However, most do.
It is possible that a majority of climatologists used to agree that the AGW theory is correct, (although I suspect the percentage is currently much lower as some of the data upon which conclusions were based is found to be inaccurate). But this is not relevant to the word "consensus". There is certainly a significant number of climatologists who are unsure of the impact that human released carbon has had upon the earth's climate. Therefore, by definition, no consensus has been reached on either side of the issue. A majority perhaps......but no consensus
You wrote: Before you and I (and no doubt others) begin discussing what policies should or should not be pursued by the US government in the next 5 years in response to this issue, do you not agree that this issue should be resolved, at least in this forum, and at least for the sake of the argument?
I believe that the reform or replacement of the IPCC is not the issue you have in mind.
Absolutely NO.
I believe there are many things that people who disagree about the theory of AGW would agree are smart policies to implement as soon as possible. Over the next several years, as more and more reliable data is collected; we will have much better picture of what is happening in regards to the world's climate. The added information will be available regardless of the IPCC being in place/effective or not. What we are sure of today is that the USA has a current huge "energy deficit", and an antiquated electricity distribution system. Investing in those areas would be good for the economy both in the short and long term. Waiting is bad for both.
@ vendicar9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you; "American Conservatives are just frothing at the teeth at the idea of bringing the world to a new Christian Fascist dark era."
Quinn:
"You become an assumptable ass."
Ummmm.... "Assumptable" isn't a word.
I take your statement as more proof that American Conservatives live on the fantasy planet of Conservadopia.
Quinn
"I'm not affiliated with anyone beyond a good college education."
As your use of a non-existant word aptly illustrates.
Hohohohohohoho.....
Quinn:
"Real science (as opposed to AGW alchemy) is not done in the dark. Deleting data, avoiding FOIA requests, blocking publication of opposing presentations, and outright lies goes beyond "science.""
Yes, well here on planet earth - not Planet Conservadopia - climate scientists haven't been found to be deleting any data, avoiding FOIA requests that require response, or telling any outright lies.
You are living a Conservative KookFart Fantasy.
Quinn:
"You sir, need to get a grip.
These AGW Greenies want $9 Trillion. Control over its spending or direct cash."
More fantasy. Contrived numbers, and Conservative KookFartism.
Ya, KookFartism isn't a word either. But it suits you just fine.
Have you been Tea Bagged yet?
Hahahahahahahahahahahah........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as to Singer and his likes, as long as they don't publish in scientific journals and submit their ideas to open review, their talk is null and void
I wonder if promised Fred KookFart Singer a dollar he would still argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer.
"The margins of error of general circulation models (GCMs) are plus or minus 2000% to 4000%" - Strangelove
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see, so when you run a climate model for 100 years they often end up with the global temp being not 15'C on average but 60'C on average or -45'C on average.
Hmmmmm... For some reason I don't think your KookFart assertion is very honest or reliable.
"coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer, Dr. Craig Idso" - CNunneley
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSinger and Idso? They both made a killing out of their Ozone Depletion Denial Scam.
And there is Singer's Smoking doesn't cause cancer Scam.
Hohohohohoho..... Anyone who would use those liars as a source is either an easily manipulated fool, or a liar himself.
Strangelove
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"do you know the correlation (R^2) of atmospheric CO2 and global temp. in the last century? I did the math myself using NOAA and NASA data. It's 0.65."
And what smoothing function did you use?
Man you have just shown yourself to be an incompetent boob.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this31,486 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, ANDWILLIE SOON
Alan Carlin, the senior EPA research analyst who authored a study critical of global warming that was suppressed by agency officials&
Read more at the Washington Examiner:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Debunking the CO2 Positive Feedback Myth
Leonard Weinstein, ScD
Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations
His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, NY
United States of America
8 December 2009
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of negative discovery&
American physicists warned not to debate global warming
Climate row heats up
By Andrew Orlowski
Published Monday 21st July 2008 16:04 GMT
Bureaucrats at the American Physical Society (APS) have issued a curious warning to their members&
The 30,000 Global Warming Petition is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be an understatement."-
http://www.desmogblog.com/30000-global-warming-petition-easily-debunked-propaganda
http://climatesight.org/2009/06/17/ignore-the-petition-project/
"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition - one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community" - Skepticism About Skeptics (sidebar of Climate of Uncertainty)". Scientific American.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21. , October 2001
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It is possible that a majority of climatologists used to agree that the AGW theory is correct, (although I suspect the percentage is currently much lower as some of the data upon which conclusions were based is found to be inaccurate). But this is not relevant to the word 'consensus'. There is certainly a significant number of climatologists who are unsure of the impact that human released carbon has had upon the earth's climate. Therefore, by definition, no consensus has been reached on either side of the issue. A majority perhaps......but no consensus"
The pro/con ratios are documented. Without evidence, the change in the ratio is speculation. I take it that you also are unfamiliar of the sociology of science. You are missing a vital part of how science is practiced. It may account for some part of your POV.
"I believe there are many things that people who disagree about the theory of AGW would agree are smart policies to implement as soon as possible."
Yes. We agree about that.
sparcboy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs this forum has already been well and truly hijacked, and as you posted "... there is no proof of AGW", permit me to ask an obvious question.
Would you please post what would, in your mind, represent proof of AGW?
I have a hard time thinking of anything that would satisfy you. You are in the best position to know what you need.
Would it be a Poperian capability to predict what is otherwise difficult to anticipate? Would it be the integration of some cause(s) and effect(s)? Would it be that it fits quite a lot of the observables? Perhaps that it fits the observables better than alternative theories? Would it be that it is the consensus (sorry about that Sisko) choice by the professionals? Etc. etc. etc.
If there is anything that would persuade you that AGW is the real deal, what would it be?
Chryses--You have to agree that no "consensus" currently exsists regarding AGW. The current situation does not meet to words defination. It may someday, maybe not, but by defination not today
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Chryses, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but who cares what a bunch of ignorant and paranoid armchair scientists require to be convinced? In a country where a shockingly large percentage of the population believes in Adam & Eve do you think AGW has a chance? There will always be those that think the world is flat. Nothing will change that. Fortunately, the burden of proof that must be met is based on science, not psychosis. AGW has been established with enough certainty that we should act on it. If the deniers were truly interested in doing anything more than casting dispersions, they would have done some real science instead of trolling sciam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are, of course, entitled to your opinion. If you learn about the sociology of science, you may then understand what is currently a mystery.
Spiff, you said
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Politics and Science don't mix! The former is for personal power and profit, the latter is for knowledge! Let the raw data speak for itself and the Governments decide for themselves as to which path to take!"
The raw data says that increasing temperature causes CO2 to increase 800 years in the future. In other words, it is not man-made.
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron because consensus is not a scientific matter but a political one. Consensus represents the opinion of majority of scientists. Scientific truth is not determined by a survey of scientists but by the weight of evidence or proof. That is why I emphasized that we should focus on the burden of proof not on consensus which is a numbers game.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me put it this way. AGW advocates say there is a consensus on AGW and then say if you can't provide an alternative to the consensus (AGW) then it stands. That's where they deviate from science. A theory must stand or fall on its own merits. We don't have outsmart each other and prove who's right and wrong. We're just trying to find a better explanation. If a theory has many holes, we have to point that out. If I can't think of a better theory, that doesn't mean the current theory wins. In science, it's ok to say we don't know all the answers we have to do some more work. That's the difference between science and advocacy. In advocacy, you take a position and try to prove your position and disprove the opposite position.
Thank you too.
Sci Am sampled 30 out of 9028 PhD's -- Wow! That's a "sci-en-tific" survey. Seems they got the answer they were looking for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the article. It answers your question. Does name calling makes you feel good? Either you're juvenile or have a very sad life. Go out on valentine and have a life!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrobert schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"AGW has been established with enough certainty that we should act on it."
True, but that doesn't mean that we should not try to help those who do not yet understand.
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sci Am sampled 30 out of 9028 PhD's -- Wow! That's a "sci-en-tific" survey. Seems they got the answer they were looking for."
Ah. So how large should the sample size be, and why should it be the size you recommend?
Dude, chill out. I did read one of the links--it was an insult to all of us. And it seems you are the one prone to name calling. The facts: Of over 9000 PhD's signing the petition Sci Am can't seem to find ONE that THEY would consider credible. It seems Sci Am's staff is either incompetent or biased. Adding "Climatologist" to someone's title doen't make them more believable in this matter, especially after Climategate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are suppose to believe Biologist when they say GW is responsible for x, but when a Physicist challenges AGW, oh, he is not a climatologist-can't believe him. Give me a break.
The consensus issue-- The fact is that Al Gore and press has been running around for years telling us there is an overwhelming consensus for AGW, and there is NOT a consensus.
I did read one of the links--it was an insult to all of us. The facts: Of over 9000 PhD's signing the petition Sci Am can't seem to find ONE that THEY would consider credible. It seems Sci Am's staff is either incompetent or biased. Adding "Climatologist" to someone's title doen't make them more believable in this matter, especially after Climategate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are suppose to believe Biologist when they say GW is responsible for x, but when a Physicist challenges AGW, oh, he is not a climatologist-can't believe him. Give me a break.
The consensus issue-- The fact is that Al Gore and press has been running around for years telling us there is an overwhelming consensus for AGW, and there is NOT a consensus.
Dr. Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt 02:18 AM on 02/12/10 you posted " Those who say 'the skeptics should disprove AGW, otherwise it is real' is not doing science but advocacy ..."
I responded at 06:48 AM on 02/12/10 to that and said, "That is true, but I know of no practicing climatologist who has said that. Do you? Would you please provide a list of scientists who have done so, and a link to the referenced quote by each?
Until you do, this will remain yet another unwarranted claim made to misdirect attention from the scientific consensus about one of the reasons behind the recorded warming trend."
I note with some disappointment that you have not substantiated your claim, but have instead repeated it at 09:47 PM on 02/12/10, "AGW advocates say there is a consensus on AGW and then say if you can't provide an alternative to the consensus (AGW) then it stands."
I know, and everyone knows that you believe your claim to be true.
I have merely pointed out that is an unwarranted, unsubstantiated claim. As and when you provide some evidence to back it up people will believe you.
Why do you expect anyone to give credence to what you post when you don't back it up with some evidence?
The evidence exists that there is a consensus among climatologists that AGW is the best current scientific theory to describe the recorded data and explain the causes. I have posted before, and I do again that in 2004, Dr, Oreskes (http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/profile.html) surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the proposition that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#)
That is evidence of the consensus.
Please provide some evidence that "Those who say 'the skeptics should disprove AGW, otherwise it is real' ", or "AGW advocates say there is a consensus on AGW and then say if you can't provide an alternative to the consensus (AGW) then it stands."
I may be mistaken, but I believe that I have not said that, nor has robert schmidt, or vendicar9. Can you identify any climatologist who has said that?
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The consensus issue-- The fact is that Al Gore and press has been running around for years telling us there is an overwhelming consensus for AGW, and there is NOT a consensus."
The evidence exists that there is a consensus among climatologists that AGW is the best current scientific theory to describe the recorded data and explain the causes. I have posted before, and I do again that in 2004, Dr, Oreskes (http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/pages/profile.html) surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the proposition that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#)
Yes, there is evidence of a scientific consensus.
You have made the claim that "... there is NOT a consensus." OK. Back your claim up with evidence, or acknowledge that it is just another unwarranted claim.
"AGW has been established with enough certainty that we should act on it." ...robert schmidt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUtter nonsense, robert. First, Warming Periods and Ice Ages predate Man...the "A" in "AGW." You can't blame Man for Ice Ages that ended before Man existed.
Second, proving AGW wouldn't mean that we do anything about it. We might not be able to meaningfully change it, for example, or it might be that such AGW would turn out to have more plusses than minuses, in sum.
In either case, we shouldn't "act on it."
So AGW isn't proven, and we shouldn't jump to "act on it" even if it was.
While it is of course true that Ice Ages predate man and so could not have been caused by man, the fact remains that in the last two centuries we have increased atmospheric CO2 by more than a third, and it's still going up. As far as acting on it, if it is our fault, and so far most scientists do say that appears to be the case, then we have an obligation to fix it, the same as if you knock over a garbage can it's your obligation to clean it up. If it's not man-made, and just part of a natural cycle, we should still do at least some of the things commonly mentioned to alleviate the problem. Anthropogenic or otherwise, climate change appears to be having mostly negative effects on the environment, and many of the things that are recommended to stop AGW are things people should do anyways. A few more random facts related to this issue:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Back in the 1970s, when deniers love to claim there was "global cooling hype", there were hardly any scientific papers published suggesting that, and the few there were usually had the catch "If we follow the pattern of glacial-interglacial periods, we should be entering another Ice Age, but human-released CO2 emissions may cancel that out".
2) No data has been found to have been manipulated by anyone, and although at least one scientist suggested leaving out certain reports from the next IPCC meeting, none of them were actually left out.
3) The worst-case scenario from the 2007 IPCC meeting is actually being surpassed right now, and it predicts that CO2 levels will be about 800 ppm by 2100.
4) A research institute in San Francisco calculated the cost of protecting the city and nearby areas from the most conservative estimate given for sea-level rise, and the cost was enormous, substantially greater than the state budget, for one small area.
Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the proposition that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic.
...Becauses the challenger have been cut out of the publication process. This is not science--it's religion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLcvCp4DHJw
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" 'The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the proposition that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic.'
...Becauses the challenger have been cut out of the publication process. This is not science--it's religion!"
You have claimed above that "challenger have been cut out of the publication process."
OK. Please provide some evidence to support you claim, or admit that your claim is just another unwarranted assertion, without any reason for anyone to believe you.
Further, you then claim that "... is not science--it's religion!" It seems rather more like an editorial process, or perhaps censorship than religion, doesn't it? It does not follow that a process which prevents publication is a religion. That's a non sequitur.
Of course, as I pointed out above, you did not provide any evidence that the challenger(s) had been cut out of the publication process in the first place.
See my previous post link. It makes sense to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLcvCp4DHJw"
That is good entertainment. TY.
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI take it that all you can do is make accusations. To my knowledge, you have provided no evidence to support your claims.
In my post at 12:16 AM on 02/13/10, I provided documentation to substantiate the claim that a consensus existed as of 2004 in the peer-reviewed scientific literature about AGW.
You have provided nothing to back your claim otherwise.
In your post at 09:52 PM on 02/12/10, you questioned the validity of SciAm's sample that provided the data challenging the validity of the Global Warming Petition (http://www.petitionproject.org/)
I challenged you to suggest a preferable alternative, and justify why it would be better.
You have provided nothing to back your claim.
In your post at 10:52 PM on 02/10/10 you claimed, "There are plenty of legitimate challenges to man-made GW that are deserving of publication in Sci Am."
In my post at 06:13 AM on 02/11/10, I challenged you to list those challenges, and provide some evidence to support your claim that they are legitimate.
You have provided nothing to back your claim.
You are great at making claims. You are hopeless at backing them up with evidence.
So basically we have IPCC scientist, on camera, who who have resigned because of their disagreement with the IPCC report.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have Al Gore, in his movie, saying that he was going to go after anyody that got in his way.
We have an EPA senior research scientist that leaked out a ~100 page challenge to AGW, against his supervisor's direction.
We have Physicist at the American Physical Society told not to debate AWG
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
We have thousands of PhD's who sign a petetion,
and you say I have failed to provide evidence! That's incredible! And you call me a denier!
Religion: Believe what I say. Don't challenge it. Don't debate it. If you do you will be persecuted (you won't get any grant money). The issue is settled.
Science: Let's look at the data, all of it, not tricked out data, with an open mind, and search for the truth.
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about this, we'll take it one question at a time.
In my post at 12:16 AM on 02/13/10, I provided documentation to substantiate the claim that a consensus existed as of 2004 in the peer-reviewed scientific literature about AGW.
You have asserted that no scientific consensus exists about AGW.
What evidence do you present to substantiate your claim? A You Tube video? Is that your evidence that no scientific consensus exists about AGW?
I was unaware that You Tube was peer-reviewed.
Are you serious? Do you expect people to take your claims seriously?
How about this: let Sci Am put out a request for papers, challenging AGW. Let's see what they get.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo I expect my claim to be taken seriously-- they are not my claims. They are claims of resigned IPCC scientists, an EPA scientist, a senior NASA scientist, etc. It is all in my posts-- you just seem to want to hurl insults. Your incorrigible, and I guess I don't expect anything of you.
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How about this: let Sci Am put out a request for papers, challenging AGW. Let's see what they get."
I take it that you plan to provide no evidence to substantiate your claim that there is no scientific consensus about AGW.
"Do I expect my claim to be taken seriously-- they are not my claims. They are claims of resigned IPCC scientists, an EPA scientist, a senior NASA scientist, etc."
You made a claim or an assertion, if you prefer that there is no scientific consensus about AGW.
Since you went to the trouble to post it in this forum, I though you expected to be taken seriously.
"It is all in my posts-- you just seem to want to hurl insults. Your incorrigible, and I guess I don't expect anything of you."
One of the cool things about these forums is that once people have posted their thoughts, they can't take them back or hide them. Were your evidence in your posts, it would take very little effort to present it in clear English prose. Since you have decided to not do so, I conclude that either you do not have any evidence to substantiate your claim that there is no scientific consensus about AGW, or that you do not expect to be taken seriously.
That is entirely up to you.
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And you call me a denier!
That statement is false.
I have never called you a denier.
I guess we have to agree to disagree. If you want to follow my posts with any honesty they will show you several examples that there is not a consensus on AGW. For you to continue to deny that there are legitimate scientist out there that disagree simply means that you are putting your head in the sand. I gave you some examples. They are in the news. Any by the way, I didn't realize that a youtube video of John Stossel interviewing resigned IPCC scientist required to be "peer reviewed" . It speaks for itself. Are you suggesting the video was doctored? If so, I suggest you take it up with Mr. Stossel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I do have trouble with is taking the IPCC seriously now that they have been shown to falsify or hide the data. I have trouble taking them seriously for not being dispassionate and impartial.
Enough said.
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We have Physicist at the American Physical Society told not to debate AWG
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/ "
That statement is false.
Me being me, I followed the link you provided, and read the article you used to substantiate your claim that the American Physical Society told people not to debate AGW.
Nowhere in the July '08 edition (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/upload/july08.pdf) is anyone told to not read anything. Actually, the reverse is true; the editors invited the debate.
Your "evidence" is exactly the opposite of what you claim.
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"For you to continue to deny that there are legitimate scientist out there that disagree simply means that you are putting your head in the sand."
That statement is false.
What I posted at 09:52 PM on 02/11/10 was "... Neither I, nor I think anyone else who is reasonable, is suggesting that all practicing climatologists agree that AGW is the best way of explaining the observables. Some do not. However, most do. ..."
In what way can you reconcile what I wrote with what you said I wrote?
Spoon feeding Chryses…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Alan Carlin – EPA (BS in Physics from Cal Tech, PhD Economics from MIT)
This does not require peer reviewed. It is Alan Carlin speaking. His 98 page paper raises basic questions that require answers before we buy-in to the IPCC. Dr. Carlin made the case the EPA should not accept “science” from the IPCC to make US policy. It was an internal paper, not a paper for publication, but given his background and experience, it raises legitimate questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8XYHIFNWyY
Peer Reviewed Petition Project – Read both links below. Read for scientific content, not character assassination. A few years have past since Sci Am reviewed 30 signers. (BTW, who peer reviewed Sci Am’s method of reviewing the signers?)
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf
http://www.energyadvocate.com/petiproj.htm
NASA Scientist – seems to have pretty good credentials
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.111
American Physical Society (APS)—It really does show bullying and attempted censorship of “contrary-to-consensus” papers. It’s am example. Read it carefully.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
Reference Al Gore’s Movie: An Inconvenient Truth, 2006
Paraphrase: I want to destroy those that oppose me. (It’s been a while since I saw the video) Sounds like bullying, character assassination and politics—not science.
Sci Am – A call for papers please-challenges to AGW. Let’s see what we get.
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood. One step at a time.
This post was evidence for what?
David Ford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"American Physical Society (APS)—It really does show bullying and attempted censorship of “contrary-to-consensus” papers. It’s am example. Read it carefully.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/"
Actually, the APS doc is not there. The the July '08 edition is here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/upload/july08.pdf
Without becoming upset, please identify the text you are referring to. Where is the text?
"Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisData for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
There has been no global warming since 1995
Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you figured out what the primary fuel source in 1890 was? You said that is was not fossil fuels. What was it? (CNunneley at 02:27 AM on 02/12/10) I always thought it was coal.
Have you figured out yet what happened that your data for "Darwin Airport" goes back to 1880?
Were you ever able to find out where the "Darwin Territory" was in the text you referred to? I never could find it.
The last two items were from (http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data#more-3821) in your post at 10:52 PM on 02/10/10
Any updates on these details?
Inquiring minds want to know.
IPCC caught in yet another lie, this time about crop yields in Africa: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231386/African-crops-yield-another-catastrophe-for-the-IPCC.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So, for example, those people in the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six
tide gauges, and they choose the record of
one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea
level. Every geologist knows that that is a
subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment;
it is the only record which you shouldn’t
use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland
would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.
And that is just ridiculous."
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
If there's been no global warming since 1995, then why have 1998, 2005, 2007, and 2009 all been near or full record breakers? The 10 years after 1998 were the hottest of any decade that there is data for. The data for the hockey stick graph went missing? Really? There are several sources of data they used to create that graph, all of them fairly consistent, are you saying that all of them just disappeared one day (presumably when a skeptic started asking about it)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReferencing the phrase "tricked out data": the term "trick" is used all the time in mathematics, it doesn't mean to deceive as it does in the common usage. The general rule is: if you use it once, it's a trick, if you use it twice, it's a useful trick, if you use it three times, it's a rule. To pre-empt the phrase "hide the decline": that was used in reference to tree-ring data, which seemed to show a cooling of global temperatures in the last 30-50 years. However, in that same time we also had thermometers, which are more accurate than tree-rings, and they show temperatures going up in that time span. If one compares the graphs of tree-ring indicated temperatures with thermometers, they line up perfectly until the second half of the 20th century, when the tree-rings start to drop while the thermometers keep going up. Why the tree-rings indicate a drop when temperatures have actually risen, I don't know, I don't know if anyone knows, but the only thing this calls into question is the use of tree-ring data from before the invention of thermometers, nothing else. The scientist who used the phrase "hide the decline" would have explained it properly had he known that retards like Glenn Beck would be using it as "evidence" against global climate change.
vendicar9,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Apparently David Ford doesn't know what the word "Consensus" means. Or more presicely, in order to advance his political agenda he portends that Consensus means "Unanimity".
Honesty is not their goal."
I must admit that I am finding it difficult to take some of his postings at face value.
Climatology expert threatened for climate change views: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859851.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Climatology expert threatened for climate change views: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/12/12859851.html"
In what way is this relevant to "How to Reform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"?
I trust you will not take exception if I quote you: "Please stay focused on the topic."
"Climatology expert threatened for climate change views: "- CNunneley
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTim Ball - the so called "expert" you are referring to above, says a lot of silly and dishonest things. Many of them on his Fake Resume.
Climatology expert threatened for climate change views:
Dr. Tim Ball: The Lie that Just Won't Die
Tags: Canada, Canada Free Press, Canada Free Press, Friends of Science, Friends Of Science, Natural Resources Stewardship Project, NRSP, Nrsp, Richard Littlemore, Skeptic Generated News, Tim Ball, Tom Harris
The deathless and - in many specific respects - completely fictional meanderings of Dr. Tim Ball have begun appearing again on right-wing blogs all over the net. At City Troll, at Convenient Untruth and at New Orleans Lady, the same tired and retreaded old climate rant paints Dr. Ball as the courageous victim of a plot to silence a well-meaning skeptic.
But Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy, not the more prestigious "doctor of science" that Ball claims in these articles.
He claims as well to have been a professor (again of climatology) at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, while he confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit (look here ) that he was a professor (of geography, never climatology) for just eight years.
Dr. Ball claims never to have been paid by oil and gas interests, but if you look here , you'll find a Globe and Mail story in which Dr. Barry Cooper, the man behind Ball's former industry front group, the Friends of Science , offers this clumsy admission: "[The money's] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry," says Prof. Cooper. "It's also from foundations and individuals. I can't tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals."
Here you'll find a podcast of Dr. Ball talking to the Ottawa Citizen , saying that he goes out of his way to ignore who might be paying his bills, but crediting the energy industry lobby firm, the High Park Group . And here, you'll find High Park Group veteran Tom Harris, telling the Toronto Star that his new industry front group, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project , was created at the suggestion of High Park Group president Timothy Egan.
http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die
"UN panel admits new error in key climate report
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(AFP) – 7 hours ago
GENEVA — The UN climate change panel admitted Sunday to having imprecisely stated in a key report that 55 percent of The Netherlands is under sea level, saying that is only the area at risk of flooding.
The Dutch government this month asked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to explain the figure, used in a landmark 2007 report, saying its numbers were that only 26 percent of the country is below sea level.
It was a new embarrassment for the panel. The same 938-page Fourth Assessment Report also contained an erroneous claim that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035.
The IPCC admitted in a note sent to AFP Sunday that the 55 percent figure was actually the portion of The Netherlands "at risk of being flooded"."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gaUDoNWD5OeKViDgGjPY3WOpMFwA
"But in the past year, a cache of stolen e-mails, revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to keep their critics from publication, has sullied their image as impartial academics."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-35/126620475590840.xml&storylist=new_topstories
"In what way is this relevant to "How to Reform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"?" Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThreatening critics with harm (career, popularity, bodily, or other), which was done to critics of the IPCC report, is something that needs to be reformed.
You can see the on-line bullying by Warmists even in the comments to the SciAm "reform" article here, especially by anonymous posters.
I'm been busy this valentine. This will be my last comment. This is getting boring. The name calling confirms I'm talking to juveniles or people with no love life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't confuse consensus and observation. Consensus is opinion. Observation is factual. Global temp. data is observation. AGW is consensus. Why can't science offer proof? If theory and observation match very well, that's scientific proof of the theory. There is no doubt atmospheric CO2 can cause some warming. There is doubt if it is enough to explain the observed global temp. What smoothing function would you like to use? Linear, trigonometric or polynomial? I used linear. Why don't you try other functions and tell us if you can get a better R^2. As I said before, even if you get a good curve fit, you still need to explain why temp. is fluctuating when CO2 is steadily rising. Correlation is not causation.
Have you never heard AGW advocates say the debate is over, there is already a scientific consensus? I often hear that. If you’ve never heard of that. Good! That is irrelevant to the validity of AGW theory. (Can we discuss the theory now? Or we cannot discuss the theory until we pin down who said what? Geez! LOL)
Sorry fellow bloggers I will not reply anymore. I'm busy corresponding with real scientists and writing French love poems to my lady friends. It's much more fun! It's ok to be passionate with one's advocacy but please get a life! Au revior!
Dr. Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Can we discuss the theory now? "
Any time you are up to the challenge.
Dr. Strangelove,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why can't science offer proof? If theory and observation match very well, that's scientific proof of the theory. There is no doubt atmospheric CO2 can cause some warming. There is doubt if it is enough to explain the observed global temp. "
There is a good video on the subject, Richard Alley explains “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
"Can we discuss the theory now?"
Whenever you are willing to do so.
"Au revior!"
Bon courage!
CNunneley ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Threatening critics with harm (career, popularity, bodily, or other), which was done to critics of the IPCC report, is something that needs to be reformed."
That has nothing to do with the forum topic, does it?
"You can see the on-line bullying by Warmists even in the comments to the SciAm 'reform' article here, especially by anonymous posters."
What reforms do you suggest?
The truth of the matter is that there is no scientifically refereed body of knowledge which is capable of offering an opposing view to the IPCC. The rest is just pathetic media quibbling financed by vested interests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why can't science offer proof?" - Dr Strangelove
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause "proof" only exists in the field of Pure Mathematics.
If you weren't a butterfly dreaming that he was a man, you would have realized that by now.
"Using my laptop and my knowledge of computer programming I accidentally uncovered errors in temperature data released by the Met Office that form part of the vital records used to show that the climate is changing."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7028418.ece
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" 'Using my laptop and my knowledge of computer programming I accidentally uncovered errors in temperature data released by the Met Office that form part of the vital records used to show that the climate is changing.'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7028418.ece"
In what way is this relevant to "How to Reform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"? That has nothing to do with the forum topic, does it?
I trust you will not take exception if I quote you: "Please stay focused on the topic."
The problem is that the actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC, deserves to be paid and paid well. Compare to those bankers who had to be bailed out.: Each IPCC scientist is clearly worth $20 Million/year each, probably more.
How much is it worth to be informed ahead of time of disasters like the extinction of Homo Sap? It is hard to put a ceiling on it.
Compare to the amount of money the other side has to spend to slow down the climate legislation. Rush Limbaugh alone gets $400 Million/year for his propaganda. Surely a scientist should be worth more than Rush Limbaugh.
It is really amazing how little the IPCC spends and how much the fossil fuel industry has to spend in response. David and Goliath were so evenly matched in comparison. The truth is a really serious threat to the fossil fuel industry.
The IPCC cash flow is also dwarfed squared by the theological opposition.
I would like to say that they should go on strike or something, but that wouldn't work because they are not employed by the IPCC. Clearly, they should quit working for free. Many thousands of full time GS15 staff scientists are required. See:
www.realclimate.org for accuracy comparisons. The IPCC did an amazingly good job.
Those who are making the put-downs: Are you being paid by the fossil fuel industry? You should be. Remember, AGW can and probably will make Homo Sapiens extinct within 50 years. The #1 kill mechanism is famine. See "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan and "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.
The book "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas says: "If the global warming is 6 degrees centigrade, we humans go extinct." See:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
Lynas lists several kill mechanisms, the most important being famine and methane fuel-air explosions. Other mechanisms include fire storms.
The following sources say H2S bubbling out of hot oceans is the final blow at 6 degrees C warming:
"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
Chryses: I disagree with "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas Kuhn (1962).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat Science is all about is really quite simply and elegantly stated in the book: "Science and Immortality" by Charles B. Paul 1980
University of California Press
The Eloges of the Paris Academy of Sciences (1699-1791)
page 99: "Science is not so much a natural as a moral philosophy". [Drylabbing [fudging data] will get you fired.]
page 106: Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority.
Scientists do not vote on what is the truth. There is only one vote and Nature owns it. We find out what Nature's vote is by doing Scientific [public and replicable] experiments. Scientific [public and replicable] experiments are the only source of truth.
CNunneley: If you really, truly want to see data, you can see more data than you could possibly imagine or download by following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/
That is NOT the kind of models that are made or used by the climate scientists. Real climate science model makers use basic PHYSICS, not correlations, to make models. You would do well to improve your model making methods to include some science. See www.realclimate.org
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoger Pielke is a denialist, NOT a climate scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsteroid Miner,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Chryses: I disagree with "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by Thomas Kuhn (1962). ... Nature isn't just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. ... Scientists do not vote on what is the truth. ... "
It is possible for reasonable men to disagree.
"The Nobel Committee for Physics
The Nobel Committee at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is responsible for the selection of candidates from the names submitted for consideration by qualified nominators, who have been invited through formal letters. Committee members are elected for a period of 3 years from among the members of the Academy. In assessing the qualifications of the candidates, the Committee is assisted by specially appointed expert advisers."
http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/physics/committee.html
How much is the fossil fuel industry paying you to say such nonsense? It should be a lot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsteroid Miner,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"CNunneley: If you really, truly want to see data, you can see more data than you could possibly imagine or download by following:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/"
I may be mistaken, but based upon his posts, I believe that CNunneley does not want the data. He wants to complain.
CNunneley..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Using my laptop and my knowledge of computer programming I accidentally uncovered errors in temperature data released by the Met Office that form part of the vital records used to show that the climate is changing." - CNunneley
Let me add back the next sentence that you accidentally left out....
"Although the errors dont change the basic message of global warming,..."
By the way, where is his code and his data to validate his claim? Do we need an FOI request to get it?
Climate changes, natural or not natural, are extinction events. To survive, we must prevent climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should act because AGW's #1 kill mechanism is famine.
See "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan and "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.
7 degrees C is one more than the for-sure extinction point for Homo Sapiens as reported in a bunch of reports and books.
The book "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas says: "If the global warming is 6 degrees centigrade, we humans go extinct." See:
http://www.marklynas.org/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-summary-of-six-degrees-as-published-in-the-guardian
Lynas lists several kill mechanisms, the most important being famine and methane fuel-air explosions. Other mechanisms include fire storms.
The following sources say H2S bubbling out of hot oceans is the final blow at 6 degrees C warming:
"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=672
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1535
http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2509.html
http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2429&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
"Climate Code Red" by David Spratt and Philip Sutton says the following:
Long term warming, counting feedbacks, is a least twice the short term warming. 560 ppm CO2 gets us 6 degrees C or 10.8 degrees F. We will hit 560 ppm before mid century.
Per "Climate Code Red", we need ZERO "Kyoto gas" emissions RIGHT NOW and we also need geo-engineering because we have already gone way beyond the safe CO2 level of 300 to 325 ppm. We are already at 455 ppm equivalent and we have tripped some very big tipping points. We aren't dead yet, but the planet needs critical intensive care if we humans are to have a chance of survival.
"The Vanishing Face of Gaia" by James Lovelock has identified a 9 degree lurch in the temperature that happens at 450 ppm equivalent.
Looks like we are not going to make it. We HUMANS could be EXTINCT by 2050 because politicians are not considering sufficiently strong action.
"CNunneley: If you really, truly want to see data, you can see more data than you could possibly imagine or download by following: " astreroid miner
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that wouldn't give us the records that have been lost. See:
"Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was "not acceptable" that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data
In fact, Phil Jones said today that the medieval warm period may have been warmer than today's temps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciam: "The following is a direct response to this comment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdoes not seem to work correctly. I hope other commenters have noticed this. It is necessary to name the person you are replying to.
mike cook,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In fact, Phil Jones said today that the medieval warm period may have been warmer than today's temps."
And that means ... what?
Asteroid Miner,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have noticed that the linking feature does work correctly with IE8, but faile with Firefox.
Asteroid Miner,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But that wouldn't give us the records that have been lost."
Implying that only the 'originals' are valid.
This is why I think CNunneley is not interested in moving the discussion forward. Based upon his posts, I believe that CNunneley does not actually want the data. Indeed, I doubt that he can use what is at hand; he wants to complain.
"In fact, Phil Jones said today that the medieval warm period may have been warmer than today's temps."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd that means ... what?" Chryses
It means that natural processes, not Man, are responsible for the warmest change in climate (Medieval Warm Period).
The UN's IPCC "...Working Group II (charged with assessing the potential impact of global warming) chose to cite one, then unpublished study that supposedly found global warming had doubled damage costs over the past 35 years. In fact, when this study was finally published it stated categorically there was "insufficient evidence" to link the increased losses to global warming. In other words, what Working Group II reported was wrong."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ipcc-scaremongering-is-destroying-its-credibility/story-e6frg6xf-1225831116193
CNunneley:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In fact, Phil Jones said today that the medieval warm period may have been warmer than today's temps."
--------------------------
NO, he did not say that. That is an outright LIE! Seems as if you denialists must either "cherry-pick" data or take things completely out of context, in your sheer desperation!
From the "American Stinker" magazine:
"Of course, IF the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html
Of course, retractions are a big part of self-correction in science—and responsible for much of the robustness of the scientific method in general. And none of these errors detract from the central theory of climate change: Rising CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere from human activity are "very likely" responsible for the observed temperature change over the industrial era, as the IPCC puts it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--------------------------
While the scientific evidence for climate change remains as strong as ever, it certainly appears john christy might be right here with a more robust way to expose errors and correct them more quickly, with a "living, 'Wikipedia-IPCC.'"
I'm still waiting for the skeptics to answer the following:
Because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem.
"NO, he did not say that. That is an outright LIE!" lakota2012
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIncorrect. You simply failed to comprehend what you read. Your failure to comprehend does not a lie by someone else make. Moreover, that was a quote, not from me, with the Source link in the first post. You missed an entire exchange between two people, then jumped in at the end and completely botched what was being discussed.
"Because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem." lakota2012
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#1: the GReenhouse effect is itself in debate: http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf
#2: if the Greenhouse effect survives as a theory, CO2 is less than 5% of all greenhouse gasses, making CO2 a very minor player, and most CO2 is natural, not manmade.
#3: Greenhouse gasses have increased in the past 15 years, yet there has been no significant warming, and in fact, some cooling over the past 8 years.
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are mistaken.
Just as there is a consensus among climatologists that AGW is the current best explanation for the warming trend recorded over the last 150 or so years, there is even less debate about the reality of GHGs. The opacity of CO2 to infrared is an experement done in undergrad courses. Further, in the absence of CO2, the Earth would be just about frozen.
Take an hour, sit down, and watch the very accessable lecture by Richard B. Alley: “The biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" 'And that means ... what?' Chryses
It means that natural processes, not Man, are responsible for the warmest change in climate (Medieval Warm Period). "
Even you have to be aware that does not mean that the current warming is not caused by AGW. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
CNunneley & lakota2012,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGentlemen, this is what was said:
"BBC: There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
Dr. Jones: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere."
There. That is what he said.
"Even you have to be aware that does not mean that the current warming is not caused by AGW." Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt means that natural processes, not Man, are responsible for the warmest change in climate (Medieval Warm Period).
That in turn means that there is an existing natural explanation for any current warming (if any), meaning that AGW can't be a consensus view unless the MWP natural processes are first ruled out (links to scientific papers focused exclusively on MWP climate change, anyone?!).
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It means that natural processes, not Man, are responsible for the warmest change in climate (Medieval Warm Period)."
Wrong again.
You seem to be unaware of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Waaaaaaaaay warmer that the MWP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
While you may be unaware of paleoclimatology, do you think anyone who is actually a practicing climate scientist doen't know that there are non-anthropogenic causes? Are you serious?
The fact that there are non-anthropogenic climate change drivers does not mean that there are no anthropogenic climate change drivers.
If you prefer to clasp a logical fallacy to your bosom, be my guest.
"Wrong again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to be unaware of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Waaaaaaaaay warmer that the MWP." Chryses
Incorrect. You've gone out of the timeline of the IPCC and still managed to get it wrong, yet even in your error you managed to name yet another *natural* warming event.
Not man-made. Not anthropogenic.
"The political fallout from the IPCC's mistakes was evident Tuesday when Texas authorities announced the state was taking legal action against the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In its filing, the state argued that the information the EPA used to make its decision is based on data from the IPCC."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069723794293584.html
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are mistaken.
"Incorrect. You've gone out of the timeline of the IPCC and still managed to get it wrong, yet even in your error you managed to name yet another *natural* warming event."
LOL! Since when has Earth's climate change been limited by an arbitrary timeline? How absurd. The fact that the MWP which is so beloved by AGW denialists is not as warm as other non-anthropogenic driven warming periods does not mean that this warming period is not best described and explained by AGW.
"Not man-made. Not anthropogenic."
Will you this time provide, or at least try to provide without introducing another logical fallacy, some evidence to support your case?
Incidentally, would you please identify where you read, if I might quote you, "In fact, Phil Jones said today that the medieval warm period may have been warmer than today's temps."
I provided the relevant text from the BBC interview, but I was unable to find what you said was there. Please help me out.
"Will you this time provide, or at least try to provide without introducing another logical fallacy, some evidence to support your case?" Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's axiomatic that the Medieval Warming Period was caused naturally, not by Man's industry.
Natural warming, not anthropogenic global warming.
Before determining what to do with the IPCC, we need to step back and determine how such a colossal scandal has been perpetrated, unchecked by a so-called "pro-science" community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPro-science means absolute intolerance of corruption, and a repudiation of the existence of "disinterested" funding.
Science needs to be protected, but not from energy and automobile companies who spend comparatively little, but from political agendas, through which billions of dollars are spent pushing particular points of view and rewarding cronies.
Private citizens have their own long-term happiness to gain through scientific discovery of the truth, and will always be willing to pursue that discovery - on their own dime.
Today's bureaucrats aren't interested in securing the long-term happiness of their citizens. They are driven by a short-term lust for power, influence, and money - on other peoples' dimes.
Truth and reality are the enemy of such bureaucrats, and science needs protection from them.
"IPCC underestimated Antarctic sea ice increase by 50%"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.digitaljournal.com/article/287706
CNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Natural warming, not anthropogenic global warming."
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the current warming trend is caused by something other than AGW?
"Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the current warming trend is caused by something other than AGW?" Chryses
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------------------------
Yes.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
CNunneley ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Yes.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf"
In what way does that document provide evidence for your claim?
What does the document claim as the alternative to AGW?
CNunneley ,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately for you, I read the article.
You, it would seem, did not.
This doc attempts to validate the ubiquity of the MWP, not the reason for it.
Are you really so naive as to assume that people don't read what you present as evidence for your position? After your SNAFUs with "Darwin Territory", "Darwin Airport" records, and what Dr. Jone actually said, do you really think anyone would take for granted anything you posted as evidence?
It makes me woder if you ever examine your beliefs. Do you ever read what other people post as evidence? Is it all just a matter of faith that you cannot be wrong?
CNunneley:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"IPCC underestimated Antarctic sea ice increase by 50%"
-------------------------
From your well-outdated source:
Another point from Zwally et al. 2002, which is not cited in the AR4, states, “The derived 20 year trend in sea ice extent from the monthly deviations is 11.18 ± 4.19 x 103 km2yr-1 or 0.98 ± 0.37% (decade)-1 for the entire Antarctic sea ice cover, which is significantly positive. Also, a recent analysis of Antarctic sea ice trends for 1978–1996 by Watkins and Simmonds [2000] found significant increases in both Antarctic sea ice extent and ice area, similar to the results in this paper.”
Thanks for the ancient history, and apparently just false predictions like you have accused the IPCC of doing. Maybe more recent information would be useful:
While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
To summarise the situation with Antarctic ice trends:
*Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
*Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE
We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009. We find that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes larger with time. In Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained for different time periods.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml
CNunneley:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"IPCC underestimated Antarctic sea ice increase by 50%"
-------------------------
Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements
With the longer time series, a statistically significant trend now emerges. Not only is Antarctica losing land ice, the ice loss is accelerating at a rate of 26 Gigatonnes/yr2. It turns out that since 2006, East Antarctica has no longer been in mass balance but is in fact, losing ice mass (Chen 2009). This is a surprising result as East Antarctica has been considered stable because the region is so cold. This indicates the East Antarctic ice sheet is more dynamic than previously thought.
How many millimeters does a GPS satellite measurement have to be off in order to conclude that Antarctic land ice is "thinner" than at some previous time? What was that previous time, anyhow?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey mikey, the other side of the coin that you fail to recognize, is that it could actually be thinner than satellite imaging also, meaning that it could be melting even faster than it already is!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscnunneley, you give us a link to a 2000 report referring to 1990's data, and I gave you recent scientific evidence of a warming Antarctica and the surrounding ocean from 2 peer-reviewed scientific papers. Go ahead.....keep pushing old propaganda, old data and tabloid quotations, but don't expect to be taken seriously as a denialist!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere have been a few comments about non-anthropogenic warming that has occurred in the past, and my response is "So?". Do you really think that the scientists who noticed the upward trend immediately said "well it clearly must be our fault because it wasn't this hot before"? If that's what they did then it would be a legitimate case against them, but that is not what they did. What other mechanisms could account for the warming? The sun, but solar output has not deviated much from the normal cycle, definitely not enough to account for the observed change. Volcanoes, they put out aerosols that block sunlight and cool things down, maybe there were fewer of those. Nope, volcanic activity (or lack thereof) doesn't account for it either. Like I said before, CO2 was proven to be a heat-trapping gas in 1859, and nobody can deny that we have pumped enormous amounts of it into the atmosphere (if you do deny that then you probably also think the Earth is flat), which logically should cause temperatures to rise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to point out a related point: denialists and far right wingers tend to say that "going green" will ruin the economy, but between 1970 and 2003, air pollution levels in the US dropped by 51% because of the Clean Air/Water Acts, catalytic converters becoming mandatory, and various other things, while the economy has grown by 176%. Going green does not mean that we will become poor, why people got this idea I have no clue, the evidence seems to suggest the opposite without even accounting for bad things associated with pollution.
Chryses- Do you believe a warmer planet will be negative for the human species overall? Can you site what evidence you have for that conclusion???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat specific actions do you want to happen and what will be the result of those actions?
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do you believe a warmer planet will be negative for the human species overall?"
That would depend upon the terminal temperature. The runaway greenhouse effect, beloved by the perfervid fringe of the AGW camp, is an eventuality I would prefer to avoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect). Even prior this unlikely eventuality, repeats of temperature extremes such as those of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum would be catastrophic. More to the point, and also more likely, is climate change which would endanger the stability of our technological society. In the event of multi-year crop failures, the resultant famines could easily bring about sufficient social disorder that the generally benign life you and I (and all those reading these posts to this forum) enjoy would be severely challenged.
"Can you site what evidence you have for that conclusion??? "
One need have only a cursory exposure to human history to become aware how close to chaos is the order to which we are accustomed. If you want an explicit, recent, American example, brought about by a 'natural' event, I offer New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. More recent is the chaos in Haiti, which has been mitigated only by massive, overarching external assistance. Etc, etc, etc.
"What specific actions do you want to happen and what will be the result of those actions?"
Taking a cue from you, transitioning energy production from a carbon base (generally acknowledged to be distinctly finite) to one which is not non-carbon based is essential. One obvious way of doing that to Americans is to make the true costs of carbon based energy supply explicit. Granted, this could not be done overnight, but by making Joe Six-pack sensitive to what he is paying for when he fills up, the body politic would be more ready to seriously investigate alternatives.
Chryses-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would agree that the runaway greenhouse effect model is highly unlikely.
Your core concern_ "climate change which would endanger the stability of our technological society. In the event of multi-year crop failures, the resultant famines could easily bring about sufficient social disorder"
I personally see do not have your degree of concern about massive worldwide crop failures. I see it as much more likely that the changes would be of the nature to make some farmlands less productive while others became more productive.
Clearly, our country needs significantly greater electricity produced. While the jury is still undecided as to the degree that global warming is being caused by humans, our need for electricity is not in debate. So invest in a better electrical distribution system and as many much production as you can reasonably build that does not require imports of fuel.
Many of those who believe in AGW are also strong advocates of the environmental movement overall, and are really anti human development. My example of this is the latest position of some members of the "Sierra Club". They are protesting against the construction of an electrical generation facility powered by natural gas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan't everyone agree that more electricity needs to be produced? (if you can't I suggest you are either ill informed, overly idealistic, or simply stupid) It is stupid to not build more planets because none are perfectly non polluting. When proponents of AGW theory are so unreasonably roadblocking of any progress, they risk everything they say being shut out of consideration.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, more electricity needs to be produced. It does not necessarily follow that more GHGs need to be produced.
Regarding the IPCC review, it's one thing to update and revise such documents on a regular basis to include new info, reduce error and unsubstantiated claims, and it's another thing entirely to allow without serious push back the stupid and groundless assertions about climate by powerful people such as Senator Inhoffe . The scientific community should be held accountable for not reacting more strongly to such ignorance. We must constantly be mindful that people are more apt to regard Inhoffe's statements as fact rather than pursue the research.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreuben007:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The scientific community should be held accountable for not reacting more strongly to such ignorance. We must constantly be mindful that people are more apt to regard Inhoffe's statements as fact rather than pursue the research."
-------------------------
That's exactly why the political operatives like inhoffe are the most dangerous, with no scientific background in the least, and a huge audience made available by the political environment in today's severely divided world.
On the other hand, maybe denialists like inhoffe will someday come around to scientific fact like glenn beck:
Don't judge Beck by his cover
He believes in global warming
“You’d be an idiot not to notice the temperature change,” he says. He also says there’s a legit case that global warming has, at least in part, been caused by mankind. He has tried to do his part by buying a home with a “green” design and using energy-saving products. “I’m willing to do anything but use the CFLs,” he says of compact fluorescent light bulbs. “I put them in once and couldn’t stand the way they lit up the room.”
http://www.usaweekend.com/article/20100219/ENTERTAINMENT01/100218001/-1/entertainment01/Don-t-judge-Beck-by-his-cover
Sisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Many of those who believe in AGW are also strong advocates of the environmental movement overall, and are really anti human development. "
---------------------
Nah, not necessarily the case, since we can be environmentally responsible, and just promote technology that doesn't trash our planet like we've seen for so long, which certainly doesn't have to mean less development.
We have to work harder at working more intelligently!
Briffa caught cherry-picking tree ring data: http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCNunneley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Briffa caught cherry-picking tree ring data: http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/"
In what way is that relevant to the topic?
Do you have anything useful to contribute?
Chryses has last-word-isis! Dear Soul, it is relevant to point out that part of what needs reforming is a way to verify that data hasn't been cherry-picked, but is instead robust.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, say something diversionary again, as is your want. You know that you want to!
Reminding others to remain on topic is only needed when they stray.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo return to the forum topic (unlike those who bring nothing but their whining to the table), I am pleased to report that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is set for review by an independent board of scientists.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/26/2831790.htm
The review panel will form part of a broader review of the IPCC to be announced next week. The review should be complete within a few months, the results discussed - and most importantly changes instituted - at the IPCC's meeting in October. This will allow the organization to revise itself prior to major work beginning on the next big global assessment, due out in 2013.
Although governments have decided the IPCC needs a review, they have also decided that the world needs the IPCC. Welcome news to those who feared that a tide of denialism, as heard so loudly in these forums, was about to swamp the world's body politic.
Yes, some people are not denialists and do know what to do.
"We have those committed to the view that anthropogenic global warming is real and dangerous, dismissing those who disagree with them as "denialists" or "climate sceptics" and even suggesting they are moral miscreants, like Holocaust deniers."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/more-heat-than-light/story-e6frg8nf-1225835659512
Yet again an irrelevant post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen will you have anything useful to contribute?
When will you return to the forum topic?
So sad.
Glad you said that!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishaving to hear the lies of many, it is imperative to be right.
Better late than never!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8561004.stm
Chryses,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal temp. data are unreliable. Read Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Climate models are unreliable. Read Dr. Patrick Frank
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01resources/climate_of_belief.pdf
Atmospheric greenhouse effect and climate models violate the laws of physics. Read Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Btw, Dr. Richard Alley also postulated the possibility of global cooling in the National Geographic program "Big Freeze" notwithstanding the public's fixation with global warming.