The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just released a 21 page report summary for policy makers of a report entitled ‘Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis’ which will be released later in the year.
The report summary can be downloaded here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ .
The report summary has been the focus of intensive media interest for some days and according to the ABC has been described by WWF as a “clarion call to governments to act urgently to slash emissions” and by Greenpeace as a “screaming siren”.
It is unclear from the associated media release when the full report will be made available.
——————-
Changes to the text in this blog post were made about 10 minutes after I posted it. New text is underlined.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The full report is to be published in May (according to Climate Audit anyway).
Am awaiting frenzy of denialism from the usual suspects. Wine open. Popcorn cookin’. This’ll be fun.
Nexus, What do you think about the summary? Was it worth all the hype? Is there anything new in it?
Still reading. It’s a little less conservative than I thought it would be (so far). My first impression is that it isn’t that different from Stern’s scientific summary (close inspection could change that theory, though). I haven’t come across much that I hadn’t already seen in the literature, which isn’t at all unexpected. I’d have to say that (first impressions), it gives a very fair appraisal of the current state of knowledge. Again, not unexpected.
Junkscience.com has this to say, in part:
“The media seem to be operating under the misapprehension this [summary for policy makers] is equivalent to the release of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report… this is regrettably neither true nor even close to the truth.
“Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing — to suit the summary!
“… this is surely unacceptable and would not be tolerated in virtually any other field…
“Under the circumstances we feel we have no choice but to publicly release the second-order draft report documents so that everyone has at least the chance to compare the summary statements with the underlying documentation.
The link to the second-order draft of the IPCC Working Group report is http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/
This backward approach–editing scientific findings to make them suit a pre-published set of conclusions–is stunning. I wouldn’t be surprised to see another round of resignations from the Working Group over this.
Nexus.
I’m a bit disappointed that the solar angle is still being (intentionally?) downplayed. Dr Solomon in her delivery appeared to stress that solar at best is a very minor factor in the current temperature increase…
Case in point – I’m surprised that a contentious statement such as:
“… that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 to 5°C, because of differences in the earth’s orbit” (see second bullet point in the Paleoclimactic Perspective section)
made it intentionally through the review! (Did the earth move temporarily to a lower orbit?)
This is an old (but good for the layman) paper that illustrates how the sun through its gravitational interaction with the rest of the planets will (can / may?) cause periodic warming and cooling of the earth.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1987SoPh..110..191F&data_type=PDF_HIGH&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
Can this + Milankovic + 11 year + etc cycles be a better explanation of why the temps in the last interglacial were so high?
As you did a big dissection on David Archibald’s paper at your own blog (and should now have an opinion on the role of the various solar cycles), do you think that the role of the solar cycles is being suppressed or diluted by the IPCC in favour of the good old CO2 boogeyman?
cheers
Arnost
I’ve just followed the junscience link and had a look at the section relating to the “changes in orbit”…
It appears that the basis for this is variance in the obliquity (tilt) of the Earth axis (which has nothing to do with a change in orbit, but may have a strong influence) and the precession of the equinoxes / changes in the eccentricity of earths orbit (i.e. less / more elipsoid – which probably has a lesser effect as the average irradiation of the earth over a year should not change).
I take back my “Did the earth move to a lower orbit?” snipe from above. But I wish they were clearer!
cheers
Arnost
Arnost – your paper asserts cycles exist – it does not illustrate any mesureable correlation with climate. It implies there may be. Well there also may be not.
The role of solar input has been investigated and dismissed as a driver of current change. That’s that. You would like them to put solar in to make you “happy” or just to make it “balanced” for you.
Figure SPM-2 page 16 of their report shows what they compute the solar postive or negative change in forcing as. You would like them to make another number there to make you”happy”. They can’t as that’s what their science tells them.
That does not imply that the Sun is insignificant as a climate forcing – just not an explanatory driver of contemporary change.
Milankovitch changes in climate involve variations in the Earth’s orbit – 3 modes hypothesised.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
There is a fair bit of information in the literature for this including on the enclosed link. Milankovitch is well known and “changes in orbit” are used in description.
Schiller’s statement – “”Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing — to suit the summary! ” – your basis for that statement is exactly what.
The draft authors contain a number of well known Australian scientists.
If you are implying they are dishonest be prepared to substantiate your assertion with facts. I find your posting of an IPCC alleged “draft” document of unknown origin as scurrilous.
I’m not sure what your point is, Arnost. The Milankovitch cycle theory has been around since the 1930s and commonly accepted since the 1960s.
See http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm
To my knowledge not even Jen Marohasy or the Institute of Public Affairs are arguing that Milankovitch Cycles don’t exist.
Luke
All I was saying is that it appears to me that the word solar can not be associated with any kind of warming… It’s not politically correct.
As a layman reading through the available literature the correlation between solar and historical climate variability is higher than CO2.
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
When I see historical temp reconstructions all being flat with the hockey stick at the end – of course I will assume that the models that give them don’t give enough weight to solar.
That’s why I’ll keep harping on…
By the way, a dismissive statement such as “thats what their science tells them” irks me:
In the same way you did above I can dismiss their science:
Science is about advancing a theory and then looking for data that will invalidate, adjust theory etc… “their science” appears to be about proof and corroboration not falsification.
The work that Steve M is doing a Climate Audit exposes time and time again that “their science” has many flaws.
It also appears that the same proxies being used over and over again – including some of the ones that Wegman said were dodgy.
Doers this mean I can dismiss all the IPCC political science? 🙂
cheers
Arnost
Luke,
IPCC procedures state that: Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter. See Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15, http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf
I didn’t release the draft working group report, Junkscience.com did. And in my opinion, it’s not scurrilous to prematurely release an embargoed draft to combat the IPCC’s scurrilous decision to release the conclusions first, and then adjust the actual report to fit them.
Such a process renders the result highly suspect at best. In this case, the “result” is actually the forthcoming “report.” However, since the “report” will be edited to support the “conclusions,” the “report” will simply be an advocacy document–edited to support the conclusions announced months before.
As Junkscience.com notes, “Rather than simply being an attempt to summarise the main points from the much longer report, the SPM [summary for policy makers] is a political document, agreed line by line by the governments of the countries which are members of the IPCC.”
This is a sorry chapter in the annals of science and we’re all going to pay for it, one way or another.
Schiller you don’t know any of your theory – you’re indulging yourself. It’s actually you guys as wreckers and nit-pickers that have caused all of this – they now have to get a document that is agreed to by the various nation states’ policy maker reps and the scientists where the words are very thoughtfully chosen due the political context applied by the non-scientists and cynics by yourself. The confidence in particular aspects of science is now qualified and explicitly stated.
The science will not change. The IPCC have now been placed in a very difficult position – the SPM report now binds the policy makers, the scientists and the different nations together in agreement on summary.
RC has a detailed take on this. It’s worth reading http://www.realclimate.org – an no not an IPCC advert either.
Anyway you now have your leaked report that you can pour over to find any little consistency. Off you go.
As I said at least 4 Australian scientists, whom some of us know, on the authoring team. Are you saying they are dishonest? Are you saying the scientific presenter, Susan Solomon, was dishonest in her representation of the international science. Let’s her you say it or clarify it.
Instead of scurrilous insinuations read the document yourself and ask yourself do you diagree with the conclusions and why. Read it for yourself. Before you get the blog or media comment.
The report is not above criticism – RC comments report a small error in table SPM-0 by the looks. A decimal point out of place. Alters not the conclusions but there you are.
Disappointing, too much time pressure on these guys from the political process. A very high demand to get that policy- science – international agreement while ensuring no mis-representation. Very high pressure stuff.
Arnost – the solar influence from their deliberations is as stated. I think they have it right.
You will note that the paleoclimate assertions are back and are actually now portrayed as possible out 1300 years. New data and more precisely qualified for certainty.
Presumably all will pouring ove rthe leaked full report desperately trying to find an error right now. A lot of people are going to go bananas over the 1300 years.
McIntyre has his role. But it’s not a constructive role as it could be. Does he provide you with an alternative perspective or simply does he and his mates attempt to reduce the IPCC work to into nihilistic chaos by shot-gun nit-picking.
Do they inform you really or simply destabilise you. I think the public see through it. Anyway I see they have their own 4AR anti-matter session coming up soon in London to try to pull the IPCC document down as far as possible.
You make your own mind up whether this approach overall is serving our best interests.
And are they themselves prepared to be put through the same level of scrutiny. This time they may have to defend their own assertions.
The way all these interactions are developing is really quite unhealthy for all of us:
If you don’t support the IPCC report you must be a denialist.
If you do support the IPCC report you’re an alarmist.
That’s where we’ve got to. All happy?
Luke
There’s a couple of statements you just made that make sense – but should be clarified.
“Do they inform or destabilise…” Destabilisation has its role in science (Kuhn). If there is an accepted paradigm, it takes something to destabilise it, followed by a period of chaos before a new (and hopefully better) one replaces it.
So destabilisation actually serves science’s “best interests” and is not necessarily be unhealthy.
http://amasci.com/freenrg/newidea1.html
Steve M has a niche interest, and a key role to play with respect to the above. He does not have to provide any alternatives, just justify why he thinks the science is wrong (and should be subject to scrutiny). If he forces the science to tighten up and improve, this has to be a good thing? If he forces the herd out of its comfort zone and into doing better analysis, this has to be a good thing? If he stuffs up too many times, people will (rightly) ignore him.
cheers
Arnost
Jeepers – fancy citing Gold ! His abiotic theory of petroleum (discussed at length this blog) certainly hasn’t delivered.
I see McIntyre’s interests have gone way beyond the role of critic and peer view. This is now personal and ideological.
I think it’s time the contrarians were critically reviewed.
Luke
The jury still out on that … There is a smidgin of support – maybe more will come. Wasn’t around when this was a topic )will follow up) so this may be new.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/23/MNGETN57UQ1.DTL&type=science
Regardless, the discussion in the article in my previous post is well worth the read – it’s full of insights about the evolution of science and science policy in today’s world.
cheers
Arnost
The power of the sun is not as significant as the power of man to make the planet warmer!! Wow!
Luke,
I have my theory down pat. As you yourself say, “they now have to get a document that is agreed to by the various nation states’ policy maker reps and the scientists where the words are very thoughtfully chosen due the political context…”
And, per the explicit protocol, it is now time to adjust the “science” to meet the expectations set down by the “various nation states’ policy maker reps” as set out in the Statement for Policy Makers.
Run Luke run.
I’ve used my three in 24, I’m out.
Luke knows perfectly well that it is not a question of whether 4 australian scientists were/are dishonest. The key issue is that the IPCC is offering a prospectus to the world community as to the future management of the planet but at this stage they are only providing a marketing brochure. They seriously expect the buyers (us) to bring out the blank cheque book on the basis of this brochure and only release the actual (unaudited) prospectus 6 months after we have singned the cheque.
There is not the slightest doubt that if IPCC were a corporation in trade they would be in serious breach of the relevant corporations law in just about every OECD nation. That is, these sort of actions, this sort of lack of transparency and accountability, is in serious breach of fundamental community expectations.
And that is why corporate directors who behave in this way do not have to be proven to have acted dishonestly to be guilty of an offence. Their actions in withholding information from the buyer at the time they are expected to make a decision, is sufficient proof of an offense.
The Australian scientists involved need to ask themselves if “aiding and abetting” is an appropriate career move.
Well done Schiller, more power to your arm.
To be so informed Ian and Schiller must already have read both the entire summary, release and watched the presentation as well. (I\’m still partway.)
They\’re reporting improved scientific certainty and more detailed understanding (eg patterns), similar outcomes from repeat runs of different models, and matches betweens observations and models. If all your wingeing about the science was sincere then you\’d welcome advances in scientific understanding. But Ian\’s a technophobe and old-school pencil on envelope type, doesn\’t even get the difference between hardware and an IP address so it\’s no surprise that\’s he\’s afraid of computer models. Ian\’s bushlaw rant and defamatory comments do not address the content of the summary release and have no substance.
Arnost,
I think the importance of solar forcing (which encompasses solar cycles) is fairly accurately represented in AR4. The figure given is 0.12 W/m^2 (-0.06 +0.3). Tamino at Open Mind explains where this figure comes from and what it means:
The difference in TSI between peak and trough of the sunspot cycle is about 1 W/m^2. As mentioned in the last post about solar variations, this doesn’t mean that there’s a 1 W/m^2 increase in climate forcing throughout the sunspot cycle. The sun’s energy is spread over the entire surface of the earth, and the surface area is 4 times earth’s cross-sectional area. So the 1 W/m^2 increase in solar output only creates 1/4 of a W/m^2 increase in “raw forcing.” Furthermore, about 31% of incoming solar energy is reflected right back to space, never entering the climate system at all. So, the increase of 1/4 W/m^2 in raw forcing, causes only 1/4 x 0.69 = 0.17 W/m^2 increase in climate forcing.
If we adopt as a reasonable figure for the climate sensitivity to forcing, of 2/3 of a degree Celsius for every 1 W/m^2 of forcing, this leads to only 0.17 x 2/3 = 0.12 deg.C temperature increase. But that too is exaggerated; that’s what you’d get if the increased forcing was sustained long enough for the climate system to reach a new equilibrium. Instead, the solar cycle is going up and down regularly, so the system response to cyclic forcing is less than the response to sustained forcing. Also, cyclic forcing leads to cyclic response, not to a long-term trend.
Hey I’m bailing – the 4AR SPM report is a crock. IT’S UTTER RUBBISH. The UN is a front for world government and these greenie socialist communist nazies will ruin western civilisation. The Australian scientists on the authoring team may have even voted Labor !!! My God ! They may not even believe in God. They are recipients of green slush funds and have had their children’s school fees paid to say the world is warming.
Anyone can see the current warming is due to a Jupiter-Saturn-soalr interaction – I’m off to collect. Sorry guys I’m selling out. I need the cash. Stuff the planet and buy a bigger air-con.
Hey so why isn’t Antarctic melting hey? And the mongrels have put the Hockey Stick back in – they all should be jailed. And it was cold the other day. And all the thermometers only read to 1 degree C anyway. Most of the GHG effect is water vapour so CO2 contribition is weeny weeny weeny. Actually it doesn’t even contribute. It isn’t even a greenhouse gas. Nobody has proved it.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?section=money_email_alerts
Exxon linked to climate change pay out
Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.
Luke, great idea!
Its 44 degrees where i am today and i think i need a bigger air-con too – maybe even a boat!!!! Certainly the cash.
“We are hoping to sponsor a paper…that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting] outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy…” – exxon… interesting – bet they get a few takers.
If any scientist here can agree that it is ok to dribble out your conclusions before the body of your report (on whatever it may be), so you have a bit of spare time to fiddle with the real material, did michael J mouse science 101. I know if I handed in such a thing i would have been shown the door. What a laugh.
Let the SPM-4AR wars begin !
DeSmog blog has leaked an advance copy of think tank’s IPCC Attack
The Fraser Institute will release their report in London on Feb.5.
Desmog says the Fraser Institute “Analysis” of IPCC Report Out of Date, Oil-Soaked and Incorrect
A Canadian think tank’s “independent” analysis of the upcoming IPCC report is based on out-of-date information and is specifically misleading about the nature of the scientific summary that it presumes to criticize, DeSmogBlog.com President James Hoggan said Wednesday.
It’s gonna be a loooongggg year.
So a think tank gets US$10K for a critical review of AGW. What about James Hansen getting a cool US$250,000 for his work on global warming?
See http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients.asp?action=detail&recipientID=9
What about the CHF68.7 million (~US$55 million) in “voluntary contributions” (read: incentives and bonuses) paid to the IPCC itself?
See http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session24/doc4.pdf
If anything, “the consensus” is bought and paid for and Exxon is getting way outspent.
One thing that the press has seized on is that “very likely” means “90 percent.” Who says and why doesn’t the report just say 90 percent if that’s what was agreed upon–or, are we dealing with biased interpretations presented as “consensus?”
Also, here’s some conclusions stated by co-authors of the IPCC report:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070203/D8N1T3GO0.html
“Australian scientist Nathaniel Bindoff, a co-author of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said, ‘By 2100, if nothing is done to curb emissions, the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet would be inevitable and the world’s seas would eventually rise by more than 20 feet.’
“But doing nothing about global warming could mean up to a 10-degree Fahrenheit temperature rise by the end of the century in the United States, said report co-author Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona.”
No hype? No exaggerations? No proof?
You mean that I’m supposed to believe and trust these people? Are they accurate, paid-off, politically motivated, or just plain stupid?
Just to throw a spaniard in the works, NOAA analysis of data from Argo remote ocean sensors detect a cooling of ocean temps. If this data is correct then the alleged increased rate of melting ice is being absorbed without a corresponding increased rise in sea water levels. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
If the data is incorrect then there is no increased rate in ice cap melt as sea level rise remains constant.
“Abstract.
We observe a net loss of 3.2 (± 1.1) × 1022 J of heat from the upper ocean between 2003 and 2005. Using a broad array of in situ ocean measurements, we present annual estimates of global upper-ocean heat content anomaly from 1993 through 2005.
Including the recent downturn, the average warming rate for the entire 13-year period is 0.33 ± 0.23 W/m2 (of the Earth’s total surface area). A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling. ”
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf
“..While there has been a general increase in the global integral of OHCA during the last half century, there have also been substantial decadal fluctuations, including a short period of rapid cooling (6 × 1022 J of heat lost in the 0–700 m layer) from 1980 to 1983 [Levitus et al., 2005]. Most climate models, however, do not contain unforced decadal variability of this magnitude [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al., 2005, their Figure S1; Church et al., 2005; and Hansen et al., 2005] and it has been suggested that such fluctuations in the observational record may be due to inadequate sampling of ocean temperatures [Gregory et al., 2004]. We have detected a new cooling event that began in 2003 and is comparable in magnitude to the one in the early 1980s. Using high resolution satellite data to estimate sampling error, we find that both the recent event and the cooling of the early 1980s are significant with respect to these errors.”
Need a statement from Woody and Schiller that they have actually read the SPM document which is now source – nothing else !
If the answer is no – you have ZERO credentials for any further discussion.
If you have not read it – you’re simply shit-stirrers.
Woody and Schiller illustrate well with their statements what shonks they really are:
“Voluntary contributions” – obviously you didn’t read it – it’s an explicit set of acounts for program funding with exactly what the expenditure if for and publicly declared. Obviously the Bush administration must also be on the take being a major funder. Did it pay anyone off like with Exxon mercenary funding?
No it’s not a “think tank” – it’s individual “hit contracts” for mercenaries with no morals nor ethics. No public set of accounts and murkily hidden from public view.
Hansen receives and award post hoc for services to humanity over a career – Schiller make a list of everyone in the USA that has received an award of recognition. Any Noble prize winners for science – are they also on the take?
Bindoff is misquoted – it’s simply wrong. Nathan supports what the SPM says – READ IT. Overpeck has quoted a high end scenario – what else was he saying around that quote – and what ws the question.
Woody your idea of science, which illustrates why you’re clueless is to endlessly parrot media reports. You don’t know how to debate any of the science.
So in Woody we see the propagandist’s art – selective quotes and no broader context to what is being said. Then leave an open rhetorical question. Which is what Woody’s blog is all about.
I wonder who funds Wooody’s blog (example!).
An example of why Woody hasn’t read the document and leaves him caught with pants around his ankles are pages 2&3 of the SPM – footnotes on page 2 & 3 which explains all the “likely”-90% business. So the SPM authors go to great lengths to get some clear language into the SPM as to what these terms mean and Woody says “Who says”.
The lead authors, scientists, of the IPCC say. That’s who says. Try reading it. I’ll be looking for every instance Woody where you mouth off and have not read it ! On notice.
Good post from Rog – at least someone is thinking.
Luke,
Interesting point. A little money corrupts, but lots of money yields purity?
You still haven’t answered me about the logic of making the science fit the political conclusions.
Anyone familiar with procedural justice knows that procedures dictate the result. Anyone familiar with procedural justice *knows* that fitting the facts to a foregone conclusion is inherently *corrupt*.
Gentle scientists in their labs, bent over their test-tubes and petri dishes, and crafting clever models which strangely mismatch the current state of the climate, are largely unaware of this dynamic.
Like anyone else, however, they do what they’re paid to do. If you’re with the IPCC, you take your money and do your dance, or you resign and be called a heretic “denier.”
You got a spouse and children and house payments, you toe the IPCC political line. If you want to keep your job, that is. If you don’t, try to find a job elsewhere. Might get a television job telling people if it will rain tomorrow.
Studying AGW is the gravy train and if you get off the train, not even Exxon will pick up your tab. $10K is $2.5K below poverty level in the US.
Luke, you probably get it now–or maybe others can, if you can’t. The system is rigged to pay AGW proponents. The IPCC is so massively funded that there’s even a cash surplus.
Funding overcomes many scruples and the IPCC tosses more funds around than anyone in the mix.
Utter twaddle – Schiller – IPCC working groups is hard thankless work that most scientists do in the international and national interest. Heaps of work away from home in smelly hotel/motel rooms pouring over documents, running models, checking code. It’s not glamorous nor fun. Satisfying perhaps and with some science prestige for doing a good job. Profitable – hah – you’d be better doing accounting. We’re not talking about fun-packed junkets that you might with corporate mates.
You don’t have to work on IPCC work. You can ignore it and do better in your career by being selfish. Lindzen seems to be doing OK? Michaels?
Scientists do have egos. Many want to do a Galileo. Most won’t. Many get jealous of colleagues. Resent being beaten to publication. It’s often argumentative and not that friendly. Peer scrutiny continuous. Funding is tight and uncertain. Good programs get cut by political decisions.
How does the science get “to fit” the political conclusions exactly. What is likely to get nudged away is “not quite good enough” science that is immature or not ready. I seriously believe this is the best distillation of what can be determined from what’s available. Fought over – back and forth to try and get it as tight, concise and defendable as possible.
I suggest it’s up to you to prove the science is fitted to political conclusions where the message is corrupted or distorted. The proof is on YOU.
If you don’t put serious evidence we will assume you’re a rampant liar and political shonk.
AGW is not a gravy train. It’s hard demanding work. With lots of abuse from the sidelines. Who would want to do it is they wanted to make money really. Wall St employs physicists to make serious money data dredging and playing with numbers. Why bother with AGW.
The system “is rigged to pay AGW proponents”: – how? Put up or I’ll have to call you a liar. Who has been paid off? Tell us exactly?
You’re just ranting – and as we can see above haven’t even read the IPCC document you’ve quoted.
The Exxon $10K is not a $10K salary – nice try – it’s $10K straight in your pocket for some dirt. $10K “rewards” for dirt and dobbers.
As for test tube sand perti dishes – I think you’re talking of GM Schiller. Not much of that in climate. “crafting clever models which mismatch the current state of climate ” THEY DO? Please tell us how?
So Schiller – you are morally bankrupt on this issue – nothing to say about the science. Simply impune the morals of the scientists involved. That’s about all you can muster.
Pathetic and disgraceful. Pure tripe from someone who still hasn’t even read the SPM report.
Yes good call Luke! I knew the why and the where of the 90%. Please pull your pants up Woody.
All commenters, please declare how much of the summary and accompanying stuff you’ve read/viewed:
– all/nearly all
– 3/4
– 1/2
– 1/4
– none/quick glance
Plus
– still going with it
– won’t read anymore (unless searching for quotes)
Posted by: La Pantera Rosa at February 4, 2007 11:51 AM
Oh, Luke and LPR. How absolutely, totally pathetic. You try to discredit people, even scientists, rather than debate the legitimate issues yourself.
Do you have any opinions on taxes? Have you ever read the tax code? Then shut up and pay your taxes, because you’re not allowed to speak on them. Have you been to Iraq? Is it a U.S. issue? Well, shut up on that, too.
Oh, it doesn’t work that way for you? Well, listen to views of other people, even when you find isolated nit-picking differences with your “gotchas” as you slobber all over yourselves. Good grief.
Please note that I very intentionally formed my concern on “very likely” meaning “90 percent” as a question. No, I didn’t catch the footnote through all the technical data, which supposedly provides credibility while not effectively communicating information–but, so what if I missed it?
Maybe you would like to read this from someone who has studied the report.
“Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists”
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
“…according to the IPCC’s own findings, man’s role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man’s effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
“All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is ‘incriminating circumstantial evidence,’ which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding ‘evidence of fingerprints.’ Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, ‘without other suspects.’ However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible ‘other suspects,’ he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century’s warming. Solar activity….
“Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, ‘will not dramatically increase the global temperature,’ Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: ‘Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.'”
Do you disagree with this scientist, or is he too stupid or unqualified for you to discuss his concerns? Anyway, he read and understood the entire report, so perhaps his opinion means more than others. At least he has formed his own views rather than taking part in the socialist stampede.
P.S., Luke, I don’t have a blog. I filled in for the blog owner at his request when he was fighting cancer last year, and he asked me to stay on to help him. We receive no funding from EXXON.
Hey Pinx Machine – this guy is a robot. We hit him up on not having read the SPM and he responds with YET ANOTHER newspaper clipping from some feral astrophysicist.
It’s the axe grinding cosmic ray guy
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
There’s nothing it – he’s been found wanting -WAKE UP Woody !!
What’s the difference between a computer and a right wing blog owner?
{hehehe Woody still hasn’t read the document ! Unreal ! ROFTL – let’s wait for the next newspaper clipping}
P.S. Woody you may be surpised to know there a little more than “Circumstantial evidence ”
How embarrassing for me as I have read our tax laws.
The denialists here often make themselves look silly Woody because in trying to discredit scientific reports they show that they don\’t know what they\’re talking about, then subsequently deny it. Layers of denial, all uninformed. If you want to make an impressive attack on something it helps to know what you\’re talking about. Yes you\’re entitled to your ignorant opinion but don\’t try to pass it off as anything more. You might be able to fool the average septic tank in the bible belt but there\’s no flies on us.
So Pinx to work out the Goods & Services Tax do you divide by 11 or 10. Can you tell me again. And can I claim a deduction for my holiday in the Seychelles again.
Yes Woodsy – as Pinx machine says you’re not messing with your average bunch of dumb neo-con supporting cannon-fodder Illinois farm-hand sepos here (i.e. Schillsy home range). You’re messing with the big boys now. 🙂 There’s no roos loose in our top paddocks (mate!) So don’t bother comimg the raw prawn with us sunshine. Or we’ll have to do you like a dinner sport.
The situation is that policy makers must make a political response to the perceived threat of GW and the IPCC has presented one such response for policy makers. It has been acknowledged that scientific consensus is not a scientific argument and is not part of the scientific method and it has been proved that consensus can be wrong however the issue has now become political (as evidenced by Luke and LPR constant production of ‘white noise’).
Richard Lindzen says of the alleged debate;
“..First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists–especially those outside the area of climate dynamics.
Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a “moral” crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce–if we’re lucky…”
Ha – why would you listen to Lindzen whose attempts to find alternatives e.g. Iris etc have come up empty. Sounds like sour grapes by Lindzen who has nothing but his MIT position.
Consensus can be wrong. But it often isn’t Not everyone gets to be Galileo – sorry. And there ‘s a big difference between banging on about scepticism, beating the system and doing it.
Yes it is political because the response to the 4AR by Woody and Schillsy is to rubbish the lead authors, leave “open” rhetorical questions “so you haven’t been beating your wife then?”, quote news reports and commentary as source.
On disasters – remember we already have climate disasters which we don’t cope well with. It’s not like we’re at zero base here.
This is laying smoke. There’s a lot of diversionary flares and metal chaff being thrown out as well.
SO what’s our alternative then. Let’s assume the IPCC system isn’t good enough. We put every opinion known to man in the document including fairies at the bottom of the garden. Don’t ascribe attribution to anything. How exactly Rog would set up a system to explore this issue ??
Let’s discuss something !
P.S. Rog on your previous delta sea level point – interesting – but if we have a relative temporary cooling this would give less thermal expansion made up by the increased melt being reported which would balance things out? Interestingly, the 1998 EL Nino shows as a blip in your cited graph, as you might expect.
If you want to know what I didn’t find in the SPM or disappointed with.
Model relevance to Australian regions – how regionally accurate are they
Antarctica – southern annular mode feedbacks – ( ozone) issue – important for southern hemisphere – maybe in final 4AR report?
Land surface feedbacks –progress? (Working Group 2 – WG2?)
.. .. including, effects on hydrology from woodland thickening, forest thickening, regrowth (Motty’s favourite) (WG2?)
Representation of El Nino/La Nina and longer oscillations (like Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation)
Anything on methods for Downscaling models to small areas like the Hunter Valley, South-East Queensland and getting data into a met station/rain gauge format (WG2 ?)
Climate during transition – CO2 increase evolving and changing. And then climate at stabilisation.
Not enough on their 1300 year paleoclimate story
And 4AR already out-of-date on Greenhouse / Antarctica accelerating ice flows from underground water flows. So I think their science here is conservative as it doesn’t include developments late last year.
The CEO of Exxon has the Company’s Financials edited to support his pre published Annual Report! Of course this isn’t true. But imagine the outcry and consequences if it were!
The IPCC has published it’s SPM without a “financial report”, the Physical Science Basis, which is several months away.When the PSB is released in an edited form to support the pre published SPM, will there be an outcry? or legal consequences for the IPCC? I doubt it.
The fact is that the IPCC seems to be above the law. It has promoted and controls a multi billion dollar industry based on selected data to present a pre conceived climate forecast.
This is a wonderful gravy train for all the scientists and public servants involved. The scientists involved know that the gravy will continue to flow from the IPCC, as long as they keep the story going. They, and the IPCC cover themselves with enough ‘ifs, buts and maybes’, as an escape route when the whole job proves to be the nonsense that it is.
What about truth and ethics? Well Sir Humphrey Appelby will tell you all about that!
I think Luke proves the point admirably, its not about science.
Rog – so you have no alternative proposition – no I didn’t think so. Reversion to one liners once mental capacity exceeded.
Sid – all you have to worry about is your missing rainfall analysis. But you ran away.
And yes – it’s definitely not about business – your’re 100% correct. Certainly not Exxon style business employing mercenary scientists.
And thanks for slandering our Australian science representatives – I can see you’re obviously un-Australian.
The lead authors names are on the report – I’d put their integrity above scum like you any day.
Try to stay on topic Luke, the adhoms dont do you any good.
The bit I like about all the AGO reports and all the IPCC stuff is the disclaimers of liability. They will pillory anyone who doesn’t support them but watch them duck for cover if they were expected to sign formal advice. Thats where you find out how much they really know.
The IPCC claim that it is ‘very likely’ that man is to blame for ‘global warming’ is based on the following ‘level of scientific understanding’ of the various known climate factors, from page 16 of the report:
Solar Irradiance – low
Linear Contrails (effect on cloudiness) – low
Aerosol cloud albedo effect – low
Aerosol direct effect – med/low
Surface Albedo Land use – med/low
Stratospheric water vapour from Methane – low
Surface Albedo black carbon on snow – med/low
Ozone (stratospheric/troposheric) – med
Factors not included have a ‘very low level of scientific understanding.’
Greenhouse gases (Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide etc) are rated as having a high level of scientific understanding, yet the effect of a doubling of CO2 is estimated within a range of 1.1C to 6.4C.
Furthermore, the total man-made effect has an estimated range that varies by a factor of 4 (0.6 to 2.4 (WM)-2).
The ‘very likely’ statement is incompatible with the huge uncertainties.
Peer reviewed science on the effect on climate of solar eruptivity/cosmic ray flux has been ignored, along with recent research suggesting ocean cooling.
A political document that tells policymakers what they want to hear. Odd that the summary for policymakers is released before the physical science basis is finalised and released.
Everyone, just a friendly reminder that if you don’t have any new information to add then best to limit your contribution to 2-3 comments per 24 hour period and please try and stay polite.
🙂
“There has been a climb in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere of about 280 ppm in 1850 to 364 ppm in 1998.” http://www.lenntech.com/carbon-dioxide.htm
“Global and regional models of carbon cycle rely so far exclusively on emission statistics to quantify the magnitude and variability of the fossil CO2 flux into the atmosphere.” http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/00467/EGU2007-J-00467.pdf?PHPSESSID=4cafe2901e039d990f13a40a823dce4d
“14C is a nearly ideal inverse tracer for fossil-fuel derived CO2 in the atmosphere- in which it has zero abundance due to radioactive decay.” http://www.colorado.edu/INSTAAR/RadiocarbonDatingLab/atmospheric_co2.html
“14C is a particularly sensitive tracer of fossil fuel dispersion because fossil fuels contain no 14C.” http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~niryk/Boulder05_Diana_extendedabstract.pdf
One group of researchers used this method to determine that fossil fuels accounted for between 2.9 ppm ± 1.5 ppm and 4.3 ppm ± 1.0 ppm of atmospheric CO2 across large areas in the US. http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~niryk/Boulder05_Diana_extendedabstract.pdf
Another group using the method determined that fossil fuels once accounted for roughly 21 ppm of atmospheric CO2 in an urban area in Poland. That dropped to 10-12 ppm with a reduction in the use of coal. http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/00467/EGU2007-J-00467.pdf?PHPSESSID=4cafe2901e039d990f13a40a823dce4d
The 14C isotope of carbon in naturally-occurring CO2 has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
So apparently, the 84 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 from 1850 to 1998 is mostly from natural sources and not the “man-made catastrophe” some say it is.
Does CO2 drive climate change? We have an enhanced greenhouse effect in a solar driven climate system. The question is what effect does a doubling of CO2 to 560ppmv have on climate?
Interesting paper here:
Global and Planetary Change, Article in Press
http://tinyurl.com/yufsmg
Climate forced atmospheric CO2 variability in the early Holocene: A stomatal frequency reconstruction
C.A. Jessen a, M. Rundgren a, S. Björck a and R. Muscheler b
A GeoBiosphere Science Centre, Quaternary Sciences, Lund University, Sölvegatan 12, SE223 62 Lund, Sweden
B National Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Paleoclimatology, 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305–3000 USA
“The CO2(Stomatal Index) reconstruction through the early Holocene bears a striking similarity to reconstructed solar activity changes. This may suggest a rapid response of climate to minor changes in solar activity during this dynamic period, which in turn impacted the global carbon cycle. This can, to some extent, also be seen in the climatic responses associated with the Maunder Minimum in the mid-17th to early 18th centuries.”
Also, Christopher Monckton has published his views:
FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.
Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from 2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century.
UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.
The Summary for Policymakers was issued February 2, 2007, but the report on which the Summary is based will not be published until May. This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).
The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink. The report’s generally more cautiously-expresse d projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Previous reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 had been progressively more alarmist. In the final draft of the new report there is a change in tone. Though carbon dioxide in the air is increasing, global temperature is not.
The second page:
Figures from the US National Climate Data Center show 2006 as about 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer worldwide than 2001. Since that is within the range of measurement error, global temperature has not risen in a statistically significant sense since the UN’s last report in 2001.
Sources at the center of the drafting say that, though the now-traditional efforts are being made to sound alarmist and scientific at the same time, key projections are being quietly cut.
One says: “Stern is dead. The figures in the final draft of the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report
makes the recent report of your Treasury’s chief economist on the cost of climate change look
like childish panic.” The UN’s 2001 report showed that our greenhouse-gas emissions since 1750 had caused a“radiative forcing” of 2.43 watts per square metre. Our other effects on climate were shown asbroadly self-cancelling. In the current draft, the UN has cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third, to 1.6 watts per square metre. … The UN also uses a 90% “confidence interval” rather than the 95% interval that is normal statistical usage. This has the effect of giving the UN’s projections a misleading appearance of greater certainty.
The UN’s best estimate of projected temperature increase in response to CO2 reaching 560 parts
per million, twice the level in 1750, was 3.5C in the 2001 report. Now it is down to 3C.
The 2007 draft concludes that it is very likely that we caused most of the rise in temperatures
since 1940. It does not point out that for half that period, from 1940 to 1975, temperature actuallyfell even though carbon dioxide rose monotonically – higher every year than the previous year.
Of the UN’s six modeled scenarios, three are extreme exaggerations. Two assume that population
will reach 15bn by 2100, though demographers say population will peak at 10bn in 40 years and
then plummet. The UN’s high-end temperature projection to 2100, up from 5.8C to 6C, is based
on these extreme and unrealistic scenarios. The new report confirms the finding of the 2001 report that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes, though it may increase the intensity of some storms a little.
Computer models heavily relied on by the UN did not predict the considerable cooling of the
oceans that has occurred since 2003 – a cooling which demonstrates that neither the frequency
nor the intensity of the hurricanes in the year of Katrina was attributable to “global warming”.
The UN’s models also failed to predict the halt to the rise in methane concentrations in the air that began in 2001. And they did not predict the timing or size of the El Nino which hiked temperature in 1998. Without it, the satellite record shows little or no greenhouse warming. Landbased temperature records may accordingly overstate the problem.
What knocks a hole in the whole IPCC setup is that they have released a summary of a report not yet published, a report that is still bein g written.
In fact, they admit that they will tailor the report to suit the summary eg on page 4 of “Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work”:
“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”
Clearly this is a corruption of the scientific process to suit a political agenda.
Rog,
You’re exactly right. What a mad scramble it must be to codge and cajole to come up with numbers that justify the conclusions your bosses have already published?
Every employee knows, your first job is to make your boss(es) look good.
What are the odds that the actual report will embarrass the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM)? Zero. When you go to a tailor, you expect the suit to fit, and the actual report–dutifully supplied by the hirelings of the IPCC–will be tailor-made.
If they want to keep their jobs. Jobs which, as Luke points out, stroke their egos and have them flitting around the world to various hotels.
I now make a bet. My bet is that the actual report will back the SPM to the hilt. How can I make that bet? Because according to the rules, the report *must* agree with the SPM.
Will the actual report be *science*? Well, it will be political science at least.
Meanwhile, as I pointed out above, the vast majority of the recent increase in CO2 comes from *natural* sources. Interesting that so few actually thought to *test the air*.
Luke, you have a problem with any source that doesn’t agree with you, which is a way to avoid discussion by liberals. I’ve said it before and you continue to prove it.
There is no difference between quotations and conclusions from a scientist in one publication and quotations and conclusions from a scientist in another. Quotes are quotes. The noticeable difference may simply be in presentation; i.e., one may be stated in layman’s terms while the other hides truth within reams of technical data. You have yours and I’m allowed to have others.
The difference in our accepted deliveries of information is like me giving someone a balance sheet and income statement to analyze the finances of a business vs. you giving them a print-out of the entire general ledger detail and expecting them to make sense of it and to note every entry.
Volumes of technical data do not communicate but, rather, hide information. Sorry, that you won’t admit that.
I’ve read the report, but I’m free to read the conclusions of those who are not connected with it who can communicate in an open, honest, and understandable manner; e.g., Jennifer above.
Real Climate, which you like to quote, is not a completely trustworthy source, as it will attack dissenters yet give completely credibility and praise to people as removed from science as editorial cartoonists!
I didn’t get your Down Under colloquial barbs, however, it seems that you are tremendously overranking your standing in the science community. Most of your arguments are “look at consensus and ingore the unsophisticated skeptics.” That’s cowardly avoidance–not proven science.
—
LPR, I seriously question if you have actually read the entire tax law and interpretations. But, it’s okay if you have someone else prepare your tax return or if you refer to personal finance magazines to understand the application of tax law. One can do that with taxes–and AGW.
What’s stopping you all checking the 4AR now – Schiller has given you the source of the draft http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/
If the final release is doctored to corrupt the meaning you have a right to complain.
Start reading and comparing. What’s stopping you all. For those seeking answers on solar it’s all in there.
As for Schiller – “bosses and keeping jobs”. Sorry IPCC don’t employ the scientists. Their host nations’ agencies do. What do you have to say about the US govt – the Bush Govt spending all that money in the IPCC process. Obviously must be supported by your President.
Woody the RC source showed the graph which says cosmic rays bear no relationship to temperatures. Zilch ! Check their refs at source yourself.
What hides information Woody are layman’s terms explanations that look slick and appealing without backup – that are simply “wrong”.
Schiller your “CO2 analysis” bears no resemblance to the serious studies (multiple sources) and your conclusions on CO2 are simply implausible. Try looking in the ocean ! Again tell us what the 4AR draft says – you have it.
And strangely Schiller – scientists may know that nature produces some large carbon fluxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle but we’re interested in the balance sheet.
Woody,
I don’t think Jennifer has actually stated what she thinks about the report.
As for the report, all that has changed from the previous one is that as their methods improve, and the latest trends can be incorporated into data, they are more right than they were last time, and more confident they are right.
All that is missing is the ability to say what they think explicitly due to political interference, eg, China.
Paul Biggs
accurate prediction of El Nino is outside the ability of the models, and no one has ever claimed they can predict them accurately, and the fact that they can’t has no bearing at all on the facts of global warming and the science behind it. El Nino, in the case of Australia, makes a bad situation worse.
That world temperatures fell nearly 1 degree C between 1944 and 1975, has not only been ignored in the 2007 Draft, but as Paul mentions, it creates a problem for their AGW theory.
Apiece in last week’s ‘Spectator’ by Frank Keating is interesting, “The Big Freeze..48 hr Arctic blast hits London. Thurs. & Fri., 23rd & 24th Jan. 1947 entombed Britain in a monochrome inertia. Froze solid & for the next 40 days & 40 nights, the temp only twice, and by a fraction, on 11th & 23rd of Feb. did on the Air Ministry roof ,edge above freezing. Skaters waltzed on the Tyne, the Trent and the Thames. Above the latter, Big Ben couldn’t even gong the hour, it’s Hammer ice glued to the Bell for nearly a month…..” About 20 yrs later,(I’ll find the date!) London experienced a January ‘heatwave’, with people stripping off and swimming in the Serpentine!! All within climate norms of course! But no, imagine the climate hysteria such weather events would invoke today!
Unfortunatly the IPCC in this SPM Report continues to show clearly how the scientific process is corrupted to suit it’s political agenda. It is a great shame that the majority of the Lead Authors and scientists involved are prepared to be corrupted to safeguard their jobs.
So they continue to ‘cherry pick’ the material which the IPCC wishes to promote.
One example is that the Report maintains that most mountain glaciers are likely to disapear within a lifetime, clearly ignoring the fact that a large proportion of the world’s glaciers, in all regions are again advancing , some, like the Franz Josef and Fox, in New Zealand, at a very strong advance,(www.stuff.co.nz/3945761a7693.html). With near record snowfalls in the area last winter these advances will continue for at least another few years. These advances are replicated all over the world, and are ignored by the IPCC.
Sid, thats why the scientists are gathering the temperature using systematic methods, so occasional extremes don’t distort our view. The trend of the measurements is up.
Sid – accusation of corruption is a serious offence. Unless you offer proof I think our scientists have good cause to sue you for defamation under Australian law. Are you prepared to formally state your case and prove it or retract your comments.
You comments above are all ill-advised or ignorant – if you have a look at the second order draft – for example NZ glacier behaviour is covered. This is but one example.
I suggest you are a neither a scholar nor a gentleman. I await your retraction of the accusation of corruption.
Luke,
Sid may be wrong. But are you trying to shut down discussion?
Is it OK for various nasty and misguided people to continue to falsely claim at this blog that I am a mouthpiece for vested interests writing misleading opinion pieces for both The Australian and The Courier Mail… but not OK for Sid to accuse the IPCC of corruption?
Jen – “majority of the Lead Authors and scientists involved are prepared to be corrupted to safeguard their jobs”
It is very clear what he has said. He’s suggesting the majority of IPCC scientists are corrupt. Evidence?? If I said that you were corrupt would take that lightly?
He has not said they are useless, incompetent, biased, stupid or he disagrees – he has said they are corrupt. Corrupt has a specific connotation that they have deliberately and knowingly on mass altered facts in a major international science policy document, possibly in receipt of personal payments to their benefit. See bribery. He’d better be sure of his facts.
The scientists involved are not politicians or paid industry advocates/lobbyists. They don’t sign on for this sort of personal abuse.
I have also pointed out that many his whinges are likely to be covered in the final 4AR report if the leaked second order draft is any guide. I’m always amused how people go off without reading anything.
I fail how this shuts down a discussion. Surely if someone or a group is charged with corruption on the basis of no argued case one has the right to take umbrage.
Luke,
The ‘IPCC scientist’ are mostly, like me, paid a salary by an institution. Does that make them ‘paid’?
And like me, many of them probably work long hours in pursuit of the facts of the matter.
Now what keeps you here at this blog so late at night … is someone paying you to stay up and argue with Sid?
Well we both must suffer insomnia and excessive remuneration given your 2:34 2:47 and 2:53am postings today. And Jen so I’m glad it’s not true then that you beat your children.
Jen I think we know what the difference is between paid and paid off. And the difference between a science paper and a piece of science/political rhetoric.
I’m surprised that you’re surprised that you can take a controversial on-point position in major newspapers on certain environmental matters, ignoring published science findings such as on reef, and you cop some flack? Naive?
SJT – Australia doesn’t have a ‘bad situation’ that can be related to CO2. How is reducing the confidence level from 95% to 90% related to being more confident? See my previous post on the level of scientific understanding of known climate forcings.
The huge uncertainties remain, and the ‘hockey team’ are still witholding data. Furthermore, we are fortunate to find ourselves in an interglacial period that is unusual even without any human influence, and could last a total of 42,000 years. Contemplate the implications of such a long interglacial on the ice caps.
Contemplate the bellows of CO2 Paul fueling that fire?
Well Jennifer that would be true if you hadn’t written such a piece wouldn’t it? I mean I read it.
“Real Climate, which you like to quote, is not a completely trustworthy source, as it will attack dissenters yet give completely credibility and praise to people as removed from science as editorial cartoonists!”
Woody beats the only drum he has: his own noggin. But he misreads approval of a political cartoon for actual science supported by the cartoon.
http://www.markyork.blogspot.com
I blogged today about the wingnuttery of the Wall Street Journal deniers. Of course they haven’t graduated from college over here so caveat lector.
Read the nove Warm Front:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976900570
Wow! Did Luke come down on me! Well, maybe I didnt choose my words very well. I didn’t mean that the majority of Lead Authors and scientists were personally corrupt in the sense that they were knowingly presenting falsified papers. If this caused offence, I retract it and apologise. What I meant was that the scientific climate research process itself could clearly be corrupted where researchers may be under pressure to produce findings to fit a pre determined agenda.
Also, these researchers are under a further subtle pressure, in that if their findings help to promote the AGW cause, their jobs are secure, whereas if their findings showed that AGW was not an issue, they could be ‘killing the golden work goose’.
However, with regard to the IPCC, and Dr. Mann, if corrupt is too strong a word, maybe someone can suggest a word to describe the fact that the IPCC knowingly appointed Dr Mann to review his own (Hockey Stick) work. And, Dr. Mann, as Lead Author, knowingly reviewed his own work? Or maybe someone can provide facts and evidence to show that this in fact did not happen. In which case I will be happy to retract this assertion!
Really, Luke getting the huff over this is a bit thick. He is very quick to slander scientists because they work for Exxon, or even the IPA. He is also very quick to rubbish eminent Australian scientists, such as Prof Bob Carter and Prof. Garth Paltridge, just because the hold views opposite to his own.
And as for calling me Scum; well, sticks and stones…….
Sid – thanks for your restatement. I also withdraw the term “scum”.
I could tolerate (and “tolerate” doesn’t imply I agree) “ideologically motivated” or “politically biased” or “biased” or an opinion that their science is of value little value, or “wrong”, but knowing some of the Australian representatives I find the term “corrupt” is too much. I believe them to be fine Australians.
Anyway draw a line in the sand at that point.
I can accept there may be subtle peer consensus pressure but when asking those involved about “pressure” they report that opinions are expressed freely and discussion not inhibited. But it also has to stack up. I guess you might say there is some self-selection in wanting to work with the IPCC or any organisation. i.e. if Jen told IPA at the job interview that she was a passionate supporter of Greenpeace, PlanetArk and WWF it may have been a challenging interview.
So perhaps some of us are obviously drawn to agendas or causes with biases. Of course I admit that. I myself was a 1980s AGW agnostic and was even taken in for a few weeks by John Daly’s stuff until I started checking seriously.
I think Bob Carter and Jen believe what they believe; in their fields they know their science, and you may have seen me on occasion (rarely as Jen can look after herself pretty well) defend Jen on blog when people say she’s just writing what she does for the IPA. I accept it is her personal views and whilst I may not agree I respect that.
I accept the Mann business was “less than perfect” but we did end up with a Star Chamber scenario which brings out the worst in everyone.
Exxon is a different and whilst not illegal I find their activities ethically marginal – but the opponents have explcitly challenged them in formal letters as well as in cyberspace.
On some of your points I do suggest you examine the leaked second order draft – assuming it is authentic I think you will see many of the things that you assume are not addressed are addressed but found against or in the minority. It’s worth perusing simply to see how tediously nitpicky all this stuff is. http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/
You are still free to rampantly disagree of course. Free country.
Did you notice these statements in the Summary for Policy Makers (at http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf ) :
“Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.” p13.
“If [melting] were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet…” p13.
So, if Antarctic ice mass (90% of global ice) is increasing, and Greenland will take thousands of years to melt, then that seems to be the end of the catastrophic sea level problem. I wonder why we aren’t hearing about that?
Des tell us how they’re treating this ice mass in the AR4.
I would like to *clear the air,* as it were. All I meant to say is that scientists hired to support the efforts of the IPCC are employees, and should be expected to behave as employees.
If they don’t behave as expected, they are out of a job and either stay quiet, or are called heretic “deniers.”
It is also increasingly apparent that the SPM is composed by government delegates, and that the governments which hire the scientists expect those scientists to behave as employees.
Surely no-one here is so oblivious to the economic consequences of touting AGW that they would ignore the possibility that governments and certain individuals would have a pecuniary interest in the outcome. The carbon-trading scam, if it can be pulled off, could mean massive transfers of capital.
To be an employee does not mean one becomes dishonest. But those of us who are, or have been, employees, know that an employee is paid to *do the job.* Whatever that job is.
Government money does not make a person clean, and corporate money does not make a person dirty. Skip the ad homs and remember, 99.98 percent of the atmosphere is *not* CO2 from fossil fuels.
We look forward to you treating employees of GreenPeace and other environmental or activist NGOs with equivalent respect Schiller. Assume good faith and doing their job (as long it doesn\’t break the law or common decency whatever that is, is relative?, or go so far as to cause new laws to be enacted).
Schiller – have you actually contemplated the opposite? Seems like the government pressure at SPM meeting was to water it down – see Paul Biggs comments on Fraser Institute thread.
Paul says” Philip Jones, of the University of East Anglia and a lead author of the IPCC report, said that the Chinese government had attempted to insist during the negotiations on the wording of the report that “some statements should be watered down”. The US, by contrast, had been “fairly neutral” but China, which sent the biggest delegation of any country to the panel with 17 scientists, had been “obstructive”. The Indian government, which has also been hostile to suggestions it should reduce emissions, had sent only one scientist to the meeting, he said.
–Fiona Harvey, Financial Times, 2 February 2007″
So I suggest you’re getting a “we reluctantly” are prepared to let the following go through. You’re getting a wtered down version perhaps – not a sexed-up version. It’s the actual opposite of what you’re saying. Perhaps if left without “minders” the scientists would have said something more severe ???
And you 99.98 appeal to our contribution as teensy weensy is simply IRRELEVANT and a ruse. Our demonstrated addition of raising teh atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280 to 380ppm has a calculated impact based on the physical properties of the gas. Trying to make it sound puny is total sophistry.
Furthermore they are not “out of a job”. That’s b/s. The IPCC does not long term employ these people. The IPCC is more of a process than a coporation/organisation. Scientists often volunteer/nominate to give their services to the IPCC or are nominated as appropriate expert representatives. A few have stormed out – are they still employed – yep? Are contrarians still employed – yep? Who exactly has been sacked?
Your argument is a specious try-on and lacks any demonstrable foundation.
Found what appears to me to be a good summary of the differences between TAR & AR4.
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/index.php/2007/02/02/ipcc-spm-so-whats-new/
cheers
Arnost
Re reliability of realclimate as a source of information. See comments 96 and 120 on the thread for their item discussing AR4, by a certain “bill”.Seems that some of us who respect this site are in good company.
Interesting Ian,
The responses do seem rather obsequious… “Thanks for stopping by Bill, its an honor etc … – mike”. You think it’s the man with the cigar?
Arnost
Yes Arnost I oscillate between the man with the cigar and that other well-known Bill. This is the first time I have noticed such deference at realclimate. Funny no-one seems to have noticed it (and good question too): on the other hand it was a long thread! I started on AGW seriously a couple of years ago and I recommend RC despite it being sometimes hard work. Better than wading thru all the rhetoric here.
kb electronics