Hi Jennifer,
Below are the latest six scientists to be added to the over 400 scientists who dispute man-made global warming claims:
Meteorologist Brad Sussman, a member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and Seal holder and past officer of the National Weather Association (NWA), is currently with WJW-TV in Cleveland, Ohio. Sussman, a meteorologist for over 21 years, proudly calls himself a “denouncer of the very-flawed man-made global warming theory.” Sussman wrote to EPW on December 29, 2007 and explained that he “debunks [global warming] theory by using logic and humor.” According to Sussman, “global warming has been happening on and off for millions of years. Millions of years when mankind wasn’t driving around in SUVs and using coal for electric power!”
Hydrologist and geologist Mike McConnell of the U.S. Forest Service is a professional Earth scientist who has studied atmospheric pollution, post-wildfire mitigation planning, and groundwater surface water modeling. In 2007, McConnell dissented from the view that mankind has created a climate crisis. “Climate change is a climate system that we have no real control over,” McConnell wrote on December 27, 2007. “Our understanding on the complexities of our climate system, the Earth itself and even the sun are still quite limited. Scaring people into submission is not the answer to get people to change their environmental ways,” McConnell explained. He also dismissed claims that the human race was “the cause of our global warming.” McConnell wrote, “There is no real basis for this. There is a growing body of scientific literatures outlining that this not to be the case.” He concluded, “Now, if Earth was suffering under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced addition of CO2, the troposphere should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons do not support this fundamental presumption even though we are seeing higher CO2. We ought to see near lockstep temperature increments along with higher CO2 concentration over time, especially over the last several years. But we’re not.”
Physicist F. James Cripwell, a former scientist with UK’s Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge who worked under the leading expert in infra red spectroscopy — Sir Gordon Sutherland – and worked with the Operations Research for the Canadian Defense Research Board, recently dissented from man-made climate change fears. “It seems fair to believe that this new model (from the UK’s Climate Research Unit) assumes that if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase, temperatures will go up. Since some of us know this is wrong, it seems quite likely that the 2008 forecast will be as badly wrong as the 2007 one was. What will the media do then? Maybe if the Northwest Passage does not open up this summer, as seems quite likely, people may start to realize that AGW (Anthropogenic Global warming) is a myth,” Cripwell wrote to CCNET on January 8, 2008. In a note to CCNET on April 7, 2006, Cripwell explained, “I am reminded of a quite well-known commercial in North America from Wendy’s, ‘Where’s the beef?’ When it comes to the [UN] IPCC claim that the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere is the cause of global warming, where’s the science?” Cripwell continued, “Throughout the discussion of doubling the concentration of CO2, there is absolutely no reference to the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere over which the increased amount of radiative forcing is supposed to increase linearly when the concentration of CO2 doubles. Presumably if you halved the concentration of CO2, you would decrease the radiative forcing by some linear amount. If you go on halving the CO2 concentration, then as the concentration of CO2 approached zero, it would appear that the CO2 was rapidly cooling the earth!! Clearly any claim that the doubling of the CO2 concentration results in a linear increase in the level of radiative forcing can have no credibility unless the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, over which the relationship is claimed to exist, is clearly established from sound scientific principles.” Cripwell concluded, “If there is no scientific basis for the claim that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the radiative forcing linearly, then any claim to put a numerical value on this increase has no basis in science. Such a number, e.g. 4 Wm-2, is irrelevant and meaningless. I am reminded of a discussion I had many years ago on the differences between astronomy and astrology. Both use the same data of the relative positions and motions of the earth, sun, moon, planets and stars; both have long complex calculations; both result in numerical answers. In the case of astronomy, the numbers have a scientific meaning; in the case of astrology, they do not. It seems to me that this claim of doubling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting in a linear addition to the radiative forcing is more akin to astrology than it is to astronomy.” (LINK) In another interview in 2005, Cripwell said, “Whatever is causing warming, it is not an increase in levels of carbon dioxide. A more plausible theory is that it is water put into high altitudes by aircraft; this would have roughly the same time line,” Cripwell said.
Chemist and Biochemist Dr. Michael F. Farona, an emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of Akron and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, critiqued the news media for inadequate reporting about global warming and expressed climate skepticism. “Data, numbers, graphs, trends, etc., are generally missing in supposedly scientific reports on global warming. These articles are usually long on opinions and short on hard data. Phrases such as ‘scientists agree that …’ scientists doubt that …’ do not belong in a scientific article. There are more data in Michael Crichton’s novel ‘State of Fear’ than in all the global warming articles combined that I have read,” Farona wrote on January 3, 2008. “There have been at least four interglacial periods, where the glaciers have advanced and retreated. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and, in the case of North America, left the Great Lakes in the glacier’s retreat. The glaciers are still retreating, so there should not be any great surprise that the sea level is rising. The industrial revolution is about 150 years old, compared to 10,000 years of warming. Can human activities have really made a significant contribution to rising temperatures in that amount of time?” Farona asked. “We know that the east coast of the U.S. was flooded during the previous interglacial period, so sea level rising and coastal flooding are not unique to this interglacial period. Why now the draconian predictions of coastal flooding as if this has not happened before?” he continued. “What is the relationship between an increased level of carbon dioxide and temperature? Can it be predicted that an increase of so many parts per billion of carbon dioxide will cause an increase of so many degrees? I have not seen any answers to the questions posed above, leading me to adopt a somewhat skeptical view of blaming global warming on human activities. What puzzles me is the reluctance of climatologists to provide scientific data supporting their dire predictions of the near future if we don’t change our ways,” Farona concluded.
Award winning meteorologist Brian Sussman, a member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), former member of the AMS Education Advisory Committee, and formerly of KPIX-TV CBS in San Francisco, is the author of the forthcoming book “Global Whining: A Denier’s Handbook.” “Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is allegedly warming the planet. This hypothesis couldn’t stand the test of an eighth grade science fair. And if you dare poke holes in the hypothesis you’re branded a ‘denier,’” Sussman told EPW on January 3, 2008. “Well fine. I’d rather be called a ‘denier’ than try to push a scheme that would make Karl Marx green with envy,” Sussman added.
Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. Briggs, a visiting mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased number or intensity in the North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking on tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. “There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what’s going on with the climate,” Briggs wrote to EPW on December 28, 2007. “Most scientists just don’t want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one’s academic career. Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet,” Briggs explained. “It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill,” Briggs wrote. “The skill of climate forecasts—global climate models—upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models,” he concluded.
Marc Morano
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
People trying to divert our attention to global warming problems are trying to distract us from finding out who they really are–especially in Australia, for obvious reasons.
“…an experienced UFO spotter has lent his support to the theory aliens landed at Uluru and created human beings” http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23035923-2,00.html
That UFO theory is almost as crazy as big warming from CO2.
Morano has got a hide as thick as an elephant. He persists with that 400 figure, even though it’s been shot to pieces.
Morano also hasn’t told us who has asked to be taken off the list. Come on Marc, you can tell us.
Oh well all major staple grains limit up last night in Chicago. Food hyperinflation train gaining pace. I guess as a farmer a very bright future ahead even if I have lower yields. Fertilizer (DAP) prices up 10% last week so thats great for my fertilizer stocks. A little phosphate play (Minemakers) last week was up 100% on burgeoning phosphate prices. Rather than fight to increase awareness I find it best to simply let the markets inflict their medicine.
You’d be well advised to sort this weather debate out soon folks so you can get talking about real things that matter. Like what world do we see as ALL food groups surge past old records with apparent ease … and if we don’t like what we see. What are we going to do about it? As a farmer, I’m really the last one who should be worried because boom times are ahead for me …
Paul I might go into the business of sandwich board making. The complaints of inflationary pain are going to be entirely predictable …
Hi, I’m one of the guys on the list (Briggs). I’ve written a short piece about why I appeared there. You can find it at: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/10/us-senate-report-over-400-skeptical-climate-scientists/
Given the heat of the day I set out to google all on Marks list above, —- x —– + “global” then I tried wiki for another perspective.
William’s comment reads well (thanks for the link) but his home page looks like guns for hire on anything.
None of this stuff is climate science. Sorry
Paul – I wonder if all these people know that they are on the list unlike Louis?
I really think that seeings a Louis did not know that he was on it this list is seriously broken and needs auditing.
Ender,
My understanding is that the list was compiled to include scientists (in the broadest sense of the word) who had commented publicly on AGW last year – I am on the list, I have a BSc PhD, I am a biologist who has commented on AGW and am often referred to as a skeptic – but I was not asked to be on the list, nor notified that I would be on the list. But that is OK with me.
I also understand that the types of scientist included on the list of 400 is similiar to the list of IPCC scientist – in that it includes biologists and economists as well as meterologists and geologists etcetera. I understand there are slightly more PhDs on Morano’s list relative to the IPCC list.
Jennifer,
the difference in the lists are that the IPCC scientists are doing research in areas in which they are qualified. The biologists and economists are reporting on what whill happen due to the consquences of AGW, an area of research for which climatologists are poorly qualified.
For a biologist to give an opinion on AGW and the science is fine, as long as you realise that opinion has no more weight than asking me what I think. The two lists are completely different in what they represent.
The IPCC is offering the results of research by experts in their field.
So counting up PhDs is meaningless. (Especially when it turns out some of the so-called PhDs on the Morano list are nothing of the sort).
Has he amended the errors on his list yet? Who asked for their names to be taken off the list? Has he removed the duplicates?
“Below you can listen to MP2 of the Great Climate Debate between Marc Morano and Air American Host Thom Hartmann
“Drag audio bar to 36:25 to begin my combative debate with Thom Hartmann about Senate Report of 400 Scientists
Click to Listen here:
http://www.whiterosesociety.org/content/hartmann/HartmannShow-(10-1-2008)b.mp3
Drag audio bar to 36:25 to beginning of Morano interview
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-from-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-6702
72.
January 10th,
2008
4:52 pm
Dear New York Times and Mr. Pierrehumbert, (Comment # 51)
There is no time for resting when such easily debunked critiques of the Senate report on over 400 scientists are floating about. I am responding to your critique here of the Senate Report of over 400 scientists disputing man-made global warming claims. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-f rom-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-6612
First off, the well over 400-plus names (and still growing) scientists are not “all” of the skeptical scientists in the world; they are merely a sampling of scientists who spoke out recently. The report is also weighted to English speaking scientists; it does not pretend to capture all of the large amounts of skepticism growing around the world to the hyped “climate crisis.” (See Full Senate Report here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport )
Second, you claim that there are a few scientists “who are flatly unqualified to make any pronouncements on climate science” because they do not meet your criteria or because the report has a few economists in it. Such charges are simply unsustainable.
Do you hold the UN IPCC scientists to that same standard? Please take the time to read this excellent research by Climate Resistance revealing that the so-called “thousands” of scientists from the UN are made up of significant numbers of economists and engineers as well. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-hea l-thyself.html
After all, you could argue that half the climate change debate is premised on economics that falls under Stern Review-inspired “it’s cheaper to act now” than wait category.
Also, the head of UN IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri, is an economist and engineer. It appears Nobel winner Pachauri would not meet your standards to comment on climate change.
Pachauri’s training as an economist has not stopped the New York Times from erroneously referring to him as a “climatologist” (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html?_r =1&fta=y&oref=sloginExcer ) or the AP from referring to Pachauri as the “chief climate scientist” for the UN. See: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/12/ 07/un_us_states_cities_can_impact_climate
Are you going to chastise the NY Times and AP for referring to the “thousands” of UN experts as “scientists” as well? (Note: Many current and former members of the UN IPCC are featured in the Senate report of over 400.) Or do you only selectively “disqualify” scientists if they do not share your views?
Third, your citation of Prof. Andrew Dessler’s articles at Grist is amusing. Dessler has monumentally embarrassed himself by recently claiming there were only two dozen scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears. Dessler is now trying desperately to salvage his unsupportable assertions over at Grist with increasingly shrill and comical posts.
It is made clear you have not read the Senate report when you parrot Dessler’s claims that Dr. Christopher Castro “unabashedly and explicitly endorses the IPCC consensus.” If you took the time to read Castro’s entry in the Senate report you would find that even though he accepts the idea that mankind is responsible for most of the recent warming, he has serious doubts about future dire predictions of warming. Excerpt from report: Castro, who studied under skeptical climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. “agrees that ‘other possible forcings to the climate system besides CO2 (like land-use change, aerosols, etc.) are not accounted for well, if at all’ and “models are highly sensitive to parameterized processes, like clouds, convection, and radiation, and these processes can have significant impacts on their results.’” End excerpt.
Remember, many skeptical scientists believe the Earth has already seen most of the warming impact of rising CO2, so agreeing that a 20th century CO2 rise has caused some warming is not the same as believing future catastrophic climate projections.
Also, Dessler mocks a meteorologist for citing God as part of his belief that mankind is not causing a “climate crisis,” but Dessler completely ignores the scientific reasons the meteorologist presents. Be wary of critiques that do not publish the Senate Report’s full excerpt on the scientist being analyzed.
Fourth, your cut and paste attack from Real Climate on award-winning physicist Claude Allegre and his colleague Vincent Courtillot is without merit. The propaganda team at RealClimate.org routinely ridicule scientists who dissent from their view of climate orthodoxy. An interesting note on Allegre is he recently converted from a believer in catastrophic climate change to a skeptic as new scientific studies debunked fears. See full report here: (includes many other scientist who reversed themselves on global warming as well) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB 00B51A12
The Senate report of dissenting scientists has gained a giant foothold in the climate debate. For a sampling of the impact the report is having in redefining the climate debate, see here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport
Also note that this report goes way beyond scientists’ dissenting but includes numerous recent peer-reviewed studies debunking rising CO2 fears and Arctic and Greenland melting fears.
2008 is ushering in a truly new era in the climate debate. No longer will activists be able to claim that the “debate is over” or, as Naomi Oreskes once claimed, no peer-reviewed studies cast doubt on the “consensus.”
For an insight into why there is a growing number of skeptical scientists worldwide, please read this article just up today by one of the Senate 400 plus scientists. It is written by Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. See: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1309
(I hope you consider him “qualified” to speak on this issue)
I urge everyone on this board to actually read the full Senate report (well over 80,000 words) and then re-evaluate your views. Full report available here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
“Second, you claim that there are a few scientists “who are flatly unqualified to make any pronouncements on climate science” because they do not meet your criteria or because the report has a few economists in it. Such charges are simply unsustainable.”
Such charges are easily and directly sustainable. The IPCC uses economists and other non-climatoligists to peform the expert work in the areas where they are required, such as reporting on the expected problems due to AGW. The “400” uses people such as biologists to make statements of opinion in areas in which they are not qualified.
How many PhDs are not PhDs, Marc? Two have already been found.
Jennifer
do you think you are any more qualified to be recognised about opinions on AGW than I am? I am not a scientist.
“U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee”
I think he’s even misrepresenting his own credentials now.
List of skeptics include every day more and more scientists. I am a doctor (in physical sciences), and today, after reading publications, which say that natural reasons mostly (much more than carbon dioxide) are responsible for the small increase of
average global temperatures.I am convinced that Sun and maybe cosmic rays are operating more than greenhouse gases.
http://www.nov55.com/
Quite a list of howlers there, Tapio. Thanks for the entertainment.
Ahhhhh, that was funny.
SJT: Science and funny, sometimes, are going side by side.
Morano sure does know how to parse. Dessler is right there are only a couple of dozen names on his list who are both denialists and who know enough to give Dessler a debate.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/dessler-20-eli-spent-some-time-going.html
Then, of course, there is Chance the Gardiner
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/ethon-visits-400-club-eli-sent-ethon.html
The last pug that Marc & Co tried to send into the ring didn’t show up. Claimed he didn’t know how to read a clock. Then he had phone trouble. Right.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/17/231612/94
Hey Gavin,
While it’s true I am a “gun for hire”, I’ve never taken a penny for any of the work I’ve done in meteorology or climatology. Nor has anybody ever offered me any.
Naturally, if they had offered and I did accept money for climate research, you’d still have to argue that my results are wrong because of some physical or statistical fact. You’re welcome to come to my site and download my papers (including my current one on hurricanes, which will soon appear in the Journal of Climate) and give me some ideas how I can improve them.
Incidentally, as far as I know, nearly every climate scientist I know is paid for their work.
SJT,
A Science degree (BSc) is a prerequisite for many jobs because it should provide important basic knowledge and understanding of the natural world and natural processes in fields as diverse as chemistry, physics, genetics, and the list goes on and on.
If the BSc is followed up with a PhD then the student should have a capacity for basic data interpretation including across science disciplines.
Jennifer
Is “a capacity for basic data interpretation” enough to offer expert opinion in a highly complex field of science?
This is textbook for University students that is available online for free by one of the pre-eminent scientists involved in climate research.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf
Where do you think he has gone wrong?
Take one name off that list.
“Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute
Man-Made Global warming claims. I’ve never made any claims that
debunk the “Consensus”.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
You quoted a newspaper article that’s main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific…yet I’m guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
You also didn’t ask for my permission to use these statements. That’s not a very respectable way of doing “research”.
We have climatic temperatures rising, greenhouse gas concentrations rising, any scientist that ignores this information because of a “lack
of proof” is just irresponsible.
George Waldenberger”
William: I probably can’t follow your invitation to the letter as I gave up on maths and physics a long time ago. Looking through the elementary stuff in SJT’s link makes me realise how much I’ve forgotten. Some of it like the chapter on “Thermodynamics of Phase Change” was vaguely familiar and we once struggled with turbulence from every angle in engineering.
Water vapour, evaporation, saturated and superheated gas, black body radiation, hysteresis, systems in balance like a string of equations for the ammonia in our A/C plants vapour filled instruments etc comes tumbling back however I mostly worked with other concepts as time went on.
Chutney starts with a bucket full of ripe fruit, a box of jars and a big pot. What keeps the stuff over a couple of years is a bit of experience and a lot of imagination. Coming from a “suck it and see” background I stand between two metal flag poles with a weak two way radio and get better reception. Imagination also helps in covert comminations and turbulent models.
Numbers by themselves are nothing in R/L. Data systems everywhere must be grounded by the taste test and the visual. The impact of storms and bushfires is not fully recorded by frequency or intensity. Although I have felt the impact of lightening strikes meters away several times each one was different. Last week we saw a b/w photo in a museum, a team of draft horses killed instantly by a single blot in their ploughed field.
Jennifer – It seems pretty obvious that the list continues to grow because anytime, anybody, anywhere says anything that can be vaguely termed to be anti AGW they are added to the list without their consent or knowledge. Your own example is enough.
I guess that soon if a high school student writes an an anti-AGW assignment, Morano will find it and add them to the list.
He’ll award them a doctorate, Ender.
‘Added to the list without their consent or knowledge”.
Sounds like the IPCC, and their list of 2,500.
Ender, For the record, you may also like to know that I was approached by an Australian government scientist about being an IPCC reviewer. He suggested I could make a more valuable contribution as a reviewer than as a critic. Had I accepted, and registered like Vincent Gray, do you think they would now be claiming a consensus of 2,501 scientists?
No.
Jennifer – “Ender, For the record, you may also like to know that I was approached by an Australian government scientist about being an IPCC reviewer. He suggested I could make a more valuable contribution as a reviewer than as a critic. Had I accepted, and registered like Vincent Gray, do you think they would now be claiming a consensus of 2,501 scientists?”
I don’t think so as Vincent Gray is not part of the ‘consensus’. The number of scientists is not absolute as they are the approx number of papers that were used in the compilation of the report.
Have you a list of the IPCC scientists so we can scrutinize it? How do you know Vincent Gray was not counted as part of the consensus?
What criteria did the IPCC use to ensure its scientists were in agreement with the final reports?
I’d like to see a list of IPCC ‘scientists.’ and their publication record in climate science. I did find a link to the core contributors to the recent synthesis report – but that link is now dead. I do remember climate scientist Nicholls from Oz, now retired, was on it, and one from Bangladesh. It looked as though the basis for choosing at least some of the scientists was on the basis of representing as many countries as possible, rather than world leading expertise.
I don’t really tend to get involved in the consensus numbers game, because science doesn’t work by consensus – it works on the basis of objectivity and who is wrong, and who is right. Scientists who serve and protect a consensus are not likely to be objective.
But as Jen said, let’s see the complete IPCC list please – then we can count them and check out their publications.
–“let’s see the complete IPCC list please – then we can count them and check out their publications”
Given the way SJT has raved on about this for so long, he should have the complete list at his finger tips.
I have seen a partial list of the Australian reps and it is not that impressive, either in PHd count or published papers, but that doesnt mean their contribution was deficient.
Jennifer – “Have you a list of the IPCC scientists so we can scrutinize it? How do you know Vincent Gray was not counted as part of the consensus?
What criteria did the IPCC use to ensure its scientists were in agreement with the final reports?”
I see once Morano’s list is scrutinised a bit out come the requests for data. Hmmmm shades of the hockey stick wars – well here you are on the wrong end of a doubt wedge campaign and I see that you don’t like it.
I don’t care what data you want – like you people in the hockey stick wars I can just stonewall, supply unverifiable data and all the while call the 400 list broken. Now where can I find a pet auditor and pet senator…..???
Meanwhile while we merrily fiddle on with 400 lists this is happening:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3181944.ece
“The rate of annual ice loss in the Antarctic has increased by almost 80 billion tonnes in a decade, a study has found.
Measurements using satellite radar readings revealed that in parts of the continent the rate of loss has speeded up by 140 per cent since 1996. Global warming is thought to be among the most likely factors and the data provides one of the most detailed assessments yet of the changes.
The findings challenge suggestions from previous research that the overall quantities of ice and snow in Antarctica could increase over the next century because of greater snowfall. The total annual loss was estimated at 196 billion tonnes, almost 50 times as much as the 4 billion tonnes of drinking water supplied to Britain’s taps each year.
The most extensive ice loss was found to be taking place in west Antarctica, where an estimated 132 billion tonnes disappeared in 2006. The annual loss increased by about 49 billion tonnes more than in 1996, when about 83 billion tonnes was calculated to have slipped into the water, mainly as icebergs. ”
Nero was a genius compared to us.
“and one from Bangladesh. It looked as though the basis for choosing at least some of the scientists was on the basis of representing as many countries as possible, rather than world leading expertise.”
Of course, someone from Bangladesh can’t be world leading, as we all know.
“But as Jen said, let’s see the complete IPCC list please – then we can count them and check out their publications.”
So you’ve given up on the ‘400’ list too? Don’t blame you.
“But as Jen said, let’s see the complete IPCC list please – then we can count them and check out their publications.”
As per standard scientific practice, all authors of papers are listed in that paper, with their qualifications. The IPCC references all papers used to create it’s reports. The only thing required to list them all is get out there and do your own research.
“The findings challenge suggestions from previous research that the overall quantities of ice and snow in Antarctica could increase over the next century because of greater snowfall. The total annual loss was estimated at 196 billion tonnes, almost 50 times as much as the 4 billion tonnes of drinking water supplied to Britain’s taps each year.”
C’mon, nothing new here! It’s been well known that the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica have been losing more ice due to changes in ocean currents. Meanwhile East Antarctica, which comprises 90% of the continent has been cooling and gaining ice mass. Sea ice extent in the Antarctic hit record levels this year and continue at record levels through the southern summer season.
You must be able to do better than this Ender!!
stop looking at credentials, look at content.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/#more-523
how many people with a scientific qualification say warming stopped in 98? Well, there are a few on this site…
Stop looking at credentials, look at content–he says.
What would be just as important would be to look at the process as well.
The IPCC can hardly claim any credibility when it sets up systems whereby the authers of papers are also reviewers,and neither are that prominent in the world of AGW science anyway. Doesnt matter how many Phd’s they had between them, when shonky processes are used.
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
Ender,
The IPCC (and then Al Gore) got us all started on the idea that there is an AGW consensus and that numbers of scientists on a list counts for something. you and others have got behind this idea suggesting that AGW skeptics are a minority and mostly in the pay of big oil. Marc Morano’s list challenges this myth.
Now rather than attempt to divert discussion with reference to ‘the hockystick’, can you please provide a link to the names of the scientists who make up the reported consensus of 2,500. I am particulary keen to see if Vincent Gray is on the list. I would also like to understand who else is/is not on the list.
Does the silence of ‘Luke’ have anything to do with the constant noise from ‘Ender’ and ‘SJT’? Is there a connection there somewhere?! Boy, they don’t like that list of 400 plus, and they don’t like it growing, as grow it will continue to do.
I was talking to a very bright young farmer’s son with a BSc (Sydney), over the weekend, he has been involved in climate research with regard to agriculture. He commented that he has moved from a position of belief in AGW to now believing that it is a non event. States that most of his confreres have moved from the former position to now being agnostics on AGW, but most don’t want to question it as it may affect career prospects.
Ender seems to be scraping the barrel with regurgitated data on west antarctia (about 8% of the continent). He ignores the record extent of Antarctic ice this season. Maybe his beloved ‘hockey stick’ will show up again with the blade pointing south, if current temp. trends continue.
From Marc Morano:
I have not confirmed that George Waldenberger is indeed really the author of the note asking to be removed from the Senate Report. But I did send the below note to Waldenberger on Sunday. It is self-explanatory.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
Marc Morano’s email responding to email purportedly from Iowa Meteorologist George Waldenberger. Email sent on January 13, 2008 at 12:48 AM ET.
—– Original Message —–
From: Morano, Marc (EPW)
To: George Waldenberger
Sent: Sun Jan 13 00:48:05 2008
Subject: Re:
Dear George,
Thank you for you note. We currently have you in our Senate Report under the criteria of scientists who “voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called consensus” on man-made global warming. The report does not allege you believe we should “ignore” climate change, rather it simply states you “expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007.”
That assertion in the report is followed by a long series of your quotes in which you state in part (your full section from the report is below), “The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air.” In the linked article (Sioux City Journal – April 11, 2007), you also opine about the intensity of hurricanes and global warming and state, “And that’s an item of debate as well.” You bluntly assert that both the hurricane connection to warming and CO2’s impact on global temperature are still “debatable.”
You clearly articulate that you do not agree with former Vice President Al Gore (who claims we face an urgent “climate crisis”) or the UN IPCC (where multiple UN leaders say the climate debate is completely over – UN leaders say it is ‘completely immoral’ to question the IPCC ‘consensus.’ See: http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2007/05/10/analysis_un_calls_climate_debate_over/6480/
And the UN says it is ‘criminally irresponsible’ the urgency of global warming. See: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-11-12-united-nations_N.htm )
The Senate report further quotes you stating: “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?”
The fact is, you recognize that there is a “debate.” Gore and the IPCC leaders do not recognize the need for the “debate” about climate that you so eloquently lay out.
Your statements about these climate feedbacks further separate you from Gore and the UN IPCC views. You assert that CO2’s stimulating impact on plant growth can be a negative feedback which directly limits CO2 levels. This is a significant point which runs directly counter to man-made climate fears.
Indeed, many of the latest research trends indicate that plants are absorbing far more CO2 than IPCC figures anticipate, partly perhaps because deforestation rates have been overestimated. Here’s an article that supports your thoughtful views on the subject: Excerpt: Claims that tropical forests are declining cannot be backed up by hard evidence, according to new research from the University of Leeds. “Scientists all over the world who have used these data to make predictions of species extinctions and the role of forests in global climate change will find it helpful to revisit their findings in the light of my study.”
Full Report here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/uol-nce010708.php
Also, please keep in mind the Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full bio of each scientist, quotes and links for further reading. The reader is not looking at your name on a long list, but actually reading your words and understanding all of your intended subtleties and caveats about climate change. The report even quotes you saying man-made global warming “seems to be a reasonable argument.”
Again, I thank you for writing me. If you would like to further discuss, please respond or call me at 202-XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
Communications Dir. (Minority)
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
Below is your full entry from December 20, 2007 Senate report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Iowa Meteorologists George Waldenberger and Gary Shore expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007. “Well, I went to school at UCLA, a big climate school. And it isn’t really an issue as to if the global climate has been warming,” Waldenberger said on April 11, 2007. “It has over the past 40 years. The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air,” Waldenberger explained. Meteorologist Gary Shore, agreed with Waldenberger. “There’s definitely global warming,” Shore said on April 11, 2007. “No question about that. And it seems very likely that what we’re doing has some part of that, some impact; but as to exactly how much of it is us and how much of it is other things, nobody knows,” Shore explained. Waldenberger further commented, “But you know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas just like water vapor, which is actually the most efficient greenhouse gas. And that’s why we’re actually 60 degrees warmer than we would be without water vapor in the air. So if you’re talking about the greenhouse effect, that’s very real, and we need it to survive. But as far as carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the last 100 years, they have about 30 percent. And temperatures have increased about a degree on average across the entire globe over the last hundred years as well. So it seems to be a reasonable argument.” “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?” he added. (LINK )
)
End note from Morano.
# # #
“Waldenberger further commented, “But you know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas just like water vapor, which is actually the most efficient greenhouse gas. And that’s why we’re actually 60 degrees warmer than we would be without water vapor in the air. So if you’re talking about the greenhouse effect, that’s very real, and we need it to survive. But as far as carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the last 100 years, they have about 30 percent. And temperatures have increased about a degree on average across the entire globe over the last hundred years as well. So it seems to be a reasonable argument.””
Seems pretty clear to me.
There are many myths in climate change debate, one of them the “2,500 list”? Another thing: if two curves (carbon dioxide concentration and average global temperatures) are increasing, it does not mean that the first is a reason for the second, and vice versa.
SJT – why don’t you surprise me and provide some evidence to back up your increasingly stupid comments!?
Anthony – Pielke Jr has reponded to the greenhouse industry propaganda site, RC:
Real Climate’s Two Voices on Short-Term Climate Fluctuations
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001318real_climates_two_v.html
Verification of IPCC Temperature Forecasts 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001319verification_of_ipcc.html
Marcs the guy who comes up with the ‘list’.
No – who was first to claim ‘2500 scientists?’
I found the IPCC WG1 list of authors and reviewers – Vincent Gray is indeed listed as an expert reviewer for NZ.
Tapio – “There are many myths in climate change debate, one of them the “2,500 list”? Another thing: if two curves (carbon dioxide concentration and average global temperatures) are increasing, it does not mean that the first is a reason for the second, and vice versa.”
No you are correct correlation does not imply causation as the cosmic ray people are finding. However if a casual correlation was the only thing that was going for AGW theory then you would be correct. However when you add in basic radiative physics and observations about how greenhouse gases work in the atmosphere and that the forcings from mainly human emitted greenhouse gases match the amount of energy needed to raise the global temperature the amount that it has, it is not theory based on a simple correlation.
Only by ignoring basic physics and atmospheric observations can you deny the link between human emitted greenhouse gases and land use changes and rising global temperatures.
SJT asked “who was first to claim ‘2500 scientists’?”
We have heard in media reports that there are “2,500 scientists from 130 countries who support the IPCC views on anthropogenic greenhouse warming (AGW)” and that, therefore, the time for debate is over and now it is time to “take action”.
Where did the “2,500” number come from?
It was mentioned in a press presentation given on November 17, 2007 by IPCC Chair, Dr. Pachauri, at the 27th Session of the IPCC in Valencia, Spain.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/valencia-2007-11/pachauri-17-november-2007.pdf
But the magic “2,500” number actually was reported much earlier by the media. An Editorial in the International Herald Tribune of 23/6/97 was entitled “Take warming seriously”. It was picked up from The New York Times; and it said:
“One reason why the industrialized nations opted for voluntary targets at Rio (in 1992) was that main-stream scientists simply could not agree whether man-made emissions had contributed to the small rise in global temperatures that began late in the 19th century. In 1995, however, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, consisting of about 2,500 scientists, concluded that they had.”
This appears to be the first mention of the “magic number”, but since then it has been repeated frequently.
At the release in February 2007 of the IPCC “Summary for Policymakers” report, Reuters reported: “The United Nations panel, which groups 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more droughts, heat waves, rains and a slow gain in sea levels that could last for more than 1,000 years.”
Following Pachauri’s press release, The New York Times reported on November 20, 2007: “The world’s scientists have done their job. Now it’s time for world leaders, starting with President Bush, to do theirs. That is the urgent message at the core of the latest – and the most powerful – report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2,500 scientists who collectively constitute the world’s most authoritative voice on global warming.”
So the “2,500” number has become a commonly held belief, reinforced periodically in press releases, editorials, blog sites, etc.
Yet there are those that question the validity of the “2,500” number. In an article entitled “Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?”, Dr. S. Fred Singer,
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, writes:
The widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s ‘Summary for Policymakers.’”
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08
I have seen neither a confirmation by the IPCC that its “2,500” number is correct, nor a definitive study that shows it is incorrect.
So who knows?
But it looks like it has been around for over 10 years, right or wrong.
Max
“Only by ignoring basic physics and atmospheric observations can you deny the link between human emitted greenhouse gases and land use changes and rising global temperatures.”
You’re getting sloppy Ender! Doesn’t Chapter 2 of AR4 show land use change as a negative forcing?
If you are replacing dark trees with light coloured crops, then the change in land use will be creating a
‘brighter’ land surface that reflects more light, rather than absorbing it.
That Senate 400 plus scientist report really struck a nerve with climate alarmists:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=104&func=view&catid=11&id=1790
http://www.desmogblog.com/shoot-the-messenger-morano-ignores-the-science-attacks-the- reporter
(note the first link here)
http://www.scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/attack_orchestrated.php
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/25/ 17124/9789
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/24/dont- believe-inhofes-hype/
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental- news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers- 47011101
http://tinyurl.com/2p5o47
Wow, Jennifer!
Looks like the doomsday guys have become the real “deniers”.
150+ “qualified” individuals on the Inhofe list (by Andrew Dessler’s elitist definition), who were prepared to “buck the tide” and speak out against the IPCC hype tells me a story.
The story is that “there is no scientific consensus”.
This is reinforced by the fact that there is not even a consensus at the very top of the IPCC, with one of the top 2 qualified guys there (Yuri Izrael) speaking out against the whole “disastrous anthropogenic greenhouse warming” hypothesis.
Maybe 2007 was the year that the “non-believers” made their point, and 2008 will be the year that the doomsayers lose their argument.
Let’s hope that 2009 will be the year that the whole bubble bursts and the IPCC is abandoned.
Max
“That Senate 400 plus scientist report really struck a nerve with climate alarmists:”
I think the nerve was the one that wonders how ludicrous can the denialist argument get? If the science against AGW is so convincing, why would you stand by such patent nonsense as this list from Morano, that awards a PhD to our own ‘amateur’ data analyst from Melbourne.
That is the standard of the case, honestly?
Max,
the IPCC is up to the fourth report, in about 20 years. The message has been consistent. No bubbles are going to be bursting.
Hadley sea surface temperatures are just in for December. They continue to drop. SH temperatures are now below the 1961-1990 average into negative territory.
Pop! Pop!
Global Temperature Rate of Increase
The news from Mark on lower SH temperatures may not be the only good news around.
There have been a lot of reports about recent “global” temperatures reaching “new records”, etc.
Much of this turns out to be hype, once the actual records are examined.
In a recent report entitled “2007 ‘second warmest year’ in UK”, BBC tells us what really happened last year on a global scale.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7169690.stm
It is true that global average temperatures have risen over the last thirty years, as confirmed by both the surface and the satellite records.
It is also true that the 10 “hottest years” on record have occurred since 1991.
The rankings, based on the global surface record compiled by the Hadley Centre show these to be (in descending order):
1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997, 1999
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt
Based on the global UAH satellite record, the rankings are:
1998, 2005, 2002, 2007, 2006, 2003, 2001, 2004, 1995, 1991
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Plotting the two temperature records for the last 10 years shows that:
· The surface record showed a linear increase of 0.0062 degrees C per decade
· The satellite record showed a linear increase of 0.0059 degrees C per decade
Both of these rates of increase are considerably lower than the average rate of increase over the past 28 years, when satellite readings first became available:
· The surface record showed a linear increase of 0.0171 degrees C per decade
· The satellite record showed a linear increase of 0.0142 degrees C per decade
In contrast to the longer term record, where the surface anomaly shows a higher rate of increase than the tropospheric (satellite) record, the record over the past 10 years for the surface and the troposphere agree fairly closely. This is still strange since greenhouse warming should show a more rapid increase in the troposphere than on the surface.
But does this mean that the rate of temperature increase has started to slow down?
1998 was an unusually warm “El Niño” (ENSO) year, so one could argue that calculating the trend for the last 10 years (starting with 1998) might be misleading; 2005 was also an ENSO year. These are the two warmest years based on both surface and satellite readings.
The IPCC projects that temperatures will increase at a rate of 0.2 degrees C per decade over the next two decades, and that this could even accelerate over the 21st century, attributing this essentially to anthropogenic greenhouse warming, caused primarily by man-made CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Are we leveling off as the most recent record shows or will temperatures continue to increase at an accelerating rate as the IPCC computer models project?
Looks like will have to wait several more years to see what really happens, but there are signs that it may not be as drastic as we feared.
Maybe some bubbles will be popping.
Max
Max – “1998 was an unusually warm “El Niño” (ENSO) year, so one could argue that calculating the trend for the last 10 years (starting with 1998) might be misleading; 2005 was also an ENSO year. These are the two warmest years based on both surface and satellite readings.”
Might be misleading??????? ROTFL
Hi Ender,
That’s what I said: “might be misleading”.
Let’s see what happens from here on out, ENSO or not.
Thanks for your input.
Max
Biggsy, if you bothered to read Pielke you would realise he agrees with (his words) “the consensus of IPCC WGI” – know what that means? time to stop the AGW denial campaign or find another spokesperson.
He quibbles with forecast verification suggesting it may be prone to bias. Does he show that it is? has anyone shown that IPCC forecast verification ACTUALLY provides a bias forecast of future scenarios. No – of course not. Its insinuated and slung like mud.
Get out of the sandpit Biggs. You and Mottsa need to stop building climate models in excel with your thumbs and engage the brain. Critical thought and all that jazz.
As it turns out, without adding the individuals Jennifer has listed, there are around 100 climate scientists on Senator Inhofe’s list of IPCC skeptics that meet Andrew Dessler’s rather restrictive, elitist opinion on the qualifications that are required in order to have a relevant opinion in the current scientific debate on global warming. In addition there are about 50 meteorologists who also have a relevant opinion on what is going on.
So there are 150 qualified voices opposing the “majority” opinion.
But hey folks, the multibillion-dollar funding is going to those who endorse the “majority” opinion and not to those who oppose it.
Which side would you support as a “climate scientist”? Go figure.
Max