According to Nature, the fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report will be out by 2014, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri announced last week in Budapest. The report from the first working group will come out in 2013, however, so that its findings can be incorporated more fully into the reports from the second and third working groups.
Of course, by 2014 we will have passed the Hansen/Blair tipping points and there will be no summer sea ice in the Arctic, according to Al Gore.
The IPCC also released the TECHNICAL PAPER ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND WATER in Budapest, 9th – 10th April.
We can also look forward to a special report on renewable energy by 2010.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Given “the science is now settled” surely there will nolonger be any need for climate scientists and bureacrats to fly in their thousands to exotic destinations to talk about “the consensus”. In short to save on carbon and reduce the need for more airports the IPCC should perhaps dismantle rather than start preparing its next report.
Filing here for reference:-
Nature Vol 271 23 Feb 1978 p785 (John Gribbin)
Review of “Climates of Hunger: Mankind and the World’s Changing Weather” by Reid A. Bryson and Thomas J. Murray. American University Publishers Group, London 1977.
The first line of the review:-
“Professor Bryson is perhaps the leading proponent of the view that anthropological polution of the atmosphere is hastening the world into a pronounced cooling – at least a little Ice Age – through the effect of aerosol particles blocking out some of the heat from the Sun. ”
Second paragraph starts with:-
“The result is a very easy, even glib, read, which is strong on anecdotal material about the impact of past climatic shifts on human societies but is weak on the mechanisms of climatic change and which has no real scientific depth.”
Some of the other comments will sound familiar to any follower of the agw threads on this site
Let’s see — with the 1st WG report in 2013, and the IPCC Report in 2014, the cited peer-review support document publishing deadline will be sometime in 2015?
“Given “the science is now settled” surely there will nolonger be any need for climate scientists and bureacrats to fly in their thousands to exotic destinations to talk about “the consensus”.”
Isn’t that type of comment beneath you, Jennifer?
“Filing here for reference:-
Nature Vol 271 23 Feb 1978 p785 (John Gribbin)
Review of “Climates of Hunger: Mankind and the World’s Changing Weather” by Reid A. Bryson and Thomas J. Murray. American University Publishers Group, London 1977.
The first line of the review:-
“Professor Bryson is perhaps the leading proponent of the view that anthropological polution of the atmosphere is hastening the world into a pronounced cooling – at least a little Ice Age – through the effect of aerosol particles blocking out some of the heat from the Sun. ”
Second paragraph starts with:-
“The result is a very easy, even glib, read, which is strong on anecdotal material about the impact of past climatic shifts on human societies but is weak on the mechanisms of climatic change and which has no real scientific depth.”
Some of the other comments will sound familiar to any follower of the agw threads on this site
Posted by: Ian Beale at April 18, 2008 09:46 AM”
I have that book on my shelf.I have read it.
Gribbin shows that he does not understand the purpose of the book.
Gribbin is the very same dolt who wrote a preposterous book titled: The Jupiter Effect.
The one where he writes the world might end because of the lining up of the planets.
Not bad for an astronomer.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
The point actually being made is that Nature had a review involving the onset of the next Ice Age in 1978.
So anyone maintaining that prospective cooling hadn’t made it to mainstream science of the time would be inconsistent quoting Nature as an authority now.
At least not without a full confession as Wikipedia attributes to Gribbin
Particle pollution is a well recognised cooling agent in the atmosphere.
As for Gribbin and the Jupiter Effect, he has apologised.
“In his 1999 book “The Little Book of Science,” Dr. Gribbin said of his theory “…I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_effect
Gribbin also co-authored a science fiction novel called “The Sixth Winter”. That was when the global cooling theory was all the rage and it was conjectured that about 5 years was all it took for the onset of an ice age.
“Particle pollution is a well recognised cooling agent in the atmosphere.”
You need to do some more up to date reading, SJT. Particle pollution can also cause warming.
“That was when the global cooling theory was all the rage and it was conjectured that about 5 years was all it took for the onset of an ice age.”
It “was” all the rage. What are you talking about? It’s all the rage now, just read this blog.
It will be interesting to see the IPCC squirm in AR5 after another 5 years of “non catastrophic warming”. Betcha they get even more “creative”!
“Dat’s right! It’s dem damn aerosols again iddinit!?”
“”Dat’s right! It’s dem damn aerosols again iddinit!?””
Mark
I have a friend who works on climate modelling. He doesn’t talk at all like that.
Nice try SJT,
But Dr.Gribbin who wrote that book and another similar book later while holding a doctorate in Astronomy.Allegedy educated enough to know that what he was writing about was not even remotely possible.
Such line ups have happened a number of times over the thousands of years.The critics of his books spotted so many astronomical errors in them that it was amazing that a doctorate in astronomy wrote it.
They were STUPID books.
“Gribbin also co-authored a science fiction novel called “The Sixth Winter”. That was when the global cooling theory was all the rage and it was conjectured that about 5 years was all it took for the onset of an ice age.
Posted by: Eyrie at April 18, 2008 07:00 PM”
He seems to prefer writing sensationalist stories.
A cheap science writer is what I see in him.
He is still wrong about This book:
Climates of Hunger: Mankind and the World’s Changing Weather” by Reid A. Bryson and Thomas J. Murray
I have that book and for 1975 not a bad book since there were so little climatic data to use then.
I have long stopped considering anything from Gribbin as being a reliable source of writing.
He is a junk science writer.
“Given “the science is now settled” surely there will nolonger be any need for climate scientists and bureacrats to fly in their thousands to exotic destinations to talk about “the consensus”.”
Isn’t that type of comment beneath you, Jennifer?”
SJT –
I would have thought rather than being beneath her, it is a very sharp and pertinent retort.
For ages we have have been told by the IPCC heavies and endless other AGW proponents that the science is settled, and that there is a consensus on this.
It is the the very claim that has duped the policy makers to start the public opinion campaigns, and spend mega bucks of public funds, as well as helping to differentiate political parties at election times.
If the science is settled, and it is indeed a consensus,as they have most certainly proclaimed, then why on earth is there a need to do anything more.
We should be using the science budgets to solve more important problems, of which there no shortage of candidates, not even related to AGW.
Sunsettommy re John Gribbin:-
“He seems to prefer writing sensationalist stories.
A cheap science writer is what I see in him.
He is still wrong about This book:
Climates of Hunger: Mankind and the World’s Changing Weather” by Reid A. Bryson and Thomas J. Murray
I have that book and for 1975 not a bad book since there were so little climatic data to use then.
I have long stopped considering anything from Gribbin as being a reliable source of writing.
He is a junk science writer.”
Thus it is interesting that the last sentence of that review in Nature was:-
“The importance of his ideas certainly justifies the devotion of a major text to their display in the academic market place.”
I am also sending a copy of the review to Jennifer Marohasy.
“I would have thought rather than being beneath her, it is a very sharp and pertinent retort.”
Jennifer is quite entitled to ask why there is ongoing research in an area of science if it is ‘settled’. The snide implication that the only reason for the research is to fly scientists to exoctic locations is deplorable.
Well if there is no need to do more research because we have the answers and a consensus, it is not unreasonable to expect that the international travel is cut back, and thereby reducing their own collective carbon foot print.
Not to do so just makes it hypocritical.
Whats more deplorable is the number of pseudo- scientits who need to blog under pseudonyms.
I didn’t say there is no need to do any more research. Just because the basic science is settled, that is, CO2 absorbs and re-emits radiation causing a warming effect for the climate, they certainly don’t understand the extent of the warming that is going to occur precisely. The IPCC lists many shortcomings in it’s knowledge of the science, plenty of research to do yet.
Quite apart from that, scientists in general just do research anyway. Gravity is “settled” as being a force that makes apples fall off trees, exactly how that force works is still a hot topic of research.
I thought thats having your cake and eating too.
One the one hand the science of settled and we have a global consensus, but on the other we are uncertain about many things so give us more money— and in the meantime you must scrww up your economies because what we say is the truth and incontrovertible, and if you dont we are all dooomed –but gives us your money anyway.
The logic is impecable–
As for your stupid analogy with gravity –we are not being asked to give up our way of life so that the gravity researchers can have open ended access to funds.Get a grip.
The part I said was settled is settled. There’s no question of it. The extent of the warming is not clear, as the IPCC itself clearly says.
Science never stops researching, it never thinks that it has all the answers. If they are doing research because it’s their job and they enjoy doing it, including going to conferences, there’s not much I can say.
“They were STUPID books.”
I thought he said he agreed with you?