Climate Change Study Of Scientific Consensus

[Guest Sundancefisher]

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

 

rather than slop my opinion...please read and then we can discuss the facts as it pertains to actual scientific consensus.

 

I have heard a lot and as one of the main shots at those that don't believe it yet...that we are off base cause all the scientists believe in man made global warming.

 

This study...will open some eyes.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[bigbowtrout]

I hope Scientists can find a way to stop people from starting Climate Change posts.

[TerryH]

I hope Scientists can find a way to stop people from strating Climate Change posts.

I thought that's what moderators were for.

 

[Smitty]

Sun:

 

I thought one of your New Year's resolutions was to take every urge to start a climate change topic and substitute it with the topic of "Why are Blue Footed Boobies feet blue?"

 

 

Smitty

 

P.S. Just sayin' that I think every forum may reach a point where topic exhaustion sets in...

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun:

 

I thought one of your New Year's resolutions was to take every urge to start a climate change topic and substitute it with the topic of "Why are Blue Footed Boobies feet blue?"

 

 

Smitty

 

P.S. Just sayin' that I think every forum may reach a point where topic exhaustion sets in...

 

That apathy and lack of caring that we are going to burn up in massive heat waves is why Copenhagen failed LOL

 

I still think there is nothing wrong with people getting the information.

 

This study is particularly interesting as it specifically defines what some are saying... Is there consensus amongst scientists that the data is definitive?

 

The answers are very enlightening.

 

Across the board on the base data...the consensus is split 50/50. Scientists believe global warming is happening. So does the other side. 35% of the scientists also figure it is caused primarily by man. The other 65%...don't think so. A large majority say that warming is bad for some people but good for some also. The majority says we should worry about it.

 

Cool study.

[Smitty]

That apathy and lack of caring that we are going to burn up in massive heat waves is why Copenhagen failed LOL

 

I still think there is nothing wrong with people getting the information.

 

Sun:

 

Its not necessarily apathy. People do care. But you remind me of me in my first year of teaching; best way to turn someone off a given topic is to hammer away until burnout is reached. now, of course, its natural for you to expect adults to have a little more appetite than a 13 yr old trying to learn algebra, but I think my point is valid.

 

You've been a massive and productive contributor, especially on this topic, but its kinda like getting forced fed a delicious steak. The steak is indeed delicious (the analogy is that GW and science corruption and reductionism is truly an important issue), but a steak is best enjoyed bite by bite. You don't agree? Fair enough, but everyone here knows your passion for this. Why not lobby the mods for a special forum dealing with just GW, if you're looking to get the info out? Do you have your own website yet? Seriously, you should consider it. Your influence on FFC can only be so much. A blog - you're a knowledgable guy, that should be on your radar...

 

Just saying there is an art to this...

 

Smitty

If you think I am totally missing the boat, again fair enough, I might have my head stuck in my rear end. But I bet it would be an interesting poll to put up, including a choice like "Who think GW science is an important enough subject and yet is just a little tired of it".

 

Course, I the alternative is I could just get a life too, and reduce the time I spend reading this stuff...

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun:

 

Its not necessarily apathy. People do care. But you remind me of me in my first year of teaching; best way to turn someone off a given topic is to hammer away until burnout is reached. now, of course, its natural for you to expect adults to have a little more appetite than a 13 yr old trying to learn algebra, but I think my point is valid.

 

You've been a massive and productive contributor, especially on this topic, but its kinda like getting forced fed a delicious steak. The steak is indeed delicious (the analogy is that GW and science corruption and reductionism is truly an important issue), but a steak is best enjoyed bite by bite. You don't agree? Fair enough, but everyone here knows your passion for this. Why not lobby the mods for a special forum dealing with just GW, if you're looking to get the info out? Do you have your own website yet? Seriously, you should consider it. Your influence on FFC can only be so much. A blog - you're a knowledgable guy, that should be on your radar...

 

Just saying there is an art to this...

 

Smitty

If you think I am totally missing the boat, again fair enough, I might have my head stuck in my rear end. But I bet it would be an interesting poll to put up, including a choice like "Who think GW science is an important enough subject and yet is just a little tired of it".

 

Course, I the alternative is I could just get a life too, and reduce the time I spend reading this stuff...

 

I totally agree with you. I have reached burn out in the media also... I wish it would go away but we keep hearing the same reasons from both sides without anyone to truly believe. We need Mike Holmes to put down the hammer and pick up the global warming data and tell us what to do. But as an everyday topic in the news...influencing how we think...what the kids worry about in school...it doesn't and to ignore it will be deemed nothing but acceptance and agreement. That is how the politician, media and left wing nut cases see it. People stop asking questions and it is too late. Decisions get made and there is no turning back. May sound fatalistic...but I like to effect change if it is indeed a worthy cause.

 

In the elementary school the kids will tell you the Earth is in real trouble... It is just like I felt during the cold war. I took the topic in school and after that I was terrified of a nuclear war. Now the fear in the kids hearts is global warming. Such a shame to give them fear instead of hope.

 

Just a thought...but I hear you Smitty...

 

Cheers...I will try and make my next new post on a warmer topic...

 

Sun

 

P.S. I also get PM's from people that don't post...don't know where to find data and are happy to read both sides to at least try and understand the topic and the difference being expressed from both sides.

[reevesr1]

21, 22, 23 (which takes all sources into account), 25b (the countries they live in are typically advanced countries who are better able to adapt), 26b (which can be interpreted as poor countries), 28b.

 

To say the consensus is "split" is a bit misleading. I did cherry pick a bit for effect, but the general consensus of this in my eyes (which you will consider biased) is almost the exact opposite

 

When they discuss solution methods, the strong bias from the scientists is to use scientific methods to solve (with a bias toward adaptation I think) the issue. That's funny. Like the politicians, or the people, will put up with scientists telling us what to do. Like it or not, this is a political issue. Which, whether you guys believe it or not, is a HUGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE advantage to the status quo, ie, the do nothing solution.

 

And Smitty, I gotta take major exception to the "media, politicians and left wing nut cases" comment. The sad truth is we need at least two of those to reign in the third, and the right wing nut jobs.

[Smitty]

And Smitty, I gotta take major exception to the "media, politicians and left wing nut cases" comment. The sad truth is we need at least two of those to reign in the third, and the right wing nut jobs.

 

Ummm...you meant Sundance, yes?

 

Hey, it looks like I'll be down next week for the FF Expo. Can I still show up for breakfast?

 

Smitty

[reevesr1]

Absolutely. I like arguing about this kind of stuff.

[snuffy]

I'm with rickr, you'd have to do some serious cherry picking to use that survey to do anything but confirm the scientific consensus that global warming is a real anthropogenic threat. That said, this will probably be the next climategate on Fox news.

 

And by what fevered convulsion did this a left-wing, right-wing issue? It seems to me that it's more of a rational vs sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOULALALALALA" issue.

 

Comments keep appearing here about researchers and their massive research budjets. Someone needs to explain this to me, 'cause research budgets are anything but massive, and it would be a very, very rare PhD who made half as much as a sub-par landman downtown. If you're going to follow the money, it would be better to look into the multi-trillion dollar companies with a vested interest in getting CO2 out of the ground and into the atmosphere as quickly as possible.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I'm with rickr, you'd have to do some serious cherry picking to use that survey to do anything but confirm the scientific consensus that global warming is a real anthropogenic threat. That said, this will probably be the next climategate on Fox news.

 

And by what fevered convulsion did this a left-wing, right-wing issue? It seems to me that it's more of a rational vs sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALALALALAICANTHEARYOULALALALALA" issue.

 

Comments keep appearing here about researchers and their massive research budjets. Someone needs to explain this to me, 'cause research budgets are anything but massive, and it would be a very, very rare PhD who made half as much as a sub-par landman downtown. If you're going to follow the money, it would be better to look into the multi-trillion dollar companies with a vested interest in getting CO2 out of the ground and into the atmosphere as quickly as possible.

 

What I got out of this is that the scientists come across saying there is no consensus on the quality of data...but that warming is occuring...and warming could be bad depending upon where you live...

 

The nice thing is these scientists have a conviction that they need to do something about it...but they don't like the wing nuts on either side.

 

You can just see that emotion...probably makes up part of their qualitative answers as the quantitative questions show doubt.

 

They also seem to make their point...without personal attacks.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

 

rather than slop my opinion...please read and then we can discuss the facts as it pertains to actual scientific consensus.

 

I have heard a lot and as one of the main shots at those that don't believe it yet...that we are off base cause all the scientists believe in man made global warming.

 

This study...will open some eyes.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

 

This is my personal summary of the study

 

Question 10...the majority don't believe climate science is value-neutral. That implies they see bias.

 

Question 11 a...they don't believe they have enough data to make an adequate interpretation

 

Question 11 c...there is no consensus on the theoretical understanding of climate change. If the majority don't understand...yet they believe in man made global warming...this is a clear disconnect.

 

Question 12 c...there is no consensus on understanding water vapors effects on atmospheric models

 

Question 12 d...there is far from consensus on the effects of clouds on atmospheric models.

 

Question 12 e...there is far from consensus on effects of precipitation

 

Question 12 f...there is far from consensus on the effects of atmospheric convection

 

Questions 13 to 15 d...there is far from consensus on over all effects of oceans on average of the questions

 

Questions 16 then go on to ask how the models do when using the parameters that we just discussed. Funny how they believe strongly in the models...but you don't see that strength in the data. How can that be. Usually you think...crap in...crap out. Questionable data in...questionable data out.

 

Question 16d ...somewhat says they don't believe long term >50 year predictions ...but they seem to believe 10 year predictions (which have never come true yet on the models)...very interesting.

 

Questions 16 e to j...they can't prediction precipitation or sea level rise

 

Question 17 d...they can't model temperatures for the next 50 years

 

Question 17 (all)...over all they can't model regionally with any accuracy.

 

Question 18...Paleogeology is extremely important...yet I can't see any reference to it when discussing warming today in context with warming since the ice age.

 

Question 20...everyone agrees that global warming or change in climate is occuring...this study however says only a few doubt that.

 

Question 21 ...is interesting given their responses to above questions...is there emotion involved or maybe while in their scientific world they see no facts supporting it but when they hear about it in the media...other scientists say they believe they feel compelled to trust in the group mind...versus the data? Paul can answer is that happens :-)

 

Question 24...climate change has not created any natural disasters.

 

Question 25 a...people can't see any significant impacts on their own country from climate change...near term 25 b they see some long term

 

Question 26 a and b...more effects to other countries (they are probably really thinking of only low lying countries and effects of sea level rise)

 

Question 27 b...but then they say there are also positive effects to other countries

 

Question 28 a...this expresses concern for plants and animals...yet since the last ice age...life has gone on for these species.

 

Question 29...no clear strong consensus from the experts on due we pay to fix it or learn to live with it.

 

Question 30-35...science should decide best approach to either mitigate or adapt.

 

Question 36...scientists say to force any decision on population

 

Question 37...why do they say climate change is a political decision...very interesting...gotta think on that one.

 

Question 38 - 41 ...most believe the IPCC is doing a good job

 

Question 43...not a super strong endorsement of how papers are handled

 

Question 49...only 35% of scientists refer to climate change as primarily anthropomorphic ...that is interesting

 

Question 52...the scientists hate fear mongering studies

 

Question 55...environmental activists also twist the story...

 

Question 56...people that don't believe in man made global warming are having no effect on the process...

 

Question 57...fear mongering scientists are getting average play with the policy makers

 

Question 58...fear mongering scientists are getting lots of extra play with the media.

 

Question 59...non believers are getting play with the media (I don' see it in main stream...I wonder if this is only a perception rather than reality. Climate Gate was hard pressed to hit main stream)

 

Question 61-62...better communication with the public is required

 

Question 63...they seem to believe that blogs are valuable...surprising...

 

Question 64...quality of papers is just okay...not a lot of improvement in quality

 

Question 68 and 69...not sure what to make of this.

 

Question 71...many have leanings towards environmental activism either moderate to high. That troubles me that they may not have an open mind.

 

Overall...There is definitely no consensus in the core data...but their is in core beliefs...

[Guest Sundancefisher]

When I see articles like this coming out more often I will actually have a better chance of believing some global warming concerns. This shows me that people are actually discussing...even after the fact and finally admitting mistakes publicly. This is what science is about. Study, refute, reproduce, improve, prove, disprove...etc.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm

 

 

UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers

By Richard Black

Environment correspondent, BBC News website

 

Satellite image of Himalayas (SPL)

Neither satellites nor ground observations give a complete picture

 

The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel has admitted it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts.

 

A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error and would be reviewed.

 

But he said it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change.

 

The issue, which BBC News first reported on 05 December, has reverberated around climate websites in recent days.

 

It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing

Georg Kaser, University of Innsbruck

 

Himalayas glacier deadline 'wrong'

 

Some commentators maintain that taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines the credibility of climate science.

 

Dr van Ypersele said this was not the case.

 

"I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report," he said.

 

"Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC's credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes."

 

Grey area

 

The claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 appears to have originated in a 1999 interview with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, published in New Scientist magazine.

 

The figure then surfaced in a 2005 report by environmental group WWF - a report that is cited in the IPCC's 2007 assessment, known as AR4.

 

An alternative genesis lies in the misreading of a 1996 study that gave the date as 2350.

 

AR 4 asserted: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."

 

Dr van Ypersele said the episode meant that the panel's reviewing procedures would have to be tightened.

 

Slow reaction?

 

The row erupted in India late last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit, with opposing factions in the government giving radically different narratives of what was happening to Himalayan ice.

Rajendra Pachauri

IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri has been criticised by Jairam Ramesh

 

In December, it emerged that four leading glaciologists had prepared a letter for publication in the journal Science arguing that a complete melt by 2035 was physically impossible.

 

"You just can't accomplish it," Jeffrey Kargel from the University of Arizona told BBC News at the time.

 

"If you think about the thicknesses of the ice - 200-300m thicknesses, in some cases up to 400m thick - and if you're losing ice at the rate of a metre a year, or let's say double it to two metres a year, you're not going to get rid of 200m of ice in a quarter of a century."

 

The row continues in India, with Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh calling this week for the IPCC to explain "how it reached the 2035 figure, which created such a scare".

 

Meanwhile, in an interview with the news agency AFP, Georg Kaser from the University of Innsbruck in Austria - who led a different portion of the AR4 process - said he had warned that the 2035 figure was wrong in 2006, before AR4's publication.

 

"It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," he told AFP in an interview.

 

He said that people working on the Asia chapter "did not react".

 

He suggested that some of the IPCC's working practices should be revised by the time work begins on its next landmark report, due in 2013.

 

But its overall conclusion that global warming is "unequivocal" remains beyond reproach, he said.

[robert]

Sundance, maybe i'm misreading your posts but it's hard to know what side of the coin you're on. Do you believe in global warming or not? What is it that you personally believe?

 

search google for global dimming then post back for a discussion. The effects of aircraft alone are amazing. Take a peek at the studies done during 9/11 when all air traffic was grounded.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sundance, maybe i'm misreading your posts but it's hard to know what side of the coin you're on. Do you believe in global warming or not? What is it that you personally believe?

 

search google for global dimming then post back for a discussion. The effects of aircraft alone are amazing. Take a peek at the studies done during 9/11 when all air traffic was grounded.

 

I believe in good science. Once that is clear...I will make a decision.

 

As for global warming in general...the science is clear on both sides. Since the last ice age we have been obviously warming.

 

The real question then is CO2 enhanced warming. Is that happening...is it a significant effect. Will the Earth and it's people and animals suffer for it?

 

Or are we now in for a 30 year mini ice age?

 

What should be done to stop it based upon fact or a what if scenario? Is it better to help people tangibly or pay to stop CO2 production.

 

Lots of ifs and buts...

 

Actual glacier data from the US monitored glaciers...glacier name and mass balance data...growing positive...shrinking negative.

 

USA

Columbia (2057) 960

Daniels 410

Easton 450

Emmons -630

Foss 180

Gulkana -181

Ice Worm -100

Lemon Creek 800

Lower Curtis 120

Lynch 510

Nisqually -1080

Noisy Creek -290

North Klawatti -220

Rainbow 650

Sandalee -140

Sholes 200

Silver 260

South Cascade -200

Taku 950

Wolverine 1300

Yawning 480

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

It is articles like this that really question the science.

 

But who proves these articles? Those that promote CO2 induced global warming never seem to want to debate the issues. Generally the debater on both sides are less than...shall we say...credible.

 

But seriously...this article really brings home the question as to is the science being done correctly and who is protecting the process from an agenda on either side?

 

****************************************************************

 

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say

Richard Foot, Canwest News Service

Published: Wednesday, January 20, 2010

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 

 

A weather research laboratory located on Ellesmere Island at Eureka, Nunavut.

Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers.

 

Two months after "climategate" cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.

 

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

 

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

 

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

 

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

 

Yet as American researchers Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses "just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees."

 

Both the authors, and the institute, are well-known in climate-change circles for their skepticism about the threat of global warming.

 

Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have "cherry picked" the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.

 

Over the past two decades, they say, "the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half."

 

Using the agency's own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA's Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.

 

Mr. D'Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.

 

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead "interpolates" or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from "nearby" temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.

 

The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.

 

"NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world's stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler," the authors say. "The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs."

 

The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York.

 

Neither agency responded to a request for comment Wednesday from Canwest News Service. However Hanson did issue a public statement on the matter earlier this week.

 

"NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis," he said. "The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures."

 

In addition to the allegations against NOAA and GISS, climate scientists are also dealing with the embarrassment this week of the false glacier-melt warning contained in the 2007 report of the UN Panel on Climate Change. That report said Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear within three decades if current rates of melting continue.

 

This week, however, the panel admitted there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim.

 

The revelations come only two months after the "climategate" scandal, in which the leak or theft of thousands of e-mails -- private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain -- showed that a group of influential climatologists tried for years to manipulate global warming data, rig the scientific peer-review process and keep their methods secret from other, contrary-minded researchers.

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/s...html?id=2465231

 

 

[ironfly]

Sun, are you getting paid for this? You should. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you hold down a full-time job, catch 30,000+ perch, and still find time to post like nobody's business. I may not agree with every opinion you express, but I do admire your drive.

 

Rick

[Ricinus]

Hey Sun, you missed this one. OOPS, it's from those evil scientists at NASA. Really Big Pokey Things

 

Regards Mike

 

 

 

Last decade warmest ever: NASA

 

 

Agence France-PresseJanuary 22, 2010

 

The past decade was the warmest ever on Earth, a new analysis of global surface temperatures released by NASA showed Thursday.

 

The U.S. space agency also found that 2009 was the second-warmest year on record since modern temperature measurements began in 1880. Last year was only a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest yet, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with the other hottest years, which have all occurred since 1998.

 

According to James Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, global temperatures change due to variations in ocean heating and cooling.

 

NASA scientists found a clear warming trend in the data.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Hey Sun, you missed this one. OOPS, it's from those evil scientists at NASA. Really Big Pokey Things

 

Regards Mike

 

 

 

Last decade warmest ever: NASA

 

 

Agence France-PresseJanuary 22, 2010

 

The past decade was the warmest ever on Earth, a new analysis of global surface temperatures released by NASA showed Thursday.

 

The U.S. space agency also found that 2009 was the second-warmest year on record since modern temperature measurements began in 1880. Last year was only a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest yet, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with the other hottest years, which have all occurred since 1998.

 

According to James Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, global temperatures change due to variations in ocean heating and cooling.

 

NASA scientists found a clear warming trend in the data.

 

 

If you read the article two up you will see that it pertains to this comment of yours and the NASA study. Apparently they are being highly selective in their data collection. I find that troubling if it is the case.

 

I have assume that satelite data now in Earth wide and should be interesting to see where the data goes over the next 20 years.

 

Since the Earth has been warming since the last ice age...it can't keep warming for ever. No warming period in the geologic record ever kept climbing or remained constant. It just rises and falls in a never ending cycle of climactic change for hundreds of millions of years.

 

I would strongly suspect that doing the opposite of what NASA does and use mostly Northern Canada data and very little southern data would show a much cooler Earth. Still the argument at hand is not warming...we all agree it has occurred...but if Man Made CO2 is making it worse and worse enough to kill people.

[Ricinus]

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Is the IPCC facing criticism unfairly for having a political or ideological agenda versus being in charge of promoting fair research on the topic of Climate Change or more to the point "human CO2 induced Global warming".

 

To be fair let's forget the Climate Gate leaks which showed careful attempts to prevent review of past and current work through destruction of data and refusal to share information. We will also ignore the attempts of the IPCC to control what goes into scientific journals.

 

Instead let's discuss the issues of natural disasters.

 

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf

 

Referring to the above link referencing scientific consensus on various issues...the widely accepted believe amongst climate researchers is that...

 

Question 24...climate change has not created any natural disasters.

 

Therefore what value does the IPCC have in showing video at Copenhagan that depicts a violent climate future for Earth? What value does it receive from putting these fears in peoples minds in summary documentation and in advice to polilticians world wide? My theory is that some are looking at the 2 billion dollars in yearly grant and research money not to mentioned operating budgets for the IPCC and sister outfits.

 

This is an interesting take on this ongoing issue...

 

************************************************************

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7000063.ece

 

 

 

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods.

 

It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough.

 

The claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters, has since become embedded in political and public debate. It was central to discussions at last month's Copenhagen climate summit, including a demand by developing countries for compensation of $100 billion (£62 billion) from the rich nations blamed for creating the most emissions.

 

Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change minister, has suggested British and overseas floods — such as those in Bangladesh in 2007 — could be linked to global warming. Barack Obama, the US president, said last autumn: "More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

 

Last month Gordon Brown, the prime minister, told the Commons that the financial agreement at Copenhagen "must address the great injustice that . . . those hit first and hardest by climate change are those that have done least harm".

 

The latest criticism of the IPCC comes a week after reports in The Sunday Times forced it to retract claims in its benchmark 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would be largely melted by 2035. It turned out that the bogus claim had been lifted from a news report published in 1999 by New Scientist magazine.

 

The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC's 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

 

It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: "One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

 

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

 

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

 

Despite this change the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. It has also emerged that at least two scientific reviewers who checked drafts of the IPCC report urged greater caution in proposing a link between climate change and disaster impacts — but were ignored.

 

The claim will now be re-examined and could be withdrawn. Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, who is vice-chair of the IPCC, said: "We are reassessing the evidence and will publish a report on natural disasters and extreme weather with the latest findings. Despite recent events the IPCC process is still very rigorous and scientific."

 

The academic paper at the centre of the latest questions was written in 2006 by Robert Muir-Wood, head of research at Risk Management Solutions, a London consultancy, who later became a contributing author to the section of the IPCC's 2007 report dealing with climate change impacts. He is widely respected as an expert on disaster impacts.

 

Muir-Wood wanted to find out if the 8% year-on-year increase in global losses caused by weather-related disasters since the 1960s was larger than could be explained by the impact of social changes like growth in population and infrastructure.

 

Such an increase, coinciding with rising temperatures, might suggest that global warming was to blame. If proven this would be highly significant, both politically and scientifically, because it would confirm the many predictions that global warming will increase the frequency and severity of natural hazards.

 

In the research Muir-Wood looked at a wide range of hazards, including tropical cyclones, thunder and hail storms, and wildfires as well as floods and hurricanes.

 

He found from 1950 to 2005 there was no increase in the impact of disasters once growth was accounted for. For 1970-2005, however, he found a 2% annual increase which "corresponded with a period of rising global temperatures,"

 

Muir-Wood was, however, careful to point out that almost all this increase could be accounted for by the exceptionally strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005. There were also other more technical factors that could cause bias, such as exchange rates which meant that disasters hitting the US would appear to cost proportionately more in insurance payouts.

 

Despite such caveats, the IPCC report used the study in its section on disasters and hazards, but cited only the 1970-2005 results.

 

The IPCC report said: "Once the data were normalised, a small statistically significant trend was found for an increase in annual catastrophe loss since 1970 of 2% a year." It added: "Once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend."

 

Muir-Wood's paper was originally commissioned by Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, also an expert on disaster impacts, for a workshop on disaster losses in 2006. The researchers who attended that workshop published a statement agreeing that so far there was no evidence to link global warming with any increase in the severity or frequency of disasters. Pielke has also told the IPCC that citing one section of Muir-Wood's paper in preference to the rest of his work, and all the other peer-reviewed literature, was wrong.

 

He said: "All the literature published before and since the IPCC report shows that rising disaster losses can be explained entirely by social change. People have looked hard for evidence that global warming plays a part but can't find it. Muir-Wood's study actually confirmed that."

 

Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the Tyndall Centre, which advises the UK government on global warming, said there was no real evidence that natural disasters were already being made worse by climate change. He said: “A proper analysis shows that these claims are usually superficial”

 

Such warnings may prove uncomfortable for Miliband whose recent speeches have often linked climate change with disasters such as the floods that recently hit Bangladesh and Cumbria. Last month he said: “We must not let the sceptics pass off political opinion as scientific fact. Events in Cumbria give a foretaste of the kind of weather runaway climate change could bring. Abroad, the melting of the Himalayan glaciers that feed the great rivers of South Asia could put hundreds of millions of people at risk of drought. Our security is at stake.”

 

Muir-Wood himself is more cautious. He said: "The idea that catastrophes are rising in cost partly because of climate change is completely misleading. "We could not tell if it was just an association or cause and effect. Also, our study included 2004 and 2005 which was when there were some major hurricanes. If you took those years away then the significance of climate change vanished."

 

Some researchers have argued that it is unfair to attack the IPCC too strongly, pointing out that some errors are inevitable in a report as long and technical as the IPCC's round-up of climate science. "Part of the problem could simply be that expectations are too high," said one researcher. "We have been seen as a scientific gold standard and that's hard to live up to."

 

Professor Christopher Field,director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution in California, who is the new co-chairman of the IPCC working group overseeing the climate impacts report, said the 2007 report had been broadly accurate at the time it was written.

 

He said: “The 2007 study should be seen as “a snapshot of what was known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.” However he confirmed he would be introducing rigorous new review procedures for future reports to ensure errors were kept to a minimum.

 

 

************************************************

 

IPCC's rebuttal... http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/artic...TTD3McHoiX-PU6w

 

 

UN panel defends climate change evidence

(AFP) – 2 hours ago

 

GENEVA — The UN climate panel has rejected as "baseless and misleading" a newspaper report that raised doubts about the evidence behind a claim that global warming is linked to worsening natural disasters.

 

This weekend, the Sunday Times of London reported that a passage in one of the panel's reports, which suggested natural disasters including hurricanes and floods had increased in number and intensity, had been challenged.

 

The IPCC insisted in a statement released late on Monday that the targeted study was quoted alongside others in balanced manner exposing the range of evidence. It said the panel had weighed its conclusions.

 

"This section of the IPCC report is a balanced treatment of a complicated and important issue."

 

"It clearly makes the point that one study detected an increase in economic losses, corrected for values at risk, but that other studies have not detected such a trend," the statement added.

 

"The tone is balanced, and the section contains many important qualifiers."

 

The panel also underlined that it came to several conclusions about the role of climate change in extreme weather events and disasters in different sections of its reports, based on a "careful" assessment of past changes and projections of future trends.

 

The panel concluded that the newspaper "ran a misleading and baseless story attacking the way the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC handled an important question concerning recent trends in economic losses from climate-related disasters."

 

The Sunday Times had reported that the IPCC included the reference to the then unpublished study despite doubts raised by at least two scientific reviewers at the time.

 

Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climatologist at the Universite Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and the vice-chairman of the IPCC, was quoted by the newspaper as saying that the panel was reassessing the evidence.

 

It was the second time in recent weeks that doubt was cast on the scientific validity some of the evidence used in the UN panel's reports.

 

The IPCC last week admitted errors in a forecast about melting Himalayan glaciers that was included in a landmark 2007 report.

 

The ongoing series of reports compiled since 1999 are meant to reflect a global scientific consensus to guide official action against climate change.

 

*********************************************************

 

They seem to think their report is balanced yet their video dispells any thoughts of balance and rather takes a very stark and terrifying one sided view that global warming will destroy the Earth in earthquakes, storms, drought, tornadoes etc. Kinda not really an unbiased approach given that their information was not strongly in favor of supporting this scare tactic nor are most scientists believing this. Strangely poor science from a group that is saying they are all in it for truth...

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

http://www.business-standard.com/india/new...warming/383709/

 

 

Why can't they show a little more common sense in presenting the man made global warming premise?

 

 

*****************************************

 

IPCC clear on evidence for global warming

 

Kalpana Jain / New Delhi January 26, 2010, 0:55 IST

 

 

 

Some aspects of global warming may not be entirely understood and data may be sparse, but scientists do not dispute that global temperature has increased, especially since 1950, as pointed out in the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

On one had they state...they don't understand global warming well and other other other they just the link CO2 to say Earth has warmed because of it (standard premise of the IPCC). This attempt to jump to conclusions and make massive assumptions fails to convince me especially in light of the lack of hard data. Yes the Earth has warmed...but there is no proof people has caused anything significant to that rise.

 

Indian scientists note the rise in the levels of the Indian Ocean along three cities in the country are close to the global averages stated in the report.

 

"The rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years," says the IPCC report, in its conclusions drawn from available studies and data and reviewed by a several scientists. This rise was seen numerous times in the geologic and ice core data. This rise is not unique so why attempt to say it is? A detailed reading of the report reveals, contrary to what the current glacier goof-up may indicate, the report gives clear assessments about where the understanding of science is robust and where it may need more data. The glacier goof-up is not part of the summary for policymakers, a synthesized part of the document, which is widely read across the globe by decision-makers. Not a minor problem...this underlies a serious concern with content and ideological attempts to promote an agenda. If it is not...why did they use a non peer reviewed WWF report at all?

 

“No big fuss should be made (on the glacier issue),” said J Srinivasan, chairman of Divecha Centre for Climate Change at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore. “All modelling has some problems. Nations deal with it in their economic modelling. The overall science is well understood. Global warming is not a dramatic change, but a long-term change that will lead to serious consequences,” Srinivasan said.

 

The impact on India alone will be serious. Ocean experts say the mean sea-level rise along the coasts of Mumbai, Kochi and Visakhapatnam is due to the effects of global warming. “The Indian Ocean is rising by 1.3 mm every year,” A S Unnikrishnan, senior scientist at the National Institute of Oceanography, told Business Standard. Actually just a few say it is a problem. Many say it is not a problem. Questions 16 e to j of the scientific consensus study says...they can't prediction precipitation or sea level rise

 

Srinivasan said glaciers, too, are retreating. People have measured them. “Large glaciers will be around, but the smaller ones are retreating,” he said. The earlier linked glacier data shows some are growing some are shrinking. Could be part of a cycle also. Hence some smaller glaciers are smaller to begin with. Natural variation and change in location over time.

 

From an analysis of 100 years of tide gauge data, Unnikrishnan and his team showed that sea levels along the coast of Mumbai, Kochi and Visakhapatnam rose by 0.78, 1.14 and 0.75 mm, respectively, per year. The data are close to the global average and could have serious implications for India’s coastline. 1 mm rise over 100 years based upon tidal data? Are they serious this is a worry?

 

The IPCC report points out that observations since 1961 show the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3,000 metres and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80 per cent of the heat added to the climate system. “Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise,” says the report. Experts point out the one issue that climate sceptics may have is that the report gives global averages. What may be true for one region may not apply to another, as it is only an average figure, they say. Actually the main data that showed the last 11 years dropping was made possible BECAUSE the IPCC misrepresented the cooling ocean temperature data.

 

Associate director at the Centre for Science and Environment Chandra Bhushan, says the report has already made a distinction between robust findings and uncertainties. The IPCC report provides a clear guideline for treatment of uncertainties. In fact, the fourth assessment report, provides, for the first time, an “uncertainty guidance.”

 

The authors distinguish the conclusions on the basis of “high confidence” in which an event is unlikely or extremely likely.

 

*********************************

 

 

LMAO...where in the world did they find "robust findings" on increased natural disasters. They are so trying to maintain their fear edge that they can't admit even their own studies...even their own scientist don't believe this but the public for some reason currently does. They don't want to loose the edge...

 

I seems to me that the IPCC is starting to really grasp at straws. Maybe the calls to fire the current head of the IPCC is based upon a sound principle. They certainly need to fund more studies that try and prove against CO2 induced global warming to see if there is any basis for certain arguements. They also need to stop promoting what if studies as their assumptions are never based upon fact...just countless uncertainties.

[seanbritt]

If I've learned anything from this board, and particularly the posts regarding climate change, is that I'd rather spend my time actually doing something to help the climate change situation than spend time trying to educate those who cannot be about the situation. Enjoy the rest of the self-debate!

[rehsifylf]

If I've learned anything from this board, and particularly the posts regarding climate change, is that I'd rather spend my time actually doing something to help the climate change situation than spend time trying to educate those who cannot be about the situation. Enjoy the rest of the self-debate!

 

If you are really concerned, turn off your computer then my friend. And your lights. They both use electricty, made from burning coal. Very bad.