Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Nice to see some enquiry above the jeering. Here's some nuance on the different AR4 working groups from William Connolley:
WC said:
So, the issue is in the news because of the 2350 / 2035 kerfuffle, and links to Brian's other question, "What do you think of WG II?" I'll answer that one first, because I can think of a cutting answer, which is "I don't". Oh, cruel. But true: when I was in the game, I was interested in WG I stuff, which is to say, the physical basis. Someone has to be interested in impacts and adaption, of course: but not me.
As I wrote off in Planet 3.0 recently,
Everyone knows that the WGII and WGIII reports are nowhere near as good as WGI. In fact, taking this further, everyone knows that releasing the WGI, II and III reports at the same time is silly. WGI is supposed to provide the physical science, which should be an input into the other reports. But II and III don't want to miss the limelight and get released a year later, as they should be.
That is a touch over-harsh, but only a touch. WG I would never have made the mistake WG II made over this 2350 / 2035 stuff, for two reasons. Firstly, they are subject to line-by-line scrutiny because people actually *care*. And second they just do a better job with better people. The only even vaguely comparable issue I can think of is fig 7.1.c in IPCC '90, and the skeptics rather dislike drawing the obvious moral over that. Before you mistake me, I'm not saying that WG II is rubbish, or valueless: not at all. It's just not as good as WG I.
So what about the use of non-P-R material? This seems to have been one of those things that everyone knows that turns out to be false. The IPCC *is* allowed to use non-P-R literature. perhaps it shouldn't be; I don't much care, as long as the literature is of good quality. But the WWF report should not have been used. The (fairly full) version of the story as I understand it is at [[Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers.3B use of 2035 in place of 2350]] (that is an oldid so won't change; I've done that in case some wazzock breaks it, you never know with wiki; be sure to check the current version too). However, the reason the WWF report should not have been used is because its not very good, not because it isn't P-R. The "original" source, which has the 2350 claim in it, is an ICSI report. that would probably count as good enough by the std "P-R rules", and no-one would have raised an eyebrow. However, what no-one else has pointed out (as far as I can see) is that the 2350 claim in there is trash - it is based on wildly unreliable extrapolation and has no value at all.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/ipcc_use_of_non-peer_reviewed.phpAs I wrote off in Planet 3.0 recently,
Everyone knows that the WGII and WGIII reports are nowhere near as good as WGI. In fact, taking this further, everyone knows that releasing the WGI, II and III reports at the same time is silly. WGI is supposed to provide the physical science, which should be an input into the other reports. But II and III don't want to miss the limelight and get released a year later, as they should be.
That is a touch over-harsh, but only a touch. WG I would never have made the mistake WG II made over this 2350 / 2035 stuff, for two reasons. Firstly, they are subject to line-by-line scrutiny because people actually *care*. And second they just do a better job with better people. The only even vaguely comparable issue I can think of is fig 7.1.c in IPCC '90, and the skeptics rather dislike drawing the obvious moral over that. Before you mistake me, I'm not saying that WG II is rubbish, or valueless: not at all. It's just not as good as WG I.
So what about the use of non-P-R material? This seems to have been one of those things that everyone knows that turns out to be false. The IPCC *is* allowed to use non-P-R literature. perhaps it shouldn't be; I don't much care, as long as the literature is of good quality. But the WWF report should not have been used. The (fairly full) version of the story as I understand it is at [[Criticism of the IPCC AR4#Projected date of melting of Himalayan glaciers.3B use of 2035 in place of 2350]] (that is an oldid so won't change; I've done that in case some wazzock breaks it, you never know with wiki; be sure to check the current version too). However, the reason the WWF report should not have been used is because its not very good, not because it isn't P-R. The "original" source, which has the 2350 claim in it, is an ICSI report. that would probably count as good enough by the std "P-R rules", and no-one would have raised an eyebrow. However, what no-one else has pointed out (as far as I can see) is that the 2350 claim in there is trash - it is based on wildly unreliable extrapolation and has no value at all.
Isn't William Connolley the Wiki editor and pretty staunch MMGW 'gatekeeper'? That William Connolley?
ETA- http://www.climatechangefraud.com ?
ETA- http://www.climatechangefraud.com ?
Edited by grumbledoak on Tuesday 26th January 15:44
So William's get out is that he is only really interested (and part of at the time) WG I?
Fine, but anyone focussing on the report that is based on 'science' alone (and that is now without its controversies as I understand it, possibly because of the line by line review WC mentions) cannot simply say all is well when the social policies that will result from the whole escapade will be derived mainly from the other parts of the report - hence all the references to WWF 'reports'. Once we are into social politics 'the science' as such becomes somewhat irrelevant to policy decisions. However the need to promote a 'basis in science' still stands for a period of time just in case the general populace or, in terms of the way the world is currently set up, other less developed but more populous countries smell the rat and opt to take a different route. That would be dangerous for the plan.
This is no time to play the Pontius Pilate role and wash the dirty parts of the IPCC whole from one's pure scientific hands claiming that ignoring other parts of the IPCC process, because they were poor, is quite acceptable for someone promoting the whole package. Of course WC won't see it like that. And I don't say that as a slight on his character - I genuinely don't think he will see things in that vein. Time will tell whether that is a reasonable position for others to adopt but for WC on a personal level it seems relatively consistent to his position in recent times. Not so much a question of right or wrong science, more a question of complete or imcomplete overall assessment.
Fine, but anyone focussing on the report that is based on 'science' alone (and that is now without its controversies as I understand it, possibly because of the line by line review WC mentions) cannot simply say all is well when the social policies that will result from the whole escapade will be derived mainly from the other parts of the report - hence all the references to WWF 'reports'. Once we are into social politics 'the science' as such becomes somewhat irrelevant to policy decisions. However the need to promote a 'basis in science' still stands for a period of time just in case the general populace or, in terms of the way the world is currently set up, other less developed but more populous countries smell the rat and opt to take a different route. That would be dangerous for the plan.
This is no time to play the Pontius Pilate role and wash the dirty parts of the IPCC whole from one's pure scientific hands claiming that ignoring other parts of the IPCC process, because they were poor, is quite acceptable for someone promoting the whole package. Of course WC won't see it like that. And I don't say that as a slight on his character - I genuinely don't think he will see things in that vein. Time will tell whether that is a reasonable position for others to adopt but for WC on a personal level it seems relatively consistent to his position in recent times. Not so much a question of right or wrong science, more a question of complete or imcomplete overall assessment.
don4l said:
More interesting stuff
TO ask my question in a different way.How many glaciers (or glacier systems) are there on earth?
And of those how many have the IPCC proved to be melting at an increasing rate in the past 20 years?
I ask this to determine exact significance of the Himalay lie.
grumbledoak said:
kerplunk said:
yep the (ex)wiki editor and probably 'staunch' from a your pov.
Well, forgive me, but given what he has been happy to do (in the past, allegedly) I'll wait for an opinion I have any faith in at all.
blindswelledrat said:
don4l said:
More interesting stuff
TO ask my question in a different way.How many glaciers (or glacier systems) are there on earth?
And of those how many have the IPCC proved to be melting at an increasing rate in the past 20 years?
I ask this to determine exact significance of the Himalay lie.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OllierPaine-NoIceS...
I have been adding these sites of information to a Wiki for ease of access.
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...
jshell said:
turbobloke said:
TB, or others, do you have a link to the report showing the bias of land-based temperature measurement stations? ie, UHI's in terms of airports, air conditioning ducts, and other heat sources.Can't seem to find it anywhere!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate...
http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-12-18/climate-scandal-...
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/8155921...
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/ghcn-a...
http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-12-18/climate-scandal-...
blindswelledrat said:
don4l said:
More interesting stuff
TO ask my question in a different way.How many glaciers (or glacier systems) are there on earth?
And of those how many have the IPCC proved to be melting at an increasing rate in the past 20 years?
I ask this to determine exact significance of the Himalay lie.
I hope you're not another self proclaimed fence sitter who comes along, then turns into a fanatical believer in short order when challenged? I'm sure you're not, you must have observed that calamity and recognised its futility...
Have you missed the bigger picture? -----> http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Spinning_the_Clima...
rovermorris999 said:
Quite a long report just now on the Today programme on Radio 4 about ocean acidification. Apparently it's gone up by 30% since the industrial revolution and we're all doomed unless something is done. The reporter said that it is the elephant in the room in climate change and that while the world was concentrating on CO2 in the atmosphere acidification could be an even bigger threat.
TB's prediction come true.
Sadly yes, a safe bet. Junkscience on top of junkscience.TB's prediction come true.
blindswelledrat said:
I dont contribute much to this thread because I am as sceptical of the sceptics as I am of the alarmists.
However I feel compelled to ask this question.
There seems to be a lot of excitement lately about this glaciers that the IPCC said was melting quicker than it is.
Really-what is the big deal about it?
Its one mistake out of hundreds (thousands?) of similar claims. It hardly proves anything other than one of many thousands of IPCC scientists has f
ked up and acted unproffessionally.
Maybe I am missing something that makes the above sentence incorrect.
The only thing you missed (mentioning) is the several dozen and probably more similar errors, plus all the errors of omission as well as errors of commission - until comebody counts we won't know. It's not just one error, it's one of many errors that made the news, Glaciergate was then followed by Amazongate Disastergate (to use the phrases that get used).However I feel compelled to ask this question.
There seems to be a lot of excitement lately about this glaciers that the IPCC said was melting quicker than it is.
Really-what is the big deal about it?
Its one mistake out of hundreds (thousands?) of similar claims. It hardly proves anything other than one of many thousands of IPCC scientists has f
ked up and acted unproffessionally.Maybe I am missing something that makes the above sentence incorrect.
Errors in IPCC climate science
Also:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/heat-...
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-doe...
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-tan...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...
blindswelledrat said:
Eric Mc said:
My problem is their atitude. They do not WANT anyone to hold opposing views and they insist that they are the correct ones - even when erors or mistakes in their predictions emerge. I can't stand absolutism, of any varirty.
I agree 100%, particularly in a subject like this where anyone with half a brain can tell there is no absolute answer. This does not represent a situation somehow in-balance, there is simply no evidence for AGW junkscience and plenty against.
"Credibility perhaps (but they never had a great deal with me anyway), but arguyment perhaps not. It seems the glaciers is still melting, just slower."
The glaciers are not melting.
Some glaciers are retreating. Nearby the retreating glaciers, other glaciers are advancing. Different parts of the same glacier are advancing and retreating. This rules out a global mean temperature cause, since all glaciers in the same climatic zone should be either retreating or advancing, and this is not the case from Svalbard to the Himalayas.
If you read the science on ice sheet movement and glacier evolution you will see that there is more relevance to climate thousands or tens of thousands of years ago than there is to the temperature on some airport runways or near a few aircon outlets today.
See section on glaciers:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OllierPaine-NoIceS...
Himalayan glaciers:
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Mo...
The glaciers are not melting.
Some glaciers are retreating. Nearby the retreating glaciers, other glaciers are advancing. Different parts of the same glacier are advancing and retreating. This rules out a global mean temperature cause, since all glaciers in the same climatic zone should be either retreating or advancing, and this is not the case from Svalbard to the Himalayas.
If you read the science on ice sheet movement and glacier evolution you will see that there is more relevance to climate thousands or tens of thousands of years ago than there is to the temperature on some airport runways or near a few aircon outlets today.
See section on glaciers:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OllierPaine-NoIceS...
Himalayan glaciers:
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/Mo...
blindswelledrat said:
don4l said:
More interesting stuff
TO ask my question in a different way.How many glaciers (or glacier systems) are there on earth?
And of those how many have the IPCC proved to be melting at an increasing rate in the past 20 years?
I ask this to determine exact significance of the Himalay lie.
The Antarctic is the biggest. Greenland is second and then the Himalayas is the third biggest. The Swiss alps have only a small fraction of the ice that the Himalayas have. The Glaciers in the Swiss Alps have been retreating for about the same length of time as the Himalayas.
I haven't read AR4 (I wonder if anyone has read the whole 3000 pages?) so I don't know if they have said that any others are melting at an increasing rate.
Don
--
Somebody posted something from William Connolley? Too late for ho ho ho anyway.
Forget the source, agw science is junk regardless of source as numerous threads with countless links to sound science have shown. If this is one of them here it is again, but I can't remember seeing it at least for some time, and is therefore mentioned for that reason but also because it rightly points to errors of omission as well as errors of commission.
The UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Third Assessment Report is not an assessment of climate change science even though it claims to be
Forget the source, agw science is junk regardless of source as numerous threads with countless links to sound science have shown. If this is one of them here it is again, but I can't remember seeing it at least for some time, and is therefore mentioned for that reason but also because it rightly points to errors of omission as well as errors of commission.
The UN IPCC WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Third Assessment Report is not an assessment of climate change science even though it claims to be
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 26th January 18:24
don4l said:
I haven't read AR4 (I wonder if anyone has read the whole 3000 pages?) so I don't know if they have said that any others are melting at an increasing rate.
Don
--
I've read AR4 but would not want to be tested on the spelling punctuation or grammar on every page. I've also read - and just posted - reports and science on ice sheet / glacier behaviour, well worth a read.Don
--
Have a couple of clicks.
Wojick's analysis can be re-read in a whole new light these days, also well worth a read.
An important point: even if the world's glaciers were all retreating (they're not) or even if all the glaciers in one of the mentioned locations were all retreating (they're not), this is just observation.
Don't let the impact of propaganda work on you without your knowledge...there is no CAUSALITY to humans in this or any other of the purely and simply observations.
Even so, those observations are not as presented in the biased articles produced by some media outlets, as can be seen from the science and the reports already linked to recently.
An important point: even if the world's glaciers were all retreating (they're not) or even if all the glaciers in one of the mentioned locations were all retreating (they're not), this is just observation.
Don't let the impact of propaganda work on you without your knowledge...there is no CAUSALITY to humans in this or any other of the purely and simply observations.
Even so, those observations are not as presented in the biased articles produced by some media outlets, as can be seen from the science and the reports already linked to recently.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff