Global Warming

  • Thread starter pencil_4
  • Start date
  • #26
Evo
Mentor
23,104
2,450
Thanks for the link Evo. I remember you mentioning it in another thread at one time, but didn't see a link. I tried searching for it with Google but couldn't find the original.
I will be posting more about that IPCC document later.

Did you by chance hear about Chris Landseas resignation from the IPCC last year? With all the talk about the IPCC being sway by political agendas, it was a little hard to find truth in it. His resignation letter definitely didn't help my opinion of them.

THE IPCC AND POLITICS

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=236307

Resignation Letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
Yes, he's not the only scientist that has protested the IPCC's data mining and bias.
 
  • #27
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
16
If this thread is about the poltics and unethical behavior of the IPCC, then shouldn't it be in P&WA or in Social Sciences?

As for the science behind warming, here's what Dr. Landsea had to say in a PBS interview:
"We certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity."

The doubt here is about the effect on hurricane activity, and Dr. Landsea says the IPCC basically insisted on sticking with a stronger influence despite his arguments to the contrary (that sounds exactly like the actions of a highly politicized body). He does say, however, that he has no doubt about the source of some of the warming.

Yet, you will find GW and AGW denying sites selectively quoting Landsea to make their case.
 
  • #28
Evo
Mentor
23,104
2,450
If this thread is about the poltics and unethical behavior of the IPCC, then shouldn't it be in P&WA or in Social Sciences?
The unethical behavior has to do with misrepresenting the science.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in
their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested.
Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress
in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific
discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a
scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead
Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and
general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was
caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written
in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes
problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed
hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as
the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements,
the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our
climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.
While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I
suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and
entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of
view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much
care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than
passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views
on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the
Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several
presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though
worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the
scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.
Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I
have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
The facts have been misrepresented. The report that the IPCC hid from the public has scientist after scientist questioning and opposing the way the IPCC was piecing together their final report. The IPCC "staff" is actually making disparaging remarks about the scientists that are against what the IPCC is doing, I'm not surprised that they did not want anyone to see it, it's quite an embarrassment for them. I am putting together a post pointing these comments out so that you don't have to read the entire report if you don't wish to.
 
  • #29
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
16
So, then are we going to talk about the science at some point?

In my opinion, the science is in published, peer-reviewed papers. Discussion of that science belongs here.

The IPCC is a policy-making body. If we want to talk about their misrepresenting science, in just the same way that we talk about Bush's attacks on science, or McCain's misrepresentation of the effect of automobile maintenance on oil savings, we have been doing that in P&WA.

We should be primarily discussing the science here, not the motives, not the sociological effects, not the psychology, not the money trail or the politics, but that's what we seem to be doing so far.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
4,464
65
So, then are we going to talk about the science at some point?
That's what I did over the years, Gokul, and I'm happy to repeat that. Just name your subject.

Paleoclimatology
Hockeystick
Ice cores
Climate feedbacks
The flaws in the greenhousegas idea
The role of convection and the water cycle in climate
The complex combination of cycles all of them on climate

other..?
 
  • #31
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
16
I'm talking about this thread, Andre.

And it's pretty clear that the questions asked in the OP are about ethics in education and the Government policy in China regarding education as well as implementation of energy policy.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Evo
Mentor
23,104
2,450
So, then are we going to talk about the science at some point?

In my opinion, the science is in published, peer-reviewed papers. Discussion of that science belongs here.
It is discussing the science, go to the report and read the first comment, read all of the comments, this is the direct input from the scientists. These are the scientists discussing the peer reviewed papers, they are not discussing politics, policy, etc... that is a different IPCC document.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7794905?n=2&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25

Do you disagree that this document is discussing the science?

I think I will split the science discussion off from the rest of the thread, as I agree, Gokul, on not mixing the two discussions.
 
  • #33
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
16
The document is discussing the science, but none of us in this thread are. Like you said, the thread has two different themes in it, and one is somewhat unrelated to the OP. I think a split is the right decision.

After that, you can also delete my posts that deal with thread administration.
 
  • #34
Evo
Mentor
23,104
2,450
The document is discussing the science, but none of us in this thread are. Like you said, the thread has two different themes in it, and one is somewhat unrelated to the OP. I think a split is the right decision.

After that, you can also delete my posts that deal with thread administration.
I will do so and clean up. I would prefer to discuss the science side as the political side is just a bunch of hot air and media sensationalism. I'd like a discussion without the drama. What the scientists are discussing is pretty interesting, and both viewpoints are represented in the report.
 
  • #35
38
0
As a geologist with emphasis is paleo studies, of course climate comes into play in nearly all of the research I have done. Causation is not a big part of it however. What i do believe and understand is that we have very clear evidence of two things.... Climate has cycles now and before human beings could have any forcing ability, and also that it has been much colder and much hotter than it is today. Most of the great diversity of life occured in periods of higher temperature.
Now it appears that it is more likely that we are entering a cooling or dimming period than that we are getting warmer. The causes of the cooling could be some of many proposed hypothesis including deminished activity on the Sun (which is happening without question)
I really put very little credence into the fears of sudden sea level rise. There has been virtually no change in the steady rise since the last glaciation ( a very typical result after glaciations) It seems likely that most interglacials follow very much the same pattern this one has. An abrupt rise in sea levels early in the interglacial and a steady rise there after, continuing throught to the next glacial event. The same is true of the various glaciers on Earth. They advance and retreat on a cycle that follows such events as the LIA, and the medievil warming.
IMO those who are raising the alarms about global warming are looking at far too small a picture. Humans being what we are tend to think in terms of life times, while the Earth lives on a much longer scale.
Personally I see nothing near or far term about climate to cause the kind of concern some of my associates fear.
 
  • #36
Skyhunter
That is not a discussion of Earth sciences. It is a deceptive petition from the people who brought you intelligent Design.
 

Related Threads for: Global Warming

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
Top