Those opposed to action on climate change are compelled to attack the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports. Not doing so would cede the scientific high-ground of the argument and essentially doom their preferred do-nothing policy approach.
One way to attack the IPCC is to describe it as a nameless bureaucracy pursuing its own political agenda, and entirely disconnected from the scientific community. For example, a report from the Fraser Institute makes this argument explicitly:
[A] compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself.
This argument is transparently false on several counts. First, the authors are not nameless, but are listed prominently on the first page of the Summary. In addition, they are not bureaucrats, but all have scientific credentials in the arena of climate change.
Second, the conclusions of the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers (SPM) do in fact reflect the scientific consensus. The negotiations over the SPM for the IPCC's working group II provides a unique insight into the interplay between science and politics in the production of the SPM.
The Associated Press reported that:
Two distinctly different groups, data-driven scientists and nuanced offend-no-one diplomats, collided and then converged this past week. At stake: a report on the future of the planet and the changes it faces with global warming.
An inside look at the last few hours of tense negotiations at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reveals how the diplomats won at the end thanks to persistence and deadlines. But scientists quietly note that they have the last say.
And:
Here's how negotiations went, based on interviews and an unusual opportunity for The Associated Press to observe the last 3 1/2 hours of debate.
The four-day meeting was supposed to end Thursday afternoon but was extended to Friday morning. A news conference was scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday to release the report, but the document wasn't finished until after that time.
Interpreters had been sent home at 2 a.m. Friday due to financial issues. Some pages had not been discussed and some of the most critical issues were still not solved as small group negotiations stalled.
Panel co-chairman Martin Parry of the United Kingdom acknowledged that some parts of the document were eliminated "because there was not enough time to work it through as well."
With such deadline problems, some countries -- especially China, Saudi Arabia and at times Russia and the United States -- were able to play hard ball.
China and Saudi Arabia wanted to lower the level of scientific confidence (from more than 90 percent to 80 percent) that the report had in a statement about current global warming effects and it looked like they would win because they wouldn't accept the original wording. That's when Rosenzweig protested and walked.
A U.S.-based compromise saved the day, avoiding any mention of scientific confidence.
A comparison of the original document, written by scientists, and the finished paper showed major reductions in forecasts for hunger and flooding victims. Instead of "hundreds of millions" of potential flood victims, the report said "many millions." A key mention of up to 120 million people at risk of hunger because of global warming was eliminated.
The bottom line is that the IPCC's SPMs are "consensus documents," meaning that all member governments need to agree to the science described in them. Countries that want to do nothing about climate change have incentives to water down the SPMs, while countries that want strong responses have incentives to highlight potential disasters.
And the scientists have an important veto: they can walk out and declare that one side or another is trying to subvert the science. All countries have incentives to be seen as credible on this issue, and so cannot afford to be designated as anti-science.
In the end, it looks like the Working Group II SPM was slightly watered down by those opposed to action. But competing pressures from other groups kept out major changes. In the end, most climate scientists would agree that the SPM fairly reflects the science of climate change.
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Comments
View as Flat
tico89 Posted 10:48 am
07 Apr 2007
In order to do nothing, they had to go into hyperdrive. How sad that all these denialists were made to work so hard.
However, I'm not quite sure I get the point you're trying to make here. You say that it can't be considered as a report by "a nameless bureaucracy pursuing its own political agenda", thus gainsaying what most detractors claim, but at the same time it doesn't sound so much like a consensus of science as a compromise, which as I'm sure we all know, is the act of reaching a mutually unacceptable result. So basically, how this 'consensus' came about was by having U.S. 'scientists' step in and rewrite the thing to make is sound like no one's sure what they're talking about, and if that isn't a subversion following a political agenda, I don't know what is.
Actually, it sounds like people are right in what they think of the IPCC, just in the opposite direction - instead of overdoing the problem, it's being forced to water it down.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 11:47 am
07 Apr 2007
Permalink
birdboy Posted 12:31 pm
07 Apr 2007
to keep those looney, liberal scientists from embarrasing themselves.
Where would we be now, if we had let scientific fact get in the way of good business?
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 2:28 pm
07 Apr 2007
You make a good point. My response is that while governments have some marginal control on the content, it is predominantly controlled by the science. The changes described in the article I would describe as minor and unsubstantial on the overall report.
Regards
Permalink
tico89 Posted 3:00 pm
07 Apr 2007
However, scientists know the science. There's not a lot they have to be told. The problem is that phrases referring to actual people, and the ones that make it sound like a serious problem even to the most uninitiated person are the ones that were toned down, and these are the ones that would appeal to everyone.
After all, this particular instalment is supposed to be about the results.
Nevertheless, I do now appreciate the point you were trying to make, and I do pray that these little changes were just to make everyone accept the report, and won't affect the result (It is Easter! We could do with a miracle or two.). Actually, it sounded like it needs some toning down to get it across to sceptics.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 3:29 pm
07 Apr 2007
Overall, I agree with you. I do think, however, that it's useful to remember why the IPCC does this. It is not that member governments know the science ... rather, it is to ensure that member governments buy into the science. It is now impossible for any member government to say that they don't agree with the IPCC because they have all approved every sentence in the SPM.
So while giving governments access to the science might indeed lead to small changes, those changes are worth it when you consider the political strategy at work here.
Regards
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 4:56 pm
07 Apr 2007
as I would have also done.
The current climatic situation is rapidly unfolding and the human disasters that have so far been experienced are only the beginning of a non linear process maybe its initially an exponential process.
The fatally undermining consequences are NOT an 80% chance, not even a 90% chance
It is 100% certain that civilisation is facing the greatest risk to its existence that it has ever faced.
There is also the highly probable 70-80% chance that the human species will become extinct as well, and a related equally probable chance that the on-flowing negative consequences will lead to LIFE itself becoming extinct.
This is as serious as it gets guys, and discussion is severly and fearfully muzzled. Inactivating fear can cause the fears feared to be actually manifest. Scientists can not sit on their hands as the publically fearless ignorant politicians think they can do.... who are they really ? sock puppets of the bottom line.
You the people must stand side to side with the scientists, stand up for your right to live, and for your children's right to live and even for the right of LIFE itself to be able to continue living vibrant and free.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 5:49 pm
07 Apr 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:48 am
08 Apr 2007
Even if IPCC were not composed of bureaucrats, the very concept of "voting" and "4 out of 5 scientists" coalescing on an opinion is anathema to Science. Scientists publish in scientific journals that are peer reviewed. They don't all get together in Geneva and stuff themselves with brie and espresso and spout out a "report".
They are fighting on ice shelves and nestled away in laboratories. They are fluid, not static. They may think one thing, and then think the complete opposite as they wrestle with ideas, concepts, hypotheses.
They may read others work, or reject it entirely, or use it as the basis of their own. But their own work is always unique...not simply a building block is some vast edifice such as the IPCC report, but a unique creation.
Any single scientific paper can form the basis of entirely unique worldview that can be acted upon. You can not "sum up" 1069 scientific papers of average them any more than you could perform an "averaged" Beatles song.
I criticize the IPCC not only for its conclusion, but for the idea that Al Gore and his "army of scientists" could ever, every provide a single definitive answer to anything, on any subject.
It just don't work that way.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:57 am
08 Apr 2007
Bill jumped all over him and the meathead backed down. The vast resources of stupidity from the neo-right corporatarians are amazing, if they could only be harnessed to generate renewable energy. Maybe wire their flapping jaws to some sort of linear generator?
This "Fraser Institute" disinformation (where do they come up with these moronic orgs?)indicates the campaign is shifting yet again.
I imagine this will be the new talking point parroted by the mass delusional media. Get in there and put the lie to it Andrew.
Apparently you are one of the few spokespersons our side has who has access to the NYT and other conventional corporate wisdom propaganda rags. Will DR get on foxnews? Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:10 am
08 Apr 2007
Jabailo's missive shows a remarkable lack of understanding of how the scientific community operates. Academia as a whole is very "tribalistic." Almost all "new" theories are, to a significant degree, built upon the shoulders of existing thought. Indeed, group think can often be so pervasive that deviating very far from orthodox positions can be downright dangerous to one's scholarly career (particularly prior to receiving tenure).
Not that long ago global warming was considered a fringe idea in ANY of the natural sciences. Now it has risen to the ranks of common wisdom -- and not just in one isolated discipline, but in a diverse range of fields that may not have talked much to each other in the past.
The term "paradigm shift" is vastly overused, but I think it fits in this case. If the esteemed historian of science Thomas Kuhn were still alive, I suspect that he would point to global warming as one of those rare subjects which transforms the thinking of an entire generation of scientists.
Jabailo can attempt to minimize this transformation all he wants by pointing to bureaucratic interference, but he is merely showing his ignorance. He seems to be so blinded by his hatred of Al Gore that he can't seem to recognize that something very big is happening here.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:48 am
08 Apr 2007
Lol...Global Warming is as old as Malthus. It's the same old "edge of disaster" scenario that's been foisted on society time and time again.
The newer paradigm is to accept man and nature.
Naturogenic processes helping man to succeed. That is on of the tenets of my climate model and it's predictions.
It's the 21st Century...one of individuals.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:59 am
08 Apr 2007
You insist on dishing out the same old bulls---.
Anyone who walks into a scholarly career thinking they can be an "individual" will eventually have a rude awakening. I take it you've never gone through the peer-review process at a scholarly journal.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 6:32 am
08 Apr 2007
that's pretty much what I was saying - that it's not the science that's so important, as long as it makes sense, it's the sections that actually refer to things that governments can work on. I think we're on the same wavelength here, though.
jabailo-
the biggest scientific discoveries and advances have been achieved, not through the work of individuals, but through people working together. Look at any famous scientist who has discovered or invented anything, and behind him there's a group of helpers. In fact, it's the occasions when this hasn't happened that problems have arisen - look at calculus. If Newton hadn't been so individual and at odds with everyone around him, to the extent of refusing to publish a critical part of his Principia at one point, calculus would have been advanced that much faster. With climate change, we don't have that luxury of squabbling time.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It's together we must work.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 6:44 am
08 Apr 2007
As a scientist, I can assure you that consensus plays a pivotal role in science. I blogged about it here. While we scientists toil away alone for a good portion of our time, eventually we must present our work to the broader scientific community. The goal is to convince the community we're right. If we can, and a consensus develops that our idea has merit, then our idea becomes part of the working body of knowledge on some subject. Without consensus, science would fall apart.
In general, your comments on climate change and the IPCC would be taken more seriously if you'd actually taken the time to read the IPCC report. I read all of the denialist literature/websites --- which is why I can tell you with great confidence that it's mostly bunk.
Regards.
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 8:04 am
08 Apr 2007
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180
(As Steven Colbert might say, when you've got giant clankers, there's no need to stand on the shoulders of giants.)
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:14 am
08 Apr 2007
I reject the IPCC.
Telling me to read the IPCC is like telling me to read your sister's blog.
I read the two papers that were suggested to me, and they were "iffy" in my viewpoint regarding their ability to support anthropogenic global warming, or even greenhouse gas based global warming.
"Presenting one's work" to the scientific community doesn't mean going off the Geneva and being steamrollered into a scientific potpie of meaningless gibber-jabber.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:19 am
08 Apr 2007
Because we lack ensembles of simulations, including subsets of forcings used in the historical simulations with each GCM, we apply the method of....
Translation: If you dig deeply enough, you see that eventually the data don't support the conclusions, because they eventually say "there's not enough data" and make yet another speculation or simulation as the basis of the current simulation.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 8:32 am
08 Apr 2007
First, I sincerely doubt you actually read either paper. I think you probably spent about 15 sec. looking for a sentence in order to quote it out of context. Good work! I'm sure you're convincing lots of people here.
Second, your moaning and whining about the IPCC ring hollow since, by your own admission, you have not read it. A while back you bristled at being labeled a troll. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and attempted to engage you in scientific discourse, but you are clearly not interested in that --- even to the point of refusing to read the report. If you walk like a troll and quack like a troll ...
I recommend you start blogging at techcentralstation. You'll find lots of intellectual brethren there.
Regards
Permalink
tico89 Posted 8:33 am
08 Apr 2007
as you seem so good at 'translating' things, let me see if I can translate what you've been saying. You reject and refuse to read anything that might actually go against your own viewpoint, but are perfectly willing to 'dig deep' in desperate search for something that might, just possibly, in some circumstances, using a very liberal interpretation, and possibly with the prevailing wind coming from a certain direction, sound slightly as if people aren't totally 100% positive?
Well, that's interesting.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work alone.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 8:42 am
08 Apr 2007
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Humanity can't work individually.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 8:44 am
08 Apr 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 11:38 am
08 Apr 2007
The answer y'all are looking for is in the Book, "The death of clouds"
A lifeline will be available soon,....... omegafour.com
>> rogue scientists operating as individuals, bravely innovating against all those scientific conformists >>
yes indeed, Giant step change always comes from the scientific fringes that have been released from conformity..... consensus is often blinded by power.
When the consensus meets the fringes,... this is the only time when science becomes interesting and real.
PS about trolls, they actually are very beneficial, they force argument and counter argument.... the grist of science.
When everyone openly agrees then critical observations definitely have been overlooked.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:59 am
08 Apr 2007
And are getting no where with it. Maybe they help wake the public up to realize the agenda that Rove and fellow head trolls have pushed on the world.
We are paying the toll now. Perpetual oil war and GHG climate disaster. A ruined economy and dwindling manufacturing and tax base. All power in the hands of multinational corporations.
How did a troll like wolfi, who claimed the Iraq war would cost US taxpayers 1.8 billion, get installed as a banker? The head banker doling out funds to help the poor? Now that's a troll bridge. He will demand payoffs to corporate cronies out of those fund for the poor now.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:26 pm
08 Apr 2007
Well, the second sentence just stopped me dead in my tracks!
"Detection of Human Influence on a New Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction", [Journal of Climate (2007)], p 1 (reprint/online)
Reconstructions of millennial temperatures show a wide range of variability, raising questions about the reliability of current available reconstruction techniques and the uniqueness of late-twentieth century warming.
It then of course goes on with a lot of gibberish as to why -- after they just admitted their data doesn't support their argument -- why they should "adjust" it all to make the data fit the theory!
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:29 pm
08 Apr 2007
You reject and refuse to read anything that might actually go against your own viewpoint,
Why is it that when the Crybaby-Maltusians lose an argument, they call the other person names.
I asked for one thing: a list of scientific papers, not a "Committee Report" supporting global warming. I received two citations -- and I read, and am still re-reading those. I have presented some initial arguments why both are lacking -- and if those two are the "best" then God help us as far as there being the remotely amount of scientific underpinning to the IPCC
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:34 pm
08 Apr 2007
Why is it that the mob rule of the Crypto-Maltusians is their ethic? I cited those papers. It is you who have not read them. You are not answering ... I can't hear anything but the ad hominem attacks now that I've torn your treefort down.
The IPCC is your mommy's apron. You can't argue scientifically, so you run and hide behind the Council.
Let me ask you this: How come the IPCC always speaks as a depersonalized entity? That is, how come individual scientists at Yale, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, are not re-iterating its exact conclusions? Give us names...give us real living scientists...not an alphabet soup that people can hide behind.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:57 pm
08 Apr 2007
http://www.greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png
So what do you think is causing the warming?
But before you reply, take a quick look at this:
http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar.png
NASA says:
The pattern of modeled surface temperature changes induced by solar variability is well correlated with observed global warming over the first half of the 20th century, but not with the more rapid warming seen over the past three decades. The latter more closely resembles modeled warming induced by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. This suggests that although solar variability does impact surface climate indirectly, it was probably not responsible for most of the rapid global warming seen over the past three decades. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_03/
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 8:34 pm
08 Apr 2007
Jabailo you are correct on this one point,
the global warming science is totally concocted to fit the observations. The science is as shoddy as the cigarette sham.
But global climate changes is happening, and in ways no one dreamed of, and the final consequence really could be extinction.
Doubly serious considering this description
IPCC meeting
"""" "There was no split in the science; they were all mad," said John Coequyt, who observed the closed-door negotiations for the environmental group Greenpeace. """""
Socrates was wise, be gathered indications of truth from many directions. Wonder who is mad ?
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 8:35 pm
08 Apr 2007
http://www.denialism.com/2007_03_01_archive.html
Pointless to debate these poeple here as yiu can't win. They keep shifting the goal posts, quote everything out of context. It's been used for a long time with great success. The problem is a site like gristmill attracts readers who are that little bit more interested in the subject and therefore not fooled by people like this. Unfortunately the real battleground is the mainstream media where we need to stamp on these types using consistent logical arguments and patience.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 11:26 pm
08 Apr 2007
It's odd that you so desperately refuse to read the IPCC. Afraid that it'll destroy your carefully constructed artifice of denial? Warning: it probably will.
Oh, and I love your argument that "I've read them ... it's you who hasn't read them!" I have two-year old twins, so I'm very familiar with that tactic --- the old "I'm rubber and you're glue ...". I doubt you're going to convince anyone here. Seriously, you'd be welcomed at techcentralstation.
Basically, your comments are not worth responding to. You're now officially on my troll list.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:00 am
09 Apr 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:33 am
09 Apr 2007
The solar induced changes in the lower atmosphere affect surface features such as temperature and pressure. The model's response agrees with observations, including the long record of geopotential height variations (a function of temperature throughout the lower atmosphere), implying that these observed 10-12 year oscillations are likely driven, at least partially, by solar variability.
This fits exactly right with the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:34 am
09 Apr 2007
Shuffle, shuffle. Do the Crypto-Malthusian sidestep when confronted with facts.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:37 am
09 Apr 2007
Can I get a discount if I sign up for two years?
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 1:49 am
09 Apr 2007
Dr. Ron Paul, R-Tx, Libertarian, strongly against the Iraq war, candidate for the presidency.
I know he is from Texas. But I think his main axe to grind has to do with the economy. He hates supra-governmental organizations (WTO, CAFTA, etc.) and regulation more than he hates the earth per se.
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 1:51 am
09 Apr 2007
Leave him alone!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:58 am
09 Apr 2007
When there's less sunlight, and more cosmic rays, it (usually) gets colder.
You know why?
Because there's less sunlight.
Duh.
_
Besides which.
Svensmark has been disproven six ways from Sunday ;D
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Pap ...
His data doesn't hold the test of time.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/tak ...
_
Lastly, how would his cooling theory explain this warming?
(Especially if cloud data doesn't follow his theory)
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:00 am
09 Apr 2007
Svensmark modified his theories based on his newly published (and successful) lab experiments on cosmic rays and cloud formation. There were initial (2002) criticisms to his first proposals (Laut, et al.) but four long years have passed.
And later this year, a host of international labs and scientists will be repeating those experiments for verification.
I expect a broader synthesis of his idea.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:04 am
09 Apr 2007
Meanwhile, I presented a real scientist, Svensmark, from a real research center, The Danish Space Research Institute.
Face it, Cypto-Malthusians, you're holding a 2-4, the flop shows Q-Q-K and I've got the third Q.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:20 am
09 Apr 2007
What does that prove?
That if you take way more sulfur than is present in the atmosphere, and shoot it with UV which would get blocked by the upper atmosphere.
You might see a drop or two.
_
The other problem with experiment.
His trend data is off by months.
When if it were true, it shouldn't be off by more than a day.
_
Fact of the matter is that he lacks any proof.
He can't even be certain it's possible to have any effect. Much less a large one.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:24 am
09 Apr 2007
"When there's less sunlight, it (usually) gets colder.
And when there more sunlight, it gets warmer."
Why would anyone need cosmic rays to explain this?
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 2:41 am
09 Apr 2007
Here is the link to the IPCC website:
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html
Please at least spend some time reading through it before making any more baseless claims. With regard to the mysterious people behind the IPCC reports that we are unable to provide. Here we go..
The authors of working group 1:
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg1authors.pdf
The authors of working group 2:
http://www.gtp89.dial.pipex.com/wg2authors.pdf
The authors of working group 3:
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg3authors.pdf
The core writing team for the AR4 synthesis report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session25/inf5.pdf
Now read through these. Google the names of all of the people listed. Read up on their research and history. Read through the back ground of the IPCC and its methods. When you have done that and you have properly informed yourself come back and ask any questions.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:50 am
09 Apr 2007
Variations in cosmic rays cause differential low level cloud formation.
That is what controls the amount of sunlight that can warm the earth.
The cosmic rays are like the finger that controls the thermostat dial.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:52 am
09 Apr 2007
I didn't ask for a list of authors.
I asked for an article from a single scientist, or public presentation by a major scientist, as an individual, who is putting his career and work directly on the line and asserting everything the IPCC says...by himself...the way Svensmark, a real scientist, presents his theories.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:54 am
09 Apr 2007
There are plenty of 'seeds' in the air on which water can form, also known as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). According to my old text book 'A Short Course in Cloud Physics' by Rogers and Yau (1989, p. 95 in Third edition): "Condensation nuclei of some sort are always present in the atmosphere in ample numbers: clouds form whenever there are vertical air motions and sufficient moisture". The CCN tend to consist of mineral dust, sea salt, or sulphur-based matter. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cos ...
In short, Svensmark, particularly is focusing on low hanging clouds.
And is claiming that there's not enough dust, salt, and sulfur flying up to explain why cloud formation is happening.
(And yet he's using tons of dust, salt, and sulfur in his experiment)
Despite the fact that the IPCC mentions that Aerosols are the biggest unknown in climate models.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/aer ...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:57 am
09 Apr 2007
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/i23/p5004_1
Low Cloud Properties Influenced by Cosmic Rays
Nigel D. Marsh and Henrik Svensmark
Danish Space Research Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
Received 18 May 2000; revised 15 August 2000
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:31 am
09 Apr 2007
Not to mention, even his own graphs don't agree with each other.
He's faking the data.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/hs2007fig23.jpg
http://www.greyfalcon.net/fakedata.png
Proof positive that Svensmark is lying.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:11 am
09 Apr 2007
A blog
Your own website?
Please.
Call me when the Danish government appoints you to a major climate research facility.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:25 am
09 Apr 2007
Note, each graph is cited with a link.
Unlike Svensmark, I don't make shit up just to prove a point.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 5:18 am
09 Apr 2007
Here's what I said to Jabailo last time about Svensmark result:Jabailo-
The Svensmark result is interesting, and it (or something like it) might indeed turn out to be right. However, the vast bulk of evidence supports CO2. That's why the scientific community says that there's a 90% chance that CO2 (and other gases) are driving the current warming, and a 10% chance that some off-the-wall theory like this will turn out to be right.
However, junkscience has misrepresented the science badly. The Svensmark result is hardly
"proven." There are, in fact, many reasons to believe it is not right. See here, for example. That's why it's unlikely to eventually overturn the CO2 theory.Jabailo flatly rejected this, I told him to read the IPCC, he refused, then he reappears on this thread with exactly the same argument ... and we start all over again.
The good news is that I've been dealing Jabailo-like people ever since the ozone hole ("the ozone hole is a bunch of bunk ..."). Like the dinosaurs, the Jabailo-like are bound for extinction.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 5:42 am
09 Apr 2007
It really is like a creationist shouting "If we're descendant from monkeys how come there are still monkeys?! It shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process and an attitude of being so firmly stuck in a viewpoint that even researching the subject is a non-starter.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:07 am
09 Apr 2007
It's those who outdated and false data to back up their arguements that gets me.
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 6:28 am
09 Apr 2007
The dutchman and the scientists don't really mean anything to you, but something in this does. Why do you really hate the IPCC? What are they trying to do that you are fighting?
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:59 am
09 Apr 2007
The only thing I can't figure out is whether he's a paid shill, or just gets off on being annoying.
Permalink
Kate Sheppard Posted 8:11 am
09 Apr 2007
Kate Sheppard
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 1:11 pm
09 Apr 2007
You are right about the skeptics' reliance on single articles. Check out my blog on that here.
Permalink
dannychivers Posted 6:55 pm
09 Apr 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2053521, ...
Check it out!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:06 am
10 Apr 2007
Why So Gloomy?
By Richard S. Lindzen
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it?
Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe.
What most commentators--and many scientists--seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare.
Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature--a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:36 am
10 Apr 2007
But what you forget to mention, Andrew, is that I did read the two real papers from the Journal of Climate that the IPCC bases its opinions on and found them lacking.
I took the time to find and read those papers. I now suggest that you now read "The Chilling Stars" by Svensmark.
The Chilling Stars
As far as all the data critiques of Svensmark -- well, gee whiz, I'm surprised he is still walking after you and your Harpies descendend upon the poor man! Even when he answered Laut politely and firmly, you refuse to acknowlege it. And when I ask for a scientific rebuttal, you show me to a "blog" that is not peer reviewed, or accepted as scientific press.
Quite frankly, I see you and the Crypto-Malthusians pushing charts that are really, really, specious. Often, the axes are based on the smallest amounts of range possible so it looks like there's an enourmous increase of anthropogenic CO2 when its (in absolute numbers) incredibly tiny.
I also suggest you and the IPCC read all the Tufte books on "chart junk" before putting anything into print ever again.
The Visual Display of Quantitative Information
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 2:56 am
10 Apr 2007
Let's take forestry as an example. Over long periods, climatic changes have changed the distribution of species across continents; there were jungles, once, in places that are now grasslands or desert. Redwoods once covered much of the Americas. These changes occurred over millions of years.
The modern discipline of forestry, however, does not generally deal with questions of millions of years. It tackles more practical, immediate questions, because forests have practical, immediate values. If we can agree to that, let's proceed.
There is a small and fascinating creature that dwells in the forests of North America. It has been here for millions of years and its presence has contributed to the structural and functional diversity of the forests, especially the pine forests of the west. It's called the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB).
MPB has two phases, referred to as endemic and epidemic. During the endemic phase, swarms of MPB attack weakened, stressed trees, where the female burrows under the bark to lay her eggs, feed on the phloem, and expose the tree to particular fungi. This endemic phase serves to thin the forest of weak trees, opening up pockets of light and soil for regeneration of other trees, shrubs, and herbs.
During the epidemic phase, MPB attacks both weakened and healthy trees. The swarms are large enough to overcome the defenses of healthy trees, often for miles and miles. The entire interior of British Columbia is threatened. What does this have to do with climate change? Epidemic outbreaks of MPB are generally quelled because of a hard, prolonged frost. Canada and upper-elevation forests in the U.S. (Montana, Idaho) haven't experienced the cold snap necessary to cut the MPB numbers back to endemic levels, and so the outbreaks continue.
Eventually, of course, other trees will replace those that are killed. Possibly trees of another species. But temporal and spatial scales matter to humans, too. In the interim hundreds or thousands of years, the trees will repeatedly burn because of high fuel loads and more frequent large-scale fire patterns (also climatic). So tell your great-great-great-great-great grandchildren that the forests will recover just fine.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:49 am
10 Apr 2007
This little essay, "This is gloom," is magnificent. (Though I would avoid "entire interior.") I am fascinated by the interaction of plants and insects, and thanks to you, have learned a great deal about something that I did not know anything about.
(Did you mean to write, "This is gloomy"? That would be more natural English. But actually, I prefer "This is gloom." As though you were saying, "You want to see darkness? I'll show you darkness! Behold!")
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:06 am
10 Apr 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 10:22 am
10 Apr 2007
LOL, well then you have no idea about what is going on, do you ?
Would the extinction of LIFE on Earth be catastrophic ?
Be patient, get the facts, no not the sanitised version, get the real science and logic that will place the facts in perspective.
Global climate change (NOT global warming) is the most serious challenge humankind has ever had to face.
THERE IS COMPELLING EVIDENCE
omegafour.com
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:32 am
10 Apr 2007
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Too bad that he lies when he tells you that.
http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-wipes-hands-clean-of-oi ...
http://www.greyfalcon.net/lindzen.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/lindzen2.png
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/richard-wrong-way-lind ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/denier-specialist-solomon-offer ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lin ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/ope ...
His previous work on the NAS report
http://www.desmogblog.com/denier-specialist-solomon-offer ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/nat ...
http://timlambert.org/2004/03/soundscience/
Lindzen's just another Phillip Morris failure, gone Exxon conman like the rest of the major skeptics that scream economic alarmism.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/comment.html? ...
Every single one of his theories has been disproven, asside from the fact that he complains about the fact that we haven't quantified every speck of dust in the atmosphere (aerosols).
All he has left is rhetoric and spin.
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 1:06 pm
10 Apr 2007
=
They may read others work, or reject it entirely, or use it as the basis of their own. But their own work is always unique...not simply a building block is some vast edifice such as the IPCC report, but a unique creation.
Any single scientific paper can form the basis of entirely unique worldview that can be acted upon.
=
This makes very little sense.
How would anybody know which paper that was in order to act on it?
Interestingly I just spent a good part of today arguing exactly the opposite; that modern science is too vast for anybody's work to be meaningful outside of a social context.
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/04/framing-trust- ...
I conclude that a collaborative network of trust is absolutely necessary both for science and for democracy.
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 1:16 pm
10 Apr 2007
I guess company policy on these folk is 'just ignore.'
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 1:55 pm
10 Apr 2007
You're right, I am new here. That was my first post on Grist.
A few minutes poking around the site was enough to see that you are right about the fellow. My apologies.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:55 pm
10 Apr 2007
Even the drunk in the gutter could save your life, but mostly you could safely ignore a drunk.
But to ignore science is at your own risk. The world has ignored science...y'all ignore all except "feel good"
and now it is time for the well oiled "feel good" piper to pay up, a simple payment in one installment, maybe with human existence becoming extinct.
Y'all can't complain can you, y'all have been paying the piper and living high on the sweet music ?
omegafour.com
Permalink