32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[Signal 11]

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that "hundreds of IPCC scientists" are known to support the following statement

Provide a source for this quote.

55 had serious vested interest

State which 55 and provide evidence of the "vested interests", or withdraw the claim.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada.

If you wish to claim that anyone other than those two disagree with the statement, name them and provide evidence that they do disagree with it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We have been through this several times before, for example here.

The Earth's climate has warmed by approximately 0.6 degrees C
over the past 100 years with two main periods of warming, between
1910 and 1945 and from 1976 onwards.

http://www.scienceweek.com/2003/sw030502.htm

This pattern isn't compatible with CO2 driving earth's climate.

 

[free spirit]

http://www.scienceweek.com/2003/sw030502.htm

This pattern isn't compatible with CO2 driving earth's climate.

you'd be right if CO2 was the only factor, but it isn't as I'm sure you must have grasped by now.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

you'd be right if CO2 was the only factor, but it isn't as I'm sure you must have grasped by now.

I was responding to an exchange between bigfish and signal ll.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bigfish View Post
Nor have you enlightened us on how it is possible for you to believe that carbon dioxide drives Earth's climate

Signal 11 replied:

We have been through this several times before, for example here.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

you'd be right if CO2 was the only factor, but it isn't as I'm sure you must have grasped by now.

As you're aware, many of the other important factors aren't taken into consideration, or at least properly taken into consideration, by the IPCC.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

As you're aware, many of the other important factors aren't taken into consideration, or at least properly taken into consideration, by the IPCC.

What factors are you talking about?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What factors are you talking about?

Aerosols. Water vapour. Clouds.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Aerosols. Water vapour. Clouds.

Utter crap. All three are taken into account. To consider climate change without these factors would be absurd.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Utter crap. All three are taken into account. To consider climate change without these factors would be absurd.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do you have any evidence to back up your extraordinary claim?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

...probably the greatest uncertainty in future projections of climate arises from clouds and their interactions with radiation...Clouds represent a significant source of potential error in climate simulations...The sign of the net cloud feedback is still a matter of uncertainty, and the various models exhibit a large spread. Further uncertainties arise from precipitation processes and the difficulty in correctly simulating the diurnal cycle and precipitation amounts and frequencies.

IPCC2001a:TS: D1

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Accurately predicting climate change is a tricky business. Your point?

 

[Crispy]

What that text means is that they do take account of those factors, and they account for a large amount of the error margin in their predictions, because they are not as well understood as other processes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Accurately predicting climate change is a tricky business. Your point?

This was your point.

Originally Posted by littlebabyjesus View Post
Utter crap. All three are taken into account. To consider climate change without these factors would be absurd.

This is what the IPCC says.

The sign of the net cloud feedback is still a matter of uncertainty

See the difference?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What that text means is that they do take account of those factors, and they account for a large amount of the error margin in their predictions, because they are not as well understood as other processes.

What it says, is cloud effect remains uncertain, therefore existing weather models are incomplete.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What that text means is that they do take account of those factors, and they account for a large amount of the error margin in their predictions, because they are not as well understood as other processes.

Precisely.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Precisely.

If a particular effect is uncertain, exactly how is it accurately incorporated into a model?

 

[Fruitloop]

Things are uncertain between particular limits. Boiling water is too chaotic to predict the position of particular molecules but you can be pretty sure it's not going to dance around the room yodelling.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And in this case those limits are set wide to reflect the uncertainty.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Cloud feedback is currently approx half the size of of the 21st century CO2 temperature effect, but there is no agreement on whether it will cool or warm the climate.

IPCC 2001a:7.2.2.4.1

 

[bigfish]

IPCC Review Editors Comments Online
By Steve McIntyre
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2960

More on the fictional "2,500 scientist all agree" propaganda nonsense above, including commentary from some of the IPCC expert reviewers involved, such as this one by:

Aynsley Kellow
April 2nd, 2008

As a reviewer for WG2 Chapter 19, let me make a couple of comments. I have enormous respect for John Zillman, though he has a higher regard than I for the IPCC and its integrity. In particular, as these documents show, John demonstrates a degree of diligence and professionalism that is neither widespread nor deeply embedded in the IPCC process. I considered that there were systematic biases in the chapter, and while (thanks to John’s vigilance) many parts were improved, there was one telling point. In response to my criticism that the chapter focused on negative impacts to the neglect of any positive effects of climate change, the response was made that this was because the IPCC had decided this was the way it should be. In other words, a political decision was made to ignore positive consequences. My response was to the effect that, if that was the case, what was contained in the chapter should not be described as a risk assessment, since a risk assessment must (by any standard definition) include an assessment of risks and benefits. (Note that risks today are always considered to be negative, a change from the days when risks could be considered positive or negative).

I gave my views on the process in an interview here:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3111/

 

[Balbi]

bigfish old chap, have you ever posted on the forums about anything other than global warming?

 

[Signal 11]

^ Yes, he's also posted about how the sun is made of metal (really!)

 

[WouldBe]

^ Yes, he's also posted about how the sun is made of metal (really!)

Depending on which side of the periodic table you look, then hydrogen can be classed as a metal.

 

[stdPikachu]

I do love the way bigfish seems to be under the impression that science appears to be a "biggest number wins" lotto-democracy. I vote we award 5.5 billion honourary Scientist badges and declare gravity not to apply to aeroplane-shaped objects so as to acheive better fuel economy.

 

[Signal 11]

Depending on which side of the periodic table you look, then hydrogen can be classed as a metal.

Actually, in the astronomical sense the word metal refers to all elements heavier than helium.

 

[Refused as fuck]

What shit is Jim talking now?

 

[tangentlama]

 

[Signal 11]

What shit is Jim talking now?

^ Check this thread for the best LOLz.

 

[tangentlama]

This pattern isn't compatible with CO2 driving earth's climate.

Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point
NASA and Columbia University Earth Institute research finds that human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth’s climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/danger_point.html

Image above: C02 (Carbon Dioxide) is a critical component of the Earth's atmosphere. Since the beginning of the industrial age, the concentration of CO2 has increased by about 25%, from about 280 parts per million to over 370 parts per million. Scientific studies indicate that CO2 is one of several gases that trap heat near the surface of the Earth. These gases are known as greenhouse gases. Credit: NASA/JPL