Climatologist prescribes the IPCC be "put down"

[AndyH]

The fact is there are some weird phenomena showing up lately like the size of Arctic ice (there seems to be more of it last year then previous) and so on, stuff that does not fit any models. This is why all that talk of heat in the deep ocean.

There really isn't more ice in the Arctic, it is just spread more thinly so covers a larger area. The volume continues to decrease:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/11/2603711/arctic-death-spiral/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Exactly! And the increasing 'extent' even as the volume falls is also expected - freshwater stays at the surface (less dense) and freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. This is just one of many examples of denialists ignoring physics when they present this to support their agenda.

 

[klapauzius]

Climate change science is such a behemoth enterprise by now that it would be difficult for any scientist to try to fit facts into their own beliefs/agenda.

There is no conspiracy except for a little hiccough when some "secret" emails were paraded on the inernet a few years back.

The fact is there are some weird phenomena showing up lately like the size of Arctic ice (there seems to be more of it last year then previous) and so on, stuff that does not fit any models. This is why all that talk of heat in the deep ocean.

I say we have Haliburton nuke all the hot vents, plug them with their superior cement, and voila! The heat has been contained and all's well in the deep blue sea. And the Arctic ice? Getting better because of Nissan/Tesla and all those millions of electric miles we've been driving... :mrgreen:

Thanks for proving my point. Random processes are hard to grasp.
Its not about fluctuations, but about longterm averages.

 

[DaveEV]

The fact is there are some weird phenomena showing up lately like the size of Arctic ice (there seems to be more of it last year then previous) and so on, stuff that does not fit any models. This is why all that talk of heat in the deep ocean.

There really isn't more ice in the Arctic, it is just spread more thinly so covers a larger area. The volume continues to decrease:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/11/2603711/arctic-death-spiral/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ignoring volume - statistically, it is not probable that there be two sequential years of record low arctic ice extent. If that happened, something unexpected would have had to caused the decline or arctic sea ice would be declining very, very quickly. There is just too much variability in arctic ice extent.

 

[Smidge204]

The fact that someone may have lied on that site is completely irrelevant to the point.

No, it isn't. If a particular source has been shown to be untrustworthy, that is especially relevant to it's credibility. You honestly think that someone who has been caught lying on multiple occasions on a particular subject is a trustworthy source on that subject?

That, in no way, invalidates anything discussed in this thread. It is character assassination, nothing more.

It invalidates what is being discussed here, insofar as they are being referenced as sources by you.

You other statement

Linking to Forbes/WattsUpWithThat certainly doesn't help your credibility either.

is also an ad homimen attack. It is known as an association fallacy, which is another form of ad hominem.

Sorry, you're still wrong. Referencing untrustworthy sources as authoritative really does undermine your argument.
=Smidge=

 

[RegGuheert]

But science does not have the "right" message (or "wrong" message). Science does not have any message for that matter.

It tries to establish facts, causal connections, develop models of nature that can be represented and understood by the human mind.
Since nature does not care about human motivations or ideology, if a lot of scientists come to some conclusion, there are only a limited number possible explanations

a) its a conspiracy (i.e. a willful distortion of the truth)
b) its the truth
c) its a systematic error (given the large number of independent observations, this would point to some common flaw in the human mind)
d) given the uncertainty inherent in this field, its a fluke

You can assign probabilities to each of these possibilities (in fact the IPCC has done that, (b) is ~ 95% and (d) is ~ 5%). (a) and (c) seem unlikely, given that these are thousands of people that act independently.

Your last statement is the invalid assumption. All research depends upon funding and in the past two decades, the AGW agenda driven by the IPCC has driven the research in this area.

To assume that IPCC is a neutral organization is to assume way too much, IMO. At the very least, the IPCC is keenly aware that their role is to recommend policy. But guess what, if it is found that recent global warming is mostly caused by natural phenomena, then they have no role to play. In that case, policy makes little difference to global temperatures. So this political organization has a clear bias. How much their bias influence the science and education related to global warming is what is at debate here. Some, like you, say very little to not at all. Others say it is complete.

So, where does the truth lie?

In my mind, it is clear that ALL model predictions from the IPCC with the sole exception of Arctic ice melt have been grossly pessimistic. Virtually ALL temperature predictions (sea, air and land) have been very high, many to an absurd degree. (And please don't argue that they simply lie outside the 95% bounds of the predictions. What good is such a prediction?) Antarctic ice predictions have been completely in the wrong direction. In fact, Antarctic ice extents are at their recorded maximums and temperatures at the below -60 degrees south latitude have been falling over that same period. Sea surface temperatures have also been falling. But it is true that there has still been some melting of the Antarctic glaciers. Apparently enough to raise the sea levels by 30 microns each year. One source of the melting seems to be a volcano that erupted under the ice, providing some heat. Sea level predictions have been consistently high.

One could argue that this is all just the immaturity of the science. But if that is so, how can the science be used to drive policy. But another possibility in this is that the IPCC predictions have been biased from the beginning toward explaining as much warming as they can as being anthropogenic.

Given the poor predictions of the models to date, I feel that a healthy science would say "In light of the fact that the current temperatures fall outside the 95% confidence bands of our models, it seems that our understanding of the causes of the temperature increases observed before the turn of the century may not have been well-founded. Because of this, we will forgo making policy recommendations until which time that we our models can predict the known climate variations to a high degree."

Instead, what we hear is, "We know we didn't predict that the global temperatures would be completely flat for the past decade-or-so, but trust that we are now really, really sure that the rises that happened before that were manmade. So please keep funding our efforts."

That very recent response is the most clear indication to date that the focus of the IPCC is on the politics rather than the science.

 

[Alric]

The IPCC doesn't give out research funding. The IPCC summarizes the findings of thousands of different scientists from many countries using disparate sources of funding.

If a scientist where to find data that could be interpreted to undermine anthropogenic climate change it would be a very important finding journals would fight over to publish.

 

[Stoaty]

Reg has a point: what about the thousands of scientists who are part of the global conspiracy to get rid of the tobacco industry by saying smoking causes lung cancer and emphysema--all due to their social agenda? We all know smoking tobacco is good for your health. Or what about the thousands of scientists involved with the global conspiracy saying that HIV causes AIDS? They are just after those research dollars. Then there is the insidious campaign to vaccinate everyone, when many celebrities know that the vaccinations cause autism. No one ever died from the flu or whooping cough! I could go on and on, but obviously science is thoroughly corrupt and only after the money. We should put our trust in the oil companies who have only our best interests at heart and are already looking Beyond Petroleum (BP).

 

[sparky]

Folks, "treehuGgeR", is obviously pranking us. The increasingly irrational statements; especially about the U.N. being "centralized" anything should have been our clue. And the thread title is a play on this Onion article.
Well played RegGuheert, well played.

BTW, those who didn't realize this was a prank and are actually worried about IPCC co-opted scientists can rest easier. Here's an excerpt from a colleague's email:

As you are probably aware, the Federal Government began a partial shut down last night at midnight. Unfortunately, this shutdown impacts approximately 97% of the NASA workforce.
During the furlough, the majority of the team will be in a nonpay, nonduty status. We have been advised that we will not be permitted to serve NASA as an unpaid volunteer during this time period. Furthermore, NASA laptop computers, smart phones and other resources used for remote access must be turned off and may not be used while we are furloughed.

No more scary Arctic ice pictures or climbing CO2 plots. Check here for climate info not here.
So, rest easy. Our actual centralized govt. the Tea Party... er, Congress, has saved us.

 

[RegGuheert]

If a scientist where to find data that could be interpreted to undermine anthropogenic climate change it would be a very important finding journals would fight over to publish.

Do you have any evidence for that belief? Because I provided a link in this thread which covered, in detail, the "special" review that was afforded just such research. It's a nice thing to believe, but it simply does not match reality.

The IPCC doesn't give out research funding. The IPCC summarizes the findings of thousands of different scientists from many countries using disparate sources of funding.

Fair enough. But note that they not only summarize the science, but the also recommend policy to their signatories.

So, how balanced are these summaries? Are they political documents or scientific ones?

Judge for yourself, here are notes on what went on in the meeting to finalize the last summary.

Unfortunately, these summaries are what the politicians and the MSM report (particularly since it comes out days ahead of the full report).

 

[klapauzius]

Your last statement is the invalid assumption. All research depends upon funding and in the past two decades, the AGW agenda driven by the IPCC has driven the research in this area.

Wasnt the IPCC formed in response to the scientific findings pointing to AGW?
I thougth climate research was there before the IPCC even existed?

So someone at the almighty, evil UN said "hey lets jump on that AGW bandwagon, its a great new way of making people miserable (the sole purpose of the UN, obviously)"??

What do you think is their agenda?
And in your opinion: Who will benefit from this conspiracy?
Obviously, nobody pays money and organizes a worldwide conspiracy just for the fun of it?

 

[RegGuheert]

Wasnt the IPCC formed in response to the scientific findings pointing to AGW?
I thougth climate research was there before the IPCC even existed?

So someone at the almighty, evil UN said "hey lets jump on that AGW bandwagon, its a great new way of making people miserable (the sole purpose of the UN, obviously)"??

What do you think is their agenda?
And in your opinion: Who will benefit from this conspiracy?
Obviously, nobody pays money and organizes a worldwide conspiracy just for the fun of it?

Who is behind virtually all global power plays in the last 100 years? The Rothschilds:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtudNpL30BU[/youtube]

 

[RegGuheert]

Here's a concise essay that addresses the popular myth that science is somehow infallible: Why Climate Science is Fallible.

 

[klapauzius]

Who is behind virtually all global power plays in the last 100 years? The Rothschilds:

To be historically correct:
The last 200 years. And probably even more!

I knew it!!!

The Rothschild's of course are just the tip of the ice berg, as they are part of the Illuminati, which go way back to the Babylonians.

Ok, so its the Rothschilds, all right (btw, amazing how they instigated WW2 to create the UN, their most insidious tool in modern times to manipulate world affairs....).

So how exactly do the Rothschilds (and in extension, the Illuminati) profit from AGW ???

And why the solar panels and the Leaf? Doesn't that play into their conspiracy?

p.s.: Congrats sparky for spotting it first!!!

 

[Stoaty]

I would still like to see a more accurate title for this thread. How about:

"Climate change denying climatologist denies climate is changing"

 

[RegGuheert]

So how exactly do the Rothschilds (and in extension, the Illuminati) profit from AGW ???

You seem to find this humorous. Feel free to provide the evidence you have to the contrary.

Does it make sense to use the term "global governance" in a sentence concerning global warming, even by accident?

 

[Alric]

So how exactly do the Rothschilds (and in extension, the Illuminati) profit from AGW ???

You seem to find this humorous. Feel free to provide the evidence you have to the contrary.

Does it make sense to use the term "global governance" in a sentence concerning global warming, even by accident?

LOL. When you make a claim (specially a crazy one), the onus is on you to provide evidence. Makes perfect sense to use the phrase global governance since it takes global agreements like the Kyoto protocol to mitigate climate change.

 

[RegGuheert]

Makes perfect sense to use the phrase global governance since it takes global agreements like the Kyoto protocol to mitigate climate change.

So, it sounds like you agree the Rothschilds are behind this, then (among others)?

 

[WetEV]

Stellar physics is a good place to start.

Hydrogen fuses to helium under high pressure to release energy. This is the energy source of most stars. A star is in dynamic balance between gravitational collapse and heating from energy production. With no energy production, the star would cool, collapse into higher pressure, and if massive enough would collapse into a black hole.

As the hydrogen is consumed, the energy production would decline unless the star got hotter.

This is observable in what is called the "Main Sequence of Stars". You too could get a telescope, observe and catalog stars, and recreate this sequence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/HRDiagram.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our Sun is a typical star on the main sequence. This implies that the Sun was once much dimmer. This would imply that the early Earth would have been much cooler than today. Which, of course, it was not. Some of the very earliest rocks show evidence of being deposited in liquid water.

Why was the Earth not frozen cold 4 billion years ago? Or even 100 million years ago, when there were palm trees growing in the Arctic?


Or we might talk about ice.

Ice makes glaciers. Big piles of snow gradually compress into ice, which starts to flow under higher pressures. This ice picks up rocks and grinds them together, and leaves them in distinctive deposits in glacial moraines.

Ice is very reflective. If we cooled the planet enough to freeze the oceans, enough sunlight would be reflected so that the planet would stay frozen, even with the current atmosphere. And the atmosphere would change, as water vapor provides about 2/3 of the greenhouse effect, and almost all of the water vapor quickly frozen out.

This seems to have happened at least once in geologic history, during the "Sturtian glaciation" 716.5 million years ago, when glacial deposits got to very near to the Equator.

How did the Earth's climate escape the "glacial trap"?


Or we might talk about the carbonate cycle and continental drift.

Silicates weather into carbonates in the presence of CO2 and water at surface pressures and temperatures. Carbonates cook into silicates at high pressures, releasing CO2. Continental drift takes rocks at the surface and takes them down to pressures that cause the release of CO2 into volcanic activity.

http://pages.uoregon.edu/rdorsey/geo334/ccycle.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Silicates weather faster with more CO2 for lots of reasons. The reaction runs faster at higher temperatures (Arrhenius's law) and higher levels of CO2 mean a warmer world. The reaction runs faster with more water, and a warmer world will have more precipitation and evaporation. You too could verify this in a chemistry lab.


Or we might talk about the one point in the geologic record that mostly closely matches the release of CO2 that burning all of the fossil fuels will create.

The P-T.
The Permian Triassic boundary.
The Great Dying.

 

[klapauzius]

So how exactly do the Rothschilds (and in extension, the Illuminati) profit from AGW ???

You seem to find this humorous. Feel free to provide the evidence you have to the contrary.

Does it make sense to use the term "global governance" in a sentence concerning global warming, even by accident?

No, no, not at all....I mean, the Illuminati are not to be trifled with.... :shock:

I see an outline of the grand plan:

1) create a "global warming" scare, through our lackeys at the UN.

2) subjugate the righteous (and those smart enough to see through this devious scheme) by confiscating their guns, send in the black helicopters were necessary, fund liberal, green and communist movements to subvert and weaken national governments

3) ruin the oil and gas industry by introducing EVs (use our puppets at Nissan and Tesla for that purpose), create havoc in the middle east (starting WW2 has really helped along with that...but the Illuminati always take the long view) to drive up oil prices, ruin the coal and gas industry by introducing a carbon tax etc.

4) ruin national economies by introducing things such as universal healthcare etc.

5) once worldwide economies and the US economy especially, have been brought to their knees, buy up all the energy companies up for pennies

6) since people have become so dependent on gasoline and coal/gas generated electricity, when we own the energy companies, we OWN the people now.

7) Now that the world is ours, reveal that the whole AGW thing was a hoax to our new global subjects...*diabolical laughter*


Voila, world domination in 6 easy steps... Now I understand why you have a 9.87 kW solar array.
When the Illuminati take over, you will be independent of their power monopoly and carry on the just and brave fight against world domination, right?

The Leaf still does not make sense, as it plays right into their schemes.

 

[RegGuheert]

Now I understand why you have a 9.87 kW solar array.

It won't help me. It's grid-tied!