Indian Government Marginalizes UN IPCC

[Marc]

Well how about Phil Jones, who a day or two ago admitted to the BBC that recent warming wasn't exceptional, in either the rate or the magnitude, that there hasn't been any statistically significant warming in 15 years, that the IPCC models may overestimate climate sensitivity, and that the science isn't settled.

And at the recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union solar scientists said it is highly likely that the sun is exiting the Grand Maximum we've had for the past 50 years and entering a period like the Dalton Minimum, which will probably last until 2040, so we're heading back to the 1800's or the Pliocene. So the real worry about the Himalayan glaciers is that we evacuate everybody in the path of their advance!

you've completely missed the point.

 

[Misfit Toy]

Well how about Phil Jones, who a day or two ago admitted to the BBC that recent warming wasn't exceptional, in either the rate or the magnitude, that there hasn't been any statistically significant warming in 15 years, that the IPCC models may overestimate climate sensitivity, and that the science isn't settled.

And at the recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union solar scientists said it is highly likely that the sun is exiting the Grand Maximum we've had for the past 50 years and entering a period like the Dalton Minimum, which will probably last until 2040, so we're heading back to the 1800's or the Pliocene. So the real worry about the Himalayan glaciers is that we evacuate everybody in the path of their advance!

you've completely missed the point.

He's also missing any links.

 

[Marc]

Well how about Phil Jones, who a day or two ago admitted to the BBC that recent warming wasn't exceptional, in either the rate or the magnitude, that there hasn't been any statistically significant warming in 15 years, that the IPCC models may overestimate climate sensitivity, and that the science isn't settled.

And at the recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union solar scientists said it is highly likely that the sun is exiting the Grand Maximum we've had for the past 50 years and entering a period like the Dalton Minimum, which will probably last until 2040, so we're heading back to the 1800's or the Pliocene. So the real worry about the Himalayan glaciers is that we evacuate everybody in the path of their advance!

you've completely missed the point.

He's also missing any links.

And to point out the point that's being missed.

My point isn't about factual errors, it's about the deliberate mis-representation of statement and facts but the same people who are on about the IPCC report errors.

And in this case it's the often repeated supposed statement of Sir John Houghton. A statement he never made (and about which he's getting legal advice on whether he's got grounds for a defamation case) by AGW-denalists.

In a nutshell we're not talking about a distortion, a mistake, an error in fact or sloppy work - we're talking about a blantant lie.

And that some-one responds ingnoring the question but point out other errors in fact (but with no links to backup his claims) is typical.

 

[Marc]

More wood for the fire. AGW-denialists cite the cold weather and the recent massive snow falls in the U.S as an example of how the planet can't be warming.

Well now a basis for how it can be happening has been forward.

For scientists who study the climate, it's all a bit much. They're trying to dig out.
Most don't see a contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow. That includes Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
"The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was, say, in the 1970s," he says.
Warmer water means more water vapor rises up into the air, and what goes up must come down.
"So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, D.C., for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming," he says.
And Trenberth notes that you don't need very cold temperatures to get big snow. In fact, when the mercury drops too low, it may be too cold to snow.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588&ft=1&f=1007

Snow and global warming aren't mutually exclusive, climate scientists say. For starters, the amount of recorded warming over the last century, about 1 degree Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels, is nowhere near enough to eradicate winter in the mid-Atlantic.
Also, weather is variable: The planet would have extreme highs and lows with or without an overall warming trend.
And for all the recent snow in Washington, it hasn't been that cold -- mostly in the 20s or low 30s. The average temperature in Washington in January, according to the National Climatic Data Center, was about a degree warmer than the average for the last 40 years.
But the reverse is also true: The fact that Vancouver, Canada, is experiencing record-high temperatures and importing snow for the Winter Olympics doesn't prove a warming trend.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/12/nation/la-na-climateqa12-2010feb12

 

[gturner]

They're on the record spending the past ten years telling us to prepare for a future without snow. Now snow is a sign of warming!

Gee, it must've been really hot during the ice age, for all that snow to accumulate.

Temperatures are below normal. Texas got snow not because it's wet, but because the February temperatures were way below freezing, whereas sometimes February temperature in Texas exceed 100 degrees F.

Today Berkeley scientists announced that coastal fog is gone due to global warming, not noticing that last week the San Francisco chronicle was quoting warmists explaining how coastal fog is going to be much thicker due to global warming.

Temperatures have been dropping since 1998. If heat caused snow we'd have had record snowfalls back then, not now.

Also, for the first time in 15 years Lake Erie has iced over completely. Does warmth cause ice to form?

 

[Hoser]

They're on the record spending the past ten years telling us to prepare for a future without snow. Now snow is a sign of warming!

We aren't in that future yet. And warm air holds moisture easier.

 

[gturner]

We've been in that future for years. Back a few years when snow was scarce Congressmen were giving speeches about how global warming was destroying the ski industry.

New York Times - 2006

Global Warming Poses Threat to Ski Resorts in the Alps

So the new spin at the Times is

New York Times, Feb. 2010

Unusual Amounts of Snow or Lack of Snow are all Signs of Global Warming

They're spinning desperately. If everything is a sign of global warming then global warming isn't a refutable theory, and thus it's not science.

They're acting exactly like hard-core fundamentalist Christians who when presented with a conundrum nod their heads sagely and intone, "God works in mysterious ways."

 

[Arrqh]

They're spinning desperately. If everything is a sign of global warming then global warming isn't a refutable theory, and thus it's not science.

Er... so you believe that because all the evidence supports climate change, this is proof that there is no climate change?

EDIT: And to address your two articles... let me make sure I have this straight. You took a 2006 article that specifically is talking about the Alps and a 2010 article specifically talking about the eastern seaboard and therefore are each talking about different local climates... and the fact that different local climates behave differently under changing conditions is, according to you, a contradiction? Now I know this is crazy and maybe a little difficult to understand... but the world is not uniform in climate and instead has many different local climates that are all dependent on different local conditions. This is why, for instance, when you go further north from the equator it's generally colder... but not always for some fairly obvious reasons. Therefore, the idea that climate change will affect different areas in different ways isn't evidence of some sort of crazy conspiracy theory. It's just, you know, reality.

This is of course besides the fact that in even four years, scientific models can become more advanced and refined. You might as well be trying to discredit medical science because a few decades ago people hadn't noticed that smoking causes lung cancer. But you're right about one thing, gturner... there's an awful lot of spin. It's just not coming from the "camp" you think it is.

 

[Hoser]

We've been in that future for years.

No, the future without snow is....the future.
Without snow.

Back a few years when snow was scarce Congressmen were giving speeches about how global warming was destroying the ski industry.

Yes, and they're cancelling things in the Winter Olympics due to lack of snow (but there's rain -precipitation)

They're acting exactly like hard-core fundamentalist Christians who when presented with a conundrum nod their heads sagely and intone, "God works in mysterious ways."

And the correlative denial seems to be 'If God doesn't work in the exact way I want Him to then He doesn't exist'

 

[gturner]

Sorry, but the evidence doesn't support anthropogenic climate change. Changes in temperature are stubbornly first order and changes in CO2 have been second order. Polynomial cointegration has failed to show any statistical link between CO2 levels and temperature.

As I mentioned earlier, even Phil Jones, former head of the CRU, said that the rate and magnitude of recent temperatures aren't unusual, and that the science isn't settled. He's the Climategate figure who sent the internal e-mail to other AGW scientists saying that it's a travesty that they can't account for the cooling.

We are exiting the Grand Maximum, which is the most active solar period in about 8,000 years. We are now entering something akin to the Dalton Minimum, if not worse.


In the last two days:

Phil Jones has said he might amend his famous paper minimizing urban heat island effects and admit that they can't find the Chinese station data it was based on. As investigations have concluded, the rural stations he based it on can't be found after 15 years of searching for them. They never existed and he needs to salvage what little is left of his reputation by blaming it on his Chinese co-author.

The IPCC report on increased hurricanes is being savaged, just like the Himalayan glacier scandal and the Amazon rain forest scandal. This was anticipated because Dr. Chris Landsea, lead IPCC author on their hurricane section, resigned from the IPCC in disgust over their lies.

Woods Hole Oceanographic institute has found that Greenland glacier melting has nothing to do with atmospheric warming, and is instead due to a slight shift in ocean currents.

Never in all of science has a theory fallen apart so quickly.

 

[Hoser]

We are exiting the Grand Maximum, which is the most active solar period in about 8,000 years. We are now entering something akin to the Dalton Minimum, if not worse.

Phil Jones has said he might amend his famous paper minimizing urban heat island effects and admit that they can't find the Chinese station data it was based on. As investigations have concluded, the rural stations he based it on can't be found after 15 years of searching for them. They never existed and he needs to salvage what little is left of his reputation by blaming it on his Chinese co-author.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml

In a much later paper published in 2008, he verifies the conclusions with a much broader set of Chinese data ranging from 1954 to 1983. That paper, for which the station info is available, indicates that the need for correction in the 1990 work is not necessary on accuracy basis, but rather on a clarity basis.

Woods Hole Oceanographic institute has found that Greenland glacier melting has nothing to do with atmospheric warming, and is instead due to a slight shift in ocean currents.

That's not a proof against.

By Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Scientists have so far identified only one viable mechanism to induce large, global, abrupt climate changes: a swift reorganization of the ocean currents circulating around the earth. These currents, collectively known as the Ocean Conveyor, distribute vast quantities of heat around our planet, and thus play a fundamental role in governing Earth’s climate.

The oceans also play a pivotal role in the distribution and availability of life-sustaining water throughout our planet. The oceans are, by far, the planet’s largest reservoir of water. Evaporation from the ocean transfers huge amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere, where it travels aloft until it cools, condenses, and eventually precipitates in the form of rain or snow. Changes in ocean circulation or water properties can disrupt this hydrological cycle on a global scale, causing flooding and long-term droughts in various regions. The El Niño phenomenon is but a hint of how oceanic changes can dramatically affect where and how much precipitation falls throughout the planet.

Thus, the oceans and the atmosphere constitute intertwined components of Earth’s climate system. But our present knowledge of ocean dynamics does not match our knowledge of atmospheric processes. The oceans’ essential role is too often neglected in our calculations.

IOW the Institute discovered, much like Nasa just did recently, that the shifting of the ocean currents is speeding up global climate change.

 

[gturner]

We are exiting the Grand Maximum, which is the most active solar period in about 8,000 years. We are now entering something akin to the Dalton Minimum, if not worse.

That's irradiance. The sun does more than shine light down upon us, which is why those sunspot number are so crucial. We learned this by counting sunspot numbers and noticing that they were linked to freezing lakes and such. We can compare past solar activity to past climate changes, and that says we're heading into a long cold spell.

Only warmists would deny a link between the sun and planetary temperatures.

Phil Jones has said he might amend his famous paper minimizing urban heat island effects and admit that they can't find the Chinese station data it was based on. As investigations have concluded, the rural stations he based it on can't be found after 15 years of searching for them. They never existed and he needs to salvage what little is left of his reputation by blaming it on his Chinese co-author.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml

Cool link, from 2008, before Phil Jones e-mails were made public, before he was forced to step down as head of the CRU, before he contemplated suicide. Two days ago Nature published an interview with him were he said he should give some thought to submitting a correction to Nature because the station locations have never been found. He continues to spin, claiming that the location of the stations is irrelevant, which boggles the mind, and blames it on a contractor in China. Of course the interview may have been from last week, before the editor of Nature was forced to step down from the committee reviewing fraudulent and possible criminal activities at the CRU.

Woods Hole Oceanographic institute has found that Greenland glacier melting has nothing to do with atmospheric warming, and is instead due to a slight shift in ocean currents.

That's not a proof against.

<snip>

IOW the Institute discovered, much like Nasa just did recently, that the shifting of the ocean currents is speeding up global climate change.

Gee, in their recent paper (yesterday) Wood's Hole didn't even mention the phrase "global climate change." They don't want to be left with egg on their face. The global climate is changing as we speak, but toward much colder temperatures. As that data continues to arrive the whole edifice will collapse. Both Mann and Jones have given interviews where they happily stab their colleagues in the back, so there's going to be a flurry of finger pointing.

 

[Marc]

We've been in that future for years.

No, the future without snow is....the future.
Without snow.

Back a few years when snow was scarce Congressmen were giving speeches about how global warming was destroying the ski industry.

Yes, and they're cancelling things in the Winter Olympics due to lack of snow (but there's rain -precipitation)

They're acting exactly like hard-core fundamentalist Christians who when presented with a conundrum nod their heads sagely and intone, "God works in mysterious ways."

And the correlative denial seems to be 'If God doesn't work in the exact way I want Him to then He doesn't exist'

But the kicker is that many denalists also happen to be fundementalist christians and quite a few are Christians full stop.

 

[Arrqh]

Never in all of science has a theory fallen apart so quickly.

Your "arguments" have consisted of tactics like comparing scientists to nazis and trying to use predictions on two completely independent local climates to invent inconsistencies that don't exist. There has been so little actual science in what you've said that you making the claim that science is "falling apart" is extraordinarily specious. Case in point...

Cool link, from 2008, before Phil Jones e-mails were made public, before he was forced to step down as head of the CRU, before he contemplated suicide. Two days ago Nature published an interview with him were he said he should give some thought to submitting a correction to Nature because the station locations have never been found. He continues to spin, claiming that the location of the stations is irrelevant, which boggles the mind, and blames it on a contractor in China. Of course the interview may have been from last week, before the editor of Nature was forced to step down from the committee reviewing fraudulent and possible criminal activities at the CRU.

...there's no science there, just the typical smear campaign. It serves no point other then to discredit the scientists because you have been unable to discredit the science in a credible way; this has been the entire point since the CRU emails were leaked. Mudslinging.

 

[Marc]

Never in all of science has a theory fallen apart so quickly.

Your "arguments" have consisted of tactics like comparing scientists to nazis and trying to use predictions on two completely independent local climates to invent inconsistencies that don't exist. There has been so little actual science in what you've said that you making the claim that science is "falling apart" is extraordinarily specious. Case in point...

Cool link, from 2008, before Phil Jones e-mails were made public, before he was forced to step down as head of the CRU, before he contemplated suicide. Two days ago Nature published an interview with him were he said he should give some thought to submitting a correction to Nature because the station locations have never been found. He continues to spin, claiming that the location of the stations is irrelevant, which boggles the mind, and blames it on a contractor in China. Of course the interview may have been from last week, before the editor of Nature was forced to step down from the committee reviewing fraudulent and possible criminal activities at the CRU.

...there's no science there, just the typical smear campaign. It serves no point other then to discredit the scientists because you have been unable to discredit the science in a credible way; this has been the entire point since the CRU emails were leaked. Mudslinging.

A formal investigation is now taking place vis a vis the e-mail stolen from CRU and the involved files and data.

 

[gturner]

Um, no. The CRU e-mails are what documented the mudslinging used by the warming team. It also documented bushels of scientific fraud, which is why Jones had to step down and why Mann in under investigation by the Univ. of Pennsylvania.

The e-mails also show that when something anomalous happens that they can't explain, they make up some response for the press and claim it's based on science, when in fact they're just making sh*t up - as revealed in those e-mails.

Case in point:

Global warming now causes massive snowstorms all over the Northern hemisphere because warm air can hold more moisture.

They just made that up because it sounded remotely plausible and they were getting hammered in the press.

If you give it a moment's thought it is as silly as it looks. If true then Floridians would winter in Canada to avoid the snow which buries Florida every winter. Cities in the southeastern US would own most of the snow plows, because the southeast gets tons of rain and stays warm in the winter, whereas colder states up north wouldn't know what a snowplow was.

 

[Arrqh]

They just made that up because it sounded remotely plausible and they were getting hammered in the press.

And do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? Because this is the common thread missing throughout all your posts in this thread... people, including myself, have posted peer reviewed scientific studies and you have attempted to dispute them with absolutely no references or sources. You are not an expert in climate change. Nor am I. Nor is anyone else in this thread which is why referencing actual science is necessary. You have consistently failed to do so. If the evidence is on your side, why can't you provide sourced and unbiased references to support your arguments?

In any case, the statement isn't silly at all if you bother to actually understand it. As is, your "response" to this is utterly silly... because again, I will point out that you attempted to use two articles that were talking about completely different local climates in two completely different parts of the world to invent an inconsistency that didn't exist. Why would you do that if you have actual facts to support your arguments?

 

[TheBrew]

I would be very interested to see what happens when gturner uses actual facts.

Be like seeing a parrot pining for the fjords, I bet.

 

[Hoser]

Gee, in their recent paper (yesterday) Wood's Hole didn't even mention the phrase "global climate change." They don't want to be left with egg on their face.

Funny, considering their website is full of information about it, about their research on it....

But the kicker is that many denalists also happen to be fundementalist christians and quite a few are Christians full stop.

Maybe in the States, but even Pat Robertson says something needs to be done about Global warming. It's more a Rush Limbaugh thing (which the vast majority of these arguments are coming from, as I learned in Facebook last night)

Case in point:

Global warming now causes massive snowstorms all over the Northern hemisphere because warm air can hold more moisture.

That's basic climate science. When there is more energy available there is more evaporation. When temperature decreases, there is more condensation. What other way would clouds be formed?

 

[MarianLH]

I tend to think of the difference as time scales. Climate is around for long enough to drive changes in nature; weather is something temporary that nature is generally tolerant of.

You're right. Climate is weather over time. Here is NASA's grade school explanation of the difference. Or see the opening paragraph of Wikipedia's climate entry.

Why do people say that weather and climate are completely disconnected? Isn't weather a manifestation of climate?

No one ever said they were "completely disconnected". We said they aren't the same thing. A given instance of weather is one data point. Climate is the pattern created by all the data. Weather is unpredictable because small changes in any of a number of variables can hugely alter the results. Climate is a lot less unpredictable, because those variables tend to average out over time.

When some idiot says climate change isn't happening because of X weather, they're confusing the two, and rightly get schooled. Case in point: where I live we just got an assload of snow over the past week. But in 7 of the previous 9 winters we hardly had any snow at all. So when our idiot says the blizzard means there's no climate change, he's ignoring 70% of the data and just looking at the part that suits his prejudices.

(Oh, and the snow is already melting.)

Or let me put it mathematically: the average of 10, 4, 3, 4, 2, 4, 3, 10, 8, and 2 is 5, but our idiot thinks it's 2, because he can't tell the difference between one piece of data and the whole picture.

Or an SAT-style analogy: weather is a tree, climate is a forest.


Marian