Sigh. Here are more experts on climate change. But what do they know?

[shira]

I must be a masochist. Yet another report by experts in the field of climatology, and more statements that the evidence for warming is even more convincing than before.

So you deniers can continue to claim that all of these scientists are just deluded or playing games, or you can open your minds and accept that these are people who have spent their careers in the serious pursuit of knowledge and they know a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do.

Meanwhile, what have YOU got? I'll tell you: conspiracy theories.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-12/10/content_9151145.htm

COPENHAGEN: Scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) insist that global warming is a reality despite the controversy arising from the stolen e-mails of climate scientists.

Latest findings continue to support the statement that "warming in the climate system is unequivocal", the key conclusion they made in the 2007 Climate Change Report, Thomas Stocker, a climate environmental physicist, said during a panel discussion on the sideline of the ongoing United Nations Climate Change Conference yesterday.

Stocker, lead author of the previous two IPCC reports, is leading a working group on the new Climate Change Report to be released in 2013.

By using the latest climate change models and studying chemical composition of rain and greenhouse gas, Stocker and his colleagues at the IPCC have discovered that the atmosphere now contains higher levels of CO2 than described in the 2007 report and its increase is more rapid than previously calculated.

Measuring polar-region ice

Ice is thinning on the margins of Greenland and Antarctica, he noted. There are areas where the ice is becoming thicker, but these zones are few and far between. Meanwhile, the sea ice over the Arctic is dwindling rapidly.

Stocker warned that there is a possibility that the sea level may continue to rise even when humans achieve zero carbon emissions.

Extreme weather have become more frequent, he said. Heat waves, for example, now occur once every four years, whereas they occurred once in 1,000 years according to data from centuries back, he said.

Stocker said the CO2 emitted in the past 10 centuries is causing "irreversible changes in the climate and in ocean chemistry."

Increased extreme weather will make it more difficult for the people to adapt to the climate changes, he said.

Hackers didn't upend data

As to skeptics' allegation after the e-mails hacked from climate scientists were revealed, Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chair, defended its studies by saying that "the IPCC procedures are very robust, very reliable, and completely transparent."

"We have a variety of data sets that we access, and they all corroborate the conclusions that we have arrived at," Pachauri said.

Pachauri said his panel will "look into" the issue of the hacked e-mails to see if there is any lesson to be learned, adding that it didn't mean it would be carrying out an official investigation for any wrongdoing.

Private e-mails involving researchers at the University of East Anglia, who contribute to the IPCC's research, were hacked last month, stirring controversy and new claims by climate skeptics that climate data has been manipulated to exaggerate the case for global warming.

 

[spidey07]

LOL! Somebody has been hanging out at realclimate.org. I've been keeping an eye on their marching orders.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Do yourself a favor and stop preaching about "deniers and conspiracy theories" and take a good look at the plethora of actual information available. Just search this page for any and every term involving climate change, it's there.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

Like this interesting read that is only one of about a dozen like it.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

 

[shira]

LOL! Somebody has been hanging out at realclimate.org. I've been keeping an eye on their marching orders.

And even if that were true - which it isn't - how would that invalidate this new story, which is a report of a panel discussion at the Copenhagen summit?

Unless you're alleging that the news report is fabricated, please respond to what the report says.

It looks like the new denial strategy is to dismiss any report by climatologists that supports ACC because . . . it's a report by climatologists. You dismiss reports by the IPCC, NISS, NOAA, and every other major scientific body because . . . they're scientific bodies.

I just find myself shaking my head.

 

[shira]

Do yourself a favor and stop preaching about "deniers and conspiracy theories" and take a good look at the plethora of actual information available. Just search this page for any and every term involving climate change, it's there.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

Like this interesting read that is only one of about a dozen like it.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

I've checked your links, and they're completely beside the point.

1) The fact that it will cost $trillions of dollars to deal with ACC pales in comparison with the cost of doing nothing.

Analogy: A beautiful women has breast cancer, and the doctor's want to perform a radical mastectomy. According to you, no mastectomy should be performed because it's a horribly disfiguring operation, and it will take a long time for the woman to recover from it.

2) Arguing that CO2 is not "pollution," and that therefore there's no need to do anything about it is just nonsensical. Food isn't "poison," but if you eat too much of it you will get severely overweight, with dire health implications. Sea water isn't a pollutant, but if sea levels were to rise by 20 feet, it would cause immense damage.

The reason we need to reduce human emissions of CO2 is that high CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause increased retention of heat from the sun, and the consequent effects on climate will be catastrophic.

 

[Toastedlightly]

I don't doubt that it is getting warmer, but I do question:

a). Our role in it
and
b). What we should do about it (which requires us to understand a a bit better than now)

 

[SneakyStuff]

I've checked your links, and they're completely beside the point.

1) The fact that it will cost $trillions of dollars to deal with ACC pales in comparison with the cost of doing nothing.

Analogy: A beautiful women has breast cancer, and the doctor's want to perform a radical mastectomy. According to you, no mastectomy should be performed because it's a horribly disfiguring operation, and it will take a long time for the woman to recover from it.

2) Arguing that CO2 is not "pollution," and that therefore there's no need to do anything about it is just nonsensical. Food isn't "poison," but if you eat too much of it you will get severely overweight, with dire health implications. Sea water isn't a pollutant, but if sea levels were to rise by 20 feet, it would cause immense damage.

The reason we need to reduce human emissions of CO2 is that high CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause increased retention of heat from the sun, and the consequent effects on climate will be catastrophic.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/vt-acd091503.php

If what you said about C02 is the case then the world would have ended a long time ago. Yes, C02 levels are higher today but they don't compare to the levels of the past, and that was way before industrialization mind you.

 

[spidey07]

And even if that were true - which it isn't - how would that invalidate this new story, which is a report of a panel discussion at the Copenhagen summit?

Unless you're alleging that the news report is fabricated, please respond to what the report says.

It looks like the new denial strategy is to dismiss any report by climatologists that supports ACC because . . . it's a report by climatologists. You dismiss reports by the IPCC, NISS, NOAA, and every other major scientific body because . . . they're scientific bodies.

I just find myself shaking my head.

yes, I reject anything by the ipcc now as their primary source is also suspect.

Realese the data and let real science prevail. I don't believe some conspiracy. Just bad science.

 

[First]

yes, I reject anything by the ipcc now as their primary source is also suspect.

Realese the data and let real science prevail. I don't believe some conspiracy. Just bad science.

By definition you believe in a conspiracy since the IPCC isn't the only source (nor "primary") for the multitude of scientists that have independently verified GW and MMGW. Meaning these scientists would have all had to collude with each other to reach the same conclusions so widely and across vast stretches of the globe.

Time to move on from the kooky kiddo.

 

[spidey07]

By definition you believe in a conspiracy since the IPCC isn't the only source (nor "primary") for the multitude of scientists that have independently verified GW and MMGW. Meaning these scientists would have all had to collude with each other to reach the same conclusions so widely and across vast stretches of the globe.

Time to move on from the kooky kiddo.

Release the raw data and code. Let science prevail.

 

[First]

Release the raw data and code. Let science prevail.

You didn't answer the question.

And raw data among privately funded research is private until it's peer reviewed. You can thank our Constitution.

 

[Patranus]

Will the "scientists" who authored this study be connected to the leaked emails if I do a google search?
(like every other report you have posted)

 

[Greenman]

That the climate is changing is pretty much undeniable, it always has been. Why the climate is changing is what the real question is.
I'd love to know how it was decided that it was caused by people.

 

[Genx87]

You didn't answer the question.

And raw data among privately funded research is private until it's peer reviewed. You can thank our Constitution.

You didnt ask a question and what does the constitution have to do with private data?

 

[spidey07]

You didn't answer the question.

And raw data among privately funded research is private until it's peer reviewed. You can thank our Constitution.

Umm. Freedom of information act?

Or is it some conspiracy the leaked data and code was FOIA.zip?

I don't believe in some cosnspiricy. Just bad science.

 

[PJABBER]

We already have so many Climategate threads, did we really need this one?

Still, one must feed the maw -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/ts_alt_afp/usweatherstorm_20091209221347

It might just be me, but does it feel cold in here?

 

[Patranus]

Umm. Freedom of information act?

Or is it some conspiracy the leaked data and code was FOIA.zip?

I don't believe in some cosnspiricy. Just bad science.

NASA is currently in violation of a 2 year old FOIA request regarding this.
Additionally much of the original data was destroyed when the CRU moved.

Hard to get the original/unaltered data when it doesn't exist.

 

[Greenman]

Meaning these scientists would have all had to collude with each other to reach the same conclusions so widely and across vast stretches of the globe.

Or they were all using the same basic data and assumptions as a starting point. The garbage in garbage out rule would then apply.
When I was in school the big issue was global cooling. I was taught that we were entering another ice age, and the information was presented as accepted fact by the scientific community. After that one, ozone depletion was going to do us in. I clearly remember a fellow explaining to me that the next shuttle launch was going to push us over the edge into a declining spiral from which we would never recover.
All of that has made me a bit of a skeptic. Often these reports of pending disaster are made by people who stand to profit by supplying an answer, or studying the problem.
If we need to take action I'm all for it, but I need a little more to go on than the word of Chicken Little.

 

[spidey07]

You didn't answer the question.

And raw data among privately funded research is private until it's peer reviewed. You can thank our Constitution.

NASA is currently in violation of a 2 year old FOIA request regarding this.
Additionally much of the original data was destroyed when the CRU moved.

Hard to get the original/unaltered data when it doesn't exist.

An inconvient purge indeed. No conspricacy here. Just really bad science.

 

[shira]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/vt-acd091503.php

If what you said about C02 is the case then the world would have ended a long time ago. Yes, C02 levels are higher today but they don't compare to the levels of the past, and that was way before industrialization mind you.

Edit: This poster is reassured because earth's CO2 levels were much higher 1.4 BILLION years ago.

Did you even bother to read your own link?

A 1993 model by Jim Kasting of Pennsylvania State University estimates that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the Earth's early atmosphere must have been 10 times to as much as 10,000 times today's level, in order to compensate for the young (and fainter) sun.

Now, what do you suppose might be the effect of high CO2 levels with our sun at its current level of radiance?

Go back to sleep.

 

[monovillage]

Shira, you know that all of IPCCs results have been voided by their using corrupt data from CRU at East Anglia University. Join your friend Al Gore that is also lying about the E-mails being 10 years old in his recent Slate interview.

 

[shira]

Release the raw data and code. Let science prevail.

Just go away and don't post in any more climate threads. Your working assumption is that all of climate science is based on fraud. You read anecdotal accounts of irresponsible behavior, and make the giant leap to the conclusion that thousands of climate scientists the world over are all engaged in a giant conspiracy. So you don't believe ANY scientific studies about climate, except ones that support an anti-ACC view.

Go to the NISS website - there's lots of data there, going back decades. But you'll claim it isn't "raw." And even if it were, you'd claim it was cooked. And even if it weren't cooked, you're totally unqualified to do anything with it anyway. So raw data is meaningless. Why pretend otherwise?

What's that I hear? SCIENTISTS will evaluate the raw data? And these scientists are the "good ones," the ones you trust - as opposed to the thousands upon thousands of "bad ones" - because . . . .?

You've really got it all worked out, don't you?

 

[shira]

Shira, you know that all of IPCCs results have been voided by their using corrupt data from CRU at East Anglia University. Join your friend Al Gore that is also lying about the E-mails being 10 years old in his recent Slate interview.

Ah, the entire foundation of climate science is based on CRU data, and the CRU data is all fraudulent. Care to supply an objective analysis from a qualified climatology body that comes to that conclusion? Please. Provide us with that objective study? There must be one, because you couldn't possibly make such a sweeping accusation without solid evidence to back it up, right?

If you believe what you just wrote, please read my last post to Spidey. You're in exactly the same camp.

 

[First]

An inconvient purge indeed. No conspricacy here. Just really bad science.

Yikes. All sorts of kooky on these boards.

 

[shira]

We already have so many Climategate threads, did we really need this one?

Still, one must feed the maw -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209/ts_alt_afp/usweatherstorm_20091209221347

It might just be me, but does it feel cold in here?

Interesting. I provide links to scientific studies by climatologists. Or to statements by groups of climatologists. You, on the other hand, provide links to weather reports? And in your mind, these two kinds of links are equivalent?

I guess when there's no actual science to support YOUR position, YOU have to make something up.