Alright now, behave.

Global Warming causing Climate Change and Severe Storms
has forced us to Close This Ride !!
   

 Beaker wrote: 
I'd just like to interject that at some point, we can stipulate to certain statements by certain posters on certain topics, at least as far as casual conversation goes. By that I mean that Lazy doesn't need to post a link every time he says the sky is blue.

 Beaker wrote: 
Don't like it? Take it elsewhere.

 Beaker wrote:

 

Seriously?? You are the one incapable of reading into the details. You have yet to explain how you accept the withdrawal of the paper regarding sea rise yet dismiss the same research that showed the miscalculation and the that the correction shows there will be more sea level rise. But then that goes against what you believe.. As far a McIntyre goes, he is not  all that repected except in the denialsphere that you inhabit.

His name comes up frequently though. There is a number of articles that are direct rebuttals to his false assertions, if you have the guts to actually read them.

HERE

 

 

Contrary to what the global warming *disinformers* say about the recent temperature record, it is almost certainly the case that the planet has warmed up more this decade than NASA says, and especially more than the UK’s Hadley Center says.

*Beaks*

 Beaker wrote: 

Stephen McIntyre is not a climatologist or a meteorologist.  His education is in mathematics.  His career is as a director of a mineral exploration company.  Neither of things make him a climate expert.

 Beaker wrote:
 
I'm well aware of Stephen McIntyre, and for the record I think he's done a valuable service in challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. I'm also aware of how little time I have on this planet, and I can't read every juicy bit of gossip. Feel free to post when he has something substantial to say.

 Beaker wrote:

Sorry, just not seeing much there. More of a People Magazine approach to science.

Climate Audit is showing similar trends.

This is not how science gets done. If you find a problem with somebody's research you publish your findings, you don't attack their integrity. That may be fun but it doesn't lead to the truth, which should be the goal.

 Beaker wrote:
 
Do I really need to post a link showing CO2 levels have risen in the last 150 years? If you've been following this topic at all this is one area no one (OK, no one but political bloggers) disputes. There are arguments about whether or not it will drive global temperatures or to what extent, but not whether it has risen or not. C'mon.

I'm not defending CRU, they behaved terribly. I'm defending the process of honest scientific discussion. That's my beef with CRU, and that's my beef with Hot Air.

As for quotes from grandstanding MPs in the British Parliament...what weight have you given all those that disagree with you? This is not a criticism of the science CRU has done or the conclusions it has reached, it's criticism of the transparency and integrity with which it has done its work. Valid concerns, but none of it means the climate isn't changing or that human emissions of greenhouse gasses aren't responsible for some of it.

Look ma, I can cut and paste too:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/unforced-variations-2/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/close-encounters-of-the-absurd-kind//

 Beaker wrote:
 
My beef is with an ignorant and superficial examination of a second-hand report of a scientific paper. The conclusions are so clearly wrong (and so easily disproven) it's comical.

There are legitimate complaints about hyperbole among climate alarmists. That does not mean every bit of science supporting their claims is wrong or dishonest, or that the hypothesis they're pushing (however far they're pushing it, and whatever their motives) is completely wrong.

But if you want to sound the bell about such things you have to avoid falling into the same trap—of trumpeting every scrap of evidence contrary to the hypothesis you disagree with as a smoking gun proving the whole thing is a tissue of lies. By all means point out flaws in the science! But to do that requires more than reading a blog written by people who clearly do not know what they are talking about. And the more often you post stuff like the above the less credible you'll be doing it.

If hoot means intellectually challenged, then yes, he is a hoot. He is not really capable of reading beyond the headlines. If you would like to know the big picture.

Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as δ13C(CO2) ‰ (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

 Beaker wrote: 
Beaker, you are a hoot!

 Beaker wrote: 
Just picked a link at random and read the article "No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol". It reports that the fraction of carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere and that absorbed by the oceans hasn't changed in a long time and concludes that CO2 levels haven't risen in 150 years.

This conclusion is flat wrong, contradicted by numerous measurements from numerous sources and silly on the face of it. The rate of emission has risen dramatically over 150 years, so while the fractions heading to various fates hasn't changed the absolute amounts has—they've gone up, as every measurement anybody has tried to make has demonstrated.

This is like saying that since the strength of the beer I drink is the same doubling the amount I consume won't increase my alcohol intake.

Or maybe they tried that experiment over at Hot Air.

 Beaker wrote: 

Old shit. No, hurricanes are not considered to be a cornerstone in the IPCC report and again changes nothing on the basic premise of AGW, but serously doubt you are capable of complex thought.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/shear-turbulence/

"We have commented on the connections between hurricanes and climate change frequently in the past (see e.g. here, here, here, and here). The bottom line conclusion has consistently remained that, while our knowledge of likely future changes in hurricanes or tropical cyclones (TCs) remains an uncertain area of science, the observed relationship between increased intensity of TCs and rising ocean temperatures appears to be robust (Figure 1). There is nothing in this latest article that changes that."

It will be good to eliminate any questionable science or unsubstantiated assertions from the IPCC report. Those things only give ammunition to the climate-change-is-a-hoax crowd.

U.N. to create science panel to review IPCC

By Sunanda Creagh

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) - An independent board of scientists is to review the work of a U.N. climate panel, whose credibility came under attack after it published errors, a U.N. environment spokesman said on Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accepted last month that its 2007 report had exaggerated the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers, and this month admitted the report had also overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level.

The report shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and has driven political momentum to agree a new, more ambitious climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

The remit and process of the review panel would be disclosed next week, said Nick Nuttall, spokesman for the U.N. Environment Programme, on the sidelines of a UNEP conference of environment ministers and officials from more than 135 countries in the Indonesian island of Bali.

"It will be a credible, sensible review of how the IPCC operates, to strengthen its fifth report," he said.

"It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August. There is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October. The review will go there for adoption. I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue."

The latest, fourth IPCC report was published in 2007 and the next is due in 2014.

HUMANS TO BLAME

All options are on the table for the review, Nuttall said, including, how to treat "grey literature" — a term for academic papers which are not published in peer-reviewed journals.

The IPCC had said that the Himalayas could melt by 2035, but an original source spoke of the world's glaciers melting by 2350, not 2035. The IPCC report had cited the 2035 year from a non-peer reviewed WWF paper, which in turn had referred to a Scientific American article.

Public conviction of global warming's risks may have been undermined by the panel's errors and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at skeptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

Pachauri told Reuters on Wednesday that the IPCC stood by its main 2007 finding — that it was more than 90 percent certain that human activities were the main cause of global warming in the past 50 years.

Governments and ministers attending the conference this week in Bali reaffirmed their confidence that manmade greenhouse gas emissions were stoking climate change, said Nuttall.

"There was absolutely no government, no minister of environment who attended that meeting who said that the IPCC was the wrong vehicle for understanding the science of climate change," Nuttall added.

The IPCC's 2007 assessment report on the causes and impacts of climate change was over 3,000 pages long, cited more than 10,000 scientific papers and is policymakers' main data source.

 helenofjoy wrote: 
What Ice Shelves? 

How 'bout them ice shelves?