Reporting of the Climate Change Report

[amateur51]

amateur51: define contrarian
french frank: define sceptic

But then we have to remember that Lindzen, a scientist, is merely commenting on a document (which hasn't been peer-reviewed) written entirely by politicians.

How about "A contrarian is a person who takes up a contrary position, especially a position that is opposed to that of the majority, regardless of how unpopular it may be."

Richard Lindzen has made a journey from being on-board (and contributing to) the earlier IPCC reports to mocking later reports, as has been cited.

I wonder if he's doing so out of a sense of wanting to create balance by highlighting 'inconvenient findings' or out of the thrill of being a contrarian.

[french frank]

french frank: define sceptic

Of the many definitions I might have quoted, I think this is fairest to your cause

"opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming"

Quite struck by the number who seem to be listed as 'retired' or professors emeriti. Without suggesting that their age in any way detracts from their scientific ability, it may alter the way they contemplate the future.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I don't have a cause.

The fact that many retired scientists have similar views to Lindzen may reflect their freedom from administrative pressure to toe-the-line. Interesting to see the way Professor Salby has been drummed out of Macquarrie University (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/mac...s-murry-salby/) . Oh, and Professor Carter has suffered a similar fate (http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au...4514_news.html). And you'll recall the way the Climategate e-mails revealed pressure on the publishers of Climate Letters to sack editor Chris de Freitas for daring to publish a contrarian climate paper . . .

[teamsaint]

The Inspector articulates my concerns about the report, and the role of governments .

The IPCC , if it is to have credibility , needs to be as far as possible disconnected from government pressures.

[MrGongGong]

I don't have a cause.

The fact that many retired scientists have similar views to Lindzen m.

So (and I don't know , which is why I ask) given that over 90% of Scientists see Climate Change as a serious issue
what % of those that don't are over 70 ...... ?

http://www.get-growing.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png

[amateur51]

The Inspector articulates my concerns about the report, and the role of governments .

The IPCC , if it is to have credibility , needs to be as far as possible disconnected from government pressures.

Snag is, if you get too far away from influence by any grouping, they tend not to be that interested in the results & want to commission their own research anyway - 'tis being human that does it :winkeye:

[teamsaint]

life is difficult and complicated, Ams. I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I think it is important that people understand where this report originates, and I'm not sure it has been made clear enough.

[french frank]

The IPCC , if it is to have credibility , needs to be as far as possible disconnected from government pressures.

Could you explain this in this particular context? I can see that governments might not want to devote scarce funds towards combating "climate change", raising money from taxpayers and thus making the government unpopular because it cannot afford to provide essential services, if there's no 100% certainty that this is necessary; but what pressures might governments exert on an agency to suggest - in common with 'mainstream' scientific opinion, so I understand - that global warming is real, climate change is real, human activity is largely responsible and the situation has sufficient urgency to require action, when it's all a load of rubbish?

Please - politically more astute people - don't all descend on me at once to demolish my naive assumptions. Should we go back to weekly wheelie bin collections?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

So (and I don't know , which is why I ask) given that over 90% of Scientists see Climate Change as a serious issue
what % of those that don't are over 70 ...... ?

http://www.get-growing.org.uk/wp-con...-Pie-Chart.png

You earlier made reference to the Cook paper, which, amazingly, has been peer-reviewed. They claim some huge percentage of climate scientists agree with global warming. Actually, the survey questions they used come down to simply the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Well, who'd have thought?

Now this silly pie chart! My word, I'd like to know just which scientists don't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Since you're quoting these sources, perhaps you can tell us?

The 'fashionable' estimate these days of climate sensitivity (how much temperature rise per doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration) is 1.5 C. In 1995 the IPCC were predicting a rise of 20 C by 2010!

Given the present temperature standstill I expect the figure of 1.5 C will fall gradually over the next few years. Wouldn't it be a good idea to stop and think about how what we're going to do for such a small change in temperature?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I think it is important that people understand where this report originates, and I'm not sure it has been made clear enough.

That's quite simple, read the title. Summary For Policy Makers, it says. The IPCC scientists issued a draft (leaked) copy in June (27th?). Now we have this, after the politicians thrashed the draft for about a week in Stokholm. There are various websites comparing the massive differences between the leaked draft and the document published this week. Perhaps it should really be called Summary By Policy Makers?

[MrGongGong]

You earlier made reference to the Cook paper, which, amazingly, has been peer-reviewed. They claim some huge percentage of climate scientists agree with global warming. Actually, the survey questions they used come down to simply the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Well, who'd have thought?

Now this silly pie chart! My word, I'd like to know just which scientists don't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Since you're quoting these sources, perhaps you can tell us?

The 'fashionable' estimate these days of climate sensitivity (how much temperature rise per doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration) is 1.5 C. In 1995 the IPCC were predicting a rise of 20 C by 2010!

Given the present temperature standstill I expect the figure of 1.5 C will fall gradually over the next few years. Wouldn't it be a good idea to stop and think about how what we're going to do for such a small change in temperature?

I'm not a scientist , I'm a musician, my science education ended with O level Physics
I'm assuming that you are a scientist
so maybe it would be useful to give us your credentials ?
I"m quite happy to give mine in relation to music .........
but as you seem to know more than what I'm reliably told is the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world then it would be a reasonable request to know with what authority you speak ........

[teamsaint]

Could you explain this in this particular context? I can see that governments might not want to devote scarce funds towards combating "climate change", raising money from taxpayers and thus making the government unpopular because it cannot afford to provide essential services, if there's no 100% certainty that this is necessary; but what pressures might governments exert on an agency to suggest - in common with 'mainstream' scientific opinion, so I understand - that global warming is real, climate change is real, human activity is largely responsible and the situation has sufficient urgency to require action, when it's all a load of rubbish?

Please - politically more astute people - don't all descend on me at once to demolish my naive assumptions. Should we go back to weekly wheelie bin collections?

The IPCC is a group, as I understand it, put together by national governments under the auspices of 2 UN Organisations.
The Summary for Policy Makers seems to be approved line by line by governments before it is presented. However it is far from clear from the mainstream media reporting how this process happens, and who exactly does the approving.
The reports have huge scope, and great influence in areas where we need to be wary, because there is big money at stake. Carbon Trading would be one such.

It isn't difficult to see the IPCC summary as governments telling the rest of us what governments want us to hear, and for our long term good that suspicion needs to be eradicated, IMHO.


As for wheelie bins..

[johnb]

I'm puzzled.

The "Headline Statements from the Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group contribution to AR5", available from http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/p...l#.UkgDMcu9KK0, includes the para:

Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to- decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.

Firstly, these temperature rises are relative to the period 1850 to 1900. Since then the global temperature has already risen by something like 0.7 degrees (estimated by looking at the graphs available via Google) so the rises of 1.5/2 degrees quoted are, in fact, more like 0.8/1.3 degrees relative to current global temperatures.

Secondly, the temperature rise of between 1.5C to 4.5C has been widely reported (presumable relative to 1850-1900). However, this refers to one specific scenario in which the CO2 level in the atmosphere has doubled whereas the figures quoted in the Headline Statements refer to the likely global warming.

I do wish there was some serious in depth reporting of the latest findings, rather than the seemingly superficial efforts that are pumped out.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I think you make a valid point. Judith Curry is also confused:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/

Perhaps the confusion is intentional . . .

[MrGongGong]

I think you make a valid point. Judith Curry is also confused:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/

Perhaps the confusion is intentional . . .

Is that in your scientific opinion ?
(I honestly don't know ....... BUT I do know the scientists I met from the British Antarctic Survey were very concerned about Climate Change)