A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
This sort of stuff really pisses me off. Taking advantage of a frightened public like this is just plain wrong. The original article here and New Scientist angle here.
Wingnuts are unfortunately uncomfortable with the whole science thing — too many theories that can never be proved 100% certain, too many gray areas for their black-and-white minds. So if it looks like some scientist got something wrong, they jump all over it, with a gleeful I-told-you-so reminiscent of the dumb kids back in high school gloating when one of the smart kids got something wrong.
That’s right wingnuts — scientists who are smarter than you occasionally get things wrong. Does that make you feel better? Smarter? Good for you.
Oh! Phydeau is here again leading the wingnut parade!
According to Phydeau, Copernicus was a wingnut! Galileo was a wingnut! Anyone who dared to challenge the scientific establishment is a wingnut!
Even when the evidence is in that Global Warming is as wrong as the earth being flat!!!
http://tinyurl.com/7vcvad
http://tinyurl.com/kraen7
http://tinyurl.com/lyox3y
http://tinyurl.com/ye8af9y
http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191
ALSO…
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_05.php
So what about this? (I apologize in advance for the long post)
“Uncertainties in Solar Measurements.
Despite all that scientists have learned about solar irradiance over the past few decades, they are still a long way from forecasting changes in the solar cycles or incorporating these changes into climate models. One of their biggest obstacles has been technology. Because even the smallest shifts in solar energy can affect climate drastically, measurements of solar radiation have to be extremely precise. Instruments in use today still are subject to a great deal of uncertainty.
The sensors … disagree significantly in the decadal average level of the TSI—up to 6 watts per square meter. This difference is larger than the total variation in solar irradiance in the past 500 years, so a more accurate assessment is needed to study the Sun’s impact on climate change.
This large uncertainty in absolute calibration of the instruments means that any possible trend from one 11 year cycle to the next, the most important change for global warming, is not known accurately enough to even decide whether the trend is positive, negative, or zero. With such data, scientists have a good approximation of the 11 year cycle, but no real insight into more subtle changes that may occur over many decades and centuries.
Even larger uncertainties exist for measurements of the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere, ocean, and land. As of now, researchers know that the atmosphere absorbs between 20 and 25 percent of the TSI and that the land absorbs 45 to 50 percent. With solar radiation, a 5 percent difference is huge. A difference of even 1 percent would completely throw off climate models of global warming and scientist’s understanding of convection (warm, upward moving air currents) in the atmosphere.”
So apparently we are still guessing.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_05.php
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Loehle_Divergence_CC.pdf
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/will-the-real-hockey-stick-please-stand-up/
It’s simple. Man made global warming is a farce.
All the climate models are wrong. Garbage in, Garbage out.
How in the world can anyone have an accurate climate model when no one has an accurate measure of the output of the sun (the primary source of energy) nor a good understanding of the effects of water vapor?
So what we get are scientist making a name for themselves, Al Gore and company making a killing on carbon credits, and politicians trying to appeal to the radical left.
And all of them screwing the rest of us.
Here is another link about a NASA satellite which was designed to measure variations on atmospheric carbon which conveniently crashed into the ocean.
“The satellite was designed to help scientists determine which mechanisms (carbon absorption or release) are dominant by allowing them to trace where carbon dioxide is being absorbed, and how much. Ground-based measurement stations aren’t up to the task.”
http://technologyreview.com/blog/energy/23017/
We don’t even know what is going on with CO2!
So let’s recap.
A) We don’t know how much solar radiance the earth is receiving,
B) We don’t understand the effects of water vapor, and
C) We don’t understand the cycle of carbon emission and reabsorbtion.
And we’re supposed to have accurate models??
http://examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist
#21 Fido – Per Wikipedia: A wingnut or wing nut, a nut (hardware), with a pair of wings to enable it to be turned without tools.”
So, basically, we need no tools – like you – bloviating incessantly and trying to convince us you graduated high school.
#23 Wow what an excellent riposte. Golly.
I’ve got the response from the climate cooling deniers!
Too bad “global cooling” was never a theory that was espoused by the majority of scientists.
http://usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
One report, then another report, then another…
ONE? What rock have you been hiding under?
Which ones? where are they?
Even this report doesn’t say that climate change isn’t happening. It says that they were wrong about one thing.
here’s a guide from New Scientist that covers lots of the myths about climate change: http://newscientist.com/article/dn11462
jccalhoun, there is almost no report that is considered accurate. Any climate scientist who has the balls to stand up to the IPCC and it’s ilk, are the only people doing real climate science these days. This is a very embarrassing and sad time in history for climate scientists that can truly call themselves scientists.
Here a recount of one scientist who was threatened “when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth’s physical processes” It was postedhere in Science magazine’s ScIence Insider.
E.H. Moran, November 30, 2009 12:38 PM:
The data are in the faces of Man-Made Climate Change supporters and they still refuse to acknowledge the evidence.
These same scientists threatened my job with the US Geological Survey when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth’s physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally insult and attack me.
I always knew that when man-made global climate change was shown as insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word “FAITH”, in science. But this event and exposure is by far worse for the science community; but “Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)”.
Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. But no outcry and defense for those scientists?
IF you see no problem with this and not wondering if the public has been misled by these scientists, then you are not scientists, you’re in denial, and you stand for no moral principles.
On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..
Now, Al Gore PUBLICLY states Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn’t have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. SO WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can’t, because if they do, the gig is up.
The phenomenon I discuss in my research has been studied for nearly 50 years and accepted as highly plausible by the Royal Society (I have the Publication) but the process and connection were unexplainable; the only drawback of all Magnetic Intensity and Ambient Temperature studies, in their WORDS; till now. We explained the Process in our paper along with the data analysis. Unfortunately, we used the Hadley Global Temperature Datasets. The data used were yearly averages, which was well explained both in the original paper and the 2008 AGU presentation. Just didn’t see any RealClimate people at the presentation. But they knew about it. I informed them.
The following is what I perceived as personal intimidation and a threat to call my USGS supervisor for doing this study. The only reason someone uses words like “Does your boss know what your doing” in the context of this event is a threat to get you FIRED if you don’t cease and desists. Now if the study and theory were not plausible and a potential explanation of global temperature variability, then why would RealClimate.org do what they did in their posts? Not very professional for PhDs. Additionally, there are many other areas on that website where conversations took place.
One report by a dubious scientist and climate change is invalidated.
One lie by a rightwing fanatic and he just “misspoke” but obama has a nigerian birth certificate!
Pretty much describes the whole global warming scam be perpetrated on the weak minded people of the world by a few with a political and economic agenda.
#15 The only ones I see hiding to avoid any reading on reality are warmers like you.
#18 How long are you gonna keep playing that broken record Fido? It’s Al Gory who has failed in his lame attempt at making money.
#21 If there’s anybody uncomfortable with real science (you know, the one backed up with real data, not phoney “simulations”) is you and your ilk, lefty loon warmer sheeple.
And they mixed up 2035 and 2305.
They did the same thing with regards to hurricanes. They took a non-peer-reviewed report over a peer reviewed output of Munich Re.
#22 You’re barking up the wrong tree, Ah_Yea… I don’t fanatically believe in AGW like you fanatically deny it. People challenging the scientific establishment is great. That’s the great thing about science: someone can challenge the status quo and others can examine his results and do their own experiments. I’d be glad if AGW doesn’t exist — one less thing to worry about. As time goes on, the truth will come out. Copernicus and Galileo were eventually vindicated.
But you’ve got more certainty than the scientific community does. What do you know that they don’t? But you conservatives need your 100% certainty. I’m willing to wait and see what the scientists say.
Phydeau, what gall, what hubris.
You laughingly state you are not a fanatic, yet everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an idiot or a Republican.
Apparently you didn’t even finish reading my post, or examined any of the links I provided.
If you had, you would finally start to comprehend that there is conclusive science steering us away from AGW than toward it.
How about commenting on ANY of the links I provided?
Let’s start with this one:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_05.php
And look at this. It is PROOF POSITIVE that AGW is a farce. It’s technical, so I don’t expect you to understand it.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
Otherwise, Phydeau, please stop wasting our time. Really.
Ah_Yea… good links. Adding them to my arsenal.
#32 Yes, I didn’t expect you to get it. Projecting your own arrogance and hubris on others. You are so certain of what you believe. But that’s not what science is about.
I’ll wait until the scientific consensus is in before I draw any conclusions about AGW. You would do well to do the same, unless you’re a world-class climatologist yourself.
“Scientific consensus” is an oxymoron.
Heymac #33.
You’re welcome. Those links are very informative and show definitively that the science is NOT in.
It’s called being informed. Something people like Phydeau should learn about, instead of being a sheeple using “Scientific consensus” as an excuse to be opinionated and uninformed. Notice how Phydeau could never comment on one single link?
#31 said: “I don’t fanatically believe in AGW…”
Oh, really? You could have fooled us.
#34 The only one not getting the facts is you. But hey, you’re a sheeple, so we don’t expect you to have a brain.
Looks like the sheeple disease is spreading. Good job little pedro.
Oh, really? You could have fooled us.
Obviously. Little pedro, you are too perfect a wingnut. I think you’re really a liberal doing a little performance art. The perfect arrogant, angry, cowardly, clueless wingnut. Beautiful work! I gotta hand it to you.
It’s called being informed. Something people like Phydeau should learn about, instead of being a sheeple using “Scientific consensus” as an excuse to be opinionated and uninformed.
Try a little reading comprehension, moron. I haven’t come to a conclusion about AGW. I have no strong opinions on it. I’ve heard evidence pro and con, and unlike you I don’t consider myself enough of an expert to make a judgment at this time. Capice? You’re spoilin’ for a fight with someone, obviously. Go fight with someone who is as fanatic about AGW as you are. Shoo. And take your little toady pedro with you.
#32, Ah Yea,
Quite the bullshit. Anyone can post a handfull of links and say “Read these”. Nope, it doesn’t work that way.
If you have a point, make it. Back up your comment with a citation. It is the lazy person that expects others to do his work for him. I, for one, have no intention of reading through an article trying to find some piece of information to support YOUR point. Or not.
Post your comment and evidence with a link and I will read it.
And here is the crux of your delusion, Phydeau.
Anyone who HAS come to an informed, researched opinion to you is a wingnut.
So everytime you call someone a wingnut, everytime you debase someone for having an informed opinion, everytime you feign to know something while proudly hiding behind your ignorance, you are spoilin’ for a fight.
This place is called a blog, where people exchange ideas and opinions.
Since you proudly have neither, why are you here but to insult those who do?