Don't believe the extremists: No Big Changes In Leaked Draft AR5 Report

[Nederland]

In previous months there was a great deal of speculation as to what the next IPCC report would say regarding the current scientific consensus on all the aspects of global warming. Many here in EE claimed that the AR5 report would contain 'shocking' information that would provide evidence for their belief that things are 'worse than we thought'. On the other extreme, the individual who actually leaked the report claimed that it contained dramatic reversals regarding the impact of cosmic rays and solar irradiance.

In the end, they were both wrong.

Well, at least for now they both appear wrong. Yes, it's just a draft, and a leaked one at that, but what it contains at this point in time is not really much difference from AR4. The leaker's claims regarding a shift in opinion regarding cosmic rays has been debunked by the actual author of the section, who said that his words were being misinterpreted. In sum, the report contains no dramatic shifts in its description of what we can expect from AGW. The only significant change that I can see is with regard to the frequency of hurricanes, tropical storms, and other severe weather events. After the ridiculous assertions in the mainstream media that Superstorm Sandy was 'caused' by global warming, it is heartwarming to hear the IPCC finally say what has been obvious to experts in the field for years:

In summary, unlike in AR4, it is assessed here that there is low confidence of regional changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones. There is low confidence of a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). There is low confidence in trends in extreme winds due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data.

http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch2_Obs-atmosur_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch02_All_Final.pdf
Chapther 2, Page 59, lines 38-42

Roger Pielke Jr, a long time critic of the IPCC on this subject, seems particularly pleased:

http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/279630083864526848

[GliderGuider]

1. No good deed goes unpunished... nt

[LiberalEsto]

2. TATMAFAATFEOWTA!

There Are Too Many Acronyms Floating Around And Too Few Explanations Of What They Are.

I am getting dizzy from trying to figure out what all these acronyms mean. I will be posting this wherever I see acronyms I don't recognize. .

[Nederland]

3. Sorry, here's glossary:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A United Nations panel charged to assess the state of knowledge on the various aspects of climate change including science, environmental and socio-economic impacts and response strategies.

EE - Environment and Energy (this group)

AR4 - Assessment Report 4. A compilation of global warming science produced by the IPCC and published in 2007

AR5 - Assessment Report 5. Same as above, only due to be finished in 2013. A draft was recently leaked to the press.

AGW - Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming

SH - Southern Hemisphere

[LiberalEsto]

4. TY!

Thank you!

This is an incredibly important issue that we all need to stay informed about.

[NoOneMan]

5. What constitutes an "extremist"?

People concerned with crop failures and ocean acidification projections based on the IPCC AR4 report?

We've had reason to be extremely concerned for some time now.

[Nederland]

6. People that make claims not supported by the peer reviewed literature

To me, that means both the people that claim global warming is a hoax, and those that believe 'we are all doomed'

[NoOneMan]

7. Oh. In that case...

Ill continue to be extremely alarmed until I see contradictory peer-reviewed literature illustrating we no longer have to worry about crop failure and ocean acidification (according to existing studies). Concerns of catastrophe are well grounded in our current understanding of the science, thank you.

[Nederland]

8. Fair enough

Concerns of catastrophe are well grounded in our current understanding of the science, thank you.

I suppose it depends on how you define the word 'catastrophe'. So I could better understand what exactly you mean, can you supply links to some of the peer reviewed articles that you are referring to when you say this? Thanks.

[NoOneMan]

9. ca·tas·tro·phe - definition:

Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat (based on 23 models from the IPCC 2007 report)

Summary Article:

Half the world's population faces major food crisis by 2100, Science study finds

Rapidly warming climate is likely to seriously alter crop yields in the tropics and subtropics by the end of this century and, without adaptation, leave half of the world’s population facing serious food shortages, according to a study, "Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat", published in the Jan. 9 edition of the journal Science.

To compound matters, the population of this equatorial belt—from about 35 degrees north latitude to 35 degrees south latitude—is among the poorest on Earth and is growing faster than anywhere else, according to the study.

And here is a nice supplementary summary of a plethora of peer-reviewed research on this topic, which was published in the Environment, Development and Sustainability journal in 2010: http://www.jayhanson.us/_Systems/PopulationCrash_ProspectsForFamineInTheTwenty-FirstCentury.pdf

My opinion is that your attempt to undermine "extremists" is a red-herring. Whether mainstream projections continue to get worse or not has no bearing on a reasonably alarmed position that is grounded in established science.

[Nederland]

26. Those papers are based upon outdated assumptions

Those papers describe stresses on food production that come from declining oil, land scarcity, and drought due to climate change. While the effects of peak oil and declining arable land are to my knowledge still valid points, the assumption that global warming will result in more droughts is no longer the scientific consensus. A quick scan of the section on climate change in the third paper you linked to shows that the studies referenced to support the assumption of increasing drought are 7-14 years old. The most recent analysis of global warming's impact on drought frequency contradicts these outdated studies. The shift in the scientific consensus is described by the IPCC this way:

New results indicate that the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in hydrological droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported. Not enough evidence exists at present to suggest anything else than low confidence in observed large-scale trends in dryness (lack of rainfall), due to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends.

Chapter 2, Page 5

[NoOneMan]

32. "Unprecedented Seasonal Heat" != "Hydrological Droughts"

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:54 PM - Edit history (6)

You are cherry picking while grinding an axe in an attempt to exploit scientific consensus limbo; your attempt to discredit peer-review, established research with hinted uncertaintly in an unfinished, unpublished report illustrates your own agenda. Its called confirmation bias.

Remember, there was nothing certain about David Battisti's peer-reviewed, published analysis or even the AR4. He used an uncertain compilation of IPCC AR4 global climate models to present a "highly probable" scenario. AR5 could not invalidate this by reasserting uncertainty, but only by presenting less severe global climate models.

When the AR5 is published, will it illustrate that the AR4 over-estimated potential global temperature rises?

[Speck Tater]

10. IPCC has a record of always underestimating the effects of climate change.

I'll go right on being "an alarmist" if it's all the same to you. In the end (and the end is near) it will be the so-called "alarmists" who will be proven correct.

[GliderGuider]

11. And there's no sign that we are deviating from the highest-carbon scenarios.

A1FI and SRES 8.5 (both peer reviewed) are the signposts to catastrophe: temperatures of +5.6C and still rising in 2100. As Lynas points out, the science says that the road we're on ends in utter ruin for civilization.

The purpose of being an alarmist is to point out the alarming consequences of inaction. I see no problem in using extreme language, especially in view of the the extreme consequences of extreme inaction.

"Is Earth F**ked?" Maybe not, but GlobCiv 1.0 probably is.

[NoOneMan]

12. Its a consequence of the merger of politics and science that we see here

Though, without a central body filtering and compiling the information, you would probably see the dialogue controlled by a slew of independent BP funded studies.

[GliderGuider]

13. So, as bad as it is, it's as good as we're going to get...

And better than the alternatives: control by BP clones who just want to save their profits, or control by a bunch of "extremists" who just want to save the world...

[Nederland]

14. Always?

Have they always underestimated temperature increases? Sea Level increases? Glacier melt rates?

[Speck Tater]

17. Yup. Link....

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-ipcc-underestimate-assessing-climate-risks-15338

Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic.

This conservative bias, say some scientists, could have significant political implications, as reports from the group – the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – influence policy and planning decisions worldwide, from national governments down to local town councils.

More at the link, or Google "IPCC conservatism"

[GliderGuider]

19. That report is pretty harsh on the IPCC

The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see nearly ice-free summers within 20 years.

The IPCC concluded the Arctic would not shed most of its summer sea ice cover before 2070 at the earliest. But the sea ice pack has shrunk far faster than most scenarios scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see largely ice-free summers within 20 years.

Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. The IPCC did note, however, that its sea level rise projections did not take into account the contribution of the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheet, since there was conflicting evidence at the time.

Some climate researchers also worry that recent institutional changes could accentuate the organization's conservative bias in the fifth IPCC assessment, to be released in parts starting in September 2013.

The tendency to underplay climate impacts needs to be recognized, conclude the authors of a recent paper exploring this bias. Failure to do so, they wrote in their study published last month in the journal Global Environmental Change, "could prevent the full recognition, articulation and acknowledgement of dramatic natural phenomena that may in fact be occurring."

Damned extremist scientists anyway. As bad as activist judges, they are. They should all get themselves peer-reviewed.

[Nederland]

22. I'm curious

Do you know why computer models failed to accurately predict Arctic sea melt?

[GliderGuider]

24. No, I don't.

I'm not a climate modeler.

[Nederland]

28. The models run cold

When you compare model outputs to observations by using anomalies (how many degrees a given point in time differs from the chosen reference period), the models look ok, tracking 20th century observations fairly well. However, when you look at absolute temperatures the models don't do very well. They often produce absolute temperatures that are 3-4 degrees lower than observations. In other words, if you plotted observed temperatures on top of model predicted temperatures, the temperature line for the model would track the rise and fall of the observed line fairly well, but would sit 3-4 degrees below the observed line.

For purposes of predicting how much temperature will increase due to CO2 rises, comparing anomalies works well. However, because water freezes at a particular absolute temperature, in order to calculate the rate of ice melt you have to look at absolute temperatures, not anomalies. Since the absolute temperatures of the models run cold, you end up under-predicting ice melt.

[GliderGuider]

29. Interesting.

It sounds reasonable, but I'm in no position to assess the validity of your assertion. Do you have a link to support it? Something peer-reviewed would be helpful.

[Nederland]

33. Here you go...

http://www.agu.org/journals/ms/ms1208/2012MS000154/2012MS000154.pdf

Yet, the span between the coldest and the warmest model is almost 3 K, distributed equally far above and below the best observational estimates, while the majority of models are cold-biased. Although the inter-model span is only one percent relative to absolute zero, that argument fails to be reassuring. Relative to the 20th century warming the span is a factor four larger, while it is about the same as our best estimate of the climate response to a doubling of CO2, and about half the difference between the last glacial maximum and present. To parameterized processes that are non-linearly dependent on the absolute temperature it is a prerequisite that they be exposed to realistic temperatures for them to act as intended. Prime examples are processes involving phase transitions of water: Evaporation and precipitation depend non-linearly on temperature through the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, while snow, sea-ice, tundra and glacier melt are critical to freezing temperatures in certain regions. The models in CMIP3 were frequently criticized for not being able to capture the timing of the observed rapid Arctic sea-ice decline [e.g., Stroeve et al., 2007]. While unlikely the only reason, provided that sea ice melt occurs at a specific absolute temperature, this model ensemble behavior seems not too surprising when the majority of models do start out too cold.

[GliderGuider]

34. Thank you! nt

[Nederland]

21. Your link only addresses sea level rise

It is true that AR2, AR3 and AR4 all underestimated sea level rise. However, the first IPCC report (1990) over estimated sea level rise, which contradicts your claims that the IPCC "always" underestimated effects:




With regard to temperature predictions, IPCC models are actually fairly accurate, but cannot possibly be described as underestimating temperature. As you can see, models have always run slightly hot:





And as for underestimating glacier melt, perhaps you forgot the tiny little error they made regarding the Himalayan glaciers:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

[Speck Tater]

25. I stand corrected. Thanks for setting me straight. nt

[Viking12]

35. Not that Himilaya Glacier denier crap again

You're as dishonest as they come.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

[joshcryer]

16. It seems as if the IPCC's job is to promote BAU.

[Nederland]

23. No, its job is to summarize the current scientific consensus

Which is exactly what they are doing. You just don't like what the latest science is saying.

[GliderGuider]

27. Whose job is it to draw conclusions?

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Or more to the point, do we as lay readers of the science have the right to draw conclusions from it? And do we have the right to draw conclusions beyond the carefully scripted boundaries of the published data? And do we have the right to express those conclusions?

For instance, my conclusion is that humanity is going to stay wedded to the IPCC A1FI and RPC8.5 scenarios for the foreseeable future, with their outcomes of a 5.5C to 6C rise in temperatures "above the 1986-2005 average" by 2100. That will be catastrophic for civilization, in a large number of domains. In drawing this conclusion I don't set a foot outside the IPCC-defined playing field

I don't need the IPCC to validate my expectation that a +6C future will include widespread droughts and extreme weather events - that just kind of follows along naturally. Saying that they have low confidence based on current observations that current weather extremes are directly tied to rising temperatures is not the same as saying they have low confidence that rising temperatures can produce such events. The scenarios they endorse are pretty unequivocal in that regard.

[Nederland]

30. Ours

And yes, we as readers have a right to draw conclusions from the facts that have been published. My complaint is that the conclusions that you choose to draw from those facts are making it harder for us to get off fossil fuels.

[GliderGuider]

31. How so?

My conclusion matters to only a very small number of people, none of whom are in a policy role in any country on Earth. You may not share my views, and we will continue to argue over them as long as we choose, but you can't lay off the global situation on me. Sorry, I don't accept that particular straw-man burden.

[AverageJoe90]

38. Sadly, that does seem to be the case. n/t

[Viking12]

36. ..and yours is to cherry-pick?

[joshcryer]

44. There is no scientific consensus about the effects of climate change.

You spend a shit load of time in fact saying that the effects of climate change are not catastrophic.

All they do is compile the latest data, that is true, but at the same time, they aren't able to be state of the art, because the system is changing quickly, and new reports contradict or expand upon with more dire predictions than the previous. For a decade cloud feedbacks were supposed to be negative, everyone thought so, turns out they're positive. But oh well, right?

BAU relies on a slow response to something. It relies on ignorance. It relies on people acting in their own self-interests on a short term basis. The cities around North America wouldn't have become smog filled if people sat down, did the math, and realized that pollutants would cause the issues. Hell, someone probably did do that, but it wasn't until there was a problem that it was addressed. This is precisely how climate change is going to go down. Don't worry, no one is going to do anything about it, OK?

[joshcryer]

15. They don't even assess drought. Hopefully that's changed before AR5 is finished.

[Nederland]

18. The word drought appears 62 times

Did you even read the chapter?

Or perhaps you are just incapable of reading things you don't want to hear:

New results indicate that the AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in hydrological droughts since the 1970s are no longer supported. Not enough evidence exists at present to suggest anything else than low confidence in observed large-scale trends in dryness (lack of rainfall), due to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends.

Chapter 2, Page 5

[joshcryer]

43. Right, low confidence. See page 18 of the SPM.

Likelihood that trend occurred in late 20th century (typically post 1950): Low confidence
Likelihood of a human contribution to observed trend: Low confidence
Likelihood of future trends based on projections for the next few decades: Not assessed
Likelihood of future trends based on projections for 21st century using RCP scenarios: Likely in some regions

Yet we know from the cloud cover observations that indeed drought is slated to get worse.

[Nederland]

103. I'm confused

What do you think this statement means:

Likelihood of a human contribution to observed trend: Low confidence

To me it means they no longer believe that human activity can be linked to increasing drought. I might be reading it wrong though.

[GliderGuider]

105. Yes, I think you're reading it wrong.

The way I read it, they have low confidence that the data they currently have supports the liklihood. They're not saying they have high confidence that there is no human contribution to the observed trend. It's a tricky point, but I think what they're saying is : "We don't currently have enough data that supports that conclusion."

[joshcryer]

114. In this case in particular it means they're uncertain about...

...an important but un-assessed aspect of climate change. This is why it's so damning because they admit in AR4 that "low confidence" means they don't know squat, and if AR5 goes with it, which it probably will because there are only a handful of assessments about drought, then the main, most significant aspect of climate change, will go unnoticed. We can adapt to more storms, it just means capitalism gets to spend money (I believe the broken window fallacy is not a fallacy but a fact, when combined with Keynesianism which is effectively the MIC). It'll be near impossible to adapt to drought with quickly depleting aquifers.

Interestingly they recently found massive amounts of water in Africa. Neo-colonialism is probably going to happen in the next few decades.

Note: water here refers to fresh water.

[joshcryer]

111. As GG said, "low confidence" means they are unclear, uncertain.

This is why they put "not assessed" and "likely, regional." Because, well, they know that regionally the drought is going to probably happen, it's already happened. BTW, "likely" is only a 66% probability.

The language does have values assigned to it.

As far as I'm concerned drought is the single biggest problem with climate change. We need to eat.

[GliderGuider]

20. All we need to do is look at the images from AR5

And remember that we're on our way to realizing RCP 8.5

Oh, and remember to add about 1 degree to those temperatures to account for what's already in the pipeline.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/16/1334921/leaked-ipcc-draft-report-recent-warming-is-manmade-cloud-feedback-is-positive-inaction-is-suicidal/

But the report fails to clearly spell out what the recent science says about inaction — for that you might try “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts” or the recent World Bank report, which warned “A 4°C (7°F) World Can, And Must, Be Avoided” To Avert “Devastating” Impacts.

The truth is out there.

[AverageJoe90]

37. Good analysis, Nederland, thanks for posting.

[CRH]

39. Excuse me, has this new release dealt with, ...

exponential climate sensitivity, yet, ? Has it addressed the concerns Of David Wasdell yet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=29912

Until I read something that convinces me different, I'm kind of stuck believing what seems, the natural order, the holistic conception, of our problem.

[GliderGuider]

40. Still waiting for that...

I expect we will be waiting for a while longer.

[Nederland]

42. IPCC reports only address peer review literature

Are there any peer review articles on exponential climate sensitivity?

[GliderGuider]

46. That was kind of my point.

Anyone who insists on the IPCC as a their sole standard of interpretation for what's going on in climate is bound to be steamrolled by reality.

Peer review works very well in a relatively static situation where the scientific community is trying to agree on immutable "facts". In a dynamic, unfolding situation like climate change they will always be behind the curve.

That's why people who wish to be truly up to speed should factor in non-consensus opinions as they come out. It's riskier in that you have to take responsibility for sifting out your own reactivity and confirmation bias (aka motivated reasoning), but in a rapidly shifting environment like this it's the only way to ensure you're living in the present rather than the past.

[Nederland]

49. If you open it up to non-peer reviewed material...

...what would be your justification for excluding all of the denier crap that also fits the description of "non-consensus opinions"? The bottom line is you have to impose some sort of filter on what will serve as a basis of the reports, otherwise the report will be nothing more than the collective biases of the lead authors.

[GliderGuider]

50. Open *what* up exactly?

The discussion? It is already open to all kinds of denier crap. You can't shut them down, so all lay commentators from across the spectrum of opinion should have the same privilege. To shut down the people on the top of the scale without being able to do the same to those feeding at the bottom of the barrel leads to the degeneration of the entire discussion. Sorry, but I don't buy into that kind of censorship.

[Nederland]

51. Ok, I misunderstood

I thought you were proposing that the IPCC reports be open to non-peer reviewed sources. I agree that the discussion should be open to people expressing opinions that are outside the consensus, which precisely why I think that the banning of numerous individuals (including myself) from EE for expressing "denier crap" was a mistake. Either you create a group that allows only discussion of peer reviewed material, or you create a group open to all sorts of outlier opinions. If you create a group that allows only one side of the discussion, all you end up with is an echo chamber.

[AverageJoe90]

52. Yeah, pretty much.

There was never a problem with denialism on DU3, as far as I can see. (Let's hope it stays that way, fellas.)

[GliderGuider]

55. DU isn't quite the same as a public discussion

I can say anything I want on my own web site, but here on DU there are some topics I can't support. The boards get to make their own rules about that, in addition to the top-level stuff like not violent overthrow of elected gummints.

DU itself is an echo chamber for Democratic, democratic politics.

[AverageJoe90]

63. Which is how I'm beginning to think the IPCC should conduct it's business as well.

Of course, outsider texts shouldn't be entirely banned, in my view; rather, they should just be subject to a little extra scrutiny before including them in the report, and if they happen to be plausible, then let it show, I say. Otherwise, texts that have anything more than the smallest doubts concerning their feasibility shouldn't be included, no matter if it has a "doom-and-gloom" or denialist slant.

[GliderGuider]

74. Huh?

Do they include "outsider texts" without getting consensus on them? Rlly? I think deep review is IPCC SOP, actually - that's what all us "extremists and alarmists" are grousing about.

[Nederland]

41. David Wasdell

His doctorate is in psychology, right?

[CRH]

45. Why was he asked to do draft reviews for AR4? ...

The peer reviewed consensus of AR4 has underestimated the rate of Arctic ice melt, the timing of methane releases in the ocean and the permafrost, the levels of ocean acidity that puts crustaceans at risk, underestimated the global mean temperature rise above pre industrial levels that would put several different ecosystems at risk. So far the politicized consensus peer reviews have missed the severity of the effects of just .8*C rise; in the ocean, on land, in the weather patterns, and in the ocean currents.

Why are government minders changing scientific conclusions by insisting on clearing the language that is used in final drafts? The people making these decisions are administrators and policy wonks, not scientists, yet their input consistently waters down the science.

[GliderGuider]

47. "The people making these decisions are administrators and policy wonks"

Exactly so. The inherent political slanting of the Assessment Reports is cleverly obscured by leaving the scientific language front and center. But one needs to know what else is being published in order to discern that spin.

[Nederland]

48. A very good question

Why a person with a doctorate in psychology should be doing draft reviews for the IPCC is a bit of a mystery. It is unfortunate that he is not the only example of an unqualified person being put in a position to influence annual reports. The sad fact is that there are several examples of people that had not even completed their Phd or even in some cases their Masters degree and yet were chosen as lead authors for IPCC chapters.

[AverageJoe90]

53. Yep.

Why, indeed, did Wasdell get a seat on the IPCC? He has no major qualifications for climate research as far as I can see.

[Viking12]

56. Ignorant.

I like how you clowns get all huffy about stuff over which you don't a clue. Reviewers don't have a 'seat' on the IPCC. Anybody can be a reviewer by signing a non-disclosure agreement. It is a testament to the openness of the process. Reviewers have no actual say in the final writing of assessment. They can provide feedback which may or may not be used to refine the drafts. Sadly, too many deniers like Vincent Gray have abused the process and become become reviewers with the sole intention of interfering with the process. The release cited in the OP is an example of a loser that failed to live up to his non-disclosure agreement and released the draft for obstructionist purposes. The OP is an enabler of the obstruction process.

[AverageJoe90]

59. Please, stop the provocations(Ignorant? Clowns?).

And please, don't get me started on who typically gets huffy on these forums, either(It's not me, that's for sure).

With that said, yes, the leaker obviously had axes to grind, and ended up trying to propagate actual B.S.
However, though, the fact that both this guy and David Wasdell were allowed to participate in the review precess, does make me think that the IPCC ought to be a tad more careful, regardless of whether the reviewers had any say in the writing of the assessment or not.

[Viking12]

60. If you don't like it, don't post ignorant crap or just go away.

Concern Troll, Tone Troll, Clown, builder of strawmen...they're all accurate descriptions.

[AverageJoe90]

62. Look who's talking.

I don't profess to know everything there is, but quite frankly, that was simply uncalled for.

[Viking12]

65. It's clear you're not here to discuss in good faith.

Therefore, you don't deserve any respect.

[AverageJoe90]

66. Oh please, stop the hypocrisy.

You were the one who started the "ignorant clown" B.S.

[Viking12]

67. I was right.

I'm not the one that trolls the board slipping references to some obscure commenters (McPherson and Light) into every post for no apparent reason. How much do you get paid to do that? What is the piece work rate for creating false equivalencies on message boards?

[NoOneMan]

68. But Malcom Light! But Malcom Light!

Don't even start your McPherson Mumbo Jumbo on us!

Yeah, I find the repeated name-dropping of a few specific people (I've never read) very disturbing (and suspect).

[hatrack]

70. Average Joe, you are gone

Three days in, and it's nothing but the same old shit.

Your Chicken Little cartoon post in the other thread did not help your status within this group.

[Nederland]

86. Come on hatrack...

...this place is so much more lively with us around

I lurked from time to time while I was banned and all this place had become was a giant echo chamber.

I suppose that's what some people want though. Personally I found it incredibly dull.

[hatrack]

90. Nope, sorry - and the Chicken Little cartoon was the last straw - hot-button for me

I may not agree with you all that often, but at least you can argue coherently and link to evidence.

The same, alas, cannot be said for our departed compatriot.

If I want hit-and-run snark, I'll hang out in GD for a few minutes . . .

[AverageJoe90]

69. I don't get "paid" anything.

I get that you don't like what I have to say. But I didn't bring up anyone other than Wasdell until well after my first post on this thread. (You'll notice that I also brought up the names of Monckton and Watts, who are also nutty but just from the other side of the wall.), and you were the one who started provoking with this "ignorant clown" stuff.

[Nederland]

71. What about lead authors?

How do explain the grad students that got those positions? How do you explain how a person without a single published paper on a subject being a lead author?

[NoOneMan]

72. Are you therefore suggesting the IPCC has little credibility?

[Nederland]

80. No

[Viking12]

73. for instance?

So far you've got nothing but naked assertions. Names?

[Nederland]

75. Sorry I thought it was common knowledge at this point

I guess when you only read one side of the debate you don't learn anything negative about your side.

Here you go:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm


11. This chapter appeared at a critical period of the climate change debate. Fully one third was devoted to mosquito-borne disease, principally malaria. The chapter had a major impact on public debate, and is quoted even today, despite the more informed chapter of the Third Assessment Report (see below).
12. The scientific literature on mosquito-borne diseases is voluminous, yet the text references in the chapter were restricted to a handful of articles, many of them relatively obscure, and nearly all suggesting an increase in prevalence of disease in a warmer climate. The paucity of information was hardly surprising: not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
13. Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Niño, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motor cycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cell phones).
14. The amateurish text of the chapter reflected the limited knowledge of the 22 authors. Much of the emphasis was on "changes in geographic range (latitude and altitude) and incidence (intensity and seasonality) of many vector-borne diseases" as "predicted" by computer models. Extensive coverage was given to these models, although they were all based on a highly simplistic model originally developed as an aid to malaria control campaigns. The authors acknowledged that the models did not take into account "the influence of local demographic, socioeconomic, and technical circumstances".

[NoOneMan]

76. Ah. You are angry about the IPCC mosquito projections?

Yep, I say its time to flush the entire turd if they can't back up their mosquito talk.

BTW, sorry to put you on the spot, but what mosquito research & authors would you have rather seen included?

I guess when you only read one side of the debate you don't learn anything negative about your side

So, um, which side exactly are you on?

[Nederland]

81. No

I'm actually quite happy at this point. How are you doing?

[NoOneMan]

83. Depends

Things could go really south if those mosquito models are wrong

[Nederland]

88. Damn straight

Those mosquitos could kill us all, if the guy who has studied malaria his whole life is wrong.

[Viking12]

77. So you can't really provide any names.

Typical. Also typical that you fail to distinguish Wg1, WG2, WG3 in a discussion about WG1 topics.


BTW, your 'inside source' is well-known as part of the denier machine. Funny how you rely so frequently on those sources.

March 8, 2007

Reiter appeared in the Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

The program featured numerous prominent climate change skeptics such as Tim Ball, Nir Shaviv, Nigel Lawson, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, John Christy, Pilip Stott, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Moore, Patrick Michaels, Nigel Calder, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, and Paul Driessen.

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1mMNs)



http://www.desmogblog.com/paul-reiter

[Nederland]

82. So you really have no proof.

The link I posted is testimony of a scientist that has studied malaria for decades, and he claims that none of the authors of the material describing the impact global warming will have on diseases like malaria had ever published a paper on the subject. Proving him wrong is rather simple: produce a paper.

[Viking12]

85. Provide some names.

Or do you just repeat denier testimony on faith?

[Nederland]

87. The names of the lead authors are on first page of every chapter.

On the off hand chance you don't have access to the internet, here they are:

I. Burton (Canada), B. Challenger (Antigua and Barbuda), S. Huq (Bangladesh),
R.J.T. Klein (Germany/The Netherlands), G. Yohe (USA)

[Viking12]

91. So which one are you suggesting isn't qualified?

You do know that AR4 WG2 Chapter 18 isn't 'Human Health' as Reiter's testimony states, right? I'm sure it's just a typo though, the 'Human Health' chapter Reiter refers to is actually Chapter 8. That you don't understand that detail shows you have no idea what you're talking about and just repeat denier crap (see Himalayan glaciers above).

Here are the credentials of the Coordinating Lead Authors you listed:
Huq
http://www.iied.org/users/saleemul-huq
Klein
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GXuL9-8AAAAJ&hl=en

Want to try again?

Again, do you understand the difference between WG1, WG2, and WG3?

[Nederland]

93. The criticism Reiter was making was of SAR, not AR4.

That is quite clear if you read the text of his appearance before Parliament.

As to which one isn't qualified, if Reiter's claim that "not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject" is true, I'd have to ask you which one you think was qualified.

[Viking12]

95. None of the people you named were authors of SAR, WG2, Chapter 18

Want to try again? or are you just going to provide some weasel answer?

Name, specifically the people you think are/were not qualified along with the specific chapter they authored. Explain why you think they are/were not qualified. Show, specifically, how they improperly influenced the assessment. Until you're prepared to make a non-weasel post, I'm done with your denier bullshit. Again.

[Nederland]

98. You are correct

I pulled those names off TAR by mistake, sorry. However, since you knew that none of those names were lead authors, you obviously have the list yourself. So take that list and show me a paper that one of them published before SAR was.

Here is the link:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/2nd-assessment-en.pdf

Chapter 18: Human population health
Convening lead author
A.J. McMichael, Australia/UK
Principal lead authors
M. Ando, Japan; R. Carcavallo, Argentina; P. Epstein, USA; A. Haines,
UK; G. Jendritzky, Germany; L. Kalkstein, USA; R. Odongo, Kenya;
J. Patz, USA; W. Piver, USA
Contributors
R. Anderson, UK; S. Curto de Casas, Argentina; I. Galindez Giron,
Venezuela; S. Kovats, UK; W.J.M. Martens, The Netherlands; D. Mills,
USA; A.R. Moreno, Mexico; W. Reisen, USA; R. Slooff, WHO;
D. Waltner-Toews, Canada; A. Woodward, New Zealand

[CRH]

54. On what basis do you insist he is not qualified, ...

is that Phd. some magical level of supposed competence?

What is the sad fact, is the political and economic influence on the determination of the science. How can you have faith in the IPCC when their conclusions are being steered in the directions economy and politics dictates. This AR5 to be released in increments starting in Sept. of 2013 will be just as incomplete, edited, and obsolete, as the previous editions.

Did you know, that the emissions from the permafrost that is in the process of thawing as we speak, will not be included in any of the temperature models? That the UNEP paper just released admits the temperature models will be bias downward, and the anthropogenic emissions levels being sought in negotiations will be biased upwards. So even if an emissions agreement can be reached, it will still promote runaway warming with additional feedbacks.

It is not hard to figure why these emissions are being left out. We have over 2700 Gt of global carbon reserves owned by countries and corporations. Even if one is irrationally optimistic and believes to 2*C world is still possible, that permits only the use of 20% of that stock, another optimistic assumption. Now, cut that number in half for the natural release of CO2 and Methane from the permafrost, and you have a very slim allowance of CO2e expenditure over the next nine decades. Not enough to support agriculture, transportation, electric generation, or basically what we refer to as, civilization. You want the kicker? How much of the capitalist foundation of credit creation and capital creation and circulation, is based on fossil fuel reserves? There is not a solvent stock exchange on the planet, when you remove the value given to 90% of the fossil fuel reserves. To use them is mass suicide, to not use them is collapse of capital and credit. Those reserves have the same multiplier effect that banks have for a single dollar of physical collateral, that is then multiplied into 10 or more non collateralised credit dollars. In short, when the real value of those reserves becomes obvious, capitalism fails, as well as dictatorships supported by fossil fuels.

So this next IPCC report already has a built in obsolescence complete with political and economic bias in temperature models and emission pathways, that virtually guarantees runaway global warming.

The newly released UNEP report on permafrost.

http://policypointers.org/Page/View/14799 or
http://www.unep.org/pdf/permafrost.pdf

Commission a Special Report on Permafrost Emissions: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may consider preparing a special assessment report on how CO2 and methane emissions from thawing permafrost would influence global climate to support climate change policy discussions and treaty negotiations. All climate projections in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, due for release in 2013-14, are likely to be biased on the low side relative to global temperature because the models did not include the permafrost carbon feedback. Consequently, targets for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions based on these climate projections would be biased high. The treaty in negotiation sets a global target warming of 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100. If anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions targets do not account for CO2 and methane emissions from thawing permafrost, the world may overshoot this target.

end

[joshcryer]

57. Cute, sounds like the IPCC won't include permafrost in AR5.

It'll be a special assessment report.

[CRH]

78. Yeah, and that is only a recommendation, ...

by UNEP. It in no way binds the IPCC to do a special assessment, and even if they do, there is no guarantee it won't be a limited edition. It might not be for public consumption.

[joshcryer]

79. Those special assessments fly under the radar anyway.

And they are ignored because they're not in the Summary for Policy Makers.

Just as drought is not in the Summary for Policy Makers.

Even as we're seeing extremely dramatically bad heatwaves in a few decades.

Now, what are the three biggest feedbacks that we didn't know whether they were going to be positive?

1) Clouds. Positive.
2) Sea ice. Positive.
3) Permafrost / clathrates. Positive.

[CRH]

97. I think clouds were once thought to be negative feedbacks, ...

so that one turned 180*. Remind me of how many negative feedbacks have been found? Isn't it zero?

[joshcryer]

99. I know of none historical time scale negative feedbacks.

One might be able to say higher storm intensity is a negative feedback in historical terms (because it builds up a lot of energy in the atmosphere and transfers it elsewhere, ie, into buildings, houses, cars, etc). But that'd be stretching it a lot.

All the hopes for negative feedbacks are lost.

The only negative feedbacks we have are post-civilization / post-carbon, and are biological and geological in nature.

[Nederland]

101. I think aerosols have negative feedbacks

Not sure though.

[joshcryer]

102. Yeah, that's true, but civilization kinda hates smog.

So aerosols have not contributed a net negative feedback in a long time, since the 60-70s.

Which, btw, is precisely why I think the world will resort to geoengineering with sulphate aerosols when we hit a 10 year drought or some such. No big deal.

China's already building one of the worlds largest water transportation systems to get water where it's needed after their industry corrupted water sources. And dried others up. It's amusing to see how we're adapting to the damage we're already doing (not necessarily climate change specific, I know).

[Viking12]

106. Aerosols = forcing. Not feedback

[Nederland]

109. Aerosols are both

That increasing aerosols are a negative forcing is unquestioned. However, water condenses around aerosol particles in the air, which has an impact on cloud formation and precipitation. The net impact is not fully understood yet, but it is certainly possible that aerosols will at some point be determined to have negative feedbacks.

http://atmo.tamu.edu/class/atmo689-gs/lectureweek10/aerosolreview.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011JD016816.shtml

[joshcryer]

112. Actually, he does have a point. Aerosols require action by humans.

Feedbacks do not. They happen without human action.

Aerosols therefore are a forcing.

[joshcryer]

113. Thanks, my thoughts were muddled at the time.

[NoOneMan]

58. "...will not be included in any of the temperature models"

I'm a bit annoyed that the arm-chair contrarians who laud the virtues of scientific consensus conveniently ignore the faults of this particular consensus machine; namely, dated information assimilation, exclusion of relevant data and the political influence on the body (and their potential, reciprocal influence on politics).

In any case, its beyond apparent that what the IPCC produces is not the best possible representation of the most current science on the matter; it is not the divine work of God equivalent to the Holy Bible (though, it may be following a similar path as the canonization? of the Holy works, where as anti-establishment texts are excluded on an arbitrary basis). Throwing feces at "extremists" and "alarmists" who try to take into account relevant, peer-reviewed research that is not included in the IPCC is not helpful to the discussion or useful. Frankly, it has no more merit than calling someone "poopyhead".

Just because governments created a body to produce the conceptual framework they must abide by while considering climate change in policy discussions, it does not mean that new but excluded research is "out of bounds" in discussions by non-government bodies (like scientists, or even here). The attempt to force everyone to follow arbitrary rules to restrict dialogue reeks of severe bias (beyond just loving the "scientific process&quot .

If these people really loved "science", instead of reinforcing establishment consensus and dismissing novel views, wouldn't they spend their time imploring the IPCC--through any means possible--to include the latests, established data in all their models? Its not truth they are after, but rather, shutting down undesirable dialogue.

Maybe DU "extremists" (without being beholden to a government) should start compiling their own climate reports and screaming at anyone who discusses anything outside the consensus they personally reach (which will be influenced by how they feel about the global economy). That might "win" some points; in any case, climate change won't take much notice.

[AverageJoe90]

61. Isn't it perhaps possible that methane may not have as much of a impact.....

on temperatures as many(myself included, perhaps), might have assumed? There's got to be some plausible reason behind this.
http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/METHANE.html

Also, 'anti-establishment' texts? LOL.

In any case, its beyond apparent that what the IPCC produces is not the best possible representation of the most current science on the matter; it is not the divine work of God equivalent to the Holy Bible (though, it may be following a similar path as the canonization? of the Holy works, where as anti-establishment texts are excluded on an arbitrary basis). Throwing feces at "extremists" and "alarmists" who try to take into account relevant, peer-reviewed research that is not included in the IPCC is not helpful to the discussion or useful. Frankly, it has no more merit than calling someone "poopyhead".

Just because governments created a body to produce the conceptual framework they must abide by while considering climate change in policy discussions, it does not mean that new but excluded research is "out of bounds" in discussions by non-government bodies (like scientists, or even here). The attempt to force everyone to follow arbitrary rules to restrict dialogue reeks of severe bias (beyond just loving the "scientific process&quot .

If these people really loved "science", instead of reinforcing establishment consensus and dismissing novel views, wouldn't they spend their time imploring the IPCC--through any means possible--to include the latests, established data in all their models? Its not truth they are after, but rather, shutting down undesirable dialogue.

Well, unlike folks like Guy McPherson, the IPCC actually IS truly concerned with the latest working data and making sure that it's actually plausible(to a fault, IMO, because sometimes they have indeed fallen behind a bit.). And, btw, what certain people around here may call "novel views", the real science says it's junk. (And don't get me started the on name-calling, either: I can't count how many times I myself had been labelled a "denier" on here just because I don't believe the "Human extinction by AGW alone!" hype, or by pointing out that the extreme views on both sides are wrong, or that the consensus isn't quite as inaccurate as some want to believe, etc.)

The IPCC may not be perfect but the last thing we need is pseudoscience to gum up the works no matter if it's coming from Monckton or Watts, OR Wasdell, Light, and McPherson.

[NoOneMan]

64. You aren't allowed to allude to that "possibility" without a leaked IPCC AR5 snippet to back you up

So stop. Just stop. You can't even sing a song about it!

There's got to be some plausible reason

That's what they keep saying about why a theistic God doesn't stop evil. We just damn well can't figure it out already, so our justification is based on faith alone (and faith is belief without proof).

Now my opinion is that there is a reason, and its not related to the scientific veracity of the research but rather its political and social implications. In the meantime, what we know is that the models are incomplete and all we have to go on is then informed extrapolation of the established data (which is what "extremists" are being criticized for doing).

Also, 'anti-establishment' texts? LOL.

Yes, I was mentioning that in reference to the canonization of biblical texts, which did exclude much gnostic literature that would have undermined their power. Likewise, any research that undermines the sole demonstrated purpose of civilization (infinite acceleration of the velocity of energy) may not be "canonized" by the body that civilization has created to observe this phenomenon (we certainly see relevant, peer-reviewed research not being assimilated already).

what certain people around here may call "novel views"

My reference to "novel" is recent peer-reviewed research that is not included in IPCC models or assessments.

[Nederland]

89. Laud the virtues of scientific consensus?

Seriously? Do you realize that one of the main criticisms of the contrarians is that they ignore the scientific consensus? For years the global warming alarmists have been beating the "98% of all scientists agree..." drum. Curious that now that consensus is shifting just the tiniest bit to the less hysterical side you are all in a rush to drop that meme...

[NoOneMan]

104. 2 points

1) "Consensus" of the scientific community recently has been used (by nearly every thinking human) primarily against man-made global warming denialists who hold up Koch or BP funded exceptions as "proof" that man-made global warming is false. It hasn't been widely used by us "alarmists" beyond that regarding the severity of the warming (there is a wide amount of disagreement and new information constantly coming out, the more we learn about feedbacks). Quite a different context, no doubt

2) An no, consensus is not shifting to the less hysterical side whatsoever regarding the severity of warming. I'm not sure on what basis you make this assertion. The main complaint is that the IPCC is rather ignoring a lot of new research on feedbacks (or is slow to assimilate it) that would significantly impact the current models.

[Nederland]

107. Proof?

Can you offer some links to back up these assertions? In particular, I'd like to see proof that the IPCC is "ignoring a lot of new research" on feedbacks.

[NoOneMan]

108. Have you heard of permafrost thawing? nt

[Nederland]

110. Yes, and the subject is considered in this report (nt)

[Nederland]

84. He is not qualified according to the criteria Rajendra Pachauri claimed was used

This is what Pachauri said about the people that created the report:

These are people who have been chosen on the basis of their track record, on their record of
publications, on the research that they have done...They are people who are at the top of their
profession...

[Viking12]

92. Pachauri made that statement about authors, not reviewers.

Keep up.

[Nederland]

94. You are correct

I had forgotten that being completely unqualified was not a barrier to becoming an IPCC reviewer...

[Viking12]

96. Reviewer doesn't mean author.

That's how your denier friends have been able to release the drafts.

You thinly veiled attempts to smear the IPCC in this thread are getting more apparent by the minute.

[Nederland]

100. So it doesn't bother you that reviewers are often unqualified?

More importantly, the original comment (http://www.democraticunderground.com/112731105#post39) that spawned this sub-thread was a complaint that the draft did not address the concerns of David Wasdell. I pointed out that David Wasdell has a doctorate is in psychology as a way of asking why the IPCC should feel like it should address his concerns. Does the IPCC have an obligation to address the concerns of a person with an opinion simply because they have a Phd in an unrelated subject?

[joshcryer]

115. David Wasdell is relevant for his criticism of scientific reticence.

Which his doctorate in psychology would support, since the criticism is of individuals action.