Climate Change Theory Degenerates into farce

[JCR]

British researchers who have seen drafts of last month's report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claim it was significantly watered down when governments became involved in writing it.

David Wasdell, an independent analyst of climate change who acted as an accredited reviewer of the report, says the preliminary version produced by scientists in April 2006 contained many references to the potential for climate to change faster than expected because of "positive feedbacks" in the climate system. Most of these references were absent from the final version.

His assertion is based on a line-by-line analysis of the scientists' report and the final version, which was agreed last month at a week-long meeting of representatives of more than 100 governments. Wasdell told New Scientist: "I was astounded at the alterations that were imposed by government agents during the final stage of review. The evidence of collusional suppression of well-established and world-leading scientific material is overwhelming."

He has prepared a critique, "Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?", which claims: "Political and economic interests have influenced the presented scientific material." He plans to publish the document online this week at www.meridian.org.uk/whats.htm.

Wasdell is not a climatologist, but his analysis was supported this week by two leading UK climate scientists and policy analysts. Ocean physicist Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge, who made the discovery that Arctic ice has thinned by 40 per cent over the past 25 years and also acted as a referee on the IPCC report, told New Scientist: "The public needs to know that the policy-makers' summary, presented as the united words of the IPCC, has actually been watered down in subtle but vital ways by governmental agents before the public was allowed to see it."

The public needs to know that the summary has been watered down in subtle but vital ways by governmental agents
Crispin Tickell, a long-standing UK government adviser on climate and a former ambassador to the UN, says: "I think David Wasdell's analysis is very useful, and unique of its kind. Others have made comparable points but not in such analytic detail."

Wasdell's central charge is that "reference to possible acceleration of climate change [was] consistently removed" from the final report. This happened both in its treatment of potential positive feedbacks from global warming in the future and in its discussion of recent observations of collapsing ice sheets and an accelerating rise in sea levels.

For instance, the scientists' draft report warned that natural systems such as rainforests, soils and the oceans would in future be less able to absorb greenhouse gas emissions. It said: "This positive feedback could lead to as much as 1.2 °C of added warming by 2100." The final version does not include this figure. It acknowledges that the feedback could exist but says: "The magnitude of this feedback is uncertain."

Similarly, the draft warned that warming will increase atmospheric levels of water vapour, which acts as a greenhouse gas. "Water vapour increases lead to a strong positive feedback," it said. "New evidence estimates a 40 to 50 per cent amplification of global mean warming." This was absent from the published version, replaced elsewhere with the much milder observation "Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback."

The final edit also removed references to growing fears that global warming is accelerating the discharge of ice from major ice sheets such as the Greenland sheet. This would dramatically speed up rises in sea levels and may already be doing so. The 2006 draft said: "Recent observations show rapid changes in ice sheet flows," and referred to an "accelerating trend" in sea-level rise. Neither detail made the final version, which observed that "ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica... could increase or decrease in future". Wasdell points out recent findings which show that the rate of loss from ice sheets is doubling every six years, making the suggestion of a future decrease "highly unlikely".

Some of the changes were made at the meeting of government invigilators that finalised the report last month in Paris. But others were made earlier, after the draft report was first distributed to governments in mid-2006.

Senior IPCC scientists contacted by New Scientist have not been willing to discuss how any changes took place but they deny any political interference. However, "if it is true, it's disappointing", says Mike Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University in University Park and a past lead author for the IPCC. "Allowing governmental delegations to ride into town at the last minute and water down conclusions after they were painstakingly arrived at in an objective scientific assessment does not serve society well."

SOURCE - Climate report 'was watered down' - environment - 08 March 2007 - New Scientist

[X-ray]

CO2 is not unnatural but a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere would be a disaster due its natural properties. You have to consider how delicate ecosystems really are. A single huge volcanic eruption for instance can be proved to influence climate due to temperature records and other evidence. (This you can find out very quickly from a mere google) Krakatoa for instance influenced climate, now compare the volume of gases from Krakatoa and the volume of gases from the activities of mankind. The rate of shrinkage in the polar caps is alarming, there is no precedent from human records, we don't know what the effect will be. But we do know the level of CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere and we do know CO2 traps heat. And we do know that heating affects climate. Again the question remains how much of this is down to us. But there is no other major source of warming agents, the only one that is scientifically verifiable is us, mankind. And no, polar shrinkage like this it has not been happening for longer than 60 years but that figure is not of great use because the industrial revolution took place centuries before that anyway. I have seen the effects of man made climate disaster all along the corridors of eastern Germany, the landscape was destroyed by acid rain. Man's activities can have verifiable terrible results. Your right about the Thames stalls of course, there was a mini ice age they called it around that time. The earth has cooled and warmed over its existence, with the resultant climate changes however there are reasons, its not random at all, and at the moment, based on a rational look at the the evidence, this time it looks like its us. Nature is delicate, very delicate, to deny we are affecting it seems strange given the facts. Why are you so adamant about this? After all, what backs up the statement that we can pump all this Co2 into the atmosphere with no consequence? Is there anything at all? The answer to that is the only black and white in this, the answer to that is no.

look I am not black and white on this at all, if you read my posts you will see that. I am not adamant, i have said several times it could be happening. But the debate needs to stay on the science. I suspect we have not got all the information yet. We simply don't know what is happening. It is most likely a mixture of things. It concerns me that all the political effort is directed at green house gas while plants and animals are being destroyed and the sea are poisoned. We have greens now saying we need nuclear power and mercury based light bulbs, they better be right.
Some of them would fail science in the junior cert yet shout facts at you.

you talk of acid rain, that has nothing to do with global warming, nobody cares about pollution any more as long as it is not greenhouse.

It is not since the end of WW2 we really started pumping out startling amounts of green house gases, but the warming trend seems to predate this. This is not black and white. It is also difficult to know what will happen if we stop now. Would the effort be better spent trying to remove what is there? Politically I cannot see oil remaining in the ground un-used in very poor countries. I mean if we found oil now we would have a party, that's human nature. We have a poor record at acting locally for benefits elsewhere on the planet.

The debate is not over, it is just starting.

[The Caped Cod]

I heard Xavier Bertrand, head of Sarozy's UMP party, this morning on the radio taling about the carbon tax and extolling the virtues of his chere president, and when asked about his reasoning about climate change he responded by saying 'I've watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and Home by Yann Arthus-Bertrand' (financed by Lagardère).
Says alot.

[JCR]

look I am not black and white on this at all, if you read my posts you will see that. I am not adamant, i have said several times it could be happening. But the debate needs to stay on the science. I suspect we have not got all the information yet. We simply don't know what is happening. It is most likely a mixture of things. It concerns me that all the political effort is directed at green house gas while plants and animals are being destroyed and the sea are poisoned. We have greens now saying we need nuclear power and mercury based light bulbs, they better be right.
Some of them would fail science in the junior cert yet shout facts at you.

you talk of acid rain, that has nothing to do with global warming, nobody cares about pollution any more as long as it is not greenhouse.

It is not since the end of WW2 we really started pumping out startling amounts of green house gases, but the warming trend seems to predate this. This is not black and white. It is also difficult to know what will happen if we stop now. Would the effort be better spent trying to remove what is there? Politically I cannot see oil remaining in the ground un-used in very poor countries. I mean if we found oil now we would have a party, that's human nature. We have a poor record at acting locally for benefits elsewhere on the planet.

The debate is not over, it is just starting.

In fact, a recent poll found that 97.4% of active climatologists agree that human activity is warming the planet.

Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired. -

The time for debate is ongoing, the time for action is now. I don;t know what else to say about this, given what experts agree on - I do agree though that destruction of plant life both in the oceans and of course the rain forests are also significant factors. But I do suspect that this is the single area where expert scientific consensus is rejected by so many. I think if close on 100% of scientists told you you needed a certain course of medical action to survive you would take their advice and not call for more debate before you did anything? this is the situation of governments as I see it.

[JCR]

I heard Xavier Bertrand, head of Sarozy's UMP party, this morning on the radio taling about the carbon tax and extolling the virtues of his chere president, and when asked about his reasoning about climate change he responded by saying 'I've watched Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and Home by Yann Arthus-Bertrand' (financed by Lagardère).
Says alot.

So you think Al Gore made it all up?

[Húrin]

But the debate needs to stay on the science.

And yet you keep ranting about greens and earth-worshippers who supposedly don't care about the sea being poisoned. Why are you now accepting that the atmosphere is warming, when you denied it just a few posts ago? Fair enough if JCR's posts have convinced you but he is not presenting groundbreaking stuff. This information has been widespread for ages.

[fiannafailure]

I have always asserted that technology will come to our aid, as it always has done through the centuries, while some people shout from the rooftops that we need to tax the carbon out of our lives, others go about the business of innovation

Ordinary bricks are fired for 24 hours at 2,000 degrees F (1,093 C) as part of a process that can last a week, while Calstar bricks are baked at temperatures below 212 F (100 C) and take only 10 hours from start to finish, Kane said.

Silicon Valley reinvents the lowly brick | U.S. | Reuters

[zakalwe1]

NO.

1998 or 2005 was the warmest year on record (depending on source). You have fixed the result by starting with the warmest year. Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer then the last. It means the trend is for more warming. If you take the more appropriate measure, instead of individual years, you will see that this decade is (well on course to be) warmer than the last which itself was warmer than the last. How's that decade of cooling going now?

You're either being intentionally deceptive or you are laughably out of your depth.

can grapes grow wild in northern canada or greenland like c 1000ad?

cus i reckon it was warmer then than now.

of course they didn't have mercury thermometers so the record is held by 98 by your claim.

[zakalwe1]

Guys, it is worse than we think. If we don't stop Catastrophic Climate Change there will be volcanoes and tsunamis. The time for Climate denial is over, denying Climate Change should be a criminal offense.

Climate Change: University College London Conference Warns Of Tsunamis And Eruptions | UK News | Sky News







SAVE THE PLANET.

isn't it entirely possible that volcanos and earthquakes caused the melting of the glaciers etc.

correlation does not imply causation, unless your involved in pseudoscientific hyperbole!

[zakalwe1]

In fact, a recent poll found that 97.4% of active climatologists agree that human activity is warming the planet.

Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired. -

The time for debate is ongoing, the time for action is now. I don;t know what else to say about this, given what experts agree on - I do agree though that destruction of plant life both in the oceans and of course the rain forests are also significant factors. But I do suspect that this is the single area where expert scientific consensus is rejected by so many. I think if close on 100% of scientists told you you needed a certain course of medical action to survive you would take their advice and not call for more debate before you did anything? this is the situation of governments as I see it.

thats like saying 97.4% of estate agents think property offers sound investment options and value for money.

there is an agency (or advocacy) issue here....if climatologists do not claim that man made (therefore avoidable) global warming is a huge issue, then funding will be cut.