How does the IPCC review process work and how do they approve reports?

[CrusaderFrank]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same..

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.



the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

A lot of flap yap there, Ian, with no links to peer reviewed articles to back it up.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it to be grossly misleading and highly inaccurate, therefore making it an ideal candidate for inclusion in the IPCC next publication

 

[Old Rocks]

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Combined Effects of Deforestation and Doubled Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on the Climate of Amazonia
Marcos HeilCosta* and Jonathan A.Foley
Climate, People and Environment Program, Institute for Environmental Studies, and Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin


It is generally expected that the Amazon basin will experience at least two major environmental changes during the next few decades and centuries: 1) increasing areas of forest will be converted to pasture and cropland, and 2) concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise. In this study, the authors use the National Center for Atmospheric Research GENESIS atmospheric general circulation model, coupled to the Integrated Biosphere Simulator, to determine the combined effects of large-scale deforestation and increased CO2 concentrations (including both physiological and radiative effects) on Amazonian climate.

In these simulations, deforestation decreases basin-average precipitation by 0.73 mm day−1 over the basin, as a consequence of the general reduction in vertical motion above the deforested area (although there are some small regions with increased vertical motion). The overall effect of doubled CO2 concentrations in Amazonia is an increase in basin-average precipitation of 0.28 mm day−1. The combined effect of deforestation and doubled CO2, including the interactions among the processes, is a decrease in the basin-average precipitation of 0.42 mm day−1. While the effects of deforestation and increasing CO2 concentrations on precipitation tend to counteract one another, both processes work to warm the Amazon basin. The effect of deforestation and increasing CO2 concentrations both tend to increase surface temperature, mainly because of decreases in evapotranspiration and the radiative effect of CO2. The combined effect of deforestation and doubled CO2, including the interactions among the processes, increases the basin-average temperature by roughly 3.5°C.

Affects.

 

[Old Rocks]

0804.1126 Target atmospheric CO2 Where should humanity aim

Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?
J. Hansen (1 and 2), M. Sato (1 and 2), P. Kharecha (1 and 2), D. Beerling (3), R. Berner (4), V. Masson-Delmotte (5), M. Pagani(4), M. Raymo (6), D. L. Royer (7), J. C. Zachos (8) ((1) NASA GISS, (2) Columbia Univ. Earth Institute, (3) Univ. Sheffield, (4) Yale Univ., (5) LSCE/IPSL, (6) Boston Univ., (7) Wesleyan Univ., (8) Univ. California Santa Cruz)
(Submitted on 7 Apr 2008 (v1), last revised 15 Oct 2008 (this version, v3))
Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

More predictions.

 

[Old Rocks]

• 

1. 
   

Volume 36, Issue 5
March 2009

Oceans
Coral reefs may start dissolving when atmospheric CO2 doubles
Authors

• First published: 13 March 2009Full publication history
• DOI: 10.1029/2008GL036282View/save citation
• Cited by: 84 articlesRefreshcitation countCiting literature
• 
  Picked up by 2 news outlets
  
  Blogged by 3
  Tweeted by 1
  237 readers on Mendeley
  3 readers on CiteULike
  See more details | Close this
  × " data-badge-popover="bottom" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; cursor: pointer; color: rgb(47, 123, 174); display: inline-block; background-position: 0px 0px;">
  

Abstract
[1] Calcification rates in stony corals are expected to decline significantly in the near future due to ocean acidification. In this study we provide a global estimate of the decline in calcification of coral reefs as a result of increase in sea surface temperature and partial pressure of CO2. This estimate, unlike previously reported estimates, is based on an empirical rate law developed from field observations for gross community calcification as a function of aragonite degree of saturation (Ωarag), sea surface temperature and live coral cover. Calcification rates were calculated for more than 9,000 reef locations using model values of Ωarag and sea surface temperature at different levels of atmospheric CO2. The maps we produced show that by the time atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 will reach 560 ppm all coral reefs will cease to grow and start to dissolve.

Coral reefs may start dissolving when atmospheric CO2 doubles - Silverman - 2009 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

More effects.

 

[IanC]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same..

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.



the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

A lot of flap yap there, Ian, with no links to peer reviewed articles to back it up.

actually I have presented all of this before. I looked into boreholes and presented many links to the studies. it was only after I looked at numerous papers that I stumbled across this excellent combination by JoNova. I suggest you look up the three relevent paper yourself. I think you will find the graph to be quite accurate.

Old Rocks is doing his best to bury inconvenient posts under a flurry of off topic posts.

did you see thelist of links I bumped up for you? you were there, you saw it alll,yet you act like you are surprised and had neverseen itbefore.

 

[Old Rocks]

No Dr Glikson JoNova

Dr Andrew Glikson writes for Quadrant and I respond .
This is a copy. It begs the question. Dr Glikson, is an Earth and paleo-climate scientist at the Australian National University. He’s paid to give us both sides of the story.

No, Dr Glikson

This is a blog, why it is even included within Google Scholar is a good question. Joan Nova includes repeats all the tired worn out lies that you people constantly repeat. No worthwhile science, in fact, no science at all.

 

[orogenicman]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

Plenty of pundants, particularly on this forum, express serious doubts that the climate has warmed. I say pundants because it is clear that their arguments are politically driven, and because not a one of them, including you, is a scientist.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same.

Except for the pundants here that do express such doubts.

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

Two primary factors are proposed for the cause of the end of the little ice age:

1) The end of the Maunder Minimum (which caused the LIA in the first place) brought warmer temperatures, and;
2) End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon - The end of the Little Ice Age in the European Alps has long been a paradox to glaciology and climatology. Glaciers in the Alps began to retreat abruptly in the mid-19th century, but reconstructions of temperature and precipitation indicate that glaciers should have instead advanced into the 20th century. We observe that industrial black carbon in snow began to increase markedly in the mid-19th century and show with simulations that the associated increases in absorbed sunlight by black carbon in snow and snowmelt were of sufficient magnitude to cause this scale of glacier retreat. This hypothesis offers a physically based explanation for the glacier retreat that maintains consistency with the temperature and precipitation reconstructions.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

Is it? Really? Because most peer reviewed work suggests that we may already be past the point of avoiding a 2 degree increase by 2100. Moreover, we are already at the point where we have technologies and other methods of reducing carbon emissions. The most important methods are energy efficiency and reducing one's carbon foot print. That can and is being done today at an increasing rate.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

See above.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.

I'm sorry, Ian, but you cannot sugar coat the facts.

the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

Nonsense. Name a "natural cause" that has not been investigated and/or is not still being investigated? Secondly, you claim that the IPCC is more conservative in their conclusions that is generally known, and then suggest that the scientists working for ICPP are more "militant" than the general climate science community. And you make these claim without a shred of evidence in their support.

 

[IanC]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

Plenty of pundants, particularly on this forum, express serious doubts that the climate has warmed. I say pundants because it is clear that their arguments are politically driven, and because not a one of them, including you, is a scientist.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same.

Except for the pundants here that do express such doubts.

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

Two primary factors are proposed for the cause of the end of the little ice age:

1) The end of the Maunder Minimum (which caused the LIA in the first place) brought warmer temperatures, and;
2) End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon - The end of the Little Ice Age in the European Alps has long been a paradox to glaciology and climatology. Glaciers in the Alps began to retreat abruptly in the mid-19th century, but reconstructions of temperature and precipitation indicate that glaciers should have instead advanced into the 20th century. We observe that industrial black carbon in snow began to increase markedly in the mid-19th century and show with simulations that the associated increases in absorbed sunlight by black carbon in snow and snowmelt were of sufficient magnitude to cause this scale of glacier retreat. This hypothesis offers a physically based explanation for the glacier retreat that maintains consistency with the temperature and precipitation reconstructions.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

Is it? Really? Because most peer reviewed work suggests that we may already be past the point of avoiding a 2 degree increase by 2100. Moreover, we are already at the point where we have technologies and other methods of reducing carbon emissions. The most important methods are energy efficiency and reducing one's carbon foot print. That can and is being done today at an increasing rate.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

See above.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.

I'm sorry, Ian, but you cannot sugar coat the facts.

the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

Nonsense. Name a "natural cause" that has not been investigated and/or is not still being investigated? Secondly, you claim that the IPCC is more conservative in their conclusions that is generally known, and then suggest that the scientists working for ICPP are more "militant" than the general climate science community. And you make these claim without a shred of evidence in their support.

I expect people to be relatively informed on the issues. I am not here to teach anyone, I am here to hear interesting ideas. obviously a needle in a haystack but what can you do/

an example is extreme weather. IPCC doesnt lay human attribution on extreme weather but the media sure does.

 

[orogenicman]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

Plenty of pundants, particularly on this forum, express serious doubts that the climate has warmed. I say pundants because it is clear that their arguments are politically driven, and because not a one of them, including you, is a scientist.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same.

Except for the pundants here that do express such doubts.

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

Two primary factors are proposed for the cause of the end of the little ice age:

1) The end of the Maunder Minimum (which caused the LIA in the first place) brought warmer temperatures, and;
2) End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon - The end of the Little Ice Age in the European Alps has long been a paradox to glaciology and climatology. Glaciers in the Alps began to retreat abruptly in the mid-19th century, but reconstructions of temperature and precipitation indicate that glaciers should have instead advanced into the 20th century. We observe that industrial black carbon in snow began to increase markedly in the mid-19th century and show with simulations that the associated increases in absorbed sunlight by black carbon in snow and snowmelt were of sufficient magnitude to cause this scale of glacier retreat. This hypothesis offers a physically based explanation for the glacier retreat that maintains consistency with the temperature and precipitation reconstructions.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

Is it? Really? Because most peer reviewed work suggests that we may already be past the point of avoiding a 2 degree increase by 2100. Moreover, we are already at the point where we have technologies and other methods of reducing carbon emissions. The most important methods are energy efficiency and reducing one's carbon foot print. That can and is being done today at an increasing rate.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

See above.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.

I'm sorry, Ian, but you cannot sugar coat the facts.

the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

Nonsense. Name a "natural cause" that has not been investigated and/or is not still being investigated? Secondly, you claim that the IPCC is more conservative in their conclusions that is generally known, and then suggest that the scientists working for ICPP are more "militant" than the general climate science community. And you make these claim without a shred of evidence in their support.

I expect people to be relatively informed on the issues. I am not here to teach anyone, I am here to hear interesting ideas. obviously a needle in a haystack but what can you do/

You can start by addressing the concerns I presented, above.

an example is extreme weather. IPCC doesnt lay human attribution on extreme weather but the media sure does.

In case you were wondering, the IPCC does not control the media.

 

[IanC]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

Plenty of pundants, particularly on this forum, express serious doubts that the climate has warmed. I say pundants because it is clear that their arguments are politically driven, and because not a one of them, including you, is a scientist.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same.

Except for the pundants here that do express such doubts.

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

Two primary factors are proposed for the cause of the end of the little ice age:

1) The end of the Maunder Minimum (which caused the LIA in the first place) brought warmer temperatures, and;
2) End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon - The end of the Little Ice Age in the European Alps has long been a paradox to glaciology and climatology. Glaciers in the Alps began to retreat abruptly in the mid-19th century, but reconstructions of temperature and precipitation indicate that glaciers should have instead advanced into the 20th century. We observe that industrial black carbon in snow began to increase markedly in the mid-19th century and show with simulations that the associated increases in absorbed sunlight by black carbon in snow and snowmelt were of sufficient magnitude to cause this scale of glacier retreat. This hypothesis offers a physically based explanation for the glacier retreat that maintains consistency with the temperature and precipitation reconstructions.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

Is it? Really? Because most peer reviewed work suggests that we may already be past the point of avoiding a 2 degree increase by 2100. Moreover, we are already at the point where we have technologies and other methods of reducing carbon emissions. The most important methods are energy efficiency and reducing one's carbon foot print. That can and is being done today at an increasing rate.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

See above.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.

I'm sorry, Ian, but you cannot sugar coat the facts.

the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

Nonsense. Name a "natural cause" that has not been investigated and/or is not still being investigated? Secondly, you claim that the IPCC is more conservative in their conclusions that is generally known, and then suggest that the scientists working for ICPP are more "militant" than the general climate science community. And you make these claim without a shred of evidence in their support.

I expect people to be relatively informed on the issues. I am not here to teach anyone, I am here to hear interesting ideas. obviously a needle in a haystack but what can you do/

You can start by addressing the concerns I presented, above.

an example is extreme weather. IPCC doesnt lay human attribution on extreme weather but the media sure does.

In case you were wondering, the IPCC does not control the media.

I never said they did. I said they were more conservative in their views than what is publically expressed in the media. and gave an example.

 

[orogenicman]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

Plenty of pundants, particularly on this forum, express serious doubts that the climate has warmed. I say pundants because it is clear that their arguments are politically driven, and because not a one of them, including you, is a scientist.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same.

Except for the pundants here that do express such doubts.

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

Two primary factors are proposed for the cause of the end of the little ice age:

1) The end of the Maunder Minimum (which caused the LIA in the first place) brought warmer temperatures, and;
2) End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon - The end of the Little Ice Age in the European Alps has long been a paradox to glaciology and climatology. Glaciers in the Alps began to retreat abruptly in the mid-19th century, but reconstructions of temperature and precipitation indicate that glaciers should have instead advanced into the 20th century. We observe that industrial black carbon in snow began to increase markedly in the mid-19th century and show with simulations that the associated increases in absorbed sunlight by black carbon in snow and snowmelt were of sufficient magnitude to cause this scale of glacier retreat. This hypothesis offers a physically based explanation for the glacier retreat that maintains consistency with the temperature and precipitation reconstructions.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

Is it? Really? Because most peer reviewed work suggests that we may already be past the point of avoiding a 2 degree increase by 2100. Moreover, we are already at the point where we have technologies and other methods of reducing carbon emissions. The most important methods are energy efficiency and reducing one's carbon foot print. That can and is being done today at an increasing rate.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

See above.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.

I'm sorry, Ian, but you cannot sugar coat the facts.

the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

Nonsense. Name a "natural cause" that has not been investigated and/or is not still being investigated? Secondly, you claim that the IPCC is more conservative in their conclusions that is generally known, and then suggest that the scientists working for ICPP are more "militant" than the general climate science community. And you make these claim without a shred of evidence in their support.

I expect people to be relatively informed on the issues. I am not here to teach anyone, I am here to hear interesting ideas. obviously a needle in a haystack but what can you do/

You can start by addressing the concerns I presented, above.

an example is extreme weather. IPCC doesnt lay human attribution on extreme weather but the media sure does.

In case you were wondering, the IPCC does not control the media.

I never said they did. I said they were more conservative in their views than what is publically expressed in the media. and gave an example.

Can you give a specific example where the media attributed specific extreme weather events to human activities? I can name one in particular that is attributable to human activities, but I'll let you respond first.

 

[IanC]

No Dr Glikson JoNova

Dr Andrew Glikson writes for Quadrant and I respond .
This is a copy. It begs the question. Dr Glikson, is an Earth and paleo-climate scientist at the Australian National University. He’s paid to give us both sides of the story.

No, Dr Glikson

This is a blog, why it is even included within Google Scholar is a good question. Joan Nova includes repeats all the tired worn out lies that you people constantly repeat. No worthwhile science, in fact, no science at all.

hahahahaha. did he mispell her name to give himself plausible deniability?

did you see the links you asked for?

 

[IanC]

it's been a while since I laid out the general skeptic's case, so here goes nothing.

the globe has warmed over the last 100+ years. no one seriously doubts that, although the amount of warming is in question.

Plenty of pundants, particularly on this forum, express serious doubts that the climate has warmed. I say pundants because it is clear that their arguments are politically driven, and because not a one of them, including you, is a scientist.

also no one seriously doubts that CO2 has increased, or that there is a known mechanism whereby CO2 can disrupt the atmospheric radiative balance in such a way as to increase surface temperature, with all other factors remaining the same.

Except for the pundants here that do express such doubts.

what remains in serious doubt are the factors that brought the globe out of the LIA, the feedbacks that control how much warming can be caused by CO2, and the models that predict what will happen.

Two primary factors are proposed for the cause of the end of the little ice age:

1) The end of the Maunder Minimum (which caused the LIA in the first place) brought warmer temperatures, and;
2) End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon - The end of the Little Ice Age in the European Alps has long been a paradox to glaciology and climatology. Glaciers in the Alps began to retreat abruptly in the mid-19th century, but reconstructions of temperature and precipitation indicate that glaciers should have instead advanced into the 20th century. We observe that industrial black carbon in snow began to increase markedly in the mid-19th century and show with simulations that the associated increases in absorbed sunlight by black carbon in snow and snowmelt were of sufficient magnitude to cause this scale of glacier retreat. This hypothesis offers a physically based explanation for the glacier retreat that maintains consistency with the temperature and precipitation reconstructions.

theoretical calculations show that CO2 should cause roughly one degree celcius warming per doubling. that is not enough to cause the calamities that are forecast and it is much cheaper to adapt to changes rather than collapse industry, at least until technology has developed strategies that will actually work.

Is it? Really? Because most peer reviewed work suggests that we may already be past the point of avoiding a 2 degree increase by 2100. Moreover, we are already at the point where we have technologies and other methods of reducing carbon emissions. The most important methods are energy efficiency and reducing one's carbon foot print. That can and is being done today at an increasing rate.

CO2 theory is in a shambles. the original 3-5C warming forecast is obviously incorrect and climate sensitivities are falling like a rock towards 1C, but the theory hasnt been revamped to match actual measurements.

See above.

so the skeptic's case is not the opposite of the warmer's position, it is basically the same without the forecasts of doom because it involves the same principles but at a much smaller scale.

I'm sorry, Ian, but you cannot sugar coat the facts.

the IPCC takes the warmer's side but is actually much more conservative than what is usually publicized. they focus on human attribution and therefore miss out on opportunities to investigate natural causes which play a much larger part than commonly known. the lead author's have a lot of discretion on what they put into the report and it shows. these authors have been picked from the more militant faction of climate scientists and contrary views are specifically undermined or ignored.

Nonsense. Name a "natural cause" that has not been investigated and/or is not still being investigated? Secondly, you claim that the IPCC is more conservative in their conclusions that is generally known, and then suggest that the scientists working for ICPP are more "militant" than the general climate science community. And you make these claim without a shred of evidence in their support.

I expect people to be relatively informed on the issues. I am not here to teach anyone, I am here to hear interesting ideas. obviously a needle in a haystack but what can you do/

You can start by addressing the concerns I presented, above.

an example is extreme weather. IPCC doesnt lay human attribution on extreme weather but the media sure does.

In case you were wondering, the IPCC does not control the media.

I never said they did. I said they were more conservative in their views than what is publically expressed in the media. and gave an example.

Can you give a specific example where the media attributed specific extreme weather events to human activities? I can name one in particular that is attributable to human activities, but I'll let you respond first.

you know, I seldom just criticize a posting. I usually add some sort of thought to the mix that at least I think is relevant. if you think I am wrong, give the reasons why you think that way. just asking me questions without adding your original thoughts is boring. I like to hear myself talk as much as the next fellow but it gets ridiculous when you guys just want me to talk so you can complain about what I have said.

grow a set.

 

[orogenicman]

Plenty of pundants, particularly on this forum, express serious doubts that the climate has warmed. I say pundants because it is clear that their arguments are politically driven, and because not a one of them, including you, is a scientist.

Except for the pundants here that do express such doubts.

Two primary factors are proposed for the cause of the end of the little ice age:

1) The end of the Maunder Minimum (which caused the LIA in the first place) brought warmer temperatures, and;
2) End of the Little Ice Age in the Alps forced by industrial black carbon - The end of the Little Ice Age in the European Alps has long been a paradox to glaciology and climatology. Glaciers in the Alps began to retreat abruptly in the mid-19th century, but reconstructions of temperature and precipitation indicate that glaciers should have instead advanced into the 20th century. We observe that industrial black carbon in snow began to increase markedly in the mid-19th century and show with simulations that the associated increases in absorbed sunlight by black carbon in snow and snowmelt were of sufficient magnitude to cause this scale of glacier retreat. This hypothesis offers a physically based explanation for the glacier retreat that maintains consistency with the temperature and precipitation reconstructions.

Is it? Really? Because most peer reviewed work suggests that we may already be past the point of avoiding a 2 degree increase by 2100. Moreover, we are already at the point where we have technologies and other methods of reducing carbon emissions. The most important methods are energy efficiency and reducing one's carbon foot print. That can and is being done today at an increasing rate.

See above.

I'm sorry, Ian, but you cannot sugar coat the facts.

Nonsense. Name a "natural cause" that has not been investigated and/or is not still being investigated? Secondly, you claim that the IPCC is more conservative in their conclusions that is generally known, and then suggest that the scientists working for ICPP are more "militant" than the general climate science community. And you make these claim without a shred of evidence in their support.

I expect people to be relatively informed on the issues. I am not here to teach anyone, I am here to hear interesting ideas. obviously a needle in a haystack but what can you do/

You can start by addressing the concerns I presented, above.

an example is extreme weather. IPCC doesnt lay human attribution on extreme weather but the media sure does.

In case you were wondering, the IPCC does not control the media.

I never said they did. I said they were more conservative in their views than what is publically expressed in the media. and gave an example.

Can you give a specific example where the media attributed specific extreme weather events to human activities? I can name one in particular that is attributable to human activities, but I'll let you respond first.

you know, I seldom just criticize a posting. I usually add some sort of thought to the mix that at least I think is relevant. if you think I am wrong, give the reasons why you think that way. just asking me questions without adding your original thoughts is boring. I like to hear myself talk as much as the next fellow but it gets ridiculous when you guys just want me to talk so you can complain about what I have said.

grow a set.

It is of no concern to me that you are bored with my questions. It is of concern to me that you are apparently refusing to answer them. You made some specific claims that I have questioned. If you can't be bothered to support those claims, then you are should probably explain to me why I should otherwise accept them as credible. Because so far - damn.

 

[jc456]

On what grounds? The grounds that there isn't any! I have asked day after day and nothing. You'd think you'd have something, but nope

The world's climate scientists have produced mountains of evidence supporting AGW and exceedingly little evidence challenging it. That, I'm afraid, is a cold hard fact. Your ridiculous challenges do no one any good, especially those on your side of this argument.

dude, how long has this banter been going on. Since as you just stated there is all this evidence, then merely point to the link that shows that CO2 drives temperatures. that's a simple one don't you think?

"Banter" is not science. You didn't know this? Huh.

As usual, no supporting evidence from the tons of evidence stated by my opposition. Where is it?

Stating that you have an opposition assumes you have an opposing argument that is supported with evidence. Since you don't have either, non-sequitur.

you know, you're exactly right, since you all can't provide your evidence, then you obviously agree there is none so you are just making stuff up.

My evidence that CO2 lags temperature:

 

[orogenicman]

Dr Tomas James Rees? Has a PhD in Microbiological technology. He also got a D in math. Next.

 

[IanC]

Orogeniman's avatar should be a child with its fingers solidly stuffed in its ears chanting na-na-na.

 

[jc456]

I expect people to be relatively informed on the issues. I am not here to teach anyone, I am here to hear interesting ideas. obviously a needle in a haystack but what can you do/

You can start by addressing the concerns I presented, above.

an example is extreme weather. IPCC doesnt lay human attribution on extreme weather but the media sure does.

In case you were wondering, the IPCC does not control the media.

I never said they did. I said they were more conservative in their views than what is publically expressed in the media. and gave an example.

Can you give a specific example where the media attributed specific extreme weather events to human activities? I can name one in particular that is attributable to human activities, but I'll let you respond first.

you know, I seldom just criticize a posting. I usually add some sort of thought to the mix that at least I think is relevant. if you think I am wrong, give the reasons why you think that way. just asking me questions without adding your original thoughts is boring. I like to hear myself talk as much as the next fellow but it gets ridiculous when you guys just want me to talk so you can complain about what I have said.

grow a set.

It is of no concern to me that you are bored with my questions. It is of concern to me that you are apparently refusing to answer them. You made some specific claims that I have questioned. If you can't be bothered to support those claims, then you are should probably explain to me why I should otherwise accept them as credible. Because so far - damn.

so saith the dude who never answers any question to then demand everyone answer his. toot toot. Got that evidence farm boy?

 

[Crick]

Orogeniman's avatar should be a child with its fingers solidly stuffed in its ears chanting na-na-na.

Oddly, that's precisely what I think of when I think of you.

 

[IanC]

Orogeniman's avatar should be a child with its fingers solidly stuffed in its ears chanting na-na-na.

Oddly, that's precisely what I think of when I think of you.

Oddly, you find the time to make a childish comment of 'I know you are but what am I' but you don't seem to be able to find the time to comment on how the IPCC breaks its own rules. Interesting.