Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

[daveman]

Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

--

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data -- but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers."

--

What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who'll produce the "right" results.

The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.

Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.

In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.​

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, let us all get our scientific information from the likes of Limpbaugh.

The consensus is not only still there, it is stronger than ever as each year brings more events demonstrating a changing climate.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

Expert credibility in climate change
William R. L. Anderegga,1, James W. Prallb, Jacob Haroldc, and Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1
aDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; bElectrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S
3G4; cWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Palo Alto, CA 94025; and dWoods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and
expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists
on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American
public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic
cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A
broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the
distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to
agreeing researchers, and the level of agreementamong top climate
experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions.
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

 

[daveman]

Looked at the Himalayan glaciers lately, OR?

Remember...you're defending a body that made an official determination from a phone interview with one scientist.

You should demand better of them. But instead, you blindly support them.

 

[Big Fitz]

Looked at the Himalayan glaciers lately, OR?

Remember...you're defending a body that made an official determination from a phone interview with one scientist.

You should demand better of them. But instead, you blindly support them.

not to mention the research the IPCC used was actually articles by an activist for the WWF based on anecdotes from ice climbing guides in the Himalayas.

Not hard data.

 

[daveman]

Looked at the Himalayan glaciers lately, OR?

Remember...you're defending a body that made an official determination from a phone interview with one scientist.

You should demand better of them. But instead, you blindly support them.

not to mention the research the IPCC used was actually articles by an activist for the WWF based on anecdotes from ice climbing guides in the Himalayas.

Not hard data.

"But it FELT right!!"

Leftists. Long on feelings, short on facts and logic.

 

[glew]

Looked at the Himalayan glaciers lately, OR?

Remember...you're defending a body that made an official determination from a phone interview with one scientist.

You should demand better of them. But instead, you blindly support them.

It is a religion dave...And the followers are seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast. Of course if christians claimed they found god in science, who would be the first to "discredit" that science? The VM isn't in a piece of toast and God CAN'T be proven with science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Looked at the Himalayan glaciers lately, OR?

Remember...you're defending a body that made an official determination from a phone interview with one scientist.

You should demand better of them. But instead, you blindly support them.

Dumb ass, you are the one that has not looked at the Himalayan glaciers. Here is what the USGS has to say on that.

USGS Professional Paper 1386-F: Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- Asia

 

[daveman]

Looked at the Himalayan glaciers lately, OR?

Remember...you're defending a body that made an official determination from a phone interview with one scientist.

You should demand better of them. But instead, you blindly support them.

It is a religion dave...And the followers are seeing the Virgin Mary in a piece of toast. Of course if christians claimed they found god in science, who would be the first to "discredit" that science? The VM isn't in a piece of toast and God CAN'T be proven with science.

Yes, it's a religion...or, rather, cult.

I wouldn't mind that so much if they didn't want to collapse the economies of the Western world to "solve" the problem they invented.

 

[Old Rocks]

Daveboy, you are the one that is believing without evidence. Like most Conservatives, you would rather believe some fat face on the radio or tv, than invest a little research in finding out what real scientists are saying.

 

[manifold]

linkie no workie

 

[daveman]

Looked at the Himalayan glaciers lately, OR?

Remember...you're defending a body that made an official determination from a phone interview with one scientist.

You should demand better of them. But instead, you blindly support them.

Dumb ass, you are the one that has not looked at the Himalayan glaciers. Here is what the USGS has to say on that.

USGS Professional Paper 1386-F: Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- Asia

I don't think you read your own link. The Glaciers of Nepal chapter doesn't quantify glacial coverages over time.

 

[glew]

Daveboy, you are the one that is believing without evidence. Like most Conservatives, you would rather believe some fat face on the radio or tv, than invest a little research in finding out what real scientists are saying.

I think that might be backwards? Seems conservatives look past the left wing headlines while you liberals just take your pablum from mommy one spoon at a time. Mommy being the Government and whatever means they see to control us.

 

[daveman]

Daveboy, you are the one that is believing without evidence. Like most Conservatives, you would rather believe some fat face on the radio or tv, than invest a little research in finding out what real scientists are saying.

Wrong, Skippy. I HAVE found out what "real" scientists are saying. And the science simply doesn't back it up.

Just because you're gullible enough to fall for it doesn't mean everyone else is.

 

[westwall]

Looked at the Himalayan glaciers lately, OR?

Remember...you're defending a body that made an official determination from a phone interview with one scientist.

You should demand better of them. But instead, you blindly support them.

Dumb ass, you are the one that has not looked at the Himalayan glaciers. Here is what the USGS has to say on that.

USGS Professional Paper 1386-F: Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World -- Asia

Poor ignorant olfraud, you didn't bother to read any of the studies did you? Typical, well in a nutshell they go into great detail to describe just how difficult it is to do glacial studies in the Himalaya, even using LANDSAT (which a good friend of mine actually worked on) they
bemoan the fact that glaciers of under 100 meters are nearly impossible to catalogue. And for larger glaciers I will simply quote them.......

"Second, some glacier surfaces are covered by a combination of materials such as soil, ice, and rock that are not only hard to see but difficult to differentiate, so that snow facies and glacier structures are not distinguishable in the images. Third, observations with sensors in the visible part of the spectrum are impossible to make during the monsoon season, and are difficult at other times of the year (particularly in the afternoon) because of cloud cover. In addition, the orbital parameters of the Landsat satellite result in the images for this area being acquired in the morning hours which makes it difficult to see details on the western slopes of mountain ridges because of shadows. Therefore, results of the ground investigations conducted during the same period as this study provided a means of checking questionable Landsat interpretations."

The problem of course is there are very few glaciologists who can climb 5,000 meters up the side of a mountain, so clearly ground confirmation is rare. They also go on to mention just how recent the first systematic glacial surveys are (only beginning in 1976) they then follow on with this little missive....


"After some trial and error, the following criteria were established.
1. All snow and/or ice surface areas above the firn limit would be included in the “cryospheric zone.” However, there were severe difficulties in deciding whether these features were glacierized or not. The limit of perennial snow/ice cover becomes clear just before the summer monsoon season, April or May in the Himalaya, so a satellite image taken during that time period should be used, if available.
2. According to results obtained from preliminary studies in the area, it was not difficult to distinguish between the areas of supraglacial debris cover and the areas of moraine which had no subsurface ice body (at the image scale). This was because, after comparing Landsat images with ground observations, the supraglacial debris-covered area did not make much difference in the determination of the glacier extent.
These criteria can only be applied to glaciers larger than a certain limit— approximately several kilometers in length and several hundred meters in width. Therefore, glaciers smaller than this limit were not mapped as individual glaciers but were included in the total cryospheric area. It should be noted that debris-covered areas with stagnant and/or fossil ice, being remnants of past expansion, were not mapped as active glacier areas."


Interestingly enough though is the lack of AGW research being done. In fact the only reference I could find about any sort of GW crossover was this paragraph.....

"Changes in the δ18O concentrations in ice cores can be used to reconstruct changes in air temperature from the water-vapor source region to the ice-core site (White and others, 1989). Values of δ18O change in relation to temperature of formation of and distance from source water, storm track, altitude, and evaporation. In most ice cores, more negative δ18O values represent cooler air temperatures. Relative changes in air temperature at the Upper Fremont Glacier were reconstructed by determining the δ18O values from equally spaced samples along the entire length of the 1991 ice core (fig. 3B). Between the depths of 102 m and 150 m, numerous high-amplitude oscillations in the δ18O values were detected. The mean δ18O value for this depth range abruptly shifted to more negative values, corresponding to the approximate time interval from the mid-A.D. 1700s to mid-A.D. 1800s. This period of time coincides with the latter part of the “Little Ice Age” (LIA) (Naftz and others, 1996, 2004)."

So it looks like the USGS is not doing anything other than classifying and correcting past mistakes that other glaciologists have comited. They are actively researching some anthropogenic influences however, namely the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl and the open air nuc tests of the past.

You really need to read what you post olfraud, you just make yourself look like a doofus everytime you don't.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Ah yes, let us all get our scientific information from the likes of Limpbaugh.

Daveman's post is linked to the NY Post. You would have seen that had you actually read the info provided, MoldCocks.

 

[Old Rocks]

Asia's Vanishing Glaciers (Complete) | Video Library | Asia Society