PDA

View Full Version : Warming schmorming.



LWW
04-19-2010, 04:50 PM
Hopefully the madness is near it's end.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It may be time for the United Nations' climate-studies scientists to go back to school.

A group of 40 auditors -- including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe -- have released a shocking report card on the U.N.'s landmark climate-change research report.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>And they gave 21 of the report's 44 chapters a grade of "F."</span>

The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org, found that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed.</span>

"We've been told this report is the gold standard," said Canadian global-warming skeptic Donna Laframboise, who runs the NoConsensus.org site and who organized the online effort to examine the U.N.'s references in the report, commonly known as the AR4.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have been nowhere near a scientific journal."</span>

Based on the grading system used in American schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report received an F for citing peer-reviewed sources less than 60 percent of the time. Four chapters received a D, and six received a C.

The report also got eight A's and five B's from the auditors, who included Bob Ashworth, a member of the American Geophysical Union, and Dr. Darko Butina, a director of Chemomine Consultancy Ltd.

According to Lafromboise, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>much of the scientific research published by the U.N. cited press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups</span>. Such material is often called "gray literature," she said, and it stands in stark contrast to the U.N.'s claims about the study's sources.

In June 2008, Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman, said: "People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions, given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.

"We don't pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings," he told a group at the Commonwealth Club.

The U.N. is not commenting in depth on the audit, but it has acknowledged its existence. Isabel Garcia-Gill, a spokeswoman for the IPCC in Geneva, told FoxNews.com that the U.N. knows of what she terms the "Laframboise report." She declined to answer further questions, and she asked that queries be sent by e-mail; she did not respond to such e-mails.

But not everyone agrees that "gray literature" is bad sourcing for a study. "The category of so-called gray literature includes valuable information that the IPCC -- and we -- shouldn't ignore," argued Peter Frumhoff, chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a lead author of the deforestation section of the last IPCC report.

"Handing out negative grades to the IPCC for simply being thorough is wrong," he said, adding that the IPCC should "look at all the information, including peer-reviewed papers as well as gray literature, which includes government reports and other important information sources. By and large, the IPCC process works exceptionally well and the independent review of IPCC procedures now underway will assess opportunities for further strengthening it."

Monique Hanis, a spokeswoman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, downplayed the importance of the report, saying that despite a handful of errors, there is still a pressing need for cleaner energy to help combat climate change.

"Regardless of the debate on the science of climate change, the facts are that we still need to reduce pollution, increase renewable energy sources and shift to a clean energy future," she said. "And despite the disappointing climate change event in Copenhagen, many of us in the industry are simply moving forward."

But other policy experts were unsurprised by the report. Dan Miller, a spokesman for the Heartland Institute, a non-profit think tank that is hosting a global warming conference next month in Chicago, said the bad grades given to the U.N. were apt.

"The IPCC deserves every stroke of its 'F' grade," Miller told FoxNews.com. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Not only is the data used in the report flawed and suspect, but even more egregiously, the IPCC authors -- <u>very few of whom indeed are scientists</u> -- refused to consult with scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC's defining hypothesis: that the Earth faces a crisis from rising global temperatures and that human activity played a significant role."</span>

"The authors' closed minds are a trait typical of propagandists, not scientists," he added.

Roni Bell Sylvester, editor of environmental policy site Land and Water USA, told FoxNews.com: "Any policy already made that is connected in any way to climate change/global warming/CO2 theories must be rescinded. Any policy in the works that is connected in any way to climate change/global warming/CO2 theories must be aborted."

There are still many who support restrictions on carbon emissions. A spokeswoman for carbon-accounting software firm Hara told FoxNews.com that the need for limits "will only get more critical, with climate-change legislation heating up in Cancun this fall." Corporate giants like Coca-Cola, and Safeway, are among Hara's customers, and venture funding is being provided by the firm Kleiner Perkins.

Others are calling for a more cautious approach than spending public or private dollars on discredited scientific research. "The correct policy to address this non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing," said Lord Christopher Monckton, who was a science adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and now is chief policy adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute. </div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;IPCC ON THE HOT SEAT&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/united-nations-climate-global-warming-ipcc/)

LWW

sack316
04-19-2010, 04:55 PM
I heard something today... and I'll have to look into it... but on the radio someone was talking about some new study that says if we continue to reduce pollution (such as smokestacks from factories) that it will cause more global warming. Huh? Pollute= kill the earth. Don't pollute=kill the earth.

I'm confused... but sure wish I had jumped on this bandwagon and gotten rich off of it.

Sack--- trying to think what the next global crisis may be, gotta get me some of that!

pooltchr
04-19-2010, 05:23 PM
I blame Bush.

Steve

cushioncrawler
04-19-2010, 05:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hopefully the madness is near it's end. LWW</div></div>Bullkrap -- The % of grey studys or % of grey anything haz little bearing. Az long az there iz good peer-reviewed science in there.
madMac.

cushioncrawler
04-20-2010, 12:50 AM
Newsflash just to hand.
The IPCC haz now republished Report 4 with all grey items remooved. Grey items now total 0% of eech chapter.

The grope of 40 hav now given all 44 chapters of Report 4 a grade of B.
Grope spokesman Dr I Lovegod sayd that Report 4 haznt had az much peer review az the The Holey Bible, which iz of course 100% peer reviewed, so they koodnt giv Report 4 an A, nor an A+ like the The Holey Bible.
madMac.

LWW
04-20-2010, 02:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I heard something today... and I'll have to look into it... but on the radio someone was talking about some new study that says if we continue to reduce pollution (such as smokestacks from factories) that it will cause more global warming. Huh? Pollute= kill the earth. Don't pollute=kill the earth.</div></div>

Global warming is the cause of all things.

LWW

LWW
04-20-2010, 02:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hopefully the madness is near it's end. LWW</div></div>Bullkrap -- The % of grey studys or % of grey anything haz little bearing. </div></div>

Then why did they feel obliged to include them in the first place?

LWW

Qtec
04-20-2010, 04:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I heard something today... and I'll have to look into it... but on the radio someone was talking about some new study that says if we continue to reduce pollution (such as smokestacks from factories) that it will cause more global warming. Huh? Pollute= kill the earth. Don't pollute=kill the earth.

I'm confused... but sure wish I had jumped on this bandwagon and gotten rich off of it.

Sack--- trying to think what the next global crisis may be, gotta get me some of that! </div></div>

Sack, what you are talking about is Global Dimming. Watch the video. good video from the BBC (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2058273530743771382#)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with a sceptical response from other scientists. It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires, produces not only invisible carbon dioxide (the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming) but also tiny airborne particles of soot, ash, sulphur compounds and other pollutants.

This visible air pollution reflects sunlight back into space, preventing it reaching the surface. But the pollution also changes the optical properties of clouds. Because the particles seed the formation of water droplets, polluted clouds contain a larger number of droplets than unpolluted clouds. Recent research shows that this makes them more reflective than they would otherwise be, again reflecting the Sun's rays back into space.

Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world's rainfall. There are suggestions that dimming was behind the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 1980s. There are disturbing hints the same thing may be happening today in Asia, home to half the world's population. "My main concern is global dimming is also having a detrimental impact on the Asian monsoon," says Prof Veerhabhadran Ramanathan, one of the world's leading climate scientists. "We are talking about billions of people."

But perhaps the most alarming aspect of global dimming is that it may have led scientists to underestimate the true power of the greenhouse effect. They know how much extra energy is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere by the extra carbon dioxide (CO2) we have placed there. What has been surprising is that this extra energy has so far resulted in a temperature rise of just 0.6C. </div></div> link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml)



Q

Qtec
04-20-2010, 04:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The team, <u>recruited by the climate-change skeptics </u></div></div>

ie paid to talk crap.

Q

sack316
04-20-2010, 04:56 AM
Thanks Q, but I believe what I heard was something different. I'm aware of global dimming (actually have posted a few things on it over the years here)... so that would have rung a bell with me were that what I had heard. If there is time I'll see if I can hunt down what may have been on the radio yesterday afternoon and figure out exactly what was being talked about.

Sack

LWW
04-20-2010, 06:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The team, <u>recruited by the climate-change skeptics </u></div></div>

ie paid to talk crap.

Q </div></div>

Then why did they retract the data?

LWW

cushioncrawler
04-20-2010, 05:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why did they retract the data? LWW</div></div>Dubb -- I woz only joking. To emphasize that % of this or % or that in a report duznt necessaryly meen anything.
It reminds me of that usofa General who served in Vietnam and came back and dumped on allmost everything. He made about 20 claims of fakt and policy etc that made usofa army stink. The army's counter-attack woz to add about 5 claims that he never made, and to discredit theze 5 claims. And, in one fell swoop, the army reduce hiz % from 100% to 80%, so without addressing hiz points at all they reduced hiz batting average.

But the points about pollution and dimming seem to miss the point that particle pollution haz a drastik effekt on climate change. From what i read, it probly inkreeces cloudyness, but mainly in the short-term it reduces rainfall. The reduktion in rainfall iz the killer (short-term).
madMac.

LWW
04-21-2010, 03:57 AM
Increases in cloud cover also increases rainfall.

The Earth is not a static system. Cloud cover is one way in which the planet regulates climate.

LWW