PDA

View Full Version : All change at the IPCC


MagnusP
2nd Mar 2015, 11:43
I notice, with more than a little frisson of schadenfreude, that Pachauri has fallen on his sword. *

Dr Rajendra Pachauri: the clown of climate change has gone - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11441697/Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri-the-clown-of-climate-change-has-gone.html)

* Perhaps not a sword; maybe the blade of a wind turbine.

Ancient Mariner
2nd Mar 2015, 12:05
I notice that the above vitriol was written by Christopher Booker. I bet it made him feel good.
Per

sitigeltfel
2nd Mar 2015, 12:44
I notice that the above vitriol was written by Christopher Booker. I bet it made him feel good.
Per

http://www.nationofchange.org/sites/default/files/ShootingtheMessenger121013.jpg

Ancient Mariner
2nd Mar 2015, 12:51
Is Christopher Booker a messenger?
Or should I have written: " the above linked vitriol", since I was certainly not referring to Magnus' post. :hmm:
Per

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd Mar 2015, 13:00
It appears that a pork sword is the problem ;)

Anyway, what climate change?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/clip_image002_thumb4.jpg?w=601&h=269

MagnusP
2nd Mar 2015, 13:12
Per, I'm not a huge fan of Booker either so I take your point. That doesn't change the fact that he has quit after years of criticism from qualified climate scientists and now a sex scandal. Good riddance.

Loki
2nd Mar 2015, 14:08
Ah yes, the former railway engineer with a doctorate in economics....clearly the first choice for chairing a committe concerned with climate issues.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd Mar 2015, 14:11
Anyone who can give the impression that the Indian railway system works well was clearly the ideal man for promoting the statistical charlatanism of climate modeling.;)


Reality vs model
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/clip_image006_thumb3.jpg?w=601&h=271

and that's after they've altered 'reality' a bit to 'help' the models
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

vulcanised
2nd Mar 2015, 14:14
qualified climate scientist


Er, wot that?

MagnusP
2nd Mar 2015, 14:21
vulcanised, it's them wot actually do work on climate research (and especially statistical stuff) as opposed to them that are qualified to look at sleepers, lines and signals, but spend their time (and air miles) waving their arms in the air and shouting "Doomed! We're all doomed!".

ExXB
2nd Mar 2015, 14:42
Well, here is what NASA has to say on the subject:

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

Lots of pretty charts there too. Go ahead, and have a look before you respond please.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd Mar 2015, 15:09
Interesting site. They don't appear to have updated their temperature data for over a year. Wonder why not? Perhaps because the global temperature hasn't risen.

From the raw data section of nasa
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.txt

Current temperature anomaly +0.75C.
Temperature anomaly in Feb 1998, 17 years ago, +0.86C

Lonewolf_50
2nd Mar 2015, 15:53
Fox, all numbers considered, I'd still like to see the temps drop a degree and some of the emissions scaled back.
At the rate coal fired plants are being built, I don't see that happening. :p

Katamarino
2nd Mar 2015, 16:57
It's really cold right now in America, so climate change can't exist.

In other news, liberals claim that the Titanic is sinking; but my end of the boat just lifted 200ft in the air. Stupid liberals, wrong again. :)

ExXB
2nd Mar 2015, 16:58
Fox,
Not going to belabour the point but I'm going to trust NASA long before I'm going to trust the Telegraph.

Who knows why they haven't updated their site. It's either the Republicans or Obama to blame.

con-pilot
2nd Mar 2015, 17:18
Rather interesting the wording in this quote;

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:


So, according to this, rapid changes in the climate have been ongoing well before man showed up.

Interesting.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
2nd Mar 2015, 17:25
I agree about the Telegraph. However, in this case it refers to a blog, which has links at the bottom to....the raw and adjusted nasa data, on a nasa website.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/

So I think NASA owe us an explanation as to why the raw data was adjusted, especially since it has happened with several stations, and which have a significant affect on the World model since there are few stations in that area.


More here. It seems all the stations in Paraguay have been adjusted from a downward trend to an upward trend.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/


Must go now - off to teach some real physics! ;)

Rosevidney1
2nd Mar 2015, 19:50
NASA is government funded and as the politicians have decided there is global warming then NASA or any other government funded institution will ensure figures will be produced to echo the politicians views.

surely not
2nd Mar 2015, 20:26
I have also noticed that quite often newspapers and other media tend to back the views of advertisers who spend heavily with them, or companies that their patrons have an interest in.

Not much in the world is without an ulterior motive these days

vulcanised
2nd Mar 2015, 21:27
If all this nonsense, and I believe that's what most of it is, hadn't been foisted on us, with wind farms, restrictions on light bulbs (to take two extreme examples), etc., would any difference be apparent?

rh200
2nd Mar 2015, 23:17
I'd still like to see the temps drop a degree and some of the emissions scaled back.

Hell yea.:cool:

At the rate coal fired plants are being built, I don't see that happening.

Yep, and them there nuclear as well (Not a CO2 problem). There was a nice article the other day listing all the nuke plants being built or in planning. Basically it demonstrates the thirst for electrickery is alive and well. Which basically says, no matter how good the renewable energy sector gets, there isn't a hope in hell of satisfying that thirst.

BDiONU
3rd Mar 2015, 05:13
So, according to this, rapid changes in the climate have been ongoing well before man showed up.10,000 years ago Scotland was under an ice sheet a mile thick. Man had nothing to do with its formation or its melting.

ExXB
3rd Mar 2015, 08:01
NASA is government funded and as the politicians have decided there is global warming then NASA or any other government funded institution will ensure figures will be produced to echo the politicians views.

You think NASA is reflecting US government views? You haven't been paying attention. A Republican dominated congress, which funds NASA, does not believe in climate change. The Administration disagrees with congress. If this was politically driven we would see NASA being at best neutral. But they are adamant that climate change is happening and that our activities are partially to blame. This despite the objections from their paymaster.

10,000 years ago Scotland was under an ice sheet a mile thick. Man had nothing to do with its formation or its melting.

Try 110,000 to 120,000 years. I don't think anyone would disagree with you though. But that certainly isn't evidence that man is not affecting climate change today.

Ancient Mariner
3rd Mar 2015, 08:15
Don't know about Scotland, but 10.000 years ago Norway was covered by a 4 km thick layer of ice.
Per

Yamagata ken
3rd Mar 2015, 10:26
10,000 years ago Earth was well and truly out of the last glacial, and Europe was free of ice sheets. The best northern hemisphere proxy we have is GISP2, and the data look like this.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/c4u-chart.png

EXxb;A Republican dominated congress, which funds NASA, does not believe in climate change. The Administration disagrees with congress. If this was politically driven we would see NASA being at best neutral. But they are adamant that climate change is happening and that our activities are partially to blame.Sceptics are sceptical of the hypothesis of Catastophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. As the catastrophic global warming seems to have paused, and doesn't seem to be catastophic, alarmists and libtards have changed the terminology from CAGW to ''climate change''. Critics don't deny climate change, but are sceptical of the CAGW part. That doesn't stop the smears.


Questions. 1. How much money is to be paid to politicians and ''carbon'' traders in order to prevent climate change? 2. Politicians and ''carbon'' traders are clearly exceptionally clever people as they can control the Earth's climate. I've never seen how they plan to do that. Can anyone explain the mechanism to me?