The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Emissions already well short of forecasts > Comments

Emissions already well short of forecasts : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 8/10/2010

There is actually much less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than has been forecast.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Horus, for the 1000’s of sources and the 1000’s of scientific papers assessed by the IPCC, I for one am gobsmacked that they didn’t make more errors – but that’s just me.

Just over a week ago, the IPCC strengthened a number of its processes and procedures as a consequence of the recommendations made by the independent review by the Inter-Academy Council (IAC).

In fact, it was the IPCC itself (together with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon) that requested this review (in March this year). The IAC published its review at the end of August.

Obviously, the IAC recommendations are important to improve the way the IPCC works and how it is governed. The IPCC is taking decisive action to respond to these recommendations in a way that is transparent and open, ensuring that the highest quality assessments are produced and made available to the international community. No one should expect anything less, except maybe those that would like to see the IPCC burned at the stake or disbanded altogether.

The IPCC will implement many of the IAC recommendations, including; guidance on uncertainty and non-peer-reviewed literature. Moreover, the IPCC will set up a task group which will address the establishment of an Executive Committee to review the key responsibilities of the Secretariat, as well as the terms of reference of Chair and Co-chairs of the Working Groups.

The IPCC will also implement a rigorous conflict of interest policy and develop a communication strategy to help in disseminating the science better to non-scientists. It will also form task groups to address other IAC recommendations related to IPCC procedures for the preparation of the assessment reports.

Will any of this satisfy the naysayer? Probably not, but there you go.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 23 October 2010 3:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As to your link to Chris Landsea’s 2005 paper – so what? It is well known that his ‘hissy fit’ with the IPCC soon thereafter caused a sensation on anti-global-warming blogsites and op-eds written by shock-jock columnists in MSM.

It is also well known (at least to those who do research in the field) that you cannot attribute any one extreme weather event to global warming.

Chris Landsea agrees that as global warming continues; ocean heat uptake, Hadley and Walker Cell activity, ENSO, etc all exacerbate an increase in atmospheric energy levels that are seen to be driven by the enhanced green house effect.

In other words, the more energy you put into the system, the more the system will react to try and maintain the equilibrium – evidenced regionally by more atmospheric moisture and more rain/snow, or more severe drought and shifting rain patterns (please don't confuse this with frequency/intensity of tropical cyclones), etc.

This is not to say there are not any uncertainties (there are) or that the level of anticipated emissions won’t change in any future AR5 climate projections (they will).

Horus, there are many papers published that don’t see the light of day in MSM that add to the weight of evidence in support of AGW. I can’t help but feel you hope someone (like Landsea) will shoot it (AGW) all down - sorry buddy, it won’t happen any time soon.

“the fact that you haven’t seen such studies is likely to be more a failing in you observational skills than any reflection as to the existence or veracity such studies ... here’s one you can start on –when you finish digesting it I’ll get you more ...”

Oh golly-golly, can’t wait :)

You may like to check out some of these, I do all the time – it’s part of my job.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/

Horus, if you want to play “show me yours and I’ll show you mine”, go look for another play-mate.

Thanks for your link to Benny Peiser’s blog site - I expected nothing less.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html

Your last missive? Scientist's don't play politics.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 23 October 2010 3:25:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot,
Before we get lost in the rhetorical flourishes and self congratulatory back slapping (“I do all the time – it’s part of my job”) , let’s recap how we got to where we are:

Bonmot sniped: “Anyone can write a book Horus, and anyone can use a book to push a perceived agenda - not quite like peer reviewed scientific papers in well recognised scientific journals though”
( The IPCC is made of sugars and spice ands all things nice,and the rest,snips and snails, and puppy dogs tails!)

Horus responded: With a series of links outlining some well known
(to others, at least!) IPCC gaffes.
Bonmot responded: “Your last post is …akin to linking to Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman,… “
then –having not read the links -- asked again “ What, or which part, do you think is demonstrably flawed”

Horus responded: with another link
Bonmot again goes on the character assassinate the messenger campaign.

But, when he can’t deny it any longer :“for the 1000’s of sources and the 1000’s of scientific papers assessed by the IPCC, I for one am gobsmacked that they didn’t make more errors “
(Well! no one is perfect.)

(BUT… the IPCC will be prefect from here on in!)
“The IPCC is taking decisive action… in a way that is transparent and open, ensuring that the highest quality assessments are produced and made available to the international community….
The IPCC will also implement a rigorous conflict of interest policy and develop a communication strategy to help in disseminating the science better to non-scientists…”

And guess what, it thought of it all on its ownsome!

HOGWASH!
The IPCC was caught out –it’s first response was to deny –then it tried to excuse.

Only when it was unavoidable did it undertake a review.

I was reading a defense of the IPCC in a magazine the other day –it sounded just like your last post, except that --- it was printed 3 years ago!

You appear to have missed your calling Bonmot, you have all the qualities necessary to make really devious politician!
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 23 October 2010 9:27:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bonmot,
And, if you have “ read some of [ my] OLO history” you will have found that I have not denied that there are changes/trends – there always are.

So comments like:
“Chris Landsea agrees that as global warming continues; ocean heat uptake”, are irrelevant.

And comments like:
“ weight of evidence in support of AGW” would better be worded “the weight of evidence in support of [warming]” .You and others have ( too eagerly) extrapolated that it’s anthropogenically driven.

There is a lot of politics vested in it being found to be anthropogenically driven; the AGW platform has been deeply political since day one.

And some of your other comments are too naive to be believed
--“scientists don’t play politics” – rather like saying priests are above and beyond carnal desires, and
--“it is also well known (at least to those who do research in the field) that you cannot attribute any one extreme weather event to global warming.”
[lucky you left yourself an out, Eh!:( “at least to those who do research in the field)]
Judging by the almost daily media & politician hyping of AGW, I'd say perhaps its --well known-- ONLY amongst those “who do research in the field” !
And they , it seems, are perfectly happly to let the wild stories like --we had the hottest/cooldest/windiest/wettest/driest day on record, therefore AGW is valid --run, just so long as it brings in more attention and funding.
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 24 October 2010 7:29:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus

When I said;

“The AR4 contains 4 substantial reports together with a comprehensive technical summary. What, or which part, do you think is demonstrably flawed to the extent that you think your last post indicates?”

I was trying to point out that the “IPCC gaffes” you focussed on were in the sections on ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ (WG2) and ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’ (WG3). None of the issues you raised demonstrate a flaw in the ‘Science of Climate Change’ (WG1). It is a common misconception and some people use it to decry and claim foul the physical basis of the science.

I would agree that due to the nature of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) politics does raise its 'ugly' head. That is where the debate on what to do, and when to do it, stifles any real action. However, let us be clear on this, the politicians in that forum (and others) can’t change the science.

In other words Horus, the science is what the science is. No politician or economist can change that. The politicians and the economists (not the scientists) will be the ones making the decisions on the ‘how’ and the ‘when’ – WG2 & WG3 issues. I must say it is perplexing, amusing even, that some politicians have a climate change policy even though they think it’s all "crap".

I think the best thing we can do is try to live in a more sustainable way. It will put the brakes on taking fast action on climate change, but it will have the same long term effect. Hopefully it won’t be too late.

My last comment here Horus, I have obviously caused you consternation – last post on a Saturday night and first on a Sunday morning?
There are better things we could be doing.
Bye
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 24 October 2010 12:05:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice to have you back on board Mark.

Now I'd like to repeat my question:

Who are these 'important people' that you say claimed that emissions were running at the top of the forecasts, and do you have a quote for any of them?

Thanks.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 26 October 2010 10:16:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy