Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, the IPCC conducts no research. They do, however, conduct very thorough reviews of the Assessment Report sections before they are published. I stand by my answer, though, as you point out, there are mountains of other published studies of climate issues with very close to unanimously support for the conclusions of the IPCC, which certainly makse sense since that is where the IPCC's conclusions come from.The IPCC is not peer reviewed. It relies on peer reviewed publications from across the field. The IPCC does not do scientific research.
If you don't like the IPCC you, yourself, are free to comb the field and the peer reviewed journals. Would you understand it? Either way, you are not limited to JUST the IPCC.
Mark Landsea or Christopher Landsea? I can't find a "Mark" Landsea that is an expert on hurricanes but I see a LOT from Christopher Landsea.
Landsea apparently told PBS "...we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity."
So it seems the issue was whether this warming (real) resulted in increased hurricane activity. Not necessarily the most resounding take-down of AGW.
No, I believe he stepped down from the panel. There's a difference there.
If you don't like the IPCC you, yourself, are free to comb the field and the peer reviewed journals. Would you understand it? Either way, you are not limited to JUST the IPCC.
Mark Landsea or Christopher Landsea? I can't find a "Mark" Landsea that is an expert on hurricanes but I see a LOT from Christopher Landsea.
Landsea apparently told PBS "...we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity."
So it seems the issue was whether this warming (real) resulted in increased hurricane activity. Not necessarily the most resounding take-down of AGW.
No, I believe he stepped down from the panel. There's a difference there.
Bastards.
I’m on to their game. Apparently they reach consensus by dismissing all claims that don’t agree.
The IPCC just proved that beryllium doesn’t exist by throwing away all the samples of beryllium. Clever bastards.
Yes, the IPCC conducts no research. They do, however, conduct very thorough reviews of the Assessment Report sections before they are published. I stand by my answer, though, as you point out, there are mountains of other published studies of climate issues with very close to unanimously support for the conclusions of the IPCC, which certainly makse sense since that is where the IPCC's conclusions come from.
Have you personally read the entire IPCC report? ...
Ooh, second year Calculus. VERY impressive. Was that before junior college or during?I mostly rely on the meteorology class I took ... the one where the student had to be concurrent with second year calculus ... I have not found the science in the IPCC report lacking ... rather I find the editorial content and the political conclusions they draw to be misguided ... the issue here is that Crick says there's peer-reviewed papers in reputable scientific journals concluding that man causes almost all global warming ...
I'd like a link to such a paper ... no, I don't have a link to a paper that concludes man isn't responsible ... but I don't make that claim ... "2] Man-kind's activities contribute to global warming" ... I'm the math guy, I want numbers, what percentage of global warming is caused by man, and why do you think this is true? ... I cannot answer this myself ...
You are correct ... Chris Landsea ... thank you for this, that was stupid of me ...
I read he was fired and that might have been a bias source ... but the question remains ... who was brought in to make these criticisms in the report? ... my guess is no one, since the IPCC sets their agenda, then hires the specific experts to advance this agenda ... it's very unlikely they would bring in someone doesn't accept the political conclusions made by the report ...
=====
Have you personally read the entire IPCC report? ...
Ooh, second year Calculus. VERY impressive. Was that before junior college or during?
Here are the 234 authors of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis": IPCC Authors (beta)
Here are 42 pages of edits to the WGI, physical science inputs to "Summary for Policymakers": https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/upl...R6_WGI_Approved_Summary_for_Policymarkers.pdf
Here are 12 pages of edits to be made to the underlying scientific technical assessment of AR6's "The Physical Science Basis": https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/upl...nderlying_Scientific-Technical_Assessment.pdf
Now, can we hear once again, with the detailed knowledge the lot of you seem to have acquired about the production of IPCC reports, how these reports are put out with no review. And I won't bother gigging you again about you thinking some magazine's staff should have undertaken this.
I've read quite a lot of it. Especially WG1. I've spent far more time just reading more broadly in the area. That and getting my doctorate in geology/geochemistry I got to see more of the data up close. Not my main area (I worked on fossil fuel geochemistry) and I did get to work briefly as a tech at Columbia University in the oceanography group and got to meet and interact with some of the folks who were working in that area. Later on I got to meet quite a few others at a couple other oceanographic research facilities.
So you understand the magnitude of the problem of peer-reviewing the entire IPCC report ... and that's the point I'm making ...
If you've a college degree in geology, then you know more about thermodynamics than I do ... you should also understand how important it is to get the math right ... sending the drill team off in the wrong direction because you didn't calculate the gradient correctly is expensive ... and that's what I'm afraid of here, not getting the math right and spending a bunch of money that we don't have ... Stefan-Boltzmann Law tells us that temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiance ... we have to add A LOT of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere to get just a small change in temperature ...
The money would be better spent on drinking water supplies ...
The IPCC is not itself peer reviewed. But it makes use of peer reviewed literature and analysis to draw its conclusions.
We know that by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere we will see an approximately 2.5-4degC (equilibrium state). That's not just based on models but actual observational science as well. The general agreement is pretty strong on that range.
Drinking water will be its own issue. AGW will likely dramatically alter the precipitation pattern in various locales and it WILL lead to decreased availability of potable water resources. Southern California will be a complete disaster from that point of view. With AGW possibly leading to decreased snowfall in the Sierras the amount of available water for drinking and the massive agricultural infrastructure in Cali's Central Valley will be massively impacted. We already see multiyear droughts becoming more common.
While folks in Europe may not see that impact directly, every part of America will see it. Most of our table vegetables come from the Central Valley and there's already a disaster brewing there over water rights and water resources.
How does this formula fit our data set? ... well, from the ice core data, we have -8ºC at 180 ppm, and we have 0ºC at 280 ppm ... we haven't even doubled carbon dioxide and we're already at 8ºC ... your math is wrong if it doesn't fit all available data ... not even close ...
AGW predicts warmer and wetter conditions
... I'm shocked a doctor of geochemistry forgot that water's vapor pressure goes UP with increasing temperatures ...
how could you forget such a thing? ... warmer air evaporates more water ... c'mon man ... conservation of mass ... what goes up must come down ... as rain ...
Geology is not meteorology ... it's terrain, nothing more ...
So as a geologist you should be aware of the role plate tectonics played in affecting earth’s climate.I've read quite a lot of it. Especially WG1. I've spent far more time just reading more broadly in the area. That and getting my doctorate in geology/geochemistry I got to see more of the data up close. Not my main area (I worked on fossil fuel geochemistry) and I did get to work briefly as a tech at Columbia University in the oceanography group and got to meet and interact with some of the folks who were working in that area. Later on I got to meet quite a few others at a couple other oceanographic research facilities.
So as a geologist you should be aware of the role plate tectonics played in affecting earth’s climate.
I don’t. I am talking about the role plate tectonics played in the earth transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. As a geologist can you tell me about that?Yes I am. And given that plates move on average a few mm/year exactly how do you think that might have caused warming since the 1850's? Just curious.
Correct, you will find some days will break "records" as the records are only 150 years-ish old. Obviously there have been colder and hotter days in the earth's history who's data spans billions of years.The occurrence of new records, new extremes, at BOTH poles has significance, particularly when overlain on the steady rise of global temperatures over the last century.
Hot poles: Antarctica, Arctic 70 and 50 degrees above normal
Parts of Antarctica Friday hit 70 degrees warmer than normal. At the same time parts of the Arctic were 50 degrees warmer than normal. Scientists are stunned.apnews.com
I don’t. I am talking about the role plate tectonics played in the earth transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. As a geologist can you tell me about that?
Not snowball earth. ~ 3 million years ago the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet (I.e. bipolar glaciation). Prior to that transition the planet had been slowly cooling for ~50 million years with CO2 lagging temperatures by 800 to 1000 years due to CO2 sequestration by the ocean which is a function of CO2 solubility of water versus temperature.Plate tectonics not only moves the landmasses around but it also impacts ocean currents as well. Redistributing where the land is will alter where the water goes in the ocean and that's going to impact heat transfer all over the globe.
As I understand the "Snowball Earth" concept in the neo-Proterozoic it was related to the breakup the supercontinent Rhodinia which they think was large enough to have a significant arid central area and upon break up exposed a lot more silicates which reacted such that they helped drop the relative amount of CO2 and helped drop the overall global temperature.
One of the interesting things about paleoclimatology, even in the absence of global changes in climate is the ability to ascertain what a given local climate was in the distant past. I grew up in the middle part of the US but in my paleontology class in undergrad I worked on a sharks tooth that I found at a local quarry. The shark was from the Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous) which was not only an epieric sea at the time but also much warmer than today. I also worked extensively on coal in grad school. A lot can be learned about past climates both globally and locally. In many ways the paleoclimatologists (of which I am not one) have been able to parse out the various impacts of the earth's systems on the climate and help us understand the capabilities of the natural cycles.
Yes these natural cycles and natural forcings can and have affected our climate. But that's the beauty of having a couple billion years before humans showed up to get a good database. And help us better understand what is driving the climate today.
Not snowball earth. ~ 3 million years ago
The role plate tectonics played was in isolating the polar regions from the warmer marine currents.
The thresholds for extensive continental glaciation is different at each pole.
Let's stay focused on the conditions which exist today which are polar regions being isolated from warmer marine currents and temperatures at or below the thresholds for extensive continental glaciation. Fair enough?That wasn't "Snowball Earth". The various "Snowball Earth" scenarios all appear to have happened prior to about 500million years ago. And yes the one related to the breakup of Rhodinia did appear related to the plate tectonics.
Actually bipolar glaciation is quite rare. There's no geologic record of it occurring except in the past 3 to 5 million years.No doubt that has happened within the earth's history. As I clearly noted ocean currents are dramatically altered by plate tectonics.
Yes and my point is that it is northern hemisphere glaciation which is responsible for the planet's increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty over the past 5 million years or so. So we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss natural causes for the recent warming trend as climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty are hallmarks of a bipolar glaciated world whose temperature is close to the threshold for extensive continental glaciation.Wait just a tick here. Let's talk about the Cenozoic Ice ages in North America and Europe for a moment. In the case of North America the ice cap that ultimately spread outward and covered much of the Continental US originated in Canada. It is called the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Not really the north pole, or even particularly close to it.
Yes the earth's relationship to the sun impacted this (Milankovich Cycles).
Here's the thing you have to remember... Milankovich Cycles have always existed even when the poles had no ice on them at all. So Milankovich Cycles are only part of the equation. The conditions - specifically the thresholds for extensive continental glaciation in the polar regions - have to be present for the Milankovich Cycles to trigger glacial events.Yes the earth's relationship to the sun impacted this (Milankovich Cycles).
