Neutral advice from the IPCC?
By Richard Ingham (AFP) – 3 hours ago
PARIS — A leaden cloak of responsibility lies on the shoulders of UN scientists as they put the final touches to the first volume of a massive report that will give the world the most detailed picture yet of climate change.
Due to be unveiled in Stockholm on September 27, the document will be scrutinised word by word by green groups, fossil-fuel lobbies and governments to see if it will yank climate change out of prolonged political limbo.
The report will kick off the fifth assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an expert body set up in 1988 to provide neutral advice on global warming and its impacts. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hHmcL4DZjT-PZWhEHO3VDb5gjsrA?docId=CNG.db54bf0fa84dd93ad7cf71578fe1dcef.681
=================================================================
Regarding your “Trenberth’s IPCC claim” post, you may like to mention Green & Armstrong (2007) (available here) in which we addressed Trenberth’s IPCC-don’t-forecast line in some detail. As far as I’m aware, our subsequent paper (Green, Armstrong, & Soon 2009, here) provides the *only* forecast of global mean temperatures over the 21st Century. That is, we state that we are making a forecast (not a scenario or projection), the forecast is stated clearly (annual average temperatures will be within 0.5 C of the 2008 figure), and is unconditional (no matter what happens to CO2 emissions, etc). Unlike Trenberth et al., who try to have it both ways by calling for “action” but aren’t prepared to say they are making forecasts, we stand by our forecast and the clear implication that government climate policies are neither needed nor desirable.
Cheers, Dr Kesten C Green
===================================================================
Park Service personnel recently discovered evidence of a buried forest dating back to at least 1170 AD high in the Forelands near the current glacier’s edge…Exit Glacier advanced from the Harding Icefield during the Little Ice Age, burying this existing forest and advancing to a maximum marked by the terminal moraine dated to 1815…
http://www.nps.gov/kefj/naturescience/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
===================================================================
It’s baaaaaaack….
Eastern US water supplies threatened by a legacy of acid rain
Noted ecologist Gene Likens, founding director of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and a co-discoverer of acid rain, was among the study’s authors. The extent of alkalinity change in streams and rivers exceeded his expectations: “This is another example of the widespread impact humans are having on natural systems. Policymakers and the public think that the acid rain problem has gone away, but it has not.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-08/cioe-euw082613.php
====================================================================
Dr. Roy Spencer continues his greenhouse experiments:
In Part I of this series, I mentioned how Wood’s (1909) “greenhouse box” experiment, which he claimed suggested that a real greenhouse did not operate through “trapping” of infrared radiation, was probably not described well enough to conclude anything of substance. I provided Wood’s original published “Note”, which was only a few paragraphs, and in which he admitted that he covered the issue in only cursory detail.
Wood’s experiment was not described well enough to replicate. We have no idea how much sunlight was passed through his plate of rock salt-covered box versus the glass-covered box. We also don’t know exactly how he placed another glass window over the rock salt window, which if it was very close at all, invalidated the whole experiment.
====================================================================
New witch hunt: “Environmental Campaign Suggests Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers”
Environmental Campaign Suggests Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers
New York agency Barton F. Graf has turned its roguish attention to the issue of climate change, and is helping 350 Action, a climate change activist group, with the amusing video below. According to the YouTube description: “Since 1954, the World Meteorological Organization has been naming extreme storms after people. But we propose a new naming system. One that names extreme storms caused by climate change, after the policy makers who deny climate change and obstruct climate policy. If you agree, sign the petition at climatenamechange.org.” The snarky tone preaches to the choir, but it’s hard to resist lines like, “If you value your life, please seek shelter from Michele Bachmann.”
=================================================================
Satellite temps flat for 200 months now
by Werner Brozek
If the global warming era started in June 1988 with Jim Hansen’s drama-queen congressional testimony, then atmospheric temps have been flat 67% of the time since.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
BUT,But but, but…. green groups = fossil-fuel lobbies = governments.
So where are the groups OPPOSED to the CO2 causes climate conjecture?
Re “Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers”
Should we then name tropical storms that fail to become hurricanse after Climate-change Alarmists?
Or When when hurricanes peter out to tropical storms?
Would either have any discernable significance?
The Eastern USA is full of limestone which neutralizes acidic water(That is why the water is ‘Hard’) I have been in caves from Maine to Florida. If there is a change in alkalinity it is most likely do to the AMOUNT of rainfall since rain water absorbs CO2. Also we have cleaned up the SO2 problem.
“…Policymakers and the public think that the acid rain problem has gone away, but it has not.”
Of course not. They might need it.
“PARIS — A leaden cloak of responsibility lies on the shoulders of UN scientists”
Yep. The responsibility to maintain the apocalyptic propaganda campaign the UN uses to increase its control.
Nice that they call the NGO show “scientists”. Should help with deluding the public.
Wow. Read the comments on the 350 story. CB is a climate fundamentalist. No heresy allowed!
Well if they want to name Vicious storms after deniers I suggest you put your name forward,
“Watt Hurricane” not only has a nice ring to it but a grain of truth as well..
CB appears to believe that co2 actually melts ice! Truly delusional.
The named storm idea would be both hilarious and awesome while utterly backfiring, rewarding with free fame & bonus extra publicity … not that it’ll really happen.
One major error in Richard Ingams (AFP) report – describing the IPCC as a ‘neutral’ body set up to report on climate change !!!! The day they IPCC produce an objective report on climate is the day I will make sure I carry an umbrella to protect me from the waste products from flying pigs.
This is so simple, don’t like CO2 and Coal? Turn your lights off. Don’t use any energy at all, not even energy produced by some green device, save that for someone else. Step up and turn it off!!! Be somebody! LOL Good Luck with that. Stupid is as stupid does.
sunderlandsteve says:
August 26, 2013 at 2:53 pm
“CB appears to believe that co2 actually melts ice! Truly delusional.”
He/she/it has obviously never bothered to look at actual global sea ice.
From cultural marxism to scientific marxism.
(After the victim groups designated by Marcuse failed to destroy capitalism, maybe his successors now try with scientists.)
One can only hope that the ad campaign is used, and leads to an edifying number of civil lawsuits charging defamation.
On the other hand, turn-about being fair play and all, maybe we can start calling particularly stupid statements uttered by alarmist stalwarts as making a graf (gaff). As in, Bill MacKibble made a foolish graf today when he claimed that sea level rise will drown the Huffington Post by next week.
An especially stupid graf can include the convenient initials of Barton F., as in, Bill MacKibble pulled a BFGraf (big farking graf) today, when he decried the Amazon rain forest as the largest naturally occurring carbon pollution site in the world, advising that it be removed and fired into the sun.‘
Hurricane Roy doesn’t sound very menacing to me. But I would be honored nonetheless.
It would be an honor to be a named storm. I would be remembered for years, especialy if it was one of the Category 6 storms 😉
Meanwhile the alarmists will continue to slip into obscurity as their ever more discredited theories are rejected.
Who is CB?
They are not a neutral body. Their mission statement reads——-“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
How can they be neutral when they are only to assess “human-induced climate change”.
Disgusting scam.
Name the hurricanes for skeptics, bunch of right-wingers anyway, right?
Hurricane Alexander (Cockburn).
Hurricane Buzz (Aldrin).
Hurricane David (Bellamy).
Hurricane Freeman (Dyson).
Hurricane Fritz (Vahrenholt).
Hurricane Michael (Crichton).
Hurricane Penn (Jillette).
Hurricane Reid (Bryson).
Watts got a mention in “Best of the Web” in the WSJ today.
and links to the May 15, 2012 Global warming – splodeified
David L. Hagen says:
August 26, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Re “Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers”
Should we then name tropical storms that fail to become hurricanes after Climate-change Alarmists?
Or When when hurricanes peter out to tropical storms?
=====
Hurricane Peter-out Gleick? I like the sound of that.
Ken R. says:
August 26, 2013 at 3:40 pm
> It would be an honor to be a named storm. I would be remembered for years, especially if it was one of the Category 6 storms 😉
Let’s save that for Hurricane Gore.
I categorically deny that the ‘El Reno’ killer Oklahoma tornado was named after me.
About the Hurricane naming thing, on reflection I think this could backfire on them very badly. A Hurricane Monkton, McKintire or Watts would put those names in front of millions of sheeple who are currently oblivious to the climate debate. Skeptics win every argument but are losing the war because the mainstream media ignores us to death. In that situation there is really no such thing as bad publicity.
I don’t think I’d worry too much about hurricane names. I mean, it’s not like we’re using them up too quickly any more, and any storms that do get named are…well…does anyone remember tropical
stormdepression Fernand? Dorian? Chantal? Barry? Andrea?More here…
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/slowest-start-to-a-hurricane-season-on-record/
I’m all for a hurricane named after Lindzen. I think a lot of people would get a kick out of hurricane Dick. The late night comedians would love it.