The Salt Lake Tribune – July 16, 2009
Article Excerpt: Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004, is listed as one of 450 IPCC “lead authors” who reviewed reports from 800 contributing writers whose work in turn, was reviewed by more than 2,500 experts worldwide. (Tripp, a metallurgical engineer, is the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.) […]
At Thursday’s [Utah Farm Bureau] convention, Tripp found a receptive audience among the 250 people attending the conference. He said there is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made. “It well may be, but we’re not scientifically there yet.”
Tripp also criticized modeling schemes to evaluate global warming, but stopped short of commenting on climate modeling used by the IPCC, saying “I don’t have the expertise.” Full article here:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There you have it – your understatement and QOTW – “we’re not scientifically there yet.”
So not there yet they say, however a good super El Nino should get the temps. back to following the CO2 level.
One problem though, the current ‘weak’ El Nino is having major trouble intensifying, and according to the TAO site there were some big changes today showing a sizable decrease in the subsurface warm spot intensity and the surface warm pool being cut off pretty good from the rightmost side of the map.
Bernie on Mark Hugoson;
Actually, Bernie, he said “cupable” expert. He also said “carefull”. Twice. That’s why there’s no BA in the list of degrees. Still, culpable would be nice.
While Mr. Tripp name appears in several IPCC meetings (see WTH comment at 9:59) I could not find his name as a lead author in the AR4, but I might have missed his name in the large list. Having said that I think he’s honest enough to feel uncomfortable with all the blah, blah, blah, about the “science is settled” and similar stuff from IPCC lunatics and Gore followers. I wonder how many did contribute honestly just to find out a bunch of “modellers” did turn the knobs of the GCM’s until they obtained the results they were looking for, adjusting parameters until the graphs were catastrophic enough to continue lying – and receiving funds – for another decade.
For a very impressive list of famous environmental scientists that are now man-made climate change skeptics look at this posting on the US Senate web site:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
There is a definite smell of s&”t hitting the fan. Even the Schmidt is planning his exit strategy. The only ones that aren’t are the half-witted politicians of the US and UK and the zealots like Hansen. The next 12 months will be very very interesting.
Ed Scott (10:04:09) :
Does this mean GISS is running water boarding techniques on their data?
@ur momisugly stephen.richards (13:21:22) :
“………………………. The next 12 months will be very very interesting.”
I hope you are not invoking that old Chinese curse. 😉
Is it just me or are the rats deserting the sinking ship in record numbers?
Just my observation, but I’m betting that Mr. Hugoson’s use of the word “cupable” was intended to be “capable”, not “culpable”. This fits the original sentence better and is less entertaining.
Everyone written/called/faxed their Senators on HR2454? I’d suggest chiming in on the House and Senate health care plans while you’re at it.
“Does this mean GISS is running water boarding techniques on their data?”
If it was just waterboarding, I don’t think we would be complaining so much, but we have battery cables, racks, iron maidens, and don’t forget, most of all, the Procrustean bed.
D’OH!
Waterboarding is passe. Now we just “adjust” the data and it tells us anything we want. Who needs measurements? Congress “adjusts” numbers all the time, and look at what they accomplish. (OK, maybe that wasn’t a good example.)
I think Tripp is far more qualified than what’s-his-name who chairs the IPCC.
Why is there the “supplemental image – one example of an unresolved issue” graph on this article? And only ten years – surely they know the correlation will be heavily influenced by data near the end points, yeah?
Wel, there is certainly a global warming pause right now which may be linked to ocean/atmospheric coupling, thermohaline disruptions and cloud dynamics. I am certainly more open to models and theoretical frameworks which explain in great detail how cooling may be a prolonged effect and showing a solid conclusion how AGW is either “over,” or not something to be concerned about. I am noticing many flaws and even High School math errors in the part of many working climatologists; this raises my concern over whether the “trend” overestimates AGW. The data seems to still be repeated and thus validated enough to point towards a warming trend, and the physics/chemistry of the issue seems solid, however, I share concerns that enough data has been fudged mathematically (statistically) that error analysis is of great concern.
There are metalurgists who would not know the first thing about engine metals as they might be specialists in the sheet steels for the bodies and frames of cars.
Also, remember the “profession” of climatology is pretty new within the last 20 years and from the looks of it the ranks are made up of a few wonks who knew how to create GCM’s in fortran.
Richard Heg that was very insightful.
I’d add that during my 30 years of working with large computer software applications, I became fascinated by the irrational faith people had in them. Both the people who developed the software and those who used the results unquestionally accepted what the computer told them. Major errors would go undetected until something went seriously wrong in the real world.
And therein lies the problem with the climate models. We won’t find out the major errors in them until 20 or 30 years down the road and after trillions of dollars have been spent.
Which is why commercial and business software is always extensively reviewed and tested by a separate specialist group.
The same is needed for the climate models using a group headed by someone like Steve McIntyre.
If you want to know where the US is heading if your politicians refuse to listen to their electorate , follow the European/British model , where your views will become irrelevent :
THE PRIME MINISTER
2 February 2009
Dear Neil
Thank you for your email of 4 December, which was passed on to me by the Simon Mayo Radio Show.
I know that arguments over the science of climate change continue to provoke heated debated and strong feelings. I don’t intend to rehearse all those arguments here, but I will tell you why the British Government has confidence in the assessments provided by the IPCC.
The Assessments represent the consensus of thousands of scientists worldwide, who gather to review the vast emerging scientific literature on climate change as published in the leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. No one government, organisation or individual has sole responsibility for any part of the report – thus ensuring overall shared responsibility. The objectivity of the IPCC’s reports are ensured by the broad and open review process for the draft reports, in which anthropogenic climate change sceptics participate.
For example, the 2007 Assessment Report on the Physical Science Basis of Climate Change was produced by a Working Group featuring more than 600 climate scientists, whose names and affiliations are listed in the report. Given their subject matter, it is entirely appropriate that the other two Working Groups on Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability and on Mitigation drew input from a more diverse pool of experts, including specialists in economics, sociology and technology.
I appreciate the point you make that global temperatures have fallen slightly over the past three years. However, this is entirely consistent with the effects of short term natural climate variability – particularly the strong La Niña conditions currently prevailing in the Pacific – within a
– 2 –
trend of long term warming. The La Niña effect is expected to disappear soon, after which the long term warming trend is expected to resume.
In conclusion, I am entirely satisfied that it the Government should continue to accept the advice and evidence of the IPCC, and I see no evidence from the conditions of the last three years to change that view.
I know you will disagree with that conclusion, but nevertheless, I am very grateful for your email.
This was after I had complained about the government propoganda spouted by the BBC about “2500 of the worlds leading scientists”
I have the original signed letter in PDF , if anyone wants a copy
….and for the opposition Conservative Party viewpoint:
Dear Mr Hyde,
Thank you for your e-mail, regarding your concerns about our approach to tackling climate change.
I am aware that David Cameron has been in touch with you previously via your local Member of Parliament, Sir Nicholas Winterton, setting out how politicians have a duty to take the best available scientific advice when deciding how to deal with important issues like climate change.
The National Academies of all the G8 nations, plus India, China and Brazil, all signed a letter in 2004 agreeing with the thesis that global warming is happening and that man is the cause of it. This was backed up in February 2007, when 2,500 of the world’s leading Climatologists published a report saying they were ’90 per cent sure’ that human activity had led to dangerous levels of global warming.
That is why it is so important that we take a lead in suggesting ways to reduce carbon emissions and why we all need to take action now in order to mitigate the risk of disastrous consequences in the future.
While we take on board what you say in your e-mail, we firmly believe that we all have a responsibility in this generation to make sure we provide a greener and cleaner planet for our children. We simply cannot go on as we are in terms of the way we run Government and live our lives. That is why we want to create incentives for people to help them make greener choices.
We are prepared to make tough choices. We have been honest, and have said very clearly that taxes on pollution will go up. Yet, those increases will be offset pound for pound by reductions in family taxes to help people meet the rising cost of living.
Our approach is completely different to Labour’s. Gordon Brown has given green taxes a bad name by using them as additional stealth taxes. We believe taxes on pollution can play an important role in tackling climate change, but only if they are replacement taxes, matched with tax reductions elsewhere. That is why we have established a Family Fund into which all of the new taxes on pollution will go. That money will be ring-fenced – no civil servant will be able to get their hands on it – and it will be independently audited. So, as taxes on bad things, like pollution, go up; taxes on good things, like families, will come down.
We believe this is the best and fairest way to encourage people and businesses to make greener choices while helping us reduce taxes for hard-working families.
Thank you, once again, for writing to David Cameron about this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Edward Young
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Slightly O/T, but that sure looks like a real quiet sun right now.
Did that last weeks ‘whopper’ sunspot take what little extra reserves the sun had and plumb wear it out?
It will be interesting to see if the sunspot that just happened survives the trip around the backside. In the meantime the eastern US will enjoy a nice spillover of cool Arctic air the next several days while we wait and see…
I am loving this global warming here in Ky. A strong front came through today and it feels like Football season is about to start here in Mid July and it should be 90ish. Yes, I know, it’s just weather and all. The next few days are 73, 75, 80, 82, 85 and normal is 89.
Hi 73°F
Lo 61°F
Precip (in)
0in.
Thu
2
OBSERVED
Hi 72°F
Lo 61°F
Precip (in)
0in.
Fri
3
OBSERVED
Hi 78°F
Lo 62°F
Precip (in)
0in.
Sat
4
OBSERVED
Hi 75°F
Lo 60°F
Precip (in)
0.48in.
5
OBSERVED
Hi 75°F
Lo 64°F
Precip (in)
0.23in.
6
OBSERVED
Hi 84°F
Lo 57°F
Precip (in)
0in.
7
OBSERVED
Hi 84°F
Lo 58°F
Precip (in)
0in.
8
OBSERVED
Hi 84°F
Lo 60°F
Precip (in)
0.01in.
9
OBSERVED
Hi 86°F
Lo 65°F
Precip (in)
0in.
10
OBSERVED
Hi 87°F
Lo 68°F
Precip (in)
0.88in.
11
OBSERVED
Hi 83°F
Lo 70°F
Precip (in)
0in.
12
OBSERVED
Hi 84°F
Lo 68°F
Precip (in)
0in.
13
OBSERVED
Hi 83°F
Lo 61°F
Precip (in)
0in.
14
OBSERVED
Hi 85°F
Lo 58°F
Precip (in)
0in.
15
OBSERVED
Hi 80°F
Lo 69°F
Precip (in)
0.14in.
16
OBSERVED
Hi 84°F
Lo 70°F
Precip (in)
0in.
Adam from Kansas (11:45:29) :
So not there yet they say, however a good super El Nino should get the temps. back to following the CO2 level.
There are actually two problems (you say one)- if it takes El Nino to put things back on the CO2 track and La Nina can take it back off again, then C02 is easily overwhelmed by natural cycles.
There seems to be a basic difference between “numerical” and “non-numerical” scientists. Journalists will accept Tim Flannery, a paleontologist and english literature specialist, as an expert on climate, but reject say Lubos Motl, a physicist into string theory, as a non-climate specialist.
Numerical scientists and engineers, who in essence are heavily applied mathematicians, understand that setting up computer models that require heavy massaging of the input data to even look like they are on the right track implies the particular theoretical approach is on the road to nowhere.
I feel a deal of sympathy for the warmist scientists. They are constrained in their findings. If they discover that humans have negligible impact on climate, their funding will be cut off. With this whole AGW debate, what is most irritating are the proposed solutions. Ineffective, expensive, ugly, and irrational.
His comment “I don’t have the expertise” refers to climate models.
There are many areas of expertise under the climate science umbrella. So inferring he has no expertise in any area is a pretty weak argument.
Maybe it was a dig at those who have ‘no expertise’ in an area and don’t let that stop them….
Boy, this has REALLY been a bad week for the modelers. I know it’s premature to say this, but it does seem like the wheels are coming off this thing?