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.
Fielding nails it:
The real reason I’ll fight in the Senate on Climate Change.
If all our politicians would do the same, we are out of the woods.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-real-reason-ill-fight-in-the-senate-on-climate-change?from=news.com.au
I have some other letters from our elected “people” ( really wanted to use some rather derogatory terms!!) if there is general interest I will scan them and post.
TB , will scan them tomorrow and mail to you .
tallbloke (various)
You are getting there.
I’m just not getting any feedback to indicate that my hypothesis is faulty. It deals with all observed phenomena without involving CO2 and continues to reflect the real world to this day.
The latitudinal shift of the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability has happened twice in my lifetime.
After the first shift and during the warming spell the Discovery Channel in a show about the jet streams asserted that the poleward shift was our fault.
It clearly happened. The movement was clearly linked to a change in global temperature trend.
It was clearly following global SST changes not leading them.
I’ll repeat this again, it’s important:
“The equilibrium temperature of Earth’s climate system is not set by the sea surface temperature as normally defined.
The equilibrium temperaure is set by the net global average temperature of the oceanic water which lies just below the layer of ocean surface involved in the evaporative process.
The temperature of that water is shielded from any changes in the composition of the air by the evaporative process. It is
however affected by changes within the oceans which alter the rate of energy emission to the air and by variations in solar input.
The evaporative process ensures that a change in the composition of the air affecting the radiative properties of the air does not alter the rate of energy release from that layer of water which lies below the region affected by evaporation.
Changes in the composition of the air alone can only result in a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle with no effect or no significant effect on the net global average temperature of the air. ”
Full article here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735
The latitudinal shift of the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability has happened twice in my lifetime.
Stephen Wilde, I haven’t studied your theory in detail, but the lattitudinal (poleward or equatorward) shift is really what the term ‘climate change’ should mean. Because this is the only way the Earth’s climate can change.
Early on in the climate change saga, it was asserted that poleward shift of circulation systems was the signature of climate change. However, when no long trend appeared, this was quietly forgotten about, at least in the public arena.
Changes in the composition of the air alone can only result in a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle with no effect or no significant effect on the net global average temperature of the air.
What can effect the hydrological cycle is factors that influence phase changes of water. Specifically aerosols and Svensmark’s GCRs.
I’ll now go and read your paper.
masonmart says:
As I noted, if you plot the graph correctly…i.e., by scaling the relative axes for CO2 and temperature such that the temperature would be expected to go up on the graph at about the same rate as the CO2 if the IPCC projections were correct…then it would be readily apparent that there is not really any statistically-significant disagreement. I.e., it would be visually apparent that the temperature graph is so noisy that any reasonable error bars in the temperature trend would include the IPCC projection.
It is easy enough to try this yourself. Just take the current graph, in which the CO2 rise is plotted so that it goes up from about 0.1 to 0.8 C on the temperature scale and replot it so that it only rises from about 0.1 to 0.25 C on the temperature scale. I think you will agree that it changes the visual conclusions one draws from the graph dramatically!
Smokey says:
Really. So, why is the CO2 level rising at a rate that is so coincidentally pegged at about 1/2 the rate at which we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere? And, what is happening to the extra CO2 that we add? And, why do we see the oceans actually increasing rather than decreasing their concentrations of CO2? And, that is not even mentioning the isotopic evidence that the increase in CO2 is due to our burning of fossil fuels.
But hey, if you want to believe that your picture is correct, I encourage you to argue this point whenever you communicate with scientists or policymakers as I think it will definitely help them decide how seriously to consider your arguments in general!
Joel, I don’t believe anybody on here has ever denied that there has been warming. What is being discussed on boards like this is the many fatal weaknesses in the AGW hypothesis. It has nothing to do with whether man made carbon dioxide concentration or temperature is rising or falling at any time only the lack of a causal link. Can I ask you to show one credible piece of evidence that man made carbon is causing Climate Change or some of the claimed results such as adverse weather. Can you explain the lack of Lower Tropospherical hot spot necessary if AGW is true? How about Arctic Ice not disappearing and Antarctic ice and temperatures being normal. It isn’t enough to regurgitate propaganda you need to produce the goods.
My CO detector doesn’t beep even on hot days.
Stephen Wilde (15:46:28) :
tallbloke (various)
You are getting there.
Changes in the composition of the air alone can only result in a change in the speed of the hydrological cycle with no effect or no significant effect on the net global average temperature of the air. ”
Full article here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3735
Stephen, I’ll move over to your thread on climaterealists to continue the conversation, it’s getting confusing having this running across several threads here.
Cheers
tallbloke,
Start a new thread in my section here:
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4
Others are also welcome.
Hi Lance,
Well, if I was surprised before, I’m astonished now! It never occurred to me that a non-expert could so thoroughly get the wrong end of the stick. I AM an oil industry shill. I hope you feel better with that off your chest.
“Hi Lance,
Well, if I was surprised before, I’m astonished now!”
Hi Oliver,
I’m both surprised, astonished, I’m dumbfounded!
So that you’re saying, is most of the time reading this blog you see posters that have irreverence to experts opinion? Of course you were surprised at the reverence, so you just had to ask”whats up with that?”
I added my post as a sarcastic joke to your post, of course, thinking that you where being faseshus.
Now if I was mistaken, as does happen on-line, I apologize.
And a answer to the last question,
Who is ever truly happy?
I will say though, your confession about being a oil industry shill did make me smile! 🙂 :p
Cheers
Lance in BC
Stephen Wilde (07:27:56) :
tallbloke,
Start a new thread in my section here:
http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4
Others are also welcome.
Stephen, I’ve replied to a couple of threads and continued our discussion on the water vapour thread.