Death knell for AGW

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,955
13,787
113
Low Earth Orbit
WWF? wow If you can't tell the diff between a climate scientist and a group
like the WWF then you aren't too bright
Hey I'm not the IPCC who is citing WWF and Greenpeace am I?

You don't think WWF and Greenpaece are creditable either? Go ****ing figure. So where are your peer reviews?

Will Himilayan glaciers be gone by 2035 or 2350?

IPCC says Himilayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. Where did they come up with 2035? Hard quantifiable science? Opinion?

Or this:
. In 1999 interview with little-known Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain who told New Scientist that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.

In 2005, the WWF published a report describing the predictions in New Scientist as "disturbing". In 2007, the IPCC published a report that repeated the warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, citing WWF as its source.

Is that hard science? Is that what you base your regurgitated bull**** on? Articles in magazines?
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Hey I'm not the IPCC who is citing WWF and Greenpeace am I?
Nope. You aren't citing anything. Just spewing your goofy little opinion. lmao

You don't think WWF and Greenpaece are creditable either? Go ****ing figure.
Who said? You? I have no doubt that there are credible scientists who contribute info to those groups.
So where are your peer reviews?
I posted a link. So that indicates you didn't even bother looking. And that proves my point that it doesn't matter who posts what, you'll still ignore it.

Will Himilayan glaciers be gone by 2035 or 2350?

IPCC says Himilayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. Where did they come up with 2035? Hard quantifiable science? Opinion?
I'd be inclined to say 2050 considering the latest info. You mention opinion? You show nothing to back up your pathetic little opinion and yet you expect it to stand against the opinions of researchers that are actually knowledgeable in climate? lmao You poor, stupid little clown
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,955
13,787
113
Low Earth Orbit
Nope. You aren't citing anything. Just spewing your goofy little opinion. lmao

Who said? You? I have no doubt that there are credible scientists who contribute info to those groups. I posted a link. So that indicates you didn't even bother looking. And that proves my point that it doesn't matter who posts what, you'll still ignore it.

I'd be inclined to say 2050 considering the latest info. You mention opinion? You show nothing to back up your pathetic little opinion and yet you expect it to stand against the opinions of researchers that are actually knowledgeable in climate? lmao You poor, stupid little clown
I clicked your link and never found a single peer review.

2050? You realize that 2035 came from an interview from a magazine and wasn't based on anything beyond opinion but was included in a 2007 IPCC report?

Great science you've got backing you.



More regurgitated bull****.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
lol Local seasonal weather has what to do with global climate?

Oh yes... I forgot. Unless of course we are looking at a patch of bare ground in Greenland, a hurricane, or when it gets unseasonably warm somewhere.

Then local weather is a sign of Global Warming! Whoop! Ain't it great!? You can have it both ways!
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I clicked your link and never found a single peer review.
Not my problem if you haven't a clue how to look.

2050? You realize that 2035 came from an interview from a magazine and wasn't based on anything beyond opinion?
Doesn't matter, idiot. I never claimed anything about 2035 either way.

More regurgitated bull****.
lol And you sure spew it aplenty.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,955
13,787
113
Low Earth Orbit
IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers


Senior members of the UN's climate science body admit a claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 was unfounded

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

It added: "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said.

The IPCC says the broader conclusion of the report is unaffected: that glaciers have melted significantly, that this will accelerate and affect the supply of water from major mountain ranges "where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives".

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, added that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report. "

The Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said earlier in the week: "The [glaciers] are indeed receding and the rate is cause for great concern … [but the claim is] not based on an iota of scientific evidence."

The Indian government criticised the IPCC's glaciers claim in November at the launch of its own discussion paper, written by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina, which admitted that while some glaciers in the Himalayas were retreating, it was "nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear."

At the time, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, dismissed the report as not peer-reviewed and said: "With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."

Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology at the University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, said he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the report was published. "This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude," he said.

"All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made," he said. "If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we will do better next time'. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured."

The reports of the IPCC collate the work of thousands of scientists and are assessed through a process of peer-review and then approved by the 192 governments who are members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its work is seen as the most comprehensive account of global warming.

The chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has made no personal comment on the glacier claim: But yesterday, at an energy conference in Abu Dhabi, he responded to British newspaper articles criticising his chairmanship of the IPCC. "They can't attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won't sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown. In fact, I will float much higher," he told the Guardian.

The row centres on the IPCC's "fourth assessment" report in 2007, which said "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate." The claim appears in the full report, but not in the more widely read "Summary for policymakers".

The claim was attributed to a report by the campaign group WWF, but in the New Scientist article, Guardian writer Fred Pearce noted that WWF had cited a 1999 interview in the magazine with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain as the source of the claim. Hasnain told the magazine last week that "it is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers".

11 ****ing years to retract their bull****?

Personal attcks...isn't that a sign of an argument in it's death throws?
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Oh yes... I forgot. Unless of course we are looking at a patch of bare ground in Greenland, a hurricane, or when it gets unseasonably warm somewhere.
Greenland? lol

2010 spike in Greenland ice loss lifted bedrock, GPS reveals

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1449.html

Various estimates of Greenland ice loss

That last one shows variability in Greenland's ice loss, but the fact still remains no-one is suggesting Greenland isn't losing ice.

Then local weather is a sign of Global Warming! Whoop! Ain't it great!? You can have it both ways!
lol
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers


Senior members of the UN's climate science body admit a claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 was unfounded

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.
Uhuh. So? Did you see any post of mine claiming that groups are peer-reviewed? IPCC is a group, BTW. Research papers are peer-reviewed. research papers are authored by 1 or a few researchers. research papers are peer-reviewed before being published in journals. That means the work done by researchers is peer-reviewed, moron, not the answers researchers supply in interviews. Fock, you're stupid.
Personal attcks...isn't that a sign of an argument in it's death throws?
Or they are simple observations.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,955
13,787
113
Low Earth Orbit
Uhuh. So? Did you see any post of mine claiming that groups are peer-reviewed? IPCC is a group, BTW. Research papers are peer-reviewed. research papers are authored by 1 or a few researchers. research papers are peer-reviewed before being published in journals. That means the work done by researchers is peer-reviewed, moron, not the answers researchers supply in interviews. Fock, you're stupid.
Or they are simple observations.
So where are your peer reviews? Either you can produce them or you can't. Give it your best shot.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Is it still warming after 13000 years or is that opinion?
lmao It's been shown to be an observation backed up by data clooected directly and indirectly. That's all the stuff you ignore, so why are you concerned about it now?

Anything to back up your denials?

Show the peer reviews.
Pick a link in the URL, you lazy moron.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
115,955
13,787
113
Low Earth Orbit
lmao It's been shown to be an observation backed up by data clooected directly and indirectly. That's all the stuff you ignore, so why are you concerned about it now?

Anything to back up your denials?

Pick a link in the URL, you lazy moron.
There is a reason I ignore it.
There is a little saying you might be unaware of "corellation doesn't imply causation". When it's quantified I'll agree to it. That is how peer reviewed science works.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Got anything to support your denials? I can even come up with arguments against global warming. Apparently, you can't, though.

There is a reason I ignore it.
There is a little saying you might be unaware of "corellation doesn't imply causation". When it's quantified I'll agree to it. That is how peer reviewed science works.
Prove it, don't just claim it.