Death knell for AGW

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
Lawrence Solomon: IPCC faces another desertion – its own past chair!
February 08, 2010,
The past chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has joined the growing list of IPCC critics. According to the Sunday Telegraph, Rajendra Pachauri, the disgraced current IPCC chair, now faces criticism from his immediate predecessor, Robert Watson. The Telegraph reports that Watson “stressed that the chairman must take responsibility for correcting errors.” In another indication that Watson is taking pains to distance himself from the organization he once headed, the Sunday Times, in a story entitled Top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility, reports that Watson warned the IPCC that it must tackle its blunders.
Watson’s comments come on the heels of another glaring embarrassment to come out of the IPCC, this time a claim that global warming could cut crop production in north Africa by up to 50% by 2020. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change,” Watson stated. “I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report.”
In this latest high-profile IPCC gaffe, which has been repeated around the world, including by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the IPCC seems to have relied on a 2003 report from a Winnipeg-based think tank called the International Institute for Sustainable Development. The report, which was not peer-reviewed, in turn seems to have relied on submissions to the UN by civil servants from Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, which also appear not to have been peer-reviewed.
Apart from his post as past IPCC chair, Watson is also the UK’s highest level environmental scientist, as Chief Scientist at the UK’s environment ministry. Prior to his current position, which he assumed in 2007, Watson was Chair of Environmental Science and Science Director of the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia, the same university caught up in the Climategate scandal.
Watson’s new-found scepticism of the science being produced by the IPCC represents an ironic reversal. In 2002, he remarked that "The only person who doesn't believe the science is President Bush."
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Sorry about #615; this link works. Another post for the Climategate deniers.
Opinions are rampant and myriad. So what?
The facts remain; the oceans are rising millimeter by millimeter, they are becoming acidic, the mean average temperature of them is rising, etc.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
That cycle has bee occurring for millennia
No shyte, Sherlock. This is the first time the cycle has been held for this long in a warm period, though.
And warming doesn't account for the acidification of the oceans; CO2 does. Warming doesn't account for the ozone layer being depleted; human activity does. Warming doesn't account for the hundreds of thousands of square miles of garbage in the oceans; human activity does.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
No shyte, Sherlock. This is the first time the cycle has been held for this long in a warm period, though.
And warming doesn't account for the acidification of the oceans; CO2 does. Warming doesn't account for the ozone layer being depleted; human activity does. Warming doesn't account for the hundreds of thousands of square miles of garbage in the oceans; human activity does.
This thread is about AGW, not ocean acidification or ozone or garbage. Stick to the issue .
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
This thread is about AGW, not ocean acidification or ozone or garbage. Stick to the issue .
Why? You don't. Someone else's opinion on whether there is warming or not has little to do with whether GW was caused by humans, nature, or a combination of the two. BTW, Ozone layer has a LOT to do with GW and we definitely did cause a depletion of that.
Go back to school and learn a bit about what you babble about. It might help you from looking so much like a fool. Just a suggestion. ;)
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
You missed the pretty pictures? I thought they were quite evident.
If you'd looked at one of them the next nearest long warming period was about 130,000 years ago and didn't last nearly as long as this one has so far.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
This thread is about AGW, not ocean acidification or ozone or garbage. Stick to the issue .

Right, here is the problem Walter. Folks like you love to throw out explanations for why the world is the way it is, and they aren't even consistent. If global warming is being caused by human proliferation of greenhouse gases, then there are some fingerprints we should expect. The oceans should acidify. You know that blather about world temperatures rising in de-glaciations before carbon dioxide? Well that's not happening. The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide, and they're warming. That's unequivocally not due to sun spots, galactic rays, or undersea volcanoes.

The stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. That is unequivocally not due to increased solar output, or volcanoes, or comic rays seeding clouds. It's a finger print of an atmosphere made opaque to the outgoing longwave (infrared) radiation.

You can throw as much spaghetti at the IPCC wall as you like, it won' stick. No explanation is as consistent in producing predictions based on good science as the anthropogenic model. No amount of blathering by your priests will change reality. To continue to believe that this model (in the classical science sense, not general circulation model) of the climate is falling apart is to be blinded by your denialist religion, in the face of strong facts.

Now run off and find some other's opinion to refute what I say here. Or at the very least, don't try to be an arbiter of what does and does not belong in this thread. It is old, and large, and with time all threads expand to cover more issues. In this case what Anna says is completely within the realm of this thread, as it is a direct supporting fact for why AGW is in no death knell.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,871
116
63
Still more crap found in the IPCC report. Don't these people read over their writing before handing it in.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
This thread is about AGW, not ocean acidification or ozone or garbage. Stick to the issue .

When talking about Global Warming, everything is and should be on the table "ocean acidification or ozone or garbage" are definatly a possible reason either as a byproduct or cause.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
The following article does suggest that the time may be coming of tall trees again, heavy primeval forests like we had in the past before man.
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1960567,00.html
Basic biology suggests that plants might grow faster in a world with more carbon dioxide, and field experiments bear that out: when you pump extra CO2 into a field or a forest, trees and other vegetation tend to get bigger.
There are plenty of caveats attached: without other nutrients, the size and health of CO2-enriched plants can be compromised, and in some cases noxious weeds like poison ivy do better than the greenery you might prefer. But perhaps the biggest question of all is how closely such artificial situations translate in the real world. (Watch "Battle of the Endangered Species: Bats v. Trees")
That question is a long way from being answered, but a study published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences takes a small step in that direction. A team of researchers used 22 years' worth of carefully accumulated measurements of hardwood forests in and near the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, in Edgewater, Md., to show that their growth has accelerated significantly. On average, the stands were expanding at a rate of two extra tons of mass per acre per year, by the end of the study — the equivalent of a single two-foot-diameter tree, if you could grow a tree that big in a year. "We don't know exactly when it started," says co-author Geoffrey Parker, a forest ecologist at the Smithsonian. But the scientists do have an idea of the reason — or rather, three possible reasons, all of which are likely to be interrelated.
The first is a 12% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the study began — the same CO2 increase implicated in global warming. The second is the warming itself. And the third is an increase in the growing season, defined as the length of time between the last frost in spring and the first frost in fall, which is also a consequence of warming. "We couldn't narrow it down further than that," says Parker. (See the top 10 invasive species.)
What made the study possible in the first place was the fact that pretty much none of the forest in this part of the U.S. is virgin; it's been cleared for agriculture at various times, and then allowed to regrow in patches. The result: individual stands of similar trees ranging from about 225 years old to just five. "You could do this experiment by measuring a single stand of trees as long as possible," says Parker, "but a scientific career lasts only a few percent of the life of a tree." This way, he explains, you have a snapshot of the same forest at different ages."
Forest biologists already know that, all things being equal, trees grow more rapidly when they're young, then taper off as they mature, and that you can chart the standard curve of growth for a given forest type by looking at the kind of snapshots Parker and his colleagues used. It takes only a couple of years of measurements to figure out the overall growth curve. This study has been going on for 22 years, conducted largely by technicians and volunteers trained by the Smithsonian scientists. "We have a huge corps of volunteers," says Parker. "It's not rocket science but you need to do a lot of measurements and repeat them often."
Over that 22-year span, Parker and the others noticed that the growth curve gradually bends upward, meaning the regrowth was accelerating — a hint, anyway, that controlled experiments involving enriched CO2 levels were indeed a reasonable if rough proxy of what would likely happen in the real world as CO2 levels mount. Whether the forests' growth spurt might actually impact global warming by absorbing and storing more carbon is doubtful. While it's true that more trees suck up more carbon, they also produce more dark, heat-absorbing foliage, which somewhat counteracts the benefit. In addition, one extra tree per acre per year doesn't make much of a dent in the atmospheric carbon load, not to mention that it's still unknown what the effect would be in other kinds of forests.
The Smithsonian experiment will continue to see what happens next in terms of forest growth, says Parker. His suspicion: because the trees aren't getting a boost in nutrients to match the extra CO2 and warmer climate, "it probably can't go on much too much longer."
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1960567,00.html

 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Toles has some nice toons out there.

I like this recent one by Morten Morland: