Comments on: The Climate Crisis

By: Rob Taylor

Rob Taylor — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:01:16 +0000

Absolutely – all the denialists can hope to do is confuse the issue at the margins, as the thermodynamic and quantum mechanical principles underpinning the science of AGW are the basis of all developed economies and modern life.

Unless Steve Wrathall and his ilk live in caves, burn dung for fuel and walk to work in the fields, they are hypocrites.

By: Johnmacmot

Johnmacmot — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:14:22 +0000

The irony of Steve W’s comments above are that if any similar scrutiny and criticism was applied by the denialists like Steve to the books, papers, “research” that is trumpeted by denialists, there would be nothing left at all.

Put politely, the double standards are spectacular.

By: Bryan Walker

Bryan Walker — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:04:49 +0000

Steve,
“And what does it say about the IPCC process?” It says that it is not perfect. RealClimate offers suggestion for improvement:
“In future reports (and the organisation for AR5 in 2013 is now underway), extra efforts will be needed to make sure that the links between WG1 and the other two reports are stronger, and that the physical science community should be encouraged to be more active in the other groups.”

But for heaven’s sake get a sense of perspective. It was a careless mistake. It in no way substantially alters the fearful reality of what lies ahead for upcoming generations if we carry on pouring GHG emissions into the atmosphere.

By: Steve Wrathall

Steve Wrathall — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:34:28 +0000

BW, from your Realclimate link:
“Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through….”

And what does it say about the IPCC process that a claim that is immediately recognised as nonsense by what you affectionately call “cranks”, “deniers”, “potty” (insert Homer icon here) is just waved through by the elite of climate “researchers”?
This absurd claim of imminent glacial meltdown then sits there for 3 years, helping to shape public policies globally.
Also, isn’t it peculiar that these “errors” are always in one direction?
Is it any wonder that ordinary people now discount climate scare stories by at least an order of magnitude, and that the checks and balances of democracy are starting to put the brakes on the whole energy rationing project.

By: Mike C

Mike C — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:31:51 +0000

Speaking of David Archer, if you missed it earlier, he has made his University of Chicago lecture series based on his books available for free online. Highly recommend.

By: Bryan Walker

Bryan Walker — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:46:14 +0000

Steve may have made off by now, and I guess RealClimate isn't his favourite website, but they have a measured post on the Himalayan glacier error, in the course of which they note that it was in the Working Group II report, which doesn't get the same amount of attention from the physical science community as the higher profile WG I report .

By: mspelto

mspelto — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:34:25 +0000

The gone by date for the Himalayan glaciers is not a number that can be accurately assessed. The key is monitoring the ongoing changes in extent, and melt rate that identify their contribution to water resources and the extent at which they are changing. Not only are the glacier key for water supply, they are also key for hydropower Glacier such as on Zemu Glacier

By: The Climate Crisis â€” Hot Topic « Your Green Potential

The Climate Crisis â€” Hot Topic « Your Green Potential — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:43:12 +0000

[...] Most of the book deals with global climate science, the focus of IPCC Working Group I, with subsequent brief attention given to the impacts of climate change (Working Group II) and to mitigation (Working Group III). After looking back over the development of the …. â€œ Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased very closely to what was expected. Global temperatures have risen close to what was projected in the second and third reports, well within the given uncertainty. … Read more: The Climate Crisis â€” Hot Topic [...]

By: Dappledwater

Dappledwater — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:41:50 +0000

” It is extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof. The extraordinary claim was that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035.” – Steve Wrathall.

And yet remove such a claim from the equation and nothing changes, still bad stuff headed our way. They stuffed up including such a claim – pure and simple.

You also bring out that “recovery from the Little Ice Age” comment again too Steve. If it’s a recovery, why is it now much warmer than the period preceding the Little Ice Age?.

By: Steve Wrathall

Steve Wrathall — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:20:28 +0000

It is not on climate skeptics that the burden of “substantial evidence” lies. No one is denying that there has been a steady, global glacial retreat since the mid 1700s as the world has recovered from the Little Ice Age.

It is extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof. The extraordinary claim was that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. This claim was endorsed by the IPCC, and served to back up numerous plans for energy rationing world wide. Including our latest ETS. And this claim now has been exposed as empty as a Copenhagen condom-vending machine.

So now you are all reduced to saying – but they will still be gone by…err…ummm. 2350? …orr 3250?? any takers for 5320??