On the one hand, in New York, the Heartland Institute‘s climate crank talking shop, where scientists of the immense probity of Richard Lindzen were happy to share a stage with proven fabricators of data like Christopher Monckton, has drawn to a close. Terry Dunleavy, head honcho of NZ’s climate crank coalition has given his presentation, and no doubt Muriel Newman is happy that her NZ Centre for Policy Research sponsorship of the event has been fruitful. The crank blogosphere has loved the attention, and the great communicator himself (step forward Bob Carter) has been positively chortling about the event in his posts at Quadrant Online.
On the other hand, a proper conference, Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions is just getting under way in Copenhagen. Real scientists from all over the world, leaders in their fields, are gathering to present the latest research findings. The objective is to provide a comprehensive update to the findings of the IPCC’s 2007 report, so that policymakers can go into the final phase of negotiations for a post-Kyoto deal with a clear picture of what the science is telling us about the climate system. Conference organiser, Prof Katherine Richardson of the University of Copenhagen provides more background in this interview at Nature Reports: Climate Change.
I’ll be covering news from the conference as it emerges, but the big news from day one: expect sea level rise of at least a metre by the end of the century. BBC coverage here, plus TimesOnline, the Herald reprints an Observer preview, New Scientist, and the conference press release for day one.
Two other interesting stories from day one (which I will return to, at some point): the “tipping point” for complete loss of the Greenland ice sheet may be further off than thought, and a French researcher gave a dire warning about permafrost carbon emissions.
[Frankie]
Gareth, you are to be commended for your ongoing and forthright defence of what you see as a dire planetary threat, but you are evading the main point. Which I’ll make at the end of this post…meanwhile researchers at the Massachusetts Institue of Technology; Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, ask “‘…is global warming part of a natural cycle ?”
Today’s post, at http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/03/scientists-at-m.html…
…is simply another example that much is still to be learnt about cyclical climate change, and climate science….
“A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas…”
And the main point ? That climate sceptics, and I’m proud to be one, are meeting as a unified body, in greater numbers than before to point out that the outrageous lie, that the science is settled, is transparent nonsense.
Is global warming part of a natural cycle ?
Science simply answers maybe…
That’s nonsense. It’s not Rigby & Prinn making any such statement, it’s a clueless blogger who clearly has no idea what they’re talking about. Check your sources before you re-post crap here.
I reported on the Rigby & Prinn paper when it first came out last October.
Is global warming part of a natural cycle?
The simple answer that science gives is: no.
The ocean acidification story is very scary too … ocean chemistry not seen for millions of years … mass extinctions of marine life probable
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7936137.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/10/carbon-emissions-oceans-copenhagen
[No need to repeat the link. Once is quite enough, especially for rubbish. GR]
I thought it was good of stuey to list two different sources to the same story. Thanks Stuey.
Why is a new study “rubbish” Ayrdale? What research have you done which refutes it?
[Ayrdale reposted his first link, so I took it out. Nothing to do with stuey. GR]
Ayrdale, you are no scientist and you don’t understand the science (as you have shown above)
Ronald G. Prinn is and believes that
“carbon dioxide, a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, is the principal greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.”
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Multi-Gas.pdf
Typical proud sceptic, can’t understand the science and bends it tell lies.
“in greater numbers†700 people who were paid to attend?!?!?
Yes well…it’s all cut and dried isn’t it ?
But these researchers are nevertheless still looking for answers and are unable to explain the rise of methane in the atmosphere…
And Jonno, your bluff and bluster can’t hide the fact that the mere presence of sceptics like myself reporting on an international conference of sceptics including many scientists is adequate proof that there is still much to learn about climate science…
A new and impartial viewer to this site scanning the postings and comments would have to agree…from Terry Dunleavy…
“…an analysis by John McLean (Melbourne) of the reviewers’ comments on the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report. Amongst other astonishing facts (against a claimed “2,500 reviewersâ€), of the 62 reviewers of the crucial Chapter 9 (attribution of cause of climate change), 55 were conflicted, and of the remaining 7 apparently independent persons, only ONE explicitly endorsed the most important statement about human attribution in the chapter…”
Ayrdale, nobody claims that the science is “cut and dried”. A large proportion of the posts on this blog cover the new stuff we’re learning — almost on a daily basis.
McLean’s “analysis” is/was risible (it’s not new). Terry Dunleavy is happy to take the Heartland shilling and share a stage with Monckton. Says more about his ethics than anything I ever could.
And why are you not rushing to defend Monckton?
Ayrdale, it’s your bluff and bluster that can’t hide the facts. Every time you put some ‘evidence’ , it is debunked. Still you can not accept that you may be wrong when it comes to the cause of the current global warming.
You are the one that has been constantly shown to be wrong. A trend, some may say. You are a classic skeptic and I don’t mean that in a good way.
‘including many scientists’…. that is a bit of an claim… how many climate scientist? Not many? Any of them publish recently?
This explain you to a tee..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-denier
Don’t ask him how many, Jonno – we’ll all have to hear about some petition or another again…