http://nextdaynews.org/article_detail_pdf.php?aid=20216
Doesn't this discredit the whole report?
Thomas, I too am an engineer but I have some expertise in geology. Maybe you should look into to getting some more training and stop trying to inflict your politics on the rest of us. When these Charlatans make failed predictions, instead of admitting they were wrong, they double down and make even more dire predictions, and then insult the intelligence of those of us who actually have enough intelligence to remember the original predictions. Some of those who are "trained to interpret data" apparently don't have that ability. .
The article you quote seems to make only 3 points related to the IPCC, rather than the politics of dealing with climate change. Those three points are:
1. Arctic ice gone by 2013
Yes, this wasn't shown to be correct. But, in the grand scheme of things, if Arctic ice vanished in 2015 or 2016 or 2018 would it make much of a difference to the prediction? The point is, at current rates, it'll be ice free in the not-too-distant future and if people are going to demand precision of an exact year, well, they're just being naive.
Arctic sea ice may have increased but the trend is definitely downwards. Have a look at
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
particularly the graph for February, which I've attached.
2. The Antarctic 'stranding' of the research vessel
This isn't an argument about global warming ... it's simply a statement of the fact that it's still cold in Antarctica (and hence, ships can still get caught in ice). I'd love for someone to explain how a ship getting caught in ice in one of the coldest locations on our planet proves that human emissions of greenhouse gases have no global impact.
3. The Himalayan Glaciers
The original source of this prediction was a New Scientist, non-peer reviewed article in which a glaciologist suggested the date of 2035 as when the glaciers could be gone. This made it into the IPCC report and did not meet the standards set by the IPCC because it had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The IPCC apologised and acknowledged the error.
It is important to state that this was one error in one paragraph in a document of over 3000 pages in length, which is about the error rate in a print encyclopedia. If the argument is that the prediction is wrong then a) it is not 2035 yet and b) the IPCC acknowledged the error. If the argument is that it shouldn't have been included, then yes, an error was made and was obvious to a geographer who read the report. This was obvious because the IPCC makes public the criteria by which it assesses data, and the statement didn't meet those criteria. How that disproves global warming is beyond me!
I seem to remember that they declared that this report would be really scary just after they completed its predecessor. So the conclusions were premeditated before any new papers were read or before any authors had been selected. Why do I think it does not reflect the facts?
2035: The main point about 2035 is not that it is wrong but that the error was pointed out well ahead of publication and well in time to correct it. After publication it led to the "voodoo science" comment by Pachauri before he back-tracked and admitted the error. Strangely, it benefitted TERI, which Pachauri runs, because they got some work from the Indian government to look at the glacier situation. It's an ill wind ...
@Thomes K: All the information you quote means nothing unless it is outside the bounds of natural variability. As for Polar Vortex, I have just posted a link from 1853 into another answer.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Df4vA...
As an engineer who is trained to interpret data, how much data would you need to form an opinion on something? 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%? How many percent does last year contribute to the life of the earth?
@Stubby: You do know that 30% of the citations in the IPCC AR4 were from non peer-reviewed grey literature?
do you think they are 'facts' just because it's what you want to hear?
did you click the 'about' link to learn where that site comes from?
i did, and it is not a Science website;
"All our Reporters and Contributors submit up-to-the-minute articles and content that demonstrate trends and conclusions that point toward a future outcome.
This discipline keeps our content at the cutting edge of news delivery across all categories of Social, Economic and Political interest.
It also creates a fascinating archive to refer back and determine how accurately we read the runes. So an article submitted today would still have relevance six months from now and updates on the same subject would either confirm or deny the outcome that was originally predicted.
This keeps our readers hooked as they love to be kept updated on all our on-going stories.
All our Contributors are free-lance reporters, writers and authors from around the world and their perspective and fact-based journalism is what makes this Site so popular."
To raise one gram of ice 1 degree C takes .5 calories.
To raise one gram of water 1 degree takes 1 calorie.
To change one gram of ice to one gram of water takes 80 calories.
Melting ice in the north makes for much colder air in the North which when it comes South in the winter time makes for much colder winters ( such as this one). Once that ice is gone winters are just going to start getting warmer.
There is less ice over the oceans (which is the ice that will melt first) in the southern hemisphere and already they're feeling the heat.
<
Facts? What facts?
"Al Gore, the former Vice President and author of “An inconvenient truth” made a prediction, based on climate science, that the arctic ice would disappear by 2013."
He didn't say that. He said that it Could be ice free in the summer of 2013. He wasn't far off.
"In fact, the Sea Ice for that region is the highest that it’s ever been for the last 6 or 7 years"
Totally wrong.
2011 and 2012 had respectively the 3rd and 1st lowest sea ice extent recorded while 2013 was well below the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's averages. Arctic Sea Ice Volume show very similar trends.
"When climate scientists made a fact-finding trip to the Antarctic to prove that
ships can now sail through previously un-navigable frozen seas..."
Wrong again. Their point wasn't to prove that ships can now sail through previously un-navigable frozen seas. They were well aware that there was a risk that they could get stuck.
"When the Himalayan glaciers, which were forecast to have disappeared by
now,..."
Again wrong. The author of this piece of garbage can't even manage to get genuine IPCC errors wrong. The IPCC wrongly predicted the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers by 2035, not 'by now'.
"...to last at for least another 200 years; you would think the prophets of doom would shuffle off and hide."
Another piece of fiction in this article. While the earlier IPCC prediction of disappearance by 2035 might have been wrong, it was so because the figure was not based on peer-reviewed science. The peer-reviewed science does however indicate strongly that the majority of Himalayan glaciers are receding.
The rest of the 'article' is a political rant which, as usual, is not based on facts but rather on an abysmal misunderstanding of science and a whole lot of fiction.
Again, people look at the world as if it began on the day they were born thus ignoring all of the history before. If one were to open their eyes and look at the past they would see that the present is.....normal.
Thomas K Nothing that is occurring today is out of the ordinary compared to history.
Stephen Schneider said we have to offer scary scenarios, excite the public imagination. If the IPCC report was lukewarm, then they would have to shut down the IPCC. It's purpose is to produce a Working Group 1 report, the physical basis, that says the planet is going to warm and warm a lot and humans are responsible, Working Group 2 must say it is very damaging, and Working Group 3 suggests large scale emissions cuts and lots of money are needed to avoid the damage. Without all three parts, the report fails its political objective.
Forget about showing me a graph from a dubious source. Most of the people who try to show me “math” are readily identifiable as ex-students who never counted math as a friend. One graph tells me nothing.
Here is what you can SEE with your own eyes about Climate Change. This is, by no means, a complete list.
In the Southern Hemisphere, they are just finishing their summer. Australia, New Zealand, Brazil and Argentina have all posted record breaking heat. The death toll continues to climb from heat related illness Again. Just google it
The State of Washington just finished the wettest March on record. Pity the poor people in that mud slide caused by that record rain.
California, and much of the Southwest U.S. is in the midst of a record breaking drought.
Last year, the severe heat caused thousands of deaths in Europe. Record breaking heat.
Last summer they ran out of air conditioners in Alaska. Record heat
This winter broke all kinds of records in the U.S. When have you ever heard the term “Polar Vortex” before this winter?
These are just a few. I posted no-links for brevity sake - a quick google of "record heat Australia" (or any other mentioned above) will give you thousands of hits from credible sources.
When we are breaking weather records everywhere on the globe, I sit up and take notice.
It’s time to take the politics out of science and just use your eyes. AGW is right in your face.
I deliberately did not put graphs or "interpret" any data other than what is readily visible. I did not shop around for a "scientist" until I found one that agreed with my opinion. Just plain ole facts that everyone (EVERYONE) agrees on.
Last year almost 15,000 people died in France due to heat. That number is not debatable.
The Southern Hemisphere set record temperatures in the past few months. Again, this is not debatable - it is recognized as fact. Check the body count in Argentina.
The SW U.S. is having a record drought -no debate. The Web page for Fox news last week showed farmers fighting over water. More facts.
As an engineer, I would assume some level of curiosity on your part as to why this phenomena is happening on a global scale.
Seriously poorly designed website. Starting with Gore doesn't make them a professional site. he isn't a scientist A middle-schooler could build a better site
None of the FACTS in this article were addressed in this new report...
http://nextdaynews.org/article_detail_pdf.php?aid=20216
Doesn't this discredit the whole report?
