Global Warming - Scientific evidence

[sasguru]

oh, I wonder which of the two statements you do not agree with

when the IPCC said that the Himalayan glaciers were melting away, did you agree with that ?

The point I am making here SasGoru, is that whatever happens in the world is bad, and whatever happens is down to AGW
That is propoganda, not science

Instead of making childish, immature and irrelevant points try to further your education by reading Mr. Clarke's very cogent arguments and linkies.

HTH

[sasguru]

pjclarke, you seem to know what you are talking about and you haven't called anyone here thick or a cretin.

He must have superb diplomatic skills to avoid saying the obvious.

[BlasterBates]

The Trenberth quote, like most of the CRU soundbites doing the rounds is, of course, lifted out of context and spun around 180 degrees. Trenberth was discussing small variances in the the planetary heat budget, which all agree is in imbalance. He was complaining that our observation systems lack the resolution to determine with the accuracy we would like, how much of the additional heat is entering the oceans, how much the atmosphere etc. Not many scientists would disagree with that. I commend his paper on the topic.

This is nothing more than a play on words.

It is exactly what he said the earth is cooling and he can't explain it.
The heat hiding somewhere.

That is the whole point, he has a problem.

[EternalOptimist]

Instead of making childish, immature and irrelevant points try to further your education by reading Mr. Clarke's very cogent arguments and linkies.

HTH

wriggle wriggle.

I have read the arguments, I have read some of the papers (the abstracts at least)

A scientific paper is a pretty stark thing, it doesnt have a colour, it doesnt have an allegience. It is the interpretation, conclusion, the spin and the agenda that cause the problem. And the argument that is used to link them together - which is where the propoganda comes in

[sasguru]

wriggle wriggle.

I have read the arguments, I have read some of the papers (the abstracts at least)

A scientific paper is a pretty stark thing, it doesnt have a colour, it doesnt have an allegience. It is the interpretation, conclusion, the spin and the agenda that cause the problem. And the argument that is used to link them together - which is where the propoganda comes in

There's propaganda on both sides.
Concenrate on the science.

[pjclarke]

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system.

... Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.

Source.

[BlasterBates]

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system.

... Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.


Source.

Which is of course make the quote extremely apt.

In other words a well respected climate scientist can't explain where the heat went?

I look forward to this question being resolved in the next few years.

...because in all those hundreds of papers you quoted the answer isn't there.

...anyway keep going you seem to be well read in this subject

[sasguru]

In other words a well respected climate scientist can't explain where the heat went?

.

Mister Bates,

This post shows you didn't bother to engage with the explanation provided or read (or even skim) the paper provided.
That is NOT what he said.
But then you're only trolling and not really interested are you?
In any case you're taking a real spanking from Mr. Clark. It's making you look extremely stupid.


keep posting, its extremely entertaining to see your poor arguments demolished with the light of reason.

[EternalOptimist]

Which is of course make the quote extremely apt.

In other words a well respected climate scientist can't explain where the heat went?

I look forward to this question being resolved in the next few years.

...because in all those hundreds of papers you quoted the answer isn't there.

...anyway keep going you seem to be well read in this subject

On an academic level, thats fine, but imagine if you were the leader of Pakistan and you were told that your water supply was going to dry up in 25 years and the lead time for alternatives, like desalination, was 30 years.

[pjclarke]

The Himalayan Glacier thing was an embarrassing blunder by the IPCC, compounded by Pachauri's hamfisted defence.

Note that it is in the report from Working Group II, which reported on impacts, rather than WGI which reported on the Physical Science. The discussion on glaciers in WG1 is accurate, and rooted in peer-reviewed science. The authors of WGII really should have consulted their colleagues, a case of left hand not knowing what right hand was doing. It was a WGI author who first spotted the error.

But that is one error in 2,800 fact-filled pages, not a bad rate. I guess once you've been awarded the Nobel, the only way is down.

Does this means the Himalyan Glaciers are OK, or even 'thickening'? Well they will still be around in 2035, but yes, they are receding and yes, it is a problem ...