New Blockbuster IPCC Climate Report: Comprehensive, Authoritative, Conservative

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 11:31 AM GMT on September 26, 2013

Share this Blog
62
+

Comprehensive. Authoritative. Conservative.
Those words summarize the world's most rigorous and important scientific report in history: the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate assessment, due to be released at 4am EDT Friday in Stockholm, Sweden. The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC has put together an amazingly authoritative and comprehensive report on a subject crucial to the future of civilization, a report that will guide policymakers worldwide as they struggle to cope with the growing chaos generated by the Great Climate Disruption that is already upon us. The first 31 pages of the report, called the "Summary For Policymakers", is what will be released Friday, and this summary will lay out a powerful scientific case that significant climate change with severe impacts is already occurring, humans are mostly responsible, the pace of climate change is expected to accelerate, and we can make choices to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases to limit the damage.

Q: What is the IPCC?
A: In 1988, 300 scientists and high-ranking government officials at an international conference convened by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) concluded that changes in the atmosphere due to human pollution “represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences over many parts of the globe.” Immediate action was needed, they said, to negotiate a set of strict, specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But who should coordinate such an effort? The conservative Reagan Administration and some other governments were wary of control by any group that was part of the United Nations structure. These governments proposed formation of a new, fully independent group under the direct control of representatives appointed by each government—that is, an intergovernmental panel. Responding to this pressure, the WMO and UNEP collaborated in creating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC was neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body, but a unique hybrid. It could issue reports only with the firm agreement of a great majority of the world’s leading climate scientists, plus the unanimous consensus of all participating governments. Importantly, it would put policy options on the table, but would not make explicit policy recommendations. Given these requirements, the IPCC reports tend to be quite conservative, but have unimpeachable authority.

Q: What is an IPCC report?
A: Every 5 - 6 years, the IPCC issues a massive 3,000+ page report summarizing the current state of knowledge on climate change. These "assessment reports" have been issued in 1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, and now, 2013. The latest assessment will be released in four parts:

"The Physical Science Basis" (September 2013) will describe the observed and predicted changes to Earth's climate.

"Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" (March 2014) will document the dire consequences associated with the path that we’re on.

"Mitigation of Climate Change" (April 2014) will outline what it will take to get us back on track to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The "Synthesis Report" (October 2014) will summarize all of the other reports.

The scientists who prepare the 3,000+ page report cite over 9,200 peer-reviewed scientific articles, but present no original research of their own. At least 259 authors from 39 countries drafted the part of the report being released this week, and the report was subjected to two rounds of review by 1089 experts in 55 countries beginning in December 2011. None of the scientists were paid for their work. The report was also reviewed by government representatives from 38 nations, and the final report that is being debated in Stockholm this week was revised based on the over 54,000 review comments received. The most important part of the report is the "Summary for Policy Makers", a 31-page document that summarizes the key scientific findings, used by governments to make policy decisions on how to respond to climate change. The "Summary for Policy Makers" for "The Physical Science Basis" portion of the 2013 IPCC report is being released on September 27. The actual 1,000+ page scientific report that the "Summary for Policy Makers" summarizes is being released the following Monday (September 30.) While the "Summary for Policy Makers" is drafted by the scientists who serve as the lead authors for the IPCC report, the summary is subject to approval by the governments of the 195 member nations of the IPCC. During the final week of the approval process, politicians can weigh in and demand changes to the summary drafted by the scientists, since the final "Summary for Policy Makers" requires unanimous approval by all of the IPCC nations. The IPCC reports have the most elaborate review and approval process for any scientific report in the world. In 2007, the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. In short, three words summarize the IPCC reports:

Comprehensive.
Authoritative.
Conservative.


FIgure 1. IPCC lead authors gather for a group photo at the four most recent meetings for drafting of the 2013 IPCC assessment report. Image credit: IPCC.

Q: Do errors in the IPCC reports undermine confidence in the science?
A: No. Two small errors have been found in the 3000+ pages of the 2007 IPCC report. Neither has anything to do with the basic conclusions that the globe is unequivocally warming and that human activity is the primary cause (one error was simply a typo.) The mistakes have been acknowledged and corrected and review procedures are being strengthened to avoid future errors. In a report of over 3,000 pages by hundreds of authors, it is not unusual that there would be a few minor errors. Contrarians seeking to discredit climate science, and some in the media, have blown these errors out of proportion, claiming the errors invalidate the entire IPCC report. It's like saying we need to throw out an entire phone book because two misspellings were found in it.

Q: What are some of the weaknesses of the IPCC report?
1) The report is already out-of-date, since papers had to be submitted for publication by July 2012 and published by March 2013 in order to be cited.

2) The report is tedious, complex, and difficult to read, making this vital science difficult to access. Little regard was given by the IPCC to communicating the results of the report. Science has little value if it is not understandably communicated to those who need the information. Where are the accompanying explanatory videos? Why was the report issued on a Friday, the worst day of the work week to get attention? The IPCC has devoted a very small portion of its budget to communication and outreach, leaving the interpretation of the report to others. I can understand the reluctance of the IPCC to provide a more slick and showy interpretation of the report, since they might be accused of "spinning" the science, and one of the great strengths of the IPCC report is its great science and the impartiality of the content. But the assumption that the science will speak for itself is wrong. The most powerful and richest corporations in world history--the oil companies--are waging very well-funded PR campaigns to deny the science, play up the uncertainties, and question the character of the scientists who write the report. The world's most rigorous and important scientific report in history is being kicked apart by powerful special interests whose profits are threatened by the findings.

3) Since the "Summary for Policymakers" is subject to unanimous approval by politicians, the science is potentially compromised, and the conclusions will tend to be conservative. Naomi Oreskes, in Chapter Six of her book, "Merchants of Doubt", recounts the haggling that led up to the approval of the 1995 Summary for Policy Makers. Government delegates for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other major oil exporting nations demanded a change to the statement the scientists had drafted, "The balance of evidence suggests an appreciable human influence on climate." For two whole days, the scientists haggled with the Saudi delegate over the single word "appreciable". Nearly 30 different alternatives were discussed before IPCC chair Bert Bolin finally found a word that both sides could accept: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate." The term "discernible" established a middle ground by suggesting that human-caused climate change was detectable, but the level of that influence was subject to debate. This sentence would go on to become one the most famous scientific statements ever made about climate change, but it was more conservative than what the scientists wanted.

4) The lower-end emissions scenario, called RCP2.6, which assumes that CO2 concentrations will reach 421 ppm by the year 2100, is highly unlikely. Earth reached 400 ppm of CO2 earlier this year, and CO2 has increased by over 2 ppm per year during the past decade. CO2 emissions are accelerating, and CO2 levels will surpass 421 ppm by the year 2023 at the current rate of acceleration. RCP2.6 requires that we slash emissions of CO2 by 50%, relative to 1990 levels, by 2050. We are currently on a pace to match or exceed the worst-case scenario considered by the IPCC (RCP8.5), where CO2 levels reach 936 ppm by the year 2100.

Commentary
The two higher-end emission scenarios of the four considered by the IPCC will very likely warm the planet more than 2°C (3.6°F) over pre-industrial levels. Two degrees Centigrade represents a "dangerous" level of warming for civilization that we must avoid, according to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, signed by world leaders including President Obama. We will have to work very hard, and very soon, to keep warming below this 2°C "danger" level. As climate writer Elizabeth Kolbert says, holding the global temperature increase to “only” two degrees Celsius, though, is like limiting yourself to “only” a few rounds of Russian roulette: unless you’re uncommonly lucky, the result is not likely be happy. The 0.9°C warming we've experienced since 1900 has already caused a destabilization of global weather patterns, resulting in unprecedented extreme weather events and accelerating melting of polar ice caps. As a group of climate scientists wrote in 2009 at RealClimate.org,

"Even a “moderate” warming of 2°C stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society, leading potentially to the conflict and suffering that go with failed states and mass migrations. Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture."

I'll have a full analysis of the new IPCC report Friday morning, and will be offering expert commentary live on The Weather Channel beginning at 7:10 am EDT on Friday. The 2013 Summary For Policymakers will be available on the IPCC website beginning at 4 am EDT Friday.


Video 1. I did a live interview with http://www.democracynow.org Thursday morning during their 8am - 9am EDT news hour, discussing the upcoming IPCC report.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 543 - 493

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Quoting 537. StormPro:



Fair enough Naga but, (there's always a but lol), simply expounding the theory from the highest mountain tops won't stop anything. So instead of getting so sensitive about us Cro-Magnon types denying the existence, why don't said scientist set about finding a cure, or at least a treatment? It's like discovering you have cancer and forgoing treatment and doubling your cigarette use while arguing with the doctor that you don't have it. If the scientific community feels this is the way, then we need them to follow thru and come up with the cure. Agree?


Well the recipe is out there. Seattle, for example now has a plan in place to be carbon neutral by 2050 Link

The problem with any solution is sacrifice. As individuals we don't want to sacrifice our comfort. Big business doesn't want to sacrifice profits. Government doesn't want to sacrifice money, electability, etc.

We can do it, we have to do it gradually, and we have to be realistic about how long it will take to safely transition from a fossil fuel based energy producer to a renewable energy producer without massive societal upheaval. It is an incredibly complex problem and solution, I definitely don't have all the answers, but people are making suggestions, and some places like Seattle are taking the lead.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3284
Quoting 539. SuperStorm093:
OMG Relax people, that 10 percent is going OTS anyway and MOST LIKELY wont do anything. RELAX, I can so tell this season has sucked cause of how hyped up this lemon is.


Sure is better than the non-stop AGW harrangue. Debating cirrus clouds would be better than this nonsense.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 537. StormPro:



Fair enough Naga but, (there's always a but lol), simply expounding the theory from the highest mountain tops won't stop anything. So instead of getting so sensitive about us Cro-Magnon types denying the existence, why don't said scientist set about finding a cure, or at least a treatment? It's like discovering you have cancer and forgoing treatment and doubling your cigarette use while arguing with the doctor that you don't have it. If the scientific community feels this is the way, then we need them to follow thru and come up with the cure. Agree?


On that note, let's stop debating whether or not its happening, and discuss what steps can be taken to mitigate it.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting 535. daddyjames:


I believe in freedom, don't you? Let's talk about certain state governments trying to dictate what medical procedures should be forced upon people - certainly sounds like government interference to me.

You mean like forced sterilization upon certain segments of society?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
OMG Relax people, that 10 percent is going OTS anyway and MOST LIKELY wont do anything. RELAX, I can so tell this season has sucked cause of how hyped up this lemon is.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am watching two tropical waves here
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 533. Naga5000:


Fair enough, all I would like to point out is that so far no natural cycle can account for what we are seeing. The energy has to come from somewhere, we just can't magically add it to the system. That energy, by all data, is coming from increased Ghgs, mainly CO2 which traps energy that would normally radiate back into space.

I think some people think that us who post AGW stuff here want this to be happening. It's quite the opposite. I would love for some natural cycle to be responsible, but so far, no other idea has been shown to be accurate. That's where I stand.

Predictions, future estimates, all of those are tools to try and prepare for possible scenarios. I really don't like getting into that. It clouds the real discussion. People can disagree with those all they want and if that is their basis for not accepting the science behind those predictions so be it. However, I've yet to see one bit of evidence showing the basis of AGW Theory to be false. It simply does not exist.



Fair enough Naga but, (there's always a but lol), simply expounding the theory from the highest mountain tops won't stop anything. So instead of getting so sensitive about us Cro-Magnon types denying the existence, why don't said scientist set about finding a cure, or at least a treatment? It's like discovering you have cancer and forgoing treatment and doubling your cigarette use while arguing with the doctor that you don't have it. If the scientific community feels this is the way, then we need them to follow thru and come up with the cure. Agree?
Member Since: August 4, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 606
Quoting 430. GulfPilot:
You have got to be kidding me! You appear on a show by an organization (Democracy Now) that is so progressive that it makes MSNBC look like rabid conservatives, and then you expect us to take all that is said as gospel??

Give me a break. You have lost a LOT of credibility with me by posting the video of your "interview". Political trash as far as I'm concerned... just like your early 2013 hurricane predictions for this year.

Sorry, but I used to follow your climate predictions and warnings carefully, but now I'm taking all you say with a grain of salt, and wonder how much of what you are blogging is politically motivated vs actual science.

I'll keep my subscription to Wunderground for the Nexrad pics, and local weather, but lost confidence in the rest.



Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3173
Quoting 524. help4u:


I believe in freedom, don't you? Let's talk about certain state governments trying to dictate what medical procedures should be forced upon people - certainly sounds like government interference to me.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
here we go?????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 527. StormPro:


I modified my comment, just to be fair to you. I hope you know I'm not trying to personally attack you or your feelings, (unlike what happened to me earlier). I am sincere in the desire to understand more but I'm leaning toward the natural cycle theory with a little hot sauce thrown in by man. All this bickering accomplishes nothing though, stops nothing from warming or cooling. I have yet to see a plausible or feasible worldwide plan


Fair enough, all I would like to point out is that so far no natural cycle can account for what we are seeing. The energy has to come from somewhere, we just can't magically add it to the system. That energy, by all data, is coming from increased Ghgs, mainly CO2 which traps energy that would normally radiate back into space.

I think some people think that us who post AGW stuff here want this to be happening. It's quite the opposite. I would love for some natural cycle to be responsible, but so far, no other idea has been shown to be accurate. That's where I stand.

Predictions, future estimates, all of those are tools to try and prepare for possible scenarios. I really don't like getting into that. It clouds the real discussion. People can disagree with those all they want and if that is their basis for not accepting the science behind those predictions so be it. However, I've yet to see one bit of evidence showing the basis of AGW Theory to be false. It simply does not exist.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3284
There is our 10% in the Atlantic, wave it good bye heading OTS. And the the system in the Caribbean.



Starts to get going at 162 hrs.



Over FL. 216 hrs.



And becomes a Nor'Easter:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tropics beginning to get one last push maybe.

Member Since: February 28, 2013 Posts: 4 Comments: 2325
Quoting 494. StormTrackerScott:


No wonder where are tax dollars are going.


Then maybe you should question the very resources you utilize to make your forecasts? Or should we cut that all out too?
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
Quoting 514. junie1:
This has to be one of the biggest disturbances ive ever seen


My eye test is telling me this might be a disaster in the making
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sorry FL but if the Euro verifies then we are in for another dump of rain as deep tropical moisture moves north as this Caribbean disturbance moves into the Southern Gulf.

Member Since: February 28, 2013 Posts: 4 Comments: 2325
Quoting 521. Naga5000:


It wasn't me. Thanks though. The reason he was asked ages ago in Dr. Rood's blog was because Yoboi harped on it for 5 days.


I modified my comment, just to be fair to you. I hope you know I'm not trying to personally attack you or your feelings, (unlike what happened to me earlier). I am sincere in the desire to understand more but I'm leaning toward the natural cycle theory with a little hot sauce thrown in by man. All this bickering accomplishes nothing though, stops nothing from warming or cooling. I have yet to see a plausible or feasible worldwide plan
Member Since: August 4, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 606
526. yoboi
Quoting 518. Naga5000:


Your confusing terminology again. He made a hyperbolic statement in an article. That was not science. Have you read any of his published research? Or are you just going to trash the guy further based on one hyperbolic quote? If this is the state of evidence against AGW that you produce, I have some very bad news for you.

Ironically, I wonder how folks would feel if some of their statements in life were posted on a public forum where we can then use them to make the false assumption about their lines of work.



You are comparing apples to oranges....He is in a position to either help or hurt people with the words he says......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Quoting 518. Naga5000:


Your confusing terminology again. He made a hyperbolic statement in an article. That was not science. Have you read any of his published research? Or are you just going to trash the guy further based on one hyperbolic quote? If this is the state of evidence against AGW that you produce, I have some very bad news for you.

Ironically, I wonder how folks would feel if some of their statements in life were posted on a public forum where we can then use them to make the false assumption about their lines of work.


They are instinctively trying to change the debate to a topic they can win. Don't fall into the trap. No need to defend a single statement from 16 years ago that was discussing unpublished research. That one hypothesizing, exaggerating, scientist from 16 years ago was wrong, let them have that "victory."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Obamacare also run by the world's best and smartest people.lol Also will subsidize 111,500 abortions a year,see what I mean by being on the left side go left you get everything from big govt go right and you might get killed.The road to destruction is being laid out now for everyone to follow like sheep to slaughter.Three more years ought to do it.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 517. daddyjames:


Try the Doppler Effect and Doppler radar on Wiki.

Its the concept that the frequency of the wavelength changes for the observer relative to the motion of its source. So they bounce energy at a particular frequency off the particles in the air. The change in frequency of the wave allows them to measure the velocity and direction.


Thanks, DJ. It's the direction aspect that has me thrown. I'll read these.
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 1817
that thing wont develop, next, like you guys see a cluster of clouds and get hyped, is that what this season has come to.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 519. StormPro:


I have a question then. Why did you basically interview him via email? Hoping to prove another blogger wrong, that's why. We aren't all living in our mother's basement and beating up people via insults over the keyboard. you tried to get Yoboi and one of the "respected CC scientist" (is that better) got busted telling a tall one. Just admit it and move on. I respect the fact that you put the answers here tho when you could have just buried it


It wasn't me. Thanks though. The reason he was asked ages ago in Dr. Rood's blog was because Yoboi harped on it for 5 days.

Personally, I find it great that a scientist responds and clarifies a statement he probably did not even recall making 16 years ago. How's that for transparency?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3284
Quoting 514. junie1:
This has to be one of the biggest disturbances ive ever seen
Quoting 515. GTstormChaserCaleb:
I agree I said earlier that this disturbance looks better than some of the tropical systems we have had this season.
maybe 96L.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 512. Naga5000:


Stop with the assumptions of "perfect scientist" crap. I never even saw this article before Yoboi brought it up, you know why? I get my science from the published papers not from a 16 year old BBC article.

This is just sad today.


Yeah you aren't used to losing your argument.
I have a question then. Why did you basically interview him via email? Hoping to prove another blogger wrong, that's why. We aren't all living in our mother's basement and beating up people via insults over the keyboard. you tried to get Yoboi and one of the "respected CC scientist" (is that better) got busted telling a tall one. Just admit it and move on. I respect the fact that you put the answers here tho when you could have just buried it
Member Since: August 4, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 606
Quoting 513. yoboi:



So you say let's just sweep it under the green rug.....science at it's best????


Your confusing terminology again. He made a hyperbolic statement in an article. That was not science. Have you read any of his published research? Or are you just going to trash the guy further based on one hyperbolic quote? If this is the state of evidence against AGW that you produce, I have some very bad news for you.

Ironically, I wonder how folks would feel if some of their statements in life were posted on a public forum where we can then use them to make the false assumption about their lines of work.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3284
Quoting 495. LAbonbon:


Well, thank you DJ, but I think in this case you may have overestimated me :P

I may try to find something describing how it works, and how to interpret, because I am a bit 'stuck on stupid' with this...


Try the Doppler Effect and Doppler radar on Wiki.

Its the concept that the frequency of the wavelength changes for the observer relative to the motion of its source. So they bounce energy at a particular frequency off the particles in the air. The change in frequency of the wave allows them to measure the velocity and direction.
Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
All those completely beaten down and ready to puke over the AGW mudslinging, raise your hands!!!!!

Man what I wouldn't give for three, 23 day long hurricanes to track right now.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 514. junie1:
This has to be one of the biggest disturbances ive ever seen
I agree I said earlier that this disturbance looks better than some of the tropical systems we have had this season.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
This has to be one of the biggest disturbances ive ever seen
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
513. yoboi
Quoting 505. sonofagunn:


It was one scientist talking about "unpublished scientific research" 16 years ago. Regardless of the conclusion, that's not worth a serious debate, and is in no way analagous to the quantity of published research in AGW and the near unanimous consensus among the scientific community.



So you say let's just sweep it under the green rug.....science at it's best????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Quoting 510. StormPro:


But it is one of your perfect scientist making a public, published statement that is complete and udder B.S. (he shoots, he scorrrreeesssss)


Stop with the assumptions of "perfect scientist" crap. I never even saw this article before Yoboi brought it up, you know why? I get my science from the published papers not from a 16 year old BBC article.

This is just sad today.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3284
A well respected and knowledgeable blogger takes time to answer any questions pertaining to meteorology, hydrology and AGW.

Certain folks do not like and/or understand his explanations, and instead of truly appreciating what a valuable resource we have on hand, the blog is spammed with questions regarding his work status.

Some days this blog is truly unbelievable...I for one would like to see this blog retain these resources, not chase them away.

On that note, I'm off to read the paper provided by weathermanwannabe (thanks for providing).

Blog nicely, everyone. DJ, hope you feel better.
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 1817
Quoting 504. Naga5000:


You all ready knew this, you continue to beat this dead horse. This was not published science, nor a prediction.


But it is one of your perfect scientist making a public, published statement that is complete and udder B.S. (he shoots, he scorrrreeesssss)
Member Since: August 4, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 606
So obviously after 4 pages of science posted today that fully supports AGW. One quote from 16 years ago made in an article with no scientific support,no publication, and a response from the person itself disproves AGW. Man...I just don't even know.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3284
Quoting 492. help4u:
It doesn't matter what is true it only matters what people believe is true.Paul Watson founder of greenpeace.You guys still believe in fairy tails,pelt down man etc.
I do agree to a certain extent, when there is religion and politics involved try not to force it onto someone with differing views because it only pushes them further away from the topic of discussion. With science it is a little bit different, you have hypothesis which needs to be tested to become a theory and for that theory to become a law you need it to be proven. Once proven and tested it becomes a law and there is no debating its credibility because at that point it has become a fact and therefore all opinions that attempt to discredit it won't matter anymore because in the end who are you going to trust the average joe or someone like Sir Isaac Newton? Global Warming is not Law it's a theory it has been tested and so far the tests show a warming planet, but that doesn't mean that a new trend won't start and the planet cools again, and what could make that happen is a volcanic eruption or an asteroid impact.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The agenda is power and control all the money is flowing to politicians and green big business and big wall street as govt pumps billions of dollars to elite people who will tell us how to live.gr een is going to be green with all your money lining big govt bosses.Most on this site involed with environmentalism will be well taken care of those that don't agree no luck.Maybe you can be like ALGORE and fly around and make millions of dollars telling us not to heat our houses and use laterns for light.Me I have to work and my job includes burning a lot of gas,of course if you take this away maybe I can just live off you guys and all that green govt money they print every month.I predict if these policies are followed the global economy will be destroyed and chaos will reign!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 504. Naga5000:


You all ready knew this, you continue to beat this dead horse. This was not published science, nor a prediction.


but he said it though?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 502. yoboi:



It's a perfect example of an alarmist gone wild....why promote undue fear with the public???? What else is being overhyped to scare the public????


It was one scientist talking about "unpublished scientific research" 16 years ago. Regardless of the conclusion, that's not worth a serious debate, and is in no way analagous to the quantity of published research in AGW and the near unanimous consensus among the scientific community.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 502. yoboi:



It's a perfect example of an alarmist gone wild....why promote undue fear with the public???? What else is being overhyped to scare the public????


You all ready knew this, you continue to beat this dead horse. This was not published science, nor a prediction.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3284
Quoting 502. yoboi:



It's a perfect example of an alarmist gone wild....why promote undue fear with the public???? What else is being overhyped to scare the public????


LOL..I am cracking up over here at that conversation..he got busted...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
502. yoboi
Quoting 497. Naga5000:


Hmm, you really wanted to go there. You are simply disingenuous.

"Yobi

I contacted Dr. Schnell via email and this is our conversation:

I inquired
"Dr. Schnell,

I hate to bother you with anything as trivial as this will be to you, but a fellow climate blogger has made the claim that you stated that El Nino events would begin to endure for 18 years in duration. Is there any truth to this claim being made by this blogger about you? If so, would you be kind enough to provide me with a link to such a paper?

Thank you,

Dr. Schnell responded
"What I said many years ago in an interview was that with climate warming we might see the possibility that El Nino events could become more prevalent and last longer. I have no idea where teh 18 years crept in."

I replied
"Dr, Schnell,

I wish to thank you for your quick response back to me. I happen to agree with you that El Nino events may become more frequent and enduring, but I am not a scientist.

Allow me to inform you as to where this information about what you were claimed to have said originated from on the blog. This is the link that we were given. - BBC Link

This is where the current discussion on this is taking place - Dr. Rood's Climate Blog %u2013 You may even know Dr. Rood?

I wish that you may find the time to make an appearance on the blog yourself. I know that you could add a lot to the discussions on climate change. I hope that will at least consider it.

May I quote your response to me on Dr. Rood%u2019s blog? I will not do so without your permission to proceed.

Thank you, sir"

Dr. Schnell replied
"Thanks for the link to the BBC interview from 16 years back. I did say 18 but that was just a mirror of the 18 months to make a point that might be remembered.

We will have to wait a few more decades to see how the El Nino issue plays out.

Use any of my responses and comments as you see fit.

Cheers,

Russ Schnell"



It's a perfect example of an alarmist gone wild....why promote undue fear with the public???? What else is being overhyped to scare the public????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2329
Quoting 497. Naga5000:


Hmm, you really wanted to go there. You are simply disingenuous.

"Yobi

I contacted Dr. Schnell via email and this is our conversation:

I inquired
"Dr. Schnell,

I hate to bother you with anything as trivial as this will be to you, but a fellow climate blogger has made the claim that you stated that El Nino events would begin to endure for 18 years in duration. Is there any truth to this claim being made by this blogger about you? If so, would you be kind enough to provide me with a link to such a paper?

Thank you,

Dr. Schnell responded
"What I said many years ago in an interview was that with climate warming we might see the possibility that El Nino events could become more prevalent and last longer. I have no idea where teh 18 years crept in."

I replied
"Dr, Schnell,

I wish to thank you for your quick response back to me. I happen to agree with you that El Nino events may become more frequent and enduring, but I am not a scientist.

Allow me to inform you as to where this information about what you were claimed to have said originated from on the blog. This is the link that we were given. - BBC Link

This is where the current discussion on this is taking place - Dr. Rood's Climate Blog %u2013 You may even know Dr. Rood?

I wish that you may find the time to make an appearance on the blog yourself. I know that you could add a lot to the discussions on climate change. I hope that will at least consider it.

May I quote your response to me on Dr. Rood%u2019s blog? I will not do so without your permission to proceed.

Thank you, sir"

Dr. Schnell replied
"Thanks for the link to the BBC interview from 16 years back. I did say 18 but that was just a mirror of the 18 months to make a point that might be remembered.

We will have to wait a few more decades to see how the El Nino issue plays out.

Use any of my responses and comments as you see fit.

Cheers,

Russ Schnell"


So he said something but didn't mean it? Was making a point by exaggerating? (credibility evaporating)
Member Since: August 4, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 606
Quoting 484. ScottLincoln:

Perhaps at present time, but the post you quoted is accurate... methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas. It takes far less methane released into the atmosphere to cause the same climatic forcing.
In fact, it's a larger influence than many of the other known factors:
This is just at present and doesn't take into account some predictions for methane release from permafrost and the oceans due to warming.


I predict this will be the ultimate argument used by those resistant to the idea that we could possibly mitigate the outcome. Should we be unfortunate to have this happen

"Look, its not manmade - its completely natural."

Member Since: June 25, 2011 Posts: 2 Comments: 3731
499. 7544
Hmm maybe new invest in the caribeian or. East of the islands who will get tagged first ?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Pabuk..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 474. yoboi:
"So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Nino upon El Nino, and that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Nino, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years," he said.



Link


that was from 1997 hmmmmm......


Hmm, you really wanted to go there. You are simply disingenuous.

"Yobi

I contacted Dr. Schnell via email and this is our conversation:

I inquired
"Dr. Schnell,

I hate to bother you with anything as trivial as this will be to you, but a fellow climate blogger has made the claim that you stated that El Nino events would begin to endure for 18 years in duration. Is there any truth to this claim being made by this blogger about you? If so, would you be kind enough to provide me with a link to such a paper?

Thank you,

Dr. Schnell responded
"What I said many years ago in an interview was that with climate warming we might see the possibility that El Nino events could become more prevalent and last longer. I have no idea where teh 18 years crept in."

I replied
"Dr, Schnell,

I wish to thank you for your quick response back to me. I happen to agree with you that El Nino events may become more frequent and enduring, but I am not a scientist.

Allow me to inform you as to where this information about what you were claimed to have said originated from on the blog. This is the link that we were given. - BBC Link

This is where the current discussion on this is taking place - Dr. Rood's Climate Blog %u2013 You may even know Dr. Rood?

I wish that you may find the time to make an appearance on the blog yourself. I know that you could add a lot to the discussions on climate change. I hope that will at least consider it.

May I quote your response to me on Dr. Rood%u2019s blog? I will not do so without your permission to proceed.

Thank you, sir"

Dr. Schnell replied
"Thanks for the link to the BBC interview from 16 years back. I did say 18 but that was just a mirror of the 18 months to make a point that might be remembered.

We will have to wait a few more decades to see how the El Nino issue plays out.

Use any of my responses and comments as you see fit.

Cheers,

Russ Schnell"
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3284
Quoting 494. StormTrackerScott:


No wonder where are tax dollars are going.


Exactly..didnt Dr. Masters do a blog on the NWS and NHC possibly being furlough due to the federal crisis and people got up in arms about it..well evidently they dont have enough to do if they sitting around blogging all day on WU..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 464. daddyjames:


You understand more than you give yourself credit. The colors indicate direction away/towards the radar site. A massive, tight circulation on the storm impacting them.


Well, thank you DJ, but I think in this case you may have overestimated me :P

I may try to find something describing how it works, and how to interpret, because I am a bit 'stuck on stupid' with this...
Member Since: June 26, 2013 Posts: 0 Comments: 1817
Quoting 491. ncstorm:


Hey now..DNC is alright in my book. LOL..he's in good company if so..


No wonder where are tax dollars are going.
Member Since: February 28, 2013 Posts: 4 Comments: 2325
12Z Euro is trying to build up this Caribbean Disturbance and moves it NW.

Member Since: February 28, 2013 Posts: 4 Comments: 2325

Viewing: 543 - 493

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.