Monthly Archives: April 2010

Oceans to Rise 1″ in 526 years. Man the Lifeboats.


Wattsupwiththat.com posts a blog about a University of Leeds press release titled “Melting Icebergs causing sea level rise”.  According to Professor Andrew Shepherd it would be unwise to discount this signal.  After he explains how melting icebergs cause this threat, he provides the punch line which is, “……the net effect is to increase sea level by 2.6% of its volume which is equivalent to 49 micrometers per year spread across the global oceans.”

Now you may already be laughing.  WUWT does the math (49 micrometers equals 0.0019 inches) and concludes, it will take 526 years to result in one inch of sea level rise because of this “threat.”  See the full story here.

The best laugh I got from this press release was a comment made on this story; as follows:

H.R. says:

April 30, 2010 at 12:10 pm

Note to self: in 526 years, send trousers to tailor and have them hemmed up.

Cbdakota

Advertisements

The IPCC Must Go-Part 4: Failing Grades


Further evidence that the IPCC should be disbanded is the extent of non-peer reviewed literature that supports the “findings” in Assessment Report 4 (AR-4).  A team of people  (43 Citizen Authors) from 12 countries participated in a review of AR-4.   And they found that 21 of the 44 chapters that make up AR-4 had flunking grades.  The Non-consensus.org blog supplied the following summary and table:

United Nations countries belong to an organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which publishes a report every six years. Often referred to as the “climate bible” the latest one was released in 2007 and is relied on by governments around the world. Billions of dollars are spent on national and international policies based on its findings. Judges consult it when trying cases. Scholars and journalists cite it thousands of times a year.

The IPCC report contains 44 chapters and is nearly 3,000 pages long. Written by people organized into three teams – Working Group 1, 2 and 3 – it consists of three smaller reports bundled into one.

This Citizen Audit focused its attention on the peer-reviewed literature claim. A team of 43 volunteers from 12 countries examined the list of references at the end of each chapter. We sorted these references into two groups – articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals and other references. (Non-peer-reviewed material is often called “grey literature”.)

21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references that the IPCC received an F. The IPCC relied on peer-reviewed literature less than 60 percent of the time in these chapters.

5,587 references in the IPCC report were not peer-reviewed. Among these documents are press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, MA and PhD theses, working papers, and advocacy literature published by environmental groups.  To read the full report click here.

A look at the details indicates that Working Group 1—PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS, got all of the “A’s” and 3 of the 5 “B’s”.     Although they did not meet the standard that EVERYTHING was peer-reviewed literature, they came by far the closest to that standard of the three Working Groups.  We noted in a previous blog that the Oxburgh Committee reviewing the CRU fiasco had excused the CRU scientists saying that they may have made mistakes, but it was the IPCC AR-4 authors that put in the temperature exaggerations.  However, the Coordinating Lead Authors for the WG-1, Chapter (3), Observations:  Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change were none other than Phillip Jones and Kevin Trenberth.  Those two gentlemen are featured prominently in the Climategate leaked e-mail and this puts to lie the Oxburgh Committee excuses.

WG-2— IMPACTS, ADAPTATION AND VULNERABILITY had 0 “A’s”, 2 “B’s”, 5 “C’s”, 3 “D’s” and 10 “F’s”.

WG-3—MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE had no “A’s or B’s”, 1 “C”, 1 “D” and 11 “F’s”.

The Summary For Policy Makers was loosely based upon the AR-4.   The juicy part for the media was the terrible things that were going to happen to the Earth if CO2 emissions were not brought under control.  And most of this came from the failing-grade WG-2 and WG-3.

See also  The IPCC Must Go-Part 3

The IPCC Must Go-Part 2

The IPCC Must Go-Part 1

Cbdakota

Whitewash or Cover-Up. AGW Has Friends in HIgh Places.


I have not blogged for more than a month while I have been trying to recharge my battery—i.e., to stop being so gloomy about the cover-up by the AGW establishment.  See my earlier post about the IPCC whitewash here

Well,  how is the cover-up doing?

The US mainstream media has done their part by not reporting how screwed up the IPCC is and about the “Climategate” revelations of scientists cooking the books as well as preventing people with opposing views to be heard.  And in the Senate,  new legislation will be proposed that is cap and trade, kinda lite.  Congress lives in an alternate universe where  they believe that nothing is worth considering that trumps their need to tax and regulateSee

By contrast,  the UK media has done excellent investigating work.   But  the UK government  and the “Royal Societies” are actively working to support the AGW cause—-no holds barred.

The book cooking, etc, revealed in the leaked Climategate e-mails from the Climate Research Center (CRU) of the East Anglia University have prompted inquiries.  One of the inquiry panels headed by Lord Oxburgh,  was set up by the University of East Anglia to look at the research produced by scientists at its Climatic Research Unit.

Oxburgh was an entirely inappropriate choice to head this panel..   From Lawerence Solomon’s  entry in the National Post,—- “Oxburgh is chair of the multinational Falck Renewables, a European leader with major windfarms in the U.K., France, Spain and Italy, and he’s chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $-trillion industry by 2050.  And Solomon quotes an Oxburgh statement ““We are sleepwalking” into a global warming threat so dire, Lord Oxburgh explained in 2007, that the world may need to do more to discourage carbon dioxide emitters than to simply put a price on carbon. “It may be that we shall need, in parallel with that, regulations which impose very severe penalties on people who emit more than specified amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,” he explained.

So when Oxburgh’s panel announce on 15 April that after three weeks of study,  they found that the CRU scientists did not act improperly,  are you surprised?

Steve McIntyre does a great job of pointing out how shallow this review by Oxburgh’s panel really was.  He notes that no skeptic was a part of the panel  and that one of the main charges of fraud, the hockey stick temperature chart (hide the decline), was not even examined.  Further, Oxburgh says don’t  blame the scientists at CRU but rather  blame the IPCC authors  for anything that was not properly attributed .   McIntyre shows that the CRU scientists were the main IPCC authors in this instance.  To read McIntyre’s take down of the Oxburgh report, read this and this.

There is even more.   The Russell panel has been looking into the Climategate scandal and is  now preparing a report as well.  It is clear that the report will also excuse the CRU of any wrong doing.  This seems certain because one of the panel members thought the scientists made some serious mistakes.   The panel leader will not include these comments in the final report for fear that they will be sued for libel.   So,  not to worry.   No matter what we find we can’t tell about the things you did wrong.  To see Bishop Hills entry on this and this.

One wag said,  these investigations are equivalent to asking Mrs Madof to audit her husband’s books.

In answer to my question as to how the coverup is doing,  it is clear that it is doing very well.

There is more,  but I am getting depressed again.

Cbdakota