Very broadly speaking, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change holds the following position:
1. Use of fossil fuels adds ominously to the CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as to other ‘greenhouse gases’.
2. These anthropogenic additions ‘force’ temperatures further up — to deleterious levels.
3. There follow various consequences to (eg) marine life, wildlife, daily weather, agriculture, health, etc., etc.
(One example, from ‘Climate Change 2007,Impacts, Adaptation, Vulnerability’:
“Many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s.Those densely-populated and low-lying areas where adaptive capacity is relatively low, and which already face other challenges such as tropical storms or local coastal subsidence, are especially at risk.The numbers affected will be largest in the mega-deltas of Asia and Africa while small islands are especially vulnerable.”)
Politicians & their advisors then draw the obvious conclusions: Reduce the use of fossil fuels now.
———————–
To reach their position, the IPCC rely on work using extremely complicated global climate models, that need supercomputers to run them.
Furthermore, to arrive at the IPCC result:- (A) Besides meteorology — itself a multidisciplinary study, a variety of related disciplines have to be drawn upon. E.g.:- atmospheric physics; palaeoclimate studies — from/through geology; the study of ice-cores (trapped CO2); & of tree rings (their widths are held to indicate annual temperatures, inter alia); studies of ‘natural’ sources of CO2 in the atmosphere — this last involves (inter alia) oceanography: CO2 is both absorbed & released by, deep/surface ocean currents; etc., etc. Solar radiation varies over time, so its effect must also be studied: what impact it might (or might not) have on climate & hence temperatures (or on temperatures directly), in the medium- to long-term. — And all this is only a lay inquirer’s list; a knowledgeable scientist would come up with a more accurate & far longer list.
(B) The conclusions of all these disciplines/studies have all to point towards (1) & (2) of the IPCC position above. E.g., oceanographic studies must (on balance) at least be consistent with the proposition that human activities are far more significant in raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; and so on.
The IPCC go through a fairly complicated process of commissioning surveys of findings, that are then vetted by ‘IPCC reviewers’, written up by ‘Lead Authors’ & others, re-written, etc., etc. For public consumption, they cut the Gordian knot by referring to the number of scientists involved: ‘3000′ or whatever. It is only after some inquiry that the layperson finds out the complexities above.
—————————————
The real issues are (1) & (2) above:- Not just a ‘rise in CO2′ or ‘global warming’ tout court, but an ominous rise in CO2 (& other ‘greenhouse gases’), & a deleterious rise in temperature throughout the globe. This is where the differences lie between those scientists who subscribe to the IPCC ‘consensus’, & those scientists who are outside this ‘consensus’. Some of the issues involved: distinguishing ‘natural’ from ‘anthropogenic’ changes in CO2; the extent/causes of ‘natural’ changes; the processes that lead from anthropogenic/other increases in CO2 (& other ‘greenhouse gases’) to a deleterious rise in temperatures; the effects of other human activities (eg, irrigation, expansion/decrease of area under crops, grass, forest); etc., etc.
In sum: ‘Rising CO2′ or ‘global warming’ do not summarise the IPCC position. It is this last which underlies the politics.
{ 17 comments }
Simply put, even if they are right, there is nothing to fear. The worst-case IPCC scenario has the sea level rising at WORST 21 centimeters by 2100. Less than a meter. Sweet Jesus save us from this horrible fate!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Temperature_and_sea_level_rise_for_each_SRES_scenario_family
52 centimers* Typo.
To decide the roles of Sun and Man in causing global warming, we need to first decide if the Sun – the heat source for planet Earth and the rest of the solar system – is:
a.) A ball of hydrogen with a steady, well-behaved hydrogen-fusion reactor at its core, as assumed by those favoring Anthropological Global Warming, or
b.) The erratic remains of a supernova that exploded and ejected the material that now orbits it as planets, moons, asteroids, comets and meteors.
This issue was debated in public at the 1976 AGU meeting in Washington, DC. The argument was published in Science magazine, “Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195 (1977) pp. 208-210. More recent findings are available as ArXiv files [astro-ph/0410717 from the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference, ESA SP-517 (2003) pp. 345-348; astro-ph/0510001 from the 2005 Cosmology Conference, AIP Proceedings, vol. 822 (2006) pp. 206-225].
Beckman and Mahoney discuss the historical record of a link between Earth’s climate and a lull in solar magnetic activity, solar sunspots, and auroras in Earth’s atmosphere during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, from 1645 to 1715 [ASP Conference Series, vol. 153 (1998); http://www.eso.org/gen-fac/libraries/lisa3/beckmanj.html.
Those who claim to understand the Sun’s influence on planet Earth can prove their point by directing us to their predictions of two recent solar excursions described in Stuart Clark’s new book, “The Sun Kings”.
1. Solar storms in the fall of 2003 are described in the book’s Prologue:
“During October and November that year, the Sun was wracked by a succession of explosions known as solar flares”.
“Just a few weeks before, there had been no hint of such activity”.
“On 28 October, scientists’ worst fears were realized.”
“Fifty billion times the energy of an atomic bomb was released . . .”
” . . . erratic currents surged along northern power lines, eventually damaging power stations and blacking out fifty thousand people in Sweden.”
“The worldwide marine emergency call system became inoperable . . .”
“…Earth-orbiting satellites began to behave erratically.”
“Airlines hastily rerouted flights . . .”
2. Solar storms in the fall of 1859 are described in the book jacket:
“In September of 1859, the entire Earth was engulfed in a gigantic cloud of seething gas, and a blood-red aurora erupted across the planet from the poles to the tropics. Around the world, telegraph systems crashed, machines burst into flames, and electric shocks rendered operators unconscious. Compasses and other sensitive instruments reeled as if struck by a massive magnetic fist. For the first time, people began to suspect that the Earth was not isolated from the rest of the universe.”
We certainly had not anticipated the timing, but published an explanation of the solar storms near Halloween of 2003 shortly before they occurred [Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198; http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441
The scientific community may be reluctant to admit that Earth’s climate is controlled by a power they do not understand. But that fact cannot be changed by the consensus opinion of scientists or others who assume that Earth is isolated from the rest of the universe.
Oliver K. Manuel

http://www.omatumr.com

omatumr.com@yahoo.com
To decide the roles of Sun and Man in causing global warming, we need to first decide if the Sun – the heat source for planet Earth and the rest of the solar system – is:
a.) A ball of hydrogen with a steady, well-behaved hydrogen-fusion reactor at its core, as assumed by those favoring Anthropological Global Warming, or
b.) The erratic remains of a supernova that exploded and ejected the material that now orbits it as planets, moons, asteroids, comets and meteors.
This issue was debated in public at the 1976 AGU meeting in Washington, DC. The argument was published in Science magazine, “Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle”, Science 195 (1977) pp. 208-210. More recent findings are available as ArXiv files [astro-ph/0410717 from the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference, ESA SP-517 (2003) pp. 345-348; astro-ph/0510001 from the 2005 Cosmology Conference, AIP Proceedings, vol. 822 (2006) pp. 206-225].
Beckman and Mahoney discuss the historical record of a link between Earth’s climate and a lull in solar magnetic activity, solar sunspots, and auroras in Earth’s atmosphere during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, from 1645 to 1715 [ASP Conference Series, vol. 153 (1998); http://www.eso.org/gen-fac/libraries/lisa3/beckmanj.html.
Those who claim to understand the Sun’s influence on planet Earth can prove their point by directing us to their predictions of two recent solar excursions described in Stuart Clark’s new book, “The Sun Kings”.
1. Solar storms in the fall of 2003 are described in the book’s Prologue:
“During October and November that year, the Sun was wracked by a succession of explosions known as solar flares”.
“Just a few weeks before, there had been no hint of such activity”.
“On 28 October, scientists’ worst fears were realized.”
“Fifty billion times the energy of an atomic bomb was released . . .”
” . . . erratic currents surged along northern power lines, eventually damaging power stations and blacking out fifty thousand people in Sweden.”
“The worldwide marine emergency call system became inoperable . . .”
“…Earth-orbiting satellites began to behave erratically.”
“Airlines hastily rerouted flights . . .”
2. Solar storms in the fall of 1859 are described in the book jacket:
“In September of 1859, the entire Earth was engulfed in a gigantic cloud of seething gas, and a blood-red aurora erupted across the planet from the poles to the tropics. Around the world, telegraph systems crashed, machines burst into flames, and electric shocks rendered operators unconscious. Compasses and other sensitive instruments reeled as if struck by a massive magnetic fist. For the first time, people began to suspect that the Earth was not isolated from the rest of the universe.”
We certainly had not anticipated the timing, but published an explanation of the solar storms near Halloween of 2003 shortly before they occurred [Journal of Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198; http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441
The scientific community may be reluctant to admit that Earth’s climate is controlled by a power they do not understand. But that fact cannot be changed by the consensus opinion of scientists or others who assume that Earth is isolated from the rest of the universe.
Oliver K. Manuel

http://www.omatumr.com

omatumr.com@yahoo.com
Oliver:
“The scientific community may be reluctant to admit that Earth’s climate is controlled by a power they do not understand. But that fact cannot be changed by the consensus opinion of scientists or others who assume that Earth is isolated from the rest of the universe.”
I challenge you to find a single climate scientist who denies that the sun is the primary influence on the Earth’s climate or who “assume[s] that Earth is isolated from the rest of the universe”.
Isn’t the current climate science in fact founded on the undeniable fact that CO2, methane, CFCs and other gases produced by human activity are greenhouses gases that, over time are understood to exert a warming influence on climate? Is it your position that there are NO GHGs, or that these gases are NOT GHGs, or that human activites are not producing such GHGs, or that it is impossible that the leverage exerted by anthropogenic GHGs can ever have a discernable effect on climate, in the face of the predominance of the solar influences?
By the way, ever hear of Archimedes? Didn’t he say “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world”? Was he wrong, or is what he said simply irrelevant?
Tom:
There is no need to argue.
[b]“Those who claim to understand the Sun’s influence on planet Earth can prove their point by directing us to their predictions of two recent solar excursions described in Stuart Clark’s new book, “The Sun Kings”.”[/b]
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Oliver, all that you’ve done is to argue that most warming comes from the sun. You’ve established an unsupportable strawman and taken nothing away from the physics of warming from GHGs.
Dr. Shenoy:
Thank you for your informative post on the IPCC. I have tried to post additional information, but it seems to have failed (rejected by the spam filter because of too many links, I understand). Let me try again (more briefly), by breaking up my post.
1. The IPCC is the “Intergovernmental” Panel on Climate Change (not the “International” PCC).
2. The IPCC, whose reports are prepared by hundreds of climate scientists, reviewed by thousands of climate scientists and other expert reviewers worldwide and then approved line-by line by delegates of nations around the world (those that are members of the World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment Programme), strictly conducts reviews of scientific, technical and economic literature on behalf of its member governmnets about climate change (both natural and anthropogenic). It does NOT take policy positions, and its reports do NOT conclude that CO2 or other GHGs produced by human activities have reached “ominous” of “deleterious” levels. As its memebr governments all have different policy objectives, the IPCC stays as close to the demonstrable science as it can, and leaves policy members to member nations and other bodies.
Given the levels of review, cut-off dates for the scientific literature that is being reviewed and the need for sign-off by member governments, the IPCC’s reports are inherently conservative digests of the current state of knowledge. Spencer Weart, a physiscist and historian at the American Institute of Physics (AIP) reports:
“The Reagan administration wanted to forestall pronouncements by self-appointed committees of scientists, fearing they would be ‘alarmist.’ Conservatives promoted the IPCC’s clumsy structure, which consisted of representatives appointed by every government in the world and required to consult all the thousands of experts in repeated rounds of report-drafting in order to reach a consensus.”
http://www.hnn.us/articles/30148.html
Weart has posted a useful history of international coorperation on climate change at the AIP website, in the middle of a longer excellent background article summarizing the climate science. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Internat.htm
Sincerely,
TT
More on the IPCC and its policies and procedures can be easily found at its website. A few direct links include the following:
http://www.ipcc.ch/press/factsheet.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/IPCCflyer_lr.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/procd.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/more_info_100407.htm
3. The latest set of IPCC surveys (this is the Fourth Assessment Report) on the climate literature involved 2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors and 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries and 6 years of work. Links are here (with descriptions from IPCC statements):
- Working Group I Report (“The physical science basis”) – the main group – (i) assesses the current state of knowledge about the natural and human drivers of climate change, reflecting the progress of the climate change science in the observation of the atmosphere, the Earth’s surface and oceans; (ii)provides a paleoclimatic perspective and evaluates future projections of climate change and (iii) discusses changes in atmospheric composition, observation of various climate parameters, coupling between changes in climate and biogeochemistry, evaluation of models and attribution of climate change.
The SPM (Summary for Policymakers): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_SPM.pdf
Webcast: http://www.empreinte.com/richmediaevent/IPCC/vod/ipc_audio_en_900x540_WindowsLD.htm
PowerPoint: http://www.ipcc.ch/present%5CWMEF_FINAL.ppt
Full report: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
- Working Group II Report (“Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”) provides (i) a detailed analysis of observed changes in natural and human systems and the relationship between those observed changes and climate change, as well as (ii) a detailed assessment of projected future vulnerability, impacts, and response measures to adapt to climatic changes for main sectors and regions.
SPM: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf
Webcast: http://switchboard.real.com/player/email.html?PV=6.0.12&&title=IPCC%20Press%20conference&link=http%3A%2F%2Fscic.cec.eu.int%2Fstreaming%2Farchives%2Fipcc2007%2Fvideo.wmv
- The Working Group III Report (“Mitigation of climate change”) (i) analyzes mitigation options for the main sectors in the near term and cross sector synergies, co-benefits, trade-offs, and links with other policy objectives and (ii) provides information on long term mitigation strategies for various stabilization levels, while paying attention to implications of different short-term strategies.
I urge those who are interested in this subject to directly review all IPCC publications.
Sincerely,
TT
Dr. Shenoy, finally I hope that you and others will note that the IPCC process and its results are recognized as being conservative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#History_and_studies_suggesting_a_conservative_bias.2C_understating_dangers
Perhaps you have already noted what Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., whom you seem to like, has said about climate change and the IPCC:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/main-conclusions
Sincerely,
TT
No the IPCC are not being conservative. They are being ridiculous.
Don’t talk nonsense Tom. Spamming the board with evidence-free IPCC links is not the same as showing up with some evidence.
Lets see some evidence.
You won’t find any evidence in an IPCC link.
Those wanting to understand the Sun may wish to read the CNN news story about the recent MIT discovery that Earth-like planets “form around a star born in a violent supernova explosion”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/05/supernova.blast.ap/index.html
The article was reported in Nature 440 (6 Apr 2006) 772.
Here is a link to the artist sketch of this MIT discovery
http://www.universetoday.com/am/uploads/20060407-spitzer-full.jpg
This looks much like the event that gave birth to our Sun and its planets [See Fig 7 in Trans. Missouri Acad. Sciences 9 (1975) p. 118; Fig 5 in Proc. Robert A. Welch Foundation Conference XXI. Cosmochemistry (1977) p. 271; and the text of a debate about "strange xenon" published in Science 195 (1977) p. 208]
http://web.umr.edu/~om/picpages/snexplo.html
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
CNN has removed the above link to their April 5, 2006 news story about MIT’s finding that Earth-like planets “form around a star born in a violent supernova explosion”.
Here is a tiny link to the story: http://tinyurl.com/2653b7
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Thank you as this was a very informative article. In case you haven’t all read this nice article as it contains allot of nice pointers.
Comments on this entry are closed.