Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more substantive. As many people are aware (and as John Nieslen-Gammon outlined in a post last month and Rick Piltz goes over today), there is a statement in the second volume of the IPCC (WG2), concerning the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding that is not correct and not properly referenced.
The statement, in a chapter on climate impacts in Asia, was that the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035” was “very high” if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate (WG 2, Ch. 10, p493), and was referenced to a World Wildlife Fund 2005 report. Examining the drafts and comments (available here), indicates that the statement was barely commented in the reviews, and that the WWF (2005) reference seems to have been a last minute addition (it does not appear in the First- or Second- Order Drafts). This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC. However, the statement has had some press attention since the report particularly in the Indian press, at least according to Google News, even though it was not familiar to us before last month.
It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to realise that this doesn’t mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers.
East Rongbuk glacier just below Mt. Everest has lost 3-400 ft of ice in this area since 1921.
More generally, peer-review works to make the IPCC reports credible because many different eyes with different perspectives and knowledge look over the same text. This tends to make the resulting product reflect more than just the opinion of a single author. In this case, it appears that not enough people with relevant experience saw this text, or if they saw it, did not comment publicly. This might be related to the fact that this text was in the Working Group 2 report on impacts, which does not get the same amount of attention from the physical science community than does the higher profile WG 1 report (which is what people associated with RC generally look at). In WG1, the statements about continued glacier retreat are much more general and the rules on citation of non-peer reviewed literature was much more closely adhered to. However, in general, the science of climate impacts is less clear than the physical basis for climate change, and the literature is thinner, so there is necessarily more ambiguity in WG 2 statements.
In future reports (and the organisation for AR5 in 2013 is now underway), extra efforts will be needed to make sure that the links between WG1 and the other two reports are stronger, and that the physical science community should be encouraged to be more active in the other groups.
In summary, the measure of an organisation is not determined by the mere existence of errors, but in how it deals with them when they crop up. The current discussion about Himalayan glaciers is therefore a good opportunity for the IPCC to further improve their procedures and think more about what the IPCC should be doing in the times between the main reports.
Update: This backgrounder presented by Kargel et al AGU this December is the best summary of the current state of the Himalayas and the various sources of misinformation that are floating around. It covers this issue, the Raina report and the recent Lau et al paper.
PS: “And then have a look at what a solar panel factory looks like, and try to build it without fossils.”
No, I don’t think any fossils ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil ) are used in silicon wafer plants.
Fed: Christianity only allows abstinence.
BPL: If you’re attributing this view to Mother Theresa, you’re probably right, but I wanted to point out that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox allow contraception, and even the RCC allows it through the rhythm method (if you can summon up the immense discipline and calendar-tracking skills to apply it effectively).
Gilles: Without fossil fuels, everything becomes more expensive. Incredibly more expensive.
BPL: How much will the complete collapse of world civilization cost? Will that be expensive?
Fed @1124,
I’ll bet a lot he read my story “Twenty Peasants” in the August 1991 Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Fantasy Magazine!
Tim,
Sorry, I think I misinterpreted what you meant by “chops,” since I haven’t heard that term used the way you used it before. I thought you were either asking A) “if you’ve got the cojones to answer me…” or B) “if you’ve got real evidence rather than airy-fairy speculation…” Either way, it sounded hostile. If that wasn’t how you meant it, I apologize.
David B. Benson says:
2 February 2010 at 8:29 PM:
Do you mean The Long Summer by Brian Fagan?
Ref Ray Ladbury
I missed the program but, if you can, follow this link to the BBC’s Newsnight program:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qnxhz/Newsnight_02_02_2010/
(Sadly it may only be viewable in the UK)
I assume you are aware of he BBC and their previously long held policy position on AGW. BBC Newsnight is absolutely “the” most serious news program on the BBC and goes out every weekday night about 10.30pm.
The first 18 minutes of this program was about the IPCC and questions about Himalayas, Amazon, cost of increasing natural disasters and global temperatures.
The issues are addressed seriously and there are interviews with various “experts” on what has happened and where we should go from here.
The most important point is that 18 minutes of major serious national news time was given to this subject. Poiticians and policy makers all watch this program (often to watch colleagues being grilled by the presenters).
“Doubt” is firmly on the agenda and this will now run and run.
Now, your view is so what – look at the evidence.
My view is that the IPCC’s “evidence” is falling under question, publicly, by some scientists that have real questions about the processes involved and that they say have not been addressed.
Trust is the issue and trust needs to be reestablished.
If the IPCC doesn’t change then, frankly it will be sunk.
AxelD: there is still a possibility that you RC regulars are all correct, and when those large areas of ill-understood (or not even yet recognized) science are finally resolved in favour of an anthropogenic CO2 cause, you’ll be able to say that you were right all along.
BPL: It’s been resolved for decades. Only scientific illiterates disagree.
BPL: How many Liberty ships do you think people envisioned building in 1941? How many were actually built in 1943?
GM: We are talking about an enterprise of a much bigger scale here; the comparison doesn’t work.
BPL: How many cars are built every year? How many are built every 20-30 years? How much surface area do their hood, roofs, floors, fenders, door, and trunks cover?
These aren’t rhetorical questions. I would like you to look the figures up, please.
Gilles: can you indicate me where you have stable electrical power without fossil fuels?
BPL: Iceland, with its geothermal power. Certain spots in California, ditto. Solar thermal power plants which store excess heat in molten salts and achieve on-line time as good as coal-fired plants. Or a bunch of intermittent sources tied together by a smart grid.
Fossil fuels are not needed to generate electricity. They are not needed to fuel transportation. They are not even needed for fertilizer. They ARE needed for plastics and some medications, but that’s orders of magnitude less use than the energy-related ones.
Georgi Marinov said (paraphrased): “Do all the work yourself, and let me quote big numbers uncontested”).
Fortunately, I don’t need to do all the huge amount of research that it would require to truly understand future energy supply. This is because others have done the work already, and you and I can both take advantage of it.
My favourite resource on the subject is Sustainable Energy – without the hot air by David MacKay.
I know a few of the commenters on this site refuse to engage with the limitations of renewables. This book doesn’t make that mistake. It discusses the limits and the costs in great detail – and lays out all the mathematics in simple terms.
The conclusion? We can supply our energy needs with renewables, and the cost will not be crippling.
Good news! Now we just need the political will.
Jack Kelly,
Give your mum a copy of “The Discovery of Global Warming” for Valentine’s Day.
Gavin :” But you are confusing energy with fossil energy, and since you live in France and have frequently noted how much nuclear energy is produced there, your point makes no sense. People can have a good standard of living while using much less fossil fuel – so the issue is only one of how quickly can this be achieved on a wider basis. And note too that ‘suppress them entirely’ is unnecessary – the target is a 60-70% reduction in emissions (not even use). Statements to the contrary are ‘just hypes’. – gavin”
I have no example of developed country using less than 50 % fossil fuels. Do you have one? assuming it is possible is a hype. “Much less ” fossil fuel in France, that means still 6t CO2/cap/yr. better than 9 , but much larger than 60-70% reduction of the average world production, which must be around 1.5 Don’t know any country living like France with 1.5 GtC02 /cap/yr – which must be actually less than India.
Now assume it is possible (no evidence for that). Then comes the Jevons paradox. It is very unlikely that the consumption will be evenly distributed in the world. It means that most people see around richer people. Richer means : ” oh they have a larger car, a larger house, they go in farther countries for vacation. That’s unfair. Why not me ? ” Usually the problem is only money. But the CAPACITY of consuming more would be there. All these fossiles are just lying there under the ground, waiting for us. It is completely possible to dig a new coal mine. Drill a new oil or gas well. They are just here. How the hell can you PREVENT people to use them in the future ? How can you PREVENT the economic growth allow people having bigger cars, or even allow MORE people to have small cars ? do you think that just because the summer was hot and the farmers have had some problems with drought, and the price of vegetables is higher, people won’t buy a car ? I didn”t notice that they were no cars in rich , hot, dry countries , like Dubai for instance.
So the idea that there can be a limit of GLOBAL consumption other than one dictated by the purchasing power is simply silly. That’s what I mean by “unreasonable economics”.
[Response: This is just a strawman argument. I don’t think anyone is expecting this to happen just because we all want it to. The fundamental issue is that the long term cost of using fossil fuels is not currently factored into it’s actual cost. The solution to this is to price in the externalities (very reasonable economics), based on a very standard ‘polluter pays’ principle. That encourages both energy efficiency and switches to renewables and perhaps even CCS and air capture if they are competitive. Jevon’s paradox doesn’t apply because the efficiency gains don’t lead to cheaper fuel. This isn’t going to fix the problem of emissions over night and it’s total cost is going to depend on many factors over the next couple of decades. But to simply say it can’t be done, and therefore it’s not worth trying is fatalism of the highest order. You might be happy with that, but I’m not. – gavin]
AxelD, Golly, a physics degree. Ooh, we’re all very impressed, Axel. Now, how much time have you devoted to actually trying to comprehend the science of Earth’s climate.
Axel: “And, like many much more qualified than I am – and than most of you are too – I’ve decided that the case is certainly not proven for AGW and, in fact, is rather unlikely.”
Gee, Axel, and just who might these qualified individuals be? How many publications and citations do they have in the field of climate science. ‘Cause last I saw 97% of climate scientsits agreed with the consensus position that we are warming the planet significantly.
Looking outside of climate science, are we? I mean, after all, why would you want to limit expert opiniion to experts. Hmm. Let’s expand it to the National Academies, shall we? Hmm, 38 National Academies and other similar bodies are on record supporting the consensus. Those opposed? Big fat zero.
Hmm, how about professional scientific societies? 38 professional societies on record as supporting the consensus. Opposed? [crickets chirping]
Well, damn, Axel. I just can’t seem to find all those qualified folks who dissent from the consensus. Maybe you can help us out here. I mean, I’d hate to think that you’d be making unsupported allegations (aka “lies”) here, but given your demonstrated elastic attitude toward evidence, maybe you ought to provide some objective support here.
Here’s a hint Axel. Your physics degree doesn’t count for jack unless you devote a significant effort to understanding the science. Nothing you have posted to date gives any indication of your having made such an effort. Now I hope you’ll prove me wrong, son, ’cause right now, all you look like to me is a bullshitter.
AxelD said: “The public and press have been exposed to evidence (mainly apocalyptic scare stories)”
Okay, Axel – you have already demonstrated that you don’t care about facts in the absolute, objective sense. Therefore, you are probably totally wasting our time.
Nevertheless.
You can’t seriously believe that these “apocalyptic scare stories” originate with scientists? The media isn’t some innocent pawn here; the media have piled hyperbole on exaggeration, until the truth was almost lost to sight. When the craziest claims are examined, they always lead, eventually, to some journalist just making stuff up.
Sometimes the error is intentional, sometimes it is innocent – such as when clueless journalists convert Celsius to Fahrenheit by changing C to F.
And you think the scientists have a problem? Yes, they do. The problem is journalists, and people like you. You are so busy twisting reality to suit your narrative that you completely lose track of even the idea that there is an objective truth out there somewhere.
AxelD said “So I feel qualified to make my own risk assessments.”
No. No, you are not.
re#1186 and Gavin’s response: its not too helpful without the 2000-2010 picture to compare with ?
He bases it on nothing. Remember, AxelD has stated that “evidence doesn’t matter” …
To AxelD, and a few others, two points:
1) The validity of climate science and the response to its findings will not be dictated by the current whims of the British press. There are a few other countries in the game, and the national academies of science will have a thing or two to say.
2) Climate scientists will go on with their work and the understanding of climate change will continue to improve. As a result, the urgency of addressing AGW will also grow more apparent.
Completely Fed Up says: 3 February 2010 at 4:18 AM
> Why are you sure?
>
> And if they don’t overgraze, they starve today
Why are _you_ sure that “if they don’t overgraze, they starve today”?
Where did you get this belief? Why do you consider it reliable? Why do you trust the source where you got that conviction? Citation of any kind?
With no management, that may happen. With scientific management it doesn’t.
Scoffing without citing _your_ basis and making an attempt to understand the problem wastes everyone’s time. The site has a good bit of information about overgrazing and how changing to a well known sustainable rotation grazing system works. This has been known for decades.
Clue: before humans got involved, large predators kept most herd animals in compact groups that heavily grazed small areas then moved on. After humans removed the top predators, grazers spread out and heavily grazed everything, and human-managed flocks behaved the same way. This is well documented; look up the work of Alan Savory in Africa, or Polyface Farm in Virginia, for two very different applications that have proven to work longterm.
It takes a good bit more work by the humans to replicate the natural concentrated grazing pattern that evolved with the presence of (other) top predators — but that works, reverses the degradation of the grazing land, and lets soil formation work. We might get the topsoil back by doing this.
This isn’t simple, and it invites cheating, as does most all human management.
You can look this up. There is documentation of it on the UNCCD pages.
AxeID (1194) wrote:
“Ray, are you only capable of understanding what’s written in a scientific paper? Can you not understand what’s relevant in a political and social context”
Ray has it right. Science must be the foundation for any discussions regarding AGW. If the science is solid (which it clearly is to those not prejudiced by political biases) then we can address the political and social issues within the proper context. But when people get it backwards and put their assumed political responses first, they tend to be incapable of properly evaluating the science in an unbiased fashion.
If the fix for AGW was to place an inexpensive additive in our coal plants and automobile gas tanks, you can be sure that there wouldn’t be anyone challenging the science in the IPCC report. It’s only due to the feared political response that people seek to grossly magnify minor errors (like the one in this article) and ignore areas of major agreement within the scientific community.
AxelD says: says: you have to regain the public’s and media’s trust in climate science, which has evaporated.
Claims of the public “losing faith” in climate science are overblown.
Re#1194. Like many people with degrees in very scientific subjects you base your baseless assertion on what exactly? do you practice peer review (is it wrong here?), it is wrong in terms of the computer models one wonders you must be familair with of course to call them into question. Or is it all of the other reports and institutions compelling us to state that AGW is indeed a fact
To illustrate my point in purely US terms, the Washington Post (I assume a highly respected newspaper) has a critical editorial on AGW which is even more explicit than most of the UK press. Read this, and then see how you feel about a radical new approach to evaluating and re-presenting the data. I was surprised – shocked, even – at the degree of condemnation implicit in this editorial.
Whatever you feel about the accuracy of the claims (and I know you’ll dispute them, but please don’t do it for my benefit) the conclusion is that “Climate scientists have to come to grips with some highly inconvenient truths” and that is sort of what I’ve been saying. If you want an AGW narrative to be accepted by both media and public, it’s essential that you start afresh, with honesty, openness and transparency. And rather more humility will probably help too.
[Response: Sorry, but the Washington Times is not respected at all. And in any case, your comments make no sense. How can climate scientists (me for instance) respond to a mistaken perception that I am not honest or open? You can already download my model, look at all my data, read about what I think in my book or on the blog. I’m not one of the people at the center of any allegations, and so the Washington Times is going to listen to me now? Ha! You know this isn’t likely. All that is happening is that people who don’t want to pay attention to the evidence have found another reason to keep their head in the sand. – gavin]
Jim (#1221), you need to look at the baseline. “The poll of 1,500 adults by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence the Earth has gotten hotter over the past few decades, and as a result, people are viewing the situation as less serious. That’s down from 77 percent in 2006, and 71 percent in April 2008.”
http://www.aolnews.com/story/pew-poll-americans-cooler-on-global/731614
And, of course, this was before proponents began to look like charlatans.
“1219
Hank Roberts says:
3 February 2010 at 10:21 AM
Completely Fed Up says: 3 February 2010 at 4:18 AM
> Why are you sure?
>
> And if they don’t overgraze, they starve today
Why are _you_ sure that “if they don’t overgraze, they starve today”?”
I’m not *sure*, but never said I was.
However, if they didn’t overgraze then why are they overgrazing? Seems most likely “we need the food”.
If you don’t get the food you need, this usually results in starvation.
It does for me.
YMMV.
Good grief, Axel — your link is to the Washington Times; anyone not clicking on it would believe your claim you were referring to a Washington Post item.
This is very misleading posting.
http://www.google.com/search?q=sourcewatch+Washington+Times
Oh, Axel, you ask for “honesty, openness and transparency. And rather more humility will probably help too.”
Seriously, look up the owner of the Washington Times and think about this.
Didactylos: “The conclusion? We can supply our energy needs with renewables, and the cost will not be crippling.
Good news! Now we just need the political will.”
Yup.
Now that you’ve realised it, I don’t have to beat you up about nuclear and accede that there is a place for it.
But it takes far too long to be the answer to CO2 pollution. Only renewables can manage that, or CCS if people are willing to pay that much for scrubbing (and even then, CCS is only a plaster on the problem because it doesn’t make any more fossil fuels available, just lessens the disaster of using it).
“I assume you are aware of he BBC and their previously long held policy position on AGW. BBC Newsnight is absolutely “the” most serious news program on the BBC and goes out every weekday night about 10.30pm.”
Yeah, but they have many and very loud (and very rich) people to complain at the highest levels about bias.
Because “balance” now is “you must have two sides to every argument. (Except terrorism, paedophillia and communism)”.
It gets really hard to find another side, though, because sometimes there’s not two sides, or if there are, then one is right and the other just plain wrong.
We don’t have talking heads talking about how 4 and 4 added together make apple to counter the religious truth of mathematics taught to our poor children held captive in our schools.
Why?
Because the balance of there being two sides to every argument is wrong.
Just plain old wrong.
“1202
Barton Paul Levenson says:
3 February 2010 at 7:08 AM
Fed: Christianity only allows abstinence.
BPL: If you’re attributing this view to Mother Theresa, you’re probably right”
I was.
There’s all sorts of christian offshoots, different sects.
Which just goes to prove that you’re all sects mad…
Badum ksh!
Thank you, I’ll be here all weak.
Try the steak.
But, to AxelD, evidence doesn’t matter, so the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times does not exist.
AxelD: You call for “honesty, openness and transparency”, and your head doesn’t explode from the sheer hypocrisy?
“1196
Curmudgeon Cynic says:
3 February 2010 at 6:20 AM
The IPCC has had a 10 year free run at the public. ”
No they didn’t.
Read the title of the summary document here:
http://www.ipcc.ch
For policy makers.
It’s written for policy makers who may be very smart, but not scientists, so it’s possible for a moderately interested and astute layman to follow and that means public reading.
It’#s available on the internet so many of the public can read it.
But this isn’t a free ride in any stretch of the imagination.
It also ignores that the PR have ALWAYS been against climate change science.
Also very different from a free ride.
Or have you forgotten the slanders against AGW predictions from the 70’s and 80’s?
Leighton, who looks like charlatans to whom? I am tempted to call you out on your comment, but will just leave it that your comment is shamefully irresponsible, as it smears the entire community of climate scientists.
re#1216; Where is the comparator figure ?
“Didactylos says:
3 February 2010 at 8:14 AM
Georgi Marinov said (paraphrased): “Do all the work yourself, and let me quote big numbers uncontested”).
Fortunately, I don’t need to do all the huge amount of research that it would require to truly understand future energy supply. This is because others have done the work already, and you and I can both take advantage of it.
My favourite resource on the subject is Sustainable Energy – without the hot air by David MacKay.
I know a few of the commenters on this site refuse to engage with the limitations of renewables. This book doesn’t make that mistake. It discusses the limits and the costs in great detail – and lays out all the mathematics in simple terms.
The conclusion? We can supply our energy needs with renewables, and the cost will not be crippling.
Good news! Now we just need the political will.”
I may not have had the time to give you exact numbers when I wrote that post, maybe you should consider that possibility.
But anyway, I have read “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air” when it came out and I don’t remember seeing it as an optimistic book, in fact after digging out the pdf from my hard drive, here is what it says in the end:
“The non-solar numbers add up as follows. Wind: 24 kWh/d/p; hydro:
3.6 kWh/d/p; tide: 0.3 kWh/d/p; wave: 0.5 kWh/d/p; geothermal:
8 kWh/d/p – a total of 36 kWh/d/p. Our target was a post-European
consumption of 80 kWh/d per person. We have a clear conclusion: the
non-solar renewables may be “huge,” but they are not huge enough. To
complete a plan that adds up, we must rely on one or more forms of solar
power. Or use nuclear power. Or both.”
This means 56kWh/d/p from solar and this does not account for the growth that will inevitably happen in a BAU scenario. So we are back to the huge areas to be covered with solar panels at a cost of many trillions dollars.
And all of the above does not consider issues like:
1) Raw materials availability, especially the rare ones (do you have enough neodymium for wind turbines and cars for example). Many of those are about the peak soon
2) Time needed to make the transition. If oil production has already peaked and we are at the plateau now, this means only one thing – we are about to crash very badly in the next decades because it is way too late to start building those hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of solar installations
3) The human factor. Most people discussing the issues of energy and climate operate under the assumption that when things start going downhill very obviously, people will just come together and collaborate, we will switch to small scale living and urban farming, etc. and everything will be fine. Just because people are inherently “good”. However, people aren’t inherently good and they often tend to behave in a very destructive manner in times of societal collapse.
What can be done in theory based on the analysis of a limited number of factors, and what can be done in practice are very different things
56kWh/d/p should read 46
CFU asks:
> if they didn’t overgraze then why are they overgrazing?
I told you. Removal of top predators. Recreating the grazing pattern herd animals used under predation solves the overgrazing. Consistently.
See the Alan Savory and Polyface references. You know how to look this up.
Ken W says: 3 February 2010 at 10:27 AM
“If the fix for AGW was to place an inexpensive additive in our coal plants and automobile gas tanks, you can be sure that there wouldn’t be anyone challenging the science in the IPCC report.”
Well said, words to remember.
I get heartily fed up at the rubbish pumped out by AGW deniers. For example, why do we in UK always have to see press quotes of comments by Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation? Peiser is a social anthropologist and the GWPF seems to be very much in the sceptics camp. So how can he, and they, possibly live up to their claim that they advocate the development of balanced policies on AGW?
I’ve just done some frankly terrifying research into recent polling numbers on AGW:
IPSOS Poll of Americans from Dec 2009 = 70% of Americans believe the world is warming; 61% of that 70% (=42% of total) attribute GW to humans http://bit.ly/bnfFU2
Pew poll of Americans from Oct 2009 = 57% believe earth is warming, 35% of that 57% (20% of total) attribute GW to humans
http://bit.ly/a8b7lb
AOL News poll beneath the Pew Poll story:
37% believe planet has gotten hotter; 31% of that 37% (11% of total) attribute GW to humans.
On average, 24% of Americans believe that the world is warming and that warming is caused by human emissions (I suspect the picture is a little rosier in the UK but not much).
The top 4 Global Warming books on Amazon (UK) are denialist: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/bestsellers/books/922416/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_2_4_last
Top 5 science blogs http://www.wikio.com/blogs/top/sciences#
1) Wired Science
2) Watts Up With That
3) Real Climate
4) Climate Progress
5) Climate Audit
Yet 97% of professional climate scientists say the world is warming and that warming is caused largely by humans.
Something has seriously broken. I’d like to submit a bug report for humans, please.
And before anyone says it: no, I’m not a concern troll. Or rather: I am extremely concerned. But I’m not a troll (go read my defence of AGW on Delingpole’s blog if you don’t believe me… although I haven’t had the energy to post there recently)
Didactylos: “AxelD: You call for “honesty, openness and transparency”, and your head doesn’t explode from the sheer hypocrisy?”
Nope, because he has no shame.
If he can defeat the enemy that has been pointed out to him, NO MATTER HOW (cf the Spanish inquisition. Bet you didn’t expect that), then it’s worth it.
Shame or embarrasment has been burned off long ago as detriments to the cause.
So AxelD doesn’t even know the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times, but he wants us to believe that he knows more about climate science than all the climate scientists in the world. Oh, and also, he insists that his political views render all actual evidence unimportant.
Anybody feeling a little bit silly for having taken this guy seriously?
(By the way, the Washington Post’s op-ed pages have lately been as bad as, if not worse than, those of the Washington Times or the Wall Street Journal when it comes to climate change, having repeatedly printed falsehood-filled opinion pieces on the subject by George Will and Sarah Palin.)
Alan Savory starting links:
http://www.holisticmanagement.org/n9/Results/data_and_docum.php
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01135-8
Polyface uses the rotation grazing model along with multiple other layers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyface_Farm
Below this level of management, topsoil and diversity are steadily lost.
With this level of management — managers filling in for the top predators we’ve eliminated — topsoil and diversity are maintained and restored.
Top predators included both animal and human hunters.
This has been a highly politicized area and has been for decades. Look carefully at anything you find for spin by game hunters, fuzzy-animal-lovers, industry and agency interests, loggers — it gets awful hard to tell who’s got an agenda. Look for published science.
Re #1216, Bill says:
“re#1186 and Gavin’s response: its not too helpful without the 2000-2010 picture to compare with ?”
Gavin’s response answered SFTor’s question completely.
Re public opinion:
Poll shows unprecedented global concern about climate change
I continue to appreciate the attention given to this site by the various realclimate folks, especially he known as gavin. Thanks.
So once again I looked at code descriptions (no not really the code) and still come up perplexed about the vertical ocean relationships. As I read it, Q-flux is the general name for this part and OCNML is a one layer mode and ODEEP goes down to 5000m. Great. Has ODEEP always been used for this depth? Next, OCNML is said to take 20 to 30 years to converge depending on the depth of the ‘mixed layer’. Maybe we are not all talking about the same ‘mixed layer’ but that known in oceanography related to underwater sound is a layer that comes and goes every year. It is mixed in the early spring and gradually becomes a non-mixed thermocline through the summer. There is something wrong with the 20 to 30 year conclusion here. Then we get to ODEEP which goes deep enough in 12 layers which should be fine, but we have no hint about how the ‘diffusion’ through these layers happens. If it takes 20 to 30 years just to get through the first layer, the ODEEP must be largely irrelevant. However, I have not managed to get convinced that this is handled correctly.
The last time I made a try at finding answers I worked down to a point where I heard that the ‘Monterey Ocean Model’ handled this for all the models. Was this and is this still correct? The ocean heat content chart of Dec 28 here seems to suggest that this question is appropriate.
I just want to remind people that wikipedia cannot be trusted as a reliable source no matter how many citations it may contain.
llewelly (1206) — Thank you, yes Brian Fagan. His most recent book is “The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations”.
@1223 Gavin (and others too) points out my mistake, a foreigner’s mistake:
Sorry, but the Washington Times is not respected at all. Yes, I should have guessed, when I typed that I was “shocked, even”, that the style was not that of the Post’s. Definitely my mistake – sorry.
Gavin continues: And in any case, your comments make no sense. How can climate scientists (me for instance) respond to a mistaken perception that I am not honest or open? You can already download my model, look at all my data, read about what I think in my book or on the blog. …
I didn’t mean any individual personally, but the climate science community in general, and the IPCC in particular. Ken W @1220, in an otherwise reasonable post, says that “people seek to grossly magnify minor errors (like the one in this article)” as though the IPCC’s continuing claim, right up to Copenhagen, was the result of a simple mistyping with no ulterior motive whatsoever.
Even George Monbiot is asking for change, calling for the resignation of Phil Jones – and Monbiot is obviously not too impressed by Rajendra Pachauri either, judging by his latest blog entry.
If I had my druthers, I’d completely disconnect climate from the UN, eliminate the “intergovernmental” bit, which just introduces political influence, and reduce the representation from just about every country in the world, to a much smaller number who can genuinely contribute. I’d drop those, like Stephen Schneider, who are widely suspected (for well-known reasons) of partiality and scaremongering. And I’d bring in well-known sceptics to provide balance and some genuine statistical rigour.
Obviously you’ll all laugh at my naivety, and of course I know that it will never happen like that. But something has to change dramatically, to reverse the flood tide of media sentiment. The vast majority of the public garner their opinions from the media, so you have to get the media back on side. And that will need something really significant to show them that the climate community is serious.
I know my views are anathema to most of your contributors, so I’m grateful for your tolerance in allowing my comments. I’ve exhausted my ability to contribute more (and exhausted the patience of most readers, I guess) but I’ve found the discussions and responses most illuminating (though not always in a good way!)
CC: They also made the point that much of the data relevant to these stations is “no longer available”.
BPL: Which is crap of the purest ray serene, since all the data still exists.