Don't worry too much about it Gandalf.I'm sure the IPCC will understand your situation.

I'm deeply honoured to be spoken of in such company AIMSIR....

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Blimey, you're easily pleased then! 

Not a difficult choice really if the alternative is association with some of the 'alternative science' promoters here...

Better to seek the truth, than to follow a headless chicken! 

The problem is, SC, that if you have your eyes closed you don't realise you are following a headless (sceptical) chicken until it's too late....

Anyway, you need to look in the right places for the truth.  Frequent visits to biased blog sites don't count, in my judgement, as seeking the truth - more, reinforcing pre-existing bias.

Aye, but the trouble with that is, both camps have biased websites. Also the IPCC is no oracle of the truth! It's all about viewing with an open mind, and not letting your prejudices getting the better of you! 

I dont think its even worth mentioning the IPCC in the same breath as Science, they have become a political body who will probably put up candidates at the next Euro elections.

All joking aside, they have lost all credibilty and should be disbanded.

 

I dont think its even worth mentioning the IPCC in the same breath as Science, they have become a political body who will probably put up candidates at the next Euro elections.

All joking aside, they have lost all credibilty and should be disbanded.

Sorry Rob, you are merely confirming your known prejudices with that remark.

The IPCC co-ordinates the work of many many experts in their fields and to dismiss or even trivialise their valuable work does them an unjustified discredit.   So, they have made a few mistakes - but in the context of the amount of work and the things they have got right I see absolutely no justification for such a blanket dismissal.

We'll let your political remark pass, I think.  About as ill-judged as that by Harriet Harman yesterday.

In all seriousness Gandalf.
Do you think the IPCC is a wholesome ,correct, organization.?

BTW. I do not ask this question as one being under the influence of certain blog sites.

My question is genuine and unloaded.

 

I dont think its even worth mentioning the IPCC in the same breath as Science, they have become a political body who will probably put up candidates at the next Euro elections.

All joking aside, they have lost all credibilty and should be disbanded.

Sorry Rob, you are merely confirming your known prejudices with that remark.

The IPCC co-ordinates the work of many many experts in their fields and to dismiss or even trivialise their valuable work does them an unjustified discredit.   So, they have made a few mistakes - but in the context of the amount of work and the things they have got right I see absolutely no justification for such a blanket dismissal.

We'll let your political remark pass, I think.  About as ill-judged as that by Harriet Harman yesterday.

"We'll let your political remark pass, I think.  About as ill-judged as that by Harriet Harman yesterday".

Gandalf I care not one whit, whether you let my comment pass or not. The IPCC has lost credibilty and like ALL organisations, all the good work gets forgotten about if their mistakes leads to a lack of credibilty. I find it interesting how some people refuse to see that.

"We'll let your political remark pass, I think.  About as ill-judged as that by Harriet Harman yesterday".

Gandalf I care not one whit, whether you let my comment pass or not. The IPCC has lost credibilty and like ALL organisations, all the good work gets forgotten about if their mistakes leads to a lack of credibilty. I find it interesting how some people refuse to see that.

In all seriousness Gandalf.
Do you think the IPCC is a wholesome ,correct, organization.?

BTW. I do not ask this question as one being under the influence of certain blog sites.

My question is genuine and unloaded.

As wholesome as anything Intergovernmental can be - the clue's in the first word!!

When one considers some of the powerful vested interests involved in agreeing content/signing off reports e.g. the Saudis and the Chinese, it does make one wonder if things have been deliberately downplayed - particularly given the way some things are panning out or have been revised to likely be way worse than IPCC worst-case scenarios.

That's the problem you see: unless you are an adherant of global conspiracy theories, the possibility exists that the IPCC could be off the mark, but in the opposite direction to the one normally touted by the anti-camp

Cheers - John

So the world really could end in 2012 then?

http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2010/10/a-new-kind-of-vicious-crime-against-humanity-the-fossil-fuel-industrys-disinformation-campaign-on-cl.html

Hmmm, very interesting? We've seen other 'crimes against humanity' pursued I wonder if the Exon Mobile Exec's are worried though?

http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2010/10/a-new-kind-of-vicious-crime-against-humanity-the-fossil-fuel-industrys-disinformation-campaign-on-cl.html

Hmmm, very interesting? We've seen other 'crimes against humanity' pursued I wonder if the Exon Mobile Exec's are worried though?

Shocking but not new.

I wonder if this will generate the same level of self-righteous indignation as the alleged data tampering incidents from the usual suspects.

Probably not.

Ocean deep water circulation was discussed here, only a few days ago -

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uadb-ecc110310.php

The Atlantic Ocean circulation (termed meridional overturning circulation, MOC) is an important component of the climate system. Warm currents, such as the Gulf Stream, transport energy from the tropics to the subpolar North Atlantic and influence regional weather and climate patterns. Once they arrive in the North the currents cool, their waters sink and with them they transfer carbon from the atmosphere to the abyss. These processes are important for climate but the way the Atlantic MOC responds to climate change is not well known yet.

and...

The study shows that the ocean circulation was very different in the past and that there was a period when the flow of deep waters in the Atlantic was reversed. This happened when the climate of the North Atlantic region was substantially colder and deep convection was weakened. At that time the balance of seawater density between the North and South Atlantic was shifted in such a way that deep water convection was stronger in the South Polar Ocean. Recent computer models simulate a reversal of the deep Atlantic circulation under such conditions while it is only now with the new data generated by UAB scientists and their colleagues from Seville and the UK that the details of the circulation reversal become apparent. This situation occurred during the ice age 20,000 years ago. Although this was far back in time the results are relevant for our climate today and in the near future. The new study shows that the Atlantic MOC in the past was very sensitive to changes in the salt balance of Atlantic Ocean currents. Similar changes in seawater salt concentration are expected to occur in the North Atlantic in the course of climate warming over the next 100 years. Therefore the data to be published in Nature offer the climate modelling community the opportunity to calibrate their models and improve their capacity to predict reliably future ocean and climate changes.

You really have to worry about the people who think the scare stories up.
Perhaps this is where the Exxon millions go, it would be difficult to imagine a more effective way to ridicule the hoax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNXv6IUhC4

You really have to worry about the people who think the scare stories up.
Perhaps this is where the Exxon millions go, it would be difficult to imagine a more effective way to ridicule the hoax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNXv6IUhC4

Ocean deep water circulation was discussed here, only a few days ago -

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uadb-ecc110310.php

The Atlantic Ocean circulation (termed meridional overturning circulation, MOC) is an important component of the climate system. Warm currents, such as the Gulf Stream, transport energy from the tropics to the subpolar North Atlantic and influence regional weather and climate patterns. Once they arrive in the North the currents cool, their waters sink and with them they transfer carbon from the atmosphere to the abyss. These processes are important for climate but the way the Atlantic MOC responds to climate change is not well known yet.

and...

The study shows that the ocean circulation was very different in the past and that there was a period when the flow of deep waters in the Atlantic was reversed. This happened when the climate of the North Atlantic region was substantially colder and deep convection was weakened. At that time the balance of seawater density between the North and South Atlantic was shifted in such a way that deep water convection was stronger in the South Polar Ocean. Recent computer models simulate a reversal of the deep Atlantic circulation under such conditions while it is only now with the new data generated by UAB scientists and their colleagues from Seville and the UK that the details of the circulation reversal become apparent. This situation occurred during the ice age 20,000 years ago. Although this was far back in time the results are relevant for our climate today and in the near future. The new study shows that the Atlantic MOC in the past was very sensitive to changes in the salt balance of Atlantic Ocean currents. Similar changes in seawater salt concentration are expected to occur in the North Atlantic in the course of climate warming over the next 100 years. Therefore the data to be published in Nature offer the climate modelling community the opportunity to calibrate their models and improve their capacity to predict reliably future ocean and climate changes.

 

Interesting. I assume your point is that the climate system is a complex one and we still have things to learn.

As you have put this under the 'Hoax' thread I assume its another side swipe about AGW.  I don't think it changes the fact that we need to curb GHGs, does it?  Or do you think perhaps that until we know absolutely everything we should do nothing?

You really have to worry about the people who think the scare stories up.
Perhaps this is where the Exxon millions go, it would be difficult to imagine a more effective way to ridicule the hoax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNXv6IUhC4

I'm glad little things amuse you Robert.  I found it a waste of time personally and only vaguely funny - but then I was laughing at the makers and not with them.

It must be awfully difficult, feeling obliged to believe all the stories they highlight?
Then even worse, you have to come on forums like this and try to convince everyone they are carefully done scientic studies - that deserves a medal.

Ocean deep water circulation was discussed here, only a few days ago -

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uadb-ecc110310.php

The Atlantic Ocean circulation (termed meridional overturning circulation, MOC) is an important component of the climate system. Warm currents, such as the Gulf Stream, transport energy from the tropics to the subpolar North Atlantic and influence regional weather and climate patterns. Once they arrive in the North the currents cool, their waters sink and with them they transfer carbon from the atmosphere to the abyss. These processes are important for climate but the way the Atlantic MOC responds to climate change is not well known yet.

and...

The study shows that the ocean circulation was very different in the past and that there was a period when the flow of deep waters in the Atlantic was reversed. This happened when the climate of the North Atlantic region was substantially colder and deep convection was weakened. At that time the balance of seawater density between the North and South Atlantic was shifted in such a way that deep water convection was stronger in the South Polar Ocean. Recent computer models simulate a reversal of the deep Atlantic circulation under such conditions while it is only now with the new data generated by UAB scientists and their colleagues from Seville and the UK that the details of the circulation reversal become apparent. This situation occurred during the ice age 20,000 years ago. Although this was far back in time the results are relevant for our climate today and in the near future. The new study shows that the Atlantic MOC in the past was very sensitive to changes in the salt balance of Atlantic Ocean currents. Similar changes in seawater salt concentration are expected to occur in the North Atlantic in the course of climate warming over the next 100 years. Therefore the data to be published in Nature offer the climate modelling community the opportunity to calibrate their models and improve their capacity to predict reliably future ocean and climate changes.

 

Interesting. I assume your point is that the climate system is a complex one and we still have things to learn.

As you have put this under the 'Hoax' thread I assume its another side swipe about AGW.  I don't think it changes the fact that we need to curb GHGs, does it?  Or do you think perhaps that until we know absolutely everything we should do nothing?

The oceans are crucial to the AGW debate. The oceans act like a giant flywheel to the climate/weather system and there is much that we don't know about them. And central to this, is that mixing may well be greater than 'thought' and as such 'the missing heat' of AGW is being spread far and wide - but of course, this can't be found.

The more we know about the system the better are our chances to determine outcomes.

I'm all for better control of the excesses of the consumer society providers, but, the chosen battle ground is not one that I can agree with.

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statements/climatechange

Looks like my brethren in the B.G.S. are not holding back on their understanding of the greater impacts of our tinkering.

You really have to worry about the people who think the scare stories up.
Perhaps this is where the Exxon millions go, it would be difficult to imagine a more effective way to ridicule the hoax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNXv6IUhC4

I'm glad little things amuse you Robert.  I found it a waste of time personally and only vaguely funny - but then I was laughing at the makers and not with them.

I found it very sad that so much has been been put at the door of AGW. The bandwagon has greatly mixed the real suspects and possibilities with utter rubbish and you can't blame the sceptics for that.

The makers of the sequence have made a compilation of what is being blamed on AGW and if political capital is being made of this by detracting from the real possibilities/consequences of AGW, then responsibility for this lies with the many silly claims/forecasts of the scientists, reported in the articles.

Just to lighten the mood, the video reminded me of the classic Russel Howard Cancer song...

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTu7GLfrmUI

Well i liked it anyway!