Subscribe By Email

Worthy Causes


Categories

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« CO2 Science: IPCC Computer simulations "clearly deficient" | Main | When everything is holy... »

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834516bb169e200e0097ebc6d8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who are the IPCC scientists?:

» Pindorama, a Terra dosPapagaios from The Mayflower
Hoje li um posto no blog da Miriam Leitão que falava sobre IPCC, o tal painel da ONU que pesquisa as mudanças climáticas. É incrível que paguem a Miriam Leitão para falar tanta besteira. Um das besteiras principais é o mito que o Internacional P... [Read More]

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Erasmussimo

What I've attempted to do, since heretical scientists are so quickly and easily maligned by the global warming zealots, is find out more about who the IPCC scientists are. I'm having some trouble doing so. Imagine that.

Gee, it took me only two minutes to find this:

http://ipcc-wgl.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Annexes.pdf

which includes a list of all the authors, their affiliations, as well as all the reviewers and their affiliations. I'd include those lists here, but the authors' list runs to 14 pages and the reviewers' list runs to 11 pages.

Why don't you check it out? Rather than rely on vague hearsay evidence, why don't you actually get into some specifics? Can you list some people on this list who are not qualified to be authors or reviewers? Can you explain why not?

Sam van den Berg

Erasmussimo writes: "Gee, it took me only two minutes to find this ..." and then tells us where we can get the names of authors, their affiliations, as well as all the reviewers and their affiliations. Talk of missing the point! The question was who are the SCIENTISTS who did the PRIMARY research, not the guys who did the diplomatic and political tweaking. I have also tried in vain to get at this information. I suspect it is locked in a vault in Zurich guarded by seven fierce gnomes. Erasmus must be turning in his grave -- I suggest that you change your name to Blockheadissimus

Erasmussimo

If you want the authors of the primary research papers referenced in the IPCC reports, it should be obvious that you should actually read the IPCC reports, something I have been urging upon our host, apparently in vain. As per standard practice in the scientific literature, the referenced scientific papers are listed at the end of each chapter. The list of these papers is quite long; Chapter Five's reference list runs to six pages and about 350 papers. Here are the papers with authors whose last names begin with "A":

AchutaRao, K.M. et al., 2006: Variability of ocean heat uptake: Reconciling
observations and models, J. Geophys. Res., 111, C05019, doi:10.1029/
2005JC003136.
Andersson, H.C., 2002: Influence of long-term regional and large-scale
atmospheric circulation on the Baltic sea level. Tellus, A54, 76–88.
Andreev, A., and S. Watanabe, 2002: Temporal changes in dissolved oxygen
of the intermediate water in the subarctic North Pacific. Geophys. Res.
Lett., 29(14), 1680, doi:10.1029/2002GL015021.
Andrie, C., et al., 2003: Variability of AABW properties in the equatorial
channel at 35 degrees W. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(5), 8007, doi:10.1029/
2002GL015766.
Antonov, J.I., S. Levitus, and T.P. Boyer, 2002: Steric sea level variations
during 1957-1994: Importance of salinity. J. Geophys. Res., 107(C12),
8013, doi:10.1029/2001JC000964.
Antonov, J.I., S. Levitus, and T.P. Boyer, 2005: Steric variability of
the world ocean, 1955-2003. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32(12), L12602,
doi:10.1029/2005GL023112.
Aoki, S., M. Yoritaka, and A. Masuyama, 2003: Multidecadal warming of
subsurface temperature in the Indian sector of the Southern Ocean. J.
Geophys. Res., 108(C4), 8081, doi:10.1029/JC000307.
Aoki, S., N.L. Bindoff, and J.A. Church, 2005a: Interdecadal water mass
changes in the Southern Ocean between 30E and 160E. Geophys. Res.
Lett., 32, L07607, doi:10.1029/2004GL022220.
Aoki, S., S.R. Rintoul, S. Ushio, and S. Watanabe, 2005b: Freshening of
the Adélie Land Bottom water near 140°E. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32,
L23601, doi:10.1029/2005GL024246.
31(8), 2307–2320.

See? You didn't have to go to Zurich. All you had to do was read the IPCC report!

Julia

I too have been trying to find the names and affiliations of the scientists and peer reviewers... with no luck.

The link listed by Erasmussimo does not work.

Matt

" U.S. government's Global Climate Change Research program"

I read a little on the US GCCR program's site and i guess I'm not understanding the point because its comparing apples to oranges:
- GCCR is an organization to study the possible consequences of global warming
- IPCC is an org to study the cause of it and set policy to prevent the determined causes of it.

Either way: GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING! both of those organizations recognize it and the facts prove it. Now the controversy is really over if it is man-made or if it is natural.
Obvious things that we know about it are this:
1) Global Warming Does happen
2) There is a natural cycle of warming followed by an ice age which has happened for, presumably, the entire history of the planet
3) increased greenhouse gases, natural or man-made, are contributing to it.
4) there is more CO2 being put out into the atmosphere then at any time in the history of our civilization. (caused by man without a doubt)
5) there are less trees to process this CO2 and generate oxygen. (caused by man without a doubt)
6) There is a much steeper rate of global warming happening at the end of this particular cycle.

now... look at all those facts that only a small portion of scientists will actually disagree with and do the math...
One of a few things is happening:
1) we are incorrect about the theory that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming.
2) man is causing global warming to be more severe this cycle
or
3) there is a larger cycle that we haven't seen yet which has spikes at the end (or beginning) of the repetition.

So basically either a lot of scientists (even the "skeptics") are wrong about a lot of their theories or man is actually making global warming a lot worse.

as I tried to convince my rather conservative friend... the number of scientists on a list means nothing.

1) If nearly all scientists agree that global warming is happening (naturally or man-made), then we really can't argue reasonably that is not real.

2) If we all agree pollution is bad (i think we can all agree on that), then it doesn't really matter if it is causing global warming or not.

3) If global warming is happening then we need to find a way to survive by identifying the causes of it and finding solutions or work-arounds to it.

Or... we can just be ignorant and pretend it won't effect us or our kids and in a few million years we can be fossil fuel for the next dominant lifeform on our fair planet. ;)

Morgan K Freeberg

Aren't we making the classic mistake of bad science, in effectively pre-determining the outcome by choosing what gets named and what doesn't get named?

How come we can't come up with a name for (for lack of a better term) the "Post-Maastricht Treat Stealthy Ascension of Modern Socialism"? Because then we could debate whether that is happening.

And the facts decidedly do not lean toward the negative...nor do they leave the global warming political movement -- I say again, the political movement -- pristine from the influence of the modern socialists.

Matt, if you really do think this is something we should put checks on just to make sure we don't all become fossil fuel, would you prefer the developing nations to join us in the effort? Why or why not? Can't wait to see your answers to those...

Adam P

SUNSPOT activity has not resumed after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that - far from warming - the globe is about to return to an Ice Age.

Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory showed there were currently no spots on the sun.

He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman writes in The Australian today.

"If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming isover."

The Bureau of Meteorology says temperatures in Australia have been warmer than the 1960-90 average since the late 1970s, barring a couple of cooler years, and are now 0.3C higher than the long-term average.

A sunspot is a region on the sun that is cooler than the rest and appears dark. Some scientists believe a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak - during low sunspot activity - the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface.

But scientists from the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research published a report in 2006 that showed the sun had a negligible effect on climate change.

The researchers wrote in the journal Nature that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07per cent over 11-year sunspot cycles, and that that was far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

Dr Chapman proposes preventive, or delaying, moves to slow the cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective. "My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades," he writes.

Kim Dabelstein Petersen

The authors, reviewers etc. can be found here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf

The reason the link presented in the first reply doesn't work anymore, is that AR4 WG1 has concluded its work - and that all the documents have moved to the IPCC server.

Steve Ross

I randomly picked scientists who had their names listed in the IPCC report located at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf

I was able to locate approximately 1/3 who now have publicly stated or published articles that they do not believe in Man Made Global Warming or have signed the following petition.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

I wonder how many scientists listed in the IPCC report would add their names to the petition if they were simply mailed the petition?

Jay C

I am not a climate scientist, but I've taught graduate level research in the past and have been studying the AGW hypothesis for some time. I don't especially care whether the hypothesis is true or false. I have only been interested in reading the science. Here are my opinions based upon what I have found.

(1) The AGW computer models are broken, because climate variables are too complex and chaotic to be successfully modeled. I HAVE done a lot of work with computers. They might as well be trying to use their computers to predict the winner of the world series in 2030 or the direction of the stock market for the same year.

(2) Therefore, the current hard data doesn't agree with recent and past predictions from the computers.

(3) There never was a "consensus" because the idea of science by consensus is nonsense. No reputable scientist subscribes to the idea of science by consensus.

(4) The probabilities for a cooler, wetter climate in the near term are hugely greater than the probabilities for a warmer climate. This is based upon HARD DATA drawn from ocean sediment core samples and ice core samples collected over the past 30 years. These samples have substantiated some brilliant theory regarding solar variability and Earth orbital geometry.

(5) Computer models are worthless until they are peer reviewed and tested by hard data. Computer models remain worthless if they don't control for important extraneous variables. It is the job of peer review to study the design, the statistic employed, and whether it was appropriate. Peer review must challenge the research by determining whether extraneous variables were adequately controlled for in the design.

(6) It is IMPOSSIBLE for the computer models to control for the important extraneous climate variables, because not enough is known as yet about climate science to even guess what all the important variables are.

(7) There IS a correlation between CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming. However, the build up of CO2 FOLLOWS the warming, doesn't precede it. It's called "outgassing," and it comes about because of increased heat. The last time I checked, future events do not affect past ones.

(8) No good data exists to indicate that Polar Bears are going extinct. Check with Alaskan and Canadian wildlife departments.

(9) Surface data collection of temperatures showing that the earth is warming has been horribly flawed. Satellite collection shows no warming in nearly a decade, despite apparent continuing increases in CO2. This phenomenon is in direct contradiction to the computer models.

(10) The king has no clothes. Just a few more years of long, cold winters, late springs and early autumns ought to put the last nail in the coffin of AGW. As more and more "real scientists" feel safe enough to speak out against this highly politicized issue, the chorus of voices will be impossible for the popular media to ignore, followed by most people and their government leaders.

Seriously, I'd give the hysteria just two more years, max, to run it's course - maybe less time than that.

AGW is a modern form of mass delusion and not supported by good science.

Jon S

Kim Dabelstein Petersen lives in Denmark
He is part of a team of political hacks that edit wikipedia in an attempt to control information.
Another member of his team is Stephen Schutlz who also edits wikipedia.
Neither have a degree other than simple programming, although they like to claim more training and importance.


Disgusted with the wannabes

Yeah, I too found authors names on several websites (one of which is below)

www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-ar4/wg3/wg3authors.pdf

and found the PDFs of the full reports on the IPCC website.

I suspect our blogger does not actually want to find these names because if he did, he would have found them relatively easily. I also suspect that our blogger will never be satisfied with anything less than the most hyperbolic and paranoid statements. This way he feels self-important.

Science Fact Please

The whole IPCC organisation is no where near a scientific organisation. The only science it does is redefines the term Science Fiction.

Global Warming is happening however it has nothing to do with the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

In face, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is a result of the warming, not a cause.

The sooner this organisation gets disbanded and replaced with a more realistic organisation the better. I just hope it happens before any emmisions trading schemes are in place.

Jan Rodricks

If I could name just one -- one -- legitimate atmospheric physics organization that agreed with your premise that climate change is not real and man-made, then I might not believe this is yet another rightwinger cherry-picking while ignoring the real consensus. They have ZERO science on their side, so instead they pursue SOP for he rightwing: libeling an entire scientific discipline.

Jan Rodricks

to sciencefactplease, IPCC's outgoing director was Dr. J. Robert Watson, former head of upper atmospheric research at NASA. If you can find a more respected researcher in climate physics, then I'll know your not a lying moron.

Jan Rodricks

I take it based on the comments here I'm the only one who's actually read the research papers where the real life scientists doing the real live work publish.

Hint: a bunch of rightwing websites all repeating each others distortions in circle joke fashion is not the same as scientific inquiry. For instance, this site cherry picks one scientist, assumes anyone opposed to him must be wrong-corrupt, and that he is a victim of corrupt climate science because that's what best supports their predetermined anti-science conclusion. There's as much chance of objective analysis being pursued here as Jerry Falwell admitting the earth is more than a few thousand years old.

Albert Woudenberg

heritical scientists?

are these people, despite their disbelief in it, merely discovering more about God's universe?

how is discovering more and more about creation heretical?

continuing to read, may regret posting this

Albert Woudenberg

Bulldozing large swaths of snow????? insert large ranting explicative filled belittling comment here please

that has to be the dumbest thing i've ever heard, please cut down more rain forest first, we don't need the trees for oxygen or the rare exotic plants for new drugs anyway.

Albert Woudenberg

(8) No good data exists to indicate that Polar Bears are going extinct. Check with Alaskan and Canadian wildlife departments.


ummm, the arctic polar ice caps are melting. this happens to be one of the main habitats of the polar bear

more importantly; why does climate change matter, the level of dioxins, lead, mercury, estrogen, and other contaminants will be the death of us long before New York is another Venice

GARY ECK

Firstly you say there are no scientists working on climate change. then suddenly you find hundreds.? Of course they disagree with the consensus? Inhofe is a liar and and funded by exxon. As for his ''hundreds'' of climate scientists on the petition. There are only a handful of climate scientists and few of them are published. An open letter by 320 climate scientists who agree with the ipcc is on line. I suggest you check it out instead of spreading nonsense on this blog

GARY ECK

The IPCC makes no scientific decisions at all. They summarise the published science and that is all. If you do not trust them you can go direct to the published work from where the IPCC report comes from. The world is warming the science is unequivacol. You just have a silly conspiracy theory ,distortions and misinformation. May i suggest you get a proper job instead of polluting cyberspace. UR A F**KWIT.

GARY ECK

How do you explain the present solar minimum [ since 1970 ] with rising temp and c02 levels, if your argument is that solar activity increases C02 levels? The Tung/ Camp study concluded that the sun only contributes 30% of present warming. Oh of course Tung and Camp are part of the one world government conspiracy aren't they ?

Rick

Thanks for stopping by Gary... but before you leave, I thought it'd be polite to point out the koolaid stains on your upper lip...

Carry on sir...

GARY ECK

The lead authors are summarising what the climate scientists have written in relation to their research. . It is peer reviewed and published before it even reaches the lead authors. I suggest you become an ''expert '' on the IPCC procedures before commenting. Is Lord Monckton, no doubt one of your ''experts '' a climate scientist, or indeed a scientist at all ?

GARY ECK

I like to drink koolaid while doing research. You should try it sometime. research that is. Sorry if i offended you, i was just being brutally honest.

GARY ECK

An open letter by 320 american climate scientists was recently published. All endorse the consensus .Some were involved with the IPCC, some were not. You must be looking for climate scientists with your eyes closed . It's amazing how a'' handful'' of skeptical scientists with the backing of the oil industry can convince some people that the climate is not warming. That is the beauty of propaganda i suppose? There is not one recognised scientific group on earth eg The Royal Society. The World Met, The UK met, The Aust Met. NASA, the Academies of Sciences in 20 countries, to name a few, that do not endorse the consensus.Seems to me you just have a conspiracy theory that is endorsed by Exxon and no one else ?

GARY ECK

The IPCC never claimed to be a scientific organisation. It makes no scientific decisions at all. It merely summarises what the published science is saying. Note. They mainly deal with published science. . Science that has ''passed '' peer review, as opposed to just being peer reviewed. Again i ask any skeptic to explain present warming when the sun is in solar minimum? How can temp and C02 levels continue to rise without increased solar activity? something that has not happened since 1970. Is that the sound of silence i hear?

Charles O'Connell

To the original author of this article and blog, would you please reverence your sources for the passage you included. The passage starting,"The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had". It would be much appreciated so that I may consider the upon its originality.

Rick

Charles,

The reference I believe you're seeking is linked in the paragraph above the quote...

It takes you here.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

BlogAds


Tip Jar


Plainly Offsetting Costs


Search Brutally Honest


  • Google

    WWW
    www.brutallyhonest.org

BlogStuff

Visitors


Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable