Don’t know if the following deserves a thread or not. I had heard that a lot of IPCC scientists had quit because it became too political.
What I just realised now is that none of the 37 authors of the original IPCC report is listed as an author on the most recent IPCC report.
It’s effectively a completely different organisation.
hard to say who’s coming and going anymore since
THE Orange Sphincter keeps hiring & firing people
(drops a dollar in the swear jar and walks away)
mollwollfumble said:
Don’t know if the following deserves a thread or not. I had heard that a lot of IPCC scientists had quit because it became too political.What I just realised now is that none of the 37 authors of the original IPCC report is listed as an author on the most recent IPCC report.
It’s effectively a completely different organisation.
Where had you heard this?
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
Don’t know if the following deserves a thread or not. I had heard that a lot of IPCC scientists had quit because it became too political.What I just realised now is that none of the 37 authors of the original IPCC report is listed as an author on the most recent IPCC report.
It’s effectively a completely different organisation.
Where had you heard this?
ROFL, are you shitting me?
The first report was 30 years ago. Of course the latest one isn’t by the same authors.
Fuck me dead.
speaking of shitting, i’m pretty sure the turnover of organics in the human body takes less than 30 years too, even if it was the same names on the paper 30 years ago, they still wouldn’t be the same people
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
Don’t know if the following deserves a thread or not. I had heard that a lot of IPCC scientists had quit because it became too political.What I just realised now is that none of the 37 authors of the original IPCC report is listed as an author on the most recent IPCC report.
It’s effectively a completely different organisation.
Where had you heard this?
Excellent article. Thanks. Everything sure is bloody political these days.
I’m starting to look at the Third IPCC report, as a waypoint between first and last.
Same lead editor as the First IPCC report.
Some very interesting stuff there, I hadn’t realised, such as this graph.
The arrow “land uptake” is the increase in the terrestrial biosphere due to fossil fuel burning. The arrow “ocean uptake” is partly the increase in the oceanic biosphere (plankton, corals, etc.) due to fossil fuel burning and part straightforward absorption by water. Somewhere between 1/4 and a 1/2 of all CO2 from fossil fuel burning is going into expanding the biosphere.
I mean, that makes sense, if the atmospheric CO2 didn’t increase then the biosphere wouldn’t expand at all.
mollwollfumble said:
I’m starting to look at the Third IPCC report, as a waypoint between first and last.Same lead editor as the First IPCC report.
Some very interesting stuff there, I hadn’t realised, such as this graph.
The arrow “land uptake” is the increase in the terrestrial biosphere due to fossil fuel burning. The arrow “ocean uptake” is partly the increase in the oceanic biosphere (plankton, corals, etc.) due to fossil fuel burning and part straightforward absorption by water. Somewhere between 1/4 and a 1/2 of all CO2 from fossil fuel burning is going into expanding the biosphere.
I mean, that makes sense, if the atmospheric CO2 didn’t increase then the biosphere wouldn’t expand at all.
Based on the above chart, the following simple graphic explains why climate change is good.
For every 2 tons of carbon that the atmosphere gets from an increase in atmospheric CO2, the biosphere (mostly forest) expands by 1 ton of carbon. If atmospheric CO2 gets smaller, the biosphere gets smaller. Over time, the biosphere grows to an even greater fraction of the atmospheric carbon.
The change in the ipcc seems to have happened between the third report (Kyoto protocol) and fourth report.
There’s a different head of the ipcc for starters. But it’s the difference in science content that is most telling.
For the first and third reports (haven’t read the second), the dominant picture is “climate change has both positive and negative aspects, the negative ones dominate.”
For the fourth report, the dominant picture is “these are the alarmist predictions, how accurate are they really”.
Do you see the difference? For the fourth report, all the positive consequences of climate change are excluded. Which results in a much more biased overall perspective.
I find that the level of scholarship is less for the fourth report as well. For starters, it’s dumbed down. Then there’s the format, which seems to be all extrapolating trends from data series.
As another example, the graph showing world rainfall anomaly as a function of time shows the data togerther with six different smoothing methods. The data speaks for itself, it’s random. At most one smoothing method should be plotted – the best – and even that gives an erronous interpretation of future trends. The mind that would would include six smoothing methods is a mind with zero knowledge of stochastic processes.
mollwollfumble said:
At most one smoothing method should be plotted – the best – and even that gives an erronous interpretation of future trends.
If you can be sure of that you should really lend them your time machine so they can access the same information that you have.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:At most one smoothing method should be plotted – the best – and even that gives an erronous interpretation of future trends.
If you can be sure of that you should really lend them your time machine so they can access the same information that you have.
Good money apparently for talented deniers, plus you get all the coal you can use completely free.
