IPCC Reviewer: “But to be honest, there’s not a clear consensus among the scientific community”

CBC reports:

Climate change researchers and activists say the debate is over on the science of global warming but deniers of the evidence think a 15-year pause in temperature rise is reason enough to keep questioning conclusions.

On Friday, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change will release its summary for policy makers of the physical science basis study. This study is the first part of the IPCC’s fifth Assessment Report.

And the contributors admit there isn’t much of a change from their last one, which they released in 2007, beyond the fact that they are even more certain about their science.

“It further affirms: a), that we have seen a changing climate, b), that a lot of that is because of us [humans] and, c), if we don’t do something about it we’re going to be in serious trouble,” explained John Stone, one of the authors of the IPCC’s fourth report in 2007 that won the group the Nobel Peace Prize. He peer reviewed the IPCC’s latest report…

Stone is disappointed with the way the IPCC is explaining the so-called “temperature hiatus.” That is the 15-year period between 1998 and the present where the temperature of land and air have flatlined.

Stone offered a number of possible explanations:

— Oceans are taking more of the heat that was absorbed by the atmosphere and land prior to 1998.
— There is still natural variability in temperatures and that natural variability is currently masking the human effects on the climate. That is to say, if there wasn’t so much human-made carbon dioxide in the air, it would be a lot colder.
— The Sun radiates energy in cycles. We are currently at a low energy ebb in that cycle.

“But to be honest, there’s not a clear consensus among the scientific community,” said Stone.

Read more…

3 thoughts on “IPCC Reviewer: “But to be honest, there’s not a clear consensus among the scientific community””

  1. So, they really don’t know why it hasn’t warmed in over 15 years, but they sure know why it warmed for the 15 years before that. Really…

  2. In traditional debate the burden of proof lies on the person making the proposal. Therefore, these are the points that need to be proven for this proposal to be believed.
    “Oceans are taking more of the heat that was absorbed by the atmosphere and land prior to 1998.”
    Empirically prove why and how the oceans’ heat transport systems suddenly changed OR admit that the model projections failed to account for the oceans’ thermodynamics and were thus fatally flawed.
    “There is still natural variability in temperatures and that natural variability is currently masking the human effects on the climate.”

    Show why it is not equally possible that natural variability was responsible for the previous warming OR admit that the effects of manmade GHGs are unable to overcome natural forces.
    “The Sun radiates energy in cycles. We are currently at a low energy ebb in that cycle.”

    This is a tacit implication that we were previously in a high energy point in the cycle, and again shows that natural variability is a stronger force than GHGs.

    I don’t believe science is ever “settled” but I do believe this debate is over.

  3. The New Religion cannot questionned: Only a fraction of the IPCC scientific nuclei (200?) maintain GB is running. All the rest of the planet scientific teams are either neutral or frankly against Man responsability in late last century small warming (+0.2°C).
    This debate is effectivelyover, GH05T

Comments are closed.