Ipcc report 2013

[UncleBuck]

How many scientists over the ages were punished, fined, imprisoned and put to death because they wouldnt go along with the consensus?

Strange how history seems to be repeating itself in a civilization that considers itself advanced.

just the other day you said the earth was cooling.

you can go sit in the corner. this debate is not for you, child.

 

[Harrekin]

One starred btw.

There should only be ONE consensus regarding global warming...

"Insufficient sample length".

 

[ginjawarrior]

This is the sort of opinion from the Summary which leaves a bad taste in my mouth:

View attachment 2839437
And I have this strange feeling that when I read those parts highlighted in green I won't be any more satisfied.

How many people actually sit down to decide what the consensus is? A dozen or two?
I'm not talking about the scientists who rubber-stamp the reports' findings, but those who finalize what is published.

I'm unsure as to which parts you are talking about. I don't know if you posted picture but it's not showing up here

 

[ginjawarrior]

http://www.climatechange2013.org/background/

IPCC Fact Sheets
What is the IPCC?	How does the IPCC approve reports?
How does the IPCC review process work?	What literature does the IPCC assess?
How does the IPCC select its authors?	How does the IPCC deal with alleged errors?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

http://www.climatechange2013.org/background/

IPCC Fact Sheets
What is the IPCC?	How does the IPCC approve reports?
How does the IPCC review process work?	What literature does the IPCC assess?
How does the IPCC select its authors?	How does the IPCC deal with alleged errors?

I've never known climate nerds to get laid often.

I just use this section to let off steam so I don't go beat the shit out of someone when I have a sensory overload and meltdown. What's your excuse?

 

[ginjawarrior]

I've never known climate nerds to get laid often.

I just use this section to let off steam so I don't go beat the shit out of someone when I have a sensory overload and meltdown. What's your excuse?

I post here because not all potheads are right-wing bible thumping fascists

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I post here because not all potheads are right-wing bible thumping fascists

Two out of three ain't bad.

 

[ginjawarrior]

You lost me. It is on the IPCC and the AGW alarmists to explain why their models of the climate are so wrong. When a model contradicts reality, then the model is wrong, it is as simple as that. Now, maybe there is a reasonable explanation but hand waving does not cut it. There is no need to jump off the balcony if your building is not on fire.

http://climexp.knmi.nl that is the site where the model data was cherry picked from

On the right hand side you'll see
Select a time series
Daily station data
Daily climate indices
Monthly station data
Monthly climate indices
Annual climate indices
View, upload your time series
Select a field
Daily fields
Monthly observations
Monthly reanalysis fields
Monthly seasonal hindcasts
Monthly decadal hindcasts
Monthly RCM runs
Monthly CMIP3+ scenario runs
Monthly CMIP5 scenario runs
Monthly and seasonal historical reconstructions
External data (ensembles, ncep, enact, soda, ecmwf, ...)
View, upload your field


Click on any of them and see how meaning less your graph is with supporting text...

 

[heckler73]

I'm unsure as to which parts you are talking about. I don't know if you posted picture but it's not showing up here

Indeed... something seems to be wrong with the image service. I can't upload any pics either, but it was there earlier.

This was the text I was referring to:

[HR][/HR]The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to
the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing
and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of
heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily
due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.
However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in
causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal
variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the
simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There
may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of
the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the
effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}
[HR][/HR]
When I see that, my "error radar" goes off. But that's why I need to look at the report proper where they should have a more detailed explanation for these issues. I suppose for policy makers, it is irrelevant.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Indeed... something seems to be wrong with the image service. I can't upload any pics either, but it was there earlier.

This was the text I was referring to:

[HR][/HR]The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to
the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing
and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of
heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily
due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.
However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in
causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal
variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the
simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There
may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of
the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the
effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}
[HR][/HR]
When I see that, my "error radar" goes off. But that's why I need to look at the report proper where they should have a more detailed explanation for these issues. I suppose for policy makers, it is irrelevant.

As to the first the confidence levels are listed at the bottom of second page labelled "introduction"

Basically they're saying there's some evidence points one way but more evidence is needed to say for certain

seems an open and honest account of the evidence at hand


As to the second they have lowered the lower range by .5c because sensitivity was not as first predicted. is it not science doing what science should and adjusting according to the data held at the time

I'd be suspicious if they turned round and said the previous numbers were exactly perfect and even with better measurements nothing is changed even down to 0.00000001c

 

[UncleBuck]

Ah, isn't it cute when they are faced with an argument they can't overcome? Resort to marginalizing their opponent.

I'm sorry that reality isn't falling in step with all the "models" that were the foundation of the AGW movement. I'm sorry that the doom & gloom predictions that goosed the whole movement are all turning out to be total horseshit, oddly enough, exactly like the "deniers" said they would. I'm sorry that you have a 15 year slowdown in warming to contend with. I'm sorry that you need to find a new impending environmental disaster to make your new religion and caterwaul about from the treetops.

And finally, I'm sorry for bringing up the spotted owl. Another Eco-Loon overreaction that destroyed thousands of small businesses, savaged tens of thousands of your fellow citizens' lives and shipped a thriving industry off to other countries, all because of an undeniable, scientifically proven fact. That of course, turned out to be absolutely false. The wailings were the same "DENIER" "TIMBER INDUSTRY SHILL" "FLAT EARTHER" "YOU HAVE DISCOUNTED YOURSELF FROM THE CONVERSATION". Yup, heard it all before and it doesn't phase me at all.

Get a new tactic, condescension from the village idiot is humorous at best.

maybe if you be a little angrier, the cherry trees in washington will stop blooming earlier and earlier.

 

[Doer]

just the other day you said the earth was cooling.

you can go sit in the corner. this debate is not for you, child.

Well, that memory does play tricks. Right before the UN voted against cooling, they voted against warming, back in the 1970s.

Remember that famous decade.

 

[Doer]

One starred btw.

There should only be ONE consensus regarding global warming...

"Insufficient sample length".

Non-statistical Data Pairing
Non-rigorous Application of Method
Consensus set before Evidence gathered


I could go on.

 

[Doer]

How many scientists over the ages were punished, fined, imprisoned and put to death because they wouldnt go along with the consensus?

Strange how history seems to be repeating itself in a civilization that considers itself advanced.

That, sir, is a very excellent point and here I pass you a +1 Rep. Good job!

 

[ginjawarrior]

Well, that memory does play tricks. Right before the UN voted against cooling, they voted against warming, back in the 1970s.

Remember that famous decade.

Must be difficult being stuck 4 decades in the past...

Still using a cassette to load your computer?

 

[Doer]

maybe if you be a little angrier, the cherry trees in washington will stop blooming earlier and earlier.

Bucky, they always do that. Then it straightens out with leap year. Remember, or stop not listening.

Every lifetime (57.2 years) we move a day early in Sidereal Real Time heating and cooling in our Orbit around the Sun.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Non-statistical Data Pairing
Non-rigorous Application of Method
Consensus set before Evidence gathered


I could go on.

Of course your propensity to make shit up knows of no bounds...

 

[NLXSK1]

just the other day you said the earth was cooling.

you can go sit in the corner. this debate is not for you, child.

The climate has been cooling for over a decade.

Do you feel the need to swing from my nuts after every post I make?

I must really get under your skin cheesybeard.

 

[ginjawarrior]

The climate has been cooling for over a decade

No it hasn't...

 

[Doer]

This needs it's own thread

Posting key points here for those that won't read it


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2013/09/27/key-science-points-from-the-2013-ipcc-report/?src=earthmatters-rss



Of course it doesn't matter how many times this is done as the denier ideologues just cannot imagine being wrong

since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. ..............we have not been observing for millennia.

The atmosphere and ocean have warmed....no. Not the oceans

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes.....Not what the WG1 is saying. Not what the data are showing. Hidden somehow. Yes?


I could go on and the submission is FULL of conclusions before evidence, via pick choose for the Anti-Big-Oil agenda. Is likely? Not so likely, somewhat likely?

And I still say, so what?

Look at the other side. What if civilization could not withstand the ice age without adding a bit of warming? Say we are warming the planet. OK? Fine.

Maybe we should keep warming it. Ever think of that? Maybe that is a good thing. That is the problem with the foregone conclusions.

- we don't know the climate system
- we then don't know why this extra heat (4 H-bombs a second or some such panic) is not going in....Hidden?
- maybe we are not looking at it correctly.....like cold Fusion? No there, there when we look at the Method.
- maybe we are all wrong again, and we really are cooling, and the previously observed warming was the "glitch."
- maybe this some deep cycling rogue wave, a little heating catching up from the last Ice Age. If we use probabliity, a one off, is possible.

AND MAYBE, warming is the best for humans. We tend to be very lucky monkeys. And we make our own luck without knowing, all the time. Read history.

WHAT IF< warming is good,. we need it and we are trying to kill ourselves by stopping it?. Seems very highly likely given the Black Heart of Man.

That is what Method could explore in the absence of politics and rip-off and pay back on Big Oil.