The IPCC: Bogus data on "Climate Sensitivity"!!!

Discussion in 'Environment' started by skookerasbil, Mar 29, 2013.

  1. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    16,161
    Likes Received:
    1,556
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,593 / 0 / -0
    Like Ive been saying for over a decade......cherry picked data is gay. All the shit we've seen from organizations like the IPCC is highly.......HIGHLY speculative. Accordingly, the models are based on subjectively analyzed data...........


    There’s an excellent piece here in The Economist that discusses climate sensitivity:

    “
    Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C. The top of the study’s range is well below the IPCC’s upper estimates of likely sensitivity.

    This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable. But its projections are not unique. Work by Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, which was published in 2012, suggests a 90% chance of the actual change being in the range of 0.5-4.0°C, with a mean of 2.3°C. This is based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago, at the peak of the last ice age, a period when carbon-dioxide concentrations leapt. Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, got an even lower range in a study accepted for publication: 1.0-3.0°C, with a mean of 1.6°C. His calculations reanalysed work cited by the IPCC and took account of more recent temperature data. In all these calculations, the chances of climate sensitivity above 4.5°C become vanishingly small.






    So we are suppossed to blow up whole economies based upon "estimates" with huge possible disparities.


    How fucking bogus...........and whats more fascinating is that people dont see this......or more likely, DONT WANT TO SEE THIS.:2up:



    The "climate change" stuff has always been about two things: 1) Redistribution of wealth 2) Destruction of all capitalistic societies.



    Climate Change Is Now Less Of a Problem. So We Need To Do Less About Climate Change - Forbes
  2. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    16,161
    Likes Received:
    1,556
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,593 / 0 / -0
  3. waltky
    Online

    waltky VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    11,678
    Likes Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    73
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +784 / 2 / -0
    How worms aid the study of climate change...
    :eusa_eh:
    Antarctic nematodes and climate change
    26 April 2013 - Climate change affects not only air temperature and sea levels, but soil as well. And an American scientist is on an award-winning quest to reverse the damage.
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    33,419
    Likes Received:
    3,538
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +3,556 / 3 / -0
  5. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    9,974
    Likes Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +648 / 0 / -0
    It's great to see that government-funded research is able to reach independent conclusions.

    Congratulations to Skooks here on once and hopefully for all ending this silly myth of researchers being part of some massive conspiracy.
  6. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    416
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +418 / 1 / -0
    Recommendation: The IPCC should encourage
    Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to
    ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately
    considered by the authors and that genuine controversies
    are adequately reflected in the report.


    However, authors
    reported high confidence in some statements for
    which there is little evidence.
    Furthermore, by
    making vague statements that were difficult to
    refute, authors were able to attach ‘high confidence’
    to the statements. The Working Group II Summary
    for Policymakers contains many such statements
    that are not supported sufficiently
    in the literature,
    not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly.


    So you state it is silly to state there have been many falsehoods within the reports? Read the above. These are from the recommendations from the Climate Change Assessments, Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC.
    This report was written after investigation by the committee set up to assess the data due to the leaked e-mails. -
    Overview
    The InterAcademy Council is requested to conduct an independent review of the IPCC processes and the procedures by which it prepares its assessments of climate change.


    InterAcademy Council | Review of the IPCC | An Evaluation of the Procedures and Processes of the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    54,752
    Likes Received:
    8,396
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +8,453 / 17 / -0
    IPCC redistributing wealth through Climate Policy

    Yeah, that's science
  8. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +247 / 3 / -0
    And what is happening to temperatures? Even your high priests admit that they don't know nearly as much as they though they knew. Obiously CO2 isn't a control knob. In fact, a study just published in Nature, finds that CO2 is a slave to temperature, not the other way around.

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n5/full/nclimate1817.html


    That's not reality...that's a prediction based on models that isn't looking good for your side right now.

    Again...not reality...predictions based on flawed models.
  9. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    416
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +418 / 1 / -0
    #1 I know personally of a couple of climate scientists that work with a certain agency for almost 30 years that are very aware of the cherry picking of data stations that has gone on, as well as many being taken off line and state within their research of the data themselves that what the IPCC has stated in the past is very much non-inclusive. They claim this has resulted in manipuation of the models.
    #2 Many scientists, within their research and certain findings have stated explicitly that the models need to be adjusted, due to their findings.
    #3 Climate models have been less than reliable in other climate related research for years where it is even more important to the public interests. They change those models usually at least once a year, if not more often. And some of those changes have resulted in even less reliability at times. Sometimes it does make them better but still they lack being able to go further than a few days.

    So the assumption by many that climate models can accurately predict decades into the future is rather arrogant, if you ask me.

    Does anyone realize that much of the funds the US govt. supplies to the IPCC is not even reported by those agencies within our government doing so? Recently that was brought to the forefront and how that reporting had to be improved upon. Also the US is the principal provider of funds for the IPCC.
  10. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    416
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +418 / 1 / -0
    Possibly due to the expected harsher review of the data is suddenly making them report that there seems to be some cooling or slow down in warming going on?
  11. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    9,974
    Likes Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +648 / 0 / -0
    Depotoo -

    Do try and focus. This thread has just proven beyond any doubt that there is no global conspiracy of scientists.

    We know that each country conducts its own research and draws its own conclusions - as norway has here.
  12. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    416
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +418 / 1 / -0
    Saigon, it is amazing the different assumptions people reading the same things can make. :eusa_whistle:
  13. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    9,974
    Likes Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +648 / 0 / -0
    Depotoo -

    Undoubtedly so, but this does not explain why we have a thread on which we see countries releasing independent scientific research, and one poster claiming there is no independent scientific research, only a giant conspiracy.
  14. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    416
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +418 / 1 / -0
    And you see no correlation to the FACTS presented that the IPCC has been found to -

    and
    and suddenly publications, after the scandal have now decided to not only print research that backs up the IPCC as it was found to be less than forthcoming?
  15. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    416
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +418 / 1 / -0
    IT's called cause and effect, my dear.
  16. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +247 / 3 / -0
    Try and think real clearly here for a second...Climate science is the unfortunate victim of an error cascade as a result of deliberate data tampering by a few large agencies and some bad physics early on...not a world wide conspiracy.
  17. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    416
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +418 / 1 / -0
    if anyone needs to focus, maybe it is you. Since the assessment came out, suddenly we do have other research findings being reported. Before that it was nil, whch I feel pretty certain is the time period in which the poster is speaking of. Though I know you are smart enough to know where they are coming from, and I believe you to just be trying to change that fact around to your advantage, hoping it will take, even though false.
  18. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    9,974
    Likes Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +648 / 0 / -0
    Right...so countries like Norway - and of course there are at least 40 others - who collect and analyse their own local data have fallen victim to an error cascade.

    I think we can be sure that you don't believe that.
  19. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    9,974
    Likes Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +648 / 0 / -0
    "Before that it was nil"??

    What ARE you talking about?

    Are you seriously suggesting that the 40 or so countries collecting data did NOT release any research based on in until now?

    I think we can be sure you do not believe that, either!
  20. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    5,128
    Likes Received:
    416
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +418 / 1 / -0
    Reread what I stated. Yes, the research was there, but journals would not print it if it did not agree with the IPCC. Now that the IPCC has been brought to task, suddenly these journals are actually accepting and publishing other studies.

Share This Page