Time to drop a brick of epistemology on a table full of vibes. - Climate change

[Anomalism]

Lower left ... 0.6 W/m^2 is trivial ... this chart includes convection ... well done ... close to a 25% the energy isn't changing temperature at the surface ...

It's over the entire surface of the planet. What number were you expecting per meter?

Honestly ... 1.8 W/m^2 is what's measured ... give or take 0.5 W/m^2 ... and this "1.8" figure is what the IPCC uses ... this measurement was taken over only 25 years ... so we have no idea what the 20th Century average was ... nothing to compare to ...

Trenberth et al (2009) includes convection in their calculations ... I want to see Anomalism's energy budget ... he's keeping this energy at the surface and I want to see if there's anything in his citation that would explain this neglect, other than his inability to understand the scientific literature ...

Some back-of-the-$100-bill calculation gives us a total of 0.1ºC warming for all the CO2 we've released into the atmosphere ... using your post ... on average ... math is hard, especially for liberals ...

That 0.1C calculation misses the point that radiative forcing isn’t just about instantaneous surface energy. It accumulates over time and is amplified by feedbacks. 1.8 W/m2 averaged over the entire planet, sustained year after year, translates into heat stored in the oceans, land, and atmosphere. That’s exactly how climate sensitivity works. Direct CO2 forcing (1C) plus fast feedbacks brings the observed 1-1.2C surface warming so far.

Convection is already part of the energy balance; it redistributes energy vertically and horizontally but doesn’t nullify the net positive forcing. Ignoring feedbacks or the long-term accumulation of energy drastically underestimates the impact of CO2, which is why a simple per year, per square meter instant warming is misleading.

 

[Anomalism]

 

[OklaSusie]

I know, but he was right about the ******* contrails.
Idk if he ever got to see that, so it is what it is and I am who I am.
Also by me tagging him, people could see his stuff, and Hossfly too.

He was quality.
Yes, I lub me some Hossfly and Dale Smith.
Many others, too.
I don't wanna get into that right now.

Both Smith and hossfly were idiots.

 

[OklaSusie]

I'm going to break this down to you fairly easy, cupcake.
Outside of contrails,( Dale Smith was right )and HAARP weapons,
man cannot influence the weather beyond those 2 things.
And both of those are not altogether that effective.

Dale Smith, righ? LMAO! Sure. He was a conspiracy nutjob.

 

[The Duke]

Both Smith and hossfly were idiots.

Look here, Ravioli:

 

[MisterBeale]

Tell me what the terms of reference were that Maurice Strong outlined for the IPCC, and how that affects research and research grants please.

 

[Anomalism]

Tell me what the terms of reference were that Maurice Strong outlined for the IPCC, and how that affects research and research grants please.

Maurice Strong was influential in environmental policy, but he didn't set the IPCC's terms of reference. The IPCC was established by the WMO and UNEP, with its mandate defined by those bodies.

The IPCC's actual mandate is to assess the scientific literature on climate change. It doesn't conduct original research or distribute research grants. It's an assessment body that synthesizes published, peer reviewed studies. The terms of reference direct it to evaluate the scientific basis of climate change, impacts and vulnerabilities, and mitigation and adaptation options.

Research grants come from separate funding agencies that existed long before the IPCC and fund climate research alongside thousands of other scientific fields. These agencies use standard peer review processes where proposals are evaluated on scientific merit by other scientists in the field.

The actual constraint worth examining is that IPCC reports require consensus approval from member governments, which if anything pulls conclusions toward conservative understatement rather than alarmism, since fossil fuel producing nations are at the table.

 

[MisterBeale]

The IPCC's actual mandate is to assess the scientific literature on climate change.

Only man made climate change. It does not recognize natural causes.

Any research that does not conform, does not get funded.

 

[Anomalism]

Only man made climate change. It does not recognize natural causes.

Any research that does not conform, does not get funded.

I notice you responded to one line of my post when the main point was that the IPCC doesn't control research funding. That comes from separate agencies that fund thousands of scientific fields through standard peer review.

Could you clarify what mechanism you believe prevents contradictory climate research from being funded?

The claim that research that does not conform does not get funded is testable. If it's accurate, we should see researchers unable to publish studies on solar variability, ocean cycles, volcanic forcing, or natural climate mechanisms. Do you have examples of such research being rejected for reasons that aren't scientific?

 

[westwall]

I notice you responded to one line of my post when the main point was that the IPCC doesn't control research funding. That comes from separate agencies that fund thousands of scientific fields through standard peer review.

Could you clarify what mechanism you believe prevents contradictory climate research from being funded?

The claim that research that does not conform does not get funded is testable. If it's accurate, we should see researchers unable to publish studies on solar variability, ocean cycles, volcanic forcing, or natural climate mechanisms. Do you have examples of such research being rejected for reasons that aren't scientific?

The IPCC DOES control research funding. Don't tow the party line, you get no funding because the IPCC controls who gets published.

 

[Anomalism]

The IPCC DOES control research funding. Don't tow the party line, you get no funding because the IPCC controls who gets published.

The IPCC doesn't have a research budget to distribute. It's an assessment body. Research funding comes from agencies like NSF, NOAA, DOE, and national research councils that have their own appropriations and peer review processes.

Could you walk me through how you understand this control to work?

I'm asking for specifics because "the IPCC controls funding and publishing" requires a concrete institutional mechanism to work. What does that mechanism look like? Can you point to researchers who've documented being denied funding or publication specifically because their work examined natural causes?

 

[MisterBeale]

Could you clarify what mechanism you believe prevents contradictory climate research from being funded?

If you can't figure something that simple out, I am not about to clarify it for you. There is no amount of clarification that will break through the conditioning you have ego identified with at this point.

. . .

 

[MisterBeale]

The IPCC DOES control research funding. Don't tow the party line, you get no funding because the IPCC controls who gets published.

It isn't so much that they control who gets published, but they do control which studies are deemed to be acceptable under the terms of reference that set the bureaucracy up. Anything that does not prove AGW is not part of the mandate.

. . . of course, most of the intelligent members in this thread will see that for what it is, a distinction without a difference. The only type of research that is profitable is that which conforms to the agenda of the agency.

The IPCC isn't a scientific panel, but a political one.

 

[MisterBeale]

Episode 498 – How To Stage A Cover-Up​

by Corbett | Apr 14, 2026 | Podcasts, Videos | 21 comments

Episode 498 - How To Stage A Cover-Up | The Corbett Report

Today on The Corbett Report, James presents you with a handy-dandy primer on how to stage a cover-up.

corbettreport.com

Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed​

by Corbett | Sep 28, 2013 | Episodes, Podcasts | 9 comments

Episode 282 - The IPCC Exposed | The Corbett Report

The IPCC has released its latest assessment of the state of climate science, and this time it's even more dire than their 2007 assessment. Global warming is "unequivocal" and humans are the "dominant cause" to a certainty of 95%. But how are these uncertainties calculated? And how does the IPCC…

corbettreport.com

Is the IPCC Rigged? – Questions For Corbett #096​

by Corbett | Feb 20, 2023 | Questions For Corbett, Videos | 21 comments

Is the IPCC Rigged? - Questions For Corbett #096 | The Corbett Report

Today James demonstrates the proper way to formulate a question about someone's research if you want to get a useful answer. And, as an added bonus, you'll learn how the UNFCCC was rigged from the outset and how the much-ballyhooed IPCC report is nothing but a negotiated political document!

corbettreport.com

 

[westwall]

It isn't so much that they control who gets published, but they do control which studies are deemed to be acceptable under the terms of reference that set the bureaucracy up. Anything that does not prove AGW is not part of the mandate.

. . . of course, most of the intelligent members in this thread will see that for what it is, a distinction without a difference. The only type of research that is profitable is that which conforms to the agenda of the agency.

The IPCC isn't a scientific panel, but a political one.

Correct. It's always been political, never scientific.

 

[EMH]

The IPCC doesn't have a research budget to distribute. It's an assessment body. Research funding comes from agencies like NSF, NOAA, DOE, and national research councils that have their own appropriations and peer review processes.

Could you walk me through how you understand this control to work?

I'm asking for specifics because "the IPCC controls funding and publishing" requires a concrete institutional mechanism to work. What does that mechanism look like? Can you point to researchers who've documented being denied funding or publication specifically because their work examined natural causes?

LOL!!!


This Faux Skeptic knows all about "climate fraud funding" because that's what he does... he fudges data and lies about it, and we pay for it.

 

[Anomalism]

I am not about to clarify it for you.

That’s what I figured.

 

[Anomalism]

It isn't so much that they control who gets published, but they do control which studies are deemed to be acceptable under the terms of reference that set the bureaucracy up. Anything that does not prove AGW is not part of the mandate.

. . . of course, most of the intelligent members in this thread will see that for what it is, a distinction without a difference. The only type of research that is profitable is that which conforms to the agenda of the agency.

The IPCC isn't a scientific panel, but a political one.

Can you point to specific research proposals on natural mechanisms that were rejected for non-scientific reasons?

The IPCC's working groups are staffed by climate scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals. The political element comes at the Summary for Policymakers stage, where governments negotiate wording, and that political process typically weakens scientific conclusions rather than strengthening them, because fossil fuel producing nations have veto power over the summary language.

If you believe important natural mechanisms are being systematically ignored, which specific physical processes or published findings do you think the IPCC assessments have excluded?

 

[westwall]

Can you point to specific research proposals on natural mechanisms that were rejected for non-scientific reasons?

The IPCC's working groups are staffed by climate scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals. The political element comes at the Summary for Policymakers stage, where governments negotiate wording, and that political process typically weakens scientific conclusions rather than strengthening them, because fossil fuel producing nations have veto power over the summary language.

If you believe important natural mechanisms are being systematically ignored, which specific physical processes or published findings do you think the IPCC assessments have excluded?

Hmmm, climategate 1.0 and 2.0 showed climatologists badgering Journal editors to not allow skeptical papers to be published. Then there was that whole thing about climatologists not revealing their conflicts of interest.

And then there was that scientist who presented a paper that challenged a climatologists paper, but the journal editors allowed the challenged scientist to review that paper, which is highly unethical.

The reports are all out there if you choose to be informed .

But we all know that you will ignore anything that challenges your high priests.

 

[MisterBeale]