Global warming

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Antman
Finals (unmanned)
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:25 am
Closest Airfield: FARA
Location: Glen Erasmia JNB
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 15 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Antman » Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:37 am

Also is it possible that, what has been recently discovered may be the reason for less Ozone over Antarctica?

https://www.livescience.com/63692-stand ... ysics.html
https://science.howstuffworks.com/antar ... now-it.htm
https://interestingengineering.com/abno ... ts-puzzled
https://www.antarcticaguide.com/cosmic- ... s-baffled/

Something humanity needs to Learn is that we don't know what we don't know!
The more we discover the more we find out how little we know!
Triaan
Lining Up
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:49 am

Antman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:28 am
I see we've moved on to geology of the Earth and age determination.

With that in mind have any of you boffins read this https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 00070001-8

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 0001-8.pdf This is a "Sanitized" version.
One has to wonder what's been taken out?

The biggest question of all, is why was this classified in the first place, quite scary!
Not sure why it was classified,it has to do with pole reversal, people in the 60s was still very superstitious things have changed the world has grown up

And magnetic reversal is well understood, and from what it looks like, it's not much of a concern wrt any extinction event:

https://theconversation.com/why-the-ear ... t-us-71910
Triaan
Lining Up
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:12 pm

Antman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:37 am
Also is it possible that, what has been recently discovered may be the reason for less Ozone over Antarctica?

https://www.livescience.com/63692-stand ... ysics.html
https://science.howstuffworks.com/antar ... now-it.htm
https://interestingengineering.com/abno ... ts-puzzled
https://www.antarcticaguide.com/cosmic- ... s-baffled/

Something humanity needs to Learn is that we don't know what we don't know!
The more we discover the more we find out how little we know!
The simplest explanation is that the primary high energy cosmic ray was propagating backward in time, collided with a particle on Earth, and since the collision products must move forward in time, they moved in a direction opposite to the cosmic ray's direction of motion. Nothing actually passed through the Earth before decaying, it just appears to do so. There is no need to invent new particles. All you need is to figure out what kind of astronomical source can accelerate high energy particles in a backward time direction. Maybe a source that has an event horizon forming so the only particles that can get out are the ones going in a reverse time direction.

Cosmic rays can have an effect on the ozone, but it does not have an effect on climate change.
if GCRs did have a significant impact on global temperatures, they would have had a net cooling effect over the past 50 years
User avatar
Spoke Eagle
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2050
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Closest Airfield: Silver Creek
Location: Rustenburg
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 26 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Spoke Eagle » Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:56 am

There is also a pletora of articles stating that global warming is a normal "spike" before the next Iceage starts. It is also well known that the sun has been cooling dramatically over the past 40 years. (Except for the rays that were hitting Rustenburg before Christmas :D )
The theory is that the cooling sun changes the metabolism of earth life to increase carbon release that raises the temperature.
They basically say that the sun and not man is driving climate change and temperature cycles?
User avatar
cage
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9574
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 114 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by cage » Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:59 am

Spoke Eagle wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:56 am
There is also a pletora of articles stating that global warming is a normal "spike" before the next Iceage starts. It is also well known that the sun has been cooling dramatically over the past 40 years. (Except for the rays that were hitting Rustenburg before Christmas :D )
The theory is that the cooling sun changes the metabolism of earth life to increase carbon release that raises the temperature.
They basically say that the sun and not man is driving climate change and temperature cycles?
Who is "they"?
Triaan
Lining Up
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 17 times
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:40 pm

Spoke Eagle wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:56 am
There is also a pletora of articles stating that global warming is a normal "spike" before the next Iceage starts. It is also well known that the sun has been cooling dramatically over the past 40 years. (Except for the rays that were hitting Rustenburg before Christmas :D )
The theory is that the cooling sun changes the metabolism of earth life to increase carbon release that raises the temperature.
They basically say that the sun and not man is driving climate change and temperature cycles?
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising at ~2 parts per million per year, or around 15 billion tons/year. Meanwhile  human emissions excluding land use change (like clearing or planting forests) are 30 billion tons per year.

Nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. It is not causing atmospheric CO2 to rise at all - in fact it is acting to try and reduce atmospheric CO2, and thus the long term rise is entirely because of humans.

Corinne Le Quéré Professor of Climate Change Science and Policy at the University of East Anglia
Skymaster
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:32 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGM
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Skymaster » Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm

A poster on this thread, who worships at the alter of "C02 causes global warming" was not even aware of who Judith Curry is - a climate scientist with impeccable credentials.
Please feel free to verbally abuse yet another scientist who called "climate science" crazy.
And here's why - Mike Hulme, quoted elsewhere on this thread, let the cat out of the bag about the IPCC.
The alarmists are very quick to questions the academic qualifications of any scientist who dares to question their own unproven theories - yet they studiously ignore that their leading organisation, the IPCC, was headed by a politically appointed retired Indian railway engineer with no climate credentials whatsoever (You couldn't make it up could you!!)
Their next idiocy was to proclaim their "consensus" to the world.
Consensus is a modern propaganda strategy adopted to get everyone to buy into your dodgy science when you actually have no proof at all.
This runs hand in hand with Goebbels strategy that " a lie repeated often, becomes a truth."
But did they really have consensus??
Were they lying about that too???
Here's what Hume, himself an IPCC insider has to say.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man made global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.
The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists.(ends.)

So now you have it.
A small clique of dodgy scientists with their " global warming" computer model making all sorts of lying claims.
No wonder reasonable men, and many scientists with impeccable credentials have many questions about their C02 theory.
Certainly non of their "science is settled" claims of high temperatures have happened.
And this has forced the IPCC to reduce their original high temperatures claims to the point where they could well fall within any margin of error!
Yet governments are gleefully creating "carbon taxes" !!
The fact is, all honest scientists open their work, experiments, scientific data and stats to others for robust critique.
But not the alarmist clique.
Asked for his data by an amateur scientist, Steve McIntyre, Phil Jones a leading, tax payer funded Climate scientist responded, "Why should I give you my research data - you would only try and find something wrong with it."
And some still believe these twerps.
User avatar
heisan
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5368
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:45 pm
Closest Airfield: Rhino Park
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 81 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by heisan » Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:35 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man made global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.
The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
Where do people find this garbage? How about reading the actual paper being so badly msquoted here:
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme ... 5B1%5D.pdf

Or reviewing actual consensus studies:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 1/4/048002
(All data sources and methodologies are available, and you can happily review them yourself, rather than misquoting arbitrary 'sources' from the internet.)
Justin Schoeman

ZU-FSR (Raven)
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:14 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm
A poster on this thread, who worships at the alter of "C02 causes global warming" was not even aware of who Judith Curry is - a climate scientist with impeccable credentials.
This must be the joke of the year =D> :lol: Judith Curry a Koch Brothers Funded scientist (for those who do not know she is funded by big oil, has been debunked by so many Climate Scientists one can write an encyclopedia about it :lol:

Judith Curry runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused spiel for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place. Curry has agreed with Trump's description of climate change as a "hoax", writing in 2016 that the UN's definition of manmade climate change "qualifies as a hoax".

Climate scientist James Annan has provided examples (with rebuttals) of assertions made by Curry on topics like no-feedback climate sensitivity, aerosols, climate change detection&attribution, and the IPCC tolerance of challengers; he finds there's a pattern of "throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong",[20]
Willingness to criticize based on second-hand info from contrarian, inexpert sources

"In a 2010 comment[21] she called blogger Deep Climate's detailed and well-documented investigation into the Wegman Report "one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen" even as she revealed in her incorrect synopsis of the charges that she had not even read it for herself. ... [i.e.] she shows herself ready to publicly criticise someone else in the strongest terms based entirely on second hand information gleaned from places like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That."[11]

Offering off-the-cuff, uninformed criticism of mainstream climate science

Gavin Schmidt has criticised Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about[22], for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC[23], and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause."[24].
2011: Berkeley Earth Project "BEST" dissension, and widely publicized claims of "pause"

Curry was a member of the partially-Koch-funded Berkeley Earth Project temperature reanalysis project headed by former global warming skeptic Richard Muller, which reanalyzed existing weather station data and found yes, global warming was real. The project FAQ[2] (and a draft paper, which lists Curry among the authors[3]) reported there was no evidence to indicate the rate of global warming had changed in the last decade.

But despite Curry's having agreed (as evinced by her coauthorship) with this conclusion, London Daily Mail contrarian (and oft-misrepresenting[4], [5], [6]) journalist David Rose portrayed a vigorously-disagreeing Curry saying, "This is 'hide the decline' stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline."[25].

Curry backtracked somewhat on her blog, saying "The article spun my comments in ways that I never intended"[25], but didn't step back from "Our data show the pause", and "There has been a lag/slowdown/whatever you want to call it in the rate of temperature increase since 1998."[26] When pressed for the scientific basis for these statements, Curry admitted the time period was too short for a statistically significant difference to emerge.
RommSkepticsPauses.png

In response Tamino noted, "There is Occam's razor -- ... the simplest hypothesis (namely: the trend hasn't changed) is preferable. Besides which, basing her statement on "It may have stopped since 1998" is really no different than "it may have stopped since last Thursday.""[7]

Eyeballed "pauses" are misleading - in a graph titled "How "Skeptics" View Global Warming", Joe Romm shows that if you see a "pause" in the post-1998 temperature data, you'll also think global warming "paused" at least six times from 1973-2010, covering almost the entire period - yet the global temperature actually continued to increase.[27]

source:
Keith Kloor (2010-04-23). An Inconvenient Provocateur. Collide-a-scape. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “"Chapter 2.3 in the IPCC WG1 Third Assessment Report and Chapter 6 in the IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report, both of which address the paleoclimate proxy record, were not accurate assessments of the science and its uncertainties."”
Judith Curry (2011-07-27). Nature on Heartland. Climate Etc.. Retrieved on 2011-07-28.
John Rennie (2010-10-25). Update on Climate Hawks, Judith Curry and more. Retort. Retrieved on 2010-10-28. “"...So the answer is no, I am not going to sign up to be a climate hawk"”
Dave Roberts (2010-10-20). Introducing ‘climate hawks’. Grist. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “it evokes a judgment: that the risks of climate change are sufficient to warrant a robust response.”
Brian Angliss (2010-07-08). WordsDay: Merchants of Doubt. Scholars and Rogues. Retrieved on 2010-10-28. “Merchants of Doubt also describes how Seitz et al misrepresented scientific uncertainty to their advantage over the course of the last 60 years. The scientists did this in a number of ways...”
Coby Beck (2010-11-05). Judith Curry plants her flag. A Few Things Ill Considered. Retrieved on 2010-11-05.
Steve Bloom (2010-08-23). comment on Currying confusion. Not Spaghetti. Retrieved on 2010-11-03. “She...specifically asserts that a Charney sensitivity well below 2C is plausible...her response was to point me to a recent review paper (Hegerl co-auth) she said agreed with her. I looked and... no, it didn't.”
Tim Lambert (2010-07-29). Judith Curry and the hockey stick. Deltoid. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “Tamino has written a detailed review of the [Montford] book with particular emphasis on two of the three main critiques that Curry identified. The response from Curry was perplexing. Instead of thanking Tamino for addressing the main critiques that she had identified, Curry wrote that the cons for Tamino's review were: "numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, failure to address many of the main points of the book..." Pressed to identify these errors, Curry instead moved the goalposts, coming up with nine different "key points" of the book. When Gavin Schmidt demolished these, rather than concede that some, at least, were wrong, Curry asserted that Schmidt's rebuttal was full of logical fallacies (though once again without identifying any of them at all)”
William M. Connolley (2010-04-23). Curry. Stoat. Retrieved on 2010-10-29.
Joe Romm (2010-04-26). Beef with Curry. Climate Progress. Retrieved on 2010-10-29.
Things Break (pseudonymous blogger) (2010-09-12). Welcome to the blogosphere, Dr. Curry!. The Way Things Break. Retrieved on 2010-10-29.
Michael Tobis (2010-10-29). Judith Curry: Born Beyond the Shark?. Only In It For The Gold. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “It's one thing to tolerate cranks. ... It's another thing entirely to encourage them and agree with them. Crank: 'There are many forcings and some are known to be underrepresented in the modeling such as aerosols / clouds and black soot.' curryja: 'very true, same goes for solar also.' ... f you buckle down and try to understand what she is saying (instead of just nodding in enthusiastic agreement with the "not the IPCC" position) it is incomprehensible.”
James Annan (2010-10-29). More Curried leftovers. James' Empty Blog. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “...she apparently conflates the concept of evidence for and against the proposition "most of the observed warming was very likely due to the GHG increase" with an estimate of the proportion of warming that was due to anthropogenic vs natural factors. This seems like a rather elementary point to get confused over ... Note that in the very first premise of her argument, she only assigns 70% probability to the fact that surface temperatures actually show a warming at all! This is the warming that the IPCC famously called "unequivocal" in their 2007 report. As far as I can tell, at this point she is simply so far out of touch with mainstream climate science that her analyses aren't worth the time it takes to read them. End of story.”
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:27 pm

More Oil funded Judith Curry Quotes

"I suspect that the higher level of belief among ocean sciences and particularly geophysics represents second order belief (i.e. support for a perceived consensus) rather than personal research on AGW detection/attribution or a careful survey of the literature. How to square this with the oft reported 97% consensus? Well, ‘climate scientists’ in these surveys typically includes economists, ecologists etc., nearly all probably representing second order belief."


what the science say:

The survey Verheggen et al. (2014) found that scientists who work specifically on the physical science basis of climate change (known as WG1 for short), especially experts in attribution and aerosols, tend to believe humans are responsible for a greater proportion of the observed global warming than other scientists working in climate science who may, in some cases, have a "second-order belief" (see figure 2 in that study).

Overall, studies show 91% to 97% consensus among experienced climate scientists.


Judith Curry:

"the narrative of the 'spiral of death' for the sea ice has been broken ... It remains unclear as to what extent the decline in sea ice over the past decades is caused by natural variability versus greenhouse warming. Whether the increase in 2013 is a one year blip in a longer declining trend, or whether it portends a break in this trend remains to be seen."

What the science say:

A one-year increase in Arctic sea ice extent is short-term noise caused by weather, and is not indicative of a long-term recovery from the rapid human-caused decline.

Sea ice extent has dropped since 2013.

Judith Curry:

"what the heck does the ‘climate change consensus’ even mean any more? The definition of climate change consensus is now so fuzzy that leading climate change skeptics are categorizing themselves within the 97%."


What the science say:

Here's what it means: the scientist self-ratings survey included in Cook et al. (2013) found a 96% consensus that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming, among papers that explicitly quantified whether or not humans were responsible. (This was not originally stated in the paper, but can be seen in the anonymized raw data of The Consensus Project.)

The contrarian Roy Spencer did claim to be part of the "97% consensus". The number 97% was produced with different criteria but The Consensus Project database shows that his claim is false. (Judith Curry herself did have two old papers among the 97%, but has published no papers stating whether or not humans cause most of the observed warming.)

Judith Curry:

"This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline"

The science:

Every part of the Earth's climate system has continued warming since 1998.

Global warming apparently slowed down, but did not stop over reasonable averaging periods (more than 10 years). The slowdown is now over. The slowdown have partly been an illusion produced by 1998 (an unusually hot year), plus a lack of arctic data (coverage bias) during a time when arctic regions were warming quickly. Instrumental bias may also be a factor. Ocean heat content continued rising during the slowdown.

Judith Curry:

"I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow. [...] If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science."


The science:

Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.

Judith Curry:

"There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record....It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest"

The Science:

The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
User avatar
viki
Stressed Eric ain't got nothing on me
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:36 pm

The alarmists are very quick to questions the academic qualifications of any scientist who dares to question their own unproven theories
What kind of pot did this publisher smoke, Science is not "Theories"
It's the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
User avatar
viki
Stressed Eric ain't got nothing on me
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:45 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man made global warming


Like a stuck record you keep repeating the oldest debunked dribble over and over again:
Proffesor Mike Hulme HIMSELF dismissed the above hogwash right off the bat:

It seems ironic that one key version of this argument – that the IPCC ‘misleads’ by misrepresenting the science of climate change and its potential consequences - is itself a gross misrepresentation of a statement made by Professor Mike Hulme, a climate change scientist who works at the University of East Anglia. He was also co-ordinating Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for the IPCC’s AR3 report, as well as a contributing author for several other chapters. This is how Hulme dismissed the claim:

"I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead."

The same argument also has a broader scope, demonstrated by the claim that within the IPCC, there is a politically motivated elite who filter and screen all science to ensure it is consistent with some hidden agenda. This position turns the structure of the IPCC into an argument, by claiming that the small number of lead reviewers dictate what goes into the IPCC reports.

Before considering this argument in full, it is prudent to observe that the IPCC does no science or research at all. Its job is purely to collate research findings from thousands of climate scientists (and others working in disciplines that bear on climate science indirectly, such as geology or chemistry). From this, the IPCC produces ‘synthesis reports’ – rather like an executive summary – in which they review and sum up all the available material. It is necessary therefore to have an organisational structure capable of dealing efficiently with so much information, and the hierarchical nature of the IPCC structure is a reflection of this requirement.

How does the process work? The IPCC primarily concerns itself with science that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, although, as it makes clear in the IPCC’s published operational appendices, it does also use so called ‘grey’ material where there is insufficient or non-existent peer-reviewed material available at the time the reports are prepared. See IPCC principles, Annex 2: Procedure for using non-published/non-peer-reviewed sources in IPCC reports. Many people are involved in this complex process:

“More than 450 Lead Authors and more than 800 Contributing Authors (CAs) have contributed to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)".

Source: The role of the IPCC and key elements of the IPCC assessment process, February 2010

To suggest the IPCC can misrepresent the science belies the fact that such misrepresentations would be fiercely criticised by those it misrepresented. Considering how many lead authors and contributors are involved, any egregious misrepresentation would hardly remain unremarked for very long.

The Broader Consensus

As with all such disputes, it is helpful to consider if there is any evidence of credible independent support for the reports the IPCC has produced, and the conclusions those reports contain. If the accusations were true, such misrepresentation would also be problematic for official bodies, particularly national science academies and the like.

On that basis, it is reassuring to note that nearly every major national scientific body e.g. the Royal Society (UK) or the National Academy of Sciences (US), unreservedly supports the work and findings of the IPCC. An expanded list can be found here, including this statement:

“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change”.

In 2010 an independent investigation of the IPCC was launched. Conducted by the InterAcademy Council, which represents the world’s scientific academies, the report highlighted a number of organisational and procedural areas that the council felt could be improved. However, the recommendations did not detract from the council’s appreciation of the IPCC’s work:

“The Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall. However, the world has changed considerably since the creation of the IPCC, with major advances in climate science, heated controversy on some climate-related issues, and an increased focus of governments on the impacts and potential responses to changing climate”.

Source: IAC Report Executive Summary

Like all organisations, the IPCC can improve on its performance. Recent defensiveness regarding errors or ambiguities in the AR4 report may be mitigated in light of unpleasant attacks on the organisation and its director, but the criticisms are valid none the less.

However, claims that the IPCC does not accurately represent the views and findings of the scientists, on whose work the IPCC reports are based, are not supported by the facts.
User avatar
viki
Stressed Eric ain't got nothing on me
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:01 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm
Certainly non of their "science is settled" claims of high temperatures have happened.
And this has forced the IPCC to reduce their original high temperatures claims to the point where they could well fall within any margin of error!
Yet another old myth you keep on repeating like an old record:

There are a number of misconceptions concerning Phil Jones' email. These are easily cleared up when one takes the time to read Jones' words in context.
The "decline" is about northern tree-rings, not global temperature

Phil Jones' email is often cited as evidence of an attempt to "hide the decline in global temperatures". This claim is patently false and shows ignorance of the science discussed. The decline actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations since 1960.

Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature. Hence, tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades.
The "decline" has nothing to do with "Mike's trick".

Phil Jones talks about "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to "Mike's trick to hide the decline". Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:

"A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". That's the words, "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline". Mike is Michael Mann, said "hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That's all." My response is I'm not worried about the word trick. I'm worried about the decline."

Muller quotes "Mike's nature trick to hide the decline" as if its Phil Jones's actual words. However, the original text indicates otherwise:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

It's clear that "Mike's Nature trick" is quite separate to Keith Briffa's "hide the decline". "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (a "trick of the trade") by Michael Mann to plot recent instrumental data along with reconstructed past temperature. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead.

Skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret. In reality the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.

The common misconception that scientists tried to hide a decline in global temperatures is false. The decline in tree-ring growth is plainly discussed in the publicly available scientific literature. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming. The obsessive focus on a misquote taken out of context, doesn't change the scientific case that human-caused climate change is real.
User avatar
viki
Stressed Eric ain't got nothing on me
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Thu Jan 03, 2019 8:03 pm

heisan wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:35 pm
Skymaster wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man made global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.
The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
Where do people find this garbage? How about reading the actual paper being so badly msquoted here:
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme ... 5B1%5D.pdf

Or reviewing actual consensus studies:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 1/4/048002
(All data sources and methodologies are available, and you can happily review them yourself, rather than misquoting arbitrary 'sources' from the internet.)
=D> #-o
User avatar
MadMacs
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:41 pm
Closest Airfield: GRJ
Location: On my bed
Has liked: 142 times
Been liked: 25 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by MadMacs » Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:33 pm

Global warming for dummies:

The closest I get to flying these days is when I put my cellphone in 'flight mode'.

Return to “123.45”