How the IPCC Buried Evidence

[Jack Hays]

This is an important paper that concludes the IPCC has attempted to hide evidence that climate sensitivity is much lower than most models assume. eace

A Sensitive Matter – Final

 

[Summerwind]

Oh, is it time for your daily misinformation and foolishness OP. I see it is.

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh, is it time for your daily misinformation and foolishness OP. I see it is.

Glad to see you're keeping an open mind.eace

 

[Summerwind]

Glad to see you're keeping an open mind. :toilet:

Open mind? Why? You've never posted anything worthwhile to date in this subforum and you post everyday the same tripe.

 

[Jack Hays]

Open mind? Why? You've never posted anything worthwhile to date in this subforum and you post everyday the same tripe.

Well then, I suppose you should pass your insight on to Dr. Judith Curry, who thought the paper worthwhile enough to contribute the Foreword.eace

Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sci-
ences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is a fellow of the American Mete-
orological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and
the American Geophysical Union.

 

[Summerwind]

Well then, I suppose you should pass your insight on to Dr. Judith Curry, who thought the paper worthwhile enough to contribute the Foreword.eace

Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sci-
ences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is a fellow of the American Mete-
orological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and
the American Geophysical Union.

I have no doubt that Dr. Curry has no interest in you or my opinion of your posts.

 

[Ockham]

I think we all know they had to maximize the evidence and minimize the truth to protect billions of dollars world wide which sticks to the Global Warming brand. It hasn't been about science in a long time, it's about big money, big business and cashing in.

 

[Jack Hays]

I have no doubt that Dr. Curry has no interest in you or my opinion of your posts.

But I suspect she might be interested in your view of her scientific judgment, which is the point at issue.eace

 

[Summerwind]

But I suspect she might be interested in your view of her scientific judgment, which is the point at issue.:toilet:

I'm not going to read your tripe, sorry I have better things to do with my time like trim my toenails.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm not going to read your tripe, sorry I have better things to do with my time like trim my toenails.

Keep up the denial.:lamo

 

[Summerwind]

Keep up the denial.:lamo

Oh that's just so great. Thanks for the belly laugh. A Climate Change denier worrying about me denying to read the hundredth replay of his denial.

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh that's just so great. Thanks for the belly laugh. A Climate Change denier worrying about me denying to read the hundredth replay of his denial.

Oh I very much believe in climate change. I just don't believe in the hypothesis that is supported by suppression of data.eace

 

[azgreg]

I'm not going to read your tripe, sorry I have better things to do with my time like trim my toenails.

And yet here you are responding to his posts.

 

[Summerwind]

And yet here you are responding to his posts.

Yep, I've done that twice lately. Usually I'm pretty good at sticky to it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yep, I've done that twice lately. Usually I'm pretty good at sticky to it.

Perhaps you are attracted to truth.eace

 

[Tim the plumber]

One of this report’s authors (Lewis) worked his way through the Gregory et
al. method. He discovered that Gregory’s data for heat uptake in the oceans
over 1957–1994 came froman erroneous dataset 33 that was corrected downwards
in 2005, and that the total forcing change estimate Gregory had used
was only half that used by NASA in their well-known GISS climate model. The
combination of a low forcing change and a high ocean heat uptake change
led to a high ECS estimate, with a very long upper tail. Use of the corrected
ocean heat content (OHC) dataset and GISS model forcings reduced the ECS
best estimate from6.1◦C to 1.8◦C and gave a distribution thatwasmuch better
constrained.34

This is from page 19. The figures are for a doubling of CO2 I think. If it's 1.8 degrees and that's from the start of the industrial age then we have absolutely nothing to worry about at all, not even if you own a ski chalet.

Table 2: Comparison of estimates for ECS from recent empirical studies
that incorporate observationally-based aerosol forcing estimates, from
models and from the IPCC reports
Study Best estimate Likely range
From To
◦C ◦C ◦C
Ring et al. 2012 (using 4 surface temperature
datasets)
1.80 1.4 2.0a
Aldrin et al. 2012 (main results) 1.76b 1.3 2.5
Lewis 2013 (preferred main resultsc) 1.64 1.3 2.2
Otto et al. 2013 (2000s data) 2.00 1.5 2.8
Otto et al. 2013 (1970–2009 data) 1.91 1.3 3.0
Average of the aboved 1.79e 1.3 2.4f
CMIP3 models (per AR4 Table 8.2) 3.20 2.1 4.4g
CMIP5 models (per AR5 Table 9.5) 2.89h 1.9 4.5i
IPCC AR4 3.00 2.0 4.5
IPCC AR5 None given 1.5 4.5

The table has not copied very well, it's on page 27. Perhaps somebody with better computer skills can sort it out.

 

[Mithrae]

One of this report’s authors (Lewis) worked his way through the Gregory et
al. method. He discovered that Gregory’s data for heat uptake in the oceans
over 1957–1994 came froman erroneous dataset 33 that was corrected downwards
in 2005, and that the total forcing change estimate Gregory had used
was only half that used by NASA in their well-known GISS climate model. The
combination of a low forcing change and a high ocean heat uptake change
led to a high ECS estimate, with a very long upper tail. Use of the corrected
ocean heat content (OHC) dataset and GISS model forcings reduced the ECS
best estimate from6.1◦C to 1.8◦C and gave a distribution thatwasmuch better
constrained.34

This is from page 19. The figures are for a doubling of CO2 I think. If it's 1.8 degrees and that's from the start of the industrial age then we have absolutely nothing to worry about at all, not even if you own a ski chalet.

It's good to have someone present who actually reads some of the information available, which is more than can be said for the OP

That point notwithstanding, by glancing at the references provided it seems that in the quote above, Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok are using as their source a letter which Nicholas Lewis sent to an IPCC author, as posted on the website of Judith Curry (author the report's foreword).

Table 2: Comparison of estimates for ECS from recent empirical studies
that incorporate observationally-based aerosol forcing estimates, from
models and from the IPCC reports
Study Best estimate Likely range
From To
◦C ◦C ◦C
Ring et al. 2012 (using 4 surface temperature
datasets)
1.80 1.4 2.0a
Aldrin et al. 2012 (main results) 1.76b 1.3 2.5
Lewis 2013 (preferred main resultsc) 1.64 1.3 2.2
Otto et al. 2013 (2000s data) 2.00 1.5 2.8
Otto et al. 2013 (1970–2009 data) 1.91 1.3 3.0
Average of the aboved 1.79e 1.3 2.4f
CMIP3 models (per AR4 Table 8.2) 3.20 2.1 4.4g
CMIP5 models (per AR5 Table 9.5) 2.89h 1.9 4.5i
IPCC AR4 3.00 2.0 4.5
IPCC AR5 None given 1.5 4.5

The table has not copied very well, it's on page 27. Perhaps somebody with better computer skills can sort it out.

Taking one of those studies more or less at random, Aldrin et al. 2012 suggests for its main results:

"4.1. Main results
Panel (a) of Figure 6 shows the posterior distribution of the climate sensitivity. The posterior mean is 2.0C (see also Table 2), which is lower than the IPCC estimate from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007), but this estimate increases if an extra forcing component is added, see the following text. The 95% credible interval (CI) ranges from 1.1C to 4.3C, whereas the 90% CI ranges from 1.2C to 3.5C."

Perhaps it was merely a typo which produced 2.5C rather than 3.5C as the upper 'likely range' in the report?
Though that still wouldn't explain how they got 1.76 as a 'best estimate' for that study.



Odds are that Summerwind has the correct approach of dismissing Jack's crap as a ream of cherry-picked half-truths, uncritical C&P drive-bys, propagandistic misinformation and sometimes obvious outright lies.
(For example his thread claiming that the IPCC discards its models)

 

[Tim the plumber]

I'm impressed that in about 1 hour you were able to go through it so thoroughly. Checking the source papers etc..

What's your take on the expected temperature rise? And for the slightly stupid please tell me if the figure is from a pre-industrial base or what, thanks.

 

[Mithrae]

I'm impressed that in about 1 hour you were able to go through it so thoroughly. Checking the source papers etc..

Not thoroughly at all: I glanced at the original reference for your first quote, and one of the studies from your second quote. Both showed obvious deficiencies (ie. citing the authors' own unverified claims and apparent misrepresentation or dishonesty regarding others' work), so odds are there wouldn't be much point in delving any deeper. [Edit - without intending any disrespect to you there; no-one can search out everything, but unlike Jack you at least show some evidence of having read the report :lol: ]


This, of course, is why Jack himself rarely if ever posts anything of substance. It's always links, C&Ps and - whenever called out on their obvious deficiencies - the weasel's retreating whine that "I ask only that you examine the data."

 

[flogger]

Not thoroughly at all: I glanced at the original reference for your first quote, and one of the studies from your second quote. Both showed obvious deficiencies (ie. citing the authors' own unverified claims and apparent misrepresentation or dishonesty regarding others' work), so odds are there wouldn't be much point in delving any deeper. [Edit - without intending any disrespect to you there; no-one can search out everything, but unlike Jack you at least show some evidence of having read the report :lol: ]


This, of course, is why Jack himself rarely if ever posts anything of substance. It's always links, C&Ps and - whenever called out on their obvious deficiencies - the weasel's retreating whine that "I ask only that you examine the data."

Why is it so vital for you to believe that the sky must be falling and that you must instantly dismiss anything that might cast doubt upon that however well qualified that doubt might be ? The IPCC's objectivity is extremely questionable as has been illustrated for you by statements from its own senior representatives. There is plenty more supporting that here

UN IPCC Report Exposed By Its Own Members as ‘a pure political process’ — ‘Scientific truth isn

 

[Jack Hays]

Odds are that Summerwind has the correct approach of dismissing Jack's crap as a ream of cherry-picked half-truths, uncritical C&P drive-bys, propagandistic misinformation and sometimes obvious outright lies.
(For example his thread claiming that the IPCC discards its models)

[Edit - without intending any disrespect to you there; no-one can search out everything, but unlike Jack you at least show some evidence of having read the report :lol: ]
[/I]

This, of course, is why Jack himself rarely if ever posts anything of substance. It's always links, C&Ps and - whenever called out on their obvious deficiencies - the weasel's retreating whine that "I ask only that you examine the data."

I must be doing something right. I'm causing you to resort to baseless ad hominems. That's generally what warmists do when they can't refute the data.eace

 

[Mithrae]

Why is it so vital for you to believe that the sky must be falling and that you must instantly dismiss anything that might cast doubt upon that however well qualified that doubt might be ?

You think that a three or four degree climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling would be a major catastrophe - figuratively, that in such a scenario the sky would be falling. That's interesting. What led you to that conclusion?

I myself have merely pointed out that in the two snippets from the GWPF-published report which Tim the Plumber quoted, the authors are
A) using as a source their own unverified claims as posted on an associate's personal website and
B) apparently misrepresenting the results of actual peer-reviewed papers.

The IPCC's objectivity is extremely questionable as has been illustrated for you by statements from its own senior representatives. There is plenty more supporting that here

UN IPCC Report Exposed By Its Own Members as ‘a pure political process’ — ‘Scientific truth isn

I have previously asked you to highlight one or two points from that page which you consider to be particularly compelling, but you were either unwilling or unable to provide any. You're not usually as bad as Jack of course, but that approach of merely linking or C&Ping absurd quantities of material without having the chutzpah to personally research and stand by the claims which you're spreading is very familiar. This of course was shortly after you attempted to portray the personal opinions which of one of three co-chairs of one of three IPCC working groups expressed in an interview as being representative of the whole organisation :lol:

You, apparently, see nothing questionable about your notion that it is pushing an agenda directly against the economic interests of its biggest funders, and you'll grasp at even the tiniest of straws in your attempts to persuade yourself. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, however.


####################
####################

I must be doing something right. I'm causing you to resort to baseless ad hominems. That's generally what warmists do when they can't refute the data.eace

Only two people in the thread have given any indication at all of having glanced, however briefly, at the content of the report. You are not one of them. However you have carefully snipped out and avoided responding to everything that I said about it. :doh

By the way, ad hominem is a logical fallacy when personal attacks are used in place of argument; not when conclusions are drawn from observations which you happen to find unpleasant As I've suggested to you before, if you think these are undesirable characteristics for me to point out, it might be worthwhile changing your approach a little.
(That advice was in an earlier thread of obviously false claims against the IPCC.)

 

[VanceMack]

And yet here you are responding to his posts.

Well see...she has to. She stepped hip deep in a mound of **** and is trying to wade out of it. She jumped in to offer a snarky comment about the OP (not the article...person posting it). Then, it was revealed that the person that actually wrote the foreward to the article critical of the IPCC (and her beloved cause) is actually a scientist. So...she really had no choice but to double down on the personal attacks explaining why it just wasnt worth her time to read the actual article.

 

[Jack Hays]

You think that a three or four degree climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling would be a major catastrophe - figuratively, that in such a scenario the sky would be falling. That's interesting. What led you to that conclusion?

I myself have merely pointed out that in the two snippets from the GWPF-published report which Tim the Plumber quoted, the authors are
A) using as a source their own unverified claims as posted on an associate's personal website and
B) apparently misrepresenting the results of actual peer-reviewed papers.



I have previously asked you to highlight one or two points from that page which you consider to be particularly compelling, but you were either unwilling or unable to provide any. You're not usually as bad as Jack of course, but that approach of merely linking or C&Ping absurd quantities of material without having the chutzpah to personally research and stand by the claims which you're spreading is very familiar. This of course was shortly after you attempted to portray the personal opinions which of one of three co-chairs of one of three IPCC working groups expressed in an interview as being representative of the whole organisation :lol:

You, apparently, see nothing questionable about your notion that it is pushing an agenda directly against the economic interests of its biggest funders, and you'll grasp at even the tiniest of straws in your attempts to persuade yourself. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, however.


####################
####################




Only two people in the thread have given any indication at all of having glanced, however briefly, at the content of the report. You are not one of them. However you have carefully snipped out and avoided responding to everything that I said about it. :doh

By the way, ad hominem is a logical fallacy when personal attacks are used in place of argument; not when conclusions are drawn from observations which you happen to find unpleasant As I've suggested to you before, if you think these are undesirable characteristics for me to point out, it might be worthwhile changing your approach a little.
(That advice was in an earlier thread of obviously false claims against the IPCC.)

On the contrary, I've read the report. That's why I found it worth posting. And the only thing false about the earlier post was your mischaracterization of it. As for the ad hominem issue, it's just what you do. You never address the data, only the people.eace

 

[flogger]

You think that a three or four degree climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling would be a major catastrophe - figuratively, that in such a scenario the sky would be falling. That's interesting. What led you to that conclusion?

Your ongoing obsession with such guesswork

I myself have merely pointed out that in the two snippets from the GWPF-published report which Tim the Plumber quoted, the authors are
A) using as a source their own unverified claims as posted on an associate's personal website and
B) apparently misrepresenting the results of actual peer-reviewed papers

And of course this is a thing the alarmist position would never do :lamo

I have previously asked you to highlight one or two points from that page which you consider to be particularly compelling, but you were either unwilling or unable to provide any.

No you are just evasively dodging. Theres plenty there.

You're not usually as bad as Jack of course, but that approach of merely linking or C&Ping absurd quantities of material without having the chutzpah to personally research and stand by the claims which you're spreading is very familiar.

More dodging

This of course was shortly after you attempted to portray the personal opinions which of one of three co-chairs of one of three IPCC working groups expressed in an interview as being representative of the whole organisation :lol:

I presented what he said providing you with the original source for it. You dismissed it like you do with everything you dont want to see. You are desperate to bury this given the seniority of this individual within the IPCC. Hardly surprising I suppose

"Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore"

Ottmar Edenhofer co chairman of IPCC WGR3 in an interview from the German newspaper Die Zeitung in November 2010

You have conceded already that your pre programmed 'guilt' has led you to approve of such statements and are obviously a principle motivation for you posting on this issue. Imposition of such a worldview will become increasingly difficult for you as the real world continues ignoring the script

You, apparently, see nothing questionable about your notion that it is pushing an agenda directly against the economic interests of its biggest funders, and you'll grasp at even the tiniest of straws in your attempts to persuade yourself. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, however.

Why is highlighting the political bias motivating the actions of the IPCC nothing to do with the topic at hand ?