Scientific Malpractice by the IPCC

[Lord of Planar]

Now that the AR6 is finalized, I took some time today to skim through it. I know there are people why deny that the IPCC is just a over-bloated agenda driven global government conception, but it continually pouts out cherry picked science to suit their agenda over the nations of the world. They rarely ever lie. They just take the facts of science, and intelligently choose what fits their agenda. I believe this is the correct link to download the AR6 from:

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Here is my first example regarding the misconception.

On page 957 of the AR6:

The AR5 (Myhre et al., 2013b) assessed solar SARF from around​

1750 to 2011 to be 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10] W m–2 which was computed​

from the seven-year mean around the solar minima in 1745 (being​

closest to 1750) and 2008 (being the most recent solar minimum).​

The inclusion of tropospheric adjustments that reduce ERF (compared​

to SARF in AR5) has a negligible effect on the overall forcing.​

So, this seems like a proper comparison at face value, but it isn't. Here is a graphical reason as to why this is misleading, and the authors most certainly know it is:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Solar-Irradiance-TSI-from-1610-to-2014_fig3_281267447

To properly evaluate two periods of the sun like they are doing, the entire cycle needs to be averages. Not just the 7 year low period. Look how small the high to low variations are at around 1745 to the larger variation around 2008 for the full power cycle of the sun.

This is intentional low-balling of the solar change! Even at that, they close a study that uses lower changes in TSI than is commonly recognized to get down to their 0.05 W/m^2 level. Now their 0.05 represents about a 0.28 W/m^2 change of TSI because of the rotation of the earth, sphere vs. disk, and albedo.

From my perspective, this is scientific malpractice.

 

[tshade]

Now that the AR6 is finalized, I took some time today to skim through it. I know there are people why deny that the IPCC is just a over-bloated agenda driven global government conception, but it continually pouts out cherry picked science to suit their agenda over the nations of the world. They rarely ever lie. They just take the facts of science, and intelligently choose what fits their agenda. I believe this is the correct link to download the AR6 from:

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Here is my first example regarding the misconception.

On page 957 of the AR6:

The AR5 (Myhre et al., 2013b) assessed solar SARF from around​

1750 to 2011 to be 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10] W m–2 which was computed​

from the seven-year mean around the solar minima in 1745 (being​

closest to 1750) and 2008 (being the most recent solar minimum).​

The inclusion of tropospheric adjustments that reduce ERF (compared​

to SARF in AR5) has a negligible effect on the overall forcing.​

So, this seems like a proper comparison at face value, but it isn't. Here is a graphical reason as to why this is misleading, and the authors most certainly know it is:

View attachment 67445261

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Solar-Irradiance-TSI-from-1610-to-2014_fig3_281267447

To properly evaluate two periods of the sun like they are doing, the entire cycle needs to be averages. Not just the 7 year low period. Look how small the high to low variations are at around 1745 to the larger variation around 2008 for the full power cycle of the sun.

This is intentional low-balling of the solar change! Even at that, they close a study that uses lower changes in TSI than is commonly recognized to get down to their 0.05 W/m^2 level. Now their 0.05 represents about a 0.28 W/m^2 change of TSI because of the rotation of the earth, sphere vs. disk, and albedo.

From my perspective, this is scientific malpractice.

It is intellectual malpractice to deny climate change

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is intellectual malpractice to deny climate change

Who is denying climate change here? Please name names and why you choose to slander them.

Have any names?

Are you OK with misrepresenting the facts, denying other sound science, for the agenda?

We do have an impact. From my perspective, our largest impacts are physical pollutants, especially soot. CO2 does have a significant impact on forcing and possibly temperatures. It has both positive and negative secondary effects, sometimes call feedback, though most of what the IPCC calls feedback technically isn't.

Do you understand my example as to why it is scientific malpractice, or not? If you disagree, then please elaborate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Tshade. I get it.

You cannot attack the facts, so you attack the person presenting the facts.

Do you consider that ethical?

 

[Lord of Planar]

This is better explained on page 689 of the AR5. Here is the TSI graph they use, but they don't show the data which is before the start of the graph:



They only used TSI studies that are among the lowest changes since coming out of the maunder Minuma.

Cherry picking, rather than using an average of all good studies. I guess they were not deemed as good, because they didn't suit the agenda.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Cherry picking, rather than using an average of all good studies. I guess they were not deemed as good, because they didn't suit the agenda.

Or perhaps "good" is judged by agreement with the maximum number of other studies. Which just happens NOT to suit your own agenda.

 

[dmpi]

Just looking at the graph tells me they should use the smoothed graph (11 year moving average) rather than the minima points because of the large swings starting around 1840. I wonder if the intention was to 'capture' the magnitude of the swings into the study as if man was to blame for the sun's variability.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Or perhaps "good" is judged by agreement with the maximum number of other studies. Which just happens NOT to suit your own agenda.

Do you believe science is determinate by statistics?

Do you believe science is determined by those who have the most money?

The grant money given to study AGW causes outnumber those who believe the opposite by over 200 to 1. Scientists are people too, and will produce the product they are commissioned to do . If the do not, they will likely not be commissioned to do another.

Follow the money.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Just looking at the graph tells me they should use the smoothed graph (11 year moving average) rather than the minima points because of the large swings starting around 1840. I wonder if the intention was to 'capture' the magnitude of the swings into the study as if man was to blame for the sun's variability.

Yep. That's my major point, regardless what solar study they use.

Do you agree doing it that way is scientific malpractice? Using only the data that best suits a particular purpose, instead of the unbiased truth?

 

[Glitch]

Now that the AR6 is finalized, I took some time today to skim through it. I know there are people why deny that the IPCC is just a over-bloated agenda driven global government conception, but it continually pouts out cherry picked science to suit their agenda over the nations of the world. They rarely ever lie. They just take the facts of science, and intelligently choose what fits their agenda. I believe this is the correct link to download the AR6 from:

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Here is my first example regarding the misconception.

On page 957 of the AR6:

The AR5 (Myhre et al., 2013b) assessed solar SARF from around​

1750 to 2011 to be 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10] W m–2 which was computed​

from the seven-year mean around the solar minima in 1745 (being​

closest to 1750) and 2008 (being the most recent solar minimum).​

The inclusion of tropospheric adjustments that reduce ERF (compared​

to SARF in AR5) has a negligible effect on the overall forcing.​

So, this seems like a proper comparison at face value, but it isn't. Here is a graphical reason as to why this is misleading, and the authors most certainly know it is:

View attachment 67445261

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Solar-Irradiance-TSI-from-1610-to-2014_fig3_281267447

To properly evaluate two periods of the sun like they are doing, the entire cycle needs to be averages. Not just the 7 year low period. Look how small the high to low variations are at around 1745 to the larger variation around 2008 for the full power cycle of the sun.

This is intentional low-balling of the solar change! Even at that, they close a study that uses lower changes in TSI than is commonly recognized to get down to their 0.05 W/m^2 level. Now their 0.05 represents about a 0.28 W/m^2 change of TSI because of the rotation of the earth, sphere vs. disk, and albedo.

From my perspective, this is scientific malpractice.

What is even more telling is that they are not even using actual observed solar cycles. Solar Cycle 1 began on February 1755. No solar activity prior to 1755 was officially observed. They are all, including the Maunder Minimum, calculated centuries after they are suppose to have occurred using very questionable proxy data. The very first minimum that was actually observed was the Dalton Minimum.

Anyone who references solar cycles prior to February 1755 is pushing an agenda, not actual science.

Nothing the IPCC publishes can be considered credible. Only the peer-reviewed sources they cite, and then intentionally misrepresent to push their leftist agenda, are credible.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What is even more telling is that they are not even using actual observed solar cycles. Solar Cycle 1 began on February 1755. No solar activity prior to 1755 was officially observed. They are all, including the Maunder Minimum, calculated centuries after they are suppose to have occurred using very questionable proxy data. The very first minimum that was actually observed was the Dalton Minimum.

Anyone who references solar cycles prior to February 1755 is pushing an agenda, not actual science.

Nothing the IPCC publishes can be considered credible. Only the peer-reviewed sources they cite, and then intentionally misrepresent to push their leftist agenda, are credible.

Yep. The IPCC does have some good material, but they clearly have an agenda that is not good for us.

 

[longview]

In the earlier editions they discussed Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002)
but now a search for ether name shows "no results".
The lab between CO2 emission and maximum warming is critical to the evaluation of CO2's climate
sensitivity. I wonder why they would leave it on the edit room floor?

 

[Lord of Planar]

In the earlier editions they discussed Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002)
but now a search for ether name shows "no results".
The lab between CO2 emission and maximum warming is critical to the evaluation of CO2's climate
sensitivity. I wonder why they would leave it on the edit room floor?

Remember me saying I wasn't going to bother studying the AR6 until it was finalized, and caught hell by the true believers for it? I do have the draft saved. I'm going to have to look into that. Thanx.

 

[longview]

Remember me saying I wasn't going to bother studying the AR6 until it was finalized, and caught hell by the true believers for it? I do have the draft saved. I'm going to have to look into that. Thanx.

It could also be that their global search tool, doesn't work right.

 

[tshade]

So, fine. Possible malpractice.??!!

What is the point of the thread---the bottom line????

 

[Lord of Planar]

It could also be that their global search tool, doesn't work right.

Didn't you also find conflicting information in that released draft?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So, fine. Possible malpractice.??!!

What is the point of the thread---the bottom line????

To expose the IPCC for the propaganda machine it is.

 

[vegas giants]

Now that the AR6 is finalized, I took some time today to skim through it. I know there are people why deny that the IPCC is just a over-bloated agenda driven global government conception, but it continually pouts out cherry picked science to suit their agenda over the nations of the world. They rarely ever lie. They just take the facts of science, and intelligently choose what fits their agenda. I believe this is the correct link to download the AR6 from:

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Here is my first example regarding the misconception.

On page 957 of the AR6:

The AR5 (Myhre et al., 2013b) assessed solar SARF from around​

1750 to 2011 to be 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10] W m–2 which was computed​

from the seven-year mean around the solar minima in 1745 (being​

closest to 1750) and 2008 (being the most recent solar minimum).​

The inclusion of tropospheric adjustments that reduce ERF (compared​

to SARF in AR5) has a negligible effect on the overall forcing.​

So, this seems like a proper comparison at face value, but it isn't. Here is a graphical reason as to why this is misleading, and the authors most certainly know it is:

View attachment 67445261

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Total-Solar-Irradiance-TSI-from-1610-to-2014_fig3_281267447

To properly evaluate two periods of the sun like they are doing, the entire cycle needs to be averages. Not just the 7 year low period. Look how small the high to low variations are at around 1745 to the larger variation around 2008 for the full power cycle of the sun.

This is intentional low-balling of the solar change! Even at that, they close a study that uses lower changes in TSI than is commonly recognized to get down to their 0.05 W/m^2 level. Now their 0.05 represents about a 0.28 W/m^2 change of TSI because of the rotation of the earth, sphere vs. disk, and albedo.

From my perspective, this is scientific malpractice.

Must be a conspiracy

 

[vegas giants]

In the earlier editions they discussed Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002)
but now a search for ether name shows "no results".
The lab between CO2 emission and maximum warming is critical to the evaluation of CO2's climate
sensitivity. I wonder why they would leave it on the edit room floor?

Also must be a conspiracy

 

[longview]

Didn't you also find conflicting information in that released draft?

The earlier drafts referenced,
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
and
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
but a search of the authors names did not find any results.
I need to look back at what section the reference was in, as the global search may not search all the current reports.

 

[longview]

Didn't you also find conflicting information in that released draft?

Here is what the draft says,

4.6.3.1 Emergence of the climate response to mitigation 28 29 Reducing GHG emissions will eventually slow and limit the degree of climate change relative to high30 emission scenarios such as SSP5-8.5 (very high confidence). Even when CO2 emissions are reduced, 31 however, atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase as long as emissions exceed removal by sinks 32 (Millar et al., 2017). Surface warming would likewise initially continue under scenarios of decreasing 33 emissions, resulting in a substantial lag between a peak in CO2 emissions and peak warming (Ricke and 34 Caldeira, 2014; Zickfeld and Herrington, 2015) (high confidence). The lag between peak emissions and 35 warming depends on the emissions history prior to the peak and also on the rate of the subsequent emissions 36 reductions (Matthews, 2010; Ricke and Caldeira, 2014; Zickfeld and Herrington, 2015).

I am still looking for it in the final report.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here is what the draft says,

I am still looking for it in the final report.

LOL... Remember the idiots that kept telling me it was the final report? I keep saying it wasn't final...

I wonder if they love being wrong all the time?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here is what the draft says,

I am still looking for it in the final report.

That is actually there on page 619.

 

[longview]

The final report reduced the entire section 4.6 in the Mitigation report down to,

4.6 Knowledge Gaps This section summarises knowledge gaps that require further research:

I suspect that is better that the blatant misrepresentation of what was found,
in the two studies, that for Human sized emission pulses, the lag between emission and maximum
warming is about a decade.

 

[longview]

That is actually there on page 619.

I am not seeing that?