Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[Yoink]

Nothing to see here. Move on folks, nothing to see.

Care, then, to point out what there is to see here? In what way, specifically, is the scientific case for the existence and seriousness of AGW undermined by the error about the extent of the Netherlands that currently lies below sea-level?

 

[Reality Check]

Was any caveat of this sort given before the bogus claims were found?

By who?

 

[BenBurch]

I'd say this clearly shows a warming trend independent of ANY thermometer;

 

[BenBurch]

The ice area graph, or the one with the temperature plots?

I'll answer both questions since you haven't been back around to this yet.

The graph from the OP of this thread is degrees C deviation from a baseline (which itself is an average value.)

The little ascending sine wave under that is CO2 as recorded at Mauna Loa and has been scaled to match the graph to show that CO2 keeps rising, so I am unsure of the scaling here.

The ice anomaly is in millions of square kilometers deviation from the baseline value which was the mean of 1979-2000. It shows how much less or more ice there is in the same month (january) year to year. January is not usually the peak month for polar ice, that is usually in early March, and then the melt begins.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Care, then, to point out what there is to see here? In what way, specifically, is the scientific case for the existence and seriousness of AGW undermined by the error about the extent of the Netherlands that currently lies below sea-level?

Is that what I said?

If it was just one item, in isolation sure - we could dismiss it as insignificant and trivial (which was your point above I think). But there is more and more.

The stench is getting stronger and more are asking questions.
Why aren't you?

 

[Reality Check]

That looks like a lot of 'what' and not much 'who'.

That looks a lot like someone who has not seen the IPCC site.
The site says who prepares the reports. Read it and see.

 

[Reality Check]

If it was just one item, in isolation sure - we could dismiss it as insignificant and trivial (which was your point above I think). But there is more and more.

What is the error threshold for all of the conclusions of the IPCC report being wrong, e.g. that global warming exists or that it is very likely man-made?

Is it 5? Is it 10? Is it 100? A million ?

There have been a handful of errors from a 1500 page report. None of them have been about the climate science giving evidence for global warming or AGW.
Am I right in thinking that they are all in the WG II report?
The Himalayan glaciers blunder is certainly there.

 

[Malerin]

By who?

By the IPCC, anyone here, other researchers, etc. Did anyone foresee these kinds of errors appearing? For example, are there any proponents of AGW who posted to the effect: "This is a massive report, so don't be surprised if the science behind some of the claims is not peer-reviewed, or the claims themselves are wrong or exagerrated."

Anything like that.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That looks a lot like someone who has not seen the IPCC site.
The site says who prepares the reports. Read it and see.

OK, I've looked and looked and can't find what we want. There are some lists of meeting attendees and others.
Can you please show me?

What is the error threshold for all of the conclusions of the IPCC report being wrong, e.g. that global warming exists or that it is very likely man-made?

Is it 5? Is it 10? Is it 100? A million ?

Good question, but not something I've actually thought about in terms of a number.
How many errors are ok before you take off in an aeroplane or a space shuttle? Is one error ok? 5, 10, 100? A million?

 

[Reality Check]

OK, I've looked and looked and can't find what we want. There are some lists of meeting attendees and others.
Can you please show me?

http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.htm
(The letters ask for nominations for experts in many many fields.)

Good question, but not something I've actually thought about in terms of a number.
How many errors are ok before you take off in an aeroplane or a space shuttle? Is one error ok? 5, 10, 100? A million?

A report on climate is not an piece of engineering.

It would be better not do not think of numbers - think of percentages. If there was a statement per page in the report (1500 pages) then your confidence that the report contains correct statements would be would be ~99.7%.

What you are forgetting is that the errors do not affect the evidence for global warming or AGW since they seem to be in the WG II (Impacts)report (the Himalayan glaciers blunder is certainly there). The WG II report was not held up to the stricter standards of the WG I (Physical Basis) report. As an example, WG II cites the WWF many times. As such you cannot extend the error rate in the WG II report to the other reports.

 

[BenBurch]

Again, the focus on trivia while deliberately missing the main point is a hallmark of CTers.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.htm
(The letters ask for nominations for experts in many many fields.)

Am I missing something here. These are requests for nominations. Aren't we looking for the actual people who compile the report? Again, I can't seem to locate that information from anywhere here (that said I have not done an exhaustive search)

A report on climate is not an piece of engineering.

Ummm - never mind.

It would be better not do not think of numbers - think of percentages. If there was a statement per page in the report (1500 pages) then your confidence that the report contains correct statements would be would be ~99.7%.

Well I only went on the numbers based on what you put up.
Your 99.7% can quickly become zero confidence if the report is undermined by fraud, lies, mistakes (or whatever word one might use) that taints it.

I ask again, how many of these 'errors' are acceptable before you lose confidence?

 

[Yoink]

Is that what I said?

If it was just one item, in isolation sure - we could dismiss it as insignificant and trivial (which was your point above I think). But there is more and more.

The stench is getting stronger and more are asking questions.
Why aren't you?

Great. You agree that this is a trivial and unimportant issue. Don't you think the incredible number of blog-hours devoted to it is a little bit weird, then?

So, tell me, of the "more and more" you cite--care to name one that actually matters and, in your opinion, casts some serious doubt on the main thrust of the IPCC report? Go on, just pick the one that you think is really vital. I mean, if there's a "stench" coming from the report I assume there must be a really, really important error that undermines the entire scientific basis of the report. Admittedly it's a bit odd that the climate deniers have wasted so much time on the errors that, as you agree, are trivial and insignificant, but it's not too late for you to point out a nontrivial one. So, which is it?

 

[Malerin]

Great. You agree that this is a trivial and unimportant issue. Don't you think the incredible number of blog-hours devoted to it is a little bit weird, then?

So, tell me, of the "more and more" you cite--care to name one that actually matters and, in your opinion, casts some serious doubt on the main thrust of the IPCC report? Go on, just pick the one that you think is really vital. I mean, if there's a "stench" coming from the report I assume there must be a really, really important error that undermines the entire scientific basis of the report. Admittedly it's a bit odd that the climate deniers have wasted so much time on the errors that, as you agree, are trivial and insignificant, but it's not too late for you to point out a nontrivial one. So, which is it?

The Himalayan glacial melt and African crop production shortfall projections don't seem trivial to me. Ban Ki-moon has used the latter in speeches.

 

[GreyICE]

I know there are other organizations. NASA's research clearly shows a global warming trend.

Are you claiming global warming proponents have not used claims found in IPCC reports? The IPCC is not a hugely influential body? 2000 members of the IPCC didn't share a Nobel Prize with Al Gore? This all seems a tad convenient coming on the heels of the recent scandals.

I have to break this down to answer this:

Are you claiming global warming proponents have not used claims found in IPCC reports?

Two answers. Since the IPCC consolidates information on Global warming, it's reasonably inevitable that every relevant bit of information is going to be in one of their reports. So in that sense yes.

If you mean as 'an original source of information' then no. The IPCC originates no information. You already agreed to this.

So in either case, this was a nonsense question.

The IPCC is not a hugely influential body?

In politics? Yes. It's a primarily political entity.

In science? No. It doesn't do science.

Once again, a nonsense question.

2000 members of the IPCC didn't share a Nobel Prize with Al Gore?

I don't suppose these were meant to be rhetorical. If so, work on them. Your first two inspired nothing so much as massive confusion.

According to this, the report generating process of the IPCC is extremely rigourous:

"The preparation of all IPCC reports and publications follows strict procedures agreed by the Panel. The work is guided by the IPCC Chair and the Working Group and Task Force Co-chairs. Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports as authors, contributors and reviewers. The composition of author teams reflect a range of views, expertise and geographical representation. Review by governments and experts is an essential element of the preparation of IPCC reports."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm

So I'm a little taken aback that some admittedly slipshod research found its way past "hundreds of experts" and "author teams". I guess it's OK if they get things wrong because they're really an insignificant group in the scheme of things.

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding here. Stop it.

The IPCC doesn't do science. So on one hand, you seem to be saying that their credentials are impeccable. If that's the case, then a few things slipped past, but their credentials are great. So you should generally believe them.

On the other hand you're saying they're not doing a good job. That's fine. Throw them out. But that didn't throw out one bit of the science, because the IPCC doesn't do science. You trashed a lot of their political recommendations. Great. That's wonderful. Who cares again?

That's why everyone in the real world is confused as hell at the deniers. Hell, all you have to do is look at Alfie, whose running away from anything resembling science at near-light velocities.

You seem to be trying to staple gun as much science onto an organization that doesn't do science as possible, and then throw it out. It makes me suspect that your 'just asking questions' act is about as sincere as other AA members on this thread.

 

[Malerin]

I have to break this down to answer this:

Two answers. Since the IPCC consolidates information on Global warming, it's reasonably inevitable that every relevant bit of information is going to be in one of their reports. So in that sense yes.

If you mean as 'an original source of information' then no. The IPCC originates no information. You already agreed to this.

That was not my point. My point was that IPCC reports have been referenced by numerous AGW proponents. The IPCC's influence is huge. That a hugely influential organization is capable of making such basic errors calls other claims they've made into question.

I know research is done by other organizations, but who is on the policy side of things? Who makes recommendations that GHG's be cut by X amount? Is the IPCC involved in that? I think it is. If so, we should all be concerned if policy decisions are being influence by unsubstantiated claims the IPCC has made. You agree Ban Ki-moon is influential? He has referenced the African crop projection in speeches.

So in either case, this was a nonsense question.

Not at all.

In politics? Yes. It's a primarily political entity.

In science? No. It doesn't do science.

Political entities make policy. The president is not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure he puts a lot of store by what the IPCC reports. This doesn't concern you at all?

The IPCC doesn't do science. So on one hand, you seem to be saying that their credentials are impeccable. If that's the case, then a few things slipped past, but their credentials are great. So you should generally believe them.

I'm saying I thought their credentials were impeccable. Now I'm beginning to wonder. What else has been exaggerated? Just these few things?

On the other hand you're saying they're not doing a good job. That's fine. Throw them out. But that didn't throw out one bit of the science, because the IPCC doesn't do science. You trashed a lot of their political recommendations. Great. That's wonderful. Who cares again?

I think quite a few people would care because no policy would ever be implemented absent politics. NASA cannot implement a scheme like cap-and-trade. The AMS does not sign treaties.

That's why everyone in the real world is confused as hell at the deniers. Hell, all you have to do is look at Alfie, whose running away from anything resembling science at near-light velocities.

I don't pay attention to what Alfie's doing. I'm not a denier. I'm sure we have an affect on warming. How much of an effect? Catastrophic? Mild? Barely noticeable? Before we invest billions in GHG reductions, shouldn't we have a good answer to this?

You seem to be trying to staple gun as much science onto an organization that doesn't do science as possible, and then throw it out.

I'm not stapling any science onto them. I'm concerned that a hugely influential organization may be making unsubstantiated claims that are influencing powerful politicians in their policy decisions. How can that not concern you? Should we just not care that the UN Secretary is making scientifically weak claims? I don't think you understand the policy implications of all this.

It makes me suspect that your 'just asking questions' act is about as sincere as other AA members on this thread.

I could care less what you suspect.

 

[GreyICE]

If your concerns are that the IPCC's recommendations are not based in fact, as you now say they are, go back to the science. Here's the thing - the main science behind their recommendations are good. But heck, throw out their recommendations. Look at NASA, or other large climate organizations.

But so far all you're whining about is the politics, in a thread about the science. Really, it boils down to you wanting to be in one of AA's little 'politics' threads. It's the perfect place for the denier 'just asking questions' line.

You're asking basic questions that have been answered in this thread. I admit to not giving your 'just asking questions' act much credence at this point.

 

[Reality Check]

Am I missing something here. These are requests for nominations. Aren't we looking for the actual people who compile the report? Again, I can't seem to locate that information from anywhere here (that said I have not done an exhaustive search)

Then read the AR4 report - the actual authors are listed (generally for each chapter).
I pointed you to the nomination process for AR5. A similar process was also used for AR4. That indicates the kinds of people who wrote AR4.

Well I only went on the numbers based on what you put up.
Your 99.7% can quickly become zero confidence if the report is undermined by fraud, lies, mistakes (or whatever word one might use) that taints it.

No it cannot. It goes to zero if every statement in the report is a lie, fraud, mistake (or whatever word one might use).

A single lie, fraud or mistake "taints" the WG II report. Tainting the WG II report does not make it invalid. Tainting the WG II report does not make the WG I report invalid.

I ask again, how many of these 'errors' are acceptable before you lose confidence?

750 to reduce my confidence to 50% (unless you have a figure for the number of assertions in the AR4).

How about you: how many of these errors, lies, mistakes, blunders, mishaps, frauds, etc. are acceptable before you lose confidence?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

He'll pop you in the creationist and truther category soon, Malerin.
It's an interesting phenomenon that if you do not agree 100% with the party line, the ad homs, character attacks and stereotypes come thick and fast. I wonder why - Oh, I forgot, it's Groupthink.

You are not the only one (clearly) who sees the controversy and begins to wonder. I was firmly on the fence early on but have actually been pushed towards a stronger skeptical position, especially since joining JREF.
The abuse handed out by the warmers, their inability to see any balance, their total denial of contrary information and the near religious fervour displayed is one thing. When coupled with ongoing errors of judgement, mistakes, misinformation (outright lies?) etc does not engender any faith in the overall science and that which follows (eg. carbon taxes, green politics).

As a result, public opinion shifts. It is disturbing for the faithful and the true believers.

 

[Reality Check]

He'll pop you in the creationist and truther category soon, Malerin.
It's an interesting phenomenon that if you do not agree 100% with the party line, the ad homs, character attacks and stereotypes come thick and fast. I wonder why - Oh, I forgot, it's Groupthink.

I agree. These AGW deniers are an phenomenon that if you do not gree 100% with the party line, the ad homs, character attacks and stereotypes come thick and fast. I wonder why - Oh, I forgot, it's Groupthink .

GreyIce is just pointing out the obvious to you Malerin.
The main science behind the AR4 is good, supports global warming and to a lesser extent AGW. This is a science section of the forum - there is another section for politics. So ignore any hint of politics in my reply .

That was not my point. My point was that IPCC reports have been referenced by numerous AGW proponents. The IPCC's influence is huge. That a hugely influential organization is capable of making such basic errors calls other claims they've made into question.

The IPCC reports have been referenced by numerous AGW proponents and antagonists. That is because it is an accessible collection of the best climate science possible.
There are some basic errors in the WG II report on the impact of GW. This does not affect the science reported in the WG 1 report.

I know research is done by other organizations, but who is on the policy side of things? Who makes recommendations that GHG's be cut by X amount? Is the IPCC involved in that? I think it is. If so, we should all be concerned if policy decisions are being influence by unsubstantiated claims the IPCC has made. You agree Ban Ki-moon is influential? He has referenced the African crop projection in speeches.

There is no policy in the IPCC reports - just analysis of the possible consequences of GW and possible mitigation methods. The analysis includes predictions that a level X of GHGs will increase the temperature by Y amount.

I'm saying I thought their credentials were impeccable. Now I'm beginning to wonder. What else has been exaggerated? Just these few things?

The credentials of the authors were impeccable. That does not mean that they can not make mistakes and in a couple of cases outright blunders (and in the case of the Himalayan glaciers at least a hint of vested interest). What is interesting is that the AR4 report has been published for 2 years now. The errors have only been found lately. In testing and review the easiest numerous errors are found first. The rate of errors found then decreases. This suggests that there will be another 5 or less errors found in the next 2 years, a lesser number in the next 2 years and than AR5 will be published. Of course the lessons learned from AR4 will be applied to AR5 and it will have even fewer errrors.

I think quite a few people would care because no policy would ever be implemented absent politics. NASA cannot implement a scheme like cap-and-trade. The AMS does not sign treaties.

Neither does the IPCC.

I don't pay attention to what Alfie's doing. I'm not a denier. I'm sure we have an affect on warming. How much of an effect? Catastrophic? Mild? Barely noticeable? Before we invest billions in GHG reductions, shouldn't we have a good answer to this?

We have a good answer to this - in the AR4 report.
Of course we could just wait 4 years until the AR5 report or 11 years until the AR5 report. But if the effect is catastrophic then it may be too late to do anything or at least we will have to spend spend billions of dollars extra.