• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

BenBurch said:
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.
Click to expand...


Thanks, the bolded part answers my question.

(I've not been online 'cos it was night time for me, Your post quoted above was at 2:12am my time)

Dave
 
Malerin said:
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..... Now I'm beginning to wonder. What else has been exaggerated? Just these few things? ...
Click to expand...

Okay, let's look at one of the issues, the Himilayan glacier error/lie/gross exaggeration.

Reference: Climateaudit
Dr Murari Lal (IPCC Coordinating Lead Author) also said he was well aware the statement,.....did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research......‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
​
The IPCC chapters were written, then were supposed to be reviewed by the reviewers who had signed on to do so. The reviewers comments would be incorporated, then the revised document sent to the resident politicians for another round of review.

But the IPCC ignored review comments on the glaciers. Specific comments on this issue were ignored-

1. Hayley Fowler reviewed it, and commented:
"Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature."​
2. The Japanese government requested:
"clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ "
​
The final version from Lai was identical to the draft. This sort of brushing aside of comments and critiques of the pre existing bias in the IPCC report is prevalent throughout the review process.

Isolated instances? Does not look that way.

Now we have some of the lies/exaggerations coming out in the press. Seems really like they should have done a proper review, doesn't it? But they didn't.
 
Last edited:
Malerin said:
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.
Click to expand...

In what way does the Himalayan glacial melt (to take just your first example--I asked for the single most damning flaw in the IPCC report, remember) undermine the science behind AGW?

It's a flawed assessment of the possible effects of AGW. I agree that it was obviously an error to include it and, equally obviously, it will be removed in the next iteration of the report. But I can't see that it in any way undermines the case for AGW. It is exactly analogous to the Netherlands example. It's a statement about specific impacts of AGW--not a scientific claim about the mechanism underlying AGW.

Here, by the way, is the actual statement (from AR4 WGII Chapter 10):
Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.
Click to expand...
Shock! Horror! The likelihood is "very high"!!! Oh boy, if that unbelievably precise and explicit claim is incorrect, the whole AGW edifice sure comes tumbling down, doesn't it?

Well, no. Let's amend that claim, shall we? Let's say they fix it in the next iteration of the report. What should it say? Well, perhaps they move the "2035" date back to "2135," say? Would that mean that suddenly AGW is no big deal? Was the entire argument for action on AGW dependent on the state of the Himalayan glaciers? No, of course not. No more than it was dependent upon 50% rather than 25% of the Netherlands being "below sea-level."

Here, again, is an error of no real consequence whatsoever that the deniers obsessively gloat over not because it affects the case for AGW in the least but just because they can use it as a "black eye" against the opposing "camp."

If this, really, is the very, very, worst error in the entire IPCC, then it must be said that the case for AGW must be unbelievably overwhelming.
 
mhaze said:
Okay, let's look at one of the issues, the Himilayan glacier error/lie/gross exaggeration.

Reference: Climateaudit
Dr Murari Lal (IPCC Coordinating Lead Author) also said he was well aware the statement,.....did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research......‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
​
The IPCC chapters were written, then were supposed to be reviewed by the reviewers who had signed on to do so. The reviewers comments would be incorporated, then the revised document sent to the resident politicians for another round of review.

But the IPCC ignored review comments on the glaciers. Specific comments on this issue were ignored-

1. Hayley Fowler reviewed it, and commented:
"Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature."
​
2. The Japanese government requested:
"clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ "
​
Click to expand...
Up to here you and ClimateAudit are right.

However the section you highlighted may indicate a gap in your knowledge of the AR reports. Working Group II reported on the impacts of GW. They are not held to the scientific standards of Working Group I (the physical basis of the assessment). They can and did cite non-peer reviewed sources. As an example: WG I did not cite the WWF at all. WG II (and the other reports) cited them many times.

mhaze said:
The final version from Lai was identical to the draft. This sort of brushing aside of comments and critiques of the pre existing bias in the IPCC report is prevalent throughout the review process.
Click to expand...
This though is an unsupported assertion. You need to tell us what "prevalent" means in this context.
What was the % of reviews and critiques that were ignored for no good reason like the Himalayan glaciers?

mhaze said:
Isolated instances? Does not look that way.

Now we have some of the lies/exaggerations coming out in the press. Seems really like they should have done a proper review, doesn't it? But they didn't.
Click to expand...
That these are no isolated instances is probable.

Given the usual kinds of "error/lie/gross exaggeration" that get through any review process we can expect a similar number to be found in the 4 years until AR5 is published.
The number of "error/lie/gross exaggeration" may even get into the double figures!
 
Reality Check said:
Up to here you and ClimateAudit are right.

However the section you highlighted may indicate a gap in your knowledge of the AR reports. Working Group II reported on the impacts of GW. They are not held to the scientific standards of Working Group I (the physical basis of the assessment). They can and did cite non-peer reviewed sources. As an example: WG I did not cite the WWF at all. WG II (and the other reports) cited them many times.....
Click to expand...

Now I have to admit that's an interesting point of view.

WG1: Good scientific work.

WG2 etc: Garbage.

And this is referenced as "A Gap in your(my) knowledge". When what is going on is you are admitting to alarmist environmental craziness in the report, and you are justifying it (apparently, somehow).

Now what is it then that governments should base their policy decisions on?

Postscript: In spite of this being interesting as a rationalization of the errors/lies/exaggerations/whatever, I'm not sure it's right. In other words, if we look at reviewer comments on WG1, the same pattern is found.

I'm not sure that's exactly relevant to the current group of publicized "IPCC Errors", though. Haven't checked.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
if we look at reviewer comments on WG1, the same pattern is found.
Click to expand...

Examples? And, once again, why not start off with what you consider the single most damning example--one that really seriously compromises the entire case being made in the report overall.
 
BenBurch said:
Oh, and if you DO find absolute (anhydrous) ethanol somewhere, do not drink it. The tricks used to take out the water often leave traces of things you do not want to consume!!! Stick to Vodka.
Click to expand...
What is it with you warmers and your sneaky tricks? Hiding the decline, eh? <hops onto perch to eat cracker>
 
BenBurch said:
Oh, and if you DO find absolute (anhydrous) ethanol somewhere, do not drink it. The tricks used to take out the water often leave traces of things you do not want to consume!!! Stick to Vodka.
Click to expand...



But what if it is labeled KOSHER
 
Yoink said:
Examples? And, once again, why not start off with what you consider the single most damning example--one that really seriously compromises the entire case being made in the report overall.
Click to expand...

Why? All you've done is rigged an argument as follows:
Proposed: Find me the one thing that seriously compromises...

Response: Blah blah blah

Assertion: But no one thing can seriously compromise....
​
I'd complement you on your attempt but it wouldn't be deserved. Sure, there were a lot of disregarded reviewer comments to the tech section. I suspect that RC is right, though, that there were no un peer reviewed references to the WWF propaganda therein. That'd truly be laughable. Maybe I'll check a bit later.
 
mhaze said:
Why? All you've done is rigged an argument as follows:
Proposed: Find me the one thing that seriously compromises...

Response: Blah blah blah

Assertion: But no one thing can seriously compromise....
​
I'd complement you on your attempt but it wouldn't be deserved. Sure, there were a lot of disregarded reviewer comments to the tech section. I suspect that RC is right, though, that there were no un peer reviewed references to the WWF propaganda therein. That'd truly be laughable. Maybe I'll check a bit later.
Click to expand...

Wow. So you can't find a single thing that is in any way seriously compromises the overall findings of the report. Not a single thing.

Thousands of denialist blogs out there, millions of dollars from various industries behind the effort to discredit AGW, and you can't find a single example?

Man, the case for AGW must be overwhelmingly strong.
 
Now now.

Calm down there.

The takedown of the pseudo prestige of the IPCC and it's authority is being done by what, largely print newspapers now.

None of the lies you make up and post will make any difference. None of your little denier games and baiting will do any good.
 
mhaze said:
Now now.

Calm down there.

The takedown of the pseudo prestige of the IPCC and it's authority is being done by what, largely print newspapers now.

None of the lies you make up and post will make any difference. None of your little denier games and baiting will do any good.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's doing a great deal of good. It's conclusively demonstrating that the AGW deniers have nothing but--ironically enough--hot air on their side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom