Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

The IPCC exposed


  • Please log in to reply
160 replies to this topic

#91    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 233 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2010

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:03 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 10 October 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

@monkeylove,
one of the behavioral traits within a cult or religious order is controlling and limiting the information available to its members.

"The power spectrum of solar activity (SI Appendix, Section S11) shows significant periodicities (p < 0.05) already known from individual 14C and 10Be records such as the de Vries cycle (around 210 y), the Eddy cycle (around 1,000 y) (28), and an unnamed cycle at approximately 350 y, as well as other less significant unnamed cycles at approximately 500 and 710 y. These periodicities, although not significant, are also found in the Asian climate (SI Appendix, Section S11). The wavelet spectrum of solar activity (Fig. 4B) shows that the amplitudes of these periodicities have varied in time, that is, the de Vries cycle amplitude has varied with a period of about 2,200 y, called the Hallstatt cycle The power spectrum of solar activity (SI Appendix, Section S11) shows significant periodicities (p < 0.05) already known from individual 14C and 10Be records such as the de Vries cycle (around 210 y), the Eddy cycle (around 1,000 y) (28), and an unnamed cycle at approximately 350 y, as well as other less significant unnamed cycles at approximately 500 and 710 y. These periodicities, although not significant, are also found in the Asian climate (SI Appendix, Section S11). The wavelet spectrum of solar activity (Fig. 4B) shows that the amplitudes of these periodicities have varied in time, that is, the de Vries cycle amplitude has varied with a period of about 2,200 y, called the Hallstatt cycle...."
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3341045/
http://wattsupwithth...-natural-cycle/

The problem isn't the presence of solar activity but the forcing factor of CO2 ppm. Again, consult the BEST summary of findings, which was promoted by skeptics, and the NAS final report.


#92    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:22 AM

View PostMonkeyLove, on 12 October 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

The question isn't whether or not a natural cycle exists but the effects of CO2 ppm on temperature anomaly. To understand that, you need to look at the BEST summary of findings, which Watts supported:

http://rationalwiki....i/Anthony_Watts

and the NAS final report.
the natural cycle over the last 10,000 years has been shown to fluctuate by several degrees in as little as a century on a regular basis, 20th century warming is just 0.7 degrees, there is nothing unusual about the magnitude or the rate of change of 20th century warming, that is what the ipcc is not telling you, furthermore the past correlates nicely with solar activity, so why does the ipcc pay virtually no attention to solar effects on climate. it doesn't tell you because the scientific "reports" are edited and sexed up by a small group of activist who have a vested interest in not being wrong, so anything contrary to their "cause" is not accepted in their "reports" or watered down.
why do you keep bringing up BEST? there is nothing there which shows 20th century warming is due to co2. even the co-author of BEST has told you this. the 20th century was a grand maximum for solar activity, and yet Muller from the BEST study opinionated that all 20th century warming was due to co2, how can that be when the past was always perfectly correlated with solar activity and 20th century had an all time high in solar activity?


#93    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:06 AM

View PostMonkeyLove, on 12 October 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

Didn't Watts support an independent study of this matter to settle the argument regarding AGW?
no, not to my knowledge.
Watts had argued correctly that the effects of Urban Heat Island were not being taken into account in the land based measurements.
when he investigated he found that urbanization had occurred to encompass a lot of the measuring stations, meaning that over the last 50 years, a lot of the thermometers were showing a warming bias because previously they had been in open fields and now they are on open tarmac.
after a lot of bickering, the team that compiled HADCRUT land based readings which the ipcc used accepted there was a UHI effect but did not adjust their data, so the temperature record previous to satellites is contaminated with false warming.
what the team at HADCRUT did was add their estimate of UHI to the uncertaintly, so when the activists and alarmist media show you a straight line graph of HADCRUT you are not being told it is higher than it should be because they very rarely show you the uncertainty bars.
Watts then did a more in depth study on his own dime with the help of hundreds of volunteers and found that there was a significant warming bias for nighttime readings on most of the thermometer stations, and for that he has been vilified by zealous activists, even on this forum. despite what activists say on this forum, watts's blog is the most viewed blog on global warming with contributions from a lot of the mainstream respected empirical scientists.

Edited by Little Fish, 12 October 2013 - 10:08 AM.


#94    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:15 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 11 October 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

What part of four times the average melt between 1981 and 2010 do you not get? What part of record temps of the permafrost do you not get?
it is a natural event which occurs like clockwork every 150 years.
“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."

do you disagree with Goddard Glaciologist Lora Koenig who analysed the data with a view to the historical context?
it would have been unusual if this event did not occur.
http://wattsupwithth...-right-on-time/


#95    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:16 AM

View PostBFB, on 12 October 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

But what if you look at data from around 1910-1940.

We had more storms in this period. And they were greater.
From 1910 to 1940 5 category 5 hurricanes were recorded in the Atlantic. In a similar time period 1983-2013 we see 12 category 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic


#96    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:22 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 October 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

it is a natural event which occurs like clockwork every 150 years.
“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."

do you disagree with Goddard Glaciologist Lora Koenig who analysed the data with a view to the historical context?
it would have been unusual if this event did not occur.
http://wattsupwithth...-right-on-time/
Did you even read the link you posted? Yes melts happen but most seem to be commenting how extraordinary this was


#97    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:24 AM

View PostKaa-Tzik, on 11 October 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

This is like listening to some street preacher or a robot. Are there any humans in the house? Seems the real object is not debate, but waving bits of paper around and bogging everything down, trying to wear people down. I still contend this warmist stuff should be in the religous part of the forum as it seems the same mental processes are at work, and I'm being polite here....
The denial of evidence characteristic of religion seems to be coming from your side


#98    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 October 2013 - 10:51 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 12 October 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Did you even read the link you posted? Yes melts happen but most seem to be commenting how extraordinary this was
97% melts happen regularly as show by the glacier data. do you disagree with the glacier expert who looked at the data who said "yep, right on time"?

if something happens regularly like clockwork, like for instance, the sun going down, then when the sun goes down tonight it won't be an unusual event. if someone claims that the sun going down is evidence for global dimming, what would you say to them?


#99    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:10 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 12 October 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

The denial of evidence characteristic of religion seems to be coming from your side
from the ippc AR5

"Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities (Knutson et al., 2010). Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency and the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al. 2007) (very high confidence). However, argument reigns over the cause of the increase and on longer time scales the fidelity of these trends is debated (Landsea et al., 2006; Holland and Webster, 2007; Landsea, 2007; Mann et al., 2007b) with different methods for estimating undercounts in the earlier part of the record providing mixed conclusions (Chang and Guo, 2007; Mann et al., 2007a; Kunkel et al., 2008; Vecchi and Knutson, 2008, 2011). No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Measures of land-falling tropical cyclone frequency (Figure 2.34) are generally considered to be more reliable than counts of all storms which tend to be strongly influenced by those that are weak and/or short-lived. Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia landfalling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend becomes non-significant (i.e., a trend of zero lies just inside the 90% confidence interval). Significant trends are not found in other oceans on shorter timescales (Chan and Xu, 2009; Kubota and Chan, 2009; Mohapatra et al., 2011; Weinkle et al., 2012), although Grinsted et al. (2012) find a significant positive trend in eastern USA using tide-guage data from 1923–2008 as a proxy for storm surges associated with land-falling hurricanes. Differences between tropical cyclone studies highlight the challenges that still lie ahead in assessing long-term trends.”
http://www.climatech...t_Chapter02.pdf


#100    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:18 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 October 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

from the ippc AR5

"Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities (Knutson et al., 2010). Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency and the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al. 2007) (very high confidence). However, argument reigns over the cause of the increase and on longer time scales the fidelity of these trends is debated (Landsea et al., 2006; Holland and Webster, 2007; Landsea, 2007; Mann et al., 2007b) with different methods for estimating undercounts in the earlier part of the record providing mixed conclusions (Chang and Guo, 2007; Mann et al., 2007a; Kunkel et al., 2008; Vecchi and Knutson, 2008, 2011). No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Measures of land-falling tropical cyclone frequency (Figure 2.34) are generally considered to be more reliable than counts of all storms which tend to be strongly influenced by those that are weak and/or short-lived. Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia landfalling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend becomes non-significant (i.e., a trend of zero lies just inside the 90% confidence interval). Significant trends are not found in other oceans on shorter timescales (Chan and Xu, 2009; Kubota and Chan, 2009; Mohapatra et al., 2011; Weinkle et al., 2012), although Grinsted et al. (2012) find a significant positive trend in eastern USA using tide-guage data from 1923–2008 as a proxy for storm surges associated with land-falling hurricanes. Differences between tropical cyclone studies highlight the challenges that still lie ahead in assessing long-term trends.”
http://www.climatech...t_Chapter02.pdf
So the basis of your argument is that the IPCC is not to be believed except when it seems to support your position?
http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm


#101    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:34 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 October 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

it is a natural event which occurs like clockwork every 150 years.
“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."

do you disagree with Goddard Glaciologist Lora Koenig who analysed the data with a view to the historical context?
it would have been unusual if this event did not occur.
http://wattsupwithth...-right-on-time/
Far be it from me to disagree with a glaciologist however the article goes on to stress how unusual this level of melt was especially when combined with other unusual events such as the large calving event on Petermen glacier. And if such events keep occurring in subsequent years they will be quote worriesome. So once again we have to wait for more evidence. With CO2 levels continuing to rise any predictions on future melt levels?


#102    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:36 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 October 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

97% melts happen regularly as show by the glacier data. do you disagree with the glacier expert who looked at the data who said "yep, right on time"?

if something happens regularly like clockwork, like for instance, the sun going down, then when the sun goes down tonight it won't be an unusual event. if someone claims that the sun going down is evidence for global dimming, what would you say to them?
Melts happen regularly.97% melts not so much, although we obviously have no satellite data for 1889.


#103    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:48 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 12 October 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

So the basis of your argument is that the IPCC is not to be believed except when it seems to support your position?
http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm
which would kind of apply to your position too, so what you said there is a null statement. the ipcc is well known for bias to the co2 hypothesis given it pays near-zero attention to solar research which has advanced considerably recently, so EVEN the ipcc disagrees with you.

the link you provided there is a global warming activist site, and does not support your statement "The number and severity of storms is increasing".

did you read it all or just look at the scary graph
"all we’ve managed is to document here is what we don’t know for sure yet"

I can't find any provenance or context to the graph, although it does state it is not global.


#104    Kaa-Tzik

Kaa-Tzik

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:50 AM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 12 October 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

The denial of evidence characteristic of religion seems to be coming from your side
BS, and your post and, it attendent "like" show that when it comes to warming the real face of people is revealed. I made one satirical post and get attacked again and again by people who have this weird desire to make posts telling others what I have written, when I haven't. Your post, and those of a few others really shows you as rather nasty minded people when it comes to warming. Yet again I point out that I have not made a single statement about warming that could be described as "fact", and neither have I "denied" anything. Want to attack me, then think clearly, as you and the others show strong symtoms of religious fanatiscism. My one post has exposed this, as it was intended to, but I do not expect you or any of the others to see themselves, you never do.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik, 12 October 2013 - 11:51 AM.


#105    spacecowboy342

spacecowboy342

    Traveler of both time and space

  • Member
  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • I shall now proceed to entangle the entire area

Posted 12 October 2013 - 11:55 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 October 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

which would kind of apply to your position too, so what you said there is a null statement. the ipcc is well known for bias to the co2 hypothesis given it pays near-zero attention to solar research which has advanced considerably recently, so EVEN the ipcc disagrees with you.

the link you provided there is a global warming activist site, and does not support your statement "The number and severity of storms is increasing".

did you read it all or just look at the scary graph
"all we’ve managed is to document here is what we don’t know for sure yet"

I can't find any provenance or context to the graph, although it does state it is not global.
The statement about storms comes from the NOAA report. As far as the cycling of Greenland melts in 150 year cycles, if the last one happened in 1889 this one seems a quarter century early. There are many more examples of storm increasing
http://news.national...ne-warming.html

Edited by spacecowboy342, 12 October 2013 - 12:03 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users