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

#121    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 - 04:01 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 October 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

the trend you see in major hurricanes (bottom red line) is stated as not significant by the author.

Posted Image
What would your take on these be?
http://www.pnas.org/...tml?with-ds=yes
http://www.nytimes.c...to-warming.html


#122    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 - 05:18 PM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 12 October 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

The more i read from Muller the more i think he's a hack. he is a physicist yet says nothing scientific in that article, looking at the title again after reading the article, the whole thing is a form of circular reasoning. he'd be rubbish playing the stock market.
the other link doesn't work, but using google i think the paper is "Robust increases in severe thunderstorm environments in response to greenhouse forcing" ?
it is based on model runs which is fine if you are looking for a hypothesis, but that's all it is.


#123    Kaa-Tzik

Kaa-Tzik

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 14 October 2013 - 11:38 AM

View PostDoug1o29, on 12 October 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

Maybe we could reach a compromise here.  We'll make our posts here and you make yours in the religious section.
Doug
No, as it is your posts that are clearly based on some religious ideas. The total lack of humor on the warmist side is a clear indication of that. Don't want any opposition at all do you, just as the religious fear that "god" will smite everybody down if just one person on the planet does not believe, so do warmists fear that if we are not all "on message" then the planet will die. Fanatics, and that is what you are, never see themselves as fantatics, but the rest of us certainly do see you all for what you are.


#124    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 15 October 2013 - 12:43 AM

View PostKaa-Tzik, on 14 October 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

No, as it is your posts that are clearly based on some religious ideas. The total lack of humor on the warmist side is a clear indication of that. Don't want any opposition at all do you, just as the religious fear that "god" will smite everybody down if just one person on the planet does not believe, so do warmists fear that if we are not all "on message" then the planet will die. Fanatics, and that is what you are, never see themselves as fantatics, but the rest of us certainly do see you all for what you are.
Pure BS


#125    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 15 October 2013 - 10:54 AM




#126    Kaa-Tzik

Kaa-Tzik

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 15 October 2013 - 03:38 PM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 15 October 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

Pure BS
Very touchy you religious types, very touchy indeed, and with every post against me you two show that my original post was right on target. Keep attacking me, please.

Oh, and by the way I noticed your post 260 in the thread "The repercusions of being an atheist" where you write against believers etc as not caring about the environment because they think we are all doomed soon anyway, or words to that effect. You made a post in this thread likening me to that type of person. All I can say is that unlike me who hits the right target, you have lumped me with fundie loonies, and here is me an atheist. Warmism is clearly your religion just as much as the fundie loonies with theirs. I am no more interested in their "Thou shalt nots" than yours, as it's all dogma to me.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik, 15 October 2013 - 03:54 PM.


#127    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 15 October 2013 - 09:41 PM

View PostKaa-Tzik, on 15 October 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

Very touchy you religious types, very touchy indeed, and with every post against me you two show that my original post was right on target. Keep attacking me, please.

Oh, and by the way I noticed your post 260 in the thread "The repercusions of being an atheist" where you write against believers etc as not caring about the environment because they think we are all doomed soon anyway, or words to that effect. You made a post in this thread likening me to that type of person. All I can say is that unlike me who hits the right target, you have lumped me with fundie loonies, and here is me an atheist. Warmism is clearly your religion just as much as the fundie loonies with theirs. I am no more interested in their "Thou shalt nots" than yours, as it's all dogma to me.
You are the one accusing me of blind faith without giving any evidence to support such a claim. My point is that you look at one small thing like the leveling off of air temps and assume global warming is a myth while ignoring all other evidence of climate change. It is not dogma. There is good evidence to support my position though perhaps not conclusive. I think to wait for absolute certainty is a mistake as it will be too late to change anything. Warmism, that's a hoot. You may make a case that humans are not responsible for warming but can you really deny that warming is happening?

Edited by spacecowboy342, 15 October 2013 - 09:46 PM.


#128    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 15 October 2013 - 11:10 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 15 October 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:


http://www.pnas.org/.../105/2/449.long

Edited by spacecowboy342, 15 October 2013 - 11:12 PM.


#129    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 16 October 2013 - 06:16 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 October 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

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.

He supported BEST then backpedaled:

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


#130    MonkeyLove

MonkeyLove

    Ectoplasmic Residue

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

Posted 16 October 2013 - 06:20 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 12 October 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

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.

This is explained in the NAS final report, together with positive feedback loops, the effects of the sun, etc. Their analysis of IPCC findings and others run contrary to your interpretation.

Quote


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?

BEST was funded by skeptics to counter the IPCC. When BEST confirmed what the latter stated, skeptics like Watts backpedaled.

The point about solar activity and temperature anomaly is also wrong:

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm


#131    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 16 October 2013 - 11:53 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 15 October 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:


He is absolutely correct. The climate has warmed and cooled many times in the past due to rising and falling co2 levels. When co2 is high plants grow bigger but are less nutricious. CO2 rising through natural processes is one thing. Volcanic activity eventually changes and the planet cleans the atmosphere. Not so with man made release. Warmer temps have been good for plants and large ruminants but the effects on other wildlife and human agriculture is not clear. People living in low lying sea coast areas like Florida might disagree that rising sea levels are harmless


#132    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 16 October 2013 - 03:33 PM

View PostMonkeyLove, on 16 October 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

This is explained in the NAS final report, together with positive feedback loops, the effects of the sun, etc. Their analysis of IPCC findings and others run contrary to your interpretation.
positive feedback loops are guesses not based on measurements or knowledge. all the empirical evidence suggests the feedback is negative to mildly positive. the evidence does not support your position. Lincdzen and Choi 2011 showed from empirical satellite readings that over the tropics the earth emitted more heat when the oceans warmed which means a negative feedback. what you are referring to is computer models which have been programmed to give the result you like, they are not empirical measurements, they are just hypotheses which have been falsified by measurements. it's the real world you need to look at, not what the computer says. they don't look at the effects of the sun, they only look at TSI reconstruction as the only measure of solar activity, then make the assumption that anything else is due to co2 and an imagined positive feedback.

Quote

BEST was funded by skeptics to counter the IPCC. When BEST confirmed what the latter stated, skeptics like Watts backpedaled.
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?

Quote

The point about solar activity and temperature anomaly is also wrong:
http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm
no it isn't, read it again.

Edited by Little Fish, 16 October 2013 - 03:35 PM.


#133    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 16 October 2013 - 03:42 PM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 16 October 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

The climate has warmed and cooled many times in the past due to rising and falling co2 levels.
the co2 rise follows the warming. the warming is first then the co2 rise, so co2 cannot control the temperature.


#134    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 16 October 2013 - 03:45 PM

View Postspacecowboy342, on 15 October 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

there's no correlation between co2 and temperature in and around the miocene.


#135    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 16 October 2013 - 04:05 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 16 October 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

there's no correlation between co2 and temperature in and around the miocene.
Incorrect as higher co2 levels correlate to warm periods and low levels correlate to period of glaciation. I don't have the link at hand but I will find it to show evidence of this





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users