Abolish the IPCC
Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel, calls for it to be abolished...
The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.
To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.
This claim fails from two fundamental facts
1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.
How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?
What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.
2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected"
It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest, the same result is likely
And, then after all, there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming"
The other flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere. In order to do this, they refrain from publishing any results which they do not like, and they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prizewinners and all were published in the best scientific journals. Ernst Beck has published on the net all the actual papers.
Why did they do it? It is very subtle. Brush up your maths. In order to calculate the radiative effects of carbon dioxide you have to use a formula involving a logarithm. When such a formula is applied to a set of figures, the low figures have a greater weight in the final average radiation. The figure obtained from the so-called "background figure" is therefore biased in an upwards direction.
My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to "evaluate" computer models. Proper "validation" of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.
No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term "prediction", only "projection". But they then go ahead predicting anyway.
There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of "evaluating" models.
The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.
The most elaborate of all their "evaluation" techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to "evaluate" them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the "gut feelings" of self-styled "experts". It has been developed to a complex web of "likelihoods", all of which are assigned fake "probability" levels.
posted by GayandRight @ 9:31 AM
10 Comments:
The IPCC is a cash cow for UN malingerers, they'll never abolish it.
I couldn't finish reading it. Gray takes stupidity to a whole new level. I can guarentee that Gray doesn't believe a word he said. There is a good point here though. Gray has been involved in the IPCC since the start like many other skeptics (John Christy for instance who was lead author of the third assessment report). Positive evidence that the IPCC is not blocking dissent and is actually giving it far more attendtion then it deserves. Now it is true that there are so few skeptics that the IPCC has to sink low enough to include oil and cool funded lunatics like Gray who has never published a thing on climate change or a related field in a peer reviewed journal.
Wayward Son
You guys are so predictable!
Deal with the scientific concerns. They at least have some meaning in this discussion.
Your insinuation that only 'deniers' have a conflict of interest is laughable.
I guess that Gore's Nobel prize for that nonsense wasn't conflict worthy?
"Deal with the scientific concerns."
Are you shitting me? If you deniers could come up with even a single piece of evidence that conflicts with the mainstream scientific consensus then I could deal with it.
For starters this douce bag Gray says this:
"And, then after all, there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years,"
He knows he is full of it. He complains about the scientific methods of other scientists and then uses a method of determining if the world is warming which is the most unscientific possible. Other skeptics like John Christy, the Pielke's and Lomborg are thoroughly embarrassed that fellow skeptics resort to this kind of nonsense. If someone resorts to that level of stupidity which even a 4 year old looking at a temperature graph would realize is completely wrong then there is no sense responding to them, as they are obviously saying whatever pleases the oil companies who fund them.
IPCC claims the globe is warmer now than it had ever been. Absolute nonsense--dinosaur bones in northern Russia, petrofied trees under the Artic ice cap, etc. Have we been lied to?? Who is doing the lieing?
"IPCC claims the globe is warmer now than it had ever been."
The IPCC states no such thing. Maybe you should read it instead of just making things up.
"dinosaur bones in northern Russia, petrofied trees under the Artic ice cap, etc."
As I said the IPCC is well aware that it has been warmer in the distant past and knows why that is - Milankovitch cycles - and also why they are playing no role in current warming. However dinosaur bones in northern russia etc means nothing as due to continental drift northern russia was around the equator during dinosaur time. I think that you mean petrified trees under the ANTarctic ice cap. That's true, but antarctica used to be the near the equator too (in fact it was at least partly in the northern hemisphere about 400 million years, and was still connected to south america until about 20 million years ago. Antarctica at that time was still in the general latitude where south africa and australia are today. Believe it or not those areas can support vegetation! It became a giant glacier for two reasons: 1) it moved to the south pole and 2) ocean currents changed patterns as the continents moved.
"Have we been lied to??"
You have been lied to, I haven't.
"Who is doing the lieing?"
Conspiracy believing deniers who enjoy making stuff up because they know people like you will believe them without question.
A Nobel prize followed by an abolition? What do you think this is, the NHL?
Statments like "[h]e complains about the scientific methods of other scientists and then uses a method of determining if the world is warming which is the most unscientific possible" need to be explained. What method did Gray use that was unscientific? He just looked at the data and tried to do statistical analysis on them. He found the data to be unworthy due to the poor method at deriving them.
I went right to the data. My http://greycanada.blogspot.com/2007/02/calculation-variation.html blog entry proves Gray is correct in his assertion that the min/max average calculation of average is significantly different from the hourly average. By significant, I mean that the difference between the two average calculation methods produce results that are close to the magnitude of the decadal warming that is being tracked.
The temperature trend has leveled off over the past 8 years with no explanation. Look at the giss graphs. The data is there. The 1992-1994 cooling was explained by a volcano eruption. The other short term peaks and valleys have been explained by El Nino and La Nina with the exception of the 1945-1975 cool down. Are we simply experiencing that same cool down? Noone knows.
Where are the studies that show that the models correlate to the temperature record? They don't exist because the models are not accurate yet. That is a scientific concern that has not been addressed.
There has been a divergence between the bristle cone temperature records and observed temperatures. Mann's data is truncated to the 1960's because of this. A more recent peer reviewed paper has confirmed the divergence which has continued to today. How many other proxies do not match the observed temperature record? We don't know because the studies have not been done or their results have not been released.
Sorry Fred. My last comment was a bit off topic. Since the title is about the IPCC, I will express my curiosity as to how many skeptics are listed as participating whose work and input was ignored. I remember the malaria data being wrong and the scientist fighting to get his name removed.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home