6 ms·

The IPCC gave models to scientists that are necessarily missing part of the picture (namely, all energy from the sun that is not part of a specific EMR spectrum

The IPCC gave models to scientists that are necessarily missing part of the picture (namely, all energy from the sun that is not part of a specific EMR spectrum)[1], and then said "we have a consensus" when the scientists came back with an inevitable conclusion. This resulted in the inevitable false attribution of human activity being the cause of [strike: global warming] climate change. To fully appreciate the gravity of the IPCC's misadventures in "climate science", here is a seemingly hyperbolic, but actually quite accurate analogy of the situation: A group of 100 people have been consuming candy, water, and Raid®. Among those 100 people, 20 have died within a 1 month period. A committee is formed to solve this crisis. The committee tasks a group of scientists with determining the cause of death, and they are told, "Here is a group of 100 people, 20 of whom have died, all of which have been consuming candy and water." A consensus is formed among the scientists; obviously the candy is causing the deaths, since water is known to be safe. When some of the scientists discovered that the subjects had been consuming Raid®, they reached out to the committee to ask why the Raid® consumption had not been in the data, and the committee decided that, since the first ingredient in Raid® was water, and since water was known not to be a health risk, it was of little significance in the study. Now, imagine knowing all of the above, and then trying to be patient while listening to everyone you know become a "candy science" expert over the ensuing decade, and seeing your favorite news show, movie actor, musician, etc. calling for a candy tax, and constantly berating you as a "candy denier" when you question the consensus... then, those same people begin calling for candy-related fines, fees, and taxes that will affect your livelihood, and then facing the irony of those same people berating you as ignorant swill living in a fly-over state that's simply "voting based on ideology"; imagine that. 1. https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40645-014-0024-3 https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186...

vkou 7y ago
Please provide reproduced, peer-reviewed sources for these extraordinary claims. While you're at it, please explain, with reproduced, peer-reviewed sources why you think the greenhouse effect, which directly ties CO2 to warming doesn't exist.
- gonational 7y ago
  1. I added a link to the gp - I'll also provide you with these as food for thought: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oc... 2. Please provide any evidence that I made claims that the greehouse effect doesn't exist.
  - scottmcf 7y ago
    So, no evidence of your claims, gotcha.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - vkou 7y ago
    > 2. Please provide any evidence that I made claims that the greehouse effect doesn't exist. Okay, so it does exist - that's great! We're ~1.3C above the pre-industrial average today. Which part of this 1.3C came from the greenhouse effect, which part of it comes from a collection of odd one-off factors, and which part of it came from the magical IPCC-ignored radiation spectrum that has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect? Please, provide numbers. Not hand-waving - but numbers. Also, since it does exist - how much warming would the greenhouse effect be expected to contribute when we hit 500 ppm carbon? 650 ppm?
penneyd 7y ago
:|
orwin 7y ago
Please explain to me how Fourier and later Tyndall were wrong about the effect of (misnommed) greenhouse gases on the atmosphere, and how 200 years later no one disproved them. Your analogy is creative, but if you really think the IPCC have no statistician (or that you are a better statitician than them), you might want to read more about the work of IPCC WG1, that will cure the Dunning-kruger while allowing you to work the statistics by yourself. And yes, the IPCC WG3 is alarmist and ignore some conclusions from the WG2, but their job is to push the politicians. I was like you (well, i was skeptical about the WG3 conclusions and the human greenhouse contribution) so i did something really special: i read the rapports! Yes, i know, its crazy, but this is something i think every skeptic should do: read. This is crazy that learning to read scientific papers is not taught until year 3 of college (at least in my country), but i assure you its not that hard, even if you never went to college.
- gonational 7y ago
  If only you had commented a few moments later (added a link to paper). Apparently, all the climate experts haven’t kept up with the climate news, so what I thought was common knowledge is not commonly known at all. I guess CNN is where most of the expert information comes from these days. That’s the Dunning-Kruger part, or? Also, somebody else replied with something similar (something about me denying the greenhouse effect existed)… I’m not quite sure how either of you came to the conclusion that I didn’t believe the greenhouse effect existed. I think it’s a pretty big leap in logic to go from “the greenhouse effect exists” to “because the greenhouse effect exists, the greenhouse effect via CO2 from human activity is the primary cause of global warming”.
WillDaSilva 7y ago
That's quite the strawman you've built here
- gonational 7y ago
  How’s that?
supercow12 7y ago
The IPCC report is massive with every single thing painstakenly cited, sourced and explained. For example: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FI... >"Solar forcing is the only known natural forcing acting to warm the climate over the 1951–2010 period but it has increased much less than WMGHG forcing, and the observed pattern of long-term tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is not consistent with the expected response to solar irradiance variations. Considering this evidence together with the assessed contribution of natural forcings to observed trends over this period, it is assessed that the contribution from solar forcing to the observed global warming since 1951 is extremely unlikely to be larger than that from WMGHGs. Because solar forcing has very likely decreased over a period with direct satellite measurements of solar output from 1986 to 2008, there is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to global warming during that period. However, there is medium confidence that the 11-year cycle of solar variability influences decadal climate fluctuations in some regions through amplifying mechanisms. {8.4, 10.3; Box 10.2} " So there are multiple avenues of evidence that conclude that solar forcing isn't the cause of the temperature increase. This includes direct measurements of "total solar irradiance" (TSI). And the numbers at the bottom in brackets? Those are sources for the claims made in that paragraph! 10.3 and "Box 10.2": https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt... The above source even has an explanation for how the causes are determined: "FAQ 10.1 | Climate Is Always Changing. How Do We Determine the Causes of Observed Changes?" Here is "8.4": https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt... >"Total solar irradiance (TSI) measured by the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on the spaceborne Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m–2 during 2008 (Kopp and Lean, 2011) which is ~4.5 W m–2 lower than the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (PMOD) TSI composite during 2008 (Frohlich, 2009).The difference is probably due to instrumental biases in measurements prior to TIM." The don't rely on single measurements of "total solar irradiance" either. > "Since 1978, several independent space-based instruments have directly measured the TSI. Three main composite series were constructed, referred to as the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003), the Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium (RMIB) (Dewitte et al., 2004) and the PMOD (Frohlich, 2006) series. " The above claim that "all energy from the sun that is not a part of a specific EMR spectrum" is missing when the conclusions were drawn is just plain wrong. from 8.4: >"Solar spectral irradiance (SSI) variations in the far (120 to 200 nm) and middle (200 to 300 nm) ultraviolet (UV) are the primary driver for heating, composition, and dynamic changes of the stratosphere, and although these wavelengths compose a small portion of the incoming radiation they show large relative variations between the maximum and minimum of the SC compared to the corresponding TSI changes. As UV heating of the stratosphere over a SC has the potential to influence the troposphere indirectly, through dynamic coupling, and therefore climate (Haigh, 1996; Gray et al., 2010), the UV may have a more significant impact on climate than changes in TSI alone would suggest. Although this indicates that metrics based only on TSI are not appropriate, UV measurements present several controversial issues and modelling is not yet robust. Multiple space-based measurements made in the past 30 years indicated that UV variations account for about 30% of the SC TSI variations, while about 70% were produced within the visible and infrared (Rottman, 2006). " It is correct that UV is only 30% of TSI. Hence why TSI was used to make conclusions about the impact of "solar forcing" on the climate instead of just UV. The links I give are to just a couple sections of just one of the reports (the "physical science basis" one). Here is the full "physical science basis" report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

vkou 7y ago

Please provide reproduced, peer-reviewed sources for these extraordinary claims. While you're at it, please explain, with reproduced, peer-reviewed sources why you think the greenhouse effect, which directly ties CO2 to warming doesn't exist.

gonational 7y ago
1. I added a link to the gp - I'll also provide you with these as food for thought: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oc... 2. Please provide any evidence that I made claims that the greehouse effect doesn't exist.
- scottmcf 7y ago
  So, no evidence of your claims, gotcha.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- vkou 7y ago
  > 2. Please provide any evidence that I made claims that the greehouse effect doesn't exist. Okay, so it does exist - that's great! We're ~1.3C above the pre-industrial average today. Which part of this 1.3C came from the greenhouse effect, which part of it comes from a collection of odd one-off factors, and which part of it came from the magical IPCC-ignored radiation spectrum that has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect? Please, provide numbers. Not hand-waving - but numbers. Also, since it does exist - how much warming would the greenhouse effect be expected to contribute when we hit 500 ppm carbon? 650 ppm?

penneyd 7y ago

orwin 7y ago

Please explain to me how Fourier and later Tyndall were wrong about the effect of (misnommed) greenhouse gases on the atmosphere, and how 200 years later no one disproved them. Your analogy is creative, but if you really think the IPCC have no statistician (or that you are a better statitician than them), you might want to read more about the work of IPCC WG1, that will cure the Dunning-kruger while allowing you to work the statistics by yourself. And yes, the IPCC WG3 is alarmist and ignore some conclusions from the WG2, but their job is to push the politicians. I was like you (well, i was skeptical about the WG3 conclusions and the human greenhouse contribution) so i did something really special: i read the rapports! Yes, i know, its crazy, but this is something i think every skeptic should do: read. This is crazy that learning to read scientific papers is not taught until year 3 of college (at least in my country), but i assure you its not that hard, even if you never went to college.

gonational 7y ago
If only you had commented a few moments later (added a link to paper). Apparently, all the climate experts haven’t kept up with the climate news, so what I thought was common knowledge is not commonly known at all. I guess CNN is where most of the expert information comes from these days. That’s the Dunning-Kruger part, or? Also, somebody else replied with something similar (something about me denying the greenhouse effect existed)… I’m not quite sure how either of you came to the conclusion that I didn’t believe the greenhouse effect existed. I think it’s a pretty big leap in logic to go from “the greenhouse effect exists” to “because the greenhouse effect exists, the greenhouse effect via CO2 from human activity is the primary cause of global warming”.

WillDaSilva 7y ago

That's quite the strawman you've built here

gonational 7y ago
How’s that?

supercow12 7y ago

The IPCC report is massive with every single thing painstakenly cited, sourced and explained. For example: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FI... >"Solar forcing is the only known natural forcing acting to warm the climate over the 1951–2010 period but it has increased much less than WMGHG forcing, and the observed pattern of long-term tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is not consistent with the expected response to solar irradiance variations. Considering this evidence together with the assessed contribution of natural forcings to observed trends over this period, it is assessed that the contribution from solar forcing to the observed global warming since 1951 is extremely unlikely to be larger than that from WMGHGs. Because solar forcing has very likely decreased over a period with direct satellite measurements of solar output from 1986 to 2008, there is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to global warming during that period. However, there is medium confidence that the 11-year cycle of solar variability influences decadal climate fluctuations in some regions through amplifying mechanisms. {8.4, 10.3; Box 10.2} " So there are multiple avenues of evidence that conclude that solar forcing isn't the cause of the temperature increase. This includes direct measurements of "total solar irradiance" (TSI). And the numbers at the bottom in brackets? Those are sources for the claims made in that paragraph! 10.3 and "Box 10.2": https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt... The above source even has an explanation for how the causes are determined: "FAQ 10.1 | Climate Is Always Changing. How Do We Determine the Causes of Observed Changes?" Here is "8.4": https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt... >"Total solar irradiance (TSI) measured by the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on the spaceborne Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m–2 during 2008 (Kopp and Lean, 2011) which is ~4.5 W m–2 lower than the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (PMOD) TSI composite during 2008 (Frohlich, 2009).The difference is probably due to instrumental biases in measurements prior to TIM." The don't rely on single measurements of "total solar irradiance" either. > "Since 1978, several independent space-based instruments have directly measured the TSI. Three main composite series were constructed, referred to as the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003), the Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium (RMIB) (Dewitte et al., 2004) and the PMOD (Frohlich, 2006) series. " The above claim that "all energy from the sun that is not a part of a specific EMR spectrum" is missing when the conclusions were drawn is just plain wrong. from 8.4: >"Solar spectral irradiance (SSI) variations in the far (120 to 200 nm) and middle (200 to 300 nm) ultraviolet (UV) are the primary driver for heating, composition, and dynamic changes of the stratosphere, and although these wavelengths compose a small portion of the incoming radiation they show large relative variations between the maximum and minimum of the SC compared to the corresponding TSI changes. As UV heating of the stratosphere over a SC has the potential to influence the troposphere indirectly, through dynamic coupling, and therefore climate (Haigh, 1996; Gray et al., 2010), the UV may have a more significant impact on climate than changes in TSI alone would suggest. Although this indicates that metrics based only on TSI are not appropriate, UV measurements present several controversial issues and modelling is not yet robust. Multiple space-based measurements made in the past 30 years indicated that UV variations account for about 30% of the SC TSI variations, while about 70% were produced within the visible and infrared (Rottman, 2006). " It is correct that UV is only 30% of TSI. Hence why TSI was used to make conclusions about the impact of "solar forcing" on the climate instead of just UV. The links I give are to just a couple sections of just one of the reports (the "physical science basis" one). Here is the full "physical science basis" report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/