New leaked IPCC report acknowledges reduced role of CO2 emissions in global warming, extreme weather

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2012 2:46 PM GMT
    The full leaked report can be found here (along with links to other media reporting):
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/13/ipcc-ar5-draft-leaked-contains-game-changing-admission-of-enhanced-solar-forcing/

    It's important to note that they don't suggest that CO2 has no role, but rather that the role of the sun is much larger than they had previously predicted in their modelling.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Dec 15, 2012 4:22 PM GMT
    and it's important to note that when you read biased news sites you interpret the situation completely skewed and incorrect.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/ipcc-climate-change-report-leaked-online

    "Climate sceptics have heralded the sentence – which they interpret as meaning that cosmic rays could have a greater warming influence on the planet than mankind's emissions – as "game-changing".

    The isolation by climate sceptics of one sentence in the 14-chapter draft report was described as "completely ridiculous" by one of the report's lead authors. Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: "You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible … It's a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn't say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite."

    The leaked draft "summary for policymakers" contains a statement that appears to contradict the climate sceptics' interpretation.

    It says: "There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance."

    By "virtually certain", the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man's emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC's last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a "very high confidence" – 90% sure – humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm."

    are you done pushing an agenda now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2012 5:55 PM GMT
    Why should I believe this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2012 7:10 PM GMT
    calibro saidand it's important to note that when you read biased news sites you interpret the situation completely skewed and incorrect.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/ipcc-climate-change-report-leaked-online

    "Climate sceptics have heralded the sentence – which they interpret as meaning that cosmic rays could have a greater warming influence on the planet than mankind's emissions – as "game-changing".

    The isolation by climate sceptics of one sentence in the 14-chapter draft report was described as "completely ridiculous" by one of the report's lead authors. Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: "You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible … It's a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn't say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite."

    The leaked draft "summary for policymakers" contains a statement that appears to contradict the climate sceptics' interpretation.

    It says: "There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance."

    By "virtually certain", the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man's emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC's last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a "very high confidence" – 90% sure – humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm."

    are you done pushing an agenda now?


    It's really too bad the reporting isn't balanced on this issue and that the process isn't more transparent as even the researchers quoted in your article state. I am however skeptical of whether it is better to put resources in preparing for climate change rather than preventing it. The IPCC report after all is a political document as much as a scientific one.

    I note that neither they nor you address the issue of extreme weather in that article - as there were many here making the claim that the hurricane that hit the east coast recently was somehow the fault of our not having done something about global warming
    :
    http://climatedepot.com/a/18800/Prof-Pielke-Jr-Analysis-of-UN-IPCC-Draft-report--IPCC-shows-almost-complete-reversal-from-AR4-on-trends-in-drought-hurricanes-floods

    And then for illustrative purposes... there's this graph - which compares previous forecasts of warming to actual observations:

    ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png?w=555&h=447
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2012 7:22 PM GMT
    Calibro, thank you for posting your reply. Cosmic rays (which originate mostly outside the Solar System due to certain processes in the galaxy that accelerate particles like protons to very high speeds) have been interacting with Earth ever since its formation (~4.7-4.5 billion years ago). I, too, saw the quick urge for climate change skeptics to latch on to research mentioned in the report - the research mentioned in order to be inclusive so as to show balance. That sentence where this aspect is mentioned is followed by many more sentences saying that this is extremely unlikely as a cause.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Dec 15, 2012 8:15 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidand it's important to note that when you read biased news sites you interpret the situation completely skewed and incorrect.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/ipcc-climate-change-report-leaked-online

    "Climate sceptics have heralded the sentence – which they interpret as meaning that cosmic rays could have a greater warming influence on the planet than mankind's emissions – as "game-changing".

    The isolation by climate sceptics of one sentence in the 14-chapter draft report was described as "completely ridiculous" by one of the report's lead authors. Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: "You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible … It's a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn't say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the opposite."

    The leaked draft "summary for policymakers" contains a statement that appears to contradict the climate sceptics' interpretation.

    It says: "There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance."

    By "virtually certain", the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man's emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC's last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a "very high confidence" – 90% sure – humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm."

    are you done pushing an agenda now?


    It's really too bad the reporting isn't balanced on this issue and that the process isn't more transparent as even the researchers quoted in your article state. I am however skeptical of whether it is better to put resources in preparing for climate change rather than preventing it. The IPCC report after all is a political document as much as a scientific one.

    I note that neither they nor you address the issue of extreme weather in that article - as there were many here making the claim that the hurricane that hit the east coast recently was somehow the fault of our not having done something about global warming
    :
    http://climatedepot.com/a/18800/Prof-Pielke-Jr-Analysis-of-UN-IPCC-Draft-report--IPCC-shows-almost-complete-reversal-from-AR4-on-trends-in-drought-hurricanes-floods

    And then for illustrative purposes... there's this graph - which compares previous forecasts of warming to actual observations:

    ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png?w=555&h=447


    i have no idea what your point is. the document, as a whole, is a giant piece of information constructed by scientists. the politically easy thing would be to say climate change isn't happening. the guy who leaked the report is one of 800 journalists who were chosen to cover the report, not contribute to it. it's the scientists who point out how ludicrous this blogger's interpretation of a select line is. you created a point on garbage, and now you're talking about hurricane sandy? what is the point you're actually making here?

    and in regard to your point of the hurricane, you're using a majorly biased blog dedicated to proving climate change is wrong as evidence? how many times have i had this conversation with you that you don't seem to understand peer review and causation? while it's difficult to correlate a specific weather pattern to climate change, it can be modeled correctly and has been done so in the past to determine which weather events were the result of climate change; however, i have yet to hear any respectable science source say hurricane sandy was caused by climate change. please show me the document where an actual scientific body said that in a peer-reviewed context and not some reporter looking for ratings?

    and you talk about "they" as if you read the whole document... did you read all 14 chapters of it just leaked, i.e., you stayed up all night speed reading it? what is it that "they" said or did not? you sound like a mouth piece regurgitating lines from someone else with no background on the issue.

    and finally, what do you mean by your chart? we've had this conversation before when you thought you "proved" obama was bad for black workers with a single chart that made no sense in the context. none of what you said deals with this chart. all i see is a lot of colors and no understanding of research methodology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2012 9:43 PM GMT
    calibro saidi have no idea what your point is. the document, as a whole, is a giant piece of information constructed by scientists. the politically easy thing would be to say climate change isn't happening. the guy who leaked the report is one of 800 journalists who were chosen to cover the report, not contribute to it. it's the scientists who point out how ludicrous this blogger's interpretation of a select line is. you created a point on garbage, and now you're talking about hurricane sandy? what is the point you're actually making here?

    and in regard to your point of the hurricane, you're using a majorly biased blog dedicated to proving climate change is wrong as evidence? how many times have i had this conversation with you that you don't seem to understand peer review and causation? while it's difficult to correlate a specific weather pattern to climate change, it can be modeled correctly and has been done so in the past to determine which weather events were the result of climate change; however, i have yet to hear any respectable science source say hurricane sandy was caused by climate change. please show me the document where an actual scientific body said that in a peer-reviewed context and not some reporter looking for ratings?

    and you talk about "they" as if you read the whole document... did you read all 14 chapters of it just leaked, i.e., you stayed up all night speed reading it? what is it that "they" said or did not? you sound like a mouth piece regurgitating lines from someone else with no background on the issue.

    and finally, what do you mean by your chart? we've had this conversation before when you thought you "proved" obama was bad for black workers with a single chart that made no sense in the context. none of what you said deals with this chart. all i see is a lot of colors and no understanding of research methodology.


    Hmmm - that's odd - I seem to recall that even you acknowledged in this chart I posted previously that black workers had in fact seen a decline in employment - even if it had risen and had been dropping. You are providing an excellent rebuttal for an argument I've never made however on the subject of climate change and Sandy. Too bad the Michael Mann quoted in the following article isn't more reputable to disprove your point:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/hurricane-damage-climate-change_n_2081960.html

    I was referencing the article you posted - did you bother reading it yourself? As for the chart, it shows actual temperatures versus what has been predicted. It's significant because some scientists and politicians believe that we need to implement radical policy shifts because in large part of what is being predicted in the modelling.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Dec 15, 2012 10:36 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidi have no idea what your point is. the document, as a whole, is a giant piece of information constructed by scientists. the politically easy thing would be to say climate change isn't happening. the guy who leaked the report is one of 800 journalists who were chosen to cover the report, not contribute to it. it's the scientists who point out how ludicrous this blogger's interpretation of a select line is. you created a point on garbage, and now you're talking about hurricane sandy? what is the point you're actually making here?

    and in regard to your point of the hurricane, you're using a majorly biased blog dedicated to proving climate change is wrong as evidence? how many times have i had this conversation with you that you don't seem to understand peer review and causation? while it's difficult to correlate a specific weather pattern to climate change, it can be modeled correctly and has been done so in the past to determine which weather events were the result of climate change; however, i have yet to hear any respectable science source say hurricane sandy was caused by climate change. please show me the document where an actual scientific body said that in a peer-reviewed context and not some reporter looking for ratings?

    and you talk about "they" as if you read the whole document... did you read all 14 chapters of it just leaked, i.e., you stayed up all night speed reading it? what is it that "they" said or did not? you sound like a mouth piece regurgitating lines from someone else with no background on the issue.

    and finally, what do you mean by your chart? we've had this conversation before when you thought you "proved" obama was bad for black workers with a single chart that made no sense in the context. none of what you said deals with this chart. all i see is a lot of colors and no understanding of research methodology.


    Hmmm - that's odd - I seem to recall that even you acknowledged in this chart I posted previously that black workers had in fact seen a decline in employment - even if it had risen and had been dropping. You are providing an excellent rebuttal for an argument I've never made however on the subject of climate change and Sandy. Too bad the Michael Mann quoted in the following article isn't more reputable to disprove your point:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/hurricane-damage-climate-change_n_2081960.html

    I was referencing the article you posted - did you bother reading it yourself? As for the chart, it shows actual temperatures versus what has been predicted. It's significant because some scientists and politicians believe that we need to implement radical policy shifts because in large part of what is being predicted in the modelling.


    No, I said nothing in your chart could be definitely tied to your overall hypothesis, which a ludicrous one at that.

    In terms to the other fact, you have no idea how hard it is to have a conversation with you because you have no idea how important specificity is. You wrote about the recent hurricane on the East Coast, which I took to be Sandy. If you don't want people to make logical conclusions about points you're not meaning to talk about, don't uses ambiguous language.

    Next, the huffington post is not a peer-reviewed journal, but it even says in the article "Of course, climate change did not create Hurricane Sandy, Mann said. Hurricanes and tropical storms would occur with or without global warming. But many climate models suggest that such storms will become more intense as the planet warms, he said." The article is about how climate change can be contributing to stronger hurricanes in part. If you reread my words, you'll see I said no scientist said climate change was responsible for creating Sandy, which is a completely different matter than strengthening it.

    Finally, "they" is more of the ambiguous language you use. I have no way to delineate anything you say when you mix sources constantly and don't reference your points because your logic is so shoddy. Which is why your point of the graph is also shoddy. Studies show the Arctic is actually warming at twice the rate as previously thought.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21556798

    And this is all to say that your original point of this thread is completely wrong still.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2012 10:51 PM GMT
    calibro said
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidi have no idea what your point is. the document, as a whole, is a giant piece of information constructed by scientists. the politically easy thing would be to say climate change isn't happening. the guy who leaked the report is one of 800 journalists who were chosen to cover the report, not contribute to it. it's the scientists who point out how ludicrous this blogger's interpretation of a select line is. you created a point on garbage, and now you're talking about hurricane sandy? what is the point you're actually making here?

    and in regard to your point of the hurricane, you're using a majorly biased blog dedicated to proving climate change is wrong as evidence? how many times have i had this conversation with you that you don't seem to understand peer review and causation? while it's difficult to correlate a specific weather pattern to climate change, it can be modeled correctly and has been done so in the past to determine which weather events were the result of climate change; however, i have yet to hear any respectable science source say hurricane sandy was caused by climate change. please show me the document where an actual scientific body said that in a peer-reviewed context and not some reporter looking for ratings?

    and you talk about "they" as if you read the whole document... did you read all 14 chapters of it just leaked, i.e., you stayed up all night speed reading it? what is it that "they" said or did not? you sound like a mouth piece regurgitating lines from someone else with no background on the issue.

    and finally, what do you mean by your chart? we've had this conversation before when you thought you "proved" obama was bad for black workers with a single chart that made no sense in the context. none of what you said deals with this chart. all i see is a lot of colors and no understanding of research methodology.


    Hmmm - that's odd - I seem to recall that even you acknowledged in this chart I posted previously that black workers had in fact seen a decline in employment - even if it had risen and had been dropping. You are providing an excellent rebuttal for an argument I've never made however on the subject of climate change and Sandy. Too bad the Michael Mann quoted in the following article isn't more reputable to disprove your point:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/hurricane-damage-climate-change_n_2081960.html

    I was referencing the article you posted - did you bother reading it yourself? As for the chart, it shows actual temperatures versus what has been predicted. It's significant because some scientists and politicians believe that we need to implement radical policy shifts because in large part of what is being predicted in the modelling.


    No, I said nothing in your chart could be definitely tied to your overall hypothesis, which a ludicrous one at that.

    In terms to the other fact, you have no idea how hard it is to have a conversation with you because you have no idea how important specificity is. You wrote about the recent hurricane on the East Coast, which I took to be Sandy. If you don't want people to make logical conclusions about points you're not meaning to talk about, don't uses ambiguous language.

    Next, the huffington post is not a peer-reviewed journal, but it even says in the article "Of course, climate change did not create Hurricane Sandy, Mann said. Hurricanes and tropical storms would occur with or without global warming. But many climate models suggest that such storms will become more intense as the planet warms, he said." The article is about how climate change can be contributing to stronger hurricanes in part. If you reread my words, you'll see I said no scientist said climate change was responsible for creating Sandy, which is a completely different matter than strengthening it.

    Finally, "they" is more of the ambiguous language you use. I have no way to delineate anything you say when you mix sources constantly and don't reference your points because your logic is so shoddy. Which is why your point of the graph is also shoddy. Studies show the Arctic is actually warming at twice the rate as previously thought.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21556798

    And this is all to say that your original point of this thread is completely wrong still.


    It's too bad you're so focused on ad hominem attacks. Did I say that Huffington post was a peer reviewed journal? I only pointed to the statements that Mann apparently made which provides support for the overall article and the ensuing junk science.

    Thanks for one additional data point - and you suggest I'm selective with the data? On the issue of weather change - from the one link:
    http://climatedepot.com/a/18800/Prof-Pielke-Jr-Analysis-of-UN-IPCC-Draft-report--IPCC-shows-almost-complete-reversal-from-AR4-on-trends-in-drought-hurricanes-floods

    IPCC AR5 Draft: "we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records"
    Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: "generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record"
    on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)


    Here's my question to you then - how do observed temperatures compare to the modelling historically? What direction is it or is there no pattern?

    This incidentally is the caption for the graph:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

    Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 15, 2012 11:04 PM GMT
    I just read that after around 50 years of restricting salt for people with high blood pressure there is not much scientific basis that high salt intake causes hypertension. Scientific superstition rules conventional wisdom .

    The cause of Global warming is matter of politics and the religion of environmentalism. There are human settlements at the bottom of English Channel and Greenland was once inhabited . Weather is forever changing . Uptight white people just don't like change of any kind including men
    loving men.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 12:54 AM GMT
    I don't know if this has anything do, regarding gas prices? But if it does? Hope it keeps happening or whatever it is. (Didn't read the article)
    Today I filled my tank @ 3.43 diesel! Hadn't been that low since my little bro was a sardine! ( reg was $2.77)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 12:55 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidI just read that after around 50 years of restricting salt for people with high blood pressure there is not much scientific basis that high salt intake causes hypertension. Scientific superstition rules conventional wisdom .

    The cause of Global warming is matter of politics and the religion of environmentalism. There are human settlements at the bottom of English Channel and Greenland was once inhabited . Weather is forever changing . Uptight white people just don't like change of any kind including men
    loving men.




    +1

    Shit been changing since day two! I think calling it global warming makes it sound scary and dumb....I call it climate change.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Dec 16, 2012 2:54 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    calibro said
    riddler78 said
    calibro saidi have no idea what your point is. the document, as a whole, is a giant piece of information constructed by scientists. the politically easy thing would be to say climate change isn't happening. the guy who leaked the report is one of 800 journalists who were chosen to cover the report, not contribute to it. it's the scientists who point out how ludicrous this blogger's interpretation of a select line is. you created a point on garbage, and now you're talking about hurricane sandy? what is the point you're actually making here?

    and in regard to your point of the hurricane, you're using a majorly biased blog dedicated to proving climate change is wrong as evidence? how many times have i had this conversation with you that you don't seem to understand peer review and causation? while it's difficult to correlate a specific weather pattern to climate change, it can be modeled correctly and has been done so in the past to determine which weather events were the result of climate change; however, i have yet to hear any respectable science source say hurricane sandy was caused by climate change. please show me the document where an actual scientific body said that in a peer-reviewed context and not some reporter looking for ratings?

    and you talk about "they" as if you read the whole document... did you read all 14 chapters of it just leaked, i.e., you stayed up all night speed reading it? what is it that "they" said or did not? you sound like a mouth piece regurgitating lines from someone else with no background on the issue.

    and finally, what do you mean by your chart? we've had this conversation before when you thought you "proved" obama was bad for black workers with a single chart that made no sense in the context. none of what you said deals with this chart. all i see is a lot of colors and no understanding of research methodology.


    Hmmm - that's odd - I seem to recall that even you acknowledged in this chart I posted previously that black workers had in fact seen a decline in employment - even if it had risen and had been dropping. You are providing an excellent rebuttal for an argument I've never made however on the subject of climate change and Sandy. Too bad the Michael Mann quoted in the following article isn't more reputable to disprove your point:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/hurricane-damage-climate-change_n_2081960.html

    I was referencing the article you posted - did you bother reading it yourself? As for the chart, it shows actual temperatures versus what has been predicted. It's significant because some scientists and politicians believe that we need to implement radical policy shifts because in large part of what is being predicted in the modelling.


    No, I said nothing in your chart could be definitely tied to your overall hypothesis, which a ludicrous one at that.

    In terms to the other fact, you have no idea how hard it is to have a conversation with you because you have no idea how important specificity is. You wrote about the recent hurricane on the East Coast, which I took to be Sandy. If you don't want people to make logical conclusions about points you're not meaning to talk about, don't uses ambiguous language.

    Next, the huffington post is not a peer-reviewed journal, but it even says in the article "Of course, climate change did not create Hurricane Sandy, Mann said. Hurricanes and tropical storms would occur with or without global warming. But many climate models suggest that such storms will become more intense as the planet warms, he said." The article is about how climate change can be contributing to stronger hurricanes in part. If you reread my words, you'll see I said no scientist said climate change was responsible for creating Sandy, which is a completely different matter than strengthening it.

    Finally, "they" is more of the ambiguous language you use. I have no way to delineate anything you say when you mix sources constantly and don't reference your points because your logic is so shoddy. Which is why your point of the graph is also shoddy. Studies show the Arctic is actually warming at twice the rate as previously thought.

    http://www.economist.com/node/21556798

    And this is all to say that your original point of this thread is completely wrong still.


    It's too bad you're so focused on ad hominem attacks. Did I say that Huffington post was a peer reviewed journal? I only pointed to the statements that Mann apparently made which provides support for the overall article and the ensuing junk science.

    Thanks for one additional data point - and you suggest I'm selective with the data? On the issue of weather change - from the one link:
    http://climatedepot.com/a/18800/Prof-Pielke-Jr-Analysis-of-UN-IPCC-Draft-report--IPCC-shows-almost-complete-reversal-from-AR4-on-trends-in-drought-hurricanes-floods

    IPCC AR5 Draft: "we have high confidence that natural variability dominates any AGW influence in observed/historical TC records"
    Draft IPCC Ch2 bottom line on extremes: "generally low confidence that there have been discernable changes over the observed record"
    on lack of trends in extremes, exceptions are trends seen in temperature extremes and regional precipitation (but not floods)


    Here's my question to you then - how do observed temperatures compare to the modelling historically? What direction is it or is there no pattern?

    This incidentally is the caption for the graph:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

    Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.


    1. I asked you for a peer-reviewed source, and you gave me huffpo. And it's not junk science. The article clearly says the creation of hurricanes cannot be correlated to climate change but that their strength can. That's consistent with the science out there. There's
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Dec 16, 2012 2:56 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidI just read that after around 50 years of restricting salt for people with high blood pressure there is not much scientific basis that high salt intake causes hypertension. Scientific superstition rules conventional wisdom .

    The cause of Global warming is matter of politics and the religion of environmentalism. There are human settlements at the bottom of English Channel and Greenland was once inhabited . Weather is forever changing . Uptight white people just don't like change of any kind including men
    loving men.



    no, you're an idiot of the grandest kind who pretends he is a scientist. there's not significant debate about climate change amongst scientists. it's just people like you who give the impression that there is debate because you think your opinion matters when you have zero ethos to speak of the issue.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Dec 16, 2012 3:02 AM GMT
    may11 said
    Alpha13 saidI just read that after around 50 years of restricting salt for people with high blood pressure there is not much scientific basis that high salt intake causes hypertension. Scientific superstition rules conventional wisdom .

    The cause of Global warming is matter of politics and the religion of environmentalism. There are human settlements at the bottom of English Channel and Greenland was once inhabited . Weather is forever changing . Uptight white people just don't like change of any kind including men
    loving men.




    +1

    Shit been changing since day two! I think calling it global warming makes it sound scary and dumb....I call it climate change.


    we changed it to climate change because people like you were too ignorant to realize global warming doesn't just make the Earth hot so that when something, such as an extremely cold winter happens, that's a product of the Earth warming too
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2012 3:29 AM GMT
    calibro said
    may11 said
    Alpha13 saidI just read that after around 50 years of restricting salt for people with high blood pressure there is not much scientific basis that high salt intake causes hypertension. Scientific superstition rules conventional wisdom .

    The cause of Global warming is matter of politics and the religion of environmentalism. There are human settlements at the bottom of English Channel and Greenland was once inhabited . Weather is forever changing . Uptight white people just don't like change of any kind including men
    loving men.




    +1

    Shit been changing since day two! I think calling it global warming makes it sound scary and dumb....I call it climate change.


    we changed it to climate change because people like you were too ignorant to realize global warming doesn't just make the Earth hot so that when something, such as an extremely cold winter happens, that's a product of the Earth warming too



    Hahaha thank you for educating me! All these years of high school and college, just went to the shit holes! Let me pull a hair off, now! You want to educate the rest of the beef eaters?
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Dec 16, 2012 3:36 AM GMT
    Alpha13 saidI just read that after around 50 years of restricting salt for people with high blood pressure there is not much scientific basis that high salt intake causes hypertension. Scientific superstition rules conventional wisdom .

    The cause of Global warming is matter of politics and the religion of environmentalism. There are human settlements at the bottom of English Channel and Greenland was once inhabited . Weather is forever changing . Uptight white people just don't like change of any kind including men
    loving men.



    You love reading something random somewhere and claiming its the gospel truth, don't you?

    In the world of environmental science, climate change is an accepted fact. Is no longer debated at a higher level. I do not get why people are in such denial about it. Shirking responsibility? Can't face reality? I dunno, but I've never followed.

    The only thing still debated is the mechanism, the solutions, and the extent. But it is universally accepted that it is occurring.