Report Climate change ipcc

[tablet]

the IPCC is a political organisation , and as such ,  should always be regarded with a healthy amount of scepticism , so you have to look to the science behind the SR#15 report , which , to a great extent is HadCRUT4

..So is HadCRUT4 a good assessment for which to base a global report on , and unfortunately no it isn't , it is riddled with very serious errors

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/

if you don't want to read the paper from John Mclean PhD here are the main points

The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modelling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars

McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.

Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C.  One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!

Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships.

Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbours which are hardly representative of the open ocean.

When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

Mclean finds " Ultimately it is the opinion of this author that the HadCRUT4 data, and any reports or claims based on it, do not form a credible basis for government policy on climate or for international agreements about supposed causes of climate change"

if you add to this Mr Al Gore's admission on American TV  that "“The language that the IPCC used in presenting it was torqued up " ...I don't know what he means by "torqued up" but I'm guessing its to scare gullible people into believing him

please check this for yourselves - PBS NEWSHOUR – ONE-ON-ONE – Broadcast: October 12, 2018 ( the quote is 1 minute 30 seconds into the interview )

now an open minded person would come to the conclusion that the IPCC report SR#15 , based on HadCRUT4 data set  , with bad data , poorly or not checked at all , would be not worth the paper it is printed on

and so before I go , let me just add the response the met office gave when confronted with this audit -

Britain’s Met Office has welcomed an audit from Australian researcher John McLean that claims to have identified serious errors in its HadCRUT global temperature record.

“Any actual errors identified will be dealt with in the next major update.’’

The Met Office said automated quality checks were performed on the ocean data and monthly updates to the land data were subjected to a computer assisted manual quality control process.

“The HadCRUT dataset includes comprehensive uncertainty estimates in its estimates of global temperature,” the Met Office spokesman said.

“We previously acknowledged receipt of Dr John McLean’s 2016 report to us which dealt with the format of some ocean data files.

“We corrected the errors he then identified to us,” the Met Office spokesman said.

to be clear , Mr Mclean didn't  " claim " to find errors , he flagged them , so I guess we will just have to wait for HadCRUT5 and SR#16 and see if they give us another 12 years ( I'm betting they will )

[Devonian]

6 hours ago, tablet said:

the IPCC is a political organisation , and as such ,  should always be regarded with a healthy amount of scepticism , so you have to look to the science behind the SR#15 report , which , to a great extent is HadCRUT4

..So is HadCRUT4 a good assessment for which to base a global report on , and unfortunately no it isn't , it is riddled with very serious errors

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/52041/

if you don't want to read the paper from John Mclean PhD here are the main points

...

Please make it clear you have lifted large sections of your post from another site.

This article discusses the flaws in the so called 'Phd'.

[Methuselah]

I'm happy to keep an open mind, when it comes to Fred's stuff about increased meridionality and meandering jet streams, but that's neither here nor there, when it comes to the overall state of the planet; two separate causes will have two separate effects...

IMO, the idea that NW Europe might experience more frequent extremes, over the coming few years, doesn't even preclude the possibility that any severe winters won't be more than offset by hotter summers, given that the globe, as a whole, will continue to warm.

It's not even the case IMO, that the effects of AGW and a grand solar minimum are necessarily mutually exclusive; neither one need negate the other.

[Derecho]

2 hours ago, Devonian said:

Please make it clear you have lifted large sections of your post from another site.

This article discusses the flaws in the so called 'Phd'.

Yup I was shocked when reading the thesis, full of spelling / grammar errors, little references and a load of poorly plotted graphs on excel. Here are some of the main points from that thesis:

Here are some of the key points from the article you link:

- It’s well known that HadCRUT4 suffers from coverage bias. However, there are a number of other global temperature datasets that account for this issue and produce results that are broadly consistent with the HadCRUT4 data (HadCRUT4’s coverage bias actually leads to it showing slightly less warming than those datasets that do account for this).

- There are problems with some of the actual data, but there is lots of data, so a problem with a small fraction of this data is almost certainly of negligible significance.

- You can also sample subsets of the full dataset. Doing so produces results that are consistent with the full dataset.

Clearly there has been some dodgy money going into this 'research' from right wing politicians funded by oil companies to try and portray the work as a 'thesis'. No wonder his supervisor Peter Riddd was sacked thereafter.

Ironically they argue that focus should be made from 1950 to the present day, yet this is the period with the most intense warming trend! There are issues with coverage and biases in SST (which incidentally are strongly negative) in earlier years but the uncertainties account for this. We have been here before with Berkeley investigating the global temperature record themselves.

Anthony Watts said that:

'.. I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.' 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

Yet the global temperature dataset created by Berkeley agreed very strongly with the other global temperature datasets and no inhomogeneities through urbanization are evident.

 

What more do people want? More money to line up their fat wallets I'm guessing

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Quicksilver1989

[Methuselah]

Ah, Anthony Watts has reared his ugly head - the purely accidental recipient of stolen emails, that just happened to find their way into his inbox - eh? Whenever I see his name, in conjunction with purported data, I always think of the likelihood of invisible 'Big Oil' backers pulling strings...

[nad]

On ‎29‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 17:54, Midlands Ice Age said:

The overall summary (produced by politicians for politicians) will never discuss the real issues as regards their accuracy.

I guess most people on here will also stop at that point. 

Hi MIA, thanks for your reply. While reading the science of Discworld by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen I came across the concept of “Lies-to-children”; when explaining a complicated subject to a child we try to do it by telling them something we think they will understand, we don’t do it to deceive but rather to help. For example, I was told that the atom was like a very tiny universe where the nucleus is like the sun and electrons are like planets orbiting it, and then I was told to forget all that “rubbish” and to go and look at the Bohr model and so on. I found this quote from Terry Pratchett in Wiki which I think explains it much better than I can "Most of us need just 'enough' knowledge of the sciences, and it's delivered to us in metaphors and analogies that bite us in the bum if we think they're the same as the truth." I suspect there have been many stitches put in the rear ends of people that only read summaries.

</digression>

NAD

[Midlands Ice Age]

On ‎15‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 18:33, Ed Stone said:

All that, and still you've nothing useful to say...I'd be more surprised if expectations didn't change with time.

Yep...

 But with time,,  the 'blue ocean' you expect will pass the 2015, 2022, 2025, 2031 time limits that have been predicted for the ice free.

Time is not on your side.

MIA

 

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

On ‎30‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:19, Quicksilver1989 said:

Yup I was shocked when reading the thesis, full of spelling / grammar errors, little references and a load of poorly plotted graphs on excel. Here are some of the main points from that thesis:

Here are some of the key points from the article you link:

- It’s well known that HadCRUT4 suffers from coverage bias. However, there are a number of other global temperature datasets that account for this issue and produce results that are broadly consistent with the HadCRUT4 data (HadCRUT4’s coverage bias actually leads to it showing slightly less warming than those datasets that do account for this).

- There are problems with some of the actual data, but there is lots of data, so a problem with a small fraction of this data is almost certainly of negligible significance.

- You can also sample subsets of the full dataset. Doing so produces results that are consistent with the full dataset.

Clearly there has been some dodgy money going into this 'research' from right wing politicians funded by oil companies to try and portray the work as a 'thesis'. No wonder his supervisor Peter Riddd was sacked thereafter.

Ironically they argue that focus should be made from 1950 to the present day, yet this is the period with the most intense warming trend! There are issues with coverage and biases in SST (which incidentally are strongly negative) in earlier years but the uncertainties account for this. We have been here before with Berkeley investigating the global temperature record themselves.

Anthony Watts said that:

'.. I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.' 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

Yet the global temperature dataset created by Berkeley agreed very strongly with the other global temperature datasets and no inhomogeneities through urbanization are evident.

 

What more do people want? More money to line up their fat wallets I'm guessing

 

And here was I thinking the data was being collated from actual data they received..

A slip of the pen, QS?

MIA 

[Derecho]

2 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

And here was I thinking the data was being collated from actual data they received..

A slip of the pen, QS?

MIA 

The Berkeley study arose because the authors wanted to look into potential issues in GST but despite Anthony Watts being bullish about the method, the study produced results very similar to other GST datasets (then Anthony became a lot quieter thereafter). Uncertainties in GST during earlier years are well known, especially in SST where we get systematic biases. Different methods to account for these biases produce similar results. Incidentally If biases due to the use of buckets earlier in the 20th century wern't accounted for the warming trend through the 20th century would be even sharper.

Observational coverage isn't 100%, complete everyone should know that so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Some SST datasets are globally complete via statistical methods so they can be used in data products such as the 20th century reanalysis. The global temperature datasets (such as the Hadley datasets) aren't globally complete but these are accounted for in the uncertainty estimates of those datasets.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Quicksilver1989

[Derecho]

2 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Yep...

 But with time,,  the 'blue ocean' you expect will pass the 2015, 2022, 2025, 2031 time limits that have been predicted for the ice free.

Time is not on your side.

MIA

 

 

I don't recall any studies saying summer arctic sea ice would be gone by 2015. The most bullish went for the early 2020s but the mid-late 2030s are the current predicted timeframe. Before 2007 it was predicted to be in the 2070s-2090s...

[Methuselah]

10 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Yep...

 But with time,,  the 'blue ocean' you expect will pass the 2015, 2022, 2025, 2031 time limits that have been predicted for the ice free.

Time is not on your side.

MIA

I rest my case.

[weirpig]

Will this have affect on the timescales involved ?.  massive under estimation 

https://us.cnn.com/2018/11/01/australia/ocean-warming-report-intl/index.html

[jonboy]

3 minutes ago, weirpig said:

Will this have affect on the timescales involved ?.  massive under estimation 

https://us.cnn.com/2018/11/01/australia/ocean-warming-report-intl/index.html

No because they are wrong anyway

[BornFromTheVoid]

3 minutes ago, jonboy said:

No because they are wrong anyway

Care to explain?

[weirpig]

3 minutes ago, jonboy said:

No because they are wrong anyway

Sorry?.  Who is wrong.    Anyway report also states this.

The report suggests that to prevent temperatures rising above 2C, carbon emissions from human activities must be reduced by 25% more than previously estimated.

[jonboy]

2 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Care to explain?

Well if the ocean are now absorbing much more heat than previously thought and such heat contributed to a given sea level rise which we are not seeing to the original projected levels then why is that if given the new report the oceans are actually absorbing more heat than previously thought. You can't always have your cake and eat it. Forever blaming CO2 is no longer enough in my humble view a more holistic approach is needed

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 minute ago, jonboy said:

Well if the ocean are now absorbing much more heat than previously thought and such heat contributed to a given sea level rise which we are not seeing to the original projected levels then why is that if given the new report the oceans are actually absorbing more heat than previously thought. You can't always have your cake and eat it. Forever blaming CO2 is no longer enough in my humble view a more holistic approach is needed

They explain their method, which you haven't mentioned. You're simply dismissing it based on your previous assumptions it seems. And sea level rise has generally been towards the top end of projections, unless I'm mistaken?

However, we are in partial agreement somehow. It does raise the question of the extra sea level rise this additional heat input must create, and thus casts doubt on the contributors to current SLR. After this point we diverge in our approach!
You decide to dismiss the research, I become curious about whether the ice sheets and glaciers have maybe not contributed as much to SLR as originally thought?

Like any interesting scientific work, they used new methods and the results give us more areas to question. Questioning old data and assumptions is good for science - when it's done through proper means such as this. As apposed to biased blogs and such.

[Methuselah]

19 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Well if the ocean are now absorbing much more heat than previously thought and such heat contributed to a given sea level rise which we are not seeing to the original projected levels then why is that if given the new report the oceans are actually absorbing more heat than previously thought. You can't always have your cake and eat it. Forever blaming CO2 is no longer enough in my humble view a more holistic approach is needed

If by 'holistic' you mean attempting to apprehend the complex manner in which myriad drivers and feedbacks (both anthropogenic and natural) might interact then, yes, I agree...

Which, by the way, is precisely what climate scientists are currently engaged in - with or without an in-depth understanding of the fundamental limitations of Von Neumann Architecture and its associated bottlenecks etc.!

[jonboy]

17 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

They explain their method, which you haven't mentioned. You're simply dismissing it based on your previous assumptions it seems. And sea level rise has generally been towards the top end of projections, unless I'm mistaken?

However, we are in partial agreement somehow. It does raise the question of the extra sea level rise this additional heat input must create, and thus casts doubt on the contributors to current SLR. After this point we diverge in our approach!
You decide to dismiss the research, I become curious about whether the ice sheets and glaciers have maybe not contributed as much to SLR as originally thought?

Like any interesting scientific work, they used new methods and the results give us more areas to question. Questioning old data and assumptions is good for science - when it's done through proper means such as this. As apposed to biased blogs and such.

Who said I dismissed the research I certainly dismiss the headlines used and the demonization of our use of carbon. We are already seeing this approach affect those least able in society.

By this I mean the headlong rush to ban plastic straws which most disabled people use and please don't suggest paper or metal will do they don't. 

[Methuselah]

Global Warming caused by plastic straws? Who said that?

They are slowly strangling the life  outof the food-chain on which we all ultimately depend though...

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 minute ago, jonboy said:

Who said I dismissed the research I certainly dismiss the headlines used and the demonization of our use of carbon. We are already seeing this approach affect those least able in society.

By this I mean the headlong rush to ban plastic straws which most disabled people use and please don't suggest paper or metal will do they don't. 

The headline that oceans have absorbed more heat than previously thought? Or the research article headline "Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition"
I'm not really seeing the headline problem here nor it's relationship to banning plastic straws. Maybe a separate thread required for that topic?

[Essan]

10 hours ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

I don't recall any studies saying summer arctic sea ice would be gone by 2015. The most bullish went for the early 2020s but the mid-late 2030s are the current predicted timeframe. Before 2007 it was predicted to be in the 2070s-2090s...

And even then I think it's not a case of will but could or, at most, likely - to which always the caveat needs adding "all else being equal".

The problem is that the media pester (or else, misquote out of context) a scientist into admitting that "in theory it's possible something could happen by such-and-such a date", then issue a headline saying he has stated it will happen by that date, when the reality is he thinks it's highly unlikely (just not impossible).

And when it doesn't happen, the public blame the scientist.

Something we also see, of course, with routine weather stories.

 

[Derecho]

1 hour ago, jonboy said:

No because they are wrong anyway

Yeah because I'm sure you know better then the scientists who study this subject every day as part of their job....

Read the article again, it says the oceans have absorbed 60% more heat then previously thought. Therefore if the oceans become less efficient at taking up heat the positive feedbacks will be much more profound then previously thought. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Quicksilver1989

[Methuselah]

9 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Yeah because I'm sure you know better then the scientists who study this subject every day as part of their job....

Read the article again, it says the oceans have absorbed 60% more heat then previously thought. Therefore if the oceans become less efficient at taking up heat the positive feedbacks will be much more profound then previously thought. 

Which also means that the oceans will become less efficient carbon-sinks faster than had previously been thought?

[Derecho]

13 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Which also means that the oceans will become less efficient carbon-sinks faster than had previously been thought?

I think that would be the case as it would mean more in the way of ocean acidification... as if the oceans didn't have enough problems. The carbon cycle isn't my area of research though so I probably aren't the best person to ask.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Quicksilver1989