Rest of all the " Climate Sensitivity " estimates were all model based, not based upon empirical observations. The IPCC cited Gregory and Forster's paper but did not put the values for climate sensitivity showed in the actual published study in the WG1 report. This study was the only study on climate sensitivity based upon actual observations. The IPCC altered the study and put their own different statistical interpretation on the data based on a different , dubious and unsuitable statistical method. This is nothing but altering data processing by dubious statistical methods to fit a pre-determined theory. And this statistical manipulation was done on the data of a published paper which used the same data to show a different result in the opposite direction. Forster and Gregory's paper showed a very low climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2, less than half of what IPCC claimed. IPCC twisted it to show a higher value.
Without a high climate sensitivity for CO2, the AGW theory is a dead duck. So the IPCC had to prop up the high Climate sensitivity for CO2 by dubious methods, to keep their theory alive.
And one of the authors of the paper was one of the lead authors of the same IPCC Chapter. This alteration was spotted by James Annan who objected to it in his review comments during AR4. But his comments were over ruled.
If a published paper's data are re-calculated by a new method to arrive at a new result, that paper can't be cited and this re-doing the data is not peer reviewed science. That rework has to be written up as a separate paper, undergo peer review and get published, if it is to be considered on it's own merit.
The IPCC is supposed to assess science, not do science.
What is done here is not an assessment, but an act of creation. The outcome of such 'creation', is then dubbed an assessment, which is supposedly the expert appraisal of the existing literature.
If the IPCC cannot be taken for its word, of what it does, how can one believe what it says?
When one reads the IPCC report, one believes what IPCC is referring to is what Gregory and Foster wrote, in their peer-reviewed paper, and what the IPCC authors assessed it to mean, not what the IPCC authors decided to change it to mean.
What the IPCC has done is cheating and this time it is cheating by the " scientific part " of the report, the WG1's report. And they have cheated on the most important part of the whole AGW edifice, which is the " climate sensitivity " which is a measure of how much temperature is supposed to go up with the doubling of CO2. The actual results have shown a much lower figure, based on current empirical evidence and the observations in the Forster and Gregory paper.
But the IPCC's WG1 altered the results of a published paper fraudulently in their report to present a picture that tallied with their views. So the scientific part, political part and summary for policymakers' part of the report have all shown to be fraudulent, not based upon science or scientific practices. The IPCC report is one gigantic scam.
The wife and I are now settled in Oklahoma (Stillwater). Working in the labs at a local Uni is proving to be lots of fun while I finish school. Well, yeah we established I am not a pilot and my errors there, so that is now a moot point. Suffice to say I find aviation of interest, albeit it is not in my range of expertise.
Okay, so here are my issues, with so called catastrophic predictions Chuks: The numerous flaws in the IPCC report, the ignorance of peer reviewed data that shows serious flaws in AGW research and the large amount of snow that was predicted to stop. How do you reconcile such inconsistencies with the AGW claims?
Further to my post #8574 on the IPCC altering a peer-reviewed paper's results to change the end result to suit their story, Nic Lewis, the mathematician who found this error, has written a detailed letter to Gabriele Hegerl, the co-ordinating lead author of the concerned IPCC Chapter, specifically stating what were the errors and asking for an explanation. It'll be interesting to see if he receives one.
Gabriele Hegerl sits 3 offices away from Geoffrey Boulton of Muir Russell enquiry panel and UEA fame. So one could guess what will be the speed and content of this reply, if it comes.
This is exactly how peer review should happen, something that needs to be taught to the IPCC and pro-AGW climate scientists, their sidekick climate journals and PNAS who seem to have no ethics or standards when it comes to peer review of climate science papers.
Rvv, you should consider traveling to Germany to help them out with their standards for the award of the Ph.D. They seem to be having some trouble with that so that your expertise should be invaluable.
I was not aware that some scientists seem to have no ethics or standards. Is that 'seem to have no ethics or standards' at all, or just 'seem to have no ethics or standards' that come up to your ethics or standards?
Do a lot of peer-reviewed science yourself, do you? If so, have you ever studied those curious people who write run-on sentences going on and on about some particular bees they have buzzing in their bonnets never seeming to mind that this makes their stuff almost unreadable for those not similarly unbalanced; if so then I think we should be told and that right away because I find that sort of thing fascinating!
On the other hand, if you are just some common or garden-variety intertube scribe who enjoys loosing off the odd jeremiad then you may ignore this request as being irrelevant and simply carry on as usual, keeping me on what must be a rather long 'ignore' list.
jcb, what are 'serious flaws' to one person are just... flaws to another. Certainly much of the stuff posted here shows flaws itself despite being taken as gospel by many. Personally I am skeptical of most of what I read but I do tend to go with what seems to make sense to me, overlooking its flaws. On the other hand, when I look at what seems to make sense to others (the stuff coming from Dr M and Lord M really stands out) and find it nonsense, then that confirms me in what may be my prejudices. It may come down to choosing whom to believe unless one is a trained scientist.
What you mean by 'the large amount of snow that was predicted to stop,' is a bit unclear. One post here, not so long ago, tried to conflate Al Gore's posting a snippet about the diminishing accumulation of snow and ice with a newspaper article about one very heavy snowfall. The mistaken idea was that the one contradicts the other, when of course these are two different things. Too, you often get a mish-mash of AGW, GW, CC and a picture of Uncle Tom Cobbley and his dog stood next to a tree on the Maldives.
"Mount Kilimanjaro is losing its cap of snow and the 'warmistas' said that was down to AGW, yah, boo, sucks!" Err, no, not exactly; the snow cap is going, when that is down to a change in climate caused by the hand of man, not AGW but close to that, a sort of related issue if you want to try and stretch your mind that far.
I think this thread is so noisy that most of the data is being lost. Now, how is that for a bit of pseudo-science? You guys want to play at science while shouting about the lack of ethics and standards that some real scientists have. That is a bit rich, given that you, well, almost all of you, haven't bothered to study much deeper in any of the sciences than just doing this childish cut-and-paste intertube ping-pong that seems to mean so much to you. If you had then I think you would feel some obligation to be a bit more collegial.
Why am I not suprised by this I wonder? From a blog by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr
Record highs? – NOAA staffers are beginning to doubt the accuracy of the measurement system
While Joe Romm squawks about record highs being “obscenely hot” over at Think-Climate Progress, there’s a quiet bit of questioning going on within NOAA about the veracity of the surface temperature measurements, particularly related to ASOS stations at airports, which have made up a significant number of recent record high temperatures in the USA in June.
Below is an extraordinary interchange between Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., and Greg Carbin, of the NOAA Storm Prediction Center.
A good starting point is the first and second law of thermodynamics Chuks. The next one is the unpredicable atmospheric activity of sulfates and greenhouse gases. The third thing to consider is the lack of solid empircal data for enough land and water masses.
I wish more of you would add me to that 'ignore list.' This is getting a bit tedious, almost like cyber-stalking it is, my steps being dogged by the special bus.
Con-pilot has gone off-message, discussing the extreme weather in Oklahoma City. So Watt's up with that, hmm?
If you look around you can find sites which tell us how many of the last ten years have made the 'ten hottest' list. Of course that is because those stupid climate scientists put their thermometers in hot places, right?
Con, what the 'warmistas' posit is exactly what you are writing about, temperature extremes. Are you sure someone didn't slip you some of Al Gore's Kool-Aid?
Well, now that you ask, I really don't know if I have consumed any of Al Gore's Kool-Aid or not. See there was that one night in Hangzhou, China that I don't remember a lot about, could have happened then.
If the climate becomes warmer, it become warmer, if the climate becomes cooler, it becomes cooler. We puny inhabitants don't really have much say about it. The climate has been changing since it came into being, is still changing and will continue to change after we, mankind, have long been eliminated. Or moved on as the case may be.
My point is that when new high records are set, the AGW proponents all jump up and point out that this proves AGW. However, when in the same year new cold records are set, the AGW proponents dismiss this as 'just weather'.
I think not, they are interrelated. One cannot have their cake and eat it to, when the obvious fact is, what they have is a pie.
A few other topics have suffered from that.... I just hope the mods don't "split it up", as they have done with certain other topics. It's easier to search back through a single topic for the real 'howlers' than through three or four.
Chuks (and any other AGW proponents) let us begin here. Are you familiar with Henry's Law? This is a good beginning to see why the equilibration calculations based upon warming North Atlantic is severely flawed, based upon a bad theoretical framework. Happy reading