[Luis Dias]

Perhaps I'm precociously mentally ejaculating here, but it could become something big, if replicated / confirmed.

The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 (AR4) contained various errors, including the well publicised overestimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers would melt. However, the IPCC’s defenders point out that such errors were inadvertent and inconsequential: they did not undermine the scientific basis of AR4. Here I demonstrate an error in the core scientific report (WGI) that came about through the IPCC’s alteration of a peer-reviewed result.  This error is highly consequential, since it involves the only instrumental evidence that is climate-model independent  cited by the IPCC as to the probability distribution of climate sensitivity, and it substantially increases the apparent risk of high warming from increases in CO2 concentration.

(...)

 The IPCC curve is skewed substantially to higher climate sensitivities and has a much fatter tail than the original results curve.  At the top of the ‘extremely likely’ range, it gives a 2.5% probability of the sensitivity exceeding 8.6°C, whereas the corresponding figure given in the original study is only 4.1°C. The top of the ‘likely’ range is doubled, from 2.3°C to 4.7°C, and the central (median) estimate is increased from 1.6°C to 2.3°C.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

It's very technical, but it seems that Nicholas Lewis (someone who has published peer-reviewed criticisms of other climate problems with great acclaim), has found out a glitch in the IPCC document, which inadvertively pushed upwards the observed climate sensitivity, affecting all of the GCMs (the models) and thus places many questions to its own conclusions.

As I said before, I could be overreaching here. But we could be witnessing here another IPCC blunder of major proportions, and I wanted to share this thought in advance when it's still in a certain obscurity.

[Bobboau]

ok, so if you could, would you please boil this down to a scalar value of how wrong they were for those of us lacking the energy or understanding to decipher a technical journal?

[IceFire]

Does this mean I can leave my car idling for twice as long as I could before?

I feel like there is often a lot of arguing about which chair we should be seated in on the Hindenburg when the zeppelin is already on fire.

[Flipside]

I think that Climate Change got silly when it changed from a Science to an Industry. I think it is certainly something to be concerned about, but it's been over-politicised to an almost hysterical level, we laugh at the Rapturers and the Nibiru supporters, and yet allow ourselves to be pulled into the same trap at times. Admittedly, Climate Change is something a bit different to the Nibiru crap, there's testable evidence for the former, but the interpretation of those tests count for a lot.

Personally, however, I think that trying to stop Climate Change is like pissing into the Ocean, we've evidence that any Ecological balance on Earth is only maintained for a limited time before shifting, be it Ice Ages, Dry Spells or even atmospheric composition, it all all shifts with time, the question of human influence is more about 'how much' than anything else and in the long term is a moot point.

[watsisname]

I'm just waiting for the Northwest and Northeast passages to both melt open.





Oh wait...

[NGTM-1R]

ok, so if you could, would you please boil this down to a scalar value of how wrong they were for those of us lacking the energy or understanding to decipher a technical journal?

Not very, I'm guessing. I can already get in a boat and sail it from Murmansk to Vladivostok without going around Africa or South America. I can even choose which way I want to turn to get there.

[Nuke]

I think that Climate Change got silly when it changed from a Science to an Industry. I think it is certainly something to be concerned about, but it's been over-politicised to an almost hysterical level, we laugh at the Rapturers and the Nibiru supporters, and yet allow ourselves to be pulled into the same trap at times. Admittedly, Climate Change is something a bit different to the Nibiru crap, there's testable evidence for the former, but the interpretation of those tests count for a lot.

Personally, however, I think that trying to stop Climate Change is like pissing into the Ocean, we've evidence that any Ecological balance on Earth is only maintained for a limited time before shifting, be it Ice Ages, Dry Spells or even atmospheric composition, it all all shifts with time, the question of human influence is more about 'how much' than anything else and in the long term is a moot point.

i have always assumed we would run out of oil (or rather loose the ability to drill it cheaply) before we could saturate our atmosphere with c02 to the point where we would be the next venus. i really wouldn't worry until you effectively have to shovel coal into the engine of your car to get anywhere.

what i really dont like about the whole thing is that the earths climate is being referred to as a static entity and that when it changes its all our fault. it never was a static entity to begin with, solar cycles, ice age cycles, magnetic reversal cycles, noncyclical events like the occasional asteroid strike, volcanic activity, changes in heat conveying ocean currents, etc. science still haven't given us a projection of when the world would be completely uninhabitable. so far all iv'e heard is a prediction of when polar bears will be extinct. frankly any species that cant adapt should go extinct because thats how evolution ****ing works. when the earth becomes close uninhabitable for humans we will have to choose between reducing energy consumption per capita, or reducing the population (i know which one i would pick), and it is not the time for that.

all the things people do to save the environment are laughable, focusing more on guilt reduction than on actual carbon footprint reduction. hippies who drive hybrid cars and use cf bulbs but also buy "organic" foods which deplete farmland at a higher rate than conventional or gm crops, and bash nuclear in favor of less efficient solar and wind systems. even when buying into "green" products, its still just pissing in the wind. nobody in the first world wants to reduce their quality of life to 3rd world (is there a 2nd world?) standards, and nobody wants to reduce human populations. we would do more to save the planet by starting world war 3 and lobbing nukes at eachother than any of the measures tried thus far, or anything were likely to discover in the next hundred or so years.

you all know what to do, go out and nuke something so i can start living all road warrior like.

[Unknown Target]

I think that Climate Change got silly when it changed from a Science to an Industry. I think it is certainly something to be concerned about, but it's been over-politicised to an almost hysterical level, we laugh at the Rapturers and the Nibiru supporters, and yet allow ourselves to be pulled into the same trap at times. Admittedly, Climate Change is something a bit different to the Nibiru crap, there's testable evidence for the former, but the interpretation of those tests count for a lot.

Personally, however, I think that trying to stop Climate Change is like pissing into the Ocean, we've evidence that any Ecological balance on Earth is only maintained for a limited time before shifting, be it Ice Ages, Dry Spells or even atmospheric composition, it all all shifts with time, the question of human influence is more about 'how much' than anything else and in the long term is a moot point.

Both of these points.

I have to pose the question; does it honestly even matter anymore? Shouldn't we be more focused on dealing with a changing world, rather than bickering about who's causing it or whether or not it's really happening?

[Quanto]

I keep hearing that whatever "warming" phase we're in for won't last long at all anyways, the moment enough of the north pole melts off, the Gulf Stream will get all ****ed and dissipate, stopping all that nice warm tropical water from reaching Europe, and causing a massive cool-down as quick as the warm-up.

When all is said and done, I'm a cold-weather lover myself, so all I can say is; BRING ON DAT ICE AGE **** YEAR!

[Colonol Dekker]

I've seen the day after tomorrow. As long as i'm not in a helicopter with the royal family and move to mexico. I'll be fine...

[JCDNWarrior]

ClimateGate is enough proof that the research and methods used to research climate change that they're not very trustworthy. Would be interesting if climate change would be researched by independant people, would be really interesting to see how Earth works. Lots less fear mongering then too.

[lostllama]

I'm fairly sure that someone here posted about an article about a team of researchers that are planning to independently review all available climate data that's been recorded so far. I can't remember any names or the article that the website was on, though. I think it's being done partly in response to the Climategate incident.

EDIT: Here it is, The Berkeley Earth project: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war

IceFire posted about it originally (here: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=74917.msg1481304)

The project's website: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/

[Nemesis6]

ClimateGate is enough proof that the research and methods used to research climate change that they're not very trustworthy. Would be interesting if climate change would be researched by independant people, would be really interesting to see how Earth works. Lots less fear mongering then too.

If you had researched this a little more, you'd find that you've been hoodwinked not by the scientists, but by conspiracy theorists. The scientists have been long cleared of wrongdoing, but that doesn't stop the forces of pseudo-science to keep these memes going among people who catch the initial wave of news, and then don't follow up on it. It's the same way that the anti-vaccination movement survives -- A lot of people jumped on the "OMG MMR VACCINE EQUALS AUTISM" bandwagon, and either never bothered to follow up on it as the situation developed, or further built upon this shaky foundation some "big pharma" conspiracy crap that would shield their bat**** insane ideas from scrutiny. After all, the best way of not listening to scientific evidence is to convince yourself that science is a conspiracy.

Anyway, I have a video you should watch. One that covers this complete nontroversy. Well, it's a nontroversy to people who don't follow either Alex Jones, Ron Paul, the GOP in general or whatever conspiracy nut is in fashion these days... but I digress:
Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap

Remember the annotated links -- The Parts 1 and 2 I mean.

[Luis Dias]

The BEST Team is still producing its results, very late in their schedule, etc., but preliminary results appear to confirm other existing temperature sets.

So I'm betting there's nothing really new under the sun in that direction.

 

If you had researched this a little more, you'd find that you've been hoodwinked not by the scientists, but by conspiracy theorists. The scientists have been long cleared of wrongdoing

This is, of course, all poppycock for those in the know (not those brainwashed by climateprogress or any other propaganda sites), since it's long been shown that most of those "clearances" were made by non-investigatorial reports, and only one got so far as to ask questions to the scientists themselves, but without even questioning the very quotations that made headlines (Muir Russell)... those were all whitewashes, pretty pathetic, but enough for the spreading of news that these scientists are "cleared" of "wrongdoing"...

The actual quotes by themselves are pretty jarring and damning, and when contextualized (something that wasn't done in any of those "clearances" btw), they look even worse. Of course, if your point was that the sum of these quotations do not falsify the general theory of climate change, then I'm pretty much on your side (nor am I convinced that anthropogenic CC "doesn't exist"). But I'd love to see those people, if not burned at the stakes, at least marginalized from further discussions about climate. They've done enough wrongdoing as far as I know.

[Spicious]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2075

[Bobboau]

ClimateGate

proved nothing except that some of the researchers involved had grumpy attitudes some of the time. It strengthened the global warming argument, but even more it weakened the opposition, because the opposition acted like it proved something when it didn't.
Good job there BTW.

[Luis Dias]

It "Strengthened"? Now that's probably the most amazing example of a non-sequitor right there.

And it did something more than show "grumpy" attitudes by some researchers. But I'm not going to spend precious time teaching you about that stuff. The propaganda is too strong on that one.

[NGTM-1R]

One might then assume you don't have an argument, or you don't understand it.

[Luis Dias]

Assume anything you want. To say that finding out that some people had "grumpy attitudes" strengthens a certain scientific theory is just insane thinking, one which I won't waste my time into explaining why it's ridiculous. But please be my guest.

[watsisname]

To say that finding out that some people had "grumpy attitudes" strengthens a certain scientific theory is just insane thinking, one which I won't waste my time into explaining why it's ridiculous.

If you read Bobboau's post more carefully, you might find that is not at all what he was saying.