Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[swabian]

Someone told me I misinterpreted you, Swabian. I'm sorry if that is the case.

Ugh, yeah you tried to taunt the wrong guy there. Jesus Christ, man.

[Genava]

@Efail

On topic question: what is your view on the IPCC reports and findings?

By the way, it is an interesting topic. I wonder what experience people here had with the IPCC reports. A lot of people have an opinion on those reports without any clues about how the IPCC works and without any reading of those reports.

Comprehensive assessment reports are always divided in 4 parts with three working groups. The first group works on the scientific synthesis. The second on the consequences of climate change. The third on the possible solutions and the different scenarios. Contrary to the common believes, the working groups are not centralized authorities controlling the synthesis to serve a political agenda. The experts authors doing the synthesis are actually still working in their respective institutions and are not paid by the IPCC for this. There is an agreement with the universities and other scientific institutions, they are accepting that some of their experts are taking time to review and write the synthesis on their work time.

A list of the authors and review editors can be found here for the AR5 report: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_...rs_updated.pdf
Note: It does not include the contributing authors and the expert reviewers.

In the end, the Assessment Reports always look like this:

AR4 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
AR4 Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
AR4 Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change
AR4 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report


AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report


Each reports are very long and not suited to be read entirely in an one-shot process. However, they are splitted in different chapters, far more accessible. For example, the AR4 report The Physical Science Basis is splitted between these chapters:

1. Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
2. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
3. Observations: Atmospheric Surface and Climate Change
4. Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
5. Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
6. Palaeoclimate
7. Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
8. Climate Models and their Evaluation
9. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
10. Global Climate Projections
11. Regional Climate Projections

To those assessment reports, there are special reports on very specific topics:
2019. The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
2019. Climate Change and Land
2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C
2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
2011. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
2005. Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System
2005. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

[B. W.]

By the way, it is an interesting topic. I wonder what experience people here had with the IPCC reports. A lot of people have an opinion on those reports without any clues about how the IPCC works and without any reading of those reports.

Comprehensive assessment reports are always divided in 4 parts with three working groups. The first group works on the scientific synthesis. The second on the consequences of climate change. The third on the possible solutions and the different scenarios. Contrary to the common believes, the working groups are not centralized authorities controlling the synthesis to serve a political agenda. The experts authors doing the synthesis are actually still working in their respective institutions and are not paid by the IPCC for this. There is an agreement with the universities and other scientific institutions, they are accepting that some of their experts are taking time to review and write the synthesis on their work time.

A list of the authors and review editors can be found here for the AR5 report: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_...rs_updated.pdf
Note: It does not include the contributing authors and the expert reviewers.

In the end, the Assessment Reports always look like this:

AR4 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
AR4 Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
AR4 Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change
AR4 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report


AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report


Each reports are very long and not suited to be read entirely in an one-shot process. However, they are splitted in different chapters, far more accessible. For example, the AR4 report The Physical Science Basis is splitted between these chapters:

1. Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
2. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
3. Observations: Atmospheric Surface and Climate Change
4. Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
5. Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
6. Palaeoclimate
7. Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
8. Climate Models and their Evaluation
9. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
10. Global Climate Projections
11. Regional Climate Projections

To those assessment reports, there are special reports on very specific topics:
2019. The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
2019. Climate Change and Land
2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C
2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
2011. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
2005. Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System
2005. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

There you go peddling BS that the universities don't receive some form of monetary gain for supporting the IPCC.

Once again, define "climate denier".

[B. W.]

More evidence of data tampering by "climate scientists":

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...e_warming.html

[B. W.]

Lowest October temperature ever recorded in the lower 48; -35 degrees in Utah:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...09A?li=BBnbfcL

Looks like its going to be a cold, cold winter.

[Ludicus]

Ugh, yeah you tried to taunt the wrong guy there...

Indeed. I apologize once again. My bad on that -I definitely misread the beginning of the post,and I stopped there,"Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not only the main cause of global warming". I haven't even read the whole post...sorry, it's my entire fault.
------
Published yesterday 05 November 2019 in the journal BioScience
11,258 scientists from 153 countries warning of a Climate Emergency (list in supplemental file S1)

Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.

The Ideology Behind Donald Trump's Paris Withdrawal - The Atlantic

For the president, carbonism is visceral.
Consider Pompeo’s statement yesterday on American withdrawal. It is elegant carbonism, citing “the reality of the global energy mix” instead of that other reality (the warming one)

One day, perhaps not long from now, a few global governments will decide that the age of carbon is over. They will back massive investments into remaking the global energy economy, redirecting the turbulent flows of international finance. If the United States is not among those governments, then American banks—whose wealth is deeply bound to fossil fuels—will suffer a sudden revaluation. And the mighty dollar, that last guarantor of American power, will go up in carbonism’s flame.
China, the world's biggest polluter, and France...

reaffirm support of Paris climate agreement, call it "irreversible"

French President Emmanuel Macron and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday issued a joint statement reaffirming their strong support for the “irreversible” Paris Agreement on climate change, from which the U.S. announced its exit this week.

China is positioned to lead on climate change as the US rolls back its ...

..If they succeed, U.S. politicians will no longer have “But what about China?” as an excuse for opposing climate policies at home

[B. W.]

The reality of Climategate:

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...en-years-later

[Genava]

The reality of Climategate:

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...en-years-later

Again it's simply reasoning from the claims of contrarians without verifying and questioning the sources. The so called sentences extracted from the emails when put in their whole context do not suggest fraud or manipulation. This is why I have issue with those so called truth seekers that do not hesitate to lie and manipulate people with deceptive and dishonest methods.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/deb...climate-emails

[B. W.]

Again it's simply reasoning from the claims of contrarians without verifying and questioning the sources. The so called sentences extracted from the emails when put in their whole context do not suggest fraud or manipulation. This is why I have issue with those so called truth seekers that do not hesitate to lie and manipulate people with deceptive and dishonest methods.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/deb...climate-emails

The list of "sources" who either benefit monetarily or politically from the climate warming hoax are saying: "We investigated ourselves and found that we didn't do anything wrong."

The so-called climate consensus of 11,000 "climate scientists" actually contains only 240 actual climate scientists. As the article states there are over 10,000 meteorological scientists in the US alone that didn't sign it:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...cientists.html

[Genava]

You are interpreting everything from a lazy and political point of view. Everything is simply a different point of view and you pick the one from your political spectrum as the truth. This is wrong on several levels.

The problem with your sources is their honesty. They are using sentences out of their context to make you believe it is talking about something else than what they really were. If your sources were talking exactly about what the scientists were doing in the talk, I would have no issue with their opinion. But this is not the case! They deliberately choose to cheery pick words or sentences. For example the so-called trick is about dendrological data, a tree problem known for a long time. The trick in question is to remove an issue and enhance the methodology from their point of view and the point of view of dozen of other scientists (even biologists and archeologists). But your sources choose to present it like a manipulation by putting the sentences out of their context. Making you thought it is about climate data directly and with malicious purpose. It is not.

This is why I have issue with people crusading against others about ethical issues and doing exactly the worst of what they accuse the others.

Edit:

The so-called climate consensus of 11,000 "climate scientists" actually contains only 240 actual climate scientists. As the article states there are over 10,000 meteorological scientists in the US alone that didn't sign it:

Again your double standard and a strawman argument. The origin of the news is a publication that doesn't imply this is 11'000 "climate scientists" but only scientists. The publication is not about the scientific agreement on the current climate change and its cause but about the risk and the need to action. This is why other scientists opinion (like biologists seeing the natural world changing and biodiversity being threatened) is important on this matter. See the publication:

World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/...biz088/5610806

And mainstream medias are not suggesting they are climate scientists:

More than 11,000 scientists from around the world declare a ‘climate emergency’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/scien...ate-emergency/

Climate change: ‘Clear and unequivocal’ emergency, say scientists
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50302392

Scientists declare climate emergency, establish global indicators for effective action
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1105104422.htm

What caused 11,000 scientists to declare a climate emergency? (worth reading)
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...ate-emergency/

And again, this is an accusation from conservatives... while they are doing exactly the same!

HaHa! What consensus would that be? You clearly missed the link I posted which showed 500 climate scientists sent a letter to the UN's IPCC protesting their conclusion on global warming.

500 climate scientists?!? Lies, dishonesty, unintelligence and laziness again and again... From the list released there is less than 15 climate scientists, less than 30 that have any experience in atmospheric science, less than 100 that have any experience in Earth sciences. Most of them are engineers in electricity, architecture, nuclear industry, oil industry, in chemistry or business analysts, philosophical, CEO etc.

https://mythesmanciesetmathematiques...versienwa4.pdf
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/

https://mythesmanciesetmathematiques...versienwa4.pdf

From your links^

That's a pretty impressive list, despite what you say. The big difference is they're not on the IPCC gravy train.

Do you at least admit you were wrong by saying 500 climate scientists? Most of the conservatives and weirdo-conspiracy blogs said "500 climate scientists" so you blindly repeated the headline without any proper thinking. Sheeply following the herd.

If only you were applying even 1% of skepticism against your own sources...

So from my point of view, you have a very hypocritical position.

[B. W.]

You are interpreting everything from a lazy and political point of view. Everything is simply a different point of view and you pick the one from your political spectrum as the truth. This is wrong on several levels.

The problem with your sources is their honesty. They are using sentences out of their context to make you believe it is talking about something else than what they really were. If your sources were talking exactly about what the scientists were doing in the talk, I would have no issue with their opinion. But this is not the case! They deliberately choose to cheery pick words or sentences. For example the so-called trick is about dendrological data, a tree problem known for a long time. The trick in question is to remove an issue and enhance the methodology from their point of view and the point of view of dozen of other scientists (even biologists and archeologists). But your sources choose to present it like a manipulation by putting the sentences out of their context. Making you thought it is about climate data directly and with malicious purpose. It is not.

This is why I have issue with people crusading against others about ethical issues and doing exactly the worst of what they accuse the others.

Edit:



Again your double standard and a strawman argument. The origin of the news is a publication that doesn't imply this is 11'000 "climate scientists" but only scientists. The publication is not about the scientific agreement on the current climate change and its cause but about the risk and the need to action. This is why other scientists opinion (like biologists seeing the natural world changing and biodiversity being threatened) is important on this matter. See the publication:

World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/...biz088/5610806

And mainstream medias are not suggesting they are climate scientists:

More than 11,000 scientists from around the world declare a ‘climate emergency’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/scien...ate-emergency/

Climate change: ‘Clear and unequivocal’ emergency, say scientists
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50302392

Scientists declare climate emergency, establish global indicators for effective action
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1105104422.htm

What caused 11,000 scientists to declare a climate emergency? (worth reading)
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...ate-emergency/

And again, this is an accusation from conservatives... while they are doing exactly the same!









So from my point of view, you have a very hypocritical position.

I'm going to cut right to the chase here. AGW proponents deleted all the tree ring data from 1960 and replaced it with a handful of cherry picked trees from a small parcel of land constituting only a few acres to represent global tree growth and used that data to make their computer models come out the way they wanted them too.

The latest weather prediction for this coming week is as follows; 240 low temperature records for November are expected to be broken in the coming arctic blast. No matter what you say, this is in complete contradiction to what AGW proponents have been saying was going to happen.

[Genava]

I'm going to cut right to the chase here. AGW proponents deleted all the tree ring data from 1960 and replaced it with a handful of cherry picked trees from a small parcel of land constituting only a few acres to represent global tree growth and used that data to make their computer models come out the way they wanted them too.

Again this is absolutely not true! This is concerning only one study in one region. They deleted only tree ring data from Yamal in Siberia after 1960 because there is a known issue there, where some tree rings doesn't seem to catch the rising air temperature and rising CO2 effect. There have been long talk and analysis on the issue:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Why do you fall for simple manipulations like this?

The latest weather prediction for this coming week is as follows; 240 low temperature records for November are expected to be broken in the coming arctic blast. No matter what you say, this is in complete contradiction to what AGW proponents have been saying was going to happen.

A strawman argument. Records low temperature happen all the time, nobody said it contradicts global warming by itself. Records low are less frequent than records high.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Stario]

On topic question: what is your view on the IPCC reports and findings?

The report is based on manipulated data so take with a pinch of salt.

[B. W.]

Again this is absolutely not true! This is concerning only one study in one region. They deleted only tree ring data from Yamal in Siberia after 1960 because there is a known issue there, where some tree rings doesn't seem to catch the rising air temperature and rising CO2 effect. There have been long talk and analysis on the issue:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Why do you fall for simple manipulations like this?



A strawman argument. Records low temperature happen all the time, nobody said it contradicts global warming by itself. Records low are less frequent than records high.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That 2013 report by AGW proponents is a classic example of spin. The manipulation of tree ring data to conform with the climate model is clearly attested to in the e-mail revaluations. They were clearly trying to hide what they had done. Subsequent evaluations have shown that the computer models would not work unless the data was modified. The fact that "climate scientists" actively defended the indefensible is disgraceful.

Meanwhile this week's forecast has been revised. Meteorologists now believe that nearly 290 November cold weather records will be broken this week:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...o-much-of-u-s/

[Europa Revolta Identita]

That 2013 report by AGW proponents is a classic example of spin. The manipulation of tree ring data to conform with the climate model is clearly attested to in the e-mail revaluations. They were clearly trying to hide what they had done. Subsequent evaluations have shown that the computer models would not work unless the data was modified. The fact that "climate scientists" actively defended the indefensible is disgraceful.

Meanwhile this week's forecast has been revised. Meteorologists now believe that nearly 290 November cold weather records will be broken this week:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...o-much-of-u-s/

You're applying a circular logic here. You accuse someone and when he defend himself it becomes a kind of global plot to cover it. Never you are responding to the arguments.

[irontaino]

"All data that contradicts my beliefs is manipulated by the globalist so they can do...something!"

[B. W.]

You're applying a circular logic here. You accuse someone and when he defend himself it becomes a kind of global plot to cover it. Never you are responding to the arguments.

Circular logic? You clearly can't recognize circular logic. You, and the others, accept the premise that data manipulation is acceptable because you are already convinced the conclusion it allows you to arrive at is valid. That is circular logic.

My premise hasn't changed. I give credit to any scientific investigation as long as it is done scientifically. Manipulation of data to achieve a desired result is not science.

[Genava]

Circular logic? You clearly can't recognize circular logic. You, and the others, accept the premise that data manipulation is acceptable because you are already convinced the conclusion it allows you to arrive at is valid. That is circular logic.

My premise hasn't changed. I give credit to any scientific investigation as long as it is done scientifically. Manipulation of data to achieve a desired result is not science.

The problem with your logic is that any scientific investigation is rejected by yourself from a self sustaining reasoning where anyone supporting human induced climate change is corrupted.

I think your twisted logic is highlighted by your overreaction about the Berkeley Earth initiative from Muller. He was supported by Anthony Watts, was working with Judith Curry (a contrarian) and was receiving funds from the Koch network. But you rejected his finding about global temperature with the argument that the Koch brothers are globalists...

How is it possible to believe that the Koch have interest in supporting the consensus on climate change? The Koch funded the Heartland and the Cato Institutes, they are funding most of the contrarians on the matter. You have a twisted logic that is circular: if someone supports the consensus, he is a corrupted globalist. You are using anything to discard someone else view going in opposite direction than yours. You even use hypocritical arguments (see above).

[B. W.]

The problem with your logic is that any scientific investigation is rejected by yourself from a self sustaining reasoning where anyone supporting human induced climate change is corrupted.

I think your twisted logic is highlighted by your overreaction about the Berkeley Earth initiative from Muller. He was supported by Anthony Watts, was working with Judith Curry (a contrarian) and was receiving funds from the Koch network. But you rejected his finding about global temperature with the argument that the Koch brothers are globalists...

How is it possible to believe that the Koch have interest in supporting the consensus on climate change? The Koch funded the Heartland and the Cato Institutes, they are funding most of the contrarians on the matter. You have a twisted logic that is circular: if someone supports the consensus, he is a corrupted globalist. You are using anything to discard someone else view going in opposite direction than yours. You even use hypocritical arguments (see above).

There is no problem with my logic. You ARE engaging in circular logic even with the above "reasoning". The Koch bro(s). are globalists. They do whatever is necessary to sustain their global business operations. That is a fact. It is no different than Trump making huge contributions to Democrats because he is a businessman in a city ran by democrats. They can spread their money any way they see fit.

The simple fact is that globalists benefit by the AGW proponents goal of internationalizing the energy supply because of their overseas investments. Simply pointing out the obvious does not make me a contrarian.

That fact remains that data was manipulated to make the climate models work toward a certain result and it is justified by people like yourself because you believe religiously in man made climate change. That is circular logic.

I, on the other hand, do not deny that human activities have some effect on climate, especially regionally, and most especially on local pollution levels. I also, logically, believe until otherwise proven, that the sun and the earth's orbital dynamics, as well as other cosmic factors are the chief drivers of Earth's climate system.

[Ludicus]

The problem is above all political. In the US, politicians think the budget deficit is not a problem, but unfortunately they also think climate change is not a problem. If we can convince American politicians to worry more about climate change and European politicians worry less about deficits, we are saved.