You must love the IPCC reports then..full of that kind of BS.
Here's one of my favorites from IPCC report AR5 (final draft). When estimating the impact of solar changes on earth climate, this is their executive summary.
They use solar cycle minimums to estimate the entire level of solar change during recent solar cycles. Now does that make any sense? That's like putting a kiddy coaster next to Top Thrill Dragster and saying they're just slightly different because the bottoms are about the same when you line them up. The actual satellite data they are using differs by more than the observed change in earth temperature too BTW, how's that for reliability.
But you got to give it to them. They don't really outright "lie" because throughout these documents, they always use "our best estimate"...choice of estimation very biased.
You will love the discussion on the 15-year hiatus in temperature changes.
Admit the 15 year hiatus. That's a start because they have no choice and it's counter all their fancy models.
Admit there are large internal climate variations...enough to eliminate the entire contribution of 15 years of GHGs. Think about that.
Love these ones. We don't in fact know if oceans continued heat uptake by actual measurement, but it's very likely because...well it just is.
Combined their models simulated a lot of warming (see previous IPCC report AR4) but some of their models "tend" to overestimate warming due to GHGs? I'm just a moron reading the actual report like probably no one else on this board, but are they not saying they may not be able to accurately model 15 years of change of GHGs?
But the winner in this chapter so far is the revelation that.....up to now they had never included the carbon cycle in their modeling.
Earlier they are less....wishy washy about it not being included so it's not "more widespread", it just wasn't done much. Now...again I'm just a moron, but when modeling the effects of global CO2, shouldn't the carbon cycle regulating it be included? That's sort of science 101 (about the same as statistical significance). This paragraph nearly made me fall out of my chair.
So....they don't really understand the carbon cycle? That was stunning. Even I assumed they had a better fix on the CO2 dynamics than that. They are just assuming things from the atmospheric observations...assuming. That's not science.
All of this is directly from the IPCC reports. It's full of....we don't really know but our best estimates are that it's a major problem that'll change global temperatures a fraction of a degree. (basically 0.2%K). Fair enough but that's what the state of the science is. It's a lot of interesting research, but THEY ADMIT full of holes.
Like Linus Pauling years ago at Wake, I think most of the change is solar with a secondary driver making up 10-15% (which was his statement, not mine). However, that driver could be anything at this point, we just don't know. Too much politics and activism interfering to tell.
The entire report is riddled with assumptions and conclusions drawn out of thin air. It's pathetic to see such a rag tag collection of initial "researchers" who will apparently receive the perpetual rubber stamp...
You talk about a bunch no. Qualified mother for ya's .An "eye, ear, nose and throat" specialist -- Wtfk
Yes sir. The tax man cometh.
Last edited: