Peer-reviewed Research Contradicts the IPCC

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Jack Hays, Aug 18, 2021.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It seems the IPCC may have arrived at their conclusions in part by ignoring data that didn't fit their narrative. That's another indication that AR6 is a political, not scientific document.

    Two Dozen Top Scientists: IPCC “Premature” Blaming CO2 Emissions…Warming Mostly From Natural Cycles
    By P Gosselin on 18. August 2021

    Share this...
    How much is the Sun’s influence? An ongoing debate
    Center for Environmental Research & Earth Sciences

    [​IMG]
    Most of the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from the Sun. This new study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considered a small subset of the published TSI datasets when they assessed the role of the Sun in climate change and that this subset only included “low solar variability” datasets. As a result, the IPCC was premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent climate change.
    A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance.

    The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC. . . .
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  2. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    []
    When I read this I made a bet with myself that many of those name Might be on the “Sold my soul to big oil” list and there certainly are some pretty notorious names there
    https://notrickszone.com/2021/08/18...emissions-warming-mostly-from-natural-cycles/

    Let us start with the most notorious-Willie Soon

    https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...mate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.amp.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2021
    Cosmo, Derideo_Te and Melb_muser like this.
  3. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I copied part of the Abstract, :

    Meanwhile, five largely-independent methods for estimating Northern Hemisphere temperature trends were evaluated using: 1) only rural weather stations; 2) all available stations whether urban or rural (the standard approach); 3) only sea surface temperatures; 4) tree-ring widths as temperature proxies; 5) glacier length records as temperature proxies. The standard estimates which use urban as well as rural stations were somewhat anomalous as they implied a much greater warming in recent decades than the other estimates, suggesting that urbanization bias might still be a problem in current global temperature datasets – despite the conclusions of some earlier studies.

    For each of the five estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the contribution from direct solar forcing for all sixteen estimates of TSI was evaluated using simple linear least-squares fitting. The role of human activity on recent warming was then calculated by fitting the residuals to the UN IPCC's recommended "anthropogenic forcings" time series. For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural)




    So, no role for the sun in recent decades was a possibility according to this analysis as was the conclusion that most of the global warming is natural. I don't have access to the full report. The "No Tricks Zone" only showed the results from 1 set of data - only rural weather stations - the one that makes their case for natural climate change the strongest. The abstract does mention that there are conclusions from studies that conclude that urbanization bias is not a problem.

    They used a statistical technique to derive human contributions instead of using greenhouse gas climate forcings calculated form radiation transfer code and
    it isn't clear what they used to represent climate feedbacks or climate sensitivity. It seems that the role of human changes to GHG's was statistically attenuated
    out of consideration.

    Why is the high variability solar output data set justified instead of using the total solar irradiance data used by the IPCC?
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2021
    Cosmo and Melb_muser like this.
  4. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What are the results from N. Hemisphere temperature trends using methods 2 and 3?
     
  5. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Is it true that the IPCC AR6 is a political document and not scientific? Is it true that they ignore data that doesn't fit their narrative? Maybe they aren't
    persuaded by all of the peer-reviewed scientific papers because some of them lack scientific rigor and have flawed analysis. The IPCC AR6
    seems to agree with the recent scientific studies that I am familiar with.

    IPCC climate report: Profound changes are underway in Earth's oceans and ice – a lead author explains what the warnings mean (msn.com)

    We asked climate scientist Robert Kopp, a lead author of the chapter on Earth’s oceans, ice and sea level rise, about the profound changes underway.

    Humans are unequivocally warming the planet, and that’s triggering rapid changes in the atmosphere, oceans and polar regions, and increasing extreme weather around the world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns in a new report.

    The report involved 234 scientists, and then 195 governments had to agree on the summary for policymakers. Does that broad range of views affect the outcome?
    When you’re writing a report like this, a key goal for the scientists is to accurately capture points of both scientific agreement and scientific disagreement.

    For example, with respect to ice sheet changes, there are certain processes on which there is broad agreement and other processes where the science is still emerging and there are strong, discordant views. Yet knowing about these processes may be crucially important for decision-makers trying to manage risk.

    That’s why, for example, we talk not only about most likely outcomes, but also about outcomes where the likelihood is low or as-yet unknown, but the potential impacts are large.

    The IPCC uses a transparent process to produce its report – the authors have had to respond to over 50,000 review comments over the three years we’ve spent writing it. The governments also weigh in, having to approve every line of a concise Summary for Policy Makers that accurately reflects the underlying assessment – oftentimes making it clearer in the process.

    I’m very pleased that, as with past reports, every participating government has signed off on a summary that accurately reports the current state of climate science.




    [​IMG]
    © IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Humans produce large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through fossil fuel burning, agriculture, deforestation and decomposing waste
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2021
    Cosmo likes this.
  6. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    In-depth Q&A: The IPCC’s sixth assessment report on climate science | Carbon Brief - a reality check is needed

    The report also says with very high confidence that changes in effective radiative forcing (ERF) resulting from natural factors – such as changes in solar or volcanic activity – since pre-industrial times are “negligible” compared to anthropogenic drivers.

    A key innovation in AR6 is that its warming projections are “for the first time” based on multiple lines of evidence, including observations of historical and recent warming trends. This is a major shift, as earlier IPCC projections were based entirely on climate models.

    These “assessed warming” projections in AR6 are based on a combination of the latest CMIP6 climate models and the report’s updated estimate of climate sensitivity.

    Specifically, the assessed warming combines a subset of CMIP6 models that are able to accurately reproduce historical warming trends, with projections based on the estimated range of “equilibrium climate sensitivity”, which is not derived from climate models.

    The multiple lines of evidence used to assess future warming produce “consistent results”, the report says, meaning it has high confidence in its projections.

    The report explains that the CMIP6 models are better, with high confidence, at simulating “most large-scale indicators of climate change” than the previous CMIP5 models.

    This is thanks to “new and better representation of physical, chemical and biological processes, as well as higher resolution”, in particular improved simulation of clouds.

    What does the report say about the impact humans are having?
    AR6 contains a chapter dedicated to assessing the human influence on the climate system, which opens with the statement: “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the global climate system since pre-industrial times”.

    The technical summary explains that evidence for the human influence on climate change has grown stronger in successive IPCC reports:

    “The evidence for human influence on recent climate change has strengthened progressively from the IPCC second assessment report [in 1995] to the AR5 [in 2013-14] and is even stronger in this assessment, including for regional scales and for extremes.”

    Speaking at a press briefing, IPCC author Prof Ed Hawkins noted that the word “unequivocal” was used in AR5 for observed warming, but for AR6 “it is used for human influence on the climate”. He added:

    “So it is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet…And every government agreed to that [wording in the SPM].”

    The new report also outlines the scientific advances in AR6 compared to AR5:

    “Progress in our understanding of human influence is gained from longer observational datasets, improved palaeoclimate information, a stronger warming signal since AR5, and improvements in climate models, physical understanding and attribution techniques. Since AR5, the attribution to human influence has become possible across a wider range of climate variables and climatic impact-drivers. New techniques and analyses drawing on several lines of evidence have provided greater confidence in attributing changes in regional weather and climate extremes to human influence (high confidence).

    The SPM explains that between 1850-1900 and 2010-19, human activity drove 0.8-1.3C of warming, with a best estimate of 1.07C. This compares with observed warming of 1.06C over the same period – highlighting that humans are responsible for approximately 100% of global warming.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  7. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NOTHING in the OP withstands CRITICAL SCRUTINY!

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/notrickszone/

    The BLOG that is referenced is published on Medium which is FREE blogging site which is strange for what PRETENDS to be a 'legitimate' source.

    NONE of the THREE primary authors has any climate science QUALIFICATIONS.

    So this CRAP belongs in the CONSPIRACY forum.

    Sad!

    :roflol:
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  8. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You didn't challenge the article at all, you couldn't find any problems with it and ignored the published papers that are in the link, thus it remains unchallenged.

    Here is what you are afraid of:

    "The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA). The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC."

    You offered nothing but fear against it.

    Your fear is your prison:

    The pdf of the paper can be downloaded for free from Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the following link: http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4906

    Published paper remains unchallenged.
     
    dbldrew and Jack Hays like this.
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because unlike the IPCC insisting that only TSI can be used as a measure of the sun's effect on global temperature, other indices of solar activity weren't chosen ex post facto purely because they showed the least correlation with global temperature.
     
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The IPCC can't handle solar influence.
    Critical Solar Factors Ignored…IPCC AR6 Covers Up Scientific Flaws In Climate Models
    By P Gosselin on 22. August 2021

    Share this...
    Scientific flaws in IPCC climate models and the IPCC AR6 problems cover-up…IPCC climate models ignore the strong increase in solar radiation since 2001

    By Prof. Antero Ollila

    According to the latest IPCC Assessment Report 6 (AR6), the observed temperature increase and the calculated temperature increase according to climate models have been almost the same 1.3 °C from 1750 to 2020. The report shows a strong positive trend in solar shortwave radiation from 9/2000 to 6/2017, but its impact has been omitted in post-2000 warming calculations which explains the high temperatures since El Nino of 2015-2016. . . . .
     
    Sunsettommy and bringiton like this.
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Did you MISS this the FIRST time it was posted?


    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/notrickszone/


    Sad!

    :roflol:
     
    Cosmo and Bowerbird like this.
  12. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every scientist receiving money from government or non-profit has a conflict of interest. They all know that they would not be receiving money if man made global warming weren't a big concern.

    Any concerns with the actual science?
     
    Sunsettommy and Bowerbird like this.
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Was it actually a peer reviewed article?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    upload_2021-8-23_17-46-44.jpeg


    Yeah! The denialist “logic” is overwhelming
     
    Melb_muser and Derideo_Te like this.
  15. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So no concern with the science... Interesting.
     
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    When you want to talk science I will talk science but you were espousing a conspiracy theory so I addressed that
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  17. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never made any claims about conspiracy theories. Just that people like to have jobs and tend to be biased into thinking they and their jobs are important.
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,873
    Likes Received:
    73,628
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    This isn’t a conspiracy theory?
    once just once I would like to see proof of this, I mean I can give you scads of proof about how Exxon and other big oil companies have funded misinformation campaigns but somehow the evidence that scientists are altering research outcomes is just plain missing
     
    Derideo_Te and Cosmo like this.
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    bringiton and Sunsettommy like this.
  20. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Notice they can't even be on topic of the thread just post fallacies instead.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  21. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This was well exposed that the NYT was defaming Dr. Soon 6 years ago,

    Watts Up With That?

    The Paper that Blew it Up

    January. 2021

    By Andy May

    “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bull…” W. C. Fields

    and, flying a bomber over Berlin.

    EXCERPT:

    In late February 2015, Willie Soon was accused in a front-page New York Times article by Kert Davies (Gillis & Schwartz, 2015) of failing to disclose conflicts of interest in his academic journal articles. It isn’t mentioned in the Gillis and Schwartz article, but the timing suggests that a Science Bulletin article, “Why Models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” (Monckton, Soon, Legates, & Briggs, 2015) was Davies’ concern. We will abbreviate this paper as MSLB15. Besides Soon, the other authors of the paper are Christopher Monckton (senior author, Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley), David Legates (Professor of Geography and Climatology, University of Delaware), and William Briggs (Mathematician and statistician, former professor of statistics at Cornell Medical School). In the January 2015 article, the authors “declare that they have no conflict of interest.”

    MSLB15 was instantly popular and devastating to the climate alarmist cause and to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2013). The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a research organization set up by the United Nations in 1988. MSLB15 was published online January 8, 2015 and downloaded 22,000 times in less than two months, an outstanding number of downloads. The New York Times article appeared less than two months after MSLB15 hit the internet, it was a “fake news hit job.”

    LINK
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  22. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WUWT

    Statement by Dr. Willie Soon

    2015

    Excerpt:

    “Let me be clear. I have never been motivated by financial gain to write any scientific paper, nor have I ever hidden grants or any other alleged conflict of interest. I have been a solar and stellar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for a quarter of a century, during which time I have published numerous peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. The fact that my research has been supported in part by donations to the Smithsonian Institution from many sources, including some energy producers, has long been a matter of public record......"

    LINK
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've always thought this was the best for highlighting the NYT's embarrassment.
    Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon - Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead
    2015 › 02 › 23 › greenpeace-enlists-justin-gillis-john-schwartz-of-the-ny-times-in-journalistic-terrorist-attack-on-willie-soon-miss-target-hit-smithsonian-instead
    the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist ... that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  24. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I couldn't find it for some reason, but it is here now. :applause:

    BRAVO!
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The chart on the left is simply a disingenuous fabrication. The money for fraudulent climate "science" is almost all coming from governments, not community activists or environmental groups. Many major governments, including the US, Chinese, Japanese and Indian governments, are very interested in reducing the price of oil. Because supply and demand are both quite inelastic, getting people to use less oil through fraudulent climate research is a very efficient way to do that. Climate science is a small, niche field where a billion dollars can buy total control of the research agenda and peer-reviewed publications. The amount of money the above countries can save on oil if demand can be reduced is in the trillions. You do the math.
     

Share This Page