If the ipcc seems biased

[exchemist]

QQ and X
Perhaps what we have here is a set/subset confusion?
Just reading the ipcc mandate clearly places them within a specific ghg subset of the whole of climatology. (ergo-bias)
Within a subset, you will have peer group identification. As such, one cannot completely eliminate confirmation bias.
The only way to eliminate or reduce the bias and achieve a more objective viewpoint is by first recognizing the subset as a subset. (that's both the hardest and easiest step)
There will always be those who believe that their subset is the whole set, and refuse to look at or see any other subsets.
And so, thereby the science is diminished.

That's absurd. You are in effect arguing that any specialisation, in any area of science, inevitably leads to bias "and thereby science is diminished". Science depends on specialised study to advance knowledge. It's a good job you don't run any university science departments. You would accuse them of bias and shut them all down.

It should be obvious that any study of man-made climate effects relies on first modelling the natural climate, so that the effects of human activity can be isolated and superimposed on it as a background. It is daft to imagine you can study man-made effects in isolation, apart from the detailed study of specific elements of the mechanisms involved, say the rate of release of methane from livestock or something.

So nobody needs you to point out that man-made climate effects are a subset of all climate effects. And the accusation you make, that the IPCC "refuses to look at or see any other subsets", is quite fatuous. I do not believe you will be able to produce any credible evidence of this.

All you will be able to do is seek out, from websites with a denial agenda, obscure bits and pieces which might, superficially at least, seem not to fit the model, to someone like yourself who does not know much science. Just like a creationist, in fact.

 

[billvon]

Do try an keep your political bias out of science discussions!

Why does that bother you? Just stating a fact about your (not my) political bias. It was not pejorative.

 

[sculptor]

...You would accuse them of bias and shut them all down.
...

No way in hell.
as/re

the IPCC "refuses to look at or see any other subsets", is quite fatuous.

ask the astrophysicists
ask Svensmark

Show me one single paper from an astrophysicist that the ipcc has reviewed and published.

If you would know the set, it is prudent to examine all of the subsets. When the people within a subset ain't talking to nor listening to people of the other subsets, it gets a tad more difficult and entertaining. If you once know the bias/field of study of one of the subsets, then you can appreciate their knowledge---------and if you can remain objective, then you have a good place to start a foundation.

Have you read the scope papers, or the report of the charney committee ?
Shoulders of giants----all looking in the same direction---1 of 360

 

[RainbowSingularity]

inevitably leads to bias "and thereby science is diminished".

i read that as saying
scientists are human to and so they must self monitor their own internal concepts of bias when performing science(including ...possibly literal gesticulation to overt privatized specialist study to produce specified results for profit which detract from an over arching scientific principal of science ethics)
maybe i am miss reading it.

ipcc

i think part of the larger problem is the need for the ipcc
and the ipcc is like a wagon ride
it must be moving forward to be able to be achieving anything at all
and... until it is moving forward it cant get funding/riders/support
however, to get moving it cant rely on certain mainstream principals which would otherwise govern something that is in theory extremely specific to a state of human divisiveness

both-side-ists rely on the chicken n egg principal to undermine new policy start procedures.
old tried and tested
the premise of filibustering normalized into moral principal as an immoral way to pervert an immoral law

 

[LaurieAG]

The World Metereological Organisation (WMO) is mentioned extensively in the IPCC's governing principles.
https://wg1.ipcc.ch/procedures/PrinciplesProceduresGoverningIPCC.pdf

1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC or, synonymously, the Panel) shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.

The director mentioned in the following article is the World Metereological Organisation's (WMO) US executive council member (region IV).

A veteran Ph.D. meteorologist with the National Weather Service (NWS) was physically assaulted by NWS Director Louis Uccellini for mentioning “cooling” during a talk about the Earth’s climate in 2014 according to an account provided to CFACT.

“Don’t ever mention the word cooling again,” the agency’s Director warned.

The Director allegedly put his hand on the meteorologist’s chest as a warning, and pushed the employee against the wall. The whistleblower, who spoke to CFACT on the condition of anonymity, described a culture of fear and ostracism at NWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) against those who dissent from the “global warming” narrative.

https://www.cfact.org/2018/05/02/meteorologist-allegedly-assaulted-by-nws-director-uccellini/
https://public.wmo.int/en/about-us/governance

 

[iceaura]

Show me one single paper from an astrophysicist that the ipcc has reviewed and published.

The IPCC does not "review" and publish research papers. That's not its job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[8]

And you have had that pointed out - clearly and explicitly - several times, on this forum.
Yet you persist in your posting of that bullshit.

Try this: Show us one paper from any of your so far anonymous astrophysicists that you believe is relevant to the IPCC's responsibility, informative regarding AGW, and ignored by the IPCC. That would at least be a relevant observation and basis for argument.

You haven't been linking to such papers, yourself - your typical (majority) link is to a paleontological evaluation of natural climate changes in a limited geographical arena, which you imply, by posting such links in AGW threads, document rapid global changes comparable to AGW.

You even argue the bullshit, making your intentions clear, like this:

What it does mean is that the ipcc are not looking at the whole of climate science.
If they were, then you should be able to explain the warmth of mis 11, or mis 5 or mis 9 or that of the holocene climate optimum on co2....

Such arguments from such links are of course irresponsible and dishonest, typical of the rightwing corporate propaganda frame "the science isn't in" and similar (tobacco, leaded gas, trans fats, nuclear waste and exposure, pesticide damages, etc etc etc) - that does not bother you.

If you would know the set, it is prudent to examine all of the subsets.

And evaluate them, often resulting in a conclusion of indirect, marginal, or no relevance. That has been done, by the IPCC.
That's the IPCC's job.
As one can verify by examining the record since 1988 (thirty years ago) they do exhibit bias in that job, somewhat, but it's in the opposite direction you claim (the IPCC has been downplaying and underestimating AGW for decades, by various means including misleading omissions of statistical range etc, long enough for us to make not only the obvious comparisons between IPCC press releases and the data behind them but also the obvious comparisons between IPCC projections and subsequent events).

One must allow for that "conservative" bias whenever reading an IPCC report.

 

[sculptor]

There are none so blind ass those who will not see.

 

[origin]

There are none so blind ass those who will not see.

It often seems like you are trying to be ironic.

 

[billvon]

Show me one single paper from an astrophysicist that the ipcc has reviewed and published.

The IPCC does not review and publish papers. Journals do that. The IPCC writes (and publishes) their own papers.

If you would know the set, it is prudent to examine all of the subsets.

Which they did. They studied Henrik's work and included it in the latest IPCC report.

"there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of [cloud condensation nuclei] or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way."

 

[sculptor]

The IPCC does not review and publish papers. Journals do that. The IPCC writes (and publishes) their own papers.

Which they did. They studied Henrik's work and included it in the latest IPCC report.

"there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of [cloud condensation nuclei] or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way."

I only mentioned Henrik because he was the first to come to mind. His hypothesis is just one small subset of a subset---and using short term data is a poor refutation---if we are indeed heading into a grand solar minimum, then his hypothesis will be fairly tested.

Meanwhile, we have Schmutz who seems to weigh in in the solar subset.
The unanswered question remains:
What percentage of the recent warming in anthropogenic, and what percentage is beyond our control?

Meanwhile(for the CO2 subset)
Plant some trees and nurture them until they are strong enough to continue without your help.
The trees seem to love the CO2 feast.

 

[billvon]

I only mentioned Henrik because he was the first to come to mind. His hypothesis is just one small subset of a subset---and using short term data is a poor refutation---if we are indeed heading into a grand solar minimum, then his hypothesis will be fairly tested.

Meanwhile, we have Schmutz who seems to weigh in in the solar subset.

Yes. And contrary to earlier claims, such contributions ARE considered by the IPCC.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

"there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of [cloud condensation nuclei] or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way."

i am not disagreeing with this
maybe the amount is equal to the margin of buffering possible.
[just musing worst case scenarios]
with vastly higher Co2 and global heating, maybe it allows a greater transference of heat equilibrium to a part of the atmosphere that would otherwise be exchanging out.
... shifts the exchange point marginally enough to change surface temps by 1 degree...
culmianatively [im playing worst case scenario game]
it would be a potential exponential effect as heating occurred

all be it very very small [if that makes people feel better]
but a tiny exponential effect is still a quantitative large result change further down the scale.
more so if you have ice sheet melt/sea acidification etc... factors merging to create the exponential equation.

i can see the climate change deniers sitting in a car balanced on 3 wheels with 1 missing traveling at 100 miles per hour and they are screaming

"climb over to my side and have a look out the window, you can see everything is ok"

 

[iceaura]

The unanswered question remains:
What percentage of the recent warming in anthropogenic, and what percentage is beyond our control?

The IPCC has answered that question, to the best of the ability of the scientists and researchers involved, and continues to answer it, regularly. You know that - you must know that, as many times as you have been shown and linked and informed.

Other researchers have answered it as well - correcting, in many cases, the known bias of the IPCC toward "conservative" interpretations of the data and avoidance of even the appearance of sensationalism or alarmist leanings.

Between the IPCC on the "conservative" end, and the field researchers on the other more alarming end, the scientists involved have taken into account every single factor you have ever mentioned, with diligence and thorough examination. You have been confronted with that fact many times, over literally years now. And yet you continue to repost that same bs.

What is your agenda? It is obviously not honest discussion - you post repetitively debunked dissembling and outright lies from the usual sources, and you never engage in discussion of relevant topics (you post innuendo only, never argument). So what are you doing here?

Meanwhile(for the CO2 subset)
Plant some trees and nurture them until they are strong enough to continue without your help.
The trees seem to love the CO2 feast.

That may help a little - depending on what the trees replace, what kinds of trees you choose, etc. It won't help at all unless the corresponding political and industrial reforms are made, and fairly quickly - it will be too little, too late, and even counterproductive if done wrong. (You apparently aren't paying attention to the science involved, given your "CO2 feast" propaganda language, so you are likely to do it wrong.)

 

[iceaura]

When the people within a subset ain't talking to nor listening to people of the other subsets, it gets a tad more difficult and entertaining.

Republican corporate rightwing propaganda as financed by fossil fuel and related interests is not a subset of science.
It is a subset of US politics.
And it's the content of your posting here.
You're shilling for scum. Why are you doing that?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

the known bias of the IPCC toward "conservative" interpretations of the data and avoidance of even the appearance of sensationalism or alarmist leanings.

a core mandate that they had to sell to global leadership to gain membership & cooperation

however, as we see the interaction of countrys with the paris climate summit, it appears there are more countrys & thus people who wish to do nothing than to put their hand up and join the conversation.

now we see the science is clearly showing the measure of the unknown exponential effect coming to light and clearly defining the need to atleast double the paris climate summit levels.
but there is only around 30% of the global leadership supporting this

it seems to be playing out as a bloody revolution like the french revolution
nothing will be done until millions of climate refugees force civil war and countrys break down into chaos.
while the rich try and surf the tide of human suffering stealing food from babys mouths

the youth have seen this playing out as their future reality
they see the older rich elitists who simply dont care and want to pretend nothing is wrong so they can maintain their lazy self interested greed.

i hope global leadership will act before the baby is thrown out with the bath water

young teenagers of today can see the end of the human species in their future
what are the leaders doing about that ?
young teenagers of today can see their grandchildren wont be born
young teenagers of today can see their children may likely be wiped out.

let them eat climate change deniers

 

[James R]

The unanswered question remains:
What percentage of the recent warming in anthropogenic, and what percentage is beyond our control?

Your question doesn't make much sense unless it's put as a more specific one, like "How much would we expect the average global temperature to have risen in the last X years if the anthropogenic inputs had not been there?", or something like that.

The more basic question is: can the observed temperature rise in recent years possibly be accounted for only by taking natural drivers into account, and ignoring human inputs? The answer to that question is a clear and settled: no, it cannot. One only needs to read the IPCC reports - for example - to find that out.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

WMO

looks like it makes money by selling a product to business that buy it as a compulsory regulatory process to adhere to business practices.
trump wont bankrupt it because it makes money
the ceo has to kiss ass to the big busines customers to keep the contracts
then kiss ass of the administration
he looks like a professional ass kisser
professional ass kissers are not healthy to be around
expect to be used as toilet paper

your conspiracy theory is going well ...

 

[sculptor]

Your question doesn't make much sense unless it's put as a more specific one, like "How much would we expect the average global temperature to have risen in the last X years if the anthropogenic inputs had not been there?", or something like that.

The more basic question is: can the observed temperature rise in recent years possibly be accounted for only by taking natural drivers into account, and ignoring human inputs? The answer to that question is a clear and settled: no, it cannot. One only needs to read the IPCC reports - for example - to find that out.

and then, we have nicola scafetta who is willing to concede that up to 40% of the last centuries warming was due to anthropogenic activities.

 

[exchemist]

and then, we have nicola scafetta who is willing to concede that up to 40% of the last centuries warming was due to anthropogenic activities.

And your source for this claim is what?

 

[billvon]

and then, we have nicola scafetta who is willing to concede that up to 40% of the last centuries warming was due to anthropogenic activities.

Yep. He also predicted in 2011 that the Earth "may at most warm 0.5-1.0°C by 2100." 2016 was .94C above the reference.

I guess he has some revising of his theories to do.