| IPPC Report04-06-2014 19:43 | |
| snu☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
I've been reading the IPPC report and some things are troubling to me. Granted, I haven't gotten very far (only 60 pages or so from the 1552 page report). In particular are these two gems: "The discrepancy between simulated and observed GMST trends during 1998-2012 could be explained in part by a tendency for some CMIP5 models to simulate stronger warming in response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentration than is consistent with observations. Averaged over the ensembles of models assessed in Section 10.3.1, the best-estimate GHG and other anthropogenic scaling factors are less than one (though not significantly so, Figure 10.4), indicating that the model-mean GHG and other anthropogenic responses should be scaled down to best match observations. [...] This downward scaling is, however, not sufficient to explain the model mean overestimate of GMST trend over the hiatus period." and this one: "Uncertainties in climate projections arise from natural variability and uncertainty around the rate of future emissions and the climate's response to them. They can also occur because representations of some known processes are as yet unrefined, and because some processes are not included in the models." I can't think of another time in history when so much time, money, and politics has placed so much faith in a hypothesis that uses an INCOMPLETE model (which is prone to uncertainty) that has been proven to fail in CERTAIN SITUATIONS with NO EXPLANATION. And don't even get me started in the IPPC report's treatment of statistics. References to "high, medium, and low" confidence levels with NO explanation of what constitutes a high, medium, or low confidence level or why a specific confidence level was chosen for specific data points. And what exactly does "likely" and "very likely" mean? These words are thrown all over the place with no hard numbers to back them up (what is the probability of likely? of very likely? of unlikely?) While I commend the IPPC in putting out a report that, at best, consolidates all the significant research that has been done in climate change, the uncertainties in the models being used simply don't make anthropogenic global warming a confirmed theory. |
| 05-06-2014 05:52 | |
| Windy☆☆☆☆☆ (6) |
And you get to keep your doctor, period! |
| 19-08-2014 03:22 | |
| just sayin☆☆☆☆☆ (23) |
there is a reason why the ipcc report is so long and confusing....and it's not because they want you to read it and understand it.....data has been manipulated..left out..even bait and switch....the projections are the worst though...they are based on nothing but politics, money, and power...no science at all |
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| COVID origins 'may have been tied' to China's bioweapons program: GOP report | 43 | 28-12-2022 20:17 |
| UN weather report: Climate woes bad and getting worse faster | 1 | 08-11-2022 18:24 |
| Congressional UFO Report | 72 | 04-07-2021 21:42 |
| Trump disbanded it, but climate change panel regroups to release its report | 9 | 09-04-2019 00:01 |
| New Climate Change Report Should Be a Wakeup Call | 3 | 06-04-2019 00:07 |