Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Environment >> IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329941084 Message started by progressiveslol on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 6:04am

Title: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by progressiveslol on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 6:04am

As someone who recognizes the scientific errors in this disastrous report, I can at least make sure that the issue is put properly before the authors of AR5. Thus I am documenting as concisely as possible the solar-magnetic omission and the errors it leads to. The discussion is substantial but I have kept it well under the character limit for a single comment. This comment is being submitted as a top-level comment on AR5 as a whole, and it is being submitted unaltered as a comment on three different sub-chapter headings where the omitted solar-magnetic evidence ought to be taken into account

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by muso on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 10:42am

I wouldn't take anything you find on that site as gospel. Let me read between the lines a bit. Given that the final reports have this schedule:

Working Group I - Mid September 2013
Working Group II - Mid March 2014
Working Group III - Early April 2014
Synthesis Report - End October 2014

I'd say that "IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud" probably translates to "typo found in first draft of document" (not a typo ! shock horror! scandal! :o )

I'm not sure which particular report the typo was found in, but in the end, that's why drafts are prepared - to give people a chance to review the document prior to second drafts and eventually to final documents.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by progressiveslol on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 11:16am

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 10:42am:

It is not a typo, it is a climate variable left out all together.

The information I provided is not to be taken as gospel for sure, it is part of what should be a dicussion though and will need fixing before the IPCC
AR5 goes past draft.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by muso on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm

So what is "evidence for a strong solar magnetic driver of climate" anyway? I'm not aware of any significant body of work on that topic.

Is that related to the discredited cosmic ray flux studies of Svensmark? Explain to me that hypothesis and how it sits with this finding?

A Survey of Changes in Cloud Cover and Cloud Types over Land from Surface Observations, 1971–96 – Warren et al. (2007):

Quote:

“The global average trend of total cloud cover over land is small, -0.7% decade-1, offsetting the small positive trend that had been found for the ocean, and resulting in no significant trend for the land–ocean average.”

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by Doctor Jolly on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:12pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 6:04am:

As someone who recognizes the scientific errors in this disastrous report, I ...

I doubt you'd recognise if your arse was on fire.

;D

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by progressiveslol on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:12pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:12pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 6:04am:

As someone who recognizes the scientific errors in this disastrous report, I ...

I doubt you'd recognise if your arse was on fire.

;D

I wouldn't have to. I am not gay.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by Doctor Jolly on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:13pm

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm:

There is none. Its denier speak for "there must be some other reason than the blindingly obvious because I cant admit I was wrong"

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by progressiveslol on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:18pm

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm:

The information you seek is in what you should have read before asking.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by muso on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:22pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:18pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm:

The information you seek is in what you should have read before asking.

I knew the answer to my question when I asked it. I just wondered if you did. So just explain what you understand by it. It's easy to explain.

I'm giving you a chance to have your say.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by muso on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:28pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 11:16am:

It is not a typo.

Finally we agree on something. Now that I know what on earth he was going on about, I realise that it wasn't a typo.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by progressiveslol on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:35pm

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:18pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm:

The information you seek is in what you should have read before asking.

I knew the answer to my question when I asked it. I just wondered if you did. So just explain what you understand by it. It's easy to explain.

I'm giving you a chance to have your say.

There is no need for you and I to get into a debate about what is on the table from a scientist. I am not suggesting this, he is. Maybe you can reply to the site and see how you go and get real feedback.

If you want to know what I feel about the information you provide compared to the information I provide, then that would just get down to "I dont think the science is settled and I dont think that CO2 has a very large cause to climate change"

This is going down to the wire on what scientists are saying, not what you and I are saying.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by Doctor Jolly on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:52pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:35pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:18pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm:

The information you seek is in what you should have read before asking.

I knew the answer to my question when I asked it. I just wondered if you did. So just explain what you understand by it. It's easy to explain.

I'm giving you a chance to have your say.

There is no need for you and I to get into a debate about what is on the table from a scientist. I am not suggesting this, he is.

Running away again.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by muso on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:55pm

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:35pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:18pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm:

The information you seek is in what you should have read before asking.

I knew the answer to my question when I asked it. I just wondered if you did. So just explain what you understand by it. It's easy to explain.

I'm giving you a chance to have your say.

The crux of this theory is that increased Galactic Cosmic ray radiation gives rise to increased cloud cover during Solar minima. The data suggests that although the mechanism is sound, the cloud cover data suggests that the effect is indiscernable because there is has been no significant fluctuation in net cloud cover. That stands to reason when you look at the absolute flux level.

I'm very familiar with the studies involved, because a colleague of mine was working on GCR back in 2002.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by progressiveslol on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 3:02pm

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:55pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:35pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:18pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm:

The information you seek is in what you should have read before asking.

I knew the answer to my question when I asked it. I just wondered if you did. So just explain what you understand by it. It's easy to explain.

I'm giving you a chance to have your say.

The crux of this theory is that increased Galactic Cosmic ray radiation gives rise to increased cloud cover during Solar minima. The data suggests that although the mechanism is sound, the cloud cover data suggests that the effect is indiscernable because there is has been no significant fluctuation in net cloud cover.

I'm very familiar with the studies involved, because a colleague of mine was working on GCR back in 2002.

Then putting your 2 cents in at the site would be perfect for you. Try it out, you may be surprised that you have not been shut down and you actually get proper feedback. They want debate. It helps all.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by progressiveslol on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 3:11pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:52pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:35pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:18pm:

muso wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:10pm:

The information you seek is in what you should have read before asking.

I knew the answer to my question when I asked it. I just wondered if you did. So just explain what you understand by it. It's easy to explain.

I'm giving you a chance to have your say.

There is no need for you and I to get into a debate about what is on the table from a scientist. I am not suggesting this, he is.

Running away again.

Jolly, if you read the whole quote, you would see that I am not running away. It is worthless for me to debate this as this is not my theory nor me bringing this debate forward to the IPCC. It would be best if muso has something to add, that it be added to the site to better muso and everyone.

Maybe you could even go to the site and put your scientific debate on the table to better this AR5 document. If you keep this church a closed one, it will remain a church. The debate is not over, so get into it and at the appropriate avenues.

Title: Re: IPCC new AR5 omitted variable fraud
Post by muso on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 6:54pm

Well it's done and dusted. If there is no perceptable change to cloud cover, then quite clearly cosmic rays can't be the driver because the mechanism relies on cosmic rays causing more cloud cover.

Of course the explanation is not welcome at that site. The points put forward by the likes of Watts are not required to be robust. They just need to sow confusion and doubt. People are not interested in the details. His site is funded by the Heartland Institute.