IPCC Fails Again

[Clutch Munny]

That's the hilarious part of your plagiarism?

[F-X]

Originally Posted by F-X

Here is the relevant paragraph from the IPCC report:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its [sic] total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

Media coverage has focused largely on the lack of scientific support for these claims. But three major errors can be spotted immediately, without consulting the IPCC’s sources:

1. The first sentence predicts disappearance (a 100 percent loss) by 2035. The next sentence predicts an 80 percent loss. Nonetheless, the first prediction is made using more confident language.

2. The second sentence begins with “Its,” ungrammatical if it is referring to “glaciers” and unclear otherwise. It’s as if the two sentences were simply copied and pasted from different sources.

3. The approximate area of the Himalayan glaciers is 33,000 km2, so the 500,000 km2 starting figure in the second sentence is off by a factor of 15, and the decreased area predicted in 2035 - 100,000 km2 - is three times greater than the current Himalayan glacier area.

I thought you were talking about
Classically Liberal: The climate blunders continue

or
Classically Liberal: About those Himilayan glaciers
or at the very least,


Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its [sic] total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

The obvious mixing of different sources in the IPCC report, make it obvious they were taking from vastly different sources.

It's classic self pwnage

[F-X]

Originally Posted by F-X

Back on topic:

IPCC Report Map Fails Cartography Exam

WaterSISWEB - IPCC Report Map Fails Cartography Exam

[erimir]

Somehow I'm not surprised that F-X of all people would be a global warming denialist.

He's demonstrated such a sound understanding of science and all in other threads.

[F-X]

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."

http://twitter.com/shitmydadsays/status/9792541776

[Zer0th]

Originally Posted by Watser?

In other news: Dutch scientists have calculated that the average temperature on Earth might rise by 4 degrees (Celsius) unless stricter measures are taken than have so far been planned. They have concluded, based on data that has not been published yet, that air pollution has decreased considerably which causes more sunlight to reach the surface. I can't find an English link yet, but here's a French one (won't bother with a Dutch one): Le réchauffement de la terre sans doute plus important | RTBF INFO

In other news: they screwed up... badly.
http://climategate.nl/2010/03/09/fou...wrong-dataset/

Excellent contribution, though probably not in the sense intended.

[Zer0th]

UN to review errors made by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Times Online

As I recall, there was high level meeting a few weeks back in Bali... Pachauri wanted it in-house, the PTB decided to force through an externally-led review.

Bali eh, great innit.

[F-X]

You have to hand it to the zeroheads. They really believe the IPCC didn't really fuck up.

[Watser?]

Oh, on the contrary. I am totally convinced now that there is no such thing as Global Warming. Let alone man-made global warming. I can see the glaciers growing back already.

[F-X]

It's funny. Some people are such idiots they think a single big fuck up means everything is wrong.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by Watser?

I can see the glaciers growing back already.

It's fascinating that when I was at Glacier in 2018, they had these signs saying all the glaciers would be gone, even a diorama display in the visitor center showing it.

Posted at 7:20 PM, Jan 06, 2020 and last updated 1:07 PM, Jan 09, 2020
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK — Glacier National Park is removing signs that state all glaciers will be melted by 2020.

Park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen explained that since the early 2000s scientists have reflected and analyzed data stating glaciers would recede by 2020.

She told MTN News that the latest research shows shrinking, but in ways much more complex than what was predicted. Because of this, the park must update all signs around the park stating all glaciers will be melted by 2020.

Several glaciers that are part of a long term study are growing.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Several glaciers that are part of a long term study are growing.

https://theweek.com/articles/476380/...20be%20growing.

Which glaciers are growing?
A few glaciers in the Karakoram mountain range along the India-China-Pakistan border are gaining mass, according to a report published in the April issue of the journal Nature Geoscience. "The rest of the glaciers in the Himalayas are mostly melting," lead researcher Julie Gardelle tells LiveScience. "This is an anomalous behavior."

Scientist love to find anomalies in the data. It helps them define their studies.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

“It’s cold in winter, LOL!” energy.

[Sock Puppet]

Seems like we need a version of ChuckF's rules for legal conclusions, to help out some folks here with their scientific conclusions. I'll give it an initial shot, but I'm sure one or more of our scientific types here could provide some constructive edits.

1. Did you just make it up? If so, it is probably shit you made up.

2. Do you actually make reference to established science? If so, it might be sound reasoning. If not, it is probably shit you made up.

3. Did you look up the scientific work already done? If so, it might be sound reasoning. If not, it is probably shit you made up.

4. Did you actually read what the findings say? If so, it might be sound reasoning. If not, it is probably shit you made up.

5. Did you actually understand what the findings say? If so, it might be sound reasoning. If not, it is probably shit you made up.

6. Did you find (and cite!) scientific authority to support your position? If so, it might be sound reasoning. If not, it is probably shit you made up.

7. Did you have to disregard contrary findings to find a single experiment or paper to support a position? If so, it is probably shit you made up.

8. Did you have to refer to weird and distant non-scientific sources that are not considered valid by the scientific community? If so, it is probably shit you made up.

9. Does it end by concluding global warming doesn't exist? If so, it is probably shit you made up.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Which glaciers are growing?

It was several years ago I read about it. A publication by one of the long term researchers at GNP, I don't know if they even had names, but when I get time I will find the paper.

They were quite surprised by it.

Worldwide there are quite a few glaciers expanding, the most notable is the biggest one in Greenland.

[-FX-]

This does not mean warming temperatures are not melting a LOT of glaciers. That part is also not in question.

The glaciers that are melting and giving up a treasure trove of artifacts are quite interesting. There is an entire website that posts regular updates on the finds. From 6000 to 1000 years ago, all kinds of awesome shit is showing up.

One almost gets the sense these archeologists are hoping the melting will not stop.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

This does not mean warming temperatures are not melting a LOT of glaciers. That part is also not in question.

The glaciers that are melting and giving up a treasure trove of artifacts are quite interesting. There is an entire website that posts regular updates on the finds. From 6000 to 1000 years ago, all kinds of awesome shit is showing up.

One almost gets the sense these archeologists are hoping the melting will not stop.

Perhaps this:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...reenland-iceIt
Just before I retired, I was at a customer site in Charlotte, and a co-worker and I got into a discussion about Global warming and shit, and out of the blue he pops with "The glaciers are growing in Greenland." He said that he saw it on FOX, or maybe National Geographic.
"More like National Lampoon", says I.
Well the discussion went downhill from there.

I later did see this article, after I retired, and had the time browse NatGeo and Science Mag more often. I called him later to apologize for the way our last talk had ended.
He gave me a lot a grief, but let me off the hook.
Turns out, he has begun to re-think his Pov, a bit.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by LarsMac

Perhaps this:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...reenland-iceIt
Just before I retired, I was at a customer site in Charlotte, and a co-worker and I got into a discussion about Global warming and shit, and out of the blue he pops with "The glaciers are growing in Greenland." He said that he saw it on FOX, or maybe National Geographic.
"More like National Lampoon", says I.
Well the discussion went downhill from there.

I later did see this article, after I retired, and had the time browse NatGeo and Science Mag more often. I called him later to apologize for the way our last talk had ended.
He gave me a lot a grief, but let me off the hook.
Turns out, he has begun to re-think his Pov, a bit.

The link goes nowhere for me.

I was actually thinking about the glaciers in GNP, but yeah, Greenlands largest glacier is growing. But you have to remember, that's not a good thing.

NASA's Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project has revealed Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier, the island’s biggest, is actually growing, at least at its edge. In research published Monday in Nature Geoscience, researchers report that since 2016, Jakobshavn’s ice has thickened slightly, thanks to relatively cool ocean waters at its base—which have caused the glacier to slow down its melt. This reverses the glacier’s 20-year trend of thinning and retreating. But because of what else is happening on the ice sheet, and the overall climate outlook, that’s not necessarily a good thing for global sea level

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...nd-ice-growing

[-FX-]

One of the unsolved mysteries of any theory of climate change has always been how the glacier building phase of an ice age starts, when the proxy records show it was very warm, and then after it gets really cold, where does all the snow come from?

This is discussed in the original papers, but never resolved. Climate models are made to predict warming, with a drastic decrease in snow, so they don't answer it.

Antarctica is still in the current ice age "glacier building period". So is Greenland. The very real fear of the alarmists is that this will soon change, and these two massive sources of water locked up as ice, will start melting. This was the fear and the prediction of Hansen in 1988, when he quite rightly predicted a 10 foot rise in sea level before now (2022)

"Rightly" meaning if his calculations were correct. Why would Hansen think this? Because he knew, (and knows) that during the Altithermal (that's the term he used in his paper) when the planet was much warmer than now, sea level was 10 feet above present levels.

There are many different names for it, but for some reason most present day alarmists don't even know this warm period happened. I'm not kidding.

Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period, Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO)

This was a very warm period that occurred in the interval roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years ago BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP.

During this time Greenland was not building glaciers, it was melting, and so were all the other high altitude glaciers (except Antarctica). The global see level was around 10 feet higher, and entire ice caps (that now exist) were not in existence.

Hansen was freaked out because he was sure CO2 was the driver, and we were turning the planet back into that kind of world, warm, wet and high sea levels. The Sahara was lush at that time, and Lake Chad was MegaChad, the largest body of fresh water that ever existed on the planet.

Trees grew on the shore of the Arctic Ocean, trees grew all the way up far past the current snow lines in mountains, warm water sea life existed in the North Atlantic Ocean, it was a different world. Rivers had tremendous floods, tropical life forms existed much further north and south, and frost and freezes were rare except in high altitudes and near the poles.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

The link goes nowhere for me.

I was actually thinking about the glaciers in GNP, but yeah, Greenlands largest glacier is growing. But you have to remember, that's not a good thing.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...nd-ice-growing

Interesting. That was the article I was linking to. I must have scrambled the text, somehow. Sorry about that.

[-FX-]

No worries.

[-FX-]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

The offending passage:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that "projection" did not happen.

[ShottleBop]

Climate change is affecting crop yields and reducing global food supplies

[-FX-]

Despite the scare tactics of the globalist maniacs, crop yields continue to rise, with less land used, and the latest attempt to frighten people, "a 50% drop in food production by 2050", will be exactly like the ones from 50 years ago.

Completely wrong.

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Despite the scare tactics of the globalist maniacs, crop yields continue to rise, with less land used, and the latest attempt to frighten people, "a 50% drop in food production by 2050", will be exactly like the ones from 50 years ago.

Completely wrong.

Once again, you're showing yer ass, pal. Probably should read that article.

https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields