IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Ilmastotutkimukseen sekä sitä sivuaviin tutkimusaiheisiin liittyvät keskustelut

Valvoja: Hallitus

Avatar
BorisW
Viestit: 1779
Liittynyt: 08.08.2007, 10:38:11
Paikkakunta: Espoo
Viesti:

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja BorisW »

Grunt kirjoitti:
Tehoautoilija kirjoitti:Mutta P. Taalas sanoo, että vain yksi virhe
On tärkeää, että IPCC:n työhön voidaan luottaa. Raportissa on noin 100 000 faktaa, joista yksi on osoittautunut vääräksi. Tämä yksi virhe ei mielestäni muuta raportin sanomaa miksikään, sanoo ilmastotyöryhmän johtaja Petteri Taalas.

Miten tuollaisen jätkän annetaan kommentoida valtamedioissa ja miten häntä ei eroteta? Kaverihan valehtelee ihmisille aivan päin naamaa.

Valitettavasti IL:n pääjohtajana Petteri Taalas jyrää koko laitoksen toiminnan IPCC_mantran taakse. Kukaan laitoksessa ei uskalla julkisesti olla hänen kanssaan eri mieltä.
HMV
Viestit: 581
Liittynyt: 02.02.2010, 08:27:28

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja HMV »

Georgia Tech -korkeakoulun ilmastotieteilijä Judith Curry sijoittautuu jonnnekin alarmistien ja skeptikkojen välimaastoon. Curry on viime aikoina varsin voimakkaasti arvostellut IPCC:n ja alarmistien toimintatapoja. Discover Magazine on julkaissut Curryn haastattelun, johon kannattaa tutustua.

Tässä näyte:

Where do you come down on the whole subject of uncertainty in the climate science?

I’m very concerned about the way uncertainty is being treated. The IPCC [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] took a shortcut on the actual scientific uncertainty analysis on a lot of the issues, particularly the temperature records.

Don’t individual studies do uncertainty analysis?

Not as much as they should. It’s a weakness. When you have two data sets that disagree, often nobody digs in to figure out all the different sources of uncertainty in the different analysis. Once you do that, you can identify mistakes or determine how significant a certain data set is.

Is this a case of politics getting in the way of science?

No. It’s sloppiness. It’s just how our field has evolved. One of the things that McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out was that a lot of the statistical methods used in our field are sloppy. We have trends for which we don’t even give a confidence interval. The IPCC concluded that most of the warming of the latter 20th century was very likely caused by humans. Well, as far as I know, that conclusion was mostly a negotiation, in terms of calling it “likely” or “very likely.” Exactly what does “most” mean? What percentage of the warming are we actually talking about? More than 50 percent? A number greater than 50 percent?

Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?
Yes

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10 ... tart:int=0
HMV
Viestit: 581
Liittynyt: 02.02.2010, 08:27:28

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja HMV »

HMV kirjoitti:Georgia Tech -korkeakoulun ilmastotieteilijä Judith Curry sijoittautuu jonnnekin alarmistien ja skeptikkojen välimaastoon. Curry on viime aikoina varsin voimakkaasti arvostellut IPCC:n ja alarmistien toimintatapoja. Discover Magazine on julkaissut Curryn haastattelun, johon kannattaa tutustua.

Tässä näyte:

Where do you come down on the whole subject of uncertainty in the climate science?

I’m very concerned about the way uncertainty is being treated. The IPCC [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] took a shortcut on the actual scientific uncertainty analysis on a lot of the issues, particularly the temperature records.

Don’t individual studies do uncertainty analysis?

Not as much as they should. It’s a weakness. When you have two data sets that disagree, often nobody digs in to figure out all the different sources of uncertainty in the different analysis. Once you do that, you can identify mistakes or determine how significant a certain data set is.

Is this a case of politics getting in the way of science?

No. It’s sloppiness. It’s just how our field has evolved. One of the things that McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out was that a lot of the statistical methods used in our field are sloppy. We have trends for which we don’t even give a confidence interval. The IPCC concluded that most of the warming of the latter 20th century was very likely caused by humans. Well, as far as I know, that conclusion was mostly a negotiation, in terms of calling it “likely” or “very likely.” Exactly what does “most” mean? What percentage of the warming are we actually talking about? More than 50 percent? A number greater than 50 percent?

Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?
Yes

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10 ... tart:int=0


Roger Pielke Sr. on julkaissut mielenkiintoisen kommentin Curryn haastattelun eräästä kohdasta:

QUESTION: You’ve talked about potential distortions of temperature measurements from natural temperature cycles in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and from changes in the way land is used. How does that work?

JUDITH CURRY’S ANSWER: Land use changes the temperature quite a bit in complex ways—everything from cutting down forests or changing agriculture to building up cities and creating air pollution. All of these have big impacts on regional surface temperature, which isn’t always accounted for adequately, in my opinion. The other issue is these big ocean oscillations, like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and particularly, how these influenced temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century. I think there was a big bump at the end of the 20th century, especially starting in the mid-1990s. We got a big bump from going into the warm phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation was warm until about 2002. Now we’re in the cool phase. This is probably why we’ve seen a leveling-off [of global average temperatures] in the past five or so years. My point is that at the end of the 1980s and in the ’90s, both of the ocean oscillations were chiming in together to give some extra warmth.

Judy’s reply reinforces that we need a broader perspective on the climate issue, as we emphasized in
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.

This includes batmospheric/ocean circulations in modulating the climate systemoth the need to include land use/and cover change as a first order human climate forcing and the more significant role of natural .
HMV
Viestit: 581
Liittynyt: 02.02.2010, 08:27:28

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja HMV »

Roger Pielken Sr:n kommenttia koskeneen viestin viimeinen lause jäi puutteelliseksi. Sen tulee olla näin:

This includes both the need to include land use/and cover change as a first order human climate forcing and the more significant role of natural atmospheric/ocean circulations in modulating the climate system.
Avatar
BorisW
Viestit: 1779
Liittynyt: 08.08.2007, 10:38:11
Paikkakunta: Espoo
Viesti:

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja BorisW »

Tuo Roger Pielken toteamus on sitä oikeata asiaa.

Kyllähän ihminen vaikuttaa maapallon ilmastoon, tosin paikallisesti tai alueellisesti, mutta ei globaalisti. Viimeksi mainittuun tarvitaan auringon ja maapallon dynaamisten prosessien yhteisvaikutusta eikä siinä ole hiilidioksidimäärien pienellä nousulla osuutta eikä arpaa. Tosin tätäkään ei pystytä todistamaan.
HMV
Viestit: 581
Liittynyt: 02.02.2010, 08:27:28

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja HMV »

Steve McIntyren "yhteistyökumppani", kansantaloustieteen professori Ross McKitrick on kirjoittanut erinomaisen artikkelin yrityksistään saada jokin ilmastotieteellinen aikakauslehti julkaisemaan artikkeli, jossa osoitettiin IPCC:n raportin erään väittämän virheellisyys. Kirjoitus julkaistiin aikanaan, mutta ei ilmastotieteellisessä lehdessä. McKitrickin pitkähkö artikkeli kannattaa lukea, sillä se kertoo paljon ilmastotieteen ja vertaisarvioinnin tilasta.

Circling the Bandwagons:
My Adventures Correcting the IPCC


This is the story of how I spent 2 years trying to publish a paper that refutes an important claim in the
2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The claim in question is not just
wrong, but based on fabricated evidence. Showing that the claim is fabricated is easy: it suffices merely
to quote the section of the report, since no supporting evidence is given. But unsupported guesses may
turn out to be true. Showing the IPCC claim is also false took some mundane statistical work, but the
results were clear. Once the numbers were crunched and the paper was written up, I began sending it to
science journals. That is when the runaround began. Having published several against-the-flow papers in
climatology journals I did not expect a smooth ride, but the process eventually became surreal.
In the end the paper was accepted for publication, but not in a climatology journal. From my perspective
the episode has some comic value, but I can afford to laugh about it since I am an economist, not a
climatologist, and my career doesn’t depend on getting published in climatology journals. If I was a
young climatologist I would have learned that my career prospects would be much better if I never write
papers that question the IPCC.
I am taking this story public because of what it reveals about the journal peer review process in the field
of climatology. Whether climatologists like it or not, the general public has taken a large and legitimate
interest in how the peer review process for climatology journals works, because they have been told for
years that they will have to face lots of new taxes and charges and fees and regulations because of what
has been printed in climatology journals. Because of the policy stakes, a bent peer review process is no
longer a private matter to be sorted out among academic specialists. And to the extent the specialists are
unable or unwilling to fix the process, they cannot complain that the public credibility of their discipline
suffers.


http://1488276005495550431-a-1802744773 ... edirects=0

PS
Valitan, että pdf-tiedostolla on hyvin pitkä osoite. Kirjoitkseen pääsee myös tältä sivulta:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/ ... eping.html
Avatar
BorisW
Viestit: 1779
Liittynyt: 08.08.2007, 10:38:11
Paikkakunta: Espoo
Viesti:

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja BorisW »

Todella mielenkiintoinen tarina siitä miten IPCC:n mahtava maine (ynnä yksilöiden mustamaalaaminen) sulkee tehokkaasti mediaan johtavat ovet. Itse olen huomattavasti vaatimattomammalla tasolla kokenut samanlaista syrjintää Helsingin Sanomien suunnalta sen jälkeen kun Matti Vanhanen oli jyrähtänyt, että "kaikkinainen ilmastonmuutoksen vähättely on loputtava heti".
HMV
Viestit: 581
Liittynyt: 02.02.2010, 08:27:28

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja HMV »

Kiinan hallitus (!) huomasi alkeellisen virheen IPCC:n uusimmassa raportissa:

The new math – IPCC version

How the IPCC invented a new calculus


A new form of calculus has been invented by the authors of the the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), in order to create the false impression that global warming is accelerating.

-----

The slope over the last 25 years is significantly greater than that of the last 50 years, which in turn is greater than the slope over 100 years. This ‘proves’ that global warming is accelerating. This grossly misleading calculation does not just appear in chapter 3 of WG1. It also appears in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

“The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years“.

Thus, policymakers who just look at the numbers and don’t stop to think about the different timescales, will be misled into thinking that global warming is accelerating.

-----

Well done to the Chinese Government for spotting that. Too bad their valid comment was ignored by the IPCC


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/t ... more-18382
cloneof
Viestit: 18
Liittynyt: 23.12.2009, 01:15:43

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja cloneof »

http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/I ... t-card.php

IPPC:n vertaisarvioidun tiedon määrä on nyt tarkastattu kolmesti ja tulokset ovat valmiita, melkein kaikki kolmannen työryhmän artikkelit sai "F" amerikkalaisen koulu taulukon mukaan ja ensimmäisessäkin on vähän toivomisen varaa.
Jackass
Viestit: 705
Liittynyt: 26.08.2008, 20:56:09

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja Jackass »

http://www.ampparit.com/uutiset/klikki/715618275

Raportti vapautti ilmastotutkijat – ilmastopaneelille taas pyyhkeitä

Raportin tekijät kritisoivat ilmastotutkijoita muun muassa heidän käyttämistään tilastotieteellisistä menetelmistä, joita olisi voitu valita paremminkin.

Kritiikkiä saa myös ns. jääkiekkomaila-graafi, johon päädyttiin professori David Handin mukaan "käyttökelvottomin metodein".

Handin mukaan graafin ilmaston lämpenemistä ennustava käyrä on sinänsä oikean muotoinen, mutta liioittelee kuitenkin lämpötilan nousua 1900-luvulla aiempiin vuosisatoihin nähden.

Raportin mukaan ilmastotieteilijät eivät liioitelleet tuloksia. Tähän syyllistyivät sen sijaan poliitikot ja järjestöt, jotka jättivät huomiotta tuloksiin sisältyvät epävarmuudet kommentoidessaan niitä julkisuudessa.

Lordi Oxburghin mukaan liioitteluun syyllistyi muun muassa YK:n alainen ilmastopaneeli IPCC.

Ilmastopaneelia on syytetty aiemminkin, muun muassa siitä, että se on liioitellut Himalajan jäätiköiden sulavan vuoteen 2035 mennessä.
jpp
Viestit: 699
Liittynyt: 20.11.2009, 16:38:09

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja jpp »

Jackass kirjoitti:Raportti vapautti ilmastotutkijat – ilmastopaneelille taas pyyhkeitä

Oxburgh’s Trick to Hide the Trick
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/14/oxbu ... the-trick/
HMV
Viestit: 581
Liittynyt: 02.02.2010, 08:27:28

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja HMV »

EU Referendumin tri Richard North näkee lordi Oxburghin raportissa jotain myönteistäkin:

However, while the failures are obvious and manifold, there is something of the Curates's egg in the report. For instance, there are the references to the equivocal nature of the science. In selecting the appropriate data, "a great deal of judgement has to be used", says the Panel, what to use and discard are "all matters of experience and judgement" and "the potential for misleading results arising from selection bias is very great in this area."

These comments need to be put in context with the second of the Panel's conclusions. Surprise is expressed that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods was not carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.

There would be mutual benefit, the Panel says, if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists.

Such is the nearest thing one finds to real criticism, but the lines are broad and reading between them suggests the recognition of a major failure in the use of statistical techniques.

Thus, we can put together a picture of the selection of data requiring "a great deal of judgement" which is extremely prone to selection bias, which was then subject to statistical techniques without the input from professional statisticians. And on top of that, there is an acknowledgement that judgemental decisions made had not been properly recorded, so that the work could be replicated by others.

Even in the limited terms of this report, therefore, we have serious doubt cast upon the adequacy of the CRU's work, with the only substantive finding being that any misrepresentation was not "deliberate". Whether it was or not, there is enough there to suggest that this is not work on which it would be safe to base policy decisions which are set to cost trillions of dollars and caused major economic disruptions
.


http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... ewash.html
HMV
Viestit: 581
Liittynyt: 02.02.2010, 08:27:28

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja HMV »

Ilmastoasioista usein kirjoittava Telegraph-lehden kolumnisti Gerald Warner antaa - ansaitusti - pyyhkeitä Oxburghin raportille:

Well, we all knew it would be a second whitewash of CRU and its climate alarmist pseudo-data; but even the most hard-headed sceptics among us probably thought that Lord Oxburgh’s inquiry would be a tad more sophisticated in its brushwork, that it would make some effort to persuade rather than patronise, that its bland conclusions would be a little less blatant and in-your-face.

Not so. If you want incontrovertible evidence that it is business as usual for the arrogant academic establishment, today has provided it. In the popular jargon, they still don’t get it. They imagine the AGW scam will go on forever, along with all the other lies with which the political class deluges the public. This effort is too sloppy really to merit the term whitewash: the sceptical graffiti are still clearly visible through the transparent white coating.
---
Predictably (most sceptical commentators could have written the text in advance) Oxburgh found “absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever”. He added: “Whatever was said in the e-mails, the basic science seems to have been done honestly and fairly.” I get it. They spent every day working with impeccable integrity and objectivity to produce absolutely accurate and unchallengeable data; then they went onto their computers for relaxation and played a daft game in which they pretended to “hide the decline”, try the “Nature trick” and censor the publication of conflicting views.

Then, realising that outsiders might mistake this practical joke for the real thing, they exchanged panicky messages urging one another to delete e-mails. That does not quite explain why they also resisted Freedom of Information requests for access to their impeccable data, so we must attribute that to the natural shyness of these timid woodland creatures, as depicted by Lord Oxburgh.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geral ... pologists/
HMV
Viestit: 581
Liittynyt: 02.02.2010, 08:27:28

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja HMV »

Kanadalaisen National Postin kolumnisti Peter Foster murskaa Oxburghin raportin keskeiset johtopäätökset:

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blog ... ewash.aspx
HMV
Viestit: 581
Liittynyt: 02.02.2010, 08:27:28

Re: IPCC:n raporttien virheellisyys

Viesti Kirjoittaja HMV »

Ilmastotieteilijä Roger Pielke Jr kommentoi Oxburghin "valkpesua" lyhyesti ja ytimekkäästi. Kuva sanoo kaiken.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/ ... clean.html
Vastaa Viestiin