If the ipcc seems biased

[sculptor]

If the ipcc seems biased in only looking at the risk of human-induced climate change.
That is because that is exactly what they were created to do.
So, we have many people quoting the part that the ipcc looks at as though that were the whole of climate science instead of the small part within the ipcc's mandate.
A problem can’t be understood if only one aspect of it is studied. It’s like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
OK
so
I recently read one too many complaints from astrophysicists about people and the media only focusing on CO2 as a driver of the climate. Which finally peaked my curiosity.

Misnomers and a sloppy use of the language:
"Global warming" when most of the warming happens within the arctic and antarctic circles which total less than 5% of the surface of the earth.
"Intergovernmental panel on climate change" "IPCC"
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established ... for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.
how about the IPSTSIRURICC
?

 

[Quantum Quack]

If the ipcc seems biased in only looking at the risk of human-induced climate change.
That is because that is exactly what they were created to do.
So, we have many people quoting the part that the ipcc looks at as though that were the whole of climate science instead of the small part within the ipcc's mandate.
A problem can’t be understood if only one aspect of it is studied. It’s like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
OK
so
I recently read one too many complaints from astrophysicists about people and the media only focusing on CO2 as a driver of the climate. Which finally peaked my curiosity.

Misnomers and a sloppy use of the language:
"Global warming" when most of the warming happens within the arctic and antarctic circles which total less than 5% of the surface of the earth.
"Intergovernmental panel on climate change" "IPCC"
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established ... for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.
how about the IPSTSIRURICC
?

I think you raise a valid concern.
However, there is ample evidence to support their prioritization. Don't you think?

 

[DaveC426913]

I am not actually sure whether you are criticizing the IPCC or defending it.
Which side of the issue are you on?

If the ipcc seems biased in only looking at the risk of human-induced climate change.
That is because that is exactly what they were created to do.
So, we have many people quoting the part that the ipcc looks at as though that were the whole of climate science instead of the small part within the ipcc's mandate.

A problem can’t be understood if only one aspect of it is studied. It’s like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
OK

Right. So it sounds like you're acknowledging that their mandate is meant to deal with how humans specifically can change their ways in an effort to help the planet.
That's distinct from pro-actively making changes to natural (non-man-made) parts of the planet - which is a completely different kettle of fish.

Which finally peaked my curiosity.

Sorry. Grammar Nazi here.
"piqued"

Misnomers and a sloppy use of the language:
"Global warming"

The think the term "global warming" has been widely deprecated by now, in favour of "climate change".

when most of the warming happens within the arctic and antarctic circles which total less than 5% of the surface of the earth.

I hope this isn't how you think. It would be naive in the extreme to think that climate changes to the poles (despite being only 5% of the surface of the Earth) will not have catastrophic effects on the rest of the world - for obvious reasons.
(If not obvious, note that the poles are where almost all the planet's water is that is above sea level. If they melt, it could raise the sea levels by easily 200 feet.

 

[sculptor]

I think you raise a valid concern.
However, there is ample evidence to support their prioritization. Don't you think?

I do not think that preprorioritizing scientific investigation is ever a "good idea"
Even worse is if the pre prioritization is not widely known.
(ergo this thread)
I hope that the ultimate goal of climate science is to find pattern within chaos.
For that we need first to see the chaotic data.
Focusing on a part often becomes a detriment to an understanding of the whole.
Some of the astrophysicists of which I spoke are labeled "deniers"----in so doing, how is science advanced?
.................................
That being said, we need to be mindful of our pollution.
If you cannot stop the pollution:
Plant a tree

 

[sculptor]

I am not actually sure whether you are criticizing the IPCC or defending it.
Which side of the issue are you on?


Right. So it sounds like you're acknowledging that their mandate is meant to deal with how humans specifically can change their ways in an effort to help the planet.
That's distinct from pro-actively making changes to natural (non-man-made) parts of the planet - which is a completely different kettle of fish.




Sorry. Grammar Nazi here.
"piqued"



The think the term "global warming" has been widely deprecated by now, in favour of "climate change".

I hope this isn't how you think. It would be naive in the extreme to think that climate changes to the poles (despite being only 5% of the surface of the Earth) will not have catastrophic effects on the rest of the world - for obvious reasons.
(If not obvious, note that the poles are where almost all the planet's water is that is above sea level. If they melt, it could raise the sea levels by easily 200 feet.

"piqued"
thanks
........................
previously
It took thousands of years to melt the southern greenland ice sheet and collapse the west antarctic ice sheet.
and none of that raised sea levels 200 ft.
(what are the odds?)

 

[Quantum Quack]

I do not think that preprorioritizing scientific investigation is ever a "good idea"
Even worse is if the pre prioritization is not widely known.
(ergo this thread)
I hope that the ultimate goal of climate science is to find pattern within chaos.
For that we need first to see the chaotic data.
Focusing on a part often becomes a detriment to an understanding of the whole.
Some of the astrophysicists of which I spoke are labeled "deniers"----in so doing, how is science advanced?
.................................
That being said, we need to be mindful of our pollution.
If you cannot stop the pollution:
Plant a tree

If we assume just for a moment that the scientists involved in the IPCC are acting in good faith and are qualified and expert in their respective fields, do you not think that they would be well aware of the dangers of "confirmation bias" that you are suggesting?
That they would take steps to prevent such distortions to the best of their ability?
That quality control would be foremost in their minds when dealing with the enormous amount of data that they have to deal with?

previously
It took thousands of years to melt the southern greenland ice sheet and collapse the west antarctic ice sheet.
and none of that raised sea levels 200 ft.
(what are the odds?)

On what basis do you believe the data you are referring to?
What study are you able to link to so we all can assess it's veracity?
Why do you believe one report over another?

The simple facts are:

• That we can measure with reasonable confidence what the current sea level is.
• That a certain quantifiable about of water is frozen above sea level
• That if this ice melts then that water will add to the current seal level by raising it by a measurable amount.
• That this significant amount of fresh water will disturb the salinity of the oceans around the world.

It is not hard to draw a conclusion about the amount of sea level rise using relatively simple math...
Note: it is worth considering that salt water freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water. This means that as the oceans become less salty their potential to freeze becomes more so or remain the same depending upon temperature increases. This can lead to a false sense of status quo. In other words as temperatures rise sea ice may still remain stable but only because the waters involved are less salty due to previous melting.

The issue for you appears not to be that we are in a climate crisis but the causation of that crisis...

You appear to be suggesting that this crisis is mostly about natural cycles.
Do you think that the astute scientists of the IPCC are not aware of this possibility?

 

[billvon]

If the ipcc seems biased in only looking at the risk of human-induced climate change.
That is because that is exactly what they were created to do.
So, we have many people quoting the part that the ipcc looks at as though that were the whole of climate science instead of the small part within the ipcc's mandate.
A problem can’t be understood if only one aspect of it is studied. It’s like the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

Hmm. Do you think cancer researchers cannot ever understand (and eventually treat) cancer because they don't also study autism and multiple personality disorder?

I recently read one too many complaints from astrophysicists about people and the media only focusing on CO2 as a driver of the climate. Which finally peaked my curiosity.

It is a mistake to equate what any scientific body does with the media reporting on that body. I would recommend reading the original reports and the supporting work in journals like Nature.

 

[James R]

sculptor:

If the ipcc seems biased in only looking at the risk of human-induced climate change.
That is because that is exactly what they were created to do.

I'm not sure what bias you're referring to. Bias in their focus of interest - i.e. how human activity is impacting the climate? Or bias in their lack of objectivity in presenting/evaluating the scientific data?

There's no problem with the former. There might be a problem if the latter was established.

A problem can’t be understood if only one aspect of it is studied.

The IPCC has looked at all drivers of climate change, human-induced and natural. They had to, or else it would have been impossible to distinguish the human contribution from the natural contributions.

I recently read one too many complaints from astrophysicists about people and the media only focusing on CO2 as a driver of the climate.

Fair comment. Things like methane are a big problem. But the IPCC has spent a lot of time and effort on that, too.

Maybe your criticism is of certain media, more than the IPCC.

"Global warming" when most of the warming happens within the arctic and antarctic circles which total less than 5% of the surface of the earth.

Average temperatures are rising globally, not just in arctic regions. How are you defining "most of the warming"?

I do not think that preprorioritizing scientific investigation is ever a "good idea"

What does that even mean?

No scientist ever says "Well, I've got this random equipment lying around. I think I'll put it together and get some results. Then, afterwards, I'll decide what to investigate."

I hope that the ultimate goal of climate science is to find pattern within chaos.
For that we need first to see the chaotic data.

Again, I'm not sure what you're referring to. There's a plethora of data on climate from a wide variety of different sources. Sorting through it to discern patterns and trends is what climate scientists do.

Some of the astrophysicists of which I spoke are labeled "deniers"----in so doing, how is science advanced?

Calling somebody a denier doesn't advance science. Denying doesn't advance science either.

Are you a denier?

 

[iceaura]

If the ipcc seems biased in only looking at the risk of human-induced climate change.
That is because that is exactly what they were created to do.

The IPCC is biased toward underestimating expected the bad effects of AGW, publicizing the low end of the range their data and analysis yields.
That is contrary to what they were created to do, which was to accurately and soundly evaluate the most likely and most serious possible progress and effects of AGW - they have been consistently timid in the face of the strong political pressure financed by fossil fuel interests.

I do not think that preprorioritizing scientific investigation is ever a "good idea"

You're in luck - that has not happened, with the IPCC, except where the current US Republican Party has managed to screw it up and suppress its work.
Its job is and has always been to track and evaluate and report on the likely effects of the major causes of the current unprecedentedly rapid global climate changes - which happen to be the anthropogenic boosting of CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

I hope that the ultimate goal of climate science is to find pattern within chaos.

Yep. And the researchers in field are making solid progress.
Which the IPCC has then evaluated and reported on, as it is supposed to do.

"Global warming" when most of the warming happens within the arctic and antarctic circles which total less than 5% of the surface of the earth.

?
That terminology is completely and rigorously accurate. The warming from AGW is global, rapid, and significant at every latitude.

I recently read one too many complaints from astrophysicists about people and the media only focusing on CO2 as a driver of the climate. Which finally peaked my curiosity.

Bullshit.

You have been posting like that about AGW for years, vague and unsupported Republican Party swill anyone can get from Sean Hannity or James Inhofe any time they run short of Republican Party swill.

Which will never happen as long as you guys are around.

 

[DaveC426913]

You have been posting like that about AGW for years, vague and unsupported Republican Party swill anyone can get from Sean Hannity or James Inhofe any time they run short of Republican Party swill.

Technically, that's an ad hom.
While there's no doubt this issue is rife with politics, let's not let this thread - about the science - get hijacked by politics.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Who wants to tell the world it over red rover in little under 50 years.?
Of course they are understating the situation.

Thought experiment:
If the world does nothing about AGW will humanity be effectively extinct in
200 years?
100 years?
50 years?
What is the best case scenario, if the world does nothing?
Even if you think 200 years, it is a massively troubling thing to realise, let alone 50 years.
IMO it is going to be much less than 50 years....given the rate of acceleration occuring now.

 

[LaurieAG]

Technically, that's an ad hom.
While there's no doubt this issue is rife with politics, let's not let this thread - about the science - get hijacked by politics.

The IPCC is almost unique in that it is peer reviewed by experts and reviewed by governments.
https://wg1.ipcc.ch/procedures/PrinciplesProceduresGoverningIPCC.pdf

Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.

That's unusual wording for governance procedures and principles.

 

[Tiassa]

Technically, that's an ad hom.
While there's no doubt this issue is rife with politics, let's not let this thread - about the science - get hijacked by politics.

Setting aside the parts that are not explicitly untrue, we might wonder about the problem of declaring fallacious what is true, relevant, and effective.

While saying someone has been, "posting like that about AGW for years, vague and unsupported Republican Party swill anyone can get from Sean Hannity or James Inhofe any time they run short of Republican Party swill", might read like ad hominem, it is also a description of why what that person said Is, "Bullshit".

No, really: He recently read one too many complaints? Oh, come on, maybe that works on some first-timer, but it's not believable to anyone with prior experience.

†​

Try this: Hone the word, "remarkable", until it is absolutely meaningless, i.e., the point of something being considered "remarkable" is fulfilled simply by remarking on it. That is to say, something that is remarkable is worth mentioning; one need not even say explicitly that something is or was remarkable.

Part of what I'm asking you to look at is the dullness of the word when I treat it like that.

But what do the words we say actually mean?

Among sticklers, I have in the last couple years encountered occasional frustrations about how people treat the word, "literally", and, technically, I agree, but we're probably also abusing the word, "technically", these days. How many people use the word, "hypothetically", incorrectly?

I also confess I have a harder time accepting the colloquialization of "literally", than "technically" or "hypothetically", but still.

What does it mean when someone says, "I recently read one too many ...", and follows that with, "Which finally ..."? If, for instance, that person didn't just turn, because one too many finally set him off, aren't those words misleading?

Or are they accurate in the same way someone saying, "You just literally said so a thousand times!" generally isn't actually, literally true, but accurate enough because we know what someone means?

But, again, toward that end, what does someone actually mean when "one too many" something or other "finally" caused a result?

Because it's true, if we take that "one too many" and "finally" literally, it doesn't really match up.

And it's also true our neighbor tends toward Republican and conservative rhetoric while often pretending he's not part of it. That kind of behavior is generally a ruse, actually.

That an assessment is unkind or attends behavior does not automatically make it ad hominem; sometimes those points are relevant.

 

[exchemist]

The IPCC is almost unique in that it is peer reviewed by experts and reviewed by governments.
https://wg1.ipcc.ch/procedures/PrinciplesProceduresGoverningIPCC.pdf


That's unusual wording for governance procedures and principles.

Presumably because the IPCC is a unique body, set up by governments but informed by science.

 

[Baldeee]

I Sorry. Grammar Nazi here.
"piqued"

”Peaked” would be acceptable if he meant it as reaching its highest level.

(If not obvious, note that the poles are where almost all the planet's water is that is above sea level. If they melt, it could raise the sea levels by easily 200 feet.

Antarctica would contribute all of that rise.
If the arctic melted then the sea level wouldn’t really change (other than as part of the thermal expansion of the water due to any temperature increase) because the ice sheet is floating there, and the total meltwater would just displace the volume of ice beneath the surface.

 

[exchemist]

”Peaked” would be acceptable if he meant it as reaching its highest level.
Antarctica would contribute all of that rise.
If the arctic melted then the sea level wouldn’t really change (other than as part of the thermal expansion of the water due to any temperature increase) because the ice sheet is floating there, and the total meltwater would just displace the volume of ice beneath the surface.

Don't forget Greenland.

 

[Janus58]

”Peaked” would be acceptable if he meant it as reaching its highest level.
Antarctica would contribute all of that rise.
If the arctic melted then the sea level wouldn’t really change (other than as part of the thermal expansion of the water due to any temperature increase) because the ice sheet is floating there, and the total meltwater would just displace the volume of ice beneath the surface.

Just a small quibble: The arctic ice is fresh water ice floating in sea water. Sea water is denser than fresh water. Thus the volume of fresh water produced by the melting of the ice will be slightly greater than the sea water the ice displaced beneath the surface. Of course, this water will quickly mix with the surrounding sea water, but this will lower the salinity overall and thus the density. So the resulting change in sea water levels would not be exactly nil. Granted, we are talking about a small effect, even less than that due to thermal expansion.

 

[Baldeee]

Don't forget Greenland.

I didn't, but he did only mention the poles.

From what I can gather (pop-science sources, so read with care):

• if all of Greenland's ice melted then sea-level would rise c.24 feet.
• if Artic melted - minimal sea-rise
• 
  
• if Antarctica melted - the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea-levels by c.10-11 feet; the Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet a mere 1 foot, but the East Antarctica ice sheet, however, would raise the sea-level by c.180 feet!

[*] - http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/qu...-global-sea-level-rise-quickly-likely-happen/

 

[billvon]

I didn't, but he did only mention the poles.

From what I can gather (pop-science sources, so read with care):

• if all of Greenland's ice melted then sea-level would rise c.24 feet.
• if Artic melted - minimal sea-rise
• if Antarctica melted - the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea-levels by c.10-11 feet; the Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet a mere 1 foot, but the East Antarctica ice sheet, however, would raise the sea-level by c.180 feet!

Yep. With a note that the "arctic" includes most of Greenland; I think you meant the Arctic ice cap, which is floating ice.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Misnomers and a sloppy use of the language:

americans main stream sloppy language use to define it as individualistic culture as a sense of self idiation via group identity.

in the UK it is more class based as a sense of tribal codification to form collective associations separate to the main group.

mixed in with that is globally reaching celebrity language meme fan talk where people trend words and sounds and images and attach incorrect sounds and meanings to non words.

seeing reformist indoctrinated quasi christian anti climate science people attempt to turn climate science into the great anti-reformation of the catholic order, or some symbolic seventh day Adventist of baptist Judaism should be no surprise.
like a flock of sea gulls, with some making screeching noises...
just because they can make a lot of noise, does not mean the noise they make is a language or of any intellectual value.

unfortunately there is a trend of validating the noise as a flow on from bullying culture to normalise bullying normalisation
this is adhered to by group behavior in processes of public interaction like social media and TV etc...

you want the dumb idiot to vote for you and be able to buy a Military assault riffle for killing humans at the local shopping mall but dont want them to ever visit your rich exclusive neighbourhood....

"don't you think someone should do something!"
said the anti establishment elitist to the dumb idiot lynch mob member....