Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
dickymint said:
durbster said:
Nobody has given me a single reason why I should trust the findings of this particular petition over multiple, peer-reviewed, more open research that finds overwhelming support for AGW.
Then this thread can do no more for you save wish you well and hope you find the unheated cave well above sea level that you seem to crave for wavey
Well yes, that's pretty much the quality of debate here: question whether information is reliable and be asked to leave.

TheExcession said:
God forbid that he should ever stumble across and read the emails leaked from UEACRU. Where's the :headexploding: gif when you need it?
I did have a look into it ages ago and it looks very much like a concerted attempt to make a fuss over nothing. Searching for information mainyl leads to baying blogs that mainly consist of edited quotes offered with no context.

Which are largely explained in this response from the UEA:
https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/media-room/press-relea...

Outside the world of blogs, there were several enquiries which found no evidence of wrongdoing e.g.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/...

But the main problem with it is that all the science coming from the UEA is publicly available, and corroborated by research undertaken by other organisations elsewhere in the world. In other words, the UEA haven't proposed anything that's scientifically controversial.

Enquiry said:
...the great bulk of the temperature data used by CRU was already readily available and that there was no barrier to checking or seeking to offer alternative hypotheses compatible with the data. Attempts simply to taint the science with the content of email exchanges are not the appropriate way to probe or challenge the conclusions.
This leads to two conclusions about 'climategate':
1. There's nothing to see here.
2. Every one of these organisations is involved in a connected global fraud that operates beyond the law.

I know conclusion 1 is less exciting than the conspiracy one but that's so often the way in real life.

XJ40

5,983 posts

212 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
Nobody has given me a single reason why I should trust the findings of this particular petition over multiple, peer-reviewed, more open research that finds overwhelming support for AGW.
Then this thread can do no more for you save wish you well and hope you find the unheated cave well above sea level that you seem to crave for wavey
Well yes, that's pretty much the quality of debate here: question whether information is reliable and be asked to leave.

TheExcession said:
God forbid that he should ever stumble across and read the emails leaked from UEACRU. Where's the :headexploding: gif when you need it?
I did have a look into it ages ago and it looks very much like a concerted attempt to make a fuss over nothing. Searching for information mainyl leads to baying blogs that mainly consist of edited quotes offered with no context.

Which are largely explained in this response from the UEA:
https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/media-room/press-relea...

Outside the world of blogs, there were several enquiries which found no evidence of wrongdoing e.g.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/...

But the main problem with it is that all the science coming from the UEA is publicly available, and corroborated by research undertaken by other organisations elsewhere in the world. In other words, the UEA haven't proposed anything that's scientifically controversial.

Enquiry said:
...the great bulk of the temperature data used by CRU was already readily available and that there was no barrier to checking or seeking to offer alternative hypotheses compatible with the data. Attempts simply to taint the science with the content of email exchanges are not the appropriate way to probe or challenge the conclusions.
This leads to two conclusions about 'climategate':
1. There's nothing to see here.
2. Every one of these organisations is involved in a connected global fraud that operates beyond the law.

I know conclusion 1 is less exciting than the conspiracy one but that's so often the way in real life.
Durbster, I admire your perseverance here on this thread, I dip in to read the responces occasionally for mild amusement. I think some of the guys here want this to be an AGM denial thread and make you out to be something of a troll if you hold a contary view. Your conclusions above are unavoidable if your are of reasonable mind of course, the vast majority of mainstream science organisations support the AGM theory, and apparently for good reason.

It still sometimes surprises me that a lot of the decent, intelligent guys here so passionately hold up their spurious blog posts as some kind of quanitifiable evidence, and seem to genuinely believe whole heartedly what they read therein. And are so quick to discount the findings and conclusions of many major established science organisations. It's always good to have something of a debate and an opposing view to try and hold the mainstream consensus view to account so there is a relevance... The reality of these things is that there are many with entrenched idealogically motivated views on both sides who genuinely believe they are correct on the matter, who even if/when catergorically proved to be mistaken will continue with their beliefs. I have to say I find this thread more interesting on a psycological level than on what is being said regarding climate change to be honest, long may it continue...

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
Every one of these organisations is involved in a connected global fraud that operates beyond the law.
If you say so, nobody else says so.

XJ40 said:
I think some of the guys here want this to be an AGM denial thread and make you out to be something of a troll if you hold a contary view.
If you want to see where responsibility lies, see above and the dozens of similar offerings throughout the thread.

All the while basically ignoring answers to questions and the like.

Several times I've posted lists of peer-reviewed papers after sarcy comments from you-know-who to the effect that they don't exist. I've posted lists of credible scientific organisations that dispute AGW and explained how those that do actually don't but a small committee of activists claims to speak for all. Not that this matters. Ex has posted a five-figure list of scientists that dispute AGW, which is odd as scientists support AGW and the science is settled.

silly

It's all ignored or shrugged off with vague armwaving waffle then the logical fallacies and strawmen start off again on something we already covered weeks or months or years ago and where nothing (apart from a ~19 year pause in not-manmade warming) has happened since.

TheExcession

11,669 posts

249 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
I did have a look into it ages ago and it looks very much like a concerted attempt to make a fuss over nothing. Searching for information mainyl leads to baying blogs that mainly consist of edited quotes offered with no context.
Don't read the blogs... read the emails, like many of us did. Then you'll be able to make up your own mind..

durbster said:
But the main problem with it is that all the science coming from the UEA is publicly available,
SNORT HAHAHAHA rofl You think?


Booker at the Telegraph said:
They (UEA CRU) have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
Common Durbs, answer that and stay credible.

Link


Edited by TheExcession on Wednesday 4th May 12:25


Edited by TheExcession on Wednesday 4th May 12:26

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
...multiple, peer-reviewed, more open research that finds overwhelming support for AGW...
No, it doesn't find overwhelming support, and it's not open where the data and algorithms are harder to get hold of than rocking horse poo.

Even if it did, science doesn't operate by consensus. You've been reminded several times that it doesn't matter how many get it wrong.

The above type of rhetoric dates from an era when The Team pushing The Cause had a stranglehold on peer review and even then it wasn't true.

These days it's way off the mark. Several PHers have posted links to peer-reviewed papers that don't support AGW and one link I've posted (others too, probably, in one or more attrition loop) has over 1,350 such papers.

In 2015 alone there were ~250 peer-reviewed papers that don't support AGW. That's also been posted on PH.

Now we await these snips of modern history to be disputed - probably with a strawman somewhere - as the thread enters another attrition loop.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Several times I've posted lists of peer-reviewed papers
I haven't read everything you post - there's only so many red herrings per day a person can take - but I haven't seen you post anything that tested AGW and found it false.

turbobloke said:
I've posted lists of credible scientific organisations that dispute AGW
No, they were not credible at all in my opinion. Many of them were the same people operating under multiple grandiose sounding names, and the majority had their roots in a single source. That source being one that receives funding from the fossil fuel industry. I spent a fair bit of time looking into them as it was quite interesting joining up the dots to see how the wider campaign is structured.

What I found was they invariably connected, and usually 1-3 steps away from the Koch brothers who have huge investments in the fossil fuel industry and are known to lobby and fund anti-AGW publicity. There's no way they can possibly be considered partial, let alone credible by any objective thinker.

It's quite easy to search the organisation and individual's names and find this stuff out, and I hope people have a look for themselves.

turbobloke said:
...explained how those that do actually don't but a small committee of activists claims to speak for all.
Another hugely implausible claim that seems to have no evidence basis.

turbobloke said:
Ex has posted a five-figure list of scientists that dispute AGW, which is odd as scientists support AGW and the science is settled.
Which I've raised several questions about that are being dodged / ignored.

turbobloke said:
...apart from a ~19 year pause in not-manmade warming) has happened since.
hehe

That's funny - I was thinking only yesterday about this meme and wondered whether it had died yet. Oh well.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
Durbster, you are STILL ignoring the question I recently asked you

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Durbster, you are STILL ignoring the question I recently asked you
Answered it earlier today.

TheExcession

11,669 posts

249 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Ex has posted a five-figure list of scientists that dispute AGW, which is odd as scientists support AGW and the science is settled.
Which I've raised several questions about that are being dodged / ignored.
They weren't dodged, they were thoroughly ignored. I got sick of your anti-appeal-to-blog nonsense.

I've suggested that you ignore the blogs and read the emails leaked from the CRU UEA, perhaps check out who Harry is, and then read the Harry-Readme.txt. After that come back and tell us the science is settled.

(Jeebus this is like playing chess with a two year old who's convinced the horsey can gallop in a straight line to an empty square at the other end and become an all powerful queen.)

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
TheExcession said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Ex has posted a five-figure list of scientists that dispute AGW, which is odd as scientists support AGW and the science is settled.
Which I've raised several questions about that are being dodged / ignored.
They weren't dodged, they were thoroughly ignored. I got sick of your anti-appeal-to-blog nonsense.
Indeed the 'points' made by durbster around the scientist signatories have been addressed by both of us. The objections were more vague armwaving bluster anyway. I raise questions and object to the waste of money going to fund AGW-biased research, it's a far more valid objection.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
TheExcession said:
They weren't dodged, they were thoroughly ignored. I got sick of your anti-appeal-to-blog nonsense.
I can only presume that means you have no answers then. If you're going to post something as evidence then it's on you to explain why you think it's valid.

TheExcession said:
I've suggested that you ignore the blogs and read the emails leaked from the CRU UEA, perhaps check out who Harry is, and then read the Harry-Readme.txt. After that come back and tell us the science is settled.
Let me guess, you read about this on a blog. banghead

Speaking as a programmer and somebody who has worked in a University, the harry readme isn't particularly interesting. It looks like a typical software commit log, excited by the frustrations that come from dealing with non-techy people and University beaurocracy.

As I said before the UEACRU hasn't found anything that hasn't been found by other organisations researching the same stuff, so none of it seemed to affect the outcomes.

TheExcession said:
(Jeebus this is like playing chess with a two year old who's convinced the horsey can gallop in a straight line to an empty square at the other end and become an all powerful queen.)
I hope you didn't spend too long coming up with that analogy.

XJ40

5,983 posts

212 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
...apart from a ~19 year pause in not-manmade warming) has happened since.
hehe

That's funny - I was thinking only yesterday about this meme and wondered whether it had died yet. Oh well.
Indeed. This meme doesn't bear any scrutiny at all, it's complete cobblers. Both the NOAA and NASA (organisations who actually measure global climate for those who don't know) say that 2015 was the warmest year on record, and that 15 of the 16 hottest years on record occured since 2001.

I do hope any casual readers of the thread will take 2 minutes to google this and not just take Turboblokes word for it.

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analys...

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Indeed the 'points' made by durbster around the scientist signatories have been addressed by both of us. The objections were more vague armwaving bluster anyway. I raise questions and object to the waste of money going to fund AGW-biased research, it's a far more valid objection.
Er, no they haven't.

Shall we try again?

1. How many scientists received the petition in total - what does this number represent?
2. How many of those who signed it almost 20 years ago will have changed their mind on seeing the near 20 years of growing evidence?
3. How were the recipients chosen?
4. How many of the 31,000 have studied or are studying the climate?
5. How is this petition evidence that there is widespread opposition to AGW among scientists, when it is not phrased that way?
6. Why should I treat this petition with more validity than the multiple peer-reviewed studies into scientific opinion
7. Why are anti-AGW websites often old and terrible?

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
You (durbster) claim people don't respond to your questions but this - below (and the rest) - was from 28 April in this thread following Ex's post where you claim nobody responded to you. You are simply blustering and obfuscating your way through numerous attrition loops.

turbobloke said:
durbster said:
1 It looks very old (referring to Kyoto?), so is it still relevant?
2 Not many on the list seem to hold relevant qualifications, so is it just a survey of the public?
3 It doesn't say how many people they surveyed in total so it's difficult to put a context to that number. The wording of the question seems misleading:
4 "is causing or will cause catastrophic heating". Is it only a concern if it's catastrophic?
5 "CO2 produces many beneficial effects on plant". This is easy to agree with.
1 there's no relevant sell-by date, much as you would wish there were
2 you did read the qualification requirement...your assertion is simply wrong
3 is it a survey or an open invitation to sign a petition (and the answer is...)
4 if it's not then why are the (erroneous) statements of future doom so doomy and indeed this is part of the agw fail
5 agreed

also

6 your graphic refers to a survey of specific disciplines - they are by no merans alone in having a qualified view, and indeed one might say that it doesn't help to survey so many vested interests while excluding other neutral, informed, qualified opinion.

This is still all window dressing, though it's important to counter the lies about the false consensus.

What matters is the unmolested data and that goes against AGW.
On 22nd April we had this attrition loop on models courtesy of durbster.

turbobloke said:
Buckle up, we're looping rotate

1 Model failures as seen on PH climate threads a number of times already, believers well-versed in climate science will need no commentary (it's in the other loops anyway).















2 Model errors as posted in PH climate threads several times before.

• The models systematically underestimate the magnitude of the overturning circulation and atmospheric energy transport. As a consequence, there is erroneous warming of the model troposphere. Deep equatorial convective clouds and the overturning atmospheric circulation of the Hadley Cells are critical processes necessary to distribute excess tropical solar radiation through the troposphere.

• The models systematically underestimate the poleward transport of energy by the ocean circulations. Although the ocean circulations transport only between 10 and 15 percent of the excess energy of the tropics, the spatial sea surface temperature distribution is dependent on the energy budget in the surface mixed layer and is a crucial determinant of the intensity of the atmospheric circulation.

• The models are inconsistent in their representation of longwave radiation at the earth's surface and, on average, overestimate the exchange in the tropics and underestimate the exchange over high latitudes. Net longwave radiation at the surface is the crucial interaction between greenhouse gases and the energetics of the climate system. The magnitudes of the differences between models and the systemic biases, when compared to the expected radiative forcing from increased greenhouse gas concentrations, make nonsense of computer projections of future climate.

• The handling of water vapour effects including precipitable water is inadequate at best and wrong at worst

• The evidence is that the projections of more extreme global warming from increased greenhouse gas concentrations emanates from those models that contrive 'positive feedback' processes to amplify the impact.

3 More info as seen on PH several times already in one thread or another.

Climate Models A Fundamental Failure

Reference: Chase, T.N., Pielke Sr., R.A., Herman, B. and Zeng, X. 2004. Likelihood of rapidly increasing surface temperatures unaccompanied by strong warming in the free troposphere. Climate Research 25: 185-190.

Background The authors note that "an important test of model predictive ability and usefulness for impact studies is how well models simulate the observed vertical temperature structure of the troposphere under anthropogenically-induced-change scenarios."

Why is this so? It is because one of the most fundamental features of current climate-model simulations is "a larger warming in the free troposphere than at the surface when forced by increasing atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and the direct effect of sulfate aerosols."(IPCC 1996, 2001).

This predicted feature of global warming is not evident in the real world, there is little reason to believe anything else the models predict, including both the cause and (or) magnitude of the observed surface warming.

What was done: Chase et al. assessed the likelihood "that such a disparity between model projection and observations could be generated by forcing uncertainties or chance model fluctuations, by comparing all possible 22 yr temperature trends [for the years 1979-2000, which were similarly studied by the IPCC and a special committee of the U.S. National Academy of Science] in a series of climate simulations."

What was learned: In the words of the authors at no time, in any model realization, forced or unforced, did any model simulate the presently observed situation".

Such observations are openly acknowledged to represent the real world in both the IPCC (2001) report and the National Academy Report (2000).

Chase et al. conclude that these "significant errors in the simulations of globally averaged tropospheric temperature structure indicate likely errors in tropospheric water-vapor content and therefore total greenhouse-gas forcing, precipitable water and convectively forced large-scale circulations," noting that "such errors argue for extreme caution in applying simulation results to future climate-change assessment activities and to attribution studies (e.g. Zwiers and Zhang, 2003) and call into question the predictive ability of recent generation model simulations."

4 Some links on how badly climate models fail, which have appeared in PH threads more than once, I recently re-read a case in point from 2011.

Computer climate models are at the heart of the problem of global warming predictions:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BALLComputerModels...

Computer climate models are still unreliable, new study warns:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15721/G...

A fundamental failure of current climate models:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091103/p...

The (lack of) validation of IPCC computer climate models:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/IPCCvalid.htm

Backcasting of climate models does not work:
http://www.applet-magic.com/backcasting.htm

Santer et-17-al models fail to be confirmed by observations:
http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/30/not-found-the-...

Both climate models used in the USNA were worse than no model at all, worse than random numbers:
http://www.alec.org/am/pdf/energy/projectregionalc...

The models are the vehicles used to bamboozle the public and create the illusion they know what is going on:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20757

Global Warming Computer Models Seriously Flawed, Studies Show:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/15727/G...

5. The post from Le TVR you replied to (and challenged, unsuccessfully) was correct.
One reply: this should be a sticky at the top of every page of this thread. would save you a bit of time over the years smile

On April 20th there wasn't much by way of reply to my citation of Yeakel et al, same old.

turbobloke said:
Corals are 500 million years old, how on earth smile did they survive the far warmer temperatures experienced between then and now? It's a miracle.

In addition, we must all remamber Yeakel et al, as we all do, reporting on the fact that - based on measurements and data not computer models - healthy growing coral reefs acidify the ocean around them.
Back on 5th April various papers were cited (by me) and as usual the detailed response to each was overwhelming.

turbobloke said:
Apart from the three papers I cited earlier today, there's 'Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice: Role of Winds' (Ogi et al, 2008) also ocean circulation changes in Johnson and Polyakov (2001).

In particular the Lassen and Thejll paper is pertinent for a more realistic timescale and better perception:

Abstract said:
The extent of ice in the North Atlantic varies in time with time scales stretching to centennial, and the cause of these variations is discussed. We consider the Koch ice index which describes the amount of ice sighted from Iceland, in the period 1150 to 1983 AD. This measure of ice extent is a non-linear and curtailed measure of the amount of ice in the Greenland Sea, but gives an overall view of the amounts of ice there through more than 800 years. The length of the series allows insight into the natural variability of ice extent and this understanding can be used to evaluate modern-day variations. Thus we find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5% probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate.
Likewise on ice mass change here citing Slonosky et al, Ganaposki et al, Deser et al, Opel et al and Vares et al.

turbobloke said:
There's no causality to humans in recent ice mass change so take from that what you will, particularly tht there's no established causality smile

Assuming (there is) is what's behind the current pointless waste of £billions.

Before the recent madmess took hold there were comments about short-term temperature and ice mass fluctuations in the arctic being normal but anything (literally) is seized upon these days as a 'sign'; it's a sign of ongoing natural change but it's not a causal human signal.

Even during the hysteria period, there have been several papers demonstrating that ice mass changes are due to circulation changes, both atmospheric and oceanic e.g. Slonosky et al (1997), Ganopolski et al (1998) and Deser et al (2000) as every politician knows.

On temperature, O18 data shows the highest arctic temperatures of the 20th century occurred between 1920 and 1940 (hence the 1922 observations I posted above) while after that peak there has been overall cooling in the remaining part of the 20th century (Opel et al 2013). Anyone remember the saga surrounding 1934? We're overdue a loop on that score given the catalysis of news items such as "Data quietly released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest (USA) years ever recorded occurred were in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998)."

This shhhh data release also showed that the years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900 but warmists still felt the heat cool

That's cool.
There's more from back in March.

turbobloke said:
... temperature changes come first on all relevant timescales (Caillon et al, Fischer et al, Monnin et al, Petit et al, Jouzel et al, Humlum et al, Soon) making that assumption unworthy of further attention.
Can't recall detailed rebuttals to those 5 peer-reviewed papers either. How odd and very unusal.

nuts

Even earlier in March:

turbobloke said:
Newell et al 1989
Silence.

Back in February durbster was attrition looping on the same old strawman of a global conspiracy which, curiously, nobody else claims.

turbobloke said:
durbster said:
A newsworthy science paper was published, it makes the news and you're calling a global conspiracy
On the matter of conspiracy, who has used the term, purely out of interest? Also is your use of global the same as in global warming, where the meaning of global is 'imaginary' or 'via adjustment'?

Also (again) out of interest how are you getting on with that list of peer-reviewed papers? To refresh your memory, and not including Gregory et al:

Morner in PPP 1973
Pirazzoli, Grant and Woodworth in QI 1989
Woodworth in IJC 1990
Douglas in JGR 1991
Maul & Martin in GRL 1993
Levitus et al in Science 2000
Morner in G&PC 2004
Holgate and Woodworth in GRL 2004
Carton et al in JGR 2005
Church and White in GRL 2006
Holgate in GRL 2007
Woodworth et al in IJC 2009
Kemp et al in PNAS 2011
Church et al in GRL 2011
Houston and Dean in JCR 2011
Watson in JCR 2011

durbster said:
Which sums up this debate, really.
What sums up this debate is easy to set out:

- no visible causal human signal exists in any global climate data unmolested or otherwise
- climate models parted company with reality some time ago and are now off with the fairies at the bottom of the garden
- IPCC are forced back to the point of mere speculation with made-up % masquerading as statistics
- the AGW null hypotheses, well, say no more
- it's all politics now except for the usual crop of believer attrition loops on some non-science cherry picked from fakeclimate or similar

HTH
15 or more peer-reviewed papers and not a squeak from believerville.

Also in February I cited Gregory et al in reply to yet another baseless anti-blog appeal to authority from duebster.

turbobloke said:
durbster said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Sea level data is as bent (into a hockey stick!) as the temperature data.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/02/todays-sea-l...
Oh man, this is a tricky one. Unsourced, uncredited, random blog post or peer-reviewed science paper printed in several science journals and by the world's major press.

I just can't decide who to go with on this.
Not just tricky for you.

Firstly what peer-reviewed paper(s) are you referring to?

I'll refer PHers to a peer-reviewed publication from Gregory et al (2012) which correctly refuses to consider AGW in isolation as a pre-determined cause of whatever minuscule sea level rise is claimed to be observed after adjustments.

A rise so close to zero that the individual contributions with error bars (shilling on the side here) will not be quoted in any believer-sourced paper you can cite and if examined will be larger than the total annual rise claimed. I have a shilling here and will donate it to the first shop counter charity box I encounter if required.

Back to Gregory et al in print, and TB in pixels on PH for that matter. I know from memory that the authors found global mean sea level rise (claimed) exceeded the sum of its component parts. How odd!

On PH in the past I've listed these, my own list not Gregory et al so any error here is mine, and asked why paper authors don't seem keen on citing contributory factors which they must surely know if they have confidence in their numbers and their total ... anyway those component parts: glaciation, glacial isostasy, shelf margin movement, change in seafloor spreading rate, sediment transfer, 'juvenile' water e.g. volcanism, subduction, and thermosteric effects.

If any paper you cite in response gives error bar size for the total but not for each component, that's not good enough, 'must show working'.
We (I) must be getting on for 35 peer-reviewed papers cited by me and with nothing back from durbster, who doesn't need to rely on blogs presumably due to ready access to the peer-reviewed literature...zilch.

Stand by for tokenism with logical fallacies and strawmen to go. Or if we're really lucky, another attrition loop.

Lucky us.


Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th May 14:26

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
And this is the politics thread.

TheExcession

11,669 posts

249 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
Let me guess, you read about this on a blog. banghead
Are you a fking retard? NO I READ THE EMAILS - THOUSANDS OF THEM OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS.
durbster said:
Speaking as a programmer and somebody who has worked in a University, the harry readme isn't particularly interesting. It looks like a typical software commit log, excited by the frustrations that come from dealing with non-techy people and University beaurocracy.
Don't speak as a programmer, you do the rest of us that are programmers a disservice because you are clearly not used to dealing with massive volumes of data. There is a yuge (Americanism popular on other PH threads) difference between a programmer and a data analyst. A programmer is not a data analyst, a good data analyst will be a programmer. (It's how they learn their trade).

As for the harry file;

Let me guess, you've read ALL you know about this on a blog. banghead

durbster said:
It looks like a typical software commit log
Not only retarded, are you on drugs?
Would you like to post that statement in the computer forum and try to get some 'consensus' for what a commit really means?

What ever mickey mouse programming you are involved with there is no way the Harry.txt is a commit log.

TheExcession

11,669 posts

249 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
And this is the politics thread.
hehe I was so close to clicking the report button (attrition looping) but I guess it is all edumacation. It was so much easier a few years ago.

How long has this been going on now? Ten, Twelve years?




Edited by TheExcession on Wednesday 4th May 16:28

0000

13,812 posts

190 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
TheExcession said:
durbster said:
It looks like a typical software commit log
Not only retarded, are you on drugs?
Would you like to post that statement in the computer forum and try to get some 'consensus' for what a commit really means?

What ever mickey mouse programming you are involved with there is no way the Harry.txt is a commit log.
Relax, I think it's normal after years of flash "programming".

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
durbster said:
robinessex said:
In that case Durbster, see if you can answer this one simple question. Why is the present CO2 level the 'correct' level for planet Earth ? Be careful, it's trick question !!!
Wow, this brilliant argument again. *slow clap*

There's no correct level for planet Earth, but evidently human beings have thrived under the current conditions.
Good. So a little bit more isn't worth bothering with then, is it. And non human beings, that’s the dinosaurs, managed for about 50,000,000 years with CO2 levels between 2 and 4 times greater than humans have. So what’s all the fuss about then ? This CO2 rising isn’t Armageddon then, is it? It’s just alarmist bks, for which the politicians will have us paying through the nose on a belief.

TheExcession

11,669 posts

249 months

Wednesday 4th May 2016
quotequote all
0000 said:
Relax, I think it's normal after years of flash "programming".
hehe

Yeah but he knows xml... and stuff

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED