Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Jacobyte]

plunker said:

Very true and very banal - is that all?

There's no need to expand upon it. The entire AGW merry-go-round is based on "facts" which are mostly borne of mutual backslapping and self-preservation. Wikipedia is full of "facts". No amount of wishful thinking can change the simple truth: if the experiment doesn't agree with the theory, then it's wrong.

[XM5ER]

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

I just remembered why I never normally engage in discussion with you, it's because as soon as a question pops your cognitive dissonance you get all passive aggressive.

So back to the question that "triggered" you last time, where are the observatories at the north pole that give us the 36 degree warming signal. Do you think it might be an artefact of interpolation in a faulty model at all? For heavens sake Plunker stop being so damn credulous and start asking questions of the climate dogma.

Put some work into it if you really want to know. I don't have access to anything that you don't.

In my experience when you say 'model' to many people here they just brush it off and you immediately conformed to type.

That doesn't really incentivize me to spend time researching the details for you.

Hey it was your post in apparent evidence of some earlier claim, you do the work. See your quote below.

plunker said:

Just gonna post this cos it highlights what I was saying about the large cooling in the RSS land data in October being due to displaced arctic air over eurasia. Buy into fake experts in the Fail claiming this is La Nina driven cooling at your own risk.

plunker said:

As an aside, some of us 'credulous' types use real time model analysis of global temps to get a feel for what's happening ahead of the monthly updates coming out from the main indices. It works!

Oh so you do have a vested interest in all this stuff then? I seem to remember that you claimed to be just an innocent bystander.

[plunker]

Jacobyte said:

plunker said:

Very true and very banal - is that all?

There's no need to expand upon it. The entire AGW merry-go-round is based on "facts" which are mostly borne of mutual backslapping and self-preservation. Wikipedia is full of "facts". No amount of wishful thinking can change the simple truth: if the experiment doesn't agree with the theory, then it's wrong.

So zero contribution to what was being discussed - just big over-arching statements. Dull.

[durbster]

Jacobyte said:

No amount of wishful thinking can change the simple truth: if the experiment doesn't agree with the theory, then it's wrong.

Indeed.

Which experiment are you referring to? All the ones I can find support AGW.

[plunker]

XM5ER said:

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

I just remembered why I never normally engage in discussion with you, it's because as soon as a question pops your cognitive dissonance you get all passive aggressive.

So back to the question that "triggered" you last time, where are the observatories at the north pole that give us the 36 degree warming signal. Do you think it might be an artefact of interpolation in a faulty model at all? For heavens sake Plunker stop being so damn credulous and start asking questions of the climate dogma.

Put some work into it if you really want to know. I don't have access to anything that you don't.

In my experience when you say 'model' to many people here they just brush it off and you immediately conformed to type.

That doesn't really incentivize me to spend time researching the details for you.

Hey it was your post in apparent evidence of some earlier claim, you do the work. See your quote below.

plunker said:

Just gonna post this cos it highlights what I was saying about the large cooling in the RSS land data in October being due to displaced arctic air over eurasia. Buy into fake experts in the Fail claiming this is La Nina driven cooling at your own risk.

Oh I see, so in response to rovermorris posting the daily mail article, I should have pressed him to provide technical details about how the RSS satellite platforms works. I think that would be seen as annoying and vexacious by most people. Clearly you're special.

XM5ER said:

plunker said:

As an aside, some of us 'credulous' types use real time model analysis of global temps to get a feel for what's happening ahead of the monthly updates coming out from the main indices. It works!

Oh so you do have a vested interest in all this stuff then? I seem to remember that you claimed to be just an innocent bystander.

I've no idea what you're on about there.

oh wait - you think I've got my own model and supercomputer don't you, lol! No this is freely available stuff on the internet a mouse-click away.

You wouldn't use such information though cos it's y'know - 'a model' - so I shan't trouble your mouse finger.

Edited by plunker on Wednesday 30th November 14:17

[Jacobyte]

plunker said:

So zero contribution to what was being discussed - just big over-arching statements. Dull.

On the contrary, it was a direct response to you stating "pertinent facts" which were, in fact, not facts, but outputs of a computer model. Furthermore, it was distinctly apposite in the context that your wording in general can easily be inferred as being driven by political ideology rather than scientific empirical evidence.

[Jacobyte]

durbster said:

Indeed.
Which experiment are you referring to? All the ones I can find support AGW.

Thank you for the kind invitation, but on this occasion I shall politely decline to join your attrition loop.

[durbster]

Jacobyte said:

Thank you for the kind invitation, but on this occasion I shall politely decline to join your attrition loop.

That's convenient. Apparently there's loads of scientific proof but on the very rare occasions there's a link to a scientific paper presented by the resident deniers, it's turned out to not be what was suggested (see volcanism studies, the 800 year CO2/temperature lag, that bizarre list of x papers apparently disproving AGW etc.).

I've offered dozens of links to actual papers, and shown the massive volume of evidence for AGW available on Google Scholar.

In response, we have stories from the Daily Mail and Metro. And then I'm accused of acting like I'm following a religion.

Jacobyte said:

attrition loop

I know I've said it before, but you have to admire turbobloke's ability to plant catchphrases, even when they don't make sense. His posts here remind me of Richard Littlejohn - heavy on snappy soundbites and, crucially, never straying so far from the truth that you can be dismissed as a lunatic. Presenting information (whether true or not) in an easily digestible way is a rare skill.

[mybrainhurts]

Oh, god...:sigh:

[XM5ER]

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

I just remembered why I never normally engage in discussion with you, it's because as soon as a question pops your cognitive dissonance you get all passive aggressive.

So back to the question that "triggered" you last time, where are the observatories at the north pole that give us the 36 degree warming signal. Do you think it might be an artefact of interpolation in a faulty model at all? For heavens sake Plunker stop being so damn credulous and start asking questions of the climate dogma.

Put some work into it if you really want to know. I don't have access to anything that you don't.

In my experience when you say 'model' to many people here they just brush it off and you immediately conformed to type.

That doesn't really incentivize me to spend time researching the details for you.

Hey it was your post in apparent evidence of some earlier claim, you do the work. See your quote below.

plunker said:

Just gonna post this cos it highlights what I was saying about the large cooling in the RSS land data in October being due to displaced arctic air over eurasia. Buy into fake experts in the Fail claiming this is La Nina driven cooling at your own risk.

Oh I see, so in response to rovermorris posting the daily mail article, I should have pressed him to provide technical details about how the RSS satellite platforms works. I think that would be seen as annoying and vexacious by most people. Clearly you're special.

XM5ER said:

plunker said:

As an aside, some of us 'credulous' types use real time model analysis of global temps to get a feel for what's happening ahead of the monthly updates coming out from the main indices. It works!

Oh so you do have a vested interest in all this stuff then? I seem to remember that you claimed to be just an innocent bystander.

I've no idea what you're on about there.

There you go getting all passive aggressive again. You are involved in coding climate models as you stated above and not what you have claimed previously, that you are not connected to the climate change sector.

So back to the question

XM5ER said:

How have they measured the temperature of the Arctic? Where are the observatories at the north pole that give us the 36 degree warming signal?

This is not nitpicking about how the RSS satellite platforms works, it is straight forward question of how this "signal" was observed.

[XM5ER]

durbster said:

Jacobyte said:

Thank you for the kind invitation, but on this occasion I shall politely decline to join your attrition loop.

That's convenient. Apparently there's loads of scientific proof but on the very rare occasions there's a link to a scientific paper presented by the resident deniers, it's turned out to not be what was suggested (see volcanism studies, the 800 year CO2/temperature lag, that bizarre list of x papers apparently disproving AGW etc.).

I've offered dozens of links to actual papers, and shown the massive volume of evidence for AGW available on Google Scholar.

In response, we have stories from the Daily Mail and Metro. And then I'm accused of acting like I'm following a religion.

Jacobyte said:

attrition loop

I know I've said it before, but you have to admire turbobloke's ability to plant catchphrases, even when they don't make sense. His posts here remind me of Richard Littlejohn - heavy on snappy soundbites and, crucially, never straying so far from the truth that you can be dismissed as a lunatic. Presenting information (whether true or not) in an easily digestible way is a rare skill.

Phud said:

XM5ER said:

durbster said:

It appears some are wilfully ignoring the "appeal to facts determined by experiment" part, since that's where AGW comes from.

And what experiment is that then?

Phud said:
Not convince me, but which proven experiment, not model, has convinced you.
Durbster said:
There isn't one. A single experiment is never going to provide an absolute picture of such a complex topic.

Phud said:
So please rather than avoid, turn, swerve could you please link to the experiment that has convinced you, yourself that man made climate change is real, also that we can, by altering such a small % of gas, stop the huge climate change that the world under goes during it's cycles.

Durbster said:
Not is man affecting the world but purely this area of climate change. The one you advocate that others just don't get.
Asking me to justify my position is pointless because it is simply that I accept what all the world's leading scientists are telling us: that human activity is changing the climate. If you aren't convinced by what organisations like NASA or The Royal Society say, I doubt I'm going to change your mind.

His answers when asked prior

Boring!

[Jacobyte]

durbster said:

Jacobyte said:

Thank you for the kind invitation, but on this occasion I shall politely decline to join your attrition loop.

That's convenient. Apparently there's loads of scientific proof [/snip]

I've offered dozens of links to actual papers, and shown the massive volume of evidence for AGW available on Google Scholar.[/snip]

No proof is offered in those; they are academic research into the theory, none of which demonstrate validation in empirical tests.

durbster said:

Jacobyte said:

Jacobyte said:

attrition loop

I know I've said it before, but you have to admire turbobloke's ability to plant catchphrases [/snip]

I had actually written "become part of an infinitely recurring dream where the same unvalidated arguments are being constantly repeated in order to grind down the will of those that are open-minded and questioning the dogma", but then you'd have said "why not just say 'attrition loop' for brevity?"

[wc98]

durbster said:

How is that different from my explanation?

lol, he actually used their own data to come to his conclusion. go and ask him on his website, i dare you

[plunker]

XM5ER said:

There you go getting all passive aggressive again. You are involved in coding climate models as you stated above and not what you have claimed previously, that you are not connected to the climate change sector.

I updated my post a minute ago so I'll just C&P:

I've no idea what you're on about there.

oh wait - you think I've got my own model and supercomputer don't you, lol! No this is freely available stuff on the internet a mouse-click away.

You wouldn't use such information though cos it's y'know - 'a model' - so I shan't trouble your mouse finger.

XM5ER said:

This is not nitpicking about how the RSS satellite platforms works, it is straight forward question of how this "signal" was observed.

I don't see a difference.

...actually I already posted a temperature anomaly map from satellite data substantiating what I said about warm arctic/cold siberia so no need for me to do more work. You'll have to manage without me. ttfn

[wc98]

plunker said:

Put some work into it if you really want to know. I don't have access to anything that you don't.

In my experience when you say 'model' to many people here they just brush it off and you immediately conformed to type.

That doesn't really incentivize me to spend time researching the details for you.

As an aside, some of us 'credulous' types use real time model analysis of global temps to get a feel for what's happening ahead of the monthly updates coming out from the main indices. It works!

the big problem with climate models is they are bdizations of models intended for other fields. the huge choice of parameters never mind the values used mean you can get any result you like from them.there are lots of problems even today with current measuring techniques of things like sea surface temps for instance. i have ready access to them in real time from some mates in the fishing industry and rarely do satellite sea surface temps match reality.

i banged on about enough in certain circles when the satellite temps were higher than reality, but it works both ways, this year north sea surface temps are up to 2 degrees warmer in some areas compared to what is stated by satellite temperatures . accepting what people tell me only works up to the point i know what they are telling me is wrong. then i start questioning everything else they say.

[XM5ER]

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

There you go getting all passive aggressive again. You are involved in coding climate models as you stated above and not what you have claimed previously, that you are not connected to the climate change sector.

I updated my post a minute ago so I'll just C&P:

I've no idea what you're on about there.

oh wait - you think I've got my own model and supercomputer don't you, lol! No this is freely available stuff on the internet a mouse-click away.

You wouldn't use such information though cos it's y'know - 'a model' - so I shan't trouble your mouse finger.

Nope. you said

plunker said:

As an aside, some of us 'credulous' types use real time model analysis of global temps to get a feel for what's happening ahead of the monthly updates coming out from the main indices. It works!

The key is in the use of the word "us", and no amount of wriggling and deflection will erase that slip up now. Do you work at UEA or the met office?

plunker said:

XM5ER said:

This is not nitpicking about how the RSS satellite platforms works, it is straight forward question of how this "signal" was observed.

I don't see a difference.

...actually I already posted a temperature anomaly map from satellite data substantiating what I said about warm arctic/cold siberia so no need for me to do more work. You'll have to manage without me. ttfn

Yes you did, and the temperature anomaly was roughly 5k, a considerably more believable figure than 36 degrees. Do you see that difference? Are you starting to see why intelligent people with a smattering of scientific understanding are sceptical of bloody stupid claims yet?

So how have they measured the temperature of the Arctic? Where are the observatories at the north pole that give us the 36 degree warming signal? In the RSS model, they used a satellite (yes, and a lot of assumptions, calculations and models), in the GFS model, what data are they using? The fact that you have deflected and avoided the question at least 5 times now indicates that either you don't know or you do know that it's a model that's broken.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/a209...

Here's a good blog post, have a read whilst you are having a flounce, it's interesting reading (not about climate science).

[durbster]

wc98 said:

durbster said:

How is that different from my explanation?

lol, he actually used their own data to come to his conclusion. go and ask him on his website, i dare you

So two parties have taken the same data and reached different conclusions. One conclusion is peer-reviewed, one not.

You seem to have decided this version must be correct. Why?

What happened to Nullus in verba?

[Phud]

durbster said:

snip

What happened to Nullus in verba?

Your reading or what most other accept?

[durbster]

Phud said:

durbster said:

snip

What happened to Nullus in verba?

Your reading or what most other accept?

If I say that NASA/climate scientists/Royal Society say AGW is real, people start barking "NULLUS IN VERBA".

Then somebody offers some analysis conducted by "man on internet", and not only is it not challenged at all by the deniers, we're expected to simply accept that it's absolute truth.

You don't see the blatant hypocrisy, and why using that motto doesn't work?

[Phud]

the question was are you after using your version of the motto or the accepted latin translation?

As for accepting people do you accept that the one time lead of the IPCC was a railway engineering grad nothing to do with climate?