Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[mondeoman]

rovermorris999 said:

tomw2000 said:

wc98 said:

in any other branch of science this would be the end of the hypothesis. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...

thanks for sharing. Am enjoying this paper.

I'm hoping our resident warmists will explain why Christy is wrong. After all, he must be surely? The last couple of pages are interesting.

Its all MAGICC apparently...

[turbobloke]

Some might prefer satellite data which is also a fail for 2015 as a satellite 'record'. Take UAH LTT.

Dr Roy Spencer said:

2015 (was) the third warmest year globally in the satellite record since 1979.

[turbobloke]

mondeoman said:

rovermorris999 said:

tomw2000 said:

wc98 said:

in any other branch of science this would be the end of the hypothesis. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...

thanks for sharing. Am enjoying this paper.

I'm hoping our resident warmists will explain why Christy is wrong. After all, he must be surely? The last couple of pages are interesting.

Its all MAGICC apparently...

It's good that Christy is becoming more outspoken while retaining his State Climatologist position. Others have lost similar roles for speaking out. The tone of his testimony is encouraging and goes to show what Climategate can do, and indeed, did. I have an email from Christy prior to the UEA CRU email debacle in which he describes Phil Jones in warm and positive terms. Since learning of gatekeeping in the broken peer review process, how his own (Christy's) papers were essentially parked, and the general unscientific attitude of The Team, I suspect that view has changed.

[LongQ]

its an older code said:

And Ray Mears the satellite scientist who provides the data (who I linked to in my previous post) says so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Mears

So what qualifies Ray to be a satellite scientist?

Then again, cometo think of it, why not Ray .......?

[don4l]

I see that Dean is back.

The moderators are slack.

[Einion Yrth]

don4l said:

I see that Dean is back.

The moderators are slack.

Meh, apart from the egregious abuse of the English language and a propensity to appear to be a bit of a fool, he's largely harmless. Waste of electrons, mind.

[LongQ]

its an older code said:

I will be back a 6 months or so, but defiantly is a year – to see how my 2016 predictions pans out



an interesting fact is that if you say "gullible" slooowly - it sound like "oranges"

When you come back at some point do you think you could park your claim somewhere in the Science thread?

Also maybe explain how your hearing turns the sound "gullible" into "oranges" - it may explain a lot.

And also, perhaps, offer some suggestions about why "Scientists" spent so much money and put so much faith into the concept of satellites only to appear to have started to back away from them (not a new move in their repertoire) when they appear not to give the numbers they want.

Has this Mears bloke been conning people about the value of his work for a couple of decades in order to do nothing more than further his personal position with public money? Surely not!

Oh well, at least that part of your post is somewhat valid for the Political thread. It is familiar territory.

One final observation.

Dismiss religion, any sort including Gaiaism, at your peril. Not because you or I should believe in it but because humans are generally superstitious and mystical "believers" in any old tosh that they can be persuaded to accept as "interesting" yet unprovable. Call it conspiracy theory, palm reading and the like, horoscopes, ghosts, saintly "miracles", martyrdom, witchcraft, whatever, humanity in general around the world tends to be fascinated by such ideas. Heck, people will even "play" the lottery knowing full well the odds are against them and will gamble all they have knowing they will lose - unless they have the power and influence to fix the results.

In a large group, primed to think alike, logic will fail to dominate superstitious instincts.

Why?

Because instincts can be roused and guided without the need for any precis logic. In fact precise logic will fail - a more general "message" allows people to interpret things in a way they understand and that will usually be enough if the person or persons trying to influence the crowd has groomed them well enough for his purpose and generated enough passion.

Having passion in logical thinking is rare in large groups and large impulsive groups will always displace small and thoughtful ones when things become "tough" for some reason or other.

People of faith almost always see just what they want to see in anything. At its most influential point of power, one could argue, faith can be and often is immensely destructive.

[DibblyDobbler]

^^ Quite. Are we really meant to believe somebody who turns 'definitely' into 'defiantly'!? Sheesh

[Mr GrimNasty]

LongQ said:

its an older code said:

And Ray Mears the satellite scientist who provides the data (who I linked to in my previous post) says so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Mears

So what qualifies Ray to be a satellite scientist?

Then again, cometo think of it, why not Ray .......?

If you don't like UAH or RSS you can have it straight from the horse's mouth, which also confirms 2015 was not warmest, and that there is no warming at all that any rational person would be concerned about.

http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/ind...

[LongQ]

And now ..... The wrong kind of trees ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3549...


It seems there might be some wonderful precision in the maths.



ETA: Ostensibly this should be in the Science thread but really and truly I could not bring myself to put it there.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 5th February 22:15

[turbobloke]

LongQ said:

And now ..... The wrong kind of trees ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3549...


It seems there might be some wonderful precision in the maths.



ETA: Ostensibly this should be in the Science thread but really and truly I could not bring myself to put it there.

As the OP just think 'thread' and 'raison d'être' at which point everything is gradely fine.

[mybrainhurts]

turbobloke said:

LongQ said:

And now ..... The wrong kind of trees ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3549...


It seems there might be some wonderful precision in the maths.



ETA: Ostensibly this should be in the Science thread but really and truly I could not bring myself to put it there.

As the OP just think 'thread' and 'raison d'être' at which point everything is gradely fine.

I'd risk a little bet that someone's working on a project to declare the gradual demise of the white shirt has reduced reflection and increased temperature.

[mybrainhurts]

Einion Yrth said:

don4l said:

I see that Dean is back.

The moderators are slack.

Meh, apart from the egregious abuse of the English language and a propensity to appear to be a bit of a fool, he's largely harmless. Waste of electrons, mind.

Coming from a man of faith, it's a bit hypocritical when he keeps banging on about creationists.

[mko9]

LongQ said:

And now ..... The wrong kind of trees ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3549...


It seems there might be some wonderful precision in the maths.



ETA: Ostensibly this should be in the Science thread but really and truly I could not bring myself to put it there.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 5th February 22:15

Cut them all down and start over from scratch!!

[LongQ]

mko9 said:

LongQ said:

And now ..... The wrong kind of trees ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3549...


It seems there might be some wonderful precision in the maths.



ETA: Ostensibly this should be in the Science thread but really and truly I could not bring myself to put it there.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 5th February 22:15

Cut them all down and start over from scratch!!

Isn't that what the Drax modifications were about?

Create a market for wood pellets, force it along to replace the foundering US fracking industry and then justify it by claiming extreme green qualities due to the number of new trees being planted.

Once the global steel industries have been regulated out of existence and global trade is back to using wooden sailing ships how long would it take to denude Europe of large trees to satisfy the demand for ship building?

[LongQ]

LongQ said:

mko9 said:

LongQ said:

And now ..... The wrong kind of trees ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3549...


It seems there might be some wonderful precision in the maths.



ETA: Ostensibly this should be in the Science thread but really and truly I could not bring myself to put it there.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 5th February 22:15

Cut them all down and start over from scratch!!

Isn't that what the Drax modifications were about?

Create a market for wood pellets, force it along to replace the foundering US fracking industry and then justify it by claiming extreme green qualities due to the number of new trees being planted.

Once the global steel industries have been regulated out of existence and global trade is back to using wooden sailing ships how long would it take to denude Europe of large trees to satisfy the demand for ship building?

Told you!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3549...


New rain forest growth sequesters more carbon than old forest.

Published 2 days ago on the BBC - not sure why it was not obvious when I saw the other one!

Mind you in general terms why is that a surprise? I thought THAT science was indeed largely settled decades ago subject to the right species and decent growing conditions.

From memory CO2Science has been pointing it out for years.

So, a "timely" report post Paris for .... well, whatever purposes the report has. Paid for science no doubt, but nothing much beyond telling us that with reduced CO2 in the atmosphere plant growth would be hampered somewhat. Which we already knew - but noce to have it confirmed again.

[wc98]

its an older code said:

Lol at the science deniers, still sprouting utter garbage

I made a prediction in early November last year that 2015 would be the hottest year on record – a no brainer really – and indeed it not only broke but smashed the previous record – which amazingly was 2014/10 which in turn beat 2005 – mmm some pause!!!
Anyway I also made the prediction that 2016 would be hotter still, as off Jan this year NOAA, NASA and the Met office agree with me
I am sure all the lurkers are wondering “how come”

Well the deniers only talk about the satellite datasets, and they only set a start date of 1998

They do this because as I showed in my posts last year – those are the only two data points that show a “pause”

And Ray Mears the satellite scientist who provides the data (who I linked to in my previous post) says so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UyAOYoIifo&fe...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr6dSo6SrCE&fe...

Anyway, what will be interesting is to check what these science deniers do when the LTL temperature “anomaly” gets resolved – which I suspect it will do in the next year or two

I will be back a 6 months or so, but defiantly is a year – to see how my 2016 predictions pans out

The irony will be if it only ranks 2nd highest in the last 100 years, the deniers will still claim victory – but “that’s numberwang” as they say

Remember science is hard conspiracies are easy

Oh and as an aside – next time a science denier says satellite “take temperatures” – show them this graphic





that's the "model" that is used to arrive at a temperature reading



And be sure to read Ray Mears paper on temp uncertainties


http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2...

oh an Ray Mears has been correcting the UAH data set for the last 20 years - here is his seminal paper from 2005 that's showed Christy/Spencer had been making basic errors for years (ther have been many other paper correcting Spencer /Christy)

http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_Scien...

for the lurkers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temper...


so believe the vast majority of experts in the field or you could believe a couple of creationist scientist (Christy / Spencer) who both signed the below


We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangel...

an interesting fact is that if you say "gullible" slooowly - it sound like "oranges"

you didn't read all of the link did you . ray mears ,pmsl.

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

LongQ said:

Are whale strandings really that rare?

Might it be that the apparently large numbers involved recently are unusual but not unprecedented?

In recent times one might accept that the whaling industry of the 18th and 19th century could well have depleted local stock. Fewer critters, fewer strandings.

But presumably the anti-whaling movement of the last few decades will have had some effect and populations together with pod sizes are likely to have grown.

So when a pod is larger and faces what they treat as a pod wide event the chances that number will be higher is likely to be self evident.

And if they act as a mammalian crowd usually does then the likelihood of following a group think pattern and acting in the same way will be high and with high numbers.

Strandings of sperm whales in the North Sea are common apparently and have been documented since the end of the 16th century but with no clear temporal pattern in the occurrence - except that there were very few strandings between the late 18th and early 20th centuries, which has been associated with whaling. Any proposed link with either the supposed recent phenomenon of manmade global warming or its new nickname of climate change is risible. North Sea waters are too shallow for the whales and there's little food, most beached whales die with an empty stomach. Researchers speak of the North Sea as a whale trap and consider that many die offshore unnoticed.

agree with most of that .the food part in the north sea is incorrect. if the dogger bank was a bit closer to shore i would be running whale watching trips to see sperm whales every summer . i know a couple of commercial fishing skippers. one used to see them every summer there until he stopped fishing and moved into oil and gas and the other is still fishing and still sees them further north in the north sea every year.

contrary to current fisheries management doom mongery (there appears to be a strange link between government departments relating to natural resources and doom mongery ) the north sea and western waters around the uk are seeing something of a resurgence fish population wise that will only get better as the amo moves into the cool phase.

[wc98]

LongQ said:

When you come back at some point do you think you could park your claim somewhere in the Science thread?

Also maybe explain how your hearing turns the sound "gullible" into "oranges" - it may explain a lot.

And also, perhaps, offer some suggestions about why "Scientists" spent so much money and put so much faith into the concept of satellites only to appear to have started to back away from them (not a new move in their repertoire) when they appear not to give the numbers they want.

Has this Mears bloke been conning people about the value of his work for a couple of decades in order to do nothing more than further his personal position with public money? Surely not!

Oh well, at least that part of your post is somewhat valid for the Political thread. It is familiar territory.


.

it is funny how the warmist crowd complain about cherry picking when they are happy to dismiss satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures ,yet happy to accept satellite measurements of global sea ice as it shows what they want to see. i wonder how long it will take to dismiss the information from satellites regarding sea ice if they start to show a significant upward trend.

[turbobloke]

wc98 said:

it is funny how the warmist crowd complain about cherry picking when they are happy to dismiss satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures ,yet happy to accept satellite measurements of global sea ice as it shows what they want to see. i wonder how long it will take to dismiss the information from satellites regarding sea ice if they start to show a significant upward trend.

Complain in another attrition loop as well, we are truly blessed by Gaia in this thread.

Wingham et al (2006) used satellite radar altimetry to obtain a value for Antarctic ice mass gain of 27 billion tonnes per year across 72% of the grounded ice mass sheet, rather similar to the 2002 result from Joughin & Tulaczyk which put the ice mass gain at 27 billion tonnes per year. Talk about replicability. In this case the scare factor was topped up by a team from Princeton in 2015 but satellites were still in the frame as they used satellite gravitational measures to look at the region around the Antarctic Peninsula (iirc the peninsula itself is a low single figures percentage of the total area) to claim greater ice mass loss there than in the remainder of the ice sheet.

In overview mode it's easy to see how these types of results come about, depending on whether you look at 72% of the grounded ice mass sheet, or a part of it which includes a peninsula that grew out - that'll be ice mass growth - over the relatively warm southern ocean and is now melting from below not due to tax gas above. The desired implication is however left as low hanging fruit for alarmists and gullible politicians to pick and exploit while covering their own backs with a statement on the Princeton website that it's ocean currents rather than air temperature that melt the ice. I could be wrong but there may have been an instance or two where true believers have linked localised southerm ice sheet mass change with human activity.

All of which gives the sneaking suspicion we've covered this before, posted by Punxsutawney Phil