Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[plunker]

Silver Smudger said:

plunker said:

jet_noise said:

ALT F4 said:

So, this climate change carry on....

Hypothetical question:
If in an environmentalist's dream a worldwide treaty was signed that banned "carbon emissions", would this make diddly squat difference over the massive influence of natural cycles on the warming of the planet?

Short answer:
No.

Long answer:
No,

regards,
Jet

Tricky question/answer in lots of ways, not least grammatically:

no = it would not make diddly squat difference = the difference would not be diddly squat?

yes = it would make diddly squat difference = the difference would be diddly squat?

I think what you meant to say was

"yes, absolutely"

and then provide details of what difference it would make and how, to clarify your answer, in case of any grammatical issues that could be misunderstood

I maybe would if I knew what "the massive influence of natural cycles on the warming of the planet" is referring to. Perhaps it means the current El Nino, or the PDO index, or Milankovich cycles, or the fact the sun is getting warmer over time and will eventually fry the planet. Who knows. Smells like a bullst question though tbh.

[perdu]

Since the planet has been massively hotter often in the past

Smells like a similar answer to me

Frying?

Who calls the bullst question officially round here?

[robinessex]

As a non scientist, but an engineer, I've developed an natural sceptical reponse to many things, based on intuition and commonsense. So when climate changers tell me that miniscle little mankind can change the climate of planet Earth, I tend file that under bullst. Is my methodology flawed I ask? PS. I don't believe in perpetual motion either.

[jet_noise]

robinessex said:

As a non scientist, but an engineer, I've developed an natural sceptical reponse to many things, based on intuition and commonsense. So when climate changers tell me that miniscle little mankind can change the climate of planet Earth, I tend file that under bullst. Is my methodology flawed I ask? PS. I don't believe in perpetual motion either.

Join the club. Your intuition is good. There's nowt in climate (non)science that cannot be unravelled with a good bullst detector I r a nenjinear too,

regards,
Jet

[perdu]

jet_noise said:

robinessex said:

As a non scientist, but an engineer, I've developed an natural sceptical reponse to many things, based on intuition and commonsense. So when climate changers tell me that miniscle little mankind can change the climate of planet Earth, I tend file that under bullst. Is my methodology flawed I ask? PS. I don't believe in perpetual motion either.

Join the club. Your intuition is good. There's nowt in climate (non)science that cannot be unravelled with a good bullst detector I r a nenjinear too,

regards,
Jet

We have discovered the common ground, can I be in your club too please?

[plunker]

Appeals to common sense and argument from incredulity don't count for much.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

Appeals to common sense and argument from incredulity don't count for much.

Those that make extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can hardly call the constantly adjusted poorly sampled surface temperature data "extraordinary" .

[plunker]

Tha radiative forcing from increasing CO2 isn't an extraordinary claim - it's the stuff of atmospheric physics text books.

Hence saying it ain't so is the extraordinary claim and just saying 'I don't believe it' Victor Meldrew style totally worthless.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

Tha radiative forcing from increasing CO2 isn't an extraordinary claim - it's the stuff of atmospheric physics text books.

Hence saying it ain't so is the extraordinary claim and just saying 'I don't believe it' Victor Meldrew style totally worthless.

radiative forcing from increasing CO2 isn't an extraordinary claim
It is in an atmosphere dominated by water that exists in all phases simultaneously.

[plunker]

Jinx said:

plunker said:

Tha radiative forcing from increasing CO2 isn't an extraordinary claim - it's the stuff of atmospheric physics text books.

Hence saying it ain't so is the extraordinary claim and just saying 'I don't believe it' Victor Meldrew style totally worthless.

radiative forcing from increasing CO2 isn't an extraordinary claim
It is in an atmosphere dominated by water that exists in all phases simultaneously.

Pointless telling me matey. You should write a paper - make a name for yourself.

[robinessex]

Paris party finished. Climate change is settled. All the climate scientists can now sign on at the Job Centre, you are not needed now. Well done lads and lasses. Good job.

[perdu]

Have we HAD any science yet?



Oh well, best hide all me dosh under the bed so the power company/taxman doesn't find it

I'm a poor old pensioner ye knows

[Gandahar]

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

[LongQ]

Gandahar said:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

I have heard reported that Alaska has our missing negative heat. This graph seems like it might fit with that observation if I have read it correctly.

(Or is it some sort of Mannian upside down representation of some other reality?)

[Gandahar]

LongQ said:

Gandahar said:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

I have heard reported that Alaska has our missing negative heat. This graph seems like it might fit with that observation if I have read it correctly.

(Or is it some sort of Mannian upside down representation of some other reality?)

No idea, I just posted it as a reply to the one I did earlier which was on the last page and showed a different graph showing lower ice extent for the arctic.

I was more interested in the comments posted afterwards than the actual graphs to see if I could pick up any bias on this scientific thread by the posters. I certainly got bias on my first post of a graph

"And the Antarctic? Gosh!"

which was pro skeptic.

So I posted this up to see if I would get pro skeptic comments after this also?

It's just my small litmus test for the science thread to make sure it's not getting infiltrated by people with political bias from the other thread.

The answer is that the graph I just linked to seems to be out of alignment with other graphs showing same and should be investigated further.

I'll let you know how it goes.

[micky g]

Gandahar said:

No idea, I just posted it as a reply to the one I did earlier which was on the last page and showed a different graph showing lower ice extent for the arctic.

I was more interested in the comments posted afterwards than the actual graphs to see if I could pick up any bias on this scientific thread by the posters. I certainly got bias on my first post of a graph

"And the Antarctic? Gosh!"

which was pro skeptic.

So I posted this up to see if I would get pro skeptic comments after this also?

It's just my small litmus test for the science thread to make sure it's not getting infiltrated by people with political bias from the other thread.

The answer is that the graph I just linked to seems to be out of alignment with other graphs showing same and should be investigated further.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Plenty of up to date sea ice information at http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice...

[LongQ]

Gandahar said:

LongQ said:

Gandahar said:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

I have heard reported that Alaska has our missing negative heat. This graph seems like it might fit with that observation if I have read it correctly.

(Or is it some sort of Mannian upside down representation of some other reality?)

No idea, I just posted it as a reply to the one I did earlier which was on the last page and showed a different graph showing lower ice extent for the arctic.

I was more interested in the comments posted afterwards than the actual graphs to see if I could pick up any bias on this scientific thread by the posters. I certainly got bias on my first post of a graph

"And the Antarctic? Gosh!"

which was pro skeptic.

So I posted this up to see if I would get pro skeptic comments after this also?

It's just my small litmus test for the science thread to make sure it's not getting infiltrated by people with political bias from the other thread.

The answer is that the graph I just linked to seems to be out of alignment with other graphs showing same and should be investigated further.

I'll let you know how it goes.

I used to check the ice information daily. But it became a bit meaningless to do year n year comparisons.

Part of the problem seemed to be that there are different criteria by which extent of volume might be estimated and the teams involved are not necessarily going to be happy settling on some contrived compromise measurement. Probably rightly so.

After a few years of less frequent checking one realises that the methods and measurement, especially related to areas and density, are not likely to ever be directly comparable IF they are to be recognised as independent of each other.

Trying to take a view based on less than a lifetime of observations (preferably more) is almost bound to result in anomalous conclusion even if the thinking used is later found to be sensibly accurate. (Even if not exact.)

[LongQ]

Gandahar said:

LongQ said:

Gandahar said:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

I have heard reported that Alaska has our missing negative heat. This graph seems like it might fit with that observation if I have read it correctly.

(Or is it some sort of Mannian upside down representation of some other reality?)

No idea, I just posted it as a reply to the one I did earlier which was on the last page and showed a different graph showing lower ice extent for the arctic.

I was more interested in the comments posted afterwards than the actual graphs to see if I could pick up any bias on this scientific thread by the posters. I certainly got bias on my first post of a graph

"And the Antarctic? Gosh!"

which was pro skeptic.

So I posted this up to see if I would get pro skeptic comments after this also?

It's just my small litmus test for the science thread to make sure it's not getting infiltrated by people with political bias from the other thread.

The answer is that the graph I just linked to seems to be out of alignment with other graphs showing same and should be investigated further.

I'll let you know how it goes.

An interesting link in the comments on that page goes to here

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

which seems to be another of their graphs pointing to flaws in the previous graph and with a link back to it.

Is the Danish higher education system being subjected to a period of schizophrenia?

[LongQ]

Having been browsing around some other places I came across a reference to this Guardian article from 2012.

Peter Wadhams forecasting that the Arctic Summer Ice will have vanished by 2015/2016.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17...


So, a few months to go before we know if he has it right.

[rovermorris999]

Perhaps we should make sure he is reminded of this prediction and ask why it hasn't come true. After all, the science is settled.