Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[Variomatic]

plunker said:

Which makes you wonder if the New Scientist article shouting down Skeptics claiming they were on the payroll of big oil is a figment too.

No idea which one he was referring to, but you could try a little google rather than casting spurious "doubts" out there. 1st result on the front page for " new scientist climate sceptics oli":

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18609-why-sc...

NewScientist said:

This is a depressing time for climate scientists. They've spent over a decade battling oil industry propagandists who said that the world was not warming.

[...]

Ironically, the situation is made worse by scientists' earlier success in countering the sceptics' misinformation. Politicians, businesses and religious leaders now broadly agree about the dangers of climate change. This consensus can be made to appear conspiratorial, and that makes an easy target for opponents of climate science. Racist political groups have done the same with immigration: here's what the powers that be don't want you to hear, they say. It is a powerful message, especially when the powers that be are telling us that lifestyle changes are needed to tackle climate change.

[...]

Note that the cuts above are only because of the length of the original - I've linked to it so there can be no accusations of cherry picking quotes out of context.

Also note that, at least in this example, they go further and actually liken climate scepticism to "racist political groups". That's not only offensive, according to Mann's legal case for allegedly being "likened to" a paedophile, it could even be actionable libel.

There really isn't much difference to calling Mann "the Gerry Sandusky of climate science" or calling all sceptivs "the racists of climate science" - both are making unfounded comparisons to criminal identities. In fact, given that the comments abot mann were made in a satircal review of someone else's words and the quote above appears in a serious opinion piece in a serious "scientific" magazine, the case against NS would probably be stronger!

Edited by Variomatic on Sunday 21st December 22:47 to tidy up quote formatting

Edited by Variomatic on Sunday 21st December 22:48

[plunker]

Variomatic said:

plunker said:

Which makes you wonder if the New Scientist article shouting down Skeptics claiming they were on the payroll of big oil is a figment too.

No idea which one he was referring to, but you could try a little google rather than casting spurious "doubts" out there.

I did try actually but found nowt:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=big...

Good find though, your search produced an article that mine didn't.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

I did try actually but found nowt:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&as_q=big...

Good find though, your search produced an article that mine didn't.

Apology plunks?

[plunker]

I blame google

[clyffepypard]

dickymint said:

Will you not reply to this Gandahar? either thread will do.

Don't hold your breath waiting from a reply from the warmist hypocrites to an inconvenient question. Hairy has not replied my request for links to the research he claimed had found the tropospheric hotspot, despite being reminded :-)

[hairykrishna]

It would be easier if you just did a search yourself and read something other than 'skeptical' blogs. Try Thorne et al for a recent review of the data;

Thorne, P. W., Lanzante, J. R., Peterson, T. C., Seidel, D. J. and Shine, K. P. (2011), Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy. WIREs Clim Change, 2: 66–88. doi: 10.1002/wcc.80

[clyffepypard]

hairykrishna said:

It would be easier if you just did a search yourself and read something other than 'skeptical' blogs. Try Thorne et al for a recent review of the data;

Thorne, P. W., Lanzante, J. R., Peterson, T. C., Seidel, D. J. and Shine, K. P. (2011), Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy. WIREs Clim Change, 2: 66–88. doi: 10.1002/wcc.80

Quit the bullst. Has evidence of the hotspot been published or not!
Given that this is one of the major predcitions of AGW theory, if they have found evidence for the Hotspot, why is it not being trumpted from the roof tops!

[KareemK]

hairykrishna said:

clyffepypard said:

Don't hold your breath waiting from a reply from the warmist hypocrites to an inconvenient question. Hairy has not replied my request for links to the research he claimed had found the tropospheric hotspot, despite being reminded :-)

It would be easier if you just did a search yourself and read something other than 'skeptical' blogs. Try Thorne et al for a recent review of the data;

Thorne, P. W., Lanzante, J. R., Peterson, T. C., Seidel, D. J. and Shine, K. P. (2011), Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy. WIREs Clim Change, 2: 66–88. doi: 10.1002/wcc.80

Interesting

[hairykrishna]

clyffepypard said:

Quit the bullst. Has evidence of the hotspot been published or not!
Given that this is one of the major predcitions of AGW theory, if they have found evidence for the Hotspot, why is it not being trumpted from the roof tops!

Scientific results aren't normally released via trumpets. You have to be able to read. Maybe start with the paper I suggested?

[Variomatic]

hairykrishna said:

Scientific results aren't normally released via trumpets. You have to be able to read. Maybe start with the paper I suggested?

That's not quite true in CliSci, though, is it hairy?

They regularly release results by MSM before the paper concerned is available - so that the the desired message can be splashed across the world's consiousness before anyone's had a chance to actually look at the work or find fault with it. Depressingly often, when it is released, there is fault found but by then "the message" is out there.

Probably the most egregious recent example was Cook's "97% consensus" paper which was unbelievably flawed in methodology, interpretation, ethics, simple aritmetic and just about any other aspect you can think of. Yet it was trumpeted so loud before being examined - apart from pal review (which is the only sort it could ever have passed) - that a great many people now take that "97% consensus" as gospel.

[plunker]

So basically there's too much uncertainty in the obs to say for sure one way or the other, and we're very surprised the MSM hasn't trumpeted this highly interesting scientific non-result.

Edited by plunker on Tuesday 23 December 12:19

[Variomatic]

No, Plunker, I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that they should be either:

Taking the time for results to be officially published so there's an opportunity for mistakes or other possible problems to be reported at the same time as the results - in fact, journals should NOT be making press releases of results before this in the first place!

and / or:

paying more attention, and column space to storied like this one:

http://www.cfact.org/2014/12/22/what-if-obamas-cli...

Essentially, it appears that if we loook at the 100 or so years of ocean pH measurements rather than just those since the late '80s and model forecasts, ocean acidification is another gremlin which, basically, isn't happening. The historical observations certainly show far less correlation between ocean pH and CO2 than is now taken as gospel:

http://www.abeqas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/M...



If true (and it seems to be fairly well referenced if people want to check) then that's another BIG chunk out of the AGW Armageddon story. As such, it's newsworthy but won't get reported.

I apologise for the link to cfact for that but regardless of AGW we'll most likely be in the next ice age before anyone but sceptcal blogs will pick up on something like that.

[chris watton]

I thought that, geologically speaking, we are still in, or coming out of the last Ice Age, that's why we still have glaciers on mountains and ice at the North and South Poles, to name but a couple of places? There have been many periods in Earth's history when there's been no ice at all!

Edited by chris watton on Tuesday 23 December 22:47

[perdu]

chris watton said:

I thought that, geologically speaking, we are still in, or coming out of the last Ice Age, that's why we still have glaciers on mountains and ice at the North and South Pole, to but a couple of places? There have been many periods in Earth's history when there's been no ice at all!

And there certainly will be many others in the future, after this Ice Age has finished with us.

Or for us.

[plunker]

Variomatic said:

No, Plunker, I'm not suggesting that.

Yes your post was a tangent and nothing whatsoever to do with the tropespherical hotspot paper.

[plunker]

chris watton said:

I thought that, geologically speaking, we are still in, or coming out of the last Ice Age, that's why we still have glaciers on mountains and ice at the North and South Poles, to name but a couple of places? There have been many periods in Earth's history when there's been no ice at all!

Edited by chris watton on Tuesday 23 December 22:47

Not sure what provoked this comment but yes we're still in an ice age now as defined by the presence of ice sheets at the poles. This ice age is thought to have been brought about about by continental drift - the encirclemet of the arctic, the closure of the Isthmus of Panama, the uplifting of the Himalayas etc, all of which makes you wonder if it's really possible for the planet to come out of the ice age with the continents arranged as they are - even with AGW. There's no precedent for our situation in earth's history.

[chris watton]

plunker said:

chris watton said:

I thought that, geologically speaking, we are still in, or coming out of the last Ice Age, that's why we still have glaciers on mountains and ice at the North and South Poles, to name but a couple of places? There have been many periods in Earth's history when there's been no ice at all!

Edited by chris watton on Tuesday 23 December 22:47

Not sure what provoked this comment but yes we're still in an ice age now as defined by the presence of ice sheets at the poles. This ice age is thought to have been brought about about by continental drift - the encirclemet of the arctic, the closure of the Isthmus of Panama, the uplifting of the Himalayas etc, all of which makes you wonder if it's really possible for the planet to come out of the ice age with the continents arranged as they are - even with AGW. There's no precedent for our situation in earth's history.

I always thought it was due to how the earth's axis tilts every ten thousand years or so - continental drift takes a hell of a lot longer, geologically speaking.

If that is true, then way do you lie?

Edited by chris watton on Wednesday 24th December 09:48

[hairykrishna]

Variomatic said:

If true (and it seems to be fairly well referenced if people want to check) then that's another BIG chunk out of the AGW Armageddon story. As such, it's newsworthy but won't get reported.
.

Why don't you check? You found it and seem to think it's important. My first thought is that, given that pH was only defined in 1909, the measurements at the start of his graph probably aren't very reliable. In fact it may be that we only have a reliable instrumental record for the past 30 years or so.

Maybe I'm wrong and he should get his submission to Nature in asap.

[clyffepypard]

plunker said:

So basically there's too much uncertainty in the obs to say for sure one way or the other, and we're very surprised the MSM hasn't trumpeted this highly interesting scientific non-result.

Edited by plunker on Tuesday 23 December 12:19

Ah, so the uncertainly ate the warming. Pull the other one, its got bells on it.
We all know that if the climate alarmists had found a warming trend in the Troposphere, they would have been shouting loud about it in press releases, conveniently ignoring any uncertainty in the measurements. But what we actually see are lame excusses for why they cannot find what was supposed to be the strongest "signal" predicted by AGW theory.

[plunker]

chris watton said:

I always thought it was due to how the earth's axis tilts every ten thousand years or so - continental drift takes a hell of a lot longer, geologically speaking.

If that is true, then way do you lie?

Edited by chris watton on Wednesday 24th December 09:48

The ice age we're in began 2-3 million years ago. You're thinking of Milankovitch cycles which lead to warmer periods within the ice age (so called inter-glacial periods) but those warmer spells are still 'ice age' because the polar ice caps remain.