Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

Author
Discussion

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Tuesday 17th November 2015
quotequote all
Jinx said:
plunker said:
Nasa have released their October figure: +1.03C. Not just the warmest October but the highest monthly anomaly in the record too.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB...
So the question remains - would it have been the warmest October anomaly ever if the Paris conference was not this year?
Yeah because Paris, lol. Warmest October in the UAH satellite data too - I guess that must mean Roy Spencer has changed sides.

Jinx

11,344 posts

259 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
plunker said:
Yeah because Paris, lol. Warmest October in the UAH satellite data too - I guess that must mean Roy Spencer has changed sides.


Huh?

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
Jinx said:
plunker said:
Yeah because Paris, lol. Warmest October in the UAH satellite data too - I guess that must mean Roy Spencer has changed sides.


Huh?
Huh what? smile

hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Friday 20th November 2015
quotequote all


UAH Octobers, global mean. Used 5. whatever it is he supplies to NASA. Anyone who prefers 6 is free to find it and plot it for themselves.

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Friday 20th November 2015
quotequote all
Not bad for October. If previous El Ninos are anything to go by the troposphere response peaks in the NH winter/spring months so probably higher peaks to come yet.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
Jinx said:
No one complains about MMGW - it's the unproven CAGW theory

Had to google CAGW theory, and found this interesting article.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-the...

hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
Halb said:
Had to google CAGW theory, and found this interesting article.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-the...
Well written article but he's quite out of date with a lot of it. For example, the 1945 cooling period has been successfully reproduced in models for >10 years now.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
Halb said:
Had to google CAGW theory, and found this interesting article.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-the...
Well written article but he's quite out of date with a lot of it. For example, the 1945 cooling period has been successfully reproduced in models for >10 years now.
Anything else, or just that?

hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
His assertion that they don't reproduce the satellite record is also wrong, as they do within uncertainty bounds. His complaint about the match to proxy records is too vague to address. He trots out the "no warming since '98!" trope. There's probably other stuff.

He also seems to go off the rails a bit towards the end, presenting climate scientists as being completely in love with every tiny aspect of their theories.



Edited by hairykrishna on Saturday 21st November 14:17

rovermorris999

5,195 posts

188 months

Saturday 21st November 2015
quotequote all
Meanwhile, back in the real world.........

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
Can't find an engineering sub-forum, so this will have to do:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06q4z6j/powe...

Features old, battered Ferrybridge (2000MW using coal) and new, shiny Ferrybridge (68MW using waste).

rovermorris999

5,195 posts

188 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
Can't find an engineering sub-forum, so this will have to do:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06q4z6j/powe...

Features old, battered Ferrybridge (2000MW using coal) and new, shiny Ferrybridge (68MW using waste).
But think of the 'carbon' saved!

Gandahar

9,600 posts

127 months

TheExcession

11,669 posts

249 months

Thursday 26th November 2015
quotequote all
Gandahar said:
Nice graphic there.
Beyond natural variation your point is what exactly?

rovermorris999

5,195 posts

188 months

Friday 27th November 2015
quotequote all
And the Antarctic? Gosh!

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Friday 27th November 2015
quotequote all
One of the recurring points of discussion in the Climate science arena is about the appeal to authority that is "Peer Review".

Peer review was created as a valuable means of assessing and potentially advancing knowledge from new research.

In a pure science environment, the sort of environment that in Europe, certainly, used to exist perhaps 3 decades ago, it was generally held to work well.

Once other pressures came into play and the the needs to produce papers become career drivers, quickly followed by the need to attract funding, things began to change.

Recently the effects of this, together with ever greater knowledge requiring ever more specific areas of scientific focus and therefore fewer people who might be able to provide quality peer review ... seem to have warped the system somewhat. And across the board.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330?...


That is not an article written about Climate Change science and is primarily a coverage of some serious issue that have become public mostly in China where the pressures are probably the greatest in the world. However in a world where international academic interworking is extremely typical in the modern era one would have to be concerned that similar issue may be observable, even if not rampant, everywhere were one to look into it.

This short article seems to explain the whys and wherefores of how peer review can be gamed and indeed is gamed in a significant scale by some players. It seems to me to be worth reading in order to understand the nature of the pressures to publish and then consider whether ot not it is likely that such pressures, felt throughout academia, may have resulted in "issues" everywhere to some extent.

If one was to conclude that human nature would suggest that to be a highly plausible conclusion (even if some of the instances are relatively trivial) it would strongly suggest that total faith in all results presented and relied upon is, at the very least, open to question. Or should be.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 27th November 22:42

ALT F4

5,180 posts

216 months

Monday 30th November 2015
quotequote all
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?


jet_noise

5,630 posts

181 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
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

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
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?



Silver Smudger

3,292 posts

166 months

Tuesday 1st December 2015
quotequote all
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