Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Jinx]

durbster said:

That BBC bias is so widespread. I read that this morning on Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-paus...

Durbs - you really need to get out more as this has been discussed on WUWT and also contradicts the IPCC AR5 (15 year pause) . So if it contradicts the IPCC then does this make it a denier paper?
Berkeley have looked at the ocean datasets and claimed that the trend (including the 2015 El Nino) is at twice the rate previously shown in the old NOAA dataset (pre Karl et al) and therefore shows that the post Karl et. al NOAA dataset is the same as these trends (and somehow ergo right, though this could be right for the wrong reasons but this isn't covered) . Can you see that perhaps this isn't the way to do science? The have not repeated the exercise with the same data to confirm Karl et. al. They have not used independent data to supplement Karl et. al. They have merely shown two things are alike over different time periods...... False equivalence. Of course the issue that over the same period a 3rd of all CO2 emissions from human activity was released and yet temperatures barely increased is somehow glossed over.

[Mr GrimNasty]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Todays CC Beeb puff non-story

Climate change: Fresh doubt over global warming 'pause'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3851...

"A controversial study that found there has been no slowdown in global warming has been supported by new research."

That BBC bias is so widespread. I read that this morning on Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-paus...

It's really quite sad that you have so little clue that you don't understand that you don't have a clue.

You think the fact that 2 institutions co-opted into the climate change orthodoxy publish the same junk that shows a short trend ending in an el nino year using junk data anyway - proves anything? Just more bad/perverted advocacy masquerading as science.

RSS & UAH confirm no warming 1998 to 2016 (comparable el nino years) - no warming where IT SHOULD BE MOST EVIDENT ACCORDING TO AGW THEORY.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

So what Durbster? Another pointless post from you.

The point: when a news story is covered by multiple news organisations, it is by definition not propaganda, but news.

Besides, was it more pointless than copying and pasting tenuous news articles from the BBC into this thread every day, accompanied by a vacuous and inane comment?

Jinx said:

Durbs - you really need to get out more as this has been discussed on WUWT and also contradicts the IPCC AR5 (15 year pause) . So if it contradicts the IPCC then does this make it a denier paper?

It's a new paper saying the NOAA changes were justified. I didn't pass comment, I just said I'd read that article.

WUWT is not an objective source so I'm not that interested in their discussion. Let me guess, did they conveniently reach the conclusion they were looking for?

[turbobloke]

http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/20...

In the world of climate science, the skeptics are coming in from the cold.

Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed.

Tsk. Just look at those pesky deniers.

[turbobloke]

Not long ago today:

"With the revised data the apparent pause in temperature rises between 1998 and 2014 disappears."



The Pause Continues: Global Satellites...2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998

January 3rd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, PhD, UAH

Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satelli...

[durbster]

Mr GrimNasty said:

durbster said:

That BBC bias is so widespread. I read that this morning on Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-paus...

It's really quite sad that you have so little clue that you don't understand that you don't have a clue.

You should probably write to Scientific American themselves to inform them of their ignorance. I doubt they'll read this thread.

[turbobloke]

Is 2016 The Hottest Year On Record? Satellites Say No

This ^^ was the half-time result, now the final whistle has gone and it's still not the hottest as posted below. Cue more denials from the Obama climate coterie?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/02/is-2016-the-hott...

[Lotus 50]

FWIW Here's the article that the BBC referred to:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e160120...

I seem to recall that some on here were bemoaning the use of ship intake data not too long ago. In speed-reading the article, I may not have this quite right but it turns out they may have had a point - and factoring it out the errors arising from that source means the 'pause' isn't there, backing up the latest ERSST data update from NOAA.

Edited by Lotus 50 on Thursday 5th January 17:19

[durbster]

Here's the RSS data:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

[LongQ]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

So what Durbster? Another pointless post from you.

The point: when a news story is covered by multiple news organisations, it is by definition not propaganda, but news.

I think that situation points very strongly towards propaganda.

It's not a major news story in terms of the public's interest.

Climate change is, according to most response in those surveys that see the light of the news media tunnels, a long way down the list of things that the majority of people care much about.

One might assume that Scientific American would have an obvious interest in that it is publishing for and to the Science Industry. It would be very strange if it did not cover the report.

For the BBC to push it .... well, must be a slow news day.

Or propaganda publishing.

[DibblyDobbler]

durbster said:

Here's the RSS data:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

Durbs - interesting that you would quote that as to me it supports the skeptic argument (ie not a lot happening). If the period was, say, the last 20 years I reckon the trend would be pretty much flat? What are you seeing there?

[don4l]

Otispunkmeyer said:

Re revising data or adjusting data. I have been reading and I have to concede, I can see the need for alterations when you consider that the ye olde days instruments operate differently and were operated differently to what we do today. Lots of data hand written, how good was the guy at eye-balling the thermometer? etc etc. So for apples to apples I can see the need for adjustments.

Once the data has been "revised" it is no longer "data".

[Einion Yrth]

don4l said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

Re revising data or adjusting data. I have been reading and I have to concede, I can see the need for alterations when you consider that the ye olde days instruments operate differently and were operated differently to what we do today. Lots of data hand written, how good was the guy at eye-balling the thermometer? etc etc. So for apples to apples I can see the need for adjustments.

Once the data has been "revised" it is no longer "data".

Indeed, legacy data may be "wrong" but we really have no way of knowing how. The only honest approach is to take the data as is since we cannot "correct" it, only change it.

[turbobloke]

DibblyDobbler said:

durbster said:

Here's the RSS data:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

Durbs - interesting that you would quote that as to me it supports the skeptic argument (ie not a lot happening). If the period was, say, the last 20 years I reckon the trend would be pretty much flat? What are you seeing there?

For my part, crucially, I'm not seeing any established causality to humans, which is hardly surprising as it doesn't exist.

[don4l]

Einion Yrth said:

Indeed, legacy data may be "wrong" but we really have no way of knowing how. The only honest approach is to take the data as is since we cannot "correct" it, only change it.

TBH, I am happy for scientists to suggest that the data contains errors. It always does. However, if they don't publish the real data, then it is worthless.

I'm reminded of the cold fusion incident.

At east the scientists published all their data and their methods. Nobody was able to replicate their results, and so their theory was discarded. That is proper science.

Compare and contrast with climate science.

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"... or words to that effect.

[durbster]

DibblyDobbler said:

durbster said:

Here's the RSS data:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

Durbs - interesting that you would quote that as to me it supports the skeptic argument (ie not a lot happening). If the period was, say, the last 20 years I reckon the trend would be pretty much flat? What are you seeing there?

I shared it because that's the whole RSS dataset, for anyone interested in where the conveniently selected parts discussed above were from. If you accept the science, there's no need to go hacking around to make the data fit your argument

You say there's not a lot happening but if you look at the historical records you can see lots of periods where you could say that:


Source: HadCRUT4 - https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempdiag.htm

Nature is chaotic so it's never going to move in a straight line but each period where temperatures have levelled off, has done so at a higher temperature to the previous. Therefore, we have a clear trend in the data.

turbobloke said:

The Pause Continues: Global Satellites...2016 not Statistically Warmer than 1998

January 3rd, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, PhD, UAH

Strong December Cooling Leads to 2016 Being Statistically Indistinguishable from 1998

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satelli...

Headline: 2016 was not warmer than 1998!
Article: err... actually it was, but not much!

Hooray for clickbait!

Edited by durbster on Thursday 5th January 20:59

[Einion Yrth]

So, from your graph, (provenance please) even if I "accept the science", that's less than a degree Celsius in 160 years. I'll sleep easy in my bed, I think.

[durbster]

Einion Yrth said:

So, from your graph, (provenance please) even if I "accept the science", that's less than a degree Celsius in 160 years. I'll sleep easy in my bed, I think.

I've added the source.

The shift may not sound impressive but look at the impact it has already had...

[mondeoman]

durbster said:

Einion Yrth said:

So, from your graph, (provenance please) even if I "accept the science", that's less than a degree Celsius in 160 years. I'll sleep easy in my bed, I think.

I've added the source.

The shift may not sound impressive but look at the impact it has already had...

<takes the bait> show me the money!!

[Vantagemech]

mondeoman said:

durbster said:

Einion Yrth said:

So, from your graph, (provenance please) even if I "accept the science", that's less than a degree Celsius in 160 years. I'll sleep easy in my bed, I think.

I've added the source.

The shift may not sound impressive but look at the impact it has already had...

<takes the bait> show me the money!!

Yeah a big financial one to start...