Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[DibblyDobbler]

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'm with you on that one EY - not enough going on to justify the hoo-ha in my humble (and admittedly relatively uniformed) opinion.

Durbs - your idea of a 'clear trend' just seems like a pretty piddly increase to me in a data series which has wandered up and down for millennia. The graph looks quite impressive/scary but a quick tweak of the scale on the Y axis would give us something very flat looking! Would it be unreasonable for instance to plot it against +/- 50 Celsius as the rough max and min temperatures which can naturally occur.

For me we have:

a) not very strong evidence of a warming trend
b) no proven causality (as TB may have mentioned once or twice )
c) no clear view as to whether a bit of warming is a 'bad thing' when you look at the impacts in totality

I'm off back to my box for now - keep up the good work chaps

[Mr GrimNasty]

Durbster knows that RSS & UAH disprove AGW theory, no warming 1998 to 2016 (like for like el nino years). Within 1 or 2 years we will have a 20 year flat trend pause, or more likely a cooling trend becoming evident. We are clearly at the peak of a NATURAL cooling/warming cycle, within the general natural warming cycle established sine the little ice age.

Remember between 1998 and 2016, at a guess, 30% of all the CO2 ever emitted by man will have been released - with no apparent warming.

The sheer desperate brazen dishonesty of Durbster's CAGW acolytes is manifest, claiming the 2016 el nino only boosted the globe 0.1C, and the rest was CAGW.
Now that the effect has almost worn off and we have record cooling, showing the temperature rise was entirely due to the el nino natural weather event.

Gavin Schmidt et al are either incompetent or liars.

Regarding the latest feeble/dishonest attempt to cook the data, xmetman says:-

"It looks a pretty sneaky way of getting rid of the pause and boosting global temperatures in one fell swoop to me – and I’m agnostic!"

http://xmetman.com/wp/2017/01/05/bbc-news-climate-...

[don4l]

durbster said:

I've added the source.

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

Please tell us what this impact is?

I don't see any impact.

What "impact" do you see?

Do tell.

[AreOut]

I live in one of the hottest capitals in Europe, the temperature tonight -8C, real feel -16C.

Announced even colder tomorrow. I wonder what would happen if globe didn't warm...

[durbster]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Durbster knows that RSS & UAH disprove AGW theory, no warming 1998 to 2016 (like for like el nino years).

You're welcome your own paranoid delusions but you have not right to make such stupid assumptions about what I think.

[DocJock]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Durbster knows that RSS & UAH disprove AGW theory, no warming 1998 to 2016 (like for like el nino years). Within 1 or 2 years we will have a 20 year flat trend pause, or more likely a cooling trend becoming evident. We are clearly at the peak of a NATURAL cooling/warming cycle, within the general natural warming cycle established sine the little ice age.

Remember between 1998 and 2016, at a guess, 30% of all the CO2 ever emitted by man will have been released - with no apparent warming.

The sheer desperate brazen dishonesty of Durbster's CAGW acolytes is manifest, claiming the 2016 el nino only boosted the globe 0.1C, and the rest was CAGW.
Now that the effect has almost worn off and we have record cooling, showing the temperature rise was entirely due to the el nino natural weather event.

Gavin Schmidt et al are either incompetent or liars.

Regarding the latest feeble/dishonest attempt to cook the data, xmetman says:-

"It looks a pretty sneaky way of getting rid of the pause and boosting global temperatures in one fell swoop to me – and I’m agnostic!"

http://xmetman.com/wp/2017/01/05/bbc-news-climate-...

You've not seen the most brazen yet.

When the cooling becomes undeniable, the cry will be "See how our anti-AGW initiatives have worked!"

[durbster]

LongQ said:

durbster said:

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.

If the public have no interest, why was it the third and fourth most read stories on the Washington Post yesterday:

[The Don of Croy]

I'd missed the news that Judith Curry has resigned from Georgia Tech, and this is an extract from her statement;

"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)."

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

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

No it wasn't as there are error bars which happen to correct your error for you - another facet of reality which is clearly beyond the ken of the faithful, who can yet see an invisible signal.

That's a curious mix of attributes, but life in its many varied forms has many surprises.

When faith is involved, what's error got to do with it

[Otispunkmeyer]

durbster said:

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

2016 hotter than 1998... By 0.02 deg +/- 0.1 deg

Honestly the result is a farce. You can't say either way based on that (and the notion you can even talk about measuring a global average temp to 100ths of a degree and that such a value matters is daft).

I think they gave it the nod because northern hemisphere did have a more significant result.

[turbobloke]

Otispunkmeyer said:

durbster said:

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

2016 hotter than 1998... By 0.02 deg +/- 0.1 deg

Honestly the result is a farce.

It is indeed.

Error bars - who needs them when you've got so much faith you can move temperatures!

It's not possible to say that 2016 was hotter but agw spinny clickbait will still try.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

durbster said:

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

No it wasn't as there are error bars which happen to correct your error for you - another facet of reality which is clearly beyond the ken of the faithful, who can yet see an invisible signal.

That's a curious mix of attributes, but life in its many varied forms has many surprises.

When faith is involved, what's error got to do with it

If we're factoring in the margin of error, 1998 may have actually been much colder than 2016. Do you agree?

I wonder why Dr Spencer didn't spin it that way.

Edited by durbster on Friday 6th January 09:37

[Jinx]

durbster said:

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?

Do you only ever read part of a comment - try to find a fault and then jump in with both feet? The second half of my comment discussed why the Berkeley paper did not show the Karl et. al. adjustments were justified (out of phase trend data that just happens to look similar to the Karl et. al trend is not proof of anything) . The right for the wrong reasons is not even discussed:

Feynman said:

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.

Because they got the result they wanted they didn't check why.....

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

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?

Do you only ever read part of a comment - try to find a fault and then jump in with both feet?

I didn't write the paper referred to in the article, or say I agreed with it. Therefore, I don't know why you're trying to start an argument with me about it.

[turbobloke]

From the political blog Climate Depot: Trump right, UN wrong

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/15/skeptics-de...

Consensus Busting Report ‘State of the Climate Report’ delivered to UN Summit.

Prof Stott said:

The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets. It’s scientific nonsense.

aka junkscience in fact.

Greenblob God Turned Realist James Lovelock said:

It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific.

How about a new thread 'Climate Change - the RELIGIOUS debate' or 'Climate Change - all the JUNKYBUNK agw has to offer' (that could be a long one if not a LongQ one )

[TazR6]

After clicking on a BBC link on here, on the sidebar was an article about a newly discovered berry fossil. Discussing it, on paragraph reads "About 50 million years ago, South America was closer to Antarctica and Australia than it is today and the world was also much warmer."
"The world was also much warmer".
Interesting paragraph I thought. Was it us back then causing the globe to be "much warmer" than it is today? No, it wasn't.
It is just one of the many periods it has been warmer than today. It has also been cooler than it is today. It's a chaotic climate, and it does things like warming up and cooling down all on it's own.
Our fault? Errrrr, no, nor is it now.

[johnfm]

Are they really capacble of measuring temp (land temps and sea temps) to a +- 0.1 degree accuracy?

Seems unlikely to me.

[MikeyC]

johnfm said:

Are they really capacble of measuring temp (land temps and sea temps) to a +- 0.1 degree accuracy?

Seems unlikely to me.

I have a cheap consumer device infront of me which measures temperature to 2 decimal places
It also does pressure and can detect differences in height changes of approx 6 inches (use them to keep drone at constant altitude)

I'm sure there are professional versions which after careful calibration can easily do so

[XM5ER]

MikeyC said:

I have a cheap consumer device infront of me which measures temperature to 2 decimal places
It also does pressure and can detect differences in height changes of approx 6 inches (use them to keep drone at constant altitude)

I'm sure there are professional versions which after careful calibration can easily do so

That is current technology, how about 30 years ago, and 60 years ago etc? It becomes a problem when you are trying to compare like for like, of course this is the excuse given for data fiddling.

[PRTVR]

MikeyC said:

johnfm said:

Are they really capacble of measuring temp (land temps and sea temps) to a +- 0.1 degree accuracy?

Seems unlikely to me.

I have a cheap consumer device infront of me which measures temperature to 2 decimal places
It also does pressure and can detect differences in height changes of approx 6 inches (use them to keep drone at constant altitude)

I'm sure there are professional versions which after careful calibration can easily do so

But do they remain so ? how often are they calibrated, I use to work with large amounts of temperature measurement devices, it was amazing how often they needed adjustment and this was in a controlled environment, but at the end of the day the number is made up, it has no relevance in the real world because at any time on the planet there is a 100 degree difference in temperature, an average is only as good as the location and spacing of the temperature probes along with the local changes to their environment, i.e. jet exhausts air conditioning units even large amounts of tarmac, if things change about the location the data becomes irrelevant, but sadly it is still included in the final calculation. GIGO.