Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
plunker said:
chris watton said:
plunker said:
That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.
I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.
Funny you should say that, my step son tells me that using Wiki as a source of information for his college work is now banned, due to the information on that site being unreliable.I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.
"That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.
I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'."
chris watton said:
plunker said:
chris watton said:
plunker said:
That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.
I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.
Funny you should say that, my step son tells me that using Wiki as a source of information for his college work is now banned, due to the information on that site being unreliable.I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.
"That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.
I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'."
http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html
Normally a link has a chance to work but to keep it smooth: 
“And while the future’s there for anyone to change, still you know it seems, it would be easier sometimes to change the past.”
Fountain of Sorrow
Jackson Browne
“And while the future’s there for anyone to change, still you know it seems, it would be easier sometimes to change the past.”
Fountain of Sorrow
Jackson Browne
Dr Roy Spencer said:
I was updating a USA Corn Belt summer temperature and precipitation dataset from the NCDC website, and all of a sudden the no-warming-trend-since-1900 turned into a significant warming trend. (Clarification: the new warming trend for 1900-2013 is still not significantly different from zero at the 90% confidence level. H/T, Pat Michaels)
As can be seen in the following chart the largest adjustments were to earlier years in the dataset which were made colder. The change in the linear trend goes from 0.2 deg F/century to 0.6 deg. F/century.
I know others have commented on the tendency of thermometer data adjustments by NOAA always leading to greater warming.
As Dick Lindzen has noted, it seems highly improbable that successive revisions to the very same data would lead to ever greater warming trends. Being the co-developer of a climate dataset (UAH satellite temperatures) I understand the need to make adjustments for known errors in the data…when you can quantitatively demonstrate an error exists.
But a variety of errors in data measurement and collection would typically have both positive and negative signs. For example, orbit decay causes a spurious cooling trend in the satellite lower tropospheric temperatures (discovered by RSS), while the instrument body temperature effect causes a spurious warming trend (discovered by us). The two effects approximately cancel out over the long term, but we (and RSS) make corrections for them anyway since they affect different years differently.
Also, the drift in satellite local observation time associated with orbit decay causes spurious cooling in the 1:30 satellites, but spurious warming in the 7:30 satellites. Again this shows that a variety of errors typically have positive and negative signs.
In contrast, the thermometer data apparently need to be adjusted in such a way that almost always leads to greater and greater warming trends.
How odd.
Climate fiddling triples warming rate! Amazing manmadeup warming is one-way street!! Scoop!!!As can be seen in the following chart the largest adjustments were to earlier years in the dataset which were made colder. The change in the linear trend goes from 0.2 deg F/century to 0.6 deg. F/century.
I know others have commented on the tendency of thermometer data adjustments by NOAA always leading to greater warming.
As Dick Lindzen has noted, it seems highly improbable that successive revisions to the very same data would lead to ever greater warming trends. Being the co-developer of a climate dataset (UAH satellite temperatures) I understand the need to make adjustments for known errors in the data…when you can quantitatively demonstrate an error exists.
But a variety of errors in data measurement and collection would typically have both positive and negative signs. For example, orbit decay causes a spurious cooling trend in the satellite lower tropospheric temperatures (discovered by RSS), while the instrument body temperature effect causes a spurious warming trend (discovered by us). The two effects approximately cancel out over the long term, but we (and RSS) make corrections for them anyway since they affect different years differently.
Also, the drift in satellite local observation time associated with orbit decay causes spurious cooling in the 1:30 satellites, but spurious warming in the 7:30 satellites. Again this shows that a variety of errors typically have positive and negative signs.
In contrast, the thermometer data apparently need to be adjusted in such a way that almost always leads to greater and greater warming trends.
How odd.
plunker said:
I wasn't talking about 'primary source', I was talking about any research in general - no-one trusts it anymore, making your statement look ridiculous.If it was as trusted as you say it is, no-one would bat an eyelid about using it for both education and research purposes, would they?
Like most good ideas touched/interfered by the extremes, you and your mates have turned what could have been a great resource for all into a steaming pile of propaganda s
t, unfit for any purpose save propaganda value for studies.You have simply turned it into a very overt confirmation-bias tool - well done!
4v6 said:
plunker said:
That's because, unlike PH, there's a mandate on Wiki that factual statements have credible support TB.
I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.
Credible support? I appreciate that must be stressful for people who just 'know'.
Jumkscience propped up by tortured data, massaged by models and jerked off over by true believers.
The case for AGW is shot to bits.
Youre wrong, you know it and theres nothing you can do about it.
Totalitarianism alert - not that PH needs alerting 
http://www.thegwpf.com/richard-lindzen-the-politic...
In 'Political Assault on Climate Sceptics' Prof Richard Lindzen said:
Research in recent years has encouraged those of us who question the popular alarm over allegedly man-made global warming. Actually, the move from “global warming” to “climate change” indicated the silliness of this issue. The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom. Individuals and organizations highly vested in disaster scenarios have relentlessly attacked scientists and others who do not share their beliefs. The attacks have taken a threatening turn.
. . .
Mr. Grijalva’s letters convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense—and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress.
More:. . .
Mr. Grijalva’s letters convey an unstated but perfectly clear threat: Research disputing alarm over the climate should cease lest universities that employ such individuals incur massive inconvenience and expense—and scientists holding such views should not offer testimony to Congress.
http://www.thegwpf.com/richard-lindzen-the-politic...
chris watton said:
plunker said:
I wasn't talking about 'primary source', I was talking about any research in general - no-one trusts it anymore, making your statement look ridiculous.If it was as trusted as you say it is, no-one would bat an eyelid about using it for both education and research purposes, would they?
chris watton said:
Like most good ideas touched/interfered by the extremes, you and your mates have turned what could have been a great resource for all into a steaming pile of propaganda st, unfit for any purpose save propaganda value for studies.
You have simply turned it into a very overt confirmation-bias tool - well done!
I never touched it! t, unfit for any purpose save propaganda value for studies.You have simply turned it into a very overt confirmation-bias tool - well done!
Rejoice!
CO2 levels have stopped rising. It worked!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3187...
Now there's a great reason for the 'Pause'!
CO2 levels have stopped rising. It worked!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3187...
Now there's a great reason for the 'Pause'!
jshell said:
Rejoice!
CO2 levels have stopped rising. It worked!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3187...
Now there's a great reason for the 'Pause'!
Good spot CO2 levels have stopped rising. It worked!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3187...
Now there's a great reason for the 'Pause'!
Not quite though. Carbon dioxide levels are still rising but logged emissions stalled last year. Warmists need to have a bit of a think about that. Below is a list of the last 9 years' annual average ppmv level.
2006 381.81
2007 383.59
2008 385.45
2009 387.36
2010 389.90
2011 391.65
2012 393.88
2013 396.52
2014 398.60
Monthly values for Q4 2014:
Oct 395.65
Nov 397.22
Dec 398.79
Any claimed effect (i.e. Pause) would have to operate by a mechanism involving time travel in order to go back in time at least 19 years. Climate 'science' could probably cope though
as long as nobody operates by nullus in verbia and everyone swallows it.Also (of course) as the beeb article points out seriously, we mustn't use this as an excuse "to stall further action".
Let me guess: the continued rise in CO2 levels as opposed to measured human emissions will no doubt be linked to global warming in one way or another. Bubbling up from the ocean depths perhaps or algae growth or cow belches or from the hot air from the mouths of data deniers aka warmists.
rovermorris999 said:
Let me guess: the continued rise in CO2 levels as opposed to measured human emissions will no doubt be linked to global warming in one way or another. Bubbling up from the ocean depths perhaps or algae growth or cow belches or from the hot air from the mouths of data deniers aka warmists.
It's like watching Stingray as a kid - anything could happen in the next half-hour!Here's somebody who could step up to the plate with any excuse on demand...no clothes... a political appointee Empress Of Warming is seen butt naked. Yuck.
Then there's the sum of money potentially wasted on a myth-hoax: nearly $9bn
ICECAP said:
EPA’s Gina McCarthy Can’t Answer Climate Questions
Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, can’t answer basic questions about global temperatures, climate models or numbers of hurricanes. She didn’t know being a global warming zealot requires knowledge of math.
If the science of climate change was “settled,” you’d think one of the generals in the war on global warming would have memorized the numbers that point to our planetary doom from a menace the administration says is a greater threat than terrorism.
But McCarthy was asked some pretty simple questions Wednesday at a Senate hearing Wednesday on her request for $8.6 billion to help fight the claimed imminent doom of climate change, and her performance didn’t help her case.
One of the questions involved droughts and the claim that their frequency has increased due to warming that is said to be caused by mankind’s increased production of greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, the basis for all life on Earth but judged by the EPA to be a pollutant.
“Let me ask you this,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., inquired of McCarthy. “There was an article from Mr. (Bjorn) Lomborg… from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. (Roger) Pielke from Colorado, that we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?”
The seemingly clueless McCarthy pathetically responded that she didn’t “know in what context he’s making statements like that.” Context? Truth has its own context, and the inconvenient truth that McCarthy wasn’t aware of, or didn’t want to face, is that Pielke and Lomborg are right.
Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado, told the Senate environment and public works subcommittee in July 2013 that droughts have “for the most part become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century.” Globally, he said, “there has been little change in drought over the last 60 years.”
Sessions also asked McCarthy if we’ve had more or fewer hurricanes in the last decade. It was another question she said she couldn’t answer because “it’s a very complicated issue.” Well, no, not unless basic math is a complicated issue. Sessions noted that we have in fact gone nearly a decade without a Category 3 storm or higher making landfall in the U.S.
Gina McCarthy, head of the EPA, can’t answer basic questions about global temperatures, climate models or numbers of hurricanes. She didn’t know being a global warming zealot requires knowledge of math.
If the science of climate change was “settled,” you’d think one of the generals in the war on global warming would have memorized the numbers that point to our planetary doom from a menace the administration says is a greater threat than terrorism.
But McCarthy was asked some pretty simple questions Wednesday at a Senate hearing Wednesday on her request for $8.6 billion to help fight the claimed imminent doom of climate change, and her performance didn’t help her case.
One of the questions involved droughts and the claim that their frequency has increased due to warming that is said to be caused by mankind’s increased production of greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, the basis for all life on Earth but judged by the EPA to be a pollutant.
“Let me ask you this,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., inquired of McCarthy. “There was an article from Mr. (Bjorn) Lomborg… from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. (Roger) Pielke from Colorado, that we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?”
The seemingly clueless McCarthy pathetically responded that she didn’t “know in what context he’s making statements like that.” Context? Truth has its own context, and the inconvenient truth that McCarthy wasn’t aware of, or didn’t want to face, is that Pielke and Lomborg are right.
Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado, told the Senate environment and public works subcommittee in July 2013 that droughts have “for the most part become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century.” Globally, he said, “there has been little change in drought over the last 60 years.”
Sessions also asked McCarthy if we’ve had more or fewer hurricanes in the last decade. It was another question she said she couldn’t answer because “it’s a very complicated issue.” Well, no, not unless basic math is a complicated issue. Sessions noted that we have in fact gone nearly a decade without a Category 3 storm or higher making landfall in the U.S.
rovermorris999 said:
Let me guess: the continued rise in CO2 levels as opposed to measured human emissions will no doubt be linked to global warming in one way or another. Bubbling up from the ocean depths perhaps or algae growth or cow belches or from the hot air from the mouths of data deniers aka warmists.
I think you're misunderstanding a bit. If emissions stalled and atmospheric CO2 accelerated, that would be an issue, but stalled, it will still increase at ~2ppm/yr.But as we're a long way short of optimum atmospheric CO2, I wouldn't worry anyway.
Mr GrimNasty said:
I think you're misunderstanding a bit. If emissions stalled and atmospheric CO2 accelerated, that would be an issue, but stalled, it will still increase at ~2ppm/yr.
But as we're a long way short of optimum atmospheric CO2, I wouldn't worry anyway.
In what way am I misunderstanding? TB's post said 'Carbon dioxide levels are still rising but logged emissions stalled last year'. But as we're a long way short of optimum atmospheric CO2, I wouldn't worry anyway.
So if levels are still rising but the man-made emissions haven't then it must be a natural source. My point is that there will no doubt be an attempt to portray the natural source as somehow turbocharged by global warming.
I'm not worried and what is optimum anyway?
Mr GrimNasty said:
rovermorris999 said:
Let me guess: the continued rise in CO2 levels as opposed to measured human emissions will no doubt be linked to global warming in one way or another. Bubbling up from the ocean depths perhaps or algae growth or cow belches or from the hot air from the mouths of data deniers aka warmists.
I think you're misunderstanding a bit. If emissions stalled and atmospheric CO2 accelerated, that would be an issue, but stalled, it will still increase at ~2ppm/yr.2006-2013, emissions not stalled, increases 2.64, 2.23, 1.75, 2.54, 1.82, 1.95, 1.86
2014 emissions stalled, increase 2.08 ppmv
Over the last year, rounded, the rise was 2.1 compared to the average of the previous annual intervals which is 2.1 and we're not talking about lagged impact on climate here. RealClimate says the rises are down to us, they speak truth of course. Another stall, another rise, another stall, another rise...who knows, this could get almost as interesting as watching 'the pause' continue.
rovermorris999 said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
I think you're misunderstanding a bit. If emissions stalled and atmospheric CO2 accelerated, that would be an issue, but stalled, it will still increase at ~2ppm/yr.
But as we're a long way short of optimum atmospheric CO2, I wouldn't worry anyway.
In what way am I misunderstanding? TB's post said 'Carbon dioxide levels are still rising but logged emissions stalled last year'. But as we're a long way short of optimum atmospheric CO2, I wouldn't worry anyway.
So if levels are still rising but the man-made emissions haven't then it must be a natural source. My point is that there will no doubt be an attempt to portray the natural source as somehow turbocharged by global warming.
I'm not worried and what is optimum anyway?
The point is, arguing about the relative importance in errors of junkscience is...unimportant. The atmospheric level will vary as a result of any changes in the activity of sinks as well as any changes in sources. One source (among several) with no consideration of sinks, it's not going to help.
Atmosopheric levels of carbon dioxide are not determined by human activity - see previous PH discussions of the mere 5% human perturbation to annually cycled carbon dioxide and the recently announced result that with no increase in human emissions the annual atmospheric level change was basically the same as previous years with emissions increases.
Also carbon dioxide levels do not determine global temperature over the climate industry's appointed timescale of at least 15 years - see the last 19 years.
Both of these are failures of junkscience.
Atmosopheric levels of carbon dioxide are not determined by human activity - see previous PH discussions of the mere 5% human perturbation to annually cycled carbon dioxide and the recently announced result that with no increase in human emissions the annual atmospheric level change was basically the same as previous years with emissions increases.
Also carbon dioxide levels do not determine global temperature over the climate industry's appointed timescale of at least 15 years - see the last 19 years.
Both of these are failures of junkscience.
rovermorris999 said:
In what way am I misunderstanding? TB's post said 'Carbon dioxide levels are still rising but logged emissions stalled last year'.
So if levels are still rising but the man-made emissions haven't then it must be a natural source. My point is that there will no doubt be an attempt to portray the natural source as somehow turbocharged by global warming.
I'm not worried and what is optimum anyway?
By stalled they mean similar to previous year. 'We' still cause a ~2ppm increase each year, regardless. It would need a massive fall, not a stall, to stop levels continuing to increase (if we are to blame).So if levels are still rising but the man-made emissions haven't then it must be a natural source. My point is that there will no doubt be an attempt to portray the natural source as somehow turbocharged by global warming.
I'm not worried and what is optimum anyway?
plunker said:
rovermorris999 said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
I think you're misunderstanding a bit. If emissions stalled and atmospheric CO2 accelerated, that would be an issue, but stalled, it will still increase at ~2ppm/yr.
But as we're a long way short of optimum atmospheric CO2, I wouldn't worry anyway.
In what way am I misunderstanding? TB's post said 'Carbon dioxide levels are still rising but logged emissions stalled last year'. But as we're a long way short of optimum atmospheric CO2, I wouldn't worry anyway.
So if levels are still rising but the man-made emissions haven't then it must be a natural source. My point is that there will no doubt be an attempt to portray the natural source as somehow turbocharged by global warming.
I'm not worried and what is optimum anyway?
Firstly it forgets that in previous years e.g. 2006-2013 when the tap was turned on a bit more each year, the average annual change in level was not significantly different at 2.1 ppmv to the 2014 change (at 2.1 ppmv) when the tap was held steady.
Secondly, the analogy you cite is of a bath with no sinks.
Yes I know
but we digress.The point being that a bath with the tap on (a carbon dioxide source) and the plug in the hole but not overflowing (no carbon dioxide sinks) represents a planetary climate system with no oceans. And the rest. That is absolute hogwash.
Propaganda was never easier to defeat, a primary school aged pupil could do it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff