Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

Big Al.

Original Poster:

59,960 posts

195 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all

dickymint

16,092 posts

195 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
rofl

DocJock

5,610 posts

177 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
Big Al is obviously in on the conspiracy...

LoonyTunes

2,461 posts

12 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
In before the clowns arriv...oh...too late. wink

DocJock

5,610 posts

177 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
jester
Advertisement

gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
Diderot said:
I do not need to ‘believe’; data corroborates an 18 year pause and clearly shows that the models are wrong. You are the one who is denying the facts and indeed observed data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/04/noaa-challenged-the-global-warming-pause-now-new-research-says-the-agency-was-right/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-paus...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/...

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-w...

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04012017/climat...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/1711...

LoonyTunes

2,461 posts

12 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
dickymint said:
rofl
Don't you want to ask Big Al why he did it? laugh

dickymint

16,092 posts

195 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
rofl
Don't you want to ask Big Al why he did it? laugh
I know why He's done it - also noted you're the first in with personal insults rolleyes

gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
dickymint said:
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
rofl
Don't you want to ask Big Al why he did it? laugh
I know why He's done it - also noted you're the first in with personal insults rolleyes
Thats hardly an insult. Anyway, new thread new debate.

wc98

6,658 posts

77 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
you need to read the links you post. they all rely on tom karls "pausebuster" paper. a paper hurried through prior to the paris meeting as the entire community were running around like headless chickens wondering how to explain the apparent lack of warming. kind of hard to hold a conference debating how to address dangerous global warming that wasn't happening. funny how all the papers positing various causes for the "pause" were suddenly ignored in favour of karl's. handy for him he retired soon after and never had to answer to criticism in an official capacity.

how many instances of "forget what we told you before we were doing it wrong and this is what we should have done to show warming in the oceans/atmosphere" would it take for you to stop and think hmmm, this revised "data" always seems to cool the past and warm the present.

check the temperature for the area you live today, due to the way some global temp data sets are mathturbated you will find that in one year, five years, ten years etc the temperature that is recorded for today will have changed, in some cases by more than a degree. explain that one to me. algorerithms all the way down.

gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
wc98 said:
how many instances of "forget what we told you before we were doing it wrong and this is what we should have done to show warming in the oceans/atmosphere" would it take for you to stop and think hmmm, this revised "data" always seems to cool the past and warm the present.
Or, alternatively, they adjusted for new data that became available.

“Now independent scientists have weighed in. A study published Wednesday in Science Advances shows that the adjustments NOAA made were justified. A team led by Zeke Hausfather at the University of California at Berkeley and Kevin Cowtan at the University of York analyzed raw data from buoys, satellites and robotic sensors around the world’s oceans. They concluded that the old methods had indeed overestimated sea surface temperatures in the past—but that the newer calculations had underestimated temperatures for the 2000s.”

But no, lets go with the conspiratorial slant instead. biggrin

Ye gods.

Are there any studies published by scientists that debunk this?

gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
“A wealth of new data”

Explained here: https://youtu.be/hnyX32nkYBs

wc98

6,658 posts

77 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Or, alternatively, they adjusted for new data that became available.

“Now independent scientists have weighed in. A study published Wednesday in Science Advances shows that the adjustments NOAA made were justified. A team led by Zeke Hausfather at the University of California at Berkeley and Kevin Cowtan at the University of York analyzed raw data from buoys, satellites and robotic sensors around the world’s oceans. They concluded that the old methods had indeed overestimated sea surface temperatures in the past—but that the newer calculations had underestimated temperatures for the 2000s.”

But no, lets go with the conspiratorial slant instead. biggrin

Ye gods.

Are there any studies published by scientists that debunk this?
have you read the paper ? you know all the physical evidence was trumped by the temp readings taken in ships intakes ? now my position on ocean temps is we have no idea. the notion that bucket temperatures are accurate are a nonsense. lack of coverage in the modern era also means the claims around knowledge are not based in genuine data. anyone, with pohd or without that tells me they know the the energy content of the worlds oceans to the nearest zettajoule is a liar. you might be unaware of the history of various data sets.

the argo bouy data was the same. when it showed cooling when warming was expected the buoys showing cool data were completely disregarded. the decision was purely subjective. so again i ask, why do the "new" discoveries (people seem unable to grasp these new discoveries mean all that certainty that was previously spouted in advocacy blogs,the msm etc was a load of nonsense) all lead to the past being cooler and the present warmer than recent physical measurements suggest.
here is the official line. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCo...

if you had a genuine interest beyond giving reach arounds to fellow alarmists, trying to goad turbo bloke and cut and pastes from alarmist echo chambers you would now go and look at supporting documentation for the claims in the link. you won't. you probably won'y read the link either. it took me a few minutes. from what i gather from your previous explanations for not reading links it would be about a days reading for you.

given some of the posts in the last few days and the lack of response to anything that might show alternative explanations for the alarmist ste some of you will happily lap up, i will be taking a leaf out of your alarmist play book and be selective in my replies. outside of one or two, and even durbs avoids responding to stuff where he knows he will be on a sticky wicket,the ste you post is not worth a response.

wc98

6,658 posts

77 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
a little snippet i found elsewhere regarding the above. no link as lazy people not interested in debate wouldn't read it anyway;)

The corrections which P.I.s apply to XBTs should be made available with the publication of any scientific work. Even if we find some systematic error in manufacturing etc. the corrections to XBT data should not be made to the original data. This is the present recommended policy with the XBT drop-rate problem as discussed by Hanawa et al. ( 1995 ). This is because our “correction” may be modified in the future. Acquiring additional historical as well as modern CTD and Bottle data is critical for improving the estimates of time dependent XBT biases. XBT-CTD comparisons should be done at least every year

now from a scientific perspective that is perfectly fine. for political advocacy that involves spending billions of other peoples money,i am not so sure.

turbobloke

83,665 posts

197 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
“A wealth of new data”

Explained here: https://youtu.be/hnyX32nkYBs
Not sure if serious. That's early 2017 and not new nor particularly wealthy. Unwarranted cherry picking is gulling the gullible once again.

For a paper with empirical data on ocean warming and cooling that's actually 'new' try Wunsch 2018 which shows that the temperature of the global oceans increased by 0.02°C between 1994 and 2013, with cooling below 3600m.

That's a genuinely new analysis of top-to-bottom (0-5000 m) ocean heat content changes since the mid-1990s. Conclusions: (a) large regions of the global ocean have undergone cooling, and (b) the overall net temperature change for the period was a modest 0.02°C. Oceans haven't eaten Trenbeth's missing heat and awol global warming, it was the dog after all.

In contrast, during the Holocene the oceans have previously naturally warmed at a rate and magnitude several times greater than the last few decades, totally undermining claims that recent barely measurable ocean changes are unprecedented or in any way unusual. Go back further to note that the surface temperature of tropical oceans reached 35 deg C in the CTM.

Tax gas still on holiday?

As for sea level rise and "the rise in the 20th Century is unique in the context of the previous millennia" that's also a hoot. Previous millennia saw a rise of 13mm per year in the EHSLR compared to 3mm per yer current and that's 'adjusted'. The upward rate adjustment (30% in round numbers) is shown below, data from the UoColorado website and as expected the waybackmachine is needed to show what was done since leaving evidence around is becoming less frequent as pro-agw desperation grows..



Having posted peer-reviewed science from 2018 why don't we follow gadgetmac's lead and look at an old 'Tube vid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-6aLN5EK1I

As indicated a large majority of anthropogenic tax gas arrived after 1950 but there's no increase in the rise trend and no link to CO2. Try Gregory et al (2012) for more peer reviewed science relating to the last century, so data available for all to check out.

Gregory et al abstract snip said:
Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.
Tax gas on holiday for sooooooooo long.

gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
Is that Carl Wunsch?

He who was misrepresented on the The Great Global Warming Swindle by the anti-AGW mob?

Here’s something that else Carl says:

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component. But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars’ because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.

The science of climate change remains incomplete. Some elements are so firmly based on well-understood principles, or for which the observational record is so clear, that most scientists would agree that they are almost surely true (adding CO2 to the atmosphere is dangerous; sea level will continue to rise,…). Other elements remain more uncertain, but we as scientists in our roles as informed citizens believe society should be deeply concerned about their possibility: failure of US midwestern precipitation in 100 years in a mega-drought; melting of a large part of the Greenland ice sheet, among many other examples.



Edited by gadgetmac on Saturday 15th September 12:33

gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
wc98 said:
now my position on ocean temps is we have no idea.
I’m not interested in ‘your position’ I’m interested in the position of the scientists doing the research. laugh

As for the rest of your bks about “reach arounds” and other things then yes, I agree, please be more selective in your responses if thats the best you can come up with.

LoonyTunes

2,461 posts

12 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
Half way through the first page and no Heartland Institute?

Oh well, we'll just have to wait I suppose.

gadgetmac

4,030 posts

45 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
Turbobloke: Got a link for that Wunsch paper of 2018?

I can’t find it. I can find one of 2014 but then that would be 3 years before the evidence I posted.

Only Wunsch has complained many times that his ocean data is being wrongly used by deniers to bolster their case.

dickymint

16,092 posts

195 months

Saturday 15th September 2018
quotequote all
Any politics yet ........ nope just the usual slagging off Troll comments.