Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[gadgetmac]

LoonyTunes said:

gadgetmac said:

I’ll humour you, link to their statement and the date of it

Like I said, you will never get an answer from him. Put him on your ignore list.

Sad but I have to concur. He has nothing.

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

gadgetmac said:

Pause?

National Academy of Sciences-Royal Society Report

A joint report from the UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences in February 2014 said that there is no "pause" in climate change

The Royal Society! But that can't be true because Diderot said...

Diderot said:

You still deny the 18 year pause but post a list of intuitions that disagree with your view on that.

Neither The Royal Society or the US NAS are the Academie des Sciences. I am sorry you seem to be confused about this . You listed them (Academie des Sciences), but you haven't bothered to read their position on that which you deny exists (the pause).

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

You listed it as an institution to support your view, but the reality is they provide an explanation for the pause.

You're an idiot

The list has fk all to do with the (non) pause.

Classy argumentation and master debating skills. Obviously you've not read the Academie des Sciences' position on the pause then but continue to misrepresent them.

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

Still swerving I see. The Academie des Sciences’ position on the pause, a pause which you deny existed, is the question which you all are trying to swerve away from addressing.

You listed it as an institution to support your view, but the reality is they provide an explanation for the pause; the very pause you deny existed. So, echoing your argumentation, either the Academie des Science established by the Sun King is wrong or you are. I have read their statement on their website ... have you?

Science appears to deny your pause.

Anyway, I’ve entertained you so a Link please in English and a date for the statement.

Cheers!

Google it...........oops sorry you not capable of that.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

Just doing some light reading.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-co...

In the summer of 2015, Grant Foster and John Abraham published a paper showing that there was no statistical evidence of a pause:

A barrage of statistical tests was applied to global surface temperature time series to search for evidence of any significant departure from a linear increase at constant rate since 1970. In every case, the analysis not only failed to establish a trend change with statistical significance, it failed by a wide margin.

A few months later, a study by Stephen Lewandowsky, James Risbey, and Naomi Oreskes showed that not only did the myth lack statistical support, but in a blind test, economists found “pause” claims “misleading and ill-informed.” In fact, by late 2015, at least six papers had been published debunking this myth. The record-shattering hot temperatures of 2015 and 2016 were simply more nails in its coffin. It’s a coffin with so many nails it’s hard to find room for more.

Why won’t this myth stay dead?

It’s difficult to fathom why deniers don’t just move on to peddling other less transparent climate myths, but the sad reality is that these myths are like zombies. They never die. Just last week I suggested that deniers will soon reset the myth to “no warming since 2016,” but apparently I gave them too much credit. They won’t even admit the fact that human-caused global warming raised the Earth’s surface temperature 0.35°C since 1998.

But as I keep repeating, facts matter, and people who continue to deny reality in the face of evidence and facts should no longer be considered credible.

mentioning grant foster (tamino) in the same post as "credible". now there's an oxymoron or two if you include abraham.you might want to click on the link at the bottom of the guardian article and have a look at their paper (go to fosters blog (open mind, a cagw advocacy blog,double standards much) and the discussion(much censored, unlike blogs like wuwt tamino does not allow open discussion) on what they did is still there. he compared trends from 1970 when the karl paper specifically discussed a short term trend beginning in 1998. also note their paper is a among host of papers discussed at a seminar on the hiatus. the link in the guardian takes you to the introduction to the seminar and the papers submitted for discussion.

some small samples from the other papers discussed, in case you don't have time to read them.
from Decadal climate variability and the early-2000s hiatus
There are indications that the IPO/PDO in the Pacific transitioned from
negative to positive in 2014, thus [b] signaling the end of the hiatus,
which nominally lasted fourteen years from 2000-2013[/b]. Previous
positive phases of the IPO have heralded more rapid globally
averaged surface temperature increases, which could ensue with a
positive phase of the IPO/PDO.

Tropical Pacific influence on the recent hiatus in surface global warming

The tropicalAtlantic warming may be tied to AMO
and hence the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, while
such an internal mode has not been identified for decadal warming
of the Indian Ocean. It is worth noting that, given strong internal
variability in the tropical Pacific (i.e., ENSO), such external
influence is not deterministic but merely modulates the probability
of IPO phase.
[b] The current global-warming hiatus highlights importance of
internal climate variability in modulating decadal GMST trend. [/b]

Warming the abyss: The deep ocean's contribution to global warming

Multiple studies have suggested the recent warming hiatus is
due to a vertical redistribution of heat toward the ocean bottom,
and indeed there is evidence of a redistribution of heat from the
surface layer (upper 700 m) to intermediate depths (700-2000
m; e.g., Chen and Tung 2014). [b] However, there is no pronounced
change in the magnitude and vertical structure of temperature
trends below 2000 m between the 1990-2010 and 2001-2014
periods, [/b]

6 papers refuting the hiatus you say. do you know how many there are attempting to understand it or come up with a reason for it actually occurring ?
lewandowsky is a vile individual. sadly tenured in the uk now i believe, polluting minds here. very, very rarely do papers related to climate change, even tenuously linked papers, get retracted ,but he has that honour with his pile of crud recursive fury.

now that was a nice variety of musicians, psychologists ,advocacy blog owners and climate scientists, but you have to admit you are not very good at this.

[Jasandjules]

El stovey said:

I’m astonished that you’re using this as an argument to justify your conspiracy nonsense.

Unlike you apparently, we all know about Galileo. In fact we’re hoping Turbobloke can repeat the awesomeness of his historic scientific discovery but alas he seems unwilling to share his data and findings with the scientific community and therefore is unlikely to change the scientific consensus.

How fascinating. You will need to point out where I have used such a matter to "justify" any position. What I was asking if why you lack the ability to logically follow a matter to a conclusion. Cui Bono et al if you will.

I wonder now what you consider has changed in the last 400 years or so that neither Govt nor large institutions who seek and require funding, would lie. We know for certain thanks to the former editor of the BMJ that no medical studies have been subjected to "adjustments" to obtain the answers sought by the company paying........................I also wonder just how blinkered one must be to not have the capacity to see such things.

Even more fascinating is that you suggest Turbobloke must share data and findings, remind me again what data has been shared by the Pro AGW brigade - all their raw data of course, as you would be expect in order that others may challenge the process and repeat the experiment as such.. Oh, hold on a moment....

[LoonyTunes]

Again I feel the need to further update my list. Still not hearing of any scientific institution arguing against AGW. They must all be in on the great conspiracy. This one is low hanging fruit

1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences

Edited by LoonyTunes on Monday 17th September 09:06

[Diderot]

Another post another swerve away from answering the question. You deny the pause existed yet many of those insitituitions you list not only acknowledge its existence, but offer explanations for it.

So, using your logic, who is one to believe? A troll on a car forum or a scientific institution? That was a rhetorical question in case you were wondering.

[DocJock]

You will never agree because you are using different interpretations of "a pause", so both sides are correct by their definitions.



Let it drop man.

[wc98]

i think i can understand the motivation of some alarmists better after watching this video. similar to smokers once they stop smoking.
Interviewed by celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, US EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy speaks of how she and her family 'use to' throw trash 'right out the window'.
certainly suggests to me that these two "environmentalists" are the worst kind of hypocrites. i don't remember any period of time where throwing rubbish out the window was acceptable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=23&amp...

[robinessex]

ICESat: Space will get unprecedented view of Earth's ice

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-455...

The American space agency has launched a laser into orbit to measure the condition of Earth's ice cover.
The satellite mission, called ICESat-2, should provide more precise information on how these frozen surfaces are being affected by global warming.
Antarctica, Greenland and the ice floating on the Arctic Ocean have all lost volume in recent decades.
ICESat-2 will track ongoing change in unprecedented detail from its vantage point some 500km above the planet.
The satellite was taken up by a Delta II rocket, flying out of Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Note " HOW these frozen surfaces are being affected by global warming"

Sould be " ARE these frozen surfaces being affected by global warming ?"

[Diderot]

DocJock said:

You will never agree because you are using different interpretations of "a pause", so both sides are correct by their definitions.



Let it drop man.

The point is, that whether some scientists call it 'a pause' or 'a hiatus' is immaterial; he denies its very existence full stop. Which as anyone with the ability to read and comprehend knows is patently incorrect.

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

stuff

Do you have a peer reviewed study that debunks/rejects the various non-pause NOAA and follow up studies?

Specifically rejects them with more recent data?

Not dry papers that give lots of data sets but don’t come to a conclusion but actually state that the NOAA study and others since published supporting it are false.

No Heartland Institute or other influences to be seen like your pension fund advisor.

Don’t ramble off on some other track just answer the question with a yes or no and provide a link. It’s simple enough.

Even if you have clearly this has made not a jot of difference to the AGW consensus. Any idea why this might be?

[gadgetmac]

DocJock said:

You will never agree because you are using different interpretations of "a pause", so both sides are correct by their definitions.



Let it drop man.

They’ll never agree on what? LT’s list is about AGW as he says. Didi is trying to make it about the “pause”.

It’s LT’s list and he’s never said it was a list about a pause. I dare say many of the names on the list don’t agree with many of the finer points of AGW but they all agree on AGW.

Unless someone can prove the list wrong it stands on that point.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

I dare say many of the names on the list don’t agree with many of the finer points of AGW but they all agree on AGW.

i think you would be surprised by the amount of sceptics that would agree on agw. agw is not a problem. the enhanced temperature in london due to the uhi effect is anthropogenic warming. i think londoners are ok with that in winter. the main debate is around catastrophic agw. not climate change, not agw but the aupposed threat to humanity if we do not alter our lifestyle in a way that would regress the major economies of the world by decades.

if climate sensitivity to the anthropogenic component of co2 is low, and the few metrics that can be quantified suggest it is, what exactly is the problem ?

[DocJock]

gadgetmac said:

DocJock said:

You will never agree because you are using different interpretations of "a pause", so both sides are correct by their definitions.



Let it drop man.

They’ll never agree on what? LT’s list is about AGW as he says. Didi is trying to make it about the “pause”.

It’s LT’s list and he’s never said it was a list about a pause. I dare say many of the names on the list don’t agree with many of the finer points of AGW but they all agree on AGW.

Unless someone can prove the list wrong it stands on that point.

fk me, some of you are hard work!

To answer your question, I never mentioned a list, the clue is in quotation marks. I was talking to Diderot. But then, unless you are devoid of reading skills, applying your usual wilful ignorance to misrepresent me and imply I was discussing anything else is just classic politics. Never mind the question, this is the answer (usually unrelated) that I want to give.

If I wanted to discuss the merits/demerits of that list then I would reply to LoonyTunes, I don't need you to force it into something I wrote unrelated.

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

DocJock said:

You will never agree because you are using different interpretations of "a pause", so both sides are correct by their definitions.



Let it drop man.

The point is, that whether some scientists call it 'a pause' or 'a hiatus' is immaterial; he denies its very existence full stop. Which as anyone with the ability to read and comprehend knows is patently incorrect.

Well you could say he's cherry-picked some analyses that conclude it didn't exist and hasn't taken an across the board look at all the research on the issue but then you'd look like a hypocrite for saying the pause was 18 years long wouldn't you.

Edited by kerplunk on Monday 17th September 11:26

[DocJock]

kerplunk said:

Well you could say he's cherry-picked some analyses that conclude it didn't exist and hasn't taken an across the board look at all the research on the issue but then you'd look like a hypocrite for saying the pause was 18 years long wouldn't you.

What pause?

[PRTVR]

DocJock said:

kerplunk said:

Well you could say he's cherry-picked some analyses that conclude it didn't exist and hasn't taken an across the board look at all the research on the issue but then you'd look like a hypocrite for saying the pause was 18 years long wouldn't you.

What pause?

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

I dare say many of the names on the list don’t agree with many of the finer points of AGW but they all agree on AGW.

i think you would be surprised by the amount of sceptics that would agree on agw. agw is not a problem. the enhanced temperature in london due to the uhi effect is anthropogenic warming. i think londoners are ok with that in winter. the main debate is around catastrophic agw. not climate change, not agw but the aupposed threat to humanity if we do not alter our lifestyle in a way that would regress the major economies of the world by decades.

if climate sensitivity to the anthropogenic component of co2 is low, and the few metrics that can be quantified suggest it is, what exactly is the problem ?

So lets be clear. You’re saying AGW is true but its not a problem? Your last sentance implies this.

Which brings us back to why the vast majority of Scientists and others are bothering to raise the alarm over this. All of those institutes and governments...spending all of that money...and none are saying “pah, yeah AGW is happening but never mind, it’s not a problem”?

Oh, and about my question this morning..?