Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
wc98 said:
some more wunsch seeing as both sides referenced him recently.
Part of the problem is that anyone can take a few measurements, average them, and declare it to be the global or regional value. It’s completely legitimate, but only if you calculate the expected uncertainty and do it in a sensible manner.
The system is noisy. Even if there were no anthropogenic forcing, one expects to see fluctuations including upward and downward trends, plateaus, spikes, etc. It’s the nature of turbulent, nonlinear systems. I’m attaching a record of the height of the Nile — 700-1300 CE. Visually it’s just what one expects. But imagine some priest in the interval from 900-1000, telling the king that the the Nile was obviously going to vanish…
Or pick your own interval. Or look at the central England temperature record or any other long geophysical one. If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.
The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up.
A lot of this is somewhat like what goes on in the medical business: Small, poorly controlled studies are used to proclaim the efficacy of some new drug or treatment. How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?
i am sure gadget,loony and el stovey will be right on the blower telling him to tell climate scientists about the shady practices he has discovered,oh wait, he is a climate scientist.straight from the horses mouth,and alarmists wonder why some people are sceptical.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-cl...
I agree, no doubt occassionally the data is released before it’s proven the point intended. But that doesn’t detract from the thousands of papers that do prove the point or frankly the consensus wouldn’t hold - but it does.Part of the problem is that anyone can take a few measurements, average them, and declare it to be the global or regional value. It’s completely legitimate, but only if you calculate the expected uncertainty and do it in a sensible manner.
The system is noisy. Even if there were no anthropogenic forcing, one expects to see fluctuations including upward and downward trends, plateaus, spikes, etc. It’s the nature of turbulent, nonlinear systems. I’m attaching a record of the height of the Nile — 700-1300 CE. Visually it’s just what one expects. But imagine some priest in the interval from 900-1000, telling the king that the the Nile was obviously going to vanish…
Or pick your own interval. Or look at the central England temperature record or any other long geophysical one. If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.
The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up.
A lot of this is somewhat like what goes on in the medical business: Small, poorly controlled studies are used to proclaim the efficacy of some new drug or treatment. How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?
i am sure gadget,loony and el stovey will be right on the blower telling him to tell climate scientists about the shady practices he has discovered,oh wait, he is a climate scientist.straight from the horses mouth,and alarmists wonder why some people are sceptical.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-cl...
I don’t need to “tell Climate Scientists about the shady practices Wunsch has discovered” as they’ll no doubt already know them, just like a trainee lawyer knows how to bend a clients statement to read the “right way” if need be. I’m sure every Accountant also knows a few tricks as would any police officer. These will be common knowledge to even the rookies. That doesn’t bring the scientific consensus to its knees though because EVERY profession has it’s bad apples but the profession as a whole still stands as its fundamentally correct.
And lets not forget, whilst we’re quoting wunsch, he’s on the pro AGW side of fence in the big picture.
Now, have you found the 2018 paper by Wunsch as I can’t and I do hope we are not talking about his 2014 paper because Wunsch has a lot to say about how the deniers have misrepresented that particular study which I’m itching to use
gadgetmac said:
Now, have you found the 2018 paper by Wunsch as I can’t and I do hope we are not talking about his 2014 paper because Wunsch has a lot to say about how the deniers have misrepresented that particular study which I’m itching to use
They haven't misused it they have just quoted it and forgotten to mention the large margin of error 
gadgetmac said:
And lets not forget, whilst we’re quoting wunsch, he’s on the pro AGW side of fence in the big picture.
Opinion counts for nothing when the data speaks differently. Who's quoting opinion as opposed to the data?Yesterday at 1215hrs I said:
Wunsch 2018 which shows that the temperature of the global oceans increased by 0.02°C between 1994 and 2013, with cooling below 3600m
You're aware of the pressure Wunsch came under for expressing off-message agw views previously? A moment's heresy brought a tsunami of venom from IPCC types, then all manner of wiggling on a stick followed to stem the heresy. Was it mis-speaking (!) or an experienced Prof being misled (!!) it's there in the record. Just like Wunsch 2018 is there, but that eluded you.Either way the response was different to Prof Bengtsson's.
Nullius in verba.
gadgetmac said:
Now, have you found the 2018 paper by Wunsch as I can’t and I do hope we are not talking about his 2014 paper...
2014 isn't 2018 and good luck with your catch-up. voyds9 said:
.They haven't misused it they have just quoted it and forgotten to mention the large margin of error
If that means you found Wunsch 2018 do share with gadgetmac. Wunsch 2018 said:
4.1. Temperature/heat content
0.0213 ± 0.0014 °C over 20 years
Compare with my previous post giving data as opposed to opinon, which I quoted near the top of this post.0.0213 ± 0.0014 °C over 20 years
There's also a 2016 peer-reviewed paper showing warming during a period of hundreds of years (pre- tax gas holiday times included) of 0.1 deg C / decade covering deeper waters 0 - 1000m compared to IPCC (0.02 deg C / decade, rounded up) for the seventies through noughties for a shallower 0 - 700m layer. Previous warming 5x faster than recent pedestrian pace warming which as usual in these circumstances is <not> unprecedented.
With agw supporters having read widely over many years before adopting informed positions, giving no need to comb through pro-agw advocacy blogs reactively, references are unnecessary IPCC and otherwise as it's all well-known old hat.
Anyone with a Twitter account may like to check this out to see if it refers to genuine fake news from an alarmist TV reporter covering recent Florence weather, or is fake news itself. I've seen a still from the supposed fake news but not the vid so can't confirm or refute atm.
Twitter user @gourdnibler captured a Weather Channel reporter struggling to stand upright and seemingly holding onto dear life - until the camera pans out a bit and captures two people casually strolling in the background.
Twitter user @gourdnibler captured a Weather Channel reporter struggling to stand upright and seemingly holding onto dear life - until the camera pans out a bit and captures two people casually strolling in the background.
DocJock said:
Thanks, missed it then but what a shock to see alarmist fakery is alive and well in TV coverage (!)turbobloke said:
DocJock said:
Thanks, missed it then but what a shock to see alarmist fakery is alive and well in TV coverage (!)Perhaps it’s just that reporters “interpretation of the data”
The irony of you posters believing in a global conspiracy to redistribute wealth involving all scientific institutions and majority of scientists and most governments, calling others alarmists is hilarious though.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 16th September 09:31
El stovey said:
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
Any politics yet ........ nope just the usual slagging off Troll comments.
Agreed. You should have a word with your brotherhood. "reach arounds" indeed.I expect that’s what happens when their world view starts to fall apart and they start to realise they’ve been brainwashed into arguing against scientific consensus and every scientific institution for yonks.
I think they’re trolling. No way some (unemployed) car enthusiasts could honestly believe they know more than the scientific community about climate change.
Why on Earth haven’t they published this evidence and changed the scientific consensus yet?
Seems odd really.
5 threads of conspiracy b
ks, ring-lead by a loon who misquotes & misrepresents scientists and even has the gall to question them when they themselves expose his deceit.'Spam, I'd quit while you're behind. Your reputation is in tatters.
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
DocJock said:
Thanks, missed it then but what a shock to see alarmist fakery is alive and well in TV coverage (!)The irony of you posters believing in a global conspiracy to redistribute wealth involving all scientific institutions and majority of scientists and most governments, calling others alarmists is hilarious though.
Edited by El stovey on Sunday 16th September 09:28
I would say that I guess you missed the
when I originally posted the video, but then when I see who is posting I understand.zygalski said:
Yep.
5 threads of conspiracy bks, ring-lead by a loon who misquotes & misrepresents scientists and even has the gall to question them when they themselves expose his deceit.
'Spam, I'd quit while you're behind. Your reputation is in tatters.
Welcome to the post truth world of alternative facts. You can make stuff up and it’s just viewed by followers as an “alternative interpretation”5 threads of conspiracy b
ks, ring-lead by a loon who misquotes & misrepresents scientists and even has the gall to question them when they themselves expose his deceit.'Spam, I'd quit while you're behind. Your reputation is in tatters.
You can see why the Scientologists are so wealthy.
Oh good, the ‘scientists’ are in.
Got that proof that the consensus is wrong yet?
How about that its all a big conspiracy, got something to sweep away the doubt yet?
Another nail in the coffin for the believers:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-...
The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.
Got that proof that the consensus is wrong yet?
How about that its all a big conspiracy, got something to sweep away the doubt yet?
Another nail in the coffin for the believers:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-...
The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.
I feel the need to update my list lest anyone should think it's come to an end
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
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
gadgetmac said:
Oh good, the ‘scientists’ are in.
Got that proof that the consensus is wrong yet?
How about that its all a big conspiracy, got something to sweep away the doubt yet?
Another nail in the coffin for the believers:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-...
The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.
Got that proof that the consensus is wrong yet?
How about that its all a big conspiracy, got something to sweep away the doubt yet?
Another nail in the coffin for the believers:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-...
The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.
John Cook the cartoonist strikes again, this time with green pies. It is rather curious but not surprising that you seem to have no trouble linking to a rabidly alarmist advocacy blog and yet you can't seem to find a peer reviewed academic paper or indeed read it. How are those models doing? And are you still in denial about the 18 year pause?
Union Of Concerned Scientists
We Need Your Support
to Make Change Happen
We can reduce global warming emissions and ensure communities have the resources they need to withstand the effects of climate change—but not without you. Your generous support helps develop science-based solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
$25
$50
$100
$250
$1000
Other
Donate
Get you wallets out suckers
We Need Your Support
to Make Change Happen
We can reduce global warming emissions and ensure communities have the resources they need to withstand the effects of climate change—but not without you. Your generous support helps develop science-based solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
$25
$50
$100
$250
$1000
Other
Donate
Get you wallets out suckers
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Oh good, the ‘scientists’ are in.
Got that proof that the consensus is wrong yet?
How about that its all a big conspiracy, got something to sweep away the doubt yet?
Another nail in the coffin for the believers:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-...
The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.
Got that proof that the consensus is wrong yet?
How about that its all a big conspiracy, got something to sweep away the doubt yet?
Another nail in the coffin for the believers:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-...
The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.
John Cook the cartoonist strikes again, this time with green pies. It is rather curious but not surprising that you seem to have no trouble linking to a rabidly alarmist advocacy blog and yet you can't seem to find a peer reviewed academic paper or indeed read it. How are those models doing? And are you still in denial about the 18 year pause?
I believe LoonyTunes has updated his list. Got something...anything...to counter it with?
What were your Scientific qualifications again?
Diderot said:
John Cook the cartoonist strikes again, this time with green pies. It is rather curious but not surprising that you seem to have no trouble linking to a rabidly alarmist advocacy blog and yet you can't seem to find a peer reviewed academic paper or indeed read it. How are those models doing? And are you still in denial about the 18 year pause?
LoonyTunes said:
I feel the need to update my list lest anyone should think it's come to an end
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
Be my guest. 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
By the way, are you aware of the Academie des Sciences' stated position on the 18 year pause?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff