Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

gadgetmac

5,658 posts

52 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
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 How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?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.

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. biggrin

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 smile

voyds9

6,969 posts

227 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
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 smile
They haven't misused it they have just quoted it and forgotten to mention the large margin of error wink

turbobloke

84,929 posts

204 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
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.

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.

turbobloke

84,929 posts

204 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
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.

DocJock

5,953 posts

184 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
I posted the video on the final page of vol 4.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1040678572262...

turbobloke

84,929 posts

204 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
DocJock said:
I posted the video on the final page of vol 4.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1040678572262...
Thanks, missed it then but what a shock to see alarmist fakery is alive and well in TV coverage (!)

El stovey

27,045 posts

207 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
DocJock said:
I posted the video on the final page of vol 4.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1040678572262...
Thanks, missed it then but what a shock to see alarmist fakery is alive and well in TV coverage (!)
Nothing to do with climate change whatsoever. It’s misrepresenting the facts which is actually what you cultist do.

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 El stovey on Sunday 16th September 09:31

zygalski

5,871 posts

89 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
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.
The cult are all getting a bit sweary and angry.

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. hehe

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.
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.

DocJock

5,953 posts

184 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
DocJock said:
I posted the video on the final page of vol 4.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1040678572262...
Thanks, missed it then but what a shock to see alarmist fakery is alive and well in TV coverage (!)
Nothing to do with climate change whatsoever. It’s misrepresenting the facts which is actually what you cultist do.

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
That is your strawman, which I have addressed on more than one occasion.

I would say that I guess you missed the wink when I originally posted the video, but then when I see who is posting I understand.

El stovey

27,045 posts

207 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
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”

You can see why the Scientologists are so wealthy.

gadgetmac

5,658 posts

52 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
So no link to Wunsch 2018?

That raises questions.

No matter, anybody else got it? smile

dickymint

16,880 posts

202 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
yes

About 88,900,000 results (0.35 seconds) was top of the list!

Edited by dickymint on Sunday 16th September 10:23

Diderot

3,978 posts

136 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
yes

They missed it because they are not accustomed to academic papers. And as we know they never read them anyway so wouldn't know what one looked like.




gadgetmac

5,658 posts

52 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
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? biggrin

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.




LoonyTunes

3,362 posts

19 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
I feel the need to update my list lest anyone should think it's come to an end smile

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


Diderot

3,978 posts

136 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
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? biggrin

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.
laugh 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?




dickymint

16,880 posts

202 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
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 hehe

gadgetmac

5,658 posts

52 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
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? biggrin

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.
laugh 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?
They’re doing fine thanks...and yep...the current scientific thinking is there wasn’t a pause, are you still banging on about discredite...oh...hold on...I’ve answered my own question.

I believe LoonyTunes has updated his list. Got something...anything...to counter it with?

What were your Scientific qualifications again? biggrin

wc98

8,961 posts

84 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
Diderot said:
laugh 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?

lol smile

Diderot

3,978 posts

136 months

Sunday 16th September 2018
quotequote all
LoonyTunes said:
I feel the need to update my list lest anyone should think it's come to an end smile

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.

By the way, are you aware of the Academie des Sciences' stated position on the 18 year pause?