Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[turbobloke]

AGW supporter and averted vision, lovin' it.

[gadgetmac]

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

Diderot said:

gadgetmac said:

They pay hundreds of thousands of $$$'s to an organisation espousing propaganda which will ultimately enhance their bottom line.

To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.

Who funds Skeptical Science???

Doesn't Dana Nuccitelli work for Tetra Tech?

Do Tetra Tech fund Skeptical Science?

Nutella writes for Skeptical Science. So to use your questionable logic, Skeptical Science must be tainted and is a propaganda mouthpiece for Big Oil.

Which would be a fair point if Tetra pay SKS. Is there any transfer of cash or credits involved in order to finance the operations of SKS?

[gadgetmac]

turbobloke said:

It's not looking too good for the latest 'oceans ate Trenberth missing heat' paper, co-authored by Trenberth within the Cheng et al authorship team, which followed on rather quickly from the previous erroneous ocean warming paper in which errors were found and a published correction required.

I haven't delved deeply, and it deserves deep delving - this is what provisional reports say as of 22 Jan.

Second ocean paper in three months is refuted by independent climate scientist Nicholas Lewis

Coverage said:

A scientific paper, published in Science magazine last week, led to widespread claims that the oceans were warming faster than previously thought, and received media attention around the world.

Less than a week after the headlines, an independent scientist, Nicholas Lewis, has found that the team led by Lijing Cheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, had made what he calls important factual errors. Lewis also says that some of Cheng’s statements are “misleading”

. . .

"Ocean warming appears to be very much in line with earlier IPCC estimates, when correctly calculated, and slower over the last decade or so than predicted by climate models”

More to come, for sure.

Yes there is more to come, as always with something you post...

The take out from that is that Ocean temperatures may have been rising faster than previously thought but at a slower rate than the study previously stated.

So, still faster than previously thought.

And according to Dr Ralph Keeling the errors "do not invalidate the study's methodology or the new insights into Ocean biochemistry on which it is based."

Denier in constant misrepresentation malarkey, lovin' it.

Edited by gadgetmac on Tuesday 22 January 11:53

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Obviously you haven't read any of the analyses offered to you because you have averted your eyes.

The hypothesis is easily tested by removing the pre 1992 data (that ended in 1992) from the data. If removing that 'colder' data has no effect on the pre-1992 trend then there is little reason to think ithas any effect on the post 1992 trend.

I'm going to try and explain this one again. The trends are formed from mean values. The above assumes that if you reduce the frequency (number of stations) yet keep the means the same then the frequency you removed did not effect the mean (fine at this stage). To then say that the continued means with the reduced frequency is comparable to the previous means is wrong (a trend in the subset is not the trend of the set). When calculating a mean the frequency of the set creates an inertia in the mean value and hence if the whole set continued the change in the mean would be less pronounced.
Can you now see why the above analysis is wrong?

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Obviously you haven't read any of the analyses offered to you because you have averted your eyes.

The hypothesis is easily tested by removing the pre 1992 data (that ended in 1992) from the data. If removing that 'colder' data has no effect on the pre-1992 trend then there is little reason to think ithas any effect on the post 1992 trend.

Here's Lucia at The Blackboard on it:

"We also see that absolutely no work is shown to explain why bias would rear it’s head, in this case knowing which thermometers were dropped, which that remain, and the knowing the anomaly method is used.

Quick investigations by people accessing actual data and computing “pre” and “post” cut-off thermometers suggest that when the anomaly method is used, dropping these thermometers as occurred in the 80-90s is not resulting in bias.

If Smith and D’Aleo have done analyses that detect the bias, they now have a very tough row to hoe. They need to explain how any bias arises and show it does. So far, they have not. So, until they show it… well…. We are we we are: No particular evidence the march of the thermometers caused any upward bias in the surface record."

That doesn't compute. By splicing the dataset in this way you can create trends that did not exist in the un-spliced dataset (think BEST). You create a false pivot point in the data trend which leads to an artifact in the trend that only exists because of the change you introduced (similar to Karl ship bucket "adjustments" that increased the trend gradient) . Trends are an emergent phenomena and comparing trends tells you nothing about the underlying data - to assume the underlying data is irrelevant because the trend is constant is false logic of the:
If A then B
B
Then A
form.

Let me know when you've got something real to show - it appears this trail went cold ten years ago.

Another intersting fact is that while sceptics portrayed this as evil scientist going round killing 'cold' thermometers, the reduction in the amount of thermometers around 1990 was actually the result of data recovery efforts INCREASING the amount of pre-1990s data.

Such efforts are ONGOING so the graph turbobloke posted may well be out of date by now.

Indeed the met office added a load of historic data folloing a data recovery effort a few years ago. It was mostly 'cold' data from places like russia. The result was a small increase in the warming trend (hint - colder places are generally warming faster than warm places)

[kerplunk]

turbobloke said:

AGW supporter and averted vision, lovin' it.

Is that all you've got?

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Obviously you haven't read any of the analyses offered to you because you have averted your eyes.

The hypothesis is easily tested by removing the pre 1992 data (that ended in 1992) from the data. If removing that 'colder' data has no effect on the pre-1992 trend then there is little reason to think ithas any effect on the post 1992 trend.

I'm going to try and explain this one again. The trends are formed from mean values. The above assumes that if you reduce the frequency (number of stations) yet keep the means the same then the frequency you removed did not effect the mean (fine at this stage). To then say that the continued means with the reduced frequency is comparable to the previous means is wrong (a trend in the subset is not the trend of the set). When calculating a mean the frequency of the set creates an inertia in the mean value and hence if the whole set continued the change in the mean would be less pronounced.
Can you now see why the above analysis is wrong?

Let me know when you've 'done the maths'.

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

Let me know when you've 'done the maths'.

Done it up to degree level.

[gadgetmac]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Let me know when you've 'done the maths'.

Done it up to degree level.

You mean you're not a professor!?!?

You're seriously letting the side down.

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

Let me know when you've 'done the maths'.

Done it up to degree level.

You must be confusing me with someone who is interested in your quals.

[wc98]

gadgetmac said:

They pay hundreds of thousands of $$$'s to an organisation espousing propaganda which will ultimately enhance their bottom line.

To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.

Who funds Skeptical Science???

as opposed to the billions thrown at climate science from politicians with an agenda

[Jinx]

kerplunk said:

You must be confusing me with someone who is interested in your quals.

It was tongue in cheek KP as a facetious response to your Dacia tag line. Why would I need to "do the maths" if the support paper is flawed in it's conclusion?

[stew-STR160]

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

They pay hundreds of thousands of $$$'s to an organisation espousing propaganda which will ultimately enhance their bottom line.

To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.

Who funds Skeptical Science???

as opposed to the billions thrown at climate science from politicians with an agenda

Sshhhhhh

[robinessex]

How come the government are handing AGW so well, and yet making a complete balls up of Brexit ? Should we be worried?

[gadgetmac]

stew-STR160 said:

wc98 said:

gadgetmac said:

They pay hundreds of thousands of $$$'s to an organisation espousing propaganda which will ultimately enhance their bottom line.

To say that this isn't evidence of self interest is pathetic.

Who funds Skeptical Science???

as opposed to the billions thrown at climate science from politicians with an agenda

Sshhhhhh

Ah, the inmates are back with their Global Conspiracy mutterings, excellent

[robinessex]

Meanwhile, the Beeb propoganda machine rolls on

Satellites saw rapid Greenland ice loss

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-469...

Greenland has gone through an "unprecedented" period of ice loss within the last two decades.
The Grace satellites revealed a four-fold increase in mass being lost from Greenland's ice sheet from 2003-2013.
The study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that ice loss subsequently stalled for 12-18 months.
The research reveals how different areas of Greenland might contribute to sea-level rise in future....continues

We have a 'might' of course, so that's setteld then. Any idea why Greenland is er, called Greenland ?

[gadgetmac]

There's some confusion over whether it's because it's;

1. A medieval marketing scam to attract settlers

2. An erroneous transcription of Grunt (ground) land

3. Because it's green in the summer

HTH

[kerplunk]

Jinx said:

kerplunk said:

You must be confusing me with someone who is interested in your quals.

It was tongue in cheek KP as a facetious response to your Dacia tag line. Why would I need to "do the maths" if the support paper is flawed in it's conclusion?

You don't need to do anything, however I'm only interested if you have done 'something'.

A reminder of how we we got started (or perhaps I should say repeated):

turbobloke said:

anyone with an ounce of nous can do the maths

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

Meanwhile, the Beeb propoganda machine rolls on

Satellites saw rapid Greenland ice loss

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-469...

Yes, quickly, drop them a line telling them we don't want to hear what the scientists have concluded in their study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says.

We'd much rather hear what the failed meteorologist Anthony Watts has to say instead.

Maybe they'll do a daily piece from him in their Science section?

Fingers crossed.

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

Meanwhile, the Beeb propoganda machine rolls on

Satellites saw rapid Greenland ice loss

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-469...

Yes, quickly, drop them a line telling them we don't want to hear what the scientists have concluded in their study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says.

We'd much rather hear what the failed meteorologist Anthony Watts has to say instead.

Maybe they'll do a daily piece from him in their Science section?

Fingers crossed.

And the direct link to CO2 is ?
Is there proof that ice loss has not happened before ? Is part of the problem we now can measure things more accurately than ever before, my view is until we can build up a picture over hundreds of years, reports are meaningless, but it adds to the scare stories.