Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
"In hindsight, with current GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] datasets, there is no statistical evidence for a 'pause,'" concluded one of the two studies, which reassessed temperature monitoring from the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The second study, which focused on what appeared to be a difference in observed temperatures and earlier projections from climate models, reached a similar conclusion.
"There was a natural slowdown in the rate of warming during roughly the decade of the 2000s due to a combination of volcanic influences and internal climate variability, but there was no actual 'hiatus' or 'pause' in warming," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and an author of the climate modeling study, said.
There were 60+ dry documents (as you would term them) in peer reviewed journals proffering hypotheses about what might have caused the pause/hiatus.The second study, which focused on what appeared to be a difference in observed temperatures and earlier projections from climate models, reached a similar conclusion.
"There was a natural slowdown in the rate of warming during roughly the decade of the 2000s due to a combination of volcanic influences and internal climate variability, but there was no actual 'hiatus' or 'pause' in warming," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and an author of the climate modeling study, said.
So lemme get this straight, you're siding with 2 studies against 60+ consensus studies because it suits your belief?
Except in your cult where everything seems to have stopped sometime in the 1960's.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
"In hindsight, with current GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] datasets, there is no statistical evidence for a 'pause,'" concluded one of the two studies, which reassessed temperature monitoring from the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The second study, which focused on what appeared to be a difference in observed temperatures and earlier projections from climate models, reached a similar conclusion.
"There was a natural slowdown in the rate of warming during roughly the decade of the 2000s due to a combination of volcanic influences and internal climate variability, but there was no actual 'hiatus' or 'pause' in warming," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and an author of the climate modeling study, said.
There were 60+ dry documents (as you would term them) in peer reviewed journals proffering hypotheses about what might have caused the pause/hiatus.The second study, which focused on what appeared to be a difference in observed temperatures and earlier projections from climate models, reached a similar conclusion.
"There was a natural slowdown in the rate of warming during roughly the decade of the 2000s due to a combination of volcanic influences and internal climate variability, but there was no actual 'hiatus' or 'pause' in warming," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and an author of the climate modeling study, said.
So lemme get this straight, you're siding with 2 studies against 60+ consensus studies because it suits your belief?
Except in your cult where everything seems to have stopped sometime in the 1960's.
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
"In hindsight, with current GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] datasets, there is no statistical evidence for a 'pause,'" concluded one of the two studies, which reassessed temperature monitoring from the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The second study, which focused on what appeared to be a difference in observed temperatures and earlier projections from climate models, reached a similar conclusion.
"There was a natural slowdown in the rate of warming during roughly the decade of the 2000s due to a combination of volcanic influences and internal climate variability, but there was no actual 'hiatus' or 'pause' in warming," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and an author of the climate modeling study, said.
There were 60+ dry documents (as you would term them) in peer reviewed journals proffering hypotheses about what might have caused the pause/hiatus.The second study, which focused on what appeared to be a difference in observed temperatures and earlier projections from climate models, reached a similar conclusion.
"There was a natural slowdown in the rate of warming during roughly the decade of the 2000s due to a combination of volcanic influences and internal climate variability, but there was no actual 'hiatus' or 'pause' in warming," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and an author of the climate modeling study, said.
So lemme get this straight, you're siding with 2 studies against 60+ consensus studies because it suits your belief?
Except in your cult where everything seems to have stopped sometime in the 1960's.
And all of a sudden you're a believer in consensus....oh the irony
Kawasicki said:
Of course he's going to latch on to this. He knows his audience.
Cooling For The Last Three Years (after strong El Nino) But Scorchio Warming Forecast
See post from yesterday with factual details of Mystic Met's abysmal record based on use of tax gas climate faith.
GWPF said:
The UK Met Office released the 2018 global temperature data as part of a press release about its forecast for global temperatures for the next five years, basically saying that the high temperatures will continue, despite their elevation over previous years by the El Nino and their coming down afterwards. Their press release was entitled, “Forecast suggests Earth’s warmest period on record.”
It says: The forecast for the global average surface temperature for the five-year period to 2023 is predicted to be near or above 1.0 °C above pre-industrial levels, says the Met Office. If the observations for the next five years track the forecast that would make the decade from 2014 to 2023 the warmest run of years since records began.
No mention then of the events that elevated the global 2015 and subsequent years, the EL Nino and the Pacific marine heatwave.
As we all know, especially the Met Office, forecasting the future is fraught with difficulties, the main one is that you are forecasting the future! The Met Office does not have a very good track record in this regard.
Soothsaying isn't their strong point.It says: The forecast for the global average surface temperature for the five-year period to 2023 is predicted to be near or above 1.0 °C above pre-industrial levels, says the Met Office. If the observations for the next five years track the forecast that would make the decade from 2014 to 2023 the warmest run of years since records began.
No mention then of the events that elevated the global 2015 and subsequent years, the EL Nino and the Pacific marine heatwave.
As we all know, especially the Met Office, forecasting the future is fraught with difficulties, the main one is that you are forecasting the future! The Met Office does not have a very good track record in this regard.
See post from yesterday with factual details of Mystic Met's abysmal record based on use of tax gas climate faith.
There's an early contender for the 2019 Climatewang Award.
"Spanish colonization in the Americas contributed to global cooling"
The political blog Climate Depot has a suggestion for further 'research':
"How the Roman warm period was brought to a premature end by the increasing demand for crucifixes"
Well if the lobby group the GWPF said it then it must be true.
Oh, but then again...
"In 2014 the charity Commission ruled that the GWPF (a registered charity) had breached rules on impartiality in its climate change coverage, blurred fact and comment and demonstrated a clear bias"
I also see that their membership is dwindling and now has less than 60 members generating only £5,409 in membership fees for the year ended Sep 2016. With each member being asked to pay at least £100 per year.
This is down by two third from 2011 when membership fees garnered £14,330.
However the GWPF did manage to generate £257,000 from 'secret donors'.
Let's take a stab at where that might have come from
Big Oil plus TB and Deeps I suspect.
It's all falling apart.
Oh, but then again...
"In 2014 the charity Commission ruled that the GWPF (a registered charity) had breached rules on impartiality in its climate change coverage, blurred fact and comment and demonstrated a clear bias"
I also see that their membership is dwindling and now has less than 60 members generating only £5,409 in membership fees for the year ended Sep 2016. With each member being asked to pay at least £100 per year.
This is down by two third from 2011 when membership fees garnered £14,330.
However the GWPF did manage to generate £257,000 from 'secret donors'.
Let's take a stab at where that might have come from
Big Oil plus TB and Deeps I suspect.
It's all falling apart.
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Of course he's going to latch on to this. He knows his audience.
"I now would probably say my “best guess” is that more than half of warming since the 1950s was human-caused (consistent with the IPCC AR5)." - Roy Spencer, 02/01/19
Climate change: UK carbon capture project begins
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-471...
The giant Drax power station, near Selby in North Yorkshire, has become the first in Europe to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from wood-burning.
Drax burns seven million tonnes of wood chips each year to drive generators to make electricity.
The firm has now begun a pilot project to capture one tonne a day of CO2 from its wood combustion.
The technology effectively turns climate change into reverse on a tiny scale, but it’s controversial.
When a forest grows, the trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it to make their wood.
If you burn that wood, the process doesn’t emit any extra CO2 into the atmosphere - because the trees removed it from the air in the first place. It’s called carbon neutral......................continues
Love that last sentence. Talk about screwed logic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-471...
The giant Drax power station, near Selby in North Yorkshire, has become the first in Europe to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) from wood-burning.
Drax burns seven million tonnes of wood chips each year to drive generators to make electricity.
The firm has now begun a pilot project to capture one tonne a day of CO2 from its wood combustion.
The technology effectively turns climate change into reverse on a tiny scale, but it’s controversial.
When a forest grows, the trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it to make their wood.
If you burn that wood, the process doesn’t emit any extra CO2 into the atmosphere - because the trees removed it from the air in the first place. It’s called carbon neutral......................continues
Love that last sentence. Talk about screwed logic.
gadgetmac said:
You won’t find it on WUWT but...check it out:
The United Nations panel of climate science experts mentioned it in a 2013 report, scientists have published more than 200 papers analyzing it, and climate deniers said it was proof that climate change didn't exist, but in reality the global warming "pause" or "hiatus" never occurred.
That is the conclusion of a pair of studies, published Tuesday in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters, based on statistical reassessments of a recent 10-year period that appeared at the time to evince a flattened warming curve.
These are the latest of several assessments to caution that the hiatus theory has no real significance either for climate science or for science-based policy.
"In hindsight, with current GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] datasets, there is no statistical evidence for a 'pause,'" concluded one of the two studies, which reassessed temperature monitoring from the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The second study, which focused on what appeared to be a difference in observed temperatures and earlier projections from climate models, reached a similar conclusion.
"There was a natural slowdown in the rate of warming during roughly the decade of the 2000s due to a combination of volcanic influences and internal climate variability, but there was no actual 'hiatus' or 'pause' in warming," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and an author of the climate modeling study, said.
The current studies, coming on the heels of the recent special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the fourth National Climate Assessment, "put to rest" any lingering notion of a pause in global warming, said Brenda Ekwurzel, the Union of Concerned Scientists' director of climate science.
"It's very clear that the climate is warming faster," Ekwurzel said. "Climate change is real, it's due to us primarily, and we have a choice about the future emissions that continue to contribute to warming global mean surface temperature."
Well, the use of statistics condems that to the rubbish bin. As for Michael Mann (fraudster) being a credible commentator, you must be kidding !!The United Nations panel of climate science experts mentioned it in a 2013 report, scientists have published more than 200 papers analyzing it, and climate deniers said it was proof that climate change didn't exist, but in reality the global warming "pause" or "hiatus" never occurred.
That is the conclusion of a pair of studies, published Tuesday in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters, based on statistical reassessments of a recent 10-year period that appeared at the time to evince a flattened warming curve.
These are the latest of several assessments to caution that the hiatus theory has no real significance either for climate science or for science-based policy.
"In hindsight, with current GMST [Global Mean Surface Temperature] datasets, there is no statistical evidence for a 'pause,'" concluded one of the two studies, which reassessed temperature monitoring from the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The second study, which focused on what appeared to be a difference in observed temperatures and earlier projections from climate models, reached a similar conclusion.
"There was a natural slowdown in the rate of warming during roughly the decade of the 2000s due to a combination of volcanic influences and internal climate variability, but there was no actual 'hiatus' or 'pause' in warming," Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and an author of the climate modeling study, said.
The current studies, coming on the heels of the recent special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the fourth National Climate Assessment, "put to rest" any lingering notion of a pause in global warming, said Brenda Ekwurzel, the Union of Concerned Scientists' director of climate science.
"It's very clear that the climate is warming faster," Ekwurzel said. "Climate change is real, it's due to us primarily, and we have a choice about the future emissions that continue to contribute to warming global mean surface temperature."
robinessex said:
Well, the use of statistics condems that to the rubbish bin. As for Michael Mann (fraudster) being a credible commentator, you must be kidding !!
With you everything gets condemned to the rubbish bin especially if it involves stats and averages in particular. I know you'd like science to not involve numbers of any kind but hey ho, that's the universe we live in.Why not write to one of the authors of the reports and voice your mathematical objections? Oh, sorry, that would involve you understanding all of the equations they will have done which you don't.
gadgetmac said:
In Robinessex world this is the scientists just "guessing"
There's only one fraudster and its you.
Just catalogue the number of guessing words in that one page !! As for Michael Mann :-There's only one fraudster and its you.
Should Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann be Prosecuted for Climate Fraud?
https://principia-scientific.org/should-michael-ho...
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
Well, the use of statistics condems that to the rubbish bin. As for Michael Mann (fraudster) being a credible commentator, you must be kidding !!
With you everything gets condemned to the rubbish bin especially if it involves stats and averages in particular. I know you'd like science to not involve numbers of any kind but hey ho, that's the universe we live in.Why not write to one of the authors of the reports and voice your mathematical objections? Oh, sorry, that would involve you understanding all of the equations they will have done which you don't.
robinessex said:
Just catalogue the number of guessing words in that one page !!
robinessex said:
As for Michael Mann :-
Should Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann be Prosecuted for Climate Fraud?
https://principia-scientific.org/should-michael-ho...
As blogged by John O'Sullivan on his own website. The man who thinks that Human Caused Global Warming is a fraud. He even fell out with Anthony Watts who he thought was to lefty in admitting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.Should Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann be Prosecuted for Climate Fraud?
https://principia-scientific.org/should-michael-ho...
robinessex said:
I've been up to my ears in Equations for 50 years in Enginering.
Yeah, my father was an Engineer (and a damned good) one all of his life but even he would admit that the equations used in the article on Causality are not part of his skill set due to his lack of knowledge on the subject and reasoning used.He certainly wouldn't be calling somebody engaged in using those equations a liar with that little knowledge.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
I've been up to my ears in Equations for 50 years in Enginering.
Yeah, my father was an Engineer (and a damned good) one all of his life but even he would admit that the equations used in the article on Causality are not part of his skill set due to his lack of knowledge on the subject and reasoning used.He certainly wouldn't be calling somebody engaged in using those equations a liar with that little knowledge.
robinessex said:
I never said liar. Be careful what you say here. I said statistics is mathematical guessing. So did my college lecturer who taught it/us.
They are either liars or just in error in their calculations.They are not wetting their finger and sticking it in the air.
If they are not the former then you need to demonstrate (mathematically) their error. Remember, they are only saying that the mathematical probability that there is human causality is high. If you have a problem with the math then spell it out exactly and we can ask them.
Yes, I have the email address for both Hannart and Naveau.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
I never said liar. Be careful what you say here. I said statistics is mathematical guessing. So did my college lecturer who taught it/us.
They are either liars or just in error in their calculations.They are not wetting their finger and sticking it in the air.
If they are not the former then you need to demonstrate (mathematically) their error. Remember, they are only saying that the mathematical probability that there is human causality is high. If you have a problem with the math then spell it out exactly and we can ask them.
Yes, I have the email address for both Hannart and Naveau.
robinessex said:
How many time do I have to say it. I'm not disputing their mathematical skills. I'm just stating that statistics is, and always will be, mathmatical guessing. You can't get an EXACT answer from statistics, can't you understand that?
Nobody said you can get an exact, but you can get a probability.Do you dispute their findings that the probability is high? It's a simple question.
If you do dispute it please explain where there equations are wrong or admit that the probability that humans are the cause of global warming is high.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff