Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
How is it out of context? It's his stated MO for how he goes about writing about climate science. He's an "interpreter of interpretations". His source is other people's interpretations of the research which he then re-interprets.
Because it was a previous comment by Delingpol and not a quote from his take on the paper in question. Ergo not in context of this paper. alock said:
Gandahar said:
Can we get back to the science now?
The purple line is the 2010s average.2 individual points from this range are about the average.
2 individual points from this range are below the average.
What does that tell you about the remaining data points that made the purple line?
Globs said:
No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model
Because no model predicts the clouds positions and densities to anywhere like the accuracy required your models diverge hopelessly and end up like any other broken simulation: without a clue.
The failure to predict the track of a simple hurricane storm system over 24 hours highlights the gross deficiencies in the models that causes the epic failures that we have seen. Climate models are not just like throwing darts at the board: they are worse than chance, it's as if the dartboard is locked in a draw because they have failed to realise they needed one.
Have you got it yet?
No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model
No data in this response and lots of conjecture. No evidence to back up the viewpoint. See below how a response should be.durbster said:
Various stuff carefully avoiding the key flaw in the usage of the equilibrium equations AGW is based upon
The reason your climate models don't work is that they fail to take account of the primary driver of climate: the amount of energy reaching the ground from the sun. Read IPCC AR4 and AR5 - they are full of the re-radiation side of the equation, but fail to get within even 10% of the current earth albedo, let alone tiny albedo changes of 1-2% that wipe out all of their emissive crap.Because no model predicts the clouds positions and densities to anywhere like the accuracy required your models diverge hopelessly and end up like any other broken simulation: without a clue.
The failure to predict the track of a simple hurricane storm system over 24 hours highlights the gross deficiencies in the models that causes the epic failures that we have seen. Climate models are not just like throwing darts at the board: they are worse than chance, it's as if the dartboard is locked in a draw because they have failed to realise they needed one.
Have you got it yet?
No cloud modelling = no albedo modelling = one side of the equilibrium ignored = no working climate model
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 26th September 21:12
XM5ER said:
durbster said:
No Tricks Zone is a fully discredited source. They consistently list papers without the authors consent, and wilfully misrepresent their contents.
What are you talking about? Anyone can list a paper and criticize it, it is not against the law and it isn't willful misrepresentation.Edited by durbster on Tuesday 26th September 07:53
Check out Ruedger Stein quoted paper. He ripped the graph out of a set of 3 and then put his own labels in etc
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...
when I wrote to the original author he said
thanks for your email and making me aware about this online news citing our study not in a correct way. The author has even changed one of our main figures by adding „20th Century“ and „Little Ice Age (LIA)“. In our paper we say no word about the most recent past as our age model is not good enough to identify specific warm or cold periods (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and theLIA) are the 20th Century. Looking at the original figure in our paper (see attachment) we clearly indicate that out last exact age fix point is about 3500 years BP and that above it’s simply inter-(extra-)polation. The last couple of hundred of years might even be missing in our record!! In other words, our paper is dealing with the long-term Holocene cooling and increase of sea ice observed in many circum-Arctic sediment cores, a change that coincided with the decrease in solar insolation. In addition, the inflow of Pacific Water is important for the local/regional sea-ice formation in the Chukchi Sea. Main focus of our study was to get more insight into the processes influencing the natural variability of past sea ice changes. This knowledge of natural climate variability is certainly important for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic processes controlling the most recent climate change. In my understanding, the recent extreme increase in man-driven CO2 is certainly a main factor controlling the recent global warming.
Looking again at this news article that does not cite our work correctly, I have to say that I should have mention in the introduction of our last article more clearly the influence of CO2 on climate change as we have done in several other articles of our work. In one of our most recent work dealing with past Arctic sea ice in the Miocene, for example, we have shown that ice-free summers were only possible under quite high CO2 concentrations of about 450 ppm (a value that we may reach in the near future). This article I have also attached to my email.
How damning is that? When you read a US based web site you have to be prepared they will do ANYTHING to show their viewpoint, and that includes making things up
durbster said:
No Tricks Zone is a fully discredited source. They consistently list papers without the authors consent, and wilfully misrepresent their contents.
Be that as it may,it is a real paper is it not?Have you, (or plunker or gandahar) actually read the paper that was mentioned?
Do any of you have any comment on the science contained within the paper?
Or are you all content to just complain about the website that mentioned it?
^^^^ Messenger well and truly shot 
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-8302911_78836.htm
Last line of Abstract:
Thus, the effective radiation temperature yields flawed results when used for quantifying the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-8302911_78836.htm
Last line of Abstract:
Thus, the effective radiation temperature yields flawed results when used for quantifying the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Edited by mondeoman on Tuesday 26th September 22:52
Gandahar said:
alock said:
Gandahar said:
Can we get back to the science now?
The purple line is the 2010s average.2 individual points from this range are about the average.
2 individual points from this range are below the average.
What does that tell you about the remaining data points that made the purple line?
The data series plotted is stupid. I thought that would be obvious to anyone who actually looked at the graph. You obviously need a second look to notice it.
Why post a graph which averages three 10 years periods alongside one average of 6.5 years and also a few individual years that presumably also in that final average? Why is the data for these 4 years in the graph twice?
What statistical theory is this style of graph based on? Have you ever seen data presented like this anywhere else?
Silver Smudger said:
durbster said:
No Tricks Zone is a fully discredited source. They consistently list papers without the authors consent, and wilfully misrepresent their contents.
Be that as it may,it is a real paper is it not?Have you, (or plunker or gandahar) actually read the paper that was mentioned?
Do any of you have any comment on the science contained within the paper?
Or are you all content to just complain about the website that mentioned it?
NTZ relies on people not doing their own research. You'll need to find a better source if you want your argument to be taken seriously.
durbster said:
I know of at least ten papers have been posted on No Tricks Zone where the authors have said their work has been misrepresented (which is 100% of the scientists who got back to me). I don't feel inclined to waste time debunking another.
NTZ relies on people not doing their own research. You'll need to find a better source if you want your argument to be taken seriously.
And who will pay for controversial research ?NTZ relies on people not doing their own research. You'll need to find a better source if you want your argument to be taken seriously.
Just Google Johnny Ball climate change, see how he was and is treated and he is only a TV presenter, do you honestly think any scientists would go down that route, some remember the climate gate e mails where discussions took place in shutting down opposition, it really isn't a normal scientific world out there when related to climate change.
PRTVR said:
And who will pay for controversial research ?
Just Google Johnny Ball climate change, see how he was and is treated and he is only a TV presenter, do you honestly think any scientists would go down that route, some remember the climate gate e mails where discussions took place in shutting down opposition, it really isn't a normal scientific world out there when related to climate change.
Followed that up and watched the video by Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock, she models the planetary atmosphere and sun in a bottle with a lamp. Unknown amount of co2 added and the temperature probes in different positions followed by a hand waving explanation about the earth's surface reflecting IR and co2 absorbing it making the temperature rise.Just Google Johnny Ball climate change, see how he was and is treated and he is only a TV presenter, do you honestly think any scientists would go down that route, some remember the climate gate e mails where discussions took place in shutting down opposition, it really isn't a normal scientific world out there when related to climate change.
I get that it is an explanation for a junior school education level, however it is also a demonstration why some of us are sceptical about climate change when supporters point to things like this as being definitive science.
Toltec said:
Followed that up and watched the video by Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock, she models the planetary atmosphere and sun in a bottle with a lamp. Unknown amount of co2 added and the temperature probes in different positions followed by a hand waving explanation about the earth's surface reflecting IR and co2 absorbing it making the temperature rise.
I get that it is an explanation for a junior school education level, however it is also a demonstration why some of us are sceptical about climate change when supporters point to things like this as being definitive science.
You're sceptical because an explanation of the science aimed at kids isn't detailed or accurate enough? That makes no sense to me. Using that mode of thinking you should also be sceptical about atomic physics, gravity, thermodynamics and basically all science.I get that it is an explanation for a junior school education level, however it is also a demonstration why some of us are sceptical about climate change when supporters point to things like this as being definitive science.
Why not read a decent university level text about the details and work out if that makes you sceptical?
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
I know of at least ten papers have been posted on No Tricks Zone where the authors have said their work has been misrepresented (which is 100% of the scientists who got back to me). I don't feel inclined to waste time debunking another.
NTZ relies on people not doing their own research. You'll need to find a better source if you want your argument to be taken seriously.
And who will pay for controversial research ?NTZ relies on people not doing their own research. You'll need to find a better source if you want your argument to be taken seriously.
a) you agree that there is little scientific research that supports the rejection of climate change
b) you disagree in which case, there is your answer.
PRTVR said:
Just Google Johnny Ball climate change, see how he was and is treated and he is only a TV presenter
Right, I Googled it.
You'll have to expand on what relevance it has to No Tricks Zone being a propaganda website.
PRTVR said:
do you honestly think any scientists would go down that route, some remember the climate gate e mails where discussions took place in shutting down opposition, it really isn't a normal scientific world out there when related to climate change.
Yes of course they would. Lots of scientists love being controversial.What's more plausible:
1. There are a huge number of scientists who don't accept AGW but are too afraid to speak up for... some reason.
2. There are very few scientists supporting your view.
Edited by durbster on Wednesday 27th September 13:20
durbster said:
Yes of course they would. Lots of scientists love being controversial.
What's more plausible:
1. There are a huge number of scientists who don't accept AGW but are too afraid to speak up for... some reason.
2. There are very few scientists supporting your view.
Durbster, you are still not understanding how this works. There are only a handful of scientists that actually are studying the mechanism of AGW. 99% of the rest that are using AGW or discussing AGW only study the apparent consequences of it or apparent effects of it, it is all based on the assumption of 2 things, its warming and its our fault.What's more plausible:
1. There are a huge number of scientists who don't accept AGW but are too afraid to speak up for... some reason.
2. There are very few scientists supporting your view.
Edited by durbster on Wednesday 27th September 13:20
For example, from your Stein quote earlier
"This knowledge of natural climate variability is certainly important for distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic processes controlling the most recent climate change. In my understanding, the recent extreme increase in man-driven CO2 is certainly a main factor controlling the recent global warming."
Notice the language in the second sentence, it indicates received information. He studies ice patterns (I'd love to read the paper but it's behind a paywall), he is not a radiation physicist.
durbster said:
Yes of course they would. Lots of scientists love being controversial.
What's more plausible:
1. There are a huge number of scientists who don't accept AGW but are too afraid to speak up for... some reason.
2. There are very few scientists supporting your view.
To see how a huge number of scientists can be afraid to speak up, see here...What's more plausible:
1. There are a huge number of scientists who don't accept AGW but are too afraid to speak up for... some reason.
2. There are very few scientists supporting your view.
Edited by durbster on Wednesday 27th September 13:20
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/opinion/when-th...
Really nice parallels to climate science.
hairykrishna said:
You're sceptical because an explanation of the science aimed at kids isn't detailed or accurate enough? That makes no sense to me. Using that mode of thinking you should also be sceptical about atomic physics, gravity, thermodynamics and basically all science.
Why not read a decent university level text about the details and work out if that makes you sceptical?
No, that is not what I said or meant. It is the use of explanations at that level by CC supporters to justify their belief in why they are correct to impose their agenda on everyone else that caused me to become dismissive of their claims.Why not read a decent university level text about the details and work out if that makes you sceptical?
I have been digging through the surface rubbish into the science recently. As you know the physical properties of co2 and other atmospheric gases as regards absorption and scattering etc are well understood. Getting from there to how percentage increase in co2 will cause a runaway heating event is harder to find. Working backwards means trying to chase down references to papers with further references to papers many of which are not publicly available. Any papers referenced then need a search to see if there is later work that validates or refutes the findings.
Toltec said:
hairykrishna said:
You're sceptical because an explanation of the science aimed at kids isn't detailed or accurate enough? That makes no sense to me. Using that mode of thinking you should also be sceptical about atomic physics, gravity, thermodynamics and basically all science.
Why not read a decent university level text about the details and work out if that makes you sceptical?
No, that is not what I said or meant. It is the use of explanations at that level by CC supporters to justify their belief in why they are correct to impose their agenda on everyone else that caused me to become dismissive of their claims.Why not read a decent university level text about the details and work out if that makes you sceptical?
I have been digging through the surface rubbish into the science recently. As you know the physical properties of co2 and other atmospheric gases as regards absorption and scattering etc are well understood. Getting from there to how percentage increase in co2 will cause a runaway heating event is harder to find. Working backwards means trying to chase down references to papers with further references to papers many of which are not publicly available. Any papers referenced then need a search to see if there is later work that validates or refutes the findings.
As to 'university level' texts, I wonder which author(s) hairykrishna would recommend...Mann? Why not consult the scientific literature directly as this statistician did?
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
turbobloke said:
Thanks, that was a fun read, I have a background in metrology so quite familiar ground.Toltec said:
hairykrishna said:
You're sceptical because an explanation of the science aimed at kids isn't detailed or accurate enough? That makes no sense to me. Using that mode of thinking you should also be sceptical about atomic physics, gravity, thermodynamics and basically all science.
Why not read a decent university level text about the details and work out if that makes you sceptical?
No, that is not what I said or meant. It is the use of explanations at that level by CC supporters to justify their belief in why they are correct to impose their agenda on everyone else that caused me to become dismissive of their claims.Why not read a decent university level text about the details and work out if that makes you sceptical?
I have been digging through the surface rubbish into the science recently. As you know the physical properties of co2 and other atmospheric gases as regards absorption and scattering etc are well understood. Getting from there to how percentage increase in co2 will cause a runaway heating event is harder to find. Working backwards means trying to chase down references to papers with further references to papers many of which are not publicly available. Any papers referenced then need a search to see if there is later work that validates or refutes the findings.
Silver Smudger said:
durbster said:
No Tricks Zone is a fully discredited source. They consistently list papers without the authors consent, and wilfully misrepresent their contents.
Be that as it may,it is a real paper is it not?Have you, (or plunker or gandahar) actually read the paper that was mentioned?
Do any of you have any comment on the science contained within the paper?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff