Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[LongQ]

gadgetmac said:

LongQ said:

gadgetmac said:

LongQ said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

LoonyTunes said:

PRTVR said:

LoonyTunes said:

PRTVR said:

gadgetmac said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?

It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.

The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations,
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....

Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ

Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.

Oreskeism: the practice of stifling scientific debate by poisoning the well and ad hominem attacks,
I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.

Why not pick somebody untainted to make your point instead. I know that's difficult when you have such a small pool to choose from.

Why not just comment on what he has to say ?

Because by believing that man walked with dinosaurs and the bible is the literal truth of creation he puts himself outside of the plethora of scientists I'm prepared to spend 5 minutes of my life listening to.

But you carry on taking your climate opinions from the bloke who thinks Adam and Eve were the actual first humans.

This x100

But its interesting PRTVR didn’t come back with a better source, he’d rather insist you listen to Dr Bell.

Are opinions and views only valid if you are an atheist? How far back does your threshold stretch back?
Religion and climate change
https://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/religious-...

Not at all. The Pope seems to be a strong believer in AGW as well as the existence of a God. (Or maybe even Gods in some unified way across different interpretations by different belief systems.)

As do senior CofE clergy.

If one wished to be obtuse that level of belief in a God would, alone, mean that their opinions were to be ignored as completely invalid no matter what their basis. Is it safe to think that the source of their opinion is God fearing scientists acting as advisors?

Or are the clergy playing politics?

You make my point, thanks. Nobody listens to what the clergy says even when its to agree on Climate Change and you’ll find no believers using them as a source or quoting them. We like our sources to come minus wacky beliefs and big oil cash in their back pockets.

However, deniers have to continue to source and quote from all of the various wackos and energy company mercenaries as you have very little choice.

Whether you like it or not, millions of people around the world are likely much more susceptible to what the Pope and his management team says than they are to listen to or even have any knowledge of the existence of scientists. Indeed even if they do acknowledge science in some of the more aware countries, if those scientists are not fully committed members of their church they may still be though of as heretics.

I am not making your point at all, no matter how much spin you try to apply. And you know it - but you cannot possibly admit it. It would weaken your faith.

Complete and utter poppycock. Show me some proof that thre are millions around the world who are taking their cues for Climate Change from the Church and not primarily from Scientists and Scientific Institutions.

Your claim. You provide the numbers.

Try it country by country.

Or you coould read once again what I wrote and understand why your assumption about the meaning was wrong.

Actually I think you are probably cute enough (or well trained enough) to know full well that what you wrote was a misrepresentation.

No matter, I look forward to your numbers. Be sure that the papers referenced are peer reviewed.

[gadgetmac]

LongQ said:

Your claim. You provide the numbers.

Try it country by country.

Or you coould read once again what I wrote and understand why your assumption about the meaning was wrong.

Actually I think you are probably cute enough (or well trained enough) to know full well that what you wrote was a misrepresentation.

No matter, I look forward to your numbers. Be sure that the papers referenced are peer reviewed.

I've made my point. Deniers quote Dr Tim. Believers haven't been quoting religious wackos.

Even in strongly religious countries under Catholic influence the Pope isn't quoted as a source of science on climate change. Prove me wrong.

[stew-STR160]

Super, the faith have descended upon the science thread to throw their toys around.

[Jinx]

Gandahar said:

Did someone mention the church on here.

And not even the comfy cushion?

Meanwhile, the bellweather of cimate change, global sea ice coverage is still really low



Why has the Arctic been really low on extent since 1995 and Antarctic since 2014?

Nothing to do with air temps:

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

Super, the faith have descended upon the science thread to throw their toys around.

Looks like it, I quite like having you around though so no complaints here.

[stew-STR160]

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

Super, the faith have descended upon the science thread to throw their toys around.

Looks like it, I quite like having you around though so no complaints here.

Thanks. It's nice to be wanted.

[LongQ]

gadgetmac said:

LongQ said:

Your claim. You provide the numbers.

Try it country by country.

Or you coould read once again what I wrote and understand why your assumption about the meaning was wrong.

Actually I think you are probably cute enough (or well trained enough) to know full well that what you wrote was a misrepresentation.

No matter, I look forward to your numbers. Be sure that the papers referenced are peer reviewed.

I've made my point. Deniers quote Dr Tim. Believers haven't been quoting religious wackos.

Even in strongly religious countries under Catholic influence the Pope isn't quoted as a source of science on climate change. Prove me wrong.

Your opportunity to present the evidence you appear to be claiming.

Go for it.

[gadgetmac]

LongQ said:

gadgetmac said:

LongQ said:

Your claim. You provide the numbers.

Try it country by country.

Or you coould read once again what I wrote and understand why your assumption about the meaning was wrong.

Actually I think you are probably cute enough (or well trained enough) to know full well that what you wrote was a misrepresentation.

No matter, I look forward to your numbers. Be sure that the papers referenced are peer reviewed.

I've made my point. Deniers quote Dr Tim. Believers haven't been quoting religious wackos.

Even in strongly religious countries under Catholic influence the Pope isn't quoted as a source of science on climate change. Prove me wrong.

Your opportunity to present the evidence you appear to be claiming.

Go for it.

I have, Dr Bell, your turn, unless you have nothing...

[jet_noise]

kerplunk said:

jet_noise said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?

It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.

The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations,
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....

There are many variables that the models can't predict (solar activity, volcanoes, ENSO etc) - the question is do they get the long term climate sensitivity to CO2 right? I don't think the putative pause is much of a guide to that.

If the global warming trend of the last 50 years continues we'll blow by the IPCC lower bound in just a few more decades, and that's just the 'transient' climate sensitivity, not ECS. so the question remains - how do sceptics 'observe' that ECS is at the low end of the IPCC range and maybe even lower?

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 15th December 16:00

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 15th December 16:01

Here's a snapshot of some low ECS papers:

The article in which it appears is here.
I am sure you could find a similar set of papers with higher values.

Whatever you're position on the alarmist-sceptic axis it surely appears that the science is about as settled on ECS as one's stomach after a night of real ale & vindaloo

I never said it was settled - I simply asked how you were sure it was low, but perhaps you aren't so sure after all as you admit there's an element of selectivity involved. That was a reasonable reply though, thanks.

Indeed you didn't say it was settled, although that has been a regular meme. Equally you didn't ask how sure I was that it was low. You asked what observations led me to the position.
I popped up some papers in support. I acknowledge the selectivity point of course. Nonetheless they are published papers with all, positive and negative, that that implies
There's also comparison after comparison showing actual temperature measurements at the very bottom or below model projections.
Even the IPCC have acknowledged there is an issue with that reduction in lower bound.

How sure am I?
97% of course

[LongQ]

gadgetmac said:

LongQ said:

gadgetmac said:

LongQ said:

Your claim. You provide the numbers.

Try it country by country.

Or you coould read once again what I wrote and understand why your assumption about the meaning was wrong.

Actually I think you are probably cute enough (or well trained enough) to know full well that what you wrote was a misrepresentation.

No matter, I look forward to your numbers. Be sure that the papers referenced are peer reviewed.

I've made my point. Deniers quote Dr Tim. Believers haven't been quoting religious wackos.

Even in strongly religious countries under Catholic influence the Pope isn't quoted as a source of science on climate change. Prove me wrong.

Your opportunity to present the evidence you appear to be claiming.

Go for it.

I have, Dr Bell, your turn, unless you have nothing...

Who?

Why not provide a link to a specific reference that you feel makes your points

At least one for each claim.

Until you do that you have asserted much but provided no support for the assertions.

Your return shot hit the net, if it made it that far.

[gadgetmac]

LongQ said:

gadgetmac said:

LongQ said:

gadgetmac said:

LongQ said:

Your claim. You provide the numbers.

Try it country by country.

Or you coould read once again what I wrote and understand why your assumption about the meaning was wrong.

Actually I think you are probably cute enough (or well trained enough) to know full well that what you wrote was a misrepresentation.

No matter, I look forward to your numbers. Be sure that the papers referenced are peer reviewed.

I've made my point. Deniers quote Dr Tim. Believers haven't been quoting religious wackos.

Even in strongly religious countries under Catholic influence the Pope isn't quoted as a source of science on climate change. Prove me wrong.

Your opportunity to present the evidence you appear to be claiming.

Go for it.

I have, Dr Bell, your turn, unless you have nothing...

Who?

Why not provide a link to a specific reference that you feel makes your points

At least one for each claim.

Until you do that you have asserted much but provided no support for the assertions.

Your return shot hit the net, if it made it that far.

Yep...as suspected...you have nothing.

[kerplunk]

jet_noise said:

kerplunk said:

jet_noise said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?

It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.

The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations,
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....

There are many variables that the models can't predict (solar activity, volcanoes, ENSO etc) - the question is do they get the long term climate sensitivity to CO2 right? I don't think the putative pause is much of a guide to that.

If the global warming trend of the last 50 years continues we'll blow by the IPCC lower bound in just a few more decades, and that's just the 'transient' climate sensitivity, not ECS. so the question remains - how do sceptics 'observe' that ECS is at the low end of the IPCC range and maybe even lower?

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 15th December 16:00

Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 15th December 16:01

Here's a snapshot of some low ECS papers:

The article in which it appears is here.
I am sure you could find a similar set of papers with higher values.

Whatever you're position on the alarmist-sceptic axis it surely appears that the science is about as settled on ECS as one's stomach after a night of real ale & vindaloo

I never said it was settled - I simply asked how you were sure it was low, but perhaps you aren't so sure after all as you admit there's an element of selectivity involved. That was a reasonable reply though, thanks.

Indeed you didn't say it was settled, although that has been a regular meme. Equally you didn't ask how sure I was that it was low. You asked what observations led me to the position.
I popped up some papers in support. I acknowledge the selectivity point of course. Nonetheless they are published papers with all, positive and negative, that that implies
There's also comparison after comparison showing actual temperature measurements at the very bottom or below model projections.
Even the IPCC have acknowledged there is an issue with that reduction in lower bound.

How sure am I?
97% of course

Actually I was asking how you were sure, not how sure you are.

You seem quite pleased that the 5th report reduced the lower bound by half a degree over the 4th report, however it was only a return to the same range as in the first, second and third reports. Exciting stuff

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 18th December 00:33

[jet_noise]

kerplunk said:

Actually I was asking how you were sure, not how sure you are.

You seem quite pleased that the 5th report reduced the lower bound by half a degree over the 4th report, however it was only a return to the same range as in the first, second and third reports. Exciting stuff

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 18th December 00:33

OK, but I couldn't resist the gag
I'm not sure excited is the right term but any move, however slight, away from the sky is falling, we're all going to die in a fiery ball, expanding set of features which global cooling/warming/climate change/chaos is said to bring is to be appreciated. (unwieldy sentence that).
It also seems odd that as the IPCC get ever more confident in their policy statements the ECS range should actually widen.

[DibblyDobbler]

Gents (not sure if there are any ladies in these parts!) - is there any data on global temperatures available which is generally agreeable to all sides? I'm intrigued to have a look at some 'facts' if there are any that are uncontroversial...

Thanks in Advance

[LoonyTunes]

DibblyDobbler said:

Gents (not sure if there are any ladies in these parts!) - is there any data on global temperatures available which is generally agreeable to all sides? I'm intrigued to have a look at some 'facts' if there are any that are uncontroversial...

Thanks in Advance

There aren't any that are 'generally agreeable to all sides' but that presupposes that there are two legitimate sides to the argument. Most scientists will tell you the argument is over and there is now only one side.

[DibblyDobbler]

LoonyTunes said:

There aren't any that are 'generally agreeable to all sides' but that presupposes that there are two legitimate sides to the argument. Most scientists will tell you the argument is over and there is now only one side.

Hmm - we have satellites that measure temperatures these days don't we? Are they not believed by all?

[robinessex]

Er, measuring the planets temperature (what ever that actually is)

DataGate! First ever audit of global temperature data finds freezing tropical islands, boiling towns, boats on land

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-gl...

[DibblyDobbler]

Thanks Robin - will have a look at that later on.

So is there really no temperature series that is generally accepted even on the basis of being the best we have rather than perfect?

[gadgetmac]

DibblyDobbler said:

Thanks Robin - will have a look at that later on.

So is there really no temperature series that is generally accepted even on the basis of being the best we have rather than perfect?

Try the NASA website, they have kit roaming around on other planets as we speak and have a whole climate science organisation attached with real scientists and data. Or, alternately, try Robin’s denier advocacy blog.

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

DibblyDobbler said:

Thanks Robin - will have a look at that later on.

So is there really no temperature series that is generally accepted even on the basis of being the best we have rather than perfect?

Try the NASA website, they have kit roaming around on other planets as we speak and have a whole climate science organisation attached with real scientists and data. Or, alternately, try Robin’s denier advocacy blog.

Yup, and while you’re are at it, look up NASA 'adjusting' temperature data. And deleting the original. Except some have kept copies of it !!