Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gandahar said:
It would be interesting to see if WW2 had a statistically obvious effect on the planet either way. It was a time when manufacturing was increasing in some countries but decreasing massively in others due to bombing etc.
A topic for climate historians to ponder about.
The North Sea cod stocks got a huge boost though due to reduction in fishing. Now sadly gone
only the southern north sea stocks are low at the moment. given they are near the limit of distribution in that area not really a surprise given where we are in the amo cycle. still lots of cod and most other species in the northern north sea (uk waters). areas like the barents sea have seen huge booms in cod populations during the period of decline in the southern regions, spawning stock biomass being as high as ever recorded from what i can make out. this is a good article on the big picture https://sustainablefisheries-uw.org/fishery-featur...A topic for climate historians to ponder about.
The North Sea cod stocks got a huge boost though due to reduction in fishing. Now sadly gone
it is a bit out of date as celtic sea stocks are just starting to pick up going by recent years recruitment. ices will catch up to this fact in about 5 years time going on past performance. primary production and the conditions that drive it are the main factor behind stocks of all fish. as the amo cools and good conditions for recruitment return further south ,numbers of southern stocks will pick up again. when they do hopefully the lessons of the past have been learnt (possibly wishful thinking) and fishing effort will be based on recruitment in a retrospect fashion ,say catch levels for year three being based on recruitment levels at year zero.
if not we will see the same situation when conditions change in the future ,where the rapidly declining brood stock is over fished during years of poor recruitment and stock recovery takes far longer than it should.
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
I'm busy enjoying the debate going on for a few pages but it always seems to end with a denier either not answering, moving the goalposts, engaging in rhetoric or ad homs or turning it political.
or a warmist swearing and spitting the dummy.i don't thin k i had encountered ludo on ph before. when i was directed here from the politics thread i thought ,oh good, i am going to learn something new here. oh well, how sad , never mind.Edited by LoonyTunes on Wednesday 10th April 08:21
LoonyTunes said:
Any impartial Observer would say he's ruin you into the ground looking at your debates.
As Dicky pointed out earlier...LoonyTunes said:
So no Science once again...just log in, talk rubbish that gets refuted yet again then log out.
Congrats, you actually are the peanut gallery that's been mentioned.
Talk science when it suits you, talk rubbish when it doesn't. Congrats, you actually are the peanut gallery that's been mentioned.
Anyone noticed the strong correlation between alarmists and hypocrisy?
at least we now have concrete proof of the partisan nature of those controlling the narrative in the science.
What seems like a very long time ago, I downloaded surface temperature data for the Southern Oceans to see if I could find, and learn anything useful from, the patterns of the AAO (AntArctic Oscillation). I fairly quickly got diverted from that exercise when I noticed a remarkable temperature pattern in the data which showed that the IPCC and the climate modelers had got the entire Southern Ocean stunningly and diametrically wrong.
Others had already found that large parts of the Southern Ocean had cooled, but no-one as far as I knew had found this precise temperature pattern.
The IPCC report said “Feedbacks associated with changes in sea ice and snow amplify surface warming near the poles” and gave several supporting references. But the Southern Oceans temperature pattern above shows the exact opposite: the further south you get, the greater the rate of cooling. In fact, at almost the precise latitude where the IPCC expected the most amplified warming there was some of the fastest cooling on the planet!
So I wrote a paper, and submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal – Sage Publications’ Journal of Ocean and Climate: Science, Technology and Impacts. Now I freely admit that I thought the chances of the paper being published were low – not because it wasn’t good enough (I was confident that it was) but because it demonstrated a failure of the IPCC and the climate models. What I didn’t expect was that (a) the process would take nearly a year, (b) the journal would handle it so dishonestly, and (c) the editor would end up stating explicitly that he wouldn’t publish a paper that was critical of the climate models, after having promised the exact opposite. There’s more on that below – see The Review Process.
apologies to the warmists for the link but if journal editors refuse to publish anything that shows the ipcc narrative to be incorrect and reviewers won't abide by the review process there aren't many options left when it comes to publishing where things will be noticed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/10/the-curious...
maybe this should have gone in the politics section given this statement from the journal editor "We can’t point out the flaws in the model, because the models need to be taken seriously "
the above suggests to me that journal editor needs some sense slapped into them pronto, they appear to have lost all capability for rational thought.
What seems like a very long time ago, I downloaded surface temperature data for the Southern Oceans to see if I could find, and learn anything useful from, the patterns of the AAO (AntArctic Oscillation). I fairly quickly got diverted from that exercise when I noticed a remarkable temperature pattern in the data which showed that the IPCC and the climate modelers had got the entire Southern Ocean stunningly and diametrically wrong.
Others had already found that large parts of the Southern Ocean had cooled, but no-one as far as I knew had found this precise temperature pattern.
The IPCC report said “Feedbacks associated with changes in sea ice and snow amplify surface warming near the poles” and gave several supporting references. But the Southern Oceans temperature pattern above shows the exact opposite: the further south you get, the greater the rate of cooling. In fact, at almost the precise latitude where the IPCC expected the most amplified warming there was some of the fastest cooling on the planet!
So I wrote a paper, and submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal – Sage Publications’ Journal of Ocean and Climate: Science, Technology and Impacts. Now I freely admit that I thought the chances of the paper being published were low – not because it wasn’t good enough (I was confident that it was) but because it demonstrated a failure of the IPCC and the climate models. What I didn’t expect was that (a) the process would take nearly a year, (b) the journal would handle it so dishonestly, and (c) the editor would end up stating explicitly that he wouldn’t publish a paper that was critical of the climate models, after having promised the exact opposite. There’s more on that below – see The Review Process.
apologies to the warmists for the link but if journal editors refuse to publish anything that shows the ipcc narrative to be incorrect and reviewers won't abide by the review process there aren't many options left when it comes to publishing where things will be noticed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/10/the-curious...
maybe this should have gone in the politics section given this statement from the journal editor "We can’t point out the flaws in the model, because the models need to be taken seriously "
the above suggests to me that journal editor needs some sense slapped into them pronto, they appear to have lost all capability for rational thought.
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
Any impartial Observer would say he's run you into the ground looking at your debates.
i'm sure one will be along to tell me that sometime soon. fortunately as you don't meet that definition it won't be you Edited by LoonyTunes on Wednesday 10th April 08:21
That aside you’re now saying that wattsupwiththat are the only place where you can read “concrete proof” that warmists (the IPCC et all) are wrong and it’s all a conspiracy to keep this “concrete proof” out of the public domain?
Mulder and Scully would be proud.
wc98 said:
at least we now have concrete proof of the partisan nature of those controlling the narrative in the science.
What seems like a very long time ago, I downloaded surface temperature data for the Southern Oceans to see if I could find, and learn anything useful from, the patterns of the AAO (AntArctic Oscillation). I fairly quickly got diverted from that exercise when I noticed a remarkable temperature pattern in the data which showed that the IPCC and the climate modelers had got the entire Southern Ocean stunningly and diametrically wrong.
Others had already found that large parts of the Southern Ocean had cooled, but no-one as far as I knew had found this precise temperature pattern.
The IPCC report said “Feedbacks associated with changes in sea ice and snow amplify surface warming near the poles” and gave several supporting references. But the Southern Oceans temperature pattern above shows the exact opposite: the further south you get, the greater the rate of cooling. In fact, at almost the precise latitude where the IPCC expected the most amplified warming there was some of the fastest cooling on the planet!
So I wrote a paper, and submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal – Sage Publications’ Journal of Ocean and Climate: Science, Technology and Impacts. Now I freely admit that I thought the chances of the paper being published were low – not because it wasn’t good enough (I was confident that it was) but because it demonstrated a failure of the IPCC and the climate models. What I didn’t expect was that (a) the process would take nearly a year, (b) the journal would handle it so dishonestly, and (c) the editor would end up stating explicitly that he wouldn’t publish a paper that was critical of the climate models, after having promised the exact opposite. There’s more on that below – see The Review Process.
apologies to the warmists for the link but if journal editors refuse to publish anything that shows the ipcc narrative to be incorrect and reviewers won't abide by the review process there aren't many options left when it comes to publishing where things will be noticed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/10/the-curious...
maybe this should have gone in the politics section given this statement from the journal editor "We can’t point out the flaws in the model, because the models need to be taken seriously "
the above suggests to me that journal editor needs some sense slapped into them pronto, they appear to have lost all capability for rational thought.
You assume he has shown the IPCC narrative to be incorrect - bad sceptic.What seems like a very long time ago, I downloaded surface temperature data for the Southern Oceans to see if I could find, and learn anything useful from, the patterns of the AAO (AntArctic Oscillation). I fairly quickly got diverted from that exercise when I noticed a remarkable temperature pattern in the data which showed that the IPCC and the climate modelers had got the entire Southern Ocean stunningly and diametrically wrong.
Others had already found that large parts of the Southern Ocean had cooled, but no-one as far as I knew had found this precise temperature pattern.
The IPCC report said “Feedbacks associated with changes in sea ice and snow amplify surface warming near the poles” and gave several supporting references. But the Southern Oceans temperature pattern above shows the exact opposite: the further south you get, the greater the rate of cooling. In fact, at almost the precise latitude where the IPCC expected the most amplified warming there was some of the fastest cooling on the planet!
So I wrote a paper, and submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal – Sage Publications’ Journal of Ocean and Climate: Science, Technology and Impacts. Now I freely admit that I thought the chances of the paper being published were low – not because it wasn’t good enough (I was confident that it was) but because it demonstrated a failure of the IPCC and the climate models. What I didn’t expect was that (a) the process would take nearly a year, (b) the journal would handle it so dishonestly, and (c) the editor would end up stating explicitly that he wouldn’t publish a paper that was critical of the climate models, after having promised the exact opposite. There’s more on that below – see The Review Process.
apologies to the warmists for the link but if journal editors refuse to publish anything that shows the ipcc narrative to be incorrect and reviewers won't abide by the review process there aren't many options left when it comes to publishing where things will be noticed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/10/the-curious...
maybe this should have gone in the politics section given this statement from the journal editor "We can’t point out the flaws in the model, because the models need to be taken seriously "
the above suggests to me that journal editor needs some sense slapped into them pronto, they appear to have lost all capability for rational thought.
From the 1st IPCC report (1990) - amplified warming only mentioned for NH high latitudes and a bit vague about SH:
Based on current model results, we predict:
...
• that land surfaces warm more rapidly than the ocean and high northern latitudes warm more than the global mean in winter
• regional climate changes different from the global mean, although our confidence in the prediction of the detail of regional changes is low For example, temperature increases in Southern Europe and central North America are predicted to be higher than the global mean accompanied on average by reduced summer precipitation and soil moistuic There are less consistent predictions lor the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere
...
From the IPCC 2nd report (1995) - same again for NH with opposite expectation for Antarctica:
All model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
...
•a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas;
•maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover;
...
It's not looking good for the conspiracy theory so far. Maybe you can save it?
From the fifth IPCC report (2013)
Projected temperature changes
Temperature change will not be regionally uniform. There is very high confidence that globally averaged changes over land will exceed changes over the ocean at the end of the 21st century by a factor that is likely in the range 1.4 to 1.7. In the absence of a strong reduction in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning, the Arctic region is projected to warm most (very high confidence). This polar amplification is not found in Antarctic regions due to deep ocean mixing, ocean heat uptake and the persistence of the Antarctic ice sheet.
Projected temperature changes
Temperature change will not be regionally uniform. There is very high confidence that globally averaged changes over land will exceed changes over the ocean at the end of the 21st century by a factor that is likely in the range 1.4 to 1.7. In the absence of a strong reduction in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning, the Arctic region is projected to warm most (very high confidence). This polar amplification is not found in Antarctic regions due to deep ocean mixing, ocean heat uptake and the persistence of the Antarctic ice sheet.
kerplunk said:
You assume he has shown the IPCC narrative to be incorrect - bad sceptic.
From the 1st IPCC report (1990) - amplified warming only mentioned for NH high latitudes and a bit vague about SH:
Based on current model results, we predict:
...
• that land surfaces warm more rapidly than the ocean and high northern latitudes warm more than the global mean in winter
• regional climate changes different from the global mean, although our confidence in the prediction of the detail of regional changes is low For example, temperature increases in Southern Europe and central North America are predicted to be higher than the global mean accompanied on average by reduced summer precipitation and soil moistuic There are less consistent predictions lor the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere
...
From the IPCC 2nd report (1995) - same again for NH with opposite expectation for Antarctica:
All model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
...
•a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas;
•maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover;
...
It's not looking good for the conspiracy theory so far. Maybe you can save it?
maybe you should take it up with the editor of the journal he submitted the paper to and the scientists that reviewed it ,i take it you have no comment on the editors comments regarding not accepting anything that goes against the ipcc narrative ?From the 1st IPCC report (1990) - amplified warming only mentioned for NH high latitudes and a bit vague about SH:
Based on current model results, we predict:
...
• that land surfaces warm more rapidly than the ocean and high northern latitudes warm more than the global mean in winter
• regional climate changes different from the global mean, although our confidence in the prediction of the detail of regional changes is low For example, temperature increases in Southern Europe and central North America are predicted to be higher than the global mean accompanied on average by reduced summer precipitation and soil moistuic There are less consistent predictions lor the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere
...
From the IPCC 2nd report (1995) - same again for NH with opposite expectation for Antarctica:
All model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
...
•a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas;
•maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover;
...
It's not looking good for the conspiracy theory so far. Maybe you can save it?
note the highlighted phrase, a minimum warning ,is that ipcc speak for cooling ? it might be, a lot of words seem to mean something other than their usual meaning in climate science.
i await your link to the ipcc prediction of the cooling that has actually happened in the southern oceans.
i note you missed out ar4.
Projected Changes to the Southern Hemisphere Ocean and Sea Ice in the IPCC AR4 Climate Models
"Fidelity and projected changes in the climate models, used for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), are assessed with regard to the Southern Hemisphere extratropical ocean and sea ice systems. While individual models span different physical parameterizations and resolutions, a major component of intermodel variability results from surface wind differences. Projected changes to the surface wind field are also central in modifying future extratropical circulation and internal properties. A robust southward shift of the circumpolar current and subtropical gyres is projected, with a strong spinup of the Atlantic gyre. An associated increase in the core strength of the circumpolar circulation is evident; however, this does not translate into robust increases in Drake Passage transport. While an overarching oceanic warming is projected, the circulation-driven poleward shift of the temperature field explains much of the midlatitude warming pattern. "
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008JCLI2...
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
You assume he has shown the IPCC narrative to be incorrect - bad sceptic.
From the 1st IPCC report (1990) - amplified warming only mentioned for NH high latitudes and a bit vague about SH:
Based on current model results, we predict:
...
• that land surfaces warm more rapidly than the ocean and high northern latitudes warm more than the global mean in winter
• regional climate changes different from the global mean, although our confidence in the prediction of the detail of regional changes is low For example, temperature increases in Southern Europe and central North America are predicted to be higher than the global mean accompanied on average by reduced summer precipitation and soil moistuic There are less consistent predictions lor the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere
...
From the IPCC 2nd report (1995) - same again for NH with opposite expectation for Antarctica:
All model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
...
•a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas;
•maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover;
...
It's not looking good for the conspiracy theory so far. Maybe you can save it?
maybe you should take it up with the editor of the journal he submitted the paper to and the scientists that reviewed it ,i take it you have no comment on the editors comments regarding not accepting anything that goes against the ipcc narrative ? From the 1st IPCC report (1990) - amplified warming only mentioned for NH high latitudes and a bit vague about SH:
Based on current model results, we predict:
...
• that land surfaces warm more rapidly than the ocean and high northern latitudes warm more than the global mean in winter
• regional climate changes different from the global mean, although our confidence in the prediction of the detail of regional changes is low For example, temperature increases in Southern Europe and central North America are predicted to be higher than the global mean accompanied on average by reduced summer precipitation and soil moistuic There are less consistent predictions lor the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere
...
From the IPCC 2nd report (1995) - same again for NH with opposite expectation for Antarctica:
All model simulations, whether they are forced with increased concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or with increased greenhouse gas concentrations alone, show the following features:
...
•a minimum warming around Antarctica and in the northern North Atlantic which is associated with deep oceanic mixing in those areas;
•maximum warming in high northern latitudes in late autumn and winter associated with reduced sea ice and snow cover;
...
It's not looking good for the conspiracy theory so far. Maybe you can save it?
wc98 said:
note the highlighted phrase, a minimum warning ,is that ipcc speak for cooling ?
I dunno, but it sure ain't Amplified warming is it.wc98 said:
it might be, a lot of words seem to mean something other than their usual meaning in climate science.
i await your link to the ipcc prediction of the cooling that has actually happened in the southern oceans.
i note you missed out ar4.
Projected Changes to the Southern Hemisphere Ocean and Sea Ice in the IPCC AR4 Climate Models
"Fidelity and projected changes in the climate models, used for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), are assessed with regard to the Southern Hemisphere extratropical ocean and sea ice systems. While individual models span different physical parameterizations and resolutions, a major component of intermodel variability results from surface wind differences. Projected changes to the surface wind field are also central in modifying future extratropical circulation and internal properties. A robust southward shift of the circumpolar current and subtropical gyres is projected, with a strong spinup of the Atlantic gyre. An associated increase in the core strength of the circumpolar circulation is evident; however, this does not translate into robust increases in Drake Passage transport. While an overarching oceanic warming is projected, the circulation-driven poleward shift of the temperature field explains much of the midlatitude warming pattern. "
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008JCLI2...
Maybe if the author had restricted his critique to the observation of cooling where muted warming was expected he might have got the paper published, but that wouldn't have been as exciting as the 'missing polar amplification' yarn he was trying to sell would it (I notice a few commenters at WUWT have pointed this out).i await your link to the ipcc prediction of the cooling that has actually happened in the southern oceans.
i note you missed out ar4.
Projected Changes to the Southern Hemisphere Ocean and Sea Ice in the IPCC AR4 Climate Models
"Fidelity and projected changes in the climate models, used for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), are assessed with regard to the Southern Hemisphere extratropical ocean and sea ice systems. While individual models span different physical parameterizations and resolutions, a major component of intermodel variability results from surface wind differences. Projected changes to the surface wind field are also central in modifying future extratropical circulation and internal properties. A robust southward shift of the circumpolar current and subtropical gyres is projected, with a strong spinup of the Atlantic gyre. An associated increase in the core strength of the circumpolar circulation is evident; however, this does not translate into robust increases in Drake Passage transport. While an overarching oceanic warming is projected, the circulation-driven poleward shift of the temperature field explains much of the midlatitude warming pattern. "
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008JCLI2...
Wherever you look in the IPCC reports from day 1 you find this different expectation of temperature changes between northern and southern high latitudes but you'd never know that from reading this paper.
kerplunk said:
Maybe if the author had restricted his critique to the observation of cooling where muted warming was expected he might have got the paper published, but that wouldn't have been as exciting as the 'missing polar amplification' yarn he was trying to sell would it (I notice a few commenters at WUWT have pointed this out).
Wherever you look in the IPCC reports from day 1 you find this different expectation of temperature changes between northern and southern high latitudes but you'd never know that from reading this paper.
fair point accepted.Wherever you look in the IPCC reports from day 1 you find this different expectation of temperature changes between northern and southern high latitudes but you'd never know that from reading this paper.
re the bold, you won't find anywhere in the literature cooling of the southern oceans mentioned either. so while this paper is over egging the pudding and may well have been rejected due to that,the fact remains the journal editor made a specific statement relating to not accepting anything against the ipcc narrative and the southern oceans appear to be cooling.
both would be cause for issue in every other scientific arena,why a free pass for climate science ?
here is a link to the dialogue with the journal editor https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/201... ,i will try and see if i can get a link to the reviewer comments, those in this link suggest their comments were outside the scope of the paper. certainly highlights the problems in the climate science arena, people submitting controversial papers expecting them to be rejected and reviewers immediately on the defensive when there is any questioning of the model output and ipcc narrative.
the fact the journal editor has acknowledged significant new findings in the paper should at least ensure the subject will receive further attention.
n.b quote from link of ipcc 5th assessment.
The fifth IPCC Report (Collins, 2013) states: “Feedbacks associated with changes
in sea ice and snow amplify surface warming near the poles (Hall, 2004; Soden
et al., 2008; Graversen and Wang, 2009; Kumar et al., 2010).”. Hall (2004) found
that surface albedo feedback accounts for about half the high-latitude response to
external forcing by CO2.
Edited by wc98 on Monday 15th April 18:56
wc98 said:
kerplunk said:
Maybe if the author had restricted his critique to the observation of cooling where muted warming was expected he might have got the paper published, but that wouldn't have been as exciting as the 'missing polar amplification' yarn he was trying to sell would it (I notice a few commenters at WUWT have pointed this out).
Wherever you look in the IPCC reports from day 1 you find this different expectation of temperature changes between northern and southern high latitudes but you'd never know that from reading this paper.
fair point accepted.Wherever you look in the IPCC reports from day 1 you find this different expectation of temperature changes between northern and southern high latitudes but you'd never know that from reading this paper.
re the bold, you won't find anywhere in the literature cooling of the southern oceans mentioned either. so while this paper is over egging the pudding and may well have been rejected due to that,the fact remains the journal editor made a specific statement relating to not accepting anything against the ipcc narrative and the southern oceans appear to be cooling.
both would be cause for issue in every other scientific arena,why a free pass for climate science ?
here is a link to the dialogue with the journal editor https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/201... ,i will try and see if i can get a link to the reviewer comments, those in this link suggest their comments were outside the scope of the paper. certainly highlights the problems in the climate science arena, people submitting controversial papers expecting them to be rejected and reviewers immediately on the defensive when there is any questioning of the model output and ipcc narrative.
the fact the journal editor has acknowledged significant new findings in the paper should at least ensure the subject will receive further attention.
n.b quote from link of ipcc 5th assessment.
The fifth IPCC Report (Collins, 2013) states: “Feedbacks associated with changes
in sea ice and snow amplify surface warming near the poles (Hall, 2004; Soden
et al., 2008; Graversen and Wang, 2009; Kumar et al., 2010).”. Hall (2004) found
that surface albedo feedback accounts for about half the high-latitude response to
external forcing by CO2.
Edited by wc98 on Monday 15th April 18:56
In fact it's kind of odd how the author of the paper could've missed it. It's almost as though he was very *motivated* to create "a key element of the IPCC report" that isn't actually there.
So what if it gets rejected? You can still moan about it on WUWT and accuse the editor of foul play - it's still a win right?
kerplunk said:
You don't learn do you. If you locate the section in AR5 that that sentence is lifted from you'll see the same distinctions between NH and SH are made as already posted many times now.
In fact it's kind of odd how the author of the paper could've missed it. It's almost as though he was very *motivated* to create "a key element of the IPCC report" that isn't actually there.
So what if it gets rejected? You can still moan about it on WUWT and accuse the editor of foul play - it's still a win right?
Erm it was rejected because (my bold)In fact it's kind of odd how the author of the paper could've missed it. It's almost as though he was very *motivated* to create "a key element of the IPCC report" that isn't actually there.
So what if it gets rejected? You can still moan about it on WUWT and accuse the editor of foul play - it's still a win right?
Rejection notes said:
Every single piece of work that uses observational data sets could be used to criticise model performance. The
conclusion that models are imperfect is, as a result, hardly new or illuminating. Models, nevertheless, encapsulate the best of our current understanding, however incomplete, and so their output need to be taken seriously (as the IPCC does) even with a pinch of salt.
What is illuminating is that we are to take models "seriously" and with "a pinch of salt".conclusion that models are imperfect is, as a result, hardly new or illuminating. Models, nevertheless, encapsulate the best of our current understanding, however incomplete, and so their output need to be taken seriously (as the IPCC does) even with a pinch of salt.
Contradictions cannot exist in nature (the only thing unnatural is a contradiction) so add this one to the rapidly growing list of contradictions in Climate science (tm) .
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
You don't learn do you. If you locate the section in AR5 that that sentence is lifted from you'll see the same distinctions between NH and SH are made as already posted many times now.
In fact it's kind of odd how the author of the paper could've missed it. It's almost as though he was very *motivated* to create "a key element of the IPCC report" that isn't actually there.
So what if it gets rejected? You can still moan about it on WUWT and accuse the editor of foul play - it's still a win right?
Erm it was rejected because (my bold)In fact it's kind of odd how the author of the paper could've missed it. It's almost as though he was very *motivated* to create "a key element of the IPCC report" that isn't actually there.
So what if it gets rejected? You can still moan about it on WUWT and accuse the editor of foul play - it's still a win right?
Rejection notes said:
Every single piece of work that uses observational data sets could be used to criticise model performance. The
conclusion that models are imperfect is, as a result, hardly new or illuminating. Models, nevertheless, encapsulate the best of our current understanding, however incomplete, and so their output need to be taken seriously (as the IPCC does) even with a pinch of salt.
What is illuminating is that we are to take models "seriously" and with "a pinch of salt".conclusion that models are imperfect is, as a result, hardly new or illuminating. Models, nevertheless, encapsulate the best of our current understanding, however incomplete, and so their output need to be taken seriously (as the IPCC does) even with a pinch of salt.
Contradictions cannot exist in nature (the only thing unnatural is a contradiction) so add this one to the rapidly growing list of contradictions in Climate science (tm) .
It's easy this 'foul play' stuff isn't it
kerplunk said:
You don't learn do you. If you locate the section in AR5 that that sentence is lifted from you'll see the same distinctions between NH and SH are made as already posted many times now.
In fact it's kind of odd how the author of the paper could've missed it. It's almost as though he was very *motivated* to create "a key element of the IPCC report" that isn't actually there.
So what if it gets rejected? You can still moan about it on WUWT and accuse the editor of foul play - it's still a win right?
at least i now know you are working from the climate science dictionary where words like warming and cooling don't necessarily meet their standard definition. what are the distinctions that are made between the hemispheres/poles ? that they won't warm at the same rate, the warming will be greater in the northern latitudes of the northern hemisphere.In fact it's kind of odd how the author of the paper could've missed it. It's almost as though he was very *motivated* to create "a key element of the IPCC report" that isn't actually there.
So what if it gets rejected? You can still moan about it on WUWT and accuse the editor of foul play - it's still a win right?
you won't find any statement around global warming/climate change making the southern oceans cooler. i personally couldn't care less whether it gets rejected. trying to find anything meaningful in zettajoules is a fools errand. however the journal editors comments shine a bit of light on the mindset of the gatekeepers and it doesn't show them in a good light.
despite not being a very technical paper it appears to have gone through a bit more scrutiny than some others i could mention (if you ask for links be prepared to read climate audit) where the reviewers didn't even check the maths, just if the basics of the paper were possible, which is what i thought peer review was all about ?
wc98 said:
at least i now know you are working from the climate science dictionary where words like warming and cooling don't necessarily meet their standard definition. what are the distinctions that are made between the hemispheres/poles ? that they won't warm at the same rate, the warming will be greater in the northern latitudes of the northern hemisphere.
you won't find any statement around global warming/climate change making the southern oceans cooler. i personally couldn't care less whether it gets rejected. trying to find anything meaningful in zettajoules is a fools errand. however the journal editors comments shine a bit of light on the mindset of the gatekeepers and it doesn't show them in a good light.
despite not being a very technical paper it appears to have gone through a bit more scrutiny than some others i could mention (if you ask for links be prepared to read climate audit) where the reviewers didn't even check the maths, just if the basics of the paper were possible, which is what i thought peer review was all about ?
Of course the NH is warming compared to the S...you won't find any statement around global warming/climate change making the southern oceans cooler. i personally couldn't care less whether it gets rejected. trying to find anything meaningful in zettajoules is a fools errand. however the journal editors comments shine a bit of light on the mindset of the gatekeepers and it doesn't show them in a good light.
despite not being a very technical paper it appears to have gone through a bit more scrutiny than some others i could mention (if you ask for links be prepared to read climate audit) where the reviewers didn't even check the maths, just if the basics of the paper were possible, which is what i thought peer review was all about ?
...heat rises.
For the avoidance of doubt:
Current global sea ice extent
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
Gandahar said:
Current global sea ice extent
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
The penguin colony catastrophe is normal. If it didn’t happen that would be unusual.http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
Kawasicki said:
Gandahar said:
Current global sea ice extent
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
The penguin colony catastrophe is normal. If it didn’t happen that would be unusual.http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/global03052019.jpg
That's pretty low no matter what side of the fence scientifically you sit on.
The Antarctic flip from very high extent a half decade ago to really low now has not been answered scientifically.
Seems to be having an effect on indigenous species
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-480...
They seem to have moved to a better location to the south. It is really tough out there for the birds.
Will be interesting to see how things go on.
Poor comment.
"Catastrophe is normal" oxymoron for a start.
For fecks sake, if you want to argue at least put some brainpower into it.
Edited by Gandahar on Friday 3rd May 22:59
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff