Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[kerplunk]

Gadgetmac said:

It’s OK. It’s how deniers operate. Trump like they’ll tell you black is white even when you’re looking straight at it.

That's a bit harsh - ice extent being related to temperature variation is a bit counter-intuitive after all.

[PRTVR]

Have climate scientists ever been right ? It would appear not.
https://youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE

Unless somebody out there can point me to a prediction that has come true.........

[robinessex]

PRTVR said:

Have climate scientists ever been right ? It would appear not.
https://youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE

Unless somebody out there can point me to a prediction that has come true.........

NO DRAMATIC CC PREDICTIONS HAVE EVER COME TRUE. Science scores 100% wrong answers then. Brilliant!

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

Have climate scientists ever been right ? It would appear not.
https://youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE

Unless somebody out there can point me to a prediction that has come true.........

Global warming?

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

Have climate scientists ever been right ? It would appear not.
https://youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE

Unless somebody out there can point me to a prediction that has come true.........

Global warming?

An easy thing to say a harder point to quantify, it exists mainly in computer programs, but less so in the real world,
What forward predictions are you referring to in the case of global warming?

[LongQ]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

Have climate scientists ever been right ? It would appear not.
https://youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE

Unless somebody out there can point me to a prediction that has come true.........

Global warming?

Warming globally?

[PRTVR]

LongQ said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

Have climate scientists ever been right ? It would appear not.
https://youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE

Unless somebody out there can point me to a prediction that has come true.........

Global warming?

Warming globally?

But that only exists inside a computer program, I was interested in actual physical evidence, Manhattan flooded, lots of little islands disappearing under the sea, that sort of thing, I see the computer models and the idea of a global temperature as a man made concept that is floored, on any given day there is approximately 100°C difference over the planet, 5°C makes no difference when you are at plus or minus 50°C but can show as a large movement globally,
temperature is an imprecise way to measure the energy balance of the earth with the equipment available at the moment.

[robinessex]

You can't measure the temperature of the planet, as at every single point on it, it's constantly varying over time. The use of an average is completely meaningless bks.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er no... seeing correlation where none exists is not scientific, it’s odd. Then using this non-existent correlation to determine causation is just sad.

Er looks quite well correlated to climate change (temps) to me.

Priceless - just had a shufty at the source of the ice extent graph (Connolly 2017):

ABSTRACT
A new seasonal and annual dataset describing Arctic sea ice extents for 1901–2015 was constructed by individually re-calibrating sea ice data sources from the three Arctic regions (NorthAmerican, Nordic and Siberian) using the corresponding surface air temperature trends for thepre-satellite era (1901–1978), so that the strong relationship between seasonal sea ice extent andsurface air temperature observed for the satellite era (1979-present) also applies to the pre-satellite era.

...

Unsurprising then that the graph correlates well with temps seeing as they used temperature obs to construct the graph!

In the pre satellite era, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

Are you questioning peer reviewed science? Tut, tut.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er no... seeing correlation where none exists is not scientific, it’s odd. Then using this non-existent correlation to determine causation is just sad.

Er looks quite well correlated to climate change (temps) to me.

Priceless - just had a shufty at the source of the ice extent graph (Connolly 2017):

ABSTRACT
A new seasonal and annual dataset describing Arctic sea ice extents for 1901–2015 was constructed by individually re-calibrating sea ice data sources from the three Arctic regions (NorthAmerican, Nordic and Siberian) using the corresponding surface air temperature trends for thepre-satellite era (1901–1978), so that the strong relationship between seasonal sea ice extent andsurface air temperature observed for the satellite era (1979-present) also applies to the pre-satellite era.

...

Unsurprising then that the graph correlates well with temps seeing as they used temperature obs to construct the graph!

In the pre satellite era, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

Are you questioning peer reviewed science? Tut, tut.

Er no. I questioned your assertion that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation is non-existent and then pointed out the graph you posted was constucted on the basis that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation exists.

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er no... seeing correlation where none exists is not scientific, it’s odd. Then using this non-existent correlation to determine causation is just sad.

Er looks quite well correlated to climate change (temps) to me.

Priceless - just had a shufty at the source of the ice extent graph (Connolly 2017):

ABSTRACT
A new seasonal and annual dataset describing Arctic sea ice extents for 1901–2015 was constructed by individually re-calibrating sea ice data sources from the three Arctic regions (NorthAmerican, Nordic and Siberian) using the corresponding surface air temperature trends for thepre-satellite era (1901–1978), so that the strong relationship between seasonal sea ice extent andsurface air temperature observed for the satellite era (1979-present) also applies to the pre-satellite era.

...

Unsurprising then that the graph correlates well with temps seeing as they used temperature obs to construct the graph!

In the pre satellite era, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

Are you questioning peer reviewed science? Tut, tut.

Er no. I questioned your assertion that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation is non-existent and then pointed out the graph you posted was constucted on the basis that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation exists.

So, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

Have climate scientists ever been right ? It would appear not.
https://youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE

Unless somebody out there can point me to a prediction that has come true.........

Global warming?

An easy thing to say a harder point to quantify, it exists mainly in computer programs, but less so in the real world,
What forward predictions are you referring to in the case of global warming?

None imparticular - too many to choose from. Predictions of global warming due to increasing GHGs go back to the 19th century.

[PRTVR]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

Have climate scientists ever been right ? It would appear not.
https://youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE

Unless somebody out there can point me to a prediction that has come true.........

Global warming?

An easy thing to say a harder point to quantify, it exists mainly in computer programs, but less so in the real world,
What forward predictions are you referring to in the case of global warming?

None imparticular - too many to choose from. Predictions of global warming due to increasing GHGs go back to the 19th century.

Well would 10 be to much to ask? After all you have all them amazing scientific institutions on you side , I produced just a you tube video that shows how bad historical they have been.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er no... seeing correlation where none exists is not scientific, it’s odd. Then using this non-existent correlation to determine causation is just sad.

Er looks quite well correlated to climate change (temps) to me.

Priceless - just had a shufty at the source of the ice extent graph (Connolly 2017):

ABSTRACT
A new seasonal and annual dataset describing Arctic sea ice extents for 1901–2015 was constructed by individually re-calibrating sea ice data sources from the three Arctic regions (NorthAmerican, Nordic and Siberian) using the corresponding surface air temperature trends for thepre-satellite era (1901–1978), so that the strong relationship between seasonal sea ice extent andsurface air temperature observed for the satellite era (1979-present) also applies to the pre-satellite era.

...

Unsurprising then that the graph correlates well with temps seeing as they used temperature obs to construct the graph!

In the pre satellite era, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

Are you questioning peer reviewed science? Tut, tut.

Er no. I questioned your assertion that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation is non-existent and then pointed out the graph you posted was constucted on the basis that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation exists.

So, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

I don't have 'go to' source for pre satellite era off hand.

[kerplunk]

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

Have climate scientists ever been right ? It would appear not.
https://youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE

Unless somebody out there can point me to a prediction that has come true.........

Global warming?

An easy thing to say a harder point to quantify, it exists mainly in computer programs, but less so in the real world,
What forward predictions are you referring to in the case of global warming?

None imparticular - too many to choose from. Predictions of global warming due to increasing GHGs go back to the 19th century.

Well would 10 be to much to ask? After all you have all them amazing scientific institutions on you side , I produced just a you tube video that shows how bad historical they have been.

I haven't watched the video - I simply answered your request for a prediction that has come true and clearly the data shows the world is warming as has been predicted for a long time.

[robinessex]

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

kerplunk said:

PRTVR said:

Have climate scientists ever been right ? It would appear not.
https://youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE

Unless somebody out there can point me to a prediction that has come true.........

Global warming?

An easy thing to say a harder point to quantify, it exists mainly in computer programs, but less so in the real world,
What forward predictions are you referring to in the case of global warming?

None imparticular - too many to choose from. Predictions of global warming due to increasing GHGs go back to the 19th century.

Well would 10 be to much to ask? After all you have all them amazing scientific institutions on you side , I produced just a you tube video that shows how bad historical they have been.

I haven't watched the video - I simply answered your request for a prediction that has come true and clearly the data shows the world is warming as has been predicted for a long time.

You mean that totally meaningless, average planet temperature number?

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er no... seeing correlation where none exists is not scientific, it’s odd. Then using this non-existent correlation to determine causation is just sad.

Er looks quite well correlated to climate change (temps) to me.

Priceless - just had a shufty at the source of the ice extent graph (Connolly 2017):

ABSTRACT
A new seasonal and annual dataset describing Arctic sea ice extents for 1901–2015 was constructed by individually re-calibrating sea ice data sources from the three Arctic regions (NorthAmerican, Nordic and Siberian) using the corresponding surface air temperature trends for thepre-satellite era (1901–1978), so that the strong relationship between seasonal sea ice extent andsurface air temperature observed for the satellite era (1979-present) also applies to the pre-satellite era.

...

Unsurprising then that the graph correlates well with temps seeing as they used temperature obs to construct the graph!

In the pre satellite era, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

Are you questioning peer reviewed science? Tut, tut.

Er no. I questioned your assertion that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation is non-existent and then pointed out the graph you posted was constucted on the basis that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation exists.

So, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

I don't have 'go to' source for pre satellite era off hand.

So my assertion, that you questioned, was that no correlation exists between sea ice extent and CO2.

Do you still question this? If so, can you please show me the data that shows correlation.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

Er no... seeing correlation where none exists is not scientific, it’s odd. Then using this non-existent correlation to determine causation is just sad.

Er looks quite well correlated to climate change (temps) to me.

Priceless - just had a shufty at the source of the ice extent graph (Connolly 2017):

ABSTRACT
A new seasonal and annual dataset describing Arctic sea ice extents for 1901–2015 was constructed by individually re-calibrating sea ice data sources from the three Arctic regions (NorthAmerican, Nordic and Siberian) using the corresponding surface air temperature trends for thepre-satellite era (1901–1978), so that the strong relationship between seasonal sea ice extent andsurface air temperature observed for the satellite era (1979-present) also applies to the pre-satellite era.

...

Unsurprising then that the graph correlates well with temps seeing as they used temperature obs to construct the graph!

In the pre satellite era, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

Are you questioning peer reviewed science? Tut, tut.

Er no. I questioned your assertion that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation is non-existent and then pointed out the graph you posted was constucted on the basis that a sea ice extent/climate change correlation exists.

So, what would you use to get an estimate for ice extent?

I don't have 'go to' source for pre satellite era off hand.

So my assertion, that you questioned, was that no correlation exists between sea ice extent and CO2.

Do you still question this? If so, can you please show me the data that shows correlation.

No I snipped the emissions graph and made no comment on your causation tangent. You replied to a post about arctic sea-ice being a bellwether for *climate change* and did a good impression of disagreeing with that notion, at the same time as posting a graph of sea-ice extent that appears to (inverse) correlate with the temperature record quite well - I pointed out that incongruity to you, but it seems to have only caused you confusion.

I'll comment on the causation tangent now if you like - the correlation there isn't terrible either over the period of concern (ie the post-war emissions boom).

[Jazzy Jag]

robinessex said:

NO DRAMATIC CC PREDICTIONS HAVE EVER COME TRUE. Science scores 100% wrong answers then. Brilliant!

When I was a kid, Tomorrow's World on the BBC promised that we were going to have an Ice Age again.

I'm still waiting.....

[kerplunk]

Jazzy Jag said:

I'm still waiting.....

Why?