Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
Give it a rest Gadge try reading what you post.
Yet another "no science" post Dicky. A quick flick back over the last 30 pages or so will be enough for anybody to see that I've started the last 4 or 5 conversations on this thread by posting a link to a scientific report.Whilst you've supplied what? Drive-by wumming. If you don't like the science posts I make why bother replying with inane comments all the time?
Following you around and constantly trying to make out you don’t post any science (whilst he posts none) and then trying to provoke you into doing whatever he got you banned from the other thread from too. Then reporting you again.
It’s very sad but also very transparent.
LimSlip said:
robinessex said:
Oh yea, that useless average thing, +1 Deg C in 100 years. I can't say I noticed it. PS. What's making it rise anyway?
A good chunk of it seems to be from "correcting" temperature records.The adjustments REDUCE the amount of global warming over the last 100 years.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adj...
kerplunk said:
LimSlip said:
robinessex said:
Oh yea, that useless average thing, +1 Deg C in 100 years. I can't say I noticed it. PS. What's making it rise anyway?
A good chunk of it seems to be from "correcting" temperature records.The adjustments REDUCE the amount of global warming over the last 100 years.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adj...
Michael Mann .
If the "adjustments " reduced global warming, how did the pause disappear, you know the one that was per reviewed to have hidden in the deep oceans?
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
LimSlip said:
robinessex said:
Oh yea, that useless average thing, +1 Deg C in 100 years. I can't say I noticed it. PS. What's making it rise anyway?
A good chunk of it seems to be from "correcting" temperature records.The adjustments REDUCE the amount of global warming over the last 100 years.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adj...
Michael Mann .
If the "adjustments " reduced global warming, how did the pause disappear, you know the one that was per reviewed to have hidden in the deep oceans?
Feel free to post a credible analysis that supports Limslips claim that a 'good chunk' of the warming of the last 100 years comes from adjustments to the data. You won't find one, because it doesn't - it's a myth.
kerplunk said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
LimSlip said:
robinessex said:
Oh yea, that useless average thing, +1 Deg C in 100 years. I can't say I noticed it. PS. What's making it rise anyway?
A good chunk of it seems to be from "correcting" temperature records.The adjustments REDUCE the amount of global warming over the last 100 years.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adj...
Michael Mann .
If the "adjustments " reduced global warming, how did the pause disappear, you know the one that was per reviewed to have hidden in the deep oceans?
Feel free to post a credible analysis that supports Limslips claim that a 'good chunk' of the warming of the last 100 years comes from adjustments to the data. You won't find one, because it doesn't - it's a myth.
Is there an independent analyst, because Hausfather is anything but, he is a climate scientist , go look at the team over at carbonbrief, its basically a PR outlet for matters concerning climate change, whitewash central.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/about-us
El stovey said:
Gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
Give it a rest Gadge try reading what you post.
Yet another "no science" post Dicky. A quick flick back over the last 30 pages or so will be enough for anybody to see that I've started the last 4 or 5 conversations on this thread by posting a link to a scientific report.Whilst you've supplied what? Drive-by wumming. If you don't like the science posts I make why bother replying with inane comments all the time?
Following you around and constantly trying to make out you don’t post any science (whilst he posts none) and then trying to provoke you into doing whatever he got you banned from the other thread from too. Then reporting you again.
It’s very sad but also very transparent.
Mods: I hope you're watching this.
Gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
Toltec said:
Gadgetmac said:
Jet stream: Is climate change causing more ‘blocking’ weather events?
No, but maybe yes in some areas and possibly longer lasting, it's complicated. 
That was indeed an interesting article and well explained.
Thanks Gadgetmac, I can see why you put your "faith " in scientists like this.
And please do let me have your list of scientists and scientific institutions I can trust..
Because the subject is complex is the point that is been made,
remember we are looking for the evidence of change brought about from a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, when the variables ,known and possibly unknown are complex,
note that they are relying upon models for their predictions, this brings us back to GIGO, if the models are running incomplete data, given the complexity of a chaotic system a high probability , the outcome that is necessary for predictions becomes inevitably inaccurate but are still held up as the answer,
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
LimSlip said:
robinessex said:
Oh yea, that useless average thing, +1 Deg C in 100 years. I can't say I noticed it. PS. What's making it rise anyway?
A good chunk of it seems to be from "correcting" temperature records.The adjustments REDUCE the amount of global warming over the last 100 years.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adj...
Michael Mann .
If the "adjustments " reduced global warming, how did the pause disappear, you know the one that was per reviewed to have hidden in the deep oceans?
Feel free to post a credible analysis that supports Limslips claim that a 'good chunk' of the warming of the last 100 years comes from adjustments to the data. You won't find one, because it doesn't - it's a myth.
Is there an independent analyst, because Hausfather is anything but, he is a climate scientist , go look at the team over at carbonbrief, its basically a PR outlet for matters concerning climate change, whitewash central.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/about-us
kerplunk said:
The putative pause was a short period and thus immaterial. There's quite a few credible citizen bean counters out there so you would have no problem finding support for the claim, if it were genuine.
If it was immaterial why were scientific papers produced and peer reviewed to explain the event, why were the numbers adjusted to remove the pause, obviously some thought it was important to expend a lot of energy on.Citizen bean counters? Are you serious, who is going to pay them, who is going to explain the whole complex system to them, how is the data going to be verified when it isn't open source, remember for it to have any credibility trust would have to exist and that would be the hardest part.
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
The putative pause was a short period and thus immaterial. There's quite a few credible citizen bean counters out there so you would have no problem finding support for the claim, if it were genuine.
If it was immaterial why were scientific papers produced and peer reviewed to explain the event, why were the numbers adjusted to remove the pause, obviously some thought it was important to expend a lot of energy on.Citizen bean counters? Are you serious, who is going to pay them, who is going to explain the whole complex system to them, how is the data going to be verified when it isn't open source, remember for it to have any credibility trust would have to exist and that would be the hardest part.
Cheers.
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
The putative pause was a short period and thus immaterial. There's quite a few credible citizen bean counters out there so you would have no problem finding support for the claim, if it were genuine.
If it was immaterial why were scientific papers produced and peer reviewed to explain the event, why were the numbers adjusted to remove the pause, obviously some thought it was important to expend a lot of energy on.Citizen bean counters? Are you serious, who is going to pay them, who is going to explain the whole complex system to them, how is the data going to be verified when it isn't open source, remember for it to have any credibility trust would have to exist and that would be the hardest part.
Cheers.
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
The putative pause was a short period and thus immaterial. There's quite a few credible citizen bean counters out there so you would have no problem finding support for the claim, if it were genuine.
If it was immaterial why were scientific papers produced and peer reviewed to explain the event, why were the numbers adjusted to remove the pause, obviously some thought it was important to expend a lot of energy on.Citizen bean counters? Are you serious, who is going to pay them, who is going to explain the whole complex system to them, how is the data going to be verified when it isn't open source, remember for it to have any credibility trust would have to exist and that would be the hardest part.
In other words, to continue to reject AGW you're basically forced to reject all forms of evidence.
Given this is the science thread, do you want to post some basis for why we should believe any of these claims?
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
The putative pause was a short period and thus immaterial. There's quite a few credible citizen bean counters out there so you would have no problem finding support for the claim, if it were genuine.
If it was immaterial why were scientific papers produced and peer reviewed to explain the event, why were the numbers adjusted to remove the pause, obviously some thought it was important to expend a lot of energy on.Citizen bean counters? Are you serious, who is going to pay them, who is going to explain the whole complex system to them, how is the data going to be verified when it isn't open source, remember for it to have any credibility trust would have to exist and that would be the hardest part.
In other words, to continue to reject AGW you're basically forced to reject all forms of evidence.
Given this is the science thread, do you want to post some basis for why we should believe any of these claims?
When company accounts are completed at the end of the year do they not get independent accountants to verify they are correct,
I see no difference given the world wide importance of the subject.
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
The putative pause was a short period and thus immaterial. There's quite a few credible citizen bean counters out there so you would have no problem finding support for the claim, if it were genuine.
If it was immaterial why were scientific papers produced and peer reviewed to explain the event, why were the numbers adjusted to remove the pause, obviously some thought it was important to expend a lot of energy on.Citizen bean counters? Are you serious, who is going to pay them, who is going to explain the whole complex system to them, how is the data going to be verified when it isn't open source, remember for it to have any credibility trust would have to exist and that would be the hardest part.
In other words, to continue to reject AGW you're basically forced to reject all forms of evidence.
Given this is the science thread, do you want to post some basis for why we should believe any of these claims?
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
The putative pause was a short period and thus immaterial. There's quite a few credible citizen bean counters out there so you would have no problem finding support for the claim, if it were genuine.
If it was immaterial why were scientific papers produced and peer reviewed to explain the event, why were the numbers adjusted to remove the pause, obviously some thought it was important to expend a lot of energy on.Citizen bean counters? Are you serious, who is going to pay them, who is going to explain the whole complex system to them, how is the data going to be verified when it isn't open source, remember for it to have any credibility trust would have to exist and that would be the hardest part.
Cheers.
This is what happens every time somebody posts a link to some science on here...the deniers bring it all back to this nonsense.
PRTVR said:
I do not see a problem in getting truly independent verification of the numbers, if the subject is as important as it is,
When company accounts are completed at the end of the year do they not get independent accountants to verify they are correct, I see no difference given the world wide importance of the subject.
Also, there's absolutely no logical reason anyone would wilfully misrepresent data. You can't pretend temperatures are rising when they are not; you can't tell an ice sheet to melt to accommodate a Marxist plot (or whatever it is supposed to be today).
Don't you wonder why the people you're championing are exclusively bloggers and random people on YouTube? Mostly unqualified, all unaccountable, with nothing to lose yet books and advertising to sell.
If there were genuine grounds of corruption, why aren't the massive companies who stand to lose $billions leading the charge? Why do you think they have not used their resources to hire the best data analysts, scientists, investigators and lawyers and make this case, demand arrests and fraud charges?
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
The putative pause was a short period and thus immaterial. There's quite a few credible citizen bean counters out there so you would have no problem finding support for the claim, if it were genuine.
If it was immaterial why were scientific papers produced and peer reviewed to explain the event, why were the numbers adjusted to remove the pause, obviously some thought it was important to expend a lot of energy on.PRTVR said:
Citizen bean counters? Are you serious, who is going to pay them, who is going to explain the whole complex system to them, how is the data going to be verified when it isn't open source, remember for it to have any credibility trust would have to exist and that would be the hardest part.
Quite serious, there are many - it's bizarre that you don't know thatClimate Audit (Steve McIntyre)
The Air Vent (Jeff ID)
Lucia's Blacboard
Moyhu (Nick Stokes)
Just a short list there's many more.
The data is freely available and it doesn't take huge chops to compare trends between raw vs adjusted datasets, it just need area weighting to be applied and that's it.
That you are terminally uncovincable and riddled with bad faith is neither here nor there - that's just you.
Edited by kerplunk on Monday 15th June 11:48
durbster said:
It's precisely because of the importance that everything has been scrutinised like no other. AGW is fundamentally a hugely expensive pain in the arse, so there's significant motivation to disprove it.
Also, there's absolutely no logical reason anyone would wilfully misrepresent data. You can't pretend temperatures are rising when they are not; you can't tell an ice sheet to melt to accommodate a Marxist plot (or whatever it is supposed to be today).
Don't you wonder why the people you're championing are exclusively bloggers and random people on YouTube? Mostly unqualified, all unaccountable, with nothing to lose yet books and advertising to sell.
Who is he championing? There's many bloggers doing credible work looking at the data. A lot of sAlso, there's absolutely no logical reason anyone would wilfully misrepresent data. You can't pretend temperatures are rising when they are not; you can't tell an ice sheet to melt to accommodate a Marxist plot (or whatever it is supposed to be today).
Don't you wonder why the people you're championing are exclusively bloggers and random people on YouTube? Mostly unqualified, all unaccountable, with nothing to lose yet books and advertising to sell.
te ones too of course. kerplunk said:
Who is he championing? There's many bloggers doing credible work looking at the data. A lot of ste ones too of course.
That's true, and I shouldn't dismiss bloggers outright. I'm referring specifically to the ones who share a lot more opinion than insight.te ones too of course. I think I've seen PRTVR citing Tony Heller a lot, so that's who I had in mind.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff