Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
"The new Cedrela chronologies from the Amazon, when compared with the hundreds of tree-ring chronologies in temperate North and South America, document this Pan American resonance of climate and ecosystem extremes in the centuries before widespread deforestation or human-caused climate change“
Can anyone see an AGW signal? Anyone?
The researchers can...
“In the past 40 years, drought and flood extremes have increased in the Amazon basin, the researchers noted, raising the question of whether human-induced climate change and deforestation are affecting Amazon climate.“
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/2010...
https://youtu.be/YEGJDvdwAu8
The researchers have come to a conclusion CLEARLY not supported by their own data. Why?
Reading comprehension fail? The researcher's conclusions came AFTER the bit you've quoted:Can anyone see an AGW signal? Anyone?
The researchers can...
“In the past 40 years, drought and flood extremes have increased in the Amazon basin, the researchers noted, raising the question of whether human-induced climate change and deforestation are affecting Amazon climate.“
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/2010...
https://youtu.be/YEGJDvdwAu8
The researchers have come to a conclusion CLEARLY not supported by their own data. Why?
"While that remains an open question, the longer Cedrela-based precipitation record indicates that periods of rainfall extremes occurred in the past and the current extremes might be partly due to natural climate rhythms."
.
and thus not a conclusion of the paper which is about tree ring data
Gadgetmac said:
The clue is actually in the graph title showing where the data is from. The correct conclusion as quoted by you is therefore entirely rational.
Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
When you've got a hammer...Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
kerplunk said:
Gadgetmac said:
The clue is actually in the graph title showing where the data is from. The correct conclusion as quoted by you is therefore entirely rational.
Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
When you've got a hammer...Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
"The new Cedrela chronologies from the Amazon, when compared with the hundreds of tree-ring chronologies in temperate North and South America, document this Pan American resonance of climate and ecosystem extremes in the centuries before widespread deforestation or human-caused climate change“
Can anyone see an AGW signal? Anyone?
The researchers can...
“In the past 40 years, drought and flood extremes have increased in the Amazon basin, the researchers noted, raising the question of whether human-induced climate change and deforestation are affecting Amazon climate.“
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/2010...
https://youtu.be/YEGJDvdwAu8
The researchers have come to a conclusion CLEARLY not supported by their own data. Why?
Reading comprehension fail? The researcher's conclusions came AFTER the bit you've quoted:Can anyone see an AGW signal? Anyone?
The researchers can...
“In the past 40 years, drought and flood extremes have increased in the Amazon basin, the researchers noted, raising the question of whether human-induced climate change and deforestation are affecting Amazon climate.“
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/2010...
https://youtu.be/YEGJDvdwAu8
The researchers have come to a conclusion CLEARLY not supported by their own data. Why?
"While that remains an open question, the longer Cedrela-based precipitation record indicates that periods of rainfall extremes occurred in the past and the current extremes might be partly due to natural climate rhythms."
.
and thus not a conclusion of the paper which is about tree ring data
Gadgetmac said:
The clue is actually in the graph title showing where the data is from. The correct conclusion as quoted by you is therefore entirely rational.
Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
Stick to the science.Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
kerplunk said:
Gadgetmac said:
The clue is actually in the graph title showing where the data is from. The correct conclusion as quoted by you is therefore entirely rational.
Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
When you've got a hammer...Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
Gadgetmac said:
kerplunk said:
Gadgetmac said:
The clue is actually in the graph title showing where the data is from. The correct conclusion as quoted by you is therefore entirely rational.
Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
When you've got a hammer...Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
Isn’t this the science thread?
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Gadgetmac said:
The clue is actually in the graph title showing where the data is from. The correct conclusion as quoted by you is therefore entirely rational.
Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
When you've got a hammer...Unfortunately, and not for the first time, the inference that scientists are being underhand or duplicitous was the first port of call.
Kawasicki said:
So, either the tree rings proxy or the instrumental record is wrong.
I dunno without drilling into it further - I would caution against drawing hasty conclusions (again).Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 13th October 11:05
The deep sea is slowly warming
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-deep-sea-slowly.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/2010...
Extract:
New research reveals temperatures in the deep sea fluctuate more than scientists previously thought and a warming trend is now detectable at the bottom of the ocean.
In a new study in AGU's journal Geophysical Research Letters, researchers analyzed a decade of hourly temperature recordings from moorings anchored at four depths in the Atlantic Ocean's Argentine Basin off the coast of Uruguay. The depths represent a range around the average ocean depth of 3,682 meters (12,080 feet), with the shallowest at 1,360 meters (4,460 feet) and the deepest at 4,757 meters (15,600 feet).
They found all sites exhibited a warming trend of 0.02 to 0.04 degrees Celsius per decade between 2009 and 2019—a significant warming trend in the deep sea where temperature fluctuations are typically measured in thousandths of a degree. According to the study authors, this increase is consistent with warming trends in the shallow ocean associated with anthropogenic climate change, but more research is needed to understand what is driving rising temperatures in the deep ocean.
Watch this space.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-deep-sea-slowly.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/2010...
Extract:
New research reveals temperatures in the deep sea fluctuate more than scientists previously thought and a warming trend is now detectable at the bottom of the ocean.
In a new study in AGU's journal Geophysical Research Letters, researchers analyzed a decade of hourly temperature recordings from moorings anchored at four depths in the Atlantic Ocean's Argentine Basin off the coast of Uruguay. The depths represent a range around the average ocean depth of 3,682 meters (12,080 feet), with the shallowest at 1,360 meters (4,460 feet) and the deepest at 4,757 meters (15,600 feet).
They found all sites exhibited a warming trend of 0.02 to 0.04 degrees Celsius per decade between 2009 and 2019—a significant warming trend in the deep sea where temperature fluctuations are typically measured in thousandths of a degree. According to the study authors, this increase is consistent with warming trends in the shallow ocean associated with anthropogenic climate change, but more research is needed to understand what is driving rising temperatures in the deep ocean.
Watch this space.
kerplunk said:
I dunno without drilling into it further - I would caution against drawing hasty conclusions (again).
This is the climate science thread. Drawing hasty conclusions is the bedrock on which climate science is built.Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 13th October 11:05
Please drill into it further, and post your conclusions. Thanks.
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
I dunno without drilling into it further - I would caution against drawing hasty conclusions (again).
This is the climate science thread. Drawing hasty conclusions is the bedrock on which climate science is built.Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 13th October 11:05
Please drill into it further, and post your conclusions. Thanks.
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
I dunno without drilling into it further - I would caution against drawing hasty conclusions (again).
This is the climate science thread. Drawing hasty conclusions is the bedrock on which climate science is built.Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 13th October 11:05
Please drill into it further, and post your conclusions. Thanks.
mybrainhurts said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
I dunno without drilling into it further - I would caution against drawing hasty conclusions (again).
This is the climate science thread. Drawing hasty conclusions is the bedrock on which climate science is built.Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 13th October 11:05
Please drill into it further, and post your conclusions. Thanks.
Sometimes you really can’t be ‘arsed’.
Gadgetmac said:
mybrainhurts said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
I dunno without drilling into it further - I would caution against drawing hasty conclusions (again).
This is the climate science thread. Drawing hasty conclusions is the bedrock on which climate science is built.Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 13th October 11:05
Please drill into it further, and post your conclusions. Thanks.
Sometimes you really can’t be ‘arsed’.
The problem with this entire debate is that the general public is involved rather than just the scientists left just to sort it all out. We should have the same rules as we did when Quantum mechanics was being thrashed out ( another non trivial problem).
Imagine if that was done as per today. People would be sending links to websites quoting hand written letters
An example of this. I got banned by Simon Scharma, the noted historian yesterday from his twitter account. He had said that the polar ice caps are melting, the coral reefs are suffering from loss due to acidification and that glaciers were irreversibly retreating and I picked him up on the latter not being true and that it was a phrase coined from media news rooms rather than science.
They are retreating, more than likely due to AGW, but it's not irreversible. Neither is acidification or polar sea ice melt, that is why people are trying to cut down on emissions, otherwise why bother? I said it was poor wording.
He took umbrage at this and banned me. It will go down in history no doubt, one he will not be writing about
I include myself in the great unwashed of course.
Imagine if that was done as per today. People would be sending links to websites quoting hand written letters
An example of this. I got banned by Simon Scharma, the noted historian yesterday from his twitter account. He had said that the polar ice caps are melting, the coral reefs are suffering from loss due to acidification and that glaciers were irreversibly retreating and I picked him up on the latter not being true and that it was a phrase coined from media news rooms rather than science.
They are retreating, more than likely due to AGW, but it's not irreversible. Neither is acidification or polar sea ice melt, that is why people are trying to cut down on emissions, otherwise why bother? I said it was poor wording.
He took umbrage at this and banned me. It will go down in history no doubt, one he will not be writing about
I include myself in the great unwashed of course.
Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 15th October 09:51
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff