Page 19 of 55 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415161718192021222324252627282944 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 1098

Thread: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

  1. #361
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    So you link to a site ran by an AGW proponent. Wow, what a surprise! The article starts off with BS and ends with BS. I know all about chart recorders. They've been relatively inexpensive since at least the 1960s. Secondly, as a data analyst for 20 years I can tell you that consistency in data collection is extremely important. When you start manipulating the data you get a manipulated result. Fact!
    Again a lot of nonsense. The changes in time of observation is a fact and it is mandatory to correct for this effect or you need to throw all the old data in the trash bin. This is an issue totally unrelated to the climate issue, scientists are correcting the data since the 1960s.

    And by the way, using Excel regularly does not make you a data analyst. If you fail to understand unit conversion and power addition, I doubt you are working as a data analyst.
    Last edited by Genava; June 30, 2019 at 11:58 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  2. #362
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    So you link to a site ran by an AGW proponent. Wow, what a surprise! The article starts off with BS and ends with BS. I know all about chart recorders. They've been relatively inexpensive since at least the 1960s. Secondly, as a data analyst for 20 years I can tell you that consistency in data collection is extremely important. When you start manipulating the data you get a manipulated result. Fact!
    The whole point of the article was however that the data set has not been magically consistent and perfect over time or how any one sight was measure at what time. In any real world non perfect collection system there is no problem with implementing well thought out and carefully applied statistical adjustments

    But seeing as you typed this

    So we have 85%+30%+20% is...you see where I'm going. Seems like every scientific specialty wants their particular field of study to have preeminence because that's where all the grant money is.
    Its clear your grasp of statistics in not overwhelming.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  3. #363
    Daruwind's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,898

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    I ´m not climate expert at all but even in CERN we have problem with connecting data sets from different year or jsut from different universities and labs. Each group having little different setup, experience, guidelines. It is great to hunt bugs and problems however it has different obstacles. Because almost every time there is something new like feature or way more focused equipment or because we got some new info....it could be anything from cooling, electromagnetic shielding to simple noise. Hell even some machines after switching on/off will fall to little different ..default profile while running ...like electric current. It sound like as wierd voodoo with all the air humitidy, temperatures and other stuff until you realize we are measuring electric current in nano ampers and even slightest touch of human skin can alter surface current profiles on electronics...

    Why am I writing this? That I can very well relate to problem of data over long period of time being hard to use even without any deliberate frauding or machinations. You just need sometimes to interpret data and extrapolate to the best possible knowlegde. Especially if methodology or equipment is being changed during time...
    Last edited by Daruwind; June 30, 2019 at 07:48 AM.
    DMR: (R2) (Attila) (ToB) (Wh1/2) (3K) (Troy)

  4. #364
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    Ha Ha! That's funny. I'll take the hit on that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Again a lot of nonsense. The changes in time of observation is a fact and it is mandatory to correct for this effect or you need to throw all the old data in the trash bin. This is an issue totally unrelated to the climate issue, scientists are correcting the data since the 1960s.

    And by the way, using Excel regularly does not make you a data analyst. If you fail to understand unit conversion and power addition, I doubt you are working as a data analyst.
    I rarely used Excel in data analysis. I doubt seriously if you have any idea how to go about it. Since I'm retired as an analyst and have an adequate pension I'm satisfied that I can do the work.

    I'll give you some advice. Go buy a warm coat, you're going to need it this winter on the other side of the pond.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    I ´m not climate expert at all but even in CERN we have problem with connecting data sets from different year or jsut from different universities and labs. Each group having little different setup, experience, guidelines. It is great to hunt bugs and problems however it has different obstacles. Because almost every time there is something new like feature or way more focused equipment or because we got some new info....it could be anything from cooling, electromagnetic shielding to simple noise. Hell even some machines after switching on/off will fall to little different ..default profile while running ...like electric current. It sound like as wierd voodoo with all the air humitidy, temperatures and other stuff until you realize we are measuring electric current in nano ampers and even slightest touch of human skin can alter surface current profiles on electronics...

    Why am I writing this? That I can very well relate to problem of data over long period of time being hard to use even without any deliberate frauding or machinations. You just need sometimes to interpret data and extrapolate to the best possible knowlegde. Especially if methodology or equipment is being changed during time...
    The most important thing in making predictions based on data points is consistency and accuracy. If you want to add data points, that's fine, but you still have to continue the data collection at the same point in time for it to have relevance. At least then you can compare the two. When you start converting Imperial units to metric units, Fahrenheit to Celsius, then you are introducing areas where problems can occur. There's a crashed Mars lander and a corrected Hubble mirror to prove that even the highest levels of engineers, statisticians, and physicists aren't infallible.

  5. #365
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    At least then you can compare the two. When you start converting Imperial units to metric units, Fahrenheit to Celsius, then you are introducing areas where problems can occur. There's a crashed Mars lander]
    No what caused that failure was everything not being corrected to the correct units. Not the 'Ideal' of conversion. And in any case those a simplistic errors that say nothing about complex statistics.
    Last edited by conon394; June 30, 2019 at 02:26 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  6. #366
    Miles
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    A Random place
    Posts
    325

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Again a lot of nonsense. The changes in time of observation is a fact and it is mandatory to correct for this effect or you need to throw all the old data in the trash bin. This is an issue totally unrelated to the climate issue, scientists are correcting the data since the 1960s.

    And by the way, using Excel regularly does not make you a data analyst. If you fail to understand unit conversion and power addition, I doubt you are working as a data analyst.
    It really reminds of a thread on Metabunk.org debunking the conspiracy theory where CNN had supposedly faked a broadcast near Dhahran International Airport in the middle of a Scud missile attack during the Gulf War, one of the very first responses was this
    "picture of the city looks like a blue screen, and the hotel has no comparable vegetative arrangement to how it is set up in the CNN tape. No landscaper would put a baby palm tree that close to a bush. they are so close they look potted. And the vegetation is too close to the wall. The CNN building in Atlanta also has blue frames on the outside."
    So one of the best explanations that this person was able to come up with was "suspiciously bad gardening", it very clearly highlights how utterly flawed the thinking process of a troofer whether it be climate change denialists, flat earthers or anti-vaxxers in which regardless of the evidence, they will refuse to change their mind in order to protect their extremely dogmatic view of the topic.

    Not to mention it does not help that denialist think tanks are often funded by companies involved in the fossil fuel industry, take for example Cloud Peak Energy, a recently bankrupt Wyoming based coal firm, in its disclosures, it was revealed in an article from the Intercept that it had funded several think tanks that opposed the idea of AGW or "climate alarmism" even when it had previously denied funding these types of groups such as

    Center for Consumer Freedom/Center for Organizational Research and Education
    Center for American Freedom
    American Legislative Exchange Council
    Montana Policy Institute
    Americans for Prosperity (Also founded by the Koch brothers, so much for BW's "but they're globalists" excuse)
    Last edited by RandomPerson2000; June 30, 2019 at 05:34 PM.

  7. #367
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPerson2000 View Post
    It really reminds of a thread on Metabunk.org debunking the conspiracy theory where CNN had supposedly faked a broadcast near Dhahran International Airport in the middle of a Scud missile attack during the Gulf War, one of the very first responses was this
    "picture of the city looks like a blue screen, and the hotel has no comparable vegetative arrangement to how it is set up in the CNN tape. No landscaper would put a baby palm tree that close to a bush. they are so close they look potted. And the vegetation is too close to the wall. The CNN building in Atlanta also has blue frames on the outside."
    So one of the best explanations that this person was able to come up with was "suspiciously bad gardening", it very clearly highlights how utterly flawed the thinking process of a troofer whether it be climate change denialists, flat earthers or anti-vaxxers in which regardless of the evidence, they will refuse to change their mind in order to protect their extremely dogmatic view of the topic.

    Not to mention it does not help that denialist think tanks are often funded by companies involved in the fossil fuel industry, take for example Cloud Peak Energy, a recently bankrupt Wyoming based coal firm, in its disclosures, it was revealed in an article from the Intercept that it had funded several think tanks that opposed the idea of AGW or "climate alarmism" even when it had previously denied funding these types of groups such as

    Center for Consumer Freedom/Center for Organizational Research and Education
    Center for American Freedom
    American Legislative Exchange Council
    Montana Policy Institute
    Americans for Prosperity (Also founded by the Koch brothers, so much for BW's "but they're globalists" excuse)
    I'm assuming this is supposed to represent some sort of philosophical comment, but with the incoherent rambling I have no idea what it is. CNN, for one, has committed so many false and manipulated news "stories" I don't see how anyone can defend them. I do recall the case of George Zimmerman who actually had to prove his innocence in a court of law because CNN had so twisted the narrative of his arrest. That was due to CNN's manipulation of a police recording and reporting it as fact.

    The links you provided are ones that I've never heard of. One of them seems to be an anti-Trump site. All of them are slickly presented. Probably just some 501'ers trying to make a few bucks on the sly. Just a waste of time.

  8. #368
    Miles
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    A Random place
    Posts
    325

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    I'm assuming this is supposed to represent some sort of philosophical comment, but with the incoherent rambling I have no idea what it is.....
    Well it is to be expected given your illiteracy in certain topics such as climate science and mathematics.

    I've one question, what is wrong with this blog post
    https://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/...odern-warming/

  9. #369
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPerson2000 View Post
    Well it is to be expected given your illiteracy in certain topics such as climate science and mathematics.

    I've one question, what is wrong with this blog post
    https://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/...odern-warming/
    Its a linked post that is worse the one cherry picks studies of regional variability when when read most point out it cannot be read to mean anything about the broader over all global trend of warming. In fact the rapid warming is generally expected to increase regional variations.

    Nice on the first link see we got the sun spot thing happening, too bad those papers generally cant pass statistical muster and typically don't use an attenuated data set ignoring earlier correlations that don't match their outcome.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10...704-015-1597-5
    Last edited by conon394; July 01, 2019 at 06:53 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  10. #370
    Stario's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Not the CCCP
    Posts
    2,042

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava
    You are doing a trial of intents. The Berkeley Earth has been financed by oil companies as well
    That was when Muller was still pretending to be a skeptic; one has to suspect that he presented himself as such in order to secure funding.
    Claiming to be a skeptic when he was not, in order to receive an income; the whole Berkeley shenanigans is a rotten to the core cesspool.
    Again, please refrain from posting fraudulent sources/references because it really does little to enhance your position on climate change.
    Last edited by Stario; July 01, 2019 at 09:41 AM.

  11. #371
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stario View Post
    That was when Muller was still pretending to be a skeptic; one has to suspect that he presented himself as such in order to secure funding.
    Claiming to be a skeptic when he was not, in order to receive an income; the whole Berkeley shenanigans is a rotten to the core cesspool.
    Richard Muller is defending Trump on multiple occasions:
    https://alumni.berkeley.edu/californ...gy-not-climate

    "Trump’s energy policy makes sense. He is pro-nuclear and pro-natural gas, and those are the two most important technologies today for slowing and stopping global warming. There is an irony here, since President Trump says he doesn’t believe in global warming. And yet by being pro-nuke and pro-gas, he will likely accomplish more to slow and stop warming than would President Obama’s programs for electric cars and solar power."

    You are really biased on the subject, you are thinking that anyone agreeing with the scientific consensus is a fraudulent and a liberal person. If he is saying that he was wrong and that climate change is really induced by human activities, then this is a honest statement from a honest scientist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stario View Post
    Again, please refrain from posting fraudulent sources/references because it really does little to enhance your position on climate change.
    What you are doing is far more worse. You are rejecting anything simply because you are associating it with a political agenda from logical fallacies in your mind. This is a fact-proof attitude.
    Last edited by Genava; July 01, 2019 at 12:36 PM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  12. #372
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPerson2000 View Post
    Well it is to be expected given your illiteracy in certain topics such as climate science and mathematics.

    I've one question, what is wrong with this blog post
    https://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/...odern-warming/
    You want me to look at 80 graphs showing regional variations in temperature and tell you what the problem is? OK, I will. To start out with the whole climate modeling thing is a mess. From a predictive analyst's perspective the first thing I would ask were all the instruments measuring the temperature calibrated and certified? How do we know the persons taking the temperatures didn't get lazy and just write in a number believing no one would notice (I've seen this done). I could go on and on. There are many problems there and don't get cocky because these are the same temperature data that was manipulated in the AGW consensus.

    There was only one chart that I would offhand say might be reliable with some confidence and that that was the Global Mean Temperature based on ice core data and it showed a downward trend. I only say it should be reliable because surely at these modern times the scientists would have used uniformly calibrated instruments.

    So you can see that my problem is not just with the AGW proponents manipulating data, it is the fact that the data has no way of verification. Even today there are problems with the SST data because it was discovered the sensors were placed near the engine exhaust.

    There are so many problems with the data that to form a consensus that the earth is warming or cooling is ridiculous and particularly bad science.

    The one certainty here is that the earth is presently in the longest period of relatively stable climate conditions since man has been on this earth. This will certainly not last.

  13. #373
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    So you can see that my problem is not just with the AGW proponents manipulating data, it is the fact that the data has no way of verification. Even today there are problems with the SST data because it was discovered the sensors were placed near the engine exhaust.
    This is the kind of dull argument made by people that does not know how the temperature is measured by satellite


    You want me to look at 80 graphs showing regional variations in temperature and tell you what the problem is? OK, I will.
    There are so many stations and trends calculated that to have an effect, the errors should be systemic and spread in the whole world. But I am sure you are believing that the world is crooked by the climate conspiracy from its base to the top.
    Last edited by Genava; July 02, 2019 at 02:05 AM.
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

  14. #374
    Miles
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    A Random place
    Posts
    325

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    You want me to look at 80 graphs showing regional variations in temperature and tell you what the problem is? OK, I will. To start out with the whole climate modeling thing is a mess. From a predictive analyst's perspective the first thing I would ask were all the instruments measuring the temperature calibrated and certified? ).
    The article is filled to the brim with numerous examples of misinterpretations of the papers, cherry picking and data manipulation as can be seen in especially Wilson et al. 2017 (figure 7 and 8), Rydvald et al. 2017 (fig.8), Tejedor et al. 2017 (figure 8 and 9) and Reynolds et al. 2017 (fig. 11) Even the global means temperature graph (figure 12) you noticed from Steiger et al. 2017 had been digitally altered with the black curve representing Berkeley Earth time series being cut out of the graph rather sloppily leaving a large blank space in the legend, indicating that one of the symbols had been cut out.

    So you can see that my problem is not just with the AGW proponents manipulating data, it is the fact that the data has no way of verification. Even today there are problems with the SST data because it was discovered the sensors were placed near the engine exhaust.
    Numerous temperature measurements from weather balloons, the ocean and satellites have all shown a significant warming trend that is consistent with measurements taken from land based stations, not to mention urban areas have little effect on measurements taken from there and even then the level is adjusted to get rid of this heating effect

    How do we know the persons taking the temperatures didn't get lazy and just write in a number believing no one would notice (I've seen this done)
    This is probably one of the worst arguments I've ever seen even from a denialist, if someone were to put in a random number in their paper and then sent it to a high impact peer reviewed journal, there is a low chance that the paper would be accepted, there is a reason why peer review exists bu then again you'll probably claim that it's a biased corrupt system that keeps papers that don't support AGW from being published.
    Last edited by RandomPerson2000; July 02, 2019 at 08:45 AM.

  15. #375
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    How do we know the persons taking the temperatures didn't get lazy and just write in a number believing no one would notice (I've seen this done). I could go on and on.
    That in and of itself is a lazy argument that could be tossed at almost any data set you decide you don't like.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  16. #376
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    This is the kind of dull argument made by people that does not know how the temperature is measured by satellite
    HaHaHa! You don't even know what I was talking about. (SST=sea surface temperature) I was referring to the problems with bucket and buoy data. Both are problematic:

    Patrick J. Michaels
    Richard S. Lindzen
    Paul C. Knappenberger
    A new paper published today by Science, from Thomas Karl and several co-authors[1], that removes the “hiatus” in global warming prompts many serious scientific questions.
    The main claim[2] by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious. The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.
    In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.
    As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.
    The extension of high-latitude arctic land data over the Arctic Ocean is also questionable. Much of the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered even in high summer, meaning the surface temperature must remain near freezing. Extending land data out into the ocean will obviously induce substantially exaggerated temperatures.
    Additionally, there exist multiple measures of bulk lower atmosphere temperature independent from surface measurements which indicate the existence of a “hiatus”[3]. If the Karl et al., result were in fact robust, it could only mean that the disparity between surface and midtropospheric temperatures is even larger that previously noted.
    Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong invalidates virtually every forecast of sensible weather made by a climate model, as much of that weather (including rainfall) is determined in large part by the vertical structure of the atmosphere.
    Instead, it would seem more logical to seriously question the Karl et al. result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in line with these other global records.
    And finally, even presuming all the adjustments applied by the authors ultimately prove to be accurate, the temperature trend reported during the “hiatus” period (1998-2014), remains significantly below (using Karl et al.’s measure of significance) the mean trend projected by the collection of climate models used in the most recent report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much. And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.
    The distribution of trends of the projected global average surface temperature for the period 1998-2014 from 108 climate model runs used in the latest report of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(blue bars). The models were run with historical climate forcings through 2005 and extended to 2014 with the RCP4.5 emissions scenario. The surface temperature trend over the same period, as reported by Karl et al. (2015, is included in red. It falls at the 2.4th percentile of the model distribution and indicates a value that is (statistically) significantly below the model mean projection.





    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPerson2000 View Post
    The article is filled to the brim with numerous examples of misinterpretations of the papers, cherry picking and data manipulation as can be seen in especially Wilson et al. 2017 (figure 7 and 8), Rydvald et al. 2017 (fig.8), Tejedor et al. 2017 (figure 8 and 9) and Reynolds et al. 2017 (fig. 11) Even the global means temperature graph (figure 12) you noticed from Steiger et al. 2017 had been digitally altered with the black curve representing Berkeley Earth time series being cut out of the graph rather sloppily leaving a large blank space in the legend, indicating that one of the symbols had been cut out.


    Numerous temperature measurements from weather balloons, the ocean and satellites have all shown a significant warming trend that is consistent with measurements taken from land based stations, not to mention urban areas have little effect on measurements taken from there and even then the level is adjusted to get rid of this heating effect


    This is probably one of the worst arguments I've ever seen even from a denialist, if someone were to put in a random number in their paper and then sent it to a high impact peer reviewed journal, there is a low chance that the paper would be accepted, there is a reason why peer review exists bu then again you'll probably claim that it's a biased corrupt system that keeps papers that don't support AGW from being published.
    Wait! What? Are you saying I didn't discount the value for predictive purposes of all the graphs but one? I know you have a problem with interpretation as evidenced by your incoherent comments, but please reread my comments and do it a little slower this time.

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    That in and of itself is a lazy argument that could be tossed at almost any data set you decide you don't like.
    So you're saying that human behavior plays no part in temperature collection? This is ignoring one of the basic realities of human behavior. Its the same thing as saying in reverse that AGW proponents didn't tamper with the data and it has been proven that they did. One example: climategate!

  17. #377
    Miles
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    A Random place
    Posts
    325

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    HaHaHa! You don't even know what I was talking about. (SST=sea surface temperature) I was referring to the problems with bucket and buoy data. Both are problematic:

    Patrick J. Michaels
    Richard S. Lindzen
    Paul C. Knappenberger
    A new paper published today by Science, from Thomas Karl and several co-authors[1], that removes the “hiatus” in global warming prompts many serious scientific questions.
    The main claim[2] by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious. The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.
    In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.
    As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.
    The extension of high-latitude arctic land data over the Arctic Ocean is also questionable. Much of the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered even in high summer, meaning the surface temperature must remain near freezing. Extending land data out into the ocean will obviously induce substantially exaggerated temperatures.
    Additionally, there exist multiple measures of bulk lower atmosphere temperature independent from surface measurements which indicate the existence of a “hiatus”[3]. If the Karl et al., result were in fact robust, it could only mean that the disparity between surface and midtropospheric temperatures is even larger that previously noted.
    Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong invalidates virtually every forecast of sensible weather made by a climate model, as much of that weather (including rainfall) is determined in large part by the vertical structure of the atmosphere.
    Instead, it would seem more logical to seriously question the Karl et al. result in light of the fact that, compared to those bulk temperatures, it is an outlier, showing a recent warming trend that is not in line with these other global records.
    And finally, even presuming all the adjustments applied by the authors ultimately prove to be accurate, the temperature trend reported during the “hiatus” period (1998-2014), remains significantly below (using Karl et al.’s measure of significance) the mean trend projected by the collection of climate models used in the most recent report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much. And to this relevant question, the answer has been, and remains, that the warming is taking place at a much slower rate than is being projected.

    Since then, there have been several new studies that have further cast doubt on the existence of this hiatus such as Hausfather et al. 2017 which using measurements from argo floats, buoys and satellites were able to get similar results in all three that support the conclusion of Karl et al. 2015, along with Risbey et al. 2018 and Lewandowsky et al. 2018. Even if there was certainly little change in the global surface temperature during that period, it does not show the climate has suddenly paused for the time being nor does show the current global warming is going at a much slower pace than commonly depicted. While changes in global temperature may fluctuate over short periods sometimes rising, sometimes declining or becoming temporarily stagnant, the global temperature displays a significant warming trend when looking from a 100 or 200 year long time period. Here is a graph to help you understand it, especially if you look at that blue straight line.


    Wait! What? Are you saying I didn't discount the value for predictive purposes of all the graphs but one? I know you have a problem with interpretation as evidenced by your incoherent comments, but please reread my comments and do it a little slower this time.
    Well you do need to improve your reading comprehension, after all you said yourself that you can't read a long paragraph just before going into an unhinged political rant that was unfortunately deleted about how "liberals" have been manipulating measurements of the global temperature for decades.

    So you're saying that human behavior plays no part in temperature collection? This is ignoring one of the basic realities of human behavior. Its the same thing as saying in reverse that AGW proponents didn't tamper with the data and it has been proven that they did. One example: climategate!
    Um, except there was nothing really that malicious in the actual emails, aside from a couple of sources trying to portray the leak as proof of some massive scary conspiracy by cherry picking certain emails and misinterpreting what they're actually saying for example
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
    Despite what denialists may claim, the use of the word decline is not referring to declining global temperatures, it's actually referring to the decline in reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960.
    Meanwhile a number of independent investigations in several different countries have found no evidence of data tampering or any other forms of scientific misconduct in those emails, not really the smoking gun that points to a massive conspiracy by scientists and others to get rich out of some "climate alarmism"
    http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/docu...nn_Inquiry.pdf
    https://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154...f-ebbd16f685da
    http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

    Edit
    Did I really just struck one of your nerves, the reason why the tree ring data was replaced was because that since 1960, tree growth particularly in Northern high latitudes have slowed or decline possibly as a result of global dimming and droughts induced by anthropocentric climate change, reducing their reliability as proxies for temperatures from the past few decades. (D'Arrigo 2008) (Briffa 1998)
    I could go on and on and on but to put it simply the leaked emails do not prove anything about a global conspiracy by scientists to fabricate climate records in a get rich quick scheme, to insist otherwise is to be extremely ignorant of what is actually being said and disingenuous.

    Back to that blog post, Watts' claim that the buoy data was adjusted upwards to match ship data in a biased attempt to create a warming tend completely falls apart when the same warming trend is produced from adjusting the ship data to match the buoy data as seen in Huang et al. 2015 which was published a few months before Karl et al. 2015. There is also numerous other problems with Watts' analysis of Karl et al. 2015 such as when he rather mindlessly regurgitated a fabricated graph of HadCRUT4 data from the Daily Fail claiming that it disproved the conclusion of Karl et al. 2015 when it had in fact produced the same warming trend from 1997-2017 along with data from Berkeley Earth albeit slightly higher than Karl et al. 2015. All of this could have been avoided if Watts, you and so many other climate change denialists had done a little bit of fact checking but instead you all perpetuated a series of myths. Not to mention the original source of all these claims, Bates acted in a very misleading likely deceptive manner according to an investigation on the matter by the MITRE committee which found Bates had later criticised a internal review which was conducted and approved under his own authority.

    Now you accuse me of deleting a "political rant". Please, do give the post number in which that occurred.
    Read it again, there wasn't any instance that I had accused anyone of deleting that post.

    Given your deliberate ignorance on the topic of climate change, it seems that you mainly oppose the notion of AGW from an ideological point of view, dismissing it as some globalist liberal scheme, rejecting evidence that you do not like, not out of any actual scientific skepticism. It would beneficial if you were cut it out with this behavior. Why?, it shows that you cannot separate politics from climate science and that you have a massive political bias
    Last edited by RandomPerson2000; July 07, 2019 at 06:10 PM.

  18. #378
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by RandomPerson2000 View Post

    Since then, there have been several new studies that have further cast doubt on the existence of this hiatus such as Hausfather et al. 2017 which using measurements from argo floats, buoys and satellites were able to get similar results in all three that support the conclusion of Karl et al. 2015, along with Risbey et al. 2018 and Lewandowsky et al. 2018. Even if there was certainly little change in the global surface temperature during that period, it does not show the climate has suddenly paused for the time being nor does show the current global warming is going at a much slower pace than commonly depicted. While changes in global temperature may fluctuate over short periods sometimes rising, sometimes declining or becoming temporarily stagnant, the global temperature displays a significant warming trend when looking from a 100 or 200 year long time period. Here is a graph to help you understand it, especially if you look at that blue straight line.



    Well you do need to improve your reading comprehension, after all you said yourself that you can't read a long paragraph just before going into an unhinged political rant that was unfortunately deleted about how "liberals" have been manipulating measurements of the global temperature for decades.


    Um, except there was nothing really that malicious in the actual emails, aside from a couple of sources trying to portray the leak as proof of some massive scary conspiracy by cherry picking certain emails and misinterpreting what they're actually saying for example
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
    Despite what denialists may claim, the use of the word decline is not referring to declining global temperatures, it's actually referring to the decline in reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960.
    Meanwhile a number of independent investigations in several different countries have found no evidence of data tampering or any other forms of scientific misconduct in those emails, not really the smoking gun that points to a massive conspiracy by scientists and others to get rich out of some "climate alarmism"
    http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/docu...nn_Inquiry.pdf
    https://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154...f-ebbd16f685da
    http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
    OMG! I don't usually comment after having a few drinks because it invariably gets me in trouble with the moderators, but after consuming two quart jugs of Heineken (and several hours of my very precious free time) while going through the morass of BS in the links you posted I just can't help myself. They're nothing but attempts to whitewash or play down the significance of Climategate. One of the important aspects of ClimateGate was the removal of tree ring data and replacing it with "synthetic data". This is well documented, but was never carried by the mainstream media. And there is so much more! What a sham!

    This argument you're making is absurd. First you have "one question" which I answered with a logical assessment and you didn't bother to give me credit for taking the time to investigate your question and giving a credible answer. You merely came up with more aborations based on questionable data.

    Now you accuse me of deleting a "political rant". Please, do give the post number in which that occurred.

    Going further, based on the links you posted, it seems there is no end to the effort by the IPCC and its well paid "scientists" to try and whitewash a scientific debacle.

    How many times did they try and vary the data and come up with the same result to prove their "consensus"? A thousand times? "Yeah, what the heck. We dabbled in data manipulation before why not go ahead and muddy the water some more!"

  19. #379
    Stario's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Not the CCCP
    Posts
    2,042

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Richard Muller is defending Trump on multiple occasions:
    https://alumni.berkeley.edu/californ...gy-not-climate

    "Trump’s energy policy makes sense. He is pro-nuclear and pro-natural gas, and those are the two most important technologies today for slowing and stopping global warming. There is an irony here, since President Trump says he doesn’t believe in global warming. And yet by being pro-nuke and pro-gas, he will likely accomplish more to slow and stop warming than would President Obama’s programs for electric cars and solar power."


    You are really biased on the subject, you are thinking that anyone agreeing with the scientific consensus is a fraudulent and a liberal person. If he is saying that he was wrong and that climate change is really induced by human activities, then this is a honest statement from a honest scientist.



    What you are doing is far more worse. You are rejecting anything simply because you are associating it with a political agenda from logical fallacies in your mind. This is a fact-proof attitude.
    Muller's so called "honest" statements are dependent on whom ever is paying him. When the big oil companies where funding him he was a skeptic, now he's funded by the "global warming alarmist" crowd so he believes climate change is "induced by human activities". He is a fraudster LOL... Again using Berkeley as your reference/sources hardly strengthens your position on global warming; its straight up fraudulent.

  20. #380
    Genava's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    1,025

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stario View Post
    Muller's so called "honest" statements are dependent on whom ever is paying him. When the big oil companies where funding him he was a skeptic, now he's funded by the "global warming alarmist" crowd so he believes climate change is "induced by human activities". He is a fraudster LOL... Again using Berkeley as your reference/sources hardly strengthens your position on global warming; its straight up fraudulent.
    Actually, Muller was still financed by the Heartland institute and oil companies during his first work demonstrating that the global temperatures are increasing as stated in other institutions.

    And Judith Curry, a climate denier, agrees with the temperature reconstruction (because she has worked on the mathematical model): https://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a...e-temperature/

    She is still disagreeing with the greenhouse gases as a cause (but she has no better explanation, only that this is random temperature fluctuations for her).
    LOTR mod for Shogun 2 Total War (Campaign and Battles!)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIywmAgUxQU

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •