Are human activities influencing the climate?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Just to clarify, I have no climate science related qualifications.

There's a word that describes someone who is themselves (as you have stated in this very thread) a parent, and a petrol engined car driver who is constantly berating others about THEIR decision to use fossil fuels and for having children.

It is identical to the typical ABC1 Guardian AGW alarmist commenter that we discussed earlier, using every opportunity to order everyone else to be childless, cycling vegans.

And it is lapped up by the simple hordes of Kardashian followers who are now looking towards a dark winter which will be eased somewhat by the joys of I'm a Celebrity.

One word aptly described those posts that we see, whether it's here in this thread or whether it's from the high flying Gaurdian commentators:

Two words actually, unqualified hypocrisy.

Definition of unqualified

1 :not fit :not having requisite qualifications


Definition of hypocrite

1 :a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 :a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Was there something about "respecting the scientific method"?

Meaningless words at this point having been caught out trying to relentlessly fabricate demonstrably false facts and figures in order to construct a fake consensus.

cfuserkildare

More info that might be helpfull,
Just remember this when going on your next holiday!!:-

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/26/epa-ruling-on-aircraft-emissions-paves-way-for-new-regulations

Mr.H

Of course humans are contributing if not the main factor in climate change. It's fact. Not a theory

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

There's a word that describes someone who is themselves (as you have stated in this very thread) a parent, and a petrol engined car driver who is constantly berating others about THEIR decision to use fossil fuels and for having children.

Constantly berating people for having children or driving a car?
Where did I do this even once on this thread? (or anywhere else for that matter)

It is identical to the typical ABC1 Guardian AGW alarmist commenter that we discussed earlier, using every opportunity to order everyone else to be childless, cycling vegans.

And it is lapped up by the simple hordes of Kardashian followers who are now looking towards a dark winter which will be eased somewhat by the joys of I'm a Celebrity.


One word aptly described those posts that we see, whether it's here in this thread or whether it's from the high flying Gaurdian commentators:

Two words actually, unqualified hypocrisy.

Definition of unqualified

1 :not fit :not having requisite qualifications


Definition of hypocrite

1 :a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 :a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Ad hominem attacks, the last refuge of whoever is badly losing the argument.

Was there something about "respecting the scientific method"?

Meaningless words at this point having been caught out trying to relentlessly fabricate demonstrably false facts and figures in order to construct a fake consensus.

I don't need to make up false facts or figures, the evidence is on my side of the argument. (unlike your friends at the notrickszone who are happy to falsify evidence and misprepresent scientists with out even a hint of shame)

You love semantic arguments because they distract from the central issues. There is an overwhelming consensus of scientists that AGW is real and a serious threat that needs to be dealt with. Every single scientific body, academy of sciences and university department of science that I have ever come across supports the theory of AGW. You have been asked to find a single one that doesn't, and instead you deflect by calling me names, thereby demonstrating that you know that the scientific consensus is real but you don't want to admit it because of your little semantic games.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't need to make up false facts or figures, the evidence is on my side of the argument.

Yes you do. You're at it constantly and continue even when you're caught out.

Here you are explaining to someone in great detail about how the IPCC came to make an error and claim that the Himalaya Galcier would be gone in twenty years time, basically, it could happen to anyone, bit it was the scientific community that spotted the error and saved the day:



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86710242&postcount=151


Roll forward some and guess what, I'm the one explaining to you about the IPCC'S error after you tried it on with your scaremongering about them being possibly gone by 2040.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104942877&postcount=400

Akrasia you are constantly being found out lying and chancing your arm.

Akrasia wrote: »

Every single scientific body, academy of sciences and university department of science that I have ever come across supports the theory of AGW.

Good for you.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Yes you do. You're at it constantly and continue even when you're caught out.

Here you are explaining to someone in great detail about how the IPCC came to make an error and claim that the Himalaya Galcier would be gone in twenty years time, basically, it could happen to anyone, bit it was the scientific community that spotted the error and saved the day:



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86710242&postcount=151


Roll forward some and guess what, I'm the one explaining to you about the IPCC'S error after you tried it on with your scaremongering about them being possibly gone by 2040.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104942877&postcount=400

Akrasia you are constantly being found out lying and chancing your arm.

I'm lying because i forgot about a minor controversy from 5 years ago?
And when it was pointed out that I was wrong, i immediately acknowledged it and took back that claim. Yes, these truly are the hallmarks of a constant liar.

Good for you.

I'm arguing with a child

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes, these truly are the hallmarks of a constant liar.

You mean if the cap fits?

Yeah, it's fitting you pretty good.

You're now saying you "forgot" that you knew that the IPCC had made an error.

You must also have forgotten that it publicly apologised for it.

You then also "forgot" that you'd explained all about it here to someone in great detail, and then you just happened to use the error you had "forgotten" about in your scaremongering about CAGW.

You're just running on auto pilot.

You just "forgot" all about it.

Someone will buy that explanation.

I have absolutely no doubt about that.

dense

cfuserkildare wrote: »

More info that might be helpfull,
Just remember this when going on your next holiday!!:-

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/26/epa-ruling-on-aircraft-emissions-paves-way-for-new-regulations

Elsewhere in the Guardian, a plea to one and all to go and watch Al Gore's flopped "movie" about the sky falling in:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/nov/15/an-inconvenient-sequel-the-science-history-and-politics-of-climate-change

-Christmas is just around the corner and the Gores could do with a little help at this time.

dense

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

The person you've linked to has no formal qualifications no peer reviewed publications. He's a crank hobbyist.

That's highly ironic now isn't it?

Your advice to disregard the unqualified armchair scientists, knowing what we now know.

Jumped the gun a bit there I'd say in the rush to diss the author.

Subcomandante Marcos

dense wrote: »

That's highly ironic now isn't it?

Your advice to disregard the unqualified armchair scientists, knowing what we now know.

Jumped the gun a bit there I'd say in the rush to diss the author.

Not really. Akrasia's posts have been factual, he's been concise and patient but never claimed to be an expert and never claimed to be an authority. He's not setting up researchgate profiles and posting unreviewed nonsense and having
people trying to use it as evidence to support an argument.

dense

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Not really. Akrasia's posts have been factual, he's been concise and patient but never claimed to be an expert and never claimed to be an authority.

So you're withdrawing your previous advice to disregard unqualified armchair scientists?

Maybe make up your mind on that one Subcomandante Marcos.

Also, in what sense are Akrasias factually inaccurate posts "factual and concise"?

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

He's not setting up researchgate profiles and posting unreviewed nonsense and having
people trying to use it as evidence to support an argument.

Why do you call the research "nonsense"?

Your initial reasoning was because the author was unqualified.

What's the new reason please, now that a lack of qualifications doesn't bother you?

Akrasia sets up a profile and posts nonsense and you don't have any objection.


Akrasia quite remarkably went on to say that those who cited the study didnt read it.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105269758&postcount=1043


Please explain this gift that Arkrasia possesses which enables them to determine that people did not read it. Do you also have that gift, if so, what's it like?

Or, is Akrasia on their own on that one.
Nothing to do with you. Yet it's apparently factual and concise.

You've been drawn deep into Akrasia's web:

"O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive."

Your posts are beginning to look a little bit silly.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

So you're withdrawing your previous advice to disregard unqualified armchair scientists?

Maybe make up your mind on that one Subcomandante Marcos.

Also, in what sense are Akrasias factually inaccurate posts "factual and concise"?



Why do you call the research "nonsense"?

Your initial reasoning was because the author was unqualified.

What's the new reason please, now that a lack of qualifications doesn't bother you?

Akrasia sets up a profile and posts nonsense and you don't have any objection.


Akrasia quite remarkably went on to say that those who cited the study didnt read it.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105269758&postcount=1043


Please explain this gift that Arkrasia possesses which enables them to determine that people did not read it. Do you also have that gift, if so, what's it like?

Or, is Akrasia on their own on that one.
Nothing to do with you. Yet it's apparently factual and concise.

You've been drawn deep into Akrasia's web:

"O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive."

Your posts are beginning to look a little bit silly.

Your attempts at discrediting climate science by trying to discredit me is a very transparent 'poisoning the well' fallacy.

The problem is, I'm not the source of my claims, you can call me unqualified all you like, that's fine, I am, but I'm not asking anyone to trust my ability to do rigorous science. That's why I provide sources to back up what I say. And the difference between my sources and your sources, is that I try to find the most recent, best qualified, peer reviewed, sources who are actively engaging in the scientific literature.

On the other hand, your sources are a complete hodge podge of out of date data, newspaper editorials from decades ago, blogs that have been demonstrated to manipulate and falsify data, and fringe amature, untrained scientists self publishing their work claiming to find gaping flaws in climate science.

Yet we still engage with you Dense, for some reason, we still open your links on the off chance that they might support your claims (without having to 'read between the lines')

I'm not sure you're winning many friends with your abusive accusation that non climate deniers like to watch the Kardashians.

Samaris

Akrasia has more patience than I do, that's for sure.

Regarding the contuguous United States, it is one of the cooler regions thus far, likely primarily due to the localised emissions of aerosols over the lower mid-East. The pattern followed of cooling unril aerosols from heavily polluting plants was cut down on by, ironically, the Clean Air Act. This, while neccessary to the health of those living in the region (breathing sulfates ain't reccommended), also had the effect of reducing a negative forcing factor and the positive forcing factor of 'greenhouse gases' started to dominate again. So for much of the 20thC, warming was likely low, and indeed may only have shown up through recalibration, which, yes, was reasonable.

I realise dense'll take this the way he likes, but the truth is that effects are not even across the globe. One can certainly choise a region conducive to one's opinion, but it needs to be taken in context of the larger system. The reason climate change is both complex and fascinating is that it spans multiple disciplines and studies a huge, intricately interconnected system.

On a side-note to this; there have been suggestions mooted regarding intentional emissions of sulfate aerosols and other compounds with similar effect to force a cooling factor to counter the warming forcing. Tbh, this sounds like a dreadful idea to me and I would be very surprised if it gets anywhere. Sulfates have their own issues and it is likely to set off its own unforeseen consequences. Filling the house with turf might warm it a bit, but it's probably better to turn off the aircon instead!

Scientists have always been cautious about applying the principles of what projections expect vs any individual event. This is sensible as any individual event may have been spurred furthr by unrelated events. However, with those caveats, hurricane Ophelia was a very interesting phenomenom as it was so unusual. It quite simply does not tend to happen as the waters near Ireland are usually too cool to sustain a storm like that. We have observed those waters warming - and even effects from it like more sharks moving north. The waters this year were warm enough to allow for it and judging by patterns and observed trends, this is likely to continue.

Two regions, both with interesting feedback loops from adding substances to the atmosphere in unnaturally large quantities. One gives a faint cooling trend (until it was removed), one showing effects with less negative forcings (caveat; sulfates did have an effect over much of the North Atlantic too, but its harder to quantify than the major emissions source over the US).

It is important to be aware that while CO2, methane et al are dominant factors, not everything man-made in the atmosphere gives the same effect. Currently, heating factors are very much dominant over cooling ones, although the irony of the Clean Air Act's role never fails to amuse me. System's relatively robust, but we can pretty easily screw woth it and rarely fully know the consequences.

Doctor Jimbob

There's a huge difference between an unqualified person discussing a topic and and unqualified person writing a paper on said topic.

I would have thought that was obvious.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Your attempts at discrediting climate science by trying to discredit me is a very transparent 'poisoning the well' fallacy.

Can you explain the science behind claiming to know that those who cited the study I linked to didn't read it?

What scientific method did you employ to reach that conclusion.

Akrasia wrote: »

The problem is, I'm not the source of my claims, you can call me unqualified all you like, that's fine, I am, but I'm not asking anyone to trust my ability to do rigorous science. That's why I provide sources to back up what I say. And the difference between my sources and your sources, is that I try to find the most recent, best qualified, peer reviewed, sources who are actively engaging in the scientific literature.

The author of the study I linked to also provided a list of links to their sources, but you've decided that it's not to be considered or evaluated because you have decided that those who have cited it didn't read it.

Pure nonsense Akrasia.

Akrasia wrote: »

On the other hand, your sources are a complete hodge podge of out of date data, newspaper editorials from decades ago, blogs that have been demonstrated to manipulate and falsify data, and fringe amature, untrained scientists self publishing their work claiming to find gaping flaws in climate science.

Manipulating data is the preserve of NOAA and NASA.

If the data isnt conforming to the agenda, it gets adjusted until it does.

If the temperature data isn't showing a rise, it is manipulated on the basis of equipment not being correctly calibrated by scientists first time round.

The last one I showed was where the previously widely acknowledged hiatus is now being erased from the records because of alleged issues with satellite data.

Akrasia wrote: »

Yet we still engage with you Dense, for some reason, we still open your links on the off chance that they might support your claims (without having to 'read between the lines')

My links informed you that NASA had added a half degree of warming to US records.

You refused to read the US government report I supplied, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

My links from NASA informed you that the sun, not human activity, is responsible for 15% of warming.

You said a link from NOAA showed that it had been hacked or the victim of an internal sabotage

You refuse to consider anything outside of what's referenced in IPCC reports and make sweeping claims with no evidence.

These are not the marks of someone who respects "the scientific method".

These are indicators that someone has aligned to an ideology and will say whatever comes off the top of their heads to defend it.

Defending the faith.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm not sure you're winning many friends with your abusive accusation that non climate deniers like to watch the Kardashians.

I don't mind, they are what I class as the 'would of" generation.

Whether I'm wrong about whether the follow the Kardashians or not doesn't really matter, Irish society is dumbing down and is losing the ability to think critically and to effectively debate issues.

People will refuse to read a report put in front of them, people will claim to know that those citing a report haven't read it; is this ringing any bells?


"One in five Irish graduates has no more than (a) basic grasp of language and numeracy.


Irish university students have some of the poorest literacy and numeracy skills in the developed world, based on an analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development"


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/oecd-finds-literacy-an-issue-among-university-students-1.2515918?mode=amp

And it's not uniquely an Irish problem.


Is winning friends by toeing the line important to me? No.

I like to question things. I like to look at different angles.

I'm not a walking facsimile of IPCC reports.

I'm not sure there are many "climate deniers". The question is whether you believe the climate shouldn't change.

The climate is not mechanical. It will change over time.

What we are leaving for future generations is a legacy of falsified adjusted temperature records.

Blips are erased, pauses are turned into increases.
What was scientifically accepted as being correct yesterday is replaced by new and improved warmer data, much like the ads for washing up liquid, which makes one question the quality of the old stuff, which must have been atrocious.


There is no evidence that co2 is causing climate change.

Why do you think the 8m scientists in the world are maintaining a position of keeping out of the argument, of not actively endorsing the AGW theory and being "Concerned Scientists"?


Sure, it may be coincidental, but I'm also sure they've heard of "The Consensus Project" and would be only too happy to organise a million signatures that demonstrates a willingness to row in behind AGW if they endorsed it.

But it's not happening.

There is no scientific consensus endorsing the AGW theory.

There is no evidence that co2 is causing climate change.

If there is a peer reviewed research paper which proves it does please present it here.

I'm sure the IPCC would like to have it too.

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There's a huge difference between an unqualified person discussing a topic and and unqualified person writing a paper on said topic.

I would have thought that was obvious.

Can you elaborate? It's like a joke without a punchline as it is.

We've two unqualified people, one writing about a topic and publishing it, and one discussing the same topic, are you saying the one who is publishing should be treated with more (or less) respect?

Why?

Or the one who hasnt published but is discussing it should be taken more (or less) seriously?

Why?

Or should they both be discounted? Or both treated equally?
In which case there's no "huge difference".

What is the "huge difference" you're citing?

You haven't said what it is.

srsly78

Passing junior cert science is the difference.

dense

Here is an up to date report from Met Eireann using climate models to demonstrate temperatures and rainfall for the last few decades.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?q=http://edepositireland.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/79820/201703.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjBlpDyh8PXAhWhCMAKHTGJDRsQFggXMAU&usg=AOvVaw0kYWUXfw3o6n-4y2gLwzPb

For the life of me I can't see any of the graphs showing a trend which indicates temperatures or rainfall has (climate) changed in those decades.

If I am missing something would someone please point it out.

I could well be misreading it.

Doctor Jimbob

dense wrote: »

Can you elaborate? It's like a joke without a punchline as it is.

We've two unqualified people, one writing about a topic and publishing it, and one discussing the same topic, are you saying the one who is publishing should be treated with more (or less) respect?

Why?

Or the one who hasnt published but is discussing it should be taken more (or less) seriously?

Why?

Or should they both be discounted? Or both treated equally?
In which case there's no "huge difference".

What is the "huge difference" you're citing?

You haven't said what it is.

One is commenting on published research, the other is publishing their research.

I see a far bigger problem with someone unqualified publishing their own research than just commenting on what's already out there. It gives it a false appearance of legitimacy, IMO.

It's like the difference between being a newsreader or a political analyst on the news. One is just presenting details they've been given, the other is out doing their own research. That's probably a rubbish analogy to be fair but it's the best I could come up with off the top of my head.

Akrasia

Hey Dr Jimbob, wanna go for a ride in my home made Jet Airliner?

I haven't tested it or anything, and it's never actually flown, but I'm sure it's just as good as those Boeing ones, what do they know anyway?

Subcomandante Marcos

dense wrote: »

Here is an up to date report from Met Eireann using climate models to demonstrate temperatures and rainfall for the last few decades.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?q=http://edepositireland.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/79820/201703.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjBlpDyh8PXAhWhCMAKHTGJDRsQFggXMAU&usg=AOvVaw0kYWUXfw3o6n-4y2gLwzPb

For the life of me I can't see any of the graphs showing a trend which indicates temperatures or rainfall has (climate) changed in those decades.

If I am missing something would someone please point it out.

I could well be misreading it.

It's brilliant when you present something you have absolutely no understanding of as evidence to support your ridiculous argument. You're the gift that keeps on giving. You don't even know what the paper you presented is, do you? Never mind not being able to see something, you clearly don't even know what you're looking at.

dense

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

One is commenting on published research, the other is publishing their research.

I see a far bigger problem with someone unqualified publishing their own research than just commenting on what's already out there. It gives it a false appearance of legitimacy, IMO.

Not if what they publish is accurate surely? That's still a problem for you?

If it's riddled with errors, yes I'd agree.

There's already a false sense of legitimacy surrounding the qualified researchers literature, with much of the accuracy now being questioned.

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's like the difference between being a newsreader or a political analyst on the news. One is just presenting details they've been given, the other is out doing their own research. That's probably a rubbish analogy to be fair but it's the best I could come up with off the top of my head.

It's certainly not what I'd expected you to say.

It is a rubbish analogy alright!

Akrasia being cast as Aengus Mac Grianna or Sharon Ní Bheoláin, being lauded for managing to get through their 30 minutes without fluffing their lines!

What about if they started making up the news up as they go along?

dense

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

It's brilliant when you present something you have absolutely no understanding of as evidence to support your ridiculous argument. You're the gift that keeps on giving. You don't even know what the paper you presented is, do you? Never mind not being able to see something, you clearly don't even know what you're looking at.

Are you sure you're not looking at an Argos catalogue?

Tell us what it the first paragraph says.

xckjoo

dense wrote: »

Are you sure you're not looking at an Argos catalogue?

Tell us what it the first paragraph says.

They don't put the Argos catalogue online. They use a website.

dense

xckjoo wrote: »

They don't put the Argos catalogue online. They use a website.

Thanks, but who said anything about "the" Argos catalogue?

I said "an" Argos catalogue. Do you see the difference? Two different words, not interchangeable. They even look different don't they?

An an/ The the. See where I'm coming from?

And, "an" Argos catalogue can be read online here:


https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no01-1973-74

dense

An interesting piece on Kiribati, an island which it's president thinks is sinking, due to climate change.

"We are the people who will be swimming,” he said.
“The question will be — will those people on the lifeboats bother to pull us in or push us away because we would be too problematic?”

Tough choices.


http://joannenova.com.au/2017/10/kiribati-sinking-like-titanic-but-59-million-times-slower/

It's written from an Australian perspective. And a sceptical one.

Who thinks the Ozzies should relocate them?

Thargor

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

It's brilliant when you present something you have absolutely no understanding of as evidence to support your ridiculous argument. You're the gift that keeps on giving. You don't even know what the paper you presented is, do you? Never mind not being able to see something, you clearly don't even know what you're looking at.

He seems to have no sense of scale or perspective either, as long as he can find a link to some loons blog or a 1970s newspaper article that agrees with his wrong ideas he seems to think that rebuts anything that NASA or the NOAA or the Met Office etc have published and peer reviewed, its next-level confirmation bias...

dense

Thargor wrote: »

He seems to have no sense of scale or perspective either, as long as he can find a link to some loons blog or a 1970s newspaper article that agrees with his wrong ideas he seems to think that rebuts anything that NASA or the NOAA or the Met Office etc have published and peer reviewed, its next-level confirmation bias...

Yawn. Anything worthwhile to contribute or are you still in shock Thargor?
Or, should I say "alarmed"?

I have looked at both sides. And I decided, because the claims were not adding up on the AGW side to become sceptical of them.

I would advise you to open your mind a little and begin doing a little research into the wholesale raping of temperature data, and separately, into the inexplicable demonisation of co2.

I'm sure it will assist you in accomplishing any goals you may have in terms of being actually able to constructively debate here.

Or maybe you're just happy to fire a few pot shots from the sidelines.

That bridge, it would make a very fine Christrmas present for someone.

Thargor

What are the bridge comments supposed to mean? You've mentioned them about 5 times now, are you actually insane?

dense wrote: »

into the inexplicable demonisation of co2.

That pretty much sums up the utter pointlessness of trying to debate with you, you're just completely and utterly clueless about the issue, theres not much else to say at this stage. Actually it was probably your theory about the planet heating up because of the 8 billion human heat engines breathing hot air all over the place that showed that, but at least you seem to be embarrassed enough to drop that. Oh wait no lets debate the secret conspiracy by all the scientists and every government and institution on the planet to switch the world over to socialism and wealth redistribution, yeah its a real constructive debate-fest with you in here alright dense...

Capt'n Midnight

dense

Thargor wrote: »

Actually it was probably your theory about the planet heating up because of the 8 billion human heat engines breathing hot air all over the place that showed that, but at least you seem to be embarrassed enough to drop that.

Not one bit, if it's a silly theory it's a silly theory. No worries.
And it was more about body heat and heat from all human and mechanical activities, heat from animals, the oceans, each and any source of heat on earth combined.

All that heat, and nothing to do with the co2 theory.

It's still there waiting to be disproved. But with hard figures and explanations.

Disliking it isn't the same as disproving it, anymore than liking it proves it.

Same goes for your c02 theory. It smacks of being highly susceptible to appeals of authority.
It's unproven, but that doesn't actually matter because you have taken the scientific approach of liking it.

Thargor wrote: »

What are the bridge comments supposed to mean? You've mentioned them about 5 times now, are you actually insane?

Please hold, I'm just going to fire up the internet so I can look it up for you.

Nah, if you don't know what it means, ask Subcomandante Marcos or Akrasia.

Oh, before you go, I have asked you not to refer to me as "he".
You did in your post before this one.
Maybe it was a slip, that's OK.

But I have have spoken to my counsellor at my trans support group about it, as this is a difficult time for me (we meet Thursdays 2pm), and they have advised me that I will have to take it further if I am going to continually to be referred to as "he".

We talked for a long time. I looked at some colors and patterns, some were real cool.

We eventually came up with a plan which I think we could both use and be happy with.

You can call me dense, which is my username, or if you don't want to use dense you can call me Denise.

It's only one letter in the difference I know, but it means a lot.
Just not "he". Or "she".
It's difficult for me to explain, and, y'know, I really don't think I should have to.



Laters.

dense

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Not one bit, if it's a silly theory it's a silly theory. No worries.
And it was more about body heat and heat from all human and mechanical activities, heat from animals, the oceans, each and any source of heat on earth combined.

All that heat, and nothing to do with the co2 theory.

It's still there waiting to be disproved. But with hard figures and explanations.

Disliking it isn't the same as disproving it, anymore than liking it proves it.

Same goes for your c02 theory. It smacks of being highly susceptible to appeals of authority.
It's unproven, but that doesn't actually matter because you have taken the scientific approach of liking it.



Please hold, I'm just going to fire up the internet so I can look it up for you.

Nah, if you don't know what it means, ask Subcomandante Marcos or Akrasia.

Oh, before you go, I have asked you not to refer to me as "he".
You did in your post before this one.
Maybe it was a slip, that's OK.

But I have have spoken to my counsellor at my trans support group about it, as this is a difficult time for me (we meet Thursdays 2pm), and they have advised me that I will have to take it further if I am going to continually to be referred to as "he".

We talked for a long time. I looked at some colors and patterns, some were real cool.

We eventually came up with a plan which I think we could both use and be happy with.

You can call me dense, which is my username, or if you don't want to use dense you can call me Denise.

It's only one letter in the difference I know, but it means a lot.
Just not "he". Or "she".
It's difficult for me to explain, and, y'know, I really don't think I should have to.



Laters.

I've called you dense under my breath plenty of times, and not because it's your username

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master.

What's your full name, age, date of birth, bank account number and address?

If you don't tell me, then you're denying me access to information and I should beware of you. (although the 'he' part is in dispute)

cfuserkildare

Has everyone forgotten that the amount of deforestation in the last 200 years could be the Primary cause of this issue?

Trees process CO2 and return O2 back into the atmosphere.

Why has no-one here mentioned this before??

dense

I've just been on the blower to the Vatican.

I was asking them if the Pope had any prayers that the alarmists could use in their fight to save the planet.

They gave me this, from his climate encyclical:

http://www.catholicclimatecovenant.org/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=153339

All together now.....

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

I've called you dense under my breath plenty of times, and not because it's your username

Ouch, that hurts my feelings!

Why not do something nice for me to make up for that then, by explaining to Thargor what the "bridge" references in my replies to their posts means?

Akrasia. Thargor.

Sounds like something out of a Greek tragedy!

Akrasia

cfuserkildare wrote: »

Has everyone forgotten that the amount of deforestation in the last 200 years could be the Primary cause of this issue?

Trees process CO2 and return O2 back into the atmosphere.

Why has no-one here mentioned this before??

Its a part of the problem, but the underlying issue is CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to stop increasing CO2 concentrations. We will need to both reduce our emissions, and restore lost forestry as part of the long term solution.

Deforestation makes things worse, but so does burning Carbon that had been sequestered underground for hundreds of millions of years

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Ouch, that hurts my feelings!

Why not do something nice for me to make up for that then, by explaining to Thargor what the "bridge" references in my replies to their posts means?

Akrasia. Thargor.

Sounds like something out of a Greek tragedy!

well there was a bridge between your climate scepticism and reality, but you burned that ages ago when you went on a few mad rants about nwo and body heat causing global warming.

oh, and before you go off on another tangent, I know about that conman who kept selling the brooklyn bridge a century ago, but it has absolutely nothing what so ever do do with climate change

dense

For anyone interested, here is another new study.

The author is Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm.

It concludes that glacial eustacy cannot be the driving force behind sea level rises because the observed changes are anti-correlated with the major changes in climate during the last 600 years.

You can read the study here.

https://www.graphyonline.com/archives/IJEES/2017/IJEES-137/

Just to be clear, I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the study, read it and if there are errors point them out.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

oh, and before you go off on another tangent, I know about that conman who kept selling the brooklyn bridge a century ago, but it has absolutely nothing what so ever do do with climate change

Of course it does, it just requires one to be gullible enough to swallow an absurd proposition without analysing the validity of the claims being made.

All you need is a convincing confidence trickster like say the Pope promising eternal life in exchange for x.

Or Obama making his completely fake 97% of scientists claim.

There are many potential purchasers of bridges, who will, as we've seen here, defend their absolute right to be sold a bridge.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

For anyone interested, here is another new study.

The author is Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm.

It concludes that glacial eustacy cannot be the driving force behind sea level rises because the observed changes are anti-correlated with the major changes in climate during the last 600 years.

You can read the study here.

https://www.graphyonline.com/archives/IJEES/2017/IJEES-137/

Just to be clear, I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the study, read it and if there are errors point them out.

In the abstract alone there is an error that leaps off the page.
"There is a total absence of data supporting the notion of a present sea level rise; on the contrary all available facts indicate present sea level stability. "

That is nonsense, there is lots of evidence of present sea level rises including global satellite measurements.

This seems to be a conference paper rather than a proper peer reviewed paper, and he seems to be using the same methodology that he used in previous research on the Maldives and Banghladesh which has been thoroughly discredited http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818105000780

The man himself is a bit of a crank, he believes in water dousing and even took part in James Randi's million dollar challenge

He used to be head of INQUA, but since he left, the organisation has made statements publicly distancing themselves from him, stating that he has fringe views and methods that 99% of scientists in his field do not agree with

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

In the abstract alone there is an error that leaps off the page.
"There is a total absence of data supporting the notion of a present sea level rise; on the contrary all available facts indicate present sea level stability. "

Thank you for engaging Akrasia.

We must look carefully at the language used.

Akrasia wrote: »

That is nonsense, there is lots of evidence of present sea level rises including global satellite measurements.

But only, yet again, after they've been retrospectively adjusted.

The scientists were apparently "puzzled" over the problem of
why sea levels weren't rising as much as had been expected:

Now, after puzzling over this discrepancy for years, scientists have identified its source: a problem with the calibration of a sensor on the first of several satellites launched to measure the height of the sea surface using radar.

Adjusting the data to remove that error suggests that sea levels are indeed rising at faster rates each year.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades/

This can't really be happening so often can it?

The same thing happened to "the pause". Erased due to adjustments.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

Very well educated engineers and bright, clever scientists employing the the very latest technical and respected scientific methods, managing yet again to screw up their initial calibrations, and lo and behold, yet another "adjustment" is required??

Which will happily ensure that the artificially adjusted data comes at least some way closer to the artificially modelled predictions?

These engineers and scientists really don't appear to be qualified to be in charge of anything more complicated than a walking stick.

And, it would have to make you wonder how well any of the thermometers used around the world are calibrated.
If they're all suffering from the same inevitable calibration inaccuracies we're currently at about 2 degrees above whatever with no catastrophic side effects. That's worth thinking about.....

But NASA, on the other hand, has a different take on the non-acceleration-as-expected of sea levels.

It cites a different study which suggests that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo was responsible for cooling the oceans (globally?) and cites a paper entitled

"Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?"

You've said I rely on semantics. I do.
I also critically analyse what is being said.

And Akrasia, so should you.
It would help you to decipher what's really going on in what passes for "science" today.

Scientists use language which they know is formulated to get them off the hook without too many red faces should things not actually go as the models or their studies predict.

There is no certainty in any of these papers.

To my mind, research cientists have realised they can make any claim they wish, as long as it is qualified with terms and conditions.

A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated.

It permits and encourages the magic roundabout of "scientific literature" where one peer reviewed paper can trounce another and it doesnt actually matter anymore, no one is ever going to be sacked over it, or have to face the public about it, because, the trounced paper only ever "suggested" something to begin with.

No warranty was ever implied. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware.
In other words, they're actually saying to the reader "You'd be foolish take this thing too seriously".

In normal dealings wouldn't we run a mile from such capers? We would.

Look out for the key watch words which roll the dice at all times in the author's favour; "likely", "possibly", "may", "rather", "suggests", "seems", "although", "however" and "believe" to name but a few.

They all appear throughout these papers. They should sound very loud alarm bells for you, as they do for me.

Which reinforces what I said about Thargor's bridge.

That title of the paper which NASA cited (Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?) quite clearly implies that the "expected sea rise" has not actually occurred and then, happy as you like, asks if the "detection" of said sea rise is "imminent"?

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/56/volcano-masks-quickening-pace-of-sea-level-rise

My translation of that is:

"When will the imminent sea rises actually be detected?"

I'd welcome your translation of it.

imminent
ˈɪmɪnənt/Submit
adjective
1.
about to happen.

Or, the widely predicted Algorian acceleration of sea level increases have not yet been observed, BUT IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THEY WILL, sometime, maybe..)



Final point.

If this debate was about Thalidomide statistics for example would you be so blasé about scientists constantly retrospectively adjusting their own scientific data?

Should CSO statisticians in future be encouraged to take the lead from climate scientists and start abitrarily retrospectively adjusting figures so that they'll match up with government policy expectations, blaming their computers for not being correctly calibrated earlier?

Once you excuse one you have to excuse them all.

Thargor

Wow looks like you had a pretty wild Friday night. That's not what the article says happened with sea level measurement by the way, how many times have you been caught lying about what's in a link and hoping nobody clicks on it in this thread now? Ironic that you then wrote that rambling essay about weasel words right after doing it, guilty conscience?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Thank you for engaging Akrasia.

We must look carefully at the language used.



But only, yet again, after they've been retrospectively adjusted.

The scientists were apparently "puzzled" over the problem of
why sea levels weren't rising as much as had been expected:



https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades/

This can't really be happening so often can it?

Why not? You expect that the very first satellite that we launch to monitor global sea level rise using a new and very precise technology is going to be perfect the first time? Calibration errors happen. The error was noticed when the data directly measured from tidal guages were compared with the satellite data, and they noticed that the Satellite was measuring the sea level as too high. The adjustment that they actually made, was to remove an adjustment that was put in at the start to account for expected changes in the satellite readings as the sensor aged, but it turns out that adjustment was not required and was actually skewing the results, so they went back to a more pure measurement which lined up better with known tidal guage data.

That's how calibration works by the way. It's done for all instruments. You take a known value and compare it with a reading from a device, if the reading is different from the known value, you adjust the device so that it matches the known value (or set of values).

When Hubble was launched, the mirror was very slightly wrong. The images came back blurry. By your logic, this means that the universe is in fact blurry, and those crystal clear images we get back now that the telescope is fixed (adjusted using another mirror to correct the error) must be wrong.

The same thing happened to "the pause". Erased due to adjustments.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

Very well educated engineers and bright, clever scientists employing the the very latest technical and respected scientific methods, managing yet again to screw up their initial calibrations, and lo and behold, yet another "adjustment" is required??

Yes. Cutting edge science comes always produces some errors. Those errors get corrected as we learn more about the technology and how to use it. Look at any technology, look at computer software, no matter how much testing is done, there are always some bugs when it's released, and often it takes multiple patches before those get ironed out.

Regarding the RSS satellite, this was one of the 'anomalies' that the climate skeptics were clinging onto when they were 'just asking questions' The theory behind global warming required faster warming in the troposphere than in the stratosphere, but the satellite measurements didn't show this. Skeptics used this as evidence that the theory was wrong and they had a point, there was a genuine anomaly there. But while the skeptics used it as evidence for why global warming isn't happening, they couldn't explain the readings from the satellite either, they had no explanation for the anomaly, they just liked that there was some uncertainty that they could point to to discredit climate science. But when the satellite calibration error was identified, it made sense. The researchers didn't just 'invent' a decaying orbit which explained the incorrect readings, they measured it and verified it, so that even if the skeptics don't like the adjustments, they had to accept them because they were done for a very good reason.

Which will happily ensure that the artificially adjusted data comes at least some way closer to the artificially modelled predictions?

These engineers and scientists really don't appear to be qualified to be in charge of anything more complicated than a walking stick.

You keep saying 'these engineers and scientists'.
Do you think it's the same scientists who are creating the models and designing the satellites, and launching them, and monitoring them, and interpreting the data, and verifying the data?

No, it's many many different teams of scientists doing all of these things, checking each others work, verifying the data and calibrating it against their own findings to see if they fit. When errors are discovered, it's almost always a different team of scientists to the ones that created the original data or satellite, and when the error is discovered, it's verified by another independent team of scientists, and then if there are adjustments required, these are done by another team of scientists and probably several others doing the same thing independently to their own models and datasets.

Climate science is one of the most carefully studied fields of science at the moment, while there are always going to be errors or bad data analysis, these errors get corrected because there are so many independent teams of scientists all sharing the data and using them for their own research, so if one team was trying to falsify the data, other teams would notice very quickly that it's skewing their own research.

And, it would have to make you wonder how well any of the thermometers used around the world are calibrated.
If they're all suffering from the same inevitable calibration inaccuracies we're currently at about 2 degrees above whatever with no catastrophic side effects. That's worth thinking about.....

Think about it so. There are millions of thermometers out there, what are the odds that they're all suffering from the same calibration error.
They might all be calibrated slightly wrong, but some will be reading hot, some will be reading cold, when the calibration error is random, they tend to balance each other out and when you have a very large dataset, the signal emerges from the noise.
When there are only a very small number of sensors, then calibration errors of individual sensors can have a very big impact on the results.

But NASA, on the other hand, has a different take on the non-acceleration-as-expected of sea levels.

It cites a different study which suggests that the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo was responsible for cooling the oceans (globally?) and cites a paper entitled

"Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?"

Volcanoes do cool the planet temporarily, we know that and we can see it on the temperature record. The reason it's temporary is because the aerosols fall to earth over a couple of years and then the underlying warming trend caused by the CO2 that we continue to emit surges forward. It's like if you're in a car with air conditioning on a hot day. As soon as you turn off the air conditioning, the car temperature surges to whatever the ambient temperature would have been.

You've said I rely on semantics. I do.
I also critically analyse what is being said.

And Akrasia, so should you.
It would help you to decipher what's really going on in what passes for "science" today.

Scientists use language which they know is formulated to get them off the hook without too many red faces should things not actually go as the models or their studies predict.

There is no certainty in any of these papers.

To my mind, research cientists have realised they can make any claim they wish, as long as it is qualified with terms and conditions.

All scientific research is communicated in the language of uncertainty and probability.
Do you think the scientists at CERN said 'We have definitely discovered the Higgs Boson'
No, they said we have discovered it a level of confidence of 5 sigma

It permits and encourages the magic roundabout of "scientific literature" where one peer reviewed paper can trounce another and it doesnt actually matter anymore, no one is ever going to be sacked over it, or have to face the public about it, because, the trounced paper only ever "suggested" something to begin with.

Science is a bit messy, but the more research is done, replicated and verified, the closer we get to the truth.

Look out for the key watch words which roll the dice at all times in the author's favour; "likely", "possibly", "may", "rather", "suggests", "seems", "although", "however" and "believe" to name but a few.

They all appear throughout these papers. They should sound very loud alarm bells for you, as they do for me.

Its the opposite actually. Those who claim to be absolutely certain are the most likely to be wrong. Science approaches the truth with each iteration. Charlatans claim to know things that they have come nowhere near close to proving.

Final point.

If this debate was about Thalidomide statistics for example would you be so blasbout scientists constantly retrospectively adjusting their own scientific data?

Should CSO statisticians in future be encouraged to take the lead from climate scientists and start abitrarily retrospectively adjusting figures so that they'll match up with government policy expectations, blaming their computers for not being correctly calibrated earlier?

Once you excuse one you have to excuse them all.

Its not the same scientists correcting their own work. It's thousands of scientists independently verifying and checking each others work. Two very very different things.

Samaris

dense wrote: »

Here is an up to date report from Met Eireann using climate models to demonstrate temperatures and rainfall for the last few decades.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?q=http://edepositireland.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/79820/201703.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjBlpDyh8PXAhWhCMAKHTGJDRsQFggXMAU&usg=AOvVaw0kYWUXfw3o6n-4y2gLwzPb

For the life of me I can't see any of the graphs showing a trend which indicates temperatures or rainfall has (climate) changed in those decades.

If I am missing something would someone please point it out.

I could well be misreading it.

You are. It is a very technical paper that takes a bit if wading through but it neither asks nor answers any question about changes to observed parameters over the period of 1981-2015, but rather how accurate specific models are in inputting the parameters and rendering the information, with consequent impacts on prediction. As it is -reanalysis-, and de facto after the fact, the modelled data for - say, June 1995 - can be compared to what actually happened in June 1995 to see how well the model captured it and what improvements can be made.

It is nothing to do with whether or not there has been increasing or decreasing rainfall or temperatures over that time and those charts have no relation to changes in either parameter; they are based on how accurate the model was.

MERA seems to have done reasonably well though. Mostly used NCAR myself, but I remember this project gaining steam.



By the way, people will link papers that are unrelated and claim they are relevant and support X argument. This is a common tactic/ error and very off-putting for anyone who is not interested in trudging through what can be dry, complicated and turgid prose, usually on points of obscurely narrow scope. Here's the easiest way to deal with it:

Read the abstract. Forget what you've been told it says. Is it talking about the question you are interested in? If unclear, read the introduction and conclusion. Avoid the methodology for the moment.

If a read of those three sections indicate it is related, then (as needed/interested/relevent) go into the observations and methodology. Those are the most complicated and technical parts if a paper ( and frankly the methodology is usually the most boring too!). But don't be afraid to not read it all in order. Most people will start to struggle if they're trying to comprehend the technical stats of the models or method before they're sure what the question the paper is answering. As the methodology is pretty close to the start, it tends to make people give up before they're even sure of what's being addressed if they are concientiously reading from start to finish.

dense

Samaris wrote: »

You are. It is a very technical paper that takes a bit if wading through but it neither asks nor answers any question about changes to observed parameters over the period of 1981-2015, but rather how accurate specific models are in inputting the parameters and rendering the information, with consequent impacts on prediction.

Thank you. I did say I'm not an expert and I welcome the detailed explanation.

The impact and accuracy of predictions can only be gauged by comparison with actual observations.

If the models are accurate they should be corresponding well to observations.

Section 4.2

Verification of Surface Parameters.

The accompanying text states that:

"The (MERA) biases in 2 m temperatures relative to observations are lower than the corresponding ERA-Interim biases
for the same reason (Fig. 5b)."

My attention was drawn to Fig. 5b
where the Y axis is °C and X is time.

Which lead me to (wrongly) assume it could be taken as a rendering of "observed" temperature variations over time corresponding closely with modelled temperature data with deviations and biases shown, or vice versa.

It is modelled data, not observed data and no correlation was being shown, that's fair enough.

What does the °C on the Y axis signify?

dense

In 1986 US government and private research organizations, predicted a terrible future: by the year 2000, the atmosphere and weather will grow warmer by several degrees and life - animal, plant, human - will be threatened.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/24/movies/earth-s-climatic-crisis-examined-by-nova.html

The scientific recommendations for ameliorating the impending ice age forecast in the 1970s are remarkably similar to the scientific recommendations for ameliorating impending global warming.




The similarities are striking.

Courtesy of the world's most visited site on climate change.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

Samaris

dense wrote: »

Thank you. I did say I'm not an expert and I welcome the detailed explanation.

The impact and accuracy of predictions can only be gauged by comparison with actual observations.

If the models are accurate they should be corresponding well to observations.

Section 4.2

Verification of Surface Parameters.

The accompanying text states that:

"The (MERA) biases in 2 m temperatures relative to observations are lower than the corresponding ERA-Interim biases
for the same reason (Fig. 5b)."

My attention was drawn to Fig. 5b
where the Y axis is °C and X is time.

Which lead me to (wrongly) assume it could be taken as a rendering of "observed" temperature variations over time corresponding closely with modelled temperature data with deviations and biases shown, or vice versa.

It is modelled data, not observed data and no correlation was being shown, that's fair enough.

What does the °C on the Y axis signify?

Looks like how well it reproduced temperature as observed. Within 1-3 degrees of the observed temperatures - bear in mind that it is "relative to observations" - if the temperature at X point in time was 5C and the model got 5C, that is a point on the chart showing good correlation - if the temperature was 15C at another point in time and the model got 15C too, it will show as a "line" of consistently accurate modelling results, with no bearing on what differences in temperature itself were between those two points.

It does not appear to have any relation to changes in temperature, only changes in how well the model reproduced the temperatures observed.

dense

Samaris wrote: »

Looks like how well it reproduced temperature as observed. Within 1-3 degrees of the observed temperatures - bear in mind that it is "relative to observations" - if the temperature at X point in time was 5C and the model got 5C, that is a point on the chart showing good correlation - if the temperature was 15C at another point in time and the model got 15C too, it will show as a "line" of consistently accurate modelling results, with no bearing on what differences in temperature itself were between those two points.

It does not appear to have any relation to changes in temperature, only changes in how well the model reproduced the temperatures observed.

Well that is a possible explanation but we're not quite certain its the correct one are we?
It's an educated guess, because we haven't been given much to go on.

It should be perfectly clear to both of us what °C on the Y axis signifies, but it isn't.

If there is no correlation between the modelled and observed temperature demonstrated, how exactly is one to verify the author's claim that modelled and observed temperatures have corresponded well?