Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

1141517192027

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    This is what you said "To the exact number of climate scientists in the world, how many of them were surveyed"

    Apart from the garbled syntax, you appear to be asking for the exact number of climate scientists in the world, to which there is no answer because there are grey areas between people who work on the fringes of the field, people doing PHDs or masters who might not yet be fully qualified but are still capable of publishing, people who are retired but still teach occasionally or give lectures, or review papers sometimes etc etc. How many climate scientists are there? How many twigs are there on a tree? (that's actually a stick, not a twig, no wait, it's snapped in half, it's two twigs)


    You're so full of sh1t dense. You don't have to know exactly how many 'climate scientists there are' if you're sampling. If there are a colony of penguins in antarctica and you want to know what percentage of them have a certain gene, you don't have to take blood samples from every single penguin, or count every single penguin. You just need to get a representative sample and then test them, and the percentage of that gene in the sample is likely to be representative of that population.

    You can get a good idea of the percentage of opinion by taking a representative sample of a given population and asking them. It's how polling works. Is the answer 100% accurate? No, but if you get a finding of 97% agreeing on something, it's a pretty safe bet that there is a very stong general consensus on that subject amongst that group of people. (in this case, actively publishing researchers in fields specifically relevant to climate science)


    In order to get a percentage of anything, you need to know what you're measuring. All of the studies that talk about the consensus explain their methodology clearly and explain what the percentages relate to. It's either respondents to a survey (using a sample of scientists, not every single scientist as you seem to demand) or it's analysis of the published literature (not all the literature, just the papers that meet certain minimum criteria for inclusion in the sample)

    Anyway. You've already admitted that 100% of all reputable scientific bodies in the world think you're wrong. So whatever we can say about the climate change consensus. Everyone who knows anything about this topic knows you're full of sh1t.


    So now you're suggesting that climate science is so flaky that it's impossible to define either what a climate scientist actually, is or many chancers are out there masquerading as "climate scientists"

    So, to turn to sampling.

    12000 abstracts written by 30,000 authors.

    How many abstracts endorsed AGW? 33% So far so good.

    Of the 30,000 authors sampled, how many endorsed AGW? 1100 or 4%.


    Can you explain to the readers why you want them to believe that that in any way relates to 97% of scientists, or indeed, 97% of climate scientists?









    How many scientists? 8 million

    How many are climate scientists?


    Who knows.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,398 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You are either mistakenly or deliberately distorting info - the former is ignorance, the latter is intellectual dishonesty

    e.g. if there are 1,000 scientific papers on a subject. And of those, 100 papers express a final conclusion (the other papers may have no remit to present conclusions). And of those 100 papers that present a conclusion, 90% are of conclusion X

    The scientific consensus supports conclusion X
    It equates to 97% of all the papers that discussed the causes of climate change. 67% referenced climate change but didn’t talk about the reasons climate change was happening. Those papers were probably about the effects of climate change. The ones that did address the reasons for climate change were 97% in favour of human activity being the reason. Not only have I explained this before the link itself makes that clear.



    Just did.



    97% is the number of papers that, having an opinion on climate change, blamed human activity. Again spelt out in the link.



    This is your misunderstanding of stats, and percentages again.

    The number of papers that attributed a cause to climate change and blamed human activity was 97%.

    The 4% is the number answering the emails. That’s itself a misreading number as of course there are more than one author to a paper so you don’t need multiple authors to answer.

    But it’s irrelevant. The whole email bollocks is more typical goalpost moving, similar to the way children argue.

    The number of papers that attributed a cause to climate change and blamed human activity was 97%. That’s all you need to know. That was your link, and nobody else brought it up.

    You posted a link that clearly refuted your own position but couldn’t work out what the paper data even though it explained in fairly remedial fashio what the consensus was.
    Pherekydes wrote: »
    If you go back to post #205, Dense posted the following:

    "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."

    So the calculation is:

    32.6/(32.6+0.7+0.3) = .97 = 97%

    It's an actual calculation, not just some random figure pulled out of someone's arse.
    The 97% is (once again) the number of papers that discussed the reasons for climate change that blamed human activities. The other papers weren’t about the reasons but something else.

    Let’s say there are a lot of papers about crime. And some of those papers are about the reasons for criminality, the others are about the effects of crime.

    67% of papers are about crime but not looking into causes. They just mention crime.

    Let’s say that of the papers that do look for a reason for criminality 97% blame poverty or environmental issues, and 3% don’t.

    We could accurately say then that criminologists overwhelmingly blame the environment/poverty for crime. At 97%.

    The papers that didn’t reference the reasons don’t count. That’s not what they were about.

    5th time explaining remedial percentages.


    3s search. There might be simpler explanations but they all amount to the same. If anyone still doesn't understand the breakdown, please just say so. I don't think anyone here has a problem with someone still trying to understand something. Continuously and purposefully misrepresenting things on the other hand.....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Dr Brown wrote: »
    There is far more CO2 in the sea than from any human activity.


    And this proves???

    The Carbon cycle partially involves CO2 getting absorbed by the oceans and sequestered under the sea floor or in the deep ocean. The atmospheric CO2 content is increasing because humans are emitting more extra carbon dioxide than natural processes can sequester

    Humans don't produce the majority of Carbon dioxide emissions in nature. The difference we make is that before we started emitting CO2, the system was in balance. The rate of CO2 emission by natural sources was very closely balanced by the rate of CO2 sequestration by natural processes.

    Then humans came along and started pouring the CO2 that took millions of years to be sequestered as fossil fuels into the air over period of decades. We knocked the system out of equilibrium, and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increased from 280ppm to now over 400ppm.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭WesternZulu


    I do often wonder if the shoe was on the other foot and 97% of climate scientists said that climate change is not occurring would the very same people who deny climate change be as unconvinced.

    The fact is that to many people climate change doesn't conform to their worldview so they will not accept the scientific rigor behind the research under any circumstances.

    If 97% of doctors agreed that a certain activity was causing you to become sick I'm pretty sure you'd stop. In fact many of the big players in the fossil fuel industry have used the same agencies that the smoking companies employed back in the day to discredit the research proving smoking was bad for your health.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    3s search. There might be simpler explanations but they all amount to the same. If anyone still doesn't understand the breakdown, please just say so. I don't think anyone here has a problem with someone still trying to understand something. Continuously and purposefully misrepresenting things on the other hand.....


    You might be good enough to link to what research or poll you're getting the above 97% from?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,398 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Is there more than one paper with the 97% findings being discussed in this thread?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Is there more than one paper with the 97% findings being discussed in this thread?

    studies_consensus.jpg

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »

    If there are a colony of penguins in antarctica and you want to know what percentage of them have a certain gene, you don't have to take blood samples from every single penguin, or count every single penguin. You just need to get a representative sample and then test them, and the percentage of that gene in the sample is likely to be representative of that population.


    Without first knowing the size of the population your "sample" does not represent anything.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,398 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Akrasia wrote: »


    Ah nice one. Good to see it so roundly confirmed. I thought we had always been discussing the 2013 Cook et al. findings.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Is there more than one paper with the 97% findings being discussed in this thread?




    Yes quite a few.
    Some of them had as few as 79 respondents.



    Others asked scientists with no relevant expertise in the area for their opinion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    xckjoo wrote: »
    Ah nice one. Good to see it so roundly confirmed. I thought we had always been discussing the 2013 Cook et al. findings.


    No worries, the findings of Cook et al were what President Obama misconstrued in his premature tweet to the world about "97% of scientists".


    He should have said 4% of scientists (The study found that around 1180 of the 29083 scientists cited endorsed the AGW theory).
    We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own
    papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate).
    After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not
    climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received
    self-ratings from 1189 authors.

    The self-rated levels of
    endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated
    papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed
    the consensus.

    Among self-rated papers not expressing a
    position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as
    endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored
    a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.

    On the last line there, you may pretend to be unaware that over 60% of the abstracts analysed failed to endorse AGW.


    As you are seeing in this thread, accuracy and honesty are not tenets upheld by those pushing the AGW theory, with President Obama being no exception.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,398 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    It's amazing how poor peoples understanding of basic statistics is. Even when it has been explained to them frequently and ad nauseum. Or else they're purposefully ignoring so that they can attempt to mislead others.



    I wonder if when they're getting blood tests at the doctors if they insist on every single drop of blood in their body being tested.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    xckjoo wrote: »
    It's amazing how poor peoples understanding of basic statistics is. Even when it has been explained to them frequently and ad nauseum. Or else they're purposefully ignoring so that they can attempt to mislead others.



    I wonder if when they're getting blood tests at the doctors if they insist on every single drop of blood in their body being tested.

    Dense will never admit to understanding how those studies worked.

    Perhaps a much simpler statistic will do.
    There is a 0% consensus in favour of the 'skeptical' position (that climate change either isn't real, mostly caused by humans or a serious concern that needs to be tackled) amongst any respectable scientific institution or university science department anywhere in the world.

    Dense hasn't been able to find a single one that has issued a statement questioning the consensus on global warming, but on the other hand there are dozens of the most highly respected scientific bodies in the world who have issued statements supporting the consensus, including 80 national academies of science.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Dense hasn't been able to find a single one that has issued a statement questioning the consensus on global warming, but on the other hand there are dozens of the most highly respected scientific bodies in the world who have issued statements supporting the consensus, including 80 national academies of science.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002


    Any luck finding UCD's official climate change position statement that you said existed, and which you said would mirror your hysterical take about CAGW?



    No????
    It was another lie, Akrasia?
    Ever thought of changing your name to Pinochio?


    -The cap certainly fits.
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyDzhsYOoBsruWE0eCyPql8kaj0nJsQpphkFOYmum0MLZq3SO_Og


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Any luck finding UCD's official climate change position statement that you said existed, and which you said would mirror your hysterical take about CAGW?



    No????
    It was another lie, Akrasia?
    Ever thought of changing your name to Pinochio?


    -The cap certainly fits.
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyDzhsYOoBsruWE0eCyPql8kaj0nJsQpphkFOYmum0MLZq3SO_Og
    I already posted UCDs position on climate change. Their science department believe climate change is unequivocally caused by human activity.

    It's not my fault you refuse to accept facts


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I already posted UCDs position on climate change.

    No, you didn't, because you couldnt find it's official policy endorsing the CAGW theory.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    Their science department believe climate change is unequivocally caused by human activity.


    No, again, look at what you linked to:

    http://www.ucd.ie/earth/research/climate/

    You're displaying your customary inability to critically analyse what is being said, and what is not.

    Here you go, just so you can re-read it in order that you might properly understand it:
    Human activities, such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation have now been linked unequivocally to the warming of our planet.
    They just say warming has been linked to human activities, not caused by.

    Do you understand the difference?
    Quite clearly you don't, or don't want to.



    I expect them to have taken some time and great care in arriving at that rather sensible position.


    It is one which legitimately permits them to further acknowledge their incomplete understanding of climate science.


    It also discreetly (and wisely) acknowledges that correlation does not prove causation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    Now you're just being dense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    mikhail wrote: »
    Now you're just being dense.


    You'll need to misconstrue something in order to demonstrate that what I've said is incorrect.



    Can you point out where it says warming has been caused by human activities in the following statement?

    Climate

    Human activities, such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation have now been linked unequivocally to the warming of our planet. Temperature increases in certain regions of the globe will likely result in ice sheet reduction, increased flooding and more frequent extreme weather events.


    http://www.ucd.ie/earth/research/climate/


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭Rechuchote


    This graph expresses the situation most clearly:

    464679.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    The Guardian is finally after seeing some sense and is now washing it's hands of the fake consensus crew, presumably after having checked the facts.




    Note: this will be our final entry on Climate Consensus - the 97%. The Guardian has decided to discontinue its Science and Environment blogging networks.


    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/26/canada-passed-a-carbon-tax-that-will-give-most-canadians-more-money


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,398 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Funny how it's fine to read between the lines with The Guardian, but every single word of UCDs has to be picked apart (and misunderstood). Nothing to do with trying to force through someones own objective of course.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    I think Dense has made a prediction. That the Guardian, as of last Friday have changed their stance on climate change and from then on, will only be publishing commentary that challenges the climate consensus......

    Problem is, in the few days since dense made that prediction, the guardian have published at least 8 more news stories highlighting the dangers of climate change

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-change


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    I think Dense has made a prediction. That the Guardian, as of last Friday have changed their stance on climate change and from then on, will only be publishing commentary that challenges the climate consensus......

    Problem is, in the few days since dense made that prediction, the guardian have published at least 8 more news stories highlighting the dangers of climate change

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-change

    One can only hope it'll see sense, but at least it's good that they've dropped the 97% consensus waffle, right?


    I note that a number of socialist malcontents got themselves arrested in Westminster yesterday.



    Heard one of them on LBC trying (and failing) to articulate what they were protesting about, some mention of the climate being "broken", as I recall.

    November 17th is the big day of protest.


    https://risingup.org.uk/



    I expect you've begun paddling your canoe over to meet up with the rest of them to rebel against democracy like a good rebellious socialist?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    The weird rants about socialism have reentered the discussion...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    A new study in Nature has measured the amount of heat added to the worlds oceans by climate change and they have found that we have been underestimating the ocean heat content changes

    The studies authors Dr Laure Resplandy (Princeton) and Ralph Keeling (Scripps) say that this new finding means climate sensitivity estimates will need to be revised upwards, and that the lower estimates are essentially impossible now.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-ocean-temperature-heat-fossil-fuels-science-research-a8612796.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    A new study in Nature has measured the amount of heat added to the worlds oceans by climate change and they have found that we have been underestimating the ocean heat content changes

    The studies authors Dr Laure Resplandy (Princeton) and Ralph Keeling (Scripps) say that this new finding means climate sensitivity estimates will need to be revised upwards, and that the lower estimates are essentially impossible now.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-ocean-temperature-heat-fossil-fuels-science-research-a8612796.html


    More adjustments?
    The previous data was wrong, again??

    Well yes of course. Dispensing with data from thousands of unreliable Argo buoys which only cover the top half of the world's oceans, the authors favour a novel approach:

    Imagine if the ocean was only 30 feet deep,” said Resplandy, a former postdoctoral researcher at Scripps Oceanography. “Our data shows that it would have warmed by 6.5℃ (11.7℉) every decade since 1991. In comparison, the estimate of the last IPCC assessment report would correspond to a warming of only 4℃ (7.2℉) every decade.”
    To calculate total heat content, previous estimates relied on millions of measurements of ocean temperature. Many came from a network of robotic sensors developed by Scripps researchers known as Argo. Gaps in coverage, however, made this approach uncertain. Argo makes comprehensive measurements of ocean temperature and salinity across the globe, but complete network data only goes back to 2007 and only measures the upper half of the ocean. Several reassessments of heat content have been made in recent years using the ocean-temperature data – including the recent Argo data — which has led to upward revisions of the IPCC estimate.

    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/study-oceans-have-absorbed-60-percent-more-heat-previously-thought


    It also raises further serious doubts over whether current temperature goals – to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – are attainable.
    To banish these doubts, let us all acknowledge that the global temperature last year was the same as it was in 1996 and 1981, 15°C.




    https://web.archive.org/web/19970519061454/https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html


    https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    More adjustments?
    Otherwise known as 'Science'
    The previous data was wrong, again??
    No, it was correct, but it didn't give the full picture. Science is always iterating over previously established data. New analysis and data allows us to fine tune our knowledge, usually it doesn't mean the previous data was wrong, it means the error bars get smaller. (very rarely, there is a paradigm shift where whole established theories get thrown out and replaced. This requires a mountain of evidence that explains the facts better than the previous theory. Climate change denial is nowhere near providing this level of analysis)
    Well yes of course. Dispensing with data from thousands of unreliable Argo buoys which only cover the top half of the world's oceans, the authors favour a novel approach:

    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/study-oceans-have-absorbed-60-percent-more-heat-previously-thought

    If you disagree with their methods, you're perfectly entitled to write a paper establishing their errors and have it published in Nature. I won't hold my breath. Maybe one of the climate scientists who agrees with you could do it for you? Oh yeah, I forgot, there aren't any.
    To banish these doubts, let us all acknowledge that the global temperature last year was the same as it was in 1996 and 1981, 15°C.




    https://web.archive.org/web/19970519061454/https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html


    https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

    No it wasn't, you're a liar and a troll


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Otherwise known as 'Science'


    No, it was correct, but it didn't give the full picture. Science is always iterating over previously established data. New analysis and data allows us to fine tune our knowledge, usually it doesn't mean the previous data was wrong, it means the error bars get smaller. (very rarely, there is a paradigm shift where whole established theories get thrown out and replaced. This requires a mountain of evidence that explains the facts better than the previous theory. Climate change denial is nowhere near providing this level of analysis)



    If you disagree with their methods, you're perfectly entitled to write a paper establishing their errors and have it published in Nature. I won't hold my breath. Maybe one of the climate scientists who agrees with you could do it for you? Oh yeah, I forgot, there aren't any.


    No it wasn't, you're a liar and a troll


    You're getting a little tetchy Akrasia.

    The previous data can't have been correct if this new research is to be accepted, because the authors say that climate sensitivity is affected by their research, ie it has been previously miscalculated:


    Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 19916—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates,implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases.
    That's a big claim, that the previous data was so out that climate sensitivity now needs to be recalculated.



    The scientists who undertook this novel method of gas analysis have also.effectively dismissed previous efforts and methods of attempting to estimate the global ocean temperature:

    However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 20074,5.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8


    Imperfect, uncertain and sparse measurements are what you have been basing your previous ocean warming claims on, according to the authors.


    Sounds ropey alright.
    No wonder they had to make up data in the past.


    Can you explain why you now seem to prefer proxy gas analysis to extrapolate global ocean temperatures over direct measurements?


    On your assertion that I am a liar, please explain why you say that.

    I have given you links to what NASA say the the earth's average temperature was in 2017 and what it was in 1996 and Dr. Hansen's previous estimates from 1981 or whenever (your 286 to 288k +-1k) and you seem terribly upset because the data isn't tallying with the Extinction Rebellion set's agenda that you similarly push.


    You can't argue with what I've linked to, so instead you call me a liar and a troll.

    Stay classy Akrasia, and alarmed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    A new study in Nature has measured the amount of heat added to the worlds oceans by climate change and they have found that we have been underestimating the ocean heat content changes

    The studies authors Dr Laure Resplandy (Princeton) and Ralph Keeling (Scripps) say that this new finding means climate sensitivity estimates will need to be revised upwards, and that the lower estimates are essentially impossible now.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-ocean-temperature-heat-fossil-fuels-science-research-a8612796.html


    Oops, lots of errors found in your new climate sensitivity and ocean warming study Akrasia, despite it having passed peer review!


    Dr. Resplandy, the lead author, has been contacted for comment but has not yet responded.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/1059867965913354240



    https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


    Still, doesn't really matter, the people here who were furiously thanking you for posting a link to it dont particularly care for accuracy.


    They want a pied piper to follow.
    You've led them up the garden path again!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    You're getting a little tetchy Akrasia.

    The previous data can't have been correct if this new research is to be accepted, because the authors say that climate sensitivity is affected by their research, ie it has been previously miscalculated:




    That's a big claim, that the previous data was so out that climate sensitivity now needs to be recalculated.

    If it was within the high range of previous estimates, then the previous estimates were still correct within their margin of error.

    That's how science works. Findings are reported with a margin of error based on how much information is available to support the conclusions. As more information is collected this margin of error shrinks. Sometimes there are shifts if new mechanisms are discovered that alter the algorithms used in the previous calculations, but this is all narrowing in on the truth, not disproving previous research.

    What have been disproven are most of the claims made by climate change deniers where their claims are not supported by data.
    The scientists who undertook this novel method of gas analysis have also.effectively dismissed previous efforts and methods of attempting to estimate the global ocean temperature:


    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8


    Imperfect, uncertain and sparse measurements are what you have been basing your previous ocean warming claims on, according to the authors.
    They haven't dismissed anything dense. They're pointing out that this data is uncertain and sparce, so it will have higher margin of error. It doesn't mean the data is useless. It just says that the findings are not as robust as they could be.

    Sounds ropey alright.
    No wonder they had to make up data in the past.


    Can you explain why you now seem to prefer proxy gas analysis to extrapolate global ocean temperatures over direct measurements?
    I don't prefer either. The scientists are using both. They're comparing them and using both sets of data to build up a full picture of ocean heat content.
    On your assertion that I am a liar, please explain why you say that.
    Because you have tried to make this point several times already and whenever I check the actual papers you are using, you're either misrepresenting them, or even worse, posting sources that say the exact opposite of what you're claiming they say.
    I have given you links to what NASA say the the earth's average temperature was in 2017 and what it was in 1996 and Dr. Hansen's previous estimates from 1981 or whenever (your 286 to 288k +-1k) and you seem terribly upset because the data isn't tallying with the Extinction Rebellion set's agenda that you similarly push.
    I have already explained exactly why those were misleading and false interpretations of those sources. I'm not wasting my time doing it again.
    You can't argue with what I've linked to, so instead you call me a liar and a troll.

    Stay classy Akrasia, and alarmed.
    I can't argue with someone who ignores my responses, waits a few days and posts the same links again as if they were unchallenged.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,398 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Because you have tried to make this point several times already and whenever I check the actual papers you are using, you're either misrepresenting them, or even worse, posting sources that say the exact opposite of what you're claiming they say.


    I have already explained exactly why those were misleading and false interpretations of those sources. I'm not wasting my time doing it again.

    I can't argue with someone who ignores my responses, waits a few days and posts the same links again as if they were unchallenged.


    It's nearly like he's relying on the fact that most people won't click through to the article. But that would be an action done in bad faith so it can't be that


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,754 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Where I think the politicians and scientists have gone wrong on this is the following...
    The politicians have used it for more tax which never helps.
    But I think if the approach had been on the damage of pollution and how pollution in general is not sustainable for the environment, it would have done far more for the environment than simply obsessing about carbon.
    Maybe our seas might stop being massive dumps which is killing aquatic and other wildlife, maybe we wouldn't be eating tiny bits of plastic when we eat fish...

    Instead we got this confrontational climate change war going on between fanatics on both sides, when we simply need to tackle all forms of pollution which is bad for the environment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    Oops, lots of errors found in your new climate sensitivity and ocean warming study Akrasia, despite it having passed peer review!


    Dr. Resplandy, the lead author, has been contacted for comment but has not yet responded.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/1059867965913354240



    https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


    Still, doesn't really matter, the people here who were furiously thanking you for posting a link to it dont particularly care for accuracy.


    They want a pied piper to follow.
    You've led them up the garden path again!!
    Nature is the foremost scientific journal with a reputation for diligent peer review.

    Twitter is not a recognised scientific journal. Get back to me when these objections are published in the proper format in the proper literature


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Where I think the politicians and scientists have gone wrong on this is the following...
    The politicians have used it for more tax which never helps.
    Are you referring to carbon taxes?

    These were proposed by economists as a way to use market forces to reduce the cost of acting on climate change without harming the economy. There was a statement released by thousands of economists including 18 nobel laureats in 1997 that said the following
    II. Economic studies have found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs. For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards, and that these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the long run.

    III. The most efficient approach to slowing climate change is through market-based policies. In order for the world to achieve its climatic objectives at minimum cost, a cooperative approach among nations is required – such as an international emissions trading agreement. The United States and other nations can most efficiently implement their climate policies through market mechanisms, such as carbon taxes or the auction of emissions permits. The revenues generated from such policies can effectively be used to reduce the deficit or to lower existing taxes.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Climate_Change

    But I think if the approach had been on the damage of pollution and how pollution in general is not sustainable for the environment, it would have done far more for the environment than simply obsessing about carbon.
    Maybe our seas might stop being massive dumps which is killing aquatic and other wildlife, maybe we wouldn't be eating tiny bits of plastic when we eat fish...

    Instead we got this confrontational climate change war going on between fanatics on both sides, when we simply need to tackle all forms of pollution which is bad for the environment.
    The climate change 'fanatics' is a false narrative. On one side we have scientists and the mounting evidence that we need to act quickly to avoid disaster. On the other side there are those who are protecting their own financial interests trying to delay action and deny the evidence for as long as they can get away with it.

    There has a green movement promoting this message and all the other ecological protection arguments for decades and they have been ignored. Climate change was ignored for far too long but now the evidence is so irrefutable that politicians have nowhere to hide and must face up to reality.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »

    I have already explained exactly why those were misleading and false interpretations of those sources. I'm not wasting my time doing it again.

    I can't argue with someone who ignores my responses, waits a few days and posts the same links again as if they were unchallenged.


    You can't argue, period.


    You're just waving your hands about in the face of valid links I am producing, none of which back up your hysterical claims of global warming.

    I had to post the links twice because you keep disputing what they say.

    To give you an opportunity to demonstrate your bona fides, what was the earth's average global temperature last year?

    The NASA link I posted said 288k, 14.85°C.

    Its up to you to produce a figure now, but not one from thin air.

    We'll check if the earth's average temperature is the same as what you said it was for 1972:
    Akrasia wrote: »

    In other words, back in 1972 when this paper was written, the global average temperature was estimated as 287k with a margin of error +-1k


    What do you think should be happening temperature-wise, global cooling heading towards an ice age, or a barely measurable upward rise?



    Apparently the previous consensus in the 70s about an impending ice age is fiction according to the alarmists, therefore it cant be that we should actually be cooling now.


    Unless you do want to have your cake and eat it too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Nature is the foremost scientific journal with a reputation for diligent peer review.

    Twitter is not a recognised scientific journal. Get back to me when these objections are published in the proper format in the proper literature


    Certainly, they're published here under Comments on Nature's website:



    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8



    No response from the reviewers or the authors......


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    dense wrote: »
    Certainly, they're published here under Comments on Nature's website:



    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8



    No response from the reviewers or the authors......

    Erm, it's a person responding in the comments, only a day ago at that so hardly likely to hear a response in that time... Pretty sure that's also not the traditional means for challenging a peer reviewed article... :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    I wonder will this NOAA-funded study receive as much wall to wall media coverage as the Resplandy one?



    Sea ice loss since 1979 has increased due to natural variability; observations show more Arctic sea ice loss than the climate models average.



    Natural swings in the Earth’s climate contribute to about 40 percent to 50 percent of the observed multi-decadal decline in Arctic sea ice.




    https://www.llnl.gov/news/models-show-natural-swings-earth%E2%80%99s-climate-contribute-arctic-sea-ice-loss


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    batgoat wrote: »
    Erm, it's a person responding in the comments, only a day ago at that so hardly likely to hear a response in that time... Pretty sure that's also not the traditional means for challenging a peer reviewed article... :rolleyes:


    One peer reviewed author challenging another's findings on the website of the journal that published them seems pretty legitimate to me.



    https://www.nicholaslewis.org/peer-reviewed-publications/



    What means would you prefer?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    You can't argue, period.


    You're just waving your hands about in the face of valid links I am producing, none of which back up your hysterical claims of global warming.

    I had to post the links twice because you keep disputing what they say.
    Instead of posting the same links repeatedly, why don't you read them properly once. The links you post do not say what you pretend they say. I've already explained why. Go back and read those responses
    To give you an opportunity to demonstrate your bona fides, what was the earth's average global temperature last year?

    The NASA link I posted said 288k, 14.85°C.

    Its up to you to produce a figure now, but not one from thin air.
    The global average temperature for 2017, according to NASA (gisstemp) is .9c above the 1951-1980 average.
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    What was the absolute temperature according to the baseline. Climate scientists do not deal in absolute temperatures, they deal in temperature anomalies based on a baseline for each individual weather station for very good reasons, but if you want to know what the absolute temperature the Gisstemp baseline is, it is approximately 14c or 287 kelvin.

    We'll check if the earth's average temperature is the same as what you said it was for 1972:
    I didn't say anything. i just read the paper you posted. The paper had an approximate value with a margin of error which you completely ignored because it didn't suit you.
    What do you think should be happening temperature-wise, global cooling heading towards an ice age, or a barely measurable upward rise?



    Apparently the previous consensus in the 70s about an impending ice age is fiction according to the alarmists, therefore it cant be that we should actually be cooling now.


    Unless you do want to have your cake and eat it too.
    There was never a consensus that we were heading for 'global cooling' And there absolutely is a consensus that the earth is warming far more rapidly than can be explained by any natural processes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    One peer reviewed author challenging another's findings on the website of the journal that published them seems pretty legitimate to me.



    https://www.nicholaslewis.org/peer-reviewed-publications/



    What means would you prefer?

    The comments section of a website is not where scientists discuss findings. His comments need to be submitted to the journal to be published as part of the literature (if there is any merit to his objections)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    dense wrote: »
    I wonder will this NOAA-funded study receive as much wall to wall media coverage as the Resplandy one?









    https://www.llnl.gov/news/models-show-natural-swings-earth%E2%80%99s-climate-contribute-arctic-sea-ice-loss

    It will receive plenty of attention and it is a very useful study for climate scientists looking to model ice loss in the arctic.
    It is extremely problematic for you however, given your position is that ice loss isn't a problem in the arctic and that the models have been over estimating ice loss. This study is questioning why the models are underestimating the observed ice loss.

    Their conclusions are not controversial. Its that the models for ice loss are not properly coupled to the atmospheric and oceanic conditions like el nino and la nina, and that these naturally variability (amongst others) impact ice loss in the arctic. This doesn't mean that ice loss would have been just as dramatic if it wasn't for climate change, it means that ice loss can be stalled by naturally cooling phases, and accelerated in naturally warming phases. The question is whether the short term cooling is enough to offset the artificial warming from climate change, and if the short term warming amplification from natural variability counts as a positive feedback which accelerates warming beyond the greenhouse effect on its own.

    This is one of the positive feedbacks that I'm always banging on about. If periods of natural warming cause more ice loss than can be offset by the corresponding naturally cooling phase, then on balance this counts as a positive feedback for climate change


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,536 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Nothing to add except to compliment Akrasia on his stamina. Keep on fighting the good fight.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande




    starts @ 20 minutes in and 7 minutes long.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,229 ✭✭✭Sam Quentin


    No wonder the earth is warming more rapidly....
    Haven't the 'cazy cazy' people stopped the lovely black smoke and smog that use to shield us!? :-P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,603 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia




    starts @ 20 minutes in and 7 minutes long.

    Better not tell Dense that Jordan Peterson worked for the 'Globalist' UN

    Aside from that, it's a pretty terrible analysis of climate change. He simply dismisses the science because there is 'uncertainty' and dismisses the problem as being too hard to solve therefore we shouldn't do anything.

    He keeps saying 'they don't have a solution' but there are clear solutions, they just have to be implemented.
    He references Bjorn Lomborg whose entire thesis is just one big false dichotomy (that we have to choose between reducing poverty and tackling climate change. We should be doing both) but he dismisses the thousands of other economists and scientists etc who say that the costs of inaction are many times higher than the costs of action, and the costs of inaction on climate change are substantial for the wealthy economies in the west, but utterly devastating to the developing world.
    He also ignores the benefits of moving to sustainable energy. Once the infrastructure is in place, the marginal costs per unit of energy are substantially lower than the costs of fossil fuels.

    Climate change is an issue that requires substantial upfront investment in infrastructure but leads to substantial savings in the long term (both in terms of cheaper energy, and the reduction in negative costs associated with rapid climate change)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,536 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Better not tell Dense that Jordan Peterson worked for the 'Globalist' UN

    Aside from that, it's a pretty terrible analysis of climate change. He simply dismisses the science because there is 'uncertainty' and dismisses the problem as being too hard to solve therefore we shouldn't do anything.

    He keeps saying 'they don't have a solution' but there are clear solutions, they just have to be implemented.
    He references Bjorn Lomborg whose entire thesis is just one big false dichotomy (that we have to choose between reducing poverty and tackling climate change. We should be doing both) but he dismisses the thousands of other economists and scientists etc who say that the costs of inaction are many times higher than the costs of action, and the costs of inaction on climate change are substantial for the wealthy economies in the west, but utterly devastating to the developing world.
    He also ignores the benefits of moving to sustainable energy. Once the infrastructure is in place, the marginal costs per unit of energy are substantially lower than the costs of fossil fuels.

    Climate change is an issue that requires substantial upfront investment in infrastructure but leads to substantial savings in the long term (both in terms of cheaper energy, and the reduction in negative costs associated with rapid climate change)


    I never knew that Jordan Petersen was a qualified climatologist. Is there anything he can't make a balls of?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The global average temperature for 2017, according to NASA (gisstemp) is .9c above the 1951-1980 average.
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
    What was the absolute temperature according to the baseline. Climate scientists do not deal in absolute temperatures, they deal in temperature anomalies based on a baseline for each individual weather station for very good reasons, but if you want to know what the absolute temperature the Gisstemp baseline is, it is approximately 14c or 287 kelvin.


    The astute reader will appreciate that the link you have supplied doesn't contain either of those figures but does contain a link to Hansen's 1981 study which I have already linked to which concluded with an approximate figure of 15°C, as have multiple other instances I have already linked to.

    I will concede that it is only climate justice activists and their ilk now who are now haranguing people about keeping a barely measurable temperature rise below a constantly reducing baseline temperature for political reasons, and that it is only children and the easily led who are falling for it.

    Akrasia wrote: »
    I didn't say anything. i just read the paper you posted. The paper had an approximate value with a margin of error which you completely ignored because it didn't suit you.

    The margin of error you didn't say anything about??

    The approximate value was 288k.
    The error of margin only added to the uncertainty, 289 to 287k, which suits just fine.

    There is nothing to be gained now by pretending you didn't say it.

    But it's worth considering the end result of your lowering the temperature baseline alongside your upwardly adjusted temperature data because it demonstrates how much of a scam is involved.
    Akrasia wrote: »
    There was never a consensus that we were heading for 'global cooling' And there absolutely is a consensus that the earth is warming far more rapidly than can be explained by any natural processes.


    In 1978, 97% of scientists thought the world* was cooling, with no end to it in sight.

    They later changed their tune and said that the world was warming, with man being responsible for it.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html


    *They hadn't considered making up data for the SH at that point, that only came later.

    Therefore, 97% of today's scientists who appear to have an issue with an alleged man made temperature rise obviously believe that global temperatures should actually have been falling, with no mechanism in place to arrest that decline preventing the world heading towards an ice age, which is exactly as had been claimed in the previous consensus in the 70s, which you now say didn't exist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The comments section of a website is not where scientists discuss findings.


    You seem to think the comments section on Nature's esteemed website exists for scientists and pal reviewers to congratulate each other on publishing junk science.



    Repairing the credibilty of peer review which is already in tatters depends on errors which are brought to the publisher's attention not being deliberately ignored for reasons as juvenile as being written with the wrong coloured pen.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement