CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Here's a good video that talks about what the evidence and science says about the link between the Australian wildfires and Climate change

It's by Peter Hadfield, a science reporter for decades who has been making videos promoting science on Youtube under the username Potholer54

Here's another. He's not a scientist either but does seem to be very impartial in his reporting.

Gaoth Laidir

In general I hate to quote Fox News, but this typifies the type of debate that ensues when valid questions are asked to those with the most vocal support of agw.

M.T. Cranium

Akrasia wrote: »

All flat earthers know that they have no chance of getting published. It’s that damned conspiracy against them

Your analysis is not worth the paper it’s printed on unless you’re prepared to submit it to the peer review process where suitably qualified experts can check it for errors and validate your methodology

Your quote will probably be useful to people around 2065 trying to figure out how it wasn't obvious that the AGW theory was flawed.

Your "suitable expert" is my closed-minded zealot.

Also as I mentioned when you challenged anyone to debunk the IPCC report, they assign a value of 0.1 C deg to natural variability. That is a ridiculously low number that your 'suitable experts' apparently signed off on when this process was being discussed. So I would say they are not suitable experts but useful idiots. Decade to decade natural variability has been at least ten times larger than that in the last three centuries and could be twenty times as large in theory.

It must be hard to condescend from the basement suite.

M.T. Cranium

My critics will continue to bang this drum about the Toronto data being isolated but I am quite confident that a larger regional data set (even up to all of central and eastern North America) would show similar results. So it would simply be a case of finding the appropriate regional data averages and doing a similar trend analysis.

Once you've removed the urban heat island additional recent warmth from the Toronto data, it becomes quite obvious that the recent high levels of warming are more or less indistinguishable from periods as far back as 1911 to 1922 and 1944 to 1964. And those earlier periods actually did better in terms of setting daily records. It is only overnight lows that have increased marginally in the recent data. I am confident that a larger regional study would show a similar result (because I've seen the dates of daily record temperatures at a number of eastern U.S. cities).

So if the IPCC theory cannot adequately explain how this regional climate situated in the midst of the temperate westerlies works, then what confidence can we have that it is more widely applicable?

I think this whole business of recent warming and year after year being warmer is distorted by a few arctic locations and vast areas of no data conveniently filled in with similar anomalies to those locations. We don't know if that's a very good assumption.

Now I'm not saying that AGW is completely made up, just that its portion of cause and effect is overstated. This will turn out to be a ruinous mistake economically as governments and societies will rush into half-cocked socialist economic schemes that will only have one effect, mass unemployment and poverty.

Like Oneiric3, I am tired of political ideologues speaking from their millionaire comforts about how the working people can help save the earth (by paying all these extra taxes, none of which actually go anywhere near saving the earth, but padding salaries and pensions in the public sector). I call for a forensic accounting of these taxes -- where does the money end up?

Follow the money and you'll better understand climate science.

M.T. Cranium

I have posted some of the Toronto data on Net-weather. I will post it here when finished because I (like all of us) only have 2 days of editing time here, which makes the building up of complex posts impossible. But you can already see the temperature data in monthly and seasonal formats.

Most of the "top ten" months are fairly recent because of their warmer nights, but invariably you'll find that months in second or third place from earlier in the 20th century had higher average maxima than the top month that may be more recent (some are not, the warmest January was 1932, July remains 1921, and 1947,63 share top place for October).

The warmest seven-year running mean of annual maximum goes all the way back to 1916-22. Several other peaks since then are higher than the most recent one (which was 2010-16). The way that statistic was increasing from 1890 to 1920, it looked at the time like a climate shift was underway, but the trend reversed in the 1920s, went back to warmer in the 1930s and again around 1948 to 1955 (two seven-year intervals consecutively there). The interval 1978 to 1984 was almost as cool as the worst performing parts of the mid-19th century.

People can complain that this is cherry picking but I have enough for cherry pie all round.

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Now I'm not saying that AGW is completely made up, just that its portion of cause and effect is overstated.

This is known in Ireland as 'running with the hare while hunting with the hound' or more plainly - hypocrisy. You may as well say all of it is true while none of it is true but then again you seem to have the trait where you can insist opposite things without the slightest sense of physical considerations.

All 'climate change' did was expose the indulgences of experimental theorists so your 'bright idea' is to be half way in and half way out or what appears like an escape route . Telling people to 'follow the money' is just a distraction from what effectively is a high-end welfare scam for people who do not know how to do their jobs properly.

Stick with short term weather modeling where you can do no harm.

posidonia

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Your quote will probably be useful to people around 2065 trying to figure out how it wasn't obvious that the AGW theory was flawed.

Your "suitable expert" is my closed-minded zealot.

Also as I mentioned when you challenged anyone to debunk the IPCC report, they assign a value of 0.1 C deg to natural variability. That is a ridiculously low number that your 'suitable experts' apparently signed off on when this process was being discussed. So I would say they are not suitable experts but useful idiots. Decade to decade natural variability has been at least ten times larger than that in the last three centuries and could be twenty times as large in theory.

It must be hard to condescend from the basement suite.

'zealot', 'idiots', 'condescend' - that will be another example of how it's not sceptics like you who use insult then

posidonia

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Funny how its always "weather" not climate when there's record cold somewhere but Australian bushfires are definitely "climate change" not arson or weather.

Climate change is definitely involved. It's the people saying it definitely isn't involved you should be concerned about.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

How do you know it's passed it? We can't measure it, remember? You first rubbished his paper before you even heard of it never mind read it (you did, I can provide proof if you want). It's unfortunate that you seem to go to The Guardian for your science and not something a little less biased. They're being very misleading with the claim in bold below, as it's far from as simple as they make out. "Sensors ALL OVER THE PLANET..."?



And then this comment that seems to imply that Spencer and Christy are the only ones with a history of changing data. Mears has done exactly the same.



So for you which is the correct set? RSS, just because it agrees with NASA? How do you know NASA is correct?

So an article written by an actual scientific expert about a scientific paper that he has expertise in is biased because it’s in the guardian but you think tony hellers nonsense on YouTube deserves to be taken at face value.

I called the UAH dataset an outlier because it is an outlier. There are multiple temperature records that are independently administered and they are in broad agreement with each other,

I said the warming has already passed 1c because this is what almost all the temperature reconstructions say about the last decade


www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/01/one-more-data-point/

Oneiric 3

posidonia wrote: »

'zealot', 'idiots', 'condescend' - that will be another example of how it's not sceptics like you who use insult then

Pretty tame stuff when compared to the bit too often thrown about 'far right', 'alt-right', 'birthers', 'conspiracy nuts', 'bible thumpers' etc by people have no idea what they are talking about.

Hooter23

2018 - Al Gore changes his mind after record cold/snow

Al Gore: ‘Bitter cold’ is ‘exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis’

gozunda

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Pretty tame stuff when compared to the bit too often thrown about 'far right', 'alt-right', 'birthers', 'conspiracy nuts', 'bible thumpers' etc by people have no idea what they are talking about.

In general lovely to see what was an interesting thread descend into insults - most likely to be followed by 'Whaaaaa he made me do it' ..... :rolleyes:

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

So an article written by an actual scientific expert about a scientific paper that he has expertise in is biased because it’s in the guardian but you think tony hellers nonsense on YouTube deserves to be taken at face value.

I called the UAH dataset an outlier because it is an outlier. There are multiple temperature records that are independently administered and they are in broad agreement with each other,

I said the warming has already passed 1c because this is what almost all the temperature reconstructions say about the last decade


www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2020/01/one-more-data-point/

I don't think Tony Heller should be taken at face value at all. I wouldn't trust anything he says without fact-checking it myself. Nor should anyone. And it's the same with The Guardian, or any other media outlet for that matter. The Guardian has set itself the task of being the go-to source of all things climate for the normal Joe on the street, however their reporting is no less sensational and sometimes inaccurate/exaggerated as Heller and others.

Interesting you should post that article, which seems to imply that there is "remarkable close" agreement between the AIRS and GISTEMP surface figures, however it's anything but. It's well out of whack through most of South America, eastern Asia, Australia and the Indian Ocean. As they admit, this is due to the lack of station coverage, but which are we to rely on for our accurate claims of the exact rise in temperature versus pre-industrial; a substandard surface station dataset or a substandard satellite guesstimate? How do you get the correct figure out of all that when there is such disparity between them?

One of the most interesting comparisons this year has been the coherence of the AIRS results which come from an IR sensor on board EOS Aqua and which has been producing surface temperature estimates from 2003 onwards. The rate and patterns of warming of this and GISTEMP for the overlap period are remarkably close, and where they differ, suggest potential issues in the weather station network.

Longing

Hooter23 wrote: »

2018 - Al Gore changes his mind after record cold/snow

A real piller for climate alarmists.

On another note why do Nasa and others use estimated readings from locations were there is clearly no data been gathered. Why just not leave those places on earth out of final results been registered. This baffles me. Why do the need to be untruthful.

Longing

Longing wrote: »

A real piller for climate alarmists.

On another note why do Nasa and others use estimated readings from locations were there is clearly no data been gathered. Why just not leave those places on earth out of final results been registered. This baffles me. Why do the need to be untruthful.

It's simple, you cannot claim global climate change if you don't have global data to hand.

oriel36

It is unusual that certain contributors can appeal to the bogus 'Milankovitch cycles' yet a clear demonstration of physical descriptions correlating cause and effect between the Earth's motions and climate is omitted or transferred out of the thread.

In less than a day, Hammerfest, Norway will see the Sun for the first time in 2 months as the North Pole turns closer to the circle of illumination and the stationary Sun thereby the circumference where the Sun is constantly out of sight is shrinking -

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/hammerfest

The appearance and disappearance of Arctic sea ice is in response to the expansion and contraction of this surface area across latitudes (with the North Pole at the centre) and all dependent on the inclination of the planet to the orbital plane ( blue line) -

https://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif

The precession of the equinoxes is from an entirely different cause than axial inclination but because Copernicus was forced to use the antecedent framework of Ptolemy, he altered his original correct annual perspective to a false 25,920 year cycle. Had he been right with axial precession as a long term dynamic, all the Solstice and Equinox alignments in antiquity would not occur including the celebrated and highly accurate Newgrange. These ancient clocks are so accurate that they show up the deficiencies in academics today as they fiddle their way to disruptive conclusions.

The pigeon holing of different Earth sciences while excluding an astronomical component is a disturbing feature of those who want to retain climate as an experimental science. The KT boundary in rock strata allowed genuine interpreters to infer a drastic change in surface conditions that killed the mighty dinosaur empire yet people today find the daily and annual cyclical interactions to be not only difficult but impossible.

MiNdGaM3

Deleted User wrote: »

It's simple, you cannot claim global climate change if you don't have global data to hand.

What do you think of the statistical interpolation methods used to fill in gaps? Kind of odd that they all produce similar results with different methods though, eh?


What level of coverage would be ideal?

MiNdGaM3

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Also as I mentioned when you challenged anyone to debunk the IPCC report, they assign a value of 0.1 C deg to natural variability. That is a ridiculously low number that your 'suitable experts' apparently signed off on when this process was being discussed.

You make up a value, assume it comes from experts, and then proceed to dismiss it because it doesn't feel right.

Then you have have the temerity to call others zealots and idiots. The Dunning-Kruger effect in full swing.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Your "suitable expert" is my closed-minded zealot...
... I would say they are not suitable experts but useful idiots.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

So if the IPCC theory cannot adequately explain how this regional climate situated in the midst of the temperate westerlies works, then what confidence can we have that it is more widely applicable?

There is no IPCC theory. You honestly don't know what you're talking about.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I think this whole business of recent warming and year after year being warmer is distorted by a few arctic locations and vast areas of no data conveniently filled in with similar anomalies to those locations. We don't know if that's a very good assumption.

That's not how it works at all. Once more, you are making stuff up based on your feelings and intuition.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

This will turn out to be a ruinous mistake economically as governments and societies will rush into half-cocked socialist economic schemes that will only have one effect, mass unemployment and poverty.

Back to the socialist/commie scare stories. Woooh.

TRADES SUPPLY AVAILABLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59-uhe1QnG0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHZKo13HV2A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYQ6eZDXXRE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-9UlF8hkhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w

posidonia

Longing wrote: »

A real piller for climate alarmists.

On another note why do Nasa and others use estimated readings from locations were there is clearly no data been gathered. Why just not leave those places on earth out of final results been registered. This baffles me. Why do the need to be untruthful.

The above is an assumption combined with an allegation. You assume guilt.


What you should do is ask them, in this case NASA, what they do, how they do it and why they do it. Then you should post your answers here. I'm sure you wont ask them that, indeed I can guarantee you wont - so called sceptics wont engage with scientists in such a way.



Those with views like yours (and several others here) never ask scientists questions you just make assumptions and allegations.


Over the years I've asked various scientists and organisations various questions (I am polite, I don't accuse them of things) and I get interesting answers.


So, go on, surprise me, give it a go!

Longing

posidonia wrote: »

The above is an assumption combined with an allegation. You assume guilt.


What you should do is ask them, in this case NASA, what they do, how they do it and why they do it. Then you should post your answers here. I'm sure you wont ask them that, indeed I can guarantee you wont - so called sceptics wont engage with scientists in such a way.





Those with views like yours (and several others here) never ask scientists questions you just make assumptions and allegations.


Over the years I've asked various scientists and organisations various questions (I am polite, I don't accuse them of things) and I get interesting answers.


So, go on, surprise me, give it a go!

No I don't think anything would surprise you going by your fanatic views I have read in your posts.

posidonia

Longing wrote: »

No I don't think anything would surprise you going by your fanatic views I have read in your posts.

Are you going to ask them questions or not?

Longing

posidonia wrote: »

Are you going to ask them questions or not?

Last thing I will do is take demands of a fanatic to give him a answer. Fanatic is never happy with anybody's view or reply.

posidonia

Longing wrote: »

Last thing I will do is take demands of a fanatic to give him a answer. Fanatic is never happy with anybody's view or reply.

I'm not making any demands.



Lets recap. I noticed you said of NASA 'Why do the need to be untruthful". I don't think you (or anyone) should assume guilt and I think you should ask them why they do what they do.


But, I can guarantee you don't want to either ask them questions or get answers.

MiNdGaM3

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

What do you think of the statistical interpolation methods used to fill in gaps? Kind of odd that they all produce similar results with different methods though, eh?


What level of coverage would be ideal?

Why not be honest when providing this charts, there is nothing wrong in stating that the information is incomplete.
instead of claiming complete global coverage with those charts.

posidonia

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not be honest when providing this data, there is nothing wrong in stating that the information is incomplete.
instead of claiming complete global coverage with those charts.

Why are you assuming dishonesty?



Several people here simply seem to find scientists guilty - no questions, just assumed guilt. You should try living in a country with that kind of 'justice'...


Anyway, why don't you, too, ask them why?

Nabber

MiNdGaM3 wrote: »

What do you think of the statistical interpolation methods used to fill in gaps? Kind of odd that they all produce similar results with different methods though, eh?

Can you list the they all (models?) you refer to and the definition of similar.

I'm still getting to grips with hindcasting and forecasting in some of the models, and the variables that were unknown or excluded at the time.

MiNdGaM3

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not be honest when providing this charts, there is nothing wrong in stating that the information is incomplete.
instead of claiming complete global coverage with those charts.

They raw data is available for anyone to download. All their methods are published and available for anyone to read. Though if one was to insist that a thermometer only represents the exact point it sits on, the points on a global temperature map would be invisible!

There's no hiding or dishonesty. It's even in some of the names. Like NOAAs OISST data set is the Optimal Interpolation Sea Surface Temperature.

Nabber wrote: »

Can you list the they all (models?) you refer to and the definition of similar.

I'm still getting to grips with hindcasting and forecasting in some of the models, and the variables that were unknown or excluded at the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by models here?

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

It's simple, you cannot claim global climate change if you don't have global data to hand.

So because we do not have 100% coverage of the entire globe with perfectly sited and professionally serviced temperature stations, we should just pretend it's not happening then?

We do have global data, it's not perfect, scientists need to calibrate different datasets based on the data that we have high confidence in.
Satellite measurements are not perfect, but they're not useless either, and when we're not measuring absolute temperature values, but temperature anomalies, we can take imperfect data and make it work as long as we know about the inadequacies of that data.

Every revision of the temperature data makes it more accurate, but the 'skeptics' love going back in time to older less reliable less accurate records wherever they think the results suit their agenda

I will accept the findings of expert scientists on the topic of climate change. 'Sceptics' think that scientists are all corrupt or incompetent (compared to their own genius and the bloggers they choose to believe)

SeaBreezes

posidonia wrote: »

Why are you assuming dishonesty?
?

Maybe you didn't bother reading this, but again:

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/amp/


Why WOULDNT you question made up or adjusted data after these emails straight from the horses mouth?

Your welcome :-)