Off Topic Climate Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looney Leftie said:
Scientist make best guesses based on the available evidence and then try to disprove them. A provable fact 50 years ago can be disproved by new methods and technology today and so the understanding and conclusions drawn improved.

The facts are the building blocks on which hypotheses and theories are made. That 50 years ago we worked out that a weak jet stream caused maritime Europe and Eastern US to have hot summers and cold winters has been built on by understanding that a warm Arctic reduces the temperature differential driving the jet stream.,this leads to blocking ridges that make the weather in temperate regions more extreme..

Arguing that scientists today are wrong because scientists drew different conclusions in the past when they had access to less information is foolish. You may as well claim the world is still flat.
You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...


Both are NORMAL jet stream activity, in your graph, one is less frequent, but happening for thousands of years at least. What is it with you "believers". Please actually research wtf you talk about please.

The scientific consensus was global cooling and the reason given for the extremes was the jet stream causing it, erring on the side of the consensus in literature that it was cooling, at that time, plus the temperature data also showed the cooling
You must log in or register to see images


As we can see above, NASA have erased that cooling with hundred of adjustment to data sets from all over the world, starting in the late 90s and continuing to today.
So now, with altered data, the same phenomenon is blamed on warming, tho the warming is adjusted into the data for that period now.

You can't change temperature readings from the 70s, because if you do, you increase the uncertainty in the data by the same amount you alter the data by. Calculating uncertainty is something we do weekly in Uni.
But I digress


What is even more sniffy about the paper is, it completely ignores the fact that this phenomenon is KNOWN to have been occurring for thousands of years.

You have this habit of ignoring the salient points.
Then this silly nonsense
"Arguing that scientists today are wrong because scientists drew different conclusions in the past when they had access to less information is foolish. You may as well claim the world is still flat."

I argued that the world was COOLING and the same phenomenon was playing a part, and was not being driven by emissions, the new paper say it is a result of WARMING today, and it's claimed it IS driven by emissions. How can both be possible?

Yet nowhere in the paper does it show how cooling (and less CO2 and emissions) and warming planet (with more CO2 and FAR MORE emissions) can cause the exact same phenomenon? You seemed to have overlooked that bit, conveniently, or, you are out of your depth.

Your flat earth reference is especially funny given your scientific illiteracy and inability to follow the logic of a point made

My delay in responding is directly proportional to the nonsense I expected in the reply from you.
 
Last edited:
These sources, all left of course, uncritically promote a junk science paper about the oceans taking up more heat than thought
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067
‘https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/climate/ocean-temperatures-hotter.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...oceans-suggesting-faster-rate-global-warming/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-oceans-are-heating-up-faster-than-expected/
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/01/australia/ocean-warming-report-intl/index.html
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-oceans-study-climate-change-20181031-story.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...bal-warming-climate-change-nature/1843074002/
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...t-fossil-fuels-science-research-a8612796.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...t-fossil-fuels-science-research-a8612796.html

The junk paper promoted by all of the above, sailed past peer review in Nature. It has glaring errors and it's conclusions are mathematically incorrect, and there are errors in the code they used.

The first honest scientist to look at the paper, proves it is incorrect, and when he tried to contact the scientist who authored it, they ignored his corrections.
He found glaring errors on the very first page of the paper. AS long as the junk science agrees, reviewers seem to not even check the papers at Nature. Peer review? Buddy review more like
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/

This is what the problem is, the media are pushing junk science as good science. Advocacy over science.


@Looney Leftie You can't give me one shred of explicit evidence to support AGW none nade nil zilch, because such evidence does not exist.

You are a fan of Michael E Mann, when he uses bad proxies, upside down and his hockeystick paper was proven bunk time and time again, his whole paper relies on one proxy that PNAS says scientists should NOT use. Strip bark, a known bad proxy that produces hockeysticks and is KNOWN to NOT be a proxy for temperature
He and Phil Jones not only cut data off they didn't like, but they put the same temperature data from thermometers on the graph 3 times, and hand bent the ends to line up with the proxy data for the IPCC report. (hide the decline) in proxy data, they cut off and hit the evidence that their proxy reconstructions went DOWN in temperatures when actual temperatures went up, meaning the proxy data was NOT a RELIABLE proxy for TEMPERATURES
 
Last edited:
PhheHdee said:
I don;t get what you are at mate, honestly. I am saying the IPCC, the "authority" on "Climate change", are a political body of bureaucrats and politicians bent on controlling global energy policy, for their own ends, and they are corrupt as ****, they are also overtly socialist and hate capitalism
The renewable energy scam is worth anywhere between 80 and 160 trillion dollars, think about that for a sec.
There is about 2 trillion a year spend on this bullshit globally, which is 200 times yearly total oil profits 82.9 billion a year, of all oil companies combined.


meanwhile something like 3 billion people have no electricity on this planet, and wont if these ******s keep pushing this fraud
Click to expand...
You should probably show your workings out that prove those figures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Looney Leftie and Toby
Anyone looking for an example of distortion and bad science then this is it.
You must log in or register to see images

It's taken from a newspaper opinion piece where the author was already biased towards a position and then a climate change denier drew a red line on it

The clues are obvious, the Y axis has been hugely stretched to make a 0.2-0.3C anomaly look enormous, certainly not enough to prove the world is consistently warming\cooling. The X axis is massively shrunk to exagerate the variations All in all it's a biased graph used to misrepresent data for a specific purpose .

What isn't realised is that the raw NCAR data is still available and so the chart can be checked for accuracy and cherry picking.

So here is the chart from the NCAR data for the period in question, plotted correctly you can see there is a slight fall in northern hemisphere temperature between 1950 and 1975. About 0.2-0.3C
You must log in or register to see images

How about globally on the same dataset, Maybe 0.1C between 1955 and 1970
You must log in or register to see images



So what is it they are actually claiming, this is the NASA figures

Northern Hemisphere - Clearly shows a slight cooling trend from late 50s to the 1970s, maybe 0.2C
You must log in or register to see images


Globally, far less pronounced, barely any perceptable change .
You must log in or register to see images

Like for like the two datasets are almost identical to me.

So two things are apparent and
First the NCAR data used is northern hemisphere only, while the NASA data is global.

Second the rounding on the NCAR data in the original article is misleading.
The clue is in the data for 1970-1972.
You can see that the NASA data is recording temperatures 0.2-0.3C below the mean but because the years before and after are warmer the average barely changes, therefore the claim is erroneously made of hiding cooling.
Look at the NCAR charts I've posted and you see the same effect. It's not that NASA has manipulated the data, it's that the original NCAR chart in the newpaper article distorted the rounding, probably by ignoring the warm temperatures in 1970-71, 73-4, ie choosing 1970 as a cut off gave a misleading average in the last 5 years of a 5 year smoothed chart, this is a very common trick when you want to fool people.
The mean for both the NCAR and NASA data for global temperature during the period disputed are around 0.1C out from each other, both showing a dip in temperature through the 1960s and then a rise in the 1970s.

It's always good to look at the facts rather than dodgy interpretations of newspaper articles..
 
  • Like
Reactions: DerekTheMole and Tobes
Another prediction flops, from the great fear monger Dr James Hansen formerly of NASA and "father" of CAGW (catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming)
You must log in or register to see images

Hansen during one of his several arrests for being an eco loon.
Am sure this ardent eco activist (who is an astronomer of quite lean stature, and not a climate scientist) never let his ideology bias his work at NASA, when he changed data from multiple countries around the world, surrrrre He dragged his raggedy ass Venus theory into "climate science", to try tell us that can happen here <doh>

Hansen from 1981 to Hansen 2001. Cool the past, invent warming to match emissions growth post WWII, cooling of the 1970s vanished, even in Iceland where it is well documented how hard it was then because of the freezing climate, their hardest time in living memory, 100 years like, and NASA just erased it with a swish of computer code.

In 2004 Hansen had to adjust the data own again, after "errors" from a y2k bug caused his code to make 1998 the hottest year on record (errors found by an actual skeptical statistician), instead of the actual hottest year to then, 1934, or 36, cant remember which. NASA have adjusted this data hundreds of times right back to 1880!!! and still do it based on what their algorithms do, and what changes they make to the code. FFS The past has been cooled more since.
You must log in or register to see images





His prediction has come in... the arctic is ice free this year.. oh wait.
You must log in or register to see images


arctic sea ice trend last 11 years
You must log in or register to see images


The planet keeps doing the opposite of what these charlatans claim

There is this thing called the Al Gore effect, where ever he shows up, it turns into frozen tundra <laugh>
 
Last edited:
Inconvenient things proponents of AGW wont let you see on BBC indo, guardian, or on a BBC doc

Climate models can't explain these things, so they pretend it never happened, this is why you only hear about from 1979 to present.
You must log in or register to see images
 
PhheHdee said:
These sources, all left of course, uncritically promote a junk science paper about the oceans taking up more heat than thought
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067
‘https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/climate/ocean-temperatures-hotter.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...oceans-suggesting-faster-rate-global-warming/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-oceans-are-heating-up-faster-than-expected/
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/01/australia/ocean-warming-report-intl/index.html
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-oceans-study-climate-change-20181031-story.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...bal-warming-climate-change-nature/1843074002/
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...t-fossil-fuels-science-research-a8612796.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...t-fossil-fuels-science-research-a8612796.html

The junk paper promoted by all of the above, sailed past peer review in Nature. It has glaring errors and it's conclusions are mathematically incorrect, and there are errors in the code they used.

The first honest scientist to look at the paper, proves it is incorrect, and when he tried to contact the scientist who authored it, they ignored his corrections.
He found glaring errors on the very first page of the paper. AS long as the junk science agrees, reviewers seem to not even check the papers at Nature. Peer review? Buddy review more like
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/

This is what the problem is, the media are pushing junk science as good science. Advocacy over science.
Click to expand...
Minor development in the Resplandy et al discussion:
"We are aware the way we handled the errors underestimated the uncertainties. We are working on an update that addresses this issue. We thank Nicholas Lewis for bringing this to our attention." (from https://t.co/VhyT2ALB7q).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back