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

Water John

In fairness when the FAO overstated the effect of agriculture v transport in 2006, they were challenged by Dr. Mitloehner, they did accept his arguement.
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/how-the-global-attack-on-agricultural-emissions-began-meet-dr-frank-mitloehner/

Others with a different agenda continued to use the flawed data. But the scientists involved did accept challenge and change their figures. So saying the scientists are involved in some great conspiracy, doesn't stand up.

Danno

posidonia wrote: »

Its late, but I guess I'll 'have' to go through this video too, at some point. Can you give me an idea how many I'll have to refute before you stop posting them?

How are you going to refute the obviously absurd claims made in the 80s and 90s by climate alarmists that the Maldives would disappear into the ocean by now?

That would take a real turn of work to convince anyone.

I'll bet you can't.

https://goo.gl/maps/Gb1EubPaEjm8ak5bA

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes they do

Except in the stratosphere where they show cooling, which is exactly what is to be expected by the greenhouse effect reducing the earths ability to radiate heat to space

The UAH v6 satellite data for the lower troposphere also showed (and still show) that flat trend refered to in the video, with even a slight negative trend of -0.05 K in the 2000-09 decade. To "cherrypick" a bit, the flat trend extends from 1995-2013 inclusive (i.e. 19 years). I've plotted the annual averages and decadal trends below. Overall, it's a +0.132 degree per decade trend throughout the 1980-2019 time period.



I note you still haven't spoken about the specific point Heller makes about the RSS adjustment in the video, taking the top of the error band as the new mean value. Maybe just coincidence...

https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

That might explain media sensationalism but it does nothing to explain why pretty much every scientist who knows what they’re talking about agrees that climate change is real and a very serious threat that needs to be tackled

These scientists aren’t scared by media hype, they see the effects first hand and in their own research

It's curious how you framed this response, given that the video was to show nothing more than how the media promotes, and profits from, the culture of fear.

But staying within this framing you have set up, how often have scientists publicly called out the many, many misleading media articles about climate change? And this is important, because 99% of the population gets their information about CC and pretty much most other topics from the MSM, so I'm sorry to say that if climate scientists continue to turn a blind eye to the media hype that their work is creating, then people can only, and rightly, assum that climate scientists are more than a little complicit in the spreading of that hype.

Danno

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

...people can only, and rightly, assum that climate scientists are more than a little complicit in the spreading of that hype.

Seeing as much of the media is in the arse pocket of most governments (unless you're Donald Trump or Boris Johnson) then for said scientists to question the media reports would jeopardise their funding I'd guess.

SeaBreezes

Water John wrote: »

In fairness when the FAO overstated the effect of agriculture v transport in 2006, they were challenged by Dr. Mitloehner, they did accept his arguement.
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/how-the-global-attack-on-agricultural-emissions-began-meet-dr-frank-mitloehner/

Others with a different agenda continued to use the flawed data. But the scientists involved did accept challenge and change their figures. So saying the scientists are involved in some great conspiracy, doesn't stand up.

Challenging the science does not mean I am suggesting a giant conspiracy.

Akrasia is suggesting these are my thoughts. I don't think that at all.
Careful of those throwing shade.

I have just showed the science that is challenging the consensus.

And I am showing where data was adjusted to suit the narrative.

And I am asking why shouldn't it be challenged and asking why the IPCC has been proven more than once, to prevent publication and suppress science and peer review that doesn't suit their narrative. (Poor Zharakova)

Oneiric 3

Danno wrote: »

Seeing as much of the media is in the arse pocket of most governments (unless you're Donald Trump or Boris Johnson) then for said scientists to question the media reports would jeopardise their funding I'd guess.

And now the latest target, Bernie Sanders, and I wonder why? is it because for all of their self proclaimed 'leftist values', that the last thing these MSM media hacks they want to see is something akin to an actual real left-wing politician getting into power?

These corporate, sterile neo-liberals are truly vile people, and it is never ceases to sadden me just how willingly people gobble up their disingenuous ****e without any sort of questioning or critical thought.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

The UAH v6 satellite data for the lower troposphere also showed (and still show) that flat trend refered to in the video, with even a slight negative trend of -0.05 K in the 2000-09 decade. To "cherrypick" a bit, the flat trend extends from 1995-2013 inclusive (i.e. 19 years). I've plotted the annual averages and decadal trends below. Overall, it's a +0.132 degree per decade trend throughout the 1980-2019 time period.



I note you still haven't spoken about the specific point Heller makes about the RSS adjustment in the video, taking the top of the error band as the new mean value. Maybe just coincidence...

https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

Have you fact checked Hellers claim or are you just taking his word for it?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Have you fact checked Hellers claim or are you just taking his word for it?

I'm reading through Mears' papers here...

http://www.remss.com/about/profiles/carl-mears/

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

It's curious how you framed this response, given that the video was to show nothing more than how the media promotes, and profits from, the culture of fear.

But staying within this framing you have set up, how often have scientists publicly called out the many, many misleading media articles about climate change? And this is important, because 99% of the population gets their information about CC and pretty much most other topics from the MSM, so I'm sorry to say that if climate scientists continue to turn a blind eye to the media hype that their work is creating, then people can only, and rightly, assum that climate scientists are more than a little complicit in the spreading of that hype.

The scientists are busy doing science

Water John

Must be a vast, tightly controlled conspiracy, almost a scientific black hole. Such is its pull, few escape to tell the truth.

Danno

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

And now the latest target, Bernie Sanders, and I wonder why? is it because for all of their self proclaimed 'leftist values', that the last thing these MSM media hacks they want to see is something akin to an actual real left-wing politician getting into power?

These corporate, sterile neo-liberals are truly vile people, and it is never ceases to sadden me just how willingly people gobble up their disingenuous ****e without any sort of questioning or critical thought.

The objective is soft-left (socially liberal/left) but economically hard-right (uber-wealth class). The ivory-towers champagne socialists want the peasants to do as they say, not as they do.

Think of Leo, wandering the island ahead of the next election, chauffeured by a C02 belching, fuel guzzling helicopter en-route to Offaly no less (where he closed peat burning stations owing to climate change).

But he'll be the first to tell you that YOU have to pay more at the pumps to fuel your car ferrying your butt to work and pay taxes to keep him at the helm, while he hits you for that helicopter ride in the guise of "expenses".

But to the climate-alarmists, the ends justify the means and they'll turn a blind eye to Leo and his merry band of cohorts. You also have the Greens surging from a low base, these guys oppose every bypass and road alignment planned - but they'll insist you have an EV to sit in the queues on crap roads.

It bemuses me how the public stand for and vote for this bull-ology.

Oneiric 3

Danno wrote: »

Think of Leo

Do I really have too? :eek:

But yes, you are spot on and basically we are entering an era where class politics is coming into play once again. The pontificating and self-righteous bourgeoisie vs the downtrodden proletariat. History has a curious way of always repeating itself..

Danno

Just to add...

https://www.activesustainability.com/climate-change/100-companies-responsible-71-ghg-emissions/

...shows that one company alone, China Coal, emits 143+ times the amount of C02 that Ireland does in a single year. So, if anyone wants to protest Climate Change, I suggest that they jump on an EV Bus down to the Chinese Embassy (hint: you'll find it on the very affluent, leafy suburb on Ailesbury Road - where all the champagne socialists live: https://goo.gl/maps/g3hRtU7o9VCR7Cvf8 ) and burn their communist flags outside in protest. In the mean time, piddle-off and leave the hard-working Irish taxpayer alone.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

The scientists are busy doing science

This has to be the lamest and most idiotic excuse ever.

Nabber

Wild fires in Australia - Not the worst fires, not even touching 1970. Never discussed

it's late I'll try to follow up on this.

Brazil Forests Fires- Also not the worst year. Not mentioned.

Miss leading information

A record number of fires have hit the Amazon in 2019

Compared too.



What was ignored was the illegal deforestation that doubled in 2019, clearing out unique habitats.

Rain forests the lungs of the earth - also not true, but unchallenged.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01916.x
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/6/source-of-half-earth-s-oxygen-gets-little-credit/

“Even a huge increase in forest fires would produce changes in oxygen that are difficult to measure. There’s enough oxygen in the air to last for millions of years, and the amount is set by geology rather than land use. The fact that this upsurge in deforestation threatens some of the most biodiverse and carbon-rich landscapes on Earth is reason enough to oppose it.”

Hurricanes more frequent- not true, not challenged
Hurricanes stronger - not true, not challenged

USA landfall, showing a trend downwards in both total hurricanes and major hurricanes.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0184.1

Articles relating to hurricanes:
Climate change: Bigger hurricanes are now more damaging BBC (2019)

Hurricanes have become bigger and more destructive for USA

The cause of this is likely due to economic impact of hurricanes and populations growth in areas affected by hurricanes.

No confirmed species on brink of extinction due directly to temperature change or to AGW Theory. Never challenged but Attenborough’s go to in every documentary.

No animal is associated as critically endangered due to AGW. The vast majority are due to habitat loss, pollution, poaching and invasive species.
The polar bear which used as the poster boy of AGW extinction is not recognized as vulnerable and it's designation was largely associated with the 'ice free Arctic' and the starving polar bear video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JhaVNJb3ag

Polar bear population has been on the rise since the 1950s (est 5,000) to the current estimation of 25,000.
https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22823/14871490


Just to preempt Arkaisa attack on me :eek:

I think the following are bad:
Carbon emissions
Pollution
Greedy corporations
Deforestation
Over farming
2 Liter engines

Danno

Nabber wrote: »

it's late I'll try to follow up on this...

Gotta damn those facts when it shows man-made climate change is blown outta proportion.

Well done on presenting these facts. It's important that people get to see the real hard data.

If only the same effort was put into habitat protection for wildlife and clean drinking water as there was for C02 emissions we might actually have a much better planet for it.

Nabber

Danno wrote: »

If only the same effort was put into habitat protection for wildlife and clean drinking water as there was for C02 emissions we might actually have a much better planet for it.

This is it, CO2 emissions has over showed the direct abuse the planet is receiving.

The vast majority of the population want cheap meat, fruits available all season, product manufactured cheaply, heated homes, motorised transport, medicines, electronic devices. ect...
A blind eye is turned to carbon foot print of modern conveniences.

Instead they look at BIG OIL evil incarnate, how dare they make my modern convenient luxurious living standards a reality, those evil bast*rds.
Supply and demand, without demand then BIG OIL becomes small oil, that requires effort tho. The alternative, use carbon to; create a device, support a network and generate power so I can logon and tell strangers how they are wrong. Keyboard warriors like we see here, look down on others as the cause of all warming and do very little to change their life styles in support of their ideology.

Edit: AGW Fanatics are closer to a religion than Scientology is!!

Danno

Nabber wrote: »

This is it, CO2 emissions has over showed the direct abuse the planet is receiving.

The vast majority of the population want cheap meat, fruits available all season, product manufactured cheaply, heated homes, motorised transport, medicines, electronic devices. ect...
A blind eye is turned to carbon foot print of modern conveniences.

Instead they look at BIG OIL evil incarnate, how dare they make my modern convenient luxurious living standards a reality, those evil bast*rds.
Supply and demand, without demand then BIG OIL becomes small oil, that requires effort tho. The alternative, use carbon to; create a device, support a network and generate power so I can logon and tell strangers how they are wrong. Keyboard warriors like we see here, look down on others as the cause of all warming and do very little to change their life styles in support of the ideology.

Spot on. This modus operandi of thinking has clearly infiltrated the political class too. Mind you, they were always bending in the wind anyways.

M.T. Cranium

Akrasia wrote: »

I think chancer is a fairly good term for someone who sets up their own journal so they can get their own articles ‘peer reviewed’

The problem being, all skeptics know that they have no chance of publication in mainstream journals because only IPCC-agenda-favourable material can possibly pass peer review there. So one avenue around that roadblock is to try to set up an alternate scientific body with its own journals.

In a clash between rival sciences, the only way to tell which is more legitimate is to study which one has better predictions. Since this clash has been fairly recent, we are all going to have to wait to find out the answer to that. But in my own case, I am really advancing a third option that is not that similar to most skeptics. I am basically saying the IPCC may be right in their predictions but wrong about the reasons. This is not what most other skeptics believe, most of them think the climate may stabilize and become steady-state.

I hope they are right as otherwise we are inevitably (rather than possibly) going to face the consequences of increased warming trends. I just think that they are inevitable because too much of the foundation for them is natural variability to make our interventions into AGW much of a factor in the outcome.

My analysis is that the climate was trying to enter a natural cooling phase around the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it failed to take hold, perhaps because the strong El Nino of 1982-83 kicked that trend to the ground and left things steady-state for a few years, but further strong El Ninos in the 1990s led the way to warmer conditions that peaked 1998-2006. Another peak occurred around 2010-12. How much of this was natural variability, and how much was AGW, is what I am working on separating out, but I think at the very least it is still a 50-50 mixture and may continue to be closer to the longer-term 2:1 ratio. I do expect another attempt at natural cooling due to the long-term effects of the current solar downturn. Some years around 2021-24 may turn colder again. However, the state of play of arctic ice cover is such that any future coolings may be more like halts in warming.

I think it would take a Maunder-like solar shutdown lasting decades to prevent the inevitable increase in global temperatures in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 C deg during this coming century.

I notice the thread has pretty much reset to a debate between warmers and skeptics, but I continue to take this rather isolated (to myself) third route and if I'm right obviously it would have different implications for policy than if either of the warring camps are right.

SeaBreezes

The climate theory claims that recent warming was caused by trapping of IR radiant heat by increasing atmos. "greenhouse gases". However satellite observations show no sign of heat trapping, since outgoing LW radiation increases in phase with rising lower-troposphere Global Temp.

data are from official sources available online:

- UAH LT Global Temperature: https://nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt…;
- CERES EBAF Ed4.1: https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/products-info.php?product=EBAF…;

aggregated the original monthly data to annual means to produce a cleaner graph

Dr Ned Nikolov twitter..
https://mobile.twitter.com/NikolovScience/status/1218048356473135104

Oneiric 3

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I notice the thread has pretty much reset to a debate between warmers and skeptics,

It was always going to be that way MT!
But, whether one is 'for' or 'against' the whole climate thing, threads like this are a great learning tool I think. You'll hear debates in threads like this that you will not hear on mainstream outlets and what is more important, anyone can join in. No occupational closure here.

oriel36

Water John wrote: »

Must be a vast, tightly controlled conspiracy, almost a scientific black hole. Such is its pull, few escape to tell the truth.

I suppose a conspiracy requires some level of intelligence so empirical modelers don't even count despite their pretense and self-importance.

A 'black hole', for instance, as referenced in your response insofar as it entertains the wider public as an imaginary astronomical object. An elaborate way to describe nothing is 'infinite density/zero volume' and likewise, an equally silly way to describe nothing is 'infinite volume/ zero density'.It doesn't strain the imagination to know how phony a 'singularity' is as a concept.

People are easily fooled and no less the academics themselves.

Gaoth Laidir

Having now read a few of Mears' papers to see if Heller's claim is true, several things were reaffirmed:

- Satellite "measurements" of lower tropospheric temperature are not actual measurements but calculations based on measurements from upper levels of the troposphere using different frequency channels
- These calculations are open to huge errors and vary depending on which instrument (satellite) were talking about
- The results depend on several assumptions and the choice of the value of certain correction factors* (see below).
- The differences between instruments muddy the waters between different periods of the total satellite era, affecting the corresponding trends
- There is no substitute for actual traditional in-situ surface air measurements, however we've seen how data-sparse most of the surface of the earth is in this regard. This is why it is important to look at several longterm instrumental records, such as MT is starting to do here, and build up an alternative global picture that way.

In the case of Heller versus Mears, it's a draw. It's not as clear cut or blatant as Heller makes out, but by Mears' own admission, there are many sources of error and uncertainty, not least or which is his arbitrary choice of correcting factor C, that greatly affect the resulting trend.

*

In V3.3, we used a set of nine additional regularization equations (one for each satellite in the analysis) that serve to “pull” the values of poorly determined target factors toward zero,

with the amount of the pull determined by the choice of the regularization factor C. These equations are appended to the original system, and the solution recomputed. For a perfect, linear radiometer, the target factor would be zero. The regularization equations function as a prior expectation that target factors are zero (i.e., the radiometer is linear), unless there is good evidence to conclude otherwise. The regularization equations have little effect on the target factors that are well determined by the original regression procedure. On the other hand, if a target factor is poorly determined (and thus subject to overfitting) its absolute value will be reduced significantly when the regularization equations are included in the system. In Mears and Wentz (2009b), we set C to 1.0 for each of the MSU satellites. This had the effect of reducing the NOAA-09 target factor to a more reasonable value. Here we extend this work to study the effect of this procedure as a function of C so that we can make a well-informed choice for C. As Cincreases from zero, the fit moves away from minimizing the differences between NOAA-09 and the two other satellites with significant overlap with NOAA-09, NOAA-06, and NOAA-10. With C set to 0, the standard deviation of the global monthly mean difference between NOAA-09 and -10 is much lower than for other satellite pairs, suggesting that overfitting may be occurring. We increase C to a point (C = 1.5) where the standard deviation of this difference is comparable to other satellite pairs (see Fig. S2). This also reduces the values of the NOAA-09 target factor to a value more comparable to the target factors from other satellites (see Fig. S3). We choose C = 1.5 for the subsequent analysis in this paper, but other nearby values may also be valid. The value of C has an effect on the long-term trends in the final results, and thus the uncertainty surrounding the choice of C contributes to the uncertainty in the final results (see Fig. S4 and the discussion in section 5).

Discussion

We showed that the diurnal adjustments based on a general circulation model do not completely remove the effects of measurement time drift. This investigation also suggested that three satellites, NOAA-15, NOAA-18, and Aqua, suffered from spurious calibration changes. These results are qualitatively similar to our findings for the TMT channel. Our analysis closely paralleled our approach in Mears and Wentz (2016), where we compared three different approaches to account for the shortcomings of the model-based diurnal adjustments. All three approaches result in similar results for long-term trends for measurements from the AMSU instruments. This agreement leads us to conclude that our chosen method, optimizing the model-derived diurnal cycles by computing a second harmonic adjustment, is a valid one.

When used for MSU instruments, this method reduces the differences between co-orbiting satellites, suggesting that it is a valid approach for these instruments, even though the two additional approaches are not possible. Using this method, we have introduced a new version of the RSS TLT dataset, V4.0. Given the complexity of the methods used, it is useful to review the various choices we made in our analysis that substantially change the final trends.

The choices with the most impact on the final results are 1) the choice of the regularization factor for NOAA-09, 2) the choice of which model-based adjustment to use as the starting point for the DIURNAL_OPT procedure, 3) data editing choices made for NOAA-15, and 4) choices about which data to use during the MSU/AMSU overlap period. Data editing for MetOp-A and Aqua also has an effect, but we do not view these two edits as optional because the edits are strongly supported by anomalies in the satellite measurements. The choices we made for 1–4 are somewhat arbitrary, and other choices may be equally reasonable. Table 7 summarizes these choices, and the impact of the final global trend values is presented as entire range of variability. The table indicated that different choices can result in a long-term trend that is different by several hundredths of a degree Kelvin per decade. Because of the small number of values examined for each processing choice, these ranges do not represent a formal estimate of uncertainty, and it is not possible to combine them into a single uncertainty estimate in a defensible manner. A more formal procedure (e.g., Mears et al. 2011) would be necessary, and is beyond the scope of the current study.

Table 7. Effect of various processing choices on MSU/AMSU Global (70°S to 80°N) trends (1979–2016).

The resulting dataset shows more warming than the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998, and more warming than similar datasets developed by UAH, more warming than homogenized radiosonde datasets, but less warming than would be expected from satellite estimates of water vapor trend. These results suggest that at least some of the datasets studied still contain unresolved errors. For the TLT dataset that is the focus of this paper, the largest remaining problems are related to the NOAA-09 target factor, the diurnal adjustments applied, and the possibility of spurious calibration drift in one or more satellites. Possible calibration drift in NOAA-15 contributes to two of the important choice impacts in Table 7, the MSU/AMSU overlap, and the removal of NOAA-15 data after 2011. Since other AMSU channels show evidence of drifting measurement frequencies (Lu and Bell 2014; Zou and Wang 2011), it is important to perform future research to detect or rule out such changes for the MSU and AMSU measurements used here

https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

thecretinhop

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

It was always going to be that way MT!
But, whether one is 'for' or 'against' the whole climate thing, threads like this are a great learning tool I think. You'll hear debates in threads like this that you will not hear on mainstream outlets and what is more important, anyone can join in. No occupational closure here.

PBH on liveline *a radio debate show: "the debate is OVER!" on global warming

posidonia

Danno wrote: »

How are you going to refute the obviously absurd claims made in the 80s and 90s by climate alarmists that the Maldives would disappear into the ocean by now?

That would take a real turn of work to convince anyone.

I'll bet you can't.

https://goo.gl/maps/Gb1EubPaEjm8ak5bA

I'm not going to. When the facts change I change - what do you do?



And what is happening? Well, it seems the coral atoll's growth is keeping pace with sea level rise (get it?) and the people there are building new islands and new sea defences.

oriel36

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

I notice the thread has pretty much reset to a debate between warmers and skeptics, but I continue to take this rather isolated (to myself) third route and if I'm right obviously it would have different implications for policy than if either of the warring camps are right.

You are the Jeremy Corbyn of empirical 'climate change' modeling in hedging your bets.


You are trying to come across as balanced but as the British electorate understood, you are either in or out so , in truth, you come across as mediocre and that is not a balance between anything.

posidonia

Nabber wrote: »

This is it, CO2 emissions has over showed the direct abuse the planet is receiving.

The vast majority of the population want cheap meat, fruits available all season, product manufactured cheaply, heated homes, motorised transport, medicines, electronic devices. ect...
A blind eye is turned to carbon foot print of modern conveniences.

Instead they look at BIG OIL evil incarnate, how dare they make my modern convenient luxurious living standards a reality, those evil bast*rds.
Supply and demand, without demand then BIG OIL becomes small oil, that requires effort tho. The alternative, use carbon to; create a device, support a network and generate power so I can logon and tell strangers how they are wrong. Keyboard warriors like we see here, look down on others as the cause of all warming and do very little to change their life styles in support of their ideology.

Edit: AGW Fanatics are closer to a religion than Scientology is!!

Some of what you post is ok, but I see you resort to insults as well.


What do you think about vegans?



Btw, you are a keyboard warrior too....Oh, and don't bother trying the carbon footprint line on me - I've not set foot in a plane since the early nineties, my car is tiny and being run into the ground.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

The objective is soft-left (socially liberal/left) but economically hard-right (uber-wealth class). The ivory-towers champagne socialists want the peasants to do as they say, not as they do.

Lol, just Lol

Do you think the heartland institute, the Koch brothers, all the think tanks funding climate change denial that also lobby for reduced taxation and lower regulations on industry. Are these the real socialists who are fighting for the interests of the working man???

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Do I really have too? :eek:

But yes, you are spot on and basically we are entering an era where class politics is coming into play once again. The pontificating and self-righteous bourgeoisie vs the downtrodden proletariat. History has a curious way of always repeating itself..

The ‘downtrodden’ proles have much more to lose from environmental destruction than the wealthy have. Environmental protection should be a class issue but the right wing media have spent a fortune convincing the working class that clean air and water is against their interests

The green new deal specifically targets the wealthy and specifically benefits the poor.