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

Akrasia · 25-10-2018 03:39PM

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.

WesternZulu · 25-10-2018 04:07PM

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.

dense · 25-10-2018 05:36PM

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?

xckjoo · 25-10-2018 05:44PM

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

Akrasia · 25-10-2018 05:49PM

xckjoo wrote: »

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

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

dense · 25-10-2018 05:54PM

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.

xckjoo · 25-10-2018 05:56PM

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

dense · 25-10-2018 06:31PM

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.

dense · 26-10-2018 06:56AM

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.

xckjoo · 26-10-2018 09:39AM

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.

Akrasia · 26-10-2018 12:50PM

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

dense · 26-10-2018 01:44PM

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

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTyDzhsYOoBsruWE0eCyPql8kaj0nJsQpphkFOYmum0MLZq3SO_Og

Akrasia · 26-10-2018 03:34PM

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.

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

dense · 26-10-2018 06:21PM

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.

mikhail · 26-10-2018 06:23PM

Now you're just being dense.

dense · 26-10-2018 06:30PM

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/

Rechuchote · 26-10-2018 06:33PM

This graph expresses the situation most clearly:

dense · 27-10-2018 02:38AM

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

xckjoo · 30-10-2018 12:24PM

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.

Akrasia · 30-10-2018 08:03PM

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

dense · 01-11-2018 10:43PM

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?

batgoat · 02-11-2018 12:49AM

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

Akrasia · 02-11-2018 12:06PM

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

dense · 02-11-2018 05:48PM

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

Harry Palmr · 02-11-2018 06:05PM

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2018/climate-extremes-report-supplement

Akrasia · 03-11-2018 10:34AM

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

dense · 06-11-2018 01:27AM

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.

dense · 06-11-2018 10:15PM

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!!

Akrasia · 07-11-2018 04:59PM

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.

xckjoo · 07-11-2018 05:34PM

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

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

Comments