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

dense · 26-10-2018 6:56am

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After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not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 9:39am

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 1:44pm

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 3:34pm

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 6:21pm

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 6:23pm

Now you're just being dense.

dense · 26-10-2018 6:30pm

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 6:33pm

This graph expresses the situation most clearly:

dense · 27-10-2018 2:38am

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 8:03pm

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 5:48pm

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 6:05pm

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 1:27am

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 4:59pm

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 5:34pm

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

RobertKK · 07-11-2018 5:51pm

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

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

Akrasia · 07-11-2018 7:19pm

dense wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nature is the foremost scientific journal with a reputation for diligent peer review.

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

Akrasia · 07-11-2018 9:55pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Where I think the politicians and scientists have gone wrong on this is the following...
The politicians have used it for more tax which never helps.

Are you referring to carbon taxes?

These were proposed by economists as a way to use market forces to reduce the cost of acting on climate change without harming the economy. There was a statement released by thousands of economists including 18 nobel laureats in 1997 that said the following

II. Economic studies have found that there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs. For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards, and that these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the long run.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economists%27_Statement_on_Climate_Change

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

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

The climate change 'fanatics' is a false narrative. On one side we have scientists and the mounting evidence that we need to act quickly to avoid disaster. On the other side there are those who are protecting their own financial interests trying to delay action and deny the evidence for as long as they can get away with it.

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

dense · 07-11-2018 10:02pm

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

You can't argue, period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

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

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

dense · 07-11-2018 10:53pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Nature is the foremost scientific journal with a reputation for diligent peer review.

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

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

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

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

batgoat · 07-11-2018 11:11pm

dense wrote: »

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

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

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

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

dense · 08-11-2018 12:09am

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

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

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

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

dense · 08-11-2018 12:15am

batgoat wrote: »

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

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

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

What means would you prefer?