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

dense wrote: »

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.

Instead of posting the same links repeatedly, why don't you read them properly once. The links you post do not say what you pretend they say. I've already explained why. Go back and read those responses

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.

The global average temperature for 2017, according to NASA (gisstemp) is .9c above the 1951-1980 average.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
What was the absolute temperature according to the baseline. Climate scientists do not deal in absolute temperatures, they deal in temperature anomalies based on a baseline for each individual weather station for very good reasons, but if you want to know what the absolute temperature the Gisstemp baseline is, it is approximately 14c or 287 kelvin.

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

I didn't say anything. i just read the paper you posted. The paper had an approximate value with a margin of error which you completely ignored because it didn't suit you.

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.

There was never a consensus that we were heading for 'global cooling' And there absolutely is a consensus that the earth is warming far more rapidly than can be explained by any natural processes.

dense wrote: »

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









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

It will receive plenty of attention and it is a very useful study for climate scientists looking to model ice loss in the arctic.
It is extremely problematic for you however, given your position is that ice loss isn't a problem in the arctic and that the models have been over estimating ice loss. This study is questioning why the models are underestimating the observed ice loss.

Their conclusions are not controversial. Its that the models for ice loss are not properly coupled to the atmospheric and oceanic conditions like el nino and la nina, and that these naturally variability (amongst others) impact ice loss in the arctic. This doesn't mean that ice loss would have been just as dramatic if it wasn't for climate change, it means that ice loss can be stalled by naturally cooling phases, and accelerated in naturally warming phases. The question is whether the short term cooling is enough to offset the artificial warming from climate change, and if the short term warming amplification from natural variability counts as a positive feedback which accelerates warming beyond the greenhouse effect on its own.

This is one of the positive feedbacks that I'm always banging on about. If periods of natural warming cause more ice loss than can be offset by the corresponding naturally cooling phase, then on balance this counts as a positive feedback for climate change

starts @ 20 minutes in and 7 minutes long.

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

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

starts @ 20 minutes in and 7 minutes long.

Better not tell Dense that Jordan Peterson worked for the 'Globalist' UN

Aside from that, it's a pretty terrible analysis of climate change. He simply dismisses the science because there is 'uncertainty' and dismisses the problem as being too hard to solve therefore we shouldn't do anything.

He keeps saying 'they don't have a solution' but there are clear solutions, they just have to be implemented.
He references Bjorn Lomborg whose entire thesis is just one big false dichotomy (that we have to choose between reducing poverty and tackling climate change. We should be doing both) but he dismisses the thousands of other economists and scientists etc who say that the costs of inaction are many times higher than the costs of action, and the costs of inaction on climate change are substantial for the wealthy economies in the west, but utterly devastating to the developing world.
He also ignores the benefits of moving to sustainable energy. Once the infrastructure is in place, the marginal costs per unit of energy are substantially lower than the costs of fossil fuels.

Climate change is an issue that requires substantial upfront investment in infrastructure but leads to substantial savings in the long term (both in terms of cheaper energy, and the reduction in negative costs associated with rapid climate change)

dense wrote: »

The astute reader will appreciate that the link you have supplied doesn't contain either of those figures but does contain a link to Hansen's 1981 study which I have already linked to which concluded with an approximate figure of 15°C, as have multiple other instances I have already linked to.

Astute readers know you're full of nonsense.
The link I gave is the source of the GISS data where you can calculate the temperature anomaly yourself based on monthly or annual average global temperature anomalies.

I will concede that it is only climate justice activists and their ilk now who are now haranguing people about keeping a barely measurable temperature rise below a constantly reducing baseline temperature for political reasons, and that it is only children and the easily led who are falling for it.




The margin of error you didn't say anything about??

The approximate value was 288k.
The error of margin only added to the uncertainty, 289 to 287k, which suits just fine.

There is nothing to be gained now by pretending you didn't say it.

People can go back and read exactly what I said if they want to.

But it's worth considering the end result of your lowering the temperature baseline alongside your upwardly adjusted temperature data because it demonstrates how much of a scam is involved.

The temperature baseline is the temperature anomaly calculated from averaging individual weather station data throughout the network. This is different from some estimate of what the actual global average temperature is because this requires assumptions that introduce uncertainty.
Climate scientists use temperature anomalies for a very good reason, because it's more precise. Climate change deniers like you, choose whatever they think muddies the water the most in order to deny the obvious reality of global climate change. You never commented on the animation showing the rapid decline of arctic ice that is happening in a world that you claim is 'barely warming'

In 1978, 97% of scientists thought the world* was cooling, with no end to it in sight.

They later changed their tune and said that the world was warming, with man being responsible for it.

https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html

You're such a liar. There was never anywhere near a 97% consensus that the world would cool. There was a debate about whether the natural cooling phase the earth should be entering would be stronger than the warming humans care causing from our emissions of CO2. That debate is comprehensively over now. Despite the fact that the natural variability signal was to cool the planet, the planet has warmed by almost a degree Celsius.

No matter what argument you try to run off to, the facts and reality make you look ignorant and uninformed.

*They hadn't considered making up data for the SH at that point, that only came later.

You mean like the deniers who rabbit on about the 'little ice age' and 'medieval warm period' as if they were global events and don't seem to care about any evidence that shows these were regional events?

Therefore, 97% of today's scientists who appear to have an issue with an alleged man made temperature rise obviously believe that global temperatures should actually have been falling, with no mechanism in place to arrest that decline preventing the world heading towards an ice age, which is exactly as had been claimed in the previous consensus in the 70s, which you now say didn't exist.

Your logic is astounding. There's a flat earth society meeting happening this week in Denver. You should go. They'll appreciate your visionary approach to logic and reason.

Hhhmmmm.


https://twitter.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1060652983174733824

lol. Someone has finally found something they can jump on. Watch as one potentially flawed research now gets expounded into the illogical conclusion that all similar research is flawed.

dense wrote: »

Hush now Akrasia, the paper's warmist co-author, Ralph Keeling, from Scripps, has now admitted the errors to the media.



https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/11/14/world/ocean-warming-study-errors-intl/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dresplandy%2Bresearch%2Berrors%26oq%3Dresplandy%2Bresearch%2Berrors%26gs_l%3Dmobile-heirloom-serp.12...1646.6222.1.6809.16.16.0.0.0.0.232.1639.9j6j1.16.0....0...1c.1.34.mobile-heirloom-serp..9.17.1783.14Chz2EQ1Og

It's clear you'd have preferred the errors to have gone unnoticed and the claims of 60% extra heat in the oceans requiring a major recalculation of ECS to have been accepted by an unwitting public.


You're probably also upset that the eminent journal, Nature, publisher of scientific literature, and its peer reviewers have all been caught with their pants down.


Best get on to them to get rid of their comments platform to clamp down on the possibility of scientists having a publc platform to reach out to one another to correct such junk science.

Where exactly has the scientific process failed here? The paper was published, an error was noticed, and now the scientists are working to correct their calculations.

On the other side of the 'debate' you have the pseudo scientists who have errors pointed out to them all the time and instead of correcting them, they double down on them and spread them through social media without any real regard for scientific integrity.

dense wrote: »

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/

Yes. What's your point. Climate change is extremely time sensitive. Delays in acting have very long term consequences. The longer we delay, the worse the harm, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't act. It means the opposite.

dense wrote: »

Peer review.



It's supposed to catch errors that lead to major incorrect scientific conclusions, regarding, in this instance, climate sensitivity, the carbon budget, warming scenarios and the real biggy, the discovery of the alleged missing heat and then some, before being published, not after.



No peer of the authors found any errors.



Nature's peer review system permitted the errors to be published.
None of the reviewers questioned the research.



The paper fit the alarmist agenda and got rubber stamped.



But as you say, it's all working out real well now.



It does make you wonder how many other faulty climate papers have similar errors and have passed pal review, because it doesn't seem to be very stringent if this is happening.

Peer review is imperfect but the best we have. Its only part of the scientific process, corrections are made to papers after they have been published regularly, and studies need to be replicated independently for their findings to be robust.

One paper on its own is never enough to establish the science. It takes multiple independent studies.

There are lots of skeptical papers that are published in peer reviewed journals but they are not sufficient to overturn the sheer weight of evidence that supports the consensus on climate change

dense wrote: »

Long on content, short on an explanation for your made up figures.



Have another go.
At the moment you're just making up figures like Keeling and Resplandy et al.

Keeling and Resplandy didn't make up figures. Neither did Ralph Keeling's father.