• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate change thought experiment.

Russell797 said:
They were correct to demand the paper in question not be published. It was crap and is still regarded as such. That was the Sallie Balliunas and Willie Soon paper I believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

The disparity with tree ring data was evident only in certain Siberian trees (not all trees) which suddenly diverged with known instrument trends and other proxy methodologies around 1960 for some unknown reason. Mann et. al were correct in throwing out that data. It's what scientist do when inconsistencies are noticed. Nothing controversial at all. Made so by the thieves who interpreted the messages for you, because "Hide the Decline" sounds so sinister.
Click to expand...

If the decline wasn't a big deal then why did they want to hide it?

Yes, of course, they always say that papers they don't like are poor quality. In cases like that they should publish them and let the scientific community decide, not suppress them.
 
LowDown said:
There's a lot of variance between proxies.
Click to expand...

Of course there's variance. Climate isn't uniform everywhere and st all time points. That's why you get large databases to distinguish trends. That's Science 101.

Yet, when combined, temperature curves look like this:


0d021bafe31b8cadde5e8bb03f8bfd3d.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
Of course there's variance. Climate isn't uniform everywhere and st all time points. That's why you get large databases to distinguish trends. That's Science 101.

Yet, when combined, temperature curves look like this:


0d021bafe31b8cadde5e8bb03f8bfd3d.jpg
Click to expand...

If I read this chart correctly it means that there has been no significant change in temperatures over the last 2000 years.
 
Threegoofs said:
Lucky for us, scientists don't rely on you to interpret charts.
Click to expand...

The legend says it's showing 1 sigma uncertainty. What do you say that means? It usually means 1 standard deviation, which would mean that there's only a 68.2% chance that the real values are in the error envelope they are showing us. A two sigma envelope (95.4%) goes right off the graph. And the real values are no more likely to be on the line they draw than at the edge of the envelope.
 
LowDown said:
The legend says it's showing 1 sigma uncertainty. What do you say that means? It usually means 1 standard deviation, which would mean that there's only a 68.2% chance that the real values are in the error envelope they are showing us. A two sigma envelope (95.4%) goes right off the graph. And the real values are no more likely to be on the line they draw than at the edge of the envelope.
Click to expand...

The envelope is for the lowest resolution proxy study- Marcott.

And the actual temperatures (which have a very tight margin) are higher than the error margin from that study in the past. The Pages 2k synthesis is higher resolution and has smaller margins of uncertainty.

Like I said, that's why we don't rely on rando political zealots to interpret scientific data honestly.
 
LowDown said:
There's a lot of variance between proxies.
Click to expand...

And no way to accurately determine temperatures from them. Too many other unknown variables affect most proxies.
 
Threegoofs said:
The envelope is for the lowest resolution proxy study- Marcott.

And the actual temperatures (which have a very tight margin) are higher than the error margin from that study in the past. The Pages 2k synthesis is higher resolution and has smaller margins of uncertainty.
Click to expand...

It may be true.

Like I said, that's why we don't rely on rando political zealots to interpret scientific data honestly.
Click to expand...

That's certainly a statement that could cut both ways.
 
Threegoofs said:
It certainly could.

But I presented data which was interpreted by experts in scientific journals in the way I've presented it.

You didn't.
Click to expand...

Indeed? So you say. Let's see the journal articles. The figure isn't as you describe the data. It looks like PAGES included no information on deviation. I think you're blowing smoke up my ***.
 
LowDown said:
Indeed? So you say. Let's see the journal articles. The figure isn't as you describe the data. It looks like PAGES included no information on deviation. I think you're blowing smoke up my ***.
Click to expand...

Stop whining about my interpretations and look up your own.
 
LowDown said:
If the decline wasn't a big deal then why did they want to hide it?

Yes, of course, they always say that papers they don't like are poor quality. In cases like that they should publish them and let the scientific community decide, not suppress them.
Click to expand...

They hid the Briffa Siberian tree ring data because it was at odds with all other reconstructions and the instrument temperature record. The discrepancy began in 1961 and showed the temperature going in the opposite direction from all other data sources, both proxy and instrument. In science this is known as an extreme outlier. It is common practice not to include such outliers in statistical treatments.

The Balliunas/Soon paper was published. The CRU were part of the scientific community which knew the methodologies used by the authors were flawed. So much so that half the editors of the journal subsequently resigned for the mistake they had made in publishing the paper. No journal wishes to be viewed by the scientific community as incompetent in the referee process.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Glad I could give you a reference to support your previously held beliefs. Now you have data.

Of course, albedo is a contributing part of this, since the warming is the main cause. And, unlike your pet theory that China is causing all this, the primary driver of albedo is that the melt exposes bare ground, which accelerates warming. Didnt cha ever wonder why the soot from china only seem to be having an albedo effect on the edges of Greenland? Im guessing you didnt want to go into that cognitive dissonance.

In fact, the effect of black carbon is so minimal, in the last ten years of arctic report cards at NOAA it was only mentioned once, in 2013. You can find it on page 30.

The main findings?

Highlights
• Average equivalent black carbon (soot) concentrations in 2012 at Alert (Nunavut,
Canada), Barrow (Alaska, USA) and Ny-Ålesund (Svalbard, Norway) were similar to
average concentrations during the decade 2002-2012.
• Annual equivalent black carbon has declined by 55% and 45% since the early 1990s at
Alert and Barrow, respectively
Click to expand...

Yeah. Thats right. Your pet theory as to why we have accelerating melting is blown out by the fact that there is actually LESS black carbon in the arctic now than there was in the 90s.

I'm guessing this information doesnt change your thinking on this issue at all. Because you're thinking on the issue isnt informed by knowledge - its informed by denial. You have your belief that AGW is no big deal, and no fancy talking experts with data are going to make you change your mind!
Click to expand...

Why didn't you use the 2016 report for 2015:

Highlights:


Highlights
•
Melt area in 2015 exceeded more than half of the ice sheet on July 4th for the first time
since the exceptional melt events of July 2012, and was above the 1981-
2010 average on 54.3% of days (50 of 92 days).
•
The length of the melt
season was as much as 30
-40 days longer than average in the
western, northwestern and northeastern regions, but close to and below average
elsewhere on the ice sheet.
•
Average summer albedo in 2015 was below the 2000-
2009 average over the
northwest and above the average over the southwest portion of the Greenland ice
sheet. In July, albedo averaged over the entire ice sheet was lower than in 2013 and
2014, but higher than the lowest value on record observed in 2012.
•
Ice mass loss of 186 Gt over the entire ice sheet between April 2014 and April 2015
was 22% below the average mass loss of 238 Gt for the 2002-
2015 period, but was
6.4 times higher than the 29 Gt loss of the preceding 2013-
2014 season.
•
The net area loss from marine-
terminating glaciers during 2014
-2015 was 16.5 km2.
This was the lowest annual net area loss of the period of observations (1999-
2015)
and 7.7 times lower than the annual average area change trend of -
127 km2.

​

ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2015.pdf

You have exposed your lack of integrity to us all.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why didn't you use the 2016 report for 2015:

Highlights:


Highlights
•
Melt area in 2015 exceeded more than half of the ice sheet on July 4th for the first time
since the exceptional melt events of July 2012, and was above the 1981-
2010 average on 54.3% of days (50 of 92 days).
•
The length of the melt
season was as much as 30
-40 days longer than average in the
western, northwestern and northeastern regions, but close to and below average
elsewhere on the ice sheet.
•
Average summer albedo in 2015 was below the 2000-
2009 average over the
northwest and above the average over the southwest portion of the Greenland ice
sheet. In July, albedo averaged over the entire ice sheet was lower than in 2013 and
2014, but higher than the lowest value on record observed in 2012.
•
Ice mass loss of 186 Gt over the entire ice sheet between April 2014 and April 2015
was 22% below the average mass loss of 238 Gt for the 2002-
2015 period, but was
6.4 times higher than the 29 Gt loss of the preceding 2013-
2014 season.
•
The net area loss from marine-
terminating glaciers during 2014
-2015 was 16.5 km2.
This was the lowest annual net area loss of the period of observations (1999-
2015)
and 7.7 times lower than the annual average area change trend of -
127 km2.

​

ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2015.pdf

You have exposed your lack of integrity to us all.
Click to expand...

As I clearly pointed out, in clear English, I used it because it was the only report that mentioned black carbon in the last ten years....because the issue only exists in your mind.

You have exposed your lack of integrity to us all.

But that's pretty much a daily thing these days.
 
Threegoofs said:
As I clearly pointed out, in clear English, I used it because it was the only report that mentioned black carbon in the last ten years....because the issue only exists in your mind.

You have exposed your lack of integrity to us all.

But that's pretty much a daily thing these days.
Click to expand...

Excuses excuses.

Fact is, BC is a very significant component of the changing albedo of ice, and it is an antropogenic cause.

Your cherry picked report stops at a cleaner of ice. It gets dirty again after that.

You are either missing or ignoring so many things. I have better things to do than repeat over and over.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Excuses excuses.

Fact is, BC is a very significant component of the changing albedo of ice, and it is an antropogenic cause.

Your cherry picked report stops at a cleaner of ice. It gets dirty again after that.

You are either missing or ignoring so many things. I have better things to do than repeat over and over.
Click to expand...

Again. Ten years of reports.

One mention.

And that mention says the soot is decreasing.

And you wonder why we question your judgement on scientific consensus!

Deniers gonna deny.
 
Threegoofs said:
Again. Ten years of reports.

One mention.

And that mention says the soot is decreasing.

And you wonder why we question your judgement on scientific consensus!

Deniers gonna deny.
Click to expand...

Funny how someone at that agency decided to only report when it was in decline when all the other years, it is rising... Before and after...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Funny how someone at that agency decided to only report when it was in decline when all the other years, it is rising... Before and after...
Click to expand...

Nice. You didn't even read the once piece of evidence that you're whining about.

It was looking at it over decades, not year to year.

You have exposed yourself to all as the denier you really are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom