• 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!

The fever pitch of climate alarmism

longview said:
I am not sure why you cannot understand that sea level data is all over the place, which is why the standard deviation is so large.
Click to expand...

Your the one not understanding. It is all over the place because of mostly the tides. That is why the standard deviation is close to the same amount the tides go up and down every day.

longview said:
And error bars can be used to describe one standard deviation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_bar
Click to expand...

"Can be" is the important part here. But Standard deviation is not always an error bar. If it was a error bar the data page would say this.

longview said:
Since you seem to be saying you know why the central Pacific Ocean bulges up during an El Nino,
I await your explanation.
Click to expand...

I never said or insinuated any such thing. Your the one who brought up El Ninos to incorrectly claim that Fiji's sea levels were unusually high in the last year of my calculations. I just pointed out that you were wrong. You explain it if you want.

longview said:
If they are removing the tide signal from the satellite altimeter measurement,
as stated in your own citation,
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/communit...rojects/climate-data-record-of-altimetric-slc
"tides (which also affect the POD and are not a correction but a well understood signal that is removed),"
where do you think they are getting the tide signal from?
Click to expand...

As I told Lord I didn't get into this debate to argue about how accurate the satellite data is. I came here to point out that your OP was wrong. Now, are you going to admit you were wrong or are you just going to continue to obfuscate the facts?
 
Buzz said:
As I told Lord I didn't get into this debate to argue about how accurate the satellite data is. I came here to point out that your OP was wrong. Now, are you going to admit you were wrong or are you just going to continue to obfuscate the facts?
Click to expand...

Do you think you succeeded?
 
Buzz said:
I don't doubt that GISS blocks the WayBack machine because denialists are known to use innocent errors in the data to suggest that GISS is intentionally manipulating the data to show more warming.
Click to expand...
That's right they don't want people to see what they
do for fear they might find something wrong with it.

Buzz said:
They even address this in the study that describes in detail their adjustment methods. I would suggest reading the whole thing because it is very informative and refutes numerous denialist talking points. But if you don't want to read all of it then check out chapter 9. And if that is even too much read paragraphs 101-103 and 111.
Click to expand...
The pattern is still there. Maybe GISS has digital copies
of the original raw data somewhere, but that's not what
everyone sees. And what we see is obvious propaganda.

Buzz said:
One hacked email taken out of context doesn't show anything other than how denialists love to make mountains out of molehills.
Click to expand...
It's not taken out of context - Wigley wanted to get rid of the 1940s blip.

Buzz said:
How do you know they are not erroneous? Since you get all your data from the WayBack machine and I'm sure they don't determine which records were replaced because errors were found you have no way of knowing.
Click to expand...
Let's see, 87 monthly releases can be found, and they
changed the very first entry, Jan 1880, 27 times.

Buzz said:
Nobody is claiming the MWP didn't exist.
Click to expand...
Really? Do I have to put up the You Tube of Dr. David Deming
testifying before Congress that he got an email saying

STATEMENT OF DAVID DEMING, PH.D., UNIVERSITY OF
OKLAHOMA, COLLEGE OF EARTH AND ENERGY
Mr. DEMING. "Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and
distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today.
...
I received an astonishing e-mail from a major researcher
in the area of climate change. He said, 'We have to get rid
of the Medieval Warm Period.'..."

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg52324/pdf/CHRG-109shrg52324.pdf
Click to expand...
They (Climate Scientists) just like Wigley and the 1940s
blip want to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.

You can claim whatever you want, but just like Lincoln's
dog, calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Buzz said:
We know from written history that it happened...in Europe.
Click to expand...
So why was it removed in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report?
There are too many studies that show that it was world-wide.
Again, Lincoln's five legged dog.

Buzz said:
Just like nobody is saying the cooling of 1970 didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Your side is forever telling me that the 1970s global cooling
scare didn't exist and that it was always global warming.
Lincoln's dog still has only four legs.

Buzz said:
Wouldn't that be great!! You could get it posted on every denialist webpage in existence. And then a lot more people who realize your analysis is a joke could debunk it.
Click to expand...
The You Tube with Twinkle Twinkle Little Star would be the easiest.
 
longview said:
Generally sea levels have been raising, both satellite and tide gauges reflect this,
but the system is very noisy.
For many places with short records, it would be difficult to say with much certainty
if the sea levels have actually increased. Fiji was an example, the entire record average was within about
20% of one standard deviation.
Click to expand...

So then why are you nitpicking and cherry-picking data? The temperature is rising, the ice is melting, and sea level is rising. The trend is clear. Who gives a hoot about an odd data point here and there.
 
Buzz said:
Your the one not understanding. It is all over the place because of mostly the tides. That is why the standard deviation is close to the same amount the tides go up and down every day.
Click to expand...
I agree that the standard deviation is mostly from tides, but it still almost completely distorts any possible signal.


"Can be" is the important part here. But Standard deviation is not always an error bar. If it was a error bar the data page would say this.
Click to expand...
Since your were complaining about my use of the term error bar, it was my use of the term, I get to decide to describe the
Standard deviation as an error bar.


I never said or insinuated any such thing. Your the one who brought up El Ninos to incorrectly claim that Fiji's sea levels were unusually high in the last year of my calculations. I just pointed out that you were wrong. You explain it if you want.
Click to expand...
Actually you used an end point to your data that was during an abnormal El Nino high sea level event.



As I told Lord I didn't get into this debate to argue about how accurate the satellite data is. I came here to point out that your OP was wrong. Now, are you going to admit you were wrong or are you just going to continue to obfuscate the facts?
Click to expand...
You said,
Actually, you said they were adjusting based on predictions which isn't true.
Click to expand...
Since you say the adjustments for tides are not based on predictions, I am asking you to justify
your statement and tell me the source for their adjustments?
 
Media_Truth said:
So then why are you nitpicking and cherry-picking data? The temperature is rising, the ice is melting, and sea level is rising. The trend is clear. Who gives a hoot about an odd data point here and there.
Click to expand...
The "hoot" is that while some of the observations may be a result of Human activity,
most including a large part of the warming, could be that we are simply in a warming phase.
The older sea level records appear to be almost completely unaffected by recent events, staying on the
same trend they have been on for up to two centuries.
People talking about a Climate Refugee Crisis, sort of need to justify that Human activity is responsible,
or if a crisis or reason for refugees exists at all!
 
longview said:
The "hoot" is that while some of the observations may be a result of Human activity,
most including a large part of the warming, could be that we are simply in a warming phase.
The older sea level records appear to be almost completely unaffected by recent events, staying on the
same trend they have been on for up to two centuries.
People talking about a Climate Refugee Crisis, sort of need to justify that Human activity is responsible,
or if a crisis or reason for refugees exists at all!
Click to expand...

Experts throughout the world are warning us - telling us that CO2 is causing temperatures on the Earth to rise. That is the question. That is the question, because if temperatures are rising, sea level rise is the inevitable and ugly side effect. The big question is, do you want to listen to every expert scientific organization on the planet, or do you want to listen to a few fossil-fuel industry bloggers?
 
Media_Truth said:
Experts throughout the world are warning us - telling us that CO2 is causing temperatures on the Earth to rise. That is the question.
Click to expand...
Yes, CO2 causes temperature to rise. So do other variables we have. I is impossible to see how much CO2 and feedback to CO2 is, when we have so many other variables. It is obvious that CO2 warms less than the IPCC et. al. want us to believe.

Media_Truth said:
That is the question, because if temperatures are rising, sea level rise is the inevitable and ugly side effect. The big question is, do you want to listen to every expert scientific organization on the planet, or do you want to listen to a few fossil-fuel industry bloggers?
Click to expand...
Your narrow minded scope is telling of your denial of science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, CO2 causes temperature to rise. So do other variables we have. I is impossible to see how much CO2 and feedback to CO2 is, when we have so many other variables. It is obvious that CO2 warms less than the IPCC et. al. want us to believe.


Your narrow minded scope is telling of your denial of science.
Click to expand...

Planar definition of "narrow-mindedness": The dismissal of all major scientific organizations, and trusting in blogs for accurate scientific information.
 
Media_Truth said:
Experts throughout the world are warning us - telling us that CO2 is causing temperatures on the Earth to rise. That is the question. That is the question, because if temperatures are rising, sea level rise is the inevitable and ugly side effect. The big question is, do you want to listen to every expert scientific organization on the planet, or do you want to listen to a few fossil-fuel industry bloggers?
Click to expand...
The increase in CO2 level is not doubt causing some of the temperature increase.
The Question is "How Much"?
The sea level rate of raise has been consistent within it's very noisy range for almost 2 centuries,
so it's rise is not related to CO2.
I don't read many blogs (Climate Ect, sometimes Dr. Judith Curry is an expert in the field).
I mostly look at the published data, and it is not in agreement with the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC.
 
Steve Case said:
That's right they don't want people to see what they
do for fear they might find something wrong with it.
Click to expand...

No, they don't want people like you doing exactly what you are doing here.

Steve Case said:
The pattern is still there. Maybe GISS has digital copies
of the original raw data somewhere, but that's not what
everyone sees. And what we see is obvious propaganda.
Click to expand...

What pattern are you talking about? The propaganda is coming from you. You can't even address the fact that you are wrong about all the adjustments being up!!

Steve Case said:
It's not taken out of context - Wigley wanted to get rid of the 1940s blip.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Show us the other emails that were in that discussion.

Steve Case said:
Let's see, 87 monthly releases can be found, and they
changed the very first entry, Jan 1880, 27 times.
Click to expand...

So what? Until we have more information on these releases we don't know if 27 times is reasonable or not. How many are raw data? How many are adjusted data? How many are just corrections to missing or corrupted data?

You never did give a link to your survey. How about backing this up?

Steve Case said:
Really? Do I have to put up the You Tube of Dr. David Deming
testifying before Congress that he got an email saying
Click to expand...

Some denialist scientist likely invited by Senator Inhofe makes an unsubstantiated claim.

:lamo

Show us the email.

Steve Case said:
They (Climate Scientists) just like Wigley and the 1940s
blip want to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.
Click to expand...

Even if what this guy says is true it is just one scientist.

Steve Case said:
So why was it removed in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report?
There are too many studies that show that it was world-wide.
Click to expand...

Because newer and better proxy reconstructions of the temp record were available. Even more recent studies back this up. Think I'm wrong? Then show us some of those studies that you're talking about.

Steve Case said:
Your side is forever telling me that the 1970s global cooling
scare didn't exist and that it was always global warming.
Click to expand...

Nice move of the goal posts. Too bad you're still wrong. It is your side that wants to make a big deal about scientists who were starting to asking whether or not the Earth might be going into a cooling spell. It was the media that was hyping the story to sell magazines.
 
longview said:
I agree that the standard deviation is mostly from tides, but it still almost completely distorts any possible signal.
Click to expand...
Temperature swings from weather and seasons distort the signal. CO2 levels varying from the seasons distorts the signal. Ice levels vary from season to season and would distort the record. So, by your logic, we can disregard all records. This is just stupid.

longview said:
Since your were complaining about my use of the term error bar, it was my use of the term, I get to decide to describe the
Standard deviation as an error bar.
Click to expand...

Oh... so now your just declaring that you get to change the meaning of statistics to fit your bias. Even more stupidity.

longview said:
Actually you used an end point to your data that was during an abnormal El Nino high sea level event.
Click to expand...

This is a lie and you know it. Want to prove me wrong? Then do the math and show us.


longview said:
Since you say the adjustments for tides are not based on predictions, I am asking you to justify
your statement and tell me the source for their adjustments?
Click to expand...

I didn't get into this debate to argue about how accurate the satellite data is. I came here to point out that your OP was wrong. Now, are you going to admit you were wrong or are you just going to continue to obfuscate the facts?
 
longview said:
The increase in CO2 level is not doubt causing some of the temperature increase.
The Question is "How Much"?
The sea level rate of raise has been consistent within it's very noisy range for almost 2 centuries,
so it's rise is not related to CO2.
I don't read many blogs (Climate Ect, sometimes Dr. Judith Curry is an expert in the field).
I mostly look at the published data, and it is not in agreement with the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC.
Click to expand...

I think Curry is very 'SOLD OUT'. The following comment reveals a degree of fanaticism:

“The one thing we know is that the commitments we’ve made, in Paris, will probably prevent about two-tenths of a degree of warming by the end of the 21st century. What is the point of that?” Curry asked in a Jan. 4, interview with E&E News.

The comment implies that the world can stop the acceleration of AGW, and the deadly consequences, but that it's not worthwhile. That's ridiculous.

Her phD was in Geophysics, which is closely tied with the demands of the oil industry. She has refused to disclose her clients, and admits to being on the fossil fuel industry payroll. SOLD OUT!

You mention the IPCC. Perhaps you also think that the NOAA, NASA and the National Academy of Science is also resorting to false "catastrophic predictions"?
 
Media_Truth said:
I think Curry is very 'SOLD OUT'. The following comment reveals a degree of fanaticism:

“The one thing we know is that the commitments we’ve made, in Paris, will probably prevent about two-tenths of a degree of warming by the end of the 21st century. What is the point of that?” Curry asked in a Jan. 4, interview with E&E News.

The comment implies that the world can stop the acceleration of AGW, and the deadly consequences, but that it's not worthwhile. That's ridiculous.

Her phD was in Geophysics, which is closely tied with the demands of the oil industry. She has refused to disclose her clients, and admits to being on the fossil fuel industry payroll. SOLD OUT!

You mention the IPCC. Perhaps you also think that the NOAA, NASA and the National Academy of Science is also resorting to false "catastrophic predictions"?
Click to expand...

Like it or not Judith Curry is an expert on climate, and has devoted her entire career to the study and prediction of climate and weather events.
Up until last year, Her employer was Georgia Tech.

Her comment about the Paris agreement was correct about the likely quantity of warming the agreement would reduce
based on the IPCC's sensitivity numbers, if numbers based on the observed data were used, the reduction would be even smaller.

The problem with the Paris agreement is what it would achieve for what it would cost, it is a poor, almost worthless value.

The CO2 emissions in the US are falling fast without the agreement, it is the signers of the agreement who seem to be having trouble
cutting emissions.

Everyone seems obsessed with who is paid by evil fossil fuel companies, but they do research, issue grants,
and also need weather forecasts.
If you want to taint anyone who accepted a dollar from an oil company, you had better be prepared
to dismiss the work of most of the researchers in the country.
 
Buzz said:
That's right they don't want people to see what they
do for fear they might find something wrong with it.
Click to expand...
No, they don't want people like you doing exactly what you are doing here.
Click to expand...
Bingo!

Buzz said:
What pattern are you talking about?
Click to expand...
This one:

wck4lc.jpg


Buzz said:
Maybe GISS has digital copies
of the original raw data somewhere, but that's not what
everyone sees. And what we see is obvious propaganda.
Click to expand...
The propaganda is coming from you. You can't even address the fact that you are wrong about all the adjustments being up!!
Click to expand...

That's right, not all adjustments are up, most adjustment prior to 1980
are down and ALL of them since then are up. Take a look at that graph.
The graph isn't a distortion, it's a factual representation of the
corrections that have been made to GISSTEMP Land Ocean data over the
ten year period 2005 to 2015. When I get around to updating that opus,
it will be fifteen years and I expect the general appearance to be the same.

Buzz said:
It's not taken out of context - Wigley wanted to get rid of the 1940s blip.
Click to expand...
Prove it. Show us the other emails that were in that discussion.
Click to expand...
What? you're saying Wigley didn't write that?
Maybe the other emails were where to go for lunch.
Who cares, he wrote it.

Buzz said:
Let's see, 87 monthly releases can be found, and they
changed the very first entry, Jan 1880, 27 times.
Click to expand...
So what? Until we have more information on these releases we don't know if 27 times is reasonable or not.
Click to expand...
The result of those 27 changes plus the ones that I don't know about
because not all the monthly releses are available, are what's shown
on that graph above. You don't like that graph. Too bad, that's what
the data changes are.

Buzz said:
You never did give a link to your survey. How about backing this up?
Click to expand...
There's no link, I pulled up all 87 monthly releases and counted how
many times Jan 1880 changed from the previous release. You can confirm
it if you want by slogging through all the "You dont have access" notices
in the WayBack Machines records to glean those that got by and count 'em
up your self.

Buzz said:
How many are raw data? How many are adjusted data? How many are just corrections to missing or corrupted data?
Click to expand...
One or two corrections I can understand, but a steady drone of
corrections where every data point is changed several times a
year just doesn't make a lot of sense. And the result being
that graph I put up.

I apply the duck test - what does it look like?

You're putting lipstick on a pig.

Buzz said:
Some denialist scientist likely invited by Senator Inhofe makes an unsubstantiated claim.
Click to expand...
Are you calling Dr. Deming a liar?

Buzz said:
Even if what this guy says is true it is just one scientist.
Click to expand...
He's the one who received the email. So it would be him wouldn't it?

Buzz said:
Because newer and better proxy reconstructions of the temp record were available. Even more recent studies back this up. Think I'm wrong? Then show us some of those studies that you're talking about.
Click to expand...
I've known about the Medieval Warm Period since I was a kid.
George Orwell when he wrote "1984" got it exactly right.
Re-writing history is a government funded occupation.

Buzz said:
Nice move of the goal posts. Too bad you're still wrong. It is your side that wants to make a big deal about scientists who were starting to asking whether or not the Earth might be going into a cooling spell. It was the media that was hyping the story to sell magazines.
Click to expand...
And today they are hyping "Climate Change"
 
longview said:
Like it or not Judith Curry is an expert on climate, and has devoted her entire career to the study and prediction of climate and weather events.
Up until last year, Her employer was Georgia Tech.

Her comment about the Paris agreement was correct about the likely quantity of warming the agreement would reduce
based on the IPCC's sensitivity numbers, if numbers based on the observed data were used, the reduction would be even smaller.

The problem with the Paris agreement is what it would achieve for what it would cost, it is a poor, almost worthless value.

The CO2 emissions in the US are falling fast without the agreement, it is the signers of the agreement who seem to be having trouble
cutting emissions.

Everyone seems obsessed with who is paid by evil fossil fuel companies, but they do research, issue grants,
and also need weather forecasts.
If you want to taint anyone who accepted a dollar from an oil company, you had better be prepared
to dismiss the work of most of the researchers in the country.
Click to expand...
Yes - EVIL! But you got your 50 cents worth.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.
Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes - EVIL! But you got your 50 cents worth.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.
Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.
Click to expand...
So when the only carbon neutral fuel made is produced by the evil oil companies,
I am guessing, you will refuse to buy it!
 
It seems that the alarmist cannot let many days past before throwing out more alarmist articles.
Study: Rising seas may put US historical landmarks under water this century | TheHill
The Washington Post reported the data, which found that global warming could result in sea levels rising by 3.3 feet by the year 2100,
potentially threatening Jamestown in Virginia, the Kennedy Space Center in Florida and the tallest brick lighthouse in the U.S., in North Carolina.

Similar data published last year found that other world sites like Stonehenge and the Statue of Liberty could also be at risk.
Click to expand...
Lets first consider the sea level raising by 3.3 feet (I assume they mean 1 meter) by 2100, a mere 82 years from now.
The current rate of sea level rise is about 3 mm per year, so at the current rate, we would see
a sea level rise of about 246 mm or about 9.7 inches.
To get the predicted 39 inches by 2100, would require a rate of sea level rise 4 times faster than what we have been seeing.
 
I thought it would be interesting to see the Source of the Hill's article.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/4/
Here are the key points,
Under the higher scenario (RCP8.5), CO2 concentrations are projected to reach 936 ppm by 2100.
Click to expand...
Calibrating sea level rise models against past climate suggests that, under the RCP8.5
scenario, Antarctica could contribute 3 feet (1 meter) of sea level rise by 2100 and 50 feet (15 meters) by 2500.
Click to expand...
So the predictions are based on RCP8.5, yet RCP8.5 may not be that likely.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a-closer-look-at-scenario-rcp8-5/
The CSSR report mentioned that RCP8.5 would result in radiative forcing of 8.5 Watts per meter squared,
and a CO2 level if 936 ppm by year 2100, I wonder how the math plays out on that, As the 8.5 Wm-2 looks funny.
Since the IPCC seems to be using the radiative forcing number of 3.71 Wm-2 for each doubling of CO2,
The first doubling to 560 ppm would add 3.71 Wm-2.
The additional CO2 between 560 ppm and 936 ppm would add,
5.35 X ln(936/560) 2.75 Wm-2, for a total radiative forcing of 6.46 Wm-2, or about 1.9 C of warming.
We also have to consider that it took a completely unrestrained effort of all human activity,
160 years to increase the CO2 level by 120 ppm.
How likely are we to be able to increase the level by another 530 ppm in the next 82 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom