Climate change is political

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Climate change is political

Post by robinson » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:07 pm

Martin Brock wrote:Proponents of theories asserting the most alarming consequences of anthropogenic climate change have sullied the word "skeptic" as much as anyone outside of a traditional religion. On the lips of some of these proponents, "skeptic" practically drips with derision.

Skeptics are deniers, definitively. A skeptic denies the certainty of an assertion without asserting the certainty of a contradictory assertion. That's essentially what "skepticism" means.

Science itself is methodological skepticism. Falsifying scientific theory is the business of a scientific experimentalist, and deniers of various scientific theories exist in every scientific discipline. Scientists deny theories of gamma ray bursts and gravitational waves and the Higgs bozon, but popular accounts of these controversies are rarely personalized. [Within a specialized scientific discipline, differences can become personal.

Other scientific controversies associated with political movements take on the characteristics of the political movements, and anthropogenic climate change falls into this category. Proponents of theories asserting the most alarming consequences of anthropogenic climate change have sullied the word "skeptic" as much as anyone outside of a traditional religion. On the lips of some of these proponents, "skeptic" practically drips with derision.

Skeptics are deniers, definitively. A skeptic denies the certainty of an assertion without asserting the certainty of a contradictory assertion. That's essentially what "skepticism" means.

Science itself is methodological skepticism. Falsifying scientific theory is the business of a scientific experimentalist, and deniers of various scientific theories exist in every scientific discipline. Scientists deny theories of gamma ray bursts and gravitational waves and the Higgs bozon, but popular accounts of these controversies are rarely personalized. [Within a specialized scientific discipline, differences can become personal.

Other scientific controversies associated with political movements take on the characteristics of the political movements, and anthropogenic climate change falls into this category.
link

Oh good lard yes.

Because some people are firmly convinced it will mean the end of the world as we know it, it's also religious. Some idiots actually think they are saving the world by preaching doom. And the poor skeptic who rightly points out the facts is vilified and hated by people who should really know better.

Even Randi was gang jumped by idiots when he simply mentioned he was skeptical of the crazy ass claims of climate change moonbats.
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24016
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:51 pm

:snork:
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:01 pm

....or....
Climate change has political consequences and ramifications...

It isnt really that hard.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Climate change is political

Post by robinson » Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:54 pm

Martin Brock wrote: Other scientific controversies associated with political movements take on the characteristics of the political movements, and anthropogenic climate change falls into this category.
link
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:27 pm

Reposting the same link and quote without additional comment?.......... Very Weak.

Yes.......there is scientific skepticism WHICH INCLUDES accepting the well established facts of an issue until/unless some other important fact/theory gets support. Then there is no consensus and the question is open.

You most evidently want to confuse scientific skepticism with fraudulent being paid to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) with your calculated to mislead BS. They aren't the same thing at all. The first is an honest and open inquiry into the truth, the second is an abhorrent evil that is almost always against the law (stock fraud if not RICO) even though rarely prosecuted.

When are you going to switch sides?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Ken Fabos » Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:33 am

When those in positions of trust and responsibility refuse to accept the best advice available - and it warns about the significance of changing the world out of recognitions - then expect criticism and, if political parties and leadership falls back on BS about skepticism, falsifiability, science as political correctness and science as religion - and UN conspiracies and economic alarmist fear - rather than face the issues square on with eyes open then expect growing political activism that includes calling such people out. Harshly.The activism, like most politics and including the well funded and supported campaigning to prevent strong climate action will not be bound by the same conventions around strict, demonstrable accuracy as science; pressing people's emotive buttons - their angers, fears, loves and hopes - is going to be part of it so long as our leadership fails to rise above that and show themselves to be better than that.

When our leadership classes - politics, business, religion and journalism - participate in or tolerate the implicit and explicit slanders of hard working professional scientists they undermine public trust in our most important civilised institutions - our institutions of science and learning. That's shameful. Trying to bring public opinion of science and learning down to a level where science is no more is no more than opinion is an attack on core civilised values. That is barbaric. Promoting convenient lies over inconvenient truth - because the truth is damning and shaming - is cowardly. To deny the knowledge that we perpetuate prosperity by means that burden great cost to our descendants because we want the prosperity without paying it's full costs - is greed and theft. To support or tolerate or make political advantage out of campaigns of misinformation and deception to please powerful donors - is venal.

When people style themselves as scientific skeptics yet have neither the essential knowledge and skills, nor real intention of doing a real critique - just deny the validity of the work of people who do have the skills and have done such critiques - they bring a noble term into disrepute and can be expected to hear it back at them dripping with derision.

(PS minor edit for clarity)
Last edited by Ken Fabos on Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35098
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Gord » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:31 am

Ken Fabos wrote:...without paying it's full costs....
its
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Ken Fabos » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:32 am

Its shrinking?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35098
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Gord » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:56 pm

Ken Fabos wrote:Its shrinking?
It's :P
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35098
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Gord » Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:59 am

A few days ago, the Weather Network posted a response to a bit of Breitbart's politicalisation of science:

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart ... D_120616_2
Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans
I recommend following the link and watching Kait Parker's video response, it's worth a chuckle at the Breitbart chuckleheads.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:34 am

"chuckleheads" is too kind. means just a bunch of naive ill informed good old boys getting by as best they can with their knuckles dragging in the soil. What Breitbart does is intentionally evil.

A difference more than degree.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:41 am

Ken Fabos wrote:When people style themselves as scientific skeptics yet have neither the essential knowledge and skills, nor real intention of doing a real critique - just deny the validity of the work of people who do have the skills and have done such critiques - they bring a noble term into disrepute and can be expected to hear it back at them dripping with derision.
The recent record lows, as past high temperatures, illustrate how temperatures are a function of cold air masses moving south and warm air masses moving north. There is no need to evoke CO2, and alarmists' efforts to suggest such weather is evidence of CO2 driven climate change should evoke the "dripping derision" of all critical thinkers.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:05 am

JIm Steele wrote:The recent record lows, as past high temperatures, illustrate how temperatures are a function of cold air masses moving south and warm air masses moving north.
So abysmally incorrect as to suggest intentional falsification. NOT denial===>LYING. Quite a shame you occupy a teaching position if you are pumping out such nonsense.

WHY are the polar vortexes coming farther south than in previous years?===>because of AGW. You post as if you think weather/climate is just a random phenomenon instead of complex science. With your background: its not science you are operating on but rather an intentional and transparent effort to mislead.

Once again you act like some localized condition (colder in New England) describes the whole while completely ignorning/balancing/including/averaging in.... the warmer weather farther North (parts of Alaska 35 degrees warmer than usual...much warmer than New England is colder).

simply: dishonest. you should reform and stop this nonsense.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:05 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: So abysmally incorrect as to suggest intentional falsification. NOT denial===>LYING.

.. the warmer weather farther North (parts of Alaska 35 degrees warmer than usual...

ROTFLMAO Bobbo again your ridiculous ad hom rants only reveal your total lack of scientific understanding. Currently the temperature gradient is 30 degrees between the poles and the equator. Poleward of 35 degrees latitude the earth radiates away more heat than it absorb and if heat was not transported from the equator, polar temperatures would be 70 degrees colder and the gradient would be 100 degrees. Any change in heat transport causes massive climate change as it does during El Ninos, with the changing position of the ITCZ, and changing winds that drive the Gulf Stream or Kuroshio currents.

And your example proves my point both about heat transport and your level of scientific understanding. It is impossible, beyond the laws of physics,for the cause of Alaska being or the Arctic being 35 degrees warmer than average in the short term to be due to radiative effects, either solar or GHGs. It can only be due to changes in heat transport.

Image
Last edited by Jim Steele on Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:24 pm

Temperature is temperature. A tight definitional tautology.

Your denial continues unabated. Somewhat radiating into the void itself............ just not fast enough.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:58 pm

Bobbo you admit never reading or understanding scientific papers, but I suggest you do in order to improve your appearance of gross ignorance.

Here is the abstract from recently published paper in Nature Geoscience titled "A reversal of climatic trends in the North Atlantic since 2005" discussing how heat transport drives climate change. I suppose boobo will call these scientists liars as well because it contradicts his political apocalyptic agenda.
In the mid-1990s the North Atlantic subpolar gyre warmed rapidly, which had important climate impacts such as increased hurricane numbers and changes to rainfall over Africa, Europe and North America. Evidence suggests that the warming was largely due to a strengthening of the ocean circulation, particularly the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation1. Since the mid-1990s direct and indirect measurements have suggested a decline in the strength of the ocean circulation, which is expected to lead to a reduction in northward heat transport . Here we show that since 2005 a large volume of the upper North Atlantic Ocean has cooled significantly by approximately 0.45 °C or 1.5 × 1022 J, reversing the previous warming trend. By analysing observations and a state-of-the-art climate model, we show that this cooling is consistent with a reduction in the strength of the ocean circulation and heat transport, linked to record low densities in the deep Labrador Sea9. The low density in the deep Labrador Sea is primarily due to deep ocean warming since 1995, but a long-term freshening also played a role. The observed upper ocean cooling since 2005 is not consistent with the hypothesis that anthropogenic aerosols directly drive Atlantic temperatures
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:40 am

Jim Steele: you again commit a basic error of dividing up the complex WORLD WIDE CLIMATE variables and looking at one or two issues in isolation as if they drive the entire system. by definition, it is ALL THE VARIABLES that drive climate. Not the few that tend towards cooling.

A simple concept...... that 97% of reviewed publications from qualified scientiests mostly just assume as the basic science of it all and that 100% of Scientific Organization formal position papers take.

Do you get any money at all from any Fossil Fuel source at all? ---or--- do you attend this forum with your science denying position only to practice your skills of deception looking for which arguments work among the ignornant?==>or what????

The science you use is so obviously defective.... I actually gain some comfort that anyone of common sense will see through it with just a hint or two.

You know Jim Steele, I have a few issues on which I post, eg the "threat" to Freedom FROM religion presented by the Muslim faith for instance that I believe is more insightful than the main stream media and majority opinion would agree with.........but I REALIZE that FACT when I post. I have a minority viewpoint.......and I don't post as if it is the common sense or majority view. You post as if you think your minority WHACKO SCIENCE DENYING VIEW is actually correct..... instead of just your minority whacko view.

Reality........... it can be appreciated on several different levels. In a certain sense, for your own sanity, I hope you are just a dishonest shill getting paid to spout your non-sense. OTOH--if you really believe the BS you pump out..... there is no hope for you at all...... until major new drug therapies are developed.

...........hah, hah............but I dither.

Do you take an equally discredited view on other subjects like evolution or healing by using crystals or remote viewing or other fringe notions?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Climate change is political

Post by robinson » Tue Dec 20, 2016 1:48 pm

"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:05 pm

Yes indeed.........but can you spot any major fallacy he commits? I stopped after the third one.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:12 pm

Hmmmm who to believe??

A scientific paper providing another of many examples that heat transport causes climate change or boobo's nonsensical insulting blather?
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Paul Anthony » Tue Dec 20, 2016 7:44 pm

JIm Steele wrote:Hmmmm who to believe??

A scientific paper providing another of many examples that heat transport causes climate change or boobo's nonsensical insulting blather?
Or this: After the 1998 El Nino, it took the planet 7 years to once again reach the temperatures that El Nino created. (El Ninos are NOT man-made, in case anyone doesn't know that). A La Nina has just begun, and the National Weather Service is predicting temperatures will be cooler in 2017 than in 2016 - while still preaching that climate change is man-made. :roll:
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:51 pm

One could say that "heat transport" IS..... climate itself, changing or not. But.......... you are earning your pay check. You got one idiot to buy into it.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:44 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:.... you are earning your pay check.
It use to be boobo was just a "doomsday end of all life" nut. Now we can add science denier and conspiracy whackadoodle to his woeful profile.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35098
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Gord » Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:35 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:...(El Ninos are NOT man-made, in case anyone doesn't know that). A La Nina has just begun, and the National Weather Service is predicting temperatures will be cooler in 2017 than in 2016 - while still preaching that climate change is man-made. :roll:
Huh? Climate change is being partly driven by human activity. La Nina doesn't change that. Did you watch the video I linked to in my previous post?

https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart ... D_120616_2

If you don't want to watch the whole 2-minute video, here's a brief quote: "...When you actually normalise the data, AKA take out the El Nino spike in temperatures, 2015 and 2016 still come in as the warmest years on record...."
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:09 am

Gord wrote: Huh? Climate change is being partly driven by human activity. La Nina doesn't change that. "
Warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is indeed a fact.

Blaming CO2 is just an opinion, a hypothesis, NOT a fact!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Ken Fabos » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:58 am

Why is the most recent strong el Nino year warmer than previous strong el Nino years? Temperature progressions of el Nino years, la Nina years and ENSO neutral years each separately show a warming trend and in combination show a consistent global warming trend.

I see cherry picked bits and pieces, of data within the range of ordinary, expected variability or understandable with known climate processes taken out of context and without proper perspective used as evidence for something. It looks to me most like compelling evidence of a lack of the essential knowledge and skill set needed to properly and honestly critique climate science.

"Blaming" (attributing the major portion of measured climate change to) CO2 is consistent with what's known about the radiative and other physical characteristic of atmospheric gases and known climate processes. Not accepting the validity of this is opinion that is inconsistent with facts. My trust and confidence in climate science - in it's institutions, practices and practitioners remains strong; I haven't seen anything compelling presented here to shake that trust and confidence.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:07 am

Jim Steele will variously agree and then deny that co2 is a green house gas and then variously agree then deny that co2 will raise atmospheric temperatures that in the main are absorbed by the oceans. THEN.... he dithers that the heat so absorbed then radiates from the poles.... as if that negates a rising temperature.

Is there any rationale explanation for this?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

~

Post by robinson » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:45 pm

Perhaps the topic title contains a clue
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:40 pm

Ken Fabos wrote: My trust and confidence in climate science - in it's institutions, practices and practitioners remains strong; I haven't seen anything compelling presented here to shake that trust and confidence.
You do not dispute the science that demonstrates how variations in heat transport affects climate. Instead all you offer is your FAITH in a BELIEF.

Good science examines multiple working hypotheses. But you and Boobo fail to examine and analyze alternative hypotheses, instead you offer psychobabble. Of course you keep your faith, because you fail to critically examine it.

During the last warming spike of the 1997/1998 El Nino the Arctic still contained multiyear ice that kept temperatures low. As a change in direction of freezing winds removed that ice, the thinner ice and open water has allowed more heat to ventilate over the past 15 years. The combination of heat ventilating from the Arctic and via an El Nino is evidence the climate system is cooling and high temperature are measuring escaping heat. Harvard and MIT oceanographers have reported the upper 700 meters of the Arctic OCean has cooled this past decade. There was a similar Arctic warming spike in the 1930s followed by cooling. During that time there was an inflow of warm water and associated organisms into the Arctic. The cooling coincided with the retreat of those warm waters.

Neither Ken's faith nor Boobo's ranting paranoia can refute the facts that support natural climate oscillations and power of oscillating heat transport.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:35 pm

LMFTFY: "But you and Boobo along with 97% of qualified scientists in the field along with 100% of formal positions taken in writing by Scientific Professional Organizations REJECT alternative hypotheses that are an intentional program of LIES AND MISINFORMATION funded by Criminal Big Fossil corps to keep their scam going for as long as they can."

No thanks necessary.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:05 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:LMFTFY: "But you and Boobo along with 97% of qualified scientists in the field along with 100% of formal positions taken in writing by Scientific Professional Organizations REJECT alternative hypotheses that are an intentional program of LIES AND MISINFORMATION funded by Criminal Big Fossil corps to keep their scam going for as long as they can."

No thanks necessary.
ROTFLMAO. Please cite the scientific papers by climate researchers who REJECT the alternative hypotheses and cite why they reject them.

Otherwise boobo, you are just blowing more smoke and ranting about bogus conspiracy theories.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Ken Fabos » Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:57 am

Jim, I'm not practicing faith in a belief. Rather I have trust in our institutions and practices of learning - fundamental institutions of our civilisation. Institutions that have consistently proven their integrity and their worth - and do have the appropriate expertise and skills to assess the validity of climate science. I'm surely not going to imagine your expertise and skills are superior to what the US National Academy of Sciences or UK's Royal Society draw upon.

Heat transport affecting climate is internal variability and it is incapable of explaining the multiple indicators of rapid global warming; rather, you keep picking out local, regional and shortlived examples of cooler than average condition, that can, in isolation, be construed by the ignorant to be incompatible with an oversimplistic assumption of what GHG induced warming must look like. That oversimplified assumption of what warming must look like for AGW to be true ... is a fantasy creation.

As if it is not enough for average temperatures to be rising and incidences of new record maximums to greatly exceed those of new record minimums - but that no record minumums should occur at all for it to be real! . With global temperatures in an up step, down step annual dance that is averaging out something like 15 steps up to 14 steps down that is enough for global warming (measured by surface temperatures) to be quite real; when/if we ever reach a rate of warming where there are no steps back down at all (I don't think warming that rapidly is even possible) it will not be mere warming, it will be extreme warming. Of course surface air temperatures are, by their nature, highly variable year to year. Other measures, such as Ocean Heat Content don't have that extent of variability - and it ought to be clear even to people who don't understand the difference between a long term trend and short term variability - cannot be explained by oscillating heat transport aka internal variability.

THIS is NOT the shuffling around of heat within our climate system -
image.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:55 pm

Ken Fabos wrote: Heat transport affecting climate is internal variability and it is incapable of explaining the multiple indicators of rapid global warming; rather, you keep picking out local, regional and shortlived examples of cooler than average condition, that can, in isolation, be construed by the ignorant to be incompatible with an oversimplistic assumption of what GHG induced warming must look like. That oversimplified assumption of what warming must look like for AGW to be true ... is a fantasy creation.
Nice rant but you are wrong! But you are so blinded by your beliefs you do not recognize the shaky foundation of your climate FAITH.

The loss of sea ice in the Arctic in the 30s and rapid warming of air temperatures was undeniably due to heat transport. None of the CO2 driven climate models could reproduce that warming. In fact most of the CO2 models turned the warming spike of the 30s into a cooling

A global average temperature is an average of measured and estimated temperature changes from many regions. The global average has been driven primarily by Arctic warmth. And thus the global average is biased by the regional warmth that was due to heat transport. Only the ignorant embrace a global trend and believe it is not a product of regional changes.

For those of us studying climate change for over 20 years we are acutely aware of how adjustments have been constantly made to make the graphs match the AGW theory.The rise and fall of global temperatures were first associated with multidecadal oscillations of heat transport. So the data was adjusted so that the fall in temperatures after peaking in the 30s and 40s was adjusted away, just as AGW proponents discussed doing.

Image

Here again is an email from Tom Wrigley to Phil Jones and Ben Santer discussing how to fabricate graphs that you place your blind faith in. Ocean heat content ha undergone similar alterations.
"Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Ken Fabos » Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:04 pm

Jim - The data and graphs haven't been falsified; it's nonsensical to imagine that is even possible, given the raw data is well documented and any necessary corrections/adjustments are well documented and widely scrutinised also. Your "damning" excerpts from communications of some speculations aren't evidence of data being adjusted without legitimate reasons - you need evidence of data actually being adjusted without legitimate reasons for that. These communications don't mean what you are determined to believe they mean.

Here's an example of the difference between Raw and Homogenised data using BEST - but all the major global surface temperature data sets, adjusted or not, align quite closely -
figure-1-homogenizationgloballand.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Sun Dec 25, 2016 10:54 pm

Obviously Ken you are totally unaware of how homogenization works and how BEST pieces together small segments of temperature data. Again you show your blind faith and total lack of critical analyses. That you would suggest all the changes are "necessary corrections/adjustments " shows that you have blindly embraced the spin and tells me you never have look at the the data and how they were corrected. It is clear you cluelessly parrot the spin

Indeed much of the raw data is well documented, So It is "nonsensical" that you deny all the earlier data that total refutes your BEST graph. Phil Jones refused to give the CRU's raw data claiming it was thrown away and only the adjusted data kept. Blind paranoids asimply accept such skullduggery

As the published graph above from Budyko shows temperatures cooled by 0.6 C from 1940 to 1970, and BEST's tecniques obscure that. But fools like you want to suggest its nonsensical to question? No matter how much evidence stares you in the face you refuse to accept because it goes against your silly faith.

Much of the global land temperatures used by BEST are estimations not measurements, or short term segmetns that they subjectively piece together . The USA has the best and densest and longest temperature data.Here is the graph of quality controlled non-homogenized data for the USA and again it looks nothing like your BEST fabrication but clearly shows multidecadal oscillations.

Image

If you look station by station like I have done, you would see that homogenizations got rid of the warm blips of the 30s and 40s all across the country, just as they undeniably conspired to do.Only a blind fool would accept such denigration to science.

Here are more examples of adjustments that got rid of the warm blips

Image

or

Image



Go visit the USHCN and compare the raw data yourself instead of blindly accepting internet spin. Clearly Ken you are just pimping the BS spin trying to justify bogus adjustments that built your faith! Transparently pitiful!!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:06 am

Ken Fabos wrote:Jim - The data and graphs haven't been falsified; it's nonsensical to imagine that is even possible, given the raw data is well documented and any necessary corrections/adjustments are well documented and widely scrutinised also. Your "damning" excerpts from communications of some speculations aren't evidence of data being adjusted without legitimate reasons - you need evidence of data actually being adjusted without legitimate reasons for that. These communications don't mean what you are determined to believe they mean.

Here's an example of the difference between Raw and Homogenised data using BEST - but all the major global surface temperature data sets, adjusted or not, align quite closely -

figure-1-homogenizationgloballand.png
But but what about Mt Shasta?!
(edit) Just now saw the JS response :lol: :lol: Nailed it.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:02 am

Ken Fabos wrote:These communications don't mean what you are determined to believe they mean.
Ken please enlighten us all. Explain what their communications really meant? Or are you just accepting of gross dishonesty that suits your beliefs?
"Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:16 am

Yes Ken, enlighten us how any faith can be had in any bodies of science since we are in the possession of cherry-picked and misrepresented quotes from a couple of guys that are part of said science.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:33 am

Telling. Very telling. Outabreath accepts such dishonesty.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:45 am

You have credibility in the negative ranges, jimmy. I accept nothing at face value from you, as you are a well-known distorter of quotes. I also find it telling that you find that some quote between some dudes invalidates a global research field of thousands of professional scientists. You're slipping into conspiratard country my boy.

I'm waiting to see how long Ken will humour your ignorant tantrums before he realizes there's no point debating with you. You dont even have any facts relevant to the subject you wish to discuss. I dont think I have seen you once reference any serious science about the global records and the modelling. You're always on about Mt Shasta or some other random place in the US with a temperature graph to fit your politically motivated views. Or, you grab a study that discusses some detail of the process which you spin into being an indictment of the total science, when its usually about minutae of details or regional variation.

Some breitbart internet blowhards, or the Scientific establishment on issues of science. Hmm tough choice that.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert