Here’s how you school climate deniers: The anti-science movement’s biggest fallacies,

[Subyman]

I already addressed that in this thread.

International Scientists reached a UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS that the world cooled -via the New York Times, 1961.

So what you are trying to do is find anything wrong in science in the past and then spin that into everything is meritless? We've been through this, regardless of what you dredge up from 50+ years ago, science self corrects. That is its greatest strength. You are free to follow all the evidence and make your own conclusion. What you are bringing up there has nothing to do with the data now and is completely irrelevant to the current conversation.

 

[Jaskalas]

I've gone through a very detailed explanation of my support for the consensus view on MMGW.

Maybe you could do the same for your view?

Consensus?
I digress...

Source...

• Hansen et. al. gives an estimate of the energy imbalance of 0.58 W/m2 for the period from 2005-2010.
• Direct Observation shows 0.2 w/m2 for the period of 2000-2010.

Method...

• I'll be generous, and say they only overestimated the energy imbalance by 5x.
• I'll be even more generous, and stick to the higher ECS from IPCC AR4.
• One fifth of IPCC AR4 ECS of 3.0c is 0.6c.

Therefore, it may roughly be estimated that 300-400ppm caused 0.2c warming in the temperature record with another another 0.4c expected by 600ppm. This is roughly in line with the more casual rise in temperature observed by Satellites.

With Satellite data more closely aligned with other observational data, the Surface Station record contaminated by UHI, poor quality control, and fears of run-away warming must be discarded for the hyperbole it is.

 

[davmat787]

Global temperatures are NOT controlled by ocean currents. Global temperature is the sum of the thermal energy of the ocean, atmosphere, and land. PDO and AMO affect Global Atmospheric Temperatures. and they should affect ocean temperatures.

If you were right Jasklas and if I understand your point, for every positive phase that heats the atmosphere we should see a corresponding drop in ocean temperature due to conservation of energy. During the negative phases the atmosphere should cool and the ocean should warm.

Except you yourself just pointed out in the last 60 years there has been no year over year cooling of the atmosphere nor the ocean. Neither has there been in the 90 years before that to the best of our data. By conservation of energy that means energy must have been added to the system in the last 60 years. It could not have come from the oceans as the oceans only store heat they do not create it.

This says to me the increase in temperature and energy of the Ocean/Atmosphere system is being driven by another effect and NOT the PDO or AMO. It does suggest that the PDO and AMO in conjuncture with this other effect produce the "stair step" signature you pointed out.

I've already gone through my rationale on why the other effect is almost certain to be CO2 and some methane.

As for the other pre-industrial pre-human times when the temperature was higher, those were caused by natural effects. No one who follows the science of MMGW is saying natural causes can't produce higher temperatures than we see today. What we are saying is they are not causing it now.

Don't the oceanic conveyors play a significant role in carrying and distributing temperature via their currents? For example the north Atlantic conveyor brings warm water from the tropics, and from what I understand has a warming effect on northern Europe locales. Conversely it carries cooler water south.

I admittedly have the most basic understanding of oceanic conveyors and would gladly digest anyone's input on the matter.

Should the oceanic conveyors ever change or stall significantly it seems like a very adverse effects on the climate would occur.

The following webpage specifically discusses ocean currents and conveyors and their effects on temperature and climate. I am just starting to read it.

http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/conveyor.htm

 

[Victorian Gray]

I already addressed that in this thread.

International Scientists reached a UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS that the world cooled -via the New York Times, 1961.

One quick move of the goalposts *and* a cats are the same as horses comparison. I'm impressed.

 

[fskimospy]

I already addressed that in this thread.

International Scientists reached a UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS that the world cooled -via the New York Times, 1961.

You need to read your own linked images better. A PANEL of scientists did so, which is dramatically different than "scientists" reaching a unanimous consensus.

As we already covered, the evidence for what the scientific consensus at that time was is clear: as always it was endorsing a warming world. You have been duped into believing otherwise.

 

[PokerGuy]

Actually it's more that the adjustments can have different effects based on different inputs as time changes. The thrust of the report was to correct the data, which just so happened to then show that the hiatus had disappeared.

Of course, how conveeeeeenient, they "correct" the data, and it just so happens to then support a pre-determined conclusion. Very nice. Not believable, but I'm sure plenty of people will lap it up.

You quoted the article that was simply stating that denialists continue to use that line of attack, not that such a line of attack had merit. (it does not)

That's the whole point. Rational people continue to be skeptical of those running around saying "give us money and power, we can fix this for you, we must do something now!!", and the temperature cooling (or rather, not rising as quickly) was not something easily explained away with the wave of a hand and the usual flim flam. How to get rid of that pesky problem? Easy, 'correct' the data to support a conclusion.

Any good scientist without an agenda should always *ALWAYS* correct their data at will, especially if flaws in it are discovered.

Yes, but you're assuming that 1) there were actual flaws that needed to be corrected, and that 2) the "corrected" data is more accurate and valid, 3) that there isn't an agenda in play. At this point, given the political nature of this, those are mighty big assumptions. It's just as likely that the "correction" isn't really making anything more accurate, but instead is just a means to an end.

The only question is if the correction makes the data more accurate. We will find out as more people analyze this method. Complaining about people correcting data is absolutely insane though.

As long as there is a significant divergence between satellite temp readings and the "corrected" data, anyone even remotely rational would question the "corrections".

You keep making the mistake of looking at this as if it's a purely scientific exercise. The reality is that more a political agenda driving exercise than a scientific one, so a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.

 

[dphantom]

What is a bit humorous to me is that the purported new trends that keep the 2000-2014 trend in line with the also adjusted 1950-1999 trend indicate a .113/.116C/decade change. That means that the catastrophic level of 2C rise in global average temperature will not arrive anytime before 2100.

WE ARE SAVED!!!!

 

[dphantom]

What is less funny is these scientists essentially ignored ARGO and satellite data that show very little if not a slight decline in overall SST. Instead, the alterations to data were to the least reliable measuring instruments - water buckets, engine intake and free drifting buoys.

The alterations were done in a manner that to my quick review appear to be rather...novel. No one else has done such an adjustment. In itself, that is not an indication their adjustment is wrong, simply that the technique will need to be replicated and validated by further study over the coming months and years.

 

[PokerGuy]

So what you are trying to do is find anything wrong in science in the past and then spin that into everything is meritless? We've been through this, regardless of what you dredge up from 50+ years ago, science self corrects. That is its greatest strength. You are free to follow all the evidence and make your own conclusion. What you are bringing up there has nothing to do with the data now and is completely irrelevant to the current conversation.

The point is that many people fall back on the notion that scientific consensus means something is right. Showing how often such "consensus" has been shown to be wrong in the past is a good way to show that simply saying "consensus" doesn't mean something is correct, especially when politics and agendas are involved.

Yes, science self corrects over time. That doesn't mean at any point in time a particular conclusion is correct, nor does it mean it is not subject to the influence of politics or agendas.

 

[xBiffx]

The point is that many people fall back on the notion that scientific consensus means something is right. Showing how often such "consensus" has been shown to be wrong in the past is a good way to show that simply saying "consensus" doesn't mean something is correct, especially when politics and agendas are involved.

Yes, science self corrects over time. That doesn't mean at any point in time a particular conclusion is correct, nor does it mean it is not subject to the influence of politics or agendas.

QFT. Galileo is a great example.

 

[Paratus]

Consensus?
I digress...

Source...

• Hansen et. al. gives an estimate of the energy imbalance of 0.58 W/m2 for the period from 2005-2010.
• Direct Observation shows 0.2 w/m2 for the period of 2000-2010.

Method...

• I'll be generous, and say they only overestimated the energy imbalance by 5x.
• I'll be even more generous, and stick to the higher ECS from IPCC AR4.
• One fifth of IPCC AR4 ECS of 3.0c is 0.6c.

Therefore, it may roughly be estimated that 300-400ppm caused 0.2c warming in the temperature record with another another 0.4c expected by 600ppm. This is roughly in line with the more casual rise in temperature observed by Satellites.

With Satellite data more closely aligned with other observational data, the Surface Station record contaminated by UHI, poor quality control, and fears of run-away warming must be discarded for the hyperbole it is.

5X?
At most it's .58/.2=2.9
Plus the most obvious thing here is that direct measurement of .2W/m^2 was for CO2 only. It neglects all the other greenhouse gases and feedbacks.

It was only performed in one area as well.
It's powerful proof that CO2 traps heat but it's not directly comparable to Hansens number like you are doing.

Second all I see is some hand waving from you about its .2C per doubling. No direct correlation to why you think that.

Lastly the satellite data you keep incorrectly touting is only for the surface or lower troposphere temperature. It's hardly the global temperature.

 

[Paratus]

The point is that many people fall back on the notion that scientific consensus means something is right. Showing how often such "consensus" has been shown to be wrong in the past is a good way to show that simply saying "consensus" doesn't mean something is correct, especially when politics and agendas are involved.

Yes, science self corrects over time. That doesn't mean at any point in time a particular conclusion is correct, nor does it mean it is not subject to the influence of politics or agendas.

Pokerguy,
On a hypothetical subject that we'll posit science has correct what does the consensus of scientists studying subject look like?

 

[PokerGuy]

Pokerguy,
On a hypothetical subject that we'll posit science has correct what does the consensus of scientists studying subject look like?

I'm not sure I understand the question. What are you trying to get at?

 

[Paratus]

I'm not sure I understand the question. What are you trying to get at?

On a topic like conservation of energy what percentage of scientists who study or deal with conservation of energy would you say have consensus on the theory of conservation of energy?

 

[dphantom]

On a topic like conservation of energy what percentage of scientists who study or deal with conservation of energy would you say have consensus on the theory of conservation of energy?

He is trying to trap you into a false equivalence. Comparing a law of physics with an as yet unproven but working hypothesis.

 

[xBiffx]

On a topic like conservation of energy what percentage of scientists who study or deal with conservation of energy would you say have consensus on the theory of conservation of energy?

Edit:

He is trying to trap you into a false equivalence. Comparing a law of physics with an as yet unproven but working hypothesis.

Yep, this. I missed it by that much. :\

 

[dank69]

He is trying to trap you into a false equivalence. Comparing a law of physics with an as yet unproven but working hypothesis.

Edit:



Yep, this. I missed it by that much.

I love how conservatives are always afraid to answer questions honestly. Answer the fucking question and if the conclusion he draws from it turns out to be faulty, criticize it then. Pointing out flaws in your logic is always seen as a trap, lol.

 

[Paratus]

What is less funny is these scientists essentially ignored ARGO and satellite data that show very little if not a slight decline in overall SST. Instead, the alterations to data were to the least reliable measuring instruments - water buckets, engine intake and free drifting buoys.

The alterations were done in a manner that to my quick review appear to be rather...novel. No one else has done such an adjustment. In itself, that is not an indication their adjustment is wrong, simply that the technique will need to be replicated and validated by further study over the coming months and years.

Wait they cleaned up the least accurate data?! Those agenda driven bastards!😀

Hey like you said nobodies denying the climate changes or the Earth is warming.

Except of course all the data that shows it's warming has been manipulated to show it warming. The GISS data, ARGO data all manipulated to show warming.

So should I have confidence in the consensus of conspiracy by you "skeptics"? 😀

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Measuring equipment is only as accurate as the tolerances of the components within the device and how well the calibration of the device is performed by a human. No two devices will be the same nor will the calibration be the same.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course, how conveeeeeenient, they "correct" the data, and it just so happens to then support a pre-determined conclusion. Very nice. Not believable, but I'm sure plenty of people will lap it up.

That's the whole point. Rational people continue to be skeptical of those running around saying "give us money and power, we can fix this for you, we must do something now!!", and the temperature cooling (or rather, not rising as quickly) was not something easily explained away with the wave of a hand and the usual flim flam. How to get rid of that pesky problem? Easy, 'correct' the data to support a conclusion.

This argument has never made any sense to me.

Who has pre-determined this conclusion and why? Are you saying there is some sort of secret conspiracy of climate scientists to make studies that support the AGW position? Frankly, that's a ridiculous idea. In case you haven't noticed there is far more money to be made for individual scientists in the business of climate denial, so if money is the goal they are doing it terribly wrong.

It simply doesn't add up.

Yes, but you're assuming that 1) there were actual flaws that needed to be corrected, and that 2) the "corrected" data is more accurate and valid, 3) that there isn't an agenda in play. At this point, given the political nature of this, those are mighty big assumptions. It's just as likely that the "correction" isn't really making anything more accurate, but instead is just a means to an end.

I'm actually assuming none of those things, as I've specifically said that these results need to be confirmed by other researchers. It is unlikely that such a correction would be a 'means to an end', however, for the reasons I listed above.

If you believe otherwise I would love to see the exact chain of causation you're talking about where the researcher making this study is using it as part of a larger political/personal enrichment scheme.

As long as there is a significant divergence between satellite temp readings and the "corrected" data, anyone even remotely rational would question the "corrections".

You keep making the mistake of looking at this as if it's a purely scientific exercise. The reality is that more a political agenda driving exercise than a scientific one, so a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.

Again, the results need to be verified by other researchers. I agree that this debate is more of a culture war than a scientific debate at this point, but unfortunately both sides are not equally well supported by the science. The unfortunate decision of the climate change denier community to try and take the debate beyond the science does not change what the science says.

 

[Paratus]

He is trying to trap you into a false equivalence. Comparing a law of physics with an as yet unproven but working hypothesis.

I'm glad you know that the conservation of energy is proven that's what the entire theory of MMGW rests on!

Edit:



Yep, this. I missed it by that much. :\

That things OPERATIONAL!

😀

 

[fskimospy]

I'm glad you know that the conservation of energy is proven that's what the entire theory of MMGW rests on!

That things OPERATIONAL!

😀

Shame on you, using Admiral Ackbar with the Episode 4 Death Star. Do you have no regard for accuracy or decency?

 

[Paratus]

Shame on you, using Admiral Ackbar with the Episode 4 Death Star. Do you have no regard for accuracy or decency?

Damnit! I knew someone was going to me nail me for that. 😡 :awe:

 

[Paratus]

Measuring equipment is only as accurate as the tolerances of the components within the device and how well the calibration of the device is performed by a human. No two devices will be the same nor will the calibration be the same.

Maybe they'll listen to you.

 

[dphantom]

It is the methodology of adjustments to measuring instruments we are making, not the need for calibration itself. This is a unique, novel way of making such adjustments. It bears much scrutiny and skepticism until shown to be accurate, if ever.

This study also has another interesting side point. It basically says trenberths missing heat all of a sudden is back out of the oceans - overnight. There in fact was no missing heat according to this paper. The pause never existed so the need to "find" missing heat in the oceans is no longer needed.

I think someone here was making a big point about that in other threads.