• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
You mean apart from all of the homogenisation studies on each of the data records that are used to account for instrumentation, location, urbanisation, and screening changes...?

Of course, I mean that's just a case of alarmists manipulating the raw data... But now we're saying that the raw data is actually wrong and that the warming is an artefact of the instruments that started in 1995... But, then again, warming stopped in 1996! :boggled:

I pity deniers trying to hold all of this internally inconsistent mumbo-jumbo together in their heads. The dissonance must be painful.
 
Of course, I mean that's just a case of alarmists manipulating the raw data... But now we're saying that the raw data is actually wrong and that the warming is an artefact of the instruments that started in 1995... But, then again, warming stopped in 1996! :boggled:

I pity deniers trying to hold all of this internally inconsistent mumbo-jumbo together in their heads. The dissonance must be painful.

When it's all word salad because you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about, there is very little dissonance, because there is very little cognitive understanding within which to perceive inconsistencies,...evidently.
 
Has anyone seen this yet?:

Dr. Terry Hughes, in an interview with The College Fix, said researchers want to keep federal funding for climate change alive, and politicians want to earn environmentalist votes, and both predict global pandemonium to that end.

Hughes, a professor emeritus of earth sciences and climate change at the University of Maine, said for years his colleagues urged him to be in lockstep with former Vice President Al Gore – “the drum major in the parade denouncing global warming as an unmitigated disaster,” he told The College Fix.

But Hughes – who believes global warming is actually a good thing because more carbon dioxide is good for the environment in many ways – said he does not want to march to that beat.

Among Hughes’ theories, he said he believes the desire to continue the climate change arguments has a “racist” component to it. His evidence? A 1974 National Security Study Memorandum written by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

“NSSM 200 states that American economic supremacy can be maintained only if U.S. foreign policy is aimed at reducing the non-white population worldwide,” he said. “We need their natural resources to maintain our standard of living.”

His reasons for why global warming is a good thing, Hughes told the Capital Journal, is that “atmospheric CO2 would greatly increase agricultural production,” “thawing permafrost would increase by one-seventh Earth’s landmass open to extensive human habitation,” and “if the sea level did rise, there would be a global economic boom,” among other arguments.

So... case closed, right? It's definitely a hoax. :rolleyes:
 
NOAA's state of the climate report for 2014 is up:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13

The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record.
 
I've never seen any evidence that the so called "sceptics" are sceptical. They seem to believe every nutty theory fed them by the likes of Lord Monckton, Steve Goddard, Anthony Watts etc. How many times have you linked to unscientific nonsense now? That isn't scepticism. There's a reason why the "sceptics" can't get their theories peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal and it aint because of any conspiracy.


Speak of the devil ... :eek:

Sure "sceptics" are sceptical and here it is .... what you said couldn't happen ... peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal :D

"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."

Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model

and the full paper is available just click on the URL at the bottom of the above link ...

Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model Christopher Monckton et al
PDF
11 Conclusion
Resolving the discrepancies between the methodology adopted by IPCC in AR4 and AR5 is vital. Once those discrepancies are corrected for, it appears that the impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century, and
even as far as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC’s current projections.

Suppose, for instance, that the equilibrium response to a CO2 doubling is, as the simple model credibly suggests it is, \1 K. Suppose also that the long-run CO2 fraction proves to be as high as 0.9. Again, this possibility is credible.
Finally, suppose that remaining affordably recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are as much as thrice those that have been recovered and consumed so far. Then, the total warming we shall cause by consuming all remaining
recoverable reserves will be little more than 2.2 K, and not the 12 K imagined by IPCC on the RCP 8.5 scenario. If so, the case for any intervention to mitigate CO2 emissions has not necessarily been made: for the 2.2 K equilibrium warming we project would take place only over many hundreds of years. Also, the disbenefits of more extreme heat may well be at least matched by the benefits of less extreme cold. It is no accident that 90 % of the world’s living species thrive in the warm, wet tropics, while only
1 % live at the cold, dry poles.
 
Last edited:
A paper by a known idiot who admits to stripping down the equations used to model climate change to the point that they are essentially unrecognizable does not constitute evidence against climate change.

Sticks and stones ...

It's peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal :p
 
NOW you have :D

Mm, no, actually. I'm afraid I haven't.

Because, you see, linking to the article itself isn't the same thing as showing any sort of commentary from the rest of the scientific community on the article's contents.

I can see how you got confused, though.
 
Mm, no, actually. I'm afraid I haven't.

Because, you see, linking to the article itself isn't the same thing as showing any sort of commentary from the rest of the scientific community on the article's contents.

I can see how you got confused, though.


What part of this don't you understand ?

"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science"

Do you think the prestigious Science Bulletin peer reviews DON'T count ? :p

Monckton of Brenchley January 16, 2015 at 9:15 am
There are several new points in the paper. First, the point that a simple model is capable of determining climate sensitivity less unreliably than the complex models. Secondly, the point that the Bode feedback system gain relation is inapplicable to the climate. Thirdly, the point that the IPCC has reduced its estimate of the feedback sum but has not correspondingly reduced its estimate of climate sensitivity. Fourthly, the point that there is no scientific basis for the extreme RCP 8.5 scenario of the IPCC. Fifthly, there are several new equations presented in the paper, which facilitate an understanding of the determination of climate sensitivity. And so on. Read the paper first, then decide.
 
Last edited:
What part of this don't you understand ?

"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science"

Do you think the prestigious Science Bulletin peer reviews DON'T count ? :p

You do realize that the reviewing process does not end at publication, yes?
 
You do realize that the reviewing process precedes publication, yes? :cool:

No, a pre-publication review occurs, during which the paper is handed off to the relevant magazine editor and a handful of other (usually anonymous) reviewers. Their job is to see if the paper is fit for publication, nothing more, and the criteria for that vary wildly from journal to journal.

Since none of those reviews are available to us, Christopher Monckton is known to not understand science or what scientists say, and there is as of yet no post-publication review available, it's a bit early to be calling this evidence. As it is, it's just a paper with no established validity beyond "meh, may as well throw it in".

In case you were unaware, many articles get published which are speedily discredited during post-publication review. This occurs even in the most prestigious journals, because looks solid enough to publish is not the same thing as is actually correct.
 
No, a pre-publication review occurs, during which the paper is handed off to the relevant magazine editor and a handful of other (usually anonymous) reviewers. Their job is to see if the paper is fit for publication, nothing more, and the criteria for that vary wildly from journal to journal.

Since none of those reviews are available to us, Christopher Monckton is known to not understand science or what scientists say, and there is as of yet no post-publication review available, it's a bit early to be calling this evidence. As it is, it's just a paper with no established validity beyond "meh, may as well throw it in".

In case you were unaware, many articles get published which are speedily discredited during post-publication review. This occurs even in the most prestigious journals, because looks solid enough to publish is not the same thing as is actually correct.


A model that post-dicts temperatures more successfully than any predecessor model and you want to discredit it ! LOL

Hardly a surprise :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom