Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[Swampgator]

I will reach out in PM so we can stop littering this thread, and we can come to a decision on how best to demonstrate and test the algorithm. I'm looking forward to working cooperatively on it.

Ohmman,

Sorry I have been super busy at work the past few days and am just now jumping back into the forum.

I'm curious about your offer. I have noticed that you ignore direct questions from me. Like above I was asking you about Mann's hockey stick criticisms. And the question about data quality , sources, and methods. Those seem like easy ones to at least put forth an opinion. Then you go on to state that we are littering up this thread and should move the discussion offline? I thought this thread was created to discuss climate change?

Weren't you a former moderator? I have always valued your input, but it seems your role on this thread is to clear out any dissension so your side can have an echo chamber.

 

[Swampgator]

And other scientists who tested Mann’s theories ended up supporting this thesis. Here is a good summary of you want the background

And yet others who tested Mann thesis did not agree with his results.
It only takes one experiment to invalidate an hypothesis. Mann still to this day refuses to put forth the actual computer code he used to analyze the data in his paper. You don't find that odd?

 

[dhrivnak]

And yet others who tested Mann thesis did not agree with his results.
It only takes one experiment to invalidate an hypothesis. Mann still to this day refuses to put forth the actual computer code he used to analyze the data in his paper. You don't find that odd?

And please point me to such a paper.

 

[mspohr]

Do you remember the good old days when we had "12 years to save the planet"?

Now it seems, there's a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C this century, emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 45% by 2030.

But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.

The idea that 2020 is a firm deadline was eloquently addressed by one of the world's top climate scientists, speaking back in 2017.

"The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can't be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020," said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and now director emeritus of the Potsdam Climate Institute.

Right now a number of countries seem keen to slow down progress. Last December the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia blocked the IPCC special report on 1.5C from UN talks.

Just a few weeks ago in Bonn, further objections from Saudi Arabia meant it was again dropped from the UN negotiations, much to annoyance of small island states and developing nations.

 

[Swampgator]

And please point me to such a paper.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Judith Curry has some good thoughts on the whole Mann issue. IPCC TAR and the hockey stick

 

[Swampgator]

This is how NOT to do science. This is how politics is done.

IPCC and the “Trick”

 

[mspohr]

In the Age of Extinction, Who is Extreme? A Response to Policy Exchange - Resilience

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that we are living in a time when radical, rapid and far-reaching changes are needed to avert environmental disaster. Scientific evidence supports Extinction Rebellion’s statement that “Humanity finds itself embroiled in an event unprecedented in its history. One which, unless immediately addressed, will catapult us further into the destruction of all we hold dear…”

Given such an extreme future, what constitutes extremism, and who gets to decide this? On the 16th of July the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange put out a report claiming that Extinction Rebellion are an extremist organisation. The report attempted to link Extinction Rebellion to terrorism. Among the more worrying recommendations were calls for a more forceful approach to prosecuting non-violent protestors, even changing the law to give police radical powers to shut down peaceful protest. Where do these views come from, do they have a basis in fact, and what purpose do they serve?

 

[ohmman]

Ohmman,

Sorry I have been super busy at work the past few days and am just now jumping back into the forum.

I'm curious about your offer. I have noticed that you ignore direct questions from me. Like above I was asking you about Mann's hockey stick criticisms. And the question about data quality , sources, and methods. Those seem like easy ones to at least put forth an opinion. Then you go on to state that we are littering up this thread and should move the discussion offline? I thought this thread was created to discuss climate change?

Weren't you a former moderator? I have always valued your input, but it seems your role on this thread is to clear out any dissension so your side can have an echo chamber.

Because I will not be Gish Galloped. I am absolutely happy to address, recreate, and test any item that has to do with analyzing the hypothesis, but we should take one step at a time. I feel like this is a common strategy - keep throwing unrelated whatabouts out there instead of focusing on a single issue and getting to the answer. There seems to be a focus problem in the AGW rejection community (trying to find an alternative to "denier" that is acceptable). I have sent you two PMs which asked questions about methodology before we go forward, included some Python code, and tried to get feedback but haven't had a response. Didn't those arrive?

I'm still a moderator. I don't moderate Energy, Environment, and Policy, but do moderate other forums here. And I'm not here to "clear out any dissension," except where I find it to be incorrect based on my understanding of the science. That's why I offer to get together with people to find where the break occurs.

 

[S'toon]

This is how NOT to do science. This is how politics is done.

IPCC and the “Trick”

Stephen (Steve) George McIntyre
Credentials

• PPE (Philosophy, Politics and Economics), Oxford University, (1971). [1]
• B.Sc., Mathematics, University of Toronto (1969). [1]

Background
Stephen McIntyre has been a long-time mining industry executive, mostly working on the “stock market side” of mining exploration deals. He published a blog called Climate Audit where he attempts to analyse in sometimes long and extensive detail the work of climate change scientists where he documents “statistical mistakes” in peer-reviewed scientific literature.[1], [2]

McIntyre has been described as a “persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate in 2003” and has been a prominent critic of temperature records that suggest increasing global temperatures over the past 1000 years. [2]

<snip>

More at:
Steve McIntyre

 

[nwdiver]

This is how NOT to do science. This is how politics is done.

IPCC and the “Trick”

LOL! Says the guy the refuses to accept that CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of warming without offering an alternative explanation.....

For the 34th time. If the 40% increase in CO2 isn't the cause..... WHAT. IS?????

 

[mspohr]

LOL! Says the guy the refuses to accept that CO2 is responsible for the vast majority of warming without offering an alternative explanation.....

For the 34th time. If the 40% increase in CO2 isn't the cause..... WHAT. IS?????

I don't know if you have figured it out yet but this guy is trolling you and you will never get an answer.

 

[nwdiver]

I don't know if you have figured it out yet but this guy is trolling you and you will never get an answer.

I know; Just want to make it overtly apparent to anyone else reading the thread....

 

[Unpilot]

I know; Just want to make it overtly apparent to anyone else reading the thread....

It's apparent.

 

[Merrill]

I’m going to say this again, why do we spend so much time arguing on this subject. It does not matter if you believe in climate change or not, why not just do your small part to help the environment. Some people say that my small part will not help, but if everybody who says this does their small part then guess what, it becomes a big part.

 

[dhrivnak]

I’m going to say this again, why do we spend so much time arguing on this subject. It does not matter if you believe in climate change or not, why not just do your small part to help the environment. Some people say that my small part will not help, but if everybody who says this does their small part then guess what, it becomes a big part.

Absolutely and that is the reason I wrote the book Driving to Net 0 - Stories of Hope for a Carbon Free Future. https://www.amazon.com/Driving-Net-Stories-Carbon-Future/dp/0692143831

We now have viable options.

 

[SageBrush]

I have sent you two PMs which asked questions about methodology before we go forward, included some Python code

You most be joking.

The pharmacist cannot read python code,
cannot understand the methods,
cannot follow the statistics,
and has no clue about the basic concepts of AGW

OF COURSE he reverts back to gossip. That is the foundation of his AGW opinions. Asking anything else is beating a rock for water.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

For the 34th time. If the 40% increase in CO2 isn't the cause..... WHAT. IS?????

Unfortunately, the answer is the 41%, 42%, 43%..increase that we keep dumping.

 

[mspohr]

Scientific consensus on humans causing global warming passes 99%

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.

 

[ohmman]

Scientific consensus on humans causing global warming passes 99%

The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.

Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.

That’s an odd headline. I understand the implication - these three new studies address some of the non-anthropomorphic areas of climate concern for the holdouts. But there hasn’t been a final study to confirm that it’ll go to 99%, just a guess that it probably will.

Reading the papers now.

 

[S'toon]

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Judith Curry has some good thoughts on the whole Mann issue. IPCC TAR and the hockey stick

So much on Judith Curry. Dishonest. Takes fossil fuel company funding.
Judith Curry - SourceWatch