Global warming

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

nicofly
Pre-take off checks
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:22 am
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: constansia kloof

Re: Global warming

Unread post by nicofly » Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:51 pm

vanjast wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:33 pm
Anyway.. back to global warming and how scientific stuff can be twisted and the public that tend to unquestioningly believe that nonsense.
I think this little diversion is a perfect example of what happens ;)
Your conclusion wrt your diversion is incorrect and proof of Human Induced Climate Change is everywhere. Scientists does not lie it's the politicians twisting it to their unethical intentions that does.

Scientific data can be twisted favouring unethical political agenda's, but the science coming directly from the scientist without interpretation is pure and true.

Scientists are doing the best and they are providing the Truth.
User avatar
rare bird
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1987
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Global warming

Unread post by rare bird » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:25 pm

nicofly wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:47 pm
vanjast wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:12 pm
Yes.. We did that and many other rocks, diamonds for exploration... and many post docs and their theses as well, but the fact still remains... the radio isotope clock can be reset.
The dating works for this time period, but is this the only time period of that sample, maybe or maybe not. ;)
Independent clocks are used.

All rocks and minerals contain long-lived radioactive elements that were incorporated into Earth when the Solar System formed. These radioactive elements constitute independent clocks that allow geologists to determine the age of the rocks in which they occur. The radioactive parent elements used to date rocks and minerals are:

Parent Daughter

Half-life
Uranium-235 Lead-207 0.704 billion years
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.47
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0
Rhenium-187 Osmium-187 43.0
Decay sequence from uranium 238 to lead 206:
Uranium 238 decays with a half-life of 4.46 billion years to Thorium 234 (24.1 days) to Protactinium 234 (46.69 hours) to Uranium 234
( 245500 years) to Thorium 230 (75400 years) to Radium 226 (1599 years) to Radon 222 (3.82 days) to Polonium 218 ( 3.04 minutes) to
Lead 214 ( 27 minutes) to Bismuth 214 (19.9 minutes) to Polonium 210 (0.16 milliseconds) to Lead 206 (which is stable).
When you measure with different cameras eg a GeLi detector / gamma camera, you get one curve coming out (the sum of all the activity within the energy band you have set up the camera on) so it takes quite a bit of wiskunde to de-convolute. A further complication in trying to de-convolute the decay curve is where some of the "in-between" daughter products can migrate or are absorbed or adsorbed differently eg Radon is a gas which can disperse in the atmosphere, or dissolve into water and be carried elsewhere before decaying further (and depositing the polonium). I personally had very little success targeting Polonium and virtually zero success on lead. perhaps I was just too impatient to occupy equipment for the long count times?

incidentally, decent UV monitors have only been around for about 30 odd years. (our CSIR developed Goldilux monitor was one of the first "decent" UV monitors) - so a lot of the data prior to the early 80's is possibly not that brilliant. There were also very few satellite passes over the poles in those old days!
even with the multiple passes these days, you can still get "gaps" in the data between passes
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
nicofly
Pre-take off checks
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:22 am
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: constansia kloof

Re: Global warming

Unread post by nicofly » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:53 pm

Although single-stage leads are difficult to find on Earth due to the constant recycling of Earth's crust, Pb-Pb isochrons remain powerful tools in making age of the Earth calculations. A Pb-Pb isochron plots 207Pb, the daughter isotope of 235U, versus 206Pb, the daughter isotope of 238U, with both normalized to 204Pb. The resulting line drawn through the plotted points will pass through a point representing the initial lead composition of the system.

Unlike other isochrons, the slope of the Pb-Pb isochron decreases with increasing age. This is because 235U has a half-life of 704 million years, while 238U has a half-life of 4.47 billion years.

The rate at which daughter isotopes accumulate is dependent on the amount of parent isotope present. Since 235U has a much shorter half-life, a larger fraction of the initial 235U present in the rock will have decayed compared to 238U. Therefore, 207Pb will accumulate at a slower rate than 206Pb, causing the isochron to decrease in slope with increasing age. The use of lead isotope ratios makes this isochron self-checking. A large scattering of measurements would indicate the sample is multi-stage

Radiometric dating using the naturally-occurring radioactive elements is simple in concept even though technically complex. If we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant. The number of parent atoms originally present is simply the number present now plus the number of daughter atoms formed by the decay, both of which are quantities that can be measured. Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are altered, contaminated, or disturbed by later heating or chemical events.

In addition to the ages of Earth, Moon, and meteorites, radiometric dating has been used to determine ages of fossils, including early man, timing of glaciations, ages of mineral deposits, recurrence rates of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the history of reversals of Earth's magnetic field, and the age and duration of a wide variety of other geological events and processes.

Scientists use the best methods and instruments to detect signatures. they are not holding a geiger counter at samples :lol:
Last edited by nicofly on Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Antman
Joining unmanned airfield circuit
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:25 am
Closest Airfield: FARA
Location: Glen Erasmia JNB

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Antman » Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:28 am

I see we've moved on to geology of the Earth and age determination.

With that in mind have any of you boffins read this https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 00070001-8

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 0001-8.pdf This is a "Sanitized" version.
One has to wonder what's been taken out?

The biggest question of all, is why was this classified in the first place, quite scary!
User avatar
Antman
Joining unmanned airfield circuit
Posts: 385
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:25 am
Closest Airfield: FARA
Location: Glen Erasmia JNB

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Antman » Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:37 am

Also is it possible that, what has been recently discovered may be the reason for less Ozone over Antarctica?

https://www.livescience.com/63692-stand ... ysics.html
https://science.howstuffworks.com/antar ... now-it.htm
https://interestingengineering.com/abno ... ts-puzzled
https://www.antarcticaguide.com/cosmic- ... s-baffled/

Something humanity needs to Learn is that we don't know what we don't know!
The more we discover the more we find out how little we know!
Triaan
Taxiing
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:49 am

Antman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:28 am
I see we've moved on to geology of the Earth and age determination.

With that in mind have any of you boffins read this https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 00070001-8

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 0001-8.pdf This is a "Sanitized" version.
One has to wonder what's been taken out?

The biggest question of all, is why was this classified in the first place, quite scary!
Not sure why it was classified,it has to do with pole reversal, people in the 60s was still very superstitious things have changed the world has grown up

And magnetic reversal is well understood, and from what it looks like, it's not much of a concern wrt any extinction event:

https://theconversation.com/why-the-ear ... t-us-71910
Triaan
Taxiing
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:12 pm

Antman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:37 am
Also is it possible that, what has been recently discovered may be the reason for less Ozone over Antarctica?

https://www.livescience.com/63692-stand ... ysics.html
https://science.howstuffworks.com/antar ... now-it.htm
https://interestingengineering.com/abno ... ts-puzzled
https://www.antarcticaguide.com/cosmic- ... s-baffled/

Something humanity needs to Learn is that we don't know what we don't know!
The more we discover the more we find out how little we know!
The simplest explanation is that the primary high energy cosmic ray was propagating backward in time, collided with a particle on Earth, and since the collision products must move forward in time, they moved in a direction opposite to the cosmic ray's direction of motion. Nothing actually passed through the Earth before decaying, it just appears to do so. There is no need to invent new particles. All you need is to figure out what kind of astronomical source can accelerate high energy particles in a backward time direction. Maybe a source that has an event horizon forming so the only particles that can get out are the ones going in a reverse time direction.

Cosmic rays can have an effect on the ozone, but it does not have an effect on climate change.
if GCRs did have a significant impact on global temperatures, they would have had a net cooling effect over the past 50 years
User avatar
Spoke Eagle
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1904
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Closest Airfield: Silver Creek
Location: Rustenburg

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Spoke Eagle » Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:56 am

There is also a pletora of articles stating that global warming is a normal "spike" before the next Iceage starts. It is also well known that the sun has been cooling dramatically over the past 40 years. (Except for the rays that were hitting Rustenburg before Christmas :D )
The theory is that the cooling sun changes the metabolism of earth life to increase carbon release that raises the temperature.
They basically say that the sun and not man is driving climate change and temperature cycles?
User avatar
cage
8000 Tousand
8000 Tousand
Posts: 8868
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35

Re: Global warming

Unread post by cage » Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:59 am

Spoke Eagle wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:56 am
There is also a pletora of articles stating that global warming is a normal "spike" before the next Iceage starts. It is also well known that the sun has been cooling dramatically over the past 40 years. (Except for the rays that were hitting Rustenburg before Christmas :D )
The theory is that the cooling sun changes the metabolism of earth life to increase carbon release that raises the temperature.
They basically say that the sun and not man is driving climate change and temperature cycles?
Who is "they"?
Triaan
Taxiing
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:11 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Triaan » Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:40 pm

Spoke Eagle wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:56 am
There is also a pletora of articles stating that global warming is a normal "spike" before the next Iceage starts. It is also well known that the sun has been cooling dramatically over the past 40 years. (Except for the rays that were hitting Rustenburg before Christmas :D )
The theory is that the cooling sun changes the metabolism of earth life to increase carbon release that raises the temperature.
They basically say that the sun and not man is driving climate change and temperature cycles?
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising at ~2 parts per million per year, or around 15 billion tons/year. Meanwhile  human emissions excluding land use change (like clearing or planting forests) are 30 billion tons per year.

Nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. It is not causing atmospheric CO2 to rise at all - in fact it is acting to try and reduce atmospheric CO2, and thus the long term rise is entirely because of humans.

Corinne Le Quéré Professor of Climate Change Science and Policy at the University of East Anglia
Skymaster
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:32 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGM
Location: Johannesburg

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Skymaster » Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm

A poster on this thread, who worships at the alter of "C02 causes global warming" was not even aware of who Judith Curry is - a climate scientist with impeccable credentials.
Please feel free to verbally abuse yet another scientist who called "climate science" crazy.
And here's why - Mike Hulme, quoted elsewhere on this thread, let the cat out of the bag about the IPCC.
The alarmists are very quick to questions the academic qualifications of any scientist who dares to question their own unproven theories - yet they studiously ignore that their leading organisation, the IPCC, was headed by a politically appointed retired Indian railway engineer with no climate credentials whatsoever (You couldn't make it up could you!!)
Their next idiocy was to proclaim their "consensus" to the world.
Consensus is a modern propaganda strategy adopted to get everyone to buy into your dodgy science when you actually have no proof at all.
This runs hand in hand with Goebbels strategy that " a lie repeated often, becomes a truth."
But did they really have consensus??
Were they lying about that too???
Here's what Hume, himself an IPCC insider has to say.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man made global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.
The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists.(ends.)

So now you have it.
A small clique of dodgy scientists with their " global warming" computer model making all sorts of lying claims.
No wonder reasonable men, and many scientists with impeccable credentials have many questions about their C02 theory.
Certainly non of their "science is settled" claims of high temperatures have happened.
And this has forced the IPCC to reduce their original high temperatures claims to the point where they could well fall within any margin of error!
Yet governments are gleefully creating "carbon taxes" !!
The fact is, all honest scientists open their work, experiments, scientific data and stats to others for robust critique.
But not the alarmist clique.
Asked for his data by an amateur scientist, Steve McIntyre, Phil Jones a leading, tax payer funded Climate scientist responded, "Why should I give you my research data - you would only try and find something wrong with it."
And some still believe these twerps.
User avatar
heisan
Fower Tousand
Fower Tousand
Posts: 4976
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:45 pm
Closest Airfield: Rhino Park
Location: Pretoria

Re: Global warming

Unread post by heisan » Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:35 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on man made global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.
The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
Where do people find this garbage? How about reading the actual paper being so badly msquoted here:
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme ... 5B1%5D.pdf

Or reviewing actual consensus studies:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 1/4/048002
(All data sources and methodologies are available, and you can happily review them yourself, rather than misquoting arbitrary 'sources' from the internet.)
Justin Schoeman

ZU-FSR (Raven)
User avatar
sampie
Power on stall
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:14 pm

Skymaster wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:56 pm
A poster on this thread, who worships at the alter of "C02 causes global warming" was not even aware of who Judith Curry is - a climate scientist with impeccable credentials.
This must be the joke of the year =D> :lol: Judith Curry a Koch Brothers Funded scientist (for those who do not know she is funded by big oil, has been debunked by so many Climate Scientists one can write an encyclopedia about it :lol:

Judith Curry runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused spiel for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place. Curry has agreed with Trump's description of climate change as a "hoax", writing in 2016 that the UN's definition of manmade climate change "qualifies as a hoax".

Climate scientist James Annan has provided examples (with rebuttals) of assertions made by Curry on topics like no-feedback climate sensitivity, aerosols, climate change detection&attribution, and the IPCC tolerance of challengers; he finds there's a pattern of "throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong",[20]
Willingness to criticize based on second-hand info from contrarian, inexpert sources

"In a 2010 comment[21] she called blogger Deep Climate's detailed and well-documented investigation into the Wegman Report "one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen" even as she revealed in her incorrect synopsis of the charges that she had not even read it for herself. ... [i.e.] she shows herself ready to publicly criticise someone else in the strongest terms based entirely on second hand information gleaned from places like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That."[11]

Offering off-the-cuff, uninformed criticism of mainstream climate science

Gavin Schmidt has criticised Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about[22], for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC[23], and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause."[24].
2011: Berkeley Earth Project "BEST" dissension, and widely publicized claims of "pause"

Curry was a member of the partially-Koch-funded Berkeley Earth Project temperature reanalysis project headed by former global warming skeptic Richard Muller, which reanalyzed existing weather station data and found yes, global warming was real. The project FAQ[2] (and a draft paper, which lists Curry among the authors[3]) reported there was no evidence to indicate the rate of global warming had changed in the last decade.

But despite Curry's having agreed (as evinced by her coauthorship) with this conclusion, London Daily Mail contrarian (and oft-misrepresenting[4], [5], [6]) journalist David Rose portrayed a vigorously-disagreeing Curry saying, "This is 'hide the decline' stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline."[25].

Curry backtracked somewhat on her blog, saying "The article spun my comments in ways that I never intended"[25], but didn't step back from "Our data show the pause", and "There has been a lag/slowdown/whatever you want to call it in the rate of temperature increase since 1998."[26] When pressed for the scientific basis for these statements, Curry admitted the time period was too short for a statistically significant difference to emerge.
RommSkepticsPauses.png

In response Tamino noted, "There is Occam's razor -- ... the simplest hypothesis (namely: the trend hasn't changed) is preferable. Besides which, basing her statement on "It may have stopped since 1998" is really no different than "it may have stopped since last Thursday.""[7]

Eyeballed "pauses" are misleading - in a graph titled "How "Skeptics" View Global Warming", Joe Romm shows that if you see a "pause" in the post-1998 temperature data, you'll also think global warming "paused" at least six times from 1973-2010, covering almost the entire period - yet the global temperature actually continued to increase.[27]

source:
Keith Kloor (2010-04-23). An Inconvenient Provocateur. Collide-a-scape. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “"Chapter 2.3 in the IPCC WG1 Third Assessment Report and Chapter 6 in the IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report, both of which address the paleoclimate proxy record, were not accurate assessments of the science and its uncertainties."”
Judith Curry (2011-07-27). Nature on Heartland. Climate Etc.. Retrieved on 2011-07-28.
John Rennie (2010-10-25). Update on Climate Hawks, Judith Curry and more. Retort. Retrieved on 2010-10-28. “"...So the answer is no, I am not going to sign up to be a climate hawk"”
Dave Roberts (2010-10-20). Introducing ‘climate hawks’. Grist. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “it evokes a judgment: that the risks of climate change are sufficient to warrant a robust response.”
Brian Angliss (2010-07-08). WordsDay: Merchants of Doubt. Scholars and Rogues. Retrieved on 2010-10-28. “Merchants of Doubt also describes how Seitz et al misrepresented scientific uncertainty to their advantage over the course of the last 60 years. The scientists did this in a number of ways...”
Coby Beck (2010-11-05). Judith Curry plants her flag. A Few Things Ill Considered. Retrieved on 2010-11-05.
Steve Bloom (2010-08-23). comment on Currying confusion. Not Spaghetti. Retrieved on 2010-11-03. “She...specifically asserts that a Charney sensitivity well below 2C is plausible...her response was to point me to a recent review paper (Hegerl co-auth) she said agreed with her. I looked and... no, it didn't.”
Tim Lambert (2010-07-29). Judith Curry and the hockey stick. Deltoid. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “Tamino has written a detailed review of the [Montford] book with particular emphasis on two of the three main critiques that Curry identified. The response from Curry was perplexing. Instead of thanking Tamino for addressing the main critiques that she had identified, Curry wrote that the cons for Tamino's review were: "numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, failure to address many of the main points of the book..." Pressed to identify these errors, Curry instead moved the goalposts, coming up with nine different "key points" of the book. When Gavin Schmidt demolished these, rather than concede that some, at least, were wrong, Curry asserted that Schmidt's rebuttal was full of logical fallacies (though once again without identifying any of them at all)”
William M. Connolley (2010-04-23). Curry. Stoat. Retrieved on 2010-10-29.
Joe Romm (2010-04-26). Beef with Curry. Climate Progress. Retrieved on 2010-10-29.
Things Break (pseudonymous blogger) (2010-09-12). Welcome to the blogosphere, Dr. Curry!. The Way Things Break. Retrieved on 2010-10-29.
Michael Tobis (2010-10-29). Judith Curry: Born Beyond the Shark?. Only In It For The Gold. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “It's one thing to tolerate cranks. ... It's another thing entirely to encourage them and agree with them. Crank: 'There are many forcings and some are known to be underrepresented in the modeling such as aerosols / clouds and black soot.' curryja: 'very true, same goes for solar also.' ... f you buckle down and try to understand what she is saying (instead of just nodding in enthusiastic agreement with the "not the IPCC" position) it is incomprehensible.”
James Annan (2010-10-29). More Curried leftovers. James' Empty Blog. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “...she apparently conflates the concept of evidence for and against the proposition "most of the observed warming was very likely due to the GHG increase" with an estimate of the proportion of warming that was due to anthropogenic vs natural factors. This seems like a rather elementary point to get confused over ... Note that in the very first premise of her argument, she only assigns 70% probability to the fact that surface temperatures actually show a warming at all! This is the warming that the IPCC famously called "unequivocal" in their 2007 report. As far as I can tell, at this point she is simply so far out of touch with mainstream climate science that her analyses aren't worth the time it takes to read them. End of story.”
User avatar
sampie
Power on stall
Posts: 348
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:27 pm

More Oil funded Judith Curry Quotes

"I suspect that the higher level of belief among ocean sciences and particularly geophysics represents second order belief (i.e. support for a perceived consensus) rather than personal research on AGW detection/attribution or a careful survey of the literature. How to square this with the oft reported 97% consensus? Well, ‘climate scientists’ in these surveys typically includes economists, ecologists etc., nearly all probably representing second order belief."


what the science say:

The survey Verheggen et al. (2014) found that scientists who work specifically on the physical science basis of climate change (known as WG1 for short), especially experts in attribution and aerosols, tend to believe humans are responsible for a greater proportion of the observed global warming than other scientists working in climate science who may, in some cases, have a "second-order belief" (see figure 2 in that study).

Overall, studies show 91% to 97% consensus among experienced climate scientists.


Judith Curry:

"the narrative of the 'spiral of death' for the sea ice has been broken ... It remains unclear as to what extent the decline in sea ice over the past decades is caused by natural variability versus greenhouse warming. Whether the increase in 2013 is a one year blip in a longer declining trend, or whether it portends a break in this trend remains to be seen."

What the science say:

A one-year increase in Arctic sea ice extent is short-term noise caused by weather, and is not indicative of a long-term recovery from the rapid human-caused decline.

Sea ice extent has dropped since 2013.

Judith Curry:

"what the heck does the ‘climate change consensus’ even mean any more? The definition of climate change consensus is now so fuzzy that leading climate change skeptics are categorizing themselves within the 97%."


What the science say:

Here's what it means: the scientist self-ratings survey included in Cook et al. (2013) found a 96% consensus that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming, among papers that explicitly quantified whether or not humans were responsible. (This was not originally stated in the paper, but can be seen in the anonymized raw data of The Consensus Project.)

The contrarian Roy Spencer did claim to be part of the "97% consensus". The number 97% was produced with different criteria but The Consensus Project database shows that his claim is false. (Judith Curry herself did have two old papers among the 97%, but has published no papers stating whether or not humans cause most of the observed warming.)

Judith Curry:

"This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline"

The science:

Every part of the Earth's climate system has continued warming since 1998.

Global warming apparently slowed down, but did not stop over reasonable averaging periods (more than 10 years). The slowdown is now over. The slowdown have partly been an illusion produced by 1998 (an unusually hot year), plus a lack of arctic data (coverage bias) during a time when arctic regions were warming quickly. Instrumental bias may also be a factor. Ocean heat content continued rising during the slowdown.

Judith Curry:

"I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow. [...] If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science."


The science:

Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.

Judith Curry:

"There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record....It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest"

The Science:

The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
User avatar
viki
Ooops forgot to turn the fuel back on!
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:36 pm

The alarmists are very quick to questions the academic qualifications of any scientist who dares to question their own unproven theories
What kind of pot did this publisher smoke, Science is not "Theories"
It's the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Return to “123.45”