Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Validated. Please try to keep up.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot

Oh dear. A study covering the period from 1958 to 2012. You do know what year it is, right? Current data contradicts this study, so do try to keep up.

New Evidence Regarding Tropical Water Vapor Feedback, Lindzen’s Iris Effect, and the Missing Hotspot « Roy Spencer, PhD

Once again, you find something that supports your meme, take it out of context without being honest about what it actually says and then assert that the science is settled. Satellite data doesn't support your assertion. Does that mean the issue is settled? No, but it means that if you continue to make assertive statements based on a slice of the information available you will continue to appear to be a warmist propagandist not actually interested in the science.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

or the cartoonist who runs skepticalscience.com

You mean the one who has a degree in physics. The one who earns livelihood as the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

Or do you mean the cartoonist whose work was posted by Stu.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Right - a cartoon from a radio weatherman's blog trumps science.

Nothing to do with the science. It just epitomizes your continual rejection of ANY good news regarding CO2/climate change etc.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes you are

Then avail yourself of the list of peer reviewed papers I posted showing exactly the opposite conclusion your blog post reached. Or ask Barton Levenson. Surely he knows what is going on in the Sahel.

Or here is another list of papers on the subject. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...hJB-sQgQMIGjAA

Honestly Jack, when you make a clear mistake yet refuse to back down in the face of overwhelming evidence of your error you really can't be taken as seriously as you clearly wish to be.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You mean the one who has a degree in physics. The one who earns livelihood as the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

Or do you mean the cartoonist whose work was posted by Stu.

Well actually, John Cook has a B.S. in physics, and good for him, I must say. He is working on a PhD in cognitive psychology (not quite there yet, I gather) but formerly made his living as a cartoonist, or as he characterizes his credentials:

[I“I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist…”- John Cook][/I] - skepticalscience.com

Not a scientist, but I guess that explains why he is the go-to guy for so many warmists. Him and Barton Levenson. Both go-to guys.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Oh dear. A study covering the period from 1958 to 2012. You do know what year it is, right? Current data contradicts this study, so do try to keep up.

New Evidence Regarding Tropical Water Vapor Feedback, Lindzen’s Iris Effect, and the Missing Hotspot « Roy Spencer, PhD

Once again, you find something that supports your meme, take it out of context without being honest about what it actually says and then assert that the science is settled. Satellite data doesn't support your assertion. Does that mean the issue is settled? No, but it means that if you continue to make assertive statements based on a slice of the information available you will continue to appear to be a warmist propagandist not actually interested in the science.

This is all very preliminary, and we await the CMIP5 archive coming back online again late this month so that we can analyze more models.

Nothing heard. False alarm.

Spencer has not analyzed more models. Or if he did, he has not published his results on his blog or in a journal.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Number fiddling is not science.

.

So Spencer and Christy's adjustments to their satellite data is not science?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Nothing heard. False alarm.

Spencer has not analyzed more models. Or if he did, he has not published his results on his blog or in a journal.

Ah, new to the scientific method I see. You will need to wait until the study is completed. The preliminary data speaks for itself.

[Kenomac]

I need to start paying attention more closely, so that I can grab post #4000.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So, is your theory that satellite data that measures temperatures in the entire lower troposphere is inferior data to weather stations placed next to WalMart parking lots? Interesting.

No, that is not my theory.

Satellites to not measure the entire lower troposphere.




Read the range from RSS.

BTW - Satellite measurements of the troposphere confirm warming trend, data shows - Carbon Brief

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Ah, new to the scientific method I see. You will need to wait until the study is completed. The preliminary data speaks for itself.

You drew a conclusion on the basis of incomplete data.

Current data contradicts this study, so do try to keep up.

I am the one who suggested we wait for something more substantive. We both will need to wait until the study is completed.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is this the post you meant (#3418 on p. 228)?

Here's how you responded there to a couple of the fundamental controversies in CC science, namely (i) the temp disparities btwn. sat vs. surface data, and (ii) ocean subduction as a theory for explaining those disparities:

Carl Mears of RSS believes that surface temperatures are more appropriate. Ask him why. Personally I live on the earth's surface, not in the troposphere. I suspect some here do inhabit the troposphere.

Mears also contends that the oceans are absorbing more heat energy.

Give him a thorough read.

The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures | Remote Sensing Systems

I've given this a thorough read, at your suggestion, at least twice. I understand completely that it's one side of a theory that attempts to reconcile the temp disparities from the two data modes. I also understand, quite thoroughly, that there is credible, contrary science that ALSO says the troposphere IS in fact an accurate measure of surface temps, and that ALSO discounts the ocean subduction theory based on, among other things, the failure to account for the "missing heat."

SO THERE ARE CONFLICTING BUT VIABLE THEORIES BUT YOU ARE ONLY PRESENTING ONE SIDE!!

As a more credible alternative, you could say . . .

1. Dr. Mears is smarter and better credentialed than his colleagues who can't find the missing heat;

2. The missing heat in the oceans is dissipated leaving only acidification behind;

3. My scientist is better than your scientist;

4. 49 scientists agree with Mears and only 47 with the others, so therefore;

5. Everyone & his dog knows ocean subduction is the only explanation so why bother;

6. The confusion is all Inhofe & Smith's fault, with help from Happer; and/or,

7. Christy & Spencer are religious nuts (oops, you've already said that).

But instead, you ignore that THERE ARE CONFLICTING BUT VIABLE THEORIES AND YOU ARE ONLY PRESENTING ONE SIDE!!

Sorry to say, but that is propaganda, not honest analysis nor critical thinking.

The man doth project too much methinks. (with apologizes to Shakespeare)

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Then avail yourself of the list of peer reviewed papers I posted showing exactly the opposite conclusion your blog post reached. Or ask Barton Levenson. Surely he knows what is going on in the Sahel.

Or here is another list of papers on the subject. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...hJB-sQgQMIGjAA

Honestly Jack, when you make a clear mistake yet refuse to back down in the face of overwhelming evidence of your error you really can't be taken as seriously as you clearly wish to be.

On the first page the newest article is 2008. "We review the evidence that connects drought and desertification in the Sahel with climate change past, present and future. Advances in climate modeling point to the oceans, not land, as the cause of the recent persistence of drought in the Sahel."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Well actually, John Cook has a B.S. in physics, and good for him, I must say. He is working on a PhD in cognitive psychology (not quite there yet, I gather) but formerly made his living as a cartoonist, or as he characterizes his credentials:

[I“I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist…”- John Cook][/I] - skepticalscience.com

Not a scientist, but I guess that explains why he is the go-to guy for so many warmists. Him and Barton Levenson. Both go-to guys.

And John Christy is / was a an ordained Baptist minister.

Why is Anthony Watts the go-to denialsit guy. He is a university drop out who is a radio weatherman.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So Spencer and Christy's adjustments to their satellite data is not science?

Two points.

1.Minor - You ignore the continuous adjustments of GISTEMP, HadCrut, RSS and pick on just UAH? Why is that.

2 Major Your "new science" references are both just fiddling with MODEL OUTPUTS.

"developed a method that consolidates climate models "
"formalized approaches to unifying numerical modelling"

No new data and no new scientific finding anywhere.

It's no more new science that John Cook doing a "cognitive psychological" reanalysis of Shakespeare's Tragedies would be; and probably less useful

Heck, I fiddle with numerical data all day when I am developing information systems, often in novel ways. I don't call it new science.