Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

We would to know on which assumptions you base your conclusions.

Ok, a teaser that involves the homogenization argument. Now I realise I'm linking to a blog of an AGW (I aint spelling that acronym out anymore, lol) heretic who, no doubt, will quickly suffer character assassination on here. But do follow the links he proffers as supporting evidence in his article straight back to NASA/GISS websites. I personally think he makes a very convincing argument that correlates with other articles I've read including those related to "Climategate", but that's just my opinion.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...the-year-2000/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ok, a teaser that involves the homogenization argument. Now I realise I'm linking to a blog of an AGW (I aint spelling that acronym out anymore, lol) heretic who, no doubt, will quickly suffer character assassination on here. But do follow the links he proffers as supporting evidence in his article straight back to NASA/GISS websites. I personally think he makes a very convincing argument that correlates with other articles I've read including those related to "Climategate", but that's just my opinion.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...the-year-2000/

I have read that before and commented elsewhere before.

Judith Curry tweeted that his analysis of temperature adjustments was "bogus." And blogged that it was "highly problematic". She then published two explanations of temperature data adjustments.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data | Climate Etc.

Tony cannot even convince the skeptics.

[Sailor g]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There happen to be a thousand other good reasons why we should consume resources more carefully, make less of a mess, and maybe plan for the future. Pick any reason you like for doing the right thing. Virtue is it's own reward?

+ Even if you don't believe, what's the worst that can happen? We clean the land, air and water. Seems like a win to me.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have read that before and commented elsewhere before.

Judith Curry tweeted that his analysis of temperature adjustments was "bogus." And blogged that it was "highly problematic". She then published two explanations of temperature data adjustments.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data | Climate Etc.

Well you didn't look at the links showing two versions of the same US temperature chart. These charts are on the giss.nasa.gov website.

1999 (the chart on the left):


After 2000:


You can put as much spin on this as you like. The fact is the same chart and data was reproduced with altered values at the peak of AGW hysteria.

[sobraon]

Wow!! It's been a few days since I checked and commented on this thread on the forum and I see the battle still rages.

A quick glance over the posts and I see the usual cut and pastes and false hoods are still being posted by the believers. The old 'science is settled' has even been trotted out. This is particularly laughable considering the amount of argument just here on the forum.

Then there are all the graphs, cut and pasted without an correlation to the raw data. Without any true global relevance. But wait, they must be true, I saw it published. For instance the graph above is in direct conflict with this of the ice cover in Greenland this year.


It is all a nonsense. For every bit of scare published by the Warmists there is evidence from skeptics to debunk it.

The good news is some of the zealots are slowly turning on there own as witnessed by Richard Tol's, a former lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he writes of the 97% consensus rubbish:

Now almost two years old, John Cook’s 97 per cent consensus paper on anthropogenic global warming has been a runaway success. Downloaded more than 300,000 times, voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters, frequently cited by peers and politicians from around the world, the paper seems to be the definitive proof that the science of climate change is settled. It isn’t…

Cook and colleagues argue 97 per cent of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable.... In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97 per cent refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about *climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.
Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the 18-year pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of *climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely.
The Cook paper is remarkable for its quality, though. Cook and colleagues studied 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.
The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter…

Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed on what a paper was about 33 per cent of the time. In 63 per cent of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper… Cook’s employer argued that releasing rater identities would violate a confidentiality agreement. That agreement does not exist… Time stamps reveal that ... one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman *effort…
Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly, have worked towards a given conclusion… The entire study should therefore be dismissed.
This would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students. But Cook’s is one of the most influential papers of recent years. The paper was vigorously defended by the University of Queensland (Cook’s employer) and the editors of Environmental Research Letters, with the Institute of Physics (the publisher) looking on in silence. Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency…
If you want to believe climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.

Finally I had a win a couple of evening ago during a discussion on this very subject with cruisers who were protagonists for warming. My argument like that of most skeptics is that yes!!!! Climate Change exists. Always has. It is the whole scam of AGW that is so disingenuous and because of it real issues are glossed over in favour of the popularist view on AGW.

My real passion is the state of the worlds oceans and health of the planet. It has very little to do with AGW and it is something we all can have a positive influence on. Something that we can actually fix!!! Instead the debate is always highjacked by the Warmist Zealots. Money and awareness for real problems is siphoned off to fund UN sponsored agendas and the serious issues are left unfunded because they are not cash positive for organisations like the IPCC, nor its scientist.

Like a number of people have said, in years to come we are all going to wake up and wonder how society was hoodwinked. The problem as I see it will be that by that time the oceans will be full of rubbish and rainforests will be decimated to provide eco crops for ethonhol and palm oil to appease the watermelons.

If we all focused on what we can have a real impact on and forget about the popularist propaganda, maybe we might be a little better off.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well you didn't look at the links showing two versions of the same US temperature chart. These charts are on the giss.nasa.gov website.

1999 (the chart on the left):


After 2000:


You can put as much spin on this as you like. The fact is the same chart and data was reproduced with altered values at the peak of AGW hysteria.

First graph global versus United States (2% of the globe).

Second graph annual versus 5 year smoothing.

Nothing nefarious to those who understand statistical analysis.

Spencer, an AGW denier, smooths his data as well.



This is what adjusted and unadjusted tempertures look like

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Just because Jimmy Cornell expresses an opinion doesn't make him an authority. Just as you and I expressing an opinion does not make us an authority. To quote from the pro-AGW rulebook "Show us the peer reviewed research".

I didn't say he was an authority, although arguably he might be. In any case, I think he has a wee bit better claim to be one than any of us. I don't think anyone (besides you and maybe third reef) would even argue that.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

First graph global versus United States (2% of the globe).

Second graph annual versus 5 year smoothing.

Nothing nefarious to those who understand statistical analysis.

Spencer, an AGW denier, smooths his data as well.



This is what adjusted and unadjusted tempertures look like

I'm not illustrating numbers. I'm not illustrating homogenization. I'm not showing graphs constructed by some ill-informed "denier".

I have no idea how you conclude that it's acceptable for two obviously identical charts labelled "US Temperature", both with plots for "Annual mean" and "5 year mean" over the same time period axis to show significantly different trends.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

I didn't say he was an authority, although arguably he might be. In any case, I think he has a wee bit better claim to be one than any of us. I don't think anyone (besides you and maybe third reef) would even argue that.

Still doesn't make his opinion anymore than just that.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by capngeo

And those of us who drive big diesel trucks, live in perpetual 70° air-conditioned bliss (except for our two days of winter where we run the heat) Thank You..... Thank You Very Much!

Oh and BTW, I just caught up on the thread after being out all day.... I am officially adopting the "watermelon" for all my Green Friends... BRILLIANT!

I was asked a question (challenged, it seemed) and I answered it. I'm not making a big deal out of it -- in fact, if not asked, I never would have mentioned it. Frankly, it's not something I think about much.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Still doesn't make his opinion anymore than just that.

If you refuse to see it, that's your prerogative.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I have no idea how you conclude that it's acceptable for two obviously identical charts labelled "US Temperature", both with plots for "Annual mean" and "5 year mean" over the same time period axis to show significantly different trends.

I recognize first graph is from James Hansen et al

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

It uses meteorological stations.

The second graph also originates with Hansen

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...sen_etal_1.pdf

"Figure 9a updates the GISS global annual and 5 year
mean temperatures through 2009. Results differ slightly from
our prior papers because of our present use of the global night
lights to adjust for urban effects, but the changes are practically
imperceptible. The night light adjustment reduces the
1880–2009 global temperature change by an insignificant
0.004°C relative to the prior population‐based urban adjustment.
Global temperature in the past decade was about 0.8°C
warmer than at the beginning of the 20th century (1880–1920
mean). Two thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975."

We might to look at other prior papers.

Adjustments are common in meteorological data. I live at 1,000 meters above sea level; my the barometer on my weather station is adjusted to sea level.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Still doesn't make his opinion anymore than just that.

Steve Goddard is also not an authority. He is an electrical engineer.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

If you refuse to see it, that's your prerogative.

Funny enough, I was just reading through Jimmy's personal view whilst having lunch.

Climate change – Jimmy Cornell's personal view - Cornell Sailing Events & Publications

He has a number of what I would consider errors in his article. I'm not going to undertake a full critique, but his claim that Tuvalu is being swamped at present by climate change induced rising sea levels - his headline argument - is not correct. Balanced and factual articles explain why, for example: News and NZ research shows Pacific islands not shrinking - National News | TVNZ

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Steve Goddard is also not an authority. He is an electrical engineer.

I was referring to a Jimmy Cornell.