2015 Warmest Year on Record

[JacketRacket]

You pretty much confirm my position: there are more inter-connected factors that prohibit ONE model being used to explain everything.

Have there been many models saying that the climate is trending down in temps then or sea level decreasing? I agree that we need to look at multiple models, and that those need to take in a variety of sources, but I haven't seen a reviewable (either peer reviewed or open source) model that says something more contradictory than 'it's not increasing as fast as we thought, but it's still increasing'.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Have there been many models saying that the climate is trending down in temps then or sea level decreasing? I agree that we need to look at multiple models, and that those need to take in a variety of sources, but I haven't seen a reviewable (either peer reviewed or open source) model that says something more contradictory than 'it's not increasing as fast as we thought, but it's still increasing'.

I have no idea what models may actually be out there, since the climate-change zealots suppress or smear anyone who opposes their view.

 

[MWBATL]

The implication (at the very least) of this and similar links is that they are all intertwined, and to project something based on looking at only one factor is totally meaningless.

Not so sure about that report....
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/

 

[Animal02]

The implication (at the very least) of this and similar links is that they are all intertwined, and to project something based on looking at only one factor is totally meaningless.

Not to mention making assumptions with bad data whether intention or not. (Weather station location for one)

 

[Animal02]

Not so sure about that report....
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/

That is like measuring a car's gas mileage only when having the gas pedal floored.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

 

[Animal02]

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/09/australia-shows-no-warming-since-1876/

 

[JacketRacket]

That is like measuring a car's gas mileage only when having the gas pedal floored.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Yes, things can be very misleading if you don't look at the whole picture. It's important to distinguish between signal and noise.

First I'd like to address the source you're using. Cliff 'Top 10 climatologist in the world' Harris doesn't have any published papers or even a climatology degree to his name that I can find. All of their sources for compiling that chart are books and papers from the 70s and 80s, so way before modern scientific information or discourse on the topic. There's no scientific based forecasting in their predictions either. Not even talking about the fact that there isn't even a scale on the other axis.

 

[JacketRacket]

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/09/australia-shows-no-warming-since-1876/

These charts are the perfect example of signal to noise. Is the point of this article to say that means and averages aren't a valid way to measure temperature over time and that we should use daily max temperature instead? Or is it to say that governments are manipulating the data? Both are equally preposterous, but I want to make sure before I waste effort.

 

[JacketRacket]

I have no idea what models may actually be out there, since the climate-change zealots suppress or smear anyone who opposes their view.

Someone who came up with a scientifically sound model that did this would probably be a minor celebrity in the world of climate change deniers, the same way that Andrew Wakefield was to anti vaxxers before y'know he turned out to be a fraud.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Someone who came up with a scientifically sound model that did this would probably be a minor celebrity in the world of climate change deniers, the same way that Andrew Wakefield was to anti vaxxers before y'know he turned out to be a fraud.

I don't remember her name now, but there was a Tech professor/research scientist who was the toast of the climate-change world, until she suddenly reversed course, publishing a paper questioning earlier findings. She was drummed out of the climate-change community and viciously smeared; she ultimately retired. That's how they treat those who disagree with them.

 

[GT_05]

Have there been many models saying that the climate is trending down in temps then or sea level decreasing? I agree that we need to look at multiple models, and that those need to take in a variety of sources, but I haven't seen a reviewable (either peer reviewed or open source) model that says something more contradictory than 'it's not increasing as fast as we thought, but it's still increasing'.

No, probably not. Do you know of a NSF grant or other large grant that questions climate change? You probably won’t find one of those either. Climate change scientists know where their bread is buttered and it’s not refuting, or even questioning, the premise of man made climate change. Two truths I know for certain about this topic: 1) the climate has always been changing and 2) past predictions have been pretty terrible about this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Animal02]

No, probably not. Do you know of a NSF grant or other large grant that questions climate change? You probably won’t find one of those either. Climate change scientists know where their bread is buttered and it’s not refuting, or even questioning, the premise of man made climate change. Two truths I know for certain about this topic: 1) the climate has always been changing and 2) past predictions have been pretty terrible about this topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3. Science is not determined by "majority consensus.

 

[Animal02]

These charts are the perfect example of signal to noise. Is the point of this article to say that means and averages aren't a valid way to measure temperature over time and that we should use daily max temperature instead? Or is it to say that governments are manipulating the data? Both are equally preposterous, but I want to make sure before I waste effort.

You lose any credibility when you claim the possibility of governments manipulating data as preposterous.

 

[Animal02]

Yes, things can be very misleading if you don't look at the whole picture. It's important to distinguish between signal and noise.

First I'd like to address the source you're using. Cliff 'Top 10 climatologist in the world' Harris doesn't have any published papers or even a climatology degree to his name that I can find. All of their sources for compiling that chart are books and papers from the 70s and 80s, so way before modern scientific information or discourse on the topic. There's no scientific based forecasting in their predictions either. Not even talking about the fact that there isn't even a scale on the other axis.

Oh there are plenty of other graphs that illustrate the same, that I am sure you will hand wave away as well.

 

[GT_05]

By the way, I have a rule that you don’t get to lecture me about climate change if you brought kids into the world in the last 15-20 years. If people are destroying the planet, why in the heck are you bringing more people onto the planet. Not to mention, if you’re one of these folks that think the world is going to end in 12 years, why would you do that to your offspring? Do you think the children that come from your loins is going to save the planet? C’mon man.

Of course, I say all of this tongue-in-cheek but it really does seem that a lot of people like talking about climate change but they don’t live their lives like they truly believe in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JacketRacket]

Oh there are plenty of other graphs that illustrate the same, that I am sure you will hand wave away as well.

Please bring them out.

 

[JacketRacket]

You lose any credibility when you claim the possibility of governments manipulating data as preposterous.

I find it harder to believe that everyone in multiple federal governments would be able to conspire in secrecy, and not always to their benefit.

I just don't have that much faith in their ability. I thought we all could agree on that

 

[JacketRacket]

By the way, I have a rule that you don’t get to lecture me about climate change if you brought kids into the world in the last 15-20 years. If people are destroying the planet, why in the heck are you bringing more people onto the planet. Not to mention, if you’re one of these folks that think the world is going to end in 12 years, why would you do that to your offspring? Do you think the children that come from your loins is going to save the planet? C’mon man.

Of course, I say all of this tongue-in-cheek but it really does seem that a lot of people like talking about climate change but they don’t live their lives like they truly believe in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I don't remember her name now, but there was a Tech professor/research scientist who was the toast of the climate-change world, until she suddenly reversed course, publishing a paper questioning earlier findings. She was drummed out of the climate-change community and viciously smeared; she ultimately retired. That's how they treat those who disagree with them.

Judith Curry. She didn’t become a climate change denier. She still firmly believes the science shows that humans are damaging the planet. Her only main point IIRC was that being an alarmist chicken little about it was counter productive, because the world wasn’t going to end. And that was it for her.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I find it harder to believe that everyone in multiple federal governments would be able to conspire in secrecy, and not always to their benefit.

I just don't have that much faith in their ability. I thought we all could agree on that

Well of course the biggest problem with this statement is that governments don’t all have their own weather stations all over the world.

The second biggest problem is that NOAA publishes all their data and has published that they’ve changed the raw data a couple times, saying the thermostats needed to be recalibrated. Miraculously, those changes increased temperatures in recent history but lowered them further back in time. It’s amazing all thermostats all over the world that needed to be recalibrated all suffered from the same trending issues.