Changes in Atlantic currents

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

In jackdale parlance, please provide the evidence where I denied it was warming. Good luck!

[emoji23] the guy posting graphs of cooling is all about warming now

We see you

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by tp12

[emoji23] the guy posting graphs of cooling is all about warming now

We see you

Actually, my graph showed greater warming in the present in relation to the past. Just FYI. You might want to go back and check.



Not that that answers the question, of course.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Considering the article is c2003 and he shuffled off this mortal coil c2010 I can only assume he was happy enough to be associated with the content. Why wouldn't he have been?

He was also a self declared skeptic, a point noted even by your beloved desmog blog:

Rasool and Schneider (1971) understood both the GHG qualities of of CO2 and the cooling effect of industrial aerosols. The paper was predicated on continuing industrial aerosol emissions. That changesd with the Clean Air Acts.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
S. I. RASOOL AND S. H. SCHNEIDER
SCIENCE
•
9 Jul 1971
•
Vol 173, Issue 3992
•
pp. 138-141
•
DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138

Abstract
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...e.173.3992.138

Unlike you, they accepted that evidence would shape their thinking.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Rasool and Schneider (1971) understood both the GHG qualities of of CO2 and the cooling effect of industrial aerosols. The paper was pr3ciated on continuing industrial aerosol emissions. That changes with the Clean Air Acts.



https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...e.173.3992.138

Unlike you, they accepted that evidence would shape their thinking.

I've accepted the evidence that recent temperature records that do not otherwise need adjusting are being adjusted without explanation or good reason.


I've accepted the evidence that it's ok to fly en masse to jaunts and junkets in the name of a self declared worthy cause instead of just using Zoom.


I've accepted the evidence that climate change is taking the focus off the actual real problems facing the world.


I've accepted the evidence that a senator confessed on the record to opening windows for dramatic purposes whilst later backtracking when he realised the folly of opening his mouth, hence setting the modus operandi for many that came after him.


I've accepted the evidence from Our World In Data that climate change has contributed more good then harm, regardless of the cries of those with vested interests or otherwise suckered in by the propaganda.



Any other evidence I need to accept?

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

So who's right and who's wrong?

That you don't realize that the graphs you posted are in agreement shows what "you need to accept". See below.

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Considering the article is c2003 and he shuffled off this mortal coil c2010 I can only assume he was happy enough to be associated with the content. Why wouldn't he have been?

He was also a self declared skeptic, a point noted even by your beloved desmog blog:


"All good scientists are skeptical: I changed my mind from cooling to warming in 1974 when the preponderance of evidence shifted—and is now well established. I changed my views on nuclear winter making it “nuclear autumn” in 1984, incurring the wrath of the peace movement—again because the preponderance of evidence shifted with study. That is a skeptic—what all scientists should be. But real skeptics still accept a preponderance of carefully examined evidence even when some elements of a complex systems problem remain unresolved—and do not pretend that when there are loose ends some well-established preponderances don’t exist—that is beyond skepticism to denial—or political convenience often. So a skeptic questions everything but accepts what the preponderance of evidence is, and a denier falsely claims that until all aspects are resolved we know nothing and should do nothing—often motivated by the latter. If you deny a clear preponderance of evidence, you have crossed the line from legitimate skeptic to ideological denier. —STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER”

It's interesting to note that he clearly delineated skeptics from deniers. Something a few on these kind of threads should take heed of.

Now, instead of having such a closed mind, it might be worthwhile to take a leaf out of that same book and stop and consider once in a while that not everything is black and white.

Indeed. Have a look at Schnieder here, specifically starting at 51:40. From your recent, consistently denier-originating claims, it is quite obvious who he's refering to when he says "I call them 'deniers', by the way, I use that word deliberately; I do not call them 'sceptics'..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlHbt5jja4

and here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCR...0tIcXg&index=5

and here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXar...0tIcXg&index=3

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I've accepted the evidence that recent temperature records that do not otherwise need adjusting are being adjusted without explanation or good reason.


I've accepted the evidence that it's ok to fly en masse to jaunts and junkets in the name of a self declared worthy cause instead of just using Zoom.


I've accepted the evidence that climate change is taking the focus off the actual real problems facing the world.


I've accepted the evidence that a senator confessed on the record to opening windows for dramatic purposes whilst later backtracking when he realised the folly of opening his mouth, hence setting the modus operandi for many that came after him.


I've accepted the evidence from Our World In Data that climate change has contributed more good then harm, regardless of the cries of those with vested interests or otherwise suckered in by the propaganda.



Any other evidence I need to accept?

Interesting that:

You provide no evidence that "recent temperature records that do not otherwise need adjusting are being adjusted without explanation or good reason".

You don't seem to understand that global scale problems that require collaborative action to solve require actual collaboration. To suggest using 'zoom' for this purpose only confirms the level of fantasy you're operating under.

You seem to be projecting your inability to consider more than one thing at a time onto those that have that ability.

You appear to believe that duplicity is one-way, or not subject to the same 'reporting bias/errors' that you routinely decry.

That you rely on monopolar data, which is itself subject to manipulation, and, as you so clearly demonstrate, can be misinterpreted and/or misunderstood, to make your over-simplified and often flat-out wrong assertions.


Any other evidence you need to accept? Yeah, though I don't think you're able to do so.

Though you seem to feel you're 'king of the graphs', the fact is that you don't even understand them when you post them, as evidenced by your believing that the relevant portions of the graphs you posted show conflicting information, when in fact they showed, within their resolutions, the same.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

That you don't realize that the graphs you posted are in agreement shows what "you need to accept". See below.



Indeed. Have a look at Schnieder here, specifically starting at 51:40. From your recent, consistently denier-originating claims, it is quite obvious who he's refering to when he says "I call them 'deniers', by the way, I use that word deliberately; I do not call them 'sceptics'..."

and here

and here

Interesting that:

You provide no evidence that "recent temperature records that do not otherwise need adjusting are being adjusted without explanation or good reason".

You don't seem to understand that global scale problems that require collaborative action to solve require actual collaboration. To suggest using 'zoom' for this purpose only confirms the level of fantasy you're operating under.

You seem to be projecting your inability to consider more than one thing at a time onto those that have that ability.

You appear to believe that duplicity is one-way, or not subject to the same 'reporting bias/errors' that you routinely decry.

That you rely on monopolar data, which is itself subject to manipulation, and, as you so clearly demonstrate, can be misinterpreted and/or misunderstood, to make your over-simplified and often flat-out wrong assertions.


Any other evidence you need to accept? Yeah, though I don't think you're able to do so.

Though you seem to feel you're 'king of the graphs', the fact is that you don't even understand them when you post them, as evidenced by your believing that the relevant portions of the graphs you posted show conflicting information, when in fact they showed, within their resolutions, the same.

You're a bit late to the party Jimbo. I do wonder why you and your ilk always ask for science based evidence when your own motivations are idealogical.


Why is that do you think?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

That you don't realize that the graphs you posted are in agreement shows what "you need to accept". See below.



Indeed. Have a look at Schnieder here, specifically starting at 51:40. From your recent, consistently denier-originating claims, it is quite obvious who he's refering to when he says "I call them 'deniers', by the way, I use that word deliberately; I do not call them 'sceptics'..."
Blah...
Blah...
Blah..

The word is "Skeptics".

Interesting that:

You provide no evidence that "recent temperature records that do not otherwise need adjusting are being adjusted without explanation or good reason".

Bit of an ask, requesting non existent evidence which is kind of my point. It's kind of like asking to prove the existence of <insert name of preferred deity here>

Though you seem to feel you're 'king of the graphs', the fact is that you don't even understand them when you post them, as evidenced by your believing that the relevant portions of the graphs you posted show conflicting information, when in fact they showed, within their resolutions, the same.

I post one graph and I'm "King of the Graphs"?

Cool!






You should join tp12's Society for Those Unable to Pick Up Cues. Notice the peaks increasing as years approach present in one and decreasing in the other? Notice the offset? Not sure what resolution you are referring to, but it must be equatable to a 1980's Nokia potato.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I've accepted the evidence that recent temperature records that do not otherwise need adjusting are being adjusted without explanation or good reason.

... that you know of, or have bothered to look into. So this is in the realm of belief or bias, not fact.

I've accepted the evidence that it's ok to fly en masse to jaunts and junkets in the name of a self declared worthy cause instead of just using Zoom.

Have you ever done a Zoom meeting?

Busy people and leaders tend to fly around. Get over it. I suppose your b&b guests bicycle across the Pacific? Do they row themselves out to snorkel the GBR?

I've accepted the evidence that climate change is taking the focus off the actual real problems facing the world.

This one's a peach. The Venn diagram showing the overlap between climate change deniers and those indifferent to those other "actual real problems" is just about a perfect circle. Show us your support and actions on those other real problems (... crickets). Climate change just happens to be the proxy for all that. If there wasn't climate change, you'd be railing against activists concerned about deforestation, or whaling, or some other green concern.

I've accepted the evidence from Our World In Data that climate change has contributed more good then harm, regardless of the cries of those with vested interests or otherwise suckered in by the propaganda.

When a housefire starts, there IS that lovely initial brief period when it's just warm and toasty, and has a pleasant glow. I'll grant you that.

Our province of British Columbia might disagree, given their current experience of climate change.

Any other evidence I need to accept?

The evidence on CF of your persistent denial of the reality of climate change, and its present and future harm?

And 'sceptic' is an acceptable spelling, depending where one hails from. You misspelled "ideological" btw, if we're going to get all pedantic.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I've accepted the evidence that recent temperature records that do not otherwise need adjusting are being adjusted without explanation or good reason.

Judith Curry provided evidence to the contrary. You have provided none that supports that assertion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

The word is "Skeptics".


.

That post alone shows your level of understanding.

There are many spelling differences between American and British English. In some cases, the same word will be spelled one way in American English and another way in British English. There are times when this inconsistency is very confusing. Skeptic and sceptic fall under the same category and if you need to know the difference between the two spellings, keep reading.

https://www.grammar.com/skeptic_vs._sceptic

You are nether a skeptic nor a sceptic. You are a cynic.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Judith Curry provided evidence to the contrary. You have provided none that supports that assertion.

Can you provide a citation, for Curry's evidence?


FWIW: It should be noted that Judith Curry is a contrarian scientist, hosting a blog [1], which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere.
Judith Curry wrote on her blog Climate Etc. that her views on climate change are best summarized by her Congressional Testimony [2] on the President’s Climate Action Plan:
“Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:
- The hiatus in global warming since 1998 – Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide – Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century”
[1] ➥ https://judithcurry.com/
[2] ➥ https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/...r-15-final.pdf

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Can you provide a citation, for Curry's evidence?

Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Posted on July 7, 2014 by curryja | 2,044 Comments
by Zeke Hausfather

There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.

Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

This will be the first post in a three-part series examining adjustments in temperature data, with a specific focus on the U.S. land temperatures. This post will provide an overview of the adjustments done and their relative effect on temperatures. The second post will examine Time of Observation adjustments in more detail, using hourly data from the pristine U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) to empirically demonstrate the potential bias introduced by different observation times. The final post will examine automated pairwise homogenization approaches in more detail, looking at how breakpoints are detected and how algorithms can tested to ensure that they are equally effective at removing both cooling and warming biases.

https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/u...perature-data/

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/b...perature-data/

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/u...ervation-bias/

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... that you know of, or have bothered to look into. So this is in the realm of belief or bias, not fact.

Have you ever done a Zoom meeting?

Yes. Lots. It's become a thing during this pandemic that you may, or may not, have heard of. I've used Zoom in recent times to do cool things like walk throughs using a tablet. I even did a course a couple of weeks ago that had a practical component all done via Zoom 1000 km from the classroom.

If I truly believed the future on the planet depended on my, and everyone else, treading lightly, I'd sure as heck use it instead of flying half way around the world every year to attend some all talk no action conference.

Busy people and leaders tend to fly around. Get over it. I suppose your b&b guests bicycle across the Pacific? Do they row themselves out to snorkel the GBR?

If you're that busy, why spend a day extra each way traveling? That makes no sense.


Besides, do you live under a rock? International borders have been all but closed for nearly the past two years for non essential travel. Families even now are still separated by restrictions, but that didn't stop the COP26 junket attendees. Including this guy (whoever he is)...

This one's a peach. The Venn diagram showing the overlap between climate change deniers and those indifferent to those other "actual real problems" is just about a perfect circle. Show us your support and actions on those other real problems (... crickets). Climate change just happens to be the proxy for all that. If there wasn't climate change, you'd be railing against activists concerned about deforestation, or whaling, or some other green concern.

No I wouldn't. I am extremely passionate about conservation because this is ground zero for the the real destruction being done to the Earth by the human race. Deforestation, overfished oceans, loss of habitat for urban development, just for starters. None of it is caused by climate change. If you want evidence, google how many species have gone extinct in the last 50 years as a direct result of climate change. Then you'll get your (...crickets).

Hence my attitude to Climate Change/Emergence/Crisis (is that the right order?) B.S.

When a housefire starts, there IS that lovely initial brief period when it's just warm and toasty, and has a pleasant glow. I'll grant you that.

Our province of British Columbia might disagree, given their current experience of climate change.

You're confusing weather with climate. If British Columbia had never experienced severe bushfires or had never experienced extreme flooding you might have a case in point.

The evidence on CF of your persistent denial of the reality of climate change, and its present and future harm?

The reality of climate change is that it's made a lot of rich people richer without achieving too much else.

It's human nature to say things that deep down they may not truly believe themselves if there's a buck to be made.

And 'sceptic' is an acceptable spelling, depending where one hails from. You misspelled "ideological" btw, if we're going to get all pedantic.

Oops on the spelling. You scored a point on that one I guess.

Re "sceptic". See my response to jd about to follow on that.....

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Judith Curry provided evidence to the contrary. You have provided none that supports that assertion.

I've provided images of charts showing changes of temperature from within a few years that have been edged upwards. Perhaps you could surmise how a researcher knows more about a particular temperature from five years ago then they did at the time?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That post alone shows your level of understanding.



https://www.grammar.com/skeptic_vs._sceptic

You are nether a skeptic nor a sceptic. You are a cynic.

This post alone shows you're not immune from cherry picking...

Sceptic vs. skeptic

In most of their senses, there is no difference between skeptic and sceptic. Skeptic is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and sceptic is preferred in the main varieties of English from outside North America. This extends to all derivatives, including sceptical/skeptical and scepticism/skepticism.There is an exception, though: In reference to some 21st-century strains of scientific skepticism, writers and publications from outside North America often use the spellings with the k.

https://grammarist.com/spelling/sceptic-skeptic/


Jimbo heralds from the good ol' South I believe?