Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ah, I can see that I left out empty snark, and unreferenced 'factlets'.

Really I'm reading the political paper and you are saying I'm doing something wrong ?
Funny that they for the most part left the solar particle forcing out again . go figure.
Would prove them wrong . and yes it is an option for cmip6 just most don't add it because it's hard to convince a person of the reality when feeding his family depends on pushing a false narrative.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Still reading all the mabey , might and possibly in the rough draft of the IPCC propaganda that is intermixed with an occasional fact ...

... Funny that they for the most part left the solar particle forcing out again ...

Summarising the “physical science basis” for climate change, the Working Group I report [WGI], of the Sixth Assessment Report [“AR6”] pulls together the findings from more than 14,000 peer-reviewed studies.

The WGI report includes 12 core chapters, and an online interactive “atlas”. In total, the report runs to around 3,000 pages, and references more than 14,000 scientific papers.

Over the AR6 cycle, three drafts of the full report have been reviewed by experts and governments. In total, the report’s authors have received more than 70,000 comments.

The new report follows the same set of “calibrated language”, that AR5 used to communicate levels of certainty/uncertainty, behind the statements it included. These terms fall into two categories:
Confidence: “a qualitative measure of the validity of a finding, based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence…and the degree of agreement.”
Likelihood: “a quantitative measure of uncertainty in a finding, expressed probabilistically”, based on “statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgement by the author team or from a formal quantitative survey of expert views, or both.”

Originally Posted by AR6-WGI: Summary for Policymakers

... A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.
Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred ...

Radiative forcing is the difference between incoming and outgoing energy, in the Earth’s climate. When increased greenhouse gases result in incoming energy being greater than outgoing energy, the planet will warm, due to increased radiative forcing. Some forcings are positive, while others, such as those from volcanoes or human-emitted aerosols, are negative.


The report says, with very high confidence, that changes in effective radiative forcing (ERF), resulting from natural factors [such as changes in solar or volcanic activity] since pre-industrial times, are “negligible”, compared to anthropogenic drivers.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Funny that they for the most part left the solar particle forcing out again . go figure.
Would prove them wrong . and yes it is an option for cmip6 just most don't add it because it's hard to convince a person of the reality when feeding his family depends on pushing a false narrative.

So, most of the involved scientists are pushing a false narrative. Ok.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So, most of the involved scientists are pushing a false narrative. Ok.

Only takes one corrupted data point to destroy decades of data.
One "scientist " accidently placing a decimal in the wrong spot . Happens.
Look at spinach it doesn't have any more iron than a comparable amount of kale but a scientist 100 years ago accidently places a decimal in the wro g spot and to this day people still think spinach has 10x the iron it actually has.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Only takes one corrupted data point to destroy decades of data.
One "scientist " accidently placing a decimal in the wrong spot . Happens.
Look at spinach it doesn't have any more iron than a comparable amount of kale but a scientist 100 years ago accidently places a decimal in the wro g spot and to this day people still think spinach has 10x the iron it actually has.

If you were really concerned about errors that scientists make you would have abandoned Spencer and Christy years ago. Yet they are still your darlings.

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates

Human emission of heat-trapping gases is causing the Earth to warm. We’ve known that for many decades. In fact, there are no reputable scientists that dispute this fact. There are, however, a few scientists who don’t think the warming will be very much or that we should worry about it. These contrarians have been shown to be wrong over and over again, like in the movie Groundhog Day. And, a new study just out [2017] shows they may have another error. But, despite being wrong, they continue to claim Earth’s warming isn’t something to be concerned about.

Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are two researchers out of Alabama (John Christy and Roy Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming. ....

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

If you were really concerned about errors that scientists make you would have abandoned Spencer and Christy years ago. Yet they are still your darlings.

More errors identified in contrarian climate scientists' temperature estimates

A new study suggests there are remaining biases in the oft-corrected University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric temperature estimates

Human emission of heat-trapping gases is causing the Earth to warm. We’ve known that for many decades. In fact, there are no reputable scientists that dispute this fact. There are, however, a few scientists who don’t think the warming will be very much or that we should worry about it. These contrarians have been shown to be wrong over and over again, like in the movie Groundhog Day. And, a new study just out [2017] shows they may have another error. But, despite being wrong, they continue to claim Earth’s warming isn’t something to be concerned about.

Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are two researchers out of Alabama (John Christy and Roy Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming. ....

Really you dont pay attention do you the University of Alabama Huntsville is just one of my sources of data Spencer just happens to be the boss at this point.
Now on to real bussiness stop calling me a denier. That is a politically expedient slur of an honest skeptic. I believe in climate change anyone that doesn't is an idiot I just don't believe the flea called humans have any significant effect it's all about solar activity

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

...Funny that they for the most part left the solar ....

Bullroar!
See Chapter 8: “Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing” [beginning page 659]
Including, but not limited to: 8.4.1 “Solar Irradiance”, beginning page 688 - 740.
Starts here ➥ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...er08_FINAL.pdf

Originally Posted by newhaul

Really you dont pay attention do you the University of Alabama Huntsville is just one of my sources of data Spencer just happens to be the boss at this point.
Now on to real bussiness stop calling me a denier...

UAH's Spencer & Christie don't provide data, they provide [somewhat disputed] analysis.

You DENY most of the basic science:
That the planet is warming, and will continue to warm [not cooling].
That the causes are primarily greenhouse gases [not solar irradiance]
That we [humanity] are the primary driver.
But, you're not a denier ...

Was it you, who said sea level is not rising?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

[B]
Was it you, who said sea level is not rising?

Planet wide no I dont feel it is rising significantly. 99.9% is isotastic adjustment . start looking at tidal gauges across the planet .

As to the deep in 600page point I.m still reading and trying not to laugh .

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

... As to the deep in 600page point I.m still reading and trying not to laugh .

Well, at least you no have no deficiency of self-confidence.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I just don't believe the flea called humans have any significant effect it's all about solar activity

... so you reading an IPCC report is like an avowed Creationist reading "Origins of Species". One must applaud the effort I guess, even if it's doomed from the start.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

...stop calling me a denier. That is a politically expedient slur of an honest skeptic. I believe in climate change anyone that doesn't is an idiot I just don't believe the flea called humans have any significant effect it's all about solar activity

Neither 'politically expedient' nor a 'slur', it is an accurate, succinct description of your position, regarding not only AGW but science in general, as noted in red above and below.

Originally Posted by newhaul

Planet wide no I dont feel it is rising significantly. 99.9% is isotastic adjustment . start looking at tidal gauges across the planet .

I'm sure geophysicists worldwide will be astounded to realize they've left out such an obvious key element in their calculations, and will be forever in your debt for bringing it to their attention. I'm also sure your Nobel for this groundbreaking discovery is in the works...

As to the deep in 600page point I.m still reading and trying not to laugh .

'Feelings' and 'beliefs' are not part of the scientific process; they are wholly (holy?) owned by the practitioners of religion (odd that your 'scientific' hero, [believe you called him "the boss"] Spencer, is of the evangelical persuasion)

Suppression of laughter whilst 'reading' the hugely conservative (in the traditional meaning) latest edition of the IPCC is at best a sign of utter incomprehension or, at worst, utter sociopathy (though perhaps better described at 'macrobiologicopathy').

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Neither 'politically expedient' nor a 'slur', it is an accurate, succinct description of your position, regarding not only AGW but science in general, as noted in red above and below.



'Feelings' and 'beliefs' are not part of the scientific process; they are wholly (holy?) owned by the practitioners of religion (odd that your 'scientific' hero, [believe you called him "the boss"] Spencer, is of the evangelical persuasion)

Suppression of laughter whilst 'reading' the hugely conservative (in the traditional meaning) latest edition of the IPCC is at best a sign of utter incomprehension or, at worst, utter sociopathy (though perhaps better described at 'macrobiologicopathy').

You really don't pay attention do you where do you think I get my data on isotastic adjustment I have posted the links to many times .
https://link.springer.com/referencew...87-30843-1_244

https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/46/3/605/608396

Is that sufficient.

Next is the fact that while allowed to use solar forcing they really only scratched the surface. Please find in the report ( as I am still attempting to read it while cruising. )
Where they actually use all of the various solar forcings. Including the actual solar particle forcing and all the rest of it not just solar iradiance.

[jimbunyard]

And the point flies right over your head. 'Everybody knows' (man how I love saying that) that isostatic adjusment is a real thing.

And, as has been repeatedly expressed many, many times.

If it's (AGW) the Sun's 'fault' why;

Is the global average surface temperature of Venus twice that of Mercury though Venus is twice as far away from the sun?

Is the Earth warming in spite of the declining solar ouput?

Are ice ages not correlated with changes in solar output?

Aren't the measured, comparatively tiny short-term variations in solar output reflected in other Earth processes?


These are, of course, all rhetorical questions; no answer desired or requested.
(Since scientists have already answered them. And I don't want your 'opinion'.)


Conspiracy-driven opinions are not fit for intelligent consumption or consideration, and should be returned to their time-honored rightful place, the fevered imaginations of the paranoid.

Unfortunately, thanks to the likes of lonely Mark, Big-Brained Bill, the scourge of unregulated science/technology and human nature, those possessing these fevered imaginations feel their paranoia Trumps (pun intended) the (relatively) objective, generally-accepted concept of reality comprising the world we inhabit.

Far from being an isolated individual phenomena, the current era will be remembered as the Dunning-Kruger Society era...

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Planet wide no I dont feel it is rising significantly. 99.9% is isotastic adjustment . start looking at tidal gauges across the planet ...

Neither of the papers, you later reference [absract only], suggest that GIA is responsible for 99.9% of observed global sea level rise.

As ice sheets gain or lose mass, and as water moves between the continents and the ocean, the solid Earth deforms [isotastic adjustment, or GIA], and the gravitational field of the planet is perturbed. Both of these effects lead to regional patterns in sea level change, that depart dramatically from the global average [global mean, or eustatic, sea level ]. This glacial isostatic adjustment [GIA] is responsible for some [local or regional] subsidsance and some rebound, which would mimic sea level changes [fall & rise], if not accounted for.

Tide gauges are anchored to the land, which itself can be moving vertically [isostatic adjustment] at rates comparable to sea-level change.
These vertical tectonic movements of the land will result in a relative sea level [RSL] change as measured by a tide gauge. If the land where the tide-gauge station is located is subsiding, RSL will show a rise; likewise, uplift will result in an RSL fall.

Your perfunctory dismissal of hundreds of authors, referencing thousands of scientific papers, would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically ideological.

[SailOar]

This woman was the first scientist to chart the physics of climate change—in 1856

• Eunice Foote discovered that carbon dioxide absorbs heat, and theorized that if the Earth’s air filled with more CO2, the planet’s temperature would rise
• In 1856 Foote’s brief scientific paper was the first to describe the extraordinary power of carbon dioxide gas to absorb heat—the driving force of global warming
• Foote put a thermometer in each of two glass cylinders, pumped carbon dioxide gas into one and air into the other and set the cylinders in the Sun. The cylinder containing carbon dioxide got much hotter than the one with air
• In 1861, the well-known Irish scientist John Tyndall also measured the heat absorption of carbon dioxide and was surprised that something “so transparent to light” could so strongly absorb heat
• In 1896 Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist and Nobel laureate, calculated that “the temperature in the Arctic regions would rise 8 or 9 degrees Celsius if carbon dioxide increased to 2.5 or 3 times” its level at that time. -- a conservative estimate it turns out
• In 1965, scientists warned U.S. President Lyndon Johnson about the growing climate risk, concluding: “Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years.”