• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

New report on climate change released today

George S said:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/27/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-361/

The above link has many pages. Among them Defending the Orthodoxy and Challenging the Orthodoxy. Note the parallel with religion.
Click to expand...

Yup. wattsupwiththat.com has a lot of close parallels to religion. In particular the whole 'belief in the face of evidence' thing.

Reading that nonsense reminds me very strongly of reading the "scientific explanations" Young Earth Creationists employ to "prove" that the world can only be 6,000 or so years old.

They too love to pretend that the actual science used by their opponents is just the same as their religion, and is, like their beliefs, subject to dogmatic orthodoxies.
 
From the link:
“Our result is that the transient climate response – the short-term warming – in the troposphere is 1.1ºC at the point in time when carbon dioxide levels double. This is not a very alarming number. If we perform the same calculation on the climate models, you get a figure of 2.3ºC, which is significantly different. The models’ response to carbon dioxide is twice what we see in the real world. So, the evidence indicates the consensus range for climate sensitivity is incorrect.” [Study published in peer reviewed journal.]

Christy then discusses the important work he and Ross McKitrick did to test the climate models against observations from 1979 to 2017 in the important tropical troposphere. They chose the Canadian climate model and tested it against temperature trends of the atmosphere between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, in the tropics from 20°N to 20°S. They also tested the warming trends against 102 climate model runs (those publicly available). They found the models show a warming about three times what is occurring. [Study published in peer reviewed journal.]
Click to expand...

It's kind of weird that they don't list the peer-reviewed journal. Is it one of those that publish anything, is the description not correct of the findings? George S, since you posted to the thread, can you tell us what journal so we can look at primary sources?

By the way, I checked one of these out from prior posts to that website and I found that the article exaggerated...always check your primary sources.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
From the link:
“Our result is that the transient climate response – the short-term warming – in the troposphere is 1.1ºC at the point in time when carbon dioxide levels double. This is not a very alarming number. If we perform the same calculation on the climate models, you get a figure of 2.3ºC, which is significantly different. The models’ response to carbon dioxide is twice what we see in the real world. So, the evidence indicates the consensus range for climate sensitivity is incorrect.” [Study published in peer reviewed journal.]

Christy then discusses the important work he and Ross McKitrick did to test the climate models against observations from 1979 to 2017 in the important tropical troposphere. They chose the Canadian climate model and tested it against temperature trends of the atmosphere between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, in the tropics from 20°N to 20°S. They also tested the warming trends against 102 climate model runs (those publicly available). They found the models show a warming about three times what is occurring. [Study published in peer reviewed journal.]
Click to expand...

It's kind of weird that they don't list the peer-reviewed journal. Is it one of those that publish anything, is the description not correct of the findings? George S, since you posted to the thread, can you tell us what journal so we can look at primary sources?

By the way, I checked one of these out from prior posts to that website and I found that the article exaggerated...always check your primary sources.
Click to expand...

The author of the website is Anthony Watt. The following quote is from his web site:
About Anthony:

I’m the founder and editor of WattsUpWithThat.com the world’s most viewed website on climate. I’m a former AMS Television Seal Holder (Seal 676 retired) television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty. I also provide weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions via www.weathershop.com (if you like my work, please consider buying a weather gadget there, StormPredator for example) and www.tempelert.com, and turn key weather channels with advertising at www.viziframe.com

The weather graphics you see in the lower right corner of the blog are produced by my company, IntelliWeather. As you can see most of my work is in weather technology such as weather stations, weather data processing systems, and weather graphics creation and display. While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also. And that’s part of what this blog is about: presentation of weather and climate data in a form the public can understand and discuss.
Click to expand...
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
From the link:
“Our result is that the transient climate response – the short-term warming – in the troposphere is 1.1ºC at the point in time when carbon dioxide levels double. This is not a very alarming number. If we perform the same calculation on the climate models, you get a figure of 2.3ºC, which is significantly different. The models’ response to carbon dioxide is twice what we see in the real world. So, the evidence indicates the consensus range for climate sensitivity is incorrect.” [Study published in peer reviewed journal.]

Christy then discusses the important work he and Ross McKitrick did to test the climate models against observations from 1979 to 2017 in the important tropical troposphere. They chose the Canadian climate model and tested it against temperature trends of the atmosphere between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, in the tropics from 20°N to 20°S. They also tested the warming trends against 102 climate model runs (those publicly available). They found the models show a warming about three times what is occurring. [Study published in peer reviewed journal.]
Click to expand...

It's kind of weird that they don't list the peer-reviewed journal. Is it one of those that publish anything, is the description not correct of the findings? George S, since you posted to the thread, can you tell us what journal so we can look at primary sources?

By the way, I checked one of these out from prior posts to that website and I found that the article exaggerated...always check your primary sources.
Click to expand...

Second this. [Study published in peer reviewed journal] is a major red flag. It's not unusual for the popular press to not mention the source at all. When they are being more careful they may mention the name without giving the full citation. Still more careful will provide citations and links if possible. If they give the name they might occasionally identify it as a peer reviewed journal. Never have I seen a reference to "peer reviewed journal" without the name unless the intent was to deceive.

Note that there are pay-to-publish scam "peer reviewed" journals out there. That would be my first thought when the source is identified merely as "peer reviewed journal".
 
Teh Gruaniad really has lost the plot printing this drivel in their "climate change" section;

Faith institutions must show strong moral leadership to heal people’s “collective trauma” and fill the void left by international political failure, according to the UN’s deputy head and the leader of one of the UK’s major NGOs. Amina Mohammed, the UN’s deputy secretary general, who is a Muslim, and Amanda Khozi Mukwashi, the chief executive of Christian Aid, have called for faith-based organisations to take a lead in facing up to global challenges such as poverty, inequality, migration and the climate emergency.
Click to expand...

Teh Gruaniad

And the UN, what a joke that place is.


But then again, belief in catastrophic climate change is a Rapture like cult so one should not be surprised.
 
You want footnotes? Got'm.

I have mentioned Lord Monckton before. I studied this on long ago and have always agreed that the feedback used by "climate scientists" is flawed. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06...lent-practices-behind-global-warming-science/

In the linked article, the first part is a fascinating report of his attempts to get his paper published. Then his paper follows. Here's the abstract:
Abstract: Climatology borrows feedback method from control theory1-6, but errs by defining feedback as responsive only to perturbations of the input signal, emission temperature. If so, impossibly, the feedback fraction due to warming from noncondensing greenhouse gases would exceed that due to emission temperature by 1-2 orders of magnitude. Then feedback response would be up to 90% of Charney sensitivity (equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 after feedback has acted)7 and of the uncertainty therein8. In reality, feedback also responds to the entire reference signal9,10. In climate, that signal (the signal before feedback acts) is reference temperature, the sum of all natural as well as anthropogenic perturbations and, above all, of emission temperature. It is here demonstrated that the system-gain factor, the ratio not only (as now) of equilibrium to reference sensitivities but also of entire temperatures, is insensitive even to large uncertainties therein: in 1850 and 2011 it was 1.1. Though models7 project 3.35 [2.1, 4.7] K Charney sensitivity, the revised value – the product of the system-gain factor 1.1 and the 1.05 K reference sensitivity7 to doubled CO2 – falls on 1.15 [1.10, 1.25] K, confirming evidence11 that feedback barely alters temperature and that, even without mitigation, net-harmful warming is unlikely. Mitigation entails a heavy net global welfare loss disproportionately afflicting 1.3 billion people to whom access to electricity is denied.
Click to expand...
Read the rest of the paper by following the link.
 
Ten meters of sea level rise by the end of this century. I made that prediction in the late 1990's and I'm sticking to it. I don't think I'm committing Y2K madness. I had a good laugh over all that. Some of my friends were ready for armageddon, it was humorous to say the least.

We will have to apply technology to keep the planet from warming to that level. I don't know if we will or not, but if we continue down the path we are on the ride is gonna get very bumpy.
 
bilby said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
bleubird said:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...IVtc8jzOZiB5Kf-e_xQ_uqXLsBJlyRrKrSgyaoWWrztTM

Crazy ass year so far.
Click to expand...

Umm... sunspots and weather observation location placement can explain all that melting ice in Alaska.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's not climate change, it's the heat island effect from all those huge industrial cities Alaska has built in the last couple of decades.
Click to expand...

Apparently there's a big heat island offshore of Florida that is causing our record warm overnight temperatures on the east coast when there is an onshore wind and it is making that onshore wind more persistent than at any time in the 100 years or so that we've got data from Titusville, Melbourne, Vero, Ft. Pierce... It is even fucking with the USGS water level gages that are at sea level on non-tidal and tidal locations that show a linear rise in base level from 1900 to 1900 that curves upwards in the last 30 years of the series whether you are looking at the gage 236 km upstream in the St. Johns or the gages at the head of the tide in the smaller west coast rivers.
 
George S said:
The author of the website is Anthony Watt. The following quote is from his web site:
About Anthony:

I’m the founder and editor of WattsUpWithThat.com the world’s most viewed website on climate. I’m a former AMS Television Seal Holder (Seal 676 retired) television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty. I also provide weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions via www.weathershop.com (if you like my work, please consider buying a weather gadget there, StormPredator for example) and www.tempelert.com, and turn key weather channels with advertising at www.viziframe.com

The weather graphics you see in the lower right corner of the blog are produced by my company, IntelliWeather. As you can see most of my work is in weather technology such as weather stations, weather data processing systems, and weather graphics creation and display. While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also. And that’s part of what this blog is about: presentation of weather and climate data in a form the public can understand and discuss.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You seem to be avoiding the question and probably don't understand what I am asking based on your next post about footnotes. Creationist literature also has footnotes but they quote mine. When one reviews the actual primary sources one will learn that things are misrepresented. So, back to the post you responded to...

1. It states the following "Study published in peer reviewed journal." What peer reviewed journal? Is it a credible, reliable journal or one of those that allows anyone to publish something without much scrutiny?
2. Have you reviewed the primary source (ie. the actual journal article), not footnotes, to see if there is any misrepresentation?

To review, from your link, here is what the page reads:
“Our result is that the transient climate response – the short-term warming – in the troposphere is 1.1ºC at the point in time when carbon dioxide levels double. This is not a very alarming number. If we perform the same calculation on the climate models, you get a figure of 2.3ºC, which is significantly different. The models’ response to carbon dioxide is twice what we see in the real world. So, the evidence indicates the consensus range for climate sensitivity is incorrect.” [Study published in peer reviewed journal.]

Christy then discusses the important work he and Ross McKitrick did to test the climate models against observations from 1979 to 2017 in the important tropical troposphere. They chose the Canadian climate model and tested it against temperature trends of the atmosphere between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, in the tropics from 20°N to 20°S. They also tested the warming trends against 102 climate model runs (those publicly available). They found the models show a warming about three times what is occurring. [Study published in peer reviewed journal.]
Click to expand...

Here is a link to the work, described by one of the authors:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/05/JohnChristy-Parliament.pdf

It clearly is not a peer-reviewed journal. Could you tell us where such work is published in a peer-reviewed journal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom