The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[Loren Pechtel]

The IPCC kept using the discredited " hockey stitch " even after it was proven that Michael Mann fudged, or removed the medieval warming in the graph and to greatly overstate global warming after 2000. That's a proven fact not something stitched up by Mr Tim Ball and many others.

Keeping bringing up already-discredited things doesn't do anything to help your position.

That "medieval warming" was Europe, not the world.

And what's fudged (mostly by cherry-picking) is the data from the deniers.

Europe isn't located in a bubble and it's a fact the world isn't flat. Also. The warming lasted around 400 years, not a few weeks.

Let me enlighten you about European climate--it's considerably influenced by the Gulf Stream. Changes there can change Europe's climate without changing the world's temperature.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure.

I have to admit, I'm curious about where your argument is going to lead.



A hypothesis proposing that a asteroid or comet impact contributed to the Younger Dryas cooling.

How exactly do you think this relate to current climate change?

I understand that you're trying o bait me. But if you have looked at most of my posts you'd have seen my insistence that GW/CC/CD is a natural part of climate throughout Earth's history. There have been periods when CO2 levels have been as much as 2000 ppm, long before the appearance of fossil fuels using homo sapiens!

The problem here is you take one natural cause (or even hypothesized natural cause) as proof that all climate change is natural.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Modeling is rubbish imputed into a computer and the computer outputting the same rubbish as was imputed.

In a simpler way of putting it. Rubbish in rubbish out.

Only in the mind of someone with no understanding of science.

 

[Jokodo]

Modeling is rubbish imputed into a computer and the computer outputting the same rubbish as was imputed.

In a simpler way of putting it. Rubbish in rubbish out.

"Rubbish in rubbish out" is an apt description of the functioning of a rightwing troll like yourself.

Sure, it is *possible* to make models where this is also true. However, any model that gets published in a scientific paper typically has at least two features your rants don't have: It is internally consistent and not contradicted by reality.

 

[angelo]

Well, your post was basically "model aeroplanes and climate models are the same thing". You can't blame me for wanting to see how far that brainfart could waft.



I agree with all of that, and so would every climate scientist, I expect.

However your factoids need some context:
- CO2 levels have sometimes been very high, but this was balanced out by the fact that the sun used to be weaker.
- CO2 levels have been extremely high, and sometimes this has coincided with extremely high temperatures and mass extinctions such as the Great Dying.
- Our current rapid climate change is not "natural". It's driven by human activity. We know this for certain because the science accounted for pretty much every significant source of forcing, including the sun.

Modeling is rubbish imputed into a computer and the computer outputting the same rubbish as was imputed.

In a simpler way of putting it. Rubbish in rubbish out.

Nah I want to hear the rest of the model Stuka argument.

Then as a local Aussie politician would say: "please explain how emissions [CO2] have risen by over 20-30% yet global temperatures have remained fairly stable in the last 20-30 years!

 

[angelo]

Modeling is rubbish imputed into a computer and the computer outputting the same rubbish as was imputed.

In a simpler way of putting it. Rubbish in rubbish out.

"Rubbish in rubbish out" is an apt description of the functioning of a rightwing troll like yourself.

Sure, it is *possible* to make models where this is also true. However, any model that gets published in a scientific paper typically has at least two features your rants don't have: It is internally consistent and not contradicted by reality.

And of course peer reviewed by real climate scientists, not just work colleagues?

 

[bigfield]

Then as a local Aussie politician would say: "please explain how emissions [CO2] have risen by over 20-30% yet global temperatures have remained fairly stable in the last 20-30 years!

Yes, I would expect a professional moron like Hanson make a statement like that.

Temperatures have not "remained fairly stable in the last 20-30 years".

Here are the decadal means, just to make it even clearer how each of the last four decades has been warmer than the last:

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempdiag.htm

 

[bigfield]

And of course peer reviewed by real climate scientists, not just work colleagues?

Yes. Reputable scientific journals earned their reputation for reliability precisely because their peer-review process is sound.

 

[angelo]

I have posted this comprehensive list of scientists that don't agree with the so called consensus before. But to show that not everyone is aboard the bandwagon of political rather than the scientific method I'll post it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

 

[Jokodo]

I have posted this comprehensive list of scientists that don't agree with the so called consensus before. But to show that not everyone is aboard the bandwagon of political rather than the scientific method I'll post it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

How many of those people are even working in a relevant field? I see a lot of economists, zoologists, chemists etc.

Would you have your car fixed by a plumber? He's a craftsman after all, they're all the same like all scientists are the same, innit?

 

[bigfield]

I have posted this comprehensive list of scientists that don't agree with the so called consensus before. But to show that not everyone is aboard the bandwagon of political rather than the scientific method I'll post it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

No need for you to repeat your old specious arguments.

You could instead explain to me how IPCC climate models in the 1990's were able to accurately project global warming in the 21st century despite some kind of UN conspiracy to exaggerate that same warming.

Even better, explain it in terms of a model aeroplane. Because all models are the same or something.

 

[bilby]

And of course peer reviewed by real climate scientists, not just work colleagues?

Yes. Reputable scientific journals earned their reputation for reliability precisely because their peer-review process is sound.

I think peer review is widely misunderstood. Many non-scientists hear 'peer' and imagine that the author of a paper asked a few mates around his university department to have a quick look at his paper before it was sent for publication.

The reality is that journals send pre-publication copies of a paper to those people who they deem qualified to comment; And that these reviewers are almost invariably the author's most bitter rivals. It's like if Coca-Cola were unable to release a new drink to market without first getting PepsiCo to admit that it tastes OK.

And of course, once a paper is published, other experts who were not part of the original review will read it, and as they too are in direct competition with the author(s), they are not hesitant about pointing out any flaws. A paper that is found to be flawed at that late stage will typically be retracted (which is why one should never quote retracted studies, even if they agree with ones prejudices).

Peer review is a vicious and gruelling process, and many papers don't survive it; In science, ones peers are not a group of people with whom you would choose to hang out for a beer.

 

[fromderinside]

Peer review is a vicious and gruelling process, and many papers don't survive it; In science, ones peers are not a group of people with whom you would choose to hang out for a beer.

I didn't find the process either grueling or vicious. Yes the process is exacting. FU and you'll be told. However most papers usually go through several rewrites in the review process. "Topic OK but not communicating." "Rewrite with a little attention." "I know the second author knows how to write" ya da.

Sometime a reanalysis is recommended which can be a bit challenging. Once in awhile, like with my dissertation, some data is lost due to time between collection and writing or some other factor like like computer burp so standard analyses are not possible. Still there are ways to get the information out to the participating public like through a writer funded document, letters, and private communication, with normal peers.

Generally most peers are supportive of research in their domains. In hotly contested areas like neuroscience, genetics, medical biochemistry the competition is fierce. There one sees both fudged data and worthless disputes between factions. Fortunately most of us avoid such. I don't see how fractious competition can exist given the emerging requirement in many areas for large teams of scientists on given projects due to cost of resources or access to assets and the like.

Everybody here knows I'm not a gifted writer. In fact my masters took over 40 rewrites and an editors intervention to put me on a coherent communication path. It's also why one sees most of my articles has a co-author. Most of us know its one thing to see paths to new knowledge and quite another to communicate it once generated. Still there are those who are great at both.

Bottom line, Peer review is necessary, has strict requirements, is a legitimate filter of knowledge, Yet it's participants are usually very willing to both do the research and to help good research to reach the light of peers.

I only dispute your characterization that it is a cruel process. Also I've shared a drink with most of those who've judged my professional work. I've even designed invited and lead area reviews in workload and flight deck pilot centered design. I've also been selected to and participated in field reviews. Those were for flight displays, ergonomic design, overview of acoustic factors in workspace and in aging worker factory workspace and tool design.

Can't do those things if everybody is out to get you. Although there was this government masters degree promoted to area lead individual who carped at every method that was different from those her group recommended. Not a pretty thing to see in a high finance military design gate keeper. You see I am aware there are such as you feel as the norm who exist. They're just not the norm.

 

[bilby]

Peer review is a vicious and gruelling process, and many papers don't survive it; In science, ones peers are not a group of people with whom you would choose to hang out for a beer.

I didn't find the process either grueling or vicious. Yes the process is exacting. FU and you'll be told. However most papers usually go through several rewrites in the review process. "Topic OK but not communicating." "Rewrite with a little attention." "I know the second author knows how to write" ya da.

Sometime a reanalysis is recommended which can be a bit challenging. Once in awhile, like with my dissertation, some data is lost due to time between collection and writing or some other factor like like computer burp so standard analyses are not possible. Still there are ways to get the information out to the participating public like through a writer funded document, letters, and private communication, with normal peers.

Generally most peers are supportive of research in their domains. In hotly contested areas like neuroscience, genetics, medical biochemistry the competition is fierce. There one sees both fudged data and worthless disputes between factions. Fortunately most of us avoid such. I don't see how fractious competition can exist given the emerging requirement in many areas for large teams of scientists on given projects due to cost of resources or access to assets and the like.

Everybody here knows I'm not a gifted writer. In fact my masters took over 40 rewrites and an editors intervention to put me on a coherent communication path. It's also why one sees most of my articles has a co-author. Most of us know its one thing to see paths to new knowledge and quite another to communicate it once generated. Still there are those who are great at both.

Bottom line, Peer review is necessary, has strict requirements, is a legitimate filter of knowledge, Yet it's participants are usually very willing to both do the research and to help good research to reach the light of peers.

I only dispute your characterization that it is a cruel process. Also I've shared a drink with most of those who've judged my professional work. I've even designed invited and lead area reviews in workload and flight deck pilot centered design. I've also been selected to and participated in field reviews. Those were for flight displays, ergonomic design, overview of acoustic factors in workspace and in aging worker factory workspace and tool design.

Can't do those things if everybody is out to get you. Although there was this government masters degree promoted to area lead individual who carped at every method that was different from those her group recommended. Not a pretty thing to see in a high finance military design gate keeper. You see I am aware there are such as you feel as the norm who exist. They're just not the norm.

My background is in Molecular Biology. That fits neatly into the domain you identify as "hotly contested areas". I knew people who were at the top of their field, who wouldn't tolerate so much as the mention of each other's names.

I guess that's to be expected in a novel field (it was the 1980s) where not enough is yet known to weed out the attractive but flawed hypotheses.

Maybe they've calmed down now. Probably because they're dead.

I would rather drive a truck - an environment where flipping the bird to ones peers is practically mandatory, and rarely looked down upon

 

[fromderinside]

Peer review is a vicious and gruelling process, and many papers don't survive it; In science, ones peers are not a group of people with whom you would choose to hang out for a beer.

In hotly contested areas like neuroscience, genetics, medical biochemistry the competition is fierce. There one sees both fudged data and worthless disputes between factions.

Bottom line, Peer review is necessary, has strict requirements, is a legitimate filter of knowledge, Yet it's participants are usually very willing to both do the research and to help good research to reach the light of peers.

I only dispute your characterization that it is a cruel process. Also I've shared a drink with most of those who've judged my professional work.

My background is in Molecular Biology. That fits neatly into the domain you identify as "hotly contested areas". I knew people who were at the top of their field, who wouldn't tolerate so much as the mention of each other's names.

I guess that's to be expected in a novel field (it was the 1980s) where not enough is yet known to weed out the attractive but flawed hypotheses.

Maybe they've calmed down now. Probably because they're dead.

I would rather drive a truck - an environment where flipping the bird to ones peers is practically mandatory, and rarely looked down upon

I picked those disciplines because I was there in the late seventies and early eighties right up next to them. While at CalTech I not only was privy to pen gifting by Nobel holders for Nobel winners, but had a front row seat for the nastiness between Cal Tech and UCSD particularly in genetics and molecular biology which is why I wrote that bit above.

There were at least five individuals who not only had to withdraw their publications but resigned in shame for fraudulent publications from such as UCSD, SUNY Stony Brook, and U Texas. Hallways are echo chambers when that happens. Venom enough to choke on even in such as behavioral Biology where some work with toolkits of microbiology.

We're different obviously. I shy away from trucks. I want peace. If I had the stamina, I'd work the lines at a production facility. The combination of routine and mind dulling effort would serve as balm. I remember composing poems to the rhythm of can pushing and tailing off at 2 AM. As it is retirement on the ocean is a nice alternative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then as a local Aussie politician would say: "please explain how emissions [CO2] have risen by over 20-30% yet global temperatures have remained fairly stable in the last 20-30 years!

A couple of months ago I climbed a mile into the sky.

Please explain how I could still breathe? Please explain why I didn't freeze despite not putting on any more clothing?

 

[fromderinside]

Humans can only survive in Lubbock.

 

[angelo]

I have posted this comprehensive list of scientists that don't agree with the so called consensus before. But to show that not everyone is aboard the bandwagon of political rather than the scientific method I'll post it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

How many of those people are even working in a relevant field? I see a lot of economists, zoologists, chemists etc.

Would you have your car fixed by a plumber? He's a craftsman after all, they're all the same like all scientists are the same, innit?

How many alarmists contributing essays and reports to IPCC, or to some government agency are actually scientists?

 

[angelo]

I have posted this comprehensive list of scientists that don't agree with the so called consensus before. But to show that not everyone is aboard the bandwagon of political rather than the scientific method I'll post it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

How many of those people are even working in a relevant field? I see a lot of economists, zoologists, chemists etc.

Would you have your car fixed by a plumber? He's a craftsman after all, they're all the same like all scientists are the same, innit?

How many alarmists contributing essays and reports to IPCC, or to some government agency are actually scientists?

More here.......................................https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...tions-doubles-down-on-ignorance/#3e2505bd29e3

 

[angelo]

Then as a local Aussie politician would say: "please explain how emissions [CO2] have risen by over 20-30% yet global temperatures have remained fairly stable in the last 20-30 years!

A couple of months ago I climbed a mile into the sky.

Please explain how I could still breathe? Please explain why I didn't freeze despite not putting on any more clothing?

Again quoting Mrs Hansen. please explain how not 0.4, or even 0.04 but a mere 0.004% CO2 in the atmosphere would make one iota of difference to Earth's climate?