Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

Didn't you criticize me earlier for "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", saying it was a "dick move"?

Here's another graph by Spencer that includes surface temps.

And the following:

The period covered in the SS graph is a decade shorter than that covered by the Spencer-Christy graph and looks suspiciously like cherry-picking. By starting their graph in 1990, SS can use the Mt. Pinatubo-induced cold period of 1992-93 to tilt the trend to be more positive. The Spencer-Christy graph begins at the start of the satellite record — 1979 — providing a longer and more representative period.

More importantly, SS uses global surface temperature datasets, which do not accurately represent heat content in the bulk atmosphere. In contrast, Spencer and Christy use temperature data from the tropical troposphere — the place where the models project the strongest, least ambiguous, greenhouse warming signal.

from: http://www.globalwarming.org/2...

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

Your problem is that "more than half" is the formal part. They could have said "more than three-quarters" but they didn't. Why not? In that light their "best estimate" doesn't mean all that much, especially if the vast majority of past estimates were over-estimates.

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

Lol. Your interpretation is baffling. If I say it is "extremely likely" that you will get more than half your money back, would you interpret that to mean you are likely to get 100% of your money back? Or that you are likely to get at least 50% of your money back?

Since when does "more than half" equal 100% ??!

You spend the second half of your post justifying your name calling. It's not a dick move when you do it, right? Most people have double standards so you are not alone. Obviously you have nothing better to do. Unfortunately all too typical and boring.

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

"More than half the warming" since 1950 is their official, quantified position. You are ignoring the words right there in front of your face.

Sks is one of the worst sites out there, as evidenced by their study which one researcher characterizes as fraudulent. There's more evidence of course but I don't expect you to go looking for it. Confirmation bias at work.

"God-damned idiot"? Weren't you saying something about "smear attempts" and "ad hominems", and how those are "dick moves"? And I used to think right-wingers were inconsistent hypocrites...

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

I find it amusing that you are still capable of defending Sks after the travesty they produced. Much of the content on their blog is the same - but at least it's not masquerading as a scientific study!

Here's what IPCC reviewer Richard Tol had to say on the paper: http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/...

The IPCC report is not MY source. It's YOUR source. Indeed it should be your primary source since you align yourself with the consensus. I'm just informing you of what YOUR source says. Evidently you prefer extreme advocacy blogs like Sks. (I'm what they call a 'luke-warmer'.)

I do agree that there seems to be some ambiguity in the report. Why did they say that "It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together", but then say their "best estimate" is similar to the observed warming? "More than half" means somewhere between 50% - 100%. Why did they phrase it that way if that's not what they meant? Why didn't they say "at least 90% of the warming"?

I tend to take things at face value, so when they say "more than half of the observed increase" I'm going to assume that's what they mean, especially since it's the statement they were willing to quantify @ 95%-100% probability.

You are free to assume they mean something other than what they say.

Speaking of their "best estimate", lets take a look at how their many "estimates" are holding up against observation:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...

The 'blog' post I referred you to was actually an article from the Wall St Journal reposted on the author's personal site (the first part of IPCC report was released btw). I couldn't find the original article at first but here it is. Here's a video with the author, based on IPCC scenarios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As to your comment about "single data points", you wanted sources so I provided some as examples. And now I am criticized for that too? Really? There is more if a person would care to look, but it is clear you are unaware of what your own "side" even says, apparently preferring extreme advocacy sites like Sks to the IPCC, so I doubt you are willing to listen to differing views anyway.

I am going to hammer this final point: most of the predicted warming is due to climate sensitivity estimates, and NOT due to the warming radiated directly by CO2. These estimates are unproven, vary widely and are highly uncertain. The IPCC claims that climate sensitivity produces up to an additional 3.5 degrees of warming per additional degree of warming from CO2. I find that absurd. And if climate sensitivity is indeed lower as is suggested by recent research, then there is no global warming catastrophe.

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

You are reading the 2007 "summary for policy makers" (I'm sure you'll be surprised to discover that the summaries are often at odds with the reports themselves).

Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

I put that last bit in bold so you can see they are indeed talking about "the sum total of all anthropogenic factors".

It's clear you've never read the consensus report (couldn't even find it!) yet you have the gall to say I'm an ass? Why can't we just have a normal conversation about this?

Most of the predicted heating comes from climate sensitivity estimates, not CO2 directly. And the climate sensitivity estimates keep getting lower. Example: http://link.springer.com/artic...

So do the impacts from aerosols. Example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

In other words, the latest research suggests even less warming than what the "muted" IPCC report predicts.

Actually, it's [skepticalscience.com] quite good. They provide clear, well written and referenced explanations based on actual scientific research.

Obviously you have not done your research here either, although I can understand why a person might think that at first glance. They were behind that "97% agree" study that was quoted by Obama. Unfortunately it a was really really bad study. I like to think that even people who disagree will call out really really bad science when they see it, but apparently not. Integrity of science be damned.

Here is one of many scathing indictments of their "work": http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

SkS is a really, really bad site. Regardless, it appears they disagree with the IPCC. The latest IPCC report (which represents the consensus view) says that anthropogenic CO2 was responsible for at least half of the warming since 1950.

Do you support the consensus view or not?

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

The "change" could have occurred 100 years ago and the earth may still be heating up as a result of that change. If you put a pot of ice water on a warm element (with a constant temperature) what do you think is causing the water to slowly heat up? Magic?

There is a lot of evidence the earth is warming naturally. Consensus climate science acknowledges this fact. What do you think caused the warming prior to 1950? Magic?

(Anthropogenic CO2 output was too low to have had much of an effect prior to 1950 in case you didn't know.)

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

I've heard that line about thinner ice often. People are so quick to agree with any explanation that fits their beliefs no matter how weak.Yet these same people will argue against a plain fact (like the lack of significant heating for the last 15 years or so) until they are blue in the face. It is fascinating.

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

The IPCC says that anthropogenic warming was responsible for at least half of the warming since 1950. How does that translate to "temperatures would be declining" if not for human activity?

Most of the predicted temperature increase is due to climate sensitivity, not CO2 directly.

Comment: Re:Good thing climate change isn't real! (Score 1) 293 293

From what I've read the adjustments add to the apparent warming. Not going to disagree with the rationale for the adjustments, just saying that you are wrong on this detail. I would love for you to prove me wrong here but everything I've seen on the issue points to the opposite, and I still find it hard to believe.

Also, the satellite data shows no significant warming for the last 18 years or so. That's just a plain fact.

You say the models haven't failed. Could we have another 15 of no significant warming and still strongly believe in global warming model predictions? 50 more years? At what point can we say that the climate models have effectively failed?

There are skeptics who are far smarter than you as well by the way. By your logic your opinion on the matter is just as worthless. You are the equivalent to a drunk in a bar defending Einstein. You probably know even less about Einstein than the guy who is questioning Him and you are just a dumb drunk too.

Comment: Re:How science screwed up the fat-heart disease li (Score 2) 958 958

Yeah, some skeptics have an interesting take on this colossal screw-up and have pointed out the parallels with the climate debate. (Example: http://judithcurry.com/2014/08... )

Many people seem to think that groups of scientists can not possibly make genuine, colossal, "obvious after the fact" screw-ups. If anyone suggests that they have made big mistakes, they are harangued with insults like "conspiracy theorist" or "denier". Yet these same (supposedly rational) people claim "big oil" is funding skeptics (a conspiracy theory) and "big food" must have been behind this spectacular failure (another conspiracy theory). Apparently they have never heard of systemic bias, group-think, or the madness of crowds.

Or cognitive dissonance.

For some reason they can imagine millions of people being wrong about religion but they can't imagine a small group of elite "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" scientists being wrong about science.

They can imagine their own bosses being complete ignorant ass-holes, but they can't imaging leading scientists being egotistical, arrogant fucktards who have no qualms bullshitting people.

They can imagine a "group-think", ass-kissing, brown-nosing, yes-men corporate culture, but can't imagine the same in academic circles.

They can imagine a CEO who would drive his own billion dollar company into the ground just because his ego is too big to listen to anybody else, but can't imagine a scientist being anything other than a perfect little angel. Apparently scientists don't have egos and are immune to the many psychological issues that normal human beings face.

Government could NEVER bias a scientist, because governments are completely disinterested entities that are only concerned about the long-term health and economic interests of their citizen. (Except when governments take bribes. That's the only time the above is not true.)

Unfortunately a few scientists have been known to take bribes from evil corporations. But that's really, really easy to explain: it's a simple and direct benefit that anybody can understand without thinking too hard. And that's the only thing capable of biasing a scientist: a simple and direct benefit that's really, really easy for people to understand.

But those are not real scientists.

Real scientists are completely immune to human nature. Except for the few bad apples (who are not real scientists), scientists are better human beings than the rest of us.

Either that or many people are romantic idealists whose eyes glaze over in a state of credulity whenever they indulge their childish fantasies about "scientists".

"If you own a machine, you are in turn owned by it, and spend your time serving it..." -- Marion Zimmer Bradley, _The Forbidden Tower_

Working...