The Forum > Article Comments > Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures > Comments
Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures : Comments
By Jennifer Marohasy, published 18/8/2016Richard Horton, the current editor of the medical journal, The Lancet, recently stated that, 'The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.'
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Page 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- ...
- 61
- 62
- 63
-
- All
Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 20 August 2016 4:25:57 PM
| |
Re Thomas O'Reilly, and anyone wondering over his failure to recognise that GISS has disappeared the 1997/8 El Nino, please defer to the lauded Kevin Trenberth of IPCC leadership fame.
From greatest authority he defines 1997/8 as a “Super El Nino” here: http://www.alternet.org/third-ever-super-el-nino-underway-heres-what-north-america-can-expect So the question to ask is where did it go for GISS? After all, with the latest Trenberth defined “Super El Nino” of 2015/16 it is happily retained by GISS and it is clearly a major driver of the record high 2015 global average. Yet, both the RSS and UAH satellite data show this latest one is plummeting and July 2016 is already significantly cooler than 19 years ago in July 1998. Furthermore, when skeptics began pointing out a few years ago an evidently growing pause in warming, the great Oracles such as at “Skeptical Science” and “Tamino” countered that it was cherry-picking to rely on the then recognised very high 1998 peak value. (BTW ‘The Pause’ did not rely on the peak but included the whole ENSO oscillation which embodies below centroid values each side of it, but putting that aside…). No worries, enter ‘Karl et al 2015’, a study with yet more adjustments to historical data progressively rotating the curves in an anti-clockwise direction. It embodied some imaginative corrections for historic sea-sub-surface temperatures that were sometimes measured in tossed over canvas buckets or thermally different other containers and all sorts of methodology such as in engine coolant intakes of ships of any calibre and destination etcetera. Problem gone. The 1997/8 super El Nino disappeared; pause busted. But, inconveniently, not per the TWO different Satellite data sets where 1998 sticks out like dog’s balls and showing 2016 to be but a pup despite all the excitement it has caused. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979 (A few months short) Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Saturday, 20 August 2016 4:56:01 PM
| |
Replying to Thomas O'Reilly, you declare:
“No, I don't! [have misconceptions] I am aware of all those things you 'question' and much more. I did not come down in the last shower Bob. Get back to me when you can get your head around 14 million temperature observations and prove there is any intentional fraud, deceptions, errors or criminal Conspiracy by the BOM or Nasa/Giss or anyone else connected with climate science.” If indeed you “are aware of all those things” you have nevertheless evaded response over the matter advised to you that the elementary laws of physics contradict your earlier assertions. (Where did you get your ideas from? Skeptical Science?) I repeat the ask for your clarification of your claims over my question that YOU HAVE TOTALLY EVADED: “If you believe that the laws of physics behind ATMOSPHERIC LAPSE RATES have changed since 1997 or there is some other poorly understood disturbing atmospheric influence that I’m unaware of, I’d be very interested if you would advise details” I look forward to your relevant scientific wisdom rather than your totally irrelevant distractions about “14 million temperature observations” etcetera. Posted by Bob Fernley-Jones, Saturday, 20 August 2016 5:56:59 PM
| |
Bob says: "lauded, greatest, Super, happily, great, very, tossed, etcetera, dog’s balls, pup." The only thing you have is a bag of adjectives. Not science.
Monckton Bunkum - 21 Mistakes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo&feature=youtu.be&t=7m36s Critique the 'denialists' using evidence and data to hold their feet to the fire over their errors, mistakes, falsehoods, deceptions, untruths, confusions and lies. Too easy. NOAA has posted July anomaly of +0.87ºC, the hottest July on record & the 15th month in a row to be hottest ever for its month. The July anomaly was a mite cooler than both May and June. July stands as the 15th highest anomaly month on record. The average anomaly for 2016-to-date is running at +1.03ºC ... apples to apples! The remainder of 2016 would have to average above +0.72ºC to gain the ‘warmest calendar year’ accolade. The anomalies for 2015/16 and their rankings to the full record:- 2015.. 1 … +0.82ºC . 22nd 2015.. 2 … +0.88ºC . 11th 2015.. 3 … +0.90ºC . 9th 2015.. 4 … +0.77ºC . 32nd 2015.. 5 … +0.86ºC . 17th 2015.. 6 … +0.88ºC . 11th 2015.. 7 … +0.81ºC … 24th 2015.. 8 … +0.87ºC . 15th 2015.. 9 … +0.92ºC … 8th 2015. 10 … +0.99ºC … 6th 2015. 11 … +0.96ºC … 7th 2015. 12 … +1.12ºC … 3rd 2016.. 1 … +1.05ºC … 5th 2016.. 2 … +1.19ºC … 2nd 2016.. 3 … +1.22ºC … 1st 2016.. 4 … +1.07ºC … 4th 2016.. 5 … +0.88ºC ..11th 2016.. 6 … +0.90ºC ..9th 2016.. 7 … +0.87ºC ..15th Now tell me again what were saying about it not being hotter now than 98/99. Try your missives and spin on someone else Bob. I'm not buying it one bit. I'll also leave it to you to explain 'anomaly' to the climate science illiterate here. Sorry Bob, being a genuine skeptic means you actually check what other people tell you. As the video suggests find me something that Monckton and Marohasy et al actually got right. Climate Science to be found here: https://scholar.google.com.au/ Ask a working Climate Scientist here: http://www.realclimate.org/ and here: http://climatechangenationalforum.org Posted by Thomas O'Reilly, Saturday, 20 August 2016 6:16:04 PM
| |
Thomas O'Relly My old English teacher always cautioned us against using metaphors on the basis we would end up mixing them. Then what we meant would be not be just obscured but confused. If the algorithms were given out it would be so easy to check the figures but that is always avoided, because of that.
You need some lessons on plain writing rather than the jargon you put out. Then add to that your liberal insults and I think "Hello we have a smart one here" except that you are a little too smart for your own good. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. Y2k and hole in the ozone layer scams cost us billions. This rubbish will cost us trillions. Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 20 August 2016 6:28:19 PM
| |
Bowyer,
the W.H.O says fossil fuels kill 3 million people a year through particulate poisoning. They are also finite, and peaking fast. We have the alternative! This is where you'll probably agree with the world's most famous climatologist, Dr James Hansen. As well as his (scientifically valid and true) message about climate change, he also says: 1. Believing in 100% RENEWABLES is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy! (Yes, he's aware of all the 'studies' that say we can, but still thinks storage is ridiculously expensive and cannot do the job). http://goo.gl/8qidgV 2. The world should build 115 reactors a year* http://goo.gl/Xx61xU *Note: on a reactors-to-GDP ratio the French *already* beat this build rate back in the 70's under the Mesmer plan. 115 reactors a year should be easy for the world economy. France did it *faster* with older technology, and today's nukes can be mass produced on an assembly line. Also, GenIV breeders are coming that can eat nuclear waste and covert a 100,000 year storage problem into 1000 years of clean energy for America and 500 years for the UK with today's levels of nuclear waste. Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 20 August 2016 6:36:30 PM
|
No, I don't! I am aware of all those things you 'question' and much more. I did not come down in the last shower Bob. Get back to me when you can get your head around 14 million temperature observations and prove there is any intentional fraud, deceptions, errors or criminal Conspiracy by the BOM or Nasa/Giss or anyone else connected with climate science.
Because that is precisely what JM and Roberts are claiming to be "true". It is not true. Not even one tiny bit of it.
Prof Richard Muller: NOT ADJUSTING global temperature records would be “poor science”.
Professor Muller said the results had prompted a "total turnaround" in his views. "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." The results were obtained by going back to re-examine more than 14 million temperature observations from 44,455 sites across the world dating back to 1753 — and excluding those that sceptics had believed were artificially enhancing global warming data.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/climate-change-sceptics-unwarmed-by-scientists-reassessment-of-cold-facts-20120730-23agk.html
https://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-richard-muller-not-adjusting-global-temperature-records-would-be-poor-science
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary.pdf
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf
All of this is old news. JMs story-telling about Darwin & Rutherglen the same. These myths have been proven to be 'rubbish.' I used that word in my first reply because it adequately describes the output in this article, her comments and your own. It fits the typical denier rhetoric disinformation - repeat repeat repeat Advertising:101. Everything (including errors) connected with AGW/CC science fits the observations and reality.
All GCMs (past, present, and predictions) are "wrong". All the (average/mean) global surface temperatures are 'wrong', not 100% perfect. They do not need to be! If you understood that (and psychology cognitive science) then you would not be listening to JM and the rest of the ideological/political/corporate denialist machine in the first place.
Your mileage may vary. I cannot teach you how to think. I can only lead a horse to water. Then it's 100% up to the horse (and that's an analogy, not science, not a fact.) If you prefer sophistry, lies, falsehoods then good luck with that