Science and the Environment - no consensus on the matter yet - the rapidly melting Greenland ice sh

[jc456]

To Dante.........

 

[jc456]

jc456 is always ...

Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists say

An apparent lull in the recent rate of global warming that has been widely accepted as fact is actually an artifact arising from faulty statistical methods, an interdisciplinary team of Stanford scientists says.

The study, titled "Debunking the climate hiatus" and published online this week in the journal Climatic Change, is a comprehensive assessment of the purported slowdown, or hiatus, of global warming.

"We translated the various scientific claims and assertions that have been made about the hiatus and tested to see whether they stand up to rigorous statistical scrutiny," said study lead author Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and of Earth system science.

The finding calls into question the idea that global warming "stalled" or "paused" during the period between 1998 and 2013. Reconciling the hiatus was a major focus of the 2013 climate change assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Using a novel statistical framework that was developed specifically for studying geophysical processes such as global temperature fluctuations, Rajaratnam and his team of Stanford collaborators have shown that the hiatus never happened.

...

"Global warming is like other noisy systems that fluctuate wildly but still follow a trend," Diffenbaugh said. "Think of the U.S. stock market: There have been bull markets and bear markets, but overall it has grown a lot over the past century. What is clear from analyzing the long-term data in a rigorous statistical framework is that, even though climate varies from year to year and decade to decade, global temperature has increased in the long term, and the recent period does not stand out as being abnormal."

Uh oh! Now those damn lefty Stanford Scientists are in on the conspiracy!!!

that's a funny word as well. Who does Stanford get it's funding from and what do they use the money for?

 

[jc456]

Dante, here's some more for you:

Thanks Climate Etc. Ever hear of Judith Curry?

Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II

Excerpt:
"This lack of confidence in our science infrastructure, to the extent that it exists, seems largely self-inflicted. If some people are pushing others to follow a predetermined scripts in support of some larger perceived good, this is counter to the foundation of scientific inquiry which is all about pushing knowledge beyond societal comfort zones. There are many historical examples of such behavior and its damage to understanding and to people."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

jc456 is always ...

Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists say

An apparent lull in the recent rate of global warming that has been widely accepted as fact is actually an artifact arising from faulty statistical methods, an interdisciplinary team of Stanford scientists says.

The study, titled "Debunking the climate hiatus" and published online this week in the journal Climatic Change, is a comprehensive assessment of the purported slowdown, or hiatus, of global warming.

"We translated the various scientific claims and assertions that have been made about the hiatus and tested to see whether they stand up to rigorous statistical scrutiny," said study lead author Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and of Earth system science.

The finding calls into question the idea that global warming "stalled" or "paused" during the period between 1998 and 2013. Reconciling the hiatus was a major focus of the 2013 climate change assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Using a novel statistical framework that was developed specifically for studying geophysical processes such as global temperature fluctuations, Rajaratnam and his team of Stanford collaborators have shown that the hiatus never happened.

...

"Global warming is like other noisy systems that fluctuate wildly but still follow a trend," Diffenbaugh said. "Think of the U.S. stock market: There have been bull markets and bear markets, but overall it has grown a lot over the past century. What is clear from analyzing the long-term data in a rigorous statistical framework is that, even though climate varies from year to year and decade to decade, global temperature has increased in the long term, and the recent period does not stand out as being abnormal."

Friend, I really give two racoons nuts what you believe. Everything you've posted is bullshit so you know. You make a statement that you aren't following the IPCC and then post info about it.

The facts are this, you can't prove global warming and you can't prove man made climate anything. until then, you believe what you want, but don't post up on a message board unless you have evidence.

Post some up and let's rehash this all. But until then bubba, your climate whatever is dead and is only your belief.

Nope. Maybe NASA and others refer to the IPCC, but Dante has never followed the IPCC arguments. Evidence? You never refuted one thing on NASA's evidence page

Dante has no belief in the way you refer. You remind me of people who held on to the science-deniers on smoking. Your position comes out of an ideological knee jerk reaction to what you view as leftists or some other boogey man coming after you. There is a name for what you and others have been engaging in...

the name?

The Paranoid Style In American Politics
The Paranoid Style in American Politics | Harper's Magazine

and you've taken science into the political realm.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante, here's some more for you:

Thanks Climate Etc. Ever hear of Judith Curry?

Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II

Excerpt:
"This lack of confidence in our science infrastructure, to the extent that it exists, seems largely self-inflicted. If some people are pushing others to follow a predetermined scripts in support of some larger perceived good, this is counter to the foundation of scientific inquiry which is all about pushing knowledge beyond societal comfort zones. There are many historical examples of such behavior and its damage to understanding and to people."

Dante suggests you are part of what Judith has called the 'crankology'

How many of the recycled critiques that have been disproved were you holding onto or still holding onto?

Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty. “Yes, there’s a lot of crankology out there,” Curry says. “But not all of it is. If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink.”
​

People like you believe it is us versus them. It's not. Judith has her opinions and I am sure the scientific community suffers from groupthink as ALL communities do, but she does not make your case or stand with you. Her arguments has entered the political arena. She isn't offering scientific arguments against the climate science. She is addressing what has turned into a political argument over science.

Who started that political argument? People like the Koch brothers and Big Oil and if you deny that thee is little hope for you ever being as credible as Judith

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Uh oh! Now those damn lefty Stanford Scientists are in on the conspiracy!!!

that's a funny word as well. Who does Stanford get it's funding from and what do they use the money for?

certainly not from the Koch brothers

 

[jc456]

jc456 is always ...

Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists say

An apparent lull in the recent rate of global warming that has been widely accepted as fact is actually an artifact arising from faulty statistical methods, an interdisciplinary team of Stanford scientists says.

The study, titled "Debunking the climate hiatus" and published online this week in the journal Climatic Change, is a comprehensive assessment of the purported slowdown, or hiatus, of global warming.

"We translated the various scientific claims and assertions that have been made about the hiatus and tested to see whether they stand up to rigorous statistical scrutiny," said study lead author Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and of Earth system science.

The finding calls into question the idea that global warming "stalled" or "paused" during the period between 1998 and 2013. Reconciling the hiatus was a major focus of the 2013 climate change assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Using a novel statistical framework that was developed specifically for studying geophysical processes such as global temperature fluctuations, Rajaratnam and his team of Stanford collaborators have shown that the hiatus never happened.

...

"Global warming is like other noisy systems that fluctuate wildly but still follow a trend," Diffenbaugh said. "Think of the U.S. stock market: There have been bull markets and bear markets, but overall it has grown a lot over the past century. What is clear from analyzing the long-term data in a rigorous statistical framework is that, even though climate varies from year to year and decade to decade, global temperature has increased in the long term, and the recent period does not stand out as being abnormal."

Friend, I really give two racoons nuts what you believe. Everything you've posted is bullshit so you know. You make a statement that you aren't following the IPCC and then post info about it.

The facts are this, you can't prove global warming and you can't prove man made climate anything. until then, you believe what you want, but don't post up on a message board unless you have evidence.

Post some up and let's rehash this all. But until then bubba, your climate whatever is dead and is only your belief.

Nope. Maybe NASA and others refer to the IPCC, but Dante has never followed the IPCC arguments. Evidence? You never refuted one thing on NASA's evidence page

Dante has no belief in the way you refer. You remind me of people who held on to the science-deniers on smoking. Your position comes out of an ideological knee jerk reaction to what you view as leftists or some other boogey man coming after you. There is a name for what you and others have been engaging in...

the name?

The Paranoid Style In American Politics
The Paranoid Style in American Politics | Harper's Magazine

and you've taken science into the political realm.

when you have no evidence this is what happens to a discussion thread. Sorry you can't debate your subject you started. But going on about AIDs and smoking has nothing, nothing to do with climate from the last check I ran. But hey, when you have nothing, this is the avenue the left takes. tsk, tsk.

 

[jc456]

Dante, here's some more for you:

Thanks Climate Etc. Ever hear of Judith Curry?

Conflicts of interest in climate science. Part II

Excerpt:
"This lack of confidence in our science infrastructure, to the extent that it exists, seems largely self-inflicted. If some people are pushing others to follow a predetermined scripts in support of some larger perceived good, this is counter to the foundation of scientific inquiry which is all about pushing knowledge beyond societal comfort zones. There are many historical examples of such behavior and its damage to understanding and to people."

Dante suggests you are part of what Judith has called the 'crankology'

How many of the recycled critiques that have been disproved were you holding onto or still holding onto?

Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty. “Yes, there’s a lot of crankology out there,” Curry says. “But not all of it is. If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink.”
​

People like you believe it is us versus them. It's not. Judith has her opinions and I am sure the scientific community suffers from groupthink as ALL communities do, but she does not make your case or stand with you. Her arguments has entered the political arena. She isn't offering scientific arguments against the climate science. She is addressing what has turned into a political argument over science.

Who started that political argument? People like the Koch brothers and Big Oil and if you deny that thee is little hope for you ever being as credible as Judith

still nothing I see. No climate evidence or supported material to back your man made stance. tsk, tsk.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To Dante.........

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

not another dope who posts stupid graphs with the imbecile notion that doing so makes them credible in their arguments.

wtf r u, Clyde Crashcup?

 

[Old Rocks]

Science and the Environment - no consensus on the matter yet - the rapidly melting Greenland ice sheet

No agenda here, just Scientific evidence and a search for truth. Scientists will keep working on it until they have a consensus. You'd better believe it, because that's how science works.

In the last month, there’s been much attention to a cool patch in the North Atlantic Ocean, where record cold temperatures over the past eight months present a stark contrast to a globe that is experiencing record warmth. And although there is certainly no consensus on the matter yet, some scientists think this pattern may be a sign of one long-feared consequence of climate change — a slowing of North Atlantic ocean circulation, due to a freshening of surface waters.

The cause, goes the thinking, would be the rapidly melting Greenland ice sheet, whose large freshwater flows may weaken ocean “overturning” by reducing the density of cold surface waters (colder, salty water is denser). If cold, salty waters don’t sink in the North Atlantic and flow back southward toward Antarctica at depth, then warm surface waters won’t flow northward to take their place. The result could be a significant change to northern hemisphere climate, as less ocean-borne heat reaches higher latitudes.​

there's that word again, 'consensus' there is none in science. So nice article that really isn't about science but an agenda, since it was necessary to use the 'C' word. Funny though, thanks for the laugh.

And you are completely full of shit, jc. There is overwhelming consensus that life has evolved, is evolving, and will continue to evolve as long as there is life. There is overwhelming consensus that matter and gravity are related.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

when you have no evidence this is what happens to a discussion thread. Sorry you can't debate your subject you started. But going on about AIDs and smoking has nothing, nothing to do with climate from the last check I ran. But hey, when you have nothing, this is the avenue the left takes. tsk, tsk.

Science and the Environment - no consensus on the matter yet - the rapidly melting Greenland ice sheet

Debating the climate or the consensus on climate change? You attacked consensus and was shown where a consensus on scientific data was achieved on hiv/aids and with smoking? People like you denied the science saying because Big Tobacco had their own science there was NO scientific consensus

 

[Old Rocks]

jc, Dante posted referanced links, all you have, as usual, posted is flap yap. Flap yap that demonstrates both your ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

jc456 http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/02/georgia-politicians-cool-to-global-warming/

To support his view, Ralston cited Dr. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech. Curry believes the Earth is warming — except for a current “pause” — and told the AJC in an interview that, among scientists, “everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming.” However, she chastises other climate scientists for overstating how much humans are to blame and the certainty of likely consequences.“Everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming,” Curry said in an interview with the AJC.​

It appears everybody but people like jc456 , flacaltenn , westwall, and Sun Devil 92 and others here agree that "the Earth is warming" and "humans are contributing to warming.”

 

[Old Rocks]

jc456 is always ...

Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists say

An apparent lull in the recent rate of global warming that has been widely accepted as fact is actually an artifact arising from faulty statistical methods, an interdisciplinary team of Stanford scientists says.

The study, titled "Debunking the climate hiatus" and published online this week in the journal Climatic Change, is a comprehensive assessment of the purported slowdown, or hiatus, of global warming.

"We translated the various scientific claims and assertions that have been made about the hiatus and tested to see whether they stand up to rigorous statistical scrutiny," said study lead author Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and of Earth system science.

The finding calls into question the idea that global warming "stalled" or "paused" during the period between 1998 and 2013. Reconciling the hiatus was a major focus of the 2013 climate change assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Using a novel statistical framework that was developed specifically for studying geophysical processes such as global temperature fluctuations, Rajaratnam and his team of Stanford collaborators have shown that the hiatus never happened.

...

"Global warming is like other noisy systems that fluctuate wildly but still follow a trend," Diffenbaugh said. "Think of the U.S. stock market: There have been bull markets and bear markets, but overall it has grown a lot over the past century. What is clear from analyzing the long-term data in a rigorous statistical framework is that, even though climate varies from year to year and decade to decade, global temperature has increased in the long term, and the recent period does not stand out as being abnormal."

Friend, I really give two racoons nuts what you believe. Everything you've posted is bullshit so you know. You make a statement that you aren't following the IPCC and then post info about it.

The facts are this, you can't prove global warming and you can't prove man made climate anything. until then, you believe what you want, but don't post up on a message board unless you have evidence.

Post some up and let's rehash this all. But until then bubba, your climate whatever is dead and is only your belief.

Nope. Maybe NASA and others refer to the IPCC, but Dante has never followed the IPCC arguments. Evidence? You never refuted one thing on NASA's evidence page

Dante has no belief in the way you refer. You remind me of people who held on to the science-deniers on smoking. Your position comes out of an ideological knee jerk reaction to what you view as leftists or some other boogey man coming after you. There is a name for what you and others have been engaging in...

the name?

The Paranoid Style In American Politics
The Paranoid Style in American Politics | Harper's Magazine

and you've taken science into the political realm.

when you have no evidence this is what happens to a discussion thread. Sorry you can't debate your subject you started. But going on about AIDs and smoking has nothing, nothing to do with climate from the last check I ran. But hey, when you have nothing, this is the avenue the left takes. tsk, tsk.

The hell it doesn't. The deniers are using the very same 'scientists' that denied the damage that the use of tobacco does to deny the warming.

Where there's smoke, the climate change Denial lobby

The tactics worked for the tobacco industry for 40 years, so are we really so surprised to see them being used again? Particularly since it is some of the same organizations that as handling the Public Relations. Kevin Grandia looked at the involvement of the Heartland Institute in both tobacco and climate denial in A Climate Deniers take on Tobacco Smoke, The Heartland Institute and the Academy of Tobacco Studies as did the Center for Public Integrity in Global Warming: Heated Denials, The Organized Effort to Cast Doubt on Climate Change.

How to Spin Global Warming

And not just the same organizations, but the same people:

If you’re not convinced, try googling “seitz singer tobacco“, 2 of the top hits today are “The Indisputable Corruption of Frederick Seitz“, “The Corrupt S. Fred Singer, corrupt Fred Seitz…” and “No apology is owed Dr. S. Fred Singer, and none will…” The last one is interesting, as it shows the connection between S. Fred Singer and tobacco lobbyists, whose “product” was doubt.

Read this before your start your global warming “research”…

 

[RodISHI]

Dante's words "and you've taken science into the political realm."

There is no doubt that earth's entire climate is changing.

The problem is when you have humans trying to make big bucks off of the matter. The moment a few wanted to tax people extra for the few to make a buck confusion reigns on the issue. In doing that instead of just going with common sense a majority of people will ignore it.

I grew up close enough to the California coast and even during certain times living on the coast. The Palisades have lost beach area for at least fifty years that I know of.

First it was global cooling and then it was global warming all within fifty years. The earth its self is how old? Is there an absolute exact answer on that? How many times has the earth changed during that estimated time? Those are questions every day people have (propaganda just damaged the trust people may have had in what scientist have to say). Theories of science do not answer exact questions. The theories of various religions have a lot of the same problems as people theorize without knowing, have a very limited experience or totally do not understanding. A few answers does not answer the whole or all of the questions. What one may see another has not seen or possibly cannot see.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante's words "and you've taken science into the political realm."

There is no doubt that earth's entire climate is changing.

The problem is when you have humans trying to make big bucks off of the matter.

The big bucks are to made by the corporate interests. Any tax benefits pale in comparison. It is the corporate interests that also fund the opposition science -- that is how much money is involved

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First it was global cooling and then it was global warming all within fifty years.

Models and predictions, but was there ever such a consensus on the earlier predictions, which by the way were always seeded with 'if nothing is done'

remember acid rain? smog in California?

Exxon itself has documents by scientists they hired and funded that came back with 'Earth is warming'

When NASA and NOAA and most every other scientific org as well as people like Judith Curry say man has contributed... Georgia politicians cool to global warming

js's Judith? Curry, too, believes the earth is warming, and that human activity is a cause.

 

[RodISHI]

Dante's words "and you've taken science into the political realm."

There is no doubt that earth's entire climate is changing.

The problem is when you have humans trying to make big bucks off of the matter.

The big bucks are to made by the corporate interests. Any tax benefits pale in comparison. It is the corporate interests that also fund the opposition science -- that is how much money is involved

Most people were not looking at tax benes more like the more wealthy taxing the poor. America still has a large population lacking in areas that are basic needs. A roof over their heads, clean water, a few utilities and actual decent food; plus a way to get back and forth to work and a way to get groceries (even living in the smaller city areas people have to travel to get to work). When you get some slob fully fat and wealthy pushing a bigger tax on the people it won't be taken lightly.


Edited with a link for clarity (fat slob)

 

[skookerasbil]

Then there is this here -- reminiscent of a scary childhood memory -- the movie -- The Blob! or more correctly, a blob in the North Atlantic


cool stuff from that leftist organization NOAA on the pages
Everything you need to know about the surprisingly cold ‘blob’ in the North Atlantic ocean

NOAA is obviously in the leftist camp s0n..........but not to those stuck up in the matrix.

That organization should be called the NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR RIGGING SHIT ( or NORS)

 

[skookerasbil]

First it was global cooling and then it was global warming all within fifty years.

js's Judith? Curry, too, believes the earth is warming, and that human activity is a cause.

duh

Dr Curry is no longer a climate alarmist ya dummy.........well documented. Now says "human activity" one of many possible causes...........the global warming k00ks claim one cause only. Ghey