Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Interbane · Unread post Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:13 pm

A site that discusses all the popular denialist arguments.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming."

ant · Unread post Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:38 pm

Interbane wrote:I remember posting an article that covered this.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6 ... 9.abstract

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

In addition, more detailed information has been obtained regarding each ship’s observation method. This information was also used to provide improved corrections for changes in the mix of observing methods.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/recent-g ... ing-hiatus

How have the limitations of ocean spacial surface coverage been improved?
Were the limitations improved on and was that part of "improved corrections" to add to obervational data?

Taylor · Unread post Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:52 pm

I googled current global weather stations and found this map.

databasin.org/datasets/15a31dec689b4c95 ... ff30fcce75

If global temps are averaged then modeled would the models be skewed?

consider the majority of stations are located in developed areas of the planet, again does this effect averages?

ant · Unread post Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:04 pm

Taylor wrote:I googled current global weather stations and found this map.

databasin.org/datasets/15a31dec689b4c95 ... ff30fcce75

If global temps are averaged then modeled would the models be skewed?

consider the majority of stations are located in developed areas of the planet, again does this effect averages?

I THINK the study was largely dependent on revisting ocean surface temperature data.
(Note: funny how revisting data can save just about anything you wish to prove)

But from what I recall, one of the issues with this type of observational evidence is that there are spatial coverage challenges that impact average calculations.
I want to know how theyve improved on that, because its been acknowledged that it's a concern.

Maybe Interbane purchased the complete report.
Im certain he knows the answer by now.
He looks into these things closely.

Interbane · Unread post Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:15 pm

ant wrote:Note: funny how revisting data can save just about anything you wish to prove

Part of the beauty of publishing studies is that scientists can revisit the data and experiments and reproduce them in part or in whole. It isn't the revisiting of published work that is a bad thing, as you're suggesting. It's when published work isn't revisited. You posted a link a week or two ago on this very issue, the reproduction of studies. Any denialist who wishes can challenge the study, and they are more than welcome to.

ant · Unread post Sun Sep 13, 2015 8:05 pm

Interbane wrote:
ant wrote:Note: funny how revisting data can save just about anything you wish to prove
Part of the beauty of publishing studies is that scientists can revisit the data and experiments and reproduce them in part or in whole. It isn't the revisiting of published work that is a bad thing, as you're suggesting. It's when published work isn't revisited. You posted a link a week or two ago on this very issue, the reproduction of studies. Any denialist who wishes can challenge the study, and they are more than welcome to.

Oh youre going to poetically answer my question about a specific observational method and the data it did or did not generate in this publication, huh?

Good going!

Interbane · Unread post Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:23 am

I have a climate change poem if you want one.

I miss when I could drop down on all fours
and flick the ground away from under me.
I miss the wire I ran into the earth.
I miss when I was the bloom on the sea
and we slept forever under the warm clouds
till something twitched with design
and woke the clock. So we arose and went.
Last night when the waters rose again
I rowed out to the beeless glade
and lay down on the grass. My sister
taught me to watch the stars this way
lest I think that heaven was up, or heaven,
lest I forget the stars are also below us
where they sink and sail into the dark like cinders.
-Don Paterson

Flann 5 · Unread post Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:30 pm

Whatever the truth is about climate change in the long term,the British Meteorological office is predicting the strongest "El Nino" since 1950 to be on it's way,this year.
Here's their report with very different effects for different regions of the world. Some have already occurred and we'll see what happens elsewhere as time goes on.
It's never the same apparently. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34236010

ant · Unread post Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:02 am

Here's a little more on the study that claims the Hiatus never happened:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... um=twitter

It's lead author is not a climate scientist, he's a Statistician.
It's primary "evidence" is the reworking of the data, and has less to do with observational data.
I still do not know how spatial oceanic temperature readings have bee improved. That would add to observational evidence, I think. But I'm no expert, like Interbane.

The use of "appropriate statistical techniques" in climate models should improve their reliability.

It's obvious here why I would take this climate study, BY A STATISTICIAN, with a grain of salt.

Also, here's some good reading:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistic ... 0393310728

ant · Unread post Sat Oct 24, 2015 3:04 pm

The date is October 24, 2015.

I live in southern California.
It's about 87 degrees right now.

The climate is changing, globally, by and large.
It's simply staying warmer for longer durations.
It takes longer for the day to cool.
we have shorter winters.
"Summer" seems to start ealier every year, and ends later.

Ive even noticed summer bugs are effin confused.

This really sucks because I HATE warm weather.

Some idiot yesterday said that its good news that the weather will be warmer throughout the year.

I almost punched him that big mouth of his.

Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Re: Matt Ridley, "The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science"

Login • Register

Quick Links