[Al_U_Card]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-20, 15:09, said:

yes they do, they believe it after they or someone else has proved it (I am a chemist and mathematician/statistician).

Then we have that in common (Hon.B.A.Sc. 1977). As chemists, we acknowledge the preponderance of confirmatory evidence (redox rxns always follow the calcs etc.) but anything that presents a refutation implies the need to refine or redefine our "understanding" of the underlying process. Henry's law tells us that outgassing of CO2 happens after the oceans warm which explain the paleontological record. So many aspects of climatology are so suspect that the hard science (and not the rhetoric or the sketchy interpretations) gets lost. As an adept at stats (I only used them in my process optimization work) surely you must acknowledge the dearth of valid confirmation of CAGW numerology?

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-August-20, 10:07, said:

Why would anyone dispute that smoking cigarette's causes cancer?

(Also why is there such a strong correlation between people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer and are global warming skeptics?)

Do you have any reference to data that shows what percentage of global warming skeptics are people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer? Given the strong evidence regarding cigarettes causing cancer, I would think there are very few remaining who dispute that evidence. And therefore the number who are also global warming skeptics would be very small, perhaps negligible.

[Cyberyeti]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-20, 16:02, said:

Then we have that in common (Hon.B.A.Sc. 1977). As chemists, we acknowledge the preponderance of confirmatory evidence (redox rxns always follow the calcs etc.) but anything that presents a refutation implies the need to refine or redefine our "understanding" of the underlying process. Henry's law tells us that outgassing of CO2 happens after the oceans warm which explain the paleontological record. So many aspects of climatology are so suspect that the hard science (and not the rhetoric or the sketchy interpretations) gets lost. As an adept at stats (I only used them in my process optimization work) surely you must acknowledge the dearth of valid confirmation of CAGW numerology?

I don't judge myself competent on the science of climatology. I trust the experts in the field. As Norwich is the home of the climate research unit at UEA and a couple of the people researching there play bridge, there are experts around.

You may remember the name of that unit. It was the victim of what was effectively a DDOS attack by being bombarded with UTTERLY ridiculous numbers of freedom of information requests by deniers which would have meant no research got done for many years if they'd been satisfied. There was then a scandal when they refused to release the data.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-August-20, 17:01, said:

Do you have any reference to data that shows what percentage of global warming skeptics are people who dispute that cigarettes cause cancer? Given the strong evidence regarding cigarettes causing cancer, I would think there are very few remaining who dispute that evidence. And therefore the number who are also global warming skeptics would be very small, perhaps negligible.

No one cares what the dittoheads "think"

Today they hate RUssia
tomorrow Russia's our best friend

Today they love the FBI
Tomorrow the FBI is the deep state

Today the Republican party stands for free trade
Tomorrow were being victimized

However, if you prefer I can qualify my statement to only refer to "leading climate change skeptics".

[Al_U_Card]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-20, 17:05, said:

I don't judge myself competent on the science of climatology. I trust the experts in the field. As Norwich is the home of the climate research unit at UEA and a couple of the people researching there play bridge, there are experts around.

You may remember the name of that unit. It was the victim of what was effectively a DDOS attack by being bombarded with UTTERLY ridiculous numbers of freedom of information requests by deniers which would have meant no research got done for many years if they'd been satisfied. There was then a scandal when they refused to release the data.

Fair enough. Opinion counts too but additional information can lead to a better informed opinion. The initial FOI requests were few and collegial. It was Phil Jones of the CRU himself that came back with the regrettable "why share my data since you only want to find things wrong with it" reply that started the obfuscatory efforts of the entire CAGW cadre. Science without openly available data and methods to allow for reproducing "results" is not science.

[Daniel1960]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-20, 15:09, said:

yes they do, they believe it after they or someone else has proved it (I am a chemist and mathematician/statistician).

This may be more about semantics than entitling else. Some people use the term ‘believe’ to mean accept as truth without proof (or something like that). Hence, once something is proven, or has sufficient evidence in its favor, then it is no longer considered belief.

[johnu]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-20, 14:55, said:

Strawman, ad hom and argument from authority
... you forgot argument from ignorance. You don't need to understand Principle component analysis to realize that post hoc filtering of data will provide whatever conclusion you want (like a hockey stick). Climate "science" is pretty shoddy as it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is easily refuted by accurate analysis.

If by accurate analysis you mean throwing out 99.7% of the temperature records to only consider only a single annual high temperature per reporting spot, I disagree 99.8% that this is accurate analysis.

[Cyberyeti]

 Daniel1960, on 2018-August-20, 20:47, said:

This may be more about semantics than entitling else. Some people use the term ‘believe’ to mean accept as truth without proof (or something like that). Hence, once something is proven, or has sufficient evidence in its favor, then it is no longer considered belief.

I consider it belief in most cases because it's only proof until somebody comes up with a counterexample due to the advance of science and it gets refined (Newtonian/Einsteinian mechanics for example)

[Cyberyeti]

 Al_U_Card, on 2018-August-20, 19:53, said:

Fair enough. Opinion counts too but additional information can lead to a better informed opinion. The initial FOI requests were few and collegial. It was Phil Jones of the CRU himself that came back with the regrettable "why share my data since you only want to find things wrong with it" reply that started the obfuscatory efforts of the entire CAGW cadre. Science without openly available data and methods to allow for reproducing "results" is not science.

Phil Jones plays at my bridge club although we haven't seen much of him since the scandal.

[PassedOut]

Arctic’s strongest sea ice breaks up for first time on record

Quote

The oldest and thickest sea ice in the Arctic has started to break up, opening waters north of Greenland that are normally frozen, even in summer.

This phenomenon – which has never been recorded before – has occurred twice this year due to warm winds and a climate-change driven heatwave in the northern hemisphere.

One meteorologist described the loss of ice as “scary”. Others said it could force scientists to revise their theories about which part of the Arctic will withstand warming the longest.

The sea off the north coast of Greenland is normally so frozen that it was referred to, until recently, as “the last ice area” because it was assumed that this would be the final northern holdout against the melting effects of a hotter planet.

And, in related news: Trump set to roll back Obama-era regulation on coal emissions

Quote

The Trump administration is set to unveil a proposed replacement for Obama-era climate change rules that will impose looser, state-based regulations on coal-fired power plants rather than pushing them towards closure.

The new plan is likely to escalate greenhouse gas emissions, compared with its predecessor, at a time when scientists have warned drastic cuts are required to avoid dangerous runaway climate change that would ravage the lives of Americans and people around the world.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to propose that individual states should decide how, or even if, they should stem carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants.

As his secretary of state once explained, Trump is a moron.

[Daniel1960]

 johnu, on 2018-August-21, 00:04, said:

If by accurate analysis you mean throwing out 99.7% of the temperature records to only consider only a single annual high temperature per reporting spot, I disagree 99.8% that this is accurate analysis.

I think you are overreacting a bit. Average temperatures are increasing, and have been doing so for the better part of two centuries. But just because the average is increasing, does not mean that every aspect of the temperature record is increasing. Perhaps a little science lesson is needed.

Global warming theory is based on the radiative absoption properties of greenhouse gases. These gases will absorb infrared radiation from solar and terrestrial sources and re-radiate in all directions. The wavelength of the IR radiation is dependent on the temperature of the irradiating object, and the absorption is based on the characteristic bands of the individual gases (yes, I am a chemist too). Many of the absorption bands are more intense in the lower temperature, higher wavelength regions in which the Earth emits. Hence absorption is greater at night than during the day. This gets accentuated during the winter months, when night is longer than the day, and amplified closer to the poles. During the winter months, the nighttime warming overwhelms daytime cooling, and warmer daytime temperatures occur also (the days warm less, but start at a higher temperature). During the summer months, the daytime absorption increases and in the high latitudes exceeds the nighttime absorption, resulting in cooler temperatures. This is seen in the Arctic temperature record whereby average winter temperatures have risen by 5C or more, while summer temperatures have decreased slightly.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/...meant80n.uk.php

In some areas of the midlatitudes, daytime cooling can exceed nighttime warming, resulting in decreased summer averages. In other areas, nighttime warming is enough to cause an increase in the summer average temperature. Most of the U.S. has experienced a decrease in the number of hot days (defined by the epa as greater than the 95th percentile).

https://www.epa.gov/...ow-temperatures

There is no need to throw out 99.7% of the temperature records, just because summertime highs are not increasing.

[johnu]

 PassedOut, on 2018-August-21, 06:32, said:

Arctic’s strongest sea ice breaks up for first time on record

The distinguished climate change denier Dr. Noah Kreda Bility notes that there is a proven correlation between the increase in iced tea consumption and the decrease of arctic ice which proves this has nothing to do with global warming. The loss of arctic sea ice is cyclical and will stop decreasing when the world's drinking habits change.

[PassedOut]

 johnu, on 2018-August-21, 06:47, said:

Dr. Noah Kreda Bility

[Al_U_Card]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-21, 03:20, said:

Phil Jones plays at my bridge club although we haven't seen much of him since the scandal.

Understandable. The "saga" of those FOI requests (well described by numerous requestors) are likely what prompted the "release" of the e-mails that demonstrated the tribalism and collusion within the group, ergo the pseudo of the leaker "Mr. FOIA".

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2018-August-21, 06:32, said:

Arctic’s strongest sea ice breaks up for first time on record


And, in related news: Trump set to roll back Obama-era regulation on coal emissions


As his secretary of state once explained, Trump is a moron.

The Guardian is the Fox News of climate alarmism. Better to look at the actual published peer-reviewed paper (if their "report" is based on one...) to see what was actually shown and to see just how much the alarmists twisted it around.

[Daniel1960]

 johnu, on 2018-August-21, 06:47, said:

The distinguished climate change denier Dr. Noah Kreda Bility notes that there is a proven correlation between the increase in iced tea consumption and the decrease of arctic ice which proves this has nothing to do with global warming. The loss of arctic sea ice is cyclical and will stop decreasing when the world's drinking habits change.

Yet, Arctic sea ice extent is currently higher than the last three summers and seven out of the last ten.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[blackshoe]

When "science" devolves to the equivalent of a couple of six year olds arguing about who's right, it's time to shut down the "discussion".

[Al_U_Card]

 blackshoe, on 2018-August-21, 08:19, said:

When "science" devolves to the equivalent of a couple of six year olds arguing about who's right, it's time to shut down the "discussion".

That is what science is, basically (bright 6 year olds hehe) . The scientific method was elaborated to provide a way to show which side could be proven "wrong". Until climastrology came along with its reversal of the null hypothesis (yes, Kevin Trenberth, I'm talking about you...) and consensus enforcement, science was muddling along, adopting and discarding theories based on experimental values and observational confirmation. The current religious zeal of the alarmists may stem from a desire to save the world or perhaps to enSlAVE it to save it from our profligate ways. Mea maxima culpa, amen.

[Al_U_Card]

 blackshoe, on 2018-August-21, 08:19, said:

When "science" devolves to the equivalent of a couple of six year olds arguing about who's right, it's time to shut down the "discussion".

BTW only those who fear what that debate might reveal want to shut it down which explains the settled science rhetoric of the alarmist crowd.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2018-August-20, 14:52, said:

Just look at the history of The Manhattan Institute, or if you prefer of Frederick Seitz or Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer.

Alternatively, this is all documented quite well in Mechants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway.

You may be interested in joining us back over at realclimate. We have quite a few lively discussions about heat waves.