[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

That is debate I suppose.



Please post a chart that includes them, I searched for one but they didn't include all the models. I have to ask though if the errors are so wide why FGS are we basing future policy on them? This does come under the term of "bollocks" IMHO. That's a specific "bx" not a general one in science in case Neil is reading.

The place you got your graph from SHOULD have sources for everything. If they don't, they may be being dishonest with you. Beyond that, the IPCC should have links to all the papers THEY use. My time is finite, unfortunately, and there's a limit to how much time I'm willing to spend doing research for other people. Any scientific publication, and really any publication making claims about science, SHOULD have sources. If they don't, they're doing something wrong. You provided the graph, so you should be able to find the source material. Properly sourced research should allow you to trace any given reference back, paper to paper, to the very first discoveries in that field of science.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Where? Global ice coverage is pretty high, we have records for the Arctic since 1979. Are you claiming that the period since then is significant? Really?

once again, we are talking about ice volume, not extent or "coverage". A pond with a millimeter of ice on it has the same "coverage" as one with three feet, but nobody sane would think they've got the same amount of ice. Start here: Accelerating uplift in the North Atlantic region as an indicator of ice loss : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

Originally Posted by Arragonis

A quick google greenland photos 1930s proves this to be nonsense.

see above...

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Have you looked at how they know this?

Yes. Have you? There's a link there, with authors and everything. Are you willing to actually look into it, or are you just here to ask questions to which you've already been given answers?

Originally Posted by Arragonis

How do we know this ? - Linky. Just 'cause you say so doesn't make it so. Thats the skeptical way, the scientific way - or it was...

Sorry, this is stuff I learned when I was a kid, I sort of assumed that it was covered in most people's science education, like the photosynthesis thing. Start here:
NASA's Cosmos

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Two decades in how long ? By the way did you notice that those "proxies" that were used to estimate historical temps also "diverged" about 4 decades ago - do you know what "hide the decline" means in terms of this debate ?

"A couple" not "two". It was an approximation. The breakdown in correlation began in the 1970's, and it's a correlation between ACTUAL Solar activity and ACTUAL temperature.

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

YES, it's skeptical science. Complain about that after you've checked the numbers - the sources are all provided.

Yes, I know what "hide the decline" refers to, and I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you speaking of it in a manner that suggests you know too, although you seem to be missing part of it. It ONLY refers to northern-latitude tree rings. It does not refer to ice core data, coral core data, seafloor data, ecological data, and so on. Tree rings aren't all there is.

There are a number of possible reasons for the tree ring divergence, but prior to that, they, along with the other proxies track very well with the instrumental record, and with archeological record.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I think that is the approach of most models - guess what, the world works differently so they don't match reality. There is a reason that most model authors refuse to do "hindcasts". Ponder that carefully.

They do do hindcasts. That's how they calibrate their models. That's what the majority of their work is ABOUT. Where are you getting your information?

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Feedbacks - the models include them. Guess what, the real world is more complex so they don't match. The Calendar model I posted earlier has none of them - guess what, it matches more closely.

No, I was NOT talking about feedbacks - you asked me to specify the things that we know happen due to warming. Sorry I didn't break down quotes, I guess you got confused. I'm doing it this time. Go back and look. I said the effects of heat are pretty straightforward and you said,

"You will need to be less, er, unspecific here."

That's the context for the comment. NOT. FEEDBACKS.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

So this is happening where ?

Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Google is your friend here - they have happened a few times. Is the frequency increasing or not - over how long a period ?

Care to specify what you mean by "they"?

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Do I have to define drought, it doesn't mean no water.

Yes dear, it means less water than is usual in a region, which means less water than plants are accustomed to. Again - basic botany.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Yep more research is needed. What is missing from this research is any doubt. In fact people who suggest doubt or question the idea of "we're" fried are subject to gatekeeping in the science literature. Take a look here.

As I've said before, doubt is included in EVERY PAPER. Try reading them instead of random op-ed pieces by contrarians. You're moving into conspiracy theory territory here.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The press release had this bit that was wrong. When you look past the press release it's a nice bit of work. But the press release and what is reported all over the place is, sorry to repeat, bollocks. Take that "graph to the stars" we had a few tens of pages ago - it is still being posted by Joe Romm even though the paper's authors have said the data behind it is "not significant".

Citation and context needed. I'm done fishing for now.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I can read papers, I even know some R. I've done models too. I can read graphs. Most people can. You ?

Maybe you can. I'm seeing no indication that you are USING that ability or skill, based on the questions you're asking. Maybe it has to do with the sources you rely on.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

No, I read what the authors stated.

citation needed.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Did you follow any of the links themselves ?

Yes. Quite a few of them. It got boring fast.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

It is also key to science to question anything and everything, if there is a consensus then this is not science.

Wrong. It is a key to science to check the sources of claims made - to see WHY the claims were made, and to see whether those claims tally with reality, and have been verified by other researchers. "Question everything" is the lazy man's skepticism that replaces actual critical thinking. It means you never have to accept evidence that bothers you because you're "more skeptical" That's the crap I get from people who don't believe ANYTHING they don't like unless they see it with their own eyes, but they're too lazy to go look for themselves.

Consensus is used in science ALL THE TIME, it's just that for most areas of science, you don't have multi-billion dollar corporations spending money to cast doubt by attacking the notion that all the research is pointing a certain direction. Tobacco companies did it with the cancer link, and fossil fuel companies have been doing it with climate change, and using some of the same people to do it that used to work for the tobacco companies.

There is a consensus that gravity works a certain way. There is a consensus that water is made of a collection of molecules consisting of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. There is a consensus that chemicals in tobacco smoke interfere with regulatory "check-points" in the cell division process, and allow cancer cells to reproduce. All it means is that the vast majority of the research on a given topic points in the same direction, and that for some time now, no new research has presented a viable alternative hypothesis. This is the case for man-made global warming, among many other things.

The reason that terminology is used for climate change, is that unlike with atomic theory, there are people who stand to lose money if the status quo changes, and so they've spent millions on spreading the notion that there's no agreement.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Thats a bad source, quickly debunked by questioning and challenging - what is not to like ? Maybe the original authors might make a follow up. That is science - put up an idea, the evidence, challenge it, prove it, disprove it, debate it.

That's what they did, but in most cases, scientists don't have time to track down every little piece of crap website that twists their words, and MOST news-oriented sites get the story wrong. Hence focusing on checking what the authors say, and comparing it to what your favorite news story says.

Taking research that someone else has done, and lying about its contents is NOT science. The process of challenging, debating, and checking research goes on in research journals, where the editor of the publication TELLS the author of a given paper if a rebuttal has been written, and gives them the opportunity to reply.

Popular news sources DO NOT DO THAT as a matter of course. They take a press release and spin it into a story they think will catch people's attention.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Try again, see above.

back atcha.