Resisting Climate Hysteria

[noco]

So Noco, your response to the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, most of the other
coral reefs around the world, the ecosytems that live in the reefs, the loss of thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of peoples livelihoods and billions of dollars is

a cold day in Darwin.

Bas, you obviously did not read my link to my post # 9148 so I will post it again just for your information.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...f/news-story/ef9dca8cd45394c9481253ef2ba387a4

CLIMATE change sceptic and geophysicist Professor Peter Ridd has questioned research that blames global warming for devastating coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.

Prof Ridd also says the work of a US schoolteacher, who claims a drop in sea level caused by the El Nino phenomenon might have caused bleaching, should not be discounted.

Prof Ridd, of James Cook University’s Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research, has re-entered the fray in a simmering climate war.

He was disciplined last year under JCU’s code of conduct for questioning the relevance of photographs being used by the university’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to highlight the decline of coastal reefs.

Yesterday, Prof Ridd maintained research findings needed more scrutiny, particularly in environmental sciences where they could impact on tourism, the potential “closing down of the coal industry” and on the operations of the sugar cane and beef cattle industries.

“We need to do better than maybe a couple of mates who have read (the research papers) for a couple of hours," Prof Ridd said.

“I have called for an institute of policy science (for) quality assurance.”

 

[basilio]

Well that surprises me Noco. I understood from your original posts that the coral bleaching "was very limited, just a bit of a touch up that happened normally and would just get better". Basic denial of reality stuff.

But now we have a new story. Seems like "yep there is some serious coral bleaching your honour" but I have a statement from a US high school teacher that undermines all the research and observations from every other ocean scientist and I don't think it's global warming.

Well done NOCO. No surprises here.

 

[noco]

Well that surprises me Noco. I understood from your original posts that the coral bleaching "was very limited, just a bit of a touch up that happened normally and would just get better". Basic denial of reality stuff.

But now we have a new story. Seems like "yep there is some serious coral bleaching your honour" but I have a statement from a US high school teacher that undermines all the research and observations from every other ocean scientist and I don't think it's global warming.

Well done NOCO. No surprises here.

Bass, that was not my opinion, I was only the messenger.......If you don't like that opinion by those two gentlemen, then, stiff bickies....The alarmist are always promoting sea rises due to Global Warming where as in this case they are stating the sea levels dropped some 150mm which in turn have exposed the corals closer to the surface creating a Sun burn effect....Either you are right based on your Green bible and false information or they are right based on scientific observations.

Most of us know now, the organizations such as NOAA, CSIRO and NASA have self confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data just to please the UN Climate Change committe.

 

[noco]

The Barrier reef will survive as it has done hundreds of times before.....On the full moon in November the spectaular spawning begins, and if you have never seen it before it is an absolute ecological wonder....New corals are born and the life cycle begins again.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...s/news-story/bc41ac51df7e5e98dac32ebac0c25c59

 

[GlobeTrekker]

Most of us know now, the organizations such as NOAA, CSIRO and NASA have self confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data just to please the UN Climate Change committe.

Wow, I must have missed that, can you provide a link to the web pages on NOAA's, CSIRO's and NASA's websites where they made these startling admissions?

 

[noco]

Wow, I must have missed that, can you provide a link to the web pages on NOAA's, CSIRO's and NASA's websites where they made these startling admissions?

You sure did miss a lot......You must have been on the lazy side instead of reading my posts and the associated links.
So here is a bit of home work for you to do in catching up.
Posts numbers as follows :-
8091
8095
8965
8967
8990
8997
9044
9065
9107
9109
There are more links pertaining to IPCC and the CSIRO false information if you like to go back further.

Man made Global warming is a farce and a scam set up by the corrupt United Nations.

 

[GlobeTrekker]

So here is a bit of home work for you to do in catching up.
Posts numbers as follows :-
8091
8095
8965
8967
8990
8997
9044
9065
9107
9109

Thanks for that, I checked the 3 most recent posts listed, and there doesn't appear to be any links to NOAA's, CSIRO's or NASA's websites where they "self-confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data" as per your claim. Do you have any direct links, rather than just media/random commentary? I was after what they actually said rather than what somebody else reckons they said/did. I have looked across their websites and have never seen any such 'self-confessions' so I 'm genuinely interested to see them if you have a link.

 

[noco]

Thanks for that, I checked the 3 most recent posts listed, and there doesn't appear to be any links to NOAA's, CSIRO's or NASA's websites where they "self-confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data" as per your claim. Do you have any direct links, rather than just media/random commentary? I was after what they actually said rather than what somebody else reckons they said/did. I have looked across their websites and have never seen any such 'self-confessions' so I 'm genuinely interested to see them if you have a link.

Dr Bates, a former scientist with NOAA for 40 years confessed to exaggerated and false data which submitted to the Un Climate Change committee to strengthen the UN case at the Paris conference.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...ed-climate-change-data-for-political-reasons/

 

[Logique]

How naive you are Grasshopper.
Nobody can stop climate change, because... climate changes, irrespective of human activities.
Especially, climate change cannot be changed by posting copious amounts Of Guardian articles, or specious mendacities from skepical science blog, or Quoting fudged and discredited claims of consensus.
Even if there is as much of an anthropomorphic influense as basilio claims, Australia's efforts are an exercise in futility work zero effect.
In fact basilio has no interest in mitigating climate change, basilio is interested only in ramping alarmism, because I suspect it profits him to do so. This is evident by his focus on alarmism in this thread and disregard for other factors I have mentioned.
What had basilio got to lose? We don't know his real name, or where he lives... what harm is there in disclosing his vested interest?
BTW I'm happy to disclose my full name and business activities.

I noted that a MKR contestant in 2017 said her occupation is: 'social media influencer' (David & Betty) - link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4141802/MKR-s-Betty-Banks-s-raunchy-photos.html
Which I only note because ..'social media influencer'..wow that's a job now. Although I'm sure Basilio is a very good cook.

 

[ghotib]

Dr Bates, a former scientist with NOAA for 40 years confessed to exaggerated and false data which submitted to the Un Climate Change committee to strengthen the UN case at the Paris conference.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...ed-climate-change-data-for-political-reasons/

Noco,

GlobeTrekker asked for a reference to an organisation's website with a first-hand statement. This doesn't fit the bill. It's also wrong on the facts, though not quite as wrong as your summary suggests.

Here's a more complete version of the dispute: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...ed-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study In particular:

...Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was,” he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. “That’s where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people,” he says.

Similarly, from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5...warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended

Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. ...

... However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."

"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."

This article also demolishes Bates' claim that a paper was rushed to publication:

Science's new editor-in-chief Jeremy Berg said it usually takes 109 days between a paper's submission and its publication. The Karl study was received by the journal on Dec. 23, 2014 and published 185 days later, on June 26, 2015.

"The paper was not rushed in any way," McNutt said. "It had an exceptional number of reviewers, many more than average because we knew it was on a controversial topic. It had a lot of data analysis."

In more than 10 years closely following climate change discussion I've found that misusing, misinterpreting, misquoting, or misrepresenting genuine scientific disagreements are almost characteristic of climate change denial. I don't know whether this comes from misunderstanding, misreading, or malice, but the pattern is strong and is one reason for my acceptance of the 97% climate change consensus.

Noco, I respect you for the amount of reading you do. I often find that digging into the climate counter-claims you post is a good way to learn more about what scientists are really saying, although these days I can't often post in reply. But not when your sources are The Daily Mail or WUWT.

Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

The Arctic ice disappeared in 1940 when a 300 tonne wooden vessel St Roche sailed through and returned back again.....That vessel had no ice braking equipment......It also apparently occurred back as far as 1840......So it runs in 70 year cycles and the Arctic will build up again.

I live on the ground here in North Queensland and the majority of us know the Great Barrier Reef dying is nothing more than a hoax.......The majority of the reef in in good shape...So don't believe everything you hear from the radical Greens....Most of the bleaching has occurred north of Cooktown where there is no mining or agriculture interference......It is like sun burn and the reef will recover.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/arctic-ice-a-historical-viewpoint/

Ice disappeared from the entire Arctic Ocean and nobody noticed? Even in the middle of a war that would be remarkable. But it didn't happen.

The article says:

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner St Roch sailed across the Arctic ocean west to east during the period 1940-1942, and in 1944 made the east to west return trip.

The linked Wikipedia article, like the website for the St Roch itself, reports that the St Roch sailed through the North West passage i.e. through the archipelago across the top of Canada. The first journey, from Vancouver to Halifax, included being frozen in place through two winters - so much for the disappearing ice.

More significantly, to claim that St Roch sailed across the Arctic Ocean when her voyage were actually through the Canadian archipelago is like claiming that Matthew Flinders crossed the Pacific when he actually circumnavigated Australia: non-geographical nonsense. St Roch's voyages provide no evidence of ice conditions on other Arctic coasts or over the Central Arctic Basin.

Ghoti

 

[noco]

Ice disappeared from the entire Arctic Ocean and nobody noticed? Even in the middle of a war that would be remarkable. But it didn't happen.

The article says:
The linked Wikipedia article, like the website for the St Roch itself, reports that the St Roch sailed through the North West passage i.e. through the archipelago across the top of Canada. The first journey, from Vancouver to Halifax, included being frozen in place through two winters - so much for the disappearing ice.

More significantly, to claim that St Roch sailed across the Arctic Ocean when her voyage were actually through the Canadian archipelago is like claiming that Matthew Flinders crossed the Pacific when he actually circumnavigated Australia: non-geographical nonsense. St Roch's voyages provide no evidence of ice conditions on other Arctic coasts or over the Central Arctic Basin.

Ghoti

Now here is another side to the story...Who is right?.....Who is wrong?...Maybe false news on both sides.
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/th...nge-data8212heres-what-you-should-know,450206

You mentioned that dubious figure of 97% reference your post #9170......To what does that 97% relate?

 

[basilio]

Now here is another side to the story...Who is right?.....Who is wrong?...Maybe false news on both sides.
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/th...nge-data8212heres-what-you-should-know,450206

Did you read that analysis In Popular Science Noco ? In fact it went into quite excellent detail on what Dr Bates was saying and the implications regarding CC data.
Short story is there was no "falsification" of data. The only falsification was the CC deniers who twisted Dr Bates comments to suit their agenda. Read it .
Again no surprises there.

 

[noco]

Did you read that analysis In Popular Science Noco ? In fact it went into quite excellent detail on what Dr Bates was saying and the implications regarding CC data.
Short story is there was no "falsification" of data. The only falsification was the CC deniers who twisted Dr Bates comments to suit their agenda. Read it .
Again no surprises there.

It all depends which side of politics you are on as to whether the story is true or false and the left are past masters at putting out false news.

This whole Global Warming BS is a fabrication by the UN who full of corrupt Greenies......The sooner the UN breaks up the better it will be for the world.....Trump is going to cut funding big time and that is when the UN will start to fold......The UN is already in financial trouble.

 

[ghotib]

Now here is another side to the story...Who is right?.....Who is wrong?...Maybe false news on both sides.
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/th...nge-data8212heres-what-you-should-know,450206

You mentioned that dubious figure of 97% reference your post #9170......To what does that 97% relate?

You've lost me. The post you quote was about Arctic sea ice and the voyages of the St Roch. The article you link to is about an internal disagreement in NOAA about data management, and matches the two articles I linked to in my earlier post. What sides do you mean?

This Wikipedia article describes several studies of the climate science consensus, including four that used different methods to study opinions and concluded that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that global warming is happening because of human activity. You can also see how the consensus has firmed over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

If you want to challenge the John Cook study of climate science extracts, I suggest you look first at the website http://theconsensusproject.com/ There's a link in the FAQ that enables anyone to repeat the process that the authors used.

 

[basilio]

The consequences of CC can and will be dramatic. One example

Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days
First ever observed case of ‘river piracy’ saw the Slims river disappear as intense glacier melt suddenly diverted its flow into another watercourse



An aerial view of the ice canyon that now carries meltwater from the Kaskawulsh Glacier, seen here on the right, away from the Slims River and toward the Kaskawulsh River. Photograph: Dan Shugar/University of Washington Tacoma

Shares
3,991

Comments
808
Hannah Devlin Science correspondent


Tuesday 18 April 2017 01.00 AEST Last modified on Tuesday 18 April 2017 07.03 AEST


Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days
First ever observed case of ‘river piracy’ saw the Slims river disappear as intense glacier melt suddenly diverted its flow into another watercourse

An immense river that flowed from one of Canada’s largest glaciers vanished over the course of four days last year, scientists have reported, in an unsettling illustration of how global warming dramatically changes the world’s geography.

The abrupt and unexpected disappearance of the Slims river, which spanned up to 150 metres at its widest points, is the first observed case of “river piracy”, in which the flow of one river is suddenly diverted into another.

For hundreds of years, the Slims carried meltwater northwards from the vast Kaskawulsh glacier in Canada’s Yukon territory into the Kluane river, then into the Yukon river towards the Bering Sea. But in spring 2016, a period of intense melting of the glacier meant the drainage gradient was tipped in favour of a second river, redirecting the meltwater to the Gulf of Alaska, thousands of miles from its original destination.

The continental-scale rearrangement was documented by a team of scientists who had been monitoring the incremental retreat of the glacier for years. But on a 2016 fieldwork expedition they were confronted with a landscape that had been radically transformed.
....
The data also showed how abrupt the change had been, with the Slims’ flow dropping precipitously from the 26 to 29 May 2016.

Geologists have previously found evidence of river piracy having taken place in the distant past. “But nobody to our knowledge has documented it happening in our lifetimes,” said Shugar. “People had looked at the geological record, thousands or millions of years ago, not the 21st century, where it’s happening under our noses.”

Prof Lonnie Thompson, a paleoclimatologist at Ohio State University who was not involved in the work, said the observations highlight how incremental temperature increases can produce sudden and drastic environmental impacts. “There are definitely thresholds which, once passed in nature, everything abruptly changes,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...n-river-to-vanish-in-four-days-climate-change

 

[Tisme]

The consequences of CC can and will be dramatic. One example

Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days

Hysteresis ?

 

[noco]

You've lost me. The post you quote was about Arctic sea ice and the voyages of the St Roch. The article you link to is about an internal disagreement in NOAA about data management, and matches the two articles I linked to in my earlier post. What sides do you mean?

This Wikipedia article describes several studies of the climate science consensus, including four that used different methods to study opinions and concluded that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that global warming is happening because of human activity. You can also see how the consensus has firmed over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

If you want to challenge the John Cook study of climate science extracts, I suggest you look first at the website http://theconsensusproject.com/ There's a link in the FAQ that enables anyone to repeat the process that the authors used.

Perhaps you should read the link below where there are a lot of claims debunking the consensus........Please read right to the bottom and all the comments.

There are some 30,000 + scientist who are sceptical of man made Global Warming.
I believe the scientist mentioned are a very select few of which consensus has been taken while ignoring the opinion of those scientist who are sceptics.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)

 

[explod]

Hysteresis ?

Naar, cant be true Tisme, what we see with our own eyes is not counted as its continually ignored by noco.

 

[noco]

Naar, cant be true Tisme, what we see with our own eyes is not counted as its continually ignored by noco.

The consequences of CC can and will be dramatic. One example

Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days
First ever observed case of ‘river piracy’ saw the Slims river disappear as intense glacier melt suddenly diverted its flow into another watercourse



An aerial view of the ice canyon that now carries meltwater from the Kaskawulsh Glacier, seen here on the right, away from the Slims River and toward the Kaskawulsh River. Photograph: Dan Shugar/University of Washington Tacoma

Shares
3,991

Comments
808
Hannah Devlin Science correspondent


Tuesday 18 April 2017 01.00 AEST Last modified on Tuesday 18 April 2017 07.03 AEST


Receding glacier causes immense Canadian river to vanish in four days
First ever observed case of ‘river piracy’ saw the Slims river disappear as intense glacier melt suddenly diverted its flow into another watercourse

An immense river that flowed from one of Canada’s largest glaciers vanished over the course of four days last year, scientists have reported, in an unsettling illustration of how global warming dramatically changes the world’s geography.

The abrupt and unexpected disappearance of the Slims river, which spanned up to 150 metres at its widest points, is the first observed case of “river piracy”, in which the flow of one river is suddenly diverted into another.

For hundreds of years, the Slims carried meltwater northwards from the vast Kaskawulsh glacier in Canada’s Yukon territory into the Kluane river, then into the Yukon river towards the Bering Sea. But in spring 2016, a period of intense melting of the glacier meant the drainage gradient was tipped in favour of a second river, redirecting the meltwater to the Gulf of Alaska, thousands of miles from its original destination.

The continental-scale rearrangement was documented by a team of scientists who had been monitoring the incremental retreat of the glacier for years. But on a 2016 fieldwork expedition they were confronted with a landscape that had been radically transformed.
....
The data also showed how abrupt the change had been, with the Slims’ flow dropping precipitously from the 26 to 29 May 2016.

Geologists have previously found evidence of river piracy having taken place in the distant past. “But nobody to our knowledge has documented it happening in our lifetimes,” said Shugar. “People had looked at the geological record, thousands or millions of years ago, not the 21st century, where it’s happening under our noses.”

Prof Lonnie Thompson, a paleoclimatologist at Ohio State University who was not involved in the work, said the observations highlight how incremental temperature increases can produce sudden and drastic environmental impacts. “There are definitely thresholds which, once passed in nature, everything abruptly changes,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/science...n-river-to-vanish-in-four-days-climate-change

It also happened may years ago......Nothing new except the time factor.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...-in-four-days-climate-change?CMP=share_btn_tw

Geologists have previously found evidence of river piracy having taken place in the distant past. “But nobody to our knowledge has documented it happening in our lifetimes,” said Shugar. “People had looked at the geological record, thousands or millions of years ago, not the 21st century, where it’s happening under our noses.”