[herbie]

The 71 miles wide bullshit is what made me follow this story the last few days. And the "no one saw it coming" crap. Asteroid 2010 WC9 means they named the goddam thing 8 years ago, but those stupid enough to believe you can't see Planet X because it's infrared are just stupid enough to believe something 71 miles across would only be spotted at the last minute.
Science doesn't give a tinker's dam what you believe.
Unlike dealing with people whom half of which when told 'hit the NAIL with the hammer' will hit their finger even harder with a bigger hammer to 'prove' you're just some smart-ass know-it-all.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Going on a long proven thought experiment - what would it take to convince you?

As a start it would be nice if at least some of the dire predictions about global warming had turned out to be at least partially right instead of utterly wrong.

I mean it seems that no matter what hideous apocalypse is predicted to take place the reality always falls far short.

It's happened so many times now that it's almost disappointing when civilization doesn't end as scheduled and I have to go to work the next day.

I'm sure Thanos can relate.

You realize most of those predictions are for the years 2050 - 2100, yes? Most of the observations from the IPCC 1990 report have held. As temperatures rise, glaciers melt and the seas rise. Warmer temperatures mean more droughts, and stronger and more predictable storm events. We see all of these things, but cannot attribute them to Global Warming, yet. All of these things might be attributable to seasonal anomalies.*

These have all held true. And actually, the 1990 estimates fell short, as they predicted about 1 degree warming by 2020, and we are at 1.5 degrees already.

So in the 2050 - 2100 timeline, the effects we will see should far exceed predictions. But by which time, it will be too late or too expensive to fix it.

*Now, a little statistics lesson. If you roll a Las Vegas approved balanced die, it will come up 1 as often as 6. So if you roll a die 100 times, you should see an even distribution, that is an equal number of outcomes, for every number on the die.

If you roll that die 100 times, and get 99 1's, and one 3, there is something wrong with the die.

Same with climate. Any month can be a record month or any year can be a record year, if all things are equal and the record is just a seasonal anomaly. If you get 11 months in a row, and three years in a row of record high temperatures, then the weather is broken.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You realize most of those predictions are for the years 2050 - 2100, yes?

And the predictions I'm obviously referring to are the ones that predicted no Arctic sea ice at all by 2015, no snow in the UK by 2010, no glaciers on Mount Shasta (California) by 2010, and a sea level rise of up to six meters between 2000 and 2100...which would include at least some obviously apparent sea level rise in the past eighteen years.

That all of these predictions of dire catastrophe have fallen flat has been rather disappointing.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You realize most of those predictions are for the years 2050 - 2100, yes?

And the predictions I'm obviously referring to are the ones that predicted no Arctic sea ice at all by 2015, no snow in the UK by 2010, no glaciers on Mount Shasta (California) by 2010, and a sea level rise of up to six meters between 2000 and 2100...which would include at least some obviously apparent sea level rise in the past eighteen years.

That all of these predictions of dire catastrophe have fallen flat has been rather disappointing.

And which IPCC report was that in?

Or are you listening to the crazies and not the scientists?

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Or are you listening to the crazies and not the scientists?

The difference being....?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Or are you listening to the crazies and not the scientists?

The difference being....?

Hard Data vs. "Planet Nibru is coming to kill us all!!!"

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Hard Data

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Hard Data

So what you are saying is that no matter what data is presented, you are not going to believe it. Without hard data, there are no predictions that can be proven true to you, and therefore you can never believe we are aggravating the Earth's climate.

You know which camp that puts your flag in, right?

[BartSimpson]

Hard data doesn't need to be adjusted using techniques that no one can reproduce and/or justify...which circles us back to the original topic quite neatly.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Hard data doesn't need to be adjusted using techniques that no one can reproduce and/or justify...which circles us back to the original topic quite neatly.

I've tried to show you, and have given you many articles on the subject, on why it must be adjusted. That is a fundamental principle of Statistics that you cannot compare apples to hydrogen, and find any sort of meaningful relationship. The hydrogen must be converted into apple equivalents, or vice versa.

And the kicker in the data is that multiple independent groups collect their own data, and it all agrees with each other. That is also a fundamental principle of science that shows the data to be correct! Also circling back to the original topic.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

As a start it would be nice if at least some of the dire predictions about global warming had turned out to be at least partially right instead of utterly wrong.

Tie to bring out the graph. Again.

[BartSimpson]

I was going to let this go but then this morning I'm reading an article by a media outlet that would appear to be pro-AGW but whose very level headed presentation is the kind of argument that I believe could sway skeptics like myself.

https://psmag.com/environment/what-a-re ... te-science

Excerpted just because posting the whole thing here would be a pain. The last paragraph is probably the most meaningful concession from my point of view.

$1:

WHAT A 'REPRODUCIBILITY CRISIS' COMMITTEE FOUND WHEN IT LOOKED AT CLIMATE SCIENCE

The scientific community is working to make its predictions more accurate, but there's still a long way to go.

As debate in Washington heats up over climate change and transparency in science, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine held a quiet meeting last week to discuss just how consistent the results are across climate studies.

The verdict, for those who follow the science, wasn't too surprising. There's broad agreement among climate studies that global warming is happening and human-driven. But as scientists work to zero in on exact forecasts of future temperatures and precipitation under a given amount of greenhouse gas emissions, they are still seeing a wide range of results. "The spread has gotten tighter, but it hasn't gotten super tight," is how NASA climate researcher Gavin Schmidt puts it.

During the meeting, a panel of experts provided updates on what the scientific community is doing to make its predictions more accurate. This was part of a larger project examining reproducibility in different fields of science. As mandated by the American Competitiveness and Innovation Act of 2017, the National Academies will produce a report about the state of the dependability of scientific findings after 18 months. They held their first meeting in December.

******

When it comes to climate science, the current state of transparency—"almost all" climate data is now public, Schmidt says—grew in part out of a real scandal and change of heart. In 2009, hackers stole and posted online a series of emails between leading climate scientists, which had been saved on servers at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. The emails revealed conflicts of interest among climate scientists conducting peer review on papers that contradicted their own work, and a reluctance among climate researchers to share their data, the Guardian reported.

Although nothing in the "Climategate" emails suggested the basic conclusions of mainstream climate science are wrong, they provided fodder for skeptical politicians and likely shook the public's trust in climate scientists. In response, members of the community became far more open and transparent about their data and techniques as well as when they were uncertain about results.

This did little to settle skeptics; the basic findings of climate science are just as politically controversial today as they were a decade ago. Yet it opened the door for important re-analysis by some unconventional actors, Schmidt says. He pointed to a 2013 paper by a biochemist—someone who would have been unlikely to have access to climate data in the old regime—that helped reveal flaws in a commonly used data set. "It clearly is the case that having data out there helps people who are interested get involved and do good things," Schmidt says.

[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

As a start it would be nice if at least some of the dire predictions about global warming had turned out to be at least partially right instead of utterly wrong.

Tie to bring out the graph. Again.

Nice graph. How was the baseline for the graph formulated?

[Zipperfish]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

As a start it would be nice if at least some of the dire predictions about global warming had turned out to be at least partially right instead of utterly wrong.

Tie to bring out the graph. Again.

Nice graph. How was the baseline for the graph formulated?

What, precisely, do you mean by baseline?

[BartSimpson]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Nice graph. How was the baseline for the graph formulated?

Looks to me that the claimed average temperature from 1881 to 2010 represents the 0° baseline.