Catholic Climate Movement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beautiful
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is more unexpected science:

dailycaller.com/2017/05/08/scientists-found-a-totally-unexpected-source-of-climate-cooling/

excerpt:

**Arctic waters absorbed vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, creating a cooling effect that’s 230 times greater than the warming from methane emitted from underwater seeps, according to a new study.

The findings are a complete reversal of what scientists previously believed — that methane seeps in the Arctic Ocean were contributing to global warming.

“If what we observed near Svalbard occurs more broadly at similar locations around the world, it could mean that methane seeps have a net cooling effect on climate, not a warming effect as we previously thought,” John Pohlman, a U.S. Geological Survey biochemist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Monday.

If the results hold, Pohlman’s study could have big implications for how scientists calculate the global carbon “budget” and for future projections of global warming.**
 
vz71 said:
As shown in previous posts, tree ring data was used until it no longer supported the conclusion.
Click to expand...
No, tree ring data is used when they do not have the more accurate instrumental data. Duh.

Also they use a variety of proxy data for various periods during which they apply, since tree ring data does not go back many millions of years. And they use other proxy data that apply during the same periods for which they have tree ring data – and considering these are proxy data sets they jive fairly well with each other, but not perfectly.
…
2 - they are picking and choosing data to support the conclusion…
Click to expand...
I didn’t want to bring this up before, bec it seems a bit rude, but since you and others keep picking at Mann for using instrumental data over tree ring data for the more recent period, it rather seems you are the one picking and choosing the less accurate tree ring data for this period (which has been shown NOT to track temps) because you want data to support your conclusion that there has been no warming.

That’s what it seems to me. That’s what nearly all the denialist arguments seem to me as they form circular firing squads.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Climate change is done by natural forces.

There are lots of natural forces that cause major major problems.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4508350/Giant-lava-lamp-inside-Earth-flip-magnetic-field.html

The earth’s magnetic field is going to flip.

AGAIN.

Happens every few thousand years. In fact, the changes in the magnetic field are recorded / shown in the layers of the Hawaiian volcanic lava fields.

This and the other things are purely natural.
Click to expand...
And there will be the End Times of great tribulation.

But I guess that doesn’t count here since it is brought on by man’s sins rather than natural forces.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Climate change is done by natural forces.

There are lots of natural forces that cause major major problems.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4508350/Giant-lava-lamp-inside-Earth-flip-magnetic-field.html

The earth’s magnetic field is going to flip.

AGAIN.

Happens every few thousand years. In fact, the changes in the magnetic field are recorded / shown in the layers of the Hawaiian volcanic lava fields.

This and the other things are purely natural.
Click to expand...
Please explain, in your own words, no links or cut n paste,

How the change in the earths magnetic field affects climate change?
 
vz71 said:
And of course, more accurate means that it supports the conclusion better.
Click to expand...
Well, it is true that more accurate means any conclusion implied by that data is a more reliable conclusion than if the data were less accurate. So I suppose that would “support the conclusion better.”
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Please explain, in your own words, no links or cut n paste,

How the change in the earths magnetic field affects climate change?
Click to expand...
Planet Earth is protected from outside forces … the sun, cosmic rays, etc. … by the magnetosphere. When the magnetosphere goes to ZERO during the transition during the polar swap, the Earth will be bombarded.

But you know that.

AND, like climate change, the magnetic field and changes thereto, is/are natural and normal. Not man-made.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Planet Earth is protected from outside forces … the sun, cosmic rays, etc. … by the magnetosphere. When the magnetosphere goes to ZERO during the transition during the polar swap, the Earth will be bombarded.

But you know that.

AND, like climate change, the magnetic field and changes thereto, is/are natural and normal. Not man-made.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between showing that some global changes are natural and claiming that all global changes are natural.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Planet Earth is protected from outside forces … the sun, cosmic rays, etc. … by the magnetosphere. When the magnetosphere goes to ZERO during the transition during the polar swap, the Earth will be bombarded.

But you know that.

AND, like climate change, the magnetic field and changes thereto, is/are natural and normal. Not man-made.
Click to expand...
That in no way answers my question. How is the magnetic field influencing climate? Are you proposing there is an argument for anthropogenic pole shifts?

Yet , it raises another. How does the Earth’s Magnetic field make the earth a closed system?

Can you provide references or proof of this zero please. I mean we still have magnetism don’t we while poles are shifting.

Are you proposing a rapid shift? If so what’s your proof?

Might help to start by explaining what drives the Earth’s magnetic field.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
That in no way answers my question. How is the magnetic field influencing climate? Are you proposing there is an argument for anthropogenic pole shifts?

Yet , it raises another. How does the Earth’s Magnetic field make the earth a closed system?

Can you provide references or proof of this zero please. I mean we still have magnetism don’t we while poles are shifting.

Are you proposing a rapid shift? If so what’s your proof?

Might help to start by explaining what drives the Earth’s magnetic field.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Monte ever claimed that Earth’s magnetic field influences climate. It is just an example of something that is beyond man’s control. The (false) implication is that if we see 3 or 4 global effects that are natural then every global effect must be natural.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Well, it is true that more accurate means any conclusion implied by that data is a more reliable conclusion than if the data were less accurate. So I suppose that would “support the conclusion better.”
Click to expand...
Then you see the problem.
To include or leave out data based upon the support it gives the conclusion means you must have the conclusion first.
It also means you are cherry picking.
 
vz71 said:
Then you see the problem.
To include or leave out data based upon the support it gives the conclusion means you must have the conclusion first.
It also means you are cherry picking.
Click to expand...
You are making the leap from “accurate data makes for more reliable conclusions” to “accurate data is chosen selectively when it supports the desired conclusion.” You have no reason to make that assumption. But if you think that accurate data is only selectively relied upon, you should have no difficulty doing some reverse cherry-picking and citing some accurate data that contradicts the prevailing theory. I am waiting to see what you come up with.
 
Tree ring data is left in when it supports global warming but left out when it does not.

I am sure other conclusions can be drawn from this circumstance, but it looks pretty damning.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You are making the leap from “accurate data makes for more reliable conclusions” to “accurate data is chosen selectively when it supports the desired conclusion.” You have no reason to make that assumption. But if you think that accurate data is only selectively relied upon, you should have no difficulty doing some reverse cherry-picking and citing some accurate data that contradicts the prevailing theory. I am waiting to see what you come up with.
Click to expand...
What constitutes accurate data? How do we know which values are right and which are wrong? The appearance is that data that supports the conclusion is accurate, and the more it supports the conclusion the more accurate it is. This is probably why even modern satellite and thermometer readings are adjusted. To make them more “accurate”.

The phrase “hide the decline” was given by the researchers themselves for the “trick” of disguising the fact that the tree ring data, which was deemed accurate when it fitted the narrative was ditched when it didn’t, and the fact that it was no longer being used because it showed temperatures declining is what was hidden. Even if you can find a justification for not using the tree ring data when it went the wrong way, there simply is no justification for trying to hide the fact from everyone else.

Ender
 
Ender said:
What constitutes accurate data?
Click to expand...
In the case under discussion, the instrumental temperature readings (when available) are more accurate than reconstructions based on tree-rings or any other means. Both have some degree of accuracy, but the instrumental readings are more accurate.
How do we know which values are right and which are wrong?
Click to expand...
By cross-checking for consistency. And it is not a matter of right or wrong. Both are right to some degree and wrong to some degree. But one of them is closer to right more often than the other.
The appearance is that data that supports the conclusion is accurate, and the more it supports the conclusion the more accurate it is.
Click to expand...
The appearance of some cloud formations is of turtles, flying elephants or babies (see “Up”, first 10 minutes). But those appearances have no foundation in reality. The same is true of of the appearances that accurate data is specially chosen only when it supports the desired hypothesis. But as I told vz71, if you think those appearances have a foundation in reality, you should be able to select equally convincing data that supports the opposite hypothesis.
This is probably why even modern satellite and thermometer readings are “adjusted”. To make them more accurate.
Click to expand...
What you say is true, even though you probably intended it sarcastically.
The phrase “hide the decline” was given by the researchers themselves for the “trick” of disguising the fact that the tree ring data
Click to expand...
You are accusing a great many researchers based on something a few researchers may or may not have said. It is not convincing.
Even if you can find a justification for not using the tree ring data when it went the wrong way, there simply is no justification for trying to hide the fact from everyone else.
Click to expand...
That’s right. That’s why they didn’t do it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You are accusing a great many researchers based on something a few researchers may or may not have said. It is not convincing.
Click to expand...
This is specious. We know what those researchers said because the emails in which they said it were made public. There is no question of what “may or may not” have been done.

Here is the relevant email:Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement: *

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.* (November 16, 1999)
That is, Keith Briffa’s proxy data went the wrong way from 1961 while other proxy data got off message in 1981. The solution to this “problem” was to replace the proxy data with temperature data from those periods. And then hide what they had done.
That’s right. That’s why they didn’t do it.
Click to expand...
Who’s in denial now?

Ender
 
vz71 said:
And of course, more accurate means that it supports the conclusion better.
Click to expand...
Then why don’t you throw out all your thermometers and just use tree rings to tell you what the temperature is. No one is preventing you from doing that. It’s your personal choice. Just don’t make everyone else do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top