Maggie's Farm

Virtually every major scientific organization has released a statement on anthropogenic global warming.


The consensus of scientists in the relevant fields could certainly be wrong, but claiming such scientists don't exist is just nonsense.

mudbug: Any agency (NASA) that alters fundamental observed (temperature) data should be completely discounted and ignored.

That would be just about all observational science. A simple example is false color photography.

Historical ground station data is typically homogenized to remove artifacts, such as due to changes in instrumentation and location. However, independent statistical analysis not requiring homogenization shows the same warming trend. See Rohde et al., Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics, 2013. Satellites don't directly observe temperature, but radiation. Radiation measurements have to be adjusted for a wide variety of factors, such as orbital decay and drift. Satellite results show the same warming trend.

So, you have two different datasets, collected by different methods, by different scientists, yielding the same result. These independent results are consistent with the predictions from the physics of the greenhouse effect. Along with many other lines of evidence, this gives confidence to the conclusion that the Earth is warming due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

None of this salvages Neil Winton's claim that he couldn't find any scientists who "would say categorically that the link between CO2 and global warming, now known as climate change, was a proven scientific fact." It's as proven as most any scientific fact, meaning strongly supported by the scientific evidence. (Global warming is not "now known as climate change." They refer to different, though related phenomenon.)

mudbug: When NASA says changes the temperature data so that the late 20s and early 30s go from some of the warmest years on record to some of the coolest, they are lying.

Actually, NOAA shows 1934 as one of the warmest on record for the contiguous United States until the 1998 El Niño. Furthermore, the contiguous United States is only 2% of the Earth's surface. However, if you look at the global temperature anomaly for 1934, the heat wave is more local.

Notably, you ignored that analysis of the raw data without homogenization shows the same warming trend. See Rohde et al.

indyjonesouthere: And virtually every major scientific organization that addresses AGW is on the grift for taxpayer dollars in the form of direct funding or from government grants.

You're claiming a conspiracy that involves different countries, with different political systems, different cultures, different scientific organizations, in different fields of study, nearly every scientific organization, and most every scientist.

Regardless, independent analysis of the historical ground station data confirms the same warming trend as found by previous researchers. See Rohde et al., Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics, 2013.

You can repeat the analysis of the observations, if you want. You can calculate the greenhouse effect from first principles. Find the flaws in the work of your predecessors. Or you can propose a new theory that explains the observations and that makes novel predictions. Then publish your results. Or you can continue to wave your hands.

indyjonesouthere: Ground station data in the US has little accuracy as the data is corrupted by poor placement and adjusted

The data is hardly ideal. However, the trend can still be confirmed. The standard practice is homogenization. However, independent analysis of the raw data that doesn't utilize homogenization confirms the warming trend. Satellite observations also confirm the warming trend. You need to propose a plausible reason why these two completely datasets show the same warming trend.

The Earth is warming consistent with predictions from basic physical principles about the greenhouse effect, as has been known for over a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

indyjonesouthere: The earth warms and warms and warms until it doesn't

A tautology.

indyjonesouthere: and we enter another stage of the Milankovitch cycle.

Milankovitch cycles are too slow to account for the current warming trend and actually imply a slight cooling trend.

indyjonesouthere: That's a tautology to you but every Milankovitch shows warming and warming and warming ... until it gets colder and colder and colder.

Linking the Milankovitch cycles to warming and cooling is not a tautology.

indyjonesouthere: And I get a kick out of the idea that you think you can find sensitive data in multiple Milankovitch cycles hundreds of thousands of years ago that support your warming trend and slight cooling trend created by perpetually faulty climate models.

Huh? You brought up Milankovitch cycles. It has nothing to do with climate models. Milankovitch cycles show a slight cooling, but the Earth is warming. Looking at the bottom graph, the mean insolation is declining. The graph shows from -30,000 years to +1,000 years from today, with present day near the right side of the graph.

indyjonesouthere: 0The climate critters are only guessing on where we are in this Milankovitch cycle.

Milankovitch cycles are the changes in Earth’s orbital configuration resulting in changes to insolation. This is calculated from Newtonian Mechanics. How did you think it worked?

indyjonesouthere: It is much more than just orbit.

Milankovitch cycles include three components: eccentricity, obliquity, and precession; as seen here. In any case, this is where you might impart your knowledge of Milankovitch cycles.

indyjonesouthere: Take a refresher course.

Okay. Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming

indyjonesouthere: You're quoting a converged search engine.

Hmm. In any case, we didn't quote a search engine.

indyjonesouthere: For the past, at least, three years they have censored anything that does not fit the progressive propaganda narrative.

The calculations of the Milankovitch cycles were done more than a decade ago.

indyjonesouthere: But at least you got past the "orbital" narrative and embraced Obliquity and Precession.

Eccentricity, obliquity, and precession were all included in the original link to the Milankovitch Orbital Data Viewer.

indyjonesouthere: And yeh, I notice that there is no peer review on the "orbital" portion and no mention of the other components of the cycle.

As was linked in the Milankovitch Orbital Data Viewer, the peer reviewed calculations were published in the journal Astronomy & Physics.
 

indyjonesouthere: That is not a peer review.

Yes, it was peer reviewed for publication in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics. Jacques Laskar, from the Observatoire de Paris, is a recognized expert on orbital mechanics, having published extensively on the subject over several decades. If you believe the paper is in error, then please be specific. Where is the error in the calculations? What are the current slopes of the Milankovitch cycles? How did you calculate them?

In fact, the Milankovitch cycles show a slight decrease in northern hemispheric insolation.

indyjonesouthere: He is peer reviewing his own work and refining his previous work with the group.

No, he didn’t peer review his own work. They submitted a new paper that refined and extended their previous work. You’re not even making any sense.

Being peer reviewed and published doesn’t guarantee the findings are correct. However, the near-term calculations (thousands of years) have been calculated by many astronomers with the same result. Waving your hands doesn’t challenge those findings.

Where is the error in the calculations? What are the current slopes of the Milankovitch cycles? How did you calculate them?

Louis Miller: except in the case of the Barrington scientists!

How many are named Steve?

The authors didn't verify the signatures, which have included such luminaries as Mr Banana Rama and Prof Cominic Dummings. Consequently, there is no telling how many are actual scientists, scientists working within relevant fields, or scientists who have published in the field.

SK: How many times did you sign it?

Not at all. Our name isn't Steve.

SK: What neato handle did you use?

We never post under any other handle than Zachriel.

The fact that they don't verify signatures means the number of signatures is of little relevance. That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate scientists who have signed.

indyjonesouthere: And we have 51 former intelligence officials that even signed a letter that the Hunter Biden laptop info was "disinformation".

Quick! Change the subject! Maybe no one will notice.

Another guy named Dan: As things stand now, it's just too easy for a hosting provider to boost one side of a controversial topic and shut down the other.

That's protected by the First Amendment.

The controversy concerns if someone claims damages. In Gonzalez vs. Google, the plaintiffs claim that Google recommended or promoted Islamic State (IS) terrorist content. The legal question being considered by the Supreme Court is whether algorithmic recommendations are protected under section 230, and whether the company "knowingly" aided and abetted terrorists.

The problem is that social media is limited in how and what they can monitor and still allow people latitude to post. And whether the courts are best suited to regulate the sphere rather than Congress.

indyjonesouthere: Your previous statement, after I challenged it for peer review, was that the peer review calculations were published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, which they were not as you now admit.

Huh? Laskar 2011 was published in the peer reviewed scientific journal, Astronomy & Astrophysics. How the calculations were done is included in the paper. You can also download the orbital data.

indyjonesouthere: even peer review doesn't guarantee his paper to be correct.

Of course it doesn't. But you've given no reason to believe that the calculations are incorrect, and the calculations over shorter timescales (thouands of years) have been verified many times.

indyjonesouthere: I stand by the Milankovitch Cycle as the most accurate climate model

Milankovitch cycles show a slight cooling trend.