NASA tells us this May was second hottest on record

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: eightfold

The rate of change as compared to how far in the past? How unprecedented is it given a larger timescale, and accounting for the inaccuracies of older technology that has been used to collect data over the past 100 years? Also, do you happen to work for the JBA group, they seem to have a financial stake in unprecedented climate change?

Google's your friend. As I've said, I'm not a climatologist, and I'm not here to be a monkey in a quiz. Why do people keep asking me questions they clearly know the answer to?

No, I don't work for JBA, and as I've explained, I don't have a financial stake in climate change, I have a financial stake in machine intelligence and data analysis.

June seems like it'll be hotter. Here in NorCal we're approaching record setting temperatures. I'm sweating my balls off over here.

Increasingly moving to Iceland seems attractive.

a reply to: eightfold

You never linked me any papers to show that sea level rise is accelerating, how come? You accuse me of cherry picking one paper that shows it isn't accelerating, that is a false accusation. You want more papers to go along with the Dean and Houston paper which you didn't read anyways?
Here.
Sea Level lack of acceleration

Can you tell me what the difference between Global Mean Sea Level and Relative Sea Level is?
Can you tell me why some areas the GMSL is higher than other areas?
Can you tell me why relative sea level is not rising the same globally?
Can you tell me why in some places RSL is falling?

a reply to: D8Tee

NOAA's May Propaganda clickbait piece is online.

Headline:

Earth has 2nd warmest year to date and 3rd warmest May on record

Fine print:

Africa had its warmest May on record; South America, its fourth; Asia, it’s ninth; North America, its 15th; Europe, its 16th (tied with 2014); and Oceania, its 20th.

NOAA Link

a reply to: eightfold

This is just good research, finding gaps in current knowledge, and doing the basic work to fill those gaps. If the EPA and NOAA had been working along the same lines they might not have wasted numerous billions of taxpayer money of the last decade, and we might have some useful information.

High-magnitude flooding across Britain since AD 1750

The apparent increase in flooding witnessed over the last decade appears in consideration to the long-term flood record not to be unprecedented; whilst the period since 2000 has been considered as flood-rich, the period 1970–2000 is “flood poor”, which may partly explain why recent floods are often perceived as extreme events. The much publicised (popular media) apparent change in flood frequency since 2000 may reflect natural variability, as there appears to be no shift in long-term flood frequency

Peer Reviewed

Abstract
A month by month analysis of the precipitation record for England and Wales at an annual time scale for the 251-year study period 1766-2016 does not show the patterns in the data implied by the proposition that global warming has increased the amount and variance of precipitation such that the autumn floods of 2000 in England and Wales can be explained in terms of these effects. These results are inconsistent with the finding of event attribution analysis that the autumn 2000 floods in England and Wales are attributable to fossil fuel emissions and they imply that these floods can be explained as probabilistic outcomes of random natural variability.

Lnk

Christopher Booker has a column in the Sunday Telegraph every week, he is an excellent investigative journalist who lives in Somerset, he thinks AGW is a scam and has a particular dislike of the EU.

Flooding: Somerset Levels disaster is being driven by EU policy
EU directives actually require certain plains to become flooded

Link

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: eightfold

You never linked me any papers to show that sea level rise is accelerating, how come? You accuse me of cherry picking one paper that shows it isn't accelerating, that is a false accusation. You want more papers to go along with the Dean and Houston paper which you didn't read anyways?
Here.
Sea Level lack of acceleration

Can you tell me what the difference between Global Mean Sea Level and Relative Sea Level is?
Can you tell me why some areas the GMSL is higher than other areas?
Can you tell me why relative sea level is not rising the same globally?
Can you tell me why in some places RSL is falling?

I'm not linking to papers because the ones that are relevant to my work will identify me in real life.

Why you keep posting the same questions over and over and over, and ignoring my replies, is beyond me. As I've said, I'm not here to play a quiz. Feel free to use Google if you don't know the answers yourself. If you do, then move on. 👍

As for the rest... I did read the paper you posted, and I've critiqued it in earlier posts. There are issues around tide gauge measurements, and the identified issues with satellites can (and are) corrected.

You can dispute the data analysis until your blue in the face, but shouting about it in here will change nothing out there in the real world.

To be blunt, if you think everyone's just making it up and colluding in some giant conspiracy, then you're deluding yourself. The psychology involved in thinking the world's lying to you is interesting in itself, but that's for another forum I guess.

a reply to: D8Tee

Posting that paper is funnier than you'll ever know.

I agree, there's no (significant) shift in long term flood frequency (so far as we can tell), but rainfall patterns have changed, and as such flooding locations have changed, as have the severity of those floods (at least in part because of local geography).

We also have more data floating around than we know what to do with, and there's piles of interesting work to be done analysing it. We've never had the ability to observe climate like we have now, and the next 20 years are going to be crazy interesting as a result.

As I said repeatedly, I'm not a climatologist, but I work with some. I've never read Christopher Brooker's column, but I'm reliably informed he's a joke. I'll check out some of his work later tho. 👍

On that note, I'm genuinely done here. Best of luck trying to debunk AGW, but out here in the real world, rest assured that the people that do take it seriously (and can demonstrate and measure its effects) significantly outnumber you, both in terms of bodies, research funding and intellect.

It's happening. You can deny reality if you like, but it's real. 👍🛰

a reply to: eightfold

I'm not linking to papers because the ones that are relevant to my work will identify me in real life.

I laughed so hard when I read that, I spilled my glass of wine and dropped my plate of chicken salad.
Nobody cares who you are on here. You're not linking peer reviewed papers because they would be identifying to you is hilarious!! A few pages back you were all ready to identify yourself for some strange reason. Guess you changed your mind, not that I care one bit.

If it makes you feel better, I'll happily verify who I am in real life with a mod.

As for the rest... I did read the paper you posted, and I've critiqued it in earlier posts. There are issues around tide gauge measurements, and the identified issues with satellites can (and are) corrected.

What issues would those be? There are multiple 100 plus year tidal gauge records that are not in dispute.

What are inderdecadal and interannual oscillations in tidal levels and how long should a tidal record be in order for it to be statistically significant?
Can you tell me why RSL is falling in some places and rising in others?
Can you tell me what GMSL even is and how it differs from Relative Sea Level?
Do you know what PSMSL is?
What is HadCRUT and what are the differences between V3 and V4, and why was it changed?
Are you aware of the Church and White Paper as well as the Dean and Houston paper?

I ask you these questions as I am trying to see how far along the learning curve you are, you seem to indicate that you are not far along but want to give the impression you have advanced knowledge. Your inability to answer these rather simple questions gives you away.

a reply to: D8Tee

I said I'd verify who I was with a mod, not to you personally or to the board publically. It's fairly common practice here.

Honestly, the only papers I could cite and debate with confidence would, when combined with other info I've posted, ID me and the company, and that's not going to happen.

As for your questions.... anyone with google can answer them, so me doing so would prove nothing. It's a pointless exercise, and the fact you don't see that is bizarre in itself.

Also, I've not claimed advanced knowledge, I've claimed I'm CTO of a company that produces advanced analysis of flooding patterns using machine intelligence (specifically a combination of different types of neural network). Our work is useful and will be life saving. That's it. That's all I've claimed.

As a result of my work I now see climate change deniers, and people who dispute AGW as a bit of a joke, which is why I got involved in this thread.

You keep fighting the tide, but not only are you wasting your time, you're holding back the rest of us who can see what's actually happening. You're dangerous to the rest of the planet.

Society can only move as fast as its slowest person, and conversations like this are genuinely depressing as a result.

👍🙄😉

a reply to: eightfold

I said I'd verify who I was with a mod, not to you personally or to the board publically. It's fairly common practice here.

Provide some proof it's a common practice, first I and many others have heard of it.

Best of luck trying to debunk AGW, but out here in the real world, rest assured that the people that do take it seriously (and can demonstrate and measure its effects) significantly outnumber you, both in terms of bodies, research funding and intellect.

Show me examples of demonstrating this and measuring it's effects, or will you claim once again that it will personally identify you?

Provide some proof it's a common practice, first I and many others have heard of it.

SME's are verified by Springer, Skeptic etc on a regular basis, going right back to the beginning of ATS. This is not new.

One of many threads on the subject...

Show me examples of demonstrating this and measuring it's effects, or will you claim once again that it will personally identify you?

You're a funny guy.

Seriously. I'm done. I'd say it was nice chatting, but I genuinely find people like yourself amazing, and not in a good way.

Like I said before, enjoy the fighting the tide. 👍

a reply to: eightfold

Like I said before, enjoy the fighting the tide. 👍

I'll enjoy watching the red team vs blue team, you bet.
Interesting you couldn't supply me with any empirical evidence that man is the primary cause of Climate Change, because you can't, there isn't any.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: eightfold

SME's are verified by Springer, Skeptic etc on a regular basis, going right back to the beginning of ATS. This is not new.

Your thread says nothing of the sort, quit lying, you're no Icke or Ventura, nobody cares who you are, unless you are Michael Mann?

originally posted by: eightfold

originally posted by: face23785
As you said, it's not a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, it's a pop-sci article. Probably half the people reading it are laymen with no scientific background and lots of other # to do. This isn't their life or their job. They're just going to read the article, they're not gonna do any further research. So yes, the responsible thing to do really would be to put some disclaimers in the article that all of this is just their educated guess. Otherwise it's misleading to a lot of readers, they think it's all 100% verified fact. Rule #1 in writing is know your audience.

Nope, the responsibility is on the reader to educate themselves. And, like I said, they have references linked at the end, the same as every other pop-sci article in the world.

We're getting into the territory of "this cup may be hot" labels being stuck on coffee - people need to take *everything* they read with a pinch salt, and if they want to understand more they need to make a minor bit of effort and apply some common sense.

It took me all of 5 minutes to answer his questions in the initial post. It's not difficult, people are just lazy, or, in this case, are using their ignorance to promote an agenda.

Ok so just pretend reality doesn't exist, good strategy. What you think people should do and what you know they will do are 2 different things. You know most people reading it don't have the time or the inclination to dig further, that's why they're reading a magazine and not a journal. You know they will be misled by not including clarification on the methods, and you decide to do it anyway. Just like the media who post half-truths and issue corrections later knowing half the people who saw the false crap in the first place won't see the correction. It's knowingly misleading people, it's purposefully dishonest and it's a scumbag move. And it's a scumbag position to just say oh well, they should take more time away from their job and their kids to dig deeper because we don't want to include anything that - correctly - causes people to doubt the veracity of our article. No wonder you're in the business you're in.

originally posted by: D8Tee
How accurate can a 'global temperature' actually be? They're reporting temps into the 1/100th of a degree, this can't possibly be statistically significant.

It's not statistically significant. I work in a testing laboratory, so this is very much in my realm of experience.

Even when you're dealing with calibrated thermal chambers set to a constant temperature, the temperature is never going to settle down enough that a measurement to 0.01 degrees is meaningful. For measuring real-world temperatures, such accuracy is totally farcical. It's certainly less than the margin of error.

a reply to: face23785

What business? Technology? Yep, totally makes me a scumbag. How's that tech you're using to post here workin' out for you?

I fundamentally disagree with pretty much everything you've said... the post was made on the NASA website, not a magazine. I don't see it as misleading - the methodology of the project *is spelled out, in minute detail* in the first referenced link.

That's how it works *everywhere* - not just on NASA's website, but *every single pop-sci article I've ever read.*

Like I said earlier, asking for disclaimers on this stuff is like sticking a 'this might be hot' sticker on the side of a cup of coffee. It's moronic and caters to the lowest common denominator in our society. You're not only advocating a race to the intellectual bottom, you're also suggesting that *every* article in this sort of style is fundamentally misleading.

The whole idea's ridiculous. Keep up kids, or get off the bus. 👍

originally posted by: D8Tee
Your thread says nothing of the sort, quit lying, you're no Icke or Ventura, nobody cares who you are, unless you are Michael Mann?

Seriously, you're amazing. It's pretty common for mods to verify people's identities in the real world, not just the Icke's etc. For someone that clearly spends so much time here, it's pretty odd you don't know that.

originally posted by: eightfold

originally posted by: D8Tee
Your thread says nothing of the sort, quit lying, you're no Icke or Ventura, nobody cares who you are, unless you are Michael Mann?

Seriously, you're amazing. It's pretty common for mods to verify people's identities in the real world, not just the Icke's etc. For someone that clearly spends so much time here, it's pretty odd you don't know that.

Sorry I didn't know that. I don't think anyone on here cares who you are, and I have no idea how a peer reviewed paper could give away your identity. Oh well to each their own, carry on.

originally posted by: D8Tee
Interesting you couldn't supply me with any empirical evidence that man is the primary cause of Climate Change, because you can't, there isn't any.

What planet do you live on? Seriously. You can start here and work your way through the long, long, long, long list that advocates AGW. The idea that there's nothing suggesting it's down to us is misleading at best, and outright lie at worst, and you must know that?

Like I said over and over and over again, I'm not a climatologist, but the evidence does seem to be leaning in the direction of the changes being man made.

There's a fair bit of debate about it, but even if you disagree with the A in AGW (and I know some proper, proper climatologists that make a funny face about it), you *can't* deny that changes are happening.

Enjoy...

Quantifying the consensus on AGW in the scientific literature

a reply to: eightfold

You fundamentally disagree with not purposefully misleading readers. That's why you're a scumbag. Don't try to twist it into something else. It's absolutely not like the examples you gave. Those examples are common sense. The stuff we're talking about here is not common sense, it's science, and it's being presented half-baked and out of context to layman readers who simply don't have the time to research and find out if what they're reading is proven or just theory, when you could've just put an additional paragraph in the article that would clear it right up. That's bordering on propaganda. You selectively leave out certain things to leave the reader with a certain impression, an incorrect impression, that could've been avoided by adding 2 sentences. It's dishonest and detestable. Keep spinning.