Climate change science resources

Joe Biden has put climate change back on the agenda and we are about to experience a flood of threads started by climate change deniers. Some will be our familiar members, some will be new looking for some actual debate and a few, sadly will be Social engineer trolls out to influence public opinion (see Cambridge Analytica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica)
As to why I believe this will happen? Because it already has - it is called AstroTurf
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ho...ts-used-astroturf-front-groups-confuse-public
https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/07/astroturfing-a-major-challenge-to-climate-change/
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/07/14/fake-grassroots-campaigns-astroturf-deserve-uprooting

Disinformation and outright science denial will be a feature of many posts about Climate science so in my own self interest and to assist my fellow climate science minded colleagues I thought I would set up a repository of links and references.

Let’s start with the IPCC

https://www.ipcc.ch/

A word to the wise - do NOT fall into straw man arguments about “what “they” are predicting/telling us”. There are only A few official sources for climate prediction - the IPCC is the main source. Refer back to these documents for source information on climate assessment and prediction.

The main argument that is brought up time and again about the IPCC is that it is a “few scientists controlling the information” The answer to that charge is to link them to the authors https://www.ipcc.ch/authors/. There are thousands

 

Part 2

Sources of information ranked by scientific validity

1) Systematic Review and Meta-analysis



As you can see by this simplified diagram there is a hierarchy to scientific research. At the bottom is an expert opinion but at the top is a thing called a systematic review which is basically where a whole stack of research papers are combined and compared, The next diagram shows the relationship between a literature review, a systematic review and a mere-analysis



The very best scientific papers are those that combine systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This is what the IPCC reports are.

 

Part 3

Ranking internet sources

1. Systematic reviews
2. Published peer reviewed scientific papers
3. Statements from recognised science organisations (I.e. NASA)
4. University backed blogs BUT they must be correctly referenced to university accepted academic standard
5. Expert opinion of someone with a relevant degree
   
6. Newspaper article/ article on a reputable media news site (infowars does not count)
   
7. Someone’s Blog
8. Post on an Internet forum
9. You tube done by “sum bloke”
10. A post that contains only the opinion of the poster

The essence is referencing to validated peer reviewed papers and honest referencing as cherry picking and misrepresenting of results can and should be challenged

 

Part 4

Identifying the enemy - misleading misinformation



The science of AstroTurf

https://www.desmogblog.com/science-astroturfing
https://climaterealityproject.org/b...ow-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action

 

Pielke Jr. on the US National Climate Assessment

Charles Rotter

NYT article on US Nat’l Climate Assessment/Trump is right & wrong

". . . The NCA [National Climate Assessment] is run from the White House by political appointees

Political interference is a feature not a flaw

See

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/fixing-the-us-national-climate-assessment

The NYT incorrectly asserts that the NCA is run by the federal agencies

That is wrong
Egregiously wrong . . . "

 

Number Of Global Wild Fires Trending Down Since 2003. Northern Ocean Heat Content Drops Since 2010
By P Gosselin on 3. January 2021

Share this...
Dr. Sebastian Lüning recently started his own weekly YouTube videos on climate news in German: Klimaschau.

Global wild fires on the decline

In his latest video the veteran geologist looks at wild fires worldwide and the CO2 they emit. He reports that both have been decreasing.


Citing the results of the European Copernicus satellite atmosphere monitoring service (CAMS), total wildfires globally have fallen steadily, along with their corresponding CO2 emissions:



The European agency credits better forest management and prevention practices.

According to Lüning: “The encouraging global trend to steadily less wild fires contradicts the increasingly alarmist media reporting on individual wildfire catastrophes.”

Northern Ocean Heat Content falls

Also later in his Klimaschau, citing data recorded from the University of California in San Diego measurement buoys, Lüning reports the northern ocean (55°N to 65°N) heat content has fallen.



The data stem from 4000 ARGO buoys, 0 – 1900 meters depth. The cooling was focused in the North Atlantic. Lüning points out, however, that the overall measured heat content worldwide has risen.

Impact on Arctic sea ice?

Though Lüning does not go into what impact this could have on Arctic sea ice, it will certainly contribute to slowing down, if not arresting or even reversing, sea melt in the Arctic.

 

Causation Of Climate Change, And The Scientific Method
January 02, 2021/ Francis Menton

• 
  Let’s have yet another go at trying to apply the scientific method to the subject of causation of climate change. This is just basic logic, and not that complicated. We can do it.
  
  
• As simple and basic as this is, you will shortly see that the agglomeration of all of the world’s leading “climate scientists” can’t figure it out. They are completely lost and befuddled. Check me and see if I’m wrong.
  
  
• The proposition we are addressing is the one for which you see a constant drumbeat of advocacy. It runs something like, “the climate is changing, and we are the cause.” OK, nobody denies that the climate is changing; but how about the “we are the cause” part? What is the proof?
  
  
• Let’s apply the scientific method.
  

READ MORE

 

Sometimes I'm too hot and sometimes I'm too cold. If that's climate change then count me in. People take this crap way too serious. Live life and stop complaining about the climate all the time. People are starting to get tired of you.

 

The IPCC reports are filled with a lot of modeling constructs, most have never been falsifiable, that is why they are a NON scientific body, practicing pseudoscience.

The IPCC is under control by the United Nations a government body, which is WHY they produce a lot of baloney and been wrong enough times to ignore them.

 

Can Computer Models Predict Climate (Dr. Christopher Essex)

 

Here's a valuable resource.

The Rational Climate e-Book

By Andy May

Patrice Poyet has just published a new 431-page eBook entitled, The Rational Climate e-Book, it is free to download here. Dr. Poyet studied geochemistry, remote sensing, and…

 

Define "climate change"... It is just a meaningless buzzword that gets thrown around.

I cannot "deny" that which you have not even defined. I also do not typically start threads, but I WILL be in such threads to correct the denials of logic, science, and mathematics that will be present within them...

... from people such as yourself, since people such as yourself do not know what science is nor how it works, and are either ignorant of or outright deny the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. Mathematics and logic also tend to get denied in such discussions.

Is this what you are referring to by any chance? Otherwise, I don't know what "climate science" is, as it is yet another undefined buzzword that gets thrown around...

Climate Science: proper noun
The canonical name of the religious dogma of the Global Warming mythology.

IOW, you wish to "spread the gospel" alongside your fellow warmizombies... Got it.

The IPCC is summarily dismissed. You cannot use the IPCC as a source with me.

Climate (generally defined as "weather over a long period of time") cannot be predicted. Weather, being a random event, cannot be predicted. This is but one of many examples of the ignorance/denial of mathematics that I made mention of earlier.

The IPCC is summarily dismissed on sight. The IPCC is not science.

 

IPCC reports are not science. Science is, simply put, a set of falsifiable theories (or IOW, a set of falsifiable models that predict nature). IPCC reports are chock-full of science denial.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. We don't have NEAR enough thermometers. We would need numerous hundreds of millions of thermometers (uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer) in order to do so.

 

I guess your post here gets a big fat '10' according to your own standards...

Your standards are unfortunately chock-full of science ignorance, as none of those things that you listed are science in any way/shape/form.

How about listing the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law themselves? Oh, that's right, they stand in the way of your religious beliefs about the Earth "catastrophically warming" due to "greenhouse gases"...

 

This post goes to show just how fundamentalist the Church of Global Warming really is...

 

Same here.

Beats me what "climate change" is; it has yet to be defined by the religious zealots other than as a meaningless circular definition...

This is a common occurrence and issue among the Church of Global Warming zealots due to their fundamentalism (attempting to prove a circular argument), but this sort of thing can and does show up in any religion. Unfortunately, the Church of Global Warming is, by nature, a fundamentalist religion.

These people live in fear, due to their ignorance and/or outright denial of science, logic, and mathematics.

 

My fear is the Church of Global warming will take over the mainstream (if it hasn't already) and then it's lights out. Possibly literally when the sun goes down and the wind doesn't blow.

 

Science is a mystery to you, therefore your posts are "summarily dismissed".

 

Important work:

Exploring the Solar Wind With A New View of Small Sun Structures
Charles Rotter
Scientists have combined NASA data and cutting-edge image processing to gain new insight into the solar structures that create the Sun’s flow of high-speed solar wind, detailed in new research…

 

Science is a set of falsifiable theories (iow, a set of falsifiable models that predict nature). That's quite literally all that science is.

This truth, however, seems to elude you...

 

The truth is you have a poor understanding of the scientific method.
Your repetitious claim in these forums that "Science does not make use of supporting evidence" is demonstrably false. Evidence can either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

 

Your replies lacks detail, therefore you are the one who needs to improve your argument.

AGW conjecture doesn't meet the parameters of the Scientific Method, surely you knew that already?

 

Your reply is not relevant to my post.
I'm addressing his claim in forums on this site that science does not use supporting evidence, which is patently false.

 

And this means??

 

Doesn’t it? How about you detail how it is in error and I suggest you do that by performing a scientific critique of one of the IPCC reports