Climate Change Mega Thread

[rustled]

Do you have a scientific link? YouTube can claim whatever people want it to.

Yes yes, because it was posted on YouTube it can't be true, unless it's posted on YouTube and supports the narrative you like.
Dr Peter Ridd: "Ridd received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from James Cook University in 1978, and later a PhD in Physics from that same institution in 1980.[6] At this time, he also joined the Australian Institute of Marine Science. He started studying the Great Barrier Reef in 1984, mainly focusing on ocean currents and the movement of sediment"

Ya, let's not listen to someone who has studies the reefs since 1984 when we are talking about the reef.

How about this, debate what he says.

It's a perplexing response, especially when the link is in the YouTube. What he says simply helps us understand the scientists' findings, making what's in the "scientific link" more accessible to people. Making the findings more accessible to people by posting a YouTube video doesn't change reality.

In reality, a mistake was made when growth data taken after 1990 from very young corals was mixed with the pre-1990 growth data, all from very old corals, resulting in faulty assumptions that are still being used today to support climate alarmism.

In reality, the "growth decline since 1990 narrative" was easily proven by taking newer samples from very old corals.

From the preview:

In this reanalysis it is shown that the apparent reduction in the Porites spp. calcification rate in the last two decades is at least partly due to a combination of (a) ontogenetic effects (disregarded in the previous analysis), combined with a highly variable age distribution of the coral growth bands with time, and (b) a systematic data bias clearly evident in the last growth band of each core. When the outermost growth band in addition to bands which have record age less than 20 years was excluded from the analysis, the dramatic fall in calcification after 1990 was no longer evident.
SNIP
Discussion
The considerable change in the result due to the exclusion of the youngest growth bands of each coral record is concerning. It is likely to be due to a combination of two factors: (a) a slowing of growth rate with age of a coral, and (b) the record age distribution of the coral growth bands changes with time. These factors are discussed in detail as follows.
Whilst De'ath et al. (2009) assume absence of any ontogenetic effects on coral calcification, the presumption of constant growth rates of ...
Conclusion
Despite the caveats discussed in this paper, the data set analysed by De'ath et al. (2009) is a highly valuable resource of coral calcification rates. Some of the problems associated with ontogenetic effects could be addressed if more information about the true age of the coral was available. The approximate dimension of the individual Porites would be very valuable in assessing the approximate age of the sample. Presumably this data would be retrievable for the colony data sets as these...
Acknowledgements
We thank G De'ath and J Lough (Australian Institute of Marine Science) who kindly made the coral growth source available for reanalysis. Also thanks to Mel Boer who assisted with the figures.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2713001953

Discounting scientific results counter to a narrative is not science - it's politics and activism. Nowhere is the willingness to ignore science more apparent than in the effort to sustain the "man made climate change" crisis narrative.

[Fanboy]

Discredited by those that get funding and make money of climate change? Again, lots of scientific info was stated, go ahead and debunk some of it.

lol Sure, why not. Whatever. It doesn't matter. He seems to be some old crank has-been who has been discredited. It was an opinion piece anyway. Not a scientific paper.
Gonna tell us that "scientists" paid by the oil industry aren't making money to make up their "science"?

Still waiting for you to debunk his points. How about add to that list who and why he was discredited.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Ecosystems

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/view/ ... 46F84.html

[Fanboy]

It's a perplexing response, especially when the link is in the YouTube. What he says simply helps us understand the scientists' findings, making what's in the "scientific link" more accessible to people. Making the findings more accessible to people by posting a YouTube video doesn't change reality.

In reality, a mistake was made when growth data taken after 1990 from very young corals was mixed with the pre-1990 growth data, all from very old corals, resulting in faulty assumptions that are still being used today to support climate alarmism.

In reality, the "growth decline since 1990 narrative" was easily proven by taking newer samples from very old corals.

From the preview:

In this reanalysis it is shown that the apparent reduction in the Porites spp. calcification rate in the last two decades is at least partly due to a combination of (a) ontogenetic effects (disregarded in the previous analysis), combined with a highly variable age distribution of the coral growth bands with time, and (b) a systematic data bias clearly evident in the last growth band of each core. When the outermost growth band in addition to bands which have record age less than 20 years was excluded from the analysis, the dramatic fall in calcification after 1990 was no longer evident.
SNIP
Discussion
The considerable change in the result due to the exclusion of the youngest growth bands of each coral record is concerning. It is likely to be due to a combination of two factors: (a) a slowing of growth rate with age of a coral, and (b) the record age distribution of the coral growth bands changes with time. These factors are discussed in detail as follows.
Whilst De'ath et al. (2009) assume absence of any ontogenetic effects on coral calcification, the presumption of constant growth rates of ...
Conclusion
Despite the caveats discussed in this paper, the data set analysed by De'ath et al. (2009) is a highly valuable resource of coral calcification rates. Some of the problems associated with ontogenetic effects could be addressed if more information about the true age of the coral was available. The approximate dimension of the individual Porites would be very valuable in assessing the approximate age of the sample. Presumably this data would be retrievable for the colony data sets as these...
Acknowledgements
We thank G De'ath and J Lough (Australian Institute of Marine Science) who kindly made the coral growth source available for reanalysis. Also thanks to Mel Boer who assisted with the figures.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2713001953

Discounting scientific results counter to a narrative is not science - it's politics and activism. Nowhere is the willingness to ignore science more apparent than in the effort to sustain the "man made climate change" crisis narrative.

When you make a point they say your source material is invalid. When you ask them to dispute the points and not the source, crickets. Yes, it is helpful when videos, posted wherever they are posted, are "dumbed down" for layman to understand. That doesn't discredit the science they are explaining.

[rustled]

It's a perplexing response, especially when the link is in the YouTube. What he says simply helps us understand the scientists' findings, making what's in the "scientific link" more accessible to people. Making the findings more accessible to people by posting a YouTube video doesn't change reality.

In reality, a mistake was made when growth data taken after 1990 from very young corals was mixed with the pre-1990 growth data, all from very old corals, resulting in faulty assumptions that are still being used today to support climate alarmism.

In reality, the "growth decline since 1990 narrative" was easily proven by taking newer samples from very old corals.

SNIP

Discounting scientific results counter to a narrative is not science - it's politics and activism. Nowhere is the willingness to ignore science more apparent than in the effort to sustain the "man made climate change" crisis narrative.

When you make a point they say your source material is invalid. When you ask them to dispute the points and not the source, crickets. Yes, it is helpful when videos, posted wherever they are posted, are "dumbed down" for layman to understand. That doesn't discredit the science they are explaining.

It's understandable, though. It's human nature to try to sustain a belief after arguing in support of that belief, so it's not surprising when social activists who've put effort into supporting the "man made climate change" crisis narrative are unwilling to recognize scientific findings contrary to that narrative. IMO, any belief that requires ignoring reality is a faulty belief and ought to be set aside - and no one needs a degree in any aspect of science to understand the problem with asking people to ignore scientific findings.

[Fanboy]

When you make a point they say your source material is invalid. When you ask them to dispute the points and not the source, crickets. Yes, it is helpful when videos, posted wherever they are posted, are "dumbed down" for layman to understand. That doesn't discredit the science they are explaining.

It's understandable, though. It's human nature to try to sustain a belief after arguing in support of that belief, so it's not surprising when social activists who've put effort into supporting the "man made climate change" crisis narrative are unwilling to recognize scientific findings contrary to that narrative. IMO, any belief that requires ignoring reality is a faulty belief and ought to be set aside - and no one needs a degree in any aspect of science to understand the problem with asking people to ignore scientific findings.

I always look sideways at any point of view if they say the science is settled or if they are unwilling to look at all the science on the subject. That seems to be the trend when that science is a political and/or economic narrative tho.

[Jlabute]

lol Sure, why not. Whatever. It doesn't matter. He seems to be some old crank has-been who has been discredited. It was an opinion piece anyway. Not a scientific paper.
Gonna tell us that "scientists" paid by the oil industry aren't making money to make up their "science"?

What?? Are you are expecting a "scientific paper" for why measurements were not taken after 2005? Did you even watch the video? Do you know what you are asking?

Dr. Peter Ridd is world renowned marine scientist and teacher, and has even designed and built scientific equipment for measuring mainland sediment on coral, among other things. If anything, he discredits AIMS and JCU.

[Jlabute]

Even Sabine doesn't agree with weather attribution, especially for California fires.

[rustled]

Even Sabine doesn't agree with weather attribution, especially for California fires.

Does a good job of showing how the gullible media is being manipulated into reporting what activists tell them to report. The authors' own scientific research shows a "not statistically significant" result, but the authors' faith in previous theories can't be shaken!

[Jlabute]

Does a good job of showing how the gullible media is being manipulated into reporting what activists tell them to report. The authors' own scientific research shows a "not statistically significant" result, but the authors' faith in previous theories can't be shaken!

I love watching Sabine's reaction to the manipulative media and the fake weather attribution "science".

In this instance the "study" reported uncertainty values that made the outcome "not statistically significant" or in other words, the fires are were NOT made more likely due to climate change, but the media runs with "more likely"

Let that sink in for a moment. They [scientists] have high confidence that climate change played a role despite the fact their own analysis [the study] didn't find any significant relation!.

The source of the "high confidence" did not come from their own study, but from what others repeat over and over. So it is really faith based.

Once again, scientists and media make themselves look like a consensus tabloid by lying.

[LovemyBolt]

I liken the climate science topic to the plate tectonics topic.

Early in the 20th century someone came up with the idea of land masses moving around. He called it continental drift. As the collection of evidence and data proceeded from many aspects of observations and scientific endeavours, there were still prominent scientists saying it was not a thing. Eventually so much data overwhelmed these few critics that plate tectonics became the standard understanding of the effect without any doubt.

I see this as the same for climate science. So much data and observations have accumulated from many scientific endeavours that any critics are just outlier noise trying to be heard all the while being overwhelmed by all the evidence. So lets assume this Ridd guy is right. Well gosh, that pokes a hole in only one tiny aspect of climate science leaving all of the other vast mountains of data still intact. So all the deniers have a ton of work to do to discredit all of the accumulated data and observations from all the scientific endeavours. Good luck.

[rustled]

Does a good job of showing how the gullible media is being manipulated into reporting what activists tell them to report. The authors' own scientific research shows a "not statistically significant" result, but the authors' faith in previous theories can't be shaken!

I love watching Sabine's reaction to the manipulative media and the fake weather attribution "science".

In this instance the "study" reported uncertainty values that made the outcome "not statistically significant" or in other words, the fires are were NOT made more likely due to climate change, but the media runs with "more likely"

Let that sink in for a moment. They [scientists] have high confidence that climate change played a role despite the fact their own analysis [the study] didn't find any significant relation!.

The source of the "high confidence" did not come from their own study, but from what others repeat over and over. So it is really faith based.

Once again, scientists and media make themselves look like a consensus tabloid by lying.

Yes, exactly. The "consensus" was manufactured by activists for political purposes. Historically, scientists are quite slow to adopt new theories as likely. The climate change activists were panicky about how long it could take science to back up the alarmism, and manufactured the "consensus" to spur governments into enacting policies in response to climate change alarmism.

As it turns out, there was no need for alarm.

Meanwhile, the cost of not allowing genuinely better technologies to rise to the top through the natural progression of adoption of better technologies has been huge. Political interference has impoverished people, disrupted economies and environments unnecessarily, and fomented significant distrust in our governments and our institutions.

[Jlabute]

Our solar system passes through galactic structures that can affect our climate.

[rustled]

Our solar system passes through galactic structures that can affect our climate.

Very cool. It's so interesting how scientists are leaning toward one theory, and then something new comes to light. That's one of what's probably plenty of pieces to this puzzle that hadn't come to light before the manufactured "consensus" about climate change.

[The Green Barbarian]

Our solar system passes through galactic structures that can affect our climate.

Great, now Carney and the Liberals are going to be taxing us over galactic structures - thank you scientists!!

[Jlabute]

Great, now Carney and the Liberals are going to be taxing us over galactic structures - thank you scientists!!

That's right. Carney will spend 1 trillion dollars on CarbonCaptureStorage, and then 1 quadrillion dollars on CosmicrayCaptureStorage as earth plows through space. This is so we can stabilize climate change which has been giving everyone whiplash.