Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[sayak83]

The date of the interview isn't relevant. Morner was talking about how in 2003 the dodgy tidal data point used by the IPCC agreed with the new published upward trend in mean seal levels. The inference was that a fudge factor was applied to the data to give results that were in line with the cherry picked data point in order to support IPCC climate dogma.

And I explained to you that the correction was made in 2001 period because a new set of satellites showed that the earlier satelite had calibration errors in its instruments.

 

[Ebionite]

Nope. I am countering your claims

Straw man. I didn't claim that there was virtually unanimous agreement about the historical Babylon.

 

[Ebionite]

And I explained to you that the correction was made in 2001 period because a new set of satellites showed that the earlier satelite had calibration errors in its instruments.

The point that you're missing is that the "calibration errors" were of the same magnitude as the cherry picked data. That's why I called the "correction" a fudge factor.

 

[ChristineM]

Straw man. I didn't claim that there was virtually unanimous agreement about the historical Babylon.

What uou said and i quote...

Sure. The connection to Babylon is supported by the canonical texts of the Roman church.

There is virtually unanimous agreement among modern interpreters that the referent of ‘Babylon’ is actually Rome

So you are a record breaker. My ignore option is used quite rarely. You have the honour of being added to it long before any other member well done and goodby

 

[sayak83]

The point that you're missing is that the "calibration errors" were of the same magnitude as the cherry picked data. That's why I called the "correction" a fudge factor.

Not it was not. And it was not cherry picked. The exact source of calibration has been extensively discussed in the paper I have linked. You can read it. And it was not just an increase. The trend slope has a positive correction for 2 years and a negative correction for 3 years..showing that it was not about inflating anything but a mistake in satellite drift estimates. And all the seven newer satellites have simply gone on to confirm the corrected trend from 2000 - 2023...confirming that the error was in fact there and that it was properly handled.

 

[Ebionite]

What uou said and i quote...

You left out significant context - it was about 1 Peter (the canon), not the historical Babylon.

Sure. The connection to Babylon is supported by the canonical texts of the Roman church.

There is virtually unanimous agreement among modern interpreters that the referent of ‘Babylon’ is actually Rome (Achtemeier 1996: 354; W. Barclay 1976: 278; Best 1971: 178; Clowney 1988: 224; Cranfield 1958: 123; J. H. Elliott 2000: 883–86; Goppelt 1993: 374–75; Grudem 1988: 201; Kelly 1969: 218; Kistemaker 1987: 209; Michaels 1988: 311; Perkins 1995: 81; Reicke 1964: 134; Selwyn 1958: 243).

Karen H. Jobes in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (1 Peter)

 

[Ebionite]

Not it was not.

It was.

From Morner:

So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge.

 

[metis]

The Peter citation has "Babylon" actually written in the feminine context, which is believed to stand for the city of Rome. "Babylon the Great" is a cloaked reference to the Roman Empire.

 

[Pete in Panama]

The question then becomes: who pays for this work?

that's just it, we already ARE paying for it. In 2023 the National Science foundation annual budget was $10 Billion, going for grants that all ASSUMED that climate change had us doomed. I'm waiting for serious studies.

 

[Pete in Panama]

My thinking is that any discussion of whether ice caps are melting and filling the oceans should require accurate ocean volume measurements. Sure it's a lot of work but hey, sometimes science is a lot of work and short cuts is just too sloppy to be believable.

,,,Then you should make them, because others won't and don't need to...

Remember I said that it was the discussion that needed the info. I got my doubts as to whether the discussion itself has any merit.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Remember I said that it was the discussion that needed the info.

Nobody here but you was asking for that data. It's neither necessary nor available. The data supporting AGW is robust and beyond reasonable doubt for those who can interpret it, but doesn't include those figures. For those who can't but can recognize expertise in others, they don't need to be able to do even that. But for those who can't interpret the data and don't know who can be trusted to do that for them, there's only unknowing.

Suppose you had that data. Suppose this was fact rather than illustrative numbers. Please show me how you'd use it to arrive at a conclusion about AGW:

1973 - 1.333 billion cubic kilometers
1993 - 1.334 billion cubic kilometers
2003 - 1.334 billion cubic kilometers
2023 - 1.335 billion cubic kilometers

My point is that you're deflecting with these kinds of comments. The bottom line is that nothing can answer that question for you.

I got my doubts as to whether the discussion itself has any merit.

Not for you if you made that comment. If there were value there for you, you would know that and be able to say what it is.

 

[Yerda]

that's just it, we already ARE paying for it. In 2023 the National Science foundation annual budget was $10 Billion, going for grants that all ASSUMED that climate change had us doomed. I'm waiting for serious studies.

I heard all the grant money is going to Big Globe and nothing is being spent on Flat Earth. I'm waiting for the serious studies.

 

[Ebionite]

The data supporting AGW is robust and beyond reasonable doubt for those who can interpret it,

The cult modus operandi is to own the interpretation. Whenever those interpreting the data are picking up a paycheck from those who have an interest in what the interpretation is, then that is when you have a problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that's just it, we already ARE paying for it. In 2023 the National Science foundation annual budget was $10 Billion, going for grants that all ASSUMED that climate change had us doomed. I'm waiting for serious studies.

Nope, no such assumptions.

I thought that you were a Christian.

 

[Copernicus]

The cult modus operandi is to own the interpretation. Whenever those interpreting the data are picking up a paycheck from those who have an interest in what the interpretation is, then that is when you have a problem.

Your explanation of the global consensus of climate scientists regarding AGW is that there is some kind of international conspiracy to fake their conclusions out of fear that they will lose their incomes. Presumably they are all being paid off by rich liberals, who manage to spend more to suppress the truth than the entire fossil fuel industry. Now I'm beginning to understand how Joe Biden managed to steal the 2020 election without leaving a trace of evidence. He promoted the scientific consensus on AGW. Obviously, AGW conspirators weren't going to let him lose, and they are pretty good at covering their tracks.

 

[Ebionite]

Your explanation of the global consensus of climate scientists regarding AGW is that there is some kind of international conspiracy to fake their conclusions out of fear that they will lose their incomes.

No, that's not it.

 

[sayak83]

It was.

From Morner:

So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge.

And he was lying. What he was stating has no truth in it. Sorry, the dataset is present in the paper and links I quoted. I am telling you precisely what what happened. One of the early satellites, working between 1992-1996 provided wrongly calibrated results. This was discovered by scientists based on the observations made by the newer satellites (5-6 of them) that were put on orbit between 1996-2005, the calibration mistake was identified and corrected for the old satellite data. The IPCC may have simply reported the new corrected data set along with the data of the newer satellite dataset in a new report.
That is what actually happened.

Here are the excerpts
The six main groups that provide satellite-altimetry-based GMSL estimates (AVISO/CNES, SL_cci/ESA, University of Colorado, CSIRO, NASA/GSFC, NOAA) use 1 Hz altimetry measurements from the T/P, Jason-1, Jason-2 and Jason-3 missions from 1993 to 2018 (1993–2015 for SL_cci/ESA). Each group processes the 1 Hz data with geophysical corrections to correct the altimetry measurements for various aliasing, biases and drifts caused by different atmospheric conditions, sea states, ocean tides and others (Ablain et al., 2009).
Recently, the comparisons of the GMSL time series derived from satellite altimetry with independent estimates are based on tide gauge records (Valladeau et al., 2012; Watson et al., 2015) or on the combination of the contribution to sea level from thermal expansion, land ice melt and land water storage (Dieng et al., 2017). They have shown that there was a drift in the GMSL record over the period 1993–1998. This drift is caused by an erroneous onboard calibration correction on TOPEX altimeter side-A (denoted TOPEX-A). TOPEX-A was operated from launch in October 1992 to the end of January 1999. Then the TOPEX side-B altimeter (denoted TOPEX-B) took over in February 1999 (Beckley et al., 2017). The impact on the GMSL changes is −1.0 mm yr−1 between January 1993 and July 1995, and +3.0 mm yr−1 between August 1995 and February 1999, with an uncertainty of ±1.7 mm yr−1 (within a 90 % CL, Ablain, 2017).

The maximum trend difference between all time series over 1993–2017 is lower than 0.15 mm yr−1, representing less than 5 % of the GMSL trend. The differences observed at interannual timescales are also small (<2 mm). By correcting the drift of TOPEX-A using either of the available empirical corrections (WCRP Global Sea Level Budget Group, 2018), the differences among solutions remain the same (the difference between empirical corrections being smaller than the difference between the raw GMSL time series). Therefore, the choice of one or the other GMSL record is not decisive in this study, whose purpose is to characterize the uncertainties.

 

[Ebionite]

And he was lying.

So you're saying that Morner was lying, despite him having no motive to do so and you having no explanation for why the "correction" was the same as the cherry-picked Hong Kong tide data?

 

[F1fan]

that's just it, we already ARE paying for it. In 2023 the National Science foundation annual budget was $10 Billion, going for grants that all ASSUMED that climate change had us doomed. I'm waiting for serious studies.

What gets me is how you know everything and you aint in charge telling them experts how to do it right. Why aren't you in charge?

The cult modus operandi is to own the interpretation. Whenever those interpreting the data are picking up a paycheck from those who have an interest in what the interpretation is, then that is when you have a problem.

That's why we don't trust those who work for fossil fuel companies, or republicans who are financed by fossil fuel companies.

 

[Ebionite]

That's why we don't trust those who work for fossil fuel companies, or republicans who are financed by fossil fuel companies.

And you're not one-sided in that at all, right?