Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
lionelf said:
robinessex said:
This is a cover-up of the fact that NASA does not know what keeps airplanes in the air, which of course cannot be admitted.
Oh, the irony !!!
Do you steer clear of planes then? If not, why not?Oh, the irony !!!
However, they work by defying gravity. Can you point me to an article that explains how gravity works?
No, you cannot, because there isn't a single scientist out there who even pretends to know the answer.
Throughout history, whenever we have increased our powers of observation, we have proved the previous generation of scientists wrong.
The same will happen in the future.
We know nothing.
You know nothing.
I know nothing.
durbster said:
Neither of those were scientific theories.
Surely your support of AGW is not so devoid of credit that you ascertain that "theories" can be relied upon (i.e. that which is posited and then proven or disproven by experiment) whereas those matters which were posited as scientific facts at the time may not?turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
johnfm said:
The Arctic will be ice free in summer within 34 years apparently.
And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
I bet you read it at a non NASA web site based in the USA owned by a bloke who is white and middle aged and has a bee in his bonnet ?And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
In which case unless the chap is a liar (not restricted to white middle aged types) it could still be NASA as the location you describe would be a secondary source.
Also johnfm doesn't take to spinning yarns, so a link may well be discoverable.
However there's no harm in taking the RS at their word in the case of nullius in verba. If only the RS did likewise.
It makes little difference - forecasts of Arctic sea ice disappearance are as frequent and as wrong as Met Office weather forecasts, though they got it right today by the look of it. Woohoo.
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
johnfm said:
turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
johnfm said:
The Arctic will be ice free in summer within 34 years apparently.
And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
I bet you read it at a non NASA web site based in the USA owned by a bloke who is white and middle aged and has a bee in his bonnet ?And sea level will rise 300 to 1200mm by 2100.
You read it at NASA first!
In which case unless the chap is a liar (not restricted to white middle aged types) it could still be NASA as the location you describe would be a secondary source.
Also johnfm doesn't take to spinning yarns, so a link may well be discoverable.
However there's no harm in taking the RS at their word in the case of nullius in verba. If only the RS did likewise.
It makes little difference - forecasts of Arctic sea ice disappearance are as frequent and as wrong as Met Office weather forecasts, though they got it right today by the look of it. Woohoo.
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
s2art said:
durbster said:
Jasandjules said:
Oh, the Earth is flat?
And the center of the Solar System?
Neither of those were scientific theories.And the center of the Solar System?
Surely it was just what people thought because they'd simply never considered otherwise.
FWIW the heliocentric model was first put forward around 250BC (iirc) by Aristarchus who noted that observation of the annual appearance of constellations in the same regions of the night sky was consistent with heliocenticity.
Models agreeing with observations is normality in sound science as per the inadequacy of climate model gigo
Models agreeing with observations is normality in sound science as per the inadequacy of climate model gigo
LongQ said:
turbobloke said:
LongQ said:
That has to be one of the dodgiest graphs ever seen - right up there with "hide the decline".
Hardly a surprise I suppose.
The claims about the time extent of the records and the various sources are unlikely to look so convincing if assessed for the whole period. Certainly not to the level of a "calculated" global anomaly of an "average" temperature supposedly accurate, for political policy purposes, to 1/10th of a degree (rounded?)
Where are the error bars?
Shhhh don't ask...but since you did Hardly a surprise I suppose.
The claims about the time extent of the records and the various sources are unlikely to look so convincing if assessed for the whole period. Certainly not to the level of a "calculated" global anomaly of an "average" temperature supposedly accurate, for political policy purposes, to 1/10th of a degree (rounded?)
Where are the error bars?
the near-surface temperature data comes with an accuracy of ± 0.07 deg C at the 95% confidence level in recent years.As the the previous record for July, set in 2015, is said to be beaten by 0.06 deg C in July 2016 this makes the error bar question a good one
More generally for 2016 as a whole, the next question not to ask is what impact has arisen from the nonsensical move from buoy SST temperatures to less accurate and heat-contaminated ship intakes.
Or should I not ask?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB...
There's one overriding conclusion I would draw just from looking at that data, it suddenly becomes a lot more stable from the 80's. I would propose one of two reasons for this:
1. The error bars in older data are enormous.
2. The climate was far more variable in the past and more prone to extreme events which is in contradiction to the rhetoric.
Well according to these guys who actual measure climate temperature, 15 of the warmest 16 years to date have occured since 2000. Surely that's not in dispute?
Co2 levels have been going through the roof since human industrialisation has occured and are at around 400ppm, maybe the highest they've been in millions of years... You only have to look around to see how much we're producing. Is anyone saying that this is false?
The greenhouse effect of Co2 has been measured in scientific experiments repeatedly, including in the earths atmosphere. Again, this is peer reviewed established scientific fact?
I've got better things to do the to argue the toss on here all over again, but I like to pipe up occasionally to be fair. I can see that there are disputes over some of the details, we know there will always be some degree of human error in science. But I'm not really sure why some of you guys are such passionate contrarians, when the above facts surely stand to reason?
Co2 levels have been going through the roof since human industrialisation has occured and are at around 400ppm, maybe the highest they've been in millions of years... You only have to look around to see how much we're producing. Is anyone saying that this is false?
The greenhouse effect of Co2 has been measured in scientific experiments repeatedly, including in the earths atmosphere. Again, this is peer reviewed established scientific fact?
I've got better things to do the to argue the toss on here all over again, but I like to pipe up occasionally to be fair. I can see that there are disputes over some of the details, we know there will always be some degree of human error in science. But I'm not really sure why some of you guys are such passionate contrarians, when the above facts surely stand to reason?
XJ40 said:
Well according to these guys who actual measure climate temperature, 15 of the warmest 16 years to date have occured since 2000. Surely that's not in dispute?
Co2 levels have been going through the roof since human industrialisation has occured and are at around 400ppm, maybe the highest they've been in millions of years... You only have to look around to see how much we're producing. Is anyone saying that this is false?
The greenhouse effect of Co2 has been measured in scientific experiments repeatedly, including in the earths atmosphere. Again, this is peer reviewed established scientific fact?
I've got better things to do the to argue the toss on here all over again, but I like to pipe up occasionally to be fair. I can see that there are disputes over some of the details, we know there will always be some degree of human error in science. But I'm not really sure why some of you guys are such passionate contrarians, when the above facts surely stand to reason?
I'm sure these posts are a deliberate ploy to continue the endless cycle of these threads... They simply cannot be genuine. Co2 levels have been going through the roof since human industrialisation has occured and are at around 400ppm, maybe the highest they've been in millions of years... You only have to look around to see how much we're producing. Is anyone saying that this is false?
The greenhouse effect of Co2 has been measured in scientific experiments repeatedly, including in the earths atmosphere. Again, this is peer reviewed established scientific fact?
I've got better things to do the to argue the toss on here all over again, but I like to pipe up occasionally to be fair. I can see that there are disputes over some of the details, we know there will always be some degree of human error in science. But I'm not really sure why some of you guys are such passionate contrarians, when the above facts surely stand to reason?
jshell said:
I'm sure these posts are a deliberate ploy to continue the endless cycle of these threads... They simply cannot be genuine.
There is an endless cycle your right... There is no new debate as such, this space is an echo chamber for those who share a climate skeptic persuasion, rightly or wrongly. I suppose I'm a troll for having an alternative opinion to those here, even if it is accepted mainstream science.I guess there no real purpose to me posting the above, there is no ploy, it's more an expression of perpetual increduality that I experience every time I'm tempted to have a look at this thread... as you were.
XJ40 said:
jshell said:
I'm sure these posts are a deliberate ploy to continue the endless cycle of these threads... They simply cannot be genuine.
There is an endless cycle your right... There is no new debate as such, this space is an echo chamber for those who share a climate skeptic persuasion, rightly or wrongly. I suppose I'm a troll for having an alternative opinion to those here, even if it is accepted mainstream science.I guess there no real purpose to me posting the above, there is no ploy, it's more an expression of perpetual increduality that I experience every time I'm tempted to have a look at this thread... as you were.
It can seem like an echo chamber, but only because the same questions are asked time and time again with endless evidence against the assertions.
I honestly believe most folk on this thread have gone from true-belief -> a few questions -> more questions -> What the actual f
k are these s trying to pull!!I did. Yup, sounds plausible, if not scary. to.... f
k right off, this is politically motivated garbage of the first order.I'm an engineer with access to a metocean team who don't 'believe'. They do this stuff for a genuine living, not make cash from studying the virtually un-proveable!
jshell said:
XJ40 said:
jshell said:
I'm sure these posts are a deliberate ploy to continue the endless cycle of these threads... They simply cannot be genuine.
There is an endless cycle your right... There is no new debate as such, this space is an echo chamber for those who share a climate skeptic persuasion, rightly or wrongly. I suppose I'm a troll for having an alternative opinion to those here, even if it is accepted mainstream science.I guess there no real purpose to me posting the above, there is no ploy, it's more an expression of perpetual increduality that I experience every time I'm tempted to have a look at this thread... as you were.
It can seem like an echo chamber, but only because the same questions are asked time and time again with endless evidence against the assertions.
I honestly believe most folk on this thread have gone from true-belief -> a few questions -> more questions -> What the actual f
k are these s trying to pull!!I did. Yup, sounds plausible, if not scary. to.... f
k right off, this is politically motivated garbage of the first order.I'm an engineer with access to a metocean team who don't 'believe'. They do this stuff for a genuine living, not make cash from studying the virtually un-proveable!
I don't see that same political motivation as you. NASA, the NOAA and others say that global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are rising and I believe them I'm afraid...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff