Arctic ocean warming up/ ice melting in unheard of temp's
Discussion
G_T said:
Weather is short term. Climate is generally agreed to be an average over 30 year periods (according the world meterological group). So you can easily have record cooling as long as it averages out warmer.
That would imply the most recent climate data point possible is for 1995 (averaged between 1980 and 2010).Every climate change scare graph for the last 10 years has 1998 plotted on it because that had the highest recorded weather temperature. They plot weather when it suits them and argue weather isn't climate when it doesn't. Climate
ks is all about cherry picking data to give the population something to worry about.
G_T said:
Le TVR said:
G_T said:
And that my friend is why some of the scientific community, some mainstream reporters and some governments don't give you lot the time of day.
EFAhttp://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
and....
No: 0876437553 From J Alcomo to M Hulme leading up to the Kyoto meeting.
<em>"Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions --
Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story
YAD061 said:
G_T said:
Le TVR said:
G_T said:
And that my friend is why some of the scientific community, some mainstream reporters and some governments don't give you lot the time of day.
EFAhttp://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
and....
No: 0876437553 From J Alcomo to M Hulme leading up to the Kyoto meeting.
<em>"Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions --
Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story
Maybe they should be marketing catfood.
alock said:
G_T said:
Weather is short term. Climate is generally agreed to be an average over 30 year periods (according the world meterological group). So you can easily have record cooling as long as it averages out warmer.
That would imply the most recent climate data point possible is for 1995 (averaged between 1980 and 2010).Every climate change scare graph for the last 10 years has 1998 plotted on it because that had the highest recorded weather temperature. They plot weather when it suits them and argue weather isn't climate when it doesn't. Climate
ks is all about cherry picking data to give the population something to worry about.1998 was an El Nino year wasn't it? So that would explain why it produces unusual data. Also weather is used to create climate data. Climate data is however an average and convention says 30 years. There's little cherry picking involved.
As I've pointed out many times, the vast majority of scientists in related fields would disagree with you. However you are free to hold whatever opinion you like. It makes no odds to me but to imply stupidity when both expert opinion and evidence is stacked against you is quite bizarre.
(... And before I'm asked for the evidence I would like to point out the IPCC report is still regarded as the best review of literature, although I would ignore the 2035 doomsday claim mentioned somewhere in the report! Even the CRU data is now independently regarded as fine and unfudged).
Le TVR said:
YAD061 said:
G_T said:
Le TVR said:
G_T said:
And that my friend is why some of the scientific community, some mainstream reporters and some governments don't give you lot the time of day.
EFAhttp://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
and....
No: 0876437553 From J Alcomo to M Hulme leading up to the Kyoto meeting.
<em>"Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions --
Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500 signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story
Maybe they should be marketing catfood.
I'm refering to a survey conducted of climate scientists which showed 97.4% of active climatologist agreed with MMGW and 82% of those surveyed (3146). They were asked "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?".
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climat...
In terms on concensus there's also the IPCC lot, and the 11,000 signatures produced in response to Bush's climate policies, NASA, New Scientist.... Infact it really probably is easier to list professionals who don't believe.
YAD061 said:
grumbledoak said:
G_T said:
Even the CRU data is now independently regarded as fine and unfudged.
An independent enquiry was shown how the data was altered and it was simple statistical amendment that is standard practice. We even had a statistician on PH who stated this was probably the case.
If you can prove otherwise I invite you to, as ever, prove it and if you can do that then go and get your findings published as you will make a lot of money.
Edited by G_T on Thursday 4th February 15:39
Seriously go for it.
If a single one of you who claims to have proven conclusively that MMGW isn't true, like you claim to be able to, I will personally help you write and submit your article to a reputable journal. If it's rejected on any other premise than it's complete gumpf I will personally reimburse you for any time you spend writing it.
If a single one of you who claims to have proven conclusively that MMGW isn't true, like you claim to be able to, I will personally help you write and submit your article to a reputable journal. If it's rejected on any other premise than it's complete gumpf I will personally reimburse you for any time you spend writing it.
The minority leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee maintains a list of more than 500 scientists and climate researchers who have published research questioning the imagined "consensus" view. The Manhattan Declaration, explicitly condeming the "consensus" position, has 1100 distinguished signatories. And more than 31,000 scientists of all disciplines have signed the Oregon Petition also questioning the "consensus".
Dr. Richard Lindzen, mentioned in this item, accepts - as everyone does - that the addition of heteroatomic molecules of a naturally-occurring trace gas to the atmosphere may cause some warming: however, he is on record as having said in lectures on the subject that the IPCC's climate sensitivity estimates should be divided by at least three, so that the degree of warming to be expected is, in his opinion, harmless and is likely to be beneficial.
FInally, the 2004 study claiming that not a single paper contining the words "global climate change" had opposed the imagined "consensus" was followed up by a 2008 study (Schulte, 2008), which found that not one paper published since 2004 and containing the same search term had offered any evidence to the effect that "global warming" would be catastrophic.
There is a growing body of evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to the effect that climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2 enrichment (to the extent that it can be evaluated at all) is likely to be very small, harmless, and beneficial.
G_T said:
I'm refering to a survey conducted of climate scientists which showed 97.4% of active climatologist agreed with MMGW and 82% of those surveyed (3146). They were asked "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?".
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climat...
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdfhttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climat...
So of the 3146 'scientists' polled:
only 1164 could be bothered to reply. (of which >90% are American)
only 58 (5%) of responses were from climate scientists.
Statistics can be bent in all directions....
Bosshogg76 said:
G_T for a man that in a previous thread stated that people should find their own opinion, you don't half love ramming yours down other peoples throat.
Lol, you're welcome to disagree. I'm simply responding to people who have quoted, or deliberately misquoted, myself. Or make claims that someone is somehow mentality bereft from agreeing with expert opinion.
As I say it really makes no odds to me.
Bosshogg76 said:
G_T for a man that in a previous thread stated that people should find their own opinion, you don't half love ramming yours down other peoples throat.
Someone, almost a lone voice, dares to speak out on PH in "support" of the idea that man might be contributing to climate change and they're "ramming" their opinion down others people throat?
BarRefaeli said:
Bosshogg76 said:
G_T for a man that in a previous thread stated that people should find their own opinion, you don't half love ramming yours down other peoples throat.
Someone, almost a lone voice, dares to speak out on PH in "support" of the idea that man might be contributing to climate change and they're "ramming" their opinion down others people throat?
However these discussions turn into a huge cock fest, which spend more time on rubbishing the other persons views, brain power or analytical skills.
Present the information and allow the reader to make an informed decision
G_T said:
YAD061 said:
grumbledoak said:
G_T said:
Even the CRU data is now independently regarded as fine and unfudged.
An independent enquiry was shown how the data was altered and it was simple statistical amendment that is standard practice. We even had a statistician on PH who stated this was probably the case.
If you can prove otherwise I invite you to, as ever, prove it and if you can do that then go and get your findings published as you will make a lot of money.
Edited by G_T on Thursday 4th February 15:39
Mann, may have (somehow) dodged the bullet, but the fat lady isn't even near the stage yet
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...
Friendly bet YAD061.
I think you're right and I may have jumped the gun with regards to the entirity of the CRU, however tenner says no foul play will be found with regards to dressing up data at the CRU.
FOI violations is a seperate issue of course.
I think you're right and I may have jumped the gun with regards to the entirity of the CRU, however tenner says no foul play will be found with regards to dressing up data at the CRU.
FOI violations is a seperate issue of course.
Edited by G_T on Thursday 4th February 16:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff