Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[kerplunk]

cherryowen said:

kerplunk said:

Yes data is interpolated over large data sparse regions - this isn't news. If you don't like that practice stick to Hadcrut4 which doesn't do that but it's quite debatable which method provides the best estimate.

Interpolation

Best estimates

Billions upon billions of money being spent by policymakers, based on "best guesses", that affect nearly everything in our day-to-day lives.

It's a fking disgrace

Changing best estimate to best 'guesses' - very good. Most data comes with error bars and are therefore estimates.

[Ali G]

kerplunk said:

Changing best estimate to best 'guesses' - very good. Most data comes with error bars and are therefore estimates.

Error bars are interesting.

Care to expand upon error bars used upon input data, and once processed by computational means (with additional error bars inherent in computational mechanisms)

Further confidence is built upon modelled outcomes?

[deeps]

kerplunk said:

Missed the point again - you're so tunnel visioned. The conspira-loon in the video implies NOAA's 2nd warmest October is a result of horrendous data tampering, but the satellite data shows the same/higher still.

Is satellite temperature data raw data or adjusted data?

[LongQ]

deeps said:

kerplunk said:

Missed the point again - you're so tunnel visioned. The conspira-loon in the video implies NOAA's 2nd warmest October is a result of horrendous data tampering, but the satellite data shows the same/higher still.

Is satellite temperature data raw data or adjusted data?

Satellites do not measure temperature.

They gather data that is then adjusted in some ways to allow for a number of normal types of error that satellite operations incur, some of which are readily identifiable and others are not quite so straightforward, and the result of that is then interpreted through some conversion programs to a value that is considered to represent something that can be presented as equivalent to temperature.

That's about as good as it can get.

If, for any reason at all, I was looking or some sort of evidence delivery mechanism that would always be the subject of discussion about how accurate it might and yet was key to attempting to direct future policy, this would be it. Yetis, the Loch Ness monster and the average global temperature are subject that will almost certainly continue to involve humans in sessions of activity despite it being almost impossible so answer satisfactorily under any foreseeable future regime.

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

err I said it was true they interpolate data over large data-sparse areas - how is that handwaving it away? If that's his 'main claim' it's no great revelation as it's all done out in the open. That just leaves his assertions that NOAA have 'erased' and 'disappeared' data, but he failed badly on that score as I've shown (well probably not failed completely - his followers will have lapped it up unquestioningly no doubt).

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 5th December 00:38

"all done out in the open". good one , go ask the australian bureau or meteorology for their code for their version of an algorerithm .

[durbster]

I like how the satellite data is now considered well dodgy, when not so long ago it was the only dataset worth looking at because it seemed to show a slowdown in warming

cherryowen said:

kerplunk said:

Yes data is interpolated over large data sparse regions - this isn't news. If you don't like that practice stick to Hadcrut4 which doesn't do that but it's quite debatable which method provides the best estimate.

Best estimates

Billions upon billions of money being spent by policymakers, based on "best guesses", that affect nearly everything in our day-to-day lives.

It's a fking disgrace

What do you think policies should be based on if not best estimates? Psychics? Time machines?

Can you name a government policy that is not based on an estimate of some kind?

[Jinx]

durbster said:

What do you think policies should be based on if not best estimates? Psychics? Time machines?

Can you name a government policy that is not based on an estimate of some kind?

If you include proper error bars (I mean proper ones as the law of large numbers does not apply to the current temperature measurements as they are all independent measurements of different areas at different times) - then there is only a small to middling possibility that there has been any global warming at all. Northern hemisphere warming is more possible though if we correct for UHI even this is not 100% outside the error bars.
The data we have is inadequate (especially given the use of water temperature from buckets) and was never designed to track the tiny theoretical effect of CO2 - it was a seasonal daily high/low tracking system and latterly an airport air temp/pressure tracking system. Given its shortcomings the fact there is no CO2 signal in the data is not a surprise to any degree - for there to be one in the current data sets the CO2 effect would be noticeable on diurnal timescales nevermind decadal (max temp would be first thing in the morning when CO2 concentration is at its highest) .

[robinessex]

Todays Beeb CC story.

How UK's birds are being affected by a changing climate

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4222...

Migratory birds are arriving in the UK earlier each spring and leaving later each autumn, a report has confirmed.
Some visitors are now appearing more than 20 days earlier than they did in the 1960s, according to the state of the UK's birds 2017 report.
The swallow, for instance, is arriving 15 days earlier than 50 years ago.
Ongoing monitoring is essential to track the future effects of a changing climate on birds, says a coalition of wildlife organisations.
The report is by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) , the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) and the UK's nature conservation bodies. It pulls together data from the latest bird surveys and monitoring studies...........continues

So birds respond (adapt ?) to a changing climate. Which has been happening continuously in the planets 4.5 billion year life. What's the story then? Er, there isn’t one.

[robinessex]

Having spent 10yrs of my life in engineering test department, I gained quite a bit of experience in the accurate, repeatable, collection of data. If someone asked me to obtain an accurate measurement of the planets surface temperature, I’d estimate that a temp sensor per10 sq mile would give a reasonably accurate picture. Thus I would need about 20,000,000 sensors ! Now go figure why the temperature measurements we have is bks.

[robinessex]

Biofuels plant in Hull stops production and may not reopen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42226808

The UK's biggest bioethanol producer has stopped production at its East Yorkshire plant, blaming government "inaction".
Vivergo Fuels said there was "no guarantee" production would recommence at the Hull facility.
It said losses had risen due to government delays in making oil companies use 10% bioethanol in petrol.
The Department for Transport said it was "on track" to double the biofuels supply by 2020......continues

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

Having spent 10yrs of my life in engineering test department, I gained quite a bit of experience in the accurate, repeatable, collection of data. If someone asked me to obtain an accurate measurement of the planets surface temperature, I’d estimate that a temp sensor per10 sq mile would give a reasonably accurate picture. Thus I would need about 20,000,000 sensors ! Now go figure why the temperature measurements we have is bks.

UAH LTT data is superior to the corrupted near-surface database not only because of greater accuracy but also due to far better sampling.

Naturally, when a remote site or high altitude location (or remote high altitude location) has no sensor anywhere close, The Team members are happy to use a sensor hundreds of km away in a more urbanised area, the type of place where a sensor is likely to exist. Surprise surprise this (odds-on warmer) temperature is then conveniently substituted for the remote, high altitude location.

Even with this 'substitution' data diddling there's still no visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data. It's that bad for the faith.

[anonymous-user]

So do you non believers all believe the same stuff or do you disagree with each other?

Do you think there is no evidence of the temperature rising?

Or do you think there is climate change but it’s just cyclical?

or do you think there is evidence of temperature increasing at an increased rate but it’s being caused by something else?

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

So do you non believers all believe the same stuff or do you disagree with each other?

Do you think there is no evidence of the temperature rising?

Or do you think there is climate change but it’s just cyclical?

or do you think there is evidence of temperature increasing at an increased rate but it’s being caused by something else?

I don't know what’s happing, don't care, don’t worry about it. Life’s to short.

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

So do you non believers all believe the same stuff or do you disagree with each other?

Do you think there is no evidence of the temperature rising?

Or do you think there is climate change but it’s just cyclical?

or do you think there is evidence of temperature increasing at an increased rate but it’s being caused by something else?

I don't know what’s happing, don't care, don’t worry about it. Life’s to short.

You’ve made 56 posts on a subject rubbishing scientists but you don’t care about it and don’t actually know what’s going on?

You’re just kind of saying the IPCC bbc etc are all wrong but you don’t really know why?

[Kawasicki]

El stovey said:

So do you non believers all believe the same stuff or do you disagree with each other?

Do you think there is no evidence of the temperature rising?

Or do you think there is climate change but it’s just cyclical?

or do you think there is evidence of temperature increasing at an increased rate but it’s being caused by something else?

Don't know what others believe.
There is evidence that temperature is rising.
Climate change is normal for Earth.
We don't have enough resolution from earlier times to know whether the rate we see now is unusual...and scientists have probably exaggerated the modern rate, because "Politics", "Groupthink/bills to pay" or "The Cause". It's a conspiraseeeee!

[Jinx]

El stovey said:

So do you non believers all believe the same stuff or do you disagree with each other?

Of course we disagree - independent thinkers frequently disagree - the only thing we agree on is CAGW is unproven nonsense (AGW and the degree of it are debatable) .

El stovey said:

Do you think there is no evidence of the temperature rising?

As much evidence now as of the medieval warm period, Roman warm period, and little ice age. Unfortunately the data we have is not reliable enough to make the "unprecedented" announcements frequently spread across the MSM.

El stovey said:

Or do you think there is climate change but it’s just cyclical?

Ultimately it will be cyclical - given we are in an "inter-glacial" period at some point the earth will slip back into an ice age.

El stovey said:

or do you think there is evidence of temperature increasing at an increased rate but it’s being caused by something else?

No. The rate of change is well within historical norms based on the poor data available.

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

El stovey said:

So do you non believers all believe the same stuff or do you disagree with each other?

Do you think there is no evidence of the temperature rising?

Or do you think there is climate change but it’s just cyclical?

or do you think there is evidence of temperature increasing at an increased rate but it’s being caused by something else?

I don't know what’s happing, don't care, don’t worry about it. Life’s to short.

You’ve made 56 posts on a subject rubbishing scientists but you don’t care about it and don’t actually know what’s going on?

You’re just kind of saying the IPCC bbc etc are all wrong but you don’t really know why?

No I'm just saying I don't want all this AGW, unproven, bullst rammed down my throat. It's complete bks, we have more important things on the planet to worry about. See here:-

Ocean plastic a 'planetary crisis' - UN

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4222...

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

UAH LTT data is superior to the corrupted near-surface database not only because of greater accuracy but also due to far better sampling.

Naturally, when a remote site or high altitude location (or remote high altitude location) has no sensor anywhere close, The Team members are happy to use a sensor hundreds of km away in a more urbanised area, the type of place where a sensor is likely to exist. Surprise surprise this (odds-on warmer) temperature is then conveniently substituted for the remote, high altitude location.

Even with this 'substitution' data diddling there's still no visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data. It's that bad for the faith.

for me the radiosonde data gives a better picture than the satellite data. the satellite measurements were adjusted to bring them into line with the radiosondes ,well uah was, i think rss just plucked a recalibration figure out of the same bit of thin air the global average temp data set comes from .

[wc98]

El stovey said:

You’ve made 56 posts on a subject rubbishing scientists but you don’t care about it and don’t actually know what’s going on?

You’re just kind of saying the IPCC bbc etc are all wrong but you don’t really know why?

to be fair you have a made a fair few yourself and avoided addressing several replies/questions relating to your posts, so i will pass on this latest set of questions until you start responding in kind.

[PRTVR]

El stovey said:

So do you non believers all believe the same stuff or do you disagree with each other?

I think we all agree MMCC as portrayed to the masses is impossible for a number of different reasons. A long time ago in one of the earlier threads I remember posting a link to a web site that was how to cope with your garden with the coming climate change, things like growing cactus and plants that need less water with advice from climate scientists, I am still waiting to plant my first cactus .

El stovey said:

Do you think there is no evidence of the temperature rising?

Who knows,the people responsible for the data are less than honest, and we are coming out of an ice age so perhaps we should expect a rise.

El stovey said:

Or do you think there is climate change but it’s just cyclical?

Yes, but we do not understand it enough to make any judgment.

El stovey said:

or do you think there is evidence of temperature increasing at an increased rate but it’s being caused by something else?

See above about trust ( hockey stick etc ) and lack of understanding of the interactions of a chaotic system, I do not believe that you can measure the effect of a small addition to a trace gas in a high H2O environment, I also do not believe we can accurately measure the temperature of the earth with anything that could show a difference of 1 or 2 degrees.