Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[durbster]

mko9 said:

Is the temperature for London exactly the same as that of Edinburgh (or exactly 3C off)? No? Then any data you extrapolate off London is wrong. That is not rocket science. Perhaps you could provide some data on the number of days where the temperature in London is the same as Edinburgh down to a tenth of a degree (or exactly 3C off, or whatever) instead of clinging to faith that it is probably OK.

It's not rocket science but you seem to have misunderstood the point regardless.

[kerplunk]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

Funnily I happened on the below exchange recently on twitter. It's exactly what hairykrishna (ridiculously) suggested you try:

If you overlay that image over a graph of global population from 1850 there is an uncanny resemblance

By 'uncanny' do you mean global population increased in the early 20th century to about 1940, then was flattish/decreasing for 30 years, and then increased rapidly since the seventies?

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 25th January 18:25

[wc98]

kerplunk said:

By 'uncanny' do you mean global population increased in the early 20th century to about 1940, then was flattish/decreasing for 30 years, and then increased rapidly since the seventies?

Edited by kerplunk on Thursday 25th January 18:25

[durbster]

wc98 said:

kerplunk said:

Funnily I happened on the below exchange recently on twitter. It's exactly what hairykrishna (ridiculously) suggested you try:

If you overlay that image over a graph of global population from 1850 there is an uncanny resemblance

There has been NO population rise in the last 150 years. The data saying there are more people now has all been manipulated by the BBC so The Left can raise taxes. The population has actually gone down; or has been level for 5 years; or is up but only a tiny bit; or is up quite a lot but it doesn't matter because more people is great for trees and there are no downsides and we should celebrate a growing population.

Edited by durbster on Friday 26th January 08:02

[mko9]

durbster said:

mko9 said:

Is the temperature for London exactly the same as that of Edinburgh (or exactly 3C off)? No? Then any data you extrapolate off London is wrong. That is not rocket science. Perhaps you could provide some data on the number of days where the temperature in London is the same as Edinburgh down to a tenth of a degree (or exactly 3C off, or whatever) instead of clinging to faith that it is probably OK.

It's not rocket science but you seem to have misunderstood the point regardless.

Why don't you clarify what your point is then?

[durbster]

mko9 said:

durbster said:

mko9 said:

Is the temperature for London exactly the same as that of Edinburgh (or exactly 3C off)? No? Then any data you extrapolate off London is wrong. That is not rocket science. Perhaps you could provide some data on the number of days where the temperature in London is the same as Edinburgh down to a tenth of a degree (or exactly 3C off, or whatever) instead of clinging to faith that it is probably OK.

It's not rocket science but you seem to have misunderstood the point regardless.

Why don't you clarify what your point is then?

See the numerous explanations by Lotus 50 and kerplunk about how increased coverage wouldn't change the trend.

[Patio]

Predictions nowhere near reality?

https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/global...

[Lotus 50]

Patio said:

Predictions nowhere near reality?

https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/global...

Much depends on which models (and possibly which model runs) Roy Spencer chose to use for his assessment...

Here's an alternative paper that shows that some over estimated and some under estimated the warming. It'd be interesting to see how/if the last 3 years make a difference.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/1...

[mko9]

durbster said:

mko9 said:

durbster said:

mko9 said:

Is the temperature for London exactly the same as that of Edinburgh (or exactly 3C off)? No? Then any data you extrapolate off London is wrong. That is not rocket science. Perhaps you could provide some data on the number of days where the temperature in London is the same as Edinburgh down to a tenth of a degree (or exactly 3C off, or whatever) instead of clinging to faith that it is probably OK.

It's not rocket science but you seem to have misunderstood the point regardless.

Why don't you clarify what your point is then?

See the numerous explanations by Lotus 50 and kerplunk about how increased coverage wouldn't change the trend.

Taken on faith

[durbster]

mko9 said:

durbster said:

See the numerous explanations by Lotus 50 and kerplunk about how increased coverage wouldn't change the trend.

Taken on faith

I don't know about you but I don't find somebody repeating an inane statement over and over to be a very compelling argument.

Whereas I've found the arguments provided by credible people who have provided actual data, supported by considered, detailed explanations and illustrative examples rather more convincing, so I'm going with that. No faith required. Trust, perhaps.

If you want to present some reasoning for why that evidence is wrong then please do. So far, there's been nothing. Just repetition of a mantra.

If you're choosing to ignore the evidence so that you can stick with your belief regardless, then isn't that the definition of faith?

[Diderot]

durbster said:

mko9 said:

durbster said:

See the numerous explanations by Lotus 50 and kerplunk about how increased coverage wouldn't change the trend.

Taken on faith

I don't know about you but I don't find somebody repeating an inane statement over and over to be a very compelling argument.

Whereas I've found the arguments provided by credible people who have provided actual data, supported by considered, detailed explanations and illustrative examples rather more convincing, so I'm going with that. No faith required. Trust, perhaps.

If you want to present some reasoning for why that evidence is wrong then please do. So far, there's been nothing. Just repetition of a mantra.

If you're choosing to ignore the evidence so that you can stick with your belief regardless, then isn't that the definition of faith?

You mention data, where is it? Show it to us. What was the average temperature in 1880 in most of Africa, most of Canada, most of Russia, most of Australia etc? Let alone those continent’s and country’s regions, or their towns.

You cannot know because there’s no data. You can guess, but that guesswork does not amount to data. You can choose to believe but that’s faith not a judgement based on actual data.

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

mko9 said:

durbster said:

See the numerous explanations by Lotus 50 and kerplunk about how increased coverage wouldn't change the trend.

Taken on faith

I don't know about you but I don't find somebody repeating an inane statement over and over to be a very compelling argument.

Whereas I've found the arguments provided by credible people who have provided actual data, supported by considered, detailed explanations and illustrative examples rather more convincing, so I'm going with that. No faith required. Trust, perhaps.

If you want to present some reasoning for why that evidence is wrong then please do. So far, there's been nothing. Just repetition of a mantra.

If you're choosing to ignore the evidence so that you can stick with your belief regardless, then isn't that the definition of faith?

You mention data, where is it? Show it to us. What was the average temperature in 1880 in most of Africa, most of Canada, most of Russia, most of Australia etc? Let alone those continent’s and country’s regions, or their towns.

You cannot know because there’s no data. You can guess, but that guesswork does not amount to data. You can choose to believe but that’s faith not a judgement based on actual data.

I'll just paste this:

So why when 1850 sampling is applied to the whole period is the result so similar? The way you talk about it 1850 sampling should be all over the shop.

Any thoughts? Go orn Prof - give it a go

[kerplunk]

Lotus 50 said:

Patio said:

Predictions nowhere near reality?

https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/global...

Much depends on which models (and possibly which model runs) Roy Spencer chose to use for his assessment...

Well the latest CMIP6 model runs evidently. As widely discussed there's a subset of CMIP6 models standing out as running 'too hot'.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

mko9 said:

durbster said:

See the numerous explanations by Lotus 50 and kerplunk about how increased coverage wouldn't change the trend.

Taken on faith

I don't know about you but I don't find somebody repeating an inane statement over and over to be a very compelling argument.

Whereas I've found the arguments provided by credible people who have provided actual data, supported by considered, detailed explanations and illustrative examples rather more convincing, so I'm going with that. No faith required. Trust, perhaps.

If you want to present some reasoning for why that evidence is wrong then please do. So far, there's been nothing. Just repetition of a mantra.

If you're choosing to ignore the evidence so that you can stick with your belief regardless, then isn't that the definition of faith?

You mention data, where is it? Show it to us. What was the average temperature in 1880 in most of Africa, most of Canada, most of Russia, most of Australia etc? Let alone those continent’s and country’s regions, or their towns.

You cannot know because there’s no data. You can guess, but that guesswork does not amount to data. You can choose to believe but that’s faith not a judgement based on actual data.

I'll just paste this:

So why when 1850 sampling is applied to the whole period is the result so similar? The way you talk about it 1850 sampling should be all over the shop.

Any thoughts? Go orn Prof - give it a go

Go on then give us an average temperature for most of the global land mass without any stations a go if you can with a straight face. What was the average temperature in 1850 or 1880 or 1890 or 1920 or 1930 for most of the global land mass? I’m talking about Africa, Canada, Russia, South America, Australia etc,

Ahhhhh. You have absolutely no idea of course. Because there were no stations. It’s remarkably simple as a concept KP. There is absolutely no data to be harvested. You cannot know. But you can obviously make stuff up and have faith, but there is no data.

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

Go on then give us an average temperature for most of the global land mass without any stations a go if you can with a straight face. What was the average temperature in 1850 or 1880 or 1890 or 1920 or 1930 for most of the global land mass? I’m talking about Africa, Canada, Russia, South America, Australia etc,

Ahhhhh. You have absolutely no idea of course. Because there were no stations. It’s remarkably simple as a concept KP. There is absolutely no data to be harvested. You cannot know. But you can obviously make stuff up and have faith, but there is no data.

So why when 1850 sampling is applied to the whole period is the result so similar? The way you talk about it 1850 sampling should be all over the shop.

I really think you should address this

Check it out - 1850 sampling produces the same pattern of early 20th century warming, flat/decreasing temps for around 30yrs, and then rapid increase from the seventies onward.

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Go on then give us an average temperature for most of the global land mass without any stations a go if you can with a straight face. What was the average temperature in 1850 or 1880 or 1890 or 1920 or 1930 for most of the global land mass? I’m talking about Africa, Canada, Russia, South America, Australia etc,

Ahhhhh. You have absolutely no idea of course. Because there were no stations. It’s remarkably simple as a concept KP. There is absolutely no data to be harvested. You cannot know. But you can obviously make stuff up and have faith, but there is no data.

So why when 1850 sampling is applied to the whole period is the result so similar? The way you talk about it 1850 sampling should be all over the shop.

I really think you should address this

Check it out - 1850 sampling produces the same pattern of early 20th century warming, flat/decreasing temps for around 30yrs, and then rapid increase from the seventies onward.

You didn’t answer the question.

[mko9]

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Go on then give us an average temperature for most of the global land mass without any stations a go if you can with a straight face. What was the average temperature in 1850 or 1880 or 1890 or 1920 or 1930 for most of the global land mass? I’m talking about Africa, Canada, Russia, South America, Australia etc,

Ahhhhh. You have absolutely no idea of course. Because there were no stations. It’s remarkably simple as a concept KP. There is absolutely no data to be harvested. You cannot know. But you can obviously make stuff up and have faith, but there is no data.

So why when 1850 sampling is applied to the whole period is the result so similar? The way you talk about it 1850 sampling should be all over the shop.

I really think you should address this

Check it out - 1850 sampling produces the same pattern of early 20th century warming, flat/decreasing temps for around 30yrs, and then rapid increase from the seventies onward.

I see two lines that barely overlay at all, and in lots of places have variations of around 0.5C or more. What do you see?

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

You didn’t answer the question.

I brought something new and interesting in and you've totally ignored it.

What about this diderot - any thoughts?

No comment.

But it's interesting isn't it?

No comment

[kerplunk]

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Go on then give us an average temperature for most of the global land mass without any stations a go if you can with a straight face. What was the average temperature in 1850 or 1880 or 1890 or 1920 or 1930 for most of the global land mass? I’m talking about Africa, Canada, Russia, South America, Australia etc,

Ahhhhh. You have absolutely no idea of course. Because there were no stations. It’s remarkably simple as a concept KP. There is absolutely no data to be harvested. You cannot know. But you can obviously make stuff up and have faith, but there is no data.

So why when 1850 sampling is applied to the whole period is the result so similar? The way you talk about it 1850 sampling should be all over the shop.

I really think you should address this

Check it out - 1850 sampling produces the same pattern of early 20th century warming, flat/decreasing temps for around 30yrs, and then rapid increase from the seventies onward.

I see two lines that barely overlay at all, and in lots of places have variations of around 0.5C or more. What do you see?

As above - I see consistant trends and that improved coverage doesn't change the overall picture much.

Claims that 1850 sampling make declarations of warmest on record since 1850 dodgy are not supported

[Diderot]

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

Diderot said:

Go on then give us an average temperature for most of the global land mass without any stations a go if you can with a straight face. What was the average temperature in 1850 or 1880 or 1890 or 1920 or 1930 for most of the global land mass? I’m talking about Africa, Canada, Russia, South America, Australia etc,

Ahhhhh. You have absolutely no idea of course. Because there were no stations. It’s remarkably simple as a concept KP. There is absolutely no data to be harvested. You cannot know. But you can obviously make stuff up and have faith, but there is no data.

So why when 1850 sampling is applied to the whole period is the result so similar? The way you talk about it 1850 sampling should be all over the shop.

I really think you should address this

Check it out - 1850 sampling produces the same pattern of early 20th century warming, flat/decreasing temps for around 30yrs, and then rapid increase from the seventies onward.

I see two lines that barely overlay at all, and in lots of places have variations of around 0.5C or more. What do you see?

As above - I see consistant trends and that improved coverage doesn't change the overall picture much.

Claims that 1850 sampling make declarations of warmest on record since 1850 dodgy are not supported

You are Aesop aicmfp. Either him or one of the brothers Grimm. Or any other fiction author.

‘Much’ is in reality how ‘much’? Give me precise figs. Give me actual data and figs (ahh, there is none). I’m not a fan of figs but we have a couple of fig trees in our garden on the south coast. Mrs Diderot harvests them. ‘It’s an index of global boiling.

Your ‘improved coverage’ is the most ridiculous statement to ever plop out of your mouth when the reality is most of the global land mass in 1880 had no stations whatever. None. Nada. Zilch. 1850 was, of course, worse. Explain ‘improved’. Do you actually understand how big Africa, South America, Russia, Australia, Canada, and the Arctic is? Do you understand how varied their respective climates are? It would not appear so. You seem prepared to just guess what the average temperature was for most of the global land mass in the 19th century when most of the global land mass had no stations.

Then you go on to cite some random individual on ttter as if he is the arbiter of the truth.