Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Engineer792 said:
wc98 said:
Engineer792 said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Apparently the entire NH cooled 1C last month, 0.5C globally
Do you have a reference for that?Natural variation has always dominated the scene, outwith volcanism and ENSO offering a visible causal signal, there not being any visible causal human signal anywhere in global data. Under the principles of sound science including the Beer Law, there isn't likely to be one at this stage aside from a significant nuclear exchange and that won't have anything to do with tax gas.
Religious belief and political expediency still say we're overheating, but that's been cobblers all along.
turbobloke said:
Engineer792 said:
wc98 said:
Engineer792 said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Apparently the entire NH cooled 1C last month, 0.5C globally
Do you have a reference for that?Natural variation has always dominated the scene, outwith volcanism and ENSO offering a visible causal signal, there not being any visible causal human signal anywhere in global data. Under the principles of sound science including the Beer Law, there isn't likely to be one at this stage aside from a significant nuclear exchange and that won't have anything to do with tax gas.
Religious belief and political expediency still say we're overheating, but that's been cobblers all along.
But another part of me is hoping that it doesn't, because I've reached that time of life when I start struggling a bit with cold weather.
The Don of Croy said:
Timely return to an old hobby horse of mine - sugared water with added CO2.
Courtesy of the Grauniad -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may...
- quoting Greenpeace figures that Coke produces 100billion plastic bottles per year (the cans are on top of that)!
Just how much CO2 would you find in 100billion bottles of pop? Enough to cause (a little) Global Warming?
And the scary detail - that the seas will contain more plastic by weight than fish within 33 years (sounds entirely plausible).
Time to tax those bottles. Or at least make them socially unacceptable?
And you can at least double the amount that goes into the bottles. I've done umpteen extraction systems that extract directly to atmosphere - very large and well known brewery!!Courtesy of the Grauniad -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may...
- quoting Greenpeace figures that Coke produces 100billion plastic bottles per year (the cans are on top of that)!
Just how much CO2 would you find in 100billion bottles of pop? Enough to cause (a little) Global Warming?
And the scary detail - that the seas will contain more plastic by weight than fish within 33 years (sounds entirely plausible).
Time to tax those bottles. Or at least make them socially unacceptable?
Engineer792 said:
turbobloke said:
Engineer792 said:
wc98 said:
Engineer792 said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Apparently the entire NH cooled 1C last month, 0.5C globally
Do you have a reference for that?Natural variation has always dominated the scene, outwith volcanism and ENSO offering a visible causal signal, there not being any visible causal human signal anywhere in global data. Under the principles of sound science including the Beer Law, there isn't likely to be one at this stage aside from a significant nuclear exchange and that won't have anything to do with tax gas.
Religious belief and political expediency still say we're overheating, but that's been cobblers all along.
But another part of me is hoping that it doesn't, because I've reached that time of life when I start struggling a bit with cold weather.
Climate optima = warm =
Engineer792 said:
The Don of Croy said:
Timely return to an old hobby horse of mine - sugared water with added CO2.
Courtesy of the Grauniad -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may...
- quoting Greenpeace figures that Coke produces 100billion plastic bottles per year (the cans are on top of that)!
Just how much CO2 would you find in 100billion bottles of pop? Enough to cause (a little) Global Warming?
And the scary detail - that the seas will contain more plastic by weight than fish within 33 years (sounds entirely plausible).
Time to tax those bottles. Or at least make them socially unacceptable?
I'm old enough to remember that one of the big arguments put forward against glass bottles at the time was the very significant danger to the public from broken glass bottles - which, incidentally, is why glass beer bottles started being phased out long before glass soft drink bottles were.Courtesy of the Grauniad -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may...
- quoting Greenpeace figures that Coke produces 100billion plastic bottles per year (the cans are on top of that)!
Just how much CO2 would you find in 100billion bottles of pop? Enough to cause (a little) Global Warming?
And the scary detail - that the seas will contain more plastic by weight than fish within 33 years (sounds entirely plausible).
Time to tax those bottles. Or at least make them socially unacceptable?
I suspected it was more motivated by greater profit, which would be gained from lower transport costs and abandonment of re-claim and re-use processes needed for glass.
Publicising Green Motives as a cover for money making schemes? Surely not!
Engineer792 said:
Unfortunately, there's little evidence there to suggest that it's anything other than a short-term fluctuation.
Especially if you look at the longer-term record from the data source referred to (and remember that the baseline that they appear to be comparing the anomaly to is 1981-2010)...The series from '79-'88:
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_197...
From '89-'04
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_198...
and from '04 to date
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_200...
Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 3rd May 17:18
Lotus 50 said:
Engineer792 said:
Unfortunately, there's little evidence there to suggest that it's anything other than a short-term fluctuation.
Especially if you look at the longer-term record from the data source referred to (and remember that the baseline that they appear to be comparing the anomaly to is 1981-2010)...The series from '79-'88:
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_197...
From '89-'04
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_198...
and from '04 to date
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_200...
Why would it be disputed, it's what's been happening for billions of years - but you seem to be replying to such a dispute.
Interesting plots, showing natural variation and nothing remotely human-induced.
We can say that because there's no causality to humans in any microtrend on any timescale in those plots or other plots.
Was it all supposed somehow to offer any hope for awol agw?
If it was pure politics then OK this thread is a good place for it
turbobloke said:
The presence of normal, natural variation over all timescales has never been disupted. Not that those plots are much use for changes over the order of 30 days.
Why would it be disputed, it's what's been happening for billions of years - but you seem to be replying to such a dispute.
Interesting plots, showing natural variation and nothing remotely human-induced.
We can say that because there's no causality to humans in any microtrend on any timescale in those plots or other plots.
Was it all supposed somehow to offer any hope for awol agw?
If it was pure politics then OK this thread is a good place for it
I'm not disputing the normal variability around longer-term temp changes. Not sure what you mean by the reference to 30 days, what I was showing was that the reference provided by WC98 suggesting that the temp anomaly had dropped to +0.1 degree is misleading - the data series being referred to uses a recent baseline rather than a 'pre-industrial' one, thus reducing the anomaly. Then if you look at the whole data series provided by weather bell there is a fairly clear longer-term upward trend over the '79-'17 period. Not that dissimilar to:Why would it be disputed, it's what's been happening for billions of years - but you seem to be replying to such a dispute.
Interesting plots, showing natural variation and nothing remotely human-induced.
We can say that because there's no causality to humans in any microtrend on any timescale in those plots or other plots.
Was it all supposed somehow to offer any hope for awol agw?
If it was pure politics then OK this thread is a good place for it
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/cl...
On the subject of causality - a quick rummage through google scholar indicates you're wrong, but then that's probably something for the science thread.
Lotus 50 said:
On the subject of causality - a quick rummage through google scholar indicates you're wrong, but then that's probably something for the science thread.
Don't just drop a google 'reference' and run away, share the link(s) so others can pull the contents apart. An even better thing to do would be to link to the data or graphic showing a visible causal human signal that doesn't exist. Either or both of these (data, graphic) will be easily found at any/all of the google links you failed to post, right?
There is no visible causal human signal in any global climate data. Fourteen years min of PH threads and amazingly no true believer has ever posted this data or a graphic representing it, have a think.
This is what the IPCC had to say, and only The Pause and ENSO happened since.
IPCC said:
Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'.
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6)In summary, you are wrong.
dickymint said:
Lotus 50 said:
On the subject of causality - a quick rummage through google scholar indicates you're wrong, but then that's probably something for the science thread.
Somebody claimed the prize? .... nope thought not.http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm
I've already posted the links to several papers I found through 30 minutes of rummaging in Google scholar in the science thread twice, suggest you go and have a look over there.
And FWIW the £100k prize, if it was ever a valid competition closed months ago.
And FWIW the £100k prize, if it was ever a valid competition closed months ago.
Edited by Lotus 50 on Wednesday 3rd May 20:57
Lotus 50 said:
I've already posted the links I found through 30 minutes of rummaging in Google scholar in the science thread twice, suggest you go and have a look over there.
And FWIW the £100k prize, if it was ever a valid competition closed months ago.
As no believer scientists have claimed the easy prize, the conclusion is obvious.And FWIW the £100k prize, if it was ever a valid competition closed months ago.
As to posting links, when? Why are you delaying the inevitable demolition of your false claim? Hang on that's the reason, imminent demolition.
Post the links here, how difficult is that and it's a reasonable courtesy to do so if you raise the point in this thread and you're clearly inviting a response in this thread.
The climate science thread is a misnomer in any case, it should be the climate junkscience thread as climate these days is political not scientific. Ask Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC or see his quote as posted n times in PH climate threads.
As a result of the lack of any visible causal human signal in global climate data, believer scientists have no option but to resort to tortuous and failed attempts at manufacturing 'evidence'. At the link below is a clinical demolition of the junkscience / junkstats in one such episode.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
Politics is where it's at these days.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/17849/
Politics is where it's at these days.
Lotus 50 said:
I've already posted the links to several papers I found through 30 minutes of rummaging in Google scholar in the science thread twice, suggest you go and have a look over there.
And FWIW the £100k prize, if it was ever a valid competition closed months ago.
Indeed.And FWIW the £100k prize, if it was ever a valid competition closed months ago.
This "Remarks" page, added after the competition closed, might be interesting reading.
http://www.informath.org/Contest1000/Remarks.htm
Lotus 50 said:
I'm not disputing the normal variability around longer-term temp changes. Not sure what you mean by the reference to 30 days, what I was showing was that the reference provided by WC98 suggesting that the temp anomaly had dropped to +0.1 degree is misleading - the data series being referred to uses a recent baseline rather than a 'pre-industrial' one, thus reducing the anomaly. Then if you look at the whole data series provided by weather bell there is a fairly clear longer-term upward trend over the '79-'17 period. Not that dissimilar to:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/cl...
On the subject of causality - a quick rummage through google scholar indicates you're wrong, but then that's probably something for the science thread.
funny you should mention baseline periods for judging anomalies as dmi has just switched to 81-2010 for the greenland ice sheet mass balance . this switch means the recent increase looks much less on the new chart than it did using the previous baseline. i am sure it is just a coincidence.http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/cl...
On the subject of causality - a quick rummage through google scholar indicates you're wrong, but then that's probably something for the science thread.
for me anything less than 1000 years is just noise, whatever climate metric you look at.
LongQ said:
Indeed.
This "Remarks" page, added after the competition closed, might be interesting reading.
http://www.informath.org/Contest1000/Remarks.htm
it certainly is interesting reading .i hope he does not pursue any libel action .looking at the steyn/ mann suit it is a waste of time expecting a judgement in a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost.This "Remarks" page, added after the competition closed, might be interesting reading.
http://www.informath.org/Contest1000/Remarks.htm
turbobloke said:
As no believer scientists have claimed the easy prize, the conclusion is obvious.
As to posting links, when? Why are you delaying the inevitable demolition of your false claim? Hang on that's the reason, imminent demolition.
Post the links here, how difficult is that and it's a reasonable courtesy to do so if you raise the point in this thread and you're clearly inviting a response in this thread.
The climate science thread is a misnomer in any case, it should be the climate junkscience thread as climate these days is political not scientific. Ask Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC or see his quote as posted n times in PH climate threads.
Er no - the links I posted are to scientific papers so any discussion around them should be there. People get harangued by you and others for posting science in response to the politics that gets posted here so why should I? I've posted the links twice in the other thread recently so they should be easy enough to find and I find it odd that you should suggest I"m lying when all you've got to do is go and have a look. As to posting links, when? Why are you delaying the inevitable demolition of your false claim? Hang on that's the reason, imminent demolition.
Post the links here, how difficult is that and it's a reasonable courtesy to do so if you raise the point in this thread and you're clearly inviting a response in this thread.
The climate science thread is a misnomer in any case, it should be the climate junkscience thread as climate these days is political not scientific. Ask Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPCC or see his quote as posted n times in PH climate threads.
Lotus 50 said:
Er no - the links I posted are to scientific papers so any discussion around them should be there. People get harangued by you and others for posting science in response to the politics that gets posted here so why should I? I've posted the links twice in the other thread recently so they should be easy enough to find and I find it odd that you should suggest I"m lying when all you've got to do is go and have a look.
I'm sure LongQ will support your position since he regularly berates people for posting science in here. ...oh wait, you are posting stuff he disagrees with so no, he'll back up turbobloke instead.
Although to be fair. turbobloke is waaaaay out of his comfort zone in the science thread since none of those pesky scientists will back up his assertions
Edited by durbster on Thursday 4th May 07:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff