Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Climate Alert - incoming!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/an-avalanche-of-...
One interesting point amid the general thrust - I did not know that surface temperature stations had been closed in a manner that would be expected to affect the average readings. Still, I'm sure that has been accounted for accurately in the models.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/an-avalanche-of-...
One interesting point amid the general thrust - I did not know that surface temperature stations had been closed in a manner that would be expected to affect the average readings. Still, I'm sure that has been accounted for accurately in the models.
grumbledoak said:
Climate Alert - incoming!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/an-avalanche-of-...
One interesting point amid the general thrust - I did not know that surface temperature stations had been closed in a manner that would be expected to affect the average readings. Still, I'm sure that has been accounted for accurately in the models.
A warm contamination of up to 50% has been shown by several peer reviewed papers including one by Tom Karl (1988), director of NOAA’s NCDC who recycled himself as the failed pause-buster aka the ship intake man in 2015.http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/an-avalanche-of-...
One interesting point amid the general thrust - I did not know that surface temperature stations had been closed in a manner that would be expected to affect the average readings. Still, I'm sure that has been accounted for accurately in the models.
This graphic demonstrates well if imperfectly what happened to temps (vertical bars) when large numbers of mostly cool stations (small circles, numbers on RHS) were left out.
Warmists have long-tried to dismiss this impact, but we can thank the Russians for confirming it's real and that The Team's denial
is empty.Even the Oz lot have been caught at it.
Graham Lloyd of The Australian said:
The Bureau of Meteorology has ordered a full review of temperature recording equipment and procedures after the peak weather agency was caught tampering with cold winter temperature logs in at least two locations.
Bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon blew the whistle on the missing data after watching the minus 10.4C Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. “The temperature dropped to minus 10.4, stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10 and then it disappeared,” Mr Pidgeon said.
He relayed his concerns to scientist Jennifer Marohasy, who has queried the bureau’s treatment of historical temperature data. After questions were asked, the bureau restored the original recording of minus 10.4C to its website. A bureau spokeswoman said the low recording had been checked for “quality assurance” before being posted.
The bureau said limits were set on how low temperatures could go at some stations before a manual check was needed to confirm them. “The bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at minus 10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted,” a bureau spokeswoman said.
A similar failure had deleted a reading of minus 10.4 at Thredbo Top on July 16 even though temperatures at that station had been recorded as low as minus 14.7 in the past. That temperature was still blank on the bureau’s website yesterday.
Systematic.Bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon blew the whistle on the missing data after watching the minus 10.4C Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. “The temperature dropped to minus 10.4, stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10 and then it disappeared,” Mr Pidgeon said.
He relayed his concerns to scientist Jennifer Marohasy, who has queried the bureau’s treatment of historical temperature data. After questions were asked, the bureau restored the original recording of minus 10.4C to its website. A bureau spokeswoman said the low recording had been checked for “quality assurance” before being posted.
The bureau said limits were set on how low temperatures could go at some stations before a manual check was needed to confirm them. “The bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at minus 10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted,” a bureau spokeswoman said.
A similar failure had deleted a reading of minus 10.4 at Thredbo Top on July 16 even though temperatures at that station had been recorded as low as minus 14.7 in the past. That temperature was still blank on the bureau’s website yesterday.
grumbledoak said:
Climate Alert - incoming!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/an-avalanche-of-...
One interesting point amid the general thrust - I did not know that surface temperature stations had been closed in a manner that would be expected to affect the average readings. Still, I'm sure that has been accounted for accurately in the models.
I remember someone on here posting a gif of the location of weather stations in North America over a period of time, it showed a movement south, it was surprising the change of locations, having always thought locations were static.http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/03/an-avalanche-of-...
One interesting point amid the general thrust - I did not know that surface temperature stations had been closed in a manner that would be expected to affect the average readings. Still, I'm sure that has been accounted for accurately in the models.
Ali G said:
How's the BS patrol coming along these days, durbs?
Oh, it's pretty boring these days to be honest. Just the same, tired old stuff regurgitated every few weeks. 
Food is the real hotbed of online bulls
t these days. I'm currently engaged with some people who believe that "natural" is best for us.durbster said:
Ali G said:
How's the BS patrol coming along these days, durbs?
Oh, it's pretty boring these days to be honest. Just the same, tired old stuff regurgitated every few weeks. Food is the real hotbed of online bulls
t these days. I'm currently engaged with some people who believe that "natural" is best for us.Might get away with very slow cooked in a greenhouse or perhaps with a heat pump. (Hand powered of course.)
Not in summer of course - just when cooler food is often popular.
In summer people will be able to cook anything almost instantly on stones, any remaining pavement or roads and indeed any other hot surface of which there will no doubt be many.
The second primary principle is to reduce food miles. So indeed anything that can be obtained locally might be considered as "natural" I suppose.
Right now it is probably bad form to eat you neighbour raw - unless you know then well and can be fairly certain of their disease status - but no doubt the "law makers" will eventually be persuaded to mandate a change in such constraints of nourishment and allow anything - so long as they get first dibs on the tastiest bits.
Free food AND a reduction in planetary population and consumption. You know it make sense.
Obviously I don't expect you to feel able to understand any of this durbster.
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Jeez, I'm a web developer - you'd think I'd get the part I do know about right 
seeing as we are back on the personal digs did you have a hand in the (non) skeptical science website ? Believe it or not, outside of this thread I give this subject very little thought.
I've said before but I'm more interested in the psychology of people who reject science when it reveals something they're uncomfortable with. Bulls
t on the internet, and people's inability to recognise it, is a growing problem and needs addressing.Edited by durbster on Monday 6th November 17:48
robinessex said:
durbster said:
wc98 said:
durbster said:
Jeez, I'm a web developer - you'd think I'd get the part I do know about right
seeing as we are back on the personal digs did you have a hand in the (non) skeptical science website ? Believe it or not, outside of this thread I give this subject very little thought.
I've said before but I'm more interested in the psychology of people who reject science when it reveals something they're uncomfortable with. Bulls
t on the internet, and people's inability to recognise it, is a growing problem and needs addressing.Edited by durbster on Monday 6th November 17:48
More snow and less snow.
More frequent hurricanes and less frequent hurricanes.
More-intense hurricanes and less-intense hurricanes.
Each represents non-falsifiable nonscience for the gullible and the motivated to lap up.
When the science is science, and falsifiable, it's falsified. For example, global warming junkscience predicted less intense jet stream activity closer to the pole, what we got with recent storms in the UK was a more intense jet stream that moved away from the pole. The agw brassneckers and useless politicians still claimed the stormy weather was due to global warming and the media lapped it up. No wonder the agw grant recipients like the look of double-headed coins.
And ~50 inadequate climate models rather than one skilful model with 50 scenarios will do nicely, that way one edge of the gigo envelope will remain closer to reality for on-side journalists to run with it. If that fails, reality is altered by adjusting the data (remove cold stations, delete cold temperature readings, substitute urbanised or lower altitude station readings for rural locations / higher altitude locations hundreds of km away, decide in 2015 to use less accurate and more heat-contaminated ship engine intake temperatures etc).
Climatewang!
robinessex said:
The only science I'm uncomfortable with is science that can’t be proved. Climate change science springs to mind here.
The problem with that is you've already declared that you will automatically dismiss any evidence of AGW, so you're clearly too far down the rabbit hole to see reason.zygalski said:
Question is, 'spam, if you have overwhelming evidence of AGW fraud by the climate science establishment, why don't you publish your original research and findings so that it can reach a wider audience than a corner if a car enthusiasts forum?
Yes, and links and to how this peer reviewed irrefutable science is received by the (actual) scientific community. I’ll be proud to see a PHer change the course of history and have a lasting impact on science and civilisation by exposing the biggest lie and what must be the most massive fraud of or time.
El stovey said:
zygalski said:
Question is, 'spam, if you have overwhelming evidence of AGW fraud by the climate science establishment, why don't you publish your original research and findings so that it can reach a wider audience than a corner if a car enthusiasts forum?
Yes, and links and to how this peer reviewed irrefutable science is received by the (actual) scientific community. I’ll be proud to see a PHer change the course of history and have a lasting impact on science and civilisation by exposing the biggest lie and what must be the most massive fraud of or time.
El stovey said:
zygalski said:
Question is, 'spam, if you have overwhelming evidence of AGW fraud by the climate science establishment, why don't you publish your original research and findings so that it can reach a wider audience than a corner if a car enthusiasts forum?
Yes, and links and to how this peer reviewed irrefutable science is received by the (actual) scientific community. I’ll be proud to see a PHer change the course of history and have a lasting impact on science and civilisation by exposing the biggest lie and what must be the most massive fraud of or time.
The pointless repetition over publications is pointless. I've already sent details to a third party as seen in a PH thread long ago. In addition, in one or two past climate threads, I've posted data / graphic representation from a study of the sun-earth interaction relating to solar eruptivity forcing that the IPCC ignores. Not just any old study
Why not take the easy option and show how those 15 serious problems with gigo climate models that I raised are fake news? The answer is obvious - it's not fake news and the people in awe to model gigo who believe it all so truly don't know or understand enough to hold a reasoned view (otherwise they could respond on-topic as an easy option and convince me/us that models are marvellous. Ho Ho Ho).
I'm not the only PHer in that 'published' position, tallbloke is a published scientist of similar viewpoint - though I can't and don't speak for him. Are others proud, are we proud? It's science not Gordon Brown saving the world. Then again neither are believers saving the world.
Nobody needs to expose anything these days, Climategate already did that (self-inflicted) and the sales of whitewash went through the roof afterwards.
Why not get believer scientists to publish irrefutable evidence i.e. empirical data showing an anthropogenic forcing in TOA radiative imbalance, or a visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data? Neither of these critical pieces of evidence exists, that's why. There would otherwise be no need for gigo modelling posing as evidence, nor for armwaving true belief. As we lack neither the TOA radiative imbalance evidence and the visible causal human signal, there's nothing to expose as reality is visible for any independent-minded person to see.
turbobloke said:
dickymint said:
Tallbloke is having a bloody good go
Aye, I said the same thing but must type quicker! 
..... and for the noobies that have only been on here for the ‘strawberry season’ here’s a taster of what can happen to people who dare question!
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/12/uk-police-s...
Edited by dickymint on Tuesday 7th November 10:03
durbster said:
robinessex said:
The only science I'm uncomfortable with is science that can’t be proved. Climate change science springs to mind here.
The problem with that is you've already declared that you will automatically dismiss any evidence of AGW, so you're clearly too far down the rabbit hole to see reason.PS. Planet warmer, a problem ?
robinessex said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
The only science I'm uncomfortable with is science that can’t be proved. Climate change science springs to mind here.
The problem with that is you've already declared that you will automatically dismiss any evidence of AGW, so you're clearly too far down the rabbit hole to see reason.PS. Planet warmer, a problem ?
Warmer? See 'climate optimum'.
Due to us? No credible evidence, merely opinions based on the holders' confidence level in their own belief system...expressed via a percentage number that the casual reader could confuse with a valid statistical expression.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff