Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
ks then !! Just like the so called planet temperature !!Being as this is the Political CC forum, this is appropriate
Gerry Brown, governor of California, shows how dumb a politician can be:-
Devastating wildfires a "new normal" for California, Gov. Jerry Brown says
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/devastating-wildfires...
So at what temperature do forests spontaneously combust then?
They don't
The fires are caused by humans deliberately or carelessly, and a few infrastructure malfunctions !!!
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/201...
Gerry Brown, governor of California, shows how dumb a politician can be:-
Devastating wildfires a "new normal" for California, Gov. Jerry Brown says
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/devastating-wildfires...
So at what temperature do forests spontaneously combust then?
They don't
The fires are caused by humans deliberately or carelessly, and a few infrastructure malfunctions !!!
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/201...
LoonyTunes said:
jet_noise said:
LoonyTunes said:
Here's why Heathrow is so hot
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980493
It's the BBC so I expect it to be rubbished by a few but the findings are according to Paul Williams, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading.
Elsewhere in the article it states:
"The Met Office told us that their weather stations are built to very specific standards and any biases that could affect temperature records are taken into account when taking down readings.
The Met Office also pointed out that Heathrow is many miles from the sea, which means it does not benefit from a cooling effect that many coastal areas receive.
It says if you look at overall temperature records, there is a pattern between high temperature and the distance from the sea."
Watch the pea.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980493
It's the BBC so I expect it to be rubbished by a few but the findings are according to Paul Williams, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading.
Elsewhere in the article it states:
"The Met Office told us that their weather stations are built to very specific standards and any biases that could affect temperature records are taken into account when taking down readings.
The Met Office also pointed out that Heathrow is many miles from the sea, which means it does not benefit from a cooling effect that many coastal areas receive.
It says if you look at overall temperature records, there is a pattern between high temperature and the distance from the sea."
The article quotes record temperatures then discusses averages. The good professor avoids commenting on the maxima.
He also does not consider that Heathrow being 8 miles away from the centre (i.e 8 miles nearer the edge) of the urban island would be expected to be cooler, not the same maybe?
I wonder how the biases are "taken into account" when taking down readings. Does this mean they are adjusted in some way?
Journalist or advocate, you decide!
To take your just your first point "The article quotes record temperatures then discusses averages. The good professor avoids commenting on the maxima" - well of course it does, it's the record temperatures there that have caused the discussion to be about the average temperature there. What could he possibly say about the maxima? It is what it is.
In addition the history of faulty sensor data being retained or auto-processing that rejects low temps (Honolulu, USA & Goulburn etc, AUS) certainly does not bode well for this Prof's soothing words of principle being enacted by grunts down the line in years ahead.
Finally we come to the key question: is there established causality to humans in a) any measured temp trend to date b) any record temperature to-date in any short-timescale database - and the answers are a) no and b) no.
It's no more than chewing gum for the eyes and ears of the unthinking and those 'deliberately' adopting a faith-based position which includes various MSM outlets.
The article poses many interesting questions yet is presented as a series of assertions. The Prof may be quite correct, however.
Heathrow clearly must have its own UHI effect - what is the size?
Faversham is pretty much coastal, but regularly vies with Heathrow
Compensating adjustments are made, what are these and how accurate (there will be error bars). For the temp to be quoted to a decimal place, the adjustments have to be at a greater level of accuracy (I am going to assume)
The planes which are very regular, pump out considerable heat and will not have nil effect - so lets understand that please.
Why be so dumb as to site a weather station so close to the runway when is is clearly going to raise questions - so just shift it!
Overall, and to have some politics, why was no alternative view presented for balance?
Heathrow clearly must have its own UHI effect - what is the size?
Faversham is pretty much coastal, but regularly vies with Heathrow
Compensating adjustments are made, what are these and how accurate (there will be error bars). For the temp to be quoted to a decimal place, the adjustments have to be at a greater level of accuracy (I am going to assume)
The planes which are very regular, pump out considerable heat and will not have nil effect - so lets understand that please.
Why be so dumb as to site a weather station so close to the runway when is is clearly going to raise questions - so just shift it!
Overall, and to have some politics, why was no alternative view presented for balance?
LoonyTunes said:
That's some pretty biased points you make yourself.
To take your just your first point "The article quotes record temperatures then discusses averages. The good professor avoids commenting on the maxima" - well of course it does, it's the record temperatures there that have caused the discussion to be about the average temperature there. What could he possibly say about the maxima? It is what it is.
Not biased at all. I am considering all points rather than (apparently) ignoring those which do not support a position. To reach valid conclusions all must be considered.To take your just your first point "The article quotes record temperatures then discusses averages. The good professor avoids commenting on the maxima" - well of course it does, it's the record temperatures there that have caused the discussion to be about the average temperature there. What could he possibly say about the maxima? It is what it is.
Think a little harder about the difference between max and average. Maxima are short, averages are long. Isn't it more likely that planes are going to have short term effects and thus greatly influence maxima while only having a modest effect on averages. Hence my scepticism on the swerve from starting with maxima to comment instead on averages.
Ali G said:
The article poses many interesting questions yet is presented as a series of assertions. The Prof may be quite correct, however.
Heathrow clearly must have its own UHI effect - what is the size?
Faversham is pretty much coastal, but regularly vies with Heathrow
Compensating adjustments are made, what are these and how accurate (there will be error bars). For the temp to be quoted to a decimal place, the adjustments have to be at a greater level of accuracy (I am going to assume)
The planes which are very regular, pump out considerable heat and will not have nil effect - so lets understand that please.
Why be so dumb as to site a weather station so close to the runway when is is clearly going to raise questions - so just shift it!
Overall, and to have some politics, why was no alternative view presented for balance?
It is useful to have a weather station at an airport.Heathrow clearly must have its own UHI effect - what is the size?
Faversham is pretty much coastal, but regularly vies with Heathrow
Compensating adjustments are made, what are these and how accurate (there will be error bars). For the temp to be quoted to a decimal place, the adjustments have to be at a greater level of accuracy (I am going to assume)
The planes which are very regular, pump out considerable heat and will not have nil effect - so lets understand that please.
Why be so dumb as to site a weather station so close to the runway when is is clearly going to raise questions - so just shift it!
Overall, and to have some politics, why was no alternative view presented for balance?
It is not useful to use any of its output to indicate any more wider implications than local.
jet_noise said:
Ali G said:
The article poses many interesting questions yet is presented as a series of assertions. The Prof may be quite correct, however.
Heathrow clearly must have its own UHI effect - what is the size?
Faversham is pretty much coastal, but regularly vies with Heathrow
Compensating adjustments are made, what are these and how accurate (there will be error bars). For the temp to be quoted to a decimal place, the adjustments have to be at a greater level of accuracy (I am going to assume)
The planes which are very regular, pump out considerable heat and will not have nil effect - so lets understand that please.
Why be so dumb as to site a weather station so close to the runway when is is clearly going to raise questions - so just shift it!
Overall, and to have some politics, why was no alternative view presented for balance?
It is useful to have a weather station at an airport.Heathrow clearly must have its own UHI effect - what is the size?
Faversham is pretty much coastal, but regularly vies with Heathrow
Compensating adjustments are made, what are these and how accurate (there will be error bars). For the temp to be quoted to a decimal place, the adjustments have to be at a greater level of accuracy (I am going to assume)
The planes which are very regular, pump out considerable heat and will not have nil effect - so lets understand that please.
Why be so dumb as to site a weather station so close to the runway when is is clearly going to raise questions - so just shift it!
Overall, and to have some politics, why was no alternative view presented for balance?
It is not useful to use any of its output to indicate any more wider implications than local.
LoonyTunes said:
Ali G said:
Overall, and to have some politics, why was no alternative view presented for balance?
They were looking for Scientists I presume. I suppose they could have tried here though. Presumably by implicitly / appearing to exclude yourself (you're a PHer contributing to this thread) you're not a scientist.
turbobloke said:
A good point, there are several well-qualified scientists in this thread and more still on PH in general.
Presumably by implicitly / appearing to exclude yourself (you're a PHer contributing to this thread) you're not a scientist.
Could your name a few and their area of expertise Presumably by implicitly / appearing to exclude yourself (you're a PHer contributing to this thread) you're not a scientist.
? I’ve asked a few times on this thread and there’s apparently no climate scientists and nobody else seems willing to state their relevant expertise.
Obviously we don’t trust scientists and experts anymore anyway and if we did, it would be appeals to authority, but I was just surprised there was (m)any on this thread.
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
A good point, there are several well-qualified scientists in this thread and more still on PH in general.
Presumably by implicitly / appearing to exclude yourself (you're a PHer contributing to this thread) you're not a scientist.
Could your name a few and their area of expertise Presumably by implicitly / appearing to exclude yourself (you're a PHer contributing to this thread) you're not a scientist.
? I’ve asked a few times on this thread and there’s apparently no climate scientists and nobody else seems willing to state their relevant expertise.
Obviously we don’t trust scientists and experts anymore anyway and if we did, it would be appeals to authority, but I was just surprised there was (m)any on this thread.
It's a non-point not least because various authorities you and others like to appeal to either directly or indirectly via the organisations in which they base their activism have no qualifications in 'climate science'. They are astronomers, geographers, geologists, mathematicians and so on. This point you made about referring to data not opinion isn't reflected in what you post afaics.
There are several well-qualified scientists contributing to this thread and more on PH in general, that's the extent of the point I made.
El stovey said:
Obviously we don’t trust scientists and experts anymore anyway and if we did, it would be appeals to authority, but I was just surprised there was (m)any on this thread.
Are you suggesting that copious Googlewaffling hasn't been sufficient to convince you of somebody's bona fides? Countdown said:
El stovey said:
Obviously we don’t trust scientists and experts anymore anyway and if we did, it would be appeals to authority, but I was just surprised there was (m)any on this thread.
Are you suggesting that copious Googlewaffling hasn't been sufficient to convince you of somebody's bona fides? El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
A good point, there are several well-qualified scientists in this thread and more still on PH in general.
Presumably by implicitly / appearing to exclude yourself (you're a PHer contributing to this thread) you're not a scientist.
Could your name a few and their area of expertise Presumably by implicitly / appearing to exclude yourself (you're a PHer contributing to this thread) you're not a scientist.
? I’ve asked a few times on this thread and there’s apparently no climate scientists and nobody else seems willing to state their relevant expertise.
Obviously we don’t trust scientists and experts anymore anyway and if we did, it would be appeals to authority, but I was just surprised there was (m)any on this thread.
dickymint said:
Many people on PH do not want their “stuff” made public so why ask for names and professions - your own profile is entirely blank FFS
It’s just that turbobloke said there was scientists in this thread, I assumed it would be public knowledge.Is there a secret scientists on the climate thread forum perhaps?
Do you know of any of your group that are scientists?
dickymint said:
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
A good point, there are several well-qualified scientists in this thread and more still on PH in general.
Presumably by implicitly / appearing to exclude yourself (you're a PHer contributing to this thread) you're not a scientist.
Could your name a few and their area of expertise Presumably by implicitly / appearing to exclude yourself (you're a PHer contributing to this thread) you're not a scientist.
? I’ve asked a few times on this thread and there’s apparently no climate scientists and nobody else seems willing to state their relevant expertise.
Obviously we don’t trust scientists and experts anymore anyway and if we did, it would be appeals to authority, but I was just surprised there was (m)any on this thread.
El stovey said:
turbobloke said:
There are several well-qualified scientists contributing to this thread and more on PH in general, that's the extent of the point I made.
That agree with you regarding climate science and are actually on this thread? For example I know from examining publicly available evidence based on credible empirical data with properly constituted error bars that there is no visible anthropogenic forcing visible in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (energy) data and no visible causal human signal in any global climate (temperature) data. Therefore the agw concept as marketed by activists is fundamentally flawed.
However as anyone in my position with a background in the physics and chemistry of planetary atmospheres will know, the atmosphere and incoming/outgoing radiation interact (!) and I have already posted several times in variious PH climate threads that there will be a transient and insignificant incremental delay in cooling particularly from early anthropogenic emissions which started adding to pre-existing levels.
This however is in no way in keeping with the notion of 'permanent dangerous warming'. Empirical data agrees with my position, and disagrees with the nonscience of permanent dangerous warming.
I don't know whether other PHers known to me to be scientists agree or disagree with this particular view of events. I do know from reading posts that there are scientists who disagree with the IPCC flavour of climate junkscience but what their precise view is on what Is, rather than is not, happening is something I haven't asked about nor have they told me. It would surprise me if there was precise agreement on all aspects as such close agreement is rate and certainly not found among IPCC scientists.
I have been informed by an IPCC Lead Author via email that IPCC working group meetings are typified by disagreement...or to be accurate, were typified (1990s to early 2000s) as public disagreement may by now be on the banned list and considered to be heresy against agw doctrine. See under 'CERN lead scientist orders other scientists not to discuss implications of CLOUD experiment results supporting Svensmark solar eruptivity forcing mechanism'. At least one Convening Lead Author has in the past shut down debate and effectively closed a meeting when their own pet theory was challenged.
Some copy-and-paste follows from relevant emails.
"there was controversy on every chapter" (drafts for IPCC report)
"speaking with two Lead Authors of another chapter who were mortified at their just-concluded session because the Convening Lead Author had basically shut off debate which was casting substantial doubt on a particular sacred view he was espousing"
"all of the IPCC Lead Authors did not agree to a single thing"
"there is a misperception about the IPCC process as producing some kind of bible of absolute truth on climate developed by unanimously inspired authors"
On IPCC Reports' Summary For Policymakers (SPMs):
"not objective enough as the uncertainties are largely downplayed in favour of promoting catastrophic scenarios"
turbobloke said:
For example I know from examining publicly available evidence based on credible empirical data with properly constituted error bars that there is no visible anthropogenic forcing visible in top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (energy) data and no visible causal human signal in any global climate (temperature) data. Therefore the agw concept as marketed by activists is fundamentally flawed.
Just to clarify, what are you claiming here exactly? That we don't have good enough kit to detect the radiative imbalance, or that it's absence has been confirmed by measurements? That strongly worded final sentence suggests the latter.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff