Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

gadgetmac

4,520 posts

46 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
dickymint said:
Who are "we"?
The people who’ve spotted it previously. Well, except for 2 who are now banned. biggrin

gadgetmac

4,520 posts

46 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
Jacobyte said:
gadgetmac said:
The reason for that is that the trend is still upwards.

When the trend switches to downwards then I'd expect the headlines to reflect that...
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. wink
NASA and the NOAA were due to release their annual report on Earth’s climate today but due to the US govt shutdown they now can’t. Last year’s report published in January revealed that 2017 was the second warmest year on record.

From the information that is out there now the best guesses are that 2018 report will show it was the fourth warmest year on record.

Of course, the global conspiracy theorists will have steam blowing from their ears when the report eventually gets published hehe

Just CO2 doing its thing.

hairykrishna

10,837 posts

141 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Are you serious? The tides are caused by the moon, which, when I last checked, was pretty regular in it circumnavigation of our planet. Even my grandkids know that. Says a lot about your (lack of) knowledge, doesn’t it ?
Obviously his point was that we can predict the general response of a highly chaotic system (the oceans) to external forcings. I wonder what else this could be relevant to?

Unfortunately it's you showing your ignorance and lack of understanding of things you cut and paste because the moons orbit is also chaotic. It just has a very long Lyapunov time.

dickymint

16,182 posts

196 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
Who are "we"?
The people who’ve spotted it previously. Well, except for 2 who are now banned. biggrin
Spotted what?

You really are the king of deliberately not quoting the entire post so as to introduce ambiguity.

Anyhow it’s Friday and time for beers and a curry with Wifey and mates - carry on bashing away on your keyboard. drink

gadgetmac

4,520 posts

46 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
For those deniers who like to post random pictures here’s a couple I’ve just bumped into.

They prove nothing but then hey, when has that ever stopped deniers posting them biggrin

First pic is 100 hundred years ago versus today.




Advertisement

Terminator X

7,082 posts

142 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Jacobyte said:
gadgetmac said:
The reason for that is that the trend is still upwards.

When the trend switches to downwards then I'd expect the headlines to reflect that...
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that. wink
NASA and the NOAA were due to release their annual report on Earth’s climate today but due to the US govt shutdown they now can’t. Last year’s report published in January revealed that 2017 was the second warmest year on record.

From the information that is out there now the best guesses are that 2018 report will show it was the fourth warmest year on record.

Of course, the global conspiracy theorists will have steam blowing from their ears when the report eventually gets published hehe

Just CO2 doing its thing.
Feel free to correct me but each year is 100ths of a degree C "warmer" than the last warmest ever isn't it? The square root of fk all springs to mind.

TX.

PRTVR

4,509 posts

159 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
For those deniers who like to post random pictures here’s a couple I’ve just bumped into.

They prove nothing but then hey, when has that ever stopped deniers posting them biggrin

First pic is 100 hundred years ago versus today.



Michael portillo comments on old glacier retreat.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019...

turbobloke

83,977 posts

198 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
Terminator X said:
The square root of fk all springs to mind.

TX.
Indeed.

Within error bars springs to mind, sensors near UHIE locations springs to mind, lack of established causality to humans springs to mind, data adjustments equals warming springs to mind, crock of the proverbial springs to mind.

yes

turbobloke

83,977 posts

198 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
For those deniers who like to post random pictures here’s a couple I’ve just bumped into.

They prove nothing but then hey, when has that ever stopped deniers posting them biggrin

First pic is 100 hundred years ago versus today.

The Alaska situation PRTVR linked to is close to home here. The glacier in those non-random pics is either Blomstrandbreen or Wahlenbergbreen. It's a case of iirc where I can't definitely rc but it's one of those. I'd put a shilling on the side for Blomstrandbreen as I seem to recall the Wahlenbergbreen example had a chap standing in front of it, rather than a boat.

The pics are from a stunt by Greenpeace which took place on the arctic island of Svalbard and are (also iirc) from 1918 and 2002 so not quite a hundred years apart. Easy enough to check if anyone wants to do so, don't take my word for it.

This silly propaganda attempt backfired when Prof Ole Humlum of the Norwegian research centre on Svalbard pointed out in the media that glaciers on Svalbard undergo a rapid advance lasting 5 to 7 years, then retreat slowly for the next 80 to100 years. This has been happening since before the first pic was taken and is a well-known phenomenon.

Other glaciers on Svalbard not photographed by Greenpeace e.g. Friddjovbreen had advanced more than a mile in the last 7 years at the time those pics were taken. The difference between a pic of a glacier advancing and a glacier retreating depended only on the choice of glacier. Guess what Greenpeace did - aye, picked a glacier or two at points in their cycle near the end of the natural approx 100 year retreat.

Those who wanted to fall for the stunt fell for it, some are still falling.

gadgetmac

4,520 posts

46 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
Terminator X said:
Feel free to correct me but each year is 100ths of a degree C "warmer" than the last warmest ever isn't it? The square root of fk all springs to mind.

TX.
Which would be true(ish) if the planets temperature were rising at a rate of 1/100th of a degree per year but the evidence shows the rate is increasing and not steady.

This is from NASA the people with machinery roaming the surface of another planet.

“The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.”

Vanden Saab

1,587 posts

12 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Terminator X said:
Feel free to correct me but each year is 100ths of a degree C "warmer" than the last warmest ever isn't it? The square root of fk all springs to mind.

TX.
Which would be true(ish) if the planets temperature were rising at a rate of 1/100th of a degree per year but the evidence shows the rate is increasing and not steady.

This is from NASA the people with machinery roaming the surface of another planet.

“The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.”
As a matter of interest when did records begin?

turbobloke

83,977 posts

198 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Terminator X said:
Feel free to correct me but each year is 100ths of a degree C "warmer" than the last warmest ever isn't it? The square root of fk all springs to mind.

TX.
Which would be true(ish) if the planets temperature were rising at a rate of 1/100th of a degree per year but the evidence shows the rate is increasing and not steady.

This is from NASA the people with machinery roaming the surface of another planet.

“The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.”
The removal of high altitude / cold stations which reduced the total number of temperature stations substantially, and significant upward adjustments involviing the corrupted near-surface temperature database, both occurred in the last 35 years. Anyone with an ounce of nous can do the maths.




turbobloke

83,977 posts

198 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
Back to glaciers, we've had Alaska and Svalbard so why not complete the hat-trick with the Himalayas.

Report said:
The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the (286) glaciers they studied in the Karakoram range of the northwestern Himlayas are in fact advancing, and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.
The largest political advocacy outfit on the planet has had a tough time with glaciers. At the time of the IPCC's embarrassing Himalayan glacier error, the then head of the IPCC, railway engineer and novelist Dr Rajendra Pachauri admitted their erroneous diappearance claim was gleaned from unchecked research (and a numerical typo). Sloppy second rates.

Coverage said:
(The IPCC) report claimed the Himalayan glaciers would disappear entirely by 2035, leading to widespread drought, starvation and migration. It was rubbish, as the unapologetic IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to admit.
Then there's the phenomenon of a glacier with two snouts, one advancing and one retreating at the same time, is tax gas that capable even when on holiday?

durbster

7,117 posts

160 months

Friday 18th January
quotequote all
robinessex said:
durbster said:
You missed the point. The oceans are a "chaotic system", agreed?
Typical Durbster swerve. You got it catastrophically WRONG, and now trying to wriggle out.
Speaking of wriggling out of things, I'll ask you for the third time: do you agree the oceans are a chaotic system?

Edited by durbster on Friday 18th January 21:09

Jasandjules

61,954 posts

167 months

gadgetmac

4,520 posts

46 months

Saturday 19th January
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
The removal of high altitude / cold stations which reduced the total number of temperature stations substantially, and significant upward adjustments involviing the corrupted near-surface temperature database, both occurred in the last 35 years. Anyone with an ounce of nous can do the maths.



You need to start putting your sources in.

zygalski

5,455 posts

83 months

Saturday 19th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
You need to start putting your sources in.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/22/weather-station-data-raw-or-adjusted/

Straight from 'Spam's favourite right wing blog site WUWT.

turbobloke

83,977 posts

198 months

Saturday 19th January
quotequote all
zygalski said:
gadgetmac said:
You need to start putting your sources in.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/22/weather-station-data-raw-or-adjusted/

Straight from 'Spam's favourite right wing blog site WUWT.
Did anyone, apart from me in reply, give green peas and their Svalbard stunt as the primary source of the glacier propaganda? Where were you guys at that time, asleep?! Or just looking the other way maybe. One of you posted the stuff, the one moaning about giving sources wobble

The above WUWT nonsense arises from your own standard failure to understand and cope with secondary and primary sources.

The primary source I used is (and was, the last two or three times this attrition loop has been looped) Dr Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph.

https://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.ht...

It's such common knowledge that any respectable agw supporter should either know it by now or remember it from the last loop. McKitrick's uni webpage above gives more details.

Good to see the Svalbard glacier propaganda bust going down so well.

Meanwhile...from Dr Ian Plimer (primary source) via The Australian and GWPF (secondary sources):

It is often claimed that 97 per cent of scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. Is that really true? No. It is a zombie statistic.

97% of Scientists Agree on Nothing

https://www.thegwpf.com/ian-plimer-97-of-scientist...

Blowing apart the nonconsensus said:
The 97 per cent figure derives from a survey sent to 10,257 people with a self-interest in human-induced global warming who published “science” supported by taxpayer-funded research grants. Replies from 3146 respondents were whittled down to 77 self-appointed climate “scientists” of whom 75 were judged to agree that human-induced warming was taking place. The 97 per cent figure derives from a tribe with only 75 members. What were the criteria for rejecting 3069 respondents? There was no mention that 75 out of 3146 is 2.38 per cent. We did not hear that 2.38 per cent of climate scientists with a self-interest agreed that humans have played a significant role in changing climate and that they are recipients of some of the billions spent annually on climate research.
More about the nonconsensus said:
Another recent paper on the scientific consensus of human-induced climate change was a howler. Such papers can be published only in the sociology or environmental literature. The paper claimed that published scientific papers showed there was a 97.1 per cent consensus that man had caused at least half of the 0.7C global warming since 1950. How was this 97.1 per cent figure determined? By “inspection” of 11,944 published papers. Inspection is not rigorous scholarship. There was no critical reading and understanding derived from reading 11,944 papers. This was not possible as the study started in March 2012 and was published in mid-2013, hence only a cursory inspection was possible. What was inspected? By whom? The methodology section of the publication gives the game away...conceived as a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website.
. . .
As part of a scathing critical analysis of this paper by real scientists, the original 11,944 papers were read and the readers came to a diametrically opposite conclusion. Of the 11,944 papers, only 41 explicitly stated that humans caused most of the warming since 1950 (0.3 per cent). Of the 11,944 climate “science” papers, 99.7 per cent did not say that carbon dioxide caused most of the global warming since 1950. It was less than 1 per cent and not one paper endorsed a man-made global warming catastrophe.
silly

robinessex

6,774 posts

119 months

Saturday 19th January
quotequote all
hairykrishna said:
robinessex said:
Are you serious? The tides are caused by the moon, which, when I last checked, was pretty regular in it circumnavigation of our planet. Even my grandkids know that. Says a lot about your (lack of) knowledge, doesn’t it ?
Obviously his point was that we can predict the general response of a highly chaotic system (the oceans) to external forcings. I wonder what else this could be relevant to?

Unfortunately it's you showing your ignorance and lack of understanding of things you cut and paste because the moons orbit is also chaotic. It just has a very long Lyapunov time.
On predicting planetary orbits

A number of studies have shown that the inner solar system is chaotic, with a Lyapunov time scale of about 5 million years. This 5 million year time scale means that while one can somewhat reasonably create a planetary ephemeris (a time-based catalog of where the planets were / will be) that spans from 10 million years into the past to 10 million years into the future, going beyond that by much is essentially impossible. At a hundred million years, the position of a planet on its orbit becomes complete garbage, meaning that the uncertainties in the planetary positions exceed the orbital radii.

I think being able to predict the moons trajectory for the next 10,000,000 years is good enough to bat out chaotic behaviour for all practicable purposes.

robinessex

6,774 posts

119 months

Saturday 19th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
Terminator X said:
Feel free to correct me but each year is 100ths of a degree C "warmer" than the last warmest ever isn't it? The square root of fk all springs to mind.

TX.
Which would be true(ish) if the planets temperature were rising at a rate of 1/100th of a degree per year but the evidence shows the rate is increasing and not steady.

This is from NASA the people with machinery roaming the surface of another planet.

“The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.”
I keep telling you. Average temperaure is a totally meaningless phrase. It tells you nothing