Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
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 f
k 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.k all springs to mind.TX.
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.”
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
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.k all springs to mind.TX.
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.”
gadgetmac said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
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.k all springs to mind.TX.
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.”
doubt you’ll understand though ........ awaits the usual abuse 
North Americas Glaciers are melting 4 times faster than they were a decade ago
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.102...
Never mind, they’ll be back shortly now that the Solar Minimum is in full swing.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.102...
Never mind, they’ll be back shortly now that the Solar Minimum is in full swing.
gadgetmac said:
Classic denier argument when there are bugger all Scientific Organisations supporting your cause...move to query who is qualified to judge.
Who do you suggest should be qualified to judge on AGW? The GWPF? WUWT?
nope, neither of them. the science will stand or fall on it's own merits. i do know you certainly aren't qualified to judge on agw. you make an excellent parrot though Who do you suggest should be qualified to judge on AGW? The GWPF? WUWT?
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
Classic denier argument when there are bugger all Scientific Organisations supporting your cause...move to query who is qualified to judge.
Who do you suggest should be qualified to judge on AGW? The GWPF? WUWT?
nope, neither of them. the science will stand or fall on it's own merits. i do know you certainly aren't qualified to judge on agw. you make an excellent parrot though Who do you suggest should be qualified to judge on AGW? The GWPF? WUWT?
gadgetmac said:
North Americas Glaciers are melting 4 times faster than they were a decade ago
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.102...
Never mind, they’ll be back shortly now that the Solar Minimum is in full swing.
A whole decade. Hang on a minute while I...https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.102...
Never mind, they’ll be back shortly now that the Solar Minimum is in full swing.
...keep calm and carry on.
That's some significant geological timescale right there (as our US cousins might say
).If you go down to the woods forest today, or even some time ago, to spend your global warming grant-funding, you ought to sense check your data when you get back. That's also a general principle. It applies in particular with fish in the air as forests don't usually smell fishy. The claim here is that this didn't happen.
The endgame hasn't arrived as yet on this one, so an eye needs to be kept on what transpires following the claim made and explained at the link.
study claiming insect decline due to global warming allegedly based on faulty temperature data
The endgame hasn't arrived as yet on this one, so an eye needs to be kept on what transpires following the claim made and explained at the link.
study claiming insect decline due to global warming allegedly based on faulty temperature data
Here’s the thing. Every single GCM model is fatally flawed from the outset and as a result every single prediction that has ever plopped out of the arse of any climate scientist or activist (at once an oxymoron and a tautology) or politician has never come to pass. None of their fairy tales has been born out by any data. The Arctic should have been ice free years ago, we should x metres under water and at the same time enjoying a Mediterranean climate by now apart from the billions of climate refugees displaced.
Show me a model, just one model that is consonant with the data. Or are you all still keeping faith with a government who made you believe in WMD? 45 minutes my hairy arse.
Show me a model, just one model that is consonant with the data. Or are you all still keeping faith with a government who made you believe in WMD? 45 minutes my hairy arse.
kerplunk said:
Go on then - do the maths
It's already been done including at the link I gave to McK's uni webpage. Pencils down.McKitrick & Michaels published a peer-reviewed paper that tests whether homogeneity corrections in gridded data are adequate to remove non-climatic influences. It concluded that they are not, and that nonclimatic influences add up to a net warming bias for the world as a whole, marking gridded near-surface data as corrupted.
See Climate Research 26(2):159-173, (2004).
wc98 said:
to be fair the organisation representing the science already have and have admitted so in print in one of their reports. i b elieve tb has posted the link on several occasions. you may have missed it. if you ask him nicely he might kindly provide the link again
Probably best to look at the report yourself given that whenever turbobloke posts it he cuts off half the paragraph, completely misrepresenting what they actually say.hairykrishna said:
Probably best to look at the report yourself given that whenever turbobloke posts it he cuts off half the paragraph, completely misrepresenting what they actually say.
i did, maybe my reading comprehension isn't as good as yours ,a brief summation of your interpretation might help.gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
gadgetmac said:
McKitrick is the new GWPF.
Thanks for the heads up.............................on your small mindedness. 
Some interesting Monday morning reading, I'll post a few quotes then the link...
Article said:
BETWEEN the start of 1997 and the end of 2014, average global surface temperature stalled. This 18-year period is known as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus” and has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
THE rise in global temperatures that alarmed climate campaigners in the 1990’s had slowed so much that the trend was no longer statistically significant. This despite one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution occurring since February 1997.
THE pause took a pause during the 2015/16 super El Niño which was the strongest such event in recorded history and helped to make 2015 and 2016 the warmest years in the modern warm period. However, 2017 witnessed the biggest drop in global temps in recorded history, seen across most data sets, bringing temps back inline with 1997-2014 averages, rendering “the pause” alive and well...
THE rise in global temperatures that alarmed climate campaigners in the 1990’s had slowed so much that the trend was no longer statistically significant. This despite one-third of Man’s entire influence on climate since the Industrial Revolution occurring since February 1997.
THE pause took a pause during the 2015/16 super El Niño which was the strongest such event in recorded history and helped to make 2015 and 2016 the warmest years in the modern warm period. However, 2017 witnessed the biggest drop in global temps in recorded history, seen across most data sets, bringing temps back inline with 1997-2014 averages, rendering “the pause” alive and well...
Article said:
NO STATISTICALLY-SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING FOR 20 YEARS
“THE PAUSE” in global warming is now in its 20th year.
NO global warming trend for two decades despite a 1/3rd of ALL human influence since 1750 occurring over the past 20 years!
SMART move changing the name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.
“THE PAUSE” in global warming is now in its 20th year.
NO global warming trend for two decades despite a 1/3rd of ALL human influence since 1750 occurring over the past 20 years!
SMART move changing the name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.
Article said:
CONTRARY to popular thinking and clever marketing, there is no “consensus” on the theory of dangerous man-made climate change. Too many variables exist within the climate system to allow for certainty of future scenarios.
THIS doesn’t deter the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) Climate Crisis Industry who manufacture catastrophic climate scenarios (pushed far enough into the distant future as to not be held accountable) with a guarantee of climate calamity unless their utopian ‘green’ dreams are realised.
THIS doesn’t deter the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) Climate Crisis Industry who manufacture catastrophic climate scenarios (pushed far enough into the distant future as to not be held accountable) with a guarantee of climate calamity unless their utopian ‘green’ dreams are realised.
Article said:
NOT a single common climate metric is being negatively affected by the rise in essential trace gas carbon dioxide.
IN fact, by every measure, the environment is ‘improving’ as CO2 rises.
BEFORE we commit more taxpayer billions to the trillion dollar per year Climate Crisis Industry, we should look at what empirical evidence and hard data is telling us, not what ideology or politics demands.
IN fact, by every measure, the environment is ‘improving’ as CO2 rises.
BEFORE we commit more taxpayer billions to the trillion dollar per year Climate Crisis Industry, we should look at what empirical evidence and hard data is telling us, not what ideology or politics demands.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff