Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

DibblyDobbler said:

Thanks Robin - will have a look at that later on.

So is there really no temperature series that is generally accepted even on the basis of being the best we have rather than perfect?

Try the NASA website, they have kit roaming around on other planets as we speak and have a whole climate science organisation attached with real scientists and data. Or, alternately, try Robin’s denier advocacy blog.

Yup, and while you’re are at it, look up NASA 'adjusting' temperature data. And deleting the original. Except some have kept copies of it !!

Yeah, post it up and lets see who your sources are and whether the adjustments were justified or not. Lets guess who those sources will be.

[DibblyDobbler]

Thanks Gents - will have a look at the NASA data also this evening!

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

DibblyDobbler said:

Thanks Robin - will have a look at that later on.

So is there really no temperature series that is generally accepted even on the basis of being the best we have rather than perfect?

Try the NASA website, they have kit roaming around on other planets as we speak and have a whole climate science organisation attached with real scientists and data. Or, alternately, try Robin’s denier advocacy blog.

Yup, and while you’re are at it, look up NASA 'adjusting' temperature data. And deleting the original. Except some have kept copies of it !!

Yeah, post it up and lets see who your sources are whether the adjustments were justified or not. Lets guess who those sources will be.

Whose opinion is authority enough to say the "adjustments were justified". And why did the original data get deleted ? Give you a guess.

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Clima...

How NOAA/NASA Doctored Temperature Data To Get Record Warm Years

https://principia-scientific.org/how-noaa-nasa-doc...

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noa...

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

DibblyDobbler said:

Thanks Robin - will have a look at that later on.

So is there really no temperature series that is generally accepted even on the basis of being the best we have rather than perfect?

Try the NASA website, they have kit roaming around on other planets as we speak and have a whole climate science organisation attached with real scientists and data. Or, alternately, try Robin’s denier advocacy blog.

Yup, and while you’re are at it, look up NASA 'adjusting' temperature data. And deleting the original. Except some have kept copies of it !!

Yeah, post it up and lets see who your sources are whether the adjustments were justified or not. Lets guess who those sources will be.

Whose opinion is authority enough to say the "adjustments were justified". And why did the original data get deleted ? Give you a guess.

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Clima...

How NOAA/NASA Doctored Temperature Data To Get Record Warm Years

https://principia-scientific.org/how-noaa-nasa-doc...

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noa...

So Christopher Booker (and with no climate science credentials) of the GWPF and a Denier Blog.



Oh and Paul Homewood of WUWT...

http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/02/not-a-lot-of-peo...

Like I said, lets see who your sources are...and you didn’t disappoint.

I’ll leave it to DD to decide where to go for his data. Good luck DD

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

DibblyDobbler said:

Thanks Robin - will have a look at that later on.

So is there really no temperature series that is generally accepted even on the basis of being the best we have rather than perfect?

Try the NASA website, they have kit roaming around on other planets as we speak and have a whole climate science organisation attached with real scientists and data. Or, alternately, try Robin’s denier advocacy blog.

Yup, and while you’re are at it, look up NASA 'adjusting' temperature data. And deleting the original. Except some have kept copies of it !!

Yeah, post it up and lets see who your sources are whether the adjustments were justified or not. Lets guess who those sources will be.

Whose opinion is authority enough to say the "adjustments were justified". And why did the original data get deleted ? Give you a guess.

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Clima...

How NOAA/NASA Doctored Temperature Data To Get Record Warm Years

https://principia-scientific.org/how-noaa-nasa-doc...

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noa...

So Christopher Booker (and with no climate science credentials) of the GWPF and a Denier Blog.



Oh and Paul Homewood of WUWT...

http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/02/not-a-lot-of-peo...

Like I said, lets see who your sources are...and you didn’t disappoint.

I’ll leave it to DD to decide where to go for his data. Good luck DD

There are many more, couldn't be bothered. No smoke without fire of course

[gadgetmac]

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

robinessex said:

gadgetmac said:

DibblyDobbler said:

Thanks Robin - will have a look at that later on.

So is there really no temperature series that is generally accepted even on the basis of being the best we have rather than perfect?

Try the NASA website, they have kit roaming around on other planets as we speak and have a whole climate science organisation attached with real scientists and data. Or, alternately, try Robin’s denier advocacy blog.

Yup, and while you’re are at it, look up NASA 'adjusting' temperature data. And deleting the original. Except some have kept copies of it !!

Yeah, post it up and lets see who your sources are whether the adjustments were justified or not. Lets guess who those sources will be.

Whose opinion is authority enough to say the "adjustments were justified". And why did the original data get deleted ? Give you a guess.

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Clima...

How NOAA/NASA Doctored Temperature Data To Get Record Warm Years

https://principia-scientific.org/how-noaa-nasa-doc...

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noa...

So Christopher Booker (and with no climate science credentials) of the GWPF and a Denier Blog.



Oh and Paul Homewood of WUWT...

http://greatwhitecon.info/2017/02/not-a-lot-of-peo...

Like I said, lets see who your sources are...and you didn’t disappoint.

I’ll leave it to DD to decide where to go for his data. Good luck DD

There are many more, couldn't be bothered. No smoke without fire of course

Righto.

[Halb]

DibblyDobbler said:

Gents (not sure if there are any ladies in these parts!) - is there any data on global temperatures available which is generally agreeable to all sides? I'm intrigued to have a look at some 'facts' if there are any that are uncontroversial...

one would think there would be wouldn't there!

[grumbledoak]

DibblyDobbler said:

Gents (not sure if there are any ladies in these parts!) - is there any data on global temperatures available which is generally agreeable to all sides? I'm intrigued to have a look at some 'facts' if there are any that are uncontroversial...

Thanks in Advance

To be genuinely uncontroversial you would have to find the original, unadjusted, raw temperature/proxy data. It would be a mammoth task to reprocess it all.

Your biggest obstacle though, will be that these records have seemingly been privatised, adjusted, or deleted. This is quite an unusual state of affairs; traditionally getting published in the scientific literature involved including your original data for others to reproduce or refute your conclusions. Not so, climate science, apparently.

[DibblyDobbler]

Had a quick Google - found this: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/...

NASA said:

the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

Seems legit... so (taking that at face value) at current rates of increase we're looking at 1 degree increases every 60 years...

Then the next bit:

NASA said:

But why should we care about one degree of warming? After all, the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day where we live.
...
A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.

I kind of don't get this bit so much... if I woke one morning (or indeed every morning) and it was +1 or -1 degrees I honestly wouldn't know the difference and I doubt the flora and fauna would either... what am I missing?

[mondeoman]

[PRTVR]

DibblyDobbler said:

I kind of don't get this bit so much... if I woke one morning (or indeed every morning) and it was +1 or -1 degrees I honestly wouldn't know the difference and I doubt the flora and fauna would either... what am I missing?

Given that on any particular day there is a 100°C difference of some points on the planet you are not missing much,
measuring the temperature of the earth using the methods used is inaccurate, 2/3 of the earth's surface is covered in water making the job so much harder.
What they are trying to measure is heat retention and thermometers are a bad proxi, we are looking for the effect of s small addition to a trace gas in a atmosphere of unknowns,
recently there may have been a pause in the temperature increase, apparently the missing heat was found in the deep oceans,
This for me was surprising, another unknown in settled science.
https://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-global-hiatus-deep...
If you do not fully understand the climate how can you make a prediction about the effects of a minor trace gas ?

[DibblyDobbler]

PRTVR said:

If you do not fully understand the climate how can you make a prediction about the effects of a minor trace gas ?

Thanks - interesting stuff. I think we have seen a lot of evidence about how hard it is to make accurate predictions about climate (virtually everybody who has tried to do this seems to have got it badly wrong!) ... but - given CO2 is a warming gas (I think we can all agree on this - at least in laboratory conditions) and we humans are producing a lot of it (again I presume this can be agreed) it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the net overall effect must be that we are warming the planet at least to some degree (albeit there are indubitably other factors involved which may or may not be more significant).

It feels like one of these arguments where there will never be a knockout blow - the truth will lie somewhere on a spectrum from 'CO2 is causing very little warming' to 'CO2 is really heating things up' ? Let's hope it's the former as I seriously doubt that we as a race will ever get organised to do anything significant about it...

[grumbledoak]

DibblyDobbler said:

Thanks - interesting stuff. I think we have seen a lot of evidence about how hard it is to make accurate predictions about climate (virtually everybody who has tried to do this seems to have got it badly wrong!) ... but - given CO2 is a warming gas (I think we can all agree on this - at least in laboratory conditions) and we humans are producing a lot of it (again I presume this can be agreed) it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the net overall effect must be that we are warming the planet at least to some degree (albeit there are indubitably other factors involved which may or may not be more significant).

This kind of "stands to reason, dunnit" argument is dangerous. The lab conditions were in a sealed jar - a fixed volume, so you would expect a "PV ~ T" ideal gas to rise in temperature with pressure from extra "trapped" energy. The planetary atmosphere is not a fixed volume. It can expand. So the hypothesis that the planet is also doing this needs some proof.

And here we are, with a tiny number of thermometers and some very questionable proxies, torturing the data until they give us that proof.

[hairykrishna]

grumbledoak said:

This kind of "stands to reason, dunnit" argument is dangerous. The lab conditions were in a sealed jar - a fixed volume, so you would expect a "PV ~ T" ideal gas to rise in temperature with pressure from extra "trapped" energy. The planetary atmosphere is not a fixed volume. It can expand. So the hypothesis that the planet is also doing this needs some proof.

And here we are, with a tiny number of thermometers and some very questionable proxies, torturing the data until they give us that proof.

The fact that the Earth has a much higher temperature than an equivalent grey body tells you that there is a significant greenhouse effect i.e. the atmosphere has risen in temperature because of 'extra trapped energy'.

[Kawasicki]

Climate scientists don’t really have a consistent message, do they?

When the world is cooling, then it is cooling dramatically...



When the world is warming, then it is warming dramatically...



Just compare the degree of cooling in the cooling scare to the degree of cooling in the warming scare....only climate science could be so hilarious.

[gadgetmac]

You think things haven’t moved on since 1975?

Here’s a TV from 1975...



Of course deniers still living in 1975 surprises nobody.

[grumbledoak]

hairykrishna said:

The fact that the Earth has a much higher temperature than an equivalent grey body tells you that there is a significant greenhouse effect i.e. the atmosphere has risen in temperature because of 'extra trapped energy'.

Okay. So more questions become apparent: which components of the atmosphere do that, how much, and is it linear or other in a planetary atmosphere open to space? Will more CO2 do anything at all? Where are the predictions and falsifications for all this?

I mean these as examples, I'm not asking you to answer. I gave the explanation because DibblyDobbler seems to be at the point I was at when I got interested, quite a while ago now. There is a simplistic level of explanation given in Climate Change nee Global Warming that I naively assumed was only for the public but backed by better science for the scientists. So I read. A lot. But the more you dig the more it seems to vanish into computer models and disastrous predictions that never come true but don't result in any retractions or alterations to "the theory". I also learned a great deal more about activism and debating tactics than I expected to, including attrition loop.

So I'll just wish Dibbly the best of luck following this particular White Rabbit. I'll start believing when the Maldives are under water. As predicted.

[gadgetmac]

What ‘theory’ is that?

[PRTVR]

DibblyDobbler said:

PRTVR said:

If you do not fully understand the climate how can you make a prediction about the effects of a minor trace gas ?

Thanks - interesting stuff. I think we have seen a lot of evidence about how hard it is to make accurate predictions about climate (virtually everybody who has tried to do this seems to have got it badly wrong!) ... but - given CO2 is a warming gas (I think we can all agree on this - at least in laboratory conditions) and we humans are producing a lot of it (again I presume this can be agreed) it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the net overall effect must be that we are warming the planet at least to some degree (albeit there are indubitably other factors involved which may or may not be more significant).

It feels like one of these arguments where there will never be a knockout blow - the truth will lie somewhere on a spectrum from 'CO2 is causing very little warming' to 'CO2 is really heating things up' ? Let's hope it's the former as I seriously doubt that we as a race will ever get organised to do anything significant about it...

CO2 is responsible for a unmeasurable change to the earth's temperature, just think what difference cloud cover makes, recently in the UK we had clear nights and the temperature plummet, now with cloud cover it remains above freezing, a difference of about 10°c just with cloud's, CO2 doesn't produce hot spots, if in areas of high emissions the temperature should be higher , it's not, it's not acting as predicted.
Then we have the government's response to the supposed problem, well we will cut CO2 emissions (everyone cheers) we will shut down our coal fired power stations, sounds wonderful until you understand that at the time china alone was building one a week, anything we did was immaterial, we also made savings when steel and aluminium plants closed (everyone cheers)
But we still need steel, so we buy it from China with their cheep coal fired steel production, ideal for new river crossings

[gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

CO2 is responsible for a unmeasurable change to the earth's temperature, just think what difference cloud cover makes, recently in the UK we had clear nights and the temperature plummet, now with cloud cover it remains above freezing, a difference of about 10°c just with cloud's, CO2 doesn't produce hot spots, if in areas of high emissions the temperature should be higher , it's not, it's not acting as predicted.

That’s excellent. The nobel prize committee along with just about every Climate Institute and Research establishment on the globe would love for you to contact them with this breakthrough. ‘Contact Us’ links are available on almost all of their websites.