Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Kawasicki]

gadgetmac said:

You think things haven’t moved on since 1975?

Here’s a TV from 1975...



Of course deniers still living in 1975 surprises nobody.

There was me thinking that a unit of temperature shouldn’t be something that changes over time. Clearly one degree Celsius in the 1970‘s is different from one degree Celsius now, at least as far as modern climate science is concerned.

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

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.

What, you mean the same institutions that can't work out if there has been a pause/hiatus in temperature rise or that the ocean ate all the heat, them institution's ?
I see there has been extremely heavy snow in Greece , I wonder if that's what the scientists were on about when they predicted a mediterranean climate for the UK
https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/inci...

[hairykrishna]

grumbledoak said:

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.

Did any of your reading include, for example, an undergraduate level text book laying out the actual physics?

[grumbledoak]

hairykrishna said:

Did any of your reading include, for example, an undergraduate level text book laying out the actual physics?

No clues, Oh Patronising One.

[gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

gadgetmac said:

You think things haven’t moved on since 1975?

Here’s a TV from 1975...



Of course deniers still living in 1975 surprises nobody.

There was me thinking that a unit of temperature shouldn’t be something that changes over time. Clearly one degree Celsius in the 1970‘s is different from one degree Celsius now, at least as far as modern climate science is concerned.

Er...no. It’s how you measure those global temps in the 1970’s and now...and how you apply the 44 years of knowledge gained between then and now.

Jeez, lets get all of our expertise and technology like the TV from the 70’s shall we...?

[gadgetmac]

PRTVR said:

I see there has been extremely heavy snow in Greece , I wonder if that's what the scientists were on about when they predicted a mediterranean climate for the UK

...another denier who can’t tell the difference between weather and climate.

[PRTVR]

gadgetmac said:

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.

https://youtu.be/hoCUe-BvX5I
Here is one of the scientists, explaining how the oceans ate the heat, also explaining how we should not look at data from the whole USA but cherry pick areas that have floods and droughts.

[gadgetmac]

So you won’t be contacting any of the experts then..thats a shame...over a million dollars await each nobel prize winner. You must be rich already

[Kawasicki]

gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

gadgetmac said:

You think things haven’t moved on since 1975?

Here’s a TV from 1975...



Of course deniers still living in 1975 surprises nobody.

There was me thinking that a unit of temperature shouldn’t be something that changes over time. Clearly one degree Celsius in the 1970‘s is different from one degree Celsius now, at least as far as modern climate science is concerned.

Er...no. It’s how you measure those global temps in the 1970’s and now...and how you apply the 44 years of knowledge gained between then and now.

Jeez, lets get all of our expertise and technology like the TV from the 70’s shall we...?

So, looking at the 2 graphs, and focusing on the northern hemisphere temps between say 1939 and 1965, you see no massive inconsistency?

[Jinx]

hairykrishna said:

Did any of your reading include, for example, an undergraduate level text book laying out the actual physics?

Which would indicate a 1 degree increase per doubling of CO2 concentration would they not HK (well below anything to worry about)?

[DocJock]

It's not that simple though, is it?

Negative and positive feedbacks apply, hence the theory of Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

[Jinx]

DocJock said:

It's not that simple though, is it?

Negative and positive feedbacks apply, hence the theory of Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

And that is where all the science isn't settled. There is no evidence of H2O positive feedbacks in the data. If anything H2O is able to act as a governer to the entire system keeping the Earth within a fairly narrow band of temperatures (except where it is too cold) . Without an H2O positive feedback mechanism there is no catastrophic climate change.

[DocJock]

I agree, I'm on the sceptical side of the argument. I was simply pointing out that the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is not as simple, or linear, as it is in laboratory conditions.

[LongQ]

There has to be a good reason why the same interpreted data sets and often questioned proxy interpretations that have been around for decades seem to be the basis (so long as they have not been lost) of all research whether new or old.

It one wishes to consider proxies for old records the traditional favourite was tree ring interpretation.

Now that is tricky but presumably, on the basis (often put forward) that the more data points one has the less the outliers and interpretive inaccuracies matter for statistical interpretation leading to some level of understanding, it would be useful to send teams out into the wilds and seek such proxies far and wide given the urgency of the problem we are told we face.

Is this happening?

Likewise the modern era of satellite monitoring to capture proxies for temperature calculations and other indicators like sea level changes and ice cover,. etc., etc., is not without its problems. Equipment inaccuracies, sensor failures, and partial coverage of the globe to name a few.

So why are we not chucking loads of money at eliminating the shortfall - especially in coverage?

Is it really more important to put another rover on Mars or a lander on the dark side of the moon or multiple GPS systems into orbit around the planet than it is to come up with some decent information that might advance our knowledge of planetary climate and its real effects (if any) over planetary time scales?

Would it be completely impossible to put up some distant satellites with consistent reporting of temperature proxies that could be used as an "average" and be read from all angles 24/7. After all, if the global average temperature is such an important measure that the trend we can deduce has to be used today for very long term (in human terms) projections into the future, should we not be using the latest technology to assess it more comprehensively rather than the elderly satellites and the partial coverage currently available?

Yes I do realise that would give problems of data continuity - but then as things stand, so what? It would not be a new problem.

Now maybe these things are happening as part of the response the existential threat but if they are they don't seem to be getting much coverage. One would think the scientists and politicians would want to be out there in public waving their virtue flags telling us how they were going to save the planet. It seems not to be the case.

Oh well, at least Saint Richard Branson, well known planet saving activist along with his son, is doing something about putting humans into space but quite how that will help to save the planet seems to be unclear.

E. Musk, Esq. heading off to Mars might prove to be a more beneficial use of planetary resources.

[robinessex]

Except global planet temperature (whatever that is) is a completely useless value. It doesn’t tell you a thing.

[PRTVR]

robinessex said:

Except global planet temperature (whatever that is) is a completely useless value. It doesn’t tell you a thing.

I disagree , it gives a number that cannot be questioned as it only exists in a few protected data sets.

[robinessex]

PRTVR said:

robinessex said:

Except global planet temperature (whatever that is) is a completely useless value. It doesn’t tell you a thing.

I disagree , it gives a number that cannot be questioned as it only exists in a few protected data sets.

Whether it exists is irrelevant. It's a meaningless mathematical derivation. There are 5 ways of calculating an 'average' from a set of numbers. Which one is 'correct' then.

[PRTVR]

robinessex said:

PRTVR said:

robinessex said:

Except global planet temperature (whatever that is) is a completely useless value. It doesn’t tell you a thing.

I disagree , it gives a number that cannot be questioned as it only exists in a few protected data sets.

Whether it exists is irrelevant. It's a meaningless mathematical derivation. There are 5 ways of calculating an 'average' from a set of numbers. Which one is 'correct' then.

Maybe I should have put a smiley after my comment,
My point is if you do not want people to question your numbers, making it difficult to calculate is a good move, I agree it has no meaning in the scientific sense.

[stew-STR160]

Been busy last few days, what's new? Is it the apocalypse yet?

In other news- http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/70

[Kawasicki]

stew-STR160 said:

Been busy last few days, what's new? Is it the apocalypse yet?

The apocalypse is almost upon us. With climate science it is always is.