Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
stew-STR160 said:
Busy few days, not been able to keep up with things. Has the apocalypse happened?
Japs don't think so- https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/27/more-real-data...
For anyone interested in the debacle on that other thread between me and another person, I spoke to the author of the paper regarding 11602 papers which gave a 100% consensus. He didn't agree with me at all. He had no issue with papers having no mention of climate or global warming within them, because the authors of those papers 'obviously implied it', and because it came up within his search, he took it at face value.
The word 'climate' now only means anthropogenic climate change.
I got as far as:Japs don't think so- https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/27/more-real-data...
For anyone interested in the debacle on that other thread between me and another person, I spoke to the author of the paper regarding 11602 papers which gave a 100% consensus. He didn't agree with me at all. He had no issue with papers having no mention of climate or global warming within them, because the authors of those papers 'obviously implied it', and because it came up within his search, he took it at face value.
The word 'climate' now only means anthropogenic climate change.
"Today we look at the (untampered) data from the Japan Meteorology Agency (JMA) for some stations across northern Europe for the month of October."
Raw data
Cherry-picked small samples
= not worth going any further.
stew-STR160 said:
Busy few days, not been able to keep up with things. Has the apocalypse happened?
Japs don't think so- https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/27/more-real-data...
For anyone interested in the debacle on that other thread between me and another person, I spoke to the author of the paper regarding 11602 papers which gave a 100% consensus. He didn't agree with me at all. He had no issue with papers having no mention of climate or global warming within them, because the authors of those papers 'obviously implied it', and because it came up within his search, he took it at face value.
The word 'climate' now only means anthropogenic climate change.
You said you’d post your question and his answer.Japs don't think so- https://notrickszone.com/2019/11/27/more-real-data...
For anyone interested in the debacle on that other thread between me and another person, I spoke to the author of the paper regarding 11602 papers which gave a 100% consensus. He didn't agree with me at all. He had no issue with papers having no mention of climate or global warming within them, because the authors of those papers 'obviously implied it', and because it came up within his search, he took it at face value.
The word 'climate' now only means anthropogenic climate change.
Not going to come through with that?
Chester35 said:
jshell said:
Chester35 said:
jshell said:
Gandahar said:
Note that the huge drop in Antarctic sea ice in 2015 from satellite historic highs was later decided to be due to the South Atlantic Modulation. Then it turned out not to be, so the change in sea ice extent so rapidly is still unknown.
How does the 'recently' found geothermal heat affect this? - particularly for the Western ice sheet...LongQ said:
Some may find this fairly short video interesting and thought provoking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6tbyM8H60w
Energy numbers related to Global Warming and whether people think about them correctly.
I'll have to check to see if he has worked out what temperature rise equates to a 0.1% rise in radiative cooling.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6tbyM8H60w
Energy numbers related to Global Warming and whether people think about them correctly.
Actually.
Output of a blackbody radiator at 288K is near enough 390W, increasing the temperature by 0.1K increases the output by a little over half a watt, i.e more than the 0.1% warming load.
Don't forget the area of a sphere is four times that of a disc of the same radius so we can use that to ratio the effective output. Even so the temperature rise needed to balance a 1W increase in insolation (correct term?) only takes a small surface temperature rise.
The 0.9K rise since 1980 (I just Googled that) would give a BB output rise of over 1% so that doesn't seem to add up.
I'm just throwing some basic physics out here. Anyone want to correct why this does not apply to climate change. Its late so I could have made a simple mistake.
Checking this morning I found this
https://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/Emissivity.h...
Which uses measurements to estimate the effect of co2 on effective emissivity. They are getting figures around 0.61 rather than the 0.88 which would be the ratio I get for a solar input of 1368W/m2 Vs BB output. I think though that they are allowing for the proportion of input reflected due to albedo which reduces the effective emissivity. This would make the output due to temperature change lower, however still in the tenths of a degree to match 1W/m2. I'd like to find some worked physics to show how increasing co2 would lower the effective emissivity by the amount found by the empirical calculation in the link.
Edited by Toltec on Sunday 15th December 11:57
Chester35 said:
I wouldn't link to NotricksZone on the scientific thread if I were you as they are a bogus site fit for nothing scientifc. Ok on the political thread. They once took a Stein paper and put their own labels on his graph to show something, without talking to the original author.
Notrickszone actually is lots of tricks and bias.
Ah, never heard of that site before so didn't know.Notrickszone actually is lots of tricks and bias.
jshell said:
Chester35 said:
jshell said:
Chester35 said:
jshell said:
Gandahar said:
Note that the huge drop in Antarctic sea ice in 2015 from satellite historic highs was later decided to be due to the South Atlantic Modulation. Then it turned out not to be, so the change in sea ice extent so rapidly is still unknown.
How does the 'recently' found geothermal heat affect this? - particularly for the Western ice sheet...
There could be volcanic activity in the antarctic that effects sea ice, however you would expect that to be a random hot spot and therefore less ice in one sector that would be blindingly obvious because normally Antarctic sea ice loss and gain happens over many years.
In fact the Antarctic sea ice gaining massively until 2015 and since then has really dropped off and nobody knows why. It's not volcanoes as it has happened over the entire region and it is not climate change as the Antarctic is insulated so far from it. There was an idea is was the Southern Annular mode causing this but then it went out of sync with the current sea ice extent loss.
Even the polar scientists are puzzled. This was an email from one of them on the current Antarctic sea ice extent
"It’s clearly not only the SAM that is playing a role. I think it is still a bit of a mystery. There has been discussion that the ocean is important as well - linkages to exchange with tropical ocean waters
I think one issue is simply that the Antarctic is more variable than we’ve thought. The satellite record was, for much of it, may have been a relatively “quiet” period with low variability. Now we’re seeing more typical variability. There is some evidence of such high variability in limited data from the 1960s. Of course, what causes that variability is a good question, but it puts the “extremes” we’ve seen in more context and we may not need to come up with extreme explanations."
So if you see news about the Antarctic being really low in the next 2 or 3 years bear that comment from him in mind. There is no current link to climate change for the bell weather of the Antarctic.
Note he thinks the current Arctic loss might be. Might be, note.
I love watching the poles, so advise everyone does, with an open mind.
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 18th December 01:09
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Interesting article about the actual weather station at Cambridge that recorded the hottest UK day ever earlier this year on BBC News 24.
I don’t trust the measurement. Temperature measurements often require adjustments.
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
It's on at 4:30pm tomorrow (Friday) on BBC News 24. It's also on again at 1:30am and 11:30am on Monday and 4:30pm on Tuesday etc etc etc.
Set your planner to record one of them.
This is of course, on the completely unbiased, totally honest, BBC News channel !!! Set your planner to record one of them.
I doubt there'll be any 'science' on how these determinations are made - it will just be like one of those New Year's Eve news rolls; 'ooh this happened, ohhh then this happened, oooooh and then this happened'.
robinessex said:
Gadgetmac said:
It's on at 4:30pm tomorrow (Friday) on BBC News 24. It's also on again at 1:30am and 11:30am on Monday and 4:30pm on Tuesday etc etc etc.
Set your planner to record one of them.
This is of course, on the completely unbiased, totally honest, BBC News channel !!! Set your planner to record one of them.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff