Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Gadgetmac said:
mybrainhurts said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
I dunno without drilling into it further - I would caution against drawing hasty conclusions (again).
This is the climate science thread. Drawing hasty conclusions is the bedrock on which climate science is built.Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 13th October 11:05
Please drill into it further, and post your conclusions. Thanks.
Sometimes you really can’t be ‘arsed’.
All under the faux suggestion that we actually 'do' science here.
kerplunk said:
Gadgetmac said:
mybrainhurts said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
I dunno without drilling into it further - I would caution against drawing hasty conclusions (again).
This is the climate science thread. Drawing hasty conclusions is the bedrock on which climate science is built.Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 13th October 11:05
Please drill into it further, and post your conclusions. Thanks.
Sometimes you really can’t be ‘arsed’.
All under the faux suggestion that we actually 'do' science here.
CHEWING THE FAT
rather than science. Turbobloke is the prime example, and buffoons who do otherwise.
It's interesting that the Ozone hole never got this sort of participation from the masses .... perhaps it came before it's internet time though.
Acid rain? Another early starter that could not be commented on over the internet to it's full advantage.
Shame.
kerplunk said:
It's all a bit faux - Kawasicki knows he ain't gonna produce the kind of scholarly analysis required to answer his own question and he knows I won't either and I know he knows etc etc
All under the faux suggestion that we actually 'do' science here.
Is a scholarly analysis required?All under the faux suggestion that we actually 'do' science here.
The tree ring data in the study shows no significant change in pattern over hundreds of years.
Either the tree ring data is a poor proxy for the regional climate or the regional climate hasn't changed for hundreds of years.
I've looked at the Brazilian "Climate Risk Profile", it says that the Amazon basin has increased in temp by 0.5C since 1980. I don't see anything that reflects that in the tree ring data. I also don't see any sign of increased droughts.
https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/a...
I don't need to be a peer reviewed climate scientist to see that something doesn't add up.
All of the above may be true about us not actually doing any science but rather chewing the cud but this being the science thread I'll continue to post the latest published research that I think is interesting to the casual observer.
Otherwise what's the point of this thread?
A bit like the politics thread which would be pointless without TB's daily input nonsense.
Otherwise what's the point of this thread?
A bit like the politics thread which would be pointless without TB's daily
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
It's all a bit faux - Kawasicki knows he ain't gonna produce the kind of scholarly analysis required to answer his own question and he knows I won't either and I know he knows etc etc
All under the faux suggestion that we actually 'do' science here.
Is a scholarly analysis required?All under the faux suggestion that we actually 'do' science here.
The tree ring data in the study shows no significant change in pattern over hundreds of years.
Either the tree ring data is a poor proxy for the regional climate or the regional climate hasn't changed for hundreds of years.
I've looked at the Brazilian "Climate Risk Profile", it says that the Amazon basin has increased in temp by 0.5C since 1980. I don't see anything that reflects that in the tree ring data. I also don't see any sign of increased droughts.
https://www.climatelinks.org/sites/default/files/a...
I don't need to be a peer reviewed climate scientist to see that something doesn't add up.
I'd say to make any kind of informed comment you need to make yourself knowledgable about dendrochronology and in particular to the amazon and it's various regions and the cedrella tree etc, develop a close understanding of the available instrumental precipitation in the area, and also an understanding of the seasonal climatic patterns and how well all these things are correlated. Perhaps start with the refs in the paper (38 of) and work your way through the literature
Assuming you have a day job, see you in a few years.
Gadgetmac said:
All of the above may be true about us not actually doing any science but rather chewing the cud but this being the science thread I'll continue to post the latest published research that I think is interesting to the casual observer.
Otherwise what's the point of this thread?
A bit like the politics thread which would be pointless without TB's daily input nonsense.
Of course, carry on - I wasn't saying the thread is pointless Otherwise what's the point of this thread?
A bit like the politics thread which would be pointless without TB's daily
kerplunk said:
Gadgetmac said:
All of the above may be true about us not actually doing any science but rather chewing the cud but this being the science thread I'll continue to post the latest published research that I think is interesting to the casual observer.
Otherwise what's the point of this thread?
A bit like the politics thread which would be pointless without TB's daily input nonsense.
Of course, carry on - I wasn't saying the thread is pointless Otherwise what's the point of this thread?
A bit like the politics thread which would be pointless without TB's daily
Dr Gadgetmac if you will...prescribing 1 new study to be taken daily after eating so as not to spoil your lunch.
It's Warm and wet which should surprise nobody...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-545...
Why is it wet?
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-pouring...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-545...
Why is it wet?
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-pouring...
Gadgetmac said:
I feel it also provides a daily reality check for our local AGW denier chums. ..so in a sense it's therapeutic too.
Dr Gadgetmac if you will...prescribing 1 new study to be taken daily after eating so as not to spoil your lunch.
You definitely provide a reality check, the reality is that the climate isn’t doing anything particularly unusual, and your posts provide the evidence. So keep them coming.Dr Gadgetmac if you will...prescribing 1 new study to be taken daily after eating so as not to spoil your lunch.
The Death Valley temperature record headlines were a perfect example. A wally denier (me) on an automotive based website (PistonHeads) did more investigation into the quality of the data in 15 minutes than either you or the uncritical/unsceptical/unscientific websites you linked to.
Why is that?
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
I feel it also provides a daily reality check for our local AGW denier chums. ..so in a sense it's therapeutic too.
Dr Gadgetmac if you will...prescribing 1 new study to be taken daily after eating so as not to spoil your lunch.
You definitely provide a reality check, the reality is that the climate isn’t doing anything particularly unusual, and your posts provide the evidence. So keep them coming.Dr Gadgetmac if you will...prescribing 1 new study to be taken daily after eating so as not to spoil your lunch.
The Death Valley temperature record headlines were a perfect example. A wally denier (me) on an automotive based website (PistonHeads) did more investigation into the quality of the data in 15 minutes than either you or the uncritical/unsceptical/unscientific websites you linked to.
Why is that?
Gadgetmac said:
I just saw this on the ITV news but the BBC are running it too...
'Highest temperature on Earth' as Death Valley, US hits 54.4C
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5378801...
What could be the highest temperature ever reliably recorded on Earth - 130F (54.4C) - may have been reached in Death Valley National Park, California.
The recording is being verified by the US National Weather Service.
It comes amid a heatwave on the US's west coast, where temperatures are forecast to rise further this week.
The scorching conditions have led to two days of blackouts in California, after a power plant malfunctioned on Saturday.
What were the previous records?
Sunday's reading was recorded in Furnace Creek in Death Valley.
Before this, the highest temperature reliably recorded on Earth was 129.2F (54C) - also in Death Valley in 2013.
A higher reading of 134F, or 56.6C a century earlier, also in Death Valley, is disputed. It is believed by some modern weather experts to have been erroneous, along with several other searing temperatures recorded that summer.
Wow, thats hot!
Here you go.'Highest temperature on Earth' as Death Valley, US hits 54.4C
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-5378801...
What could be the highest temperature ever reliably recorded on Earth - 130F (54.4C) - may have been reached in Death Valley National Park, California.
The recording is being verified by the US National Weather Service.
It comes amid a heatwave on the US's west coast, where temperatures are forecast to rise further this week.
The scorching conditions have led to two days of blackouts in California, after a power plant malfunctioned on Saturday.
What were the previous records?
Sunday's reading was recorded in Furnace Creek in Death Valley.
Before this, the highest temperature reliably recorded on Earth was 129.2F (54C) - also in Death Valley in 2013.
A higher reading of 134F, or 56.6C a century earlier, also in Death Valley, is disputed. It is believed by some modern weather experts to have been erroneous, along with several other searing temperatures recorded that summer.
Wow, thats hot!
Gadgetmac said:
Yes, I just found it, it starts on Page 221...kindly point out where you "won" that particular argument as I've just read it and you were shown to be peddling rather dubious points all of the way through.
Of course you won't see that but then that's what denial is all about.
The sensor in question didn’t achieve class 1 or class 2 WMO sensor placement standards.Of course you won't see that but then that's what denial is all about.
Not much more to discuss about it really. Weird that I had to point that out though.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Yes, I just found it, it starts on Page 221...kindly point out where you "won" that particular argument as I've just read it and you were shown to be peddling rather dubious points all of the way through.
Of course you won't see that but then that's what denial is all about.
The sensor in question didn’t achieve class 1 or class 2 WMO sensor placement standards.Of course you won't see that but then that's what denial is all about.
Not much more to discuss about it really. Weird that I had to point that out though.
Anyway I doubt anybody is interested as we've moved on. What about the hottest September ever recorded? And we're on course for the hottest year ever recorded...and let's not forget the very recent wettest year ever recorded here...any thoughts?
ETA: That temperature record will take some time to be verified and they'll take account of all circumstances surrounding the claim up to and including removing the sensors and taking them to the lab to be tested.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/plat...
Edited by Gadgetmac on Friday 16th October 13:21
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Yes, I just found it, it starts on Page 221...kindly point out where you "won" that particular argument as I've just read it and you were shown to be peddling rather dubious points all of the way through.
Of course you won't see that but then that's what denial is all about.
The sensor in question didn’t achieve class 1 or class 2 WMO sensor placement standards.Of course you won't see that but then that's what denial is all about.
Not much more to discuss about it really. Weird that I had to point that out though.
Anyway I doubt anybody is interested as we've moved on. What about the hottest September ever recorded? And we're on course for the hottest year ever recorded...and let's not forget the very recent wettest year ever recorded here...any thoughts?
As for recent records, if you start measuring anything over time you will always get new records. Every record, in every direction, hot/cold, wet/dry, still/windy, sunny/cloudy is blamed on man made climate change.
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Yes, I just found it, it starts on Page 221...kindly point out where you "won" that particular argument as I've just read it and you were shown to be peddling rather dubious points all of the way through.
Of course you won't see that but then that's what denial is all about.
The sensor in question didn’t achieve class 1 or class 2 WMO sensor placement standards.Of course you won't see that but then that's what denial is all about.
Not much more to discuss about it really. Weird that I had to point that out though.
Anyway I doubt anybody is interested as we've moved on. What about the hottest September ever recorded? And we're on course for the hottest year ever recorded...and let's not forget the very recent wettest year ever recorded here...any thoughts?
2. As for recent records, if you start measuring anything over time you will always get new records. Every record, in every direction, hot/cold, wet/dry, still/windy, sunny/cloudy is blamed on man made climate change.
2. The ratio of new hot records to new cold records demonstrates the trend is upwards. It's inline with expectations which are themselves scientifically well established.
The trend is all in one direction.
NB. 3rd October was the wettest day in the UK ever recorded and records go back to 1891. Enough water fell to fill loch Ness.
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Kawasicki said:
Gadgetmac said:
Yes, I just found it, it starts on Page 221...kindly point out where you "won" that particular argument as I've just read it and you were shown to be peddling rather dubious points all of the way through.
Of course you won't see that but then that's what denial is all about.
The sensor in question didn’t achieve class 1 or class 2 WMO sensor placement standards.Of course you won't see that but then that's what denial is all about.
Not much more to discuss about it really. Weird that I had to point that out though.
Anyway I doubt anybody is interested as we've moved on. What about the hottest September ever recorded? And we're on course for the hottest year ever recorded...and let's not forget the very recent wettest year ever recorded here...any thoughts?
2. As for recent records, if you start measuring anything over time you will always get new records. Every record, in every direction, hot/cold, wet/dry, still/windy, sunny/cloudy is blamed on man made climate change.
2. The ratio of new hot records to new cold records demonstrates the trend is upwards. It's inline with expectations which are themselves scientifically well established.
The trend is all in one direction.
NB. 3rd October was the wettest day in the UK ever recorded and records go back to 1891. Enough water fell to fill loch Ness.
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
It's not like the headline "Anthropogenic CO2 increase is unprecedented" is even a surprise or a new development in scientific thinking - it's long been considered unlikely to exist in nature due to plausible mechanism' considerations, so i don't see where the 'alarmist/worse than previously thought' angle comes in.
Increases in CO2 in the past dwarf the magnitude of the rise since the start of the industrial revolution.Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 22 August 15:02
Source>https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/CO2-forced-climate-thresholds-during-the-Royer/cab1810561360762463dddc8e9615dc70b67f05d/figure/3
"Time Ma" - bit of a timescale issue (duh).
kerplunk said:
unlikely to exist in nature
Also, you do know what unprecedented means, don’t you.This is the science thread, remember.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff