The Climate Change Debate Thread (Original Thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
Don't like GISS?

Use another organisation, one that is privately funded. Berkeley Earth




PS: Case's "adjustments" are trivial and make no difference to the final temperature record. It is just one of the mythologies that deniers peddle.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
We want the raw temperature in a format than can be trusted to be true. We can do the extrapolations ourselves. Why do younrefuse to search for it , why do you refuse to acknowledge Cape Nossis Jesup?
 


Steve Case

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
2,426
...PS: Case's "adjustments" are trivial and make no difference to the final temperature record. It is just one of the mythologies that deniers peddle.
Here are those adjustments laid out with the trends:



GISS has been at this for longer than just since 2002, it's just that the 2002 data is the oldest that I can
find on the Internet Archives WayBack Machine.
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
A look at this graph by the Danish Meteorologist Institute shows that there is no warming at all in summer months. These are the months one would expect ice cap melting, because winter temperature never rises above freezing point and is usually well below it. Exceptions are rare.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

It confirms my claim that since I began referring to the Cape Norris Jesup records in May this year, there is no increase in temperature over that of 2005. This is not raw data and has been changed to the mean temperature, but still it supports my view,
 
Last edited:

clearmurk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,010
A look at this graph by the Danish Meteorologist Institute shows that there is no warming at all in summer months. These are the months one would expect ice cap melting, because winter temperature never rises above freezing point and is usually well below it. Exceptions are rare.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

It confirms my claim that since I began referring to the Cape Norris Jesup records in May this year, there is no increase in temperature over that of 2005. This is not raw data and has been changed to the mean temperature, but still it supports my view,
A read of the accompanying text is informative

Since 2002, the daily mean temperatures are calculated from the operational atmosphere model at ECMWF, and changes in the operational model over time may affect the resulting temperature trends.
So these are based on modelled temperatures not actual. You can model any result you want.

They can't even model with any accuracy the temperature a few days out.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,510
A read of the accompanying text is informative



So these are based on modelled temperatures not actual. You can model any result you want.

They can't even model with any accuracy the temperature a few days out.
Show me a science that does not use peer-reviewed mathematical models.

Like, you would not discourage smoking because the linkage between smoking and lung cancer is based on mathematical survival analysis?

You are also opening the door to lots of anti-vaccination pseudo-science (more survival analysis), not to mention Creationism, since genetics is now a heavily mathematical science.

Show me your examples, then we can talk.

BTW, calibrating a simple mercury thermometer, or a modern infra-red one, depends on a mathematical model of the response versus the stimulus (heat energy).
 

clearmurk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,010
Show me a science that does not use peer-reviewed mathematical models.

Like, you would not discourage smoking because the linkage between smoking and lung cancer is based on mathematical survival analysis?

You are also opening the door to lots of anti-vaccination pseudo-science (more survival analysis), not to mention Creationism, since genetics is now a heavily mathematical science.

Show me your examples, then we can talk.

BTW, calibrating a simple mercury thermometer, or a modern infra-red one, depends on a mathematical model of the response versus the stimulus (heat energy).
Ah, a diversion.

Nothing to say on the question of temperature reading from turbulent ships' intakes, or the reason for the evidently convenient historic "adjustments" to temperature data, or the error values on these modelled temperatures?

Or indeed, on the question of significance of any temperature anomalies. Has a chi squared test been done on any of this stuff?
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
A read of the accompanying text is informative



So these are based on modelled temperatures not actual. You can model any result you want.

They can't even model with any accuracy the temperature a few days out.
Proves my point. Let's have the raw temperature records and we can do the extrapolation ourselves. As for Piers, we are all peirs, we all got an opertunity of an education, if some did not avail of it, that's their problem
 

The Crusader

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2016
Messages
43
If the "adjustments" are irrelevant, why bother with them?

Frankly, suggesting that water drawn up in a bucket into a ship is likely to be significantly warmed by the atmosphere in the process is a load of cobblers. As is the neglect of the warming effect of turbulence in modern engine water intakes, the current source of ocean temperature data, per your article.
It doesn't matter if you don't believe the temperature data. Fine don't believe it. Look at what is happening to the arctic sea ice and snow and ice cover around the world. How can you ignore that? Look at forest fires, sea level rise, spring season arriving sooner, etc. etc. Even if we didn't have a temperature record we could reasonably see the earth was warming.
 

clearmurk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,010
Show me a science that does not use peer-reviewed mathematical models.

Like, you would not discourage smoking because the linkage between smoking and lung cancer is based on mathematical survival analysis?

You are also opening the door to lots of anti-vaccination pseudo-science (more survival analysis), not to mention Creationism, since genetics is now a heavily mathematical science.

Show me your examples, then we can talk.

BTW, calibrating a simple mercury thermometer, or a modern infra-red one, depends on a mathematical model of the response versus the stimulus (heat energy).
Well you are being peer reviewed right now. Still no response to the points earlier.

As for instrument calibration, the so-called models you refer to there are experimentally proven relationships, not some mathematical creations that might look right on the odd day.
 

clearmurk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
3,010
It doesn't matter if you don't believe the temperature data. Fine don't believe it. Look at what is happening to the arctic sea ice and snow and ice cover around the world. How can you ignore that? Look at forest fires, sea level rise, spring season arriving sooner, etc. etc. Even if we didn't have a temperature record we could reasonably see the earth was warming.
So the climate changes. Great. It changes over time, for better or for worse. Humanity will adjust and live with it, not control it, or attempt to control it, with associated considerable adverse costs and consequences for many for unattainable outcomes.
 

The Crusader

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2016
Messages
43
So the climate changes. Great. It changes over time, for better or for worse. Humanity will adjust and live with it, not control it, or attempt to control it, with associated considerable adverse costs and consequences for many for unattainable outcomes.
So you accept the earth is warming? So why bother argue about the temperature data? You know the earth is warming anyway.

You can’t possibly know how successful our adaption will be. Most scientist believe it’s going to be extremely difficult as we head to 2 degrees above baseline and beyond. It will cause massive disruption, mass migrations and loss of life. The planet is warming and the population is heading towards 11 billion by the end of the century. It would be totally reckless to ignore the risk as you suggest.

I suspect you are just a troll anyway. Either that or you are incredibly stupid.
 

Turbinator

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,889
So you accept the earth is warming? So why bother argue about the temperature data? You know the earth is warming anyway.

You can’t possibly know how successful our adaption will be. Most scientist believe it’s going to be extremely difficult as we head to 2 degrees above baseline and beyond. It will cause massive disruption, mass migrations and loss of life. The planet is warming and the population is heading towards 11 billion by the end of the century. It would be totally reckless to ignore the risk as you suggest.

I suspect you are just a troll anyway. Either that or you are incredibly stupid.
I suggest you do some research on the dramatic warming and sea-level rises after the last ice-age. Several degree C rises in the space of only a few decades - all very natural. What we are experiencing now is nothing in comparison
 

The Crusader

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2016
Messages
43
I suggest you do some research on the dramatic warming and sea-level rises after the last ice-age. Several degree C rises in the space of only a few decades - all very natural. What we are experiencing now is nothing in comparison
Scientists have already ruled out natural causes for the current warming. Do you not think they would have considered that?
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
48,510
So the climate changes. Great. It changes over time, for better or for worse. Humanity will adjust and live with it, not control it, or attempt to control it, with associated considerable adverse costs and consequences for many for unattainable outcomes.
Everything changes, man.

It is inscribed in the Laws of the Universe in what physicists call the Second Law of Thermodynamics - broadly speaking, disorder in a closed physical system always increases.

So if everything changes, of course so does climate.

It is what is driving the change, the rate of change and its final scope that is important - we do not want changes that render the earth a less comfortable place for us to live. Why is that such a difficult concept?
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Scientists have already ruled out natural causes for the current warming. Do you not think they would have considered that?
The most any scientist could do would be to rule out known natural causes. No scientist worth the name would make the type of absolute statement you are making.
 

The Crusader

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2016
Messages
43
The most any scientist could do would be to rule out known natural causes. No scientist worth the name would make the type of absolute statement you are making.
Yes they’ve ruled out known natural causes and they have identified burning of fossil fuels as the source (high probabilty). That’s good enough for me as it is to most reasonable people. Only idiot trolls on the internet argue otherwise.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Yes they’ve ruled out known natural causes and they have identified burning of fossil fuels as the source (high probabilty). That’s good enough for me as it is to most reasonable people. Only idiot trolls on the internet argue otherwise.
Well I also accept that the climate is changing, but I would suggest that it would be rather simplistic to attribute a change involving such a complex system to a single cause. There is much about nature that science has yet to discover and we need to be careful about interpreting a correlation as causation.
 

The Crusader

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2016
Messages
43
Well I also accept that the climate is changing, but I would suggest that it would be rather simplistic to attribute a change involving such a complex system to a single cause. There is much about nature that science has yet to discover and we need to be careful about interpreting a correlation as causation.
Jesus Christ. The level of stupidity among you deniers is unbelievable. The scientists have considered other causes and possible as yet unidentified factors, but they still find burning of fossi fuels to be the major cause.

I suppose you think we should all bury our heads in the sand and let the planet burn because you are just not quite sure enough yet.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Jesus Christ. The level of stupidity among you deniers is unbelievable. The scientists have considered other causes and possible as yet unidentified factors, but they still find burning of fossi fuels to be the major cause.

I suppose you think we should all bury our heads in the sand and let the planet burn because you are just not quite sure enough yet.
I'm not impressed by hand-waving or virtue-signaling. Bye'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top